this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
336 points (89.6% liked)
Memes
44094 readers
2418 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't get it.
People wanted another Bethesda game.
They got what they wanted.
I said in 2008, after playing the first Fallout game by Bethesda instead of Black Isle: "Only Bethesda could manage to make a post apocalyptic prostitute boring."
They've always been boring, they've always had ugly character models, and the writing has always been bad. You get what you paid for. A Bethesda game.
I think the fundamental problem is that people had different expectations for a game set in space, both because Bethesda stoked them (all of that talk of having the idea decades ago / first new franchise in however many years / Microsoft bought the company just to get it as an exclusive / etc) and because after No Man's Sky people kind of expected that with their budget / resources they would manage to fix that game's problems and create something richer + more seamless.
In retrospect, if they'd simply sold it as "Skyrim in Space," admitted to the limitations up front - same underlying engine, limited amount of variety to procedurally-generated content, loading screens instead of seamless takeoff/landing, etc - and not pretended that it was something new, the response would have probably been much more uniformly positive.
I think you're on the right track, but I think it's also because recent games did better with similar ideas. People shat all over Mass Effect Andromeda, but it hid loading screens behind interplanetary and FTL travel that was actually visualized. In my brain, I know they're cutscenes to cover for loading data, but it's enough to take you out of it being a "game" and allowing you to suspend your disbelief. It's hard to suspend disbelief when there's a loading screen constantly in front of you.
Yeah, but you can do the same thing in Star Field, just takes a bit of learning. You get the exact same cut scenes for loading even, ala Mass Effect. The reality is the game offers fast travel, as essentially jumping 5 times and loading and seeing the cut scenes is the same thing as just loading to the end.
This game feels more like a test, do you actually want to explore, or do you want to hop point to point for the quest. You can do either. It just seems to offer fast travel as the first option, but you can take the slow way around too
That was basically what I hoped for. NMS type game, but with Skyrim/ fallout level modding, stories, quests and deeper meaning to it.
And with better procgen. They have the manpower and expertise to do that.
I haven't bought the game yet, waiting to see the initial responses. Now.. I'll probably pick it up on sale sometime, when bugs are fixed and there's solid mods.
Honestly I still think waiting to buy a Bethesda game is smart if you aren't a huge fan or something. Skyrim was pretty crap at launch and all the praise it gets now is mostly referring to Skyrim well after launch when patches and mods turned it into something good.
Everyone recalls, but they also recall Hello Games spending the next several years fixing the game and fleshing out to be closer to their original vision, which is what they were selling to people: their vision. They should have been selling the game, not the vision, but they took their fuckup on the chin and risked a lot. There was no gaurantee they would appease gamers and they essentially had no income except for continued sales of No Mans Sky.
Also NMS was Hello Games' first real big game ever, so you can give them a little slack for having no idea what they're doing.
Bethesda is a 30+ year old juggernaut who waits for modders to fix their games and has been re-releasing their last successful game for a full decade now.
Hello Games made NMS better because they felt bad. Bethesda made Skyrim better to re-release it and get more money.
Also, Hello Games is just 26 people and Bethesda is 420 people and owned by Microsoft.
I think the difference here is Hello Games took a big risk taking 2-3 years to fix it while asking for nothing more in exchange. What they did is basically unheard of because its hard to pay people without known future income.
Do you think Bethesda will take 2-3 years to "fix" this? I don't.
I think expectations were just really high because it was in development for 7 years. It's pretty clear it was made with some of the Fallout 4 bones though and that technology just advanced passed them in the time it took them to make it. The jump from Morrowind to Oblivion to Skyrim was pretty large in a lot of ways but its almost a Duke Nukem Forever situation except they wisely chose not to scrap the game 12 times to implement every new gimmick.
I think we were all expecting them to rebuild the engine sometime between fallout 4 and now instead of just duct tapping a flashlight (new lighting system) to it.
It's such a bad engine the Phil Spencer came out and said every QA tester at Microsoft is working on Starfield:
https://www.gamesradar.com/every-qa-tester-at-microsoft-is-working-on-starfield-according-to-phil-spencer/
is that because Microsoft doesn't have QA anymore?
Consumer Windows is just an endless Early Access release now.
Well a lotta games are “in development”, doesn’t mean that they get developed in that time.
Strongly disagreed. Pre-Oblivion their games were great. Hoping for a return to engrossing stories taking place in a rich, expansive universe was not entirely unreasonable.
Morrowind was their best, but I would say 21 years on, it's really tough to be like "Yeah, this time they'll get back to their roots." No, it's time to move on. All the people who made those games what they were have retired, moved on, or died.
Surely there's an element there of rose tinted glasses? All of us were 21 years younger. There were less games coming out and they were harder to get for many of us.
You didn't need to work so damn much to keep your head above water, or were below working age altogether. It was a lot easier to find the time to really immerse yourself in the lore and it required a lot of reading both in-game and out.
It was also all new to us, truly novel experiences with every leap in gameplay, graphics or mechanics being applied to brains that weren't completely immune to dopamine and over-stimulated constantly.
I played Ultima VII so much that my friends and I would quote the game to eachother at school...we were fully immersed in it and it was bloody huge for its day.
To be honest I barely even try with these type of games anymore. I know it isn't going to satisfy me. I tend to enjoy mastering movement mechanics and skill based competitive games. Sure, they also release the same game every year repackaged, but there's usually enough of a tweak to movement mechanics and gun physics that it's a challenge to get gud again and I get a real kick out of genuine competition.
I played Starfield for several hours on the weekend and I do my best not to judge too harshly given what I've said above but I feel as though there will never be a game ever again that grabs me enough to make that genre worth paying the money. It's me that's changed moreso than the lore being watered down. "Damn you, Avatar!"
I grew up with Skyrim and mod it religiously - that’s where my nostalgia comes from. And even I’ll say that Morrowind completely blows it out of the water on nearly every front.
Skyrim’s a lot more accessible, and I love it for that, but that’s about it.
Well, I'd argue that Daggerfall was their best game, story-wise, but Daggerfall is even older. And that's the point, isn't it? More time passed between Skyrim and Starfield than between Daggerfall and Oblivion. A lot can change in so many years, and I do believe that hoping for something new was not entirely unreasonable.
Then again, the keyword there is entirely, isn't it. I personally didn't expect very much from Starfield, and, also personally, I can't say I fully understand the amount of hype surrounding it.
I'd recommend you go back and read some critical reviews of Arena and Daggerfall. The complaints are exactly the same: the graphics engine is out of date, the characters are lifeless, the writing is just okay, the story is shallow, etc. Bethesda has scaled back the RPG mechanics since Morrowind, for sure, but their games ultimately have the same Bethesda DNA, for better or worse. For what it's worth, I'm enjoying Starfield at launch much more than Fallout 4 even now, updated, expanded and modded.
My friend, I don't need to go read the video game history about Daggerfall: I wrote some of it. :)
And I stand by my statement. That game was the height of storytelling that came out of Bethesda in a bunch of small but important ways, although Morrowind is not far behind, in a somewhat different fashion. And there is a definite shift in the series from the moment Ted Peterson left the team. Patently, not a shift I am personally very fond of, but to each her own.
I can't remember all that well, I was a child at the time, lol. I go back to Morrowind once in a while, and I do find the writing to be more immersive, as opposed to the more recent games where it's a series of linear, ham-fisted novellas. So far, Starfield seems much improved over Fallout 4 or Skyrim in that regard, but I'm not all that far in.
Not always, n'wah
Skyrim is literally one of their worst-written games and only has a saving grace of a wide open world that is interesting to explore.
Personal opinion, Morrowind was still boring, but had the best writing, best style, and required the most from the player. Morrowind was peak Bethesda and that was over 20 years ago.
Starfield at launch is more compelling than Fallout 4 or Skyrim, but falls short of Morrowind. It's in the mix somewhere alongside Oblivion and Fallout 3, IMO.
Morrowind is a role-playing game, and in this role, you needed to be able to do things like research the world you're in to figure out what to do, not have a rando who has a big fancy exclamation point above him telling you exactly where to go with a waypoint. It's just different ways to approach the game. One is functionally role-playing within the world you exist in, and the other is "Fuck all this, I just want to play a game, I don't want to think hard."
This was you saying the way you don’t like is wrong.
Really. You're gonna pull the people like different things argument after telling this person that they're just pretending to enjoy Morrowind? That's some next level hypocrisy right there.
I get it. That's easy to do in this kind of place. At least you realized when someone pointed it out. That's better than a lot of people would do.
I don’t think the dude was insinuating that they thought people were “brain-dead” because they enjoyed Skyrim more than Morrowind - it’s literally just the way the games are.
Like you said yourself, waypoints were added for a reason. Morrowind can be pretty bullshit at times with directions, and the game does straight-up lie to you a few times, but you also can’t deny that Skyrim is literally telling you to go that arrow on your compass for every single quest. One’s not better than the other, but with Morrowind, you do get the sense of being on an adventure since you have to figure stuff out and encounter weird people on the way, whereas with Skyrim it’s waaaaay easier to get into because you can legitimately turn your brain off and let it relax a bit.
No, but one is genuinely "role-playing" while another is.... not.