this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
161 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

30556 readers
277 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Have you seen the state of AAA gaming right now? And Bethesda's past record? I would be surprised if it didn't turn out to be shit.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Am I taking crazy pills? Except for 76, an MMO, Bethesdas record has been pretty good for single-player games, no?

I've played all of their games since Morrowind on Launch and always had a blast.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago

Then you should know the content quality of their games have gone steadily down since Morrowind, as they have prioritized trend-chasing over, pretty much, everything else.

It culminated in 76's concept and I highly doubt they are done with it.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Their games have gotten wide as the ocean and shallow as a puddle. The mechanics and quest design are so simplified and shallow. Skyrim and Fallout 4 are more like action games with some light RPG elements. As noted by the comment below, they're chasing trends. Newer games can't compare to options you have in New Vegas or even Morrowind.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The studio has changed. Just because Fallout 4 wasn't a "true RPG" doesn't mean I didn't have nigh on 400 hours of novel joy with it, maybe even because it wasn't just another core Bethesda RPG but because it was something new, a new kind of looting and crafting experience in that same large, dynamic open world that Bethesda could bring through. Morrowind was over 20 years ago. Bethesda isn't the one making those kinds of games anymore.

Have the games gotten shallower as RPGs? Sure. Fucking pac man is shallow at this point, does that mean everyone should hate on it en masse? If you don't like the direction Bethesda is going that's completely understandable, but it just seems absurd that people come out of the woodwork in these threads to just poop on a game that isn't even out yet. Save that for when it releases and it does or doesn't meet your expectations, as of now it just sounds like everybody is trying to get as entrenched as possible in their prejudice.

Bethesda games are buggy, what an old meme. It's more of a meme than a true criticism now because most games have bugs, especially ones as large as Bethesda games, and even on launch I've played other Bethesda games and enjoyed myself just fine. It's good to be cautiously skeptical and not pre order, you should be skeptical, but swinging all the way past that to being hard-line negative is not the right answer either.

And I know you personally are not reflecting all of these views, your comment just comes off as supportive of both genuine and over the top memetic criticisms due to replying in a seemingly justifying manner to someone confused about the buggy game comments. When it comes to those sorts of comments I'm talking generally about what I've seen from people on this platform.

I'm not saying Starfield will be an old Bethesda return to form or bug free on release, I'm just saying be cautious, not completely pedal to the metal negative, and accept that Bethesda as it was is dead.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

At the risk of sounding like a cynical bastard, I'm gonna address some of your points.

Just let me start off with: If you enjoy the games, great. More power to you.

The lack of depth isn't just reserved to the RPG mechanics. The story, the dialog, the characters... everything is lacking in depth. All the "Environmental Story Telling" in the world can't make up for the neglected writing.

And everything that has been added isn't new by any stretch of the imagination. It's all borrowed from other current franchises, then half-assed and shoveled in by Bethesda. The loot system being one of the few things that actually works as intended.

Pac-Man is old as balls and I haven't seen anyone trying to pass it off as something new. Hell, even The Legend of Zelda series still follow the exact same premise of the very first game on the NES. The sequels get bigger, smoother and more beautiful. But it's still the same game at it's core, because it actually works.

Next point: All games launch buggy. Yep, and it has become a bit of a meme with Bethesda for a reason. Their newest games still have the same game-breaking bugs in them as Morrowind did. Some have even gotten worse. The modding community are literally fixing the same stuff, every title. Which is amazing, as Beth keeps updating their crappy Engine, but at no point in 21 years did they take the time to iron this shit out.

I do agree that we shouldn't be shitting on a game before it comes out. But it's not like people have zero idea what they are in for. From what has been shown, Starfield just looks like Fallout 4 with a fresh coat of paint. And there is a bit of a track-record to back most of the assumptions up.

As i said: If you like the road they have been taking with their games and you enjoy them. Keep enjoying them.

I think there's just a general sense of disappointment from a lot of old players. And it builds up fast in the echo-chambers of the internet and can come off as aggressive even when it wasn't the intention. And it works both ways. Dear lord, have I met some angry people defending games, simply because they can't fathom the idea that they might just like playing a 'bad game.'

It's the circle of public gaming forums.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I understand your position as well, I think we just need to have more moderate discussions and less going to extremes.

I didn't address the writing and dialogue of the games because those are absolutely getting the short end of the stick in terms of what Bethesda is spending their resources on, but I found the systems that they put work into in Fallout 4 worthy enough of that time spent instead, and I think that says more about my preferences of what I like in a game than it really does about if Bethesda games are "better" or not this way.

I tend to prefer moment to moment gameplay and I found Fallout 4's complex interlocking loop of wanting to build a settlement and modify my equipment, leading to tracking down certain materials and identifying where they may be logically found, to going there on foot, to looting the place systematically and engaging the enemies with the weapons and armor I modified and have personal attachment to, to managing my inventory with an investment and thought that never mattered as much in previous Bethesda titles, etc.

That whole loop and set of mechanics that play into each other added an incredible wealth of what I consider more moment to moment gameplay depth than just enjoying the wider possibilities of dialogue options in past Bethesda titles.

Even at its best good old days Bethesda writing doesn't really compare to other games much more focused on writing (not going to mention New Vegas here because Obsidian is one of those devs better at writing than Bethesda). Bethesda games are always more than the sum of their parts.

My point about Pac Man is more that you don't dislike the game's lack of depth in certain areas just for its own sake, but because you're comparing it to the studio's past. When Pac Man Championship Edition and DX released, those
had favorable receptions because they took the arcadey roots of the franchise to their logical conclusion instead of swapping to more accessible gameplay trends as Bethesda did.

Not an invalid criticism, but not the only thing people should be mentioning in some of these comments as if that's what makes the game "bad".

And if you really think Starfield is going to be Fallout 4 with just a new coat of paint... That's just disingenuous. There's already more than enough changes in new mechanics and systems that didn't exist in FO4 aside from the entire new universe and premise that's more than simply a coat of paint.

I do hear what you're saying though and I appreciate acknowledging some of the parts people skip over thinking about just to hit the low hanging fruit that have been brought up in every thread about a Bethesda game since time immemorial, adding nothing new to the discussion.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That is all fair points.

In my personal opinion, I think what irks me the most is that all of Bethesdas missteps are fairly easily fixable. They just seem to refuse to do so for some reason.

A bit more focus on the overall writing would go a long way and wouldn't have to interfere with the gameplay in the least for people who don't care. It's an intricate part of world-building for those that do enjoy it and serves to drive the player forward. Also helps the 'suspension of disbelief' and all that.

They don't need to reach the heights of the old CRPG makers of the 90's. Just make sure your "Antagonist" has a proper response when you put in an option to ask him Why he's doing what he's doing, you know? Stuff like that. As well as maybe not retconning the timeline of the universe just to fit an inconsequential quest-line and then recon it again in the next game... Stick to the established lore.

Secondly: Better implementation of a few new/borrowed features, like base building, that might fit the game. Instead of haphazardly throwing everything currently trending at the wall in the hope that some of it sticks. Take one thing and do it proper, otherwise just don't do it at all.

Then there's the Radiant-Quests in F4. This is just a poor excuse so as to not bother with making actual side-quests. There is a limit to how far they can execute their motto of "Keep it simple, stupid." This is one of those limits.

There's probably a couple of other things I'm forgetting. But I feel these little changes would help elevate Beth' just a bit out of the meme-pit they're currently in.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree with everything you said. Though that's certainly not everything, that's a lot of the major issues that hold Bethesda games back from their potential.

I am actually glad that with Starfield radiant quests have been expanded to dynamically place quests in different locations. I think that, if it's taken advantage of, will go a long way towards the potential criticism of "1,000 planets and nothing to do on most of them" that I see as a possible issue with their scope.

Bethesda continually evolves and changes their radiant system with each release, but from Skyrim to Fallout 4 we saw the felt effects of that system stagnate and become padding instead of adding dynamic experiences as its original intent.

And since I didn't specifically mention the bugs in my other comments, Ive played plenty of non-bethesda open world games with plenty of bugs long after release, I feel they're a part of the whole deal and I excuse most of them unless they truly cant be worked around (things like losing your companions or getting stuck on geometry if you're a console player). I cease to excuse those bugs as soon as the gameplay requires things of you that the bugs prevent, such as the game being too janky to support the strict save system of vanilla FO4's survival mode, which is inexcusable.

I also worry, though, about mods. Because of how many players use mods extensively in Bethesda games it becomes tricky to know which bugs are inherent, which are from poorly made mods, and which are from conflicting mods. It muddies the waters of really pinning down what's going on. Just something that contributes to the bugginess of those games in a way that isn't very calculable, unless you're unmodded on console.

But if anything remotely as problematic as the survival mode stability is a factor in Starfield, I'd be much much less willing to forgive some bugs here and there. We'll just have to see.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So we're pretty much in agreement about the state of Bethesdas games. We just stand on opposite sides of the reaction to it.

As corny as it sounds, I wish most of the arguments I've been in, about games, could have been this civil. It's a nice change of pace.

I don't think I have more to add, as such.

Thanks for the talk, mate. You have a nice day.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Their games have always been as wide as an ocean and shallow as a puddle. That's what we like about them. Get out of my giant splashy pool!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bethesda makes well liked games, yes. But they have a track record of their games coming out as complete buggy messes that need 6-12 months to be in a decent state.

Could be in this case that Microsoft has realized how important this game is to their console efforts and the delays have been an effort to avoid a repeat of Bethesda's typical. I wouldn't be too surprised. I'd recommend being wary until the game is out. Waiting won't hurt anyone.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, they're trying to fix a broken mess. I have this feeling. Dunno about you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wouldn't be surprised by that at all either. Which is why I recommended waiting!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Always! Also, the cake is a lie ʘ‿ʘ

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

We're on the same pills, haters gonna hate