Starfield has housing system, player jail, and more reveals Bethesda in new Q&A
Starfield has housing system, player jail, and more reveals Bethesda in new Q&A
Starfield's hype handle cranks ever-more furiously in the run-up to its September release, and Bethesda has now fired o…
You're viewing a single thread.
Why are y'all so damn negative? Every thread I've seen on here about Starfield has been like this. It's not even out yet, god damn
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
No, they're trying to fix a broken mess. I have this feeling. Dunno about you.
I wouldn't be surprised by that at all either. Which is why I recommended waiting!
Always! Also, the cake is a lie ʘ‿ʘ
We're on the same pills, haters gonna hate
Given how modern AAA games are and Bethesda's recent track history, it's not negative to be skeptical, it's smart.
Especially since despite Microsoft watching over them and helping them to have the most "bug free launch in history" it's still probably going to be a hot mess for weeks to a month after launch. I want to be pleasantly surprised, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
Plus, the recent release of Baldur's Gate 3 with no microtransactions or season passes, etc. has gotten peoples' standards up, and given that Microsoft paid a lot of money to buy Bethesda, we're aware that they're going to have to make that money back somehow, and will probably give into the temptation to do some really player unfriendly things to do it.
Bethesda's been going all in on surprisingly expensive microtransactions for really tiny amounts of content, like in Fallout 4 and 76, and it wouldn't be shocking for them to continue in that direction. People aren't being mindlessly negative, they're looking at current and past trends and making an educated guess about the future.
Bethesda's been going all in on surprisingly expensive microtransactions for really tiny amounts of content, like in Fallout 4 and 76, and it wouldn't be shocking for them to continue in that direction.
This isn't even new. Bethesda literally set the standard for overpriced MTX with the god damn horse armor in Oblivion for $7.50. That was the first time in history the microtransaction was used and it garnered much the same response as they do now.
Experience. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me, uh, you can't get fooled again!
Because - and this is the only real answer you'll get - Starfield is "cool" and "normies" are looking forward to it. Therefore, the "real gamers" must hate it, ESPECIALLY before actually playing it.
Same shit you see in any niche community. Buncha nerds hating on anything too big or popular.
Or just look at Bethesda's track record the last two decades...
In the past two decades they delivered some of the most successful, beloved games of all time.
I don't think this comment deserves the effort it would take me to properly respond to that.
No, you can measure it in things like sales and review scores. Sure, they also put out games like Fallout 76 and Wolfenstein: Young Blood, but two decades is enough to capture Skyrim and Fallout 3.
I really didn't like Skyrim, Fallout 3, Oblivion, Fallout 4, or 76. Still playing Morrowind and New Vegas though. I could go on about why for a looooooooong time but really don't care to. Suffice to say there are plenty of people (obviously) that are not happy with those games. I bought them all too so that would show up in sales data. Shame on me, I guess. I've been burned enough times that I'm not even going to bother being excited about this one.
But there are also tons of people who've been plenty pleased with those games, as you can see on the long tails of their sales and how many concurrent players they retain to this day. You're the odd one out on those heavy hitters. Not so much on 76, and to a lesser extent, 4.
The context of this discussion is that the top post claimed that people only are shitting on starfield because "normies" like it so none of that is relevant. All I'm saying is that there are legitimate reasons to have low expectations. The people who like those games aren't the same people complaining about Bethesda/Starfield, they are people like me who have been disillusioned with bethesda for years after a long series of disappointing releases. It is especially frustrating because we KNOW they can do better, because they have in the past. They just don't. The amount of people who will end up loving Starfield has no bearing on my ability to enjoy the game.
With that said, I'd be plenty happy for this to end up being another Morrowind or New Vegas. Now I feel I've proved my point so I'm gonna go play some Morrowind. 😜
I just think you would have made your point better if you had said maybe one decade, because two decades catches some certified bangers in the public consciousness.
two decades is enough to capture Skyrim and Fallout 3.
So a decent but by no means amazing game and a complete turd? Not really helping your case here very much, IMO. The last truly great game Bethesda made was Morrowind, and I will die on this hill.
Successful and good are completely different and unrelated metrics. Fifty Shades of Grey was extremely successful, but no one in their right mind would ever call it good. Psychonauts was met with universal acclaim, and is widely considered to be one of the best games of all time, and yet it was a complete flop and needed more than a decade to get a sequel.
Bethesda games are extremely successful. They are not good games, and their success is not a good thing. Bethesda kicked off microtransactions in 2007 with Horse Armour. This decision completely fucked the wider industry. Not a fan.
I'm sure that drives a good chunk of it, but it's more likely that there are a lot of people that have had their fill of Bethesda games that all basically play the same, just in different settings, and those people tend to be in nerdier spots like this. Feels a little dorky to just blame it all on fun-hating nerds haha, what a coincidence that all the people that disagree with you are just mad losers!
Edit: Going back to this comment after Starfield came out and yeah, it's about what I expected. Skyrim in space lol. Can totally understand why people are underwhelmed or annoyed.
Honestly mate? Not at all. I'm concerned about Starfield because of Bethesda's track record since Fallout 4, and in particular, their constant attempts to introduce paid 'mods' to their games through the creation club (which are always overpriced for tiny amounts of content) as well as how broken their games have been at launch since Morrowind. When my PC, which can run Baldur's Gate 3 on max settings, can't run Oblivion without mods without regular crashes, then there's a big problem.
I want Starfield to be good. But Bethesda do not make good games. They make broad games, but there's no depth, and what is there is fairly consistently buggy. They have the Pokemon problem though, where people are willing to give them a pass because of the big name. I guarantee you, if a smaller developer released games in the state that Bethesda does, their games would be (rightfully) panned.
I'm not hyped for the game but I'm still curious to play it down the road once the inevitable and glaring bugs from the launch are patched.
It hasn’t come out yet so there is nothing positive to say
So how does that lead to so then there's only negative things to say? It is, once again, not out yet. I'm starting to dislike being in any community around games, because everyone appears to just hate games. It's exhausting.
Because fandom is basically a bunch of entitled brats with nothing better to do.
Because we have memories long enough to remember literally every game Bethesda has released this millennium
And yet you keep buying them?
Goddamn, stop doing that and get out of our fandom!
#Gatekeeping
I own every game they've ever released, but the expectation they've built over the last 20 years is that their games spend a year being trash, at least
Very good point. Everything that we get now is marketing.
In addition to what others have said I also suspect that being a console exclusive has made some people be very critical of it. I'm not a big bethesda fan but what I have seen so far looks great and I'm looking forward to play it.