69
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
69 points (81.1% liked)
Games
15785 readers
1505 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Given that Starfield has been considered a bit "meh" by many, you have to wonder where Bethesda go from here. NakeyJakey hit the nail on the head with many of his criticisms of Bethesda, and show aside you have to wonder what kind of state ES6 (assuming it's their next game) will be in. Since we don't even have a name, it's probably 3-4 years away, and their engine will feel close to 20 years outdated by then - especially if they continue down the path of adding bloat to their core mechanics.
For Todd Howard, I wonder how long he intends/needs to stay at Bethesda post-acquisition. Most of the press for the Fallout show has been positive, but there's been a lot of snark directed at the press of Todd Howard being a visionary, or Fallout being one of the greatest games of all time.
It feels like the next 4-5 years will be critical for them, especially with more critical eyes on their products.
Honestly I don't think the engine is the big problem here. There are some issues that are engine related but from a technical perspective the engine is not why Starfield failed. Making the most boring perk choices is not an engine problem. Putting the quests on rails with the illusion of choice is not an engine problem. Replacing the entire space travel aspect with menus wasn't an engine problem because the star systems were to scale. The core issue is the game design. It's simply that the game is plain boring. The perks are boring. The starpowers are boring. The way to get starpowers is boring. The quests are boring. The enemies are boring. Every other weapon besides kinetic weapons is boring. How do you decide to make space game without actual space travel still boggles my mind.
I think if Bethesda had taken the time to get the design aspect of the game in a good place people would've given them a pass on the loading screens or needing to jump ship to get to the next cell on the planet or even the poor performance. When the best part of your game is the ship builder, that offers minimal gameplay experience, you've fucked up the design. I don't know if it's Todd calling the bad shots or the lack of new blood, but Bethesda is in need of a shakeup.
The Outer Worlds has zero spaceship flying, still feels like a more expansive universe.
The problems aren't just game design, but writing as well, The Outer Worlds feels real because the characters do, Starfield (from what I played), felt like a bunch of stereotypes playing their roles.
That was my impression as well. Everyone you meet seems to be some frontier redneck, either mining, farming or hunting outlaws. It could be a serviceable backdrop if you were just passing through, chasing the action, but somehow, most of the quests and plot feel like a chore in slow motion.
And then people wonder why I have more hope for Star Citizen (currently on Alpha 3.22.x and about to go to 3.23, which will likely involve a big number of features being completed) which has been in development for 12 goddamn years, than I do for Bethesda games. Fallout peaked at New Vegas and 4 was just borrowing from Obsidian's successful design.
Freaking Cyberpunk 2077 and No Man's Sky were able to be fixed, this is a corporate culture issue.
The Unreal engine is 26 years old, but you don't see people telling ID to start rebuilding a new game engine. I agree it does feel like they are just adding things to the current engine instead of actually improving it by modernizing it though. There are clearly some parts of it they need to overhaul, like the "talking head" dialog system, the physics tied to FPS, and the weird lighting system.
Oh boo. Look at unreal engine in 2006 and compare it to gamebryo. Now compare them in this day and age. Nobody is telling them to build a new game engine because they actually upgraded it. Bethesda's crap is like a crappy Honda civic with aliexpress wings and exhausts bolted on. Where unreal is a professionaly renovated house. It's a shit comparison.
Hey man, that's an unfair comparison. Honda engines age well.