Starfield was garbage IMO. I didn’t even pay for it and wanted my money back in less than 3 hours.
But I AM still hopeful for Elder Scrolls 6. The weakness of Starfield is exploration is barely a thing; incredibly boring procedural generation is the cause. There is little to no value getting excited exploring the world and the incredible world of Skyrim is what makes it good.
I seriously doubt Bethesda is dumb enough to try procedural generation with the next elder scrolls game, and if they are then it will be dead in the water just by association. But a game similar to Skyrim will likely still find a stronger audience, even if just for the return to form.
incredibly boring procedural generation is the cause. There is little to no value getting excited exploring the world and the incredible world of Skyrim is what makes it good.
Honestly, they could’ve fixed it by adding custom settings for enemy generation. In Skyrim, Obliv, Fallout games, I’ve always downloaded a “more enemies” mod to encounter more things out in the wild/wastes. Even when I found monsters in Starfield, they just wandered by, there’s no danger. If they would’ve simply polled the gaming community, we would’ve told them how to fix it. :\
I’d say the bigger problem is just that the Bethesda RPG model is completely outdated. It feels like something you’d play a decade ago, but what used to be it’s contemporaries have absolutely eclipsed it by this point. If I wanted to play just a fun easy fantasy romp, I’d go for Dragon’s Dogma 2. If I wanted an actual RPG with bones that could offer me a challenge, I’d play Elden Ring. If I’m just looking for a well-written story, I’d go play something by CD Project Red.
Bethesda’s games aren’t well written, aren’t that interesting to play, and basically cannot offer any real challenge. The only real saving grace for Skyrim has been the modding community, which has been able to continually breathe life into what would otherwise be very tired game design.
I strongly disagree. I’ve had immense fun in every Bethesda game, including Starfield and 76. I’ve put hundreds of hours into all of their games, possibly over a thousand for games like FO3 and Oblivion. The only one that truly failed to grasp my attention was ESO. My only real complaint about Starfield was NG+. Losing over a hundred hours of collecting and ship/settlement building isn’t new game plus. It’s a prestige system, and although it makes sense given the ending, it’s a shitty way to restart an RPG. Nonetheless, I’ve still gotten 180 hours out of it. Hell, I just started a fresh game last week and started modding the hell out of it.
With Bethesda, their games are about the fun you make. Sorry if you didn’t enjoy the experiences, but maybe some of them just weren’t meant for you. Personally, I’m looking forward to ES6 and sinking a few hundred hours into it. If it’s a bad game, so be it, but I honestly can’t wait to see what they do!
Starfield somehow built a game tailor made for NG+ and not only didn’t take advantage of it with their faction system, they also got rid of my favorite guns and all of my currency, which discouraged me from engaging with it at all.
Man. I’ve been staring at this box trying to find the words for why you should play Pathologic 2. It’s hard, especially without spoiling anything. It is a game about a surgeon named artemy burakh who is tasked by fate to save a town from a plague. It is as if Russian Literature grew legs and used them to kick you in the dick. It is emotionaly a lot. It is skillfully a lot. It is mentally a lot and you are on a time limit and it is not fair. But it has a message for you. There is a beauty to that message and if I could I would force every person on this planet to experience it.
But you will have to bleed for it. Please play it.
Just Incase it could make you reconsider, the game is disturbing in a myriad of ways, basically designed to touch deeply any person who engaged with it. It should be thought of less as a game ment to be enjoyable and more like art that you “should” experience. Though I understand it isn’t for everyone. Hell, vast majority of people who think it is for them dont finish the first day of the game. But there is a message in that game worth seeing. Either way, I had to try one more time. I respect your decision either way.
Those are totally valid point and I thank you for making them. I need to see whether parts of the game feel tense which is fine, or they make me physically impossible for me to play, since some sort of description of blood and venes just makes my head spin and knocks me out sometimes.
I get the great artistic picture and how the game is not meant to be nice, since it does not deal with nice themes. I’m happy the artistic vision got through and it seems to be a succes based on community response
If we reword the question as "Is Elder Scrolls 6 doomed to be a mediocre experience?" then my money would be on "yes". Bethesda generally seem to aim to make games just as good as they need to be to make money. Capitalism over creative expression.
If the game is good enough to get people to buy it and consider buying the next one, that's all the effort it's worth putting in (as far as publishers are concerned). It's not a new approach, they've just had a lot more practice at it than game developers/publishers had in the '90s.
Temper your expectations as unless you're willing to buy a few million copies yourself, they can't justify the cost of caring what you think.
...and no, I do not approve of this system one jot. It's gross and antithetical to creativity. I'm glad we have a lot more independent developers who aren't as beholden to neoliberal capitalism these days.
Even if they spend $300M making it, they’ll likely still make their money back, even in a world where Game Pass exists. I think their tech stack is so ancient that it ought to be thrown straight in the garbage, and they’ll get more mileage out of an Elder Scrolls game that’s forked from what Obsidian built in Unreal for Avowed. It also sure sounds like, much like studios like Arkane, Rocksteady, and BioWare, they were so high on their previous successes that they couldn’t admit to themselves that any decision they made was a bad one. If they can learn from their mistakes and take the L on Starfield (an L that would be considered a W for most other developers), then Elder Scrolls can potentially meet fans’ expectations. If they keep making games the way they’ve always made them without trying to adapt to the times, they’ll follow the same path as Fallout 4 and Starfield.
Then, you look at what most people are playing right now, and it’s Skyrim.
As a side note, Morrowind is also quite big still. /r/Morrowind has 178k members and is very active. Project Tamriel Rebuilt regularly getting updates. OpenMW getting more popular.
For me the big issue with Starfield was the obsession with massive maps/worlds etc that were either empty or filled with junk. The travel system and loading screens also made the game as a whole completely disjointed.
The only reason I’m hopeful is the continuous map as opposed to content being spread way too thin on thousands of planets. If they get the content more dense then hopefully it’ll be at least half decent.
I’m totally with you on Bethesda / Microsoft trying to get the most money out of the least effort and that’s my biggest reason I’m not getting hyped for it. The goal for them is currently the most cash rather than making the best game possible. Annoyingly this has infected pretty much all big game studios these days. Ironically, that approach is better for the short term but horrendous for the long term outlook.
I’ll be sticking to the golden rule though: NO PREORDERS!
Survival game set in the cold Canadian wilderness. Most “survival” games are actually just boring crafting games but TLD is very different for me as it is mostly about exploring in the freezing cold with natural predators around to keep you on edge.
I grew up with a Wii, and never held an n64 controller, so I always will wonder: How do you hold those? Do you hold it like a regular controller and then reach your thumb out to the joystick in the middle, or do you hold the middle grip and then one of the other outer ones, and have to reach as well? Is it subjective?
So, there’s more than one answer. When it came out the idea was, and it’s debatable how much Nintendo used this concept as a marketing tool or with a design in their head, tha the controller allowed flexibility. For different games, different sections or different preferences, you could hold the two outer handles, and get a basic SNES type thing, or you could hold the mid and either one of the sides.
I feel part of it was a bit of mistrust, maybe from some early testing or internal, about the accuracy or the familiarity of users with the joystick, the design allows people to opt into it or go for the tradizional buttons.
I recall some weird stuff was supposed to be meant for the full left side combo, so directional buttons + analog stick. That was a bit of a far reach…
So beside all the intentions, 99% of the games were played with your left hand on the middle handle and the right hand on the righ handle. Consider there’s a very comfy trigger button below the middle handle that is mirrored or mirrors the left shoulder button.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne