Fair enough. F76 was a shit show. But I have high hopes both because Starfield is a single player game and because a multiplayer Fallout was always a terrible idea anyway
I’m just concerned and will wait for reviews before buying (like everyone should). Bethesda has a reputation for being slow to fix games and having lots of bugs and crashes at release. And even then, they patch them up to being playable and leave the rest for modders to fix.
What makes you think they stick with their games? They fix bugs for about a year or so after release and move on, just like any other studio. They fix stuff in re-releases but you have to pay for that.
I was reserving judgement. Just giving reasons to be cautious going into this. Everyone should still be excited, I’m just saying “expect a Bethesda game” so look at their recent games and that’s what you’re getting into probably. With those expectations, you’re less likely to be disappointed
These are all things that have existed in all of their RPGs since Arena. These aren’t empty promises, but they’re also not something to be super hyped on.
Not really the place for it, but why do some people still get so annoyed about the size of games these days?
If you want games to continue improving then the file sizes are going to increase. Maybe devs could do more, but at the same time it’s just a fact that high res textures and larger scale games need more space.
All consumers want it fast, want it cheap, want it good, want it on their machine, want it maintained in perpetuity, want it small, and want it to load quickly. Nevermind that a number of those are diametrically opposed ideals.
Yeah, people bitching like "nobody needs those big ass textures and high quality uncompressed audio." Maybe you don't need it, but high quality, textures are one of the easiest ways to improve graphic quality without putting that much load on the GPU. And I still rip my CDs as FLACs, so I want good audio quality in my games as well.
It’s not that nobody wants those super high def graphics, it’s that most people have no use for them. Most people won’t be able to play a game like Starfield at maxed out graphics, so why should they have to download and store an extra 30gb of textures?
Isn't this usually just LOD stuff where the high-quality stuff is when you're up close and the low quality stuff is for when you're far away? So you're just about always seeing the high-quality stuff, and it's the stuff that's actually processed in real time like shadows and stuff, that take up practically no space, that are getting toggled when you turn down settings. That's how I understand it anyway.
What LOD does is it uses multiples of the same textures in different sizes so that it doesn’t display the larger ones if it doesn’t need to. That takes up space due to duplicates, but 4K resolution textures take up 4 times the space that 2K resolution textures do. I’m sure compression reduces some of that, but in terms of size, they are 4 times larger. So if your system can’t handle 4K textures, then why use them at all? There’s a lot of stuff that you’ll never look at close enough that a 4K texture will ever serve a purpose. For a 1080p screen, you’d have to be close enough to the object that you’re only seeing a fraction of the texture at once, and they can use other tricks to make close-up textures look better without using bigger ones.
If you have a top-of-the-line PC, it makes sense to install those huge textures, but if you’re running an old GPU with 2GB of memory, what use do you have for them? You may as well not install them at all.
while i fully agree it should be an extra download that not everyone should be required to download. i see lots of sentiment here that people feel they shouldn’t even make them cause most cant use it. but why should those that can make use of the textures not have them, also helps the game stay more relevant graphically for longer as more people have systems that can make use of the textures
It would be ridiculous to hamstring new games just because some people can’t run them at max graphics. It definitely makes more sense to make the high-requirement features optional, not to cut them out entirely. People who buy high-end hardware shouldn’t be held back by those who can’t afford it, but those who can’t afford it shouldn’t be held back for the benefit of those who can either.
You really want lossless audio in games? Do you know how big FLACs are in comparison to OGGs? Could most people really hear the difference? Keep in mind the quality of the average headset or desktop speakers. I don’t think any games store lossless audio. If they did, I’d bet they would be much, much bigger.
Actually... no, you're completely right. That's why I just wrote "good audio quality", whatever that means. I actually read in some of those "why are games so big today" posts that people suggested that game devs don't compress their audio files enough. Some people don't get that this would come at a cost.
The average gamer might play with pretty shitty headsets but I think developers should go a little bit further than that and also satisfy enthusiasts. Up to a certain degree of course. That's why I think it's completely reasonable to demand ultra wide support or the physics not breaking above 60 fps.
(I actually expected a much worse reply) Nah I willingly interpreted what you said in the most extreme way possible. But in my mind there’s something of a ceiling when it comes to noticable improvements in audio quality, especially when compared to visuals, and it’s much lower than lossless. Besides, encoding is far from the only determining factor of audio quality. I think now, as discussed in other threads, the primary factor of ballooning file size is sheer quantity. We want more dialogue, more varied and adaptive music, more immersive soundscapes - and there’s no trick to achieving this other than more content, meaning more disk space. Maybe one day we’ll find an audio compression algorithm that will perform miracles, but until then audio still forms a significant portion of any game’s install, compressed or not.
This seems to be a point across all media at the moment, people watching/listening on sub-par equipment then complaining because the content is designed for higher quality gear.
“This film was too dark on my laptop screen” when it’s designed for a HDR enabled screen, “Nolan’s sound was mangled though my TV speakers” when it’s designed for at least a decent DTS set up. Etc. The same thing now seems to have infected games, “why is this 2023 game not designed for my 2018 rig and it’s limitations”.
Not everyone has large SSDs with space to spare to play multiple games, it seems like it would be pretty straight forward to have HD texture pack downloadable as DLC or something like Skyrim had back in the day, I wonder why more devs don’t do that? That would give players a choice of which to use.
Requires even more work and even more budget. I understand the problem but it has always been there. There are people now who can’t afford 1tb and there were people 20 years ago who couldn’t afford 50gb when that was the equivalent. This won’t ever go away. And it’s fault by consumers who expect bigger and better things for less and less money. You can only optimize so much on your budget. I still understand this is a problem it’s just not one that will get solved anytime soon, which is a shame.
It really doesn’t. They include both anyway, there’s no reason they can’t do it as a separate download. Rainbow 6 Siege did it back in 2015 with their ultra high definition textures pack which is a 30gb download for a game that’s 60gb without it. Lots of players have no use for the ridiculously high-definition textures, it would definitely make sense to separate them from the main package and cut possibly several hours or even days of download time for some people.
You’re right that it would take budget and time of course, but it doesn’t seem like a huge amount of work for most dev studios compared to making their game more accessible to a wider audience? I feel like there’s some marketing thing of “our game is so awesome it takes 1000GB of disk space!” going on, which is really stupid, but it’s probably working sadly!
You’re not quite right about 20 years ago, though - I was a gamer 20 years ago (yes, your comment did make me feel old) and disk space wasn’t really something people complained about, at least with respect to games. Even Sims 2 with all it’s 18 expansions only took up around 10GB or so, whereas most games were 5GB or less, they had to be otherwise you couldn’t fit them on a DVD. Most gamers had at least 100GB+ hard drives, 200GB+ was more common. Starfield requires 130GB of disk space, and according to the Steam Hardware Survey, at least 18% of gamers don’t have that much to spare, and significantly fewer aren’t going to have that to spare on an SSD and will suffer the indignity of slow load times :)
I remember buying my first hard drive for 2000 sek which is arround 180 dollars. So that’s actually more expensive than 1tb today. That was more than 20 years ago but I only got 20gb worth of space. A few years later and we should arrive at the 20 years-ago-mark which made me write 50. I def wouldn’t say most people had 200gb hard drives 20 years ago. If they did no one could complain 20 years later if BG3 would still fit on that drive.
I had thought that at least Microsoft’s plan was to for allow their cloud infrastructure to handle background loading processes so that there didn’t need to be such giant file sizes and so developers could have more computing power to work with.
I want Valve to encourage developers to use their branch tool like Witcher 3 did with the next gen upgrade to make high resolution assets optional.
There's no reason to have 100-something GB of assets on an 800p device. Same with languages. Support is awesome. Disrespecting my storage to pack them all without any way to cut out the waste isn't.
That's before the heavy duplication of assets for sequential HDD loads that I'm guessing hasn't disappeared yet.
That's why I mentioned languages, too. I'm not saying that it's bad that more people can access it in their native language, just that a lot of games include it by default when they're not going to be used.
It's possible BG3 is an exception, but a lot of publishers pretty clearly just don't care how much space they take up (and I kind of think a few of the GAAS nonsense see more space as a positive so they can monopolize users's time even more by limiting the number of other games they have). I really wish that Valve had pushed for an alternative "trim the fat" branch that defaulted to less, less heavy assets and let you choose what else you needed for Steam Deck verification (over, say 10 GB, so you only really needed to do it for modernish AAA type games). I think it could have made a difference because the cost isn't high to do.
I think most people have 1tb of storage space and not much else. Most games these days are well under 100gb. In that respect, it’s kind of ridiculous to have one game take up 1/10th of your storage. I doubt most gamers are going to see those high res textures anyway.
Your point is valid though, too. Games are only increasing in size. I already have 5tb total in my PC but would need more space to install this particular game (I have a lot of games lol). I don’t have a problem upgrading but I don’t think a lot of people the money to buy a $70 plus a good HDD/SSD. Just my thoughts on this.
Fallout 3 released two hardware generations ago at around 8GB. Fallout 4 released last gen and sits at around 25GB. One generation later, Starfield is launching at ~140GB - almost 6x the file size of the previous generation.
I can't speak for everybody, but my PC storage didn't jump to 6x capacity in that amount of time, and my download speeds didn't get 6x faster. But I imagine that's why it's concerning to some people.
Even just going by console standards, we're looking at only a jump of 2x capacity between the Xbox One and Xbox Series X - or exactly the same if you have a Series S. It takes up over 20% of the storage Series S in just one game - with a mandatory install, unspecified patch sizes, impending DLC, etc.
Obviously there's a discussion to be had of WHY the games are increasing exponentially like that, but on the surface that's likely where the bulk of the frustration comes from.
Isn’t the size of your PC storage entirely user controlable? If you want 6x the memory you had in 2008 when F3 came out you could have it. The Xbox model at the time came with a 20gb hard drive on the standard model and 120gb for an Elite. So they’ve definitely exponentially grown to 512gb/1tb this gen.
Here’s the thing: I don’t want games to keep improving, at least, not in that way. It doesn’t mean anything to me that the game includes ultraHD textures and looks stunning on an 8K monitor because I’m still rocking a 3070 with a 1080 120 Hz. The fact that it takes them three years to make a game look this good, which is meaningless to a majority of gamers who can’t afford that kind of hardware, is especially frustrating. And now they’re telling us for the pleasure of waiting so long for them to put the finishing touches on what is effectively marketing material, I have to reserve not just 100+ GB, but all that space on an SSD because the game loads too damn slow otherwise? That’s like an eighth of the available space on your average m.2 drive, for one game, for something most people won’t even be able to enjoy because their hardware just isn’t made for that kind of output.
I don’t want sixteen times the detail, I want an optimized game with serviceable assets and a gameplay loop that doesn’t feel like a second job. And granted, this is getting beyond the graphics argument, but I like games that aren’t afraid of not appealing to the broadest audience. I want my Fallout in Space to have more than four dialog options that all point the same direction. I want to make meaningful choices and play a character that has real opinions and can act accordingly, instead of endless modifiers on the gear of a voice-acted talking doll that exists to service a mostly linear plot. I don’t want F4, I want FNV. I’ll be pleasantly surprised if the reviews come out and it ends up being as meaningful as I want it to be, but I’m not holding my breath, and in all likelihood I’m not jumping through the hardware hoops to play a game I probably won’t like.
It’s not that easy to do but you could probably invest some time and create a system for that. I wonder how much it’d actually be used though. This would only really effect a subset of PC players.
I think you would be surprised. 1080p gaming is very much alive & 1080p gamers don’t need ultra high rez textures. I would certainly love to use this option. Sometimes people would even prioritize their data plan over graphics, because not everyone is so obsessed with graphics.
Especially if at download it was explained to users they won’t see a difference at 1080p, then even Steam & GoG could save some bandwidth. (plus it would be environmentally friendly)
I game on 1440p, but I only have an 8GB card. A medium textures download option would be amazing. It was nice that the D4 beta had high res textures as an optional extra download.
Pathing should be low hanging fruit here. Most NPCs don’t need accurate pathing, and can use a much faster algorithm to calculate. Hopefully the devs do a round of optimizations for late game content since that seems to be where most of the issues are.
We don’t know how their NPCs are built though. The pathing seems to be the same for every NPC that moves, so I bet its baked in somewhere up the inheritance tree. They already use ocular occlusion to take down some of the clutter out of view. The fact is the city probably pushes the limits of the engine in its current state.
Oh it’s certainly pushing it to the limits, which is why they need to change things. If it’s pathing, they have a ton of options to make it smoother, since most NPCs don’t need fancy pathing logic.
That’s optimal if you want to find the best path to a destination, but NPCs milling about a town don’t need the best path, they just need to move toward their goal more or less. And most go on a mostly fixed route, so you can just store the ideal path in memory and let the NPC evade up to some distance from that path.
This makes it a lot more friendly to do a multi-threaded implementation since you don’t need to figure out collision avoidance until it’s about to happen, just look a few steps ahead and course correct as needed.
Enemies should use proper pathing, but NPCs don’t need to be anywhere near that sophisticated.
But I have no idea what they’re actually doing under the hood, it’s just concerning that it gets slow when the player moves without interacting with any NPCs.
Yeah but with how optimal the game is are they really not using waypoints for jobber npcs already? This game runs extremely well. That seems like a hell of an oversight. Thats why i figured the pathfinding was baked in somewhere higher up or something.
Edit: I really don’t think it is pathing. These models have insane LoD. I’m thinking they tuned it since D:OS2 but its the same engine. I bet its just compounding factors of high polygons, environmental effects (the earthquakes) and NPCs just existing in high number on top of that. There is more than double the amount of NPCs inside the city than anywhere else in the game.
In the Digital Foundry review, they saw huge performance dips when just running in small circles, when standing still had no impact. As in, on a high end system, performance dropped from ~90FPS to mid-60s, just by moving in a tight circle (i.e. not enough to actually move the camera).
That sounds a lot like pathing to me, though other things could certainly be causing it.
It just seems like something there is poorly optimized and it shows when there are a lot of NPCs around.
And the game essentially uses last gen tech (DX11, no RTX, performance drop on Vulkan, etc), so it’s not pushing the boundaries all that much, so it’s probably not fully optimized. It should be feasible to optimize it to at least not get FPS dips when moving vs standing still in towns, if not get a bit better performance on older CPUs (e.g. Zen 2 CPUs like 3600 and whatever is in the Steam Deck). It runs pretty well, it they could probably get a bit more.
Pushing the boundaries of the engine is different than pushing the boundaries of the industry. Maybe it could be the pathfinding. But movement doesn’t necessarily mean its pathfinding. I’m sure transforming all those polygons costs more computationally than pathfinding.
But why only when the player is moving? Surely the NPCs are also moving all the time, so just moving the player and maybe nudging the party members (so like 4 new characters moving?) shouldn’t drop frames by ~30%. Something seems off there.
I hope they figure it out and patch it, because it would really impact the experience on lower end hardware, like the Steam Deck (i.e. stable 30 FPS vs stutters in the late game).
I’m pretty sure bethesda said playing starfield with a hard drive isn’t great 1tb SSDs aren’t too expensive anymore I’d really recommend moving away from a hard drive
M.2 SATA drives are still a thing, same port, but different slower protocol as NVMe. They are less common, but still around and available in TB size. Don’t think there is any reason to get this outside of compatibility with old hardware.
There is also mSATA, which is a different port from M.2, but has a very similar look and size. Also slower than NVMe and no reason to get them unless you have hardware that uses them (e.g. some old Beelink miniPC have them).
I definitely support the hypothesis that calling all storage drives hard drives is an old curmudgeon thing 😅 I’ve been doing computer nerdery for way over 30 years, and a hard drive is a hard drive even if it doesn’t have spinny disks in it
I think storage or storage drive is the umbrella term these days. “Hard drive” was always short for “Hard Disk Drive” (which was named in comparison to Floppy Disk Drive) but since it was the only type of drive used for non-volatile internal storage for a good 20 years or so, it became a catch-all term. These days, many people understand there’s two different kinds and a lot of systems have both, so hard drive is becoming recognized to mean the spinning disks; as opposed to SSD, which is now an umbrella term incorporating 2.5" SATA, M.2 SATA, and M.2 NVMe, which are all Solid State Drives but different combinations of interfaces and form factors.
Nah, the "SS" and "HD" bits refers to how each storage disk reads data. HDDs use hard metal disks to read & write data, hence it got the misnomer hard disk drive. SSDs use solid state flash memory to read & write data, hence it being called a solid state drive.
If you want the general category, you'd want to say "storage drive" specifically since if you say "drive", that can also refer to an optical drive (AKA the CD slot) or a USB drive (AKA flash/thumb drives).
The classic, computer science term for all of these devices is “secondary storage”, if anyone’s looking for a way to confuse people briefly before explaining that you mean “hard drives, SSDs, etc.”
Sure. And of course it remains to be seen whether Starfield is worth it, but it’s undeniable that a game of this magnitude isn’t a common occurrence. If they realize the game’s potential, then missing out on it because of a relatively inexpensive hardware upgrade seems like a shame.
I’m guessing one of those is Baldurs Gate, but I’m struggling to think of two more. There’s been some decent games for sure but none other that I’d put on the same scale. Diablo 4 had the potential but squandered it imo.
None are baldur’s gate. While I’m loving baldur’s gate, it’s far from a market disruptor. The three games I was thinking of were TOTK, Diablo 4, and FFXVI.
To be clear, of the ones listed I only care about TOTK and BG3. I’m looking at “megaton games” by a general ascertainment of how relevant they are to the enthusiast gamers, and how much they sell. FFXVI came out and kinda did not great for an FF game so I’ll concede there. No idea about Diablo 4, I assume it was middling or “as expected”, while TOTK sold 18 million in its first 6 weeks; though I may largely be familiar with that due to being in proximity of Nintendo-related circles.
It really is subjective what measure we’re using though. BG3’s been amazing in relative terms to what would typically be expected of “DnD RPG” (maybe there’s a better term), and developers have been reacting to it far more than they would most other megaton games. TOTK’s no slouch on its own, impressing developers over its extremely impressive yet performent physics engine.
All fair points. I wasn’t trying to argue, just to have a friendly discourse :) My calling it a “game of magnitude” is obviously very open to interpretation.
For what it’s worth what I was trying to say was that this game has the potential to be unlike any game before it, so it’d be a shame to miss out on it just to avoid a minor hardware upgrade. But that in itself is of course also subjective. Suffice to say I myself won’t be missing out… :p
Fair say! I’m personally not someone who particularly vibes with the aesthetic of bethesda games so I’ll be missing out, but I hope it’s as good as fans expect ❤️
Is a game like Starfield “missable” though? Games like this’ll realistically be accessible for years (decades?) to come (not even counting Bethesda’s love of rereleasing their latest hit a la Skyrim lol). They might miss out on the cultural discussion if the game’s a hit though, that’s definitely a trade-off of late adoption, like what I’m experiencing with BG3 lol.
Yeah that’s fair. It might even be worth waiting a year so the community can fix all the bugs :p I know I’m too impulsive to wait that long though. Played through Cyberpunk at launch and loved it!
can these subpar double triple a games stop not compressing and optimising their shit again, and not dumping all of their over compensating textures and files on us? no?..okay…
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.
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.’
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So...that's your personal taste. Fifty Shades of Grey wouldn't have been successful if no one liked it, and we can quantify some form of quality via review scores. Some of Bethesda's games have reviewed phenomenally well, especially in as large of a bucket as the past 20 years of their history. If I was the sole dictator of what was good, no one would be playing the latest Assassin's Creed game or Hades, but plenty of people love those games; the majority would say they're great, and we can measure that to some degree.
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.
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.
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
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.
I do quite like it, but there are definitely small quality of life improvements that were missed in the initial launch. For example the mini-map, which rotates on movement and I find it annoying to navigate. There is a way to stop the rotation, but then there is no indicator on it to display which direction your camera is facing and is still difficult to navigate.
Just small things like that here and there that I’ve noticed.
I have the cardinal directions marked on my mini map though they can be hard to notice. I find the enemy opertinity attacks are very hard to see and should ask for a promt before just happening
You can actually have the game ask for opportunity attacks. If you open your character tab (or party view), up at the top, there’s a tab for “Reactions”. You can set it to automatically take opportunity attacks or ask before.
I think he means when you’re moving through their range and they can take an opportunity attack on you. I dont find the arrow hard to see but if you do miss it it doesn’t confirm that you want to move through an enemy’s melee range. It does cancel the movement afterward though without ending your turn or anything
That has pissed me off so much because I keep forgetting to make sure that damned arrow isn’t there before I click. And then sometimes my mouse moves ever so slightly when I do click that it was enough of a shift to change the pathway close enough for it to appear.
Yes I see the cardinal directions, but if I’m looking at my main map trying to figure out where to go, and planning in my head “okay I need to take a left and then a right and then another right…” Then exit out, look at my mini map, I either have to align it back so north points up top to get my bearings or if it’s fixed I have to move my characters forward to see which direction the camera is facing so I don’t mix up my lefts and rights.
Ah I see yes, I find myself constantly trying to click on the map to simply put my camera at that location to avoid that problem but baldur’s gate 3 doeant work like the old games where that was an option and so I just resort to constantly checking the map at every junktion
i like modding as much as the next gal but this type of relationship bethesda has with their fans is not good, at all, and i never see anyone ever mention it
It’s not good that the games are broken and they are relying on modders to fix them. It would be totally fine if they released a fully functioning thematic sandbox for modders to play in though.
The thing about Bethesda games is that their modding tools are far and away from any other game, making serious improvements much more accessible. That’s one of the major draws of them.
I just wish every game didn’t have an unofficial patch requirement to keep it from crashing too often.
People talk about it all the time. Longtime fans just don’t care. I’ve been playing these since Daggerfall. Bethesda Softworks makes a very particular kind of game this is very appealing to some of us, and nobody else makes them like that, not that I’m aware of. You think Skyrim was buggy on release? It’s got nothing on Daggerfall, but I loved it anyway.
Mods make the game better, give them a longevity they wouldn’t otherwise have. Skyrim with Frostfall and a needs mod is almost my dream game. But I was perfectly satisfied with the game on Day 1.
Im no stranger to daggerfall either but that just highlights the problem with the company but some fanatics who blindly follow then
Their games don’t have to be buggy messes till modders do bestesdas job for them, mods should primarily enhance, not fix.
And these people who don’t care (as you that is) are one key problem why bethesdas and other companys launch their games like an alpha they’ll never fix (hows their ducttape held severly outdated engine gonna cripple this title I wonder)
We have multiple generations of developers releasing like this. With a few rare exceptions (which are the only games from 15+ years ago most people remember), all games release buggy. Even on console, for every Super Mario Bros. that played the way it was supposed to, there were ten unplayably buggy examples of licensed shovelware. And half of “Nintendo Hard” was just that these games were janky as fuck.
Games are hard to make. Ridiculously huge and complex games are even harder to make. If you think you can do better, please do so.
dont you see the inherit problem that these devs all themselves created with the increasing cost, increasing scope, increasingly forcing bigger retention spans? these games dont need to be this needlessly huge and even than there is no need to have them almost broken (have you SEEN how cd project red always releases their games?)
i never said it was that much better back than, its just much easier to have all of this garbage available than it was back than cause now its flooding the online stores
and of course “do it better yourself than”, i dont have to be a mastercoder to recognise subpar quality, i dont need to be a masterchef to know when something tastes bad
Hyping up old features as if they’re groundbreaking is a proud Bethesda tradition. I still remember laughing at their pre-release hype around the Radiant quest randomizer in Skyrim, which is virtually identical to the quest randomizer that Daggerfall had been built around fifteen years prior.
When I buy a Bethesda game, I know what I’m getting into. People bitch, but like you said, it’s the familiarity I’m going for.
And you know the modding scene is going to be good in a year or so.
Ultimately I don’t understand all the bickering. I don’t like Subway or McDonald’s, but I also don’t rant that they are no good because they don’t have lasagna on the menu.
eurogamer.net
Aktywne