Other developers have already voiced their opinions on Baldur’s Gate 3. And it’s been “Oh no! Baldur’s Gate 3 is ruining the expectations of gamers about what a game is.”
Meanwhile most people playing BG3 have been saying “Finally, some good fucking food.”
Hah, that first quoted review is like playing Elite Dangerous. Really love that game. However, Starfield doesn’t have VR, so I’m not interested in going down that path. VR in Elite (except for ground ops) is amazing, and a spaceflight/sim absolutely should have a VR option IMO.
How they implemented it it is you can’t get a strong item if you pick-up the item box while being stopped (like as it respawns with no forward speed), by going in reverse or picking up the same one multiple times.
I disagree purely on the point that what Starfield is, more than anything else, an amazing platform to make a mod on. Not a great game per se, but the setting and overall theme leave a lot of room for Bethesda to cash in on the work of others as is tradition.
Bagging seems like it should be a valid strategy, let yourself go to the back of the pack to get better items, but run the risk of not being able to catch up.
Knocking opponents off the stage is close enough to lowering their HP to 0.
Being slower than everyone else is the opposite of being faster than everyone else. It does seem like it’s cheesing the system that’s supposed to balance things out.
Even items in Smash Bros has a skill component in getting to the item first. And “rubber band” mechanics like bonus final smashes (and items in general) can be turned off.
Knocking people off the stage isnt the part that makes smash uncomparable to other fighting games.
Its the fact that its technically a platforming game, and a multiplayer game, which frequently incentivizes running and hiding from opponents, and has a built in random trip mechanic to fuck you over for no reason other than coin flip handicapping you, among a myriad of other examples of how the game can make the weaker player win.
I meant sub-optimally in terms of actually racing. Optimal speed would be getting the lowest time in the race. Bagging would be aiming to not get the fastest lap each time. I probably could’ve chosen a better word, my bad.
I’m not upset about anything. But isn’t this post about Nintendo removing/reducing bagging? So maybe some others are upset about that change. But it seems like a good thing to me.
Its also sub optimal speed to lag a bit so a blue shell doesnt blow you up, but since its a mario style cartoonish video game you often find that the optimal play isnt to have the smallest or biggest number at all times.
I would say any change that makes mario cart less like mario cart and more like other racing games is a change that makes a worse game. A racing game that involves more strategy than the rest is more interesting than a racing game thats just more cartoony.
I think lagging behind for OP items is less interesting than a skill-based race.
In a party environment, those OP items are great. Bullet Bills help the new player spice up the friendly environment. But if the pro is lagging behind specifically to get OP items, I think that makes it less fun and less interesting.
Yeah, the uh, “trans characters” almost definitely would’ve been cut or modified.
You’d offend people who think that stuff shouldn’t be in video games, and you’d also offend people who think they’re poor “representation”.
Even Fassad could be a little questionable from a cultural-sensitivity perspective.
Not saying I think these should be cut, but that was likely Nintendo’s justification. Combined with the fact that the GBA was on its way out even when the Japanese version was released.
I have a sliver of hope for a release on the NSO expansion bundle, though.
I’m not even sure then being non binary (I think they are referred to that way? May be translation though) is the issue, but them coercing a kid to bathe with them all might upset people.
Bethesda, simply put, doesn’t know how to react to criticism. Instead of taking this feedback and improving their product they double-down and insist that you should like it because they said so. If it’s boring it’s boring man. They are simply as disconnected as possible. Remember the whole canvas bag fiasco? Then they said “ah, canvas costs too much, we aren’t planning on doing anything with the nylon one”… deal with it in other words. Then they were puzzled why people disliked them to all hell.
I can’t believe how ignorant you are of the worldwide canvas shortage of 2018. Canvas became a global strategic resource. Lack of canvas destabilized numerous nation states.
The idea of frivolously wasting that precious canvas on a video game trinket is frankly offensive.
Yup. And shitty plastic shell for the rum. Then people who requested refund got their info and CC numbers leaked by their system which they took offline immediately.
I’m not 100% sure but I think FO76 is maintained by BGS Austin. They seem to be far more interested in taking feedback and making the game better than the main Bethesda studio. FO76 may be fundamentally flawed but post-launch it’s definitely getting more care than Skyrim, FO4 and Starfield combined.
They also took class action lawsuits for that game as well, so that might be affecting that push to fix the game. But even if they fix it, doesn’t negate the fact they said they don’t plan on fixing canvas issue, or any problem they caused. Only when there was an outrage they reacted. Remember the horse armor for Skyrim or when they tried to sell mods that were included in previous game. I do.
Starfield frustrates me, because in many ways its a major step in the right direction. It has much better roleplaying mechanics than Skyrim or Fallout 4, but at the same time the lore is half-baked and the skill system is fairly weak. It has great potential, but a lot of it feels toned down and less “real” because of it. Space exploration has a lot of potential as well, but setting every objective so far apart on planets ruins exploration by filling it with monotonous procgen.
That’s why I’m fairly confident that once properly patched, and mods/DLCs are in full swing, it will probably be remembered very fondly despite the release state. It’ll pull a Cyberpunk.
I think everything you said here is spot on except the idea Starfield will improve pike Cyberpunk at this point because Bethesda’s attitude really doesn’t indicate that they seem to admit anything needs fixing.
With that said I doubt many people expected Cyberpunk to do as well later on so you are probably right and I hope you are for the game and genre. I really like the aesthetic of Starfield and want it to succeed.
I’m just so tired of getting such half baked stuff at release.
One annoying thing about the “make your own stories” concept is that content us going to be recycled. My followers don’t say anything new or have new things to do etc because it’s all baked in but also on this supposedly open RPG landscape.
I would agree with you if Bethesda games haven’t always been saved by modders, rather than Beth themselves. If we had to depend on Beth to fix their own game, Skyrim would’ve been abandoned long, long, long ago, same with Fallout 4.
That’s true and what worries me the most after wanting Starfield to do good. I’ve been playing Starfield for a bit only to find myself moving to Cyberpunk sooner than later lately.
I hope it does and I think it will but again with the reliance Bethesda puts on the community I’m nervous.
Anyway I’ve gotten much of the way through at 100 hours and have enjoyed it - definitely got my money’s worth - but I just sort of hit a wall. To be fair you’ll do that with most games but it seems like Stanfield is just bland.
Yeah, Bethesda games have always been… playable, I guess, but hardly any good, without modding, at least as far back as Oblivion. Morrowind was the last game they made that was just good, out of the box, without needing mods.
So I figured in a year or two Starfield will be good, with mods, just like Oblivion, Skyrim, and Fallout 4 were all bland at best on release, until mods made them good.
100% I actually think Starfield has the best bones, even if it has the worst meat, so to speak, so adding meat gives it a much higher ceiling in a few years time.
The problem is that starfield is modern warfare III of Bethesda but people trying to see it as next skyrim, Bethesda ai generated almost all this game and looped it in roguelite shape, the only things evolved is mechanics as you’ve said yourself, and again as you’ve said yourself, this game will be saved by modders
Oh I’m anti-Bethesda and Bethesda practices, I’m just sure it will eventually be a great game once the community steps in and fixes it. It isn’t an excuse for Bethesda, but rather admiration for the modding community, and an example of why FOSS and a rejection of the profit motive is so good.
i dont know why people shit on bethesda for “letting modders fix the game”
i dont really know any other developer that embraces the modding community as much as bethesda does, and i wish other games had the same amount of modding capability that bethesda games do
I think it’s fully possible to criticize Bethesda’s incomplete and highly flawed game design and praise their willingness to support the modding community with great tools at the same time.
The world is now full of technology that used to have real names, but is now called AI so that investors spunk themselves as they high five each other in shareholder meetings.
I guess I’m one of the few people who thought Witcher 3 was a bit bland. I was already getting very bored at Novigrad and at Kaer Morhen I totally lost interest and have been unable to pick the game up since.
What do people like about it so much? I’ve read all the books, and generally speaking thought they were good, so I’m not exactly lacking in lore either.
I liked the alchemy in Witcher 2 more but the game mechanics with 3 and the RPG elements were amazing for me. And on par with Skyrim imo. In some aspects I liked Witcher more like how it affected the world building based on your actions.
I played the full game and the dlcs. Only the 2nd dlc and the baron stories are good. Id suggest people just play the blood and wine dlc, its really great. The game isn’t very fun, but I do love the atmosphere and city design. I was totally sick of looking at wet horse ass. Gwents more fun than monster hunting though sadly
I really liked monster hunting as a potions guy. I felt like a real Witcher. I’d have to track them down, read up on them, then drink potions and apply oils that would be strong against them, then finally take them out. That preparation and build up made me as immersed as a Witcher as I felt as Batman in the Arkham games.
The story telling is what really did it for me. I consider witcher 3 to be the greatest game I’ve ever played. The quality of that game is still extremely high even to today’s standards.
For me it was too long. I finished it with all the DLC for the first time a few days ago. I generally enjoyed it but was also quite happy to be done with it when I finally finished it at around the 110 hour mark. I actually took a break after Hearts of Stone and played a couple of shorter games before I came back to finish off Blood and Wine.
I haven’t yet played a single player game that I thought needed to be more than 60 hours no matter how engaging or well made it was.
Keep in mind that the main comparison point for it was Skyrim, which was pretty much the previous RPG people got sucked into.
The story was pretty good and it had a good number of meaningful side quests. Gwent was also a lot of fun, and the Blood and Wine DLC was another step above to keep the hype alive for longer. The combat can get fairly involved without feeling overly complex. Rather than the blank slate of many games of the era, you play as Geralt, who actually has relationships in the world to draw you in.
Basically, rather than the unfocused sandbox of random stuff in Skyrim, it was a more involved story-rich experience that a lot of people appreciated.
That said, the hype was ridiculous. It’s a very good RPG, not the second coming of Christ. It didn’t really do anything new, it was just a solid experience.
It’s a very good RPG, not the second coming of Christ.
That just shows what people want. Just a solid game, playable from start to finish. Due to time constraints i never finished Witcher 3 and barely made it past the prologue of BG3. But both those games are highly celebrated.
They don’t reinvent the wheel. They are just very solid games and come without predatory pricing.
I remember going into the first sandbox, and then going forward with no xp very fast. Then it was just me being weak as hell and rolling around to dodge and using a cast to make a shield around me to avoid dying. Then I stopped. Load time were horrible. But I want to try the remaster on ps5.
Storytelling/quests that surpassed anything its modern contemporaries had to offer. Add in a beautiful open world with alright combat and it’s a hit in my books. Time also wasn’t an issue back in those days as I were still in high school when it launched.
Skellige Island and the two expansions were actually great. Blood & Wine had an amazing flow. Otherwise I agree. It was a rehash of The Witcher 1, but not as charming.
Unpopular opinion: Many hyped up games fail immensely at some parts. But due to the social group effect criticism gets drowned out. Currently playing Elden Ring and while it makes a massively great impression all around it shows really bad game design cracks after more intense looking, especially in the boss and arena encounter design as if they were inexperienced. Cluttered, glitchy arenas impeding gameplay, just annoyingly specific roll tells, bad hitbox choices and the requirement to memorize full boss combo routes like a multiplayer fighter add to that 1-2 kill combos and it is terrible at times to me not we the effort. I am at Leyndell with almost all available side content/areas done. Waiting for the obligatory git gud chads storming in.
Well, yeah… that is so vague that it cannot help but be true. Almost all games fail in some way (especially more complex ones), they can all be improved by making some changes somewhere especially when everyone has different preferences for how things should work and what annoys them.
And by definition almost any hyped up game is going to fall short of expectations. Hype is born by imagination and has no limits, but games are delivered in reality where compromises need to be made, especially when time pressure is involved. And by nature the more hype a game is the more likely it is going to be over-hyped and fall far shorter of the expectations.
I am wary of any hyped up game. Hell, I would be wary of any AAA game on release day these days. Wait for real reviews to come in and not what the prerelease hype says about it. And even after remember that what games one person enjoys a lot another might absolutely hate.
I would not say it is as broadly self defined and I tried to give specific reasons. Elden Ring itself at its very core is about the core difficulty and yet I had way too many deaths caused by jank (the difference on how much better my experience with the same bosses in a cleaner arena speaks volumes, or the terrible twin fights) , not just some side nitpicking on minor mechanics. And so many reviews giving it excellence and yet there is apparently quite a bunch of people rating it below many of their other titles as at the last part of the game the problems pile up to an even worse degree.
I do enjoy it for most of the other aspects and I understand and agree what it is why people rave about it so much , but I would have loved to see scaled down boss damage, especially combos and twin fights to bridge the fun-defying issues, although a different design philosophy would be the better solution.
Movement and combat in every Witcher game is so unpleasant for me that I find them unplayable. I’ve literally gone through YouTube “Choose Your Own Adventure” style videos of the games because the stories are great but I hate how Geralt moves.
ign.com
Najnowsze