IIRC didn’t Microsoft hold the game back specifically to ensure it didn’t launch in a horrific state? Bethesda games are known for being a nightmare at launch, and even with these assurances, I’m still expecting the first few weeks to be a mess. That being said, if any Bethesda game was going to launch well, it would be this one.
It’s been held back for a full year and the rumors/leaks from when it got pushed out of 2022 was that it was in about the same state as their games usually launch in, but the higher-ups were worried that someone would make a viral youtube compilation of bugs (cyberpunk being an obvious example) and have their flagship title turned into laughing stock.
IIRC spaceflight was something mentioned as working well but looking really jank, so they spent time fixing that as well.
I expect to encounter many bugs still, but hopefully nothing like fallout 76
That’s not much of a brag. Just because the monsters in this game won’t mysteriously fly off into space only to reappear right behind you seconds later, doesn’t mean we should celebrate.
It’s not a brag, period. Not having a buttload of bugs should be the bare minimum every game should strive for. It’s like saying “we sell the least rotten food in town”.
Its pretty sad that we’ve gone from “most epic adventure” and “largest open world you’ve seen” to “least buggiest game”
Nonetheless, I’ve enjoyed most Bethesda games and I have gamepass on pc and will definitely try the game.
I mean even Skyrim ran pretty nice, till you started playing it long enough to start finding the bugs and jank. Of course, it helped that it had all the familiar jank from the previous games.
We should not be applauding a company for doing what should be the right thing from the start. I used to think the Bethesda glitches were cute too until 76 came out.
It’s not cute, it’s not funny and I refuse to participate in games until all the major bugs are worked out.
I still have not bought or played the new Diablo and I likely won’t at this point because of the ongoing issues I keep hearing about. Honestly, my money is better off in my pocket to be used for literally anything else. I know it’s sucks but if you really want these devs to change you’re going to have to suffer for the cause a little bit.
Indie dev games are just as good anyways and the smaller developers work hard to earn your money. Try looking in that direction to fill the void. I’ve found some really awesome and addictive games this way.
I used to think the Bethesda glitches were cute too until 76 came out.
I enjoyed Fallout 76, but I also ignored it until something like three years after release, at which point it was in a decent state.
It wasn't Fallout 5, which is what I really wanted, but I got my money's worth out of it.
Only bug I hit that was kind of obnoxious was the occasional inability to pick up an item from a corpse, where one would have to look away from the corpse and then back. While being a bit immersion-breaking, it was also pretty easy to work around.
Honestly, the whole Fallout series has been pretty buggy, starting with Fallout 1, but still, a good series. Some of it just comes from the complexity of having a bunch of scripts running that can interact in odd ways in a relatively free-form world.
One of my bigger wants for Fallout 5 is easier diagnosing of problems with mods and trying to be more-robust against such problems. Maybe produce more-foolproof API functionality for common script tasks or something.
a big part of the hate for fallout 76 wasnt even about the bugs, to this day i am 100% convinced that it was stoked massively by folks that bought it expecting a game it was fundamentally never trying to be, never marketed to be and never going to be
That's probably part of it. A big chunk of the aspects that I didn't like about it relative to Fallout 4 -- from killing off slow-mo/pause VATS, to not having a world that can change much, to limited-size "settlements", to limited moddability, to having immersion-breaking other players jetpacking around with not-in-theme names, to having limited story content -- come from the fact that they built it to be a multiplayer game.
But even so. I've seen some footage of the game at release, and it was pretty bad. And not just bugs, but the content...I mean, a Bethesda game not having human NPCs?
I will give them props for putting a lot of effort into fixing the game post-release, but I still feel that the thing shouldn't have shipped when it did. It simply wasn't ready when it went out the door.
Also, some of the fixes they did do that I think people did like -- like reducing the severity of the food/water/radstorm survival elements, which many players didn't like having to hassle with, or reducing the role of PvP, which a lot of the playerbase didn't like -- didn't result in game rebalancing. Like, the player shelters were clearly intended to be a significant element to deal with radstorms, but radstorms are essentially ignorable. Food was intended to play a bigger role, and there are features oriented towards things like reducing the rate of one's demand for it, but that was removed.
If you look at Fallout 4 or even moreso Skyrim, modders went through and rebalanced the game long after the release. I'm not saying that everyone who played those games got to enjoy those changes, but I think that they were good ones. Fallout 76 isn't really moddable in that way, so it's dependent on Bethesda's devs to do all that...and they didn't really do that.
There were no really memorable moments from the game, the way, I don't know, the battle for The Castle or the arrival of the Brotherhood of Steel's aircraft or some other moments in Fallout 4 really stuck with me. I guess to some extent that's part of just having to make a lot of the content something that you play over and over, but it still was kinda disappointing.
And I'm not demanding that they work for free. I bought all the DLC for Fallout 4 and Skyrim. I'd happily have bought something like the (excellent) DLC packs for earlier games in the Fallout series for Fallout 76. But, instead, they only sold mostly-aesthetic content in the Atom Store. Which, okay, great, if someone really wants to decorate their player camp and wants to pay for it could be appealing to someone. But they didn't create a route to pay for more story content, more maps or the like. They did create new free content, but that necessarily has a limited budget, and again, was kinda oriented around multiplayer (and didn't catch on much with me and didn't seem to be terribly popular with players on the fo76 subreddit, either).
There are some things that I did like about it, that I don't think it got credit for. The building mode performance was significantly-improved over 4. They toned down the "everything is dark and awful and evil and every person and company is twisted" aspect in 4, which I think was a big plus; there were plenty of people just trying to live their lives in difficult situations, which felt more like 1. I'm not absolutely rabid about the new areas, but the Mire looked nice by the standards of their engine, was a good use of their engine's godrays. They did a bunch of performance and stability work (that had to happen, given that one couldn't just "reload earlier saves" if something broke in a saved game a la the single player games).
I could have lived with Fallout 76 not being Fallout 5, but what I wished that they could have done was to keep selling single-player content in traditional DLC form. A lot of MUDs and similar games have a "remort" feature where one can start with a new character and earn some persistent rewards for doing so, so playing through story content multiple times is still fun. "New Game Plus", kinda. The online aspect for single-player content would just be to provide DRM, so that people wouldn't just go swipe all the stuff that they're selling in the Atom Store. And the stuff on offer in the Atom Store...ugh. If you look at the mods in Fallout 4, people created high-resolution texture packs, new companions, new story content, and they don't have anything like that for sale. You could have segregated anything that affected balance out of the multiplayer areas, had very solid single-player-only content. It might not have been Fallout 5, but I think that it could have done a much better job of making people who wanted that happier while still providing a multiplayer game for those who wanted a multiplayer game.
For anyone who may have forgotten or may not know: the game is a day 1 launch on game pass. I already have it preloaded and I didn’t preorder. You can easily see how buggy the game is for yourself next week.
In the case they are actually being honest, they could just be speaking relatively - which still doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in me that Starfield is going to be seamless and smooth at launch, or even a few months past launch.
In the case that they are just clearly lying, it's an intentional strategy: they're counting on the fact that they will gain more money from this than they will lose from people discovering it was a lie after the game launches.
I think we’ve all learned our collective lesson at this point (or at least, we should have) not to over-hype games, nor to pre-order them.
I’m going to have to temporarily move in with my dad in October potentially for a few months, should be some decent reviews in by then so I’m looking forward to killing time with this game!
Thanks. I think I had GP a while back just to play AC: Valhalla, so I won’t get a cheeky deal… I’ll probably buy it on GOG, as it seems like it’s not going to be the sort of game I complete within a month or two, I prefer to ‘own’ a game than rent it once I’m satisfied it’s for me.
It will be a few years before it’s on GOG, so it really depends how patient you are. Fallout 4 only appeared on there a week or two ago to give you a frame of reference.
The people who have “learned” “the lesson” are a loud minority. The vast majority of consumers will put money wherever they feel like it, philosophy be damned.
Dodaj komentarz