It’s clear to me that Bethesda thinks Skyrim was peak Elder Scrolls, when I think Morrowind was peak Elder Scrolls. Unfortunately, it seems too much to ask for a decent story and interesting side content.
So I just don’t buy Bethesda games anymore. I was disappointed in Skyrim, and Fallout 4 wasn’t really my thing. It also doesn’t help that I don’t like the leveling mechanics of RPGs either and tend to prefer ARPGs like Ys and Zelda where leveling isn’t a major part of the game loop. I know what Bethesda offers, and it’s just not what I’m looking for these days. I play RPGs for story and immersion, not for graphics, character builds, and mods, and Bethesda seems to be more interested in the latter than the former.
But that’s what I appreciate from Bethesda. They’re pretty consistent at delivering a certain experience, it just so happens that it’s not for me.
IDK, I bailed around halfway through. I got to the Magus fight, and it felt really RNG dependent. If he attacked in a certain order, I would lose a team member and eventually lose because I couldn’t keep up with healing.
Maybe I was too low level, or maybe I didn’t have the right items equipped, IDK, but I completely lost interest when I failed several times without knowing what to do differently except hope that he attacked in a different order. So I bailed.
Maybe I’ll try it again sometime. I originally played on my phone, but maybe I’ll have more patience on my Steam Deck. I really enjoyed the game up to that point, but I just couldn’t bear the RNG. I have no problem failing over and over (I love the early Ys games and some bosses took a dozen tries), but I need to see some sort of progress.
IDK, I think 10 hours is plenty for any game, and 2 hours is enough for most. By two hours, you’ve likely discovered the core gameplay loop and seen how it handles progression, and by 10 hours you’ve seen whether that core gameplay loop changes throughout the game.
I don’t like negative reviews for games when they’ve spent double the time HLTB gives for a playthrough. I don’t expect to play much more than “main + extras” on any game, so any review that’s expecting content beyond that just isn’t useful for me.
They could also release a few campaigns that DMs could use to start from. That wouldn’t require much dev time aside from the DM tools (e.g. add a surprise if the team is doing to well in a battle, or hold back a surprise if they’re struggling).
I think a lot of people would buy story packs, even if there’s a way to make your own or get free community stories.
Those were all around 5 hours or less, in rough order from shorter to longer (just pulled up my Steam games by playtime). I have a few more on my list that I haven’t played yet but are likely about that length if you want more. :)
I don’t have a minimum, and my maximum is negotiable. I’ve played <5 hour games that felt too long, and >50 hour games that felt too short.
I generally shoot for 20-30 hours, but that’s because it seems like a sweet spot where most games with tons of filler are longer. I actually have a category for short games, because sometimes the 2-3 hour experience is what I’m looking for.
Yup. And I wish more AAA titles took more risks in gameplay and storytelling, but those seem to be few and far between.
Starfield is a fantastic example. If you asked me to describe a Bethesda game set in space, it would look a lot like Starfield (but I probably would’ve missed the procedural generation). Usually AAA games are pretty much as expected, with one or two surprises on the side, and that’s it.
BG3 basically delivers on Cyberpunk’s promises (branching storylines, mocap, great visuals, etc), and it did so on launch, which is really rare.
The Deck’s AMD Van Gogh APU can’t be had in any other device and is substantially different to any other chip AMD produces.
Is it really that different? I thought it was basically Zen 2 CPU cores and RDNA 2 GPU cores. It’s not an off-the-shelf SOC, but it’s also not that custom. So this seems a little hyperbolic to me. I’d say it’s pretty similar to the XBox Series S SOC (and Series X and PS5), which uses the same cores, just a different amount of each.
I also think it’s kind of interesting that they’re jumping to a VR Headset. If it’s a standalone, it’s probably not “low power.” If it’s not standalone, I think they’ll have issues transferring data fast enough to be practical. So my money is on some kind of accessory, like maybe a Steam Link 2 or a controller. Those are low power, wireless, and seem to fit the bill a bit better.
Then again, maybe it is a VR headset. But I really don’t see them competing at the low end on VR.
The game seems (to me) to essentially be FPS, Sci-Fi Skyrim, with some space fight minigames. There’s a lot of stuff you can do, but the main storyline is pretty short, the AI sucks, and most of the appeal is side content and looks.
That’s what I expect from Bethesda, and that’s what they delivered. It’s only really “next gen” in the procedural generation department, so it’s basically a regular Bethesda game, with a little bit of experimentation thrown in. That’s what Bethesda delivers, and they deliver pretty consistently.
I’m guessing there will be a ton of cool mods in the next few years for a deeper story, interesting space combat, etc.
And this is why I didn’t buy Starfield. I loved Morrowind and was disappointed with Skyrim, and I think it’s because I prefer a tighter, more linear story and don’t like “messing around” as much. I watched a gameplay video, and the things that player got excited about (all the side content) really didn’t grab my attention, and the story itself seemed a bit flat.
I probably would’ve loved it as a kid, but that’s not what I’m looking for these days.
So for me, BG3 is the better game. But younger me would’ve preferred Starfield. They’re both great games, just for very different audiences. And I could totally see someone having exactly the opposite opinion as me, which just shows how great both are.