STARFIELD discussion

[GearSolidMetal]

. It wasn't made by Bethesda Softworks though, just some B team at Bethesda.
That still doesn't excuse the shitty launch/first year.

It was a Fallout game.
It was marketed as a Bethesda game.
Todd Howard made the presentation full of false promises.



It effectively ruined the entire studio's reputation. It was the Cyberpunk2077 launch to CDPR before it launched.

 

[BigAssBoy]

Starfield looks pretty great, hope it isn't as buggy at launch as most Bethesda games are.

 

[GtehMVP]

It was a Fallout game.
It was marketed as a Bethesda game.
Todd Howard made the presentation full of false promises.



It effectively ruined the entire studio's reputation. It was the Cyberpunk2077 launch to CDPR before it launched.

Howard and Bethesda came out of it looking terrible, but again, a different studio made it under dirtier leadership (Zenimax). I'm sure many people still think BGS made it, but enough know the difference, hence the excitement for Starfield and the eventual Elder Scrolls VI.

Todd's always been a bit of greaseball, but it's just not like CDPR/Cyberpunk scenario. That was CDPR's A team.

 

[Bob Gray]

Its impossible for me to get hyped up for a Bethesda game. IMHO, Fallout 3 and New Vegas were their best games and they were released 12 & 14 years ago. Every game they've released have been disappointments ever since, and Fallout 76 has been a humorous disaster.

As far as I've seen, Bethesda and Todd Howard have made no apologies for what Fallout 76 was at launch, and for months afterward.

So...... why should we believe anything they say about this new game? Bethesda have mastered hype, and they also think their audience have very short memories for their lies and failures.

As for Starfield... it looks interesting, but lets see how its like when its released next year. Remember when it was announced it wasn't going to be released this year because it'd be like Cyberpunk2077 at launch?

Yeah, that's why I'm betting that gameplay is very much like the CP2077 2018 demo... that was later revealed to be just CGI concept video, and NOT gameplay.

Dude....a game called Skyrim was released after Fallout 3 and New Vegas and it did pretty well.




Howard accepted that 76 was a fuck up.

https://www.pcgamer.com/todd-howard-there-was-very-little-we-didnt-screw-up-on-fallout-76-launch/#:~:text=Howard has previously stated that,Game Pass in July 2020.

"When that game launched, the litany of issues we had, and we let a lot of people down, and, well, there was very little we didn't screw up honestly," Howard said, talking about the launch of the troubled multiplayer RPG.

Bethesda didnt develop New Vegas or 76.

76 was a clusterfuck, for sure, but it wasnt a Bethesda game. Publisher and Developer are two different things. If the worst game theyve made is Fallout 4, thats a pretty respectable accomplishment.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Howard and Bethesda came out of it looking terrible, but again, a different studio made it under dirtier leadership (Zenimax).

You said it yourself.... those are no excuses.

Howard is the face of Bethesda. His credibility as a spokesman for the development team and as the director was on the line, and he should have done what was neccessary to delay the release of the game until it was.... at worst just as buggy as their other titles. But absolutely every aspect of its launch was completely botched.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Dude....a game called Skyrim was released after Fallout 3 and New Vegas and it did pretty well.

I'm not saying their games since NV haven't sold well.

I'm saying every Bethesda game has been a disappointment, from a critical perspective, not financial.

Bethesda didnt develop New Vegas or 76.

No shit. When I say Bethesda, I'm mostly referring to their publisher Zenimax, who saw Fallout 4 and 76 as being ready to ship when they did.

76 was a clusterfuck, for sure, but it wasnt a Bethesda game. Publisher and Developer are two different things. If the worst game theyve made is Fallout 4, thats a pretty respectable accomplishment.

I'm quite sure Todd Howard has enough pull in Zenimax to get his way. I don't think he's a puppet for these presentations and they put him back in the closet to use a year or two later.

 

[Bob Gray]

I'm not saying their games since NV haven't sold well.

I'm saying every Bethesda game has been a disappointment, from a critical perspective, not financial.



No shit. When I say Bethesda, I'm mostly referring to their publisher Zenimax, who saw Fallout 4 and 76 as being ready to ship when they did.



I'm quite sure Todd Howard has enough pull in Zenimax to get his way. I don't think he's a puppet for these presentations and they put him back in the closet to use a year or two later.

Skyrim was a critical disappointment?

https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim

94 metacritic score and 8.4 user score was a "disappointment from a critical perspective"?

I can't take anything you say seriously on this topic now. You are straight delusional.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Howard accepted that 76 was a fuck up.

And.... at no point in that article was an apology ever made.

And.... there's no mention for far along the development cycle did Howard realize it was going to be the worst botched launch of his career, and why he didn't/couldn't delay it.

Stating the obvious of 'Wow, we fucked up on that one" doesn't earn back any credibility, its an admitting of obvious guilt.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Skyrim was a critical disappointment?

https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim

94 metacritic score and 8.4 user score was a "disappointment from a critical perspective"?

I can't take anything you say seriously on this topic now. You are straight delusional.

Everybody knows of the glowing reception the reviews had for Skyrim when it was released.

I'm talking about my impressions of the base game at launch. Basically besides the graphics and open world, every other aspect either hadn't advanced enough for a sequel 5 years later from its predecessor, or the predecessor was actually better.

Overall, very weak sequel in every way besides presentation.

 

[Bob Gray]

Everybody knows of the glowing reception the reviews had for Skyrim when it was released.

I'm talking about my impressions of the base game at launch. Basically besides the graphics and open world, every other aspect either hadn't advanced enough for a sequel 5 years later from its predecessor, or the predecessor was actually better.

Overall, very weak sequel in every way besides presentation.

Gotcha. Critical Reception = "My Impressions of the game at launch."

 

[GtehMVP]

You said it yourself.... those are no excuses.

Howard is the face of Bethesda. His credibility as a spokesman for the development team and as the director was on the line, and he should have done what was neccessary to delay the release of the game until it was.... at worst just as buggy as their other titles. But absolutely every aspect of its launch was completely botched.

I'm not making excuses for him. He knew how shit the game was. I'm sure he had enough sway to convince Zenimax to make the game early access and sell it a bit cheaper. Hell, they could have kept it all full price like Baldur's Gate 3 has been since its EA release. At least fans would have known what they were getting into.

Regardless, we all know Howard's a huckster, but he and his team still make good to great games that are generally received very well, despite the notorious bugs. I don't think anyone is worried about getting a 76 repeat, at least those who know the A team didn't make it. Future CDPR titles, however, will be met with more trepidation.

 

[Deadwing88]

 

[GearSolidMetal]

@Bob Gray
@GtehMVP

I'm in complete agreement with everything in this video.

 

[Bob Gray]

@Bob Gray
@GtehMVP

I'm in complete agreement with everything in this video.

Again:

Critical Reception = "My Impressions of the game at launch."


Lets just establish that you're being nonsensical with your claim that Skyrim was a critical disappointment and because of that I don't take your opinion very seriously.


With that said, theres plenty of reservations. I already said the combat looks ok and nothing special. I already said that Im curious how engaging those 1,000 planets will be. What I don't do is start bringing up a game that Bethesda didnt even develop as some sort of indication they can no longer develop a good game.

At the end of the day though, when I read a lot of the negative reactions, it feels like people often miss the point of what kind of games bethesda makes. No one ever put 200 hours into one of their games because they dug the combat.

I think one of the things people are forgetting when they talk about how theyd rather have 10 hand crafted worlds is that there's no reason there ISNT going to be 10 hand crafted worlds. Its Bethesda. Its all about immersion in a world thats insanely big. Even going back to Daggerfall the sheer amount of locations was mind boggling, but it isnt like they were all unique and engaging. If the game came out and it was just 10 planets, you'd be seeing an equal amount of "All this wait for an epic space exploration game and only 10 planets, lol. GJ BeFAILS-DA". Just like people were actually complaining about the fact that the map for Fallout 4 was about as big as Fallout 3. Think about that for a second. People complained about the size of a map in a game that the vast majority of people wouldnt even complete.

Theres always a balance between the handcrafted locations and the filler in Bethesda games. Skyrim is not just a classic RPG, but one of the all time classic games. No one argues that EVERY location is amazing. Delving into every Dweomer mine or Draugyr crypt wasnt an infinitely satisfying experience. But Bethesda games are always more than the sum of their parts.

The mundane "every day" aspects of the world contribute to the feeling of it being an actual, living, breathing world. Try to explain to someone why you spent so much time chopping wood in Skyrim. That one aspect of the game makes no sense and doesnt sound very fun (and in fact, it isnt particularly fun), but it contributes to giving you a character with a story, and thats one of the things that Bethesda does better than any other studio. You create your own story in a world (or in this case a galaxy) full of possibilities. Not all of the activities are fun in and of themselves *cough*Enchanting*cough*, but they all give weight the notion that this is a world that you exist in as opposed to a game that you play.

If its not your thing, its not your thing. I dont blame anyone for that. But we shouldnt be expecting a Bethesda game that isnt a Bethesda game. I dont like GTA games but Im not gonna sit here and say therye critical disappointments because of my own personal opinion, theyre undeniably classic games. Starfield doesnt have to be a classic or even great for me to get a huge amount of enjoyment out of it. I certainly want it to be great, or classic. But if it turns out to be just good? You know what? I'll survive.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Again:

Critical Reception = "My Impressions of the game at launch."


Lets just establish that you're being nonsensical with your claim that Skyrim was a critical disappointment and because of that I don't take your opinion very seriously.

Anyway, regardless of my flaws in articulation in my previous posts, I thought that video summarized my opinions perfectly.

 

[Bob Gray]

Anyway, regardless of my flaws in articulation in my previous posts, I thought that video summarized my opinions perfectly.

I have many of the same reservations. I just think pretty often gamers tend to be overly dramatic about a lot of things.

 

[snowbro]

That's how I saw it too, a very good thing. No man Sky and Elite Dangerous' procedural generation must have been a big influence on them, especially the former. They've had a pretty large studio working on this for years, just imagine the custom assets they can include in the procedurally generated landscapes. The NPC's and quests, which No Man's Sky always lacked, will bring those worlds to life too.

Can we actually land on planets like No Man's Sky? Howard said we could land anywhere on any planet, but I don't know if the landing sequence is automated from orbit. Has that been elaborated on?




Fallout 76 was a total disaster. Even with all the updates, it never felt like a Fallout/Bethesda game to me, but it's a far better product now. It wasn't made by Bethesda Softworks though, just some B team at Bethesda. That still doesn't excuse the shitty launch/first year.

I'm sure the game will play fine enough at launch, and not be gutted like Cyberpunk, but it's going to be riddled with bugs. Like @Deadwing88 said, modders will fix/improve it like they've fixed/improved every Todd Howard game lol

The potential for modding is going to be off the charts. It's still built on the same engine, just with a bunch of enhancements.

This is the kind of game I've always wanted, a true big budget open world (world's in this case) sci-fi RPG. Mass Effect was the closest. Outer World's was decent, but the smaller budget could always be felt.

btw, I loved the base building in Fallout 4, especially with mods on PC. I spent about 2 thousand hours on the PS4 version alone. I'm going to lose myself on this feature, I'm kinda scared actually lol. I just hope they give us more to do with them.

Base building in Fallout 4 made you feel more connected to the wasteland. Neighbouring settlements cities etc. Im worried im just gonna have a base on an empty planet.

Did u get the fo4 mod that expands settlement area? Now my sanctuary and red rocket touch its awesome. Like 1 big settlement.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

The graphics were great, but Bethesda always has a weird way of looking great at release and then aging quickly

I know exactly what you mean. But I think that was the result of them using an old game engine. I think they may have built a newer game engine (I swear I read that somewhere).

I, for one, can’t wait to play this. I really like No Man’s Sky, which is kind of similar, but find it a little bit too cartoonish. This game looks like it’s everything I dreamed games could be when I was a child. I’m looking forward to it.

This is an MMO, right? Or at least has some online play?

 

[Bob Gray]

I know exactly what you mean. But I think that was the result of them using an old game engine. I think they may have built a newer game engine (I swear I read that somewhere).

I, for one, can’t wait to play this. I really like No Man’s Sky, which is kind of similar, but find it a little bit too cartoonish. This game looks like it’s everything I dreamed games could be when I was a child. I’m looking forward to it.

This is an MMO, right? Or at least has some online play?

They keep re-writing and adding to their engine. Sorta like how the current gen of Call of Duty can technically be called the Quake 3 engine. It's a Theseus' ship kinda thing. If they replace or update every line of code, is it a new engine? It depends on how much you want to hate the game. If you want to say "bethesda sucks" then its the same engine as Oblivion. If you use your eyes its obviously far beyond that.

My understanding is its a Single Player RPG.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

They keep re-writing and adding to their engine. Sorta like how the current gen of Call of Duty can technically be called the Quake 3 engine. It's a Theseus' ship kinda thing. If they replace or update every line of code, is it a new engine? It depends on how much you want to hate the game.

My understanding is its a Sinlge Player RPG.

Damn. I was really hoping for something I could play with friends online.

Yeah, I’m not getting into the philosophy of whether or not a game engine with most of the code rewritten is actually another game engine or not.