STARFIELD discussion

Havent played all of those, but think about what made games like New Vegas, Planescape and more recently Disco Elysium great. It wasnt that they blew you away with some new game mechanics. They didnt blow the doors off with some new engine capability. None of the mechanics of any of those games was particularly original. It was all in how they gave it to you.

Even Disco Elysium, which is fantastic and has some incredibly original interpretations of these mechanics, is still basically a point and click adventure game.

The thing is, generally speaking nobody's favorite games did something completely original or new. It's all in how they presented it to you. Think of every classic game and its almost always in some ways a re-iteration of the mechanics of previous games. Even New Vegas didnt really do anything differently than Fallout 3, people just think they did it better.

Doom? Nowadays people could just say "Oh, a reskinned Wolfenstein? Looks like a mod".

Any classic RTS game? "Oh, still gathering resources? Tech trees?"

Something like Prey was a goddamn masterpiece, but if someone wanted to be dismissive they could just say "Oh, this was great when I played it before. When it called Bioshock".

Any survival horror game? "Oh, more large shadowy rooms and the occasional monster to break the atmosphere of tension BORING". Callisto Protocol literally looks like a Dead Space remake, but people are completely happy with that.

Party based RPG? "More experience. More gaining levels. More classes"

In the words of the Barenacked Ladies, it's all been done. All of it. Theres rarely anything new under the sun when it comes to these games except the packaging. But, more importantly, when people look at their favorite games, just like when they look at their favorite movie, they rarely break any molds. But they put it all together in a fantastic way.

They just got too big, so it became cool to hate on them. Although, Fallout 76's launch did them no favors. That was bad.

What kills me about it all, is that people will blow indie games, or games with a cult following that create something that almost resembles something competent.

"'Dragon's Dogma' was awesome! Yeah, it had glitches up the ass, and it's core structure was as basic as can be, but some of it's combat was alright, so it was incredible!. Totally underrated! The big games could learn a thing or two from this game...that was shitty in 90% of it's areas. I mean, I got to climb on a big troll in DD, and it reminded me of a classic PS2 game! AMAZING! I haven't been this impressed since 'Greedfall'! I love games that remind me of other bigger games that I shit on, but aren't nearly as good!"

Lulz.
 
I know its subjective but Fallout 3 was panned when it released and only later gained a cult following of "Fallout purists." .

What on earth are you talking about? Fallout 3 was universally critically acclaimed on release.

3A49F076-EA88-4093-B115-9F0544859891.jpeg

If anything it was only panned at release by Fallout 1/2 purists who had wanted the “Van Buren” version of Fallout 3 that Black Isle had been working on before Interplay went under.
 
They just got too big, so it became cool to hate on them. Although, Fallout 76's launch did them no favors. That was bad.

What kills me about it all, is that people will blow indie games, or games with a cult following that create something that almost resembles something competent.

"'Dragon's Dogma' was awesome! Yeah, it had glitches up the ass, and it's core structure was as basic as can be, but some of it's combat was alright, so it was incredible!. Totally underrated! The big games could learn a thing or two from this game...that was shitty in 90% of it's areas. I mean, I got to climb on a big troll in DD, and it reminded me of a classic PS2 game! AMAZING! I haven't been this impressed since 'Greedfall'! I love games that remind me of other bigger games that I shit on, but aren't nearly as good!"

Lulz.

Very true. Heavy is the crown and all that.

I mean, theres nothing you can do about expectations. Bigger games have bigger expectations. Sometimes some smaller game you didnt think much of does some really cool things and since your expectations were low to non-existent it seems like a much bigger accomplishment. Combine that with the notion that it seems like every time a studio gets big it just takes one or maybe two things for them to start getting shit on no matter what they do, and it just becomes groupthink.
 
And BTW, Fallout 3 is not the best Fallout game. I know its subjective but Fallout 3 was panned when it released and only later gained a cult following of "Fallout purists." Its seems like at its core what you really have a problem with is Bethesda.

I don't mean to pile on from the guy above me, but sorry, what planet are you living on where "Fallout 3", one of the most celebrated games of all time, was panned upon release? It was considered a groundbreaking achievement in videogame design by damn near every major outlet. It was not a "cult" game by any metric. It was a blockbuster with universal praise from critics and fans alike.

That said, are you sure you're not thinking of "New Vegas"? That game did have a lukewarm reception at launch, where it was criticized for being a rushed, glitch filled game, that did little to improve upon the formula, but is now considered one of the best entries in the franchise.

EDIT - Yeah, I see the guy you were talking to was going on about "New Vegas". Easy to confuse the two in writing. Never mind.
 
Last edited:
What on earth are you talking about? Fallout 3 was universally critically acclaimed on release.

View attachment 928823

If anything it was only panned at release by Fallout 1/2 purists who had wanted the “Van Buren” version of Fallout 3 that Black Isle had been working on before Interplay went under.

I was referring to New Vegas and just mistakingly typed 3.
 
I really want to be excited about this, but the gameplay was really underwhelming to me. Where is the new stuff? It will have base building, factions, Bethesda's trademark janky combat, lots of customization options... I guess the space combat is new, but it didn't really look like much. I feel like I have already played this game.

These days, imo, a lot of devs have caught up to Bethesda's RPGs and do a lot of things better. Witcher had better immersion in its world design and had better side quests, Elden Ring has better combat and the Dark Souls series matches Elder Scrolls in how interesting the lore is (albeit it was delivered to the player much differently), there's a host of sci-fi games already that have in-depth customization options for ship building. Hell, even Cyberpunk 2077 was better than Fallout 4. So, where do they excel at now? Especially when, on the surface, this just looks like Fallout and No Man's Sky mashed together? I just don't get the hype.
I like how you had to stitch together only the best parts of the best games of the last decade to create a game that literally does not exist and you compare it to Bethesda to prove that they fell off lol.
 
Couldnt disagree more about Witcher 3 having more immersion. If anything, that was one of it's flaws imo. Their characters and cities were top notch. Overall writing was consistently good, but the world pulling it all together just felt like a big map with all sorts of icons to clear. I never once really felt a desire in W3 to just go out in a random direction and see what happens. You always had something to do, and it usually something pretty fun. But that sandbox feel wasn't there at all. I always felt like I was being lead somewhere. That's not necessarily bad, but it's a very different experience.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree in regards to W3. Wandering around and finding things was really fun for me. The world felt much more 'real' imo than a game like Skyrim (Skyrim was my first Bethesda game though and will always hold a special place, but W3 was at the time of playing it, was like a more fleshed out world like Skyrim and I adored it). I never felt too guided, but I guess we just had different experiences with that game.

Havent played all of those, but think about what made games like New Vegas, Planescape and more recently Disco Elysium great. It wasnt that they blew you away with some new game mechanics. They didnt blow the doors off with some new engine capability. None of the mechanics of any of those games was particularly original. It was all in how they gave it to you.

Even Disco Elysium, which is fantastic and has some incredibly original interpretations of these mechanics, is still basically a point and click adventure game.

The thing is, generally speaking nobody's favorite games did something completely original or new. It's all in how they presented it to you. Think of every classic game and its almost always in some ways a re-iteration of the mechanics of previous games. Even New Vegas didnt really do anything differently than Fallout 3, people just think they did it better.

Doom? Nowadays people could just say "Oh, a reskinned Wolfenstein? Looks like a mod".

Any classic RTS game? "Oh, still gathering resources? Tech trees?"

Something like Prey was a goddamn masterpiece, but if someone wanted to be dismissive they could just say "Oh, this was great when I played it before. When it called Bioshock".

Any survival horror game? "Oh, more large shadowy rooms and the occasional monster to break the atmosphere of tension BORING". Callisto Protocol literally looks like a Dead Space remake, but people are completely happy with that.

Party based RPG? "More experience. More gaining levels. More classes"

In the words of the Barenacked Ladies, it's all been done. All of it. Theres rarely anything new under the sun when it comes to these games except the packaging. But, more importantly, when people look at their favorite games, just like when they look at their favorite movie, they rarely break any molds. But they put it all together in a fantastic way.

This seems to go in line with what I was saying to the other guy earlier. Great games are benchmarks and show what works. I'm not asking for something brand new, my orginal comment was simply saying that this 15 minute gameplay reveal didn't show anything refreshing for me. I'd be happy to be wrong, and unlike a lot of folks I don't really have a cynical attitude towards Bethesda - it's just that if they are presenting these same mechanics in a new way that is exciting, I did not get that from the video. It just seemed like more of the same. But again, I'd be happy to be wrong. I want to like this game, I just didn't get that spark with this reveal.
 
lmao calm down boy. It's easy and not at all unfair to compare titles with differences in time. Smash Melee is still considered the superior title in its respective series and Ultimate was released 17 years later. Dark Souls 1 is still considered by most to be the best in its respective series and DS3 came out five years later. Planescape: Torment was basically the metric most Isometric RPGs were compared to until Disco Elysium. Fallout: New Vegas is still considered by many to be the best Fallout game and it came out in 2010. Mother 3 and Chrono Trigger are still used as benchmarks for what makes a good JRPG. Comparing games across time is not only fair, it's common and essential to understanding the mechanics of what makes a game good. Plus it's five years, I'm not comparing the original Wolfenstein to Halo's gunplay here. Also, when I play games the graphics are the least of my worries. Cyberpunk having a fresher coat of paint than Fallout did not effect my feelings towards either game.



My lack of hype has nothing to do with Bethesda's worldbuilding abilities.
Fallout New Vegas also isn't a Bethesda game.
Fallout 3 is better than it. New Vegas just had a better setting.
 
I like how you had to stitch together only the best parts of the best games of the last decade to create a game that literally does not exist and you compare it to Bethesda to prove that they fell off lol.

What? I'm not creating a game that doesn't exist and I wasn't saying Bethesda fell off. I highlighted how other studios have created open world RPGs that have strengths that surpass Bethesda's past games. Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim were ambitious games for their time and were stand out titles. Now other devs have caught up and have magic of their own. Bethesda haven't made a full sized game since Skyrim (I'm excluding Fallout 76), I was just saying that they would need to improve their approach to keep up with the pack.
 
Fallout New Vegas also isn't a Bethesda game.
Fallout 3 is better than it. New Vegas just had a better setting.

I didn't say it was a Bethesda game, I just said it is commonly viewed as the best in the series. I disagree about Fallout 3 being better, but opinions are subjective
 
I didn't say it was a Bethesda game, I just said it is commonly viewed as the best in the series. I disagree about Fallout 3 being better, but opinions are subjective
Wanna fight about it.
Morrowind is better than all Fallout games.
 
Sorry, I was having a hard time taking your Boomer ass seriously when you started referencing games that are 10-25 years old like DS1 and Chrono Trigger. We don't know how Starfield is going to play out, its 90% conjecture at this point.

lol I'm 23.

I want Starfield to be good, all I was saying in my orginal comment was that this gameplay reveal was underwhelming for me
 
Wanna fight about it.
Morrowind is better than all Fallout games.

Nothing to fight about man, we agree. Morrowind is one of my favorite games, shit is great. I've been dying for the Skywind mod to be finished so I can experience it again on an upgraded engine

I'll also add that Elder Scrolls > Fallout. The lore and wackiness of the games fascinates me much more
 
Nothing to fight about man, we agree. Morrowind is one of my favorite games, shit is great. I've been dying for the Skywind mod to be finished so I can experience it again on an upgraded engine

I'll also add that Elder Scrolls > Fallout. The lore and wackiness of the games fascinates me much more
I just been dying for a big Bethesda game. I played the shit outta fallout 4 even though it was meh. I just love their worlds and the ability to do basically whatever you want
 
lol I'm 23.

I want Starfield to be good, all I was saying in my orginal comment was that this gameplay reveal was underwhelming for me

They are holding most of the cards close to their chest. Its not a great sign but hopefully it works out. Todd Howard can't be trusted for shit though.
 
They are holding most of the cards close to their chest. Its not a great sign but hopefully it works out. Todd Howard can't be trusted for shit though.
Im not gonna lie, I dont keep up with all the hate trains. What exactly is it about Howard that makes people say he's a notorious liar? Is it just Fallout 76 stuff?
 
Im not gonna lie, I dont keep up with all the hate trains. What exactly is it about Howard that makes people say he's a notorious liar? Is it just Fallout 76 stuff?

All these game companies have a hype man. In Bethesda's case its Todd Howard and they always stretch the truth and outright lie about their upcoming titles. Blizzard got on stage and promised everyone Immortal would not be pay to win. They all do it.
 
All these game companies have a hype man. In Bethesda's case its Todd Howard and they always stretch the truth and outright lie about their upcoming titles. Blizzard got on stage and promised everyone Immortal would not be pay to win. They all do it.
Proof of Todd Howard lies pls. No one cares about Blizzard in a Bethesda thread.
 
Proof of Todd Howard lies pls. No one cares about Blizzard in a Bethesda thread.

I'm not here to do homework for you. Google "Todd Howard lies" and you will find threads all over the internet that stretch back for years. Or if reading is not your forte here is a little video for you.

 
Back
Top