Are we sure Todd Howard was in charge when Bethesda created Morrowind?
Yes. Morrowind is a terrible RPG. It did had good graphics and a big open world, for the time. I quit remember playing that one. The first 10 hours was like wow, this is great. And then... wait, there is no gameplay.
Starfield is so much better as a RPG. Not that Starfield is good, it's that Morrowind (and oblivion and skyrim) are that bad.
But those early games had the eye candy and the big open world and pushed hardware to something that was groundbreaking. For the time.
Now indie devs can make a big open world or do it better like no man's sky. And then people start to notice how poor Bethesda games are gameplay wise.
For instance the best RPG made with a Bethesda engine is New Vegas. It's a game that makes so much more sense then anything Bethesda ever did.
Are we sure Todd Howard was in charge when Bethesda created Morrowind?
Yes. Morrowind is a terrible RPG. It did had good graphics and a big open world, for the time. I quit remember playing that one. The first 10 hours was like wow, this is great. And then... wait, there is no gameplay.
Starfield is so much better as a RPG. Not that Starfield is good, it's that Morrowind (and oblivion and skyrim) are that bad.
But those early games had the eye candy and the big open world and pushed hardware to something that was groundbreaking. For the time.
Now indie devs can make a big open world or do it better like no man's sky. And then people start to notice how poor Bethesda games are gameplay wise.
For instance the best RPG made with a Bethesda engine is New Vegas. It's a game that makes so much more sense then anything Bethesda ever did.
How is Starfield better as an RPG than Morrowind or Starfield? How is FONV's gameplay that much better than FO3? And what did you smoke to arrive to these conclusions?
boundle (thoughts on cracking AITD) wrote:
i guess thouth if without a legit key the installation was rolling back we are all fucking then
harry my nibba, almost everything in FONV is better than in FO3. Characters, quests, factions, story, writing, world building, etc. Only thing better IMO in FO3 is exploration (hard to explain).
But, gameplay? In what I consider gameplay there are differences for the better, yes (ironsights, specialized ammo and different armor system) but it's not a "much better" case. Or is he talking about RPG gameplay (and exactly wtf is that)?
boundle (thoughts on cracking AITD) wrote:
i guess thouth if without a legit key the installation was rolling back we are all fucking then
I think FO:NV really, really drags with the story. I only managed to finish it once, the second time i just quit out of absolute boredom. FO3 i've finished twice and had fun both times. Actually the exact same feeling i have for KOTOR 1 vs 2, KOTOR 1 i finished 2 times, found it awesome, great pacing etc, KOTOR 2, no.. not even close to finishing that one, and i've tried many times.
Also i hate much of the design in NV, wild west mixed with Post Apocalyptic, those stupid looking robots etc. It does have an edge over FO3 because how cool it sometimes is though with the factions and sometimes the story too. KOTOR 2 is also freaking cool on paper, has some dark characters that are perhaps more interesting than any in KOTOR 1, but once you get into the meat of it i will give it a 54:th or something try though, some time.
Edit: another thing i hate in FO3/NV (more in NV) is when i accidentally start a fucking DLC, those are sooooo fucking bad!
harry my nibba, almost everything in FONV is better than in FO3. Characters, quests, factions, story, writing, world building, etc. Only thing better IMO in FO3 is exploration (hard to explain).
But, gameplay? In what I consider gameplay there are differences for the better, yes (ironsights, specialized ammo and different armor system) but it's not a "much better" case. Or is he talking about RPG gameplay (and exactly wtf is that)?
Bethesda games are an empty box of nothingness.
No chalenging combat
No fun quests.
Poor story telling
No fun stuff to explore. Oh yeah, read a terminal with a story. That made my dungeon run worthwhile.
Level scaling implemented in a way that's makes character progression pointless. Same for loot. Also adding to the no chalange part.
But the older games were heavy on the hardware and provided bigger worlds and next gen graphics. That kind of innovation is a thing of the past. Even if Starfield was a next gen game, people still wouldn't be fooled by good graphics and a big open world. Standards for gaming are higher now.
Then Starfield. It's not pushing hardware or tech, it's even outdated. So people start to notice how bad Bethesda games actually are.
i think you forgot to tell what you are comparing to?
it's easy to say everything with game X is garbage and then don't mention what it should be, just some made-up dream game where everything is great? ok, but then it's not too interesting.
i'm not big on Bethesda myself these days, becoming more of a FROM software fanboy, though it's quite different and in some areas lacking in comparison.
No chalenging combat
No fun quests.
Poor story telling
No fun stuff to explore. Oh yeah, read a terminal with a story. That made my dungeon run worthwhile.
Level scaling implemented in a way that's makes character progression pointless. Same for loot. Also adding to the no chalange part.
But the older games were heavy on the hardware and provided bigger worlds and next gen graphics. That kind of innovation is a thing of the past. Even if Starfield was a next gen game, people still wouldn't be fooled by good graphics and a big open world. Standards for gaming are higher now.
Then Starfield. It's not pushing hardware or tech, it's even outdated. So people start to notice how bad Bethesda games actually are.
Only thing I heavily disagree is the bold part (except on Starfield, it's fucking horrid) 🤷
boundle (thoughts on cracking AITD) wrote:
i guess thouth if without a legit key the installation was rolling back we are all fucking then
I could never get into any Fallout game, but TES games always had some weird pull even when they are overall boring, with terrible story, mediocre combat where and you fight same 3 types of enemies. But personally always loved the exploration and atmosphere with all their stupid bugs.
The first planet you start on feels like every other dusty barren moon. Literally the thing you get to explore when you come out of the mine, only to realise how empty and pointless the game's exploration is. It doesn't get any better from there for planets.
But yeah, so exciting when you find more of them
It doesn't make sense that they can be this out of touch when they were the ones who made TES/FO games.
They absolutely know how they fucked up, but they can't admit it of course. Also many people gives them a pass. The game had many good reviews and it sold well from what i understand. what many of us predicted did happen though; that after people have spent more time with it they realize its kind of... shit.
Too much ambition for the tech & staff at hand. It isn't humanly possible to fill so many planets with interesting content.
Like I keep saying, if the scope and setting was more reasonable, like u only had the Solar system but bigger/more interesting maps on each planet/moon, and the asteroid belt for mining. It would feel more cohesive and there would be far less fast traveling as each planet/moon would have enough to keep u busy for a while.
I think this game was made to check a few boxes for sale presentations mainly. Not for the playing fun part.
Elder scrolls games only had one planet but more than enough cities to stay engaged, this game has a whole galazy and just 3 main small "cities" with barely anything going on.
The game is flawed on so many levels, many of the leadership team should be moved on and if Todd has that much control and bares responsibility he should go too. It should have been scrapped once it was clear the technology couldn't meet their goals.
- The actual game design / concept is at fault even before the engine limitations.
- Then we have the engine, 7 loading screens to move from 1 tiny barren area to the next, how did that go unnoticed?
- Piss poor flight, combat etc. which is always a risk when you try to merge two types of game in one (there is a reason StarCitizen has been in development 16 years or so).
- Other games do what they were trying to do 10x better and it would have been evident very early in development, why invest 7 years into an inferior game?
- They still haven't worked to improve lacklustre parts of their successful games. A compelling story, scripted cut-scenes and overall presentation for the mainline quest, AI and animations are 20+ years old. It was all just same same and completely uninspired.
Unpacking the flaws game design though. A good comparison is how Terraria's single procedural map gen works in favor of all its game-play elements and overall progression, representative of good game design with procedural generation. Then look at the clone Starbound which tried the InFinTE wORLds / procedural PlaY FoREver design. Yet ultimately it hurts the gamerplay loop - Why build on planet 1 when i can go to planet 2? why build on planet 3 when I spent 20 hours building on planet 2? Why even go to planet 2 or 3 when I can get all the things on the starting planet? To me these are indicators of poor game design, you shouldn't be wasting time on superfluous bland content just for the sake of content.
So Bethesda's (and most other games that try this) was to put 1 creature and tree between 7 loading screens on 900 worlds to scan. Yet this leads to tedium and boredom which only the most deluded Beth fanboy in denial will do beyond 1-2 hours. 1000 worlds was a major game design failure on Bethesda's part - some of these people are industry veterans with a lifetime making games and should know this wasn't going to work well. Then there are all the tacked on but worse features of other games, ship building, flight, combat etc.
All those distractions pull focus from the RPG side of the game - Dialog is boring, Story is boring, NPCs are boring, Quests are boring. I honestly think it's this was a spectacularly bad game, I would be nervous for TES6 if I'm Microsoft. If they are going to make Creation Engine games stick to it's strengths and improve on the weaknesses. No one playing Mass Effect thought that game needed a ship editor, ship combat and 1000 more worlds etc. in order to be immersed in a galactic space opera.
Outer Worlds was even better than this game, and it wasn't really that good a game either (end was incomplete and rushed out the door).
"it's not a bad lazy game, you guys just don't get it. Have fun doing the exact same chase the space orb in the same alien temple in a barren landscape for the 99999th time, for a wet fart of a useless -power- friend!"
Like Ampeg said there's way too much in this game that should've been obvious wasn't even remotely a good idea from the very start. This is a tedium simulator
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
i will give it a 54:th or something try though, some time.
