I understand your position as well, I think we just need to have more moderate discussions and less going to extremes.
I didn’t address the writing and dialogue of the games because those are absolutely getting the short end of the stick in terms of what Bethesda is spending their resources on, but I found the systems that they put work into in Fallout 4 worthy enough of that time spent instead, and I think that says more about my preferences of what I like in a game than it really does about if Bethesda games are “better” or not this way.
I tend to prefer moment to moment gameplay and I found Fallout 4’s complex interlocking loop of wanting to build a settlement and modify my equipment, leading to tracking down certain materials and identifying where they may be logically found, to going there on foot, to looting the place systematically and engaging the enemies with the weapons and armor I modified and have personal attachment to, to managing my inventory with an investment and thought that never mattered as much in previous Bethesda titles, etc.
That whole loop and set of mechanics that play into each other added an incredible wealth of what I consider more moment to moment gameplay depth than just enjoying the wider possibilities of dialogue options in past Bethesda titles.
Even at its best good old days Bethesda writing doesn’t really compare to other games much more focused on writing (not going to mention New Vegas here because Obsidian is one of those devs better at writing than Bethesda). Bethesda games are always more than the sum of their parts.
My point about Pac Man is more that you don’t dislike the game’s lack of depth in certain areas just for its own sake, but because you’re comparing it to the studio’s past. When Pac Man Championship Edition and DX released, those
had favorable receptions because they took the arcadey roots of the franchise to their logical conclusion instead of swapping to more accessible gameplay trends as Bethesda did.
Not an invalid criticism, but not the only thing people should be mentioning in some of these comments as if that’s what makes the game “bad”.
And if you really think Starfield is going to be Fallout 4 with just a new coat of paint… That’s just disingenuous. There’s already more than enough changes in new mechanics and systems that didn’t exist in FO4 aside from the entire new universe and premise that’s more than simply a coat of paint.
I do hear what you’re saying though and I appreciate acknowledging some of the parts people skip over thinking about just to hit the low hanging fruit that have been brought up in every thread about a Bethesda game since time immemorial, adding nothing new to the discussion.
In my personal opinion, I think what irks me the most is that all of Bethesdas missteps are fairly easily fixable. They just seem to refuse to do so for some reason.
A bit more focus on the overall writing would go a long way and wouldn’t have to interfere with the gameplay in the least for people who don’t care. It’s an intricate part of world-building for those that do enjoy it and serves to drive the player forward. Also helps the ‘suspension of disbelief’ and all that.
They don’t need to reach the heights of the old CRPG makers of the 90’s. Just make sure your “Antagonist” has a proper response when you put in an option to ask him Why he’s doing what he’s doing, you know? Stuff like that. As well as maybe not retconning the timeline of the universe just to fit an inconsequential quest-line and then recon it again in the next game… Stick to the established lore.
Secondly: Better implementation of a few new/borrowed features, like base building, that might fit the game. Instead of haphazardly throwing everything currently trending at the wall in the hope that some of it sticks. Take one thing and do it proper, otherwise just don’t do it at all.
Then there’s the Radiant-Quests in F4. This is just a poor excuse so as to not bother with making actual side-quests. There is a limit to how far they can execute their motto of “Keep it simple, stupid.” This is one of those limits.
There’s probably a couple of other things I’m forgetting. But I feel these little changes would help elevate Beth’ just a bit out of the meme-pit they’re currently in.
I agree with everything you said. Though that’s certainly not everything, that’s a lot of the major issues that hold Bethesda games back from their potential.
I am actually glad that with Starfield radiant quests have been expanded to dynamically place quests in different locations. I think that, if it’s taken advantage of, will go a long way towards the potential criticism of “1,000 planets and nothing to do on most of them” that I see as a possible issue with their scope.
Bethesda continually evolves and changes their radiant system with each release, but from Skyrim to Fallout 4 we saw the felt effects of that system stagnate and become padding instead of adding dynamic experiences as its original intent.
And since I didn’t specifically mention the bugs in my other comments, Ive played plenty of non-bethesda open world games with plenty of bugs long after release, I feel they’re a part of the whole deal and I excuse most of them unless they truly cant be worked around (things like losing your companions or getting stuck on geometry if you’re a console player). I cease to excuse those bugs as soon as the gameplay requires things of you that the bugs prevent, such as the game being too janky to support the strict save system of vanilla FO4’s survival mode, which is inexcusable.
I also worry, though, about mods. Because of how many players use mods extensively in Bethesda games it becomes tricky to know which bugs are inherent, which are from poorly made mods, and which are from conflicting mods. It muddies the waters of really pinning down what’s going on. Just something that contributes to the bugginess of those games in a way that isn’t very calculable, unless you’re unmodded on console.
But if anything remotely as problematic as the survival mode stability is a factor in Starfield, I’d be much much less willing to forgive some bugs here and there. We’ll just have to see.
I understand your position as well, I think we just need to have more moderate discussions and less going to extremes.
I didn’t address the writing and dialogue of the games because those are absolutely getting the short end of the stick in terms of what Bethesda is spending their resources on, but I found the systems that they put work into in Fallout 4 worthy enough of that time spent instead, and I think that says more about my preferences of what I like in a game than it really does about if Bethesda games are “better” or not this way.
I tend to prefer moment to moment gameplay and I found Fallout 4’s complex interlocking loop of wanting to build a settlement and modify my equipment, leading to tracking down certain materials and identifying where they may be logically found, to going there on foot, to looting the place systematically and engaging the enemies with the weapons and armor I modified and have personal attachment to, to managing my inventory with an investment and thought that never mattered as much in previous Bethesda titles, etc.
That whole loop and set of mechanics that play into each other added an incredible wealth of what I consider more moment to moment gameplay depth than just enjoying the wider possibilities of dialogue options in past Bethesda titles.
Even at its best good old days Bethesda writing doesn’t really compare to other games much more focused on writing (not going to mention New Vegas here because Obsidian is one of those devs better at writing than Bethesda). Bethesda games are always more than the sum of their parts.
My point about Pac Man is more that you don’t dislike the game’s lack of depth in certain areas just for its own sake, but because you’re comparing it to the studio’s past. When Pac Man Championship Edition and DX released, those
had favorable receptions because they took the arcadey roots of the franchise to their logical conclusion instead of swapping to more accessible gameplay trends as Bethesda did.
Not an invalid criticism, but not the only thing people should be mentioning in some of these comments as if that’s what makes the game “bad”.
And if you really think Starfield is going to be Fallout 4 with just a new coat of paint… That’s just disingenuous. There’s already more than enough changes in new mechanics and systems that didn’t exist in FO4 aside from the entire new universe and premise that’s more than simply a coat of paint.
I do hear what you’re saying though and I appreciate acknowledging some of the parts people skip over thinking about just to hit the low hanging fruit that have been brought up in every thread about a Bethesda game since time immemorial, adding nothing new to the discussion.
That is all fair points.
In my personal opinion, I think what irks me the most is that all of Bethesdas missteps are fairly easily fixable. They just seem to refuse to do so for some reason.
A bit more focus on the overall writing would go a long way and wouldn’t have to interfere with the gameplay in the least for people who don’t care. It’s an intricate part of world-building for those that do enjoy it and serves to drive the player forward. Also helps the ‘suspension of disbelief’ and all that.
They don’t need to reach the heights of the old CRPG makers of the 90’s. Just make sure your “Antagonist” has a proper response when you put in an option to ask him Why he’s doing what he’s doing, you know? Stuff like that. As well as maybe not retconning the timeline of the universe just to fit an inconsequential quest-line and then recon it again in the next game… Stick to the established lore.
Secondly: Better implementation of a few new/borrowed features, like base building, that might fit the game. Instead of haphazardly throwing everything currently trending at the wall in the hope that some of it sticks. Take one thing and do it proper, otherwise just don’t do it at all.
Then there’s the Radiant-Quests in F4. This is just a poor excuse so as to not bother with making actual side-quests. There is a limit to how far they can execute their motto of “Keep it simple, stupid.” This is one of those limits.
There’s probably a couple of other things I’m forgetting. But I feel these little changes would help elevate Beth’ just a bit out of the meme-pit they’re currently in.
I agree with everything you said. Though that’s certainly not everything, that’s a lot of the major issues that hold Bethesda games back from their potential.
I am actually glad that with Starfield radiant quests have been expanded to dynamically place quests in different locations. I think that, if it’s taken advantage of, will go a long way towards the potential criticism of “1,000 planets and nothing to do on most of them” that I see as a possible issue with their scope.
Bethesda continually evolves and changes their radiant system with each release, but from Skyrim to Fallout 4 we saw the felt effects of that system stagnate and become padding instead of adding dynamic experiences as its original intent.
And since I didn’t specifically mention the bugs in my other comments, Ive played plenty of non-bethesda open world games with plenty of bugs long after release, I feel they’re a part of the whole deal and I excuse most of them unless they truly cant be worked around (things like losing your companions or getting stuck on geometry if you’re a console player). I cease to excuse those bugs as soon as the gameplay requires things of you that the bugs prevent, such as the game being too janky to support the strict save system of vanilla FO4’s survival mode, which is inexcusable.
I also worry, though, about mods. Because of how many players use mods extensively in Bethesda games it becomes tricky to know which bugs are inherent, which are from poorly made mods, and which are from conflicting mods. It muddies the waters of really pinning down what’s going on. Just something that contributes to the bugginess of those games in a way that isn’t very calculable, unless you’re unmodded on console.
But if anything remotely as problematic as the survival mode stability is a factor in Starfield, I’d be much much less willing to forgive some bugs here and there. We’ll just have to see.
So we’re pretty much in agreement about the state of Bethesdas games. We just stand on opposite sides of the reaction to it.
As corny as it sounds, I wish most of the arguments I’ve been in, about games, could have been this civil. It’s a nice change of pace.
I don’t think I have more to add, as such.
Thanks for the talk, mate. You have a nice day.