Starfield Dev's getting a little petty on social media

L

Lakados

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
10,470
https://tech4gamers.com/starfield-designer-respond-criticism/

It started with them answering Steam reviews with some hollow canned responses, and now they are Xcreting on X about how "Gamers don't understand development".

Gamers shouldn't have to understand development, we don't need to know or really want to know how the sausage is made, it just needs to taste good.
 
This kind of stuff just goes to show just how disconnected from reality Bethesda is. They are still building their games like its 2005 and can't understand why their formula isn't working anymore. Not to mention they made some very questionable design decisions with regard to Starfield.
 
Bethesda should really keep control of their mouth right now. Vitriol or general crappiness towards your customer base seldom works out for a dev. While we might not understand development, we know what's fun and what isn't. Does Bethesda still know?

That said, I expected FO4 in Space and got FO4 in space. Yeah, I am a little tired of the same recipe after so long, but I am still having fun.
 
Gorankar said:
Bethesda should really keep control of their mouth right now. Vitriol or general crappiness towards your customer base seldom works out for a dev. While we might not understand development, we know what's fun and what isn't. Does Bethesda still know?

That said, I expected FO4 in Space and got FO4 in space. Yeah, I am a little tired of the same recipe after so long, but I am still having fun.
Click to expand...

It wasn’t even FO4 in space though.
 
Makes me sad Bethesda is doing the new Blade game. We haven't gotten one in decades and now Bethesda will ruin that franchise like they did Wolfenstein.

wolfensteinyoungblood-blogroll-1564043372272_160w-1899361399.jpg
 
Dan_D said:
This kind of stuff just goes to show just how disconnected from reality Bethesda is. They are still building their games like its 2005 and can't understand why their formula isn't working anymore. Not to mention they made some very questionable design decisions with regard to Starfield.
Click to expand...
I wish they were building their games like it's 2005. People love Bethesda's earlier games even to this day. Starfield's issues were on another level altogether. Angry Joe does a sufficient job of burying this game, but I think there's even a lot more unsaid.
 
t1337duder said:
I wish they were building their games like it's 2005. People love Bethesda's earlier games even to this day. Starfield's issues were on another level altogether. Angry Joe does a sufficient job of burying this game, but I think there's even a lot more unsaid.
Click to expand...
That's nostalgia talking. Again, if you play a game released in 2005 in 2023 you adjust your expectations accordingly. This is certainly true if you played those games when they were new. Playing a game released in 2023 that's built like its still 2005 is a completely different matter.
 
What Bethesda did with Starfield is only exactly what they did with Fallout 4, Skyrim, Fallout 3, and Oblivion. And it wasn't good enough with those games, either. I've been saying this since Fallout 3.

Bethesda has always been a crappy, no-talent studio under Todd Howard, and the state of Bethesda wasting its IPs with an unqualified team, churning-out the same mundane and harebrained-design game after game, is a result of them having being praised unduly over the years - which affirmed what they were doing and encouraged them to not change. Todd doesn't have creative talent, or a mind for complexity, and he's probably mystified at why the same thing isn't working when it worked so many times before.

The idea of Todd Howard being a skilled designer is just an illusion, akin to people in Dragon Ball believing that Mr Satan is the strongest fighter in the world. All that Todd did is inherit a magnificent formula from the creators of TES (who were sidelined or forced out of the company), and then progressively remove more aspects from that formula with each successive game. When that formula met with improving industry graphics (though Bethesda graphics have always been behind the curve), and millions of people got into gaming for the first time with the Xbox console generation, people assumed that what they were seeing was something new and revolutionary, and assumed the responsibility for those things lay with Todd Howard and his version of Bethesda.

But Todd has only ever gutted the formula, to make it more dumbed-down and worse than before, while pairing that with abominable writing: Emil Pagliarulo is one of the worst writers in media and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a writing role. His writing is so harebrained that I'm honestly pretty sure it makes people dumber for reading it - and I couldn't finish Fallout 3 because of that. Todd and Emil are dunces and are a pair of Dunning-Kruger poster children, and Bethesda's hiring has probably centred around their judgments, leading to a relatively dumbed-down team, in general - with signs of that all throughout Bethesda's game design.

The Blistering Stupidity of Fallout 3, Part 1

What people are criticising about Bethesda now is exactly what Todd's Bethesda has always been - nothing's changed. And Bethesda Game Studios shouldn't have been praised for what they did over the years, which was lowering the bar ever further, but criticised for it.


I haven't watched this video yet, but the one this guy made for Red Dead Redemption 2 was good:


View: https://youtu.be/hS2emKDlGmE?si=uk5SynqMwL5QNZMA
 
Last edited:
t1337duder said:
I wish they were building their games like it's 2005. People love Bethesda's earlier games even to this day. Starfield's issues were on another level altogether. Angry Joe does a sufficient job of burying this game, but I think there's even a lot more unsaid.
Click to expand...
People love all the mods that have kept those games alive since 2005. But who is playing those games straight vanilla at this point.
 
Dan_D said:
This kind of stuff just goes to show just how disconnected from reality Bethesda is. They are still building their games like its 2005 and can't understand why their formula isn't working anymore. Not to mention they made some very questionable design decisions with regard to Starfield.
Click to expand...
If Bethesda was building their games like its 2005, then they wouldn't make bad games. Fallout 3 was awesome. New Vegas was awesome. Skyrim was awesome. I'd even go as far as say Fallout 4 was awesome, even though I know that's not a popular opinion. The point at which Bethesda started to make bad games was Fallout 76, which was like one game ago from Starfield. The problem with Starfield and many modern games is they like to waste your time. Delicieuxz video is basically pointing to this. I have played Baldur's Gate 3, and I can tell you that game doesn't waste your time. BG3 has lots of attention to detail with well voiced characters and a great story. BG3 isn't perfect, as there's glitches all over the place along with issues with Vulkan that they eventually fixed. Plus, I'm not a fan that everyone in the game is essentially a bisexual. Still game of the year, for good reason. There's a reason why every developer freaked out when BG3 was released, because their development team can't make a game with that level of quality. It's not the bugs, it's not the old fashion gameplay, or game engine. Starfield likes to waste your time with uninteresting crap.
 
I would say 90 perent of the people who reviewed The Day before are disconnected from reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TMCM
like this
schlitzbull said:
Makes me sad Bethesda is doing the new Blade game. We haven't gotten one in decades and now Bethesda will ruin that franchise like they did Wolfenstein.

View attachment 620189
Click to expand...
Arkane Lyon (Dishonored series) are developing Blade, with Bethesda as publisher. Wolfenstein was similarly developed by a different studio.

Whether or not I'm as excited in Arkane since Deathloop, idk (or Arkane Austin's massive blunder with Redfall) but it's separate than whatever Bethesda make as a studio.
 
Dan_D said:
This kind of stuff just goes to show just how disconnected from reality Bethesda is. They are still building their games like its 2005 and can't understand why their formula isn't working anymore. Not to mention they made some very questionable design decisions with regard to Starfield.
Click to expand...
To be honest, from my years of interacting with "developers" in general, most of them seem disconnected from anything an end user actually wants. "Design by Developers" comes to mind far too often these days,.
 
DukenukemX said:
If Bethesda was building their games like its 2005, then they wouldn't make bad games. Fallout 3 was awesome. New Vegas was awesome. Skyrim was awesome. I'd even go as far as say Fallout 4 was awesome, even though I know that's not a popular opinion. The point at which Bethesda started to make bad games was Fallout 76, which was like one game ago from Starfield. The problem with Starfield and many modern games is they like to waste your time. Delicieuxz video is basically pointing to this. I have played Baldur's Gate 3, and I can tell you that game doesn't waste your time. BG3 has lots of attention to detail with well voiced characters and a great story. BG3 isn't perfect, as there's glitches all over the place along with issues with Vulkan that they eventually fixed. Plus, I'm not a fan that everyone in the game is essentially a bisexual. Still game of the year, for good reason. There's a reason why every developer freaked out when BG3 was released, because their development team can't make a game with that level of quality. It's not the bugs, it's not the old fashion gameplay, or game engine. Starfield likes to waste your time with uninteresting crap.
Click to expand...
None of those games were awesome. Todd Howard is a fraud and they never made anything great under him.
 
Glad people are starting to wake up to what/who Todd Howard is. Because I've had more than a few arguments about Skyrim and Bethesda Fallout.

A lot of people are saying they're having fun in Starfield and dropping in 200 hours. Maybe they are, but every person discussing content in the games, the mechanics, and comparing them to Skyrim more or less tells me everything I need to know. Skyrim, but in space, but also worse, is a pretty bad indictment.

In the Starfield thread, a 7 hour breakdown of the game was posted, which I assume most people didn't watch. But when the running joke of the video was essentially that the game: "didn't have a design document" (which is true and verified by the devs) there's a reason why these games fall apart. Each of the team members don't know what the other is doing (no design document) and they're just tasked with making systems. And those systems when put together have varying degrees of cohesiveness.

A huge chunk of them is just whatever Todd and/or "game designers" (designer in quotes because he doesn't design so much as just "do stuff") like Emil Pagliarulo think sounds cool. But without a purpose or a goal Bethesda game's are just meandering stacks of mechanics. The RPG elements are nil. You're forced to do and play how they want you to play (don't kill that NPC, there is only one way to complete this quest, and your options are either do the thing or don't). Leveling sucks. Perks suck (some are massively broken, they don't tell you what they do, and some are straight up worthless whereas others are basically necessary for play). There's loading screens everywhere. And if you play the story you're basically doing glorified fetch quests and playing telephone with shooting mechanics from 1996. Which also may be rating the shooting mechanics too high as frankly Quake I is actually pretty good even in 2023.

However, people keep buying these games and giving raves so they will absolutely never change. Todd Howard literally doesn't care if/when he gets a 5/10 on Metacritic. He really believes that the only review that matters is sales. I suppose in that sense, he is the Adam Sandler of video games. Gamer's get what they deserve if they keep paying for the same game over and over. But I suppose if you like "Adam Sandler" and a sparse chuckle here and there is worth it enough for you to pay for and play, then Todd Howard has your calling card.
 
Last edited:
Dan_D said:
That's nostalgia talking. Again, if you play a game released in 2005 in 2023 you adjust your expectations accordingly. This is certainly true if you played those games when they were new. Playing a game released in 2023 that's built like its still 2005 is a completely different matter.
Click to expand...
With assumptions, you make an ass out of you & me. I've only recently gone back and played Fallout 3. It's a lot better than Starfield. Maybe you just have a stick up your ass when it comes to graphics? There's nothing inherently better about gameplay in modern games. If anything, I find most aspects of modern gaming deplorable. Big time-wasting grind, pretentious stories, shoehorned politics - I could go on.

Seriously dude - what is so amazing about Starfield that comes standard in modern RPG's that makes Fallout 3 or Morrowind unplayable? I'm genuinely curious. The games haven't changed, so maybe you have?'
 
vegeta535 said:
None of those games were awesome. Todd Howard is a fraud and they never made anything great under him.
Click to expand...
I've replayed those games recently and they still live up to my memories. They still suffer from Bethesda game rot, but the games are good. The problem with Fallout 4 is that it's less Fallout like than previous titles. The actions you make throughout the game don't effect the ending, plus no Karma system.
t1337duder said:
With assumptions, you make an ass out of you & me. I've only recently gone back and played Fallout 3. It's a lot better than Starfield. Maybe you just have a stick up your ass when it comes to graphics? There's nothing inherently better about gameplay in modern games. If anything, I find most aspects of modern gaming deplorable. Big time-wasting grind, pretentious stories, shoehorned politics - I could go on.

Seriously dude - what is so amazing about Starfield that comes standard in modern RPG's that makes Fallout 3 or Morrowind unplayable? I'm genuinely curious. The games haven't changed, so maybe you have?'
Click to expand...
Some people think that because a game is old, that it's outdated in game design or graphics. Games are timeless, and if it was good then, it will be good now. Bethesda games are known to get modded to the point where they make new games look outdated, so if graphics are an issue then just mod it. You could also just wait for old games to get remastered, like Super Mario RPG. Dunkey even points out how in Starfield it takes 12 hours to get to the "good part" of the game, while you can beat Super Mario RPG within 12 hours and it's a constant blast. Dan_D doesn't even wanna know how old that game is. The problem with Starfield like most modern games is they like to waste your time by padding out the game. That's the reason why people hate this game. The people who think it's required to play the first 12 hours before you see something good are the Bethesda fans who had too much copium.


View: https://youtu.be/e1ocMyd8dGk?t=125
 
If I had to guess part of the problem is Starfield is not a fantasy game. Fantasy games are the most popular, they cater to the broadest audience. People will give fantasy games passes more frequently because the average fantasy player has lower standards. When it comes to sci fi, post apocalyptic stuff is again the most popular, largely because it is the dumbest type of sci fi there is (games like Fallout). TES: The Shitty Elf could be designed the same way as Starfield but will inherently get higher views simply due to setting.

And I do like Fallout games. But I've noticed this trend for a long time.
 
schlitzbull said:
Makes me sad Bethesda is doing the new Blade game. We haven't gotten one in decades and now Bethesda will ruin that franchise like they did Wolfenstein.

View attachment 620189
Click to expand...
Blade is being made by Arkane Lyon. Wolfenstein Young Blood was made by MachineGames. Bethesda, first and foremost, is a publisher. Bethesda as a developer only works on the Fallout and TES series plus Starfield.
vegeta535 said:
None of those games were awesome. Todd Howard is a fraud and they never made anything great under him.
Click to expand...
Morrowind was made by Todd Howard. He was the lead designer on it. Last I checked nearly everybody considers Morrowind the peak of the series.
DukenukemX said:
I've replayed those games recently and they still live up to my memories. They still suffer from Bethesda game rot, but the games are good. The problem with Fallout 4 is that it's less Fallout like than previous titles. The actions you make throughout the game don't effect the ending, plus no Karma system.

Some people think that because a game is old, that it's outdated in game design or graphics. Games are timeless, and if it was good then, it will be good now. Bethesda games are known to get modded to the point where they make new games look outdated, so if graphics are an issue then just mod it. You could also just wait for old games to get remastered, like Super Mario RPG. Dunkey even points out how in Starfield it takes 12 hours to get to the "good part" of the game, while you can beat Super Mario RPG within 12 hours and it's a constant blast. Dan_D doesn't even wanna know how old that game is. The problem with Starfield like most modern games is they like to waste your time by padding out the game. That's the reason why people hate this game. The people who think it's required to play the first 12 hours before you see something good are the Bethesda fans who had too much copium.


View: https://youtu.be/e1ocMyd8dGk?t=125
Click to expand...

Did you replay them without any mods, though?
 
Armenius said:
Morrowind was made by Todd Howard. He was the lead designer on it. Last I checked nearly everybody considers Morrowind the peak of the series.
Click to expand...
All ES games bored me to tears. Oblivion was the only one I was ever able to make significant progress but I still gave up on it. FO were a bit better but I still had to force myself through to beat FO 3, 4 and NV.
 
Starfield is a game meant for Mature Adults while the other kids complain. It doesn't do anything for them because they have no attention span.
Or their ONN TV is too big for their eyes.
 
Armenius said:
Morrowind was made by Todd Howard. He was the lead designer on it. Last I checked nearly everybody considers Morrowind the peak of the series.
Click to expand...
Morrowind was actually horrible. It could completely brick your XBOX. That game shipped with more bugs than any game I've ever played. But the reviews never mentioned the state it shipped in. Bethesda is very good at controlling media and that's why everyone thinks their games are good when in reality they are pretty bad. I'm surprised it took this long for people to catch on but glad people have come to their senses especially considering there are many studios that can pull off the FPS genre better.
 
I still think Oblivion is/was the best TES game. Fallout 3's my favorite from that side of the house. Starfield is decent, but it's kinda lifeless. Nothing seems to have any personality. It's very much just the Bethesda formula in a different environment, but way more sterile and too many menus.
 
Comixbooks said:
Starfield is a game meant for Mature Adults while the other kids complain. It doesn't do anything for them because they have no attention span.
Or their ONN TV is too big for their eyes.
Click to expand...
I'm 42 and can't find anything that begs my attention span in starfield after the first 7 hours. Game feels redundant, limited, controlling, and like a scripted prison that tried to give you the illusion of choice but failed even in that attempt. So I go and watch my 85" Samsung QLED qn85b because I don't own a Walmart TV.
 
I feel that in many ways StarFields was much harder to do than the Skyrim-Oblivion.

One genre is filled with already well known lore and around us world, giants, dragons, orc, goblin, castle, horse, trees, rivers, with well known storyline to pick from and for both perfectly acceptable and accepted by the audience to be copier and reused.

Would Starfield reuse some StarTrek/Starwars planet-race-storyline it would be different than a fantastic mediaval game having Orcs like creature in them or elves, one would be reusing-copying an IP the other are full public domain lore-legend. MadMax-post apocalyptic world as well, you can use the well known world of 1964 and imagine what 60 years of rusting would do to it.

You have much more on an empty canvas to fill for an extra terrestrial interesting to travel on planet, that was never seen in anyway yet, everything is to be imagined.
 
Armenius said:
Morrowind was made by Todd Howard. He was the lead designer on it. Last I checked nearly everybody considers Morrowind the peak of the series.
Click to expand...
The later patches, and significant work from the modding community made it work, but for the first couple of months it was really rough.
But back then their responses were we hear you and were working on it, now their responses are “LA LA LA LA YOUR WRONG!!! LA LA LA LA” which doesn’t inspire me to pick Starfield up, because it’s in the wish list but it’s probably going to stay there for a long time at this rate.

But I’d that’s the case and Morrowind was the peak that’s been a 21 year decline, so senility would be expected to some degree I think.
 
Domingo said:
I still think Oblivion is/was the best TES game. Fallout 3's my favorite from that side of the house. Starfield is decent, but it's kinda lifeless. Nothing seems to have any personality. It's very much just the Bethesda formula in a different environment, but way more sterile and too many menus.
Click to expand...

As someone who enjoys the Bethesda formula, I actually don't have a problem with that at all. I guess stick to game styles that you personally enjoy.
 
DukenukemX said:
If Bethesda was building their games like its 2005, then they wouldn't make bad games. Fallout 3 was awesome. New Vegas was awesome. Skyrim was awesome. I'd even go as far as say Fallout 4 was awesome, even though I know that's not a popular opinion.
Click to expand...
I'm with you on all that, except I think Starfield is also awesome. There is nothing in F3, NV (different dev BTW), or Skyrim and F4 that would make them better than Starfield.

DukenukemX said:
The point at which Bethesda started to make bad games was Fallout 76, which was like one game ago from Starfield.
Click to expand...
Fallout 76 was the exception and it was ill conceived from the beginning. I don't think F76 has any bearing over Starfield's direction, if anything it made them re-focus on what they did right before F76.
DukenukemX said:
The problem with Starfield and many modern games is they like to waste your time. Delicieuxz video is basically pointing to this.
Click to expand...
I hate games that waste my time, but I don't think that applies to Starfield. It does not make me waste my time. Instead I want to waste my time in it, because I like doing stuff in it. And If I enjoy something it is not a waste of time. I have no comparison to BG3 as I have not tried it yet, but I'm 90% sure that I'd like it less than Starfield.
 
DukenukemX said:
If Bethesda was building their games like its 2005, then they wouldn't make bad games. Fallout 3 was awesome. New Vegas was awesome. Skyrim was awesome. I'd even go as far as say Fallout 4 was awesome, even though I know that's not a popular opinion. The point at which Bethesda started to make bad games was Fallout 76, which was like one game ago from Starfield. The problem with Starfield and many modern games is they like to waste your time. Delicieuxz video is basically pointing to this. I have played Baldur's Gate 3, and I can tell you that game doesn't waste your time. BG3 has lots of attention to detail with well voiced characters and a great story. BG3 isn't perfect, as there's glitches all over the place along with issues with Vulkan that they eventually fixed. Plus, I'm not a fan that everyone in the game is essentially a bisexual. Still game of the year, for good reason. There's a reason why every developer freaked out when BG3 was released, because their development team can't make a game with that level of quality. It's not the bugs, it's not the old fashion gameplay, or game engine.
Click to expand...
I didn't like any of those games. However, since Oblivion, Bethesda's design decisions have largely been the same. I wasn't blown away by that game either though I did like it well enough to finish the thing.
DukenukemX said:
Starfield likes to waste your time with uninteresting crap.
Click to expand...
That it does.
UnknownSouljer said:
Glad people are starting to wake up to what/who Todd Howard is. Because I've had more than a few arguments about Skyrim and Bethesda Fallout.

A lot of people are saying they're having fun in Starfield and dropping in 200 hours. Maybe they are, but every person discussing content in the games, the mechanics, and comparing them to Skyrim more or less tells me everything I need to know. Skyrim, but in space, but also worse, is a pretty bad indictment.
Click to expand...
I've probably got 200 hours in Starfield. I have it on GamePass so I can't tell exactly how long I've been playing it. That being said, I haven't touched it in weeks. Primarily, I enjoyed the ship builder. The rest of the game was just OK. It handles the illusion of choice poorly and once you've run through everything there is really no reason to replay it. The only choices that matter are your faction quests and even then, in most cases those choices don't matter much either. The only thing that changes is whether or not you get bitched at by all of your companions. The most meaningful choice is siding with UCSysDef or the Crimson Fleet. If you side with the latter then you make an enemy of UCSysDef forces wherever you go. That's about it.
t1337duder said:
With assumptions, you make an ass out of you & me. I've only recently gone back and played Fallout 3. It's a lot better than Starfield. Maybe you just have a stick up your ass when it comes to graphics?
Click to expand...
I'm a graphics whore. I've always been up front about that. However, that preference doesn't mean I can't necessarily play older games at all. I can go back and play earlier games if I played them when they were new. Nostalgia helps. If I try to play a 10 or 20 year old game today that I never played before I'll nope out of that in about 10 minutes. There is one exception to that and that's PayDay2 but I played that with friends which helps.
t1337duder said:
There's nothing inherently better about gameplay in modern games.
Click to expand...
That depends. If you look at Halo compared to Destiny 2, the latter feels a lot faster, more fluid and much tighter and just overall provides a better feel in terms of shooting, etc. Unfortunately, its hard to make those comparisons across different developers. Unreal Tournament 2004 and Quake 3 Arena were around during the same time frame and while I enjoyed both, they both felt very different. Mass Effect 1 is a clunky bitch compared to its successors. Even ME3 is clunky compared to Andromeda. (Combat being the only thing they really nailed in the game.)

Doom 3 felt outdated to me out of the gate. You don't have to reload your weapons, you just have an ammo supply that magically makes its way into the guns. It was a throw back to earlier Doom games that didn't have reload animations. When I go back and play a really old game and its built that way, it detracts from the experience for me.
t1337duder said:
If anything, I find most aspects of modern gaming deplorable. Big time-wasting grind, pretentious stories, shoehorned politics - I could go on.
Click to expand...
There are certain trends in gaming, especially multiplayer gaming that I don't like. The unlock systems in multiplayer games ruins them in my opinion. On that front, I'd agree that older games like Quake 3 Arena, UT2004 etc. are all vastly superior to modern ones. I'd even argue that BF2/BF2142 and BC2 are better than their modern counterparts for gameplay.

I also agree with you on the political aspects of modern Hollywood that have seeped into the gaming industry as a whole.
t1337duder said:
Seriously dude - what is so amazing about Starfield that comes standard in modern RPG's that makes Fallout 3 or Morrowind unplayable? I'm genuinely curious. The games haven't changed, so maybe you have?'
Click to expand...
Did I once anywhere say on this forum that Starfield is amazing? I'm pretty sure I didn't. I did enjoy my time in the game and especially enjoyed the ship builder. I didn't play Fallout 3 and didn't care for Morrowind. I never liked it. Hell, I've disliked every Bethesda RPG I've ever tried except for Oblivion and Starfield. Both of those are mediocre and the latter is extremely dated in design when compared to its contemporaries like Cyberpunk 2077.

While I enjoyed Starfield on GamePass, I don't think its worth full price for most people to be honest, I tried it for the ship builder then played the rest of the game and liked it more than I thought I would. That said, I'm very much aware of the game's many shortcomings including poor weapon balance, trash UI, stupid inventory management, and crap that utterly wastes your time. The loading screens and general world traversal is pretty awful. I've never liked the way Bethesda games were put together beyond Oblivion. When Oblivion came out, it was acceptable but nothing revolutionary. Bethesda games are largely still built the same way as Oblivion was. 15+ years later that's fucking sad.
DukenukemX said:
I've replayed those games recently and they still live up to my memories. They still suffer from Bethesda game rot, but the games are good. The problem with Fallout 4 is that it's less Fallout like than previous titles. The actions you make throughout the game don't effect the ending, plus no Karma system.
Click to expand...
The Mass Effect Trilogy lives up to my memories but there are things that date them such as the graphics. But that's OK. I think those memberberries never truly go away. But if I played Mass Effect 1 for the first time today, I don't think I would stick with it and appreciate it.
DukenukemX said:
Some people think that because a game is old, that it's outdated in game design or graphics.
Click to expand...
Yep. While not absolute, a game with dated graphics is just hard for me to get into. It's not impossible but it does make things difficult for me.
DukenukemX said:
Games are timeless, and if it was good then, it will be good now.
Click to expand...
On one hand, I have given examples of games that I think hold up fine in certain areas but I don't agree with this sentiment overall. I used to like KOTOR's gameplay but between the shit graphics and the turn based gameplay mechanics I get this "What the hell did I ever see in this game" feeling when I try and go back. It's like seeing a girl you had a crush on ten years later and she's a complete cunt and you can see her for what she always was.
DukenukemX said:
Bethesda games are known to get modded to the point where they make new games look outdated, so if graphics are an issue then just mod it.
Click to expand...
You do not always have the option to just mod a game when it looks like shit. With Bethesda games you generally do but this isn't always the case. No matter how hard you try, you can't make ME1 look like Andromeda or a modern game without going well beyond what the modding community has done for the game.
DukenukemX said:
You could also just wait for old games to get remastered, like Super Mario RPG. Dunkey even points out how in Starfield it takes 12 hours to get to the "good part" of the game, while you can beat Super Mario RPG within 12 hours and it's a constant blast. Dan_D doesn't even wanna know how old that game is.
Click to expand...
The remasters don't usually do it for me. The re-release of Quake I for example made no sense to me. Sure, it looks better now than it ever has but its a 20 year old game and still looks like one. Its turd polishing. Unless you can pull a Halo Anniversary type remaster, I don't think remasters are generally good enough.

I also agree that the idea of a game taking 12 hours to get good is horseshit. If I game doesn't grab me within the first hour, I'll stop playing it and do something else. I've tried a lot of games that fall into this category for me. Basically nearly every Bethesda game is like that for me.
DukenukemX said:
The problem with Starfield like most modern games is they like to waste your time by padding out the game. That's the reason why people hate this game. The people who think it's required to play the first 12 hours before you see something good are the Bethesda fans who had too much copium.
Click to expand...
I agree completely.
 
kac77 said:
Morrowind was actually horrible. It could completely brick your XBOX. That game shipped with more bugs than any game I've ever played. But the reviews never mentioned the state it shipped in. Bethesda is very good at controlling media and that's why everyone thinks their games are good when in reality they are pretty bad. I'm surprised it took this long for people to catch on but glad people have come to their senses especially considering there are many studios that can pull off the FPS genre better.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about "bricking your Xbox". What remember is there was some really weird stuff where some Xboxes shipped with an inferior disk reader, and others shipped with a Samsung (?) drive (which was much better?). I don't remember if it was Morrowind or not that this was an issue for. I played the crap out of it on Xbox. What did also happen is that when your save file got large enough, if literally would not load the save and wouldn't even play. This was inevitable, even if you made sure to close every door behind you and tried to pick up everything so you wouldn't leave any garbage lying around on a random floor in an inn. As was expected, my hundred or two hundred hour save at some point became completely unplayable. I think my Xbox did have an RMA at some point, but I'm not sure if it was due to Morrowind.


UnknownSouljer said:
A lot of people are saying they're having fun in Starfield and dropping in 200 hours.
Click to expand...
I think people also need to disconnect playtime with game rating and "fun". It's highly dependent on the person, but I could totally play a game without necessarily having a lot of fun in it, or thinking it's a good game. I would keep going just because I started it and I was invested in some manner. I would do it just because it's something to do that I already have going. People do this all the time in a lot of things, like getting into abusive relationships and then staying in them. I'm obviously not going to compare Starfield to that example (at least not nearly to that degree), but I think Asmongold put it best. He's dropped over 1000 hours into some games only to later think they were crap. With Starfield, I knew it wasn't great right from the getgo. I thought it sucked, and basically all of Todd's words that said otherwise came off as that padding and fluff you would put into your high school/college essay to fill out the word count the professor wanted. But I played it because I started it, and then wasted quite a few hours maxing out the powers (granted while watching films on another screen). Why? Because I like maxing shit. That was the only reason for a lot of my gameplay.

There's also the social aspect. People can say what they like and act like they're above the influence, but humans are societal. Fact is, it's a new title, it's extremely popular, and there is a huge community around it to discuss things with. That alone is a reason to play some games. I played European Truck Simulator with a friend last weekend. Personally I think it's almost equivalent to watching paint dry. I played some hours in it to buy a truck before I played with him, and then none after. Then we played it together. It was fun just because we were playing it together. The game itself I could probably not care any less for.

t1337duder said:
Seriously dude - what is so amazing about Starfield that comes standard in modern RPG's that makes Fallout 3 or Morrowind unplayable? I'm genuinely curious. The games haven't changed, so maybe you have?'
Click to expand...

I mean if I had to give you a counterpoint... it would probably just be graphics. Occasionally games also come with additional "levels" of complexity in interactions that weren't present in previous titles just due to technical limitations such as processing power. The game might just play more fluidly. But yeah, I find it really hard to go back and play older 3D titles, simply due to graphics and polish. For technical limitations... for instance, for open world stuff, the open worlds also tend to be smaller. You start looking at some of the seams and realizing where they had to cut corners because they had no other choices. I can't give you any concrete examples (maybe Ocarina of Time, which is technically open world?), it's just a feeling I've experienced when replaying older titles. Now, Morrowind still has a pretty large map, I think... so I think it'll mostly be graphics for it.

What's weird for me is that it doesn't extend to 2D games, though. For sidescrollers or say Stardew Valley/Terraria, I'll play them with no issues lol. Double standard but it be how it be.
LukeTbk said:
I feel that in many ways StarFields was much harder to do than the Skyrim-Oblivion.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a valid excuse, considering how long they had to develop it, to be honest. I think they sort of realized over time that they just have a loyal fan following that'll eat up any of the shit they put out, and that their jobs are consistent and cushy. In that sort of complacent environment, there isn't any real urge to innovate or do anything too different. I think the amount of backlash from the community has been too gradual and still isn't enough to get them to change anything. Which is sad, it's not like they need to do much.
 
Last edited:
Dan_D said:
Doom 3 felt outdated to me out of the gate. You don't have to reload your weapons, you just have an ammo supply that magically makes its way into the guns. It was a throw back to earlier Doom games that didn't have reload animations.
Click to expand...
Was just skimming the thread, but this is incorrect. You have to reload in Doom 3 and there are reload animations ;). And you very much need to be aware to how much firepower you have left before your next reload in Doom 3 or the game will kick your ass on higher difficulties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top