Why aren't there more Skyrim clones?

[KateMicucci]

Skyrim clones are the $100 bill laying on the sidewalk that nobody is picking up.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Skyrim clones are the $100 bill laying on the sidewalk that nobody is picking up.

No, people have moved on to Witcher 3 clones now.

 

[KateMicucci]

Witcher 3 clone is every ubisoft game. There aren't very many 1st person rpgs and all of the recent ones have been badly received.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Skyrim clones are the $100 bill laying on the sidewalk that nobody is picking up.

My theory is that they assume it would be too much effort when it's probably much less effort in many areas. Those cinematic games require an army of developers.
Something that's overlooked is how few developers Bethesda had when making Skyrim(and FO4) despite how often they're viewed as "big budget" games. Outer Worlds most likely had more employees working on it than FO4 did.

 

[Roguey]

Something that's overlooked is how few developers Bethesda had when making Skyrim(and FO4) despite how often they're viewed as "big budget" games. Outer Worlds most likely had more employees working on it than FO4 did.

Fallout 4 was more cinematic than previous Bethesda games and they also increased the team size to a little over 100 (compared to Skyrim's 90). Going by this team photo, TOW's core team was a little less than 70 which is pretty standard for Obsidian https://www.privatedivision.com/wp-...bsidianentertainment_team_final_1920x1080.jpg but they also contracted a lot of art to Virtuos in China and Vietnam and Exigent in India which roughly doubled the number, so sure, in total, a bit more.

 

[gurugeorge]

Skyrim clones are the $100 bill laying on the sidewalk that nobody is picking up.

Maybe because making them isn't as easy as people think (and Bethesda's engine, which everyone seems to piss and moan about, is more suitable for it than people think).

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

If we talk about some old Beth engines I actually liked Terminator Rampage & Future Shock/Skynet. I think Rampage used the First TES engine sort of (the dungeons anyway) and FS/SN used a daggerfall engine or something. I could have gotten into a more open world for Future Shock but dungeons (complexes) did seem rather simplistic. I believe mobs reset so you lose that feeling of completion. No one touches those games at all. A little future apoc dystopia is a nice change from fantasy dystopia (which is how I felt with every Elder Scrolls... a dystopia).

Mobygames Bethesda list 13 pages

I guess according to this Future Shock cane out just before Daggerfall. Map engines look similar imho.

 

[KateMicucci]

A little future apoc dystopia is a nice change from fantasy dystopia (which is how I felt with every Elder Scrolls... a dystopia).

The real world is dystopic enough already. I don't want any more ugliness and fakeness and gayness. I want to play games where the world is beautiful, the heroes are good, brave and attractive, and evil is defeated and punished.

 

[Poseidon00]

Maybe because making them isn't as easy as people think (and Bethesda's engine, which everyone seems to piss and moan about, is more suitable for it than people think).

You would think that same principle would apply to, like, MMO's and such, but that hasn't stopped most companies. What's the actual bottleneck to producing these things or making a new engine capable of it?

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

There are a lot of MMO corpses shambling around on the internet.

 

[gurugeorge]

If we talk about some old Beth engines I actually liked Terminator Rampage & Future Shock/Skynet.

I enjoyed Future Shock a lot, it was what put Bethesda on my radar. The only problem is that you needed a beast of a computer and a Matrox Millennium videocard (top of the line in those days) for the game to really shine (though you could get it to work with other videocards with some DOS tweakery IIRC).

I think the Gamebryo engine which has been the basic thing they've used and interated on since Oblivion (maybe even Morrowind?), is a different beast from those earlier games though.

 

[Silverfish]

Maybe because making them isn't as easy as people think (and Bethesda's engine, which everyone seems to piss and moan about, is more suitable for it than people think).

Outer Worlds is all the proof you need. The game is almost shockingly sterile and hands-off compared to the Bethesda Fallouts it's explicitly trying to get one over on.

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

Skyrim clones are the $100 bill laying on the sidewalk that nobody is picking up.

Maybe because making them isn't as easy as people think (and Bethesda's engine, which everyone seems to piss and moan about, is more suitable for it than people think).

I think it's dumber than this. You do get things that probably are some kind of response to Bethesda's style of game, but they're always a take on it, and these takes rarely tap into what people like about Bethesda's games.

Like, I'm sure if Ubisoft wanted something that was more a straight take on Elder Scrolls they could pretty easily do it. Get the Ubisoft Montreal guys to basically do some weird fantasy version of Assassin's Creed, do it with For Honor combat, bring back Black Flag ship battles, allow you to steal from shops, let the player build a house or town or whatever shit...would probably be pretty big, and it probably would be incredibly simple for them to do, but for whatever reason they're seemingly too stupid to do this. It actually makes zero sense that they haven't done this either, especially as people have grown tired of Assassin's Creed, (and they've seemingly grown bored with the Assassin's Creed part of Assassin's Creed) and they've moved into some kind of huge open world RPG like thing with the series.

Ubisoft is actually one of the stranger cases of this, because they could probably also take on Fallout pretty easily too with a Blood Dragon sequel that's got mainline Far Cry money put into it as opposed to being a little extra DLC type thing. Hell, they could basically do a Fallout where you actually get to drive and fly around in all different types of vehicles.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Ubisoft is so devoid of actual talent that they can't even meet the ultra low bar set by Bethesda. Bethesda makes bad everything (bad combat, bad writing, bad world design, bad graphics, etc), but at least it's handmade bad. Ubisoft does everything with shallow procedural generation, so somehow it's even worse (e.g. latest Ass Creed games or Far Cry games).

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

Ubisoft's shit plays better than anything Betheada has ever made. For all the stuff they get wrong, and the stupid shit they do, the actual gameplay of their games is better. So you've got something like Fallout 4. Now Fallout 4 isn't really even trying to be a RPG anymore. It's just a really lousy open world FPS game. Ubisoft could easily make a open world sci-fi first person shooter with better shooting, better companion characters, more interesting environmental interaction, a wider variety of ways to get around the world, better stealth, and more interesting systematic interactions between things like different factions and wildlife. The only thing Bethesda does better than them is environmental storytelling, but they seem to have gotten shit at that too.

 

[gurugeorge]

Ubisoft's shit plays better than anything Betheada has ever made. For all the stuff they get wrong, and the stupid shit they do, the actual gameplay of their games is better. So you've got something like Fallout 4. Now Fallout 4 isn't really even trying to be a RPG anymore. It's just a really lousy open world FPS game. Ubisoft could easily make a open world sci-fi first person shooter with better shooting, better companion characters, more interesting environmental interaction, a wider variety of ways to get around the world, better stealth, and more interesting systematic interactions between things like different factions and wildlife. The only thing Bethesda does better than them is environmental storytelling, but they seem to have gotten shit at that too.

Ubisoft quests are shit compared to Bethesda's. Say what you like about Bethesda's easy mode gameplay, their quests still have some quirk and soul to them. Or at least they did in 2015, the last time they made a game (FO4).

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Bethesda bad: Spam LMB attacks to get through 20 enemies to clear out 30th straight dungeon in order to complete some juvenile become a mandragon quest.

Ubisoft bad: Kill the enemy in mediocre combat, just to watch them respawn back in your face, run away (not from the enemy but from the respawning algorithm), face another 20 respawning camps as you run around completing an MMO style checklist in one of 400 provinces.


So basically, mind-numbingly juvenile and badly designed versus soul crushingly pointless. Pick your poison.

 

[Ismaul]

Ubisoft quests are shit compared to Bethesda's. Say what you like about Bethesda's easy mode gameplay, their quests still have some quirk and soul to them. Or at least they did in 2015, the last time they made a game (FO4).

Shiiieeeet, praising FO4 man.

Emil Palawhatevergino, from the Thief series, is the man to deepthroat for this. But between this and Ass Bleeds, I'd rather abstain.

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

Ubisoft's shit plays better than anything Betheada has ever made. For all the stuff they get wrong, and the stupid shit they do, the actual gameplay of their games is better. So you've got something like Fallout 4. Now Fallout 4 isn't really even trying to be a RPG anymore. It's just a really lousy open world FPS game. Ubisoft could easily make a open world sci-fi first person shooter with better shooting, better companion characters, more interesting environmental interaction, a wider variety of ways to get around the world, better stealth, and more interesting systematic interactions between things like different factions and wildlife. The only thing Bethesda does better than them is environmental storytelling, but they seem to have gotten shit at that too.

Ubisoft quests are shit compared to Bethesda's. Say what you like about Bethesda's easy mode gameplay, their quests still have some quirk and soul to them. Or at least they did in 2015, the last time they made a game (FO4).

The last time they had an interesting quest in a game was probably Oblivion, (so 15 years ago) and that game wasn't exactly packed to the brim with those either. Funnily Bethesda's most hated game, their last game, Fallout 76, is built entirely around their quest. The little I played of Skyrim the game just seemed to be a pretty straight forward hack and slash, and every quest was just an excuse to get into combat encounters between where you got the quest and where they sent you off to...Ubisoft Montreal could do that too.

This is all besides the point though. The point is if they so wished they could easily take on Betheada at their own game, (with both Elder Scrolls and Fallout) and offer more options to fuck about in the game's environment, and do so with far better gameplay than Bethesda does in their games. But they don't, for whatever reason they just don't do it. I could understand if there sales were comparable to Fallout and Elder Scrolls, but they aren't.

 

[Outlander]

Ubisoft's shit plays better than anything Betheada has ever made. For all the stuff they get wrong, and the stupid shit they do, the actual gameplay of their games is better. So you've got something like Fallout 4. Now Fallout 4 isn't really even trying to be a RPG anymore. It's just a really lousy open world FPS game. Ubisoft could easily make a open world sci-fi first person shooter with better shooting, better companion characters, more interesting environmental interaction, a wider variety of ways to get around the world, better stealth, and more interesting systematic interactions between things like different factions and wildlife. The only thing Bethesda does better than them is environmental storytelling, but they seem to have gotten shit at that too.

Ubisoft quests are shit compared to Bethesda's. Say what you like about Bethesda's easy mode gameplay, their quests still have some quirk and soul to them. Or at least they did in 2015, the last time they made a game (FO4).

The last time they had an interesting quest in a game was probably Oblivion, (so 15 years ago) and that game wasn't exactly packed to the brim with those either. Funnily Bethesda's most hated game, their last game, Fallout 76, is built entirely around their quest. The little I played of Skyrim the game just seemed to be a pretty straight forward hack and slash, and every quest was just an excuse to get into combat encounters between where you got the quest and where they sent you off to...Ubisoft Montreal could do that too.

This is all besides the point though. The point is if they so wished they could easily take on Betheada at their own game, (with both Elder Scrolls and Fallout) and offer more options to fuck about in the game's environment, and do so with far better gameplay than Bethesda does in their games. But they don't, for whatever reason they just don't do it. I could understand if there sales were comparable to Fallout and Elder Scrolls, but they aren't.

Ubishit's got their hands full with Far Cry, Ass Creed and whatever other crap they put out.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

Why does Ubi need to have a third party program on steam for games like MMX? Wth?! It is bad enough to have steam on a computer but another program or bullshit to allow me to play a single player game is bullox. I know i pirated mmx but never installed it and forgot what thumbdrive I have if on. I also bought it only to find out UBI wanted its nose up my arse. That shit annoys me. I don't give a flying fuck about others knowing how many minutes i played a game or whatever bullshit achievements i unlocked.

 

[Trojan_generic]

Why does Ubi need to have a third party program on steam for games like MMX? Wth?! It is bad enough to have steam on a computer but another program or bullshit to allow me to play a single player game is bullox. I know i pirated mmx but never installed it and forgot what thumbdrive I have if on. I also bought it only to find out UBI wanted its nose up my arse. That shit annoys me. I don't give a flying fuck about others knowing how many minutes i played a game or whatever bullshit achievements i unlocked.

MMX is not worth the hassle, that's for sure.

 

[cherry blossom]

If we talk about some old Beth engines I actually liked Terminator Rampage & Future Shock/Skynet.

I enjoyed Future Shock a lot, it was what put Bethesda on my radar. The only problem is that you needed a beast of a computer and a Matrox Millennium videocard (top of the line in those days) for the game to really shine (though you could get it to work with other videocards with some DOS tweakery IIRC).

Future Shock, SkyNET and Daggerfall (as well as Redguard and Battlespire) were all XEngine and they ran buttersmooth on my very average machine at the time. You were good as long as you played the games as they were supposed to: 320x240. The engine is a piss poor mess that can't handle anything above that with any efficiency.

 

[TedNugent]

Which company is a bigger shitpile, Bethesda or Ubisoft.

Better question is which mods do I need to install to a Bethesda game to make it into a fun game? Bethesda's strength has always been that they are completely mod-friendly, knowing full well that they are fuck-ups and creating happy sandboxes so that everyone is happy playing their games.

I am happy saying I will never play a base Bethesda game. Nor will I ever install Uplay out of principle. Bethesda is a better company strictly in respect for their player base. We can hate them all they want, but they won't hate us back.

 

[Alphons]

Bethesda is a better company strictly in respect for their player base.

Horse armour, releasing Skyrim again and again, Fallout 4 Season Pass price hike, paid mods, Fallout 76 being sold for $60 along with Fallout 1st subscription and in-game shop with items directly affecting gameplay.
Don't even get me started on the state of it at launch.