Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Eternity Avowed - Obsidian's first person action-RPG in the Pillars of Eternity setting - coming November 12th(?)

Lemming42

Arcane
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
6,491
Location
The Satellite Of Love
None really other than New Vegas or TOW, but remember that MW/Oblivion/Skyrim/Fo3/FNV/Fo4 (and now, I guess, Starfield) have been such prominent big-name games that they've been played and replayed to death years after their release and people have an overwhelming familiarity with them, especially the Fallouts and Skyrim. Skyrim's success really can't be overstated, any new game in this subgenre will be compared directly to it.

In the same way people were sick to death of "the Far Cry formula" by, like, FC5, even though "the Far Cry formula" at that point really just meant two games, FC3 and FC4. See also: people being sick of Call of Duty campaigns by CoD5 or whatever. TES and Bethesda Fallout are astronomically popular, people will judge them against themselves, and lack of innovation is obviously enormously damaging to them.

Keep giving people the same thing over and over and they get tired fast. Offer people a worse version of a game they played 13 years ago, which it looks like Avowed is set to be, and they'll be even less interested.
 

Lemming42

Arcane
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
6,491
Location
The Satellite Of Love
Again, look at Far Cry. People were sick of the formula after a small handful of games. Same for AssCreed and such.

Bethesda could release TES VI tomorrow and it could be on Skyrim's level of quality with all Skyrim's systems, but you know it wouldn't be received as well as Skyrim was 13 years ago. If it was very competently done (which Avowed obviously won't be) then it'd probably meet with reasonable reception and develop a solid fanbase but you can't just keep treading water over and over again and releasing reskins of the same game (on the same shitty engine, in Beth's case) and not have people start to question what the point is.
 

Wasteland

Educated
Joined
Aug 23, 2021
Messages
79
Does Starfield even count as an example of the Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim open-world "formula?" I haven't played it myself, and probably never will, but the criticism suggests that Starfield failed precisely because it doesn't feel like an open world, due to the frequency of loading screens, and the instantaneous fast travel, and the random tiles with a precisely predictable interval of POIs, and the lack of meaningful reasons to use your space ship, etc, etc.

I was initially interested in Starfield in large part because if it had followed Bethesda's traditional formula, it might've been a credible Star-Citizen killer. Instead, we got something that kinda-sorta looks like a bastardized Mass Effect, with Bioware-an open-world mechanics, and Bethesda-tier writing--the worst of all worlds. But hey, at least it has mediocre graphics and performs like shit.

On the subject of TOW, of course I predict failure, but not because the formula is dead. Obsidian is perfectly capable of screwing up even the best of formulae.

EDIT: lol I actually wrote "TOW" instead of "Avowed." That Freudian slip says it all, really.
 

Lemming42

Arcane
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
6,491
Location
The Satellite Of Love
Does Starfield even count as an example of the Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim open-world "formula?" I haven't played it myself, and probably never will, but the criticism suggests that Starfield failed precisely because it doesn't feel like an open world, due to the frequency of loading screens, and the instantaneous fast travel, and the random tiles with a precisely predictable interval of POIs, and the lack of meaningful reasons to use your space ship, etc, etc.
The big issue with it is that it's still the Skyrim type of game but hampered by the procgen stuff which means you're basically playing another TES/modern Fallout, except with a lot of repetitive empty busywork between the dungeons and quests that you actually want to play. It was an attempt at reinventing the formula that backfired pretty extraordinarily due to the usual Todd fuckups.
 

Wasteland

Educated
Joined
Aug 23, 2021
Messages
79
Does Starfield even count as an example of the Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim open-world "formula?" I haven't played it myself, and probably never will, but the criticism suggests that Starfield failed precisely because it doesn't feel like an open world, due to the frequency of loading screens, and the instantaneous fast travel, and the random tiles with a precisely predictable interval of POIs, and the lack of meaningful reasons to use your space ship, etc, etc.
The big issue with it is that it's still the Skyrim type of game but hampered by the procgen stuff which means you're basically playing another TES/modern Fallout, except with a lot of repetitive empty busywork between the dungeons and quests that you actually want to play. It was an attempt at reinventing the formula that backfired pretty extraordinarily due to the usual Todd fuckups.
Right, but if Starfield fucked up the formula, then you can't say that Starfield's failure proves that the formula is dead. It's just a bad game. Whether people are also sick to death of the formula, when well executed, remains an open question, one that I'm sure Obsidian's efforts will do little to resolve.
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,620
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Again, look at Far Cry. People were sick of the formula after a small handful of games. Same for AssCreed and such.

Bethesda could release TES VI tomorrow and it could be on Skyrim's level of quality with all Skyrim's systems, but you know it wouldn't be received as well as Skyrim was 13 years ago. If it was very competently done (which Avowed obviously won't be) then it'd probably meet with reasonable reception and develop a solid fanbase but you can't just keep treading water over and over again and releasing reskins of the same game (on the same shitty engine, in Beth's case) and not have people start to question what the point is.
The problem of Far Cry is that it is indeed a formula. Elder Scrolls, so far, has not been, at least not to the same degree (though Skyrim, ironically the most popular entry, is the most formulaic).

Elder Scrolls games have plenty of hand-designed quests, factions to join, lengthy questlines to go through, etc. Even in Fallout 4, which is filled with markers on the map and which has the weakest quests of any Bethesda game, you can explore areas and talk to NPCs and not know exactly what you're gonna get. Might get a fetch quest, or kill quest, or something more involved with a cool little story. Might enter a dungeon and find some cool mysteries and a unique weapon at the end. While the games follow a similar structure and design philosophy, they are not simply copypasted formula like the Far Cry or Ass Creed games.

In Ubisoft open world games, you know exactly what you're gonna get when you go to a place. Side quests are all forced into a mold: each one corresponds to a certain activity, no exceptions. There are the car race quests, there are the hunt animals quests, there are the kill a specific enemy quests. And unlike an Elder Scrolls game, where you enter town and talk to people and they give you quests and you don't know beforehand how the quest will play out, the Far Cry formula just slaps a bunch of symbols on the map (so you know exactly what kind of side quest you will find when you go there) and you go there and do the quest which plays out EXACTLY like all the other quests with the same symbol.

People aren't getting tired of Far Cry because they're open world games. People are getting tired of Far Cry because there are no surprises and all the content is complete copypasta. I know, because I played them, and even the weakest Bethesda games have more gameplay variety compared to that formula slop.

You don't need to innovate to make a good open world RPG. Just literally copy Morrowind or Skyrim in its mechanics and open world design, and then just design some really good and unique quests, a world that looks unique and has cool shit to discover, and you're golden. There's a reason mods for these old games get such a positive reception, just look at how popular both Tamriel Rebuilt and Beyond Skyrim are. They give you more Morrowind and more Skyrim... with high quality hand-crafted dungeons and questlines that aren't formulaic.

If someone were to make a modern Morrowind or Skyrim, it wouldn't need any unique new mechanics. All it needs is quality content that isn't just the same 5 quests copypasted over and over and over, and it would sell like hotcakes.

As much as I hate Oblivion for what it did to The Elder Scrolls and RPGs in general, its quest design is still praised to this day and I can totally see why. It had cool ideas and stories. There's a quest where you enter a painting! There's an assassintion quest where you enter a holiday house alongside other guests and have to kill them one by one without anyone noticing you're the killer! Sheogorath's daedric quest ends with him making literal cats and dogs rain from the sky! Those quests are fun and interesting because they're unique and memorable. There aren't 10 quests where you enter a painting. There is exactly one. In an Ubisoft game, there would be a dozen and they'd all be marked on your map with a painting symbol. If an Ubisoft game has one good idea, they're not content with using it once, they gotta copypaste it again and again and again until it stops being fun and turns into a chore.

People have even grown to like Cyberpunk 2077 despite its massive flaws, because it has cool quests with unique ideas and good writing. Same with Witcher 3, which has shit gameplay and systems, but great quest design.
People just want to explore a cool world and discover unique content in it. Get that right, and your game will be a hit. Do the Ubisoft way of copypasting all your best quests dozens of times, and people will grow tired of it. That's all it is about.
 
Vatnik Wumao
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
18,467
Location
大同
If someone were to make a modern Morrowind or Skyrim, it wouldn't need any unique new mechanics. All it needs is quality content that isn't just the same 5 quests copypasted over and over and over, and it would sell like hotcakes.
I only hope that TESVI won't include settlement nonsense akin to Fallout 4, but knowing Bethesda...
 

IHaveHugeNick

Arcane
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,870,344
Yeah Ubisoft openworld games have next to nothing in common with Skyrim formula, not sure where the comparision is even coming from. RDR2 would be much better analogy and it sold like hotcakes.
 

Lemming42

Arcane
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
6,491
Location
The Satellite Of Love
The comparison is just in that it doesn't take many games for people to start wondering why there's a lack of innovation going on in any given genre or series.
Just literally copy Morrowind or Skyrim in its mechanics and open world design
I don't believe this would work, if you mean it in the most literal sense. If you released a game with Morrowind (or Oblivion, or Skyrim) mechanics today, people would not unreasonably be wondering how it ever got to release. A 2024 release with Morrowind's stealth systems (or lack thereof) for example would just be met with total bewilderment.

I agree that MW -> Oblivion -> Skyrim represents a clear series of attempts at innovation and revisions of the mechanics and design philosophies. I argued in another thread recently that Oblivion's AI developments and rebuilt systems gave it a greater range of gameplay styles and imsim elements than MW and everyone shat on me, but I agree that Bethesda were able to keep things fresh in their heyday and exploit the model of gameplay as much as possible, culminating in the success of Skyrim. This success started to wane with Fo4, even though Fo4 on the surface offers a very similar experience to Skyrim. Fo4 is an interesting turning point for Bethesda because there's no reason it should have been received worse than Skyrim - yeah the quests are dogshit but so are Skyrim's.

Of course with Avowed there is, as far as I can tell, literally no attempt at building on the subgenre whatsoever. It's like they've set out to make a low-budget and less expansive version of Skyrim, in the same way TOW set out to make a low budget and less expansive version of FNV. I don't believe this will work in 2024, even if they do it well (which, of course, they won't).
Right, but if Starfield fucked up the formula, then you can't say that Starfield's failure proves that the formula is dead. It's just a bad game. Whether people are also sick to death of the formula, when well executed, remains an open question, one that I'm sure Obsidian's efforts will do little to resolve.
Again though, people were disappointed in Starfield because they were comparing it to existing games and noting the ways in which it failed by comparison. If Starfield had come out in 2006 instead of Oblivion, I think it would have met with a far more excitable reception, as the entire notion of a pretty-looking 3D world where you can explore in first person and superficially "do anything" (so long as "anything" essentially means "get into fights", as in TES) was still exciting to many people.

Part of the narrative that's emerged in the criticism of Starfield is that it represents stagnation for Bethesda; old ideas on an old engine. People who criticise Starfield will virtually always evaluate it as part of the Bethesda's legacy and contrast it with pre-existing games. Previous more well-received games like Oblivion didn't have to contend with this, regardless of the acutal quality of those games, because the whole Bethesda model was still new and exciting. If Bethesda were to release TES VI tomorrow and it was literally Oblivion, same mechanics and floaty combat and same exact quests, I really believe it'd get a Starfield-esque response.
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,620
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Starfield has worse writing, worse quests, and is less open (most planets are like "instances" where you can hit an invisible wall when exploring) compared to any of Bethesda's previous titles.

People aren't just getting tired of open world RPGs, or getting bored of games that deliver more of the same thing they liked in the past.
Starfield is just genuinely a worse game content-wise compared to Bethesda's older games.

It's why ELEX was relatively successful but its sequel, ELEX 2, bombed. ELEX is a good game using the Piranha Bytes formula, which fans are never getting tired of. ELEX 2 just didn't have the same quality of content, therefore it garnered mediocre user reviews on Steam and didn't sell as well.

This is all there is to it. It's about the quality of the content, rather than anything about the systems or the formula. RPGs as a genre, and that includes almost all of its subgenres (roguelikes and other proc-gen crap excepted), thrive on their content. If the content is bad, the game is bad. If their content is good, the game is good. Simple as.

Content includes things like quest design, writing, world design, level design, art direction, etc. That's what's most important for an RPG.
 

Tyranicon

A Memory of Eternity
Developer
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
6,802
Corpo game studios have been training gamers to consume mediocrity for years.

At this point, we're only a few steps away from AI-generated open world slop games.
 

IHaveHugeNick

Arcane
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,870,344
Core principle of TES and it's main appeal was taking off a random direction right after opening sequence and finding cool shit.

Starfield got rid of that so it bombed. Meanwhile, Witcher 3 was mechanically fucking woefull piece of shit of a game, but you can take off in a random direction and the quests are cool. It really isn't that complicated.
 

S.torch

Liturgist
Joined
Jan 4, 2019
Messages
1,009
The problem is Bethesda-style games require certain threshold of dedication and work. Why the guys at Ubisoft do copy-pasta quests? Because they're easy. You can do a gazillion quests using that method and say the game takes one gazillion hours to be completed. You can't do that with hand-made quests.

But megacorpos don't have dedicated people, they went FULL nepotism years ago. And now reality has come to demand her share. 100% nepotism and 0% competency.
 

Old Hans

Arcane
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Messages
1,710
The quests in Witcher 3 may be good, but wandering off in a random direction... I dunno. There's not much meaningful to explore.
to me witcher 3 was at its best when it was just the pre-release trailer full of promise and adventure. then you play it and its all "im looting crates for yarn"
 

Zed Duke of Banville

Dungeon Master
Patron
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
12,297
Does Starfield even count as an example of the Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim open-world "formula?" I haven't played it myself, and probably never will, but the criticism suggests that Starfield failed precisely because it doesn't feel like an open world, due to the frequency of loading screens, and the instantaneous fast travel, and the random tiles with a precisely predictable interval of POIs, and the lack of meaningful reasons to use your space ship, etc, etc.

I was initially interested in Starfield in large part because if it had followed Bethesda's traditional formula, it might've been a credible Star-Citizen killer. Instead, we got something that kinda-sorta looks like a bastardized Mass Effect, with Bioware-an open-world mechanics, and Bethesda-tier writing--the worst of all worlds. But hey, at least it has mediocre graphics and performs like shit.
Starfield was such a failure precisely because it deviated from the formula established by Bethesda Softworks with The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind in 2002. The game lacks a true "Open World", instead merely permitting the player to land in a procedurally-generated environment that might have as many as four types of alien animals (or could have zero) and nothing of interest other than the same copy-pasted landmarks and buildings. The procedurally-generated quests that might be stumbled across by randomly exploring will simply direct the player to a copy-pasted facility where the player engages in combat against the same space pirates fought in almost the entire game. They had already moved somewhat away from RPGs in the direction of looter-shooters with Fallout 4, but did so to a much greater extent with Starfield. Furthermore, the space elements of the game are completely lacking aside from spaceship combat, which is similar to but worse than that found in Spaceborne, a game created by a single person.

Even aside from the fundamental design flaws, Bethesda as a company is clearly incapable of producing even the same quality of content as found in Oblivion, Fallout 3, or Skyrim, much less returning to the standard of Morrowind, which drags Starfield down still further.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom