Starfield Pre-Release Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Quillon]

Why anyone into RPG's is even remotely interested in future games from Bethesda is beyond me.

Bethesda games are rich in gameplay systems + mods to screw around and have fun while ignoring the shit narrative design. And when narrative also gets done well you get GOAT FNV :D

Bethesda's gameplay systems suck too.

They are successful because no one makes similar games. KCD has fixed protagonist is way too story-focused, Piranha bytes games are in a niche of their own, Witcher 3 is a cinematic popamole with dead uninteractable world, Ubisoft's rpg-lites are boring checklist simulators.

At least KCD tries to add the sim systems, Obs just phoned it in; they've done just enough for TOW to only look like a Bethesda game without the depth and mainstream was none the wiser.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

What makes you think Starfield will even be moddable

He's probably assuming that Starfield uses another iteration of the game engine created for Morrowind, in similar fashion to Oblivion, Fallout 3 / New Vegas, Skyrim, and Fallout 4.

Although if Bethesda is attempting to create a new game engine for Starfield, this would perhaps explain the delays.

Todd said they're not going to ditch gamebryo in the near future.

Good.
A couple more games as broken as F76 and Bethsoft will finally die.

 

[Molina]

What makes you think Starfield will even be moddable

He's probably assuming that Starfield uses another iteration of the game engine created for Morrowind, in similar fashion to Oblivion, Fallout 3 / New Vegas, Skyrim, and Fallout 4.

Although if Bethesda is attempting to create a new game engine for Starfield, this would perhaps explain the delays.

Todd said they're not going to ditch gamebryo in the near future.

Good.
A couple more games as broken as F76 and Bethsoft will finally die.

TBF, I'm very curious about starfield. Many open world have shown that Bethesda formula is outdated. So how are they going to react? A return to the source of Daggerfall (or morrowind) or continue on their path? It's their first innovative franchise, so one wonders what's left of their originality. Knowing that if it's a flop, they're still playing big.

 

[Zombra]

Why anyone into RPG's is even remotely interested in future games from Bethesda is beyond me.

They are successful because no one makes similar games.
KCD has fixed protagonist is way too story-focused, Piranha bytes games are in a niche of their own, Witcher 3 is a cinematic popamole with dead uninteractable world, Ubisoft's rpg-lites are boring checklist simulators.

So what would you say are the magic ingredients that only Bethesda has?

 

[toro]

Why anyone into RPG's is even remotely interested in future games from Bethesda is beyond me.

They are successful because no one makes similar games.
KCD has fixed protagonist is way too story-focused, Piranha bytes games are in a niche of their own, Witcher 3 is a cinematic popamole with dead uninteractable world, Ubisoft's rpg-lites are boring checklist simulators.

So what would you say are the magic ingredients that only Bethesda has?

Boundless incompetence.

 

[Butter]

So what would you say are the magic ingredients that only Bethesda has?

Perception of total freedom, complete lack of urgency, complete lack of difficulty (this one is really important), world that revolves around the player, lack of meaningful character progression, the game never ends (this is also really important).

 

[undecaf]

So what would you say are the magic ingredients that only Bethesda has?

Bethesda is pretty lousy when it comes to almost all the essentials of hood RPG gameplay, but the thing they have is that their worlds feel like they are there for the player instead of being just a forced visual backdrop for what ever a studios (any studios’) wannabe writers excrete.

Truth be told, as much as they fuck their shit up, Bethie is pretty close to having a nigh perfect formula for a 1st person RPG (blobbers aside) with freedom and interactivity. It’s just that on all fields, except perhaps for their physical world building, they somehow always manage to stay below the ”bar” (no reactivity, no C&C, no urgency or drive for the narrative or the PC, uninteresting character systems, etc. Everybody knows how that list goes on...).

 

[luj1]

So what would you say are the magic ingredients that only Bethesda has?

Algorithmic industrial garbage

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

What makes you think Starfield will even be moddable

He's probably assuming that Starfield uses another iteration of the game engine created for Morrowind, in similar fashion to Oblivion, Fallout 3 / New Vegas, Skyrim, and Fallout 4.

Although if Bethesda is attempting to create a new game engine for Starfield, this would perhaps explain the delays.

Todd said they're not going to ditch gamebryo in the near future.

Him saying that makes me very interested to see how this game turns out, because I believe is wasn't long before he said this he said the reason Fallout doesn't have cars is because the engine can't handled them. Makes me want to see how this handles spaceships, because they sure have given the impression spaceships play a part in this.

 

[JDR13]

At least KCD tries to add the sim systems, Obs just phoned it in; they've done just enough for TOW to only look like a Bethesda game without the depth and mainstream was none the wiser.

Bethesda games suddenly have depth?

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

Bethesda games are rich in gameplay systems

I'm so confused by this statement.

 

[Wunderbar]

So what would you say are the magic ingredients that only Bethesda has?

you can screw around the world all you want without consequences, and it doesn't feel too formulaic like in ubisoft games.

 

[JDR13]

you can screw around the world all you want without consequences

Is that supposed to be a positive?

 

[Wunderbar]

you can screw around the world all you want without consequences

Is that supposed to be a positive?

a lot of people were turned off from KCD because it was so restrictive and railroaded (at least at the beginning).

 

[JDR13]

you can screw around the world all you want without consequences

Is that supposed to be a positive?

a lot of people were turned off from KCD because it was so restrictive and railroaded (at least at the beginning).

I meant in general. Not sure what KCD has to do with this.

 

[Wunderbar]

you can screw around the world all you want without consequences

Is that supposed to be a positive?

a lot of people were turned off from KCD because it was so restrictive and railroaded (at least at the beginning).

I meant in general. Not sure what KCD has to do with this.

there aren't all that many open world RPGs around here, and Bethesda's open world rpgs offer you:
- ability to create your own character (in Witcher 3 you're stuck with Geralt, in KCD - with Henry, in assassin's creed games - with whatever fixed assassin i've forgot the name of, etc)
- freedom of doing whatever you want without some story shoved down your throat (witcher 3, MEA, DAI and AC are highly cinematic, KCD is both cinematic and highly restrictive)
- a lot of sidequests and activities that don't feel formulaic (AC, DAI and MEA are a checklist simulators, Witcher 3 is dangerously close to being a checklist simulator with all these question marks on the map)
- a certain degree of simulation that doesn't feel annoying (AC, DAI and MEA lack simulationist aspect, and KCD is too hard for a typical bethesda fan)

In a typical Bethesda game you can travel around the world, enter almost any building/house, pick up all sorts of crap like bottles and brooms, examine it in your inventory, you can see NPCs walking from point A to B on the map, NPCs have their own inventories and stats, there is a day/night cycle, etc.

 

[JDR13]

you can screw around the world all you want without consequences

Is that supposed to be a positive?

a lot of people were turned off from KCD because it was so restrictive and railroaded (at least at the beginning).

I meant in general. Not sure what KCD has to do with this.

there aren't all that many open world RPGs around here, and Bethesda's open world rpgs offer you:
- ability to create your own character (in Witcher 3 you're stuck with Geralt, in KCD - with Henry, in assassin's creed games - with whatever fixed assassin i've forgot the name of, etc)
- freedom of doing whatever you want without some story shoved down your throat (witcher 3, MEA, DAI and AC are highly cinematic, KCD is both cinematic and highly restrictive)
- a lot of sidequests and activities that don't feel formulaic (AC, DAI and MEA are a checklist simulators, Witcher 3 is dangerously close to being a checklist simulator with all these question marks on the map)
- a certain degree of simulation that doesn't feel annoying (AC, DAI and MEA lack simulationist aspect, and KCD is too hard for a typical bethesda fan)

In a typical Bethesda game you can travel around the world, enter almost any building/house, pick up all sorts of crap like bottles and brooms, examine it in your inventory, you can see NPCs walking from point A to B on the map, NPCs have their own inventories and stats, there is a day/night cycle, etc.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure most people here are already familiar with what Bethesda offers. You're only summing up what we already know: that their games are mainstream open-world adventures with little depth or consequences.

 

[Quillon]

you can screw around the world all you want without consequences

Is that supposed to be a positive?

a lot of people were turned off from KCD because it was so restrictive and railroaded (at least at the beginning).

I meant in general. Not sure what KCD has to do with this.

there aren't all that many open world RPGs around here, and Bethesda's open world rpgs offer you:
- ability to create your own character (in Witcher 3 you're stuck with Geralt, in KCD - with Henry, in assassin's creed games - with whatever fixed assassin i've forgot the name of, etc)
- freedom of doing whatever you want without some story shoved down your throat (witcher 3, MEA, DAI and AC are highly cinematic, KCD is both cinematic and highly restrictive)
- a lot of sidequests and activities that don't feel formulaic (AC, DAI and MEA are a checklist simulators, Witcher 3 is dangerously close to being a checklist simulator with all these question marks on the map)
- a certain degree of simulation that doesn't feel annoying (AC, DAI and MEA lack simulationist aspect, and KCD is too hard for a typical bethesda fan)

In a typical Bethesda game you can travel around the world, enter almost any building/house, pick up all sorts of crap like bottles and brooms, examine it in your inventory, you can see NPCs walking from point A to B on the map, NPCs have their own inventories and stats, there is a day/night cycle, etc.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure most people here are already familiar with what Bethesda offers. You're only summing up what we already know: that their games are mainstream open-world adventures with little depth or consequences.

Just cos you don't find it compelling doesn't make the games shallow in terms of gameplay systems. There is a reason why their games are buggy and unstable besides the engine being old and that is "you can do a lot in this game" as GREAT Feargus Urquhart once said :D

 

[JDR13]

Just cos you don't find it compelling doesn't make the games shallow in terms of gameplay systems. There is a reason why their games are buggy and unstable besides the engine being old and that is "you can do a lot in this game" as GREAT Feargus Urquhart once said :D

Um...no. The gameplay systems feel shallow because they are. Their games have some aspects that are fun, but being deep isn't one of them.

 

[Wunderbar]

you can screw around the world all you want without consequences

Is that supposed to be a positive?

a lot of people were turned off from KCD because it was so restrictive and railroaded (at least at the beginning).

I meant in general. Not sure what KCD has to do with this.

there aren't all that many open world RPGs around here, and Bethesda's open world rpgs offer you:
- ability to create your own character (in Witcher 3 you're stuck with Geralt, in KCD - with Henry, in assassin's creed games - with whatever fixed assassin i've forgot the name of, etc)
- freedom of doing whatever you want without some story shoved down your throat (witcher 3, MEA, DAI and AC are highly cinematic, KCD is both cinematic and highly restrictive)
- a lot of sidequests and activities that don't feel formulaic (AC, DAI and MEA are a checklist simulators, Witcher 3 is dangerously close to being a checklist simulator with all these question marks on the map)
- a certain degree of simulation that doesn't feel annoying (AC, DAI and MEA lack simulationist aspect, and KCD is too hard for a typical bethesda fan)

In a typical Bethesda game you can travel around the world, enter almost any building/house, pick up all sorts of crap like bottles and brooms, examine it in your inventory, you can see NPCs walking from point A to B on the map, NPCs have their own inventories and stats, there is a day/night cycle, etc.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure most people here are already familiar with what Bethesda offers. You're only summing up what we already know: that their games are mainstream open-world adventures with little depth or consequences.

so?
I wasn't trying to explain why their games are deep or anything. Zombra asked why they games are popular and will potentially keep being popular.

 

[JDR13]

I wasn't trying to explain why their games are deep or anything.

Good, because their games aren't deep.

 

[AW8]

After the success of Fallout 4, Starfield felt like a slam dunk for Bethesda. After Fallout 76 and seeing how normies now talk about Bethesda with the same negativity they use when discussing Dumb and Dumber of Game of Thrones fame, I'm not so sure.
"TES in space" would be a solid recipe for sales, but Obsidian pretty much beat them to the punch with The Outer Worlds. If they gamble and try their hand at something un-Bethesda, like spaceship travel or... well, anything that's not a re-skinned TES, it could be a recipe for disaster.
Maybe they're just better off cancelling it and making TES VI instead, now that's a slam dunk considering how many people still play Skyrim. It is a bit weird that, with the exception of KCD, no one has really attempted a "Skyrim 2" yet.

 

[Quillon]

Just cos you don't find it compelling doesn't make the games shallow in terms of gameplay systems. There is a reason why their games are buggy and unstable besides the engine being old and that is "you can do a lot in this game" as GREAT Feargus Urquhart once said :D

Um...no. The gameplay systems feel shallow because they are. Their games have some aspects that are fun, but being deep isn't one of them.

They at least have systems, their games aren't static. Other games that look similar don't even bother implementing those immersive sim systems. We all know how they don't care about C&C and narrative consistency and blabla whatnot bethesda games are shit amirite? let's circkejerk. but there are reasons why they've been successful, must be making somethings right.

 

[JDR13]

Just cos you don't find it compelling doesn't make the games shallow in terms of gameplay systems. There is a reason why their games are buggy and unstable besides the engine being old and that is "you can do a lot in this game" as GREAT Feargus Urquhart once said :D

Um...no. The gameplay systems feel shallow because they are. Their games have some aspects that are fun, but being deep isn't one of them.

They at least have systems, their games aren't static. Other games that look similar don't even bother implementing those immersive sim systems. We all know how they don't care about C&C and narrative consistency and blabla whatnot bethesda games are shit amirite? let's circkejerk. but there are reasons why they've been successful, must be making somethings right.

Depends what you mean by other games that look similar. Like what? Bethesda games have their own look, so I'm not sure what you're comparing them to. There are other open-world games that do the immerive sim thing better though.

As far as being successful, duh. The more mainstream your games are, the better chance they have at that. It's no coincidence that each dumbed-down iteration of TES has sold better than the last.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

you can screw around the world all you want without consequences

Is that supposed to be a positive?

a lot of people were turned off from KCD because it was so restrictive and railroaded (at least at the beginning).

I meant in general. Not sure what KCD has to do with this.

there aren't all that many open world RPGs around here, and Bethesda's open world rpgs offer you:
- ability to create your own character (in Witcher 3 you're stuck with Geralt, in KCD - with Henry, in assassin's creed games - with whatever fixed assassin i've forgot the name of, etc)
- freedom of doing whatever you want without some story shoved down your throat (witcher 3, MEA, DAI and AC are highly cinematic, KCD is both cinematic and highly restrictive)
- a lot of sidequests and activities that don't feel formulaic (AC, DAI and MEA are a checklist simulators, Witcher 3 is dangerously close to being a checklist simulator with all these question marks on the map)
- a certain degree of simulation that doesn't feel annoying (AC, DAI and MEA lack simulationist aspect, and KCD is too hard for a typical bethesda fan)

In a typical Bethesda game you can travel around the world, enter almost any building/house, pick up all sorts of crap like bottles and brooms, examine it in your inventory, you can see NPCs walking from point A to B on the map, NPCs have their own inventories and stats, there is a day/night cycle, etc.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure most people here are already familiar with what Bethesda offers. You're only summing up what we already know: that their games are mainstream open-world adventures with little depth or consequences.

That is besides the point Wunderbar was making. Sandboxes thrive on freedom and player agency, so by restricting those you are contradicting the main design principle behind that type of experience. So while Betheda's game worlds ever since Morrowind aren't in any way well designed, at least they don't make the dumb mistake of trying to implement "linear" progression/story in an experience that's suposed to be non-linear, like KCD, W3 and AC do.

Just cos you don't find it compelling doesn't make the games shallow in terms of gameplay systems. There is a reason why their games are buggy and unstable besides the engine being old and that is "you can do a lot in this game" as GREAT Feargus Urquhart once said :D

Um...no. The gameplay systems feel shallow because they are. Their games have some aspects that are fun, but being deep isn't one of them.

They at least have systems, their games aren't static. Other games that look similar don't even bother implementing those immersive sim systems. We all know how they don't care about C&C and narrative consistency and blabla whatnot bethesda games are shit amirite? let's circkejerk. but there are reasons why they've been successful, must be making somethings right.

But those systems are shallow and most of the times outrigth broken.
What they've been doing rigth is simple. They have a recognizable brand and decent marketing team with enough money to make huge hype campaigns guaranteeing big profits and good reviews on launch day, and they offer a very casual experience that gives of an ilusion of depth to plebs and appeals to people that like LARPing (which unfortunately is the vast majority of people that play RPG's nowadays).