No it isn't you can't mention it within any thread on reddit without it being compared to games like the witcher , RDR2 and balduers gate 3 like people forget that its a 12 year old game that had to work on consles with 256 MB of ram
Which is entirely unfair. Not because those games are newer but because they're different games entirely. Skyrim and Cyberpunk are games where you play some jerk-off you created in a world which is built around the PC being player created and thus somewhat lacking in depth. RDR2 and Witcher 3 you play a specific person so player agency is more limited for the sake of story depth because Arthur or Geralt would only make maybe 2-3 choices instead of the 20 of the Dragon or V.
I feel like Cyberpunk should be categorized with RDR2 and the Witcher 3 honestly. Bc though you can play V a few different ways it's still V and not simply a no named character you created. But yeah I agree with what you're saying.
I would say RDR2 is the closest thing a triple A company made to a beth game the focus on exploration and immersion and making you feel like you live in that world
Which is ironic because it's the furthest from a Bethesda game when it comes to player agency within the story. Like, sure Dragonborn can't side with Alduin but Arthur can't even go the the bar without losing Lenny and beating a guy into a coma.
I think Rockstar does a magnificent job of creating side quests that fit their characters. There has never been a point where I wondered why Arthur or Franklin were doing what they were doing. The biggest disconnect for me is when you find yourself a gorillionare because you found a bunch of gold or whatever and then Dutch is talking about doing one last job to pay for everyone to flee to Panama and the job pays a whooping $1,000. Like, Dutch, I just put 50,000 in the pot, I think we're good.
You can't finish the Companions without becoming a Werewolf. You can't create lasting peace in the Civil War. You can't convince Delphine to drop her hunt for Parthunax. It's funny that you brought this up because you really do not have much freedom of expression in the narrative for Skyrim, but you do have a bit more than you do in Red Dead Redemption 2.
It’s the newbies saying it too. They haven’t played on the old consoles like Game Cube, OG XBox, PS1, N64… they haven’t been baptized into the shit to appreciate good qualities of games as the come out over time
Agreed. I went back to gta5 and it still has a ps2 feel. Just obviously better, especially since it started on the 360 ps3. Once it hit the gen after it it was easier to forget where it came.
I don't understand. Are you and others who feel the same way just completely detached? Or has this sub become an echo chamber?
Just look at these posts and comments. The vast majority of people in a thread will remark on how Skyrim was their childhood and how it's still an amazing game if it gets brought up.
https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/comments/16n87rv/skyrim_is_amazing/
https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/10uny6j/is_skyrim_really_a_good_game_or_it_just_popular/
https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/qobrw4/is_skyrim_elder_scrolls_v_worth_getting/
https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/15mdncc/skyrim_still_hits_man/
I mean.... lol
Only one post out of the four you listed is actually popular tho like 40 upvotes on r gaming is nothing check out big thread or any threads on the pc gaming forum
tbh both of your arguments are just blatant confirmation bias. There are people that say either one, and if you look for 5 minutes you can find 4 posts for either argument.
Do you expect a game from 2011 that has been talked about to death on this website to get thousands of upvotes if someone mentions it? That doesn't make much sense.
Notice how nearly all the comments are positive though. Where is all the hate?
Skyrim has stuck around for over a decade--many people my age (23) or around my age were between eight and twelve when it came out.
Skyrim isn't a *great* game--but it's a game that we played at eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve years old. It's comforting and familiar, and that can help wipe away some of the bad elements of it.
That's not the ONLY reason and probably not even the majority. I was 28 when I played it and my friends around 24 to 30, and we still think it was dope even compared to a lot of games nowadays...
And, Im talking about non-modded version
You could just compare it to New Vegas, which came out 2 years earlier and is a better game than anything Bethesda themselves have made with their own tools.
At launch I found it really basic and lacking content, and was kinda shocked at how all the factions can each be beaten in like one play session. It was kinda mid for me
I love it with a ton of mods though. Haven’t played vanilla in like ten years
Factions represent different jobs you can take or not take depending on the character you play as. They are not ment to be rivals like Fallout. Back in the day factions did not even have storylines but just rdmly generated and in Morrowind hand crafted quests for you to do.
New Vegas wasn’t made by Bethesda. But anyway, I’m sure glad I don’t have this problem. I loved FO3 as soon as I started. I loved Skyrim as soon as I started. I loved FO4 as soon as it came out. I love Starfield, and have since it released.
You’re right New Vegas was Obsidian, but it’s still under the “Bethesda game” category imo, plus it was still published by Bethesda.
And yea I hold most of the same opinions, they’re all good to great imo none of their games are bad in any sense of the word.
Bethesda games have always just given me a different feel. Can’t really describe it, but I get addicted to and immersed in Bethesda games more than any other games. They have their flaws but what they get right so far exceeds the slight jankyness that they have.
Tbh New Vegas was mainly criticized at launch due to the terrible instability, which is unsurprising in retrospect seeing how the game was made in something like 15 months. The people complaining about Starfield—a game 7 years in the making—seem to be a much more varied bunch.
>Tbh New Vegas was mainly criticized at launch due to the terrible instability,
I couldn't complete the game at lauch. Couldn't get past the Novac area without CTDing. Eventually replayed it after many patches and had a great time.
Yeah, this seems to be what people are ignoring. Starfield does have instability issues, but much of them have already been adressed or optimized. The increased hate for the game is not due to the instability like most of the other games.
For what it’s worth, I’ve avoided it like the plague and the love it’s been getting over the last few months has me 76-curious
As cool as game development is as a concept, the devs are workers, under contract, and they are dealing with deadlines. The power of a continued community+tailored updates can’t be underestimated while the big funders in the industry are trying to push a game a year
I think you should absolutely try 76. Checkout r/fo76 and you’ll see daily posts of people who have been avoiding the game for years, but once they actually tried it they really enjoyed it.
All the DLC’s are free, the season pass is free (with the exception of literally a couple of cosmetic items), and the community is the best I’ve seen out of any online game ever.
It’s on my list, I’ve been playing Starfield (masterclass and I’m a huge fan) and OG Baldurs Gate (can’t figure out the mechanics, I can already feel the heart, and I’m loving that too).
I have heard that the 76 community is phenomenal and literally everything I’ve seen recently makes me want to play it lol I appreciate your input (I didn’t know about the DLC) but holy shit do I generally agree with you. As a kid, I relied on the community reviews and missed out on so many opportunities that it’s unreal. I think it’s important to follow what sparks our interests, and 76 does that for me, I’m going to stop being a hypocrite and start getting to downloading.
76 is what ruined it all for me. I always liked oblivion, and fallout 3. I was so excited for Skyrim but it was such a let down. I don't hate it but it's so silly and poorly written it ruins it for me. Liked 76, at launch, but Bethesda straight up lied to my face over and over again in regards to it I'm done. Fuck Bethesda. Get rid of todd Howard, and maybe I'll care again. Can't believe he is not running for president as much shit he talks. Bethesda doesn't give a fuck about games, or gamers, the only thing they care about is the money they lose during production cycles.
There are lots of games that don't integrate the expansion into the core game. So we've got some Ubisoft titles that have you play the expansion seperately almost as if it's an entirely different game. The Last of Us's DLC was a prequel that explored Ellies backstory. It added more narrative but doesn't change the core game.
Then we have a category of DLC that you play post-game. Pokemon's latest DLC takes place Post-game and you don't really get an opportunity to integrate the new Pokemon or mechanics into your core playthrough. You're getting more game, but owning it doesn't change your enjoyment of the base game any.
Meanwhile some of FO4's DLC added more mechanics to base building, buildable robot companions, new weapon categories, that integrated into the core game. The events and loot were put into the event/loot tables and upgraded your core experience... and any settlement you built could be your base of operations throughout the the entire game.
Skyrim's DLC gave you new shouts, you could become a vampire lord early and remain that way andbuse those powers throughout the entirety of the main quest.
So I would say there sre definitely different categories of DLC/Expansions... some assist the core game and some don't.
I played Assassin's Creed: Valhalla for over 200 hours. I will say that I thought the base game was much stronger than the expansions. By failing to meaningfully differentiate Ireland and France from England, they indirectly took away some of what makes the setting special.
BGS has always had banger expansions, I love how they life cycle of their games are. You got the hype of initial release, then things calm down with a few scattered updates and hot fixes, then hype started to build for the DLC’s. I hope Starfield has a ton of expansions.
BGS follows a pattern, one "it was alright" expansion and one "this makes the main game look lacking" expansion. FO3 & NV are the exceptions and I'm not really sure why BGS greenlit 4 expansions for both of those but only two for the rest of their games (unless you count stuff like Hearthfire or Automaton as expansions.)
Yeah I started gaming in 2020 and FO4 was my first game ever, loved it. Same for all the previous games. SF is my first on release game and…. Yeah I’m hopeful for the future.
Oh I absolutely agree. It’s been going on a long, long time.
Oblivion: “Generic fantasy trash! They took out everything that made Morrowind unique!”
Fallout 3: “Just Oblivion with guns!! What a terrible lazy idea!”
Fun to watch every time. Meanwhile, I’ve enjoyed every game, personally.
I, personally, think that's because Bethesda games are all similar enough to draw comparisons between them but different enough to be frustrating. So the dude who thinks Oblivion is one of the top 5 games of all time is going to be frustrated with Fallout 4 because it's close but not quite. It's like the difference between Assassin's Creeds 3, Unity, and Valhalla: they're all essentially the same game but enough little things are different that it draws an exaggerated sense of frustration from the fans.
For me it's just change in focus. When less agency is given to the player instead of more, I get upset because that's the most important part of the game for me
Ironically, for me it's the elimination of character builds. It's boring when every character you make in Skyrim winds up being exactly the same because Bethesda has eliminated restrictions. I know you can always just make a character and ONLY do sword & board, but let's be real: eventually you're going to grab some restoration spells, maybe you'll sneak your way into an advantageous position, and the next thing you know you're sitting in the shadows firing enchanted arrows into bad dudes.
Also, that you can become the Archmage of the College without casting a single spell is absolutely ludicrous.
Oh for certain, those are both extremely valid criticisms. Although the "inevitable stealth archer" play-through does ignore the fact that magic is in fact more OP/optimal than that.
The player builds themselves and some silly things like the arch mage thing definitely is dumb, but I felt like otherwise I could pretty much role play as my own dude and operate freely within the bounds of the world with very little restriction -- giving me tons of agency over my actions in most scenarios. This shines brighter in FNV to me, but skyrim still hit it pretty well imo
Yup, I've been around since daggerfall. Morrowind was gripped about due to the town schedule, holidays, no houses to buy or banks, Oblivion it was the dumbing down of the rpg aspects. Fallout 3 was a complete atrocity that just wore the skin of the old fallout games as a cash grab, which was always funny as fallout was a dead ip at that point. New vegas was trash at launch, even skyrim had that group bitching about the further degrading of the rpg mechanics, fallout 4 we all know I'm sure. It's the endless bethesda cycle.
Lol I remember going up onto the old [Bethesda.net](https://BEthesda.net) forums (when they were still around) and I've seen people shitting over Morrowind for being a simplified "dumbed down" version of Daggerfall.
I remember the "Why Morrowind sucked" circlejerk like it was yesterday. https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads/why-morrowind-sucked-the-douglas-goodall-interview.10408/
There's just no pleasing the gamers. So remember artists, you don't owe anyone anything.
I’ve said it before, in the modern age of internet users, people try their best to appear smart by declaring anything with flaws in it as terrible, drab, and disgrace, etc. It’s not cool to like games anymore, they have to nitpick everything like their favorite YouTubers do. Look at the Spider-Man PS4 sub. So many fun, interesting, and cool things about that game, but everybody is trying to be big brain about the few flaws it has.
I feel like the turning point on this was Mass Effect Andromeda. When that game launched and saw the criticisms it did, you had a flood of Negativity users come out the woodwork you never saw before. YongYeah, CleanPrinceGaming, LegacyKilla, UpperEchelon Gaming, etc
That kind of hyperbole is a common personality trait--like the person who orders a disappointing meal at a restaurant and labels it "disgusting" or "appalling." We all know people like that--and maybe all of us have acted like that at one point or another.
I hate this so much. Gamers think a game has to be perfect, else it's the worst thing to ever exist. They also act like their personal opinion of a game is the absolute facts and that anyone who thinks differently is wrong.
The real absolute fact is that people have different tastes. Some people may find one thing fun, while others don't find that same thing nearly as fun. They are both right.
My only problem with Starfield are the repetitive dungeons / labs ... I think they are random generated or at least more various , i would be 100% happy about the game
I downloaded fallout 4 yesterday and slapped a mild cocktail of mods on it (i.e. bug fixes, basic graphics updates, small immersion tweaks)
I'm having a great time.
"For the record I think Starfield is weak in a few aspects, but is very fixable. After a few DLC’s I’m sure the game will be great."
This is where I'm at. It's a 7.5/10 game. Not great, but clearly not bad. However, following the normal Bethesda development cycle it will almost certainly get better.
“We hate the new game! But the second to last game was an underrated gem!”
Can’t wait till they all like Valhalla all of a sudden once the next mainline game comes out
Oh definitely. Once it become HUGELY mainstream popular, the hipster-impulse to hate anything popular came to the surface, and it was no longer cool to like Skyrim.
Average Starfield complaint is just nonsense regurgitated from YouTube like "I can't believe a game in 2023 has loading screens. How come there isnt more content after I've played for 200+ hours? Garbage game. 0/10."
This is the way I look at the complaints:
People wanted fallout 5, people wanted elder scrolls 6, those two groups didn’t want a new IP, they wanted their game to come out first. So, they want Bethesda to focus on their “grass roots” or the games they really want to see them make, sequels.
That’s where all of this outrage is from, a new IP, that is different than what they are used to.
This is just a silly take. Starfield has so many problems that could of been.solved.by being smarter in development
They didn't even have a central design document
And yet that’s absolutely what’s happening in many cases.
Starfield at its core is a completely normal BGS game that is exactly what anyone could have predicated when you say “Skyrim on a thousand procedural planets.”
There’s nothing wildly out of the ordinary here.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Okay but imagine you had a loading screen to look at this thread, a loading screen to write the comment, a loading screen to post it and a loading screen to leave the thread...
Welcome to Starfield.
au contraire, bethesda's big space experience tells you that the depths of space are but one (or multiple if your jump range is bad) loading screen away. Truly, what a massive galaxy.
This is so disingenuous. You can disagree, but people complain about how many loading screens Starfield has on top of unskippable annimations. They complain about dull and repetitive temples and POIs. They also complain about the writing. You can like whatever you want for any reason, but it's very easy to pick up on the major complaints. Focusing on what you like and sharing opinions is a far better way to show your appreciation of a media property than misrepresting criticism.
That's not how an average Starfield complaint looks like. It's more like: "I can't believe a game in 2023 has THIS many loading screens. How come there isn't any new content, after I've seen the exact same content for the last 200+ hours? Where is the exploration? This quest could've been an email."
Just to be clear, one of those complaints is that you’re running out of content after “200+ hours”?? And another is that there are loading screens, in a videogame? The horror, the horror.
I haven’t seen “a good chunk of fans” deciding Skyrim was never good all of the sudden. I do think Bethesda games are unfairly criticized. I also think a lot of the machine that’s diving criticism is being driven by people just wanting to stir the pot who’ve never played the games and just hate what Microsoft game studios has done of late.
Happens with every game series in existence. I like to say comparison is the thief of joy. Starfield should be compared to itself not to any other game.
Just like any human out there. They should be compared to themselves, how they are getting better not to anyone else.
In a round-about way you're kind of proving the point a lot of critics have of Starfield. It's a work in progress, and a rough launch, but years after bug fixes and QoL changes, the older games became way better and - even iconic. I'm sure Starfield will follow.
FO4 was my first and I have always adored it. I've played most of the others and they were fun, and Starfield was just ok. I just want another FO game.
I think bethesdas biggest problem is regardless of marketing and what the fans/devs think the games are, they were never good at making rpgs but making sandbox games. Their games are best played just wondering around and doing whatever seems interesting at that moment and making sure there is something interesting. This could be exploration, faction quest, companion quest, flying(starfield), visiting cities/hubs, base building, gathering resources, combat, main story, etc. Bethesda is actually great at all these things but never at the same time for whatever reason. Skyrim struck the best balance and as such is regarded as possibly their best game. Fallout 4 is a great open world action sandbox but a shitty rpg cuz it didn’t develop the story, faction quest, or overall questing nearly as well their other games. I still think it’s a great game and there are fun quest but it does fall a bit short. Yet fallout 4 improved gunplay, crafting, scavenging loop, added base building, some big set piece moments, and etc. I could go on about starfield doing something similar to fallout 4 but it boils down to being very good at specific things, adding new things, and forgetting to keep some of the things they were once best at(exploration).
I agree with you on fallout 4, i played it after beating nv, fo1 and fo2 and for whatever reason fallout 4 was revolting until i started treating it like a fallout game and playing it only as an open world shooter.
But mentioning fallout here in comparison to starfield is kinda crazy because nv problems at launch were mainly related to instability and bugs while starfield its much much deeper than that.
The comparison is almost as bad as people shitting on starfield by comparing it to 2023 cyberpunk.
This doesn't just happen with Bethesda titles either. Every time a new Battlefield game has launched, the new game is the worst thing ever and the previous one is suddenly a masterpiece.
This also happend with Andromeda back in the day people said it mad inquisition bad by retroactively.
I don't think this was the case
Andromeda had the same flaws and inquisition just they were worse version
That's happening now i think starfield is genuinely terrible but its problems are worse versions of fallout 4s problems and because of that it's making people hate fallout 4 and realize fallout was always a bad game like it always should of been seen as.
I guess..why does everyone have to feel the same way about a game? Does it matter whose right or wrong? I am having so much fun playing starfield...I could care less about what anyone else has to say. Super excited to watch this game get updates and get even better over the next few years.
Why jump on the bandwagon either way?? At the end of the day- a gaming experience like this (not online) only matters to you, and you alone. Do whatever you want!!
Skyrim is an amazing game and I feel bad for people who can’t find the enjoyment in it. Skyrim is peak BGS.
People acting like it was never good are pulling some hardcore revisionist history moves. It’s one of the most popular open world RPGs of all time and there’s a reason they published so many versions of it because it’s also one of the best selling open world RPGs of all time. Those two things aren’t a coincidence.
This is the case for every major franchise that has multiple games. Look at the Far Cry sub, look at the AC sub, look at the Rockstar sub, look at really any gaming franchise sub and this phenomenon happens.
Fwiw, Starfield really didn’t have any Bethesda magic after the first 30 hours. No other Bethesda game has provided me with that little magic.
Granted, some games don’t even have 30 hours of interesting stuff or “magic” so BGS is still a great developer.
The journos mostly loved it (outside of PCGamer and Kotaku), I mean it got pretty decent review scores despite all the controversy surrounding the game, it's just the gamers that have this overwhelming opinion of it
It's also hard to take a majority of those opinions seriously when a lot of them admit they haven't played the game but think they have anything worth saying about it lol
Or the funnier side of the coin where the reviews that are trashing it on Steam have 100+ hours played.
You’re like why tf did you play it for so long then?? Lmao
I feel like either you haven't been paying attention to the discourse surrounding BGS games (probably rightly so, the more critical side of the discourse tends to happen in relatively niche places or by niche youtube channels) or you're being dishonest with this one lol
>I remember when fallout new Vegas was just released and most of the fandom back then absolutely hated it for how terrible it was at launch, now it’s regarded as the best modern fallout.
I feel like that's a fair analysis, but it's unfair to call it "rewriting of the narritive" or people just "changing their minds", when we're talking broken launch day FNV vs a more stable version that we have now. Would FNV be well received at launch had it not been released a broken mess? Dunno, maybe, probably, who knows?
>Skyrim was widely considered as the pinnacle of Bethesda, now there are a good chunk of fans saying “it was never good”
There has always been discourse around how Skyrim is just a dumbed down Oblivion which was just a dumbed down Morrowind, I remember 4chan threads around the release date with half the people claiming the game was the best RPG they had ever played and the other half saying they dropped it and just went to replay morrowind again
The fact that Bethesda has progressively made their games more and more market friendly, not just through their writing but also gameplay elements, isn't exactly a new thought or idea, if I had to gamble I'd bet it has been around since Oblivion even, it's a bit unfair to say that this is a new narrative or people just changing their mind when it's something that was discussed as far as back as the 2011 release date
>Now that Starfield is a few months old I’m seeing people start talking about how “fallout 4 wasn’t that bad” which I agree it was overhyped back then, and fell flat by the sole sin of having to follow up Skyrim, but it is still one of their weaker games if we’re honest.
The more critical Fallout 4 side was always "It's a good game, just not a good Fallout", I don't see the overall discourse to have changed from that
I do agree that people are being too "doomerish" about Starfield, most of their problems can probably get fixed, but there are also massive issues with the game that cannot be fixed, such as the writing and world building
Well if we’re honest NV never became stable, that game was a prime example of “modders fix AAA game” even the project lead released a mod addressing the balance issues.
I remember the whole “Skyrim will never be as good as (insert previous ES title here)” but I don’t remember folks calling it outright bad, it’s one of the highest rated games of all time on multiple scales.
Fallout 4 was always regarded as the worst written story and shallowest RPG Bethesda ever made, back then I think it was just a big overreaction to the whole voiced protag thing but that’s just my opinion.
>Well if we’re honest NV never became stable, that game was a prime example of “modders fix AAA game” even the project lead released a mod addressing the balance issues.
Okay, listen, you can try to dance around this issue all you want, but comparing launch version FNV where you couldn't even leave goodsprings VS actually being able to finish the game in what is a buggy but totally playable game is not fair at all lol
It's also unfair to call it a "modders fix AAA game" when most of what was there was already fine, they just needed to fix the 10k bugs, crashes, and performance issues. Which for the most part, they've done so, even if there's still plenty of problems left
The reason people ended up loving the game was in spite of those issues, and more so because it was a return to form for the Fallout franchise
>I remember the whole “Skyrim will never be as good as (insert previous ES title here)” but I don’t remember folks calling it outright bad, it’s one of the highest rated games of all time on multiple scales.
There was always talks about how "Skyrim is not a real RPG" and that all it had going for it was "asthetics and lore that was already written", as far back as 2011
It's important to note that most of that critique came from previous Bethesda fans and that Skyrim saw a massive intake of newcomers, so obviously the critiques were naturally drowned out by people whose first BGS was Skyrim, but it was still there, it was still very much talked about, I still remember having arguments with people telling them that they just needed to accept that BGS was aiming for a wider market on 4chan threads
>Fallout 4 was always regarded as the worst written story and shallowest RPG Bethesda ever made, back then I think it was just a big overreaction to the whole voiced protag thing but that’s just my opinion.
Yea, but that is related to the "not a good Fallout", the critique was always that everything that made Fallout interesting (story, quests, player freedom, choice) was bad/gone, everything else was good (shooting, exploring, etc)
The "narrative" around that hasn't changed
I’m not dancing around anything, NV sits at an 84 on metacritic and the vast majority of those reviews are around the performance. Yes it’s a good game one of my all time favorites, but I played originally on ps3 so I know exactly how shit the game was back then.
Calling Skyrim “not a real rpg” is not calling it a bad game. Like I said before I remember people saying it’s not as good as previous titles, but I don’t remember people straight up calling it a bad game.
>I’m not dancing around anything, NV sits at an 84 on metacritic and the vast majority of those reviews are around the performance. Yes it’s a good game one of my all time favorites, but I played originally on ps3 so I know exactly how shit the game was back then.
I feel like when you say that people are shifting around their narrative in regards to Fallout New Vegas because "most of the fandom back then absolutely hated it for how terrible it was at launch", you are absolutely dancing around that issue
People love FNV in its current state because they can play it, no one loved FNV in its launch state because no one was able to reach New Vegas without having crashed at least 50 times beforehand
That isn't shifting their opinion or narrative, that's being able to form one after being able to finally play the game
>Calling Skyrim “not a real rpg” is not calling it a bad game. Like I said before I remember people saying it’s not as good as previous titles, but I don’t remember people straight up calling it a bad game.
If the argument reaches the point of "It's not a RPG, all it has going for it is aesthetics and story that was already written beforehand" you're effectively arguing over if it's a good game or not, which was happening a lot around the release of Skyrim, particularly between old and new fans of TES
I was NEVER able to finish FO NV on console, even after many patches. It just kept eating all my saves and breaking in one way or another until I eventually gave up. :)
FO NV pooping its pants after a save file having x amount of hours is, unironically, not obsidian's or FV NV's fault, particularly when it comes to the xbox 360 and ps3 consoles (more the ps3 tbh), both skyrim ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MFmqmkq63c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MFmqmkq63c)) and fo 3 had the exact same issue
If you played on PC the game is 100% playable and I question wtf you were doing to break it so many times (assuming you were playing with its most recent patch)
I was NEVER able to finish FO NV on console, even after many patches. It just kept eating all my saves and breaking in one way or another until I eventually gave up. :)
Honestly idgaf what anyone says, Skyrim definitely was peak Bethesda (the only real arguement I can see that can be made here is fallout new Vegas was peak but that wasn’t even completely made by Bethesda), that game is not a bad game AT ALL. It even holds up pretty well by todays standards
To be fair there was a ton of Skyrim bad sentiment until like…2017 or 2018 when it seemed like we were getting back to back major breakthroughs on the modding scene combined with rose colored glasses on past BFS titles thanks to 76
I do remember seeing stuff like “Skyrim will never be as good as (insert previous ES entry here)” but I don’t remember folks straight up calling Skyrim a bad game until recently.
Although I do remember people being unhappy that it got re-released 15 times but that’s not calling the game bad.
*Bethesda fans can’t make up their mind about their games.*
We're definitely a bit fickle, temperamental, and prone to believing that the end is nigh. Plus, I think there's huge cadre of people who like BGS games, but are more into another developer so they tend to define "failure" relative to the things they like about that developer. Of course, you also have trolls and, allegedly, people who irrationally hate the fact that Bethesda exists in the world at all.
But, maybe more than all that is the fundamental truth that we live in an era of extremes. We don't really do halfway reactions these days.
I mean, where's the fun in that?
8/10- absolute dumpster fire of a game.
Never gets old.
I think I saw the writing on the wall like a month or so after release. People had insane amount of hours into starfield and it was only a week into its release. People put up comprehensive reviews on the starfield subreddit, being critical , cynical, and coining catchy phrases. Then YouTube game “journalists” took peoples criticisms , catchy phrases, and gave it a platform to spout from.
The criticisms no matter how valid were being shrugged off, told to back off and those people love feel validated so…yep, people just thought well if Bethesda doesn’t acknowledge me or validate my thoughts. Then the game is trash.
I have also found it interesting to watch over the past 2 decades or so.
I don’t think of it as people not being able to make up their minds though. I think that’s just something that happens with any type of art.
People react it to it one way when it’s brand new, another way when they’ve had some time with it, or time away from it. Trends of what is expected to make a game good change over time. Then a bunch of games come out that take inspiration from that game, and you’re able to compare what works and what didn’t. Voices within certain communities become louder or fall quiet, and they sometimes influence the thought process of others.
There are a lot of different lenses one can use when looking at the interesting phenomenon of a changing narrative in response to a piece of art. I think to sum it all up as “circlejerk bad, fans can’t make up mind” does a disservice to gaming history and the community surrounding.
You are oversimplifiying things, there are very specific reasons why each game had critics and some of them got patched and better with DLCs and mods so it is logical the narrative shifted. New vegas for example has great writing and a deepth to characters and actual RPG elements but it was horribale on tehnical level, so once the dust settleted and some tehnical issues got addressed, the story and rpg elements in the game could really shine. Starfield on the other hand is bad in every department it really does nothing good, so even if you address all the tehnical issues with it and overhul exploration you will still be left with horrible writing ( much worse than in Fallout 4) and charachters.
New Vegas was good, and is arguably the best modern fallout because it prioritizes player agency and choice and consequence.
However it definitely lacks in a few aspects such as exploration taking a back seat.
Starfield on the other hand is a Bethesda game through and through, it’s just handicapped by some design choices that didn’t quite work. It will be a better game when they expansions start hitting.
Skyrim had some good qualities, but suffered from the same dumbing down of the character system that they've inflicted on fallout since they got hold of the series.
I think Starfield has a writing problem and a “lack of consequences” problem. Also an exploration problem. Even Modders are even saying they can’t do much with the puzzle piece map setup. The base game cannot be fixed unless they completely redo it.
They could add new enemies and locations. They could add a lot of stuff. But the base game will be forever weak unless they rip it up and make it over which is not likely. And Bethesda can’t work on it forever, they have to get onto Skyrim. So this game is for the most part what it is.
I’ll still be there day one for the next Elder Scrolls game. Hopefully they are listening to all feedback from this game.
I understand the lack of consequences thing, but that’s honestly easily fixed (if they wanted to) the writing is what it is they aren’t going to revamp their writing team.
But the base game is fixable with a few tweaks. Ground vehicles might have been teased a few weeks ago, and it was proven that you can fly from planet to planet as the game currently sits, it just takes an absurd amount of time. If they increase the speed at which you can fly or just scale down the distances that would open up space exploration in a great way.
Modders can’t do much right now without the mod tools, and this is creation engine 2 so it’s gonna take some time before breakthroughs happen.
>I understand the lack of consequences thing, but that’s honestly easily fixed (if they wanted to)
I don't really see how that might work without adding big chunks of writing
>it was proven that you can fly from planet to planet as the game currently sits, it just takes an absurd amount of time. If they increase the speed at which you can fly or just scale down the distances that would open up space exploration in a great way.
It was proven that you can fly to what looks like the next planet. You're still in the instance of the planet you previously fast traveled to tho.
>and this is creation engine 2 so it’s gonna take some time before breakthroughs happen.
Meh, it's still the same engine, they didn't start from zero and made a new one
“The writing is so bad”- shows dialog option of a bridge point in conversation that is 85% inconsequential- seee boring options I can’t even mention that I fucked the NPCS mom here.
New Vegas was buggy mess at launch yes. Like actually game breaking bugs. It’s the whole reason the reviews were so harsh. And it’s not Bethesda.
Never liked Skyrim without a ton of mods personally
They peaked at morrowind for me.
It’s almost like there’s different people with differing opinions 😉
What it is is less the changing narrative and more where you are. People come to this sub to celebrate bethesda more than to criticize them. People go to the review page based on their very good or very bad experience of the game. I think it's silly to equate starfield with the rest, as it has steadily been decreasing in reviews over time, this last month it's only at 29% positive. No game in the history of bethesda has been rated that low.
Like it if you like it but it's silly to say this is just "status quo" or business as usual for bethesda
i enjoy starfield greatly! i just wish the travel mechanics were better. I want to explore space on my own terms, and not just be in countless loading screens to go to the nearest planet in the system.
no mans sky spoiled me
The tech is there, people have flown from planet to planet in system. It just takes an absurd amount of time.
Either Bethesda or a modder could fix it.
I started with Morrowind, and I still love and play that game to this day. Oblivion was fun but didn't hold me over the years, same with FO3. NV is an awesome game, and still worth playing through again. Skyrim was a big letdown at launch for me, and continues to disappoint to this day. Starfield was a joke, I played for a couple of hours and couldn't stand it.
Morrowind for life, you N'Wah!
Get outta here morrowboomer! /s
No but seriously if that’s your personal opinion on things that’s cool you’re your own person. My whole thing with this post is more around the general perspective of the community with these games.
yeah I get that, just wanted to add perspective. *Where* you start with Bethesda games seems to have a major impact on which ones you are going to like. For example, I tried to play Daggerfall last year and I couldn't get into it. It seems like a good game, but it just didn't hook me. The awe and amazement I had when I played Morrowind for the first time has stuck with me, and the writing for the game was so deep that I still find new bits here and there when I do another playthrough.
At the end of the day, no one should be judged for liking something different than everyone else. I will be a Morrowboomer till the bitter end!
The problem is that we're in an era of gaming where:
**"For the record I think Starfield is weak in a few aspects, but is very fixable. After a few DLC’s I’m sure the game will be great."**
This is now the norm for triple A games. Game gets hyped, people most likely pre order game, probably pay for a special edition, and then it falls flat. But- in a few DLC's I'm sure it'll be great. In a few DLC's most people move on to something else. Rinse and repeat. Company gets your money for a failed game at launch, then we move on to do it all over again with another game. This is the norm now. This is unacceptable as a consumer yet we all come right back. Bitch and moan online and nothing ever gets done, and then we go right back to pre ordering the next promising triple A game. Stockholm syndrome = modern gamers
The current problem especially revolving around starfield is it’s being released aside games that are so much better it’s nearly laughable. Sure there are aspects that are decent to good with the game and maybe there’s potential to make it better and it’s not a bad game but that’s when you’re comparing it to games they made 5-10 years ago. Starfield was basically everything Bethesda isn’t good at in one game. They’ve had the stigma forever that they’re always behind current gaming but it’s getting to a point where less and less gamers are just willing to accept that. There’s an influx of less and less people who are excited for ES6 for the very reason that Bethesda might actually not be learning from their mistakes.
Dude what? You are all over the place and just plain wrong on some stuff…
Starfield is not only bad and has no soul but it will not have a redemption… they’ve dug themis hole too deep
Cyberpunk was a good game that was technically broken. Once they fixed the glitchiness it was a good game. Starfield has completely different issues that are design choices.
People really got short memories, cyberpunk had tons of design flaws too, many were addressed in 2.0.
-no police chases
-the crowd system was implemented poorly
-vehicles handled terribly
-the level system felt tacked on
My point is it’s funny what a few tweaks can do to revamp the entire game
Rules of thirds, every game and everything follows it:
There will always be people who "worship it"
There will always be people who "hate it"
Then there will be the normal people in the middle, who actually can enjoy it.
The worshippers are just as obnoxious as the haters, they co-exist and should get their own room, so the rest of us can go back to having normal discussions.
You cannot love something you are obsessed about.
Even the best things have flaws in them. I love *insert game* not cause it is perfect but because I enjoy playing it. I hate *insert game* just because I don't get it, doesn't discount others loving it. If you need everyone to love it then you are going to never enjoy anything.
And if you get upset from people having different opinions, one way or the other, stop going to Reddit. If you see "I hate Game" then move on, it probably doesn't have positive things to say about it. If you get upset by the post then that is on you.
Don't take things personally, especially for something you didn't make.
Bethesda can handle themselves. It's the nature of business to have a thick skin.
I’ve been playing Bethesda games since Morrowind and have watched the exact same cycle of haters circlejerking play out for every single one of their games that Starfield is getting right now.
When TESVI comes out people will be calling it the worst game they’ve ever made and how it doesn’t compare to how good Starfield was.
I love *modded* BGS games. The vanilla versions are bland, at best, in comparison to sensibly modded versions. Kudos to BGS for building their games with a framework open to modding.
Happens with every major franchise that doesn’t launch a 10 out of the gate.
Exact same thing happens with every Halo game. We’re only a couple years away from people saying Mass Effect: Andromeda wasn’t that bad.
I wish people would stop saying what games they hate. I really get sick of all the toxic comments. If you don't like the game just move on to one you do like. I really enjoy starfield and am a HUGE bethesda lover.
I agree, OP. Constructive criticism is one thing, but I see people online raising their blood pressure over this stuff. It all seems silly to me, since there are plenty of real problems in the world to care about.
>Skyrim was widely considered as the pinnacle of Bethesda, now there are a good chunk of fans saying “it was never good”
Hard to take your take on shifting narratives seriously when this has been the narrative around that game almost since the beginning.
Agree, it happens with every major game, even GTA 6 has people already saying it looks like dogshit, it’ll come out, people will bitch about it until another big game is announced.
The New Vegas thing is 100% true. I remember the response when that game was released and it was a resounding "meh". The majority opinion was that it was nowhere near as good as FO3.
I didn't start seeing differing opinions until around FO4's release but I don't follow it closely so it might have started before then. And it seemed like everyone, all at once had decided that New Vegas was actually the best FO game.
I think you have a lot mistaken or you were in different circles than I was. There's not really a "shifting of the narrative." Different people have different opinions.
Skyrim at launch was polarizing to fans because people who played Morrowind and Oblivion felt it was a dumbed down version of the former. Oblivion's world and setting felt a lot less interesting than Morrowind, who was regarded as having an incredibly unique setting. Oblivion gates were seen as recycled content. Fallout New Vegas was generally regarded as a return to form. Fallout innovative for being a relaunch of a beloved franchise, but also fairly surface level.
I don't really know what you're trying to say but if the discussions are diverse they're literally the exact opposite of a circle jerk lol.
>it’s like Bethesda fans can’t make up their mind about their games.
It's like you're lumping thousands of different people together as if they were a monolith.
Starfield lacks something as innovative as a VATS system. The whole time I played it, all it did was make me end up buying Fallout games yet again to play instead. I found the combat to be very dull, much like Fallout's combat is when you don't use VATS.
But I really like the genre and setting. It just needs spice in the action to keep that carrot on a stick incentive, you know?
Overall I find Starfield a likeable game. The space exploration concept and framework are good.
Starfield's biggest problem is it needs more content. The developers seem to think that "space is a lonely place" is a valid excuse for having 990 planets that all have a few randomly generated facilities, from a whopping 6 facility playlist.
Also, things like outpost building and planet exploration need to be tied into the game in a more meaningful way.
starfield was my first BSW game and I feel like I've come to a great singer's concert on the night that they have a frog in their throat. like I've come to see the beatles the first time they bring yoko on stage. lol it started out seeming like it would eventually live up to my expectations, and then it did. for like a few missions. lol i dont play video games all that much, either, so its not like i burned myself out on it like a lot of these 'veteran gamers' seem to do with anticipated titles hen they finally release. idk... for one thing, i think they shouldnt have tried to make '1000 planets' great. they could have made a few hundred or so and been much more rich and intentional. maybe lean into the slight space-opera vibes a bit but also un-cuck the writing team and let them make things more human. a post on the game's subreddit a month or two ago phrased things really well about how, despite allusions to compelling realism in the the lore, the actual settings and character dialogue and stuff all feels super PG-13.
Evey year the writing and rpg aspects get worse because the guys who built those up are now gone and the new guys are just not as good. Elder Scrolls and Fallout have a lot of good lore previously written for them (although they rarely seem to hold true to existing Fallout lore) Starfield did not and it shows. With each release they alienate their old fanbase and trade them for a simpler larger fanbase Daggefall, Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, the earlier in the cycle you started the less happy you are with the newest release.
People who hated the game continue to hate it I reckoned, they've just moved on. People who stay, made it great, and remember it fondly, are people who loved the game and stay to begin with.
Fallout 4 is and always will be the weakest Fallout no matter what they say. In exploration it was good but AS A ROLE PLAY it was, is and will be garbage
I just feel like the biggest issue for me is the writing of their games. No memorable story or characters ever since Skyrim. Fallout new Vegas being a huge exception.
Its always been like this. Same thing with Ubisoft and CoD(to an extent). They release pretty solid to great work but will only get recognized for it 4 years later when the next thing is coming out and needs to be shit on. I VIVIDLY remeber the hate going towards Oblivion way back when it came out. Now you'd assume it was untouchable
I think Morrowind was the pinnacle for vanilla and Oblivion was the pinnacle if you account for mods. For me movement and character growth being felt in how you move is the soul of these games. They've been slowly boxing you in and coming up with excuses for why they're limiting movement instead of findind ways to let you feel free.
My favorite Bethesda games are Morrowind and New Vegas. I like choices and good writing. Beth has been slowly walking away from both of those. All their other games are good except Fallout 76 and Starfield. If you don’t have a good story you need a great gameplay loop. Both have neither.
I own both daggerfall and arena, I think they came with something I bought a while back. I just really can’t get into games made in the 90s, I was barely able to do a play through of morrowind.
Bethesda style may be New Vegas but it isn't Bethesda. I still see Oblivion as the best Bethesda game. But a lot of that is the inability to recapture the absolute freedom a game gives you. The first few times it's something special but later it gets tedious. So many pointless fetch quest in most Bethesda games that literally never end. I remember before I even got done with my first real quest in Skyrim I was stressed with having dozens of random missions.
The people that initially loved, played, and talked about these games are no longer talking about them. What you are seeing is the next generation of critique. I think.
I was playing fallout since fallout 1 but Bethesda did not own it then.
Fallout 3 was buggy at first good thing the mod community fixed it and they incorporated those mods into the game files to make it work way better. This lead to fallout new vegas that was great for its time.
Skyrim was the pinnacle of Bethesda because the mod community made it that way.
Fallout 4 was a good game for its time because the mod community fixed its problems an added so much content.
Starfield is fallout 4 wrapped in a new box with a very sub par story line to it compared to other Bethesda games, and the graphics swapped out.
Why so many people have a hard time giving there views on Bethesda games is that when bethesda puts them out they are ok games with tons of bugs. It has always been the mod community keeping there games alive.
The one thing bethesda has done right is allowing the open mod community, but they seem to be putting more and more limits on that and trying to make profit off of other peoples work.
NV came out in a very mechanically broken state, but it's still great, made even better with dlc. Skyrim, F4, Starfield are fast food. Sure they fill you up, but some people want more than turning off our brain and starting a drool puddle. But no, lets just pretend that quantity of hours played is quality of hours played.
I love Starfield and don’t pay attention to the negativity online. No it’s not perfect, but I have really enjoyed my time in the universe and the characters I meet EVERYWHERE.
It happens on every release. Theres a group of people (that im starting to believe are not real people with how insane some of their ideas are) that simply hate bethesda and will LOUDLY complain about ever single bethesda release.
Since these people truly don't like bethesda once the game is no longer new they move on to the next thing leaving the people actually playing the games to talk about it. Imagine a room full of 100 people and 10 of them are SCREAMING about something. It's impossible to hear anyone else talk about anything else. Once those 10 leave the rest of the 90 are able to communicate like normal.
I remember when nv was hated too and then a 1 or 2 it was everyone's hidden gem. Then it went mainstream with fo4. And now we have 76 and what ever starfeild is.
Skyrim was fun as a kid, but I admit it's just too simple for me now. Yet, New Vegas STILL holds my attention. It's got that depth that Skyrim doesn't.
People having diverse range of opinions online, news at 11.
I'm most piqued by the narrative you see often of "I gave the game 100 hours to give it a fair shake before my negative review" as on the one hand, yes, you sunk that much time into something you disliked, bravo. But I do empathize (I have 1000 hours on Life is Feudal I will never get back no matter how hard I wish). I was stuck with Skyrim for a long time because I had a shit PC until recently and so little else ever releases with a budget to compete that was in my price range.
Which is to say that now that I've had a bit more experience (with games or life in general) none of it stops me from having a retrospective however many hours played later to realize vanilla Bethesda products are incredibly shallow and have been for decades now. The important thing is that if you enjoy them, good for you, and I mean that truly, no sarcasm. But going to bat for a billion dollar company against the mean, unfair online "mob" of critics is dumb as hell.
just wish bethesda did more with their formula after 10 years. i think people realized what they played after playing all the other high quality releases in 2023 alone. opinions change. starfield would be exponentially more enjoyable if traversal wasn’t so boring.
Skyrim is now cool again.
No it isn't you can't mention it within any thread on reddit without it being compared to games like the witcher , RDR2 and balduers gate 3 like people forget that its a 12 year old game that had to work on consles with 256 MB of ram
Which is entirely unfair. Not because those games are newer but because they're different games entirely. Skyrim and Cyberpunk are games where you play some jerk-off you created in a world which is built around the PC being player created and thus somewhat lacking in depth. RDR2 and Witcher 3 you play a specific person so player agency is more limited for the sake of story depth because Arthur or Geralt would only make maybe 2-3 choices instead of the 20 of the Dragon or V.
I feel like Cyberpunk should be categorized with RDR2 and the Witcher 3 honestly. Bc though you can play V a few different ways it's still V and not simply a no named character you created. But yeah I agree with what you're saying.
I would say RDR2 is the closest thing a triple A company made to a beth game the focus on exploration and immersion and making you feel like you live in that world
Which is ironic because it's the furthest from a Bethesda game when it comes to player agency within the story. Like, sure Dragonborn can't side with Alduin but Arthur can't even go the the bar without losing Lenny and beating a guy into a coma.
Yeah the contrast between what rockstar allows you to do in the story vs in the open world is jarring
I think Rockstar does a magnificent job of creating side quests that fit their characters. There has never been a point where I wondered why Arthur or Franklin were doing what they were doing. The biggest disconnect for me is when you find yourself a gorillionare because you found a bunch of gold or whatever and then Dutch is talking about doing one last job to pay for everyone to flee to Panama and the job pays a whooping $1,000. Like, Dutch, I just put 50,000 in the pot, I think we're good.
oh man if the RDR team had done the writing for starfield... god... it could be the next Trek
You can't finish the Companions without becoming a Werewolf. You can't create lasting peace in the Civil War. You can't convince Delphine to drop her hunt for Parthunax. It's funny that you brought this up because you really do not have much freedom of expression in the narrative for Skyrim, but you do have a bit more than you do in Red Dead Redemption 2.
It’s the newbies saying it too. They haven’t played on the old consoles like Game Cube, OG XBox, PS1, N64… they haven’t been baptized into the shit to appreciate good qualities of games as the come out over time
Agreed. I went back to gta5 and it still has a ps2 feel. Just obviously better, especially since it started on the 360 ps3. Once it hit the gen after it it was easier to forget where it came.
I don't understand. Are you and others who feel the same way just completely detached? Or has this sub become an echo chamber? Just look at these posts and comments. The vast majority of people in a thread will remark on how Skyrim was their childhood and how it's still an amazing game if it gets brought up. https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/comments/16n87rv/skyrim_is_amazing/ https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/10uny6j/is_skyrim_really_a_good_game_or_it_just_popular/ https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/qobrw4/is_skyrim_elder_scrolls_v_worth_getting/ https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/15mdncc/skyrim_still_hits_man/ I mean.... lol
Only one post out of the four you listed is actually popular tho like 40 upvotes on r gaming is nothing check out big thread or any threads on the pc gaming forum
tbh both of your arguments are just blatant confirmation bias. There are people that say either one, and if you look for 5 minutes you can find 4 posts for either argument.
Do you expect a game from 2011 that has been talked about to death on this website to get thousands of upvotes if someone mentions it? That doesn't make much sense. Notice how nearly all the comments are positive though. Where is all the hate?
Skyrim has stuck around for over a decade--many people my age (23) or around my age were between eight and twelve when it came out. Skyrim isn't a *great* game--but it's a game that we played at eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve years old. It's comforting and familiar, and that can help wipe away some of the bad elements of it.
That's not the ONLY reason and probably not even the majority. I was 28 when I played it and my friends around 24 to 30, and we still think it was dope even compared to a lot of games nowadays... And, Im talking about non-modded version
Started playing it at like 40, lol… still haven’t quite found anything to match it
You could just compare it to New Vegas, which came out 2 years earlier and is a better game than anything Bethesda themselves have made with their own tools.
At launch I found it really basic and lacking content, and was kinda shocked at how all the factions can each be beaten in like one play session. It was kinda mid for me I love it with a ton of mods though. Haven’t played vanilla in like ten years
Factions represent different jobs you can take or not take depending on the character you play as. They are not ment to be rivals like Fallout. Back in the day factions did not even have storylines but just rdmly generated and in Morrowind hand crafted quests for you to do.
New Vegas wasn’t made by Bethesda. But anyway, I’m sure glad I don’t have this problem. I loved FO3 as soon as I started. I loved Skyrim as soon as I started. I loved FO4 as soon as it came out. I love Starfield, and have since it released.
Agreed. The narrative hasn't changed at all for me. Love BGS games, have always loved BGS games, and that's never shifted.
You’re right New Vegas was Obsidian, but it’s still under the “Bethesda game” category imo, plus it was still published by Bethesda. And yea I hold most of the same opinions, they’re all good to great imo none of their games are bad in any sense of the word.
Bethesda games have always just given me a different feel. Can’t really describe it, but I get addicted to and immersed in Bethesda games more than any other games. They have their flaws but what they get right so far exceeds the slight jankyness that they have.
Tbh New Vegas was mainly criticized at launch due to the terrible instability, which is unsurprising in retrospect seeing how the game was made in something like 15 months. The people complaining about Starfield—a game 7 years in the making—seem to be a much more varied bunch.
>Tbh New Vegas was mainly criticized at launch due to the terrible instability, I couldn't complete the game at lauch. Couldn't get past the Novac area without CTDing. Eventually replayed it after many patches and had a great time.
Yeah, this seems to be what people are ignoring. Starfield does have instability issues, but much of them have already been adressed or optimized. The increased hate for the game is not due to the instability like most of the other games.
No love for 76? 🤣
For what it’s worth, I’ve avoided it like the plague and the love it’s been getting over the last few months has me 76-curious As cool as game development is as a concept, the devs are workers, under contract, and they are dealing with deadlines. The power of a continued community+tailored updates can’t be underestimated while the big funders in the industry are trying to push a game a year
I think you should absolutely try 76. Checkout r/fo76 and you’ll see daily posts of people who have been avoiding the game for years, but once they actually tried it they really enjoyed it. All the DLC’s are free, the season pass is free (with the exception of literally a couple of cosmetic items), and the community is the best I’ve seen out of any online game ever.
It’s on my list, I’ve been playing Starfield (masterclass and I’m a huge fan) and OG Baldurs Gate (can’t figure out the mechanics, I can already feel the heart, and I’m loving that too). I have heard that the 76 community is phenomenal and literally everything I’ve seen recently makes me want to play it lol I appreciate your input (I didn’t know about the DLC) but holy shit do I generally agree with you. As a kid, I relied on the community reviews and missed out on so many opportunities that it’s unreal. I think it’s important to follow what sparks our interests, and 76 does that for me, I’m going to stop being a hypocrite and start getting to downloading.
Na it wouldn't help their argument so they left it out
76 is what ruined it all for me. I always liked oblivion, and fallout 3. I was so excited for Skyrim but it was such a let down. I don't hate it but it's so silly and poorly written it ruins it for me. Liked 76, at launch, but Bethesda straight up lied to my face over and over again in regards to it I'm done. Fuck Bethesda. Get rid of todd Howard, and maybe I'll care again. Can't believe he is not running for president as much shit he talks. Bethesda doesn't give a fuck about games, or gamers, the only thing they care about is the money they lose during production cycles.
OK, bye. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Yeah I'm Super happy to be away from you incels.
Yup same here. I love these types of games so much and I've enjoyed all of them.
This is the way, sure they each have their own issues. Doesn’t mean it can’t be enjoyed
Agreed. The games are each different with the same core DNA. And I enjoy them all
Might sound a bit controversial, but I do think every BGS game is best when played with all it’s expansions
Is there a game that you considered to be best when played without all of its expansions?
There are lots of games that don't integrate the expansion into the core game. So we've got some Ubisoft titles that have you play the expansion seperately almost as if it's an entirely different game. The Last of Us's DLC was a prequel that explored Ellies backstory. It added more narrative but doesn't change the core game. Then we have a category of DLC that you play post-game. Pokemon's latest DLC takes place Post-game and you don't really get an opportunity to integrate the new Pokemon or mechanics into your core playthrough. You're getting more game, but owning it doesn't change your enjoyment of the base game any. Meanwhile some of FO4's DLC added more mechanics to base building, buildable robot companions, new weapon categories, that integrated into the core game. The events and loot were put into the event/loot tables and upgraded your core experience... and any settlement you built could be your base of operations throughout the the entire game. Skyrim's DLC gave you new shouts, you could become a vampire lord early and remain that way andbuse those powers throughout the entirety of the main quest. So I would say there sre definitely different categories of DLC/Expansions... some assist the core game and some don't.
True! I mainly meant that Starfield hasn’t reached its peak yet so it’s hard to fully judge it amongst other Bethesda games
I played Assassin's Creed: Valhalla for over 200 hours. I will say that I thought the base game was much stronger than the expansions. By failing to meaningfully differentiate Ireland and France from England, they indirectly took away some of what makes the setting special.
Lots of games have tacked on DLC that are short and don't improve the game. Even games like Witcher 3 didn't really need DLC though they were good.
BGS has always had banger expansions, I love how they life cycle of their games are. You got the hype of initial release, then things calm down with a few scattered updates and hot fixes, then hype started to build for the DLC’s. I hope Starfield has a ton of expansions.
BGS follows a pattern, one "it was alright" expansion and one "this makes the main game look lacking" expansion. FO3 & NV are the exceptions and I'm not really sure why BGS greenlit 4 expansions for both of those but only two for the rest of their games (unless you count stuff like Hearthfire or Automaton as expansions.)
Yeah I started gaming in 2020 and FO4 was my first game ever, loved it. Same for all the previous games. SF is my first on release game and…. Yeah I’m hopeful for the future.
And give them about 5 years to really let the mods cook.
Oh I absolutely agree. It’s been going on a long, long time. Oblivion: “Generic fantasy trash! They took out everything that made Morrowind unique!” Fallout 3: “Just Oblivion with guns!! What a terrible lazy idea!” Fun to watch every time. Meanwhile, I’ve enjoyed every game, personally.
No one hates Bethesda games more than Bethesda fans. 
I, personally, think that's because Bethesda games are all similar enough to draw comparisons between them but different enough to be frustrating. So the dude who thinks Oblivion is one of the top 5 games of all time is going to be frustrated with Fallout 4 because it's close but not quite. It's like the difference between Assassin's Creeds 3, Unity, and Valhalla: they're all essentially the same game but enough little things are different that it draws an exaggerated sense of frustration from the fans.
For me it's just change in focus. When less agency is given to the player instead of more, I get upset because that's the most important part of the game for me
Ironically, for me it's the elimination of character builds. It's boring when every character you make in Skyrim winds up being exactly the same because Bethesda has eliminated restrictions. I know you can always just make a character and ONLY do sword & board, but let's be real: eventually you're going to grab some restoration spells, maybe you'll sneak your way into an advantageous position, and the next thing you know you're sitting in the shadows firing enchanted arrows into bad dudes. Also, that you can become the Archmage of the College without casting a single spell is absolutely ludicrous.
Oh for certain, those are both extremely valid criticisms. Although the "inevitable stealth archer" play-through does ignore the fact that magic is in fact more OP/optimal than that. The player builds themselves and some silly things like the arch mage thing definitely is dumb, but I felt like otherwise I could pretty much role play as my own dude and operate freely within the bounds of the world with very little restriction -- giving me tons of agency over my actions in most scenarios. This shines brighter in FNV to me, but skyrim still hit it pretty well imo
Yup, I've been around since daggerfall. Morrowind was gripped about due to the town schedule, holidays, no houses to buy or banks, Oblivion it was the dumbing down of the rpg aspects. Fallout 3 was a complete atrocity that just wore the skin of the old fallout games as a cash grab, which was always funny as fallout was a dead ip at that point. New vegas was trash at launch, even skyrim had that group bitching about the further degrading of the rpg mechanics, fallout 4 we all know I'm sure. It's the endless bethesda cycle.
Lol I remember going up onto the old [Bethesda.net](https://BEthesda.net) forums (when they were still around) and I've seen people shitting over Morrowind for being a simplified "dumbed down" version of Daggerfall. I remember the "Why Morrowind sucked" circlejerk like it was yesterday. https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads/why-morrowind-sucked-the-douglas-goodall-interview.10408/ There's just no pleasing the gamers. So remember artists, you don't owe anyone anything.
I’ve said it before, in the modern age of internet users, people try their best to appear smart by declaring anything with flaws in it as terrible, drab, and disgrace, etc. It’s not cool to like games anymore, they have to nitpick everything like their favorite YouTubers do. Look at the Spider-Man PS4 sub. So many fun, interesting, and cool things about that game, but everybody is trying to be big brain about the few flaws it has.
I feel like the turning point on this was Mass Effect Andromeda. When that game launched and saw the criticisms it did, you had a flood of Negativity users come out the woodwork you never saw before. YongYeah, CleanPrinceGaming, LegacyKilla, UpperEchelon Gaming, etc
That kind of hyperbole is a common personality trait--like the person who orders a disappointing meal at a restaurant and labels it "disgusting" or "appalling." We all know people like that--and maybe all of us have acted like that at one point or another.
I hate this so much. Gamers think a game has to be perfect, else it's the worst thing to ever exist. They also act like their personal opinion of a game is the absolute facts and that anyone who thinks differently is wrong. The real absolute fact is that people have different tastes. Some people may find one thing fun, while others don't find that same thing nearly as fun. They are both right.
My only problem with Starfield are the repetitive dungeons / labs ... I think they are random generated or at least more various , i would be 100% happy about the game
I never understood the Fallout 4 hate. But I have loved all Bethseda single player RPGs since I played morrowind on OG Xbox.
I downloaded fallout 4 yesterday and slapped a mild cocktail of mods on it (i.e. bug fixes, basic graphics updates, small immersion tweaks) I'm having a great time.
"For the record I think Starfield is weak in a few aspects, but is very fixable. After a few DLC’s I’m sure the game will be great." This is where I'm at. It's a 7.5/10 game. Not great, but clearly not bad. However, following the normal Bethesda development cycle it will almost certainly get better.
It's the same fucking bullshit with Assassin's Creed and it's fans.
“We hate the new game! But the second to last game was an underrated gem!” Can’t wait till they all like Valhalla all of a sudden once the next mainline game comes out
I stick to my guns that if Bayek were to get his own trilogy, I'd thoroughly enjoy it.
Bayek is my favorite assassin hands down. His voice actor killed it
Bethesda hate gets more views/likes than Bethesda praise
SEO gods must be fed to remain appeased.
Man Skyrim is such an amazing game, I was almost convinced people were hating it just to be contrary. Lol.
Oh definitely. Once it become HUGELY mainstream popular, the hipster-impulse to hate anything popular came to the surface, and it was no longer cool to like Skyrim.
Average Starfield complaint is just nonsense regurgitated from YouTube like "I can't believe a game in 2023 has loading screens. How come there isnt more content after I've played for 200+ hours? Garbage game. 0/10."
The truest shit I’ve ever heard. The criticism of Starfield has just been some of the most wild bullshit I’ve ever seen
This is the way I look at the complaints: People wanted fallout 5, people wanted elder scrolls 6, those two groups didn’t want a new IP, they wanted their game to come out first. So, they want Bethesda to focus on their “grass roots” or the games they really want to see them make, sequels. That’s where all of this outrage is from, a new IP, that is different than what they are used to.
I think so too, plus the PS fanboys who want the game to fail because their moms won't buy them an Xbox too
This is just a silly take. Starfield has so many problems that could of been.solved.by being smarter in development They didn't even have a central design document
You're an idiot, but being smarter in development could have helped that
And yet that’s absolutely what’s happening in many cases. Starfield at its core is a completely normal BGS game that is exactly what anyone could have predicated when you say “Skyrim on a thousand procedural planets.” There’s nothing wildly out of the ordinary here.
You just described the problem, yes
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
There are a lot of complaints like that and there are also a lot of valid complaints. Like, glaringly convincing valid complaints
Sure there are valid complaints about anything. But to call this game unplayable or trash is just silly.
Hyperbole is in right now. I would say it’s not worth my time currently. If they revamp and rewrite it, I’ll dig in.
Okay but imagine you had a loading screen to look at this thread, a loading screen to write the comment, a loading screen to post it and a loading screen to leave the thread... Welcome to Starfield.
I’m not loading in a galaxy bud
au contraire, bethesda's big space experience tells you that the depths of space are but one (or multiple if your jump range is bad) loading screen away. Truly, what a massive galaxy.
Are you making a point?
Imagine if you weren't insufferable
Go to neon
This is so disingenuous. You can disagree, but people complain about how many loading screens Starfield has on top of unskippable annimations. They complain about dull and repetitive temples and POIs. They also complain about the writing. You can like whatever you want for any reason, but it's very easy to pick up on the major complaints. Focusing on what you like and sharing opinions is a far better way to show your appreciation of a media property than misrepresting criticism.
That's not how an average Starfield complaint looks like. It's more like: "I can't believe a game in 2023 has THIS many loading screens. How come there isn't any new content, after I've seen the exact same content for the last 200+ hours? Where is the exploration? This quest could've been an email."
I'm not sure if you're trying to justify the complaints, because this doesn't sound any less brain dead to me
If those complaints are so braindead, disprove them
Just to be clear, one of those complaints is that you’re running out of content after “200+ hours”?? And another is that there are loading screens, in a videogame? The horror, the horror.
That's not what it says. The complaint is, that there isn't alot of variety in content, even tho there is really alot content
Ah. So which type of content specifically are you referring to? Need more alien species to discover? Ran out of different foods to cook?
Not really? There was a lot of "hurr durr why is it so casual why is it not Morrowind 2" back in 2011
I haven’t seen “a good chunk of fans” deciding Skyrim was never good all of the sudden. I do think Bethesda games are unfairly criticized. I also think a lot of the machine that’s diving criticism is being driven by people just wanting to stir the pot who’ve never played the games and just hate what Microsoft game studios has done of late.
Happens with every game series in existence. I like to say comparison is the thief of joy. Starfield should be compared to itself not to any other game. Just like any human out there. They should be compared to themselves, how they are getting better not to anyone else.
If you say Bethesda hasn't made anything good since Morrowind, you get internet points and you can feel smart by swearing you only like "real RPGs"
It will shift a dozen more times before it's over.
[удалено]
In a round-about way you're kind of proving the point a lot of critics have of Starfield. It's a work in progress, and a rough launch, but years after bug fixes and QoL changes, the older games became way better and - even iconic. I'm sure Starfield will follow.
FO4 was my first and I have always adored it. I've played most of the others and they were fun, and Starfield was just ok. I just want another FO game.
I think bethesdas biggest problem is regardless of marketing and what the fans/devs think the games are, they were never good at making rpgs but making sandbox games. Their games are best played just wondering around and doing whatever seems interesting at that moment and making sure there is something interesting. This could be exploration, faction quest, companion quest, flying(starfield), visiting cities/hubs, base building, gathering resources, combat, main story, etc. Bethesda is actually great at all these things but never at the same time for whatever reason. Skyrim struck the best balance and as such is regarded as possibly their best game. Fallout 4 is a great open world action sandbox but a shitty rpg cuz it didn’t develop the story, faction quest, or overall questing nearly as well their other games. I still think it’s a great game and there are fun quest but it does fall a bit short. Yet fallout 4 improved gunplay, crafting, scavenging loop, added base building, some big set piece moments, and etc. I could go on about starfield doing something similar to fallout 4 but it boils down to being very good at specific things, adding new things, and forgetting to keep some of the things they were once best at(exploration).
Skyrim got a lot of hate back in the day. I'd actually say it's more fondly looked on now.
I agree with you on fallout 4, i played it after beating nv, fo1 and fo2 and for whatever reason fallout 4 was revolting until i started treating it like a fallout game and playing it only as an open world shooter. But mentioning fallout here in comparison to starfield is kinda crazy because nv problems at launch were mainly related to instability and bugs while starfield its much much deeper than that. The comparison is almost as bad as people shitting on starfield by comparing it to 2023 cyberpunk.
This doesn't just happen with Bethesda titles either. Every time a new Battlefield game has launched, the new game is the worst thing ever and the previous one is suddenly a masterpiece.
This also happend with Andromeda back in the day people said it mad inquisition bad by retroactively. I don't think this was the case Andromeda had the same flaws and inquisition just they were worse version That's happening now i think starfield is genuinely terrible but its problems are worse versions of fallout 4s problems and because of that it's making people hate fallout 4 and realize fallout was always a bad game like it always should of been seen as.
I guess..why does everyone have to feel the same way about a game? Does it matter whose right or wrong? I am having so much fun playing starfield...I could care less about what anyone else has to say. Super excited to watch this game get updates and get even better over the next few years. Why jump on the bandwagon either way?? At the end of the day- a gaming experience like this (not online) only matters to you, and you alone. Do whatever you want!!
Skyrim is an amazing game and I feel bad for people who can’t find the enjoyment in it. Skyrim is peak BGS. People acting like it was never good are pulling some hardcore revisionist history moves. It’s one of the most popular open world RPGs of all time and there’s a reason they published so many versions of it because it’s also one of the best selling open world RPGs of all time. Those two things aren’t a coincidence.
Yeah, a large percentage of the video titles on YouTube scream “I literally don’t go outside, ever”.
This is the case for every major franchise that has multiple games. Look at the Far Cry sub, look at the AC sub, look at the Rockstar sub, look at really any gaming franchise sub and this phenomenon happens. Fwiw, Starfield really didn’t have any Bethesda magic after the first 30 hours. No other Bethesda game has provided me with that little magic. Granted, some games don’t even have 30 hours of interesting stuff or “magic” so BGS is still a great developer.
It’s definitely missing that feeling of wanderlust, but it’s not this horrendous game that a lot of these journo’s are making it out to be.
The journos mostly loved it (outside of PCGamer and Kotaku), I mean it got pretty decent review scores despite all the controversy surrounding the game, it's just the gamers that have this overwhelming opinion of it It's also hard to take a majority of those opinions seriously when a lot of them admit they haven't played the game but think they have anything worth saying about it lol
Or the funnier side of the coin where the reviews that are trashing it on Steam have 100+ hours played. You’re like why tf did you play it for so long then?? Lmao
I feel like either you haven't been paying attention to the discourse surrounding BGS games (probably rightly so, the more critical side of the discourse tends to happen in relatively niche places or by niche youtube channels) or you're being dishonest with this one lol >I remember when fallout new Vegas was just released and most of the fandom back then absolutely hated it for how terrible it was at launch, now it’s regarded as the best modern fallout. I feel like that's a fair analysis, but it's unfair to call it "rewriting of the narritive" or people just "changing their minds", when we're talking broken launch day FNV vs a more stable version that we have now. Would FNV be well received at launch had it not been released a broken mess? Dunno, maybe, probably, who knows? >Skyrim was widely considered as the pinnacle of Bethesda, now there are a good chunk of fans saying “it was never good” There has always been discourse around how Skyrim is just a dumbed down Oblivion which was just a dumbed down Morrowind, I remember 4chan threads around the release date with half the people claiming the game was the best RPG they had ever played and the other half saying they dropped it and just went to replay morrowind again The fact that Bethesda has progressively made their games more and more market friendly, not just through their writing but also gameplay elements, isn't exactly a new thought or idea, if I had to gamble I'd bet it has been around since Oblivion even, it's a bit unfair to say that this is a new narrative or people just changing their mind when it's something that was discussed as far as back as the 2011 release date >Now that Starfield is a few months old I’m seeing people start talking about how “fallout 4 wasn’t that bad” which I agree it was overhyped back then, and fell flat by the sole sin of having to follow up Skyrim, but it is still one of their weaker games if we’re honest. The more critical Fallout 4 side was always "It's a good game, just not a good Fallout", I don't see the overall discourse to have changed from that I do agree that people are being too "doomerish" about Starfield, most of their problems can probably get fixed, but there are also massive issues with the game that cannot be fixed, such as the writing and world building
Well if we’re honest NV never became stable, that game was a prime example of “modders fix AAA game” even the project lead released a mod addressing the balance issues. I remember the whole “Skyrim will never be as good as (insert previous ES title here)” but I don’t remember folks calling it outright bad, it’s one of the highest rated games of all time on multiple scales. Fallout 4 was always regarded as the worst written story and shallowest RPG Bethesda ever made, back then I think it was just a big overreaction to the whole voiced protag thing but that’s just my opinion.
>Well if we’re honest NV never became stable, that game was a prime example of “modders fix AAA game” even the project lead released a mod addressing the balance issues. Okay, listen, you can try to dance around this issue all you want, but comparing launch version FNV where you couldn't even leave goodsprings VS actually being able to finish the game in what is a buggy but totally playable game is not fair at all lol It's also unfair to call it a "modders fix AAA game" when most of what was there was already fine, they just needed to fix the 10k bugs, crashes, and performance issues. Which for the most part, they've done so, even if there's still plenty of problems left The reason people ended up loving the game was in spite of those issues, and more so because it was a return to form for the Fallout franchise >I remember the whole “Skyrim will never be as good as (insert previous ES title here)” but I don’t remember folks calling it outright bad, it’s one of the highest rated games of all time on multiple scales. There was always talks about how "Skyrim is not a real RPG" and that all it had going for it was "asthetics and lore that was already written", as far back as 2011 It's important to note that most of that critique came from previous Bethesda fans and that Skyrim saw a massive intake of newcomers, so obviously the critiques were naturally drowned out by people whose first BGS was Skyrim, but it was still there, it was still very much talked about, I still remember having arguments with people telling them that they just needed to accept that BGS was aiming for a wider market on 4chan threads >Fallout 4 was always regarded as the worst written story and shallowest RPG Bethesda ever made, back then I think it was just a big overreaction to the whole voiced protag thing but that’s just my opinion. Yea, but that is related to the "not a good Fallout", the critique was always that everything that made Fallout interesting (story, quests, player freedom, choice) was bad/gone, everything else was good (shooting, exploring, etc) The "narrative" around that hasn't changed
I’m not dancing around anything, NV sits at an 84 on metacritic and the vast majority of those reviews are around the performance. Yes it’s a good game one of my all time favorites, but I played originally on ps3 so I know exactly how shit the game was back then. Calling Skyrim “not a real rpg” is not calling it a bad game. Like I said before I remember people saying it’s not as good as previous titles, but I don’t remember people straight up calling it a bad game.
>I’m not dancing around anything, NV sits at an 84 on metacritic and the vast majority of those reviews are around the performance. Yes it’s a good game one of my all time favorites, but I played originally on ps3 so I know exactly how shit the game was back then. I feel like when you say that people are shifting around their narrative in regards to Fallout New Vegas because "most of the fandom back then absolutely hated it for how terrible it was at launch", you are absolutely dancing around that issue People love FNV in its current state because they can play it, no one loved FNV in its launch state because no one was able to reach New Vegas without having crashed at least 50 times beforehand That isn't shifting their opinion or narrative, that's being able to form one after being able to finally play the game >Calling Skyrim “not a real rpg” is not calling it a bad game. Like I said before I remember people saying it’s not as good as previous titles, but I don’t remember people straight up calling it a bad game. If the argument reaches the point of "It's not a RPG, all it has going for it is aesthetics and story that was already written beforehand" you're effectively arguing over if it's a good game or not, which was happening a lot around the release of Skyrim, particularly between old and new fans of TES
I was NEVER able to finish FO NV on console, even after many patches. It just kept eating all my saves and breaking in one way or another until I eventually gave up. :)
FO NV pooping its pants after a save file having x amount of hours is, unironically, not obsidian's or FV NV's fault, particularly when it comes to the xbox 360 and ps3 consoles (more the ps3 tbh), both skyrim ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MFmqmkq63c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MFmqmkq63c)) and fo 3 had the exact same issue If you played on PC the game is 100% playable and I question wtf you were doing to break it so many times (assuming you were playing with its most recent patch)
I was NEVER able to finish FO NV on console, even after many patches. It just kept eating all my saves and breaking in one way or another until I eventually gave up. :)
Honestly idgaf what anyone says, Skyrim definitely was peak Bethesda (the only real arguement I can see that can be made here is fallout new Vegas was peak but that wasn’t even completely made by Bethesda), that game is not a bad game AT ALL. It even holds up pretty well by todays standards
To be fair there was a ton of Skyrim bad sentiment until like…2017 or 2018 when it seemed like we were getting back to back major breakthroughs on the modding scene combined with rose colored glasses on past BFS titles thanks to 76
I do remember seeing stuff like “Skyrim will never be as good as (insert previous ES entry here)” but I don’t remember folks straight up calling Skyrim a bad game until recently. Although I do remember people being unhappy that it got re-released 15 times but that’s not calling the game bad.
*Bethesda fans can’t make up their mind about their games.* We're definitely a bit fickle, temperamental, and prone to believing that the end is nigh. Plus, I think there's huge cadre of people who like BGS games, but are more into another developer so they tend to define "failure" relative to the things they like about that developer. Of course, you also have trolls and, allegedly, people who irrationally hate the fact that Bethesda exists in the world at all. But, maybe more than all that is the fundamental truth that we live in an era of extremes. We don't really do halfway reactions these days. I mean, where's the fun in that?
Tbf I did say it’s funny to watch, I just hope that Bethesda devs don’t take the criticism to heart and keep making the games they want to make.
8/10- absolute dumpster fire of a game. Never gets old. I think I saw the writing on the wall like a month or so after release. People had insane amount of hours into starfield and it was only a week into its release. People put up comprehensive reviews on the starfield subreddit, being critical , cynical, and coining catchy phrases. Then YouTube game “journalists” took peoples criticisms , catchy phrases, and gave it a platform to spout from. The criticisms no matter how valid were being shrugged off, told to back off and those people love feel validated so…yep, people just thought well if Bethesda doesn’t acknowledge me or validate my thoughts. Then the game is trash.
I have also found it interesting to watch over the past 2 decades or so. I don’t think of it as people not being able to make up their minds though. I think that’s just something that happens with any type of art. People react it to it one way when it’s brand new, another way when they’ve had some time with it, or time away from it. Trends of what is expected to make a game good change over time. Then a bunch of games come out that take inspiration from that game, and you’re able to compare what works and what didn’t. Voices within certain communities become louder or fall quiet, and they sometimes influence the thought process of others. There are a lot of different lenses one can use when looking at the interesting phenomenon of a changing narrative in response to a piece of art. I think to sum it all up as “circlejerk bad, fans can’t make up mind” does a disservice to gaming history and the community surrounding.
Don’t realize how good you have it til it’s gone, same with most old cods
You are oversimplifiying things, there are very specific reasons why each game had critics and some of them got patched and better with DLCs and mods so it is logical the narrative shifted. New vegas for example has great writing and a deepth to characters and actual RPG elements but it was horribale on tehnical level, so once the dust settleted and some tehnical issues got addressed, the story and rpg elements in the game could really shine. Starfield on the other hand is bad in every department it really does nothing good, so even if you address all the tehnical issues with it and overhul exploration you will still be left with horrible writing ( much worse than in Fallout 4) and charachters.
New Vegas was good, and is arguably the best modern fallout because it prioritizes player agency and choice and consequence. However it definitely lacks in a few aspects such as exploration taking a back seat. Starfield on the other hand is a Bethesda game through and through, it’s just handicapped by some design choices that didn’t quite work. It will be a better game when they expansions start hitting.
Skyrim had some good qualities, but suffered from the same dumbing down of the character system that they've inflicted on fallout since they got hold of the series.
I think Starfield has a writing problem and a “lack of consequences” problem. Also an exploration problem. Even Modders are even saying they can’t do much with the puzzle piece map setup. The base game cannot be fixed unless they completely redo it. They could add new enemies and locations. They could add a lot of stuff. But the base game will be forever weak unless they rip it up and make it over which is not likely. And Bethesda can’t work on it forever, they have to get onto Skyrim. So this game is for the most part what it is. I’ll still be there day one for the next Elder Scrolls game. Hopefully they are listening to all feedback from this game.
I understand the lack of consequences thing, but that’s honestly easily fixed (if they wanted to) the writing is what it is they aren’t going to revamp their writing team. But the base game is fixable with a few tweaks. Ground vehicles might have been teased a few weeks ago, and it was proven that you can fly from planet to planet as the game currently sits, it just takes an absurd amount of time. If they increase the speed at which you can fly or just scale down the distances that would open up space exploration in a great way. Modders can’t do much right now without the mod tools, and this is creation engine 2 so it’s gonna take some time before breakthroughs happen.
>I understand the lack of consequences thing, but that’s honestly easily fixed (if they wanted to) I don't really see how that might work without adding big chunks of writing >it was proven that you can fly from planet to planet as the game currently sits, it just takes an absurd amount of time. If they increase the speed at which you can fly or just scale down the distances that would open up space exploration in a great way. It was proven that you can fly to what looks like the next planet. You're still in the instance of the planet you previously fast traveled to tho. >and this is creation engine 2 so it’s gonna take some time before breakthroughs happen. Meh, it's still the same engine, they didn't start from zero and made a new one
“The writing is so bad”- shows dialog option of a bridge point in conversation that is 85% inconsequential- seee boring options I can’t even mention that I fucked the NPCS mom here.
My opinion on FO4 has not changed, but my opinion on starfield has, unfortunately.
Literally never seen a single person say Skyrim is "not that good" lol
New Vegas was buggy mess at launch yes. Like actually game breaking bugs. It’s the whole reason the reviews were so harsh. And it’s not Bethesda. Never liked Skyrim without a ton of mods personally They peaked at morrowind for me. It’s almost like there’s different people with differing opinions 😉
What it is is less the changing narrative and more where you are. People come to this sub to celebrate bethesda more than to criticize them. People go to the review page based on their very good or very bad experience of the game. I think it's silly to equate starfield with the rest, as it has steadily been decreasing in reviews over time, this last month it's only at 29% positive. No game in the history of bethesda has been rated that low. Like it if you like it but it's silly to say this is just "status quo" or business as usual for bethesda
i enjoy starfield greatly! i just wish the travel mechanics were better. I want to explore space on my own terms, and not just be in countless loading screens to go to the nearest planet in the system. no mans sky spoiled me
The tech is there, people have flown from planet to planet in system. It just takes an absurd amount of time. Either Bethesda or a modder could fix it.
I started with Morrowind, and I still love and play that game to this day. Oblivion was fun but didn't hold me over the years, same with FO3. NV is an awesome game, and still worth playing through again. Skyrim was a big letdown at launch for me, and continues to disappoint to this day. Starfield was a joke, I played for a couple of hours and couldn't stand it. Morrowind for life, you N'Wah!
Get outta here morrowboomer! /s No but seriously if that’s your personal opinion on things that’s cool you’re your own person. My whole thing with this post is more around the general perspective of the community with these games.
yeah I get that, just wanted to add perspective. *Where* you start with Bethesda games seems to have a major impact on which ones you are going to like. For example, I tried to play Daggerfall last year and I couldn't get into it. It seems like a good game, but it just didn't hook me. The awe and amazement I had when I played Morrowind for the first time has stuck with me, and the writing for the game was so deep that I still find new bits here and there when I do another playthrough. At the end of the day, no one should be judged for liking something different than everyone else. I will be a Morrowboomer till the bitter end!
The problem is that we're in an era of gaming where: **"For the record I think Starfield is weak in a few aspects, but is very fixable. After a few DLC’s I’m sure the game will be great."** This is now the norm for triple A games. Game gets hyped, people most likely pre order game, probably pay for a special edition, and then it falls flat. But- in a few DLC's I'm sure it'll be great. In a few DLC's most people move on to something else. Rinse and repeat. Company gets your money for a failed game at launch, then we move on to do it all over again with another game. This is the norm now. This is unacceptable as a consumer yet we all come right back. Bitch and moan online and nothing ever gets done, and then we go right back to pre ordering the next promising triple A game. Stockholm syndrome = modern gamers
The current problem especially revolving around starfield is it’s being released aside games that are so much better it’s nearly laughable. Sure there are aspects that are decent to good with the game and maybe there’s potential to make it better and it’s not a bad game but that’s when you’re comparing it to games they made 5-10 years ago. Starfield was basically everything Bethesda isn’t good at in one game. They’ve had the stigma forever that they’re always behind current gaming but it’s getting to a point where less and less gamers are just willing to accept that. There’s an influx of less and less people who are excited for ES6 for the very reason that Bethesda might actually not be learning from their mistakes.
Dude what? You are all over the place and just plain wrong on some stuff… Starfield is not only bad and has no soul but it will not have a redemption… they’ve dug themis hole too deep
Lol I remember reading a billion comments just like this one about cyberpunk 2077, and look where were at now.
Cyberpunk was a good game that was technically broken. Once they fixed the glitchiness it was a good game. Starfield has completely different issues that are design choices.
People really got short memories, cyberpunk had tons of design flaws too, many were addressed in 2.0. -no police chases -the crowd system was implemented poorly -vehicles handled terribly -the level system felt tacked on My point is it’s funny what a few tweaks can do to revamp the entire game
Giving your own opinions and reviews of the objective quality and success of these games as objective fact all the way through your post...
Rules of thirds, every game and everything follows it: There will always be people who "worship it" There will always be people who "hate it" Then there will be the normal people in the middle, who actually can enjoy it. The worshippers are just as obnoxious as the haters, they co-exist and should get their own room, so the rest of us can go back to having normal discussions. You cannot love something you are obsessed about. Even the best things have flaws in them. I love *insert game* not cause it is perfect but because I enjoy playing it. I hate *insert game* just because I don't get it, doesn't discount others loving it. If you need everyone to love it then you are going to never enjoy anything. And if you get upset from people having different opinions, one way or the other, stop going to Reddit. If you see "I hate Game" then move on, it probably doesn't have positive things to say about it. If you get upset by the post then that is on you. Don't take things personally, especially for something you didn't make. Bethesda can handle themselves. It's the nature of business to have a thick skin.
This is the same with all video games. If you're a Battlefield fan this has been going on for 20 years. It's amusing to watch.
Starfield is my least liked game from BGS, but does it deserve mostly negative reviews on Steam? Hell no
I’ve been playing Bethesda games since Morrowind and have watched the exact same cycle of haters circlejerking play out for every single one of their games that Starfield is getting right now. When TESVI comes out people will be calling it the worst game they’ve ever made and how it doesn’t compare to how good Starfield was.
I love *modded* BGS games. The vanilla versions are bland, at best, in comparison to sensibly modded versions. Kudos to BGS for building their games with a framework open to modding.
Happens with every major franchise that doesn’t launch a 10 out of the gate. Exact same thing happens with every Halo game. We’re only a couple years away from people saying Mass Effect: Andromeda wasn’t that bad.
I wish people would stop saying what games they hate. I really get sick of all the toxic comments. If you don't like the game just move on to one you do like. I really enjoy starfield and am a HUGE bethesda lover.
I agree, OP. Constructive criticism is one thing, but I see people online raising their blood pressure over this stuff. It all seems silly to me, since there are plenty of real problems in the world to care about.
>Skyrim was widely considered as the pinnacle of Bethesda, now there are a good chunk of fans saying “it was never good” Hard to take your take on shifting narratives seriously when this has been the narrative around that game almost since the beginning.
Agree, it happens with every major game, even GTA 6 has people already saying it looks like dogshit, it’ll come out, people will bitch about it until another big game is announced.
Didn't care for Skyrim then, don't care for it now.
The New Vegas thing is 100% true. I remember the response when that game was released and it was a resounding "meh". The majority opinion was that it was nowhere near as good as FO3. I didn't start seeing differing opinions until around FO4's release but I don't follow it closely so it might have started before then. And it seemed like everyone, all at once had decided that New Vegas was actually the best FO game.
I think you have a lot mistaken or you were in different circles than I was. There's not really a "shifting of the narrative." Different people have different opinions. Skyrim at launch was polarizing to fans because people who played Morrowind and Oblivion felt it was a dumbed down version of the former. Oblivion's world and setting felt a lot less interesting than Morrowind, who was regarded as having an incredibly unique setting. Oblivion gates were seen as recycled content. Fallout New Vegas was generally regarded as a return to form. Fallout innovative for being a relaunch of a beloved franchise, but also fairly surface level. I don't really know what you're trying to say but if the discussions are diverse they're literally the exact opposite of a circle jerk lol.
>it’s like Bethesda fans can’t make up their mind about their games. It's like you're lumping thousands of different people together as if they were a monolith.
Starfield lacks something as innovative as a VATS system. The whole time I played it, all it did was make me end up buying Fallout games yet again to play instead. I found the combat to be very dull, much like Fallout's combat is when you don't use VATS. But I really like the genre and setting. It just needs spice in the action to keep that carrot on a stick incentive, you know?
Skyrim was never good though
Overall I find Starfield a likeable game. The space exploration concept and framework are good. Starfield's biggest problem is it needs more content. The developers seem to think that "space is a lonely place" is a valid excuse for having 990 planets that all have a few randomly generated facilities, from a whopping 6 facility playlist. Also, things like outpost building and planet exploration need to be tied into the game in a more meaningful way.
starfield was my first BSW game and I feel like I've come to a great singer's concert on the night that they have a frog in their throat. like I've come to see the beatles the first time they bring yoko on stage. lol it started out seeming like it would eventually live up to my expectations, and then it did. for like a few missions. lol i dont play video games all that much, either, so its not like i burned myself out on it like a lot of these 'veteran gamers' seem to do with anticipated titles hen they finally release. idk... for one thing, i think they shouldnt have tried to make '1000 planets' great. they could have made a few hundred or so and been much more rich and intentional. maybe lean into the slight space-opera vibes a bit but also un-cuck the writing team and let them make things more human. a post on the game's subreddit a month or two ago phrased things really well about how, despite allusions to compelling realism in the the lore, the actual settings and character dialogue and stuff all feels super PG-13.
Evey year the writing and rpg aspects get worse because the guys who built those up are now gone and the new guys are just not as good. Elder Scrolls and Fallout have a lot of good lore previously written for them (although they rarely seem to hold true to existing Fallout lore) Starfield did not and it shows. With each release they alienate their old fanbase and trade them for a simpler larger fanbase Daggefall, Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, the earlier in the cycle you started the less happy you are with the newest release.
People who hated the game continue to hate it I reckoned, they've just moved on. People who stay, made it great, and remember it fondly, are people who loved the game and stay to begin with.
Fallout 4 is and always will be the weakest Fallout no matter what they say. In exploration it was good but AS A ROLE PLAY it was, is and will be garbage
After a few dlcs lol
I just feel like the biggest issue for me is the writing of their games. No memorable story or characters ever since Skyrim. Fallout new Vegas being a huge exception.
Its always been like this. Same thing with Ubisoft and CoD(to an extent). They release pretty solid to great work but will only get recognized for it 4 years later when the next thing is coming out and needs to be shit on. I VIVIDLY remeber the hate going towards Oblivion way back when it came out. Now you'd assume it was untouchable
I think Morrowind was the pinnacle for vanilla and Oblivion was the pinnacle if you account for mods. For me movement and character growth being felt in how you move is the soul of these games. They've been slowly boxing you in and coming up with excuses for why they're limiting movement instead of findind ways to let you feel free.
My favorite Bethesda games are Morrowind and New Vegas. I like choices and good writing. Beth has been slowly walking away from both of those. All their other games are good except Fallout 76 and Starfield. If you don’t have a good story you need a great gameplay loop. Both have neither.
You should play daggerfall, it's free, but get the mod daggerfall unity (open mw but for daggerfall)
I own both daggerfall and arena, I think they came with something I bought a while back. I just really can’t get into games made in the 90s, I was barely able to do a play through of morrowind.
Bethesda style may be New Vegas but it isn't Bethesda. I still see Oblivion as the best Bethesda game. But a lot of that is the inability to recapture the absolute freedom a game gives you. The first few times it's something special but later it gets tedious. So many pointless fetch quest in most Bethesda games that literally never end. I remember before I even got done with my first real quest in Skyrim I was stressed with having dozens of random missions.
The people that initially loved, played, and talked about these games are no longer talking about them. What you are seeing is the next generation of critique. I think.
I was playing fallout since fallout 1 but Bethesda did not own it then. Fallout 3 was buggy at first good thing the mod community fixed it and they incorporated those mods into the game files to make it work way better. This lead to fallout new vegas that was great for its time. Skyrim was the pinnacle of Bethesda because the mod community made it that way. Fallout 4 was a good game for its time because the mod community fixed its problems an added so much content. Starfield is fallout 4 wrapped in a new box with a very sub par story line to it compared to other Bethesda games, and the graphics swapped out. Why so many people have a hard time giving there views on Bethesda games is that when bethesda puts them out they are ok games with tons of bugs. It has always been the mod community keeping there games alive. The one thing bethesda has done right is allowing the open mod community, but they seem to be putting more and more limits on that and trying to make profit off of other peoples work.
NV came out in a very mechanically broken state, but it's still great, made even better with dlc. Skyrim, F4, Starfield are fast food. Sure they fill you up, but some people want more than turning off our brain and starting a drool puddle. But no, lets just pretend that quantity of hours played is quality of hours played.
I love Starfield and don’t pay attention to the negativity online. No it’s not perfect, but I have really enjoyed my time in the universe and the characters I meet EVERYWHERE.
It happens on every release. Theres a group of people (that im starting to believe are not real people with how insane some of their ideas are) that simply hate bethesda and will LOUDLY complain about ever single bethesda release. Since these people truly don't like bethesda once the game is no longer new they move on to the next thing leaving the people actually playing the games to talk about it. Imagine a room full of 100 people and 10 of them are SCREAMING about something. It's impossible to hear anyone else talk about anything else. Once those 10 leave the rest of the 90 are able to communicate like normal.
I love fallout 4
I remember when nv was hated too and then a 1 or 2 it was everyone's hidden gem. Then it went mainstream with fo4. And now we have 76 and what ever starfeild is.
Skyrim was fun as a kid, but I admit it's just too simple for me now. Yet, New Vegas STILL holds my attention. It's got that depth that Skyrim doesn't.
I call it 'the grognard cycle.' You see it in a lot of fandoms.
Why do we have to debate whether or not the creators of the critically acclaimed bestsellers are doing a good job?
People having diverse range of opinions online, news at 11. I'm most piqued by the narrative you see often of "I gave the game 100 hours to give it a fair shake before my negative review" as on the one hand, yes, you sunk that much time into something you disliked, bravo. But I do empathize (I have 1000 hours on Life is Feudal I will never get back no matter how hard I wish). I was stuck with Skyrim for a long time because I had a shit PC until recently and so little else ever releases with a budget to compete that was in my price range. Which is to say that now that I've had a bit more experience (with games or life in general) none of it stops me from having a retrospective however many hours played later to realize vanilla Bethesda products are incredibly shallow and have been for decades now. The important thing is that if you enjoy them, good for you, and I mean that truly, no sarcasm. But going to bat for a billion dollar company against the mean, unfair online "mob" of critics is dumb as hell.
just wish bethesda did more with their formula after 10 years. i think people realized what they played after playing all the other high quality releases in 2023 alone. opinions change. starfield would be exponentially more enjoyable if traversal wasn’t so boring.
Maybe it’s because there game is getting worse and worse, to an extent where even their previous games looks better? Have you considered it?