A Starfield anime series, detailing The Settled Systems, mechs, Akila City, and more in Bethesda’s follow up to Fallout and Skyrim, has suddenly arrived.
They (Bethesda) have a track record of making great games, even counting all the buggy, glitchy, janky bullshit that comes with them. I’m not expecting a total failure or a smooth launch based on literally every game they’ve put out since I discovered them with Morrowind. A good game, with the same jank and maybe even new jank is what I’m expecting.
Yeah, I think they get some unfair flack for “buggy” games. It’s kinda true, but at the same time I feel like they release boundary-pushing games. Granted Im also looking back at skyrim and FO3 with the bias of nostalgia.
To be fair, by the end of Oblivion, you end up faster than a horse in Oblivion (and while you could make your own horse faster, it did also increase the chance of the horse dying because you ran too fast off a hill).
I feel like the game is largely an unknown at this point. We saw some gameplay but I feel like I would want to wait for reviews. Bethesda has a strong track record though so I’m hoping it should be good.
“Bethesda has a strong track record though” i mean… do they?
their games sell a lot of units but i can’t remember any time since morrowind that they launched a game that received widespread praise for anything other than its technical merits, and i say this as someone who still dips back into heavily modded TES games a few times a year :/
PC scores, for consistency. There are plenty of better games out there, but most AAA studios would kill for that kind of consistently good-but-not-quite-legendary track record.
oh yeah the metacritic scores are good but i was referring to audience reception about characters, narrative, etc
fallout 3 in particular is a fun one because once people started beating it there was a general upswell of “what the fuck was that?” that was loud enough that we got a changed ending in DLC :)
After a certain point, scores are as much based on hype as quality.
That’s not even a malicious choice, either. Hype influences our experiences and perceptions of whatever is being hyped. It’s intuitively obvious that people will enjoy a good thing that they are hyped about more than a good thing that they are not hyped about. Hype is strongest just before release… which is exactly when reviewers play and assign a score to a game.
A sequel to a well received game is going to have more hype than the predecessor in most circumstances. Morrowind sold something like 5-10x the copies as Daggerfall and came about at a time when there was a lot of upheaval in the industry from a target-audience standpoint: a lot of potential Morrowind players (and reviewers) would have not played Daggerfall.
In essence, Oblivion was reviewed more positively because of the positive reception of Morrowind. The positive reception of Oblivion in turn boosted Skyrim.
This is not to say people would hate the games without the prior game before it or hype, just that there is a “hype boost” for games.
It’s been a while since they’ve actually released one of their mainline games. I don’t really count TES:O and FO:76 as IIRC neither had the normal dev teams working on them.
Im cautiously optimistic about it all, but am obviously going to wait for reviews.
the thing for me about starfield is that most of the game looks like a reskin of games i’ve already played (no man’s sky, elite dangerous) and the parts that don’t look like mainline bethesda fare but In Space, so my general vibe about starfield is pretty dismal
would be absolutely stoked for it to turn out well though. more games in space = good
looks like a reskin of games i’ve already played (no man’s sky, elite dangerous) and the parts that don’t look like mainline bethesda fare but In Space
What exactly do you think merits a strong track record then? If a series of games consistently over the course of 20 years being highly regarded, still being played, still growing with active communities, and selling extremely well for nearly every single title you made isn’t a “strong track record,” then who can claim that right?
It’s not even like other game franchises which “just sell a lot of units” like sports games which tend to not do anything with their formula and release the same game but worse yearly.
They have a strong track record of releasing broken games with potential, potential that mod makers actually pull out of the game while Bethesda reaps massive profits
Their games are buggy, but people are still talking about them and enjoying them. Modders have done a lot of (if not most of) the heavy lifting of course. But I don’t think we would be seeing so many mods if the core games were bad.
There’s a lot of build up for Starfield. A lot of pressure and a lot of expectations. Hoping it’s decent
Well even if it isn’t, we’ll shove it full of mods anyway.
The most fun Bethesda game will always be xEdit.
They (Bethesda) have a track record of making great games, even counting all the buggy, glitchy, janky bullshit that comes with them. I’m not expecting a total failure or a smooth launch based on literally every game they’ve put out since I discovered them with Morrowind. A good game, with the same jank and maybe even new jank is what I’m expecting.
The jank is part of the charm. Who doesn’t remember Skyrim Horsing their way up a mountain?
Yeah, I think they get some unfair flack for “buggy” games. It’s kinda true, but at the same time I feel like they release boundary-pushing games. Granted Im also looking back at skyrim and FO3 with the bias of nostalgia.
I largely believe that to be the only reason horses exist in Skyrim because unlike Oblivion, you don’t actually go any faster on a horse in Skyrim.
To be fair, by the end of Oblivion, you end up faster than a horse in Oblivion (and while you could make your own horse faster, it did also increase the chance of the horse dying because you ran too fast off a hill).
deleted by creator
I feel like the game is largely an unknown at this point. We saw some gameplay but I feel like I would want to wait for reviews. Bethesda has a strong track record though so I’m hoping it should be good.
“Bethesda has a strong track record though” i mean… do they?
their games sell a lot of units but i can’t remember any time since morrowind that they launched a game that received widespread praise for anything other than its technical merits, and i say this as someone who still dips back into heavily modded TES games a few times a year :/
Morrowind: 89 on Metacritic
Oblivion: 94
Fallout 3: 91
Skyrim: 94
Fallout 4: 84
PC scores, for consistency. There are plenty of better games out there, but most AAA studios would kill for that kind of consistently good-but-not-quite-legendary track record.
oh yeah the metacritic scores are good but i was referring to audience reception about characters, narrative, etc
fallout 3 in particular is a fun one because once people started beating it there was a general upswell of “what the fuck was that?” that was loud enough that we got a changed ending in DLC :)
Morrowind scoring lower than Oblivion and Skyrim is a travesty.
After a certain point, scores are as much based on hype as quality.
That’s not even a malicious choice, either. Hype influences our experiences and perceptions of whatever is being hyped. It’s intuitively obvious that people will enjoy a good thing that they are hyped about more than a good thing that they are not hyped about. Hype is strongest just before release… which is exactly when reviewers play and assign a score to a game.
A sequel to a well received game is going to have more hype than the predecessor in most circumstances. Morrowind sold something like 5-10x the copies as Daggerfall and came about at a time when there was a lot of upheaval in the industry from a target-audience standpoint: a lot of potential Morrowind players (and reviewers) would have not played Daggerfall.
In essence, Oblivion was reviewed more positively because of the positive reception of Morrowind. The positive reception of Oblivion in turn boosted Skyrim.
This is not to say people would hate the games without the prior game before it or hype, just that there is a “hype boost” for games.
It’s been a while since they’ve actually released one of their mainline games. I don’t really count TES:O and FO:76 as IIRC neither had the normal dev teams working on them.
Im cautiously optimistic about it all, but am obviously going to wait for reviews.
the thing for me about starfield is that most of the game looks like a reskin of games i’ve already played (no man’s sky, elite dangerous) and the parts that don’t look like mainline bethesda fare but In Space, so my general vibe about starfield is pretty dismal
would be absolutely stoked for it to turn out well though. more games in space = good
Don’t threaten me with a good time!
lol
What exactly do you think merits a strong track record then? If a series of games consistently over the course of 20 years being highly regarded, still being played, still growing with active communities, and selling extremely well for nearly every single title you made isn’t a “strong track record,” then who can claim that right?
It’s not even like other game franchises which “just sell a lot of units” like sports games which tend to not do anything with their formula and release the same game but worse yearly.
well the context was about the quality of the game and not how many units they sell, so :/
They have a strong track record of releasing broken games with potential, potential that mod makers actually pull out of the game while Bethesda reaps massive profits
Their games are buggy, but people are still talking about them and enjoying them. Modders have done a lot of (if not most of) the heavy lifting of course. But I don’t think we would be seeing so many mods if the core games were bad.