• @CleoTheWizard
    link
    English
    11 year ago

    I think of this a lot differently. Look at most open world game designs from back in those days. The PS3 open worlds were bland and repetitive. Even GTA was a lot more bland and homogenous back then.

    So Bethesda games fit right in on the PS2 and PS3 era of games. But when it came time for a refresh, Fallout 4 didn’t land the same on the PS4. Was it a bad game? No. But the cracks were showing in it. Bethesda needed big changes to its gameplay and engine and they didn’t bring those in FO4. I expected they would in Starfield. But they didn’t, they changed too slowly and made a PS3 era game two generations later.

    The rose tinted glasses thing, if you remember what Skyrim was back in its day then it was a really good game at the time. It’s aged okay for what it was. But if you released Skyrim 2 today, I doubt people would like it. That’s what happened here. Games are a product of their time and this one is out of its time.

    • @A_Random_Idiot
      link
      English
      11 year ago

      The rose tinted glasses thing, if you remember what Skyrim was back in its day then it was a really good game at the time.

      Skyrim back in the day was a buggy pile of shit. Theres a reason half the mods you had to install were bugfixes.

      but even as a buggy piece of shit, you could at least explore a rich and interesting sandbox.

      Its decently less buggy today, but its still a rich and interesting sandbox. and more so, it has a strong foundation for mods to be built on.

      Starfield doesnt have a rich and interesting sandbox, and the very foundations of the game are shit.

      • @CleoTheWizard
        link
        English
        11 year ago

        Oh yeah id agree with that. The reason the heart of that game isn’t there though is because the design is stuck in the past. They’re dragging along antiquated techniques and it’s just not going to work to build the worlds the same way. Especially not with the vision they had for Starfield.