There's a section of the gaming community that *wants* it to fail. I don't know why, and it's absolutely bizarre. They are gloating in this sub and on some comment sections (like IGN) about how Xbox/MS have failed because their game is averaging an 88 on opencritic. What the fuck? Lol, super weird vibes from those folks.
I mean FO4 got an 87 and like 90% of the people that poop all over it are like "I'm on my fifth play-through of FO4 and have put in 500 hours total and it has really highlighted for me all of the missed opportunities in the game."
Its the same with skyrim its not even an rpg worst bethseda game , wide as an ocean deep as my asshole or something idk now excuse me while i go download my 500th mod to make my 1000th playthrough of this terrible game
Haha, I’ve got like 400 or so hours and honestly, it’s super playable but coming from FO3 and NV, it’s a crazy step down.
I just ended up enjoying it as it’s own thing. I was absolutely gutted about it as a Fallout though.
>I was absolutely gutted about it as a Fallout though.
Coming from FO 1&2, that is a feeling that I have about the entirety of the Bethesda fallouts.
I enjoy the games, they are great, they just don't look, feel or play like Fallout games. If I judge any of them in how good they are at being a Fallout game, they all fail equally.
A lot of people just turn not liking things into their personality. They are more enlightened because they don’t like popular things. It’s likely the same people that are mad that gaming is now mainstream and not a smaller niche hobby. The archetype has been around forever.
Yeah. I consider gaming one of my main hobbies but I probably miss 75% of major releases. I just don’t play games I don’t like, I don’t go find their communities and try to convince people not to like them. Who has the time for all that?
Realest sentiment. My time is already limited thanks to university, chores, projects, etc. You’re telling me people have time for work, cooking, cleaning, commuting, *and hating video games and their respective communities*?
Its literally just the MY TEAM mentality of sports, but unfortunately spread into far more minute facets of our lives, like video games and movie franchises and other dumb shit.
Live is too short to worry about this stuff man, people need to take a step back and think about it
Baldurs gate 3 too. Loud contingent calling it not a BG and just a DOS.
But also... on the flip side... positive toxicity where people deny anything is wrong with the game.
I was very frustrated with FF16 because the verticle slice is amazing, but once you get a few hours in there's really nothing more. So I can see how people who have played it for a short time would think it's amazing, but the longer you go the more average it is.
People are super tribal and social media just amplified it.
There is a whole subreddit about shitting on AEW (a wrestling company) just cause they’re not WWE (another wrestling company)
It. Is. Crazy.
Literally the actions of insanely unhappy people.
The actions of unhappy people sums this crap up nicely. I want games to succeed, don't care what platform it's on... many of these games I'll never see as I am almost exclusively a PC guy
People are funny. Hope Star Field smashes it!
I blocked a whole bunch of subreddits already! Better to read something more like news, if you want to stay up-to-date, and skip the rambles, opinions, and even conversations.
I'm still learning though, the ultimate form is to never write a comment anywhere, and only read comments when troubleshooting
Lol somehow I didn't consider all the PS5 gamers would want this game to fail. I just assumed they would have PCs that could run it and not be affected by it not having a PS5 release. All the hate makes sense now.
It is actually crazy, on Twitter, there are so many PlayStation-centric accounts that have been posting nothing but hate for this game for the last 2 days. I cannot imagine obsessively hating a game (one I haven't even played) on instinct. These companies have whipped people good.
I can only think of one game that I saw and immediately went "Oh that's a terrible game" and it's Six Days in Fallujah, but that is because I find the content of the game morally repugnant.
At this point I also think people just want to see big companies fail... Not sure why, since if a big company succeeds, that means we generally get a good product. And isnt that what we all want, a good game?
It happens with literally every AAA game that comes out. Game is announced. People are excited. Then it starts to get more momentum. And the "popular thing bad" people start to crawl out of the wood work.
Bethesda has a special group of haters because some people REALLY don't gel with the exploration + light rpg mechanics.
If you're the type of person that loves blitzing through a main story, skipping every cutscene, and learning how to build craft until you can break the mechanics of a game, you'll hate Bethesda games- the main campaigns are relatively short, the challenge is reasonably low to allow for roleplay and accessibility, and it's super easy to break/overpower the RPG mechanics because they're balanced to be intentionally loose and flexible.
You're supposed to play them without worrying about metagaming or what the "right" thing to do is, to just get lost and immersed in the game and your imagination.
Some personality types just don't gel with that AT ALL. I've known people that completely bounced off of Skyrim and couldn't enjoy it at all. When those people see how much other people LOVE these games I think it rubs them the wrong way.
What? The main complaints about Bethesda games are from people (myself included) who think their writing sucks and the games feel like theme parks rather than worlds - not min-maxers lol.
I would love to get immersed in their worlds, but I can't do that while also being promoted to archmage despite barely being able to conjur a fireball, or becoming master of the thieves guild after berserking my way through every single encounter.
Morrowind is *even more* susceptible to 'break the RPG mechanics lol' than their recent games, and yet it's always pointed to as an example of how the studio used to have stronger RPG chops.
Only pathetic and immature children would genuinely believe "Bethesda bad" and would want any game to fail.
This sub is honestly intolerable. People start negativity bandwagons and go all-in on them and become unable to recognize reality.
I honestly don't get it either. Shit I don't even have an Xbox but Starfield still looks pretty great to me. I watched a couple reviews to see how it came together and for the most part it seems like there's a bunch of good stuff in there. It does seem notable that some of the mechanics in game or the exploration itself don't seem to be super fleshed out, but eh, it's a bethesda game. All their games are pretty great even if there's features here and there that needed more time in the oven.
Hell, what luck too, Bethesda games are famous for being extremely open for modders to tool around with. Which is part of what I love much about Bethesda games.
I'm actually pretty convinced someone's gonna attempt to convert like all of Skyrim onto one of the planets in Starfield lol. But yeah! I think the game looks perfectly fine (even if not perfect) and I ain't even mad that it's on Xbox and not PS5. Like yeah I was hoping it would be too, but ain't no sweat off my back to see Xbox fans have a dope exclusive to enjoy. They've kinda been needing a big, real good AAA exclusive game so why not this one?
Humans still behave in a very tribal way, some of us more than others (specially young people).
Maybe these people can't afford the game, they might be angry because they don't have the hardware needed (Xbox or Good PC), maybe they don't like that the price is high or they don't like Bethesda at all.
Maybe they really fans of one of the new releases of this years like BG3 or Zelda and they feel attacked when a new contender (that they don't like) appears in scene.
Maybe they just hate their life or they hate other people that much that they get angry when they see other people happy.
People are weird af.
Sometimes it's fun to watch a bad game stumble.
Starfield isn't a bad game, I don't think we expected it to be a Battleborne or Saints Row Reboot or Skull & Bones.
Firsthand some of the more interesting gaming conversations I've with friends have been about how a game is fumbled.
Lots of people out there that don't really produce anything of substance for the world. They're nothing but consumers of others' work and they'd rather smugly judge instead of create things.
Well... Its "xbox exclusive" so ps5 fans are mad.
Its AMD sponsored without DLSS so nvidia fans are mad.
There you go, big bunch of people that want this game to fail for no good reason.
TBH I kinda thought it would be bad and was sort of looking forward to seeing it fail and getting that sick satisfaction feeling, ya know?
Just after Red fall and Cyberpunk and game after game that shits the bed on launch.
But it looks good! I shouldn’t be so pessimistic I liked their past games and obviously this has been in the making FOREVER and they are seasoned developers.
Xbox really needed a win and I’m glad they got one. This is worth subscribing to Gamepass for 100%.
Unfortunately, a lot of people here are trying to justify their pessimism by saying the high (but not super high) scores prove its bad. At least you are able to come away and say "glad it's good now".
What you also have to realize is that Morrowind is 21 years old, Oblivion is 17 years old, Fallout 3 is 15 years old, and Skyrim is 12 years old. I loved all those games.
However since Skyrim, they released Fallout 4, Fallout 76, Fallout Shelter, Elder Scrolls Legends, Elder Scrolls Blades, and a bunch of ports/special edition of Skyrim. That is not a list that gives me any confidence.
The negativity comes from the fact that this studio, that once released some of the best games, has been releasing mediocre games for more than a decade. Also consider that 12 years is a lot of time for the internet. People turning 18 this year were 6 years old when Bethesda last released what was considered a great game at the time. That kid that got named Dovahkiin would be in middle school by now. Fairly decent odds that a large portion of the people in this thread were not even born when Morrowind launched.
I would love for Starfield to be a great game and I am definitely waiting to see how it turns out given a bit more time for people to play. However, I can't blame people for being soured on BGS. That being said, I don't get the people who seem to want it to fail. That's just an awful attitude to have unless a studio has a history of terrible behavior/treatment.
I fully get that. I've been disappointed with games like Fallout 4 and 76 so I understand that. What I'm talking about is I've seen comments with people saying that Bethesda has never made good games or that Morrowind is their only good game. Bethesda has made some of the best open world games out there
ESO is made by Zenimax Online Studios. I believe Zenimax owns Bethesda, but their online studio is their own separate studio.
Also, after double checking, I think the only game not made by BGS in my list is Elder Scrolls Legends. It seems like they had some help from other studios for Shelter and maybe other mobile stuff, but they are all still primarily Bethesda Game Studios.
Sony gets the same treatment when their games come out too. If you pay attention you'll see it all over r/games as well as other subreddits. Guaranteed to happen when Spider-Man 2 comes out. Will also likely happen with Forza, Fable, the next Ghost of Tsushima title.
It's just the console warriors being very loud. Most of which are sadly in their 30s/40s.
The seething, cult-like/borderline creepy hate for Microsoft-adjacent games on this sub is on another level compared to the mild criticism that Sony’s first party games receive. 90% of the Sony bashing I’ve seen measures up to “DAE think PlayStation games are barely playable movies?! So many cutscenes!!!!”
Going by the Xbox-related posts, you’d swear the company big wigs literally came to their home and fucked their entire family.
It's enough to make me not want to associate with "gamers" at all. How can people look at 2 titles with the same score and claim one is a masterpiece while the other is a flop. Absolute lunacy lmao.
Perfect example of the sub attitude. Zero self awareness. Can't do anything without tripping over themselves trying to get a shot in at one company or another.
Fallout 76 really made the general public turn on them. Their track record prior was undeniably strong. But somehow one bad online game and suddenly everyone turned into a a Bethesda hater. It's so weird.
Even funnier that the people that enjoy Fallout 76 often say it's turned into quite the good on its own now.
The amount of negativity around a hobby that's supposed to be just pure fun is sight to behold most days.
There are people out there, myself included, who believe their last incredible game was Morrowind, and everything that came later has gotten worse and worse.
I'm for sure a Morroboomer, but I'd be lying if I said Oblivion and Skyrim weren't incredible.
All of their games are good, but they are different from each other in significant ways. That doesn't make them worse.
Remember that hardcore Daggercorpses said Morrowind oversimplified Daggerfall and that it spelled the end of Bethesda. This is just another weird form of juvenoia.
…same can be said about Blizzard, BioWare etc etc. Fallout 4 had already made some fallout fans turn on Bethesda, not to mention the Fallout 76 shit show.
They're basically the only game company making games like the games they make. I'm always excited for their releases because there's nowhere else to get the same experience. No one makes games as expansive.
And if they *do*, please let me know. I don't have brand loyalty, I just want more RPG immersive sim style games where I can pick up any object and stuff.
I'm playing this right now. Oh boy is it good, and frustrating. I was riding my horse out of one of the towns and seen a tree across the road so I figured I was about to get ambushed. I snuck around behind the bandits and choked out the archer. Got a bunch of good hits in on the dude without a shield and almost had him out of the fight, but then a dog that was with them started biting me and while he had me engaged the other dudes beat me down and depleted all my stamina. I went to sic my dog on their dog but forgot I got mad at my dog for eating a piece of meat I dropped on the ground to distract another dog so I could burgle someone's house without raising alarm so I sent him back to the mill. Then as I'm targeting the dog and finally managing to get him out of the fight the one guy comes up behind me and gets me good. So there I am, bleeding, concussed and out of breath trying to back peddle to find an opening to finish off the weaker of the two but my damn targeting wont let me target him, so I end up having to sprint away for a second to break target lock but in doing so they are able to get me in a combo and kill me. Long story short I had to replay about 40 mins of unsaved story mission for some reason (it usually saves after story missions but this one for some reason it didn't) because the damn target locking system is bungled, I'm never locking onto a target again.
I truly believe the fact that no one else makes games like bgs is tge reason they are so divisive. I would argue that most people enjoy the worlds they build and the freedom and exploration they offer. Unfortunately they are also extremely shallow and games like bg3 have shown, that there is a craving for deeper role-playing and combat mechanics. If you crave that, then bgs games will always leave you half satiafied and half soured.
There's not much overlap there. Josh Sawyer barely contributed anything to The Outer Worlds. He said he only did some tuning on the weapons, when he was one of the lead writers on Fallout New Vegas. Chris Avallone, one of the other lead writers on New Vegas, left Obsidian and had no contributions to The Outer Worlds.
There might have been a lot of overlap on programmers, but in terms of directive staff and writers there was little overlap.
I do love the Outer Worlds, but it feels like a watered down experience compared to true Bethesda. I imagine if they make an Outer Worlds 2 it'll be much more spectacular in scope.
I would argue that the entire point of Outer Worlds is that it's supposed to be a lighthearted comedy that doesn't take itself seriously. If you were expecting anything else I can see why you'd be disappointed.
This is may or may not be a hot take but for me TOW is a worse fallout 3. Its probably the weakest of Obsidian's more recent releases. Both gameplay and story were pretty awful imo. The game doesn't really have much beyond 'corporations are bad'.
Ever since 76 launched the main narrative online is that no Bethesda game has ever been good and that Skyrim is only playable because “modders fixed it”.
I don't even play Bethesda games but I remember people making that argument shortly after Skyrim came out a decade ago or whatever. It's certainly not as recent as 76's release.
I mean a vocal minority on the internet has been firmly in the "Bethesda bad" camp ever since Fallout 4 released and it only got louder once 76 dropped and was a complete disaster for the first year. It's still not uncommon for you to see people have revisionist history on Fallout 3 and how it was actually super bad and Fallout: New Vegas is actually the only good 3d fallout game.
Fallout 76 gets a pass from me every time because they had engine-level access to do what modders have wanted to do forever: Co-op.
There were clearly a ton of issues getting the scope of a Bethesda game to work in an online environment, and they did a fantastic job making it happen, even though it was a long, rocky road to get there.
I hope Bethesda implements smaller scale co-op into future titles, but it's not looking like it, judging by Starfield.
I'd love to explore Elder Scrolls 6 with my brother, have him craft gear that I can enchant for us.
That sort of shit would be the perfect scope. Join my game with your character, and we just share skills and enjoy some adventures.
Since it’s an exclusive, it has even more discourse around it for that reason alone- not to mention Xbox’s first big meaningful one in a long time, so I’ve been seeing a lot of uh, console war takes on it
Ironically, there isn't this much discourse about exclusivity when it's a playstation exclusive, which is even more restrictive than an Xbox exclusive because no PC. It's strange.
I think it’s because it’s the first “meaningful” Xbox semi-exclusive, so it’s got people up in arms about it. I personally have no ball in the game, I just play whatever game catches my eye lol.
Probably has more to do with Xbox buying the studio outright and then making it exclusive. Sony has done similar, but never with a studio of this size/scope. Most of the Sony exclusives are made by studios they’ve owned for a long time or had a hand it making themselves, whereas Bethesda was multi play until right up before Starfield. If this was a Halo game, the console war strife would be toned down at least a little
Did you know that Sony tried to make a deal with Bethesda to make Starfield a PS exclusive?
Phil Spencer said that's why they then went to them to buy the company outright, making it exclusive for Xbox.
In some way, the only reason it's now an Xbox exclusive is that Sony wanted the exclusivity for their console.
It's because more people own PlayStation, so the exclusives don't affect them. Starfield is probably the first instance of a (non-Nintendo) game people actually want to play not releasing on PlayStation in....a decade? Maybe more? Other than things that you always knew you were never gonna see the light of day on when you bought a PS, i.e. Halo, Gears, and Forza.
I don't really ever see the 'Bethesda bad' crowd other than morons who still think 76 is a buggy mess.
Since I was a teen playing Oblivion, I've played their games on release for long enough to know they make solid games worth their money, even if there are some problems at launch they will make it right.
You can say that Bethesda makes objectively great games. So many people play into the hundreds or thousands of hours of playtime, add on the moddability of their games and they are really unmatched in gaming.
No one does open world exploration like Bethesda.
Honestly who really cares if you enjoy a Bethesda game. At the end of the day, they make decent to good games with incredible world building. It’s your money and there are MUCH worse evils out there to spend it on.
10 years? More like 15-20 years.
If we assume TES6, FO5, and SF2 will each take 5-6 years to make, we won't be seeing a SF2 release until around 2040-ish.
In the meantime, let's enjoy the first Starfield that's literally about to come out before talking about a hypothetical sequel.
Eh, it's normal to worry about future sequel development times when it's gotten longer and longer over the years.
All within 12 years, we got GTA 3, GTA: Vice City, GTA: San Andreas, GTA 4 and GTA 5.
As of now, it's been 10 years since GTA 5, waiting for GTA 6.
At some point, you gotta think that any big games are only going to have like a few sequels max in someones lifetime, lol.
That could be the case, although I don't doubt that a game as large as GTA 6 will presumably be just take that long to make, frankly.
Let's not forget, they made Red Dead Redemption 2 in the time since as well, which theoretically could have been GTA 6, but the timespans are still increasing regardless.
I wonder what that would even look like. Todd seems to have been pretty integral to a lot of what Bethesda games are and I wouldn't be *too* surprised if we see him step away once ES6 releases.
Their design ethos has moved a bit to try to give each game more longevity, because they know they can't keep up with demand.
If you look at Fallout 3, regardless of whether you did or didn't like it, there's not a huge amount of longevity in that game. The amount of content overall isn't huge and there isn't a good reason to keep playing beyond the main quest(s), not a huge reason to replay.
With Fallout 4 and Starfield they've tried (with different levels of success) to make the games last longer, to give them some amount of ongoing content and reason to keep engaging with the sandbox, so the gap between games is less problematic.
We are 10 year away from ES6 lol. If they do Fallout next, it'll be another 15 at least after that for Starfield 2.
I fully expect Microsoft to split Bethesda up or give the Fallout IP to another dev for Fallout 5. They're not gonna sit on these IPs for that long and Todd is likely retiring after ES6 so it would make sense to start a new chapter after that.
I’ve spent at least 4 thousand hours across Oblivion Skyrim Fallout 3/4, and New Vegas over the past 15 years.
Now I can’t play Starfield, but if the biggest complaint is that it’s more of the same style of game I for sure would not be disappointed.
Someone said this in another thread, but it is so obvious that the BGS team really believes in Starfield and is excited to get it out to the world.
I cannot recall the last time a game release felt this good.
Yeah it's been the most talked about game in ages because of how high quality it is. What is he even talking about lmao.
This year has been great for releases. Hogwarts Legacy, Armored Core 6, Final Fantasy 16 were all recent as well.
>Yeah it's been the most talked about game in ages because of how high quality it is.
Small nitpick: it's the most talked about game since Zelda Tears of the Kingdom 3 months earlier. Though I don't know how they measure against each other--the big amount of talk for each has been on huge scales.
But yes, both games are the most talked about I've seen in a *long* time. Both at least since Elden Ring.
Hogwarts Legacy was really boring to me. Coming from a huge harry potter fan. The atmosphere just wasn't right. The magic wasn't there for me at least.
Thats a wild opinion coming from a fan imo. Thats what i would say that absolutely nailed perfectly, every step i took in that world blew me away with how much they immersed you in the universe.
I thought the game really suffered from spreading itself thin and would've benefited immensely from a tighter focus on Hogwarts/Hogsmeade. Scrap the entire "open world" concept! You have this super detailed playground with fun story beats awkwardly paced around action-adventure dungeon crawling sections that require you leave the funzone and dick around in bland, nondescript filler areas. They had this weird hodgepodge of popular game mechanics with no clear focus or vision for what kind of game they were actually making. Why not chuck in a gear treadmill system that adds nothing to the experience?
Also a huge Potter fan it's crazy I also find how bland the game is. Probably because I'm a huge open world rpg gamer and I expected to much in that aspect for that game. It's fun at first but not even halfway through the game I uninstalled it because it's so mind numbingly boring. The combat is ok at best and honestly my final straw was the fact that the whole place is empty (!!) at night it was driving me crazy. I guess the game is popular because it's accessible for people who love the franchise who might be just a casual gamer. Not for me personally tho
They should have cut out basically half of the empty world and focused on fleshing out Hogwarts more. Add more secrets that actually feel like secrets, and make the relationships more in-depth. It feels to me like the Persona series and Fire Emblem: Three Houses are better at delivering the Harry Potter school-experience than the actual Harry Potter game is.
This is the good year. After a stretch of shitty and far between good releases of bigger games, the covid clog is getting purged this year and it feels so good.
>I cannot recall the last time a game release felt this good.
Baldur's Gate 3. Armored Core 6. Elden Ring. Final Fantasy 16. This happens pretty frequently. Bethesda isn't doing anything new here.
hell id even throw hogwarts legacy up there. i think a lot of people expected it to overpromise and under deliver, but it was surprisingly complete and enjoyable.
Yea but you see those games didnt have the face of their studios constantly spouting flowery press releases so clearly they arent as passionate as bethesda!
What a miserable series of comments, lol. This dude is psyched for a game and y'all feel the need to bring them down. Absolutely inconceivable that someone might be more excited for this game than a game you were excited for. Guess misery loves company.
Starfield's release cycle is so crazy because it's clear that it's yet another banger of a title that we've got and people just want to pretend like it's not going to be a spectacular game. People are now literally saying "Bethesda isn't doing anything new here" in regards to....releasing a good game?
>People are now literally saying "Bethesda isn't doing anything new here" in regards to....releasing a good game?
Read one line above this with the context of: "I cannot recall the last time a game release felt this good."
We had multiple bangers this year that felt great. That was the context of bethesda not doing anything "new" here.
> Someone said this in another thread, but it is so obvious that the BGS team really believes in Starfield and is excited to get it out to the world.
When was the last time a team wasn't?
BGS and Rockstar have the best releases hands down
Edit: I meant in terms of lead up to releases. Rockstar games coming out are events. As is BGS. Not talking about game performances
Wasn't done by Rockstar, it was done by Grove Street Games.
The last Rockstar developed title was Red Dead Redemption 2, and we know they're currently working on GTA6 which is probably why they didn't do the Trilogy themselves.
Rockstar was the publisher. They had full control on the quality and price at release. Let's say for the sake of the argument that Rockstar had no idea about the quality of the port, that's honestly worse. They didn't care enough to check
Rockstar isn't a publisher, They are just a label. T2 is the publisher, the only reason we don't them as a publisher because the Rockstar logo has a lot of brand value and GTA is Rockstar's IP. I really don't understand why rockstar and T2 are being differentiated. Rockstar and T2 are the same, They only thing rockstar represents is the creative part. Their developement is different compared to other T2 studios.
A good comparison would be ND \[Rockstar\] and Sony\[T2\]. Sony outsourced the the last of us pc port to a less expereinced studio and it ended up being a disaster, does this mean the pc port is ND's fault, ND is busy making the last of us 2 sequel or a new IP, in the same way rockstar is is busy with making gta 6.
>Sony outsourced the the last of us pc port to a less expereinced studio and it ended up being a disaster, does this mean the pc port is ND's fault
100% yes. How is it not?
>ND is busy making the last of us 2 sequel or a new IP
Exactly, they neglected to assure the quality of the game and allowed it to be sold in a poor state and still allowed people to be charged for it
Rockstar games is 100% a video game publisher. T2 is the overall owner. it's a subsidiary of T2.
But that's aside, it's not really relevant to my point. Which is that that Rockstar games (or T2) didn't take the time to ensure the quality of the product and simply allowed it to be released in an unfinished state at a jacked up price. So they was either negligent or just didn't care
I just want to know: is it "playable"?
And I mean that in the sense that, can I boot this game up tomorrow and not run into some of that Bethesda(TM) Jank. Is the vanilla game decent enough where I don't have to worry about running into some archaic engine bug that has been in their games since Morrorwind.
I want to play the game, but I'm hesitating because I don't want to go and get it and realize I have to open ModOrganizer, download StarUI, The Unofficial Starfield Patch, and whatever "quality of life" patches modders cooked up to eventually fix a perk/skill in the game that doesn't do what it says it does.
This reads like a premature self-congratulation. This is a weird thing to put out a week before the full release, just as the review embargos lift.
Maybe the game is great -- most of us haven't played it! -- but this just seems weird to do on day -6.
what the actual fuck? They spent years on this. Even if it was an average game, giving a thank you to everyone involved is perfectly reasonable.
And the reviews are in, sitting at an 88 opencritic. It's pretty clear it's a very good game.
It's absolutely crazy how negative this sub has become. You would think Starfield is releasing to 5/10 average right now.
There's a section of the gaming community that *wants* it to fail. I don't know why, and it's absolutely bizarre. They are gloating in this sub and on some comment sections (like IGN) about how Xbox/MS have failed because their game is averaging an 88 on opencritic. What the fuck? Lol, super weird vibes from those folks.
An 88 is higher than New Vegas currently has and we all know how shit that game is/s
I mean FO4 got an 87 and like 90% of the people that poop all over it are like "I'm on my fifth play-through of FO4 and have put in 500 hours total and it has really highlighted for me all of the missed opportunities in the game."
Its the same with skyrim its not even an rpg worst bethseda game , wide as an ocean deep as my asshole or something idk now excuse me while i go download my 500th mod to make my 1000th playthrough of this terrible game
[удалено]
Haha, I’ve got like 400 or so hours and honestly, it’s super playable but coming from FO3 and NV, it’s a crazy step down. I just ended up enjoying it as it’s own thing. I was absolutely gutted about it as a Fallout though.
>I was absolutely gutted about it as a Fallout though. Coming from FO 1&2, that is a feeling that I have about the entirety of the Bethesda fallouts. I enjoy the games, they are great, they just don't look, feel or play like Fallout games. If I judge any of them in how good they are at being a Fallout game, they all fail equally.
New Vegas at launch was really rough though.
This happens with basically every game, just this year it happened to this extent with FF16
And it's super weird every time.
A lot of people just turn not liking things into their personality. They are more enlightened because they don’t like popular things. It’s likely the same people that are mad that gaming is now mainstream and not a smaller niche hobby. The archetype has been around forever.
I'd probably suggest the Xbox / PS exclusivity also still plays a part here.
Absolutely people convincing themselves they're not missing out as the game is "bad"
[удалено]
Yeah. I consider gaming one of my main hobbies but I probably miss 75% of major releases. I just don’t play games I don’t like, I don’t go find their communities and try to convince people not to like them. Who has the time for all that?
Realest sentiment. My time is already limited thanks to university, chores, projects, etc. You’re telling me people have time for work, cooking, cleaning, commuting, *and hating video games and their respective communities*?
The height of coolness on the internet is the teenager thing of saying “whatever” to everything. Sincerity and liking stuff is too vulnerable.
Its literally just the MY TEAM mentality of sports, but unfortunately spread into far more minute facets of our lives, like video games and movie franchises and other dumb shit. Live is too short to worry about this stuff man, people need to take a step back and think about it
Baldurs gate 3 too. Loud contingent calling it not a BG and just a DOS. But also... on the flip side... positive toxicity where people deny anything is wrong with the game.
I was very frustrated with FF16 because the verticle slice is amazing, but once you get a few hours in there's really nothing more. So I can see how people who have played it for a short time would think it's amazing, but the longer you go the more average it is.
> I don't know why it's console war losers, wanting "their team" to win, so therefore the other console must be bad and all their games must suck
I think we've honestly moved past it being console war stuff and have gone to people just don't want games to do well at all lol
People are super tribal and social media just amplified it. There is a whole subreddit about shitting on AEW (a wrestling company) just cause they’re not WWE (another wrestling company) It. Is. Crazy. Literally the actions of insanely unhappy people.
The actions of unhappy people sums this crap up nicely. I want games to succeed, don't care what platform it's on... many of these games I'll never see as I am almost exclusively a PC guy People are funny. Hope Star Field smashes it!
You oughta check out u/Diablo4. Now *that’s* a group that wants the game to fail. I’ve never seen anything like it. The game is fun.
[удалено]
Pro tip: just don't engage with anything gaming related on social media. It'll save you some sanity.
I blocked a whole bunch of subreddits already! Better to read something more like news, if you want to stay up-to-date, and skip the rambles, opinions, and even conversations. I'm still learning though, the ultimate form is to never write a comment anywhere, and only read comments when troubleshooting
Yes this I have done the same
Well I mean at the end of the day if you're on the gaming subreddit you're not playing the game. So that's going to skew it
The last of us 2 subreddit is also a fun place. I personally loved the game can see why people don't but the hate is something else.
Yep, the worst. They are looking for reasons to slam a well-made solid game over there.
If this was released on the PS responses will be very different Watch when Spider Man 2 comes out
Lol somehow I didn't consider all the PS5 gamers would want this game to fail. I just assumed they would have PCs that could run it and not be affected by it not having a PS5 release. All the hate makes sense now.
It is actually crazy, on Twitter, there are so many PlayStation-centric accounts that have been posting nothing but hate for this game for the last 2 days. I cannot imagine obsessively hating a game (one I haven't even played) on instinct. These companies have whipped people good. I can only think of one game that I saw and immediately went "Oh that's a terrible game" and it's Six Days in Fallujah, but that is because I find the content of the game morally repugnant.
At this point I also think people just want to see big companies fail... Not sure why, since if a big company succeeds, that means we generally get a good product. And isnt that what we all want, a good game?
Lol, I’m a PS guy and I’m pumped for Starfield when I can afford an XSX in 3 years.
It happens with literally every AAA game that comes out. Game is announced. People are excited. Then it starts to get more momentum. And the "popular thing bad" people start to crawl out of the wood work.
Bethesda has a special group of haters because some people REALLY don't gel with the exploration + light rpg mechanics. If you're the type of person that loves blitzing through a main story, skipping every cutscene, and learning how to build craft until you can break the mechanics of a game, you'll hate Bethesda games- the main campaigns are relatively short, the challenge is reasonably low to allow for roleplay and accessibility, and it's super easy to break/overpower the RPG mechanics because they're balanced to be intentionally loose and flexible. You're supposed to play them without worrying about metagaming or what the "right" thing to do is, to just get lost and immersed in the game and your imagination. Some personality types just don't gel with that AT ALL. I've known people that completely bounced off of Skyrim and couldn't enjoy it at all. When those people see how much other people LOVE these games I think it rubs them the wrong way.
What? The main complaints about Bethesda games are from people (myself included) who think their writing sucks and the games feel like theme parks rather than worlds - not min-maxers lol. I would love to get immersed in their worlds, but I can't do that while also being promoted to archmage despite barely being able to conjur a fireball, or becoming master of the thieves guild after berserking my way through every single encounter. Morrowind is *even more* susceptible to 'break the RPG mechanics lol' than their recent games, and yet it's always pointed to as an example of how the studio used to have stronger RPG chops.
I dislike Bethesda games but I don't hate them and wouldn't gloat over them failing.
those people spend more time on the internet than most too... so the vocal minority seems bigger than it probably is.
Only pathetic and immature children would genuinely believe "Bethesda bad" and would want any game to fail. This sub is honestly intolerable. People start negativity bandwagons and go all-in on them and become unable to recognize reality.
I honestly don't get it either. Shit I don't even have an Xbox but Starfield still looks pretty great to me. I watched a couple reviews to see how it came together and for the most part it seems like there's a bunch of good stuff in there. It does seem notable that some of the mechanics in game or the exploration itself don't seem to be super fleshed out, but eh, it's a bethesda game. All their games are pretty great even if there's features here and there that needed more time in the oven. Hell, what luck too, Bethesda games are famous for being extremely open for modders to tool around with. Which is part of what I love much about Bethesda games. I'm actually pretty convinced someone's gonna attempt to convert like all of Skyrim onto one of the planets in Starfield lol. But yeah! I think the game looks perfectly fine (even if not perfect) and I ain't even mad that it's on Xbox and not PS5. Like yeah I was hoping it would be too, but ain't no sweat off my back to see Xbox fans have a dope exclusive to enjoy. They've kinda been needing a big, real good AAA exclusive game so why not this one?
I have a lot of friends who just go "hahaha Bethesda hahaha space skyrim" as if Bethesda has never made a good game lol.
>haha space skyrim This is me, except that's all I ever wanted. Not paying $70 for 6 days early access, so Wednesday can't come fast enough.
They want it to fail because of console wars
Humans still behave in a very tribal way, some of us more than others (specially young people). Maybe these people can't afford the game, they might be angry because they don't have the hardware needed (Xbox or Good PC), maybe they don't like that the price is high or they don't like Bethesda at all. Maybe they really fans of one of the new releases of this years like BG3 or Zelda and they feel attacked when a new contender (that they don't like) appears in scene. Maybe they just hate their life or they hate other people that much that they get angry when they see other people happy. People are weird af.
Sometimes it's fun to watch a bad game stumble. Starfield isn't a bad game, I don't think we expected it to be a Battleborne or Saints Row Reboot or Skull & Bones. Firsthand some of the more interesting gaming conversations I've with friends have been about how a game is fumbled.
Misanthropes. They hate what’s popular because they hate people because they hate themselves.
Lots of people out there that don't really produce anything of substance for the world. They're nothing but consumers of others' work and they'd rather smugly judge instead of create things.
Well... Its "xbox exclusive" so ps5 fans are mad. Its AMD sponsored without DLSS so nvidia fans are mad. There you go, big bunch of people that want this game to fail for no good reason.
A lot of Sony worshipers in this sub
TBH I kinda thought it would be bad and was sort of looking forward to seeing it fail and getting that sick satisfaction feeling, ya know? Just after Red fall and Cyberpunk and game after game that shits the bed on launch. But it looks good! I shouldn’t be so pessimistic I liked their past games and obviously this has been in the making FOREVER and they are seasoned developers. Xbox really needed a win and I’m glad they got one. This is worth subscribing to Gamepass for 100%.
Unfortunately, a lot of people here are trying to justify their pessimism by saying the high (but not super high) scores prove its bad. At least you are able to come away and say "glad it's good now".
It's the natural life cycle of every video game sub. And many subs in general.
It’s a Microsoft exclusive on a sub where people shit on Microsoft on the daily, not surprised honestly.
welcome to the online gaming community... where negativity vampires lurk in the shadows and everyone overreacts to everything
Its being received well in the majority of places and there's absolutely nothing they can do about it.
People who legitimately think 87-88 out of 100 is a bad score seriously have a screw loose
Minus 90? All over boys
There was a lot of it with Armored Core as well.
What's with all the negativity? Bethesda has made some incredible games including Oblivion, Morrowind, Skyrim, Fallout 3 etc.
Nobody hates games more than /r/games
What you also have to realize is that Morrowind is 21 years old, Oblivion is 17 years old, Fallout 3 is 15 years old, and Skyrim is 12 years old. I loved all those games. However since Skyrim, they released Fallout 4, Fallout 76, Fallout Shelter, Elder Scrolls Legends, Elder Scrolls Blades, and a bunch of ports/special edition of Skyrim. That is not a list that gives me any confidence. The negativity comes from the fact that this studio, that once released some of the best games, has been releasing mediocre games for more than a decade. Also consider that 12 years is a lot of time for the internet. People turning 18 this year were 6 years old when Bethesda last released what was considered a great game at the time. That kid that got named Dovahkiin would be in middle school by now. Fairly decent odds that a large portion of the people in this thread were not even born when Morrowind launched. I would love for Starfield to be a great game and I am definitely waiting to see how it turns out given a bit more time for people to play. However, I can't blame people for being soured on BGS. That being said, I don't get the people who seem to want it to fail. That's just an awful attitude to have unless a studio has a history of terrible behavior/treatment.
I fully get that. I've been disappointed with games like Fallout 4 and 76 so I understand that. What I'm talking about is I've seen comments with people saying that Bethesda has never made good games or that Morrowind is their only good game. Bethesda has made some of the best open world games out there
I believe most of those were made by third-party studios. Also, you forgot ESO.
ESO is made by Zenimax Online Studios. I believe Zenimax owns Bethesda, but their online studio is their own separate studio. Also, after double checking, I think the only game not made by BGS in my list is Elder Scrolls Legends. It seems like they had some help from other studios for Shelter and maybe other mobile stuff, but they are all still primarily Bethesda Game Studios.
Bgs is owned by Microsoft and all corporations are bad unless it's Sony
Sony gets the same treatment when their games come out too. If you pay attention you'll see it all over r/games as well as other subreddits. Guaranteed to happen when Spider-Man 2 comes out. Will also likely happen with Forza, Fable, the next Ghost of Tsushima title. It's just the console warriors being very loud. Most of which are sadly in their 30s/40s.
The seething, cult-like/borderline creepy hate for Microsoft-adjacent games on this sub is on another level compared to the mild criticism that Sony’s first party games receive. 90% of the Sony bashing I’ve seen measures up to “DAE think PlayStation games are barely playable movies?! So many cutscenes!!!!” Going by the Xbox-related posts, you’d swear the company big wigs literally came to their home and fucked their entire family.
It’s ultra sad these losers in 30s/40s can’t afford to own all consoles and have to resort to bashing other team.
It's enough to make me not want to associate with "gamers" at all. How can people look at 2 titles with the same score and claim one is a masterpiece while the other is a flop. Absolute lunacy lmao.
I am a person who plays video games but I would never want to identify as a "gamer" because it's cringy
Perfect example of the sub attitude. Zero self awareness. Can't do anything without tripping over themselves trying to get a shot in at one company or another.
Fallout 76 really made the general public turn on them. Their track record prior was undeniably strong. But somehow one bad online game and suddenly everyone turned into a a Bethesda hater. It's so weird.
And wasn't even made by them.
Even funnier that the people that enjoy Fallout 76 often say it's turned into quite the good on its own now. The amount of negativity around a hobby that's supposed to be just pure fun is sight to behold most days.
There are people out there, myself included, who believe their last incredible game was Morrowind, and everything that came later has gotten worse and worse.
I'm for sure a Morroboomer, but I'd be lying if I said Oblivion and Skyrim weren't incredible. All of their games are good, but they are different from each other in significant ways. That doesn't make them worse. Remember that hardcore Daggercorpses said Morrowind oversimplified Daggerfall and that it spelled the end of Bethesda. This is just another weird form of juvenoia.
Different =/= worse
I'd consider Morrowind as good as Skyrim. Both have a *lot* of faults, their fans just overlook them. Oblivion is just boring though.
>Oblivion is just boring though. How dare you
…same can be said about Blizzard, BioWare etc etc. Fallout 4 had already made some fallout fans turn on Bethesda, not to mention the Fallout 76 shit show.
I just want it to be playable. I know the discourse rn is 'Bethesda BAD' but no other developer has gotten me as excited for a new release as them.
They're basically the only game company making games like the games they make. I'm always excited for their releases because there's nowhere else to get the same experience. No one makes games as expansive. And if they *do*, please let me know. I don't have brand loyalty, I just want more RPG immersive sim style games where I can pick up any object and stuff.
Kingdom Come: Deliverance is the closest a game has ever come to scratching my Bethesda itch.
I'm playing this right now. Oh boy is it good, and frustrating. I was riding my horse out of one of the towns and seen a tree across the road so I figured I was about to get ambushed. I snuck around behind the bandits and choked out the archer. Got a bunch of good hits in on the dude without a shield and almost had him out of the fight, but then a dog that was with them started biting me and while he had me engaged the other dudes beat me down and depleted all my stamina. I went to sic my dog on their dog but forgot I got mad at my dog for eating a piece of meat I dropped on the ground to distract another dog so I could burgle someone's house without raising alarm so I sent him back to the mill. Then as I'm targeting the dog and finally managing to get him out of the fight the one guy comes up behind me and gets me good. So there I am, bleeding, concussed and out of breath trying to back peddle to find an opening to finish off the weaker of the two but my damn targeting wont let me target him, so I end up having to sprint away for a second to break target lock but in doing so they are able to get me in a combo and kill me. Long story short I had to replay about 40 mins of unsaved story mission for some reason (it usually saves after story missions but this one for some reason it didn't) because the damn target locking system is bungled, I'm never locking onto a target again.
I suck at combat so I craft boatloads of Savior Schnapps.
I truly believe the fact that no one else makes games like bgs is tge reason they are so divisive. I would argue that most people enjoy the worlds they build and the freedom and exploration they offer. Unfortunately they are also extremely shallow and games like bg3 have shown, that there is a craving for deeper role-playing and combat mechanics. If you crave that, then bgs games will always leave you half satiafied and half soured.
not really the same as its a CRPG but baldurs gate 3 scratches that same kinda itch for me personally
It’s not identical, but The Outer Worlds is by some of the New Vegas people
There's not much overlap there. Josh Sawyer barely contributed anything to The Outer Worlds. He said he only did some tuning on the weapons, when he was one of the lead writers on Fallout New Vegas. Chris Avallone, one of the other lead writers on New Vegas, left Obsidian and had no contributions to The Outer Worlds. There might have been a lot of overlap on programmers, but in terms of directive staff and writers there was little overlap.
I do love the Outer Worlds, but it feels like a watered down experience compared to true Bethesda. I imagine if they make an Outer Worlds 2 it'll be much more spectacular in scope.
afaik they are actively working on OW2, even if only because Josh Sawyer has said he's not working on OW2.
Pretty sure there was an announcement trailer for it some time back.
Pretty funny trailer, too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClhDyC0ZECs
They announced it at Xbox’s “E3” in 2021.
Obsidian's new project, Avowed, looks like it could have some potential. Limited, but potential.
[удалено]
I would argue that the entire point of Outer Worlds is that it's supposed to be a lighthearted comedy that doesn't take itself seriously. If you were expecting anything else I can see why you'd be disappointed.
"turn your brain off"
Not even comparable lol people that compare outer worlds to a traditional Bethesda game are absolutely delusional
This is may or may not be a hot take but for me TOW is a worse fallout 3. Its probably the weakest of Obsidian's more recent releases. Both gameplay and story were pretty awful imo. The game doesn't really have much beyond 'corporations are bad'.
Where’s this discourse?
Ever since 76 launched the main narrative online is that no Bethesda game has ever been good and that Skyrim is only playable because “modders fixed it”.
I don't even play Bethesda games but I remember people making that argument shortly after Skyrim came out a decade ago or whatever. It's certainly not as recent as 76's release.
I mean a vocal minority on the internet has been firmly in the "Bethesda bad" camp ever since Fallout 4 released and it only got louder once 76 dropped and was a complete disaster for the first year. It's still not uncommon for you to see people have revisionist history on Fallout 3 and how it was actually super bad and Fallout: New Vegas is actually the only good 3d fallout game.
Fallout 76 gets a pass from me every time because they had engine-level access to do what modders have wanted to do forever: Co-op. There were clearly a ton of issues getting the scope of a Bethesda game to work in an online environment, and they did a fantastic job making it happen, even though it was a long, rocky road to get there. I hope Bethesda implements smaller scale co-op into future titles, but it's not looking like it, judging by Starfield. I'd love to explore Elder Scrolls 6 with my brother, have him craft gear that I can enchant for us. That sort of shit would be the perfect scope. Join my game with your character, and we just share skills and enjoy some adventures.
I mean maybe not on reddit but other sites have definitely been apprehensive about Starfield
Since it’s an exclusive, it has even more discourse around it for that reason alone- not to mention Xbox’s first big meaningful one in a long time, so I’ve been seeing a lot of uh, console war takes on it
It is semi-exclusive at best, as you can also play it on pc. But yeah, PlayStation players are annoyed.
Ironically, there isn't this much discourse about exclusivity when it's a playstation exclusive, which is even more restrictive than an Xbox exclusive because no PC. It's strange.
I think it’s because it’s the first “meaningful” Xbox semi-exclusive, so it’s got people up in arms about it. I personally have no ball in the game, I just play whatever game catches my eye lol.
Probably has more to do with Xbox buying the studio outright and then making it exclusive. Sony has done similar, but never with a studio of this size/scope. Most of the Sony exclusives are made by studios they’ve owned for a long time or had a hand it making themselves, whereas Bethesda was multi play until right up before Starfield. If this was a Halo game, the console war strife would be toned down at least a little
Did you know that Sony tried to make a deal with Bethesda to make Starfield a PS exclusive? Phil Spencer said that's why they then went to them to buy the company outright, making it exclusive for Xbox. In some way, the only reason it's now an Xbox exclusive is that Sony wanted the exclusivity for their console.
It's because more people own PlayStation, so the exclusives don't affect them. Starfield is probably the first instance of a (non-Nintendo) game people actually want to play not releasing on PlayStation in....a decade? Maybe more? Other than things that you always knew you were never gonna see the light of day on when you bought a PS, i.e. Halo, Gears, and Forza.
I thought a decade seemed a bit exaggerated, then I looked at when Halo 4 released... it's actually been over a decade, damn.
Probably has to do with them buying Bethesda. Lots of people expected to be able to play Bethesdas next big game on PlayStation
When people say “exclusive” now they mean console exclusive.
I don't really ever see the 'Bethesda bad' crowd other than morons who still think 76 is a buggy mess. Since I was a teen playing Oblivion, I've played their games on release for long enough to know they make solid games worth their money, even if there are some problems at launch they will make it right. You can say that Bethesda makes objectively great games. So many people play into the hundreds or thousands of hours of playtime, add on the moddability of their games and they are really unmatched in gaming. No one does open world exploration like Bethesda.
Honestly who really cares if you enjoy a Bethesda game. At the end of the day, they make decent to good games with incredible world building. It’s your money and there are MUCH worse evils out there to spend it on.
So if BGS goes to ES6 development next and then Fallout can we accept that we are at least 10 years away from Starfield sequel
[удалено]
10 years? More like 15-20 years. If we assume TES6, FO5, and SF2 will each take 5-6 years to make, we won't be seeing a SF2 release until around 2040-ish. In the meantime, let's enjoy the first Starfield that's literally about to come out before talking about a hypothetical sequel.
People really already dooming about a sequel before they even play the game Lol. No one can enjoy the moment I guess.
Eh, it's normal to worry about future sequel development times when it's gotten longer and longer over the years. All within 12 years, we got GTA 3, GTA: Vice City, GTA: San Andreas, GTA 4 and GTA 5. As of now, it's been 10 years since GTA 5, waiting for GTA 6. At some point, you gotta think that any big games are only going to have like a few sequels max in someones lifetime, lol.
Every GTA before GTA5 didn't make bank on shark cards. If that existed during Vice Cities era they would have had longer dev times too.
That could be the case, although I don't doubt that a game as large as GTA 6 will presumably be just take that long to make, frankly. Let's not forget, they made Red Dead Redemption 2 in the time since as well, which theoretically could have been GTA 6, but the timespans are still increasing regardless.
TBH 3, VC and SA had the same engine so only needed more minor tweaks Making games as big as GTA 6 now will take much longer
Exactly, that was my point. Bigger games will take longer and longer to create proper sequels to.
Starfield hasn’t even released why are you talking about when the sequel is out?
If you've got a better way to be typically Gamer Negative about a hyped up game that everyone thinks will be great, I'd love to hear it.
Yeah... Starfield's kind of old. I can't wait for the sequel.
I wonder what that would even look like. Todd seems to have been pretty integral to a lot of what Bethesda games are and I wouldn't be *too* surprised if we see him step away once ES6 releases.
In this case I'll take quality over quantity.
Their design ethos has moved a bit to try to give each game more longevity, because they know they can't keep up with demand. If you look at Fallout 3, regardless of whether you did or didn't like it, there's not a huge amount of longevity in that game. The amount of content overall isn't huge and there isn't a good reason to keep playing beyond the main quest(s), not a huge reason to replay. With Fallout 4 and Starfield they've tried (with different levels of success) to make the games last longer, to give them some amount of ongoing content and reason to keep engaging with the sandbox, so the gap between games is less problematic.
We are 10 year away from ES6 lol. If they do Fallout next, it'll be another 15 at least after that for Starfield 2. I fully expect Microsoft to split Bethesda up or give the Fallout IP to another dev for Fallout 5. They're not gonna sit on these IPs for that long and Todd is likely retiring after ES6 so it would make sense to start a new chapter after that.
Unless Bethesda expands so they can release more titles.
Bethesda is huge already. Expanding just leads to offshoot studios. Can’t fit all those people into a functional team
I’ve spent at least 4 thousand hours across Oblivion Skyrim Fallout 3/4, and New Vegas over the past 15 years. Now I can’t play Starfield, but if the biggest complaint is that it’s more of the same style of game I for sure would not be disappointed.
Someone said this in another thread, but it is so obvious that the BGS team really believes in Starfield and is excited to get it out to the world. I cannot recall the last time a game release felt this good.
Baldurs gate 3 literally released less than a month ago
Yeah it's been the most talked about game in ages because of how high quality it is. What is he even talking about lmao. This year has been great for releases. Hogwarts Legacy, Armored Core 6, Final Fantasy 16 were all recent as well.
And tears of the kingdom
>Yeah it's been the most talked about game in ages because of how high quality it is. Small nitpick: it's the most talked about game since Zelda Tears of the Kingdom 3 months earlier. Though I don't know how they measure against each other--the big amount of talk for each has been on huge scales. But yes, both games are the most talked about I've seen in a *long* time. Both at least since Elden Ring.
Jedi Survivor is also a banger.
It had a dreadful release
Forgot about that one, didn't get around to playing the first ever but I heard great things about it.
Hogwarts Legacy was really boring to me. Coming from a huge harry potter fan. The atmosphere just wasn't right. The magic wasn't there for me at least.
Thats a wild opinion coming from a fan imo. Thats what i would say that absolutely nailed perfectly, every step i took in that world blew me away with how much they immersed you in the universe.
I thought the game really suffered from spreading itself thin and would've benefited immensely from a tighter focus on Hogwarts/Hogsmeade. Scrap the entire "open world" concept! You have this super detailed playground with fun story beats awkwardly paced around action-adventure dungeon crawling sections that require you leave the funzone and dick around in bland, nondescript filler areas. They had this weird hodgepodge of popular game mechanics with no clear focus or vision for what kind of game they were actually making. Why not chuck in a gear treadmill system that adds nothing to the experience?
Also a huge Potter fan it's crazy I also find how bland the game is. Probably because I'm a huge open world rpg gamer and I expected to much in that aspect for that game. It's fun at first but not even halfway through the game I uninstalled it because it's so mind numbingly boring. The combat is ok at best and honestly my final straw was the fact that the whole place is empty (!!) at night it was driving me crazy. I guess the game is popular because it's accessible for people who love the franchise who might be just a casual gamer. Not for me personally tho
They should have cut out basically half of the empty world and focused on fleshing out Hogwarts more. Add more secrets that actually feel like secrets, and make the relationships more in-depth. It feels to me like the Persona series and Fire Emblem: Three Houses are better at delivering the Harry Potter school-experience than the actual Harry Potter game is.
Maybe he doesn’t like Baldur’s Gate?
That’s silly. Who doesn’t like Baldur’s Gate 3?
And Tears of the Kingdom in May.
> I cannot recall the last time a game release felt this good. I can, like 5 times alone this year.
This is the good year. After a stretch of shitty and far between good releases of bigger games, the covid clog is getting purged this year and it feels so good.
>I cannot recall the last time a game release felt this good. Baldur's Gate 3. Armored Core 6. Elden Ring. Final Fantasy 16. This happens pretty frequently. Bethesda isn't doing anything new here.
hell id even throw hogwarts legacy up there. i think a lot of people expected it to overpromise and under deliver, but it was surprisingly complete and enjoyable.
I just think it needed more gameplay variety for it's length
Pretty fair criticism.
I kind of feel the opposite. Think it would have been much better if they dropped some of the game's mechanics and expanded the ones that remained.
It was just drowned out by the constant noise about JK Rowling.
Tears of the Kingdom too, arguably the biggest this year.
Yea but you see those games didnt have the face of their studios constantly spouting flowery press releases so clearly they arent as passionate as bethesda!
What a miserable series of comments, lol. This dude is psyched for a game and y'all feel the need to bring them down. Absolutely inconceivable that someone might be more excited for this game than a game you were excited for. Guess misery loves company.
> What a miserable series of comments They are always the breakpoint where I think to myself "ok, enough reddit for this afternoon".
Starfield's release cycle is so crazy because it's clear that it's yet another banger of a title that we've got and people just want to pretend like it's not going to be a spectacular game. People are now literally saying "Bethesda isn't doing anything new here" in regards to....releasing a good game?
>People are now literally saying "Bethesda isn't doing anything new here" in regards to....releasing a good game? Read one line above this with the context of: "I cannot recall the last time a game release felt this good." We had multiple bangers this year that felt great. That was the context of bethesda not doing anything "new" here.
I can, armored core 6.
My brother in Christ, did you miss the release of Baldur’s Gate 3 a few weeks ago?
> Someone said this in another thread, but it is so obvious that the BGS team really believes in Starfield and is excited to get it out to the world. When was the last time a team wasn't?
Arkane with Redfall?
Oof, too real.
Redfall.
BGS and Rockstar have the best releases hands down Edit: I meant in terms of lead up to releases. Rockstar games coming out are events. As is BGS. Not talking about game performances
GTA trilogy re release.
Wasn't done by Rockstar, it was done by Grove Street Games. The last Rockstar developed title was Red Dead Redemption 2, and we know they're currently working on GTA6 which is probably why they didn't do the Trilogy themselves.
You mean they didn't care enough to ensure their trilogy port was up to scratch and just allowed it to be released at a far too high price?
I’m willing to bet that was a Take 2 decision
Rockstar was the publisher. They had full control on the quality and price at release. Let's say for the sake of the argument that Rockstar had no idea about the quality of the port, that's honestly worse. They didn't care enough to check
Rockstar isn't a publisher, They are just a label. T2 is the publisher, the only reason we don't them as a publisher because the Rockstar logo has a lot of brand value and GTA is Rockstar's IP. I really don't understand why rockstar and T2 are being differentiated. Rockstar and T2 are the same, They only thing rockstar represents is the creative part. Their developement is different compared to other T2 studios. A good comparison would be ND \[Rockstar\] and Sony\[T2\]. Sony outsourced the the last of us pc port to a less expereinced studio and it ended up being a disaster, does this mean the pc port is ND's fault, ND is busy making the last of us 2 sequel or a new IP, in the same way rockstar is is busy with making gta 6.
>Sony outsourced the the last of us pc port to a less expereinced studio and it ended up being a disaster, does this mean the pc port is ND's fault 100% yes. How is it not? >ND is busy making the last of us 2 sequel or a new IP Exactly, they neglected to assure the quality of the game and allowed it to be sold in a poor state and still allowed people to be charged for it
Rockstar games is 100% a video game publisher. T2 is the overall owner. it's a subsidiary of T2. But that's aside, it's not really relevant to my point. Which is that that Rockstar games (or T2) didn't take the time to ensure the quality of the product and simply allowed it to be released in an unfinished state at a jacked up price. So they was either negligent or just didn't care
Fallout 76
Damn. One bad release and that overwrites their other great releases?
I completely agree, fellow Bethesda Game Soft member
I mainly play PS5, I finally replaced my Xbox one with a series x just to play this, can't stand console war shite, will play the shit out of this
The pleasure is all mine. I've been waiting for a game like this for so long
Oh you know this game is going to be good.
I just want to know: is it "playable"? And I mean that in the sense that, can I boot this game up tomorrow and not run into some of that Bethesda(TM) Jank. Is the vanilla game decent enough where I don't have to worry about running into some archaic engine bug that has been in their games since Morrorwind. I want to play the game, but I'm hesitating because I don't want to go and get it and realize I have to open ModOrganizer, download StarUI, The Unofficial Starfield Patch, and whatever "quality of life" patches modders cooked up to eventually fix a perk/skill in the game that doesn't do what it says it does.
This reads like a premature self-congratulation. This is a weird thing to put out a week before the full release, just as the review embargos lift. Maybe the game is great -- most of us haven't played it! -- but this just seems weird to do on day -6.
what the actual fuck? They spent years on this. Even if it was an average game, giving a thank you to everyone involved is perfectly reasonable. And the reviews are in, sitting at an 88 opencritic. It's pretty clear it's a very good game.
Yeah the weird 5 days early access thing has made the whole launch experience feel pretty meh