Starfield

Hilarious question to make in this forum.

 

Would you really have wanted 20+ years of the same thing though? I doubt it would have been that good. If anything, for you guys Bethesda's Fallouts have made the originals better by comparison. It's like you have the first Dune book and then suddenly the next entry is Star Wars.

 

Would have been cool to get Van Buren and tactics 2, then die for a decade or two to be revived in the 'CRPG RENAISSANCE'.

I've read the first three Dune books and prefer Messiah.

 

What makes you think it would have the same thing for 20 years? Implying all turn based isometric RPGs are the same. And with Bethesda we got 13 years of shit, with one game that wasn't even made by them to break the monotomy of garbage.

It would have been much better.

We didn't need three shit games, Fallout 3, 4 and 76, to know that the originals are good.

 

I've liked Divinity and have Disco Elysium in the wings. I'd also like to try neverwinter some day. I don't really think crpg's are that good though. Most are like Pillars of Eternity for me.

Right, which isn't what I said. I said they were made better by comparison, not that you had to have FO3 to realize they were good.

Would have actually been neat to see, yeah. I'm thinking the Elysium guys would do great with it from what I've seen people play of it.

The first one had a big impact on me. I was the same age as Paul and there were other parallels of coming of age struggle, etc, etc. Minus the whole demi god struggles and planetary warfare.

 

None of that matters because what matters is that Fallout could have stayed in the CRPG genre and not be dragged through the mud because Todd Howard wanted Elder Scrolls with guns. And Bethesda could have instead created their shitty post-apocalyptic IP (which i learned recently was the plan before they bought Fallout) and leave Fallout the fuck alone.

We didn't need the existence of bad games to make the originals look better by comparison.

 

To play devil's advocate, Morrowind with guns would have made a pretty awesome Fallout.

Leave it alone to be sold by Interplay anyways.

Nathan Drake and the dried up ghoul balls of the collapsed shopping mall?
Resistance: Fall of Fallout?
*pukes*

 

They said it was in engine but we have seen other "in engine" trailer from Bethesda where they obviously touch up absolutely everything and the game ends up being the same Frankenstein puppet show each time. The direction and presentation are good tho.

That "25 years in the making" in the trailer tho.... we have yet another game that will use how long it supposedly has been in development as a selling point to show how amazing it is, but then when it comes out and people point out the problems it will quickly turn into "They actually only developed for 2 year mang".

If they still have the same writers then all of that is probably gonna go to waste with Pagliarulos trademark terrible writing. Game is still a year away. Nothing much to hate, they seem to have figured out ladders, not much to get excited about for me either. If its on Gamepass then I can play it for realitvely little so I guess Ill give it a spin then.

 

Given that Troika was in the race for it and they made Temple of Elemental Evil and Bloodlines 1, that wouldn't have been a bad thing.

 

Gotta admit tho, all the guys from Interplay dont know how to run a company without runing into the ground, so we would probably still be in a similar situation even then.

 

This is the best timeline.

 

More like there was no good timeline, it's like a Tell Tale Game, any choice was a temporal aesthetic change that then ends on the same place anyway.

 

I thought the first season of their Walking Dead game was the best piece of media the franchise had. Haven't played the others though.

 

They get increasingly worse from there along with the rest of their other games.

 

Honestly Norzan, from what I've seen of your posts, I appreciate the enthusiasm you have, but honestly it's one that I've grown out of.

Like, after a while you kinda stop having this "Bethesda have wronged us, and games companies I don't like are evil and iredeemable, and Bethesda fans are iditos" approach, at least I find.

At the end of the day Bethesda is just a company that makes games, and getting angry about games is dumb because unless companies are actually scamming people, it doesn't really matter. Don't get me wrong: I still believe Fallout 3 and 4 are utter failures as Fallout games and will likely believe that as strongly until the day I die, it's just at the end of the day Bethesda is just a company that makes video games.

My stance towards Starfield is open mindedness. If it sounds promising I'll get it, if it doesn't I won't. I'm doubtful at the moment, because honestly Bethesda has a formula that I just don't like which is "The player is literally a god-king", combined with consequence free sandbox roaming, combined with gunplay or settlement building or basically whatever the majority of players would find cool. They're not bad for making games like this, it just doesn't feel real to me.

It's like how I tend to avoid Bioware games, despite seeing people have a lot of fun with pretty much all of them. I've played Mass Effect 1 and Dragon Age Origins, and what these games are delivering just doesn't feel my speed. They seem like great games, it's just that I don't vibe with them personally.

So I'm skeptical of Bethesda's ability to deliver what I personally like, but I think ruling them out as the big adversaries is a kinda weird position.

 

Neverwinter Nights or the Neverwinter MMO?

 

@Jogre

Because i genuinely don't give a shit about Bethesda and not interested in giving them a single dime.

And my statement wasn't even exclusive to me, this forum is rather infamous for their dislike of Bethesda's treatment towards Fallout and to a lesser extent Elder Scrolls. So asking what Bethesda did to deserve the ire of some people here is hilarious to me.

 

If anything, this game being a new IP might make it easier to take it for what it is and not having to feel the pang of it turning a series we liked into a Loot mill shooter. Like for example I don't like FO4 but I can't say anything strong about Skyrim other than I don't like the leveling systen and writing but the exploration is fun and mods can make it a real fun experience.

 

Fair enough. I just think it's dumb to act like disagreeing with the direction a company took a video game series is an actual iredeemable wrong.

 

They destroyed whatever shred of simpathy i could have for them after literally well over a decade of making garbage entries in two franchises that had immense potential.

And even if i disagree with the direction, what their audience wants is the exact opposite of i want. So the chances of them making any game that suits any of my tastes are pretty much zero, because Bethesda isn't interested in it. Why would they change the winning formula at this point, the formula i despise?