Starfield

This is Bethesda the game studio themselves that did this, or Zenimax the parent company? Either way, Zeni and Beth were in turn bought out themselves so it's Microsoft ip now.

 

I liked the weapon customization system in FO4, but I hated the lack of variety in base models and some of the designs were obviously rushed: the combat rifle and the combat shotgun are basically the same model, and while the model is passable for a shotgun it's absolutely terrible for a rifle IMO. The assault rifle is fugly but at least it's different.

Back on topic, I just hope that Starfield will have a crafted map. Maybe it could be something like the Witcher 3: a big detailed area on a certain planet as a hub and then smaller maps in other planets, but that will depend on the story. I would accept a bigger and more free ME style map (a mix of handcrafted maps and procedural maps). I hope they aren't trying a fully procedural world.

I hope there will be "guilds" and different factions to join. Vehicles I don't know what to think, they could be fun but their implementation in ME Andromeda led to large uninteresting maps with nothing in them. Also, Beth has no experience with vehicles

True

 

My perspective started with Oblivion when I was 12 so I had a different experience with it. Makes sense after getting older and having played Morrowind and at least watching people play FO 1&2. There was actually an interview I wish I could find with one of the main project leads on Morrowind and Oblivion that a lot of people thought Morrowind was too weird so the studio shifted directions more towards Oblivion and Skyrim. Larger market, I guess.

I would be amazed if they went with a lot of procedural. It'll be a tool used, but hopefully not like it was in Bloodbourne.

 

Can i also add the complete irony of saying people here don't like change (which is stupid, change isn't good by default) when Bethesda is afraid of change? Obviously this is not directed at Starfield since we know next to nothing (but i'm willing to bet that is gonna be Elder Scrolls in space), but Bethesda is pretty much stuck making the same game since 2006. It's been 15 years of making the same game over and over.

Hell, you could argue they have been making the same game since Morrowind and that means 19 years of the same stuff.

 

The game is whatever. the only questions I have is if that whole debacle that is Fallout 76 burned people's scrotes enough that the free pass they give Bethesda's buggy messes will finally come to an end and the second being that now that they are owned by Mircosoft are they going to spend more than 10¢ on QA.

 

Bethesda is very much afraid most of the time. IMO most of the problems that plagued FO3 that weren't due to (very) bad writing were due to a fear that the game wouldn't be seen as a true Fallout, so they put in a lot of stuff from the previous games and steered clear of anything really new.

 

It would be ironic if I didn't want change since I'm the one that said it. What I said was correct, there were changes made, you didn't like them. You wanted it to stay as an iso crpg. Besides, they have changed more with their approach to Fallout over the years from 3 to 4 to 76 than there were from Fallout 1-2. The real dumb shit is that thinking me saying you're afraid of change implies that all change is good. That one is on you, not me.

 

Oblivion was my first Bethesda game and FO3 was my first Fallout. I used to like both and I somewhat still like both, especially Oblivion. I never liked the main story of FO3 and I never had much fun with it past Little Lamplight. As a RPG I think FO3 has always been a complete failure, but as a game it was pretty good. The open world was very impressive at the time. You had to use your imagination to make it work though

 

Nope, all those games pretty much share the same design philosophies. The only difference is that they got simpler with each game, but the core is still the same bullshit "kill, loot, sell" loop Bethesda loves so much. And this applies to Oblivion and Skyrim.

Fucking lol, coming from someone that didn't even played them.

What else can you extrapolate from "people hate change"? Literally the only thing you get from it is the implication that all change is good.

The irony here is you giving people shit for apparently not liking change, but then you turn around and defend Bethesda games, games that are way too similar with each other.

 

That's some fine rake stepping you got there, English.

 

I think the jump to 3D was not a bad idea per se. In NV the 3D just works and in FO3 it's not the problem. The isometric games had a different atmosphere to them that you can't really do with 3D because you can't give the idea of big distances in a smaller 3D world, but the new games have more atmosphere in any given moment. You lose some of the overall atmosphere of the world for more atmosphere in the locations.

 

I happen to prefer New Vegas over Fallout 2, so i don't have a problem with change in itself. I hate bad change instead, and the changes Bethesda made were bad in my opinion.

 

As opposed to all the changes Interplay did? You guys want the exact same shit from old fallout just like Star Wars fans just want the original trilogy retold to them forever.

And I'm still right.

Okay, so here we go: "You're afraid of change/you hate change" does not equal, or imply "all change is good". This is your failure here, not mine. It means you are either afraid of, or hate change. No need to extrapolate something that wasn't implied.

Where did I defend Bethesda's games? Besides sometimes a formula is good, like Mario. Not much change, still good. Change is neutral by default. Not good, not bad. You are afraid of, or hate it either way. Bethesda is in a loop though.

 

Still far more than what Bethesda did. And who the fuck said we wanted the same game over and over? Wanting the series to stay CRPG is not the same as wanting the same game over and over. Don't put bullshit into people's mouths with no evidence.

Nope, you're still wrong. lol

That has been the implication since day one. Be more clear next time.

Are you serious right now? Just lol.

When the fuck did i said i hate any change? You are putting words into my mouth that i never said. Stop it.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulta...ew-trailer-and-fresh-details/?sh=7859a9f62589
Was this already said in here? Whatever. The game is apparently not coming to ps5.

You have been making shit up this entire thread. Take your own advice.

Change is inherently neutral until it happens. I don't know what to tell you fam. You could have just said you like NV better once I said that, but you instead made stuff up. I am the one that needs to be more clear though

Ah okay, so you made that up too. You shouldn't put bullshit into people's mouths with no evidence.

Anytime a change has been brought up you've stated your dislike for it and yearned for how things used to be. Again you could have just said you liked NV once I said that and put it to rest then, but you made shit up instead. Good job.

 

It's a mixed bag for me. I think the 3D was a good(ish) change. The shooting has got better from 3 to NV to 4 and I like that the SPAV in 4 doesn't stop time completely. Weapon customization in 4 was actually a neat idea but very badly implemented. The dialogue wheel is a horrible change in 4. The writing failed big time in 3. In 4 the writing and the main story are actually better than in 3 but that's not a stretch. Little Lamplight is something that shouldn't have passed quality control. I understand it is a reference to Lord of the Flies but it's horrible. It breaks my suspension of disbelief. The setting is wrong in 3 and 4. 3 without the BOS, the Enclave, ghouls and supermutants (do something new) and in 2160s would have made more sense to me.

 

Nu Fallout is shit for anything other than fucking around in and seeing the sights. Still better than Stalker or Metro though. Especially Metro. terrible game.

 

NV is pretty good, otherwise I agree.

I liked Tranquility Lane tho