Starfield

Are you going to be a Bethesdafag?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 4 6.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 35 60.3%
  • I am a hypocrite.

    Votes: 12 20.7%
  • I like to whine a lot about things I am the reason for sucking.

    Votes: 7 12.1%

  • Total voters
    58
30 bucks for a single fucking expansion is something else. Season passes used to ask for that and they would come out with at least two big story expansions and a bunch of extra shit.

The Witcher 3 expansion pass was 25 bucks and that was two story expansions (with the last one being pretty lengthy) and it had a bunch of extra stuff.
 
to this day no one has been able to give me a concise elevator pitch for starfield, its story, or its factions. i still have no fucking idea what this game is
 
It's a game about uh.... Well you start as a minor.... Miner!... Uh, then you kinda find "the thing" and it makes you uh... Special! I suppose... Then some dude who just arrived gives you a spaceship because... Well, You're you, right? Then uh, you gotta murder people. You're a miner so you've never murdered people before but now you gotta murder people, aight? Cool. Then uh. You go to this faction of people who take astrology VERY SERIOUSLY and they claim that you are like top shit yo. Join? Plz? Ok. :) Then you uh, go find other "things" with space mommy and uh... yes.
 
I think most Bethesda fans's expectation was that it was going to be Skyrim in space, but it couldn't even do that.

They basically took their usual empty, shallow world, cut it into tiny pieces and spread those small pieces across multiple maps that are supposed to represent planets. That's why the majority of planets are empty, because in every other Bethesda game those pieces are just a small part of a big world, but here they have to give the illusion that they are a big world because they are supposed to represent a planet.
 
Even Betheslop-enjoyer MrMattyPlays said that SS was dogshit. Not even the chills have patience for Todd now.

They basically took their usual empty, shallow world, cut it into tiny pieces and spread those small pieces across multiple maps that are supposed to represent planets. That's why the majority of planets are empty, because in every other Bethesda game those pieces are just a small part of a big world, but here they have to give the illusion that they are a big world because they are supposed to represent a planet.
One billion loading screens.


Of course it's a buggy mess.
 
Last edited:
1728024398210.png


My theory is that Bethesda has never had to deal with this level of negativity or backlash for one of their MAIN titles and considering how slow Bethesda are at producing games I can't imagine that they must have multiple studios at work really. Just look at when TESVI was announced and we still don't have any info.

After the negative reception towards the game's core fundamental design choices that are not fixable because, well, that's the core of the game, Bethesda never fixes core issues with any of their games (just look at every iteration's horrendous combat balancing) I think that Bethesda has jumped ship on Starfield.

But.... They have a contractual obligation to see that first expansion through. Because otherwise they might get sued for false marketing or something. They sold that first expansion pack in every edition but the standard edition so even if they want to abandon this ship they can't. But that doesn't mean that they have to give it their A-game anyway. So whatever skeleton crew was left behind (not necessarily in terms of numbers but in terms of talent, the main talent was definitely moved over to TESVI as they must be shitting bricks over what to do with that game) is working on an expansion pack for a bad game.

I mean the base core design of the game is just bad. There isn't really any fixing this. You can't design an expansion pack that uses the main character you play as with all of their "progression" and isolate it completely from the rest of the design of the game. You HAVE to deal with the awful RPG mechanics. You HAVE to deal with the RNG for planets. You HAVE to deal with the pointless ship combat. You HAVE to adhere to the balancing system in place. etc etc. How do you detach an expansion pack from literally every design choice that made Starfield terrible to begin with? IMO, you can't. Not without making it a completely separate game mode with its own core design and that's not what people expect out of a DLC for a Bethesda game.

Most DLC's from what I've seen tend to have a weaker score than the main product. The exception to that is when the foundation of a game is great but flawed and the expansion pack is when they can spit and polish it to showcase its true potential. But the foundation of this game is awful. So how good can an expansion pack for it really be? How many people are going to buy an expansion pack for a terrible game? Those who threw money at them for the ultimate edition and beyond are stuck with their choice so they might as well give it a try but that's not new sales.

So my theory is that Bethesda or Microsoft saw the reception, knew that the expansion pack is probably going to be pretty terrible and not going to sell well but had to complete it out of contractual obligation and shifted the main talent over to work on TESVI as it is far more important than this expansion pack is.

-
-
next part has nothing to do with Starfield really.
-
-

On the topic of TES, I think Bethesda is completely screwed. Think about it, what improvements have they made to melee combat (which has been included in every single game since Skyrim) over the years? Have they improved the parrying system? Have they added in better functionality for location based damage so that you can target body parts to weaken their stance? Have they updated their general design of combat so that it isn't just a damage sponge whack whack whack whack whack? Do we have different animations and combo moves for different close range weapons? Do we have a dodge system? Do we have a deeper system for fatigue that plays into the other aspects of the game?

No.

What about archery or throwing weapons? Fallout is a perfect setting for including both as for some factions guns and ammo is going to be expensive if not rare to acquire so why not use more primitive weapons for ranged combat or hunting? But not only has Bethesda opted not to include them that means that they have done nothing at all to improve that kind of design either. Whatever improvements they've done to guns over the years is irrelevant as TES does not have guns or anything that really functions like guns either. Maybe replace the missile launcher with explosive fireball? But that's about it.

Then we have the magic system. Now one can argue that there has been some gameplay feature and functionality that you can learn from in order to improve the magic system but at the same time Bethesda has not taken the time over the years to work on any kind of elemental system at all. Think of Divinity OS 2 where if you use fire on water it creates steam. Not asking for the same kind of gameplay in let's say Fallout but the point is that they have done nothing to improve the magic system at all.

So now, in 2020somethingsomething they're going to release their next TES game and they had done bugger all to improve their melee combat and archery and magic have been ignored completely. And now they're going to make the follow up to Skyrim? Bethesda has grown so incredibly complacent over the years that they have done bugger all to improve and just added in gimmicks that never go anywhere and are horrendously designed and balanced to begin with.

What are they gonna do exactly? Suddenly overhaul every way that they design a game to be a completely different game? Their AI has been trash for the longest time it isn't going to suddenly just be on par with other AAA games. The clunk in the way combat works isn't just going to go away over night, they've had 1.3 decade since Skyrim to work on it and fix it and it still plays like ass. The way damage and health works hasn't been improved upon whatsoever, even in Starfield the game turns into big number is big number; If they never listened to that criticism of every game since Morrowind then why would they listen to it now? The scripted scenes and dialogue is still extremely clunky and awkward and it is clear that the engine they are using for the gameplay format they are using is not suitable for cinematic moments so the story will always be subpar to other games on the market.

Maybe they'll blow me away but I don't think so. Bethesda is a complacent one trick pony that has been overshadowed by its peers time and time again. The only thing they bring to the table is the "bethesda formula", meaning the unique combination of gameplay features that make a Bethesda game what it is. And even that charm has worn itself out.
 
You know, people have been wanting Bethesda to redeem themselves, i'm getting what i have always wanted. I have been wanting for Bethesda to eat shit for well over a decade at this point, and the reason i have been wanting that was because Bethesda has become complacent assholes, coasting on the fact that they held the monolopy of open world games for as long as they did and that meant they could dumb down and make RPGs for babies.

I also knew eventually companies would start making games in the same lane, you don't get to have something as successful as Skyrim and not have your copycats (for a lack of a better word), but in this case those copycats made much better games than Skyrim.

And now Bethesda has to step up or get left behind, and you know what? I hope they don't even try. I just want Bethesda to fuck off, they are the equivalent of a wrestler way past their prime for some reason still trying to recapture their glory days. Let companies that actually give a shit continue to make open world games.
 
"Any Bethesda developer who has been around since the horse armor days knows that by this point, if we understand one thing, it’s DLC," studio design director says of Starfield Shattered Space.

No goddamn way. There's living in a bubble, sure, but then there's believing that horse armor was a good idea.
 
I never understood why some people claim Bethesda is some bastion of good DLC. Besides the horse armor mentioned from the poster above, Oblivion really was the game where their DLC starting going to shit. Shivering Isles was some good stuff (the best content in Oblivion, if that means anything), but Knights of the Nine was like 10 bucks for a two hours boring ass story.

Then the Fallout 3 DLC had garbage like Operation Anchorage and specially Mothership Zeta, i think that was like 10 bucks a pop and both sucked. I know some people like Broken Steel, but that shit was literally made as response to the backlash from the ending of the base game. And i know some people think the Point Outlook and The Pitt are decent, but these are rather short and kind of undercooked (not to mention having some horrid new enemies like those Mirelurkers)

The DLC of Skyrim kind of sucked. The Dawnguard happens mostly in areas you already been, so you spent very little in new areas, not to mention again it was short. The Dragonborn DLC just reminded people of a much better game (Morrowind) and that final boss is a buggy piece of shit. And again, short too, it's like three to four hours to complete most of it.

The Fallout 4 DLC was genuinely abysmal outside of Far Harbour. There was like three story DLCs, two sucked balls (the Automatron and Nuka World), the only worth anything was Far Harbour (which like Shivering Isles is the best part of the game). The rest of the DLC was workshop bullshit. And the season pass cost 50 fucking bucks, which is ridiculous.

To bring up Witcher 3 DLC again, 25 bucks for two great story DLC and some extra stuff. With Hearts of Stone having the best writing in the game (i haven't forgotten a single bit about it and i played the game three years ago), and Blood and Wine being pretty long, with multiple story routes adding even more playtime for repeat playhroughs. New Vegas is another game with better DLC than most Bethesda games (Lonesome Road kind of sucked though).
 
Last edited:
I think it's only natural for people to want Bethesda to redeem itself and come back kicking, being like they used to be (depending on your time of reference). But as you said, with Bethesda being complacent for almost two decades, the chance of them doing it is near 0%.

You can't just reinvent a company culture that has stayed the same for such a long time. They don't know how to do it.
Watching them crash and burn would be kinda satisfying though.





I feel like an edgy 13-year old quoting the joker, but I cant deny that it fits too well.
 
"Any Bethesda developer who has been around since the horse armor days knows that by this point, if we understand one thing, it’s DLC," studio design director says of Starfield Shattered Space.

No goddamn way. There's living in a bubble, sure, but then there's believing that horse armor was a good idea.

:O

-

1728119625973.png
 
Last edited:
^
I like how Emil claims that people didn't liked the original ending of Fallout 3 because apparently "players want to live in worlds made by Bethesda".

It shows how much of a shit he doesn't give about writing when he says that, because the ending Fallout 3 was trash due to the fact that your character can have two companions immune to radiation, but for some reason they start spouting nonsense about destiny and thus your character has to die. I don't think people would have minded sacrificing their character if it made any sense, but it didn't in the final product.

Emil and Todd love that PR speak where they skirt around the real issues and try to prop themselves up as good people. And a lot of the time it bites them in the ass when just being quiet would have been better in the long run.
 
Last edited:

The comments and chat he had during the video are disheartening in how many think Bethesda's old games are king shit.
 
It's really ironic that fans of Oblivion and Skyrim will say that Bethesda used to be good and their new games are bad. I still vividly remember these people cussing out fans of the old fallouts and elder scrolls for being close-minded and other bullshit, and yet here they are saying that the new games are bad.

The difference is that the games they are defending have been shit since day one.
 
Back
Top