-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Why is "Bethesda jank" so readily dismissed? It's insufferable
- Thread starter Fahzgoolin
- Start date
Heckler456
Banned
Can you remind me what this was about? I totally forgot lol
AWizardDidIt
Member
For the millions of people who buy and love Bethesda games, the immersive aspect of permanence is *exactly* why they enjoy it. I'm not a game designer so I'm not going to pretend to know which is more technically impressive, but they're both technically impressive for different reasons and appeal to different people.
For reference, I don't like Bethesda games myself.
Bethesda's strength is creating a platform for others to refine and improve. Their worldbuilding is fine, nothing to write home about by either open world or RPG standards. Their games are dull.
Of course, that janky ass platform is exactly the problem this thread is about. It comes with the territory.
As someone who only played the GOTY editions of Witcher 3 and Skyrim, there was no comparison. The Witcher had some really dumb gameplay stuff in it that you could consider "janky" (the handling of elevation and the weird insta-death drops, for instance) but I never ran into a bug that slowed my progress.
Whereas I had to glitch out of a goddamn town and go underneath the map to find a quest-required NPC who was living underneath the city and prevent myself from having to restart my entire game in Skyrim.
onemanasylum
Banned
How can you say this like it's fact without knowing all the complexities of each engine in depth? GTA games are massive and have a tonne of stuff to keep track of, all the while playing and running far better then anything Bethesda makes.
Austin almost a bigger defender than Brad.
I just checked; I have 136 hours put into FO4. You don't find it strange that I didn't see a single issue you listed?
Are you playing with the latest patched / paid for copy of the game? I'm honestly curious; it doesn't make sense that our experience could be so different.
When FO3 came out I couldn't even play the game at launch; 20 minutes in, hard crash. It was frustrating and I ditched the game. But a year later I started playing it and didn't have any of the problems I had at launch; now must easily have a couple hundred hours into that game and even more in FONV.
Anyways, to answer the OP.. I don't dismiss anything, I just managed to put literally hundreds and hundreds of hours into their games and only had major problems with one game the week it launched.
My Skyrim says 443 hours on Steam; I wouldn't be shocked if in total I'd put 1,000 hours into Bethesda RPGs.
If my experience always mirrored yours, I'd certainly not have put that time in or "dismissed" th issues.
Zombie James
Banned
Yeah, Austin's more annoying than Brad. Can't wrap my head around these arguments.
Here's the thing, for us people who like Bethesda games... all I want is more new areas to explore, new story to discover, new sidequests. ANd yes they could do all that better. And they do refine the game, they just don't do drastic changes. I mean Fallout 4 has better gunplay than 3 for example. THey changed the perk system around (for me I'm neutral on it, I don't like it better nor do I think it's worse). And I honestly wish they would have left the dialogue system alone... it's far worse now and I was happy with it the way it was (but I'd say the way they have it do now is the least of the problems, they still could have done a decent RPG with how they set it up now if they spent less money on a voice actor and more on writing the dialogue choices. Personally I don't even like having a voice actor for my character). Sometimes change isn't good.
I think you miss that the people who love their games in general aren't looking to play a drastically different game (There are plenty of those and yet we still play Bethesda games). Bethesda's games, like them or not, are pretty unique and people like them for what they offer. No they shouldn't try to make a game more like Witcher though hey should strive for writing like Witcher's. Honestly though, I prefer they strive for Obsidian's writing as New Vegas's story was more suited for what people like Bethesda games for, creating your own character, playing your own way, and making your own story. Witcher was totally not a game about making your own story or playing your own way. You were playing Geralt and the choices were how you thought Geralt would handle it. It is why I still love Bethesda games over Witcher even though I think CDPR did a better job with Witcher for what game they were aiming to make than Bethesda does with their games. They're not the same game and I would honestly find Bethesda's games ruined for what I like them for if they tried to make a game like Witcher (Bethesda is trying to make a D&D style rpg with live action... they're more based on turn based RPGs that base themselves off that. Witcher is more a modern RPG game style game that really isn't going for that kind of thing).
They should try to improve on their game. Make it less janky, make combat more fun, remember that it's an RPG and that we like to have actual roleplaying in it - allow our choices to matter and give us different choices *grumble* <- this is their biggest problem I think, get better writers or rather allow their writers more flexibility as Far Harbor shows they still know how to do a good RPG... to me it's just more proof that they need to get rid of Emil as head writer as he didn't lead the writing on Far Harbor. I mean honestly if they fixed 4's dialogue it would go a long way in making it more the RPG I would want out of them (and have more skill checks that let you resolve things with your skills rather than combat).
Heckler456
Banned
That's Justin McElroy. He was excited when he got his review copy of Skyrim, so he made a humorous video.
Having played both GTA and Bethesda games extensively... how can you NOT see the blatant difference?
GTA games don't keep track of anywhere near as many things, that should be readily aparent.
onemanasylum
Banned
Was there need of this anger? There is a discussion to be had why Bethesda games have so much "Jank", and whether or not they get off too easy or not for it. Why does it bother some and not others?
You cannot understand why many like something you don't? The writing for one in an open world game puts every other open world game to shame. Opinions are not a hard concept. I don;t like something so "OVERRATED". Overrated is the most overrated word used on forums. You are one of those people? The NPC's in the witcher were a step up from most games, especially in their quest design.
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
Seriously. It's really bad.
Drillary Clinton
Banned
No way. In 2017 I'm not buying the whole "it's a big world it comes with the territory" mess. These games have had the exact same issues for almost a decade. It's time for them to make a new engine. There's no reason for them to be putting out these dated ass games other than that they can because people will buy them anyway. I enjoyed Fallout 4 overall but there is NO reason it should have been as ugly as it was, running the way it did. Zero excuse.
Damn lazy developers strike again.
But isn't that pretty much the impetus of every single, "Bethesda is the worst EVAR!!!! OMG!!! They SUX so bad!!!11!!!!" thread out there?
Good gravy it's like the Bethesda Hate Patrol just can't stand the fact that the games are loved by millions and sell by the train-load.
smh
Com Truise
Member
Ironically, I think that's exactly what you can accuse them of. Because while their worlds are big, there is zero reactivity, which is actually the hard part of making an ambitious RPG that provides a lot of freedom. There is no feedback to anything you do. You can be the leader of every faction in the world, nobody gives a shit. You can pretend to be a hunter, selling bear pelts, none of the merchants ever acknowledge you as one. You can pretend you have an argonian wife because you made her hut your personal home or something, that sure as hell would be news to her.
You can pick pick up forks from every table. So what. What are you going to do with them? Ram the fork into someone's eyes? Use them to eat a meal? No, the best you can do is place them somewhere else. Wow, who gives a shit.
You can't have interesting conversations with interesting NPCs, you can pick up a lot of shit but without any kind of interesting application for anything, the world doesn't change, doesn't react to anything you do, there are hundreds of dungeons, all of them look the same, cities are small and devoid of bustling life.
Thats how I experience Bethesda RPGs, huge worlds that still feel like no effort went into them. The freedom is all meaningless fluff. Bethesda is not ambitious because they don't bother to fill the empty husks they create with...anything really.
onemanasylum
Banned
I'm not debating that so what does it have to do with my post? I understand why people like their games....
The reason is there is no real competition in the space. The Witcher 3 is probably the closest I guess, but the Bethesda package or whatever you want to call it, is very unique. These games make an absurd amount of money, yet no one even bothers to challenge it? Is there any other game where that has happened, ever? Where a game has come out, and it and its successors have been huge successes for probably over a decade at this point and there have been no real efforts to come after it?
I have to assume it is because of how difficult the games Bethesda is trying to make are.
Vincent Grayson
Member
I've been really lucky overall with Bethesda bugs over the years. The only issue I ever had in Skyrim (other than stuff caused by mods) was one tunnel that crashed when you entered it.
Fallout 4 actually never gave me any trouble.
Fallout 3, Oblivion, and Morrowind though? So many bugs.
And of course, Daggerfall couldn't even be completed without a patch, IIRC.
Zombie James
Banned
When I'm playing Fallouts 4 and I'm seeing the same bugs I saw eleven years ago in Oblivion that still haven't been fixed, yeah, i'll join in the lazy devs argument. I'll throw in incompetence, too. Bethesda is lazy and incompetent. They're the most successful bad developer in the industry.
Fair enough. My biggest axe to grind with Bethesda is their quest design. In that, they really don't bother designing quests at all.
Their Fallout games try (and, imo, don't really succeed at this) to, but TES is really just "Hey, go to dungeon X that may as well be randomly generated." That's it. I know they think they can gloss over it with production values, but it's 2017. That just isn't good enough for me. Being able to go around in a world and pick up plates and shit is cool, but I also need compelling things to do within it.
See, that kind of thing worked for me in Morrowind, because getting to the dungeon in question or finding your way around a map was, in itself, a "quest" of sorts.
So, I think "unambitious" is the word I'd go with. And bland. There's just no variety. They don't really have any interest in building their craft at all.
Exactly.
That's why New Vegas was such an interesting experiment, imo. Take Bethesda's tools, and go beyond building a world -- but build a truly great RPG.
This just isn't true at all; particularly for the Fallout games. The factions react to your actions, if you side with certain people, other factions will cancel their missions with you and instead fight you.. and NPCs react differently to you.
There are ways / orders to play missions where you can do a lot of shit with a lot of factions, but there's still typically an "end decision" that changes that. Like you can play every faction for a while, but can't take any too far or else others will hate you. The games alert you to your reputation with different groups.
Skyrim lets you pretty much do everything, but not the Fallout games.
You can't really compare what Bethesda is doing to a game like Witcher 3 or Horizon. For one, Bethesda games tend to have a lot more small-scale world detail, such as individual physics objects all over the place that have their own system for keeping track of their location. You also have individual NPCs with their own daily routines rather than ones that spawn randomly just to populate the world. Each of these NPCs have their inventory systems that the player can manipulate (such as reverse-pickpocketing a poison apple or self-damaging item onto an NPC in Oblivion.) These NPCs will also treat the player differently based on how much they like or dislike you. There's an incredible amount of "behind the scenes" tracking going on in Bethesda games, and that can obviously lead to problems since there are so many variables to consider.
With that said, I think Bethesda should put more effort into bug testing and animations.
If you want an example of how a simple quest in Oblivion can play out in countless different ways, play the Dark Brotherhood quest in which the player is locked inside a manor with a bunch of guests searching for hidden treasure. It can be completed in many different ways based on what the guests think of each other and whether or not they trust the player (which you can of course manipulate). Their suspicions will also change based on the order in which people get killed off. It's one of the most clever quests in any Bethesda game, and other games just don't have the systems in place for something similar.
With that said, I think Bethesda should put more effort into bug testing and animations.
If you want an example of how a simple quest in Oblivion can play out in countless different ways, play the Dark Brotherhood quest in which the player is locked inside a manor with a bunch of guests searching for hidden treasure. It can be completed in many different ways based on what the guests think of each other and whether or not they trust the player (which you can of course manipulate). Their suspicions will also change based on the order in which people get killed off. It's one of the most clever quests in any Bethesda game, and other games just don't have the systems in place for something similar.
Imp the Dimp
Member
I swear this was so disgraceful
I gotta agree. I'm also really sick of seeing it compared to Witcher as if they need to make a game like Witcher... Yes, people loved Witcher, but it's not the same game and honestly I'd be pissed if Bethesda tried to just make a game like Witcher (it's not the same and it's not why I love Bethesda games). I'm already annoyed enough they decided they should copy other RPG games in having a voice actor for my character (it makes it so that the voice actor gets to play my character rather than me... tone can mean a lot in how things are implied so now she gets to set the tone of my character. Even with the more limited dialogue of 4 it still goes a long way to letting me play my own character by just turning her voice off with a mod).
I mean I have not seen anyone make a game like Bethesda's and it would be a shame if they ruin it trying to be like other RPGs. If people like those other RPGs, they can play those. Plenty of us (like it or not) love Bethesda games, warts and all (cause I will totally admit I think they could improve on things. But not because they aren't like Witcher).
If any game should be held up as to how they should improve, it should be New Vegas. Which really was aiming more towards they style they do but done right. Oh, and that was using Bethesda's engine because the engine allowed for making that kind of game. And yes, I would absolutely love it if they allowed Obsidian who seems more RPG focused (Bethesda makes RPGs but I think they are more focused on just complete freedom to the detriment of the RPG aspect honestly) to make another Fallout. Dream of mine. New Vegas was my absolute favorite game of all time (and sorry Witcher fans, I'd take New Vegas over Witcher any day of the week. I liked Witcher but it's less the type RPG I prefer).
AWizardDidIt
Member
The hate boners some armchair developers have for bethesda always makes for some hilariously uninformed discussions.
Neuromancer
Member
I think there's a case to be made about the difference between "good jank" and "bad jank". I would classify "good jank" as minor things like clipping and physics glitches or unexpected AI reactions, some of which are funny and actually add to the experience in a way. If you're a super serious person I suppose these sorts of things might "take you out of the experience" or something but personally I don't mind stuff like that.
"Bad jank" is anything that breaks the game, like constant crashes or permanently impeding your progress. I've only had one instance of "bad jank" happen to me in a Bethesda Softworks game. Back in Oblivion I couldn't complete a mission in the Thieves Guild (I think because I either dropped a quest item, or somehow had two of them, I can't remember the exact specifics) and had to start a new character and begin the guild questline again. Across three huge games I honestly don't think that's that bad.
"Bad jank" is anything that breaks the game, like constant crashes or permanently impeding your progress. I've only had one instance of "bad jank" happen to me in a Bethesda Softworks game. Back in Oblivion I couldn't complete a mission in the Thieves Guild (I think because I either dropped a quest item, or somehow had two of them, I can't remember the exact specifics) and had to start a new character and begin the guild questline again. Across three huge games I honestly don't think that's that bad.
They already have paired it down. Fallout 4 was a big step down from Fallout 3 and a leap off of a cliff compared to New Vegas.
It only seems that way because it's allowed to do more, in more places, than AI in any other open world game.
They had to counter great arguments like "the game is broken because I encountered a random event when I stepped out into the open world for the first time and it ruined my immersion" (paraphrasing). The only way the Fallout 4 could be "fixed" the way Vinny wanted it to be would be if they disabled all of its open world gameplay for some arbitrary length of time. He wasn't even complaining about actual issues like crashes or performance issues, the thing that bothered him the most was the fact that unexpected things could happen in an open world game.
Stormblessed
Member
I think it's curious that Obsidian caught a lot of flack for the bugs in New Vegas, as if FO3 wasn't always on the cusp on breaking. Kept them from achieving metascore bonuses.
It's not isolated to Bethesda though. The phenomena seems to be rooted in a kind of fandom, all tied up in studio prestige and perceived ambition: people will forgive a lot if they think a game's pushing an envelope. BioWare got the same leeway Bethesda did up until Dragon Age 2.
It's not isolated to Bethesda though. The phenomena seems to be rooted in a kind of fandom, all tied up in studio prestige and perceived ambition: people will forgive a lot if they think a game's pushing an envelope. BioWare got the same leeway Bethesda did up until Dragon Age 2.
I never believed the "It Just Works" meme until i actually played Bethesda games. Like yeah its true, they basically function with some bugs here and there and arent impressive games at all.
Make you wonder what the next Elder Scrolls game is gonna look like alongside other triple A open world titles.
Make you wonder what the next Elder Scrolls game is gonna look like alongside other triple A open world titles.
Assuming that is true, what do you want exactly? For them to compromise it even further to make a game that no longer stands out?
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
It what way did Fallout 4 stand out?
I am still furious about this.
Obsidian got shit on in a way that Bethesda never did because, oh, Obsidian games are buggy. Give me a fucking break.
I want to love Bethesda games, because I love Morrowind and I love New Vegas. It can clearly be done.
Its going to look like the last game with some visual improvements. Your character is still going to animate like a tank rolling through the environments, melee combat is going to have no impact and devolve into just swinging wildly or turtling behind a shield, and the entire thing is going to look stiff and dead.
Heh, to be fair Fallout is my favorite series (and I like all of the ones I've played, 1, 2, 3, New Vegas and 4). And I do think even their Fallout is more RPG like than the one Elder Scrolls I've played, Skyrim (but I loved Skyrim too warts and all). And yes, I really wish that with the quests they have of "go here" that they would have given you a description of the area so you'd have to find it yourself (I don't mind that they have quest markers that you can turn off in case I give up but give me a chance to actually find it myself cause I think that would be fun). Hell, I wish they did more puzzle stuff. One thing they did in Far Harbor that I really wish they did more of was a mystery quest where you had to look for clues and decide for yourself who "did it". In fact, you wouldn't even be told if you got it wrong (you'd only find out if you experimented with different answers). If you got it wrong the bad guy escapes and your character would just think she got the right person (but I'm betting the bad guy disappears afterwards and maybe an astute person might notice the lack of that character).
They need to do more stuff like that. Far Harbor actually has a lot of good stuff that shows what I'd like them to improve on (if Fallout 4 was like Far Harbor I'd actually compare it to New Vegas cause I do think 4 has some better mechanics but the RPG is so weak
. 4 certainly has a better survival/hardcore mode... one thing I'll give Bethesda did better than Obsidian). It kinda saddens me cause I assumed before it that Bethseda just had shitty writers. But instead something else is holding them back (I guess to me it proves their problem is trying to appeal to more casuals and less RPG fans. Or maybe Emil needs to go cause it seems their good stuff doesn't have him being head writer).BluePigGanon
Member
My attitude is: jank is the price you pay for ambitious games.