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?
They can start by not watering down the elements of their own games for one.
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?
It what way did Fallout 4 stand out?
They can start by not watering down the elements of their own games for one.
In the same way that all Bethesda games stand out.
This doesn't actually mean anything, nor does it answer my question.
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.
Why are questions like this asked? The answer is the most obvious thing in the world. It doesn't bother other people as much as you.
I find it relentlessly irritating when people like to push their annoyances on others.
It what way did Fallout 4 stand out?
"I'm not disappointed because it's always been that way."
"It's part and parcel for this type of game."
"If I buy a Hyundai every three years and it breaks every year after that, again and again and again, when I buy my sixth Hyundai I'm not allowed to say I'm disappointed by that Hyundai."
Good lord.
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.
It's the biggest, most complex open world FPS I've ever played. Sure, the RPG elements were not as prominent as they used to be, but otherwise it was fantastic.
In the same way that all Bethesda games stand out.
To understand why people enjoy bethesda games, you need to stop thinking of them as RPGs. That's not the main reason people play them. People play them because they are simulation games. And as a simulated system, bethesda's games are technically unparalleled in scope and scale. You can hate on their writing, animations, graphics, etc all day long, you're not actually being critical of anything that matters that much to the people who love those games. You're arguing against parts of the experience that are window dressing around the experience for most people. While they're both considered "RPGs", something like Witcher 3 is really in a different genre altogether.
Mind going into a bit more detail?
That's not how Bethesda games work though. You can't do anything you want. You can walk around killing lots of shit in samey dungeons or you can do quests for uninteresting NPCs that involves killing shit or you can decorate your place with books and forks and cheese wheels. That's the sad truth about the "freedom" in Bethesda's games, it's all meaningless garbage.
To understand why people enjoy bethesda games, you need to stop thinking of them as RPGs. That's not the main reason people play them. People play them because they are simulation games. And as a simulated system, bethesda's games are technically unparalleled in scope and scale.
No, not really. If you have played bethesda RPGs you should know why they are unique, whether you like them or not.
No, not really. If you have played bethesda RPGs you should know why they are unique, whether you like them or not.
What...do they simulate?
Fallout 4's badly executed factions just really prove my point.
Witcher 3 just made me wonder WTF Bethesda are doing. W3 is bigger, prettier, more varied, more technically accomplished. But people still screamed "BUT BETHESDA GAMES HAVE FREEDOM" then Fallout 4 comes out with even less freedom and RPG-ness
Right now the defining aspects of Bethesda games are...
1 - You can pick up a lot of objects then their position will be saved for later
2 - They look, run and perform like dogshit.
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.
To understand why people enjoy bethesda games, you need to stop thinking of them as RPGs. That's not the main reason people play them. People play them because they are simulation games. And as a simulated system, bethesda's games are technically unparalleled in scope and scale. You can hate on their writing, animations, graphics, etc all day long, you're not actually being critical of anything that matters that much to the people who love those games. You're arguing against parts of the experience that are window dressing around the experience for most people. While they're both considered "RPGs", something like Witcher 3 is really in a different genre altogether.
I think you hit the nail on the head, here. Many people try to lump Witcher 3 and Skyrim together but it just doesn't work. That's not to say Bethesda couldn't learn a thing or two from Witcher, however.
It's awful
Personally I could suspend disbelief enough back in the oblivion and fallout 3 days
But with the two latest entries in each respective series it's so painfully apparently it really hurts the overall package
The combat is also atrocious but that's a different conversation
After playing games like Soulsborne and Witcher I really hope Bethesda realizes how far behind the curve they are
If they repackage some shit in that engine for their next title im skipping it
Edit: "The worlds are massive" excuse was a decent one until Witcher 3 came along and proved what is actually possible
How about New Vegas???
The Witcher 3 just shows that you can create an open world game that isn't hideously ugly and features janky ass combat.
If Witcher 3 is any indication I'd be nervous as hell over Cyberpunk 2077 if I was Bethesda. Hell if cdprojekt did their own take on post apocalypse, I'd be done with Falllout entirely, unless obsidian did one.
How about New Vegas???
The Witcher 3 just shows that you can create an open world game that isn't hideously ugly and features janky ass combat.
Except sorry w3 has worst combat ever. Both games have their strengths I like playing fallout much more. W3 has pointless encounters and pointless side quests . But comparing them is still very pointless in my view
I think you hit the nail on the head, here. Many people try to lump Witcher 3 and Skyrim together but it just doesn't work. That's not to say Bethesda couldn't learn a thing or two from Witcher, however.
I will never understand what is so great about that. How does that make a good game. It's mostly a pointless feature that adds nothing. Maybe if there was some purpose tied to it that would make sense.
You are talking to a dude with a Planescape profile pic. He probably knows RPG's very well and has experienced some of the best writing ever encountered in gaming via CRPG's.
It's entirely possible that what you find "uniquely Bethesda" is something that could be better experienced elsewhere.
I have played all of them since Morrowind. I don't know what you are talking about.
I wonder why you are so hesitant to just say what makes them special. Presume I haven't played any of them, surely you would still be able to just tell me what's "special"
Except sorry w3 has worst combat ever. Both games have their strengths I like playing fallout much more. W3 has pointless encounters and pointless side quests . But comparing them is still very pointless in my view
If Witcher 3 is any indication I'd be nervous as hell over Cyberpunk 2077 if I was Bethesda.
See, I disagree. As much as I absolutely love Souls/BB and enjoyed the Witcher's story. Those two games pale, hugely, in interactivity with the world. If Bethesda paired that stuff down, would it function more properly? Sure, but, it'd take away the biggest aspect that makes their games standout from other RPGs.
I'm not hesitant at all, it is just plainly obvious why Bethesda's RPGs are unique. They have a freedom, variety and interactivity that you don't see in other games. Other games may do these things better than Bethesda does, but they don't do all of them better than Bethesda does.
I'd disagree with your disagreement. Witcher 3 has a world as big as Skyrim, and as detailed I would say.
The souls games are janky as hell though, so I don't get that one.
That's just the thing though - Witcher 3 really isn't much of an indication. No clue why the two are compared so often. Two different games that scratch two different itches.
The S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games did just about everything the Fall Out games under Bethsada did years before and on a much more complex and impressive scale.