They can start by not watering down the elements of their own games for one.
-
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
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.
The Baron Count
Member
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.
I find it relentlessly irritating when people like to push their annoyances on others.
AWizardDidIt
Member
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.
They could look to what made New Vegas so well loved and emulate that for a big one or they could just hire Obsidian to make a new game and not ham string them this time.
It really sucks that you experienced those bugs, but you do understand that not everyone had the same experience, right? I've probably put over a hundred hours into Fallout 4 and I don't think I've witnessed any of those bugs in my playthroughs. I don't think people just gloss over the jank and pretend nothing is wrong. They just didn't have the same buggy experience as you.
What's insufferable to me is yet another Bethesda bashing thread. It's the same arguments over and over again.
What's insufferable to me is yet another Bethesda bashing thread. It's the same arguments over and over again.
alexbull_uk
Member
Honestly because I've never experienced it to anywhere near the degree that some people on GAF claim they have. The jump in stability from Skyrim to F4 (and Skyrim SE) has been huge, and now unless you're using a bajillion mods I don't understand how anyone could encounter that many issues in 5 hours of play time.
I've got 300+hrs in F4 on PC and I've had 3 crashes the entire time. One of them was from installing an outdated mod too, so really that's 2 crashes. I've also never hit a bug that's blocked progression. In the Skyrim days I'd get a crash roughly once every hour of play, but that's just not been my experience with F4 at all.
I've got 300+hrs in F4 on PC and I've had 3 crashes the entire time. One of them was from installing an outdated mod too, so really that's 2 crashes. I've also never hit a bug that's blocked progression. In the Skyrim days I'd get a crash roughly once every hour of play, but that's just not been my experience with F4 at all.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
Yeah it's crazy to hear that others have such varied experiences. I didn't encounter a ton of bugs in Skyrim, but a lot of people did. I had some game breaking things here and there and was very frustrated, but I was struggling more with their tech at the time and not actual bugs that impeded progress.
I don't know what it is that makes these games tick, but there is a vast chasm in player experience when it comes to technical performance and quality of gameplay.
And to answer your question, this is the latest build from Steam.
I'll echo was Jeff G said in the 2015 GOTY podcast people shared: he said he didn't have problems with Fallout New Vegas, but apparently that's the most notorious game for bugs in the series.
I find it ridiculous that you are offended at an opinion based on individual experience and a question about said experience with others.
I'm not pushing my annoyances on others besides simply stating my opinion and questioning how the market sustains such buggy software. Not everyone's opinion, knowledge, or experiences will line up. That's why we are on a forum discussing these things.
Sheesh.
Vincent Grayson
Member
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.
"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.
I mean he's got a point, they are awarding something for most disappointing and I'm not genuinely disappointed in something if I expect it to be a piece of shit going in. It was an awkward category for that discussion imo, but I do think the issues are deserving of criticism/Jeff's ire and Bethesda can do better.
Com Truise
Member
Fallout 4's badly executed factions just really prove my point. As soon as they try to add reactivity the game falls apart even harder, because they just aren't very good at making actual RPGs. All Bethesda does is create a world, a sandbox. It is filled with nothing, and this nothing is what fans call freedom, even though you really can't do much of anything in their worlds. You walk around killing shit, but YOU decide when and how you kill shit. Whatever.
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
Define "most complex". Not trying to be a smartass but I honestly don't know what you mean by that.
Mind going into a bit more detail?
This is a really good point.
Spacecowboy77
Member
Honestly, I didn't experience any of the issue OP mentioned in Fallout 4.
Skyrim, however, had a tons of issues and still does, even after the Special Edition release. Broken quest chains that need resetting and companions disappearing are the worst offenders for me.
I don't know if Fallout 4 is actually a testament that they actually tried to do better on bugs from Skyrim but if that's an indicator, the next big game should be pretty good.
Skyrim, however, had a tons of issues and still does, even after the Special Edition release. Broken quest chains that need resetting and companions disappearing are the worst offenders for me.
I don't know if Fallout 4 is actually a testament that they actually tried to do better on bugs from Skyrim but if that's an indicator, the next big game should be pretty good.
No, not really. If you have played bethesda RPGs you should know why they are unique, whether you like them or not.
PeskyToaster
Member
You're thinking like someone who waits for the game to give them something interesting to do instead of someone who makes something interesting happen by leveraging the freedom the game provides. Like someone who reloads their save if they get chased by guards for hitting a chicken in the first town instead of letting it play out. You've completely ignored the emergent gameplay aspects in your reduction of the gameplay and in most cases, that's the most important part.
Com Truise
Member
What...do they simulate?
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
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"
Fahzgoolin
Banned
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.
AWizardDidIt
Member
Inhabiting a post-nuclear/high fantasy world?
Auto-Reply
Member
I had my fair share of bugs, some quest breaking even. Can't say it killed the experience for me but I could imagine it would have if I had bad luck and was getting hit by a series of bugs.
Mods and console-commands let me circumvent most problems, why do I put up with that in the first place? Because these games let you be free inside a gameworld like no other game does. Now if you like what they offer or not is another topic entirely.
Mods and console-commands let me circumvent most problems, why do I put up with that in the first place? Because these games let you be free inside a gameworld like no other game does. Now if you like what they offer or not is another topic entirely.
They prove your statements are outright false; if you want to criticize the level of reactivity go for it. Claiming multiple times there is "zero reactivity' is just.. not true.
Bethesda jank hasn't bothered me since Daggerfall. I haven't personally run into anything game-breaking since then, but I could just be lucky. I tolerate the minor bugs and awful physics because of how immersed I become in the worlds. Of course there is tons of room for improvement, and the community patches a lot of these issues for Bethesda.
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.
onemanasylum
Banned
It doesn't seem that way..it is shit. Also citation needed, what knowledge do you have of other games to know bethesda's does more?
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.
How about New Vegas???
The Witcher 3 just shows that you can create an open world game that isn't hideously ugly, buggy and features janky ass combat.
W3's combat isn't great by any means, but it's at least fluid and responsive.
ZombieSupaStar
Member
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.
This is kind of what gets me in a lot of these discussions. Obsidian did the Bethesda open world RPG better than Bethesda ever did. However its like they didn't see or care about what fans absolutely loved in that game or perhaps they just weren't able to recreate what New Vegas did. NV has some serious writing and RPG talent behind and it shows in every element of the game from how open the solutions to a lot of the quests were and the amount of reactivity across the game to your decisions down to how well done and likable the side characters were. Fallout 4 felt like a step back from New Vegas in most everything but the graphics.
Hari Seldon
Member
My experience with Fallout 4 was that I played up until they introduce growing crops and I wtf uninstalled shortly after that. That jank was at early access survival game levels.
That said, Bethesda (well ID), now makes some sweet FPSs so while I'm done with them for RPGs they are still going to be getting my money.
That said, Bethesda (well ID), now makes some sweet FPSs so while I'm done with them for RPGs they are still going to be getting my money.
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
We are at a point where people defend Bethesda by saying "well, their games have ALWAYS been buggy as shit, of course the new one will be buggy as shit too!".
They don't have to worry about anything.
onemanasylum
Banned
Hard to take you serious with this blatant hyperbole, TW3 combat is far better then Elder Scrolls. It's not Dark Souls but TW3 combat is fine. Pointless Side quests? LOL. Playing games is pointless , but TW3 has the best side quests of any open world RPG.
AWizardDidIt
Member
I don't even like bethesda games and totally agree that I'd love to see them put more emphasis into the RPG aspects and maybe hire on some good writing talent.
But I can still see why they're still popular and I'm perfectly cool with them not being games made for me without feeling the need to try and rip them apart on neogaf *shrug*
It's strange because you are right; but it still adds something to the game for me. It makes the game feel different when you can randomly come across the carnage from a battle you had literally weeks earlier.
From a practical standpoint it lets you store things indefinitely. but that can be done in other games without the "everything is persistent" feature.
Yes, let me bow down before him and his avatar picture real quick lol.
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.
An rpg is the sum of all its parts. arguing about which game has the worst combat ever, especially well liked games is a waste of time.
Anyway, fo4 sucks, doesnt get a pass on anything.
SirNinja
Member
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.
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
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.
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. They aren't even true RPG games but they certainly handle a lot of RPG elements better.
onemanasylum
Banned
Janky? They have some of the best, fine tuned mechanics of any franchise and top tier design, combat and level design. How are they "Janky"?
ZombieSupaStar
Member
Well I've never played cyberpunk 2077 but if I imagine a cyberpunk Witcher 3 that would be appealing. Not as much as a post apocalyptic Witcher 3, but anything that's gets away from sword and board for once.
Interactivity is meaningless without reactivity.
Even Witcher 3 didn't have the reactivity of the Witcher 2 or 1; barely had any. But let's not go around pretending like Bethesda games are fucking reactive, when every AI follows exactly the same scripting and there's absolutely no choice and consequence.
Having guards chase you around because you killed a chicken is great. Lovely. That functionality has been around for decades. Why is it so bad to demand a little bit more than that?
(and, whisper it, New Vegas has reactivity. That game pushed Gamebryo and its shitty AI scripting to its very limits.)
Even Witcher 3 didn't have the reactivity of the Witcher 2 or 1; barely had any. But let's not go around pretending like Bethesda games are fucking reactive, when every AI follows exactly the same scripting and there's absolutely no choice and consequence.
Having guards chase you around because you killed a chicken is great. Lovely. That functionality has been around for decades. Why is it so bad to demand a little bit more than that?
(and, whisper it, New Vegas has reactivity. That game pushed Gamebryo and its shitty AI scripting to its very limits.)
AWizardDidIt
Member
haha I really admire the STALKER series but if we're being critical of bethesda jank then shadow of chernobyl is really not the banner you should be championing here. If anything STALKER proves just how hard bethesda-type games are to develop.
It turns out that when you make a game with as many complexities (incredibly detailed AI compared to other games, tons of physics objects in every cell, etc) as Bethesda games, you have lots of bugs.
People like playing the games for the physics objects and AI complexities, so obviously they have to stay, and they're gonna cause bugs.
It's the nature of the beast.
Nobody has ever made a game with the specific complexities of a Bethesda game and NOT had bugs. Any open world is gonna have bugs. STALKER might just be the buggiest game of all time.
People like playing the games for the physics objects and AI complexities, so obviously they have to stay, and they're gonna cause bugs.
It's the nature of the beast.
Nobody has ever made a game with the specific complexities of a Bethesda game and NOT had bugs. Any open world is gonna have bugs. STALKER might just be the buggiest game of all time.