Are we sure Todd Howard was in charge when Bethesda created Morrowind?
Yes. Morrowind is a terrible RPG. It did had good graphics and a big open world, for the time. I quit remember playing that one. The first 10 hours was like wow, this is great. And then... wait, there is no gameplay.
Starfield is so much better as a RPG. Not that Starfield is good, it's that Morrowind (and oblivion and skyrim) are that bad.
But those early games had the eye candy and the big open world and pushed hardware to something that was groundbreaking. For the time.
Now indie devs can make a big open world or do it better like no man's sky. And then people start to notice how poor Bethesda games are gameplay wise.
For instance the best RPG made with a Bethesda engine is New Vegas. It's a game that makes so much more sense then anything Bethesda ever did.
Are we sure Todd Howard was in charge when Bethesda created Morrowind?
Yes. Morrowind is a terrible RPG. It did had good graphics and a big open world, for the time. I quit remember playing that one. The first 10 hours was like wow, this is great. And then... wait, there is no gameplay.
Starfield is so much better as a RPG. Not that Starfield is good, it's that Morrowind (and oblivion and skyrim) are that bad.
But those early games had the eye candy and the big open world and pushed hardware to something that was groundbreaking. For the time.
Now indie devs can make a big open world or do it better like no man's sky. And then people start to notice how poor Bethesda games are gameplay wise.
For instance the best RPG made with a Bethesda engine is New Vegas. It's a game that makes so much more sense then anything Bethesda ever did.
How is Starfield better as an RPG than Morrowind or Starfield? How is FONV's gameplay that much better than FO3? And what did you smoke to arrive to these conclusions?
boundle (thoughts on cracking AITD) wrote:
i guess thouth if without a legit key the installation was rolling back we are all fucking then
harry my nibba, almost everything in FONV is better than in FO3. Characters, quests, factions, story, writing, world building, etc. Only thing better IMO in FO3 is exploration (hard to explain).
But, gameplay? In what I consider gameplay there are differences for the better, yes (ironsights, specialized ammo and different armor system) but it's not a "much better" case. Or is he talking about RPG gameplay (and exactly wtf is that)?
boundle (thoughts on cracking AITD) wrote:
i guess thouth if without a legit key the installation was rolling back we are all fucking then
I think FO:NV really, really drags with the story. I only managed to finish it once, the second time i just quit out of absolute boredom. FO3 i've finished twice and had fun both times. Actually the exact same feeling i have for KOTOR 1 vs 2, KOTOR 1 i finished 2 times, found it awesome, great pacing etc, KOTOR 2, no.. not even close to finishing that one, and i've tried many times.
Also i hate much of the design in NV, wild west mixed with Post Apocalyptic, those stupid looking robots etc. It does have an edge over FO3 because how cool it sometimes is though with the factions and sometimes the story too. KOTOR 2 is also freaking cool on paper, has some dark characters that are perhaps more interesting than any in KOTOR 1, but once you get into the meat of it i will give it a 54:th or something try though, some time.
Edit: another thing i hate in FO3/NV (more in NV) is when i accidentally start a fucking DLC, those are sooooo fucking bad!
harry my nibba, almost everything in FONV is better than in FO3. Characters, quests, factions, story, writing, world building, etc. Only thing better IMO in FO3 is exploration (hard to explain).
But, gameplay? In what I consider gameplay there are differences for the better, yes (ironsights, specialized ammo and different armor system) but it's not a "much better" case. Or is he talking about RPG gameplay (and exactly wtf is that)?
Bethesda games are an empty box of nothingness.
No chalenging combat
No fun quests.
Poor story telling
No fun stuff to explore. Oh yeah, read a terminal with a story. That made my dungeon run worthwhile.
Level scaling implemented in a way that's makes character progression pointless. Same for loot. Also adding to the no chalange part.
But the older games were heavy on the hardware and provided bigger worlds and next gen graphics. That kind of innovation is a thing of the past. Even if Starfield was a next gen game, people still wouldn't be fooled by good graphics and a big open world. Standards for gaming are higher now.
Then Starfield. It's not pushing hardware or tech, it's even outdated. So people start to notice how bad Bethesda games actually are.
i think you forgot to tell what you are comparing to?
it's easy to say everything with game X is garbage and then don't mention what it should be, just some made-up dream game where everything is great? ok, but then it's not too interesting.
i'm not big on Bethesda myself these days, becoming more of a FROM software fanboy, though it's quite different and in some areas lacking in comparison.
No chalenging combat
No fun quests.
Poor story telling
No fun stuff to explore. Oh yeah, read a terminal with a story. That made my dungeon run worthwhile.
Level scaling implemented in a way that's makes character progression pointless. Same for loot. Also adding to the no chalange part.
But the older games were heavy on the hardware and provided bigger worlds and next gen graphics. That kind of innovation is a thing of the past. Even if Starfield was a next gen game, people still wouldn't be fooled by good graphics and a big open world. Standards for gaming are higher now.
Then Starfield. It's not pushing hardware or tech, it's even outdated. So people start to notice how bad Bethesda games actually are.
Only thing I heavily disagree is the bold part (except on Starfield, it's fucking horrid) 🤷
boundle (thoughts on cracking AITD) wrote:
i guess thouth if without a legit key the installation was rolling back we are all fucking then
I could never get into any Fallout game, but TES games always had some weird pull even when they are overall boring, with terrible story, mediocre combat where and you fight same 3 types of enemies. But personally always loved the exploration and atmosphere with all their stupid bugs.
They absolutely know how they fucked up, but they can't admit it of course. Also many people gives them a pass. The game had many good reviews and it sold well from what i understand. what many of us predicted did happen though; that after people have spent more time with it they realize its kind of... shit.
Too much ambition for the tech & staff at hand. It isn't humanly possible to fill so many planets with interesting content.
Like I keep saying, if the scope and setting was more reasonable, like u only had the Solar system but bigger/more interesting maps on each planet/moon, and the asteroid belt for mining. It would feel more cohesive and there would be far less fast traveling as each planet/moon would have enough to keep u busy for a while.
I think this game was made to check a few boxes for sale presentations mainly. Not for the playing fun part.
Elder scrolls games only had one planet but more than enough cities to stay engaged, this game has a whole galazy and just 3 main small "cities" with barely anything going on.
"it's not a bad lazy game, you guys just don't get it. Have fun doing the exact same chase the space orb in the same alien temple in a barren landscape for the 99999th time, for a wet fart of a useless -power- friend!"
Like Ampeg said there's way too much in this game that should've been obvious wasn't even remotely a good idea from the very start. This is a tedium simulator
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
i will give it a 54:th or something try though, some time.
