taryl80 Posted June 20, 2018 Share Posted June 20, 2018 (edited) Starfield and the next Elder Scrolls game is announced to be single player games. They have say that in an interview and/or that /noclip thing. Edited June 20, 2018 by taryl80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zanity Posted June 20, 2018 Share Posted June 20, 2018 Starfield and the next Elder Scrolls game is announced to be single player games. They have say that in an interview and/or that /noclip thing.Actual no they don't. They IMPLY, with weasel words, this, just as they IMPLY a ton of things that just are not true for Fallout:76. Todd has two modes. Fact teller, and fortune teller. So, for instance, Todd IMPLIES Fallout:76 has settlement building- it does not. But Todd honestly states many times that Fallout:76 has a CAMP system, with camps no larger than that seen in the release demo, where the camp is a concept to links to the player, instantly appears and instantly disappears at user request, when the player logs in/out, or when the map 'morphs' (nukes) and the camp finds itself in an 'illegal' place. It's the same thing with Fallout 6 (Fallout 5 = Fallout 76), Starfield and the next Elder Scrolls. Listen to Todd and he makes it perfectly clear these will be in the mould of all the monetised addiction gaming experiments currently produced by Beth, but more advanced (thanks to time and experience). Todd is 'god' (a nasty little tin-pot god, but god nevertheless), and what he wants he gets. Todd knows in his heart that he no longer wants the company to cater to the old-school fans, but like most bosses who benefited from industry evolutions, he has the HABIT of still talking to these fans as if he will continue to be their friends. Todd has attended the despicable industry briefings by the psychologists and addiction experts and prophets of monetisation, and he has taken his experience with Fallout Shelter to conclude that every word said at these briefings is true. Many of these briefings have been leaked, but almost none of you here have bothered to read them. Thus old school fans are literally self-deluding, and Todd, when talking to old school fans, has no cause to burst the delusion. EA is a big publisher at the cutting edge of these trends, and has been merciless to its long established IPs in retooling them with vile monetisation and addiction mechanisms. As a result current EA games are despicable, but highly profitable. But let me take a far better example. Assassins Creed Origins from Ubisoft. Wdely described as a Witcher 3 rip-off, by the devs. Bigger world. Better land and cities. Better horses and boats. And in these mechanical ways, the game that brings us 1 century BC romanised Egypt does a fantastic job. But why then do I and 50% of discerning games think AC:O stinks, and is a terrible game? I think it is even single player only, but maybe it has limited co-op- that certainly isn't the problem. No, what kills AC:O, and makes it a horrid joke compared to Witcher 3 is monetisation. All game mechanisms in AC:O have been coded to support monetisation. Oh you can play the game without spending a penny more, but your experience is chocked to death by the fact that every choice made in the game was made to extract more money from a certain class of gamer. So, for instance, there are tons of cool new outfits for your character, but you'll never bother buying them for your ingame cash is carefully limited to being just enough to finish the game in as simple a way as possible. Surplus cash is for the gaming buying said surplus with REAL money. So you literally miss out on a ton of art assets present in the game because you skip 'buying' costume A or weapon B etc, in order to just focus on getting thru the dull experience as quickly as possible. In GTA V there many have been the odd super-car with a stupid price tag, but even then you could probably find and steal one in the game world. In AC:O, all but the basic stuff is locked behind a paywall that game earnt currency is never enough to buy. What happens next is that the big publishers promote the message "only peasants have to have a peasant gaming experience"- in other words 'real' gamers use real money to buy their way to the best experience. Without a doubt the mighty Ubisoft put enough time, effort, money and tech expertise into AC:O to make a game every bit as good as The Witcher 3- but that's not how it ended up. And that was with an effective SINGLE-PLAYER, OFFLINE role playing game. Monetisation, addiction mechanisms and 'gaming as a service' (Todd's favourite phrase) simply ruin gaming. Todd intends to amp the worst industry greed based norms to the power infinity in all new major titles to follow Fallout:76. In AC:O, I literally lost the will to live when I reached Alexandria, the first mega city. Googling around I was shocked to discover how many others said the same thing. Imagine reaching the first big city in Fallout or Witcher, and being so dissapointed with the GAMING experinece (not the graphics or engine) that you just want to stop playing. That's what happens in a game built around monetisation- even when it is single player. When Todd says something factual, I do him the courtesy of believing him. This is why I know Beth has no intention of doing any more games in the design spirit of Skyrim or Fallout3/4. A monetised game will always prohibit you from having the optimal experience with the game without extra spending. And this cynicism, eschewed ONLY by CDPR, taints the entire game design process. Todd screamed as loud as he could at E3 that he has embraced the 'principle' of 'gaming as a service' and monetisation at all costs. What reason does anyone here have for thinking Todd a liar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboUK Posted June 20, 2018 Share Posted June 20, 2018 But let me take a far better example. Assassins Creed Origins from Ubisoft. Wdely described as a Witcher 3 rip-off, by the devs. Bigger world. Better land and cities. Better horses and boats. And in these mechanical ways, the game that brings us 1 century BC romanised Egypt does a fantastic job. But why then do I and 50% of discerning games think AC:O stinks, and is a terrible game? I think it is even single player only, but maybe it has limited co-op- that certainly isn't the problem. No, what kills AC:O, and makes it a horrid joke compared to Witcher 3 is monetisation. All game mechanisms in AC:O have been coded to support monetisation. Oh you can play the game without spending a penny more, but your experience is chocked to death by the fact that every choice made in the game was made to extract more money from a certain class of gamer. I didn't spend a penny on Assassin's Creed Origins microtransactions and finished it without issue, at no point did I feel the need to open my wallet, and yes I had plenty of outfits. The next one is going to be a full blown RPG with dialogue choices and a branching story among other things, are you going to miss out on that because they monitise a few things you don't even need? I really think you need to take a step back and calm down, what's the point in getting angry about this? if you don't like it keep your money in your pocket because money is the only language they understand. Think of the last Star Wars movie, you can bet Disney are busy rethinking things and rumour has it crazy Kathleen Kennedy is going to be replaced, it wasn't people complaining about things on the internet that caused this, it was people keeping their money in their pocket. Don't get me wrong, I don't like what Bethesda are doing and made my point when I posted this however I don't see any point in going on and on about it, if it's bad then it'll flop and we can point and laugh, if not then there are plenty of other games out there including the older Fallouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha8088 Posted June 20, 2018 Author Share Posted June 20, 2018 Don't get me wrong, I don't like what Bethesda are doing and made my point when I posted this however I don't see any point in going on and on about it, if it's bad then it'll flop and we can point and laugh, if not then there are plenty of other games out there including the older Fallouts. Bravo! That link was the stuff of genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrJoseCuervo Posted June 21, 2018 Share Posted June 21, 2018 Starfield and the next Elder Scrolls game is announced to be single player games. They have say that in an interview and/or that /noclip thing. Perhaps its time to try something else. No I don't mean Fallout 76 I am talking about something other than a Bleh-thesda Game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha8088 Posted June 22, 2018 Author Share Posted June 22, 2018 I hope mod authors do not give up on Fallout 4 and Skyrim SE. Well, keep an eye out for the upcoming Project Valkyrie mod from the makers of Fusion City Rising and Outcasts and Remnants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha8088 Posted June 22, 2018 Author Share Posted June 22, 2018 (edited) Well, keep an eye out for the upcoming Project Valkyrie mod from the makers of Fusion City Rising and Outcasts and Remnants. That sounds fine, but will it have scantily clad women, shiny new guns with cool sounds, and large paddle-like swords? Edited June 22, 2018 by Moksha8088 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlarictheVisgoth Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 (edited) Starfield and the next Elder Scrolls game is announced to be single player games. They have say that in an interview and/or that /noclip thing. The Exceptional A$$h@!es said the same about SC5. How SP would be the dev focus during development. C-Star said the same about GTA V. Before they conned millions of naive single players into buying a $60 license key tutorial to play their anorexic CoD of a hacker infested GTAO. Then did an about face on SP by officially killing it off for future franchise games. Before they hid behind the likes of T*tty Two, who went big Daddie Mad on all the #yoloswag hacker & grifer trolls in GTAO. And punished the entire fanbase by banning Open IV. At least cooler heads prevailed, and T#tty Two finally regained its sanity on the mods issue for the dead SP game. Not sure if the same will be the case with BGS and ZoS single minded venture for infinity and beyond...... Devs lie to their fan bases because they have to meet their Publisher's standards. Publishers lie in their PR spin doctorate because they have to meet their shareholder financial targets on Wall Street. We, the Plebeian fan base, get to be the cheese. ps: what's the point of even having any F76 threads like this on here. When Howard himself doesn't even bother with reading his own Bethesda.net forums, because he's too busy hanging out with the Blackbeards at Reddit. :dry: Edited June 22, 2018 by AlarictheVisgoth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlarictheVisgoth Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 https://kotaku.com/bethesda-announces-fallout-76-1826417383 If this is true then we need to treasure the 2015 Fallout 4 for a long period of time. It might be time to consider a United Modders Studio made up of experienced quest and advanced companion authors known for their ability to crank out large masterful mods. Then we need to buy the mods they produce. Otherwise, we will be at the mercy of whatever seems to produce the highest revenue for gaming studios at the time. I suspect that means the days of Fallout and the Elder Scrolls as we know them is gone. We need to stretch out the Golden Age with more quest mods. The way I see it is F76's "not too griefy" game play will devolve into derivatives of these 1 of 4 scenario extremes. So when you as a player login online, you'll see: If you join F76 early aka right at launch: 1. at least 99.99% of the 23 to 31 other players are PvE minded gamers who have built bases, and/or are all traders and/or nomadic traders with established Caravan routes 2. at least 99.99% of the 23 to 31 other players are psychotic PvP minded gamers will be spawn camping your n00b @$$ the instant you try to leave the vault. Or proceed to stalk you around the map until you're forced to rage quit the server. So they can keep leveling up faster than you If you join F76 late aka 1 week+ after launch: 3. at least 50% of the 23 to 31 other players will be pacifist Eloi gamers who are being hunted down and spawn killed by the other 50% psychotic, level 100+, Morlock PvP minded gamers 4. at least 50% of the 23 to 31 other players will be level 100+, psychotic PvP minded gamers who are butt hurt, because they can't grief & spawn kill any of the other 50% pacifist Eloi PvE gamers. Because the BGS griefing safety protocols apparently do genuinely work and so now it's the PvP Morlocks who're being unfairly trolled by default of an unbalanced PvP game mechanic. ****And so my aspiring young Padawan, I leave you with this (in the event you're too young to remember what an Eloi is without having to Google it). Study it carefully. It will most likely be your destiny which eagerly awaits you on the other side the vault door come Reclamation Day. I leave it as an academic exercise to research a video link on the Morlocks. And oh btw: the guy who appears to be the self proclaimed white knight in shining armor isn't really the game's admin. He's actually YOU...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMtn-fqBX5w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlarictheVisgoth Posted June 23, 2018 Share Posted June 23, 2018 (edited) But let me take a far better example. Assassins Creed Origins from Ubisoft. Wdely described as a Witcher 3 rip-off, by the devs. Bigger world. Better land and cities. Better horses and boats. And in these mechanical ways, the game that brings us 1 century BC romanised Egypt does a fantastic job. But why then do I and 50% of discerning games think AC:O stinks, and is a terrible game? I think it is even single player only, but maybe it has limited co-op- that certainly isn't the problem. No, what kills AC:O, and makes it a horrid joke compared to Witcher 3 is monetisation. All game mechanisms in AC:O have been coded to support monetisation. Oh you can play the game without spending a penny more, but your experience is chocked to death by the fact that every choice made in the game was made to extract more money from a certain class of gamer. I didn't spend a penny on Assassin's Creed Origins microtransactions and finished it without issue, at no point did I feel the need to open my wallet, and yes I had plenty of outfits. The next one is going to be a full blown RPG with dialogue choices and a branching story among other things, are you going to miss out on that because they monitise a few things you don't even need? I really think you need to take a step back and calm down, what's the point in getting angry about this? if you don't like it keep your money in your pocket because money is the only language they understand. Think of the last Star Wars movie, you can bet Disney are busy rethinking things and rumour has it crazy Kathleen Kennedy is going to be replaced, it wasn't people complaining about things on the internet that caused this, it was people keeping their money in their pocket. Don't get me wrong, I don't like what Bethesda are doing and made my point when I posted this however I don't see any point in going on and on about it, if it's bad then it'll flop and we can point and laugh, if not then there are plenty of other games out there including the older Fallouts. I think his point was Ubi locked away the majority of the higher quality weapons/gear DLC behind a paywall. Yes you could some better gear. Or the pay wall dlc were just re-textures of existing equipment with a few combat bonus tweaks in defense/offensive stats. But the bottom line was: no matter how much you grinded, you couldn't own ALL of the armor/gear/weapons etc. in the game WITHOUT opening up your pocketbook first...... Which is a complete ripoff for the collection and completionist driven players who DON'T want to pay for the achievement of finding all the content in the game. Very dirty Exceptional A$$h@!es move on part by Ubisoft with that aggressive push to force micro transactions on to the player. Wonder if they've learned from this and if they're going to focus on making this feature less invasive in Odyssey? This iteration of AC franchise is the first in it's RPG copy cat Witcher design. And so looks like it may end up being the best AC to date (over Brotherhood) because it has kept the best of prior popular AC features i.e Naval warfare, female protagonist option, land/sea sandbox exploration, extensive SP campaign, no multiplayer mode etc. Adding a dedicated RPG quest component should put it over the top. Too bad this wasn't being released as AC Brotherhood Edited June 23, 2018 by AlarictheVisgoth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts