We need to let Bethesda die

[gnarly1]

 

1. Bethesda games being buggy has become more of a meme than something mired in truth.

and then:

 

Yes, they have bugs

 

So which one is it?

 

Here's a meme:

 

"It's funny, cos it's true...."

Edited March 8, 2019 by gnarly1

[FrankFamily]

Well, being "buggy" doesn't mean simply having bugs, it means having a lot of them, at the very least more than average, so there's no contradiction at all (because a thing can have have bugs but not many and therefore not be buggy). If simply having bugs, even if just a couple, makes a piece software "buggy" then I'm afraid everything is.

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/buggy

"Infested with/characterized by/containing many bugs", not simply "containing bugs".

Edited March 8, 2019 by FrankFamily

[gnarly1]

<snippity>

Frank. Don't be the guy that immediately kills a thread by delving into a very selective application of semantics.

 

You're only straining at gnats whilst swallowing camels....

[FrankFamily]

Most interesting, what minor issue i'm exaggerating exactly? Furthermore, what minor issue is there to exaggerate? Other than the contradiction you've claimed exists and that I'm not claiming is of any importance or putting much focus on, I'm simply saying it's not actually a contradiction. I'm also curious about what application of semantics has been selective here. The meaning of the word "buggy" doesn't seem to fit that in my opinion. Are we talking about other semantics I'm not aware of? Enlighten me please.

 

I'm just explaining to you why there's no contradiction in those two statements because a software being "buggy" does NOT mean it simply having bugs (which is what would contradict the other statement), but instead having lots of them as pointed out. Meaning you seemed to have missed and meaning that makes the alleged contradiction not a contradiction.

 

Thanks for the idiom btw, didn't knew that one.

[fmilluminatus]

 

 

you can die in Riverwood for no reason if you jump into the cart of cabbages

There is nothing that better exemplifies the broken messes that Bethesda games are. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

What makes Bethesda games good is that they are basically open world frameworks for people to build content on top of. Beyond that, they are garbage. Fallout76 really proves it - without modders to save them, the game is unfix-able by the incompetent buffoons at Bethesda, and it's in a death spiral to oblivion. Until Bethesda gets some humility and realizes they largely didn't earn their success, and that is was built on the back of tens of thousands of community members working for free - they will continue to fall flat on their faces over and over.

Edited March 10, 2019 by fmilluminatus

[HeyYou]

 

 

 

you can die in Riverwood for no reason if you jump into the cart of cabbages

There is nothing that better exemplifies the broken messes that Bethesda games are. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

What makes Bethesda games good is that they are basically open world frameworks for people to build content on top of. Beyond that, they are garbage. Fallout76 really proves it - without modders to save them, the game is unfix-able by the incompetent buffoons at Bethesda, and it's in a death spiral to oblivion. Until Bethesda gets some humility and realizes they largely didn't earn their success, and that is was built on the back of tens of thousands of community members working for free - they will continue to fall flat on their faces over and over.

 

Actually, that's not even remotely accurate. Beth sells tens of millions of copies of their games, and only a tiny percentage of players actually mod their game. Consider: Most of beths sales were to console players, and they only got mods relatively recently. Beth does make fun games, (note: I did not say "Good".....) and they sell exceedingly well. Mods or no. Where modding comes into play is in the longevity of the games. People are STILL playing/modding morrowind...... Not too many 18 year old games can make that statement.

[AugustaCalidia]

"We need to let Bethesda die." I didn't know that Bethesda was even sick. Certainly Bethesda (and ZeniMax Media) are not sick financially. Those "incompetent buffoons at Bethesda" really know how to make money.

 

Actually, what we need to let die is this particular topic. The issues discussed here, while important, have been hashed and rehashed so many times in so many different places that the topic has become totally boring and no longer newsworthy (to me, at least).

Edited March 12, 2019 by Augusta Calidia

[skaybestrog]

The issue with Bethesda games was never that they were buggy, that's a minor inconvenience if anything. The issue is that with every subsequent release the games lost:

 

1) Complexity, Synergy, RPG-Elements. Everything became more streamlined with every game. Options were taken away. Builds mattered less. Combat was more drawn towards the FPS experience than the RPG experience.

 

2) Originality, Creativity, Aesthetics. Going from Morrowind, with it's insanely architectured Daedra ruins and Telvanni Mushroom cities, with Vivec and the Red Mountain to Oblivion with one of the most generic and trite Medieval fantasy settings was a slap in the face. Skyrim is an even worse offender, from an aesthetic and creative viewpoint it is one of the most dead, soulless, boring, forgettable games in existence. It's not just Skyrim's borderline offensively boring aesthetic, it's also the crippled lore, the samey race design, the complete lack of classes or RPG elements, the small gameworld that is simultaneously lacking in details, it's unbelievable.

 

3) Difficulty, Decisions, Rewards. Bethesda studios have made some amazing games where you as a player feel like your decisions truly matter. Skyrim is the opposite of that. The civil war is barely felt. Which side you pick only ends up being a minor inconvenience. The fact that you are the Dragonborn, the savior of the world, is barely felt in the game. Your player character is good at literally everything, from the first second. The perk system is an excuse for actual game design, it just makes you slightly better at very specific tasks. There is no class identity anymore. There is no restrictive game design. You can theoretically get every single perk in the entire game. Jack of all trades.. Master of all? Also, Skyrim, even on Legendary, had so many game breaking things that it was just always too easy. Without a challenge, without decisionmaking, and without proper rewards, a game feels like a drag.

 

There are many other things to critisize about the "path" that Todd Howard Bethesda has been taking, but these are the main offenders. I could write an entire novel about what's wrong with Skyrim from a design perspective. Many people itt show a significant error in their thinking. The fact that Skyrim sold so well is not at all a testament to how good a game it is. People eat McDonalds every day. People read Yellow Press. People listen to Justin Bieber songs. People buy IKEA furniture. Many things are trashy, lowest-common-denominator garbage, but they still sell well, because of marketing, because they speak to a particular audience, because they have range, because they hit a nerve.. And so forth. If you justify Skyrim being a good game by how well it sold, you have essentially ran out of arguments.

 

The nerve that Skyrim hit perfectly is that many players want a game to be their power fantasy. Skyrim is exactly that, a bad power fantasy. The other thing about Skyrim is that it is an absolutely flawless game, from a shareholder perspective. It's exactly the game Bethesda wanted to publish. Not a good game by any means, but one that can be milked, one with longevity, a game that made bank. It caters directly to the desires of their main userbase and feeds them nonstop, like when anime turns into fanservice. And TES6 will be an even worse offender, you can be sure about that. After all, their model is working perfectly for them :smile:

Edited March 12, 2019 by skaybestrog

[FrankFamily]

You do see how your (and everyone's) perception of what is good is entirely subjective, right? And also, the fact that you could write a novel about what's wrong with Skyrim from a design perspective doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with it from a design perspective. Not without your credentials as an expert in game design at very least, and even then it would probably be your opinion and should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Not to bash your opinion at all by the way. I actually agree with a lot of what you said and I'd have liked very much if it had meaningful decisions for instance or having to commit to a particular class and having limitations as a consequence. I think limitations make for really fun gameplay and stories.

 

Many people are using "this is good" as a synonym of "this I like" and they are not the same thing. We first need to actually define what is a "good" game, preferably in an objective manner. And since a game is a product to be sold for profit it isn't very stupid to simply consider a good game a game that sold well, that's its purpose. For the same reason perhaps Justin Bieber's songs are actually good, I don't like them but, again, those are very different. Perhaps we should use the opinions of critics and game journalists to determine what is good. Perhaps the opinions of many people, steam reviews?.

 

If the game had been done in the manner that I (or you or anyone else) personally would have liked it the most, would it have been a good game? Certainly in my opinion but would it have sold as well? Would it have provided the same amount of entertainment to the same amount of people or less? None of that is immediately obvious and sure, it would be nice to think I absolutely know how they should have made the game but it would also be quite naive. After all, we are just random people in the internet thinking how something should have been done after the fact having had years to reflect on its issues and without having to actually test our theories and no money being risked or boundaries. The people who actually made it did not have those luxuries. And the same applies to future games. If ES6 was done in the way i think it should be done would it be good? maybe not.

 

So, I guess, all I'm saying is: let's not fall into putting our subjective opinions as something other than subjective opinions.

Edited March 12, 2019 by FrankFamily

[HeyYou]

You do see how your (and everyone's) perception of what is good is entirely subjective, right? And also, the fact that you could write a novel about what's wrong with Skyrim from a design perspective doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with it from a design perspective. Not without your credentials as an expert in game design at very least, and even then it would probably be your opinion and should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Not to bash your opinion at all by the way. I actually agree with a lot of what you said and I'd have liked very much if it had meaningful decisions for instance or having to commit to a particular class and having limitations as a consequence. I think limitations make for really fun gameplay and stories.

 

Many people are using "this is good" as a synonym of "this I like" and they are not the same thing. We first need to actually define what is a "good" game, preferably in an objective manner. And since a game is a product to be sold for profit it isn't very stupid to simply consider a good game a game that sold well, that's its purpose. For the same reason perhaps Justin Bieber's songs are actually good, I don't like them but, again, those are very different. Perhaps we should use the opinions of critics and game journalists to determine what is good. Perhaps the opinions of many people, steam reviews?.

 

If the game had been done in the manner that I (or you or anyone else) personally would have liked it the most, would it have been a good game? Certainly in my opinion but would it have sold as well? Would it have provided the same amount of entertainment to the same amount of people or less? None of that is immediately obvious and sure, it would be nice to think I absolutely know how they should have made the game but it would also be quite naive. After all, we are just random people in the internet thinking how something should have been done after the fact having had years to reflect on its issues and without having to actually test our theories and no money being risked or boundaries. The people who actually made it did not have those luxuries. And the same applies to future games. If ES6 was done in the way i think it should be done would it be good? maybe not.

 

So, I guess, all I'm saying is: let's not fall into putting our subjective opinions as something other than subjective opinions.

In all reality, it is BECAUSE of streamlining/feature removal/etc, that beth games are selling so well. It seems that most folks don't want a "real" rpg, with stats, and skills, that actually matter. We saw this whole argument between Morowind, and Oblivion..... and then again between Oblivion, and Skyrim. The "majority" that beth is trying to sell to, don't WANT an RPG, they want a game that is fun to play. That's what beth gave them, and they sold rather well. Do I like the direction beth is taking their games? No, not really, but then, I am not one of the majority that beth is marketing to either. I actually ENJOY a REAL role playing game. Not merely an action/adventure game with some RPG elements tossed in, for old times sake....