I don't think todd has a clue how bad starfield is and that speaks poorly of them being able to identify why their games currently suck.
Maybe the inherent nature of an elder scrolls title offsets the worst parts of starfield; need to be able to walk everywhere, fast travel as convenient rather than necessary part of the design. Combat will certainly continue to suck though, as they have only really spent the last ten years making shooters with melee combat only getting worse and worse.
But maybe they'll just focus on making a cool rpg with lots of fun exploring and I'll be wrong. That's be nice.
I got in to a big argument with soimeone bout this. They were saying that Bethesda is learning from it's mistakes in each subsequent game. I was arguing that Bethesda sometime's recognizes mistakes they have made, and their response it to totally misunderstand why it was a mistake and make grand, new mistakes that both make the existing problem worse and add several new problems. to whit; Somehow the evolution of housing from Morrowind to Starfield resulted not in something like Sim Settlements, but the wretched system that Starfield shipped with.
Somehow the evolution of housing from Morrowind to Starfield resulted not in something like Sim Settlements, but the wretched system that Starfield shipped with.
Base fucking building is one of the major reasons i dislike both starfield and fallout 4, if i fucking wanted to play minecraft, i would go play minecraft.
It's a shame that you can't opt out of base building. Like you could make a mechanic for it that still incorporated the robust scrap mechanic in fallout 4. Example: you gather the stuff and appoint a settler as architect. After a set number of days you get it upgraded with some barebones resources and defenses and moderately upgraded weapons for the settlers (maybe have weapon type determined by faction like Brotherhood gives laser pistols or whatever.)
Of course you could still go back and personalize it, make additions, etc, but it would enable you to move on if you want. Lots of people do end up with a "home base" they might want to customize but customizing every settlement? Not really my ideal use of time. On the other hand some people love it. Make it optional and everyone is happy.
I mean it is somewhat optional, you can completely ignore it after 1st tutorial in both games, but a lot of dev time and budget came to what is essentially subpar minigame to please people who would rather play another genre entirely just because some shit got popular in the meantime.
It's totally baffling to me that they brought back some sort of class system to Starfield, with it actually being a fixed set of backgrounds with specific history and experiences for your character, and absolutely no customization in making your own classes, but they still funnel every single background into doing asteroid mining physical labor, with no acknowledgement of why actual diplomats and professors are put in that position.
It's like one part of the team heard that people wanted classes back and for your character to have real backgrounds, and then the other team made a Bethesda tutorial quest for the standard Bethesda no-name blank slate protagonist.
It's moreso confusion over the fact that Bethesda did seem to recognize that people wanted classes and/or backgrounds for their characters, but then didn't actually commit either to their clear preference in storytelling and character creation, and neither did they commit to the storytelling potential that giving players fixed choices with no customization brings, they literally know every single background they have to account for and then they dont account for them.
Like why not just make a freely customizable class system in that case?
I was mostly joking, I assume it's going to be on the same trajectory as all of their games for the past decade that have been progressively more disappointing.
I think it may end up being more that every other project they had was starved of resources because Elder Scrolls is where the main action has been happening. They explicitly said years ago that Starfield was going to be their game that would release before the next Elder Scrolls.
After they realized how badly Starfield shit the bed Todd made everyone wipe the hard drives and start from scratch.
I don't think todd has a clue how bad starfield is and that speaks poorly of them being able to identify why their games currently suck.
Maybe the inherent nature of an elder scrolls title offsets the worst parts of starfield; need to be able to walk everywhere, fast travel as convenient rather than necessary part of the design. Combat will certainly continue to suck though, as they have only really spent the last ten years making shooters with melee combat only getting worse and worse.
But maybe they'll just focus on making a cool rpg with lots of fun exploring and I'll be wrong. That's be nice.
I got in to a big argument with soimeone bout this. They were saying that Bethesda is learning from it's mistakes in each subsequent game. I was arguing that Bethesda sometime's recognizes mistakes they have made, and their response it to totally misunderstand why it was a mistake and make grand, new mistakes that both make the existing problem worse and add several new problems. to whit; Somehow the evolution of housing from Morrowind to Starfield resulted not in something like Sim Settlements, but the wretched system that Starfield shipped with.
deleted by creator
That's been their mantra for years. "The modders will fix everything and make it a complete game."
Base fucking building is one of the major reasons i dislike both starfield and fallout 4, if i fucking wanted to play minecraft, i would go play minecraft.
It's a shame that you can't opt out of base building. Like you could make a mechanic for it that still incorporated the robust scrap mechanic in fallout 4. Example: you gather the stuff and appoint a settler as architect. After a set number of days you get it upgraded with some barebones resources and defenses and moderately upgraded weapons for the settlers (maybe have weapon type determined by faction like Brotherhood gives laser pistols or whatever.)
Of course you could still go back and personalize it, make additions, etc, but it would enable you to move on if you want. Lots of people do end up with a "home base" they might want to customize but customizing every settlement? Not really my ideal use of time. On the other hand some people love it. Make it optional and everyone is happy.
I mean it is somewhat optional, you can completely ignore it after 1st tutorial in both games, but a lot of dev time and budget came to what is essentially subpar minigame to please people who would rather play another genre entirely just because some shit got popular in the meantime.
It's totally baffling to me that they brought back some sort of class system to Starfield, with it actually being a fixed set of backgrounds with specific history and experiences for your character, and absolutely no customization in making your own classes, but they still funnel every single background into doing asteroid mining physical labor, with no acknowledgement of why actual diplomats and professors are put in that position.
It's like one part of the team heard that people wanted classes back and for your character to have real backgrounds, and then the other team made a Bethesda tutorial quest for the standard Bethesda no-name blank slate protagonist.
If you're wanting that from elder scrolls or a Bethesda game you're looking at the wrong series. These games haven't been that way for awhile now.
I suggest baldurs gate 3 or one of the other brilliant isometric rpgs that came out recently.
It's moreso confusion over the fact that Bethesda did seem to recognize that people wanted classes and/or backgrounds for their characters, but then didn't actually commit either to their clear preference in storytelling and character creation, and neither did they commit to the storytelling potential that giving players fixed choices with no customization brings, they literally know every single background they have to account for and then they dont account for them.
Like why not just make a freely customizable class system in that case?
Ask Todd. He's usually the one who strips this crap out.
Bethesda never made super deep rpgs anyways. They've always been kind of baby's first rpg company
I was mostly joking, I assume it's going to be on the same trajectory as all of their games for the past decade that have been progressively more disappointing.
I think it may end up being more that every other project they had was starved of resources because Elder Scrolls is where the main action has been happening. They explicitly said years ago that Starfield was going to be their game that would release before the next Elder Scrolls.
It's incredible how every design decision they made was bad.