Ooof... I heavily disagree, specially if you think AAA games like God of War, RDR2, Spider-Man, etc are boring.
IMO Bethesda games are mediocre but it's possible to have fun with them.
Roger Ebert said:There's a learning process that moviegoers go through. They begin in childhood without sophistication or much taste, and for example, like "Gamera'' more than "Air Force One" because flying turtles are obviously more entertaining than United States presidents. Then they grow older and develop "taste,'' and prefer "Air Force One," which is better made and has big stars and a more plausible plot. (Isn't it more believable, after all, that a president could single-handedly wipe out a planeload of terrorists than that a giant turtle could spit gobs of flame?) Then, if they continue to grow older and wiser, they complete the circle and return to "Gamera'' again, realizing that while both movies are preposterous, the turtle movie has the charm of utter goofiness--and, in an age of flawless special effects, it is somehow more fun to watch flawed ones.
But really no. Glitchy, buggy, broken games that have never had good gameplay.
Sure I like them. Akane's stuff is pretty awesome. Past couple mainline releases are moving further and further away from what makes me like them though.
I just completed dishonoured 2 yesterday and today I completed dishonored death of an outsider. I'd rate them 8.5/10 so yes I agree with you I love them.
I recently completed Doom 2016 and as we speak I'm downloading wolfenstein 2 and the dlc. Got them all tor €45 on sale.
Yes, I do. Look at rdr2. A critical darling with atrocious gameplay. If you make beautiful open world games and are a triple A publisher you seemingly get a pass for awful combat. Idk how anyone could seriously say waving a sword around like a cardboard cut out in skyrim is good combat.BGS games deserve the flack they get for lack of optimization among other things, but this is ridiculous. You think the Elder Scrolls games have all been hugely successful critical and commercial hits despite "never (having) good gameplay"? Gameplay is many things - it's not just combat responsiveness. These games have been hugely influential in open world design, open world narrative and open world NPC interaction.
Yes, BGS needs to go back to the drawing board for some stuff, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
OP is specifically discussing Bethesda Game Studios - Elder Scrolls and Fallout basically.
Yes, I do. Look at rdr2. A critical darling with atrocious gameplay. If you make beautiful open world games and are a triple A publisher you seemingly get a pass for awful combat. Idk how anyone could seriously say waving a sword around like a cardboard cut out in skyrim is good combat.
Yes, I do. Look at rdr2. A critical darling with atrocious gameplay. If you make beautiful open world games and are a triple A publisher you seemingly get a pass for awful combat. Idk how anyone could seriously say waving a sword around like a cardboard cut out in skyrim is good combat.
Yes, I do. Look at rdr2. A critical darling with atrocious gameplay. If you make beautiful open world games and are a triple A publisher you seemingly get a pass for awful combat. Idk how anyone could seriously say waving a sword around like a cardboard cut out in skyrim is good combat.
Ah that's fair. I should have said combat since that's chiefly what I meant rather than gameplay. I concede that.I didn't argue with that point though - I specifically said "gameplay" is many things. I don't disagree that Elder Scrolls games have stiff, problematic combat - you should have played Daggerfall! - but that's neglecting all the many other things the games demonstrably do well, including some that I listed and others. Those are the reasons its a successful series.
I agree with the RDR2 analogy though - the people most loudly bemoaning its success are those who narrowly define the gameplay as, basically, combat, when there are so other many things the game does well that those of us who enjoy it cite.
OP is specifically discussing Bethesda Game Studios - Elder Scrolls and Fallout basically.
I should have worded it better I agree I disagree however about gameplay being first serving as a reductive measure of gamws' evolution. Gameplay trumps all.I don't care too much for BGS games, but this view is extremely one-dimensional. This uber-traditionalist view of gameplay first, all other things after, is so counterproductive to the evolution of the gaming medium. Yeah, RDR2 didn't blow the roof off the industry with innovations in combat mechanics, but you can tell that Rockstar devoted a TON of time and resources toward expanding our understanding of how deep an open world can be, and the type of stories that can be told with games.
Some games prioritize gameplay, some prioritize story, some prioritize world-building--and that's their respective developers' prerogative. There's no objective "best" way to order development priorities. BGS arguably prioritizes world, Rockstar prioritizes world/story, and others like, I dunno, From Software prioritize combat mechanics. Those are all equally valid approaches. You might have your own individual biases toward gameplay mechanics, but that doesn't mean others can't derive value from other elements of a game, or that they're foolish, naive, or wrong for doing so.
Well the movement and horse riding are both pretty terrible as well.
Well the movement and horse riding are both pretty terrible as well.
Pretty much anything involving interaction in RDR2 is clunky and slow. Even poker in the game is painfully slow.
Then you have the mission design which is fucking abysmal. Some of the missions in RDR2 have about as close as it gets to objectively bad mission design.
I love everything up to Fallout 4, which was disappointing. Far Harbor was good.
Oh wow, I completely missed that.The preceding post was talking about Bethesda games. I agree that RDR2 has a lot wrong with it.