• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

chanunnaki

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,783
Bethesda open world games have always been garbage-tier open worlds in my opinion. Their success always confounded me. I could the attraction in the world-building, but the fluidity of gameplay and mechanics always looked and felt janky as hell to me. They've stayed the same while other developers have far-surpassed them.

Bethesda remind me of telltale games in that regard. Not saying they'll go the way of TTG, but the jankiness in their games are definitely comparable.
 

pswii60

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,673
The Milky Way
They didn't? Even if 76 is bad it's also a side-game and won't affect their future games since those ideas failed.
Yeah it is basically just a cheap cash grab. But one that will tarnish the franchise.
This is Bethesda's Gears of War Judgment and God of War Ascension. It is just a side project of sort. When TES6 comes out, all will be fine again.
Whilst totally flawed, at least I still got plenty of enjoyment out of both Judgment and Ascension. I can't say the same for Fallout 76.
 

Stiler

Avenger
Oct 29, 2017
6,659
Bethesda has (imo) gotten lazy in terms of their technical skill and their will to push design and new things through.

When Morrowind came out it was amazing, for it's time it was one of the better looking games of that era, it truly felt like a "new" game with some great new gameplay for an rpg on that scale that many people were not used to.

After Oblivion they seemed to just decide to "play it safe" with their rpg design mainly, following the overall same structure, keeping tihe general engine and feel of the game, not really improving anything drastically or trying to really push the envelope on any design or gameplay choice.

Fallout 76 feels like a game that they decided to make a few years ago, when "Dayz/Rust" were extremely popular, they didn't really try anything new or amazing, they skipped out on making the game into a full fledged rpg and story that single players could enjoy.

I would like to clarify and apologize if this post came out wrong. I did not mean to imply that the devs were "lazy" in terms of their job or their work that they do making these games.

I meant that from a design perspective that Bethesda (design wise, not work ethic wise) went from pushing the envelope not only in terms of it's graphics (Morrowind was a top tier looking game at release) but also in terms of it's gameplay design with it's open world, npcs, quests, literally changing the rpg genre from what we were getting then (Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, etc) to Morrowind and how it set the standard for rpgs going into the future.

Now they have gotten into more of a "follow the formula" style of design for most of their games (to be fair many modern rpgs follow the formula they made popular), nothing really drastic to change up their new games from previous ones in terms of the core game design and mechanics of how they work and how you interact with them and no longer pushing the envelope when it comes to their technical graphics and other elements vs other modern games. This isn't to say they don't have new elements (like fallout 4's base building) but the core gameplay and how you play their game is pretty much standard across their games now.

How each game carries over the same issues previous games have, such as tying the physics to the framerate and the lack of changing the underlying engine in many ways, in a previous topic someone posted about it better with more details:

All entity meta-data is loaded in a similar fashion to the player entity. So states like basic attributes, skills, inventory, etc... are constantly parsing instead of being called upon when needed. Basically the engine wastes a lot of resources on absolutely useless tasks.

Cell Based loading
; This significantly lowers the amount of entities allowable in a loaded cell aka a hard limit. Anything that surpasses the limit will basically break the engine resulting in game breaking issues or a crash.

Modular everything, basically the entire engine is a jigsaw puzzle that is stuck together with rubbers bands, tape, glue, gum, and anything else that could be used as an adhesive. If a module is updated, it broke another, then that get updated... then it continues on cascading through them all. Instead of building a comprehensive system that is efficient and easy to debug, they turned it into cooked spaghetti and dumped it on the ground.

The engine doesn't support in engine animations, or any real features observed in the games. They are all produced via modules... that must be loaded and remain loaded individually. To give you an idea forward kinematics, inverse kinematics, translation, nor deformations. So stuff like a train car in Half-Life 1 are impossible to program into the engine without using workarounds, hacks, modules, or by exploiting bugs. For example imagine a single entity, except all the variables that determine it's actions are exterior to its programming. In this case separate controllers are applied to the entity to get it to function. Instead of programming in the required information into the entity itself. Remember the Broken Steel tram? It was a NPC character wearing a hat running a path. The NPC, train hat, paths, and trigger initiators all had to be loaded, instead of a path and a single entity...

Height map terrain generation, literally one of the most annoying ways to make terrain. In this case the terrain can only deform on a single axis, which means static assets that use a lot of computational power must be used to make simple terrain like cliffs.

Literally no optimization tools, look at Fallout 4's Sanctuary. The entire area is just a bunch of static assets layered on top of each other, wasting all your computers resources to render something you're not going to see.

Most of the engine's operations are tied to the frame rate... *sigh* like physics calculations... So if the frame rate drops or increases, so does calculations the engine does. It's like playing an old DOS game on a modern PC without adjusting the CPU speed.

The lighting within the engine is so out dated goldsrc (The engine the original half-life used) is still considered better. Plus the module for lighting is so inefficient that a good deal of computer calculations get soaked up by dynamic and static light sources. There is also a max limit of light sources within a cell... Heaven have mercy on the soul of the modder or map designer that placed one too many lights in a cell.

The engine constantly trips over itself trying to load separate modules, this often results in conflicts or weird easily preventable bugs that directly impact game play. Kind of like backing a horse up a mountain side. A great example of this is Fallout 4's bug of missing inventory items that still weigh down the player. Which is caused by a desync of modules that are intended to operate in tandem.

It still uses a manual NavMesh system, Instead of programming an entity with a basic AI collision detection calculation for pathing, it uses a system that requires the entities to rely upon an actual separate mesh, that overlays everything the NPC can traverse. While some engines use navmesh systems, they instead only mark faces and vertexes of existing geometry for parsing without having to generate completely separate faces and vertexes.

Spawns and gibs, every time something is spawned it has to be fully loaded as previously stated, this also includes items and gibs. When something gibs the spawned entities often spawn inside each other and require a collision calculation to "bust apart", instead of using dynamic slices based on the existing mesh and having the engine calculate the slices. Plus the sudden extra calculations cause frame rate drops, and bugs quite often.

Fallout 76 includes many of these kinds of limitations and issues carried over still from Fallout 4 and how it handles things.

I loved Morrowind, it was one of my favorite rpgs, and I'd just like to see Bethesda come back with a new rpg that just surpasses expectations. When most people think of Bethesda rpgs they think of the exploration and world design (which they do amazingly well) but they also think of things like the jank, poor animation, poor writing and dialogue, the wonky engine and graphics that look a few years behind the current top tier games. I'd love to see Bethesda fix those things and give us a new rpg that, like Morrowind, pushes the envelope of rpgs in both the design and gameplay but also the elements that are generally weak in Bethesda's games, a game with a gripping storyline, amazingly detailed graphics and animation, and an updated engine that fixes the technical issues that are present in most of their modern games.

Fallout 76 just feels (imo) like a very hollow game meant to go after the Rust type of crowd that has missed the mark (where Battle Royale games are now the front and center).

I think it would have been a much wiser choice to have made it more of an rpg with quests and npc's to interact with and more of a structured storyline tihat would allow solo players to find something more to do, as it stands the game is just not fun really for solo players.

All of these years some of us have been asking Bethesda for multiplayer (while also receive a ton of negative responses from the Bethesda community for daring to suggest multiplayer in their single player rpgs) but what we meant was we would have liked to have had simple co op style mutliplayer in an rpg, like take a normal single player rpg and be able to explore that world and do quests while having some of your friends along, like how Divinity: Original Sin 2 does it, that's what many of us wanted from a "multiplayer" bethesda game, not this Rust type of mp focused game that doesn't really offer much compared to their single player rpgs.
 
Last edited:

Kewlmyc

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
26,706
Not a chance. To suggest that the only reason people tolerated BGS games is because there weren't many open world games at the time is absured. BGS open world games are still incredibly unique and popular for that reason. No other studio puts out games like they do. Witcher, BotW and RDR2 don't come close to providing the same experience. Hell, even 76 isn't the same experience as their traditional single player RPGs even though the share some similarities.

Ever said it was the only reason. But there are definitely people out there who did like BGS games for their massive open worlds more than the RPG elements. They liked exploring those worlds. The 3 games I mentioned have better open worlds to explore, especially when you take the constant bugs you'd face in BSG games. You don't have to worry about the game melting on you for having too big a save file for example. No matter how expansive a world is, having constant bugs will mess with your enjoyment of it, a problem the games I mentioned don't have, or at least not as extreme as FO4 or Skyrim.
 

Deleted member 37739

User requested account closure
Banned
Jan 8, 2018
908
None of those games do what Bethesda games try to achieve though.

They're all great in their own right but beyond having an open world they're hardly comparable.

I hear this a lot, but I never really understand it. All of these games are trying to achieve different things that the others aren't within the same medium. RDR2 is very story-driven and cinematic, Breath of the Wild is very mechanically-driven focusing on systems and traversal above all else, Divinity is very choice and stat driven after the fashion of classic CRPGs. All of these games excel in it their particular goals without being unusually buggy or poorly performing and many of them are pushing best-in-class visuals on top of that.

So what do you mean by this argument? What's 'hardly comparable' here?
 

Tygre

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,113
Chesire, UK
None of those games do what Bethesda games try to achieve though.

They're all great in their own right but beyond having an open world they're hardly comparable.
They don't have to be trying to do what Bethesda do. They are still direct competition for eyeballs and dollars and they are directly comparable.

In 2018, Bethesda games look like ass compared to the rest of the AAA world. Their texture work is terrible, their geometry is basic, their character models are bad, their animations are so laughable I barely want to grace them with the label "animations". I watched a character in F76 "jumping" and involuntarily laughed out loud.

In 2018, Bethesda games have more jank than the rest of the AAA world. They have worse writing. They have more basic combat mechanics. Almost the only thing they have over all of their competitors is a fantastic opportunity for mod work.

Back in 2002, this was not the case. BSG games looked as good as similarly scoped games. BSG games played as well as similarly scoped games. They were at the level, and then went beyond the level by being more open, more ambitious, more interactable, more moddable, etc. They are now considerably below the level, and barely go beyond on any individual axis.
 

Tigress

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,153
Washington
You know, I have to say it would really be refreshing to see opinions from people who like their games. I don't know why but Bethesda threads always attract a lot of people who outright admit they hate their games and don't see the appeal.

What I would like to say to those people is why are you Coming in to criticize company when you don't even understand what the fans like about the game. At that point you are just trying to make them make a game that appeals to you with no regards on how it would change things for people who actually like their games. This is like me coming into a platforming game and trying to criticize it when I don't see the appeal. Why would I understand what the fans who do like the game would want in it and I would probably try to change it more into a game that appeals to me.

It would be a lot more interesting to see constructive criticism from people who like their games but see the flaws in them and what needs to improve that would better their games for people who actually like them.

No, they don't need to be Witcher or RDR2. Those are different games. Yes, they do have flaws though. There is stuff they could learn from new Vegas and even BoTW (which was inspired by skyrim and had elements I think would enhance Bethesda games. Like how the game is very open to creative solutions on how to solve things).
 

Evangelista

Using an alt account to circumvent a ban
Banned
Aug 21, 2018
708
They are a really small studio with an old engine trying to make games that need 1000 staff nowadays ...
 

Abstrusity

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,656
They went from "basically the only one" to "one of like dozens be with nowhere near the content or quality." that's all.

Fallout 76 is not more broken than previous games they've made. It's just more obvious and less funny because like nobody else has their problems.
 

pixelpatron

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,542
Seattle
It's not hard to be number one with almost zero challengers in the open world space. They rode the wave, but now half the games to market in the AAA space seem to be moving towards open world. Hard to stand out like they once did. These new games and their developers have exposed Bethesda's poor character models, animations, dialogue interaction, combat systems, and lack of polish. Just slowly moving into AA territory.
 

Tranqueris

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,734
To people saying "it's just 1 game" or "this isn't representative".

What about Fallout 4?

I like Fallout 4 more than most, but even I can admit that it had a lot of bugs, had subpar visuals, bland main narrative and poor gameplay.

I feel like you can make a post like this about Skyrim too. I loved Skyrim, played it for more than 200 hours, until the PS3 bug kicked in where it punished you for playing a save file too long by running it at less than 10 FPS.

This is a fucking decade long issue with this company at this point.

An experimental spin-off title that costs $60 and was marketed as a AAA BGS production. Sure.

By the time this thread hits page 20, the spin will be that Fallout 76 was made by a small mom and pop studio that used the Fallout name without Bethesda's permission.
 
Last edited:

Khrol

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,179
Ever said it was the only reason. But there are definitely people out there who did like BGS games for their massive open worlds more than the RPG elements. They liked exploring those worlds. The 3 games I mentioned have better open worlds to explore, especially when you take the constant bugs you'd face in BSG games. You don't have to worry about the game melting on you for having too big a save file for example. No matter how expansive a world is, having constant bugs will mess with your enjoyment of it, a problem the games I mentioned don't have, or at least not as extreme as FO4 or Skyrim.

Well I'm sure there are some people, sure. But to suggest that people in general have moved on because there are "better" options doesn't hold a lot of weight when Fallout 4 and Skyrim are consistently in the top played games list on Xbox and Steam. Both of which are ahead of the Witcher 3, which is the only game in your examples that we can directly compare on those platforms.
 
Oct 30, 2017
2,206
What a reaction thread. People need to take a moment, just not here but across all of Era before they decide to type out their thoughts. You'll usually have better thought out perspectives that way.

Fallout 76 sucks. Oh well. Some seem to enjoy it.

Also, I disagree that other studios are making comparable games. The Witcher is a big open world filled with cities and villages and sidequests. That's where the similarities end. ES is a far more versatile open world than any other game out there. You can't pick world items or steal them in AC or the Witcher. You can't interact with a majority of NPC's wondering around the world in those games, you can't customize your playstyle in any other game like ES. The witcher is more of an adventure game in comparison with the option for branching story lines. The only comparable games are CRPG's.

If you disagree with me, then outside of story, and dialogue choices which are common RPG elements, what does Witcher, AC or any other AAA RPG do better than Elder Scrolls? (Yes, combat sucks). Because I'm really curious to know this beyond the general statement everyone is doing AAA RPG's better.
 

Lashley

<<Tag Here>>
Member
Oct 25, 2017
59,985
Crap engine, and I know the term lazy developer is highly offensive here. However what else can you use?

They've ported Skyrim to multiple platforms and never once in those many years did they bother to fix the game breaking bugs that the game has. Yet charge full price for these ports.

That sounds pretty fucking lazy to me.

The engine they use is trash, it was trash when they were using it in Skyrim, its beyond trash now and they really need to dump that engine ASAP.
I like how this is just a warning, but people have gotten bans for less with the exact same reasoning.
 

Vishmarx

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
5,043
This is Bethesda's Gears of War Judgment and God of War Ascension. It is just a side project of sort. When TES6 comes out, all will be fine again.
judgement and ascension were decent games on their own, spinoffs, in franchises full of excellent games that had followed the exact same formula for far too long already. 76 is by no stretch of imagination in the same realm of comparison with its endless shitparade and red meteoritic score. its a objective mess all on its own.
 

Edgar

User requested ban
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
7,180
What a reaction thread. People need to take a moment, just not here but across all of Era before they decide to type out their thoughts. You'll usually have better thought out perspectives that way.

Fallout 76 sucks. Oh well. Some seem to enjoy it.

Also, I disagree that other studios are making comparable games. The Witcher is a big open world filled with cities and villages and sidequests. That's where the similarities end. ES is a far more versatile open world than any other game out there. You can't pick world items or steal them in AC or the Witcher. You can't interact with a majority of NPC's wondering around the world in those games, you can't customize your playstyle in any other game like ES. The witcher is more of an adventure game in comparison with the option for branching story lines. The only comparable games are CRPG's.

If you disagree with me, then outside of story, and dialogue choices which are common RPG elements, what does Witcher, AC or any other AAA RPG do better than Elder Scrolls? (Yes, combat sucks). Because I'm really curious to know this beyond the general statement everyone is doing AAA RPG's better.
How does picking up every fork and spoon improve overall experience? What is the purpose of it? What do you mean interacting with NPCs?
You know what Witcher 3 does better than Bethesda games? Creating believable , lived in place via topography, negative space and art direction. Sometimes theres nothing meaningful around the corner and that what makes it believable as an actual place.
Edit: also more authored, hand crafted content and production values. Theres no radiant quest equivalent
 

Deleted member 4346

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,976
Seriously, the Bethesda bashing on ERA is getting old. Fallout 76 was a mistake, Fallout 4 was decent but not a GOTY like Skyrim was, yes. Skyrim gets criticism as if it was a 2018 release. It sure would be a different game if it was released now, but it's a 2011 game that still has not been replicated. I will not join in any Bethesda hate before their new big RPGs in Starfield and TES VI. One thing I would like to tell Bethesda though: Don't simplify the wrong mechanics. Let me continue to craft my own spells, please! But it's okay that my armor is not blunt after usage, I never found that important etc.

For a start, go and play a modded Skyrim, but invest the time necessary to choose the right one's, then you can see what a 2015/2016-ish Skyrim could be like. In short: great.

Is it? I'm a Bethesda fan but I agree with Jim Sterling's video- F76 is so bad that I'm looking back at other BGS titles and wondering why I gave them a pass on being buggy, being janky, being technically incompetent, and having important Fallout elements removed. Fallout 4 is a game that I have hundreds of hours in. I've defended that game many times. But look, hold it up to other open-world RPGs and look at how unpolished it is, how sloppy. Compare to Breath of the Wild, compare to Horizon: Zero Dawn, compare to The Witcher 3, compare to Red Dead Redemption 2.

Even the strengths of Bethesda are largely negated in their last two games. Interactions with NPCs as far as dialogue are extremely dumbed-down. RPG elements in general have been oversimplified or, for Fallout 76, essentially removed. Bethesda really needs to look at the moldering corpse of Bioware and learn the lesson that, while some streamlining is good, these are RPGs first and foremost. Open-world RPGs. If you remove too many of the systems, then there are better games to play, frankly.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,690
I think they're focusing way too much on Fallout, a series which has never been their strength. They didn't even have a story to tell this time. How many different ways can you do rural post-apocalypse and still be interesting?
 

saenima

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
11,892
How each game carries over the same issues previous games have, such as tying the physics to the framerate and the lack of changing the underlying engine in many ways, in a previous topic someone posted about it better with more details:

Assuming this is true, how can anyone say with a straight face that their engine is not a problem?

Bethesda is trying to shoot Avengers 4 with a Betamax camera and used tape.
 
Oct 30, 2017
2,206
How does picking up every fork and spoon improve overall experience? What is the purpose of it? What do you mean interacting with NPCs?
You know what Witcher 3 does better than Bethesda games? Creating believable , lived in place via topography, negative space and art direction. Sometimes theres nothing meaningful around the corner and that what makes it believable as an actual place.
Edit: also more authored, hand crafted content and production values. Theres no radiant quest equivalent

Yeah Witcher looks better, unless you look at some of the background Npc's. In terms of interaction, I mean that you can steal something from them, talk with them, kill them, which can result in negative consequences. If you play as a thief, especially in Oblivion where you get a strong thief's quest path you can break into people's houses and steal things of value to fence them. For me I appreciated increasing my acrobatic skill and stealth allowing to access things I couldn't before or making for interesting stealth and combat situations. In ES you spend most the time not playing the main story because there's so much to experiment with or discover.

For Witcher there's none of that. Your a guy with a set of skills in a static world. Yeah the cities are larger and more realistically constructed with large crowds of people doing nothing. I can see why that's more appealing but I find it boring. You cant increase any skills in a way that allows you to interact with the environment in any meaningful way. You go to the static city, and get your quests, play a few minigames. The witcher was at its strongest points when in your involved in quests. The ES series is at its strongest points when you're doing everything else. Story and quests are stronger and far more interesting in the witcher but role playing is centered around dialogue and choices with in the the main story and side quests.

AC origins has one if the best looking worlds I've ever seen. But no one has made a game as beautiful as origins while being complex as a CRPG. It seems you get either one or the other. ES lacks what Origins and Witcher have with their environments to a degree but ES worlds are filled with far more experimentation and role playing outside of conversations, which make its feel more engaging to me. I mean people like structure and checklists, so those are your AC and Witcher games right there.
 

Buff Beefbroth

Chicken Chaser
Member
Apr 12, 2018
3,012
From studios like Piranha Bytes(ELEX scratched itches neglected by FO4 and then some) and War Horse(KCD is basically an ultra grounded Scrolls- like with a historical bent, better VA & writing. One of favs this year) on the indie side, to CDPR and Rockstar blazing innovative trails on the AAA side. Even if Bethesda never returns to form I'll be ok. A little sad, but ok.

The problem I have with these games is that none of them feature a character creation system. I criticize and dislike Bethesda for a lot of things, but they're basically the only folks who offer an open world action RPG series with this feature.

I want Bethesda to be good. They're just... not.
 

7thFloor

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,645
U.S.
As someone who enjoys The Witcher and TES, they do not share the same appeal at all. I don't think I even need to explain why. Who's left then? Guerilla? Rockstar? Bioware is possibly the closest but even they make games that are fundamentally different, and the future of single-player Bioware games is looking bleak. So yes, BGS are the only ones that make this kind of game in the AAA space, which is what would make their stagnance so dissapointing. I have hope that Cyberpunk will be closer to filling the gap, but again, very different setting.
 

Muffin

Member
Oct 26, 2017
10,342
Assuming this is true, how can anyone say with a straight face that their engine is not a problem?
People say the engine is the problem and they should change their engine. That's dumb. The engine has issues. If Bethesda went to a new one, with how they currently work they'd just mess that one up too. They completely replaced the lighting system part of the current engine for F76, and it looks crappier indoors than in F4.

The engine isn't the "problem", it's whatever philosophy their management has in regards to handling their engine. Properly revamping things and resolving deeply rooted issues is not their priority. Skyrim was the last time they made a significant jump, and even there the "deeply-rooted issues" part was really not their focus.
 

Edgar

User requested ban
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
7,180
Yeah Witcher looks better, unless you look at some of the background Npc's. In terms of interaction, I mean that you can steal something from them, talk with them, kill them, which can result in negative consequences. If you play as a thief, especially in Oblivion where you get a strong thief's quest path you can break into people's houses and steal things of value to fence them. For me I appreciated increasing my acrobatic skill and stealth allowing to access things I couldn't before or making for interesting stealth and combat situations. In ES you spend most the time not playing the main story because there's so much to experiment with or discover.

For Witcher there's none of that. Your a guy with a set of skills in a static world. Yeah the cities are larger and more realistically constructed with large crowds of people doing nothing. I can see why that's more appealing but I find it boring. You cant increase any skills in a way that allows you to interact with the environment in any meaningful way. You go to the static city, and get your quests, play a few minigames. The witcher was at its strongest points when in your involved in quests. The ES series is at its strongest points when you're doing everything else. Story and quests are stronger and far more interesting in the witcher but role playing is centered around dialogue and choices with in the the main story and side quests.

AC origins has one if the best looking worlds I've ever seen. But no one has made a game as beautiful as origins while being complex as a CRPG. It seems you get either one or the other. ES lacks what Origins and Witcher have with their environments to a degree but ES worlds are filled with far more experimentation and role playing outside of conversations, which make its feel more engaging to me. I mean people like structure and checklists, so those are your AC and Witcher games right there.
I mean thats just different type of role playing. And I personally never did anything that was not tied to a quest in Bethesda games. And I am pretty sure you still cannot kill main quest gives in F4 or Skyrim. Def not when it comes to main quest line. Also you are talking about checklists in witcher 3 and AC O? Have we both played same fallout 4? Or Skyrim with its fetch questy nature ? Like come on.
 

Stiler

Avenger
Oct 29, 2017
6,659
What a reaction thread. People need to take a moment, just not here but across all of Era before they decide to type out their thoughts. You'll usually have better thought out perspectives that way.

Fallout 76 sucks. Oh well. Some seem to enjoy it.

Also, I disagree that other studios are making comparable games. The Witcher is a big open world filled with cities and villages and sidequests. That's where the similarities end. ES is a far more versatile open world than any other game out there. You can't pick world items or steal them in AC or the Witcher. You can't interact with a majority of NPC's wondering around the world in those games, you can't customize your playstyle in any other game like ES. The witcher is more of an adventure game in comparison with the option for branching story lines. The only comparable games are CRPG's.

If you disagree with me, then outside of story, and dialogue choices which are common RPG elements, what does Witcher, AC or any other AAA RPG do better than Elder Scrolls? (Yes, combat sucks). Because I'm really curious to know this beyond the general statement everyone is doing AAA RPG's better.

AC:

Traversal, I mean I'd love to every rpg to have as good traversal as an AC game, we've seen some other rpgs tackle this (like BOTW which probably came the closest to it in terms of letting you basically climb anything).

World building and variation (this mainly applies from AC: Origins which did it best). Going through origins each city felt unique to the others, their own atmosphere and style felt self contained (IIRC this was down a lot because Ubisoft had different studios tasked with making each city, rather then doing them all). Then you had the huge breadth of npc's interacting with the world and things within it, doing jobs and other tasks that could be unique to that specific location in the world (like the salt mines and seeing all the different npc's harvesting it, processing it, preparing it for shipment, etc), seeing npc's doing this kind of thing really helped make the world feel alive.

I would still give Bethesda the advantage when it comes to the actual overall world design (they are masters in this, making you see some random building or something on the horizon and wanting to go there and explore it, I'm speaking more of Fallout here, not Skyrim, which to me felt a bit too much of the "samey" design within it's world and the variety of it) but in terms of the towns/cities and the npcs doing things within their environment AC is ahead of it in that regard.

The Witcher:

This one is tricky, because to me it is the writing/characters/story that makes it stand out more, it treats the characters and story elements with a more care and fully realized in a more mature manner towards the player, and the choices you make that have a ripple affect down the line on other things and how they play out. The emotional weight some stories and characters have isn't something that you find in Skyrim, thanks both to the writing but also to the animation of the characters and performance of the voice actor (IE The Bloody Baron storyline in the The Witcher 3).

The world of Witcher 3 is more visually varied compared to Skyrim with more of a variety of things to find within it, not as much repetition in terms of that like Skyrim did with it's dungeons that littered the world.
 

McScroggz

The Fallen
Jan 11, 2018
5,973
When Morrowind came out, especially for the Xbox, many people had never played a game like it. At the time GTAIII and the GTA franchise were becoming huge, but there weren't a lot of other open world games that were good or sold great. The genre was still in a nascent State.

What The Elder Scrolls did that no other game had was how immersive it was. There was a level of freedom rarely found, yet everywhere you went there was something there that connected to the larger narrative, or contextualized the lore. Things like books and scrolls, environmental storytelling, and these little points of interest scattered around the map. It was nothing like GTA or any other open world game. The fact that you could steal basically anything, including food and common items, made the world feel real compared to the artifice of other games.

That immersion smoother over the rough spots. The clunky combat. The poor graphics. The stuff animations. With each subsequent Bethesda open world, not much was added to the game to make it even more immersive meanwhile the rough patches, basically all of them, stayed.

As games in general became way more polished, more graphically impressive, more realistically animated, it made Bethesda games less fun to look at and less fun to play. And video game storytelling had really progressed in 5+ years (over a decade if we date back to Morrowind) so while there was still a uniqueness to their open world games, plenty of other games did a lot of the same things but way better. The Witcher III has a much better story, characters, quest system, combat system, graphics, etc. (I would even argue Moreno interesting lore). And while The Witcher III represents one of the best RPG's ever, plenty of other games have been better in many ways than Bethesda other than the uniquess of how they craft their open worlds and let you explore.

And the sad thing is there is no indication that Bethesda has learned and is making noticeable changes to improve their games. Yes, there's jank, and glitches. Making the next game look better and have some better animations isn't going to fix the core problems with their open worlds. It's more fundamental than just that - and many, myself included, question how much they will even improve the graphics, animations and reduce bugs.
 

Tibarn

Member
Oct 31, 2017
13,370
Barcelona
They never were that great IMO. Morrowind was fine, but Oblivion and Skyrim were average games, I bought both and only played 4-5 hours before shelving them. Mediocre gameplay and story were my main problems with the game, and as others users said, other companies basically started to do better and more immersive open world games.
 
Oct 30, 2017
2,206
I mean thats just different type of role playing. And I personally never did anything that was not tied to a quest in Bethesda games. And I am pretty sure you still cannot kill main quest gives in F4 or Skyrim. Def not when it comes to main quest line. Also you are talking about checklists in witcher 3 and AC O? Have we both played same fallout 4? Or Skyrim with its fetch questy nature ? Like come on.

Yeah, I'll give you that. FO4 and and Skyrim were my least favourite. Your right to, it's a different style of play where for me and I'm sure others like to play outside the quests.


AC:

Traversal, I mean I'd love to every rpg to have as good traversal as an AC game, we've seen some other rpgs tackle this (like BOTW which probably came the closest to it in terms of letting you basically climb anything).

World building and variation (this mainly applies from AC: Origins which did it best). Going through origins each city felt unique to the others, their own atmosphere and style felt self contained (IIRC this was down a lot because Ubisoft had different studios tasked with making each city, rather then doing them all). Then you had the huge breadth of npc's interacting with the world and things within it, doing jobs and other tasks that could be unique to that specific location in the world (like the salt mines and seeing all the different npc's harvesting it, processing it, preparing it for shipment, etc), seeing npc's doing this kind of thing really helped make the world feel alive.

I would still give Bethesda the advantage when it comes to the actual overall world design (they are masters in this, making you see some random building or something on the horizon and wanting to go there and explore it, I'm speaking more of Fallout here, not Skyrim, which to me felt a bit too much of the "samey" design within it's world and the variety of it) but in terms of the towns/cities and the npcs doing things within their environment AC is ahead of it in that regard.

The Witcher:

This one is tricky, because to me it is the writing/characters/story that makes it stand out more, it treats the characters and story elements with a more care and fully realized in a more mature manner towards the player, and the choices you make that have a ripple affect down the line on other things and how they play out. The emotional weight some stories and characters have isn't something that you find in Skyrim, thanks both to the writing but also to the animation of the characters and performance of the voice actor (IE The Bloody Baron storyline in the The Witcher 3).

The world of Witcher 3 is more visually varied compared to Skyrim with more of a variety of things to find within it, not as much repetition in terms of that like Skyrim did with it's dungeons that littered the world.

Yeah, that's was definately the Witchers strong points. Its definately a far more interesting story filled with choices that impact the game. Bethesda needs to work on that. In a BGS game you're the most powerful person in the world but nobody listens to you or changes lol.

I'm at the point where they should emphasize the world more and fill it with lots of short stories that flesh out the world and its cultures instead of having a main story.

Either way, all have their strong points and do things well. One day a game will bring it all together and that will be amazing.
 

PSqueak

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,464
probably comes from the fact that people feel they have been dumbing down the fallout franchise creates this narrative that they have gone down hill.
 

Araujo

Banned
Dec 5, 2017
2,196
Regarding Fallout 76, wasn't there info running around that Elder Scrolls 6 was to be built on the same ground engine that 76 was?

Cause THAT would be bad.
 

Edgar

User requested ban
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
7,180
Yeah, I'll give you that. FO4 and and Skyrim were my least favourite. Your right to, it's a different style of play where for me and I'm sure others like to play outside the quests.




Yeah, that's was definately the Witchers strong points. Its definately a far more interesting story filled with choices that impact the game. Bethesda needs to work on that. In a BGS game you're the most powerful person in the world but nobody listens to you or changes lol.

I'm at the point where they should emphasize the world more and fill it with lots of short stories that flesh out the world and its cultures instead of having a main story.

Either way, all have their strong points and do things well. One day a game will bring it all together and that will be amazing.
I still like those games , especially Skyrim and oblivion. put over 400h in both combined. So its not like im hating , lol. And they do have their own unique approach to open world and systems and exploration is still solid even in F4. But the minute characters start speaking and animating in F4, its hard to look past it .
 

saenima

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
11,892
People say the engine is the problem and they should change their engine. That's dumb. The engine has issues. If Bethesda went to a new one, with how they currently work they'd just mess that one up too. They completely replaced the lighting system part of the current engine for F76, and it looks crappier indoors than in F4.

The engine isn't the "problem", it's whatever philosophy their management has in regards to handling their engine. Properly revamping things and resolving deeply rooted issues is not their priority. Skyrim was the last time they made a significant jump, and even there the "deeply-rooted issues" part was really not their focus.

Those excerpts from the post i quoted exemplify what is not a reasonable baseline to build a game like Fallout, assuming you have even a passing interest in the bare minimum of quality control. It's just not. Obviously BGS has proven time and again they don't care about quality control and end user experience.

The engine they are using is a broken piece of shit that is just not suitable for the games they make. Whether you decide to say the problem is the engine itself or the fact that they choose to keep using it is irrelevant. It's useless semantics as far as the end user is concerned. What matters is the quality of the output. And a large part of why their output is consistently broken is because of the limitations of the engine, among many other things.

I don't care one whit whether they rebuild their current engine or use another one. What i do care is what they make with either option. And what they usually make is not acceptable.

BGS has been cruising for some time now. They flat out refuse to either adapt to a new engine or even create one of their own that better suits their current and future needs.
 

Nameless

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,358
The problem I have with these games is that none of them feature a character creation system. I criticize and dislike Bethesda for a lot of things, but they're basically the only folks who offer an open world action RPG series with this feature.

I want Bethesda to be good. They're just... not.

Love character creation and think more games should feature it, but still, Arthur in RDR2 and Henry in KCD both felt like my characters on my journey in a way the MC in Fallout 4 never did. Even with pre-defined characters those games offered deeper more satisfying role playing on top of all the emergent and immersive systems .
 

Lackless

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,137
They never improved with the industry. Morrowind was the last time when their games were impressive.
 

Muffin

Member
Oct 26, 2017
10,342
The engine they are using is a broken piece of shit that is just not suitable for the games they make.
Quite the opposite. It's exactly suited to that. They're just not interested in dealing with the consequences. Memorizing the location hundreds of object with physics for example doesnt come without problems. They want the design, but dont want to fix all the glitches and issues resulting from it.

Whether you decide to say the problem is the engine itself or the fact that they choose to keep using it is irrelevant.
That's not what's being said. What's being said is that the problem is what their priorities in building and updating an engine are. You can bet your ass if they switched to IDTech first thing they'd try to do is insert the things into it that their Creation Engine was able to do without caring whether the result ends up a bit glitchy or not. It doesnt matter which engine they work with. With how they operate, it will end up a buggy game.

They regularly completely remake parts of their engine like the lighting system or switching to a new renderer for new game releases. It always ends up a buggy game.
 

The Adder

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,110
FO4 and FO76 shows that they are willing to experiment, imo. They fucked up in the attempt, but the company needs some fuck up like this to make the gems later. They needed Red Guard to get to Morrowind
You say experimenting, I disagree. FO4 is just applying Elder Scrolls style design principles to Fallout. 76 is just throwing that game online, stripping out even more of what made the series what it was in the process.
 

Eros

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,663
Lol are we seriously gonna act like we're not going to be there day 1 for Starfield and ES6. I'm one of the haters and I'll probably be there. They're fine. If those 2 games are mass hated from the jump, then I'd worry.
 

saenima

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
11,892
Quite the opposite. It's exactly suited to that. They're just not interested in dealing with the consequences. Memorizing the location hundreds of object with physics for example doesnt come without problems. They want the design, but dont want to fix all the glitches and issues resulting from it.

I don't even know what you're arguing here. 'This engine they're using creates a lot of problems due to what they want to make with it but it is totally fit to what they want to make with it.' How does that follow? My point is that what they want to make is not feasible with the engine they're using. You seem to kind of agree but then you say you don't?

You can bet your ass if they switched to IDTech first thing they'd try to do is insert the things into it that their Creation Engine was able to do without caring whether the result ends up a bit glitchy or not.

This sincerely reads like you're just calling them incompetent idiots instead of lazy.
 

Muffin

Member
Oct 26, 2017
10,342
I don't even know what you're arguing here. 'This engine they're using creates a lot of problems due to what they want to make with it but it is totally fit to what they want to make with it.' How does that follow? My point is that what they want to make is not feasible with the engine they're using. You seem to kind of agree but then you say you don't?
What do you think they want to make? Pretty sure what they want to make is keep their design choices like those hundreds of dynamic objects, and being able to change every little aspect in character creation which they are able to do because of their current tools even if it means bugs they're apparently not all too concerned about and dont fix all of them.
This sincerely reads like you're just calling them incompetent idiots instead of lazy.
Their devs are probably neither. Their management is pretty incompetent in my eyes. They are the ones who could make bug-fixing a priority, but don't. Instead it's "As long as our design choices are fully in the game its fine, even if we cant manage to make the game completely stable".
 

saenima

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
11,892
What do you think they want to make? Pretty sure what they want to make is keep their design choices like those hundreds of dynamic objects, and being able to change every little aspect in character creation which they are able to do because of their current tools even if it introduces bugs they're apparently not all too concerned about and dont fix all of them.

Well, you're not wrong here. I should have further specified 'assuming they don't want their games to be broken'. They clearly don't care so i guess the engine is just fine in their eyes. But i maintain the heart of the original point i was making, that this engine is not conducive to making a reasonably smooth and bug free open world game in the scope in which Bethesda operates. Is it possible to modify it to that point? Maybe. But i don't see Bethesda being capable or willing to do it. Which brings my argument to its core. Whether from a place of incompetence, greed or inability to move forward, this engine is a liability as it exists.

Their devs are probably neither. Their management is pretty incompetent in my eyes. They are the ones who could make bug-fixing a priority, but don't.

And we certainly agree here. I will never blame the workforce before looking at management, no matter the situation. Management exists to manage and should always be the first stopgap when looking into how to fix things.