These guys are getting harder and harder to take seriously. As disappointing as the game itself is, what the fuck is this? Defensively and passive-aggressively trying to argue with reviewers? Long ramblings on how unfair it is that one of the world’s most significant game studios, freshly taken over by enormous capital… gets a little criticism for the flaws it its products? Do you need to be an expert Twinkie mass manufacturing engineer, really, if a new product is, let’s say, a tenth of the size and tastes of sawdust?
If they’re gonna insinuate it’s not the obvious reasons, maybe they should’ve served up some less obvious reasons - I’m sure they would’ve been convincing.
“People have unrealistic expectations for AAA games! It’s impossible to make them as good as people expect them to be!”
I remember lots of big studios saying that shit after Baldur’s Gate 3 officially released. The work of a comparatively small studio with a Skyrim budget (100 million USD) did what many bigger budgets failed to do. How was that possible? Clearly, it’s the fault of gamers for expecting too much!
Side note: Witcher 3’s budget was around 34 million USD, with less than 13m for development proper, which is another good example of a game that even at release was already looking and playing great.
And those examples are not hard to come up with either. For example:
any Nintendo game
games with a passionate designer - "Nier: Automata* and Death Stranding come to mind
refined, broad market appeal sequels to popular niche games - as Elden Ring is to Dark Souls
Starfield was a mediocre rehash of their Elder Scrolls formula, but without the interesting variation that Elder Scrolls games have. And performance sucks, so you’re paying a penalty for an average gameplay experience.
Yup, it is an anomaly in that it feels like the quality I used to expect 20 years ago when devs couldn’t just patch flaws after launch and had to actually QA their games before going gold. They rely so much on after launch patches that games often aren’t finished until a year after release.
BG3 is an excellent game, but saying it’s unlike the rest of games because it “does its QA before launch” is very silly. Look at the 100GB of huge patches the game’s received, reading the pages and pages of patch notes for the bug fixes and also the basic RPG features added after launch like the ability to change your character’s appearance.
BG3 had more bugfixes and hotfixes than Starfield did by a long shot, the difference between the two is not the absence of bugs. It’s that BG3 under the bugs was a phenomenally VA’d/Mocapped game with a great story line, memorable characters, meaningful choices, and combat that doesn’t become a rote chore or a numbers go up game with randomized loot.
BG3 was a complete, enjoyable experience all the way through at launch. There were a lot of patches, but those weren’t as necessary as other games, like Cyberpunk 2077 and Fallout: New Vegas. For example, character customization is nice to have, but lots of games don’t bother.
Starfield on the other hand, was relatively bug free at launch, but it didn’t have a good gameplay loop. Outposts were repetitive, gunplay and weapon variety wasn’t particularly interesting, and cities weren’t very plentiful or interesting (Morrowind was way better in all three, and the game is ~20 years old).
Yeah, BG3 wasn’t as solid as launches before OTA updates were a thing, just it felt a lot more like that era than most of the AAA game launches in recent memory.
How many times does Bethesda have to shit in your mouth to realize they themselves are shit? Fallout 4 was a downgrade from NV, then fallout 76, rereleasing the same game over and over again, and now starfield.
We should be way passed “hard to take them seriously”
I bailed after Skyrim. I loved the immersiveness and scale of their previous games, but Skyrim didn’t have that. It was a relatively small world, the storyline was barely even there, and the side content was a lot more limited vs other games. It looked great and had your typical gameplay improvements, but it was just a massive downgrade in terms of overall experience.
I wanted Morrowind in space, and I got stripped-down Skyrim in space, which was already a stripped down experience. Either make a great dup (like Oblivion) or make something completely new and interesting. They went with mediocre dup in a different setting.
These guys are getting harder and harder to take seriously. As disappointing as the game itself is, what the fuck is this? Defensively and passive-aggressively trying to argue with reviewers? Long ramblings on how unfair it is that one of the world’s most significant game studios, freshly taken over by enormous capital… gets a little criticism for the flaws it its products? Do you need to be an expert Twinkie mass manufacturing engineer, really, if a new product is, let’s say, a tenth of the size and tastes of sawdust?
If they’re gonna insinuate it’s not the obvious reasons, maybe they should’ve served up some less obvious reasons - I’m sure they would’ve been convincing.
“People have unrealistic expectations for AAA games! It’s impossible to make them as good as people expect them to be!”
I remember lots of big studios saying that shit after Baldur’s Gate 3 officially released. The work of a comparatively small studio with a Skyrim budget (100 million USD) did what many bigger budgets failed to do. How was that possible? Clearly, it’s the fault of gamers for expecting too much!
Side note: Witcher 3’s budget was around 34 million USD, with less than 13m for development proper, which is another good example of a game that even at release was already looking and playing great.
And those examples are not hard to come up with either. For example:
Starfield was a mediocre rehash of their Elder Scrolls formula, but without the interesting variation that Elder Scrolls games have. And performance sucks, so you’re paying a penalty for an average gameplay experience.
Big “Baldur’s Gate 3 is an anomaly” energy.
Yup, it is an anomaly in that it feels like the quality I used to expect 20 years ago when devs couldn’t just patch flaws after launch and had to actually QA their games before going gold. They rely so much on after launch patches that games often aren’t finished until a year after release.
BG3 is an excellent game, but saying it’s unlike the rest of games because it “does its QA before launch” is very silly. Look at the 100GB of huge patches the game’s received, reading the pages and pages of patch notes for the bug fixes and also the basic RPG features added after launch like the ability to change your character’s appearance.
BG3 had more bugfixes and hotfixes than Starfield did by a long shot, the difference between the two is not the absence of bugs. It’s that BG3 under the bugs was a phenomenally VA’d/Mocapped game with a great story line, memorable characters, meaningful choices, and combat that doesn’t become a rote chore or a numbers go up game with randomized loot.
BG3 was a complete, enjoyable experience all the way through at launch. There were a lot of patches, but those weren’t as necessary as other games, like Cyberpunk 2077 and Fallout: New Vegas. For example, character customization is nice to have, but lots of games don’t bother.
Starfield on the other hand, was relatively bug free at launch, but it didn’t have a good gameplay loop. Outposts were repetitive, gunplay and weapon variety wasn’t particularly interesting, and cities weren’t very plentiful or interesting (Morrowind was way better in all three, and the game is ~20 years old).
Yeah, BG3 wasn’t as solid as launches before OTA updates were a thing, just it felt a lot more like that era than most of the AAA game launches in recent memory.
How many times does Bethesda have to shit in your mouth to realize they themselves are shit? Fallout 4 was a downgrade from NV, then fallout 76, rereleasing the same game over and over again, and now starfield.
We should be way passed “hard to take them seriously”
I bailed after Skyrim. I loved the immersiveness and scale of their previous games, but Skyrim didn’t have that. It was a relatively small world, the storyline was barely even there, and the side content was a lot more limited vs other games. It looked great and had your typical gameplay improvements, but it was just a massive downgrade in terms of overall experience.
I wanted Morrowind in space, and I got stripped-down Skyrim in space, which was already a stripped down experience. Either make a great dup (like Oblivion) or make something completely new and interesting. They went with mediocre dup in a different setting.
Have you seen the replies they’re posting to Steam reviews? Fucking hilarious(ly sad) LOL
Sad is the word. I think “um ackchyually the boredom is on purpose” was my favorite in the bunch.
WeRE thE MoOn LaNDinGs BoRInG??? 😂😂
I lost it when they made that comparison. Also, ya know they actually had a rover to drive around on the moon haha