211
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
211 points (100.0% liked)
games
20532 readers
212 users here now
Tabletop, DnD, board games, and minecraft. Also Animal Crossing.
-
3rd International Volunteer Brigade (Hexbear gaming discord)
Rules
- No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, or transphobia. Don't care if it's ironic don't post comments or content like that here.
- Mark spoilers
- No bad mouthing sonic games here :no-copyright:
- No gamers allowed :soviet-huff:
- No squabbling or petty arguments here. Remember to disengage and respect others choice to do so when an argument gets too much
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
People talk about Baldur's Gate for months after it's released. Nobody talked about this after two weeks. Same with Starfield.
I'm not much of a gamer anymore but cultural osmosis and all, I genuinely was surprised to find out Starfield was a bethesda game
The true hot take most aren't ready to hear is that launch Starfield is a better RPG than launch Skyrim and launch Fallout 4, even if it's a mediocre game overall.
Skyrim came out in 11/11/2011. Starfield is 12 years after and I would say that expectation for the qualities should be better. And compared to Starfield in gaming's influences, Skyrim decimates Starfield.
Graphical fidelity and controls improve over time as technology improves. What doesn't improve nearly as much is game design. That's not to say that improvements haven't been made, but by your own logic Morrowind destroys the fuck out of Skyrim when it comes to being an RPG despite being older. Starfield actually reversed this downward trend.
I never tried to argue that Starfield was more influential, because I agree, Skyrim has more of an impact on gaming culture despite being largely okayish.
Morrowind is a better RPG than Skyrim though? I don't understand the argument here
My point is comparing games releasing 12 years apart like this is redundant, isn't it expected that the sequel/next game from the same studio should have better quality (in this case RPG) than the previous one?
In the years after the 1st release till next game/sequel, devs can have more experience/money/bigger team/ect.
I know what your point is, it's just not applicable to Game Design, only to graphical fidelity and perhaps controls and smoothness. Throwing more money or a bigger team isn't going to make the actual Role Playing better, and historically the opposite has happened. Chasing profits leads to making games with more mass appeal, and removes niches.
Again, see Morrowind, Fallout 1/2/New Vegas, Arcanum, Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines, and more all have vastly superior RPG mechanics to Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout 4, and Starfield, despite having smaller budgets, a less experienced team, and less money.
the design being worse is baffling to me, they could've copied obsidian's homework and added the basebuilding/ship building shit and it would've been good.
They did, that's why there's traits and actual skill checks again. However, they still chase that bag and as such made it as generic and profitable as possible.
What they should have been doing is shamelessly copying No Man's Sky while shoveling their own shit into there. The "exploration" in Starfield actively pisses me off and I haven't even touched it in weeks because I uninstalled it after slogging through the tutorial section