336
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Fluid@aussie.zone 45 points 1 year ago

It’s just so bland and formulaic. Against deep RPGs like BG3, it just pales in comparison.

[-] Cowbee@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago

The funny thing is, I think the fact that the RPG mechanics are finally better than the last game developed by Bethesda, instead of worse, highlights just how mediocre Bethesda games are.

I still think once mods and DLCs come out in full force it will be remembered more positively.

[-] Metatronz@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Agreed. Twas the only thing I thought while playing. This would be better with mods. Which is a sad state because I spent real money on a mod sandbox without the mods.

[-] Cowbee@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Yep, I had below Fallout 4 expectations and actually ended up enjoying it more, as I highly value the RPG aspects. It's still a completely mediocre RPG, but it has a huge sandbox and a ton of potential.

[-] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago

The difference between a Ubisoft game and a Bethesda game is that Bethesda employees still enjoy coming to work.

[-] Cowbee@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Sure. I think big budget gaming needs to die, and games need more dev time for less work and higher pay, with worse graphical fidelity and better art styles.

[-] coffinwood@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

If Bethesda games are so mediocre, why are they so popular among players who love to put hundreds of hours into them? I can't imagine them all playing total conversion mods.

It's become such a custom to poop on Bethesda for making "shallow", "uninteresting" games that still everybody talks about. As if there weren't enough real flaws in their games to give them heat for.

[-] Cowbee@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Because mediocrity and popularity go hand in hand, it's the profit motive at work. Being largely inoffensive and generally palatable is profitable.

[-] coffinwood@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

That's not the definition of mediocrity. Trying to appeal to a bigger audience doesn't make a game mediocre in the same way not every niche game has the potential of being a masterpiece just by not being that much likeable.

Some games are popular and good.

[-] Cowbee@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

What's good and what's popular do not necessarily align. Removing "complicated" features for the sake of mass appeal makes the game worse, but more profitable, much of the time.

[-] coffinwood@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Also not true. Complexity alone doesn't make a good game / movie / book / piece of art. And lack thereof doesn't make anything worse.

Why is it that when many people like a thing because that thing appeals to masses, it's automatically categorised as lower quality?

Nobody seriously claimed Starfield to be the game of all games. It's good. It's fine. It's not perfect. So what?

this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
336 points (92.0% liked)

Games

16796 readers
556 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS