Gamers: this game is not fun
Game Design Director: Funny how disconnected some players are from the realities of game development, and yet they speak with complete authority
Gamers: this game is not fun
Game Design Director: Funny how disconnected some players are from the realities of game development, and yet they speak with complete authority
Gamers: this game isn't fun.
Game Director: we know, shithead, but not for the way you think it is.
Ok then smartass, you tell us why it's the way it is!
I'd love to hear from them why the game sucks
Sorry Emilio, but when you had a reported $200 million dollars, 500 developers, and 7 years to make a game, you don't get to play the "but its really hard" card when people complain that your game is soulless corporate crap.
You're a professional, act like it.
Not only a professional, but a professional working at "the best of the best", AAA studio
Honestly I'd have tried the game by now if every time I thought about it the devs didn't go on some insane ramble. They should really just shut up and let people form their own opinions. A lot of people will inevitably end up liking it, even if it's garbage.
More gaslighting by bethesda
No fuck you it's good :(
-Bethesda
I know people really like Todd for some reason, but i find it rather sad that they spend all this time and money and manpower to build his "dream game" since he was a child and that's the end result. Todd foe the live of god, maybe you should dream bigger
I could never tell if people really liked him, or if that was just a meme? I've always found him smarmy and irritating.
I only "like" Todd because of how easy it is to meme him and his bullshit. Now that Microsoft owns Bethesda, they should change the BSOD to a photo of him saying "It just works"
"The game isn't boring for the reasons that you think, it is boring for these completely secret reasons."
Ok.
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.
Defensively and passive-aggressively trying to argue with reviewers?
Big "Baldur's Gate 3 is an anomaly" energy.
Kind of sick of devs being such cunts and denying the criticism so publically.
Starfield might not be objectively shit, but there is heaps of fair criticism. I fucking hated it for what it’s worth. Probably worst game I’ve played in 3-5 years.
It might not be shit, but it's pretty shit for 2023 and 80 dollars.
Kind of sick of devs being such cunts and denying the criticism so publically.
Well this was going to be their next big cash cow game that they keep re-releasing for 10 years, and they find it hard to accept that it's not working out.
"You all are just too stupid to understand why we made the game so boring to explore and didn't put a single vehicle or alien ride in the whole fkng galaxy. "
Sincerely, SF Developers
I don't need to know why it is the way it is. For AAA titles it doesn't matter. Finish the game or fuck off. If you can't do that your Company should sink and make room for those that can.
Indies proving left and right that it is possible with a lot less.
The Outer Wilds has a more interesting solar system than Starfield and did it with 9 planets.
Starfield is nothing but empty filler.
Ok. But first you have to make better games.
You can’t argue me into believing the game is fun when it’s just… overall not that fun compared to other Bethesda efforts.
To be clear, it’s far from an outright “bad” game, but I’m still frustrated that I spent $70 on the fucking thing. If you charge that much, it’s completely reasonable for me to have high expectations for your game.
I think both ideas can be true: that game development is a complex, creative endeavor and that as a product, consumers can be dissatisfied with a video game they paid $70 for.
Lately, I'm finding myself waiting for sales on AAA games because so many release in a buggy, incomplete state. This paid dividends with games like Jedi Survivor, that had a big number of bugs and performance issues at launch and plays decently now several months later.
$70
This is why I will never buy a game brand new again.
Company's making record profits yet still trying to convince me they need to raise prices.
Lower quality, higher price. Fuck that noise
Oh I'm pretty sure I know exactly "why it is the way it is"...
It feels like every other Bethesda game ever made, because choosing to continue using the Creation Engine means you can only make games that feel this way.
Seems to me more like they repeated all their old mistakes and made new ones. The engine might've slowed development (and gave some influences/limits etc) but design direction seems to be the issue. Being on-par with their older games would be a step up, it's like they missed the point of why people liked their worlds.
"This game sucks!" "Don't pretend like you know why it sucks!" "Wait... wut? I was just stating my opinion O.o"
It doesn't have "it." I don't know what "it" is, but I know Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 had "it" and somehow Starfield does not. It is completely devoid of that "it" factor that their other games had, even if it has everything else those games had and more. It is still missing the crucial "it."
Series of concessions and choices
Thats just life. But you made a number of poor concessions
I had fun with it. I put in about a hundred hours.
It's fine. It's not complete crap and had tons of potential. It missed the mark on a few things for sure.
These constant aggressive comments from the Dev team though... That I'm not a fan of.
My biggest complaint is how they absolutely murdered the modding scene for the sake of greed... They wanted their cut of a thing they had NO input in so they forced their way in to have input and in the process ruined modding for those that were good at it....
Seeing how amazing Skyrim was with mods gave me so much hope for what this game could become and now I'm just sickened by what they did... So much potential gone. Now you'll have to pick between what 4 mods you want as you'll have to spend $5+ for each one... Yeah I'm not spending $100+ just to make your game fun for you while also paying you...
I don't care why it is the way it is. I care if it's fun or not.
TES6 lore Q&A gonna be like:
Don't fool yourself into thinking you know why it is the way it is
If you have to be in the industry to criticize something then I guess we need to remove all online reviews since who knows RiverrFucker69's credentials.
Sounds like they're getting a bit bitter, not a good look
Follow that up with why or I'll just assume it's complicity with a heavy reliance on the ~~missing~~ modding community
I can’t believe I was ever bothered by the fact that MS bought them out. It’s almost schadenfreude to watch this train wreck knowing it’s not ever going to be something I’ll have to deal with.
Like devs are disconnected from the promises they make and gaming in general.
Emil sounds defensive but he's right -- as someone outside the gaming industry, I cannot fathom how so much effort can result in such a shallow, tepid stew of shit. But because of how much time, staff and money were thrown at it, it's not a big stretch to assume that incompetence was involved -- unless it was leprechauns that stole the game's vision, plot, dialogue, sense of scale and exploration and replaced it with loading screens.
Don't fool yourself I to thinking we don't understand why your shit game is shit, Emil.
It's tough to make games, so I cut the Devs a lot of slack. Starfield was definitely too ambitious for the engine they built it on but it's probably the best it could possibly be... With that engine.
shades of the Jamie Kennedy documentary where any time someone says they didn't like Malibu's Most Wanted he complains that he "worked really hard on it" as though explaining why something is shitty is just as good as making it not be shitty
If your game sucks due to design and implementation decisions that were made with sound rationale behind them, your game sucks. It doesn't matter at all why it sucks, or that there's no feasible way to make it better. It sucks. You can tell me that there's no way to make it not suck, but I play plenty of games all the time that don't suck.
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
Comments.
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: