140 réponses à ce sujet

[wsandista]

Skelter192 wrote...

I don't get it. Bethesda handled the QA for BOTH games why does Obsidian get all the **** for the terrible bug testing?

Obsidian has always got called out for having bugs, despite that the result of the bugs have almost always been the publisher's QA or insane timetable. Not only that, but(for me at least) Obsidian games have not had any more or more severe bugs than most others.

[termokanden]

Maybe it's just me, but I have a fair bit of confidence in Bethesda after Skyrim. I felt it was a massive improvement over Oblivion and it did actually dare to throw away some bad design such as the silly leveling system. I hope this means they will also be able to improve upon their Fallout formula.

Another thing I really want is a new STALKER game. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.

Edit: As for bugs, the funny thing is that I haven't been hit seriously by bugs in FO3 and FONV. I have read that there are tons of bugs, and some claim that the games are nearly unplayable. Maybe I'm just lucky then.

Modifié par termokanden, 25 novembre 2012 - 02:21 .

[naughty99]

termokanden wrote...

Edit: As for bugs, the funny thing is that I haven't been hit seriously by bugs in FO3 and FONV. I have read that there are tons of bugs, and some claim that the games are nearly unplayable. Maybe I'm just lucky then.

Same here - Oblivion was very unstable for me, but FO3, FNV and Skyrim were all quite stable with no crashes.

At launch, New Vegas had some cosmetic glitches, like radscorpions melting into the terrain and a couple of times I had to toggle clipping to escape from a rock, and for a few days after launch there was some kind of Steam cloud saving error message, but nothing major as I never use the Steam cloud for savegames, and no crashes at all. I think those were fixed pretty quickly with the first patch.

There are bound to be some minor glitches with any big open world sandbox RPG. There is just so much data being tracked by the game. It's impossible to test a sandbox with hundreds of quests, hundreds of locations, thousands of NPCs, hundreds of factions, tens of thousands of objects, etc., to the same extent you can test a 5-10 hour linear shooter with very limited world interaction.

Modifié par naughty99, 25 novembre 2012 - 03:14 .

[bussinrounds]

Bethesda can craft a nice world (dungeon design/layout is a joke though) but unfortunately that's where the positives end. Their gameplay (combat), story elements (writing,characters,dialogs, plots), quest design/choices & consequences and RPG mechanics are really lame.

I guess ppl that like their game are the types that are just content to wander around in some pretty open world and don't really care about deeper RPG elements. They're looking to get IMMERSED in a sim like experience.

That being said, at least they're still making GAMES, as opposed to Bioware, which I don't know what the hell their making now.

But hey, at least Bio has been providing the lulz recently, right ?

[deuce985]

Addai67 wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

Bethesda still needs to improve their TPS in the games. Skyrim was a huge improvement but far from perfect. Especially as an archer. The aiming reticule isn't accurate at all in TPS and it's quite annoying as an archer. The trajectory of the arrows always end up being different from where you're aiming.

I have no problems aiming as an archer.  You always had to account for distance in your trajectory.  In Oblivion even more so.

Sometimes when I'm using FP, I can shoot arrows where I want fine. Say a rock is in front of me, I can shoot over it. Yet, when I switch to TP, the aiming reticule stays in the same spot yet it hits the dang rock in front of me...

The trajectory of the arrows seem to change and I'm not sure if it's because the aiming reticule is off or what. That always annoyed me though. I'm inclined believe it's TP because it was worse in Oblivion.

[Splinter Cell 108]

naughty99 wrote...

Splinter Cell 108 wrote...

Skelter192 wrote...

My list

• A new engine
• Leave it for the next generation
• Obsidian develops it

They need to make that the most important priority.

I love Obsidian's games, which are among my all time favorites. However, the team is much smaller than BGS and they lack experience designing this sort of massive open world sandbox game from scratch. I'm not aware of any other developers beside Bethesda with this much experience designing AAA sandbox RPGs on that scale. This is why Fallout New Vegas was not called Fallout 4, as it was developed using the Fallout 3 engine and assets.

At any rate, BGS has likely already been working on Fallout 4 for some time. Perhaps following its release they might be inclined to hire a third party studio to utilize the engine and assets to develop another project along the lines of Fallout New Vegas. By that time, however, Obsidian may be tied up working on their own Project Eternity franchise, which looks very promising. 

Then let Obsidian do the writing then.

[Addai]

bussinrounds wrote...

Bethesda can craft a nice world (dungeon design/layout is a joke though) but unfortunately that's where the positives end. Their gameplay (combat), story elements (writing,characters,dialogs, plots), quest design/choices & consequences and RPG mechanics are really lame.

Bull****.  TES lore, for one thing, is worth the price of admission.  If Bioware is overrated for their writing, Bethesda is underrated, because they allow a great deal of player freedom and don't splash it in your face in cutscenes.

[Da_old_Boss]

Fallout 3 was better than NV(looked like it should and had an epic story) (way too many glitches and invisible walls, didn't really feel like a destroyed world, with an inimportant feeling story) and had better gameplay than the previous 2 games. 

Hopefully they use the game mechanics and stuff that they put into skyrim in fallout 4, if they ever make it.

Modifié par Da_old_Boss, 25 novembre 2012 - 06:15 .

[Gatt9]

Ghost1017 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Ghost1017 wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Ghost1017 wrote...

Legatus Arianus wrote...

If Obsidian..
Score: 8-9.5/10 (Awesome experience)
Masterpiece story
High replayability
Too many bugs/glitches

If Bethesda..
Score: 6-8/10 (Almost good experience)
Mediocre story
Low replayability (max 2 times)
Not too many bugs/glitches

Explains why Bethesda games review better.

>Explains why all reviewers are trustworthy.

Yeah. Bethesda bought every single reviewer in the world.
*Sarcasm*

Notice that not a single PS3 review mentioned that "little" detail of a massive bug that makes Skyrim virtually unplayable.

Then ponder why that might be.

http://www.officialp...rim-ps3-review/

You were saying?

18 days after release.  I'm sure alot of people found that really useful,  since they'd already bought it on the slew of 10/10 reviews.

[bussinrounds]

Addai67 wrote...

bussinrounds wrote...

Bethesda can craft a nice world (dungeon design/layout is a joke though) but unfortunately that's where the positives end. Their gameplay (combat), story elements (writing,characters,dialogs, plots), quest design/choices & consequences and RPG mechanics are really lame.

Bull****.  TES lore, for one thing, is worth the price of admission.  If Bioware is overrated for their writing, Bethesda is underrated, because they allow a great deal of player freedom and don't splash it in your face in cutscenes.

  I agree, the lore in ES isn't bad at all.  Why can't that translate into the quests/npc dialogs though ?  It's like they had a different writer come in and just do the lore.  They should just have the person/ppl who wrote stuff for the books do the whole friggin games writing, I don't get it.

[Gatt9]

slimgrin wrote...

Skelter192 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Isn't Obsidian busy with PE right now anyway? I'm fine with Bethesda making it.

I can wait for Fallout 4 if Obsidian makes it. I'd personally rather have Fallout die than be ruined further by Bethesda. Atleast I have Wasteland 2.

We both know that ain't gonna happen. I'm not claiming Bethesda is a leader in innovation, but I still love their games and I guess I don't get the hate when few RPG's offer the breadth of freedom and player action their games do. I barely got 30 minutes into Alpha Protocol because the gameplay and controls were so bad. 

There's a variety of reasons why Bethesda is rapidly accumulating hate...

-Bethesda has a history of blacklisting fansites that question them (See the Bethesda Star Trek game,  and the Fallout communities debacles)

-Bethesda has a history of mocking fans concerns (See the NPC in Oblivion who mocked Morrowind fan's concerns,  or the various dev posts prior to Fallout 3's FPP announcement)

-Bethesda's forums tend to be very ...managed...beyond what is normal or necessary, and honestly I've seen some really shady stuff.

-Reportedly even to the point where if you typed in a blacklisted fansite it would replace it with ILoveOblivion.com

-Bethesda stopped making RPG's with Morrowind,  the games they put out today don't contain RPG elements,  they're all Player Based skill with level scaling making them Action-Adventure.  Bethesda continues to mislabel their games.  As one person put it during Fallout 3's release,  "Bethesda doesn't make RPG's,  Bethesda makes "RPG's" for people who hate RPG's".

-Bethesda has no QA,  each release has more bugs with worse severity in every release.  To the point where they knowingly released a essentially broken PS3 version,  and left tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands with a product that would've resulted in a massive lawsuit in any other industry.

-Bethesda makes one game,  and one game only.  Every game will be fit into that mold,  even if it makes no sense.

-At least one of their employees felt that Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 should both have been shoved into that mold as well.

-Bethesda sues people for *really* stupid reasons (See Minecraft maker's Scrolls game),  making it likely that if they're allowed to stick around,  they'll make Apple look friendly.

-Bethesda stiffed Obsidian for 1 point in metacritic reviews,  without caring how many units their game actually sold.  Making it clear that Bethesda is not staffed by people who play well with others.  Especially since it was Bethesda's fault the reviews missed that point,  since Bethesda didn't bother to QA the game and shoved it out the door as bugridden as the rest of their products. 

Bethesda has been accumulating ill-will for years,  alienating market segment after market segment. 

Modifié par Gatt9, 25 novembre 2012 - 06:54 .

[sympathy4sarenreturns]

I love The Elder Scrolls and Fallout 3. Digging into New Vegas after the New Year. The RPG systems are very deep. Loot, for instance. Puts most other companies to shame. Everything did not scale in Fallout 3 or Skyrim...I ran into a Deathclaw at level 2...with my BB Gun. Try defeating a giant or ice troll at level 2 in Skyrim. That said, improvements can be made. Main quests in general can be better, although in Fallout 3 and Skyrim I enjoyed most content. I immensely enjoyed Dark Brotherhood in Oblivion. I also don't here any complaints about V.A.T.S.. Sure, I'm biased because I love Bethesda games, but so do many others, apparently. It's a fact their sales are excellent. It's a different type of RPG. And as a mage, TES magic system puts other fantasy rpgs to shame. It's just too deep.

For Fallout 4 I want a massive open world, preferably in a northern city like Boston or a southern one like New Orleans. V.A.T.S. to make a return. Multiple factions. An expansion of quests and lore. Revitalization of creatures, with highly powerful critical attacks and a difficulty rise in all settings. More customization of weapons and a reduction in repair requirements. The ability to attach weapons with flashlights with obtainable batteries that last 15 minutes of gameplay. Completely dark areas and realistic lighting effects. Can you imagine being in a den of revamped Centaurs with a new critical instakill attack with their tongue with it completely dark and only a flashlight? Fallout needs to feel, more then ever, like a survival game. Less stimpacks compared to Fallout 3, 15-20% less ammo overall and statistically harder enemies. More weapons in general and a wide array of clothing and armors. Give power armor significance...making enemies in it hard to kill and have it hard to obtain. Give it more meaning. And a massive, Skyrim sized map.

[Addai]

Gatt9, you sound like one of those conspiracy newsletter guys. Maybe you have a career with the Lone Gunmen. Not a thing you said makes any sense. But Morrowind nostalgism is a terrible, wasting disease- like corprus. Only more annoying to non-sufferers.

[GodWood]

slimgrin wrote...
I for one don't want an old school approach to Fallout 4. I want Bethesda's approach. It's more entertaining.

As a fan of the old Fallout games I can say personally I have no real issue with the new gameplay. I actually found it to be quite fun.

My main issue is Bethesda's ****** poor writing, inability to handle any kind of moral "greyness" and the fact that they have not once done a decent faction system.

Modifié par GodWood, 25 novembre 2012 - 09:09 .

[termokanden]

Gatt9, I do agree with some of what you said, but I am still going to have to comment on a few of your points...

Gatt9 wrote...

As one person put it during Fallout 3's release,  "Bethesda doesn't make RPG's,  Bethesda makes "RPG's" for people who hate RPG's".

I don't think that's true and it doesn't make one bit of sense to me. But it sounds neat, which is usually what people care about.

-Bethesda has no QA,  each release has more bugs with worse severity in every release.

I don't know about the PS3 release, but at least for the PC and 360 versions, this statement is quite simply false. For example, I am a big fan of Morrowind, but that used to crash for me every hour or so. Crashed slightly less after the patches but it still did regularly. I don't even remember the last time FO3 or Skyrim crashed. Yeah they have bugs, but they aren't actually getting worse.

-Bethesda makes one game,  and one game only.  Every game will be fit into that mold,  even if it makes no sense.

Bethesda are good at making open world games, and yes the mechanics are very similar in them. It makes complete sense. If you like it, good. If you don't, there are other games out there.

-At least one of their employees felt that Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 should both have been shoved into that mold as well.

Admittedly, that's extremely odd. But then again, who cares. Statements from designers and developers are picked apart all the time. BioWare can hardly say one line before it's interpreted in seven billion ways, all of them negative. I think we should let the games speak for themselves.

Bethesda has been accumulating ill-will for years,  alienating market segment after market segment. 

Take a good long look at pretty much every gaming forum out there. Gamers hate just about everything that isn't at least 10 years old (except for The Witcher 2 and Dark Souls of course!) and find conspiracies everywhere. Reminds me of the paladin Ajantis from Baldur's Gate. This <insert area> has a sense of evil about it. It seems virtually impossible to hold a good reputation without playing on popular themes like punishing difficulty levels or choice and consequence, although you can certainly make good games without those.

I also have to ask: If Bethesda alienated so many market segments, how come Skyrim sold so well and so many people actually like it? It doesn't seem to fit the theme of Bethesda being evil and only making crappy, buggy games.

Modifié par termokanden, 25 novembre 2012 - 01:04 .

[Kyle Kabanya]

Fallout 3 was awesome. The storyline and the a few small things did make the game a bit uninteresting, but I loved the whole 70s feel of the game in a modern age. I played NV, and I could never get into it because of the western theme.

I never was a big fan of cowboys, so the whole cowboy thing made the gaming experience for me quite lame. And please, please make the Brotherhood of Steel a bigger faction in the story, they are badass.

[termokanden]

To each his own I guess. I loved the western theme.

[bussinrounds]

Gatt is right on point actually.

Gatt9 wrote...



-Bethesda stopped making RPG's with Morrowind,  the games they put out today don't contain RPG elements,  they're all Player Based skill with level scaling making them Action-Adventure.  Bethesda continues to mislabel their games.  As one person put it during Fallout 3's release,  "Bethesda doesn't make RPG's,  Bethesda makes "RPG's" for people who hate RPG's".
 

  And this.  As the most popular/biggest devs of "RPGs" these days, they are the ones at the forefront for dumbing them down for mass consuption so they will appeal to the twitch crowd and turning them into more of an action/adventure type game, which we know are alot more popular and better selling than true RPGs.

   As another person said..."  It's an action game for casual gamers sold as an RPG! Brilliant! Why brilliant? Well, any complaints about the action elements would be met with "It's an RPG! Duh!", while any complaints about the RPG elements would be met with "It's not your grandpa's RPG with die rolls and skill checks. It's an action game! For next generation! Duh!"

 So it almost feels like the (bad) RPG mechanics are sort of an excuse for the bad combat and vice versa. The standard of combat isn't very high in first-person RPGs, but on the other hand there are rarely deep RPG mechanics in action games either.

  Oh yea...and lies. www.youtube.com/watch

  www.youtube.com/watch

[legion999]

bussinrounds wrote...
  www.youtube.com/watch

So them finding a way to implement spears after the game was released equals lying? At the most he exaggerated how difficult it was or there was a solution not thought of yet.

[bussinrounds]

legion999 wrote...

bussinrounds wrote...
  www.youtube.com/watch

So them finding a way to implement spears after the game was released equals lying? At the most he exaggerated how difficult it was or there was a solution not thought of yet.

It's not just about the spears only.  That vid was more for the song and overall feel you get from Todd.

[Gorath Alpha]

 I suppose that by now a link like this one will be greeted with raspberries:

forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1425377-fallout-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-thread-96/

[Annie_Dear]

Kyle Kabanya wrote...

Fallout 3 was awesome. The storyline and the a few small things did make the game a bit uninteresting, but I loved the whole 70s feel of the game in a modern age. I played NV, and I could never get into it because of the western theme.

I never was a big fan of cowboys, so the whole cowboy thing made the gaming experience for me quite lame. And please, please make the Brotherhood of Steel a bigger faction in the story, they are badass.

I also prefer Fallout 3. Not because of the setting, but because of the combat changes and the overall higher difficulty.

[SOLID_EVEREST]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

 I suppose that by now a link like this one will be greeted with raspberries:

forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1425377-fallout-speculation-suggestions-and-ideas-thread-96/

First couple of posts are hilarious. Paraphrasing: "the game should be about me because I'm the main character." Beth fans in a nutshell.

I usually stay away from Beth-threads. Suggestions always end with "I want Fallout to be in (insert random European/Chinese city) next."

Unless Obsidian is developing the next title, I'll just be watching how Bethesda re-releases Skyrim but adds guns and a lot of cussing. With the same bland storylines, characters, and juvenile dialogue.



Who hires these writers?

[Ghost]

Gatt9 wrote...

Ghost1017 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Ghost1017 wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Ghost1017 wrote...

Legatus Arianus wrote...

If Obsidian..
Score: 8-9.5/10 (Awesome experience)
Masterpiece story
High replayability
Too many bugs/glitches

If Bethesda..
Score: 6-8/10 (Almost good experience)
Mediocre story
Low replayability (max 2 times)
Not too many bugs/glitches

Explains why Bethesda games review better.

>Explains why all reviewers are trustworthy.

Yeah. Bethesda bought every single reviewer in the world.
*Sarcasm*

Notice that not a single PS3 review mentioned that "little" detail of a massive bug that makes Skyrim virtually unplayable.

Then ponder why that might be.

http://www.officialp...rim-ps3-review/

You were saying?

18 days after release.  I'm sure alot of people found that really useful,  since they'd already bought it on the slew of 10/10 reviews.

True. Bethesda should give PS3 owners a free DLC.

[termokanden]

bussinrounds wrote...

As the most popular/biggest devs of "RPGs" these days, they are the ones at the forefront for dumbing them down for mass consuption so they will appeal to the twitch crowd and turning them into more of an action/adventure type game, which we know are alot more popular and better selling than true RPGs.

I really want to know how a game like Fallout 3 or Skyrim appeals to the "twitch crowd". Exploration and atmosphere are a huge part of these games, and that actually works best with a bit of patience. There are no multiplayer modes and leaderboards. These games don't revolve around your personal twitch skills in the slightest.

And the comment about Bethesda making games for people who hate RPGs? Really? I played just about every old-school computer RPG out there, spent a rather large part of my youth playing pen and paper RPGs and guess what, I still like at least some of Bethesda's games.