A Starfield anime series, detailing The Settled Systems, mechs, Akila City, and more in Bethesda’s follow up to Fallout and Skyrim, has suddenly arrived.
I feel like the game is largely an unknown at this point. We saw some gameplay but I feel like I would want to wait for reviews. Bethesda has a strong track record though so I’m hoping it should be good.
“Bethesda has a strong track record though” i mean… do they?
their games sell a lot of units but i can’t remember any time since morrowind that they launched a game that received widespread praise for anything other than its technical merits, and i say this as someone who still dips back into heavily modded TES games a few times a year :/
PC scores, for consistency. There are plenty of better games out there, but most AAA studios would kill for that kind of consistently good-but-not-quite-legendary track record.
oh yeah the metacritic scores are good but i was referring to audience reception about characters, narrative, etc
fallout 3 in particular is a fun one because once people started beating it there was a general upswell of “what the fuck was that?” that was loud enough that we got a changed ending in DLC :)
It’s been a while since they’ve actually released one of their mainline games. I don’t really count TES:O and FO:76 as IIRC neither had the normal dev teams working on them.
Im cautiously optimistic about it all, but am obviously going to wait for reviews.
the thing for me about starfield is that most of the game looks like a reskin of games i’ve already played (no man’s sky, elite dangerous) and the parts that don’t look like mainline bethesda fare but In Space, so my general vibe about starfield is pretty dismal
would be absolutely stoked for it to turn out well though. more games in space = good
looks like a reskin of games i’ve already played (no man’s sky, elite dangerous) and the parts that don’t look like mainline bethesda fare but In Space
What exactly do you think merits a strong track record then? If a series of games consistently over the course of 20 years being highly regarded, still being played, still growing with active communities, and selling extremely well for nearly every single title you made isn’t a “strong track record,” then who can claim that right?
It’s not even like other game franchises which “just sell a lot of units” like sports games which tend to not do anything with their formula and release the same game but worse yearly.
They have a strong track record of releasing broken games with potential, potential that mod makers actually pull out of the game while Bethesda reaps massive profits
Their games are buggy, but people are still talking about them and enjoying them. Modders have done a lot of (if not most of) the heavy lifting of course. But I don’t think we would be seeing so many mods if the core games were bad.
I feel like the game is largely an unknown at this point. We saw some gameplay but I feel like I would want to wait for reviews. Bethesda has a strong track record though so I’m hoping it should be good.
“Bethesda has a strong track record though” i mean… do they?
their games sell a lot of units but i can’t remember any time since morrowind that they launched a game that received widespread praise for anything other than its technical merits, and i say this as someone who still dips back into heavily modded TES games a few times a year :/
Morrowind: 89 on Metacritic
Oblivion: 94
Fallout 3: 91
Skyrim: 94
Fallout 4: 84
PC scores, for consistency. There are plenty of better games out there, but most AAA studios would kill for that kind of consistently good-but-not-quite-legendary track record.
oh yeah the metacritic scores are good but i was referring to audience reception about characters, narrative, etc
fallout 3 in particular is a fun one because once people started beating it there was a general upswell of “what the fuck was that?” that was loud enough that we got a changed ending in DLC :)
Morrowind scoring lower than Oblivion and Skyrim is a travesty.
It’s been a while since they’ve actually released one of their mainline games. I don’t really count TES:O and FO:76 as IIRC neither had the normal dev teams working on them.
Im cautiously optimistic about it all, but am obviously going to wait for reviews.
the thing for me about starfield is that most of the game looks like a reskin of games i’ve already played (no man’s sky, elite dangerous) and the parts that don’t look like mainline bethesda fare but In Space, so my general vibe about starfield is pretty dismal
would be absolutely stoked for it to turn out well though. more games in space = good
Don’t threaten me with a good time!
lol
What exactly do you think merits a strong track record then? If a series of games consistently over the course of 20 years being highly regarded, still being played, still growing with active communities, and selling extremely well for nearly every single title you made isn’t a “strong track record,” then who can claim that right?
It’s not even like other game franchises which “just sell a lot of units” like sports games which tend to not do anything with their formula and release the same game but worse yearly.
well the context was about the quality of the game and not how many units they sell, so :/
They have a strong track record of releasing broken games with potential, potential that mod makers actually pull out of the game while Bethesda reaps massive profits
Their games are buggy, but people are still talking about them and enjoying them. Modders have done a lot of (if not most of) the heavy lifting of course. But I don’t think we would be seeing so many mods if the core games were bad.