How the illusion and myth of Todd Howard as a good game designer came to be - Todd's Bethesda has never been a quality developer

[Wirdschowerdn]

Todd is just a manager larping as a creative.

 

[Kiste]

I always suspected that the Xbox was a big factor in making BGS so successful. Oblivion was one of the early Xbox360 titles, so it kind of became a must-have game for many Xtards, especially since it had pretty good graphics for an early 360 title. The one year exclusivity also made the game a rallying point for Xbox fantards in lieu of strong first party exclusives.

Right time, right place.

 

[jasaro96]

What happened is that, as technological advancements brought dozens of millions of more people into gaming through improved graphics and better accessibility, while Microsoft and Sony were marketing their Xbox-onward era of consoles with hundreds of millions of dollars, all these millions of people played Oblivion or Fallout 3, and were experiencing those games' concepts and systems for their first time (and so were the least judgmental of them they'll ever be)

As someone whose first FO was Fallout 3, which I enjoyed and still enjoy today, I think you spotted perfectly the case why Bethesda came to be during PS360 era. Really love the game and don't understand the hate, even if I agree with the criticism and dumbed down writing, but ironically I find subsequent games abhorrent, dumb and deprived of soul (especially FO4). It's even funnier when I introduced the saga to some friends, loved FO4 and then happened the same and those people hated Starfield

 

[SlamDunk]

I've never bought Todd Howards' games because, to this day, his games simply haven't piqued my interest.

I tried The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind on release but found it was nothing compared to Gothic - a fact which has also had a great impact on not giving a crap about Howards' games.

 

[Harthwain]

How the illusion and myth of Todd Howard as a good game designer came to be

The joke is on you. Todd Howard was never considered a good game designer around here. At best he was considered a good PR/salesman guy.

 

[Lucumo]

So, if I got that right...OP is claiming that Mr. Satan isn't the strongest fighter in the world?

 

[vitellus]

this just in: corporate developers make safe corporate games to maximize profit and not quality! say it ain't so!

also, things that water tends to touch become wet.

 

[gurugeorge]

With Bethesda games, it's always and only ever been about the impressiveness of the virtual worlds they've created and the immersiveness of the emergent gameplay players have enjoyed in those virtual worlds; bar the odd cool quest here and there, pretty much everything else about their games has been negligible or mediocre (as clearly demonstrated by what a more talented team managed to do with the same engine in F:NV).

IOW, people piss and moan about the Gamebryo engine, but it's been the star of the show all along, and for Bethesda to survive they need to step up to the next level of that type of massive virtual world building, bring it into the 21st century. They need to hire like some world-class tech geniuses or something, up their game.

 

[thesecret1]

With Bethesda games, it's always and only ever been about the impressiveness of the virtual worlds they've created and the immersiveness of the emergent gameplay players have enjoyed in those virtual worlds; bar the odd cool quest here and there, pretty much everything else about their games has been negligible or mediocre (as clearly demonstrated by what a more talented team managed to do with the same engine in F:NV).

IOW, people piss and moan about the Gamebryo engine, but it's been the star of the show all along, and for Bethesda to survive they need to step up to the next level of that type of massive virtual world building, bring it into the 21st century. They need to hire like some world-class tech geniuses or something, up their game.

Honestly, all they have to do to enjoy massive success is another Skyrim, but with at least a little better combat, competent writing, and better dungeons. Mainstream market will buy a gorillion copies again and Codex will say that while the game is still shit, it's less shit than its predecessor, and therefore incline. The fact that Beth seems unable to do even that (as showcased by FO4 and Starfield) makes one wonder whether they're actively trying to be shit or something.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

With Bethesda games, it's always and only ever been about the impressiveness of the virtual worlds they've created and the immersiveness of the emergent gameplay players have enjoyed in those virtual worlds; bar the odd cool quest here and there, pretty much everything else about their games has been negligible or mediocre (as clearly demonstrated by what a more talented team managed to do with the same engine in F:NV).

IOW, people piss and moan about the Gamebryo engine, but it's been the star of the show all along, and for Bethesda to survive they need to step up to the next level of that type of massive virtual world building, bring it into the 21st century. They need to hire like some world-class tech geniuses or something, up their game.

Honestly, all they have to do to enjoy massive success is another Skyrim, but with at least a little better combat, competent writing, and better dungeons. Mainstream market will buy a gorillion copies again and Codex will say that while the game is still shit, it's less shit than its predecessor, and therefore incline. The fact that Beth seems unable to do even that (as showcased by FO4 and Starfield) makes one wonder whether they're actively trying to be shit or something.

Even if Bethesda Softworks realizes that it moved away from RPGs toward the 'looter-shooter' genre with Fallout 4 and Starfield, and that it blundered further by moving heavily towards procedural generation in Starfield while effectively abolishing the Open World, there's still the question of whether the company has sufficient talent to match the level even of Oblivion, Fallout 3, or Skyrim (much less Morrowind). Based on the dialogue writing, setting, quest design, city design, et cetera of Starfield the answer would seem to be no.

 

[Tyranicon]

Honestly, all they have to do to enjoy massive success is another Skyrim, but with at least a little better combat, competent writing, and better dungeons.

Lol they don't need any of these things. The mainstream audience can't tell what's good, and Bethesda fans don't care about these. They just needed to maintain a very low standard of quality and they couldn't even do that.

It's astounding that Starfield (and Fallout 76) was so bad that even the mainstream turned against them. There is a decent argument that The Outer Worlds is much better than Starfield.

Now Bethesda is in the doghouse with BioWare, two aging former RPG heavyweights that have been thoroughly ship of theseus-ed and is now just a zombie for their corporate overlords.

 

[thesecret1]

Honestly, all they have to do to enjoy massive success is another Skyrim, but with at least a little better combat, competent writing, and better dungeons.

Lol they don't need any of these things. The mainstream audience can't tell what's good, and Bethesda fans don't care about these. They just needed to maintain a very low standard of quality and they couldn't even do that.

It's astounding that Starfield (and Fallout 76) was so bad that even the mainstream turned against them. There is a decent argument that The Outer Worlds is much better than Starfield.

Now Bethesda is in the doghouse with BioWare, two aging former RPG heavyweights that have been thoroughly ship of theseus-ed and is now just a zombie for their corporate overlords.

I think the mainstream has, ever so slowly but still, been developing a smidge of taste over the past decade. Skyrim was the first RPG for many casuals, but since then, many RPGs have come out. I don't think a plan old Skyrim reskin would fare nearly as well.

 

[vitellus]

Honestly, all they have to do to enjoy massive success is another Skyrim, but with at least a little better combat, competent writing, and better dungeons.

Lol they don't need any of these things. The mainstream audience can't tell what's good, and Bethesda fans don't care about these. They just needed to maintain a very low standard of quality and they couldn't even do that.

It's astounding that Starfield (and Fallout 76) was so bad that even the mainstream turned against them. There is a decent argument that The Outer Worlds is much better than Starfield.

Now Bethesda is in the doghouse with BioWare, two aging former RPG heavyweights that have been thoroughly ship of theseus-ed and is now just a zombie for their corporate overlords.

at one point i bought fo4 for less than a six-pack of shitty beer and still feel ripped off. got outer worlds via egs and that game was so fucking gay i suspect the dildo they mail to every sucker who subjects themselves to that game got lost in the mail. the last good thing bioware made was mdk2 and that was because they took a neat idea from shiny. morrowind was the last good thing made by toddthesda, and that's even a contentious point around here as the creatures here would argue about the ideal color of nipples. oft bandied about here is the maxim 'devs can make only one good rpg' and 'incline is made by a small team', i facetiously must ask you, Tyranicon, is your upcoming vampire porno game going to be yours?

 

[Cohesion]

Honestly, all they have to do to enjoy massive success is another Skyrim, but with at least a little better combat, competent writing, and better dungeons. Mainstream market will buy a gorillion copies again and Codex will say that while the game is still shit, it's less shit than its predecessor, and therefore incline. The fact that Beth seems unable to do even that (as showcased by FO4 and Starfield) makes one wonder whether they're actively trying to be shit or something.

You have a habit of saying agreeable things, only to then shit on Fallout 4. You are wrong to include Fallout 4 with Starfield.

Bethesda Fallouts are shit and desecration of original IP. Are you high?

 

[Butter]

Honestly, all they have to do to enjoy massive success is another Skyrim, but with at least a little better combat, competent writing, and better dungeons. Mainstream market will buy a gorillion copies again and Codex will say that while the game is still shit, it's less shit than its predecessor, and therefore incline. The fact that Beth seems unable to do even that (as showcased by FO4 and Starfield) makes one wonder whether they're actively trying to be shit or something.

You have a habit of saying agreeable things, only to then shit on Fallout 4. You are wrong to include Fallout 4 with Starfield.

Nothing is as bad as Starfield, but it's telling that the best way to enjoy Fallout 4 is to avoid all of the scripted content (and even then it's a mediocre shooter).

 

[Beastro]

Pete Hines, who left Bethesda not too long ago, also seemed to me like he isn't a smart guy.

Btw, OP is so long I feel everyone should be able to rate it tl;dr twice each.

 

[Late Bloomer]

Bethesda Fallouts are shit and desecration of original IP. Are you high?

Apologies in advanced for the randomness, but I am pretty much spent for the day.

I enjoyed every Fallout. I recognize that Fallout 3 was a giant deparature from the series. But I enjoy exploring and feeling a part of the world that Bethesda creates. I feel less scrutinized for how I play when I am playing a Bethesda game (tes, fallout) than any other games. Most games make me feel like I am being tugged along by the developers watchful eye. TES and Fallout let me explore the world at my own pace, offer many places and secrets to uncover, good music, interesting arms and armor, and the occasional humor (something lacking in most games)

The odd thing with TES though, is that Morrowind, at least for me, was some serious decline at the time from Daggerfall. It took me a while to warm up to Morrowind. Once I did though, I was glad for it. Fallout 3 I was pretty into as soon as I blew up Megaton from the confines of Tenpenny Tower.

Fallout 4, when given a chance, and not looking for some great storytelling (not that many games have that anyways) offers an incredibly packed world to explore. I have enjoyed my time in Fallout 4, for the freedom, exploration, atmosphere, gunplay, collecting, building and it's humour.

I, more than most here, was exceptionally disappointed with Starfield. Almost equally, was I disapoointed with its unfair comparisons to Fallout 4. It resused some animations, yes, but the gunplay was a serious downgrade. No weight to the guns and npc's models, no gore, no vats, a very light and plastic feel. The opposite really. The exploration of those planets was utter garbage. NMS proc gen is light years ahead of the crap Bethesda shat out. The areas on the planets Bethesda did handcraft, was not the Bethesda that made any previous game. It was narrow, cliche, linear and paint by numbers. Absolute dogshit.


TLDR Fallout 4 is unfairly lumped in with Starfield. It shouldn't be.

 

[Cohesion]

TLDR Fallout 4 is unfairly lumped in with Starfield. It shouldn't be.

Fair enough. What is your opinion on F1/F2? Do you like first more or second?
Same thing with BG2 vs BG1, Diablo 1 and Diablo 2.
We all can agree that 3rd game is decline in all of these franchises, but what about first two games?
I think first entries are much more atmospheric, but there is more shit to do in sequel (2nd game).

 

[Beastro]

Nobody actually thinks Todd is talented, it's just a meme. And he's charismatic.

I disagree, he played a massive role through the decades in the irrefutable success of Bethesda as one of the worlds most popular gaming companies

He made mistakes but everyone sometimes make mistakes

But he is very talented and understands what many gamers enjoy and appreciate. You dont have to like him but to suggest no one thinks he is talented doesn't reflect the reality of his success

You know, I always wondered if you just caught flak from people here for your GD political posts, but thank you for more than clearing things up for me with this post.

Todd's a dude bro when it comes to games. He doesn't see them as anything that should be taken seriously and is just dumb fun. He'd have been fine making games in other companies, but he has TES and Fallout of all settings to inflict his mentality on.

 

[Cohesion]

It is like first game - great pilot.
Sequel - culmination / iterating.
Third - decline.
Fourth and later entries - just milking IP.
Same with Gothic franchise.

 

[TheDarkUrge]

I aint reading all that the only reason is because morrowind was a good game. That's it. And they've made progressively shittier games ever since

 

[I eat frozen vegetables]

Todd Howard was also responsible for the horse armor DLC in Oblivion, giving us the out of control monstrosity that is DLC. Granted, DLC is older than Oblivion, but it's the first modern example.

 

[Butter]

Todd's a dude bro when it comes to games. He doesn't see them as anything that should be taken seriously and is just dumb fun. He'd have been fine making games in other companies, but he has TES and Fallout of all settings to inflict his mentality on.

Worse than that, he clearly doesn't have a strong vision. He's made himself irreplaceable at Bethesda by directing all of their hit games and by being the face of the company for 20 years, and he could've leveraged that to make himself the American Kojima. "Here's my dream game, the game that's never been done before, and here's how I want it made." Apparently his dream game was Starfield, and it's a clusterfuck of bad ideas rehashed from other games that don't fit together, and even his core audience thought it was trash. The only reason his earlier games succeeded was by riding the talents of better writers and designers. At his best, he's a net zero contribution to a project.

 

[Late Bloomer]

Fair enough. What is your opinion on F1/F2? Do you like first more or second?
Same thing with BG2 vs BG1, Diablo 1 and Diablo 2.
We all can agree that 3rd game is decline in all of these franchises, but what about first two games?
I think first entries are much more atmospheric, but there is more shit to do in sequel (2nd game).

Fallout 1, is one of the best games ever made. I feel Fallout 2 was disjointed in many ways, but an incredible experience that is more than deserving of multiple plays. I prefer 1 but 2 is very much a worthy game and deserving of any accolades thrown its way.

Concerning Baldur's Gate, I actually prefer the 2nd one. I found the game more enjoyable to explore with a bit less pressure to do things the right way. I don't hold Baldur's Gate with the same level of prestige that most seem to do. I understand the lofty position the first two games have, but I don't share those opinions by and large. I have more fond memories of Icewind Dale 1&2, Eye of the Beholder, Might & Magic Series and others.

Baldur's Gate 3 is one of the most disgusting games I have ever laid eyes on. The negroe dude on the box, the homosexuality that runs rampant, the zoophila, the deep gnomes (all gay) , the disgusting manly females, all wrapped up in a shiny package to woo the normies. Equally shocking, was the reception it got here on the dex. Little did I know we had so many posters, good quality old accounts, who would sing its praises. Engaging in lord knows what while playing.

How about you Cohesion
Do you have any games that you like that are unpopular here?
What are your thoughts on the transition from Daggerfall to Morrowind?

 

[Late Bloomer]

He's made himself irreplaceable at Bethesda by directing all of their hit games and by being the face of the company for 20 years, and he could've leveraged that to make himself the American Kojima. "Here's my dream game, the game that's never been done before, and here's how I want it made."

We also have this upcoming dumpster fire to look forward to, which good ole Todd has been salivating over for many a year.