MadMaxHellfire
Arcane
i wish they did. instead they have NO standards, they eat whatever they're told to because they have no idea what's going on and don't even want to know.normies that have low standards.
i wish they did. instead they have NO standards, they eat whatever they're told to because they have no idea what's going on and don't even want to know.normies that have low standards.
You might think you want the Bethesda take on deep ocean planetary exploration but you don't, it'd not be any more fun than farting around on the surface of any other planet, with the same couple of points of interest strewn around in the same box, over and over and over again. It's almost habitual for Codexers to shit on something without any sort of context or perspective so I thought I might rise above that by examining this with reference to what does exist and not some ideal that is only in my mind. My thesis is that regardless of the many design and gameplay flaws of Bethesda they're missing even more than that, a being-there-ness, and I don't see why you would want the space or aquatic planetary setting without it.I would almost bump it up a grade if it had explorable ocean worlds like Kamino.
i wish they did. instead they have NO standards, they eat whatever they're told to because they have no idea what's going on and don't even want to know.normies that have low standards.
Since an ocean lacks boundaries, Bethesda would likely just use invisible borders, just like I'm told they did on Starfield's land areas. And the water column beneath the surface is mostly empty, making it hard to add gameplay on your way down to the bottom. Bethesda would likely just use loading screens.You might think you want the Bethesda take on deep ocean planetary exploration but you don't
I've overlooked Outer Wilds due to its artstyle, but the setting sounds interesting. Thanks for mentioning it.My thesis is that regardless of the many design and gameplay flaws of Bethesda they're missing even more than that, a being-there-ness, and I don't see why you would want the space or aquatic planetary setting without it.
Perhaps the three strongest examples of that which leap out when considering games that have attempted any such thing of late would be No Man's Sky, Outer Wilds and Subnautica.
I might add ARK Survival Evolved here also, even though I've mostly played its land areas (that are likely better). It has an open ocean (confined by a huge space station) populated by prehistoric sea monsters.Subnautica is more or less Minecraft with better graphics set on a single plateau on an ocean, far less interesting to look at and less going on, there are the additional survival mechanics, of requiring air and only being able to drive underwater vehicles at certain pressures, but it is enough to have some appeal to the fantasy of exploring a deep sea, giving the player some feel for the vulnerability of such a proposal.
I'll add SOMA as well, it too has smaller/linear levels with a nice mood:Bioware could get away with it because they were in the bussiness of making focused and cinematic action adventures with light RPG elements and players didn't expect to be able to go anywhere and do anything. It's enough to set the mood, give you a sense of where you are, but not more than that.
Only way lots of humans would make sense underwater is if there was a local, man-made underwater city or other structure. Spreading them out in the entire ocean would be incredibly silly.Bethesda makes poor looter shooters, so if you visited an alien aquatic world there would need to be lootable humans there, there would be the same clutter and architecture as in the rest of the galaxy
You might think you want the Bethesda take on deep ocean planetary exploration but you don't, it'd not be any more fun than farting around on the surface of any other planet, with the same couple of points of interest strewn around in the same box, over and over and over again. It's almost habitual for Codexers to shit on something without any sort of context or perspective so I thought I might rise above that by examining this with reference to what does exit and not some ideal that is only in my mind. My thesis is that regardless of the many design and gameplay flaws of Bethesda they're missing even more than that, a being-there-ness, and I don't see why you would want the space or aquatic planetary setting without it.I would almost bump it up a grade if it had explorable ocean worlds like Kamino.
Perhaps the three strongest examples of that which leap out when considering games that have attempted any such thing of late would be No Man's Sky, Outer Wilds and Subnautica. None of the rest can really compare to the freeform but entirely meaningful exploration in Outer Wilds, with the constant tornadoes and storms ravaging the surface so strongly that the tiny islands shoot up into the higher atmosphere, or the possible journey into the planet's core aided by an alien jellyfish, or the secret in the one calm place of the world. The place is not just heard and seen, and what a great presentation it is, but also felt through the gameplay, being at the mercy of the elements as the player is. Mechanical gameplay importance and aesthetic merged totally.
Subnautica is more or less Minecraft with better graphics set on a single plateau on an ocean, far less interesting to look at and less going on, there are the additional survival mechanics, of requiring air and only being able to drive underwater vehicles at certain pressures, but it is enough to have some appeal to the fantasy of exploring a deep sea, giving the player some feel for the vulnerability of such a proposal.
No Man's Sky has similar problems as Starfield in that you'll come to learn the patterns of procedural generation and so have less reason to explore, but far less so, and features vibrant underwater worlds just as lush and dense as the surface of planets. There was an update dedicated only to the deep sea released, but even before that the game didn't make much of a distinction between what lay above and beneath the waves, so you might find sunken ruins and the like as you would find on land, as well as aquatic life that was generated just like the flying animals and land creatures. When people talk about video games they often do so autistically as if they were spreadsheets, whereas some of the best qualities of NMS lies in creating a truly procedural ambient soundscape, with dynamic weather effects that have impact on the gameplay. It might be shallow but it nails the atmosphere.
Perhaps it's unfair to compare it to these games since they are supposedly in other genres, but even the Codex favorite piñata Bioware used to get it right in many ways. They're rightfully shat on for making terrible "RPGs" but what they did do correctly was atmosphere even if it had little mechanical impact. In KOTOR you had Manaan, a Kamino fanfic planet, and you did get to descent into the depths. Despite being depicted in a souped up Neverwinter Nights engine for consoles the surface had a pleasant sense of place, with a light cloudy sky and the ocean stretching endlessly towards the horizon in the skybox.
Bioware could get away with it because they were in the bussiness of making focused and cinematic action adventures with light RPG elements and players didn't expect to be able to go anywhere and do anything. It's enough to set the mood, give you a sense of where you are, but not more than that. It was the Star Trek matte painting, which might not seem like much but it makes a difference. Bioware would return to an ocean planet in one of their final DLCs for Mass Effect 3, Leviathan, and once again despite their failure to provide an RPG or even good action gameplay someone at the office did understand at least some of the appeal of the fantasy of visiting other worlds. Like George Lucas' Kamino the surface is stormy and rainy, and eldritch horrors lurk in the calmer deeps.
With Bethesda you would get none of this, you wouldn't get the bespoke exploration of Outer Wilds and the mysteries or adventures of that game, on a mechanical level Bethesda makes poor looter shooters, so if you visited an alien aquatic world there would need to be lootable humans there, there would be the same clutter and architecture as in the rest of the galaxy, due to how they put together content, and since this is a space game of a scope too large to make things by hand it would feature radiant content. But it's also not a simulationist game, you wouldn't have to worry about air supplies, and certainly not leviathans of the depths, Bethesda is not Pirhana Bytes that would give you a taste of late game challenge if you ventured in the wrong direction, not that there is a right or wrong direciton since this is procedurally generated. You're never going to be on a raft in a planetary wide simulated ocean, at the mercy of the elements, or diving into the marine trenches.
At the same time you're also going to be missing the craftsmanship of a well put together tiny set, of a great skybox, and all the small details you'd see in a more cinematic game. Basically I'm saying that inherently, by being made by Betheda, with their content pipelines and design process, it's inevitable that you'd get something boring and generic and it wouldn't feel as if you just landed on a waterworld, it would be more of the same. Mechanically, aesthetically, superficially, in any way that counts you might as well be looting sporks being worth 2 credits in a lunar base.
I don't think I can oversell Outer Wilds, even before mainstream faggots found out about it the prototype put together as a student project was totally unique in the medium and the game was in development hell for a long time and it's only in playing the final product you'll understand why. Outer Wilds does two things, exploration and dynamism. The more I talk about it the more I'd ruin the experience of getting to know it yourself firsthand but the small scale and artstyle are contrivances to make the entire thing work. In what other game can you land on an asteroid only to find all entries to it frozen over with ice, and then wait until the orbit comes closer to the sun so you can enter it after being heated up? Where you can walk on the crumbling floor of a hollow rocky planet as it gets bombarded from its moon that has explosive volcanic activity, a molten lava ejection solidifying and hitting the spot where you landed your ship, and it and the section of the planet breaks away, robbing you of a way off planet. If you have any love for science fiction, atmosphere, exploration, and the rest of it Outer Wilds will blow your mind, and the DLC had one of the best depictions of generational ships I've seen in a video game.I've overlooked Outer Wilds due to its artstyle, but the setting sounds interesting. Thanks for mentioning it.
Already addressed this in my previous posts multiple times, if you want realistic scope then have fun with Space Engine I guess, because there are no games doing that. Either you abstract heavily in one way or another, or you go procgen with nothing to find out there, making the exploration part invalid.Outer Wilds is certainly unique and worth a playthrough but a "space exploration" game it is not.
Its tiny planets make SPORE look like simulator by comparison.
Not feeling like reading every page of this thread, so it might have been already discussed, but...what do you guys think about the post-Creation Kit release state of Starfield?
This is the most bizarre part of it for me - why Todd Inc. went for this thing in the first place. I can understand a creative's yearning for novelty, but let's face it, big subsidiary studios don't operate on concern over staff boredom. Bethesda already had two healthy IPs to leapfrog in the Elder Scrolls and Fallout, so I can only imagine the impetus for Starfield (the fiction and the IP) was driven by a design aspiration, maybe the idea that they were on to some procedural tech that needed a space setting to be fully leveraged... Except that was clearly not the case in retrospect, and what they got was a lacklustre fiction, a boring random map generator, and a disjointed rendition of their "classic" Bethesda experience that even modders can't and won't try to fix.Starfield is not what anyone wanted nor asked for.
because in development it was simulationist. what do you think happened? some 75 IQ grugs playtested Starfield, ran out of Helium, got stranded on Arrakis, and died of dysentery, so daddy government sanded off all the sharp edges so nobody's feelings got hurt. it's like that fucking Half-Life 2 hallway where some retard kept going left for three hoursThis is the most bizarre part of it for me - why Todd Inc. went for this thing in the first place. I can understand a creative's yearning for novelty, but let's face it, big subsidiary studios don't operate on concern over staff boredom. Bethesda already had two healthy IPs to leapfrog in the Elder Scrolls and Fallout, so I can only imagine the impetus for Starfield (the fiction and the IP) was driven by a design aspiration, maybe the idea that they were on to some procedural tech that needed a space setting to be fully leveraged... Except that was clearly not the case in retrospect, and what they got was a lacklustre fiction, a boring random map generator, and a disjointed rendition of their "classic" Bethesda experience that even modders can't and won't try to fix.Starfield is not what anyone wanted nor asked for.
So it was just a plain ol' mistake? Okay, sure, but it just seems like a very expensive mistake from an otherwise veteran outfit in the industry. It's just weird seeing authors get things so wrong about their own creations, though it's no uncommon.
Maybe I am wrong but I remember reading somewhere that this was Todds dream project, something he always wanted to make. Imagine having a complete creative freedom, huge company and endless money on your disposal to make a game you want, that is a dream of any gamer.This is the most bizarre part of it for me - why Todd Inc. went for this thing in the first place. I can understand a creative's yearning for novelty, but let's face it, big subsidiary studios don't operate on concern over staff boredom. Bethesda already had two healthy IPs to leapfrog in the Elder Scrolls and Fallout, so I can only imagine the impetus for Starfield (the fiction and the IP) was driven by a design aspiration, maybe the idea that they were on to some procedural tech that needed a space setting to be fully leveraged... Except that was clearly not the case in retrospect, and what they got was a lacklustre fiction, a boring random map generator, and a disjointed rendition of their "classic" Bethesda experience that even modders can't and won't try to fix.Starfield is not what anyone wanted nor asked for.
So it was just a plain ol' mistake? Okay, sure, but it just seems like a very expensive mistake from an otherwise veteran outfit in the industry. It's just weird seeing authors get things so wrong about their own creations, though it's no uncommon.
And this is a good thing. Todd Low IQ "Who's laughing now" Howard ends up being proven a scamming retard, Gaider's masterpiece with his amazing writing gets a few hundred players tops, while Larian sells bagzillions of copies of a turn-based RPG.Maybe I am wrong but I remember reading somewhere that this was Todds dream project, something he always wanted to make. Imagine having a complete creative freedom, huge company and endless money on your disposal to make a game you want, that is a dream of any gamer.This is the most bizarre part of it for me - why Todd Inc. went for this thing in the first place. I can understand a creative's yearning for novelty, but let's face it, big subsidiary studios don't operate on concern over staff boredom. Bethesda already had two healthy IPs to leapfrog in the Elder Scrolls and Fallout, so I can only imagine the impetus for Starfield (the fiction and the IP) was driven by a design aspiration, maybe the idea that they were on to some procedural tech that needed a space setting to be fully leveraged... Except that was clearly not the case in retrospect, and what they got was a lacklustre fiction, a boring random map generator, and a disjointed rendition of their "classic" Bethesda experience that even modders can't and won't try to fix.Starfield is not what anyone wanted nor asked for.
So it was just a plain ol' mistake? Okay, sure, but it just seems like a very expensive mistake from an otherwise veteran outfit in the industry. It's just weird seeing authors get things so wrong about their own creations, though it's no uncommon.
Just to be informed that certain features needs to be cut, some elements scaled down. All due lack of talent capable of staying true to your vision, being forced to compromise just to make the game reality.
Only for the end product to be a soulless husk of a game that only people who want to justify money spent pretend to enjoy.
Fitting end for Todd, to have his dream hollowed out just like he did to TES and Fallout, two beloved franchises.
Starfield didn't even had proper maps on release, it's clearly not in the intended state. Covid fucked them over and they had to greatly scale down the game, like the removed fuel system. Since points of interest can be more easily added later it was probably the first thing to cut to be able to release it in time (which Todd and Cheng sold as "we could have more planets but we left it at 1000" and "not all will have life because it's more realistic that way")I'm pretty sure he doesn't play non-Bethesda games that aren't sport games. He never did, and he is simply not interested in playing. That's why he's so out of touch that he has no idea 'you can travel anywhere' in hundreds of games by now - for him Starfield was the first game he could travel anywhere.I like Todd but his head seems stuck in, like, 1990. He still seems to think Starflight is the pinnacle of gaming because you can "go anywhere" (which was also his favourite thing about Arena, apparently). Doesn't matter that there's nothing to actually do when you land, the appeal is simply that you can go anywhere.And although Howard thinks that's "perfectly understandable," he says it's just not the experience Starfield sets out to provide. "I do think for us—particularly me—going into a science-fiction game, I want to be able to land on all the planets. I want the game to say 'Yes' to us, knowing that that content is gonna be different than you've seen from us in the past."
If Starfield had released in 1990 - exact same game, but with older technology and released on DOS - it would definitely have been an all-time classic that people would still be playing/pretending to have played today, and would have been absolutely seismic and influenced games to this day. But it's not 1990, it's 2024, and I don't get how he can still think it's impressive to be able to click on a planet and be greeted with a giant empty procgen space with nothing in it. Even Mass Effect already did this with the shitty Mako maps. His "dream game" is shit that's already been done over and over again. He literally thinks, speaks and acts like someone who's been in a coma for three decades and has just woke up.
Next up he'll release a game that plays exactly like Wolfenstein 3D and enthuse that "it's my dream game because you're in first person, it's like you're really there".
And I think this will be the final nail to the coffin, if they prioritize squeezing money over gaining more long-term support for their game via modding.I think everyone knows of Bethesda's attempts at monetizing modding by now, and like every big game company they are relentless in the pursuit of money.
if MS were serious about making video games they would pay a third party $20 an hour to shit out POIs for Starfield. if microsoft could just sell black women instead of entertainment products, they would. that's clearly all they care about. i'm actually convinced that every free market company is bankrupt and the entire "economy" runs on ESG bucksBethesda must be shitting their pants with MS going on a rampage against useless game studios right now.