Support NeoGAF

[Gaiff]

8 years in development and supposedly a budget in excess of $200M, so why are we still seeing posts such as "Bethesda games never had good graphics." "Bethesda games never had great gunplay." or any of those archaic defenses?

If it were 2007 with Oblivion, I'd wholeheartedly agree with and back those statements but this is 2023 and Bethesda is one of the biggest 1st-party studios backed by one of the richest corporations in the world. Why are we still holding them to the same standards as we did back in 2007? RDR2 apparently spent around 8 years in development as well and came out 5 years ago on much weaker machines so why does it look better than Starfield?

Other studios have since massively caught up with Bethesda and they're no longer the undisputed masters of living and breathing open-world games (although I'd argue they're still among the best). Can we please hold them to the same standards we hold every big devs like CD Projekt Red, Rockstar, Naughty Dog, and all the rest? No passes for shitty graphics, terrible animations or subpar combat.

 

[Del_X]

You’re acting like a pretty good game is the worst thing ever. I’d like fewer loading screens and for them to drop object permanence for literal junk. Maybe they’ll do that for TES VI.

 

[Gaiff]

You’re acting like a pretty good game is the worst thing ever. I’d like fewer loading screens and for them to drop object permanence for literal junk. Maybe they’ll do that for TES VI.

No, I'm acting like Bethesda is a premier AAA developer and not some mid-tier studio like they were 18 years ago. We should treat them as such.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

But Starfield does have good gunplay, and does have good graphics?

 

[BlackTron]

It would be easier to forgive if it wasn't said that their next game is still on the same engine. Seems to me the people involved are just dead set on not having to start over and learn a new one before they retire (not sarcasm)

 

[CoreyFlawless]

Eh. I believe your opinion is wrong. I’m enjoying starfield. Once I got the hang of this. I’m having flash back of mass effect 1 and Star Wars of the old republic.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

Did the guy who designed the core of the Creation engine die or something? I refuse to believe they couldn't scrap Creation and build a new one/heavily modify Unreal to get acceptable performance and seamless environmental transitions

 

[CoreyFlawless]

Also what other game where you can leave something or dead body’s at that. Go to different planets and missions. They still be there

 

[Del_X]

No, I'm acting like Bethesda is a premier AAA developer and not some mid-tier studio like they were 18 years ago. We should treat them as such.

“Why does this style of game exist in this style?”

Other than BG3, What other game has this much dialogue? This many branching paths for main quests? It’s not even “defense force” it’s “different game doing different shit”

You want your apples to taste like oranges.

 

[Topher]

I wouldn't trade Starfield's gameplay for RDR2's, that much is certain. Starfield is a damn fun game so that's goes a long way for me personally. That doesn't mean they got everything right. The crux of the issue is using the same old engine. They need to junk that thing. I've been saying that since the game came out. But ultimately there are some things I can (and have) defend Bethesda on with regards to Starfield. Others, not so much. This isn't an all or nothing issue.

 

[Zuzu]

Yeah they haven’t kept up with various improvements and progress in the industry in various areas.

 

[SlimySnake]

I dont know what game you are playing but they have done a great job improving both the graphics and first person combat. Combat might not be on par with say Doom, but it is leagues ahead of what they had in fallout 3 and fallout 4. I personally miss VATS but realtime combat is not bad at all. Combat is punchy and fun. What exactly do you want from the combat?

And they have also updated the graphics engine. It is one of the best looking games out there. Inconsistent sure, but 90% of it is procedurally generated. Realtime time of day and the downgrade from as early as E3 2023 doesnt help. But aside from the somewhat dated bethesda quest design, i am not sure what is wrong with either the graphics or gunplay that deserves to be criticized, let alone defended. Maybe they shipped a shitty version on xbox. but its fine on PC.

Go ahead and knock them for dated quest design, robotic dialogue sequences, unmemorable side characters, ridiculous menu driven space travel, useless planet exploration, and just a very disjointed feeling world, but can we stop with the fucking hyperbole. not everything about this game is dated. the visuals are not dated. the combat is not dated. they physics are straight up next gen. the game CAN be fun when it gets out of its own way and lets you go on a long mission.


i get that its fun to hate the game right now, and i personally think its no more than a 7/10, but we are shitting on its graphics and gunplay now? the only strengths this game has. what are we even doing?

 

[Del_X]

How many hours of Starfield have you played, OP? Have you played it at all? Can you provide receipts?

A lot of this criticism seems to come from the bench.

 

[John Marston]

While Starfield does have its shortcomings I'm mostly busy enjoying its quests and atmosphere. I don't feel the need to defend it.

But I get it, we're all passionate about our games here and civilized discourse is always encouraged.

Now I gotta get back trying to get my Adoring Fan killed in a most unusual & funny way.

 

[TheGreatMusashi]

Bethesda is emotionally resonant with a a large number of people. They’re like Rockstar. They aren’t held to the same standards because they don’t apply when the mass market dominates the hobbyist arena. It’s like Madden.

Issues with quality don’t supersede the basic offering because it’s still there, familiar, and loved.

 

[bitbydeath]

All I can say is that they better get their shit together before ESVI arrives.

 

[Antwix]

The only thing that matters is if the game is fun, which it is.

 

[rodrigolfp]

But it has good gunplay.

RDR2 apparently spent around 8 years in development as well and came out 5 years ago on much weaker machines so why does it look better than Starfield?

Maybe because it doesn't have good gameplay, so they spent almost all the time in the visuals and forgot the gameplay.

 

[CoreyFlawless]

I wonder, that the ppl that talk negatively bout this game. Have y’all even really play it? Also the ones that have play it. Why the hate? They’re good games u won’t like, cause it not your type, either cause it a fighting game, racing, action, adventure, role playing game etc. that’s fine. But you should easily see that ppl would love this game and it’s a good game. There nothing to hate bout this game other then, it’s not your type of game. Also, the creation engine stays. There no other engine does what it does for what I see. Cause no else hadn’t even made any games like how they do

 

[fatmarco]

I still need to see the comparison points for games like this. How many RPGs are even close to being like a Bethesda RPG?

Like isn't it basically only Kingdom Come Deliverance? ( in terms of AI, scope, object permanence etc. etc.)

Not that it's an excuse for Bethesda to not improve and not exploit their massive resources, but what games are actually even doing what Bethesda games do?

 

[T4keD0wN]

Huh? Id struggle to think of 10 games with better gunplay unless half of the list would be just call of duty. Hell the spaceship combat is better than Everspace 2 a game purely dedicated to that one thing.

It has great graphics, maybe try to disable dynamic resolution scaling (its on by default).
It has entirely different problems, but those 2 aspects are some probably the strongest points.

 

[Krappadizzle]

RDR2 is an extreme example of tech and artistry working in perfection. Arkham Knight is another example. Not giving Bethesda a pass, Starfield looks ok. There facial animations are night and day compared to Fallout 4.

But man... I just don't like Starfield as much. At least not now in it's current state. I just went ahead and reinstalled Fallout 4 and it's been amazing. I can wait, Starfield will be one of those games that gets filled and filled with awesome content over time. Everyone can be upset by that, or they can just live with it, but fact is, picking up Starfield is akin to picking up a vidoegame platform, it's gonna morph and change and be vastly different when it's fanbase gets their hands on the proper tools(which are coming). I'm not thrilled that I think it's a bit mediocre, but I don't hate it and have barely spent more than 15 hours or so with it and decided to put it down and come back to later. I look forward to seeing how it changes.

 

[salva]

8 years in development and supposedly a budget in excess of $200M, so why are we still seeing posts such as "Bethesda games never had good graphics." "Bethesda games never had great gunplay." or any of those archaic defenses?

If it were 2007 with Oblivion, I'd wholeheartedly agree with and back those statements but this is 2023 and Bethesda is one of the biggest 1st-party studios backed by one of the richest corporations in the world. Why are we still holding them to the same standards as we did back in 2007? RDR2 apparently spent around 8 years in development as well and came out 5 years ago on much weaker machines so why does it look better than Starfield?

Other studios have since massively caught up with Bethesda and they're no longer the undisputed masters of living and breathing open-world games (although I'd argue they're still among the best). Can we please hold them to the same standards we hold every big devs like CD Projekt Red, Rockstar, Naughty Dog, and all the rest? No passes for shitty graphics, terrible animations or subpar combat.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Dunno, feels the game has been fairly assessed. The problems and qualities of the game are all being pointed out by most parties.

Also, using Rockstar and RDR2 as a positive example is a really terrible analogy when they're also following super outdated design philosophies, way worse than any Bethesda game. Why aren't we holding them to better standards?

 

[K' Dash]

 

[Danjin44]

RDR2 apparently spent around 8 years in development as well and came out 5 years ago on much weaker machines so why does it look better than Starfield?

Making nothing but graphics, mission design, gunplay and actual control characters properly, all afterthought......R* didn't give a fuck what makes actual game fun and put all their resource in graphics.

I dont want ANY developers be like R* because I actually want have fun playing games.

 

[Magic Carpet]

I see OPs post history praising Grandblue developers. And many many anti Starfield posts.
You got an unhealthy bug up you butt. Wipe that shit out of your ass and stop smearing it on Neogaf. You’re not fun to read.

 

[Gaiff]

How many hours of Starfield have you played, OP? Have you played it at all? Can you provide receipts?

A lot of this criticism seems to come from the bench.

6 hours-ish and sure, I can send a screenshot when I'm home.

Dunno, feels the game has been fairly assessed. The problems and qualities of the game are all being pointed out by most parties.

Also, using Rockstar and RDR2 as a positive example is a really terrible analogy when they're also following super outdated design philosophies, way worse than any Bethesda game. Why aren't we holding them to better standards?

Strictly talking about RDR2 in terms of visuals. The game is a complete bore and I wouldn't want Bethesda to follow their design philosophy. Starfield is alright enough thus far. Nothing great but not terrible either.

 

[DownLikeBCPowder]

Go play something else then, I love these games and hope they continue to make them exactly as they do.

 

[Gaiff]

I see OPs post history praising Grandblue developers. And many many anti Starfield posts.
You got an unhealthy bug up you butt. Wipe that shit out of your ass and stop smearing it on Neogaf. You’re not fun to read.

Quit smoking crack.

 

[lefty1117]

Some of the anger feels irrational ... like why create this thread when there are so many others? Feels like a cry for attention, idk

 

[Pimpbaa]

Some people have an unhealthy obsession with hating this game. Playing games you like is a lot more fun to bitching about ones you don’t like.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Starfield is alright enough thus far. Nothing great but not terrible either.

Well, duh, thats most games. Then some will like it more or less based on personal preferences.

I think the issue here were people seriously thinking this would be some big generation defining game.

 

[March Climber]

No, I'm acting like Bethesda is a premier AAA developer and not some mid-tier studio like they were 18 years ago. We should treat them as such.

It's better to contend with the reality of the matter than to dwell on what-ifs. You're still wanting Y from Bethesda when they keep delivering X. The budget, the team size, none of this matters if that's what they choose to deliver. How many times do they have to deliver X before you personally accept that they will never do what you want them to do?

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

Bro, just get a gaming PC or Series X/S if you want to play it that badly.

 

[March Climber]

Some people have an unhealthy obsession with hating this game. Playing games you like is a lot more fun to bitching about ones you don’t like.

The fact that this completely reasonable take needs to be stated is what's crazy.

 

[Del_X]

6 hours-ish and sure, I can send a screenshot when I'm home.

I believe you. I don’t think this game is for everyone and the main quest line doesn’t get interesting until pretty far in which is a big pacing problem.

Combat is better on Very Hard since you get better loot more frequently. It also improves after a certain “thing” in the main quest.

 

[The Pleasure]

I dont know what game you are playing but they have done a great job improving both the graphics and first person combat. Combat might not be on par with say Doom, but it is leagues ahead of what they had in fallout 3 and fallout 4. I personally miss VATS but realtime combat is not bad at all. Combat is punchy and fun. What exactly do you want from the combat?

And they have also updated the graphics engine. It is one of the best looking games out there. Inconsistent sure, but 90% of it is procedurally generated. Realtime time of day and the downgrade from as early as E3 2023 doesnt help. But aside from the somewhat dated bethesda quest design, i am not sure what is wrong with either the graphics or gunplay that deserves to be criticized, let alone defended. Maybe they shipped a shitty version on xbox. but its fine on PC.

Go ahead and knock them for dated quest design, robotic dialogue sequences, unmemorable side characters, ridiculous menu driven space travel, useless planet exploration, and just a very disjointed feeling world, but can we stop with the fucking hyperbole. not everything about this game is dated. the visuals are not dated. the combat is not dated. they physics are straight up next gen. the game CAN be fun when it gets out of its own way and lets you go on a long mission.


i get that its fun to hate the game right now, and i personally think its more than a 7/10, but we are shitting on its graphics and gunplay now? the only strengths this game has. what are we even doing?

Why does the character move like they're trying to hold in a shit? He runs like his ass is clenched and he walks like he's praying just a few more minutes to find a toilet.

 

[Destruction-1002]

Just because its 2023 doesn't mean thing gonna change, some things remains the same


Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim (2011)

Red Dead Redemption 1 (2010)

I don't think in 2011, folks compared Skyrim to Red Dead 1. But rather Skyrim with Oblivion

 

[JTCx]

Those who say Starfield has good gunplay dont know what that is.

True story.

 

[Dr. Wilkinson]

How many of these threads are we gonna have?

 

[Bridges]

"RDR2 apparently spent around 8 years in development as well and came out 5 years ago on much weaker machines so why does it look better than _____?"

You could put any game there. RDR2 might be the most visually impressive console game that's ever been made (or at least it's near the top). Comparing literally any team to Rockstar like that is unfair.

And to actually answer the question, it's because Red Dead isn't doing object permanence or half of the systems that Starfield has. It's completely apples and oranges here. You're talking different genres with different goals on different hardware on different engines.

If Red Dead Redemption 2 had thousands of different planets and every time you killed someone or dropped something on one of them the game would remember it forever, yeah, maybe you could ask how Rockstar did that while keeping the graphics better. But they didn't.

Besides, any time there is not a human face in view Starfield is a looker. The characters definitely have uncanny valley and I wish they were better, but it's clear their priorities were elsewhere and it's not like the game is substantially worse because of it.

The Starfield hate is just crazy. It's a perfectly fine game at worst.

 

[faraany3k]

There is not a single studio that makes anything like Bethesda. So they do not have anyone to compete against. You dont like their games, dont play them.

 

[Morrie’s wig shop]

Simple solution, don’t play the game.

 

[akbennyewu]

I highly suggest you keep crying about a really good game because it doesn't quite meet your incredibly unrealistic expectations.

You prophesize the company is getting away with something or receiving a pass not afforded to other developers, which is majorly untrue.

 

[radewagon]

So, I don't lift weights or anything, but if I did and I started with 30 pound weights and then when I got stronger, moved to 50 pound weights, and then when I got stronger I moved to 70 pound weights, and so on and so on and so on.... Would it at all be surprising that I'd still be struggling the same amount each time regardless of how much stronger I got?

It's not like Bethesda is making games with the same level of complexity as before. They're lifting more weight. They're still going to struggle here and there, but the overall quality, irrespective of those struggles, has undeniably gone up.

I swear, it's like the argument where gamers are like, it's PS5, why do we still not have locked 60fps as the standard for every game? Cause reasons.

 

[Gaiff]

I dont know what game you are playing but they have done a great job improving both the graphics and first person combat.

The graphics can look fantastic at times. Like when I landed on the first planet with the pirate, it looked very good. But then I landed on New Atlantis and...

Also, the graphics don't really bother me. They're serviceable enough. What irks me is the post still talking like this was 2007 Bethesda. Posts such as these (not shitting on the posters btw).

Why?

Bethesda has never been known for top-tier visuals and this is undoubtedly the best looking game they've ever made. The game is inconsistent visually but can and does frequently look incredible.

Like, really? Because Bethesda has never had great graphics, we shouldn't expect them in 2023 with a $200M+ budget and Microsoft backing them with 8 years of development time? Come on.

 

[SlimySnake]

The graphics can look fantastic at times. Like when I landed on the first planet with the pirate, it looked very good. But then I landed on New Atlantis and...

Also, the graphics don't really bother me. They're serviceable enough. What irks me is the post still talking like this was 2007 Bethesda. Posts such as these (not shitting on the posters btw).



Like, really? Because Bethesda has never had great graphics, we shouldn't expect them in 2023 with a $200M+ budget and Microsoft backing them with 8 years of development time? Come on.

I was just taking screenshots of this city because honestly it doesnt look that bad in third person.

 

[Danjin44]

Like, really? Because Bethesda has never had great graphics, we shouldn't expect them in 2023 with a $200M+ budget and Microsoft backing them with 8 years of development time? Come on.

Like it or not each developers are different, no matter what year studios like Atlus and FromSoftware will never have high tech graphics their games because they put resources on things that matter most and let their excellent art direction do talking rather than expensive graphics.

If high tech graphic is highly important to you then go buy games from devs who concentrate on graphics like Guerrilla Games.

 

[analog_future]

8 years in development and supposedly a budget in excess of $200M, so why are we still seeing posts such as "Bethesda games never had good graphics." "Bethesda games never had great gunplay." or any of those archaic defenses?

If it were 2007 with Oblivion, I'd wholeheartedly agree with and back those statements but this is 2023 and Bethesda is one of the biggest 1st-party studios backed by one of the richest corporations in the world. Why are we still holding them to the same standards as we did back in 2007? RDR2 apparently spent around 8 years in development as well and came out 5 years ago on much weaker machines so why does it look better than Starfield?

Other studios have since massively caught up with Bethesda and they're no longer the undisputed masters of living and breathing open-world games (although I'd argue they're still among the best). Can we please hold them to the same standards we hold every big devs like CD Projekt Red, Rockstar, Naughty Dog, and all the rest? No passes for shitty graphics, terrible animations or subpar combat.

Bethesda has their niche, just like any other top tier developer. They have an identity, and those that are interested in Bethesda games have an expectation that aligns with that identity.

• We don't expect FROM games to have cutting edge graphics or to run particularly well, and we're okay with that
• We don't expect Capcom games to have particularly good voice acting or writing, and in fact we love Capcom games because of their cheesiness and hamfistedness
• We don't expect Persona games to push the bar on a technical level, and we've come to accept that all games in the series look like they could run on a generation or two generation old hardware
• We don't expect Rockstar games to control particularly responsively, as their strengths are in creating living, breathing, cinematic worlds and characters with an insane attention to detail

Yet when a Bethesda game that has generally great reviews and is beloved by most who have played it comes out, suddenly we have to hold them to some mythical standard?


And frankly the game frequently looks absolutely fucking amazing:

I feel like I'm playing a different game going by some of the shit that's been posted here.