The technical ambitions of the developers behind these games may finally be realised with their current-gen debuts.
Todd Howard opens up on Starfield's hard development, confirms Bethesda is targeting wider hardware scalability for TES VI and future games.
Engines not the problem per say. If there is a “problem “ it lies in Bethesda’s design philosophy and direction.
A decade on from its Game of the Year-winning triumph, Todd Howard reminisces on how Fallout 4 changed Bethesda Game Studios, its TV show adaptation and playtesting The Elder Scrolls 6.
They need to look at Morrowind and see what the progression should have been from there instead of the regression we got with the next 2 games. They weren’t horrible games but they could have been so much more.
Fallout 4 just felt too streamlined and accessible to me, the perk system was not as fun as it was in Fallout 3, not saying Fallout 3 didn't have issues but 4 just felt like a complete step back.
So the part where you just sold the same games for the last 10 years while you focused on 76 and merch, was not a reset from the "creative" aspect eh? How very Todd of you.
I bought Fallout 4 (I loved Fallout 3) at launch and I couldn't bring myself to finish it or even get close to finishing it. It was soooo damned boring and bland. I played on a very hard difficulty and I had hundreds of stimpaks. One of the only games I've played for a while and not ended up finishing it. I hated it. Just flat out hated it.
EA plans to turn Battlefield into an annual series within 5–6 years, General Manager Byron Beede tells analyst Michael Pachter.
New game every year is dumb, the only one I saw reasonable improvement that did that was L4D2.. and then they gave up.
Even then with the talent Valve had they could have made it work in L4D and just update it.
The fact is they clearly wanted to have a full game made by them, not Turtle Rock.
The game just felt very different in tone aswell, I liked the dark creepy atmosphere in the first game. In the second it’s all sunny where you are biting tanks with a frying pan. Even the original survivors were better
I think what EA is aiming for is a three-team development cycle, with each team getting around three years to work on their own Battlefield title. That way, instead of a game being rushed out in a single year, they can stagger the releases. Over a 5–6 year span, the schedule would allow them to put out a new Battlefield every year, while still giving each studio enough time to develop their own entry.
Call of Duty already does this, and we’ve seen that simply giving three years doesn’t automatically guarantee quality. My question is—why can’t EA focus on supporting the current Battlefield for years to come instead of immediately chasing the next release? They’d still be able to make plenty of money without rushing a new game to market.
To be fair, EA has made a few pro-player moves lately, like launching on Steam day one, skipping the EA app requirement, and avoiding overpriced cosmetic skins. But at the end of the day, it’s still EA—and history shows they’ll always chase short-term profit, even at the cost of the game’s long-term health
Bro Dice is the only team they have going. I can imagine after they are gone it'll be over that's why they have to sell yearly before DICE dies out.
EA will make most money when the new entry drops. at $70 a pop there's lots to be made. Likely more to be made than selling skins or maps which everyone that has the game will not buy. It's all about profit. I think a release every 2 years will be better. People are getting tired of the yearly releases. We've come a long way in terms of improvements and graphics so there's not much they can add yearly to really improve a game at this point
I was almost outraged too... until I saw who was saying it. Filing it firmly under BS now.
They put the nails in the coffin with BF 2042, now they are passing the glue on it no matter the outcome of BF6. the way they have treated excelllent games of the likes of BF V is just ridiculous ....
