They are not just trying to make alot of money with this. They are trying to make all of the money. There is a difference.
I think their games dont look half bad. Certain areas can look a bit washed out, but their games have their moments.
Fallout 76 is a filler game. If you look at it, what have they done with it that is leap forward from Fallout 4? It is literally Fallout 4 with friends and no npcs. This is Bethesdas version of a cash grab/ filler game. We dont even know when Starfield is coming out, and TES 6 is going to take a long time. They are trying to keep us busy while they get things sorted out.
You have two types of rpg fans: People who like choices and world impact, and people who like making their own characters and just interacting with the world and exploring in their own " unique" way (I.e. Bethesda games). Those who prefer the latter usually find the former to be boring. In laymans terms, some people just like hitting stuff with cool legendary weapons.
A "hardcore" game would be a title where gameplay and challenge are typically king. A "casual" game is a game in which presentation and accessibility are king. This is of course debatable.
Let me state this: My role here is not to argue the quality or failings of Bethesda game studios or any of their games. Casting a net as broad as 1000's of people on this site and the rest of the net, and stating that I disagree with their collective "opinions" is reaching far beyond the scope of the two comment sections that I have commented on, and is missing the mark. As I said, people can criticize Bethesda as they see fit. People are literally stating their distaste for Be...
Are you sure? There are people who are pleased with the visuals, think the gameplay is deep, are fine with the models, like the characters, etc. To summarize: You dont like their work.
And before someone brings up the Witcher 3 or Horizon Zero Dawn, or BOTW, etc to exemplify quality, I should make it known that I actually have several friends who think that The Witcher 3 is as they call it "ass". I have to argue with them about it being a well made game,despite wh...
They are not low quality just because you dont like them.
Lazy? There games are the exact opposite of lazy my friend. Besides, its simple fundamentals: If you have a system in place, in which the engine is the foundation, you have to be very careful what you change. It would be similar to Sony changing the foundation of the ps4. Why do you think it always takes until near the end of a console life cycle before the super games start coming out one after the other? The developers have to get used to it and adapt to the system. As they practice with it...
Yes you can compare the Witcher to Bethesda games. However, you are wrong about something: There is no conclusive evidence as to which game is better. I like Bethesda games better than the Witcher, but Its not my place to say which is better. People have a habit of picking their favorite games and sayng they are objectively better than another, just because said game has something that appeals to them more. The Witcher has superior qualities to Bethesda games, but dont think for a second that...
Bethesda patches bugs. Most developers patch bugs. Alot of games that people praise constantly still have the same bugs pop up. People keep saying Bethesda doesnt care, and Im not sure where they are getting that from. Ask Naughty dog to make a Bethesda style rpg, and lets so how immaculate it comes out to be. Its going to have bugs
No where near as buggy because not as dense and interactive. Yes, the games we pay for should be beyond polished. But if we are going to criticize Bethesda, we should be sure that it is criticism, and not a crucifixion. Large scale games have this as a curse. The more systems working in tandem, the harder it is to catch.
It should be understood that Bethesdas games are somewhat unique. Horizon zero dawn is big, but players can interact with remarkably little. I was a bit disappointed by it, but the game is still good. Witcher 3 had bugs, no ones complaining though. But none of these games have as many systems working in tandem as Bethesdas rpgs. It is their blessing, and there curse.
Not just the scope, the density as well. All the systems in a Bethesda game that are all working in tandem. Their stuff is virtually singular. Only Obsidian has tackled making a game of their scale, and that game was buggy as sin . But wait, people always talk about how that game is the best fallout without any criticism. The Witcher also gets a pass on buggy glitchy nonsense.
That is because the reviewers likely factor in the Herculean task it is to make games as dense as theres. Its a miracle they get these games to hold together at all.
Cant hold all the developers to the same standards when there games are different. People here are comparing Bethesda to Naughty dog.... Naughty dog, the studio that makes linear story driven games. Which studios games are better is subjective; however, which studios games are larger in scale is not. People underestimate Bethesda.
If people really want there games to be so immaculate, tell them to make more scaled down linear games. Much easier to manage than being able to interact with almost every item in a big open world
No one gave the Witcher 3 any crap for there game being buggy. Big open world with alot of different systems equals bugs. Try to be understanding
Progress is not always a good thing. Look at EA.
While the game is most definitely Bethesdas version of a cash grab, I do not know if I could classify it as lazy per say. It is still decently ambitious, despite the fact that this game is clearly filler for Starfield and TES 6. Most midstep filler projects are either horrendous abominations like "Umbrella Corp", while others are just more of the same while playing slightly better or worse than their main series predecessors.