I understand your position as well, I think we just need to have more moderate discussions and less going to extremes.
I didn't address the writing and dialogue of the games because those are absolutely getting the short end of the stick in terms of what Bethesda is spending their resources on, but I found the systems that they put work into in Fallout 4 worthy enough of that time spent instead, and I think that says more about my preferences of what I like in a game than it really does about if Bethesda games are "better" or not this way.
I tend to prefer moment to moment gameplay and I found Fallout 4's complex interlocking loop of wanting to build a settlement and modify my equipment, leading to tracking down certain materials and identifying where they may be logically found, to going there on foot, to looting the place systematically and engaging the enemies with the weapons and armor I modified and have personal attachment to, to managing my inventory with an investment and thought that never mattered as much in previous Bethesda titles, etc.
That whole loop and set of mechanics that play into each other added an incredible wealth of what I consider more moment to moment gameplay depth than just enjoying the wider possibilities of dialogue options in past Bethesda titles.
Even at its best good old days Bethesda writing doesn't really compare to other games much more focused on writing (not going to mention New Vegas here because Obsidian is one of those devs better at writing than Bethesda). Bethesda games are always more than the sum of their parts.
My point about Pac Man is more that you don't dislike the game's lack of depth in certain areas just for its own sake, but because you're comparing it to the studio's past. When Pac Man Championship Edition and DX released, those
had favorable receptions because they took the arcadey roots of the franchise to their logical conclusion instead of swapping to more accessible gameplay trends as Bethesda did.
Not an invalid criticism, but not the only thing people should be mentioning in some of these comments as if that's what makes the game "bad".
And if you really think Starfield is going to be Fallout 4 with just a new coat of paint... That's just disingenuous. There's already more than enough changes in new mechanics and systems that didn't exist in FO4 aside from the entire new universe and premise that's more than simply a coat of paint.
I do hear what you're saying though and I appreciate acknowledging some of the parts people skip over thinking about just to hit the low hanging fruit that have been brought up in every thread about a Bethesda game since time immemorial, adding nothing new to the discussion.
Man, I haven't played Frontier Defense in ages. I really liked that mode but I felt like it needed some more gameplay time on foot before everyone gets their mechs. It felt like 10-90 split of on foot to mech time.
Since Reddit went, I actually have returned to books for my reading material, which had been replaced basically by massive ask reddit threads. As a result I'm trying to read some things I shouldve a long time ago.
Just finished the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and I'm on to the second book in the series. It was as good as its legacy lead me to believe!
It's a different game. I go back and enjoy FNV still and FO4 as well because it scratches a different itch. The looting, crafting, settlement construction, etc. are executed much much better than FNV or 3, or otherwise are entirely new mechanics. It's a whole different thing, it's the studio pedigree and franchise the games belong to that allow these criticisms to continue on even when you're comparing games that are radically different beneath the surface.
The studio has changed. Just because Fallout 4 wasn't a "true RPG" doesn't mean I didn't have nigh on 400 hours of novel joy with it, maybe even because it wasn't just another core Bethesda RPG but because it was something new, a new kind of looting and crafting experience in that same large, dynamic open world that Bethesda could bring through. Morrowind was over 20 years ago. Bethesda isn't the one making those kinds of games anymore.
Have the games gotten shallower as RPGs? Sure. Fucking pac man is shallow at this point, does that mean everyone should hate on it en masse? If you don't like the direction Bethesda is going that's completely understandable, but it just seems absurd that people come out of the woodwork in these threads to just poop on a game that isn't even out yet. Save that for when it releases and it does or doesn't meet your expectations, as of now it just sounds like everybody is trying to get as entrenched as possible in their prejudice.
Bethesda games are buggy, what an old meme. It's more of a meme than a true criticism now because most games have bugs, especially ones as large as Bethesda games, and even on launch I've played other Bethesda games and enjoyed myself just fine. It's good to be cautiously skeptical and not pre order, you should be skeptical, but swinging all the way past that to being hard-line negative is not the right answer either.
And I know you personally are not reflecting all of these views, your comment just comes off as supportive of both genuine and over the top memetic criticisms due to replying in a seemingly justifying manner to someone confused about the buggy game comments. When it comes to those sorts of comments I'm talking generally about what I've seen from people on this platform.
I'm not saying Starfield will be an old Bethesda return to form or bug free on release, I'm just saying be cautious, not completely pedal to the metal negative, and accept that Bethesda as it was is dead.
I still go back and listen through the original Arrow Pointing Down/Giant Bombcast up until Ryan's passing. The age of the content makes it downright historically interesting now for their commentary on game releases.
The chemistry of those guys (Vinny and Brad included) is still untouchable, no one can rein Jeff in and play off him as well as Ryan did, and Ryan is by far my favorite person to ever grace that website and podcast, and rightfully so as it was his child with Jeff. Rest in peace.
I'm not them, but I'd assume if it's a common enough name people probably fill it in on unsavory sites that they don't want to register to with a legitimate email.
Oh definitely, if OP likes visual novels at all then there are tons of those to play, particular you'd have to pick ones with untimed gameplay or only choices like Steins;Gate, Phoenix Wright, or Raging Loop
Having played the shit out of Assassin's Creed Odyssey I can say that the game has tons of equipment skin variety without MTX, the game is balanced to not need them, even from a visual variety standpoint, there are tons and tons of equipment skins to collect and permanently unlock in that game
I'll agree with that. Guild Wars 2 still has a slight amount of "pay for convenience" stuff that makes me twinge considering how much I've already paid for the games and expansions, and I really wish you could unlock mount skins in more ways than just gems, but considering you can farm gold and swap it for gems it's acceptable enough.
Especially because I wouldn't even play an MMO with a sub fee, so for that alone I respect GW2's approach.
I mean, that's sort of how it's acceptable at all, right? It's almost entirely about the fact that it's like accepted to lust after them or hit on them and the rest that would actually get them busted is not explicitly shown, but there's enough there for you to understand that it's gross.
And I love Japanese games, but even still, currently I'm playing Apollo Justice Ace Attorney, and there are scenes where characters comment on the beauty and attractiveness of Trucy (with no reprimanding from any other character), a 15 year old girl explicitly mentioned to not even be in high school yet.
That's not explicit, her character design isn't sexy, but the behavior of much older men lusting after a pre-high schooler is totally normalized. I think that's more of what you'll see commonly.
It's just an unfortunate aspect of the word clickbait. A hook baits you to click, definitively, and so the true meaning of clickbait will be diluted and used as a shorthand for a range of types of titles. You're right, though, clickbait has a seriously negative connotation, and I was kind of a dick in my comment for going straight to that instead of saying hook.
Sort of using it as a catch all umbrella for "wording a title in such a way to try and get people scrolling by to rubberneck" and go "oh, unfair? That sounds controversial".
It's an absolutely good move to word it in such a way that piques curiosity, and yes I'm sure there's a line in there somewhere between being clickbaity with no real substance, and using intriguing wording in a title, I'm just so critical of wording things that way that I'd make an abysmal journalist.
And this article absolutely has a lot of substance, I wouldn't say the whole thing is clickbait by any means, just that the word is used in a similar fashion in the title, sort of a hook that relies on an emotional knee jerk of wanting to see how unfair it really is or not.
It is basically a visual novel where you're able to walk around the world and interact with things. The only gameplay is making choices, but there are an incredible amount of choices to make.
I think English is OP's second language. Googling "smart car squirrel joke" gives me a meme that says "South Minneapolis couple hits squirrel with Smart Car. Squirrel reportedly walks away with minor injuries."
If I had to pick a favorite FPS... It'd have to be the combination of the Bungie developed Halo games. The story may not always knock it out of the park, but even upon Halo CE's release the art design, world building, and slower paced mechanical leaning was unique and unparalleled in its execution.
I'll always be able to go back and play those games. The mix of ballistic and sci Fi weaponry kept things interesting and options varied. The high time to kill for both the player and enemies made experimentation easier and more rewarding. The enemy AI that never seemed to settle on trying the same strategy twice was the cherry on top that made discussing Halo's "combat sandbox" a household topic in the mouths of video game enthusiasts.
Of all the games that claim a difficulty level that the game was designed for, Halo's Heroic mode will always truly feel like what Halo was meant for. Challenging, but loose enough that you could mix up your loadout and approach, and make up the imperfections of your plan on the backend through execution. Absolutely an experience where I can say it is fun to lose, because there's always another cleverly intriguing idea for you to try and solve the combat puzzle with.
And a final shout-out to Bungie for creating some of the only games where it really feels like you're right at home with a controller in hand. Many shooters can feel pretty good with a controller, but only Halo's deliberate pace and seamless bullet magnetism make the walls melt away between the imprecision of joystick aiming and my mechanical intent.
And the online community these games bred is its own whole set of five paragraphs I won't type now. Hats off to Halo.
I understand your position as well, I think we just need to have more moderate discussions and less going to extremes.
I didn't address the writing and dialogue of the games because those are absolutely getting the short end of the stick in terms of what Bethesda is spending their resources on, but I found the systems that they put work into in Fallout 4 worthy enough of that time spent instead, and I think that says more about my preferences of what I like in a game than it really does about if Bethesda games are "better" or not this way.
I tend to prefer moment to moment gameplay and I found Fallout 4's complex interlocking loop of wanting to build a settlement and modify my equipment, leading to tracking down certain materials and identifying where they may be logically found, to going there on foot, to looting the place systematically and engaging the enemies with the weapons and armor I modified and have personal attachment to, to managing my inventory with an investment and thought that never mattered as much in previous Bethesda titles, etc.
That whole loop and set of mechanics that play into each other added an incredible wealth of what I consider more moment to moment gameplay depth than just enjoying the wider possibilities of dialogue options in past Bethesda titles.
Even at its best good old days Bethesda writing doesn't really compare to other games much more focused on writing (not going to mention New Vegas here because Obsidian is one of those devs better at writing than Bethesda). Bethesda games are always more than the sum of their parts.
My point about Pac Man is more that you don't dislike the game's lack of depth in certain areas just for its own sake, but because you're comparing it to the studio's past. When Pac Man Championship Edition and DX released, those
had favorable receptions because they took the arcadey roots of the franchise to their logical conclusion instead of swapping to more accessible gameplay trends as Bethesda did.
Not an invalid criticism, but not the only thing people should be mentioning in some of these comments as if that's what makes the game "bad".
And if you really think Starfield is going to be Fallout 4 with just a new coat of paint... That's just disingenuous. There's already more than enough changes in new mechanics and systems that didn't exist in FO4 aside from the entire new universe and premise that's more than simply a coat of paint.
I do hear what you're saying though and I appreciate acknowledging some of the parts people skip over thinking about just to hit the low hanging fruit that have been brought up in every thread about a Bethesda game since time immemorial, adding nothing new to the discussion.