It’s just so bland and formulaic. Against deep RPGs like BG3, it just pales in comparison.
The funny thing is, I think the fact that the RPG mechanics are finally better than the last game developed by Bethesda, instead of worse, highlights just how mediocre Bethesda games are.
I still think once mods and DLCs come out in full force it will be remembered more positively.
Agreed. Twas the only thing I thought while playing. This would be better with mods. Which is a sad state because I spent real money on a mod sandbox without the mods.
Yep, I had below Fallout 4 expectations and actually ended up enjoying it more, as I highly value the RPG aspects. It's still a completely mediocre RPG, but it has a huge sandbox and a ton of potential.
The difference between a Ubisoft game and a Bethesda game is that Bethesda employees still enjoy coming to work.
Sure. I think big budget gaming needs to die, and games need more dev time for less work and higher pay, with worse graphical fidelity and better art styles.
If Bethesda games are so mediocre, why are they so popular among players who love to put hundreds of hours into them? I can't imagine them all playing total conversion mods.
It's become such a custom to poop on Bethesda for making "shallow", "uninteresting" games that still everybody talks about. As if there weren't enough real flaws in their games to give them heat for.
Because mediocrity and popularity go hand in hand, it's the profit motive at work. Being largely inoffensive and generally palatable is profitable.
That's not the definition of mediocrity. Trying to appeal to a bigger audience doesn't make a game mediocre in the same way not every niche game has the potential of being a masterpiece just by not being that much likeable.
Some games are popular and good.
What's good and what's popular do not necessarily align. Removing "complicated" features for the sake of mass appeal makes the game worse, but more profitable, much of the time.
Also not true. Complexity alone doesn't make a good game / movie / book / piece of art. And lack thereof doesn't make anything worse.
Why is it that when many people like a thing because that thing appeals to masses, it's automatically categorised as lower quality?
Nobody seriously claimed Starfield to be the game of all games. It's good. It's fine. It's not perfect. So what?
It’s just so bland and formulaic. Against deep RPGs like BG3, it just pales in comparison.
The funny thing is, I think the fact that the RPG mechanics are finally better than the last game developed by Bethesda, instead of worse, highlights just how mediocre Bethesda games are.
I still think once mods and DLCs come out in full force it will be remembered more positively.
Agreed. Twas the only thing I thought while playing. This would be better with mods. Which is a sad state because I spent real money on a mod sandbox without the mods.
Yep, I had below Fallout 4 expectations and actually ended up enjoying it more, as I highly value the RPG aspects. It's still a completely mediocre RPG, but it has a huge sandbox and a ton of potential.
The difference between a Ubisoft game and a Bethesda game is that Bethesda employees still enjoy coming to work.
Sure. I think big budget gaming needs to die, and games need more dev time for less work and higher pay, with worse graphical fidelity and better art styles.
If Bethesda games are so mediocre, why are they so popular among players who love to put hundreds of hours into them? I can't imagine them all playing total conversion mods.
It's become such a custom to poop on Bethesda for making "shallow", "uninteresting" games that still everybody talks about. As if there weren't enough real flaws in their games to give them heat for.
Because mediocrity and popularity go hand in hand, it's the profit motive at work. Being largely inoffensive and generally palatable is profitable.
That's not the definition of mediocrity. Trying to appeal to a bigger audience doesn't make a game mediocre in the same way not every niche game has the potential of being a masterpiece just by not being that much likeable.
Some games are popular and good.
What's good and what's popular do not necessarily align. Removing "complicated" features for the sake of mass appeal makes the game worse, but more profitable, much of the time.
Also not true. Complexity alone doesn't make a good game / movie / book / piece of art. And lack thereof doesn't make anything worse.
Why is it that when many people like a thing because that thing appeals to masses, it's automatically categorised as lower quality?
Nobody seriously claimed Starfield to be the game of all games. It's good. It's fine. It's not perfect. So what?