Because - and this is the only real answer you’ll get - Starfield is “cool” and “normies” are looking forward to it. Therefore, the “real gamers” must hate it, ESPECIALLY before actually playing it.
Same shit you see in any niche community. Buncha nerds hating on anything too big or popular.
No, you can measure it in things like sales and review scores. Sure, they also put out games like Fallout 76 and Wolfenstein: Young Blood, but two decades is enough to capture Skyrim and Fallout 3.
I really didn’t like Skyrim, Fallout 3, Oblivion, Fallout 4, or 76. Still playing Morrowind and New Vegas though. I could go on about why for a looooooooong time but really don’t care to. Suffice to say there are plenty of people (obviously) that are not happy with those games.
But there are also tons of people who’ve been plenty pleased with those games, as you can see on the long tails of their sales and how many concurrent players they retain to this day. You’re the odd one out on those heavy hitters. Not so much on 76, and to a lesser extent, 4.
The context of this discussion is that the top post claimed that people only are shitting on starfield because “normies” like it so none of that is relevant. All I’m saying is that there are legitimate reasons to have low expectations. The people who like those games aren’t the same people complaining about Bethesda/Starfield, they are people like me who have been disillusioned with bethesda for years after a long series of disappointing releases. It is especially frustrating because we KNOW they can do better, because they have in the past. They just don’t. The amount of people who will end up loving Starfield has no bearing on my ability to enjoy the game.
With that said, I’d be plenty happy for this to end up being another Morrowind or New Vegas. Now I feel I’ve proved my point so I’m gonna go play some Morrowind. 😜
I just think you would have made your point better if you had said maybe one decade, because two decades catches some certified bangers in the public consciousness.
two decades is enough to capture Skyrim and Fallout 3.
So a decent but by no means amazing game and a complete turd? Not really helping your case here very much, IMO. The last truly great game Bethesda made was Morrowind, and I will die on this hill.
Successful and good are completely different and unrelated metrics. Fifty Shades of Grey was extremely successful, but no one in their right mind would ever call it good. Psychonauts was met with universal acclaim, and is widely considered to be one of the best games of all time, and yet it was a complete flop and needed more than a decade to get a sequel.
Bethesda games are extremely successful. They are not good games, and their success is not a good thing. Bethesda kicked off microtransactions in 2007 with Horse Armour. This decision completely fucked the wider industry. Not a fan.
So…that’s your personal taste. Fifty Shades of Grey wouldn’t have been successful if no one liked it, and we can quantify some form of quality via review scores. Some of Bethesda’s games have reviewed phenomenally well, especially in as large of a bucket as the past 20 years of their history. If I was the sole dictator of what was good, no one would be playing the latest Assassin’s Creed game or Hades, but plenty of people love those games; the majority would say they’re great, and we can measure that to some degree.
I’m sure that drives a good chunk of it, but it’s more likely that there are a lot of people that have had their fill of Bethesda games that all basically play the same, just in different settings, and those people tend to be in nerdier spots like this. Feels a little dorky to just blame it all on fun-hating nerds haha, what a coincidence that all the people that disagree with you are just mad losers!
Honestly mate? Not at all. I’m concerned about Starfield because of Bethesda’s track record since Fallout 4, and in particular, their constant attempts to introduce paid ‘mods’ to their games through the creation club (which are always overpriced for tiny amounts of content) as well as how broken their games have been at launch since Morrowind. When my PC, which can run Baldur’s Gate 3 on max settings, can’t run Oblivion without mods without regular crashes, then there’s a big problem.
I want Starfield to be good. But Bethesda do not make good games. They make broad games, but there’s no depth, and what is there is fairly consistently buggy. They have the Pokemon problem though, where people are willing to give them a pass because of the big name. I guarantee you, if a smaller developer released games in the state that Bethesda does, their games would be (rightfully) panned.
Because - and this is the only real answer you’ll get - Starfield is “cool” and “normies” are looking forward to it. Therefore, the “real gamers” must hate it, ESPECIALLY before actually playing it.
Same shit you see in any niche community. Buncha nerds hating on anything too big or popular.
Or just look at Bethesda’s track record the last two decades…
In the past two decades they delivered some of the most successful, beloved games of all time.
I don’t think this comment deserves the effort it would take me to properly respond to that.
No, you can measure it in things like sales and review scores. Sure, they also put out games like Fallout 76 and Wolfenstein: Young Blood, but two decades is enough to capture Skyrim and Fallout 3.
I really didn’t like Skyrim, Fallout 3, Oblivion, Fallout 4, or 76. Still playing Morrowind and New Vegas though. I could go on about why for a looooooooong time but really don’t care to. Suffice to say there are plenty of people (obviously) that are not happy with those games.
But there are also tons of people who’ve been plenty pleased with those games, as you can see on the long tails of their sales and how many concurrent players they retain to this day. You’re the odd one out on those heavy hitters. Not so much on 76, and to a lesser extent, 4.
The context of this discussion is that the top post claimed that people only are shitting on starfield because “normies” like it so none of that is relevant. All I’m saying is that there are legitimate reasons to have low expectations. The people who like those games aren’t the same people complaining about Bethesda/Starfield, they are people like me who have been disillusioned with bethesda for years after a long series of disappointing releases. It is especially frustrating because we KNOW they can do better, because they have in the past. They just don’t. The amount of people who will end up loving Starfield has no bearing on my ability to enjoy the game.
With that said, I’d be plenty happy for this to end up being another Morrowind or New Vegas. Now I feel I’ve proved my point so I’m gonna go play some Morrowind. 😜
I just think you would have made your point better if you had said maybe one decade, because two decades catches some certified bangers in the public consciousness.
So a decent but by no means amazing game and a complete turd? Not really helping your case here very much, IMO. The last truly great game Bethesda made was Morrowind, and I will die on this hill.
Successful and good are completely different and unrelated metrics. Fifty Shades of Grey was extremely successful, but no one in their right mind would ever call it good. Psychonauts was met with universal acclaim, and is widely considered to be one of the best games of all time, and yet it was a complete flop and needed more than a decade to get a sequel.
Bethesda games are extremely successful. They are not good games, and their success is not a good thing. Bethesda kicked off microtransactions in 2007 with Horse Armour. This decision completely fucked the wider industry. Not a fan.
So…that’s your personal taste. Fifty Shades of Grey wouldn’t have been successful if no one liked it, and we can quantify some form of quality via review scores. Some of Bethesda’s games have reviewed phenomenally well, especially in as large of a bucket as the past 20 years of their history. If I was the sole dictator of what was good, no one would be playing the latest Assassin’s Creed game or Hades, but plenty of people love those games; the majority would say they’re great, and we can measure that to some degree.
I’m sure that drives a good chunk of it, but it’s more likely that there are a lot of people that have had their fill of Bethesda games that all basically play the same, just in different settings, and those people tend to be in nerdier spots like this. Feels a little dorky to just blame it all on fun-hating nerds haha, what a coincidence that all the people that disagree with you are just mad losers!
Honestly mate? Not at all. I’m concerned about Starfield because of Bethesda’s track record since Fallout 4, and in particular, their constant attempts to introduce paid ‘mods’ to their games through the creation club (which are always overpriced for tiny amounts of content) as well as how broken their games have been at launch since Morrowind. When my PC, which can run Baldur’s Gate 3 on max settings, can’t run Oblivion without mods without regular crashes, then there’s a big problem.
I want Starfield to be good. But Bethesda do not make good games. They make broad games, but there’s no depth, and what is there is fairly consistently buggy. They have the Pokemon problem though, where people are willing to give them a pass because of the big name. I guarantee you, if a smaller developer released games in the state that Bethesda does, their games would be (rightfully) panned.