• CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I think of this a lot differently. Look at most open world game designs from back in those days. The PS3 open worlds were bland and repetitive. Even GTA was a lot more bland and homogenous back then.

    So Bethesda games fit right in on the PS2 and PS3 era of games. But when it came time for a refresh, Fallout 4 didn’t land the same on the PS4. Was it a bad game? No. But the cracks were showing in it. Bethesda needed big changes to its gameplay and engine and they didn’t bring those in FO4. I expected they would in Starfield. But they didn’t, they changed too slowly and made a PS3 era game two generations later.

    The rose tinted glasses thing, if you remember what Skyrim was back in its day then it was a really good game at the time. It’s aged okay for what it was. But if you released Skyrim 2 today, I doubt people would like it. That’s what happened here. Games are a product of their time and this one is out of its time.

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      The rose tinted glasses thing, if you remember what Skyrim was back in its day then it was a really good game at the time.

      Skyrim back in the day was a buggy pile of shit. Theres a reason half the mods you had to install were bugfixes.

      but even as a buggy piece of shit, you could at least explore a rich and interesting sandbox.

      Its decently less buggy today, but its still a rich and interesting sandbox. and more so, it has a strong foundation for mods to be built on.

      Starfield doesnt have a rich and interesting sandbox, and the very foundations of the game are shit.