Microsoft has bought Bethesda

[Thebestoftherest]

Yeah they need a new engine, hopefully Microsoft can out the pressure On Todd to do his freaking job.

[Riedquat]

Okay then, I'll make the post. Bethesda is so sub-functional that they bank on modders fixing their innumerable bugs. What kind of Open World coding is so demanding that you have to have trains work by temporarily turning the character's head into a train and making them run very fast?

I don't see how that contradicts anything I've said. I've already said the engine is well past it, but it doesn't change the point that they're (often) decent games without it even without mods, even though mods can undeniably improve them, and that they are more complex from a programming point of view than most.

There seems to be a bit of Bethesda stereotyping going on here really. Fallout New Vegas shows this quite strongly IMO. It's often lauded as being better than the Bethesda offerings (and not without justification) but IME it's even more crash-prone.

[Rocketboy1313]

There seems to be a bit of Bethesda stereotyping going on here really. Fallout New Vegas shows this quite strongly IMO. It's often lauded as being better than the Bethesda offerings (and not without justification) but IME it's even more crash-prone.

"New Vegas" is buggy as motel mattress. I would argue that is because it is using Bethesda's sloppy seconds.

The reason "New Vegas" is lauded is that in spite of it being buggy its story BLOWS 3 and 4 OUT OF THE WATER. Cripes, the story in 4 is so laughably bad and poorly thought out... Madness.

[Riedquat]

There seems to be a bit of Bethesda stereotyping going on here really. Fallout New Vegas shows this quite strongly IMO. It's often lauded as being better than the Bethesda offerings (and not without justification) but IME it's even more crash-prone.

"New Vegas" is buggy as motel mattress. I would argue that is because it is using Bethesda's sloppy seconds.

The reason "New Vegas" is lauded is that in spite of it being buggy its story BLOWS 3 and 4 OUT OF THE WATER. Cripes, the story in 4 is so laughably bad and poorly thought out... Madness.

Whilst I mostly agree with that (I don't think the story in 4 is that terrible, and Far Harbour was pretty good, especially if you take Nick with you) it does reinforce my point about people going on about the bugs too much, that they suddenly don't become as much of an issue when they're happier with other things.

That New Vegas is buggier than the others with the same engine though helps illustrate that it's not easy making a bug-free game with it, in an engine that has more flexibility than most (there's a hell of a lot more interactivity with objects in it for example) (which will mean more bugs than most).

I'm not 100% defending it, not by any means - it should've been replaced ages ago, but the criticism is frequently over the top.

[Thebestoftherest]

There seems to be a bit of Bethesda stereotyping going on here really. Fallout New Vegas shows this quite strongly IMO. It's often lauded as being better than the Bethesda offerings (and not without justification) but IME it's even more crash-prone.

"New Vegas" is buggy as motel mattress. I would argue that is because it is using Bethesda's sloppy seconds.

The reason "New Vegas" is lauded is that in spite of it being buggy its story BLOWS 3 and 4 OUT OF THE WATER. Cripes, the story in 4 is so laughably bad and poorly thought out... Madness.

Whilst I mostly agree with that (I don't think the story in 4 is that terrible, and Far Harbour was pretty good, especially if you take Nick with you) it does reinforce my point about people going on about the bugs too much, that they suddenly don't become as much of an issue when they're happier with other things.

That New Vegas is buggier than the others with the same engine though helps illustrate that it's not easy making a bug-free game with it, in an engine that has more flexibility than most (there's a hell of a lot more interactivity with objects in it for example) (which will mean more bugs than most).

I'm not 100% defending it, not by any means - it should've been replaced ages ago, but the criticism is frequently over the top.

If you keep showing symptoms don't be mad when people tell you to take your medicine.

[Rocketboy1313]

Whilst I mostly agree with that (I don't think the story in 4 is that terrible, and Far Harbour was pretty good, especially if you take Nick with you) it does reinforce my point about people going on about the bugs too much, that they suddenly don't become as much of an issue when they're happier with other things.

Far Harbour is so much better at realizing the "Bladerunner" riff they were attempting with the core game that it pretty perfectly illustrates why 4's story didn't work.

I could get into little things too, the Institute's plan not making any sense, their management structure not making any sense, the Railroad not making any sense, the Brotherhood of Steel's leadership not making any sense, the character of Kellog (which JESUS, that part where we spend 15 minutes walking thru his boring ass backstory), instantly becoming the supreme leader of the Minute Men, the general lack of choice at anything...

It is a bad roleplaying game, but it is a good action game with roleplaying elements.

But then I am the guy who was like, "If I wanted to play a base/farming simulator I would be playing one of those, these mechanics' inclusion is a distraction and had the time spent on this junk been spent on the story I would like the game more."

[Thebestoftherest]

Whilst I mostly agree with that (I don't think the story in 4 is that terrible, and Far Harbour was pretty good, especially if you take Nick with you) it does reinforce my point about people going on about the bugs too much, that they suddenly don't become as much of an issue when they're happier with other things.

Far Harbour is so much better at realizing the "Bladerunner" riff they were attempting with the core game that it pretty perfectly illustrates why 4's story didn't work.

I could get into little things too, the Institute's plan not making any sense, their management structure not making any sense, the Railroad not making any sense, the Brotherhood of Steel's leadership not making any sense, the character of Kellog (which JESUS, that part where we spend 15 minutes walking thru his boring ass backstory), instantly becoming the supreme leader of the Minute Men, the general lack of choice at anything...

It is a bad roleplaying game, but it is a good action game with roleplaying elements.

But then I am the guy who was like, "If I wanted to play a base/farming simulator I would be playing one of those, these mechanics' inclusion is a distraction and had the time spent on this junk been spent on the story I would like the game more."

That is fair, I think they should not have had tje minute men be so weak that they would die without you. I think the Railroad should have been a sub group of the Minute men and the gunners should have been a fraction in their steed.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

There seems to be a bit of Bethesda stereotyping going on here really. Fallout New Vegas shows this quite strongly IMO. It's often lauded as being better than the Bethesda offerings (and not without justification) but IME it's even more crash-prone.

"New Vegas" is buggy as motel mattress. I would argue that is because it is using Bethesda's sloppy seconds.

The reason "New Vegas" is lauded is that in spite of it being buggy its story BLOWS 3 and 4 OUT OF THE WATER. Cripes, the story in 4 is so laughably bad and poorly thought out... Madness.

Whilst I mostly agree with that (I don't think the story in 4 is that terrible, and Far Harbour was pretty good, especially if you take Nick with you) it does reinforce my point about people going on about the bugs too much, that they suddenly don't become as much of an issue when they're happier with other things.

That New Vegas is buggier than the others with the same engine though helps illustrate that it's not easy making a bug-free game with it, in an engine that has more flexibility than most (there's a hell of a lot more interactivity with objects in it for example) (which will mean more bugs than most).

I'm not 100% defending it, not by any means - it should've been replaced ages ago, but the criticism is frequently over the top.

So you're saying bugs don't count.

If Todd Howard isn't hiring you for a marketing position, he should.

[Riedquat]

If you keep showing symptoms don't be mad when people tell you to take your medicine.

Is that supposed to be a third-rate attempt at being rude rather than have a discussion? How childish.

[Riedquat]

So you're saying bugs don't count.

If Todd Howard isn't hiring you for a marketing position, he should.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. What is it with some people and their complete and utter inability to have a discussion? "So you're saying" is an inevitable sign of someone who insists on what someone's opinion is and just tries to twist what they've said to fit it. Try harder. I'm also getting distinct vibes of "You must be fully licking someone's arse if you don't agree with exaggerating every criticism well past its significance."