Skyrim Is 13 Years Old, But Elder Scrolls 6 Is Nowhere in Sight While Bethesda’s First Four Games Took Only 12 Years : games

[–] TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world 157 points 1 month ago (13 children)

They can take as long as they want. After Starfield, I have zero confidence that TES6 will be any good. Bethesda has some serious issues they need to sort out with their production pipelines and methodology and they need to rethink how they approach story-driven open world experiences.

Every time I see a Starfield video and see the camera turbozoom in on a character as they deliver a forced, robotic line with terrifying facial animations - I get teleported right back to 2006. It is very obvious this studio does not know what they are doing and has learned little from their previous releases and from other contemporary games.

[–] PunchingWood@lemmy.world 52 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I've said it before, and I believe that Bethesda is going to completely mess up TES6.

There are several issues with Bethesda, the major problem being they seem to have lost all creativity and they're trying to apply the same old formula to every single game with minimal changes. Then hope that modders will keep it on life support. And sadly that's how I found myself having to play their games, because without many mods it was often awful to play on PC, and I still didn't have fun thanks to repetitive content and forgettable story and characters.

Another is that they're clinging on to that damn dilapidated game engine of theirs like it's their precious baby. It's an awful engine, insanely outdated, limited and performs terribly. Starfield is a great example of how awful it is, but every game before that has had major performance issues and limitations as well.

The only redeeming feature might be that TES6 probably won't be a procedurally generated world. They really showed how repetitive and boring it can get with procedural generation. And a handcrafted world would have so much more character. They could perhaps use the procedural engine for dungeons, and enemies and their bases, or items found through the world, but not the world itself.

But I'm afraid it's just going to be a near Skyrim carbon-copy. It'll likely be an okay looking game with an okay looking game world, but I bet gameplay will be mostly unaltered from what they've been doing for over 20 years. Same old basic combat, same talking heads with lifeless animations, same sneaking and magic gameplay, etc.

[–] ProfessorProteus@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

Agreed. They need to retire that dogshit engine and write a new one. I know that's a huge and expensive undertaking, which is why they probably won't. TES6 will sell like hotcakes on its name alone.

I had been looking forward to TES6 for so damn long, but at this point the most exciting thing we can look forward to is the crazy glitches that speedrunners will discover. That is, if they're not just the same glitches we've alll seen time and again.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Well before Starfield came out they said they couldn't make TES6 yet because the technology didn't exist. Starfield's development, I assume, was partially about building this technology. That makes me assume it's the procedural generation or the ships. If the former, I doubt it's the main game world or TES6 is fucked. I would suspect maybe something like plains of oblivion that are proc-gen or something.

To me, one of the biggest things that make Starfield feel so bad is the planets are so boring, specifically because there's too much to do (and it's all meaningless). Every location is surrounded by the exact same amount of points of interest. There's no barren areas and more habituated areas. It's all this bland uniform container of "content" with nothing making any of it stand out. Proc-gen only works when it can be used to make a lot of boring empty space with a few interesting unique things to find. I don't think they've figured that out yet.

[–] BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I found it extremely funny that todd said that planets are empty and boring, because irl, planets would be boring and and empty wastelands. Why do you make a boring game then todd? Are you stupid? Is that your dream game? Imagine you can make any videogame that you want and you go: i want it to be set in the middle desert.

Oh so there are gonna be pyramids, bandits and other points of interest?

No the desert is pretty empty and boring.

Oh, sounds pretty good.

I do not understand why Bethesda fans even deal with that shit. They must laugh their asses off every time someone doesn't refund starfield.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 month ago

Honestly, I mostly agree they should be mostly empty and boring. They aren't though. They're absolutely full (of really boring stuff). There are no empty spaces. If there were then finding something would feel special. However, anywhere you land it shows you at least like ten points of interest nearby. I don't think there's anywhere on any planet that isn't inhabited despite supposedly no one colonizing most of the planets. Every location is generic, so none of its unique and you never find anything special.

Excitement and fun is built on the juxtaposition of the opposite. If everything is equally interesting, nothing is interesting. For example, in some space games finding life on other planets is exciting, because it's rare. In other games there's life on nearly every planet and it's boring because it's not different than anywhere else. To use loot drops as an example, if every drop was a legendary, legendary drop would be boring. You need most drops to be bland common items so the legendary drop stands out.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It is very obvious this studio does not know what they are doing and has learned little from their previous releases and from other contemporary games.

I think they've learned that they don't have to care about that to be successful. We have to keep reminding ourselves that success by these studios does not have to be defined by 'making a good game'. Starfield was a great success financially and there's no reason they should change gears from that perspective.

Starfield has made around $700 million.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think they really don't believe in storytelling in the way traditional game writers do. They think enough simulation can replace good writing.

Personally I'm certain they are wrong, and it's tragic that they own the Elder Scrolls IP.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 13 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Simulation? What? That's the one aspect that has been gotten worse with every Bethesda title. Their storytelling was always garbage. I never finished the main quest in Skyrim even, and the one in Oblivion was trash, the one in Morrowind barely existing. This was never the strong suit of their games.

[–] sheogorath@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Hot take, Michael Kirkbride carried TES lore. Even the interesting parts of Skyrim is based from his writing.

[–] TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Agreed. TES just hasn't had good world design and lore since Morrowind. If I remember correctly, he also wrote much of the books in the TES universe which are still used in Skyrim.

ESO might be an exception. I don't think it has the best writing but it does have much more interesting lore and world design than Oblivion and Skyrim.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] Venicon@lemmy.world 48 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Skyrim will always hold a special place in my heart, it’s almost like a simpler time.

Starfield damaged Bethesda for me though. To spend 25 years on it in total and for it to be as it released was very disappointing. I mean basics like no city maps or land vehicles? Every base you come across having the same bodies in the same place with the same loot? I want to love it, they can do things I can’t even imagine (I can’t program Jack shit) but for that to be the end point of their decades of labour just doesn’t add up for me.

[–] HowManyNimons@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Yeah, my current plan is to pass on TES6.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] DontMakeMoreBabies@lemm.ee 43 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Starfield was boring as hell and now they're too scared to try ES6 (because it'll be garbage).

I would love to be wrong...

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 43 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They're not too scared to make Elder Scrolls VI. It's their next project. It's just not coming until probably 2028 at the rate they've been working lately, and it'll feel 15 years out of date this time instead of only 10.

[–] CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children)

What’s really crazy is to compare Bethesda with CDPR. I’ve been replaying the Witcher 3 and it just struck me how I won’t have to wait 15+ years for the next entry. And to look at how much more efficient they’ve been in the past.

For a timeline, Witcher 2 released in May 2011 and then the Witcher 3 released in May 2015. Took 3.5 years to develop. Cyberpunk released December 2020, only 4.5 years after W3 had its last major DLC. Then in 2023 they released a very large update for Cyberpunk, about 2/3rds the runtime of the main game. And then in 2025 we’ll probably get the next Witcher game. They have like 3 games in active development now.

So what’s the difference with Bethesda? Well Skyrim sold 30 million units and Witcher 2 sold about 8 million. Less than a third the income. Yet if you compare CDPRs staff to Bethesdas at time of their next games, CDPR had doubled Bethesda's work force. And guess what happened? Witcher 3 sold 40 million while fallout 4 sold 25 million. Thats despite Witcher 3 costing an estimated $81 million while Fallout 4 sits closer to 1.5x that at $125 million.

Then you talk about engines and it gets even worse. CDPR arguably started with a worse engine and I shouldn’t need to explain how much they’ve destroyed BS in that regard as well. Witcher 2 looks worse than Skyrim by a lot imo. But by the time their next game rolled around, it was an industry leader in graphics. And cyberpunk 2077 is like the next Crysis now while starfield is.. oh boy. And guess what? After all that work on their engine, they abandoned it. Why? Because their resources are better spent making games and systems in an engine someone else updates for them. Bethesda meanwhile not only can’t juggle the ball of updating an engine and game dev, but they’re not even smart enough to swap engines.

Bethesda has all the signs of a dying studio and Microsoft is the sucker for buying them. And it’s a waste of talent more than anything. Talented people exist at Bethesda whose resources and career development would be far better off being applied on UE4.

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] dinckelman@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

This is, more than likely, exactly what will end up happening.

They know Creation Engine is not fit for the task. They know the writing is stale and uninspired. They know that it'll more than likely be aimed towards mainstream success, rather than being a good rpg, making it even more simplified.

I really hope i'm wrong, but I'm not holding my breath for TES6 anymore

[–] hal_5700X@sh.itjust.works 40 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (9 children)

I never got the big deal with Skyrim. I'm not saying it's bad, but I don't get why people went all crazy for it. Bethesda over streamlined the Elder Scrolls series with Skyrim for the mainstream audience. By removing and/or simplifying game systems.

EDIT You can be the leader of all the guilds with a single character. Just why?

[–] rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee 24 points 1 month ago

By removing and simplifying systems they made the game more easier for random people who've never played a game or haven't played since the NES. My english teacher that year was hijacking her son's playstation just to play skyrim.

[–] altima_neo@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Even Oblivion felt too streamlined. Morrowind was too good.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I got super prepared for Oblivion to be as complex and difficult as Morrowind and was severely disappointed by it even at launch. Skyrim was slightly better than Oblivion in terms of mechanical complexity (dual wielding, how magic works, the forts, etc), but also even more streamlined in others (like how skills and leveling work).

I've played the absolute shit out of all 3 (as well as FO3, NV and 4) though. There is just some inexplicable draw to them. And it's that very thing that Starfield lacks that had me rush the MQ and just stop playing once it was over.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Rider@eviltoast.org 6 points 1 month ago

The vanilla Skyrim is good not great, but solid. It’s the mods that make this game truly exceptional. With mods, you can shape Skyrim into whatever you want, and that’s why, I think, so many people love it.

[–] TheSambassador@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Most Bethesda RPGs are going for bredth instead of depth. They give you a giant world to explore and usually throw you into that world with complete freedom relatively quickly.

I generally agree that Skyrim (and Oblivion to be honest) aren't particularly strong games when you look at pretty much any individual system, and the games don't interest me much, but I totally get the appeal.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] Jumi@lemmy.world 34 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I sometimes download Skyrim again, mod it for hours and as soon as I start a new game I realise I don't even wanna play it.

[–] asmoranomar@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You might be interested to know that there are several hardcore modding scenes, where the point is to mod the game for fun. The mod guides are updated every month or so and includes thousands of mods. It takes days to install, and actually playing is optional. In most cases, a new save is required every update, so modders keep an additional playable state if they actually want to play the game.

Lexy's LOTD is my fav one, it's only over a thousand mods, has very detailed instructions, and a very friendly community.

[–] Jumi@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

I just keeping modding games I actually wanna play like Rimworld or CP2077 but there's really a scene for everyone and everything.

[–] 1SimpleTailor@startrek.website 24 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Reposting my comment from another thread because I'm interested in spurring discussion.

Imo Bethesda is, in many ways, a victim of its own success. Morrowind and Oblivion were both solid entries that did well critically and financially, but no one was prepared for the massive impact of Skyrim. Its success transformed open-world fantasy games into a staple of AAA gaming, and the game has stayed relevant for over a decade.

However, even when it was first released, Skyrim fell short in several areas that were often overlooked due to the sheer “wow” factor of its open world. The game is plagued by bugs, many of which are game-breaking and persist even in recent re-releases. The AI is brain-dead, melee combat is clunky, and the quest design and writing often lack depth.

In the years since, the landscape of gaming has evolved. Numerous fantasy and open-world games have improved upon things that Skyrim did well, and raised the bar for what players expect from many areas where Skyrim fell short. Players today have a wealth of games to choose from and are less forgiving of these types of flaws. Starfield’s lukewarm reception reflects Bethesda’s seeming unwillingness—or inability—to update its design philosophy for a modern audience.

The expectations for The Elder Scrolls VI have become impossible for Bethesda to meet. These expectations are sky-high not only among fans but also from Bethesda’s new parent company, Microsoft. TES6 will almost certainly be a financial success, but Microsoft didn’t acquire Bethesda for just “decent” results like Starfield; they acquired the creators of Skyrim to make blockbuster hits that dominate the charts and win critical acclaim.

In the end, Bethesda knows they will never recapture the lightning-in-a-bottle success of Skyrim. So they’ll keep sitting on the IP, until Microsoft forces them to release something mediocre, and their studio joins many of the other classic RPG developers in obscurity

[–] superkret@feddit.org 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

To be fair, Skyrim still holds up today.

[–] PunchingWood@lemmy.world 36 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Yeah, but not thanks to Bethesda though.

[–] Rider@eviltoast.org 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)

True, but Bethesda not only embraced modders with open arms—they encouraged them! You can’t say the same for most other game devs; the majority either ignore modders like they're pests or, worse, are outright hostile towards them.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

unless you already played it and want something new.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

wasted too much time on starfield, FO76, and mobile games. that's all they have released since 2018. and if you don't count VR editions or special editions then you're back to 2016 with FO4.

8 years of junk. They could have made TWO elder scrolls in that time.

[–] Hafler@lemm.ee 10 points 1 month ago

We will get Skyrim re-releases 15 more times before we get an ES6 release.

[–] nek0d3r@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Join the dark side -- stop taking your pills and enjoy Elder Scrolls 6 and Titanfall 3 with the rest of us

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 month ago

Tbh I kinda hope Bethesda doesn't make a new Fallout game, I predict if they do make a new one it'll make Fallout 76 look like New Vegas in comparison.

[–] boaratio@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Hot take: I'm fine with Bethesda taking their time to release a game if that means it'll be higher quality. There are thousands of games released a week. Hi play something else in the meantime.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 17 points 1 month ago

if that means it’ll be higher quality.

Hahahaha! That's a good one.

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Maybe Todd Howard the Duck will tell us what's going on

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 5 points 1 month ago

Everything is just working

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's almost like they suck at making games now.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

There was a whole era of gaming from the late 90s to like 2010 where like a couple developers made something special, left, and then the company coasted on the code for a decade.

For me it was the Company of Heroes series.

Games

Weekly Threads:

Rules: