this post was submitted on 01 May 2024
297 points (97.4% liked)

Games

16961 readers
671 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 110 points 8 months ago (6 children)

..."it is obviously difficult to deal with when you're going back to an area where a game had multiple endings."

No, Howard. What you are finding difficult is to have any particular vision for a game beyond its literal systems and gameplay loops. You resent New Vegas because people care about it, and nobody cares about 76.

If you have a story you want to tell, you make choices that serve that vision; the problem is Todd doesn't have one. He bought a franchise built on evocative storytelling and biting commentary and decided its best use is for players to bash virtual action figures together.

[–] cyr0catdrag0nz@sh.itjust.works 42 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

For real though. Todd Howard needs to like, take some shrooms and meditate in the mountains. Touch grass. Given the headass shit he's said lately it's transparently clear he's one of the biggest things standing in the way of another decent Bethesda game- I think the days of those might be done for good, I hate to say.

[–] SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml 53 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Todd Howard needs to like, take some shrooms and meditate in the mountains.

Lots of the worst people in tech did this, and they just got worse....

[–] cyr0catdrag0nz@sh.itjust.works 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Ehh but did they really though? Or did they microdose shrooms in chocolate bars and attend some bougie retreat at a ski resort? I'd say the latter is the real problem. Nobody has respect for anything anymore.

[–] SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml 14 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Fair dues. I mean Steve Jobs went full bore, and he was a fuckin scumbag.

[–] ArtVandelay@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The behind the bastards four part series on him was a huge eye opener into how incredibly terrible of a human being he was

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 18 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Todd Howard, Pete Hines, and the other guy I can't think of his name right now, are the holy Trinity at Bethsoft. They figured out how to take the success of Morrowind and milk the shit out of it while "streamlining" every game.

The original ES creators said years ago the direction of the series is not what they would have done. And you can see how these three did the same thing to Fallout that they did with Elder Scrolls. Their "best" contributions have been creating DLCs and charging for mods. They've made bank for Zenamax. And that's all they care about.

They're creativitly bankrupt. I feel bad for the devs that grew up on the og elder scrolls games and became devs with the company.

[–] dsemy@lemm.ee 8 points 8 months ago (8 children)

Todd Howard was the project leader for Morrowind and its expansions

[–] kurcatovium@lemm.ee 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This is so sad fate. Morrowind was absolute gem of that era, nothing compared to it at the time. It has wonderful world it takes place in which is believable and filled with interesting characters, supported by truly brilliant soundtrack. And while story is quite decent there's about gazillion other things to do, explore, see.

It's sad that every upcoming bethesda game was more and more simplified and lost a bit of the morrowind magic.

[–] dsemy@lemm.ee 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I don't think their games are necessarily becoming more simplified, it's more that they seem to focus on areas of the games which would help make them more "mainstream" (for example, Fallout 4 made crafting and upgrading more complex compared to 3 and NV, but this is similar to other AAA games), while focusing less (and thus simplifying) other areas.

This is not necessarily a bad thing, I personally think Fallout 4 improved over 3, and Skyrim over Oblivion (though NV and Morrowind are still better). But this also leads to disasters like Fallout 76.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

That's fine, it's hardly as if we'll ever run out of good games to play. Hell, I haven't even gotten to AC6 yet and I've been looking forward to that for ages

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] scholar@lemmy.world 31 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I think he was refering to the show being set after new vegas and having to continue on from a game which had different possible endings

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago

I know, and I'll allow that I'm not being very tidy in my rhetoric but the point stands that if you're writing a FO:NV show, you could easily pick the game ending that suits whichever story you're trying to tell with the show.

I was trying to connect that dot (my response to his quote) to my other grievances with how the Bethesda house style deemphasizes textual storytelling in favour of commercially safe gameplay loops and more environmental storytelling that, even when well done, isn't very meaningful on its own.

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 10 points 8 months ago

I feel like the fallout fans who geek out over continuity can be safely disregarded. The entire franchise is built on the joy of jank, from to to bottom

[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago (7 children)

I honestly don't get the hate. To me, fallout 3 was on another level. It was oblivion with guns in a post apocalyptic wasteland and I loved every minute of it. I had never heard of fallout before bathesda bought it. I think the first 2 games plus tactics only sold like a million copies combined. Fallout 3 sold like 10 million.

I'm just saying, had it not been for bathesda, fallout would be dead and forgotten. I mean I sure as heck would have never heard about it. So I'm glad they made fallout 3, and it was a landmark game in my life.

[–] Veraxus@lemmy.world 25 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Fallout was created by Tim Cain at Interplay. Herve Caen staged a hostile takeover of the company, forced out Cain and Brian Fargo, and proceeded to run the company into the ground and loot its corpse. Tim Cain was in the process of buying back IP from Interplay when Todd Howard swooped in and bought it for more than Cain could afford. Basically, Tim Cain had his baby - his magnum opus - stolen from him TWICE.

If not for Bethesda, we would have had multiple BG3 level sequels by now, instead of the looter-shooter garbage that Bethesda turned it into.

[–] massive_bereavement@kbin.social 18 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

But then, we wouldn't have VtM: Bloodlines, Pillars of Eternity or The Outer Worlds.

Tim Cain has been hitting it out of the park since the first Fallout.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

I can't see a way to frankly assess the quality of a game on its commercial success, but let's at least not pretend the franchise's popularity is based on its later installments - that puts the cart before the horse imo.

Interplay going bankrupt is the reason Bethesda owns this IP. FO3 wasn't a bad game, but it started development before their involvement. Everything Bethesda made on its own has been increasingly in their own simulationist, environmental style, which can be fun but isn't a good fit for the highly novelistic style that made it popular to begin with.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] kurcatovium@lemm.ee 9 points 8 months ago (2 children)

You have to take a look on the size of the "gaming market" at release dates of those games. At mid 90s gaming was barely a thing, since PCs were still unbelievably expensive. Ten years later it was very different. Plus consoles on top of it...

load more comments (2 replies)

To try to answer, succinctly (which I'm bad at): looking backward is easier than looking forward. What I mean by that is since you didn't get into the series until 3, it makes sense that you wouldn't have a problem with 3 and 4, since it's harder to see what the series could have been...as pretentious as that sounds.

Where much of the hate comes from (and I think a lot of it is overblown - I'm not trying to justify the behavior of the maniacs out there) is that the overarching progression of the series feels reset. Fallout 1 -> Fallout 2 showed a progression in a *post-*post-apocalyptic world, with society advancing again, to some degree. Shady Sands grew between 1 and 2, and was the foundation of the NCR.

So Fallout 3 at the time was IMHO a disappointment because the setting felt more generic, and like they were just playing the greatest hits from 1 and 2. I get the arguments that the setting in-universe was hit harder, but it still felt weird that it was post-apocalpytic instead of post-post-apocalyptic.

One reason (as always, IMHO) that New Vegas was so popular is that it continued to build on 1 and 2. We saw the NCR had continued to grow, other factions rise in importance, and generally felt less like the bombs had dropped the year prior. It's what a lot of folks hoped Fallout 3 would be, in that sense. That's my own biased view though, so take it with a grain of salt - there's folks who want more humor, only isometric, more complex and branching storylines, etc.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 39 points 8 months ago (3 children)

"Like, where do you draw the line between what's true and what's not true?" he said. "What we tend to do is, the most truthful thing is what people saw on the screen, right? That's the most truth. And then things that are written officially along with the games are kinda second truth. And then, other things that are written or done outside of that—spin-off things, or somebody answering on the internet—those things are kinda third place.

...Huh, what??? I can understand him wanting New Vegas to have lower priority in terms of canon in comparison to games made by Bethesda, but why the hell would he want a TV show's canonicity to be above the actual source material, and the one that they themselves made on top of that?????

[–] MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 35 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

I think the "most truthful" thing encompasses the games too. It comes across as "whatever the players do is what is canon to them" and "along with the games" means things alongside the games, not the games themselves.

Kinda like the game manual saying x character was killed in the previous game or something but you as a player never let that happen. Your canon is the true canon, not what is written.

That sounds much more like a todd thing to say.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

It's so weird that the vault dweller would punch Preston in the face 37 times, but it's canon.

[–] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 7 points 8 months ago

Ok, that's fair. The article might be omitting context with that quote.

[–] Auk@kbin.social 11 points 8 months ago

I read that as saying what people saw on their screens while playing the games was most truthful, not as a reference specifically to the TV show.

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I don't think screen specifically means TV, I think he's talking about the original works like the games, tv shows, movies, being in first place, as opposed to material that comes with those original works, like instruction manuals, press releases, which is a second priority in terms of what canon is, and then Q&A sessions or, and this is when I'm also confused, spin off games.

Now, if spin off games means things like fallout shelter, sure. If spinoff means New vegas or Fallout 76 , that would be more surprising to me.

I need to watch the source video to know better, but life.

EDIT : nah, it seems he means gimmicky tie ins like fallout shelter.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 30 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (5 children)

Lol this article goes out of its way to try and tamp down the New Vegas controversy.

A) no it's not a stretch to look at the chalkboard in the show and see that the dates do not line up with new vegas' timeline.

B) Josh Sawyer didn't say he didn't care what they did with fallout because he actually didn't care but because he has had to make peace with the fact that he doesn't control it anymore

C) Tim Cain said he loved the look and feel of the world in the show, not the plot elements or then retconning NV, and basically just said maybe the whiteboard is a lie / I don't control it anymore so I'm not going to publicly criticize it but posted links to the timeline descrepencies.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 29 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Ha, as if Obsidian would work on another fallout when they didn't get paid for the last one.

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 31 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Part of the contractual agreement between the studios was that Obsidian would only earn their "bonus" if the game performed well and got an 85 on Metacritic. Somehow, FO:NV missed that rating at the last moment and only scored an 84, denying obsidian the promised money.

[–] SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world 24 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I mean, when the only quest available at launch was "FalloutNV has stopped working", and it only had one solution, I'd say 84 is pretty damn good.

Still, there is something that just feels terrible about Obsidian not getting the bonus considering they made one of the best RPGs of all time in 18 months...

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

How the hell do you make that game in 18 months?! Wow

[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (3 children)

80% of the game was already made in the form of Fallout 3. 10 years prior NV would have been considered an expansion pack, not a standalone game. Most of what they did was story work and added a few new things like gambling mini games and use the ingame editor to make new npc faces and clothing. It was an impressive undertaking but they still bit off more than they could chew

[–] Moneo@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

80% of the game being made is definitely a stretch. The engine and many assets were there but they still had to build the world and populate it, that in itself is a gargantuan task. Call it DLC if you want but it's a fully fledged story with a full game's worth of content and deserved to be full price.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] aDuckk@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago (10 children)

After apparently being given insufficient time to properly tune the game. There's another story going around about how Bethesda wants to increase their output since at the moment we're not going to see any proper Fallout from them until into the 2030s, over 15 years after the last one. I say hire Obsidian now and pay their bonus up front including their New Vegas bonus they got scammed out of last time.

[–] AProfessional@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That Obsidian is long gone.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (7 children)

The current Obsidian made The Outer World's. I don't know how you go from FO:NV to that. I guess the difference is that, while NV had jokes, the world was taken seriously with jokes added. TOW was essentially 100% jokes. There isn't a single part that was seriously considered I don't think.

[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

Honestly I thought Outer Worlds was really well made, it was also just very low on content. One thing it did super well was for optional quests to not be obnoxiously telegraphed but placed in a way where I just found them while wandering around which feels a lot better than running down a cheklist. It also prevented me from feeling like I'd missed out on content even after finishing the game and learnign there were a bunch I missed.

TLDR: Outer Worlds was a fantastic tech demo.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

For anyone who wasn't into Fallout in 2010 when the game launched: it was a fucking disaster. Crashes, broken story triggers and in some cases completely unplayable. The fact that it got 80 was a miracle and it was only months after their original deadline they got the game working. A lot of fans were also rightfully pissed DLC was beinf dropped before patches for day one bugs.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

Majority of their pay was contracted on a bonus to be awarded if they for a metacritic score of 85 by a certain deadline after launch.

The game was rushed and underfunded and Obsidian wasn't really up to the task resulting in a pretty catastrophic launch that took over a year to fix all the bugs while also shoveling out DLC.

They were decieved into thinking it'd be an easy job and missed the mark just like how they fumbled the KotoR2 launch just 6 years priorr. And lost their bonuses as a result.

[–] hal_5700X@sh.itjust.works 19 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

If they make games who take place outside of the US. They don’t have to hear about how they broke the lore. But Todd said no. Or Bethesda can make a new Fallout timeline. You have a OG timeline (FO1, FO2, Tactics, and FNV) and a Bethesda timeline (all the games/shows they made). They have two outs to stop people from hating them. But Bethesda is not doing them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] snownyte@kbin.social 11 points 8 months ago

Todd bought Fallout because Fallout was only just seen as a way to make merch out of. Yes, let's have vault boy on everything, let's have nuka-cola replicas, let's have bottle cap replicas .etc

But nothing about whether or not the games are even worth a toss to play. There's people who still to this day, favor FO 1, 2 and New Vegas. They were made with a level of charm and care that got YOU to where you are today. FO 3, 4 and 76 all feel like just empty open worlds with recycled material, it's running in place with no forward progression.

The OG creator of FO may be a humble guy, but the series still deserve better.

[–] Crismus@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I think I figured out why Todd Howard seems to have tried to make Fallout die; he never wanted to buy Fallout, but was pressured by Zenimax into purchasing a second IPin case The Elder Scrolls ever fails.

Fallout has always been a backup to The main Elder Scrolls games in case he makes a mistake. If Fallout succeeds in a massive way, there is a chance he will have to start giving it more resources than his own pride and joy.

It's classic step-parent mentality. The suits made him into a step parent, so he managed a quick skin over oblivion and just copied bits and pieces of the first games stories like a high school student copying a book report from a book he never read. He didn't really care about the substance from the previous games, but there was a lot of old concept art they could mash up and the 50's aesthetic meant they could save a lot of money on licensing fees for music.

Then is sold big and ruined his chances for quietly making the story go away. But Skyrim was a huge success which should have made the idea of a second IP unnecessary. So, they decided to focus on their new game and let a company known for doing cheap sequels for other game companies IP.

Personally I wonder if Todd Howard was actually paying attention to who Obsidian had on staff, or if he just wanted a company who was willing to take the millstone from his neck so he could focus on the game he really wanted to make. The reason I think that Todd didn't know who Obsidian were is because of how he treated the next company who he let play with the Fallout IP.

Fallout 76 was the only other title made by a mostly outside developer. I say mostly, because they were a newly acquired studio who had no real experience. Which led to a failure in Fallout 76 from launch. Compare that to how ESO was put together. It was built by Zenimax Online a core studio designed just for an online MMO Elder Scrolls game. They weren't forced to use the single-player Gamebryo/Creation Engine. It was designed as it's own online game.

Fallout has been consistently designed to fail, which is why Microsoft should just remove it from Bethesda and get someone who understands the story and is willing to follow the real story Canon make new games. We're in this issue because Todd Howard has been forced to work on Fallout, which is amazing how even with him trying the screw it up, we still enjoy the Fallout world.

[–] therealjcdenton@lemmy.zip 32 points 8 months ago (2 children)

You say this as if Todd Howard solely developed Fallout and had absolute control over everything

[–] shani66@ani.social 9 points 8 months ago (3 children)

And he implied that TES is Todd's baby, it super wasn't. The real creators of TES left before Morrowind.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›