@punk2218: lol. I was just correcting your claim that those who thought it was their decision never to do their research. In fact it was you that was uninformed.
Also there are these things called periods. After you've written a complete thought you end your sentence with a period. That way what you are saying is intelligible... and not like a twelve-year-old ESL student mumble rapping while on speed.
@punk2218: . Dude... Really? You're really going to say it wasn't their choice? 1. It's their company, it's always their choice. Plus Bethesda has shown that have zero problem ignoring things they fans ask for. Be that an Obsidian licensed fallout, a new engine, an elder scrolls in less than 10 years. 2. Todd Howard REPEATEDLY said they always wanted to make this game. Check the following at around 7:50 to 8:35. (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b075EcrB4yQ). THEY had the idea and THEY couldn't shake it. HIS words.
Stop white knighting for a company that just plain crapped the bed.
@greaseman1985: I'm sure someone liked it. But when you've got metascores in the 50s and user scores in the 2s and when sales are massively down... That's not divisive. That's a bad reception.
Sidenote: does anyone else find it super annoying that metacritic uses two different 100-point scales for their critic and user scores?
This video gave me a new appreciation for FO3. I still think FNV's better because it works as a Bethesda-style sim and a Western RPG. Still, point well made about them not being quite the same (sub-)genre.
@thelostscribe: I don't think that time frame is possible. Once Starfield launches, they'll have three distinct franchises that they'll be doing. If they're each on a 3-year cycle, then that means they're cranking out 1 a year which way faster than they've ever done anything. When they licensed Fallout to Obsidian, they gave them 18 months which resulted in the game being super-unpolished even with massive amounts of asset re-use and no real engine upgrades. Even if they alternated fallout, starfield, fallout, Elder Scrolls, fallout, they'd still need more than 18 months for each game and thus more than 3 years between them.
Bethesda's said before that they like to spend 3-5 years on each game regardless of franchise, so that means 9-15 years (O_O) between releases if they go Starfield, TES, Fallout, repeat. That's a long time, so hopefully they'll license the franchise out again, but I do worry this is the last we'll see of Fallout for a while.
@thelostscribe:Yeah, you might have more faith in Bethesda than I do. That's not necessarily unreasonable. But if you just want to understand the backlash--even you disagree with it--it's those two things: the most vocal haters both hate the game and fear that it's a sign of Bethesda could become.
@thelostscribe: Well, it's not that fans *don't* dislike 76 and are *just* using it as a platform to express their displeasure. Many Bethesda fans really think it is a bad game. While you may enjoy it, I think you would admit that it has a lot problems that could turn people off. People hate it *AND* they're using it as a platform to tell Bethesda whatfor.
But I think I'd go further: FO76 embodies a lot of the things people hate about Bethesda. We begged for a NV follow-up. We got the exact opposite. We complained about the lack of RPG elements in FO4. They stripped them down even further. We beg for a new engine. They refuse to change even when they're making a game that their engine was not at all designed for. It's buggier than ever. They were behind the #SavePlayer1 campaign. Then they made a live service game, complete with microtransactions.
Now, you're absolutely right that they haven't sunk anywhere near as low as Activision. But that's the thing: the hatred for this game comes from a place of love for Bethesda. A lot of fans feel like they're *losing* their favorite game studio. And fans are reacting *now* rather than waiting for them to become EA or Activision.
So, when you look at FO76 and say "If the game doesn't go on to be a success worst case scenario, they just go back to their original formula, maybe allowing for co-op in future games." The haters say "Yes exactly! If it's *not* a success they go back." If this game succeeds--if it makes craptons of money off microtransactions--then there will be pressure on them to force MP and/or microtransactions into future games. Now maybe we're overreacting. But we've seen single player studios become multiplayer factories. We've seen good RPG studios become bad action game studios. (RIP BioWare.) So, when fans look at the game and say "But it's just a spinoff" a lot of Bethesda fans add "...unless it succeeds. Then it's a template." Could be wrong, but in 2006, Bethesda and BioWare were the best RPG studios on the planet. We've already lost BioWare. I think we can forgive Bethesda fans for seeing FO76 as evidence that Bethesda's on that same trajectory and going... wait for it... nuclear.
RS13's comments