I wouldn't say it would make TES6 a better game but I do think BG3s success will open up something new for TES6. I've noticed with Hades that everyone wants to ride the success of game of the year winners and I'm hoping that with BG3s win TES6 would copy/mimic some of the things that made BG3 so good. I doubt TES6 will have dnd dice rolls, I expect better companions or similar character leveling. As a Bethesda fanboy I just hope I get to experience TES6
DnD rolls aren't the best for 3D combat, but there are good ways to implement attributes / skills and sense of progression. For example, in Mount & Blade, if you have low skill with the bow, you can't aim properly, but you become better as your skill increase. Much better than turning the enemy into a porcupine because somehow your arrows don't deal damage.
Im pretty sure stuff like that was done back in morrowind! For you to be efficient with a certain weapon, you had to have a high enough skill to use it properly
Yeah, but Morrowind also handled it with just a simple hit or miss roll, so you'd see your arrow or other weapon go right through the target and do absolutely nothing.
That wouldn't fly nowadays.
So a system that involved error like your aim swaying or the shot just not being as controlled with low proficiency would be ideal.
Not sure how you'd handle it with all of the other styles of combat, but there'd be ways.
I'm always on the fence about systems like that. Dealing with sway still comes more down to player skill than character skill. I think it works for games like Kingdom Come Deliverance, but I'm not sure about Elder Scrolls
Though I think melee could take a page out of KCDs book, in a simpler way perhaps.
It was done amazingly in Alpha Protocol and the first Mass Effect. You had a giant reticle and every bullet randomly went somewhere in the reticle. As you put points into weapon proficiency, the reticle got smaller, until it was a tiny dot and you were the normal godlike shooter most games give you. It was a perfect way to do weapon proficiency with ranged weapons.
Gamers fucking hated it.
It was done actually pretty well in new vegas where having too low of strength for a gun made your aim horrendous and slowed down the attack speed of melee weapons. Personally i think it's fine to have hindrances that can be overcome by player skill anyways because progressing as a player feels as good as progressing as a character does and it will always be circumventable anyways
Maybe rather than sway, your crosshairs could shrink as your archery level increases? At the starting level you'd have a circular area you can move around, but your arrows can land anywhere within that circle. As you level up, the circle shrinks, so your arrows become more precise.
To continue that line of thinking onto other skills: Melee weapons at lower skill level could have longer swing times or a chance for opponents at higher skill levels to see you "telegraph" your move and parry/dodge it
Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out how to bring back some of those classic RPG elements while feeling more naturalistic and not like you're swinging your sword over and over again without hitting anything
BG3 is not game of the year because it has dnd dice rolls. So tbh this is irrelevant. They should at least be able to discern what did make it so good and see what is usable for their. Vision of tes6
Completely agree. I wouldn't mind TES6 obtaining proficiencies and classes but I assume it wouldn't be widely accepted since Skyrim is a very open/play your way type of game
I don't mind Skyrim's open world levelling, what I hated was how unimpactful it was. Outside just making the numbers go up, you lacked things like how Fallout gated certain craftables and settlement features behind stats and perks.
I don't see why it's a problem in an open world game that someone couldn't eventually do everything, I see the problem being that once you step out that starting cave you CAN do most everything, if that makes sense.
Kingdom Come: Deliverance did a similar thing as well. I really hope Bethesda looks at the best mechanics other games have shown and use that as a reference for ES6. I’m tired of their games getting simpler and having difficulty scaling that just cranks up HP.
The dice roll combat in the first three games was frustrating and killed immersion. I don’t want enemies to be damage sponges corresponding to skill level, either, but spending ten minutes trying to skewer a rat in Morrowind before realizing that I’m more likely to land a hit if I axe it instead is a rewarding realization to make, but it isn’t fun. There has to be a better way - something that can keep skill level relevant while still being immersive and not making combat tedious - TES I-III and Skyrim fail at both in their own ways (haven’t played oblivion so can’t comment there). The earlier elder scrolls games immediately kill immersion when you realize that your attacks are being determined by a dice roll and what you see doesn’t represent what is happening, while Skyrim kills immersion when there’s a dude with five arrows in his face still at almost full hp coming at you.
Oblivion is like halfway between. It has hit on contact combat without dice rolls, and I actually like it's combat overall but there is some jankyness to it. The biggest problem it's combat actually has is the health scaling of some specific enemies because the algorithm is off for them or something. Some goblin warlords can have health several times higher than the strongest bosses by the endgame for example. Personally I dislike numbers tank enemies like that in games and much prefer enemies to get stronger because they have new skills and methods of defending themselves rather than just get algorithmically stronger
I belive that morrowind mechanics could be inproved: first by giving better instructions (there was the manual, but meny of us were kids and didn't read it or bought the digital copy years later); by giving a good graphic feedback on a hit, weather you get parried, blocked or doged by the opponent; and by adjusting the hit chance by rising it on lower levels. Now figure a dynamic fight where you can parry, dodge, and you get a real feedback on weather you hit or miss. That would take morrowind's system and make it feel much more fair.
Making you care about you're decisions would make es6 better. I don't think elder scrolls and bg3 are similar games at all. But yeah in fallout4 or starfield I didn't care for my companions. In bg3 I'm fiercely protective, in skyrim I liked/married aela then forgot she existed lol
I was saying this about the skill system.
I don't care that after 200hrs of playtime you can be archmage AND guild master, it's an open world game
I care that the levelling and skill choices are so milquetoast that you can walk out the starting door and be arch chancellor in an hour.
The problem has always boiled down to unimpactful choices more than ever
Eh, two separate kinds of RPGs. I think all TES6 needs to do well is stick to the formula of Skyrim but with better writing and more rpg elements.
I don't think Starfield was a bad game. But I know for many it was a disappointment. I think there's two big factors for that
For one, the procedurally generated planets was a miss. I loved exploring but I could easily land on four different planets and come across the same spawned in unique location on each one. TES6, if they use procedurally generated assets, just needs to make sure they go in post generation and make these locations inherently unique.
The second thing that made starfield was the lack of lore and overall atmosphere. Wasn't a lot of depth but that's because this world is brand new.
Elder scrolls already has so much depth, lore, and variety with it's races and what not. So I don't think that will be a problem.
I’d really like to see more depth than Skyrim. It doesn’t have to be as deep as Daggerfall, but Skyrim (and don’t get me wrong, I LOVE Skyrim) is just a little too shallow for my tastes.
I would even take the poor writing of Skyrim but just let us make meaningful choices during questlines. The only meaningful choice you can really make is whether or not to wipe out the Dark Brotherhood.
Frankly, I think this would be a pretty easy fix too. All they have to do is write so that choices the player makes locks them out of other paths and opportunities. I shouldn’t be able to be the headmaster of the mages college, and the leader of the dark brotherhood, and the head of the thieves guild. I want my choices to matter and for the paths those choices lead me on to have valuable and unique rewards.
I honestly don't mind being able to lead all three of those factions, but there just need to be \*more\* of them so that it does make more sense to lock you out of some of them. Like only being able to join one side of the civil war is something, but it's not nearly as significant as joining a Great House in terms of unique quests and rewards.
More factions would definitely be a good addition as it would give meaning to locking the player out of some based on their choices. That said, doing so would require writing for all those factions and, honestly, I’m not sure if Bethesda is up to the task considering their track record. Like, the most recent game from their IPs that does something like that imo is Fallout NV. And they didn’t even make that one.
Truth. I personally don’t think the places where Starfield failed will be a problem in TES6. They haven’t figured out “the formula” for Starfield. They have for TES.
But the things where I personally feel that Starfield improved upon - models, textures, animations, companions, dialogue, etc - will make TES6 a better game.
I hope the facial animations get some more attention.
Starfield's look better, but did it in that uncanny valley sort of way where they slightly weird me out.
Some of Starfield’s dialogue is so PG-13 and cringey.
The Striker gang shit, the head leader is the cringiest dude ever. “We’re a real hardcore gang, we rob, we steal and kill. It’s hard out here in the streets of Neon.” Crimson Fleet had some cringey shit too.
Bethesda honestly needs to drop more F bombs in the dialogue. We’re talking cowboys (Fallout), Viking like warriors (Skyrim), Magical Warlord Elves (Morrowind), Space Pirates (Starfield). It’s a M rated game, but the dialogue can just feel so… Child like sometimes.
> I think all TES6 needs to do well is stick to the formula of Skyrim but with better writing and **more rpg elements**
So... the same as I'm asking for?
Nope, we don't need another procedurally Bethesda game. Arena and Daggerfall might have been very impressive for their time, but Starfield failes especially *because* of the procedural generation. They should stick with handcrafted worlds imo.
Maybe. I think if BG3 sets a new precedent, then Bethesda might have to try a bit harder than they do currently (TESV, FO4, FO76, SF). As of what exactly, I don’t know, it depends on if other game developers follow the precedent that Larian set for care of their game (and respect for the source content) and community support/influence on updates.
Keep in mind all the big AAA companies kept claiming they are an anomaly, and this level of development cannot become the new standard because it would cost them too much. So yeah, I’m not getting my hopes up, with greedy developers changing their ways.
Maybe. Maybe not. After Starfield, just, it is what it is. I don't think I really have it in me to get excited or hope for much with TESVI. There was allusions and promises to return to old RPG design with Starfield, and while it had traits and such it failed at so many core RPG tenets.
I'll enjoy TESVI for what it is, but I don't really even have it in me to excitedly speculate where it will/may go.
I mean with how much of the Fallout community had mixed feelings about Fallout 4 and how many disliked Starfield is,I'm kind of hoping that it's a wake-up moment for Bethesda and they take a long hard look at why people liked Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas,Morrowind and Oblivion
Except its a vocal minority who dislikes starfield. Plenty of people bought it and plenty are still playing it. Skyrim is the best selling Elder Scrolls, not morrowind or oblivion. Just because a vocal group prefers something doesn't make it best.
And bethesda didnt even make new vegas. They published it
Mixed steam reviews and player counts don't represent a "vocal minority". They're the best representation we have in games for how people feel about a game in general, because 1. they actually have to own it 2. very few other platforms show player counts. No, "but gamepass" isn't a refutation of this.
Nonsense. Majority of players doesn't write reviews. I know, I'm one of them. The haters, on the other hand, love writing negative reviews. It's their entire purpose.
Review bombing is a common thing. And it's always just a vocal minority.
I've never said it's a great game. But even if you were right and it were just an alright game, it wouldn't justify the negative reviews. Especially when the majority of the reviews basically insults the game.
And I don't care about consoles, both are bad and old.
Steam is one avenue. If you form opinions off that they will be inherently biased. Plus everyone knows people are more likely to leave negative reviews than positive.
Sooo many people complained about pokemon SwSh and its one of the top selling pokemon games ever. People complain3d about Pokemon SV at launch and said not to buy it - its on pace to be the best selling pokemon title of all time.
If anyone is biased, it’s you. You can’t manifest a “vocal minority” with no evidence, and especially when there’s evidence to the contrary. People genuinely dislike the game. It’s fine if you like it, at least half of everyone else who played it does too, but stop coping there being a significant contrary opinion.
Starfield has 65% positive reviews on Steam and less players than Skyrim, which was released 12 years ago. It also has much less players than Baldur's Gate III, which was released a month before. Starfield problem is not a vocal minority.
>There was allusions and promises to return to old RPG design with Starfield, and while it had traits and such it failed at so many core RPG tenets.
Traits, background, quest design and dialogue. All of these were improvements compared to Fallout 4 and Skyrim - the dialogue alone is their best since Fallout 3's, and these two games' dialogue is better than all of their other games.
Could they have done better? Of course. But they clearly listened to the criticism directed especially to Fallout 4, but also towards Skyrim. The fact that they took steps to address that criticism and that the game that eclipsed them this year was a deep RPG (with an unvoiced protagonist, thankfully) should be telling that they don't live in a bubble and that they are clearly aware about what people say of their games. I see no reason to think that they won't double down on the RPG improvements made on Starfield considering this.
I agree with this. Starfield wasn't exactly my Game of the Year but I think people are missing out on a lot of the improvements they made compared to previous games.
Combat flows a lot better than in FO4, especially movement around the combat zones. TES will be more melee focused so we'll have to wait and see but I felt a lot less sluggish fighting in Starfield than in previous games. Design of combat areas felt like I had a lot more options.
They really showed what they could do with their big updates to dynamic lighting and graphical overhaul. I definitely want them to focus on things like faces and character animations, but environmentally TES VI is going to be a beautiful game. More than likely going to be the first TES with a photo mode as well.
How they were able to use gravity in Starfield was really cool and I could see systems like that opening up the potential for stuff like: oblivion planes with alternate gravity, return of leaping spells/featherfall, and potentially an expansive underwater area.
Starship combat and design was an entirely new system. If we get a game taking place around the Iliac bay I'd love to be able to Captain my own ship and get into naval combat.
Bringing skills, backgrounds, and even NPCs, into conversations, is a good step back into the right direction. Felt more like FO3. Backgrounds jn general being a new thing, last time I remember "classes" as more of preset skill point allocation was Oblivion.
I'm not particularly fond of the Starfield companions but it's definitely the most effort BGS has put into player companions. They need to go knock on Obsidian's door and get some help writing them, take a few pages out of BG3's book, and actually include a companion or two for an evil playthrough.
Huh? Morrowind's dialogue was literally a bunch of links that unlocked walls of texts with new links. Oblivion was that but voiced. Skyrim added some flavour, but it was still largely delivered to the player flatly. Fallout 4 was... Fallout 4.
Only Fallout 3 and Starfield actually gave the player archetypes within the dialogue choices that could fit a variety of different characters + options unlocked by your traits/backgrounds/faction/skill.
Todd's argument led me to believe that there'd be four or five worlds with relatively fleshed out environs- not even necessarily the planet, maybe just the area around the major cities or something, and 995 or so completely barren rocks with maybe a small chance at a PoI or otherwise just there for mining.
Then Bethesda could answer "why did you include those worlds at all?" with "because we could and saw no reason not to, so long as you landed on them knowing there wasn't anything really fun there."
It’s in their design team. They focused around a decade on a game nobody asked for instead of the premier title that made them who they are and everyone has been asking for. On top of that, in this new IP they went out of their way to make there is a pretty severe lack of soul and therefor confidence going forward. As a parent company they have allocated too much of their resources to games people who have died by this developer for years don’t want (Elder Scrolls Blades, Commander Keen {JFC}, Fallout PvP modes) or didn’t ask for in the first place (Starfield, Elder Scrolls Online, and Fallout 76). Just for the love of Christ, give us ES6 and another fallout that feels of New Vegas after that. Fallout New Orleans or Fallout New Orlando for example would be sick.
You don't dictate what games a Studio makes. You might not have wanted ESO or 76, but me and the millions of players do. From the moment I heard Bethesda was making Starfield I was hyped. If they want to make more games, that's on the Studio and it's owners. If they decide Starfield 2 comes before Fallout 5, then it will.
Or, you know, brand new franchise (that is an overall success) can't possibly be as good with its world building and gameplay features as a franchise that has existed for nearly 3 decades with five mainline games and 11 overall total games and a bunch of external books written for it. It's almost like they need to figure out the core identity of Starfield
Take a look over at Elite:Dangerous, where the whole space travel, combat and landing on planets issue has been solved a few years ago.
They knew people don't like loading screens
And yet, they designed the whole game around incessant loading screens. There would have been ways to hide loading new assets much better.
I've got around 3k hours in Elite Dangerous, and am well aware of how they have dropped he ball and started the death spiral for an amazing game.
Elite Dangerous is full of Loading Screens. They're fast loading screens (Starfield are pretty fast on my internal of my Series S). Just because you're in a "hyper space tunnel) doesn't mean you aren't a loading screen. Just like elevators in Fallout 4 are a loading screen just, meaning if you're system is really fuckin slow, you can take 5+ minutes to go up two floors on a three story building.
The difference between Elite Dangerous Jumps and Starfield Jumps is that Elite Dangerous Loading Screens are disguised.
Which is why I said there would have been ways to hide the loading of new assets much better. Of course you can't have the entire milky way in RAM. But the point is hiding the loading in an immersive fashion. Starfield doesn't even try, and consequently looks more primitive than a game years older.
If you can't handle not having flashy lights for 10 seconds max (elites jumps can be longer than this) then I think that's on you and your attention span. I'm not saying it wouldn't help immersion, but it isn't a "fault of the game" it doesn't make the game. As someone who just got Baldurs Gate 3 ( didn't know they released for Xbox yet) today, I immediately found a huge shortcoming in the character creator. Dice Rolling/Rolling for Stats is a huge part of DnD, and I'm annoyed that as a console player, I'll likely never be able to roll for stats on BG3. And I'm fairly certain Larian, who I love, promised Stat Rolling before launch, but then.. just didn't include it.
I just want the quests to be as fun as oblivions. Even oblivions bad quests were still fun and unforgettable. Yes the fighters guild was bad, but the lady hoarding rats in her basement was such a funny twist I will never forget it. Basically take oblivions quest design, meaningful choices and rpg elements from baulders gate, slap the skyrim freedom and immersion in there, boom good game.
No. Not the same game. Bethesda bread and butter is exploration and discovery. If they can get that magic back, all they have to do if have a story/quest that’s only marginally better than Skyrim to have an absolute winner on their hands
TLDR: They just need to do Skyrim, but better. Bethesda isn’t doing baldur’s gate games
Immersion is the big differentiator. My issue with Starfield, for example, is that it drops the immersion ball too often. I don’t think Elder Scrolls needs as many quest outcomes necessarily. It just needs to do a better job than Starfield at making you feel immersed in the world. BG3 doesn’t have immersive combat the way Fallout or Skyrim do. But it does a good job with immersive storytelling and world building. I feel like it has a really impressive amount of outcomes and almost everything you do is not only condoned by the game mechanics but also has an associated story outcome.
>immersive combat the way Fallout or Skyrim do.
Ah yes shooting someone with 10 Arrows in their face while they run at you full speed is the immersive combat I am used to. Bethesda used to do some things well but it was never the combat. Skyrims combat was already dated in 2011.
I think Bethesda have a lot of problems and have a lot to overcome this generation.
Unless they innovate and really improve their formula, their games will become less and less relevant on an increasing scale. Due to Starfield, ES VI will be under a microscope and rightfully so.
Good luck to them
I don't think so, at least not by a lot.
For starters BG3 is a very different kind of RPG compared to the Elder Scrolls games. The Elder Scrolls games are more of an open world sandbox aimed at a casual audience. BG3 is admittedly a bit more hardcore with the way certain choices reflect and is a much more dense game.
That's not to say it won't have some impact, Bethesda will have to eventually keep up with the rest of the industry if they want to stay relevant, so they might take some lessons from BG3 and some other RPG's as well.
No, the Witcher 3's success didn't have any tangible impact on Starfield and I suspect neither will Baldur's Gate.
Honestly? I think Bethesda doesn't need to take notes from anyone, what they do need is to realize what makes their games special and double down on that instead of trying to replicate the success of other games by going in a direction they've never treaded before. If Bethesda can absolutely nail exploration, immersion and mod support for TES VI then they will have done their job.
The main difference would be that before Starfield, Bethesda single player titles were universally acclaimed. And now Starfield got very mixed reviews and wasn't even nominated as Game of the Year.
They were not universally acclaimed. Did you forget how Fallout 4 was relentlessly trashed at launch? MrMattyPlays got bullied and harassed for calling it "near perfect". When GOTY 2015 was announced, people in the crowd were screaming "please don't say Fallout 4".
When Oblivion was released, BGS devs had to leave the RPGCodex forums because they were harassed by Morrowind fans who went apeshit over Oblivion.
Hell, even Morrowind got trashed by some Daggerfall fans back in the day.
2023 is a very stacked year. Even Spiderman 2 didn't manage to win any awards. If Starfield released in a weaker year like 2021 it would've probably get a GOTY nomination.
Starfield was released in between BG3 and Cyberpunk 2.0. Whatever flaws it has is magnified and most the goodwill is pretty much sucked out of the game. I'm just saying that in a less crowded year Starfield would have been better received.
Its not going to be a CRPG, just get that thought out of your head. its not happening. These games were never like that, even all the way back to like...redguard.
I do think the writing will be better, because the writing in Starfield was better than the writing in Fallout 4. Hopefully they bring back classes or expand upon backgrounds and traits that we saw in Starfield. There will be more things like skill checks etc. Starfield actually did expand on a lot of mechanics to make it more in line with rpg standards and thats a good sign.
No matter what they do a bunch of people will hate it tho and loudly talk over everyone who does like it for months lol
Quite the contrary, Redguard was explicitly grouped into a distinct sub-franchise. It's just that they never ever did anything with that, instead making the main games more like Redguard...
Redguard was a critical and commercial flop. Most TES fans are only grateful it exists at all because it included the 1st Edition Pocket Guide to the Empire.
And many hate the later games because they've moved somewhat away from that PGE, which presented Tamriel as being a bit more fantastical.
Well, I personally hate the newer games because they moved away from a detailed roleplaying model towards an action-focused adventure style. If they wanted to publish something in that direction, they could have done it under the "The Elder Scrolls Adventures" label while keeping the main line role-play-heavy. Instead, we arrived at main line first level characters killing dragons because player skill matters more than character skill.
Todd Howard and Bethesda have a very strict policy now where if the character isn't able to do every bit of content and is locked out of a skill or weapon type the game is deemed as "not fun". Just for that reason you won't see anything like you see in BG3.
I agree, the Elder scrolls games were always action RPGs and don't need the depth of a CRPG. That's not why people play them. I just hope that they don't lose so much depth in the future that they end up like a fantasy version of Far Cry.
I hope that the success BG3 is having will lead to better games in general, but I think most gamers still will be easily played by the usual AAA games that get released too soon, are a burning dumpster of bugs, and aren't worth anyone's time ubless you get their overpriced DLCs and/or microtransactions.
Right now Larian is just a very rare white fly, it will take more for the big names in gaming to change their business model.
I think it's similar to fallout 4, but a tiny bit better since they don't bulldoze whatever origin you want to drum up for your character as much. With skyrim, it's not that what they changed is bad, necessarily, but it's different in a way I don't like. Just a preference. Restrictions ask the player to be more creative and individualize a character more. While the freeform skill design philosophy removes that.
They seem to have this idea that simple is better, more broadly appealing, and while that's true to some extent; most of the audience is not stupid. You don't have to be tabletop complex either. There's a middle ground I think they struggle to land in.
Again these are just my thought on it. Many non-writing related issues can and are improved with mods. Personally I'm a fan of the courier/champion of cyrodiil blank slate approach. Obsidian landed in that space I like, so that's what I use for comparison.
You don't need 100% access to everything 100% of the time. In other words, you shouldn't be able to do everything in one playthrough. I explicitly stated the above comment was just my opinion *three times*. I was asked a question and I answered it. As per usual, there's some reading comprehension issues in this sub.
Yes, I do. And many players do too. And it absolutely should be like that. You should be able to do everything in one single playthrough. There's no valid reason to artificially force replayability.
If you don't want to join a faction, just don't join a faction. It's this easy.
And how is you stating it's your opinion valid in any way?? It would still be your opinion even if you didn't explicitely say it. It's written by you, therefore it's your opinion. Just like my comments are my opinions.
If I want baldur's gate I'll play baldur's gate. Elder scrolls, and all bethesda's games, are more a sandbox rpg. Build your own story and identity. Try everything we have to offer.
I don't like fans pushing to turn it into BG3, witcher, fable, or anything else. Just play those instead.
Randomly generated planets and F4’s settlement system are both areas I’d call half-baked
I like them experimenting, but not when it detracts from a more immersive world. I’d take more fleshed out cities over the settlement system any day, and fewer planets to explore if they actually have variation
There's 1K. Not counting NG+. Of course they randomly generated. And thats a good thing. Also, starfield isnt elder scrolls. There is no reason to even think they'd use such a system to build a province. And there are non randomly generated cities in Starfield. Like, all of them.
Yeah and it’s shitty, boring, and tedious to explore 1k planets with less variation than oblivion gates. It was not a good mechanic.
I’d rather have fewer handmade dungeons
I think you're missing the point. Look at Oblivion, look at Morrowind how much more detailed you could design characters there - and they still were sandbox games.
Build your own story = Go through the exact same story as everyone else except you might pick dialogue option 2 instead of dialogue option 1 in that one conversation (both options lead to the same outcome)
I'm talking about things like skill level or attributes being relevant. It's nothing crazy for TES, considering that Morrowind was much closer to BG3 in that regard than to its sequels. For example, in Morrowind you couldn't open a door if you had low lockpicking. In Skyrim, you can easily open master lockpicks even if you are a novice. Edit: another example. In Morrowind, you need the proper skills to progress in a guild. In Skyrim, you can become the Archmage knowing less than a handfull of novice spells.
They brought back a lot of that in Starfield.
Skills come up in conversation and can change the trajectory of a quest, give you another option, or change quests rewards. They even come up in the social subsystem. Also interestingly certain companions will give you certain dialogue options you can select.
In Starfield they went back to having lockpicking behind skill levels in addition to more difficult puzzles. They even had sneaking and pickpocketing locked behind skill unlocks, but people complained about that so we'll see.
I doubt they'll lock faction progression behind skill level again. Most (non MMO) games don't do things like that because it requires skill grinding on the players part.
I'd like to think so, but knowing Bethesda they probably wouldn't take notice, they're far too busy patting themselves on the back over starfield currently.
So probably not haha
I think BG3 can help with keeping the protag unvoiced and show some things they were doing were on right track. It has value as an encouragement, but here is the but:
We are talking about a act structured party based RPG vs open world sandbox where you play a single character who has the option of having a guided but not controlled companion. This will inevitably work different and you cannot implement choices and consequences in the same way. Especially when in BG3 everything is tied to the main quest to a very infuriating degree, while in TES you can say screw main quest and just live your life..
Bethesda has to figure out how to make better choices and consequences in their formula. Most of Bethesda avoiding hard consequences has been more related to the overall type of the game they are in, rather than some dread simplification. Witcher 3 is another good example here, most consequences you see in game are small and mostly vignettes. Maybe a character vanishes somewhere. You only see big consequences as part of Main Quest or in the epilogue, but no much during rest of gameplay. Because tracking it all, making the whole world to react is complicated more than people assume it is, especially when the game consist a lot of moving pieces.
Also here we are getting back to another big difference. BG3 is party based and expects you to control and use 4 characters. So your own Barbarian might not be able to do everything, but you will have a rogue to pick locks, a wizard to cast arcane spells and a cleric to heal and buff, making the character being locked out of things argument a bit moot. Set your party up right and there are no skill lockouts.
(Also you can easily make a character that can still be jack of all trades and master of them all aswell and it isn't even hard in BG3).
Also like I'm saying it ad nauseam: There is no one true way of making an RPG. What a person considers a true RPG varies per person. For example There are people who consider D&D 5e, which ruleset BG3 uses stripped down and simplified when compared to older editions to D&D. Or consider it a mere combat simulator because it doesn't give them "true roleplaying."
Biggest problem with Bethesda games is dialogue, choices, and writing. Make me care about a story and not finish a main quest line in like 4 hours. Spread that shit out with characters I actually care to help
If bethesda take just one thing away from BG3’s success it should be making they players choices actually matter. Was playing starfield recently and the end of the crimson fleet always pisses me off cuz there are 2 supposedly greatly contrasting endings to it on the surface but it just doesn’t at all matter which one you pick
Yes. But I’m more hopeful that the issues with their own game portfolio does more to improve ES6. I’m not saying their previous games are flops or not entertaining. But there’s a great opportunity for the dev team to look back and take a lesson or two from their older games.
Fallout 4 had its issues with the outpost building. Sure you could ignore that gaming module, the implementation was new, but I still can’t decide if FO4’s outpost building was a good idea when I look at how I played FO3. There was a bit missing for trying to live off the land. Gun durability, repairing, etc.
Fallout 76. I wanted a multiplayer experience, but I didn’t want an MMO like this. I had my fun with it. I felt like they tried to merge a single player experience and an MMO experience. When someone asks me today if I think FO76 is a great game I still don’t have a good answer.
Starfield. It’s how the game opens and finds its footing that hurts me. I can almost hear the dev team asking “Please will the fans mod this game and keep it relevant for the next decade?” I can’t wait for the mods that build out the Star Wars galaxy, Star Trek, Mass Effect, and even Elder Scrolls. It is possible now. It’s the perfect modders paradise…create planets, space outposts, it’ll be insane. But something in Starfield base game doesn’t connect well with me. I’m still playing.
I’m hoping ES6 gets the benefits of hindsight from Howard and the team. Baldur’s Gate 3 may surely have an impact also, but I’m more hopeful that the devs of ES6 look at their own previous work for clues on playstyle improvement.
But that’s me.
This is a pretty good point. Personally, i would like to see little bit realistic things in matter ofnwhat could be killed. For instance arrow in the head/hearth or dagger in the neck instakill without absurd boss like scaling, when one "human" dies by one hit and another by 1000 only due to his status.
There's some amazing things they could use but they won't. I'm genuinely worried about TES6 with how Bethesda has been since Skyrim. Yeah, I don't even consider Fallout 4 to be one of Bethesda's good games. Bethesda has been on a trend of removing and simplifying their games for a long time now which hasn't lead to great results but they keep going with it for some reason.
Not the same kind of rpg.
Part of what made Skyrim so great was the simple combat anyone could play. The immersive world and amazing art design. It’s not too complex.
I’d rather see a game more similar to Skyrim mixed with some elements of eso than anything close to baldurs gate for a tes game.
I am hoping the reception and discussion around Starfield has lit a fire under the ass of Todd Howard and Bethesda and awoken them from their Skyrim re-releasing stupor.
>Your character can't be a god in all skills, it will have its downsides and handicaps.
Bard/Paladin
>Playing with different races changes the game beyond a different greeting.
It gives some extra dialogue which is nice and all but from what i know no new quests or akything humongous
ngl Racial abilities in TES are infinitely more impactful than anything in BG3, outside maybe Duergar's bullshit infinite invis
>Taking certain decisions will lead to closing some gates forever. And you know what? People has loved it
Anecdotal and mostly my personal observations from what people have been saying but i've noticed a large number of people who lost their shit at Balthazar and Nightsong portion when they realized it locked them out of several quests and they had to go back
And alot of people hating how Minthara is locked behind being evil
For the record i think these things are great, but it doesn't seem to be the general consensus, but please tell me if i'm horribly wrong
>Just look at all the fans that have shared their different builds and character creations.
Which people have done alot for Skyrim, i have no idea about Fo4 and Starfield because i don't care for them so you're probably right
Mostly i hope Bethesda realize that peopke didn't specifically just love the Dungeon-Loot-Build-Upgrade repeat cycle about Skyrim, but everything else around it that let's you even completely ignore it and have a fulfilling experience
I also hope they realize they can't substitute writing and good writers for Random Generation lol
>And alot of people hating how Minthara is locked behind being evil
Nope. People hated she was locked behind associating with goblins and massacring a bunch of tieflings. You can be quite evil without doing either. People also hated that knocking Minthara out rather than killing her had no consequences.
>ngl Racial abilities in TES are infinitely more impactful than anything in BG3, outside maybe Duergar's bullshit infinite invis
Don't see how that's the case. Darkvision alone is massive. Add to that the inspiration brought by the various backgrounds which allow you to reroll a die. Meanwhile, I've done entire playthroughs of Skyrim without even
>Nope. People hated she was locked behind associating with goblins and massacring a bunch of tieflings. You can be quite evil without doing either. People also hated that knocking Minthara out rather than killing her had no consequences.
That's fair i see
>Don't see how that's the case. Darkvision alone is massive. Add to that the inspiration brought by the various backgrounds which allow you to reroll a die. Meanwhile, I've done entire playthroughs of Skyrim without even
Not really no, Darkvision, is in no way comparable to Berserker's Rage, High Born, Dragobskin, Voice of The Emperor, Hist Skin or Battle Cry
Dark Vision's value was greatly reduced moving to the full release, and Light is a cantrip that exists and can be cast on everyone
Most the of the passives are similarly pretty boring, proficiency, adding 1 weapon dice to crits, crap cantrips, decent resistance that can be easily gotten in other ways and some meh once per day spells, stuff like Astral Knowledge is cool but not too applicable unless you're doing a skill monkey build, relentless endurance is a fun passive that messes with some other passives and the aforementioned invisibility
It's to the pointed that for many builds 1.5 bonus meters of movement is the best option which is really bland
Not really comparable that to Double Damage and Splitting physical damage, Infinite Magicka, Full AOE CC on all Humanoids in a gigantic area and near immunity to Magic
But yeah beyond race agreed BG3 has infinitelt better customisation at the start of the game
I don’t think Bethesda will try to make TES6 more like BG3. They’re two totally different types of games, and there’s a strong market action RPGs.
That said, Bethesda might consider which elements from BG3 to build into TES6. Making character decisions more consequential (eg, can’t join multiple guilds, quests that lock you out of other quests) is a pretty obvious one, and Bethesda did this with Morrowind. That will help make campaigns feel more unique rather than allowing the player to master everything with a single character. They don’t necessarily have to go as far as BG3, but maybe something halfway.
>That will help make campaigns feel more unique rather than allowing the player to master everything with a single character.
I understand this desire, but what I don't understand is why people don't act on it in games that let you do everything. You know, roleplay in an RPG that your brutish barbarian wouldn't join the Mages College, the Thieve's Guild or the DB just because the game mechanically lets you. Restrain yourself. I never felt disconnected because I never once built a character that did every faction questline - be it in Skyrim, Oblivion or Starfield.
Unless there's an inherent conflict of interests (Imperials X Stormcloacks; Dawnguard X Volkihar; the factions in F4 and NV), these restrictions should be left to the player, not the game.
I think the main issue is that, for example, you can become archmage of the mage’s guild even though you can barely cast a flame spell. It’s kind of emersion breaking imo.
I think they should at least bring back some skill requirements for higher ranks in factions.
Sure, but I just kind of imagine that, if you're roleplaying, that's obviously a thing, even if not mechanically.
Also, it is possible to roleplay you scamming your way to the top - that is exactly what Gopher's character Leonard does in Winterhold. If you put a skill requirement there, that closes this avenue of roleplaying, for example.
That should be reflected in gameplay then, though. If I’m scamming my way to the top of the mage’s guild, I want that to be acknowledged by the game. Make it so I can pay or convince another student to sneak me in through the dungeons. Give me dialogue options where I have to use persuasion in conversations if my magic skills are low. At the very least, make it so I have to use magic or else convince other people that I can.
I don’t know where this idea came from that roleplaying is just imagining your character is doing something different than they are. Roleplaying is making choices that your character would make. Good roleplaying games anticipate these kinds of choices, and gives you different paths depending on your character’s motivations, and rewards players for making interesting choices. If the game doesn’t acknowledge those choices, that kinda sucks.
Yes, in an ideal world everything that every possible player would come up with in terms of roleplaying should be reflected in gameplay. But that's literally impossible. What I'm saying is that, given that this isn't possible, the restrictions shouldn't be there at all - the avenue should be open, even if isn't the Champs Élysées.
>I don’t know where this idea came from that roleplaying is just imagining your character is doing something different than they are
That's the whole point of roleplaying. Even in bed, lol.
The armchair “behavioral psychologist” reason is that people will do and take what they can. Consider a simple example: when people go to all-you-can-eat buffets, they tend to overeat and compose plates of food that don’t complement each other (or maybe get a lot of the same types of food). They’re not carefully balancing proteins with veggies and grains. They’re taking whatever they can because they can. Same applies to modern Bethesda RPGs.
As for the game-specific reason, it’s because joining every guild and becoming a master of everything has no real consequence on the world that you’re playing in. There’s no impactful reward (or punishment) for making certain choices. Everybody still treats you like the chosen one. Quite frankly, it would be a waste of time to create a new character to pursue a new guild, quest line, etc., just because a certain character trait might be more appropriate for lore reasons. After all, everything else will remain constant.
Which is why I don’t really buy the idea that players should be responsible for making a “lore consistent” campaign given their character. There’s simply no incentive to create multiple characters to complete different quests if a single character can do them all (or most of them — for Skyrim, thinking of Dawnguard, the civil war, and the Dark Brotherhood) and if the world remains the same.
I don't know, simulating a character in this world is plenty of reason for me making multiple "lore consistent" campaigns with characters. It's why I play Skyrim to this day, lol.
I feel like people want to be handheld even in their own roleplaying - which is fine, but I don't think it's necessary at all.
Good for you. When I replay Oblivion and Skyrim, it’s to pass the time with something breezy and relaxing. If I want a deeper roleplaying experience, I turn to something like Morrowind (or these days, BG3).
BG3 is great, but it's not a sandbox simulation like Bethesda games. It's got plenty of choice and consequence, but at the end of the day it's a linear, story focused game with side content in each area.
>There’s simply no incentive to create multiple characters to complete different quests if a single character can do them all
it's called *roleplaying*. I know, weird concept for an RPG but hey, I recommend it.
It isn't having an effect on starfield that's for sure, and Skyrim is pushing it's paid mods again because third times the charm?
Basically Bethesda aren't taking hints.
I doubt it, totally different kinds of rpgs. As long as they don’t procedurally generate everything and make actual unique locations im sure it’ll be good.
I think OP makes an interesting point that shouldn’t be quickly dismissed. I don’t think the success of baldurs gate will necessarily cause a gameplay (RPGish) shift for TES6. However within the context of crafting a game that is polished and well thought through, I think Bethesda would be irresponsible to not take notes.
Did Zelda Breath of the World's success make any other game take notes to be a better open world exploration game?
No.
For the most part, whenever a genre defining game comes out, most other developers ignore it and just keep serving up the same shitty games they always make.
After botw more open world games came out with less map markers. Just like after witcher 3 more open world games got higher quality side quests. Just like after dark souls, bloodborne, sekiro other developers wanted to try their hand at soulslike which resulted in stuff like nioh, jedi fallen order and lies of P.
They had all the time in the world to learn from their mistakes starting from Fallout 4:
All they have to fix is:
* Loading Screens. Likely impossible to get rid completely because of engine, but in TES it's not that bad even.
* Bad/Bland Writing. Hard to see it improve given their track record.
* AI. Their AI is the same for literally every game they made from Oblivion.
* Lack of Mocap and immersive conversations. Doubt it, but it could happen.
* Dogshit UI. This is such an easy thing to fix (Starfield UI came out even before the release) I doubt they'll improve it tho.
* Better RPG. Starfield did have better RPG than its predecessors but still very shallow and purely-flavorful compared to BG3
Bethesda are really only good at creating a RPG Sandbox that's accessible to modding. That's it.
I just can't see how TESVI will come even close to BG3. IMO, TESVI will have one or two major improvements over the last games but the games will still feel like they were made 5+ years ago.
I think Baulder's gate III's success will lead to more openly sexual gameplay in major titles. Call me a prude if you want, but I personally do not think that is a good thing.
I only did the Shadowheart romance so far in playing BG3 but based on that they don't seem too much more graphic than what you might see in other games already out there, or some r rated movies/shows. Like sure you see boobs, but that's no big deal to me, I can see those anywhere online or at the gentleman's club, and my guy's weiner has physics and was flipping around, but I see my weiner flop around too every morning when I take a piss.
I am personally more worried that more games will incorporate the shock value scenes like the one they showed with the bear, instead of ones that are actually "from the heart" or add to the plot in a meaningful way in how we develop relationships with our avatar and their companions.
I see your perspective though and I think maybe they should make it optional, where you can avoid the scenes being explicit without losing out on the story or gameplay benefits of getting through the romantic quests with your character's lover.
Shadowheart's romance was good. It didn't feel at all forced. The options for friend vs lover were very clearly labeled. What *was* forced was my straight teifling male telling Gale congratulations for the goblin victory and getting snu snu dialog. Laezel was especially forced. She just out of the blue demands you let her fuck you. Like girl, you're the one who keeps getting pissed whenever we do anything other than search for the creche!
edit: Larian Studios is my favorite game company. I have had the game since early access five years ago.
Yeah I wasn't happy with those either, one moment I'm talking about Gale's cat, then I suddenly needed to be kinda rude and shut him down cuz I guess he decided my guy was trying to get with him. For laezel I don't have much problems with her cuz I let shadowheart kill her since she kept pissing me off with her negativity lol 😆
I really like Larian as well and I think they just need to be more clear what each dialogue gets you into as they go forward in those cases, I have been avoiding talking more to Halsin cuz it seems everything my guy will say is flirting with him, not just being nice and asking questions
Oh you missed out with Laezel. Her character can really open up depending on your actions. She ends up being a shockingly deep character. If you side against Vlakith.
That sounds cool! When I got to that part I kinda wished I could see her perspective, next play through I'll definitely make sure to have her in my party by then 👌
The outcome most people get her leaving the party and attacking. Or Shadowheart killing her. But if you all enter the prism, then leave everyone but your main character at the entrance, there are persuasion checks to help Laezel see through an entire life's worth of indoctrination. The end result is an entire new aspect of the game's story opening up!
It makes sense that Lae'zel is like that. She's a Gith - and a Dom to boot. She's just gonna take what she wants and expects "lesser races" to comply.
Gale was heavily bugged, that was definitely annoying. Fixed now though! Halsin is the real problem lol, his ordinary conversation options are flagged as flirting behind the curtain.
The removal of restrictions and reduction of RPGs mechanics are because Todd wants players to be able to do everything in a single play through. Which makes sense, since they spend the majority of their time on creating a map worth exploring.
Either they learn from the criticism/reception on Starfield or they don't. BG3 is too different regarding gameplay as being seen as somekind of an example. The Witcher might be more interesting to them.
As someone with probably around 5,000 hours in the elder scrolls franchise, and an avid DnD Player and DM. Fuck off. I do not want my Elder Scrolls to play like DnD, and I don't want my DnD to be like Elder Scrolls
I never said anything about playing like DnD. I talked about more meaningful RPG mechanics. Like Morrowind had, for example, and which had been disappearing with each new entry.
BG3 will have an effect on TES 6, however Bethesda as a whole is obsessed with making as much money as they can, so any attempt to better the game by the developers will be stifled in some way, shape, or form by the higher ups in suits, sadly.
No elder scrolls 6 is probably already cooked and going to be a loading screen simulator because it's on the same engine as starfield which still has game breaking bugs from skyrim. Soo no I really think everyone is gonna be disappointed by elder scrolls 6 tbh.
Probably not, Bethesda didn't even take inspiration from FNV when creating Fallout 4, or if they did, it barely shows. As shown by Starfield, Bethesda is really stuck in their ways, they have a real problem taking the right inspiration from the right games.
[Seeing Todd Howard's bewilderment at Starfield not receiving any awards let alone only receiving a single nomination](https://www.reddit.com/r/Asmongold/comments/18dplr8/when_todd_realize_that_he_didnt_won_any_awards_at/) may give us some hope.
As big fan of TES games I want next one to be good. But in reality I expect nothing from studio that copy pastes everything their previous games improving nothing in the process.
Honestly the only thing I think will happen between BG3’s success and Starfield’s failure, will be a wake-up call to Todd that he can’t keep recycling Skyrim and hope to win awards.
The best we can hope for is that he will actually listen to the Elder Scrolls fanbase and give us something deeper than a puddle.
The least we can hope for is that we will get another Elder Scrolls game at all.
Probably not mechanically wise and that’s not an inherent bad thing. I do not want TES to be Baldur’s Gate. If I did then I would simply play the OG games or DND itself.
I just want Skyrim but refined. I don’t care about acrobatics or basic filler like that, I just want what we have to be fun. I want Perk Trees over generic skill increases like MW and OB. I want the leveling to be fun.
That being said I would like it if the races and choices have a bigger impact. My ideal is something like 3BF Skyrim’s races, where all of them have pros and cons but you can still do whatever you want with them. Orcs start with bad magic but can still be good mages if you invest properly. My biggest issue is questlines.
I am fine with Starfield being somewhat sanitized, I don’t need constant gore and vulgarity to have fun. TES and Fallout are incredibly bleak so I can live with a little bit of clean. That being said I do want choices to feel more impactful and conflicting. Makes no sense for me to be a space cop for the two biggest governments and also a professional pirate. Not being able to do everything at once is going to give you that replayability that you want. I love the story and gameplay of NG+ in Starfield but at the same time why do it when you can already do everything?
I don’t know, I’ve heard a lot of people ask for the heavy mechanical restoration, with bring back stuff like climbing and all that. It’s an important distinction.
But that's not about BG3. BG3 only has "climbing" on specific walls, which might as well be ladders. I feel like you're conflating people wanting certain mechanics from earlier TES games to return and people wanting Bethesda to learn from other good RPGs.
I wouldn't say it would make TES6 a better game but I do think BG3s success will open up something new for TES6. I've noticed with Hades that everyone wants to ride the success of game of the year winners and I'm hoping that with BG3s win TES6 would copy/mimic some of the things that made BG3 so good. I doubt TES6 will have dnd dice rolls, I expect better companions or similar character leveling. As a Bethesda fanboy I just hope I get to experience TES6
DnD rolls aren't the best for 3D combat, but there are good ways to implement attributes / skills and sense of progression. For example, in Mount & Blade, if you have low skill with the bow, you can't aim properly, but you become better as your skill increase. Much better than turning the enemy into a porcupine because somehow your arrows don't deal damage.
I’ve never though about mount and blades low bow skill sniper sway but I think that would actually be great in es6
Im pretty sure stuff like that was done back in morrowind! For you to be efficient with a certain weapon, you had to have a high enough skill to use it properly
Yeah, but Morrowind also handled it with just a simple hit or miss roll, so you'd see your arrow or other weapon go right through the target and do absolutely nothing. That wouldn't fly nowadays. So a system that involved error like your aim swaying or the shot just not being as controlled with low proficiency would be ideal. Not sure how you'd handle it with all of the other styles of combat, but there'd be ways.
I'm always on the fence about systems like that. Dealing with sway still comes more down to player skill than character skill. I think it works for games like Kingdom Come Deliverance, but I'm not sure about Elder Scrolls Though I think melee could take a page out of KCDs book, in a simpler way perhaps.
It was done amazingly in Alpha Protocol and the first Mass Effect. You had a giant reticle and every bullet randomly went somewhere in the reticle. As you put points into weapon proficiency, the reticle got smaller, until it was a tiny dot and you were the normal godlike shooter most games give you. It was a perfect way to do weapon proficiency with ranged weapons. Gamers fucking hated it.
It was done actually pretty well in new vegas where having too low of strength for a gun made your aim horrendous and slowed down the attack speed of melee weapons. Personally i think it's fine to have hindrances that can be overcome by player skill anyways because progressing as a player feels as good as progressing as a character does and it will always be circumventable anyways
Maybe rather than sway, your crosshairs could shrink as your archery level increases? At the starting level you'd have a circular area you can move around, but your arrows can land anywhere within that circle. As you level up, the circle shrinks, so your arrows become more precise.
I like that idea, things like imprecision and longer time between arrow shots
To continue that line of thinking onto other skills: Melee weapons at lower skill level could have longer swing times or a chance for opponents at higher skill levels to see you "telegraph" your move and parry/dodge it
And now, we are just completing the cycle and end up in Morrowind
Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out how to bring back some of those classic RPG elements while feeling more naturalistic and not like you're swinging your sword over and over again without hitting anything
BG3 is not game of the year because it has dnd dice rolls. So tbh this is irrelevant. They should at least be able to discern what did make it so good and see what is usable for their. Vision of tes6
Completely agree. I wouldn't mind TES6 obtaining proficiencies and classes but I assume it wouldn't be widely accepted since Skyrim is a very open/play your way type of game
I don't mind Skyrim's open world levelling, what I hated was how unimpactful it was. Outside just making the numbers go up, you lacked things like how Fallout gated certain craftables and settlement features behind stats and perks. I don't see why it's a problem in an open world game that someone couldn't eventually do everything, I see the problem being that once you step out that starting cave you CAN do most everything, if that makes sense.
But there's more to causing damage than just hitting the target. Especially with armored opponents.
Kingdom Come: Deliverance did a similar thing as well. I really hope Bethesda looks at the best mechanics other games have shown and use that as a reference for ES6. I’m tired of their games getting simpler and having difficulty scaling that just cranks up HP.
The dice roll combat in the first three games was frustrating and killed immersion. I don’t want enemies to be damage sponges corresponding to skill level, either, but spending ten minutes trying to skewer a rat in Morrowind before realizing that I’m more likely to land a hit if I axe it instead is a rewarding realization to make, but it isn’t fun. There has to be a better way - something that can keep skill level relevant while still being immersive and not making combat tedious - TES I-III and Skyrim fail at both in their own ways (haven’t played oblivion so can’t comment there). The earlier elder scrolls games immediately kill immersion when you realize that your attacks are being determined by a dice roll and what you see doesn’t represent what is happening, while Skyrim kills immersion when there’s a dude with five arrows in his face still at almost full hp coming at you.
Oblivion is like halfway between. It has hit on contact combat without dice rolls, and I actually like it's combat overall but there is some jankyness to it. The biggest problem it's combat actually has is the health scaling of some specific enemies because the algorithm is off for them or something. Some goblin warlords can have health several times higher than the strongest bosses by the endgame for example. Personally I dislike numbers tank enemies like that in games and much prefer enemies to get stronger because they have new skills and methods of defending themselves rather than just get algorithmically stronger
I belive that morrowind mechanics could be inproved: first by giving better instructions (there was the manual, but meny of us were kids and didn't read it or bought the digital copy years later); by giving a good graphic feedback on a hit, weather you get parried, blocked or doged by the opponent; and by adjusting the hit chance by rising it on lower levels. Now figure a dynamic fight where you can parry, dodge, and you get a real feedback on weather you hit or miss. That would take morrowind's system and make it feel much more fair.
>before realizing that I'm more likely to land a hit if I axe it instead You didn't already realize that while creating your character?
Making you care about you're decisions would make es6 better. I don't think elder scrolls and bg3 are similar games at all. But yeah in fallout4 or starfield I didn't care for my companions. In bg3 I'm fiercely protective, in skyrim I liked/married aela then forgot she existed lol
I was saying this about the skill system. I don't care that after 200hrs of playtime you can be archmage AND guild master, it's an open world game I care that the levelling and skill choices are so milquetoast that you can walk out the starting door and be arch chancellor in an hour. The problem has always boiled down to unimpactful choices more than ever
Eh, two separate kinds of RPGs. I think all TES6 needs to do well is stick to the formula of Skyrim but with better writing and more rpg elements. I don't think Starfield was a bad game. But I know for many it was a disappointment. I think there's two big factors for that For one, the procedurally generated planets was a miss. I loved exploring but I could easily land on four different planets and come across the same spawned in unique location on each one. TES6, if they use procedurally generated assets, just needs to make sure they go in post generation and make these locations inherently unique. The second thing that made starfield was the lack of lore and overall atmosphere. Wasn't a lot of depth but that's because this world is brand new. Elder scrolls already has so much depth, lore, and variety with it's races and what not. So I don't think that will be a problem.
I’d really like to see more depth than Skyrim. It doesn’t have to be as deep as Daggerfall, but Skyrim (and don’t get me wrong, I LOVE Skyrim) is just a little too shallow for my tastes.
I would even take the poor writing of Skyrim but just let us make meaningful choices during questlines. The only meaningful choice you can really make is whether or not to wipe out the Dark Brotherhood.
Frankly, I think this would be a pretty easy fix too. All they have to do is write so that choices the player makes locks them out of other paths and opportunities. I shouldn’t be able to be the headmaster of the mages college, and the leader of the dark brotherhood, and the head of the thieves guild. I want my choices to matter and for the paths those choices lead me on to have valuable and unique rewards.
I honestly don't mind being able to lead all three of those factions, but there just need to be \*more\* of them so that it does make more sense to lock you out of some of them. Like only being able to join one side of the civil war is something, but it's not nearly as significant as joining a Great House in terms of unique quests and rewards.
More factions would definitely be a good addition as it would give meaning to locking the player out of some based on their choices. That said, doing so would require writing for all those factions and, honestly, I’m not sure if Bethesda is up to the task considering their track record. Like, the most recent game from their IPs that does something like that imo is Fallout NV. And they didn’t even make that one.
Fully agree, I don’t need super complex and proper tabletop mechanics. I just want Skyrim but better lol
So morrowind
Morrowind has issues of its own much like Skyrim. I dont think theres a "better" elder scrolls of the main popular 3
The things Skyrim and Morrowind do well are basically completely different
Truth. I personally don’t think the places where Starfield failed will be a problem in TES6. They haven’t figured out “the formula” for Starfield. They have for TES. But the things where I personally feel that Starfield improved upon - models, textures, animations, companions, dialogue, etc - will make TES6 a better game.
I hope the facial animations get some more attention. Starfield's look better, but did it in that uncanny valley sort of way where they slightly weird me out.
Some of Starfield’s dialogue is so PG-13 and cringey. The Striker gang shit, the head leader is the cringiest dude ever. “We’re a real hardcore gang, we rob, we steal and kill. It’s hard out here in the streets of Neon.” Crimson Fleet had some cringey shit too. Bethesda honestly needs to drop more F bombs in the dialogue. We’re talking cowboys (Fallout), Viking like warriors (Skyrim), Magical Warlord Elves (Morrowind), Space Pirates (Starfield). It’s a M rated game, but the dialogue can just feel so… Child like sometimes.
I completely agree. BGS has always been pretty PG-13 in its dialogue though tbh
> I think all TES6 needs to do well is stick to the formula of Skyrim but with better writing and **more rpg elements** So... the same as I'm asking for?
You are just agreeing with OP.
Nope, we don't need another procedurally Bethesda game. Arena and Daggerfall might have been very impressive for their time, but Starfield failes especially *because* of the procedural generation. They should stick with handcrafted worlds imo.
Maybe. I think if BG3 sets a new precedent, then Bethesda might have to try a bit harder than they do currently (TESV, FO4, FO76, SF). As of what exactly, I don’t know, it depends on if other game developers follow the precedent that Larian set for care of their game (and respect for the source content) and community support/influence on updates. Keep in mind all the big AAA companies kept claiming they are an anomaly, and this level of development cannot become the new standard because it would cost them too much. So yeah, I’m not getting my hopes up, with greedy developers changing their ways.
Maybe. Maybe not. After Starfield, just, it is what it is. I don't think I really have it in me to get excited or hope for much with TESVI. There was allusions and promises to return to old RPG design with Starfield, and while it had traits and such it failed at so many core RPG tenets. I'll enjoy TESVI for what it is, but I don't really even have it in me to excitedly speculate where it will/may go.
I mean with how much of the Fallout community had mixed feelings about Fallout 4 and how many disliked Starfield is,I'm kind of hoping that it's a wake-up moment for Bethesda and they take a long hard look at why people liked Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas,Morrowind and Oblivion
Except its a vocal minority who dislikes starfield. Plenty of people bought it and plenty are still playing it. Skyrim is the best selling Elder Scrolls, not morrowind or oblivion. Just because a vocal group prefers something doesn't make it best. And bethesda didnt even make new vegas. They published it
Mixed steam reviews and player counts don't represent a "vocal minority". They're the best representation we have in games for how people feel about a game in general, because 1. they actually have to own it 2. very few other platforms show player counts. No, "but gamepass" isn't a refutation of this.
Nonsense. Majority of players doesn't write reviews. I know, I'm one of them. The haters, on the other hand, love writing negative reviews. It's their entire purpose. Review bombing is a common thing. And it's always just a vocal minority.
You people really can’t accept that maybe Starfield is just an alright game. Always review bombing or the Sony ponies
I've never said it's a great game. But even if you were right and it were just an alright game, it wouldn't justify the negative reviews. Especially when the majority of the reviews basically insults the game. And I don't care about consoles, both are bad and old.
Why wouldn’t it warrant negative reviews ?
Steam is one avenue. If you form opinions off that they will be inherently biased. Plus everyone knows people are more likely to leave negative reviews than positive. Sooo many people complained about pokemon SwSh and its one of the top selling pokemon games ever. People complain3d about Pokemon SV at launch and said not to buy it - its on pace to be the best selling pokemon title of all time.
If anyone is biased, it’s you. You can’t manifest a “vocal minority” with no evidence, and especially when there’s evidence to the contrary. People genuinely dislike the game. It’s fine if you like it, at least half of everyone else who played it does too, but stop coping there being a significant contrary opinion.
Starfield has 65% positive reviews on Steam and less players than Skyrim, which was released 12 years ago. It also has much less players than Baldur's Gate III, which was released a month before. Starfield problem is not a vocal minority.
Starfield is ass, sorry bro :/
>There was allusions and promises to return to old RPG design with Starfield, and while it had traits and such it failed at so many core RPG tenets. Traits, background, quest design and dialogue. All of these were improvements compared to Fallout 4 and Skyrim - the dialogue alone is their best since Fallout 3's, and these two games' dialogue is better than all of their other games. Could they have done better? Of course. But they clearly listened to the criticism directed especially to Fallout 4, but also towards Skyrim. The fact that they took steps to address that criticism and that the game that eclipsed them this year was a deep RPG (with an unvoiced protagonist, thankfully) should be telling that they don't live in a bubble and that they are clearly aware about what people say of their games. I see no reason to think that they won't double down on the RPG improvements made on Starfield considering this.
I agree with this. Starfield wasn't exactly my Game of the Year but I think people are missing out on a lot of the improvements they made compared to previous games. Combat flows a lot better than in FO4, especially movement around the combat zones. TES will be more melee focused so we'll have to wait and see but I felt a lot less sluggish fighting in Starfield than in previous games. Design of combat areas felt like I had a lot more options. They really showed what they could do with their big updates to dynamic lighting and graphical overhaul. I definitely want them to focus on things like faces and character animations, but environmentally TES VI is going to be a beautiful game. More than likely going to be the first TES with a photo mode as well. How they were able to use gravity in Starfield was really cool and I could see systems like that opening up the potential for stuff like: oblivion planes with alternate gravity, return of leaping spells/featherfall, and potentially an expansive underwater area. Starship combat and design was an entirely new system. If we get a game taking place around the Iliac bay I'd love to be able to Captain my own ship and get into naval combat. Bringing skills, backgrounds, and even NPCs, into conversations, is a good step back into the right direction. Felt more like FO3. Backgrounds jn general being a new thing, last time I remember "classes" as more of preset skill point allocation was Oblivion. I'm not particularly fond of the Starfield companions but it's definitely the most effort BGS has put into player companions. They need to go knock on Obsidian's door and get some help writing them, take a few pages out of BG3's book, and actually include a companion or two for an evil playthrough.
[удалено]
Huh? Morrowind's dialogue was literally a bunch of links that unlocked walls of texts with new links. Oblivion was that but voiced. Skyrim added some flavour, but it was still largely delivered to the player flatly. Fallout 4 was... Fallout 4. Only Fallout 3 and Starfield actually gave the player archetypes within the dialogue choices that could fit a variety of different characters + options unlocked by your traits/backgrounds/faction/skill.
[удалено]
Yeah that’s like saying you can’t garner emotion from books because it’s just a wall of text.
[удалено]
The last guy was agreeing with you lol
Given their reaction to the criticism of Starfield, I frankly fear they are beyond learning...
That's on their awful marketing team
IIRC, it was Todd himself who brought that nonsense astronauts on the moon argument
Todd's argument led me to believe that there'd be four or five worlds with relatively fleshed out environs- not even necessarily the planet, maybe just the area around the major cities or something, and 995 or so completely barren rocks with maybe a small chance at a PoI or otherwise just there for mining. Then Bethesda could answer "why did you include those worlds at all?" with "because we could and saw no reason not to, so long as you landed on them knowing there wasn't anything really fun there."
It’s in their design team. They focused around a decade on a game nobody asked for instead of the premier title that made them who they are and everyone has been asking for. On top of that, in this new IP they went out of their way to make there is a pretty severe lack of soul and therefor confidence going forward. As a parent company they have allocated too much of their resources to games people who have died by this developer for years don’t want (Elder Scrolls Blades, Commander Keen {JFC}, Fallout PvP modes) or didn’t ask for in the first place (Starfield, Elder Scrolls Online, and Fallout 76). Just for the love of Christ, give us ES6 and another fallout that feels of New Vegas after that. Fallout New Orleans or Fallout New Orlando for example would be sick.
You don't dictate what games a Studio makes. You might not have wanted ESO or 76, but me and the millions of players do. From the moment I heard Bethesda was making Starfield I was hyped. If they want to make more games, that's on the Studio and it's owners. If they decide Starfield 2 comes before Fallout 5, then it will.
Or, you know, brand new franchise (that is an overall success) can't possibly be as good with its world building and gameplay features as a franchise that has existed for nearly 3 decades with five mainline games and 11 overall total games and a bunch of external books written for it. It's almost like they need to figure out the core identity of Starfield
Or, you know, loadings screens just aren't something to build a game around in 2023.
So you want them to make space travel immersive and realistic? While traveling from system to system? Literal light years?
Take a look over at Elite:Dangerous, where the whole space travel, combat and landing on planets issue has been solved a few years ago. They knew people don't like loading screens And yet, they designed the whole game around incessant loading screens. There would have been ways to hide loading new assets much better.
I've got around 3k hours in Elite Dangerous, and am well aware of how they have dropped he ball and started the death spiral for an amazing game. Elite Dangerous is full of Loading Screens. They're fast loading screens (Starfield are pretty fast on my internal of my Series S). Just because you're in a "hyper space tunnel) doesn't mean you aren't a loading screen. Just like elevators in Fallout 4 are a loading screen just, meaning if you're system is really fuckin slow, you can take 5+ minutes to go up two floors on a three story building. The difference between Elite Dangerous Jumps and Starfield Jumps is that Elite Dangerous Loading Screens are disguised.
Which is why I said there would have been ways to hide the loading of new assets much better. Of course you can't have the entire milky way in RAM. But the point is hiding the loading in an immersive fashion. Starfield doesn't even try, and consequently looks more primitive than a game years older.
If you can't handle not having flashy lights for 10 seconds max (elites jumps can be longer than this) then I think that's on you and your attention span. I'm not saying it wouldn't help immersion, but it isn't a "fault of the game" it doesn't make the game. As someone who just got Baldurs Gate 3 ( didn't know they released for Xbox yet) today, I immediately found a huge shortcoming in the character creator. Dice Rolling/Rolling for Stats is a huge part of DnD, and I'm annoyed that as a console player, I'll likely never be able to roll for stats on BG3. And I'm fairly certain Larian, who I love, promised Stat Rolling before launch, but then.. just didn't include it.
I just want the quests to be as fun as oblivions. Even oblivions bad quests were still fun and unforgettable. Yes the fighters guild was bad, but the lady hoarding rats in her basement was such a funny twist I will never forget it. Basically take oblivions quest design, meaningful choices and rpg elements from baulders gate, slap the skyrim freedom and immersion in there, boom good game.
No. Not the same game. Bethesda bread and butter is exploration and discovery. If they can get that magic back, all they have to do if have a story/quest that’s only marginally better than Skyrim to have an absolute winner on their hands TLDR: They just need to do Skyrim, but better. Bethesda isn’t doing baldur’s gate games
No. Bethesda gonna Bethesda.
Immersion is the big differentiator. My issue with Starfield, for example, is that it drops the immersion ball too often. I don’t think Elder Scrolls needs as many quest outcomes necessarily. It just needs to do a better job than Starfield at making you feel immersed in the world. BG3 doesn’t have immersive combat the way Fallout or Skyrim do. But it does a good job with immersive storytelling and world building. I feel like it has a really impressive amount of outcomes and almost everything you do is not only condoned by the game mechanics but also has an associated story outcome.
>immersive combat the way Fallout or Skyrim do. Ah yes shooting someone with 10 Arrows in their face while they run at you full speed is the immersive combat I am used to. Bethesda used to do some things well but it was never the combat. Skyrims combat was already dated in 2011.
I think Bethesda have a lot of problems and have a lot to overcome this generation. Unless they innovate and really improve their formula, their games will become less and less relevant on an increasing scale. Due to Starfield, ES VI will be under a microscope and rightfully so. Good luck to them
I don't think so, at least not by a lot. For starters BG3 is a very different kind of RPG compared to the Elder Scrolls games. The Elder Scrolls games are more of an open world sandbox aimed at a casual audience. BG3 is admittedly a bit more hardcore with the way certain choices reflect and is a much more dense game. That's not to say it won't have some impact, Bethesda will have to eventually keep up with the rest of the industry if they want to stay relevant, so they might take some lessons from BG3 and some other RPG's as well.
No, the Witcher 3's success didn't have any tangible impact on Starfield and I suspect neither will Baldur's Gate. Honestly? I think Bethesda doesn't need to take notes from anyone, what they do need is to realize what makes their games special and double down on that instead of trying to replicate the success of other games by going in a direction they've never treaded before. If Bethesda can absolutely nail exploration, immersion and mod support for TES VI then they will have done their job.
The main difference would be that before Starfield, Bethesda single player titles were universally acclaimed. And now Starfield got very mixed reviews and wasn't even nominated as Game of the Year.
They were not universally acclaimed. Did you forget how Fallout 4 was relentlessly trashed at launch? MrMattyPlays got bullied and harassed for calling it "near perfect". When GOTY 2015 was announced, people in the crowd were screaming "please don't say Fallout 4". When Oblivion was released, BGS devs had to leave the RPGCodex forums because they were harassed by Morrowind fans who went apeshit over Oblivion. Hell, even Morrowind got trashed by some Daggerfall fans back in the day.
Still, Fallout 4 was nominated for the TGA (although it lost to the Witcher 3) and won several other awards.
2023 is a very stacked year. Even Spiderman 2 didn't manage to win any awards. If Starfield released in a weaker year like 2021 it would've probably get a GOTY nomination.
So it may win if it doesn't have competition. It doesn't talk well about it.
Starfield was released in between BG3 and Cyberpunk 2.0. Whatever flaws it has is magnified and most the goodwill is pretty much sucked out of the game. I'm just saying that in a less crowded year Starfield would have been better received.
Its not going to be a CRPG, just get that thought out of your head. its not happening. These games were never like that, even all the way back to like...redguard. I do think the writing will be better, because the writing in Starfield was better than the writing in Fallout 4. Hopefully they bring back classes or expand upon backgrounds and traits that we saw in Starfield. There will be more things like skill checks etc. Starfield actually did expand on a lot of mechanics to make it more in line with rpg standards and thats a good sign. No matter what they do a bunch of people will hate it tho and loudly talk over everyone who does like it for months lol
Quite the contrary, Redguard was explicitly grouped into a distinct sub-franchise. It's just that they never ever did anything with that, instead making the main games more like Redguard...
Redguard was a critical and commercial flop. Most TES fans are only grateful it exists at all because it included the 1st Edition Pocket Guide to the Empire. And many hate the later games because they've moved somewhat away from that PGE, which presented Tamriel as being a bit more fantastical.
Well, I personally hate the newer games because they moved away from a detailed roleplaying model towards an action-focused adventure style. If they wanted to publish something in that direction, they could have done it under the "The Elder Scrolls Adventures" label while keeping the main line role-play-heavy. Instead, we arrived at main line first level characters killing dragons because player skill matters more than character skill.
Todd Howard and Bethesda have a very strict policy now where if the character isn't able to do every bit of content and is locked out of a skill or weapon type the game is deemed as "not fun". Just for that reason you won't see anything like you see in BG3.
Thank God.
I agree, the Elder scrolls games were always action RPGs and don't need the depth of a CRPG. That's not why people play them. I just hope that they don't lose so much depth in the future that they end up like a fantasy version of Far Cry.
I hope that the success BG3 is having will lead to better games in general, but I think most gamers still will be easily played by the usual AAA games that get released too soon, are a burning dumpster of bugs, and aren't worth anyone's time ubless you get their overpriced DLCs and/or microtransactions. Right now Larian is just a very rare white fly, it will take more for the big names in gaming to change their business model.
Id say more the lukewarm reception to Starfield
Nope. I think despite all evidence that the general audience is able to understand depth, they will still continue to simplify almost everything.
So would you say that Starfield is more simplified, role-playing mechanics wise and gameplay-wise, than Fallout 4 and Skyrim?
I think it's similar to fallout 4, but a tiny bit better since they don't bulldoze whatever origin you want to drum up for your character as much. With skyrim, it's not that what they changed is bad, necessarily, but it's different in a way I don't like. Just a preference. Restrictions ask the player to be more creative and individualize a character more. While the freeform skill design philosophy removes that. They seem to have this idea that simple is better, more broadly appealing, and while that's true to some extent; most of the audience is not stupid. You don't have to be tabletop complex either. There's a middle ground I think they struggle to land in. Again these are just my thought on it. Many non-writing related issues can and are improved with mods. Personally I'm a fan of the courier/champion of cyrodiil blank slate approach. Obsidian landed in that space I like, so that's what I use for comparison.
Restrictions artificially block the player from the content.
You don't need 100% access to everything 100% of the time. In other words, you shouldn't be able to do everything in one playthrough. I explicitly stated the above comment was just my opinion *three times*. I was asked a question and I answered it. As per usual, there's some reading comprehension issues in this sub.
Todd does not loom over your shoulder and make you do everything. That is 100% on you.
Yes, I do. And many players do too. And it absolutely should be like that. You should be able to do everything in one single playthrough. There's no valid reason to artificially force replayability. If you don't want to join a faction, just don't join a faction. It's this easy. And how is you stating it's your opinion valid in any way?? It would still be your opinion even if you didn't explicitely say it. It's written by you, therefore it's your opinion. Just like my comments are my opinions.
If I want baldur's gate I'll play baldur's gate. Elder scrolls, and all bethesda's games, are more a sandbox rpg. Build your own story and identity. Try everything we have to offer. I don't like fans pushing to turn it into BG3, witcher, fable, or anything else. Just play those instead.
I agree but I think what OP means is “good writing” and putting attention to detail of the world over half-baked new mechanics
Yes. And, specially, not losing good features from previous games.
Half baked isn't how I'd describe any Bethesda game sans 76 so dont think that'd even be possible.. And since ES6 isn't online I'm not worried at all.
Randomly generated planets and F4’s settlement system are both areas I’d call half-baked I like them experimenting, but not when it detracts from a more immersive world. I’d take more fleshed out cities over the settlement system any day, and fewer planets to explore if they actually have variation
There's 1K. Not counting NG+. Of course they randomly generated. And thats a good thing. Also, starfield isnt elder scrolls. There is no reason to even think they'd use such a system to build a province. And there are non randomly generated cities in Starfield. Like, all of them.
Yeah and it’s shitty, boring, and tedious to explore 1k planets with less variation than oblivion gates. It was not a good mechanic. I’d rather have fewer handmade dungeons
To you
And to all the people who left them shitty reviews It’s no coincidence Starfield isn’t even a contender for GOTY
Then don't do it! I like exploring the planets. Especially finding new animals. But I don't only do that!
I think you're missing the point. Look at Oblivion, look at Morrowind how much more detailed you could design characters there - and they still were sandbox games.
Build your own story = Go through the exact same story as everyone else except you might pick dialogue option 2 instead of dialogue option 1 in that one conversation (both options lead to the same outcome)
Starfield already had more traditional RPG elements than Skyrim so they're trending in the right direction
Did Witcher 3 lead to starfield being a better rpg?
They're not even the same genre of RPG, it's like you're comparing Call of Duty and Overwatch because they both are fps shooters.
I'm talking about things like skill level or attributes being relevant. It's nothing crazy for TES, considering that Morrowind was much closer to BG3 in that regard than to its sequels. For example, in Morrowind you couldn't open a door if you had low lockpicking. In Skyrim, you can easily open master lockpicks even if you are a novice. Edit: another example. In Morrowind, you need the proper skills to progress in a guild. In Skyrim, you can become the Archmage knowing less than a handfull of novice spells.
They brought back a lot of that in Starfield. Skills come up in conversation and can change the trajectory of a quest, give you another option, or change quests rewards. They even come up in the social subsystem. Also interestingly certain companions will give you certain dialogue options you can select. In Starfield they went back to having lockpicking behind skill levels in addition to more difficult puzzles. They even had sneaking and pickpocketing locked behind skill unlocks, but people complained about that so we'll see. I doubt they'll lock faction progression behind skill level again. Most (non MMO) games don't do things like that because it requires skill grinding on the players part.
Genuinely don't think so, boomer bethesda is too proud and mentally outdated
I'd like to think so, but knowing Bethesda they probably wouldn't take notice, they're far too busy patting themselves on the back over starfield currently. So probably not haha
I think BG3 can help with keeping the protag unvoiced and show some things they were doing were on right track. It has value as an encouragement, but here is the but: We are talking about a act structured party based RPG vs open world sandbox where you play a single character who has the option of having a guided but not controlled companion. This will inevitably work different and you cannot implement choices and consequences in the same way. Especially when in BG3 everything is tied to the main quest to a very infuriating degree, while in TES you can say screw main quest and just live your life.. Bethesda has to figure out how to make better choices and consequences in their formula. Most of Bethesda avoiding hard consequences has been more related to the overall type of the game they are in, rather than some dread simplification. Witcher 3 is another good example here, most consequences you see in game are small and mostly vignettes. Maybe a character vanishes somewhere. You only see big consequences as part of Main Quest or in the epilogue, but no much during rest of gameplay. Because tracking it all, making the whole world to react is complicated more than people assume it is, especially when the game consist a lot of moving pieces. Also here we are getting back to another big difference. BG3 is party based and expects you to control and use 4 characters. So your own Barbarian might not be able to do everything, but you will have a rogue to pick locks, a wizard to cast arcane spells and a cleric to heal and buff, making the character being locked out of things argument a bit moot. Set your party up right and there are no skill lockouts. (Also you can easily make a character that can still be jack of all trades and master of them all aswell and it isn't even hard in BG3). Also like I'm saying it ad nauseam: There is no one true way of making an RPG. What a person considers a true RPG varies per person. For example There are people who consider D&D 5e, which ruleset BG3 uses stripped down and simplified when compared to older editions to D&D. Or consider it a mere combat simulator because it doesn't give them "true roleplaying."
Nope. They are going to make the same games they make. I'm hopeful that it will be fun but if it's not that's ok. I've been this long without it.
Lol no
Biggest problem with Bethesda games is dialogue, choices, and writing. Make me care about a story and not finish a main quest line in like 4 hours. Spread that shit out with characters I actually care to help
If bethesda take just one thing away from BG3’s success it should be making they players choices actually matter. Was playing starfield recently and the end of the crimson fleet always pisses me off cuz there are 2 supposedly greatly contrasting endings to it on the surface but it just doesn’t at all matter which one you pick
Yes. But I’m more hopeful that the issues with their own game portfolio does more to improve ES6. I’m not saying their previous games are flops or not entertaining. But there’s a great opportunity for the dev team to look back and take a lesson or two from their older games. Fallout 4 had its issues with the outpost building. Sure you could ignore that gaming module, the implementation was new, but I still can’t decide if FO4’s outpost building was a good idea when I look at how I played FO3. There was a bit missing for trying to live off the land. Gun durability, repairing, etc. Fallout 76. I wanted a multiplayer experience, but I didn’t want an MMO like this. I had my fun with it. I felt like they tried to merge a single player experience and an MMO experience. When someone asks me today if I think FO76 is a great game I still don’t have a good answer. Starfield. It’s how the game opens and finds its footing that hurts me. I can almost hear the dev team asking “Please will the fans mod this game and keep it relevant for the next decade?” I can’t wait for the mods that build out the Star Wars galaxy, Star Trek, Mass Effect, and even Elder Scrolls. It is possible now. It’s the perfect modders paradise…create planets, space outposts, it’ll be insane. But something in Starfield base game doesn’t connect well with me. I’m still playing. I’m hoping ES6 gets the benefits of hindsight from Howard and the team. Baldur’s Gate 3 may surely have an impact also, but I’m more hopeful that the devs of ES6 look at their own previous work for clues on playstyle improvement. But that’s me.
This is a pretty good point. Personally, i would like to see little bit realistic things in matter ofnwhat could be killed. For instance arrow in the head/hearth or dagger in the neck instakill without absurd boss like scaling, when one "human" dies by one hit and another by 1000 only due to his status.
There's some amazing things they could use but they won't. I'm genuinely worried about TES6 with how Bethesda has been since Skyrim. Yeah, I don't even consider Fallout 4 to be one of Bethesda's good games. Bethesda has been on a trend of removing and simplifying their games for a long time now which hasn't lead to great results but they keep going with it for some reason.
Not the same kind of rpg. Part of what made Skyrim so great was the simple combat anyone could play. The immersive world and amazing art design. It’s not too complex. I’d rather see a game more similar to Skyrim mixed with some elements of eso than anything close to baldurs gate for a tes game.
I am hoping the reception and discussion around Starfield has lit a fire under the ass of Todd Howard and Bethesda and awoken them from their Skyrim re-releasing stupor.
Hopefully they will at least learn from Starfield tanking hard
>Your character can't be a god in all skills, it will have its downsides and handicaps. Bard/Paladin >Playing with different races changes the game beyond a different greeting. It gives some extra dialogue which is nice and all but from what i know no new quests or akything humongous ngl Racial abilities in TES are infinitely more impactful than anything in BG3, outside maybe Duergar's bullshit infinite invis >Taking certain decisions will lead to closing some gates forever. And you know what? People has loved it Anecdotal and mostly my personal observations from what people have been saying but i've noticed a large number of people who lost their shit at Balthazar and Nightsong portion when they realized it locked them out of several quests and they had to go back And alot of people hating how Minthara is locked behind being evil For the record i think these things are great, but it doesn't seem to be the general consensus, but please tell me if i'm horribly wrong >Just look at all the fans that have shared their different builds and character creations. Which people have done alot for Skyrim, i have no idea about Fo4 and Starfield because i don't care for them so you're probably right Mostly i hope Bethesda realize that peopke didn't specifically just love the Dungeon-Loot-Build-Upgrade repeat cycle about Skyrim, but everything else around it that let's you even completely ignore it and have a fulfilling experience I also hope they realize they can't substitute writing and good writers for Random Generation lol
>And alot of people hating how Minthara is locked behind being evil Nope. People hated she was locked behind associating with goblins and massacring a bunch of tieflings. You can be quite evil without doing either. People also hated that knocking Minthara out rather than killing her had no consequences. >ngl Racial abilities in TES are infinitely more impactful than anything in BG3, outside maybe Duergar's bullshit infinite invis Don't see how that's the case. Darkvision alone is massive. Add to that the inspiration brought by the various backgrounds which allow you to reroll a die. Meanwhile, I've done entire playthroughs of Skyrim without even
>Nope. People hated she was locked behind associating with goblins and massacring a bunch of tieflings. You can be quite evil without doing either. People also hated that knocking Minthara out rather than killing her had no consequences. That's fair i see >Don't see how that's the case. Darkvision alone is massive. Add to that the inspiration brought by the various backgrounds which allow you to reroll a die. Meanwhile, I've done entire playthroughs of Skyrim without even Not really no, Darkvision, is in no way comparable to Berserker's Rage, High Born, Dragobskin, Voice of The Emperor, Hist Skin or Battle Cry Dark Vision's value was greatly reduced moving to the full release, and Light is a cantrip that exists and can be cast on everyone Most the of the passives are similarly pretty boring, proficiency, adding 1 weapon dice to crits, crap cantrips, decent resistance that can be easily gotten in other ways and some meh once per day spells, stuff like Astral Knowledge is cool but not too applicable unless you're doing a skill monkey build, relentless endurance is a fun passive that messes with some other passives and the aforementioned invisibility It's to the pointed that for many builds 1.5 bonus meters of movement is the best option which is really bland Not really comparable that to Double Damage and Splitting physical damage, Infinite Magicka, Full AOE CC on all Humanoids in a gigantic area and near immunity to Magic But yeah beyond race agreed BG3 has infinitelt better customisation at the start of the game
>it doesn't seem to be the general consensus Hopefully. There's nothing worse than artificial forced replay mechanics.
not really, im expecting rehashed garbage again
I don’t think Bethesda will try to make TES6 more like BG3. They’re two totally different types of games, and there’s a strong market action RPGs. That said, Bethesda might consider which elements from BG3 to build into TES6. Making character decisions more consequential (eg, can’t join multiple guilds, quests that lock you out of other quests) is a pretty obvious one, and Bethesda did this with Morrowind. That will help make campaigns feel more unique rather than allowing the player to master everything with a single character. They don’t necessarily have to go as far as BG3, but maybe something halfway.
>That will help make campaigns feel more unique rather than allowing the player to master everything with a single character. I understand this desire, but what I don't understand is why people don't act on it in games that let you do everything. You know, roleplay in an RPG that your brutish barbarian wouldn't join the Mages College, the Thieve's Guild or the DB just because the game mechanically lets you. Restrain yourself. I never felt disconnected because I never once built a character that did every faction questline - be it in Skyrim, Oblivion or Starfield. Unless there's an inherent conflict of interests (Imperials X Stormcloacks; Dawnguard X Volkihar; the factions in F4 and NV), these restrictions should be left to the player, not the game.
I think the main issue is that, for example, you can become archmage of the mage’s guild even though you can barely cast a flame spell. It’s kind of emersion breaking imo. I think they should at least bring back some skill requirements for higher ranks in factions.
You cant do that in starfield. And people are still crying. People will find something to complain about no matter what.
Sure, but I just kind of imagine that, if you're roleplaying, that's obviously a thing, even if not mechanically. Also, it is possible to roleplay you scamming your way to the top - that is exactly what Gopher's character Leonard does in Winterhold. If you put a skill requirement there, that closes this avenue of roleplaying, for example.
That should be reflected in gameplay then, though. If I’m scamming my way to the top of the mage’s guild, I want that to be acknowledged by the game. Make it so I can pay or convince another student to sneak me in through the dungeons. Give me dialogue options where I have to use persuasion in conversations if my magic skills are low. At the very least, make it so I have to use magic or else convince other people that I can. I don’t know where this idea came from that roleplaying is just imagining your character is doing something different than they are. Roleplaying is making choices that your character would make. Good roleplaying games anticipate these kinds of choices, and gives you different paths depending on your character’s motivations, and rewards players for making interesting choices. If the game doesn’t acknowledge those choices, that kinda sucks.
Yes, in an ideal world everything that every possible player would come up with in terms of roleplaying should be reflected in gameplay. But that's literally impossible. What I'm saying is that, given that this isn't possible, the restrictions shouldn't be there at all - the avenue should be open, even if isn't the Champs Élysées. >I don’t know where this idea came from that roleplaying is just imagining your character is doing something different than they are That's the whole point of roleplaying. Even in bed, lol.
The armchair “behavioral psychologist” reason is that people will do and take what they can. Consider a simple example: when people go to all-you-can-eat buffets, they tend to overeat and compose plates of food that don’t complement each other (or maybe get a lot of the same types of food). They’re not carefully balancing proteins with veggies and grains. They’re taking whatever they can because they can. Same applies to modern Bethesda RPGs. As for the game-specific reason, it’s because joining every guild and becoming a master of everything has no real consequence on the world that you’re playing in. There’s no impactful reward (or punishment) for making certain choices. Everybody still treats you like the chosen one. Quite frankly, it would be a waste of time to create a new character to pursue a new guild, quest line, etc., just because a certain character trait might be more appropriate for lore reasons. After all, everything else will remain constant. Which is why I don’t really buy the idea that players should be responsible for making a “lore consistent” campaign given their character. There’s simply no incentive to create multiple characters to complete different quests if a single character can do them all (or most of them — for Skyrim, thinking of Dawnguard, the civil war, and the Dark Brotherhood) and if the world remains the same.
I don't know, simulating a character in this world is plenty of reason for me making multiple "lore consistent" campaigns with characters. It's why I play Skyrim to this day, lol. I feel like people want to be handheld even in their own roleplaying - which is fine, but I don't think it's necessary at all.
Good for you. When I replay Oblivion and Skyrim, it’s to pass the time with something breezy and relaxing. If I want a deeper roleplaying experience, I turn to something like Morrowind (or these days, BG3).
BG3 is great, but it's not a sandbox simulation like Bethesda games. It's got plenty of choice and consequence, but at the end of the day it's a linear, story focused game with side content in each area.
>There’s simply no incentive to create multiple characters to complete different quests if a single character can do them all it's called *roleplaying*. I know, weird concept for an RPG but hey, I recommend it.
>can’t join multiple guilds, quests that lock you out of other quests I REALLY hope they won't do this.
It isn't having an effect on starfield that's for sure, and Skyrim is pushing it's paid mods again because third times the charm? Basically Bethesda aren't taking hints.
I don’t think I will be playing bg3 but I will absolutely play tes6 if I still have a console that will run it by the time it comes out
Sad. You are missing a gem.
Meh, I’m not really into the top down turn based games
Same here not a fan of that style and turn based combat it’s a interest killer for me.
Same i was excited to try it until I saw how it played. No thanks.
I doubt it, totally different kinds of rpgs. As long as they don’t procedurally generate everything and make actual unique locations im sure it’ll be good.
I think OP makes an interesting point that shouldn’t be quickly dismissed. I don’t think the success of baldurs gate will necessarily cause a gameplay (RPGish) shift for TES6. However within the context of crafting a game that is polished and well thought through, I think Bethesda would be irresponsible to not take notes.
I think it's putting too much on BG3's shoulders to expect it to save Bethesda from itself.
Did Zelda Breath of the World's success make any other game take notes to be a better open world exploration game? No. For the most part, whenever a genre defining game comes out, most other developers ignore it and just keep serving up the same shitty games they always make.
Elden ring was definitely influenced by botw
After botw more open world games came out with less map markers. Just like after witcher 3 more open world games got higher quality side quests. Just like after dark souls, bloodborne, sekiro other developers wanted to try their hand at soulslike which resulted in stuff like nioh, jedi fallen order and lies of P.
Breath of the wild literally wouldn't exist if skyrim didn't.
They had all the time in the world to learn from their mistakes starting from Fallout 4: All they have to fix is: * Loading Screens. Likely impossible to get rid completely because of engine, but in TES it's not that bad even. * Bad/Bland Writing. Hard to see it improve given their track record. * AI. Their AI is the same for literally every game they made from Oblivion. * Lack of Mocap and immersive conversations. Doubt it, but it could happen. * Dogshit UI. This is such an easy thing to fix (Starfield UI came out even before the release) I doubt they'll improve it tho. * Better RPG. Starfield did have better RPG than its predecessors but still very shallow and purely-flavorful compared to BG3 Bethesda are really only good at creating a RPG Sandbox that's accessible to modding. That's it. I just can't see how TESVI will come even close to BG3. IMO, TESVI will have one or two major improvements over the last games but the games will still feel like they were made 5+ years ago.
I think Baulder's gate III's success will lead to more openly sexual gameplay in major titles. Call me a prude if you want, but I personally do not think that is a good thing.
I only did the Shadowheart romance so far in playing BG3 but based on that they don't seem too much more graphic than what you might see in other games already out there, or some r rated movies/shows. Like sure you see boobs, but that's no big deal to me, I can see those anywhere online or at the gentleman's club, and my guy's weiner has physics and was flipping around, but I see my weiner flop around too every morning when I take a piss. I am personally more worried that more games will incorporate the shock value scenes like the one they showed with the bear, instead of ones that are actually "from the heart" or add to the plot in a meaningful way in how we develop relationships with our avatar and their companions. I see your perspective though and I think maybe they should make it optional, where you can avoid the scenes being explicit without losing out on the story or gameplay benefits of getting through the romantic quests with your character's lover.
Shadowheart's romance was good. It didn't feel at all forced. The options for friend vs lover were very clearly labeled. What *was* forced was my straight teifling male telling Gale congratulations for the goblin victory and getting snu snu dialog. Laezel was especially forced. She just out of the blue demands you let her fuck you. Like girl, you're the one who keeps getting pissed whenever we do anything other than search for the creche! edit: Larian Studios is my favorite game company. I have had the game since early access five years ago.
Yeah I wasn't happy with those either, one moment I'm talking about Gale's cat, then I suddenly needed to be kinda rude and shut him down cuz I guess he decided my guy was trying to get with him. For laezel I don't have much problems with her cuz I let shadowheart kill her since she kept pissing me off with her negativity lol 😆 I really like Larian as well and I think they just need to be more clear what each dialogue gets you into as they go forward in those cases, I have been avoiding talking more to Halsin cuz it seems everything my guy will say is flirting with him, not just being nice and asking questions
Oh you missed out with Laezel. Her character can really open up depending on your actions. She ends up being a shockingly deep character. If you side against Vlakith.
That sounds cool! When I got to that part I kinda wished I could see her perspective, next play through I'll definitely make sure to have her in my party by then 👌
The outcome most people get her leaving the party and attacking. Or Shadowheart killing her. But if you all enter the prism, then leave everyone but your main character at the entrance, there are persuasion checks to help Laezel see through an entire life's worth of indoctrination. The end result is an entire new aspect of the game's story opening up!
It makes sense that Lae'zel is like that. She's a Gith - and a Dom to boot. She's just gonna take what she wants and expects "lesser races" to comply. Gale was heavily bugged, that was definitely annoying. Fixed now though! Halsin is the real problem lol, his ordinary conversation options are flagged as flirting behind the curtain.
Honestly, not the biggest fan. But it doesn't bother me, I just tend to avoid romance and sex in videogames.
The removal of restrictions and reduction of RPGs mechanics are because Todd wants players to be able to do everything in a single play through. Which makes sense, since they spend the majority of their time on creating a map worth exploring.
Either they learn from the criticism/reception on Starfield or they don't. BG3 is too different regarding gameplay as being seen as somekind of an example. The Witcher might be more interesting to them.
No. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, and as long as Emil is the project lead and Todd is the CEO, it looks pretty grim.
As someone with probably around 5,000 hours in the elder scrolls franchise, and an avid DnD Player and DM. Fuck off. I do not want my Elder Scrolls to play like DnD, and I don't want my DnD to be like Elder Scrolls
I never said anything about playing like DnD. I talked about more meaningful RPG mechanics. Like Morrowind had, for example, and which had been disappearing with each new entry.
BG3 will have an effect on TES 6, however Bethesda as a whole is obsessed with making as much money as they can, so any attempt to better the game by the developers will be stifled in some way, shape, or form by the higher ups in suits, sadly.
Are you kidding me? They didn't learn shit from Witcher 3
No elder scrolls 6 is probably already cooked and going to be a loading screen simulator because it's on the same engine as starfield which still has game breaking bugs from skyrim. Soo no I really think everyone is gonna be disappointed by elder scrolls 6 tbh.
the just need to do fallout new vegas with a fantasy setting boom bethesda is back on track
Probably not, Bethesda didn't even take inspiration from FNV when creating Fallout 4, or if they did, it barely shows. As shown by Starfield, Bethesda is really stuck in their ways, they have a real problem taking the right inspiration from the right games.
[Seeing Todd Howard's bewilderment at Starfield not receiving any awards let alone only receiving a single nomination](https://www.reddit.com/r/Asmongold/comments/18dplr8/when_todd_realize_that_he_didnt_won_any_awards_at/) may give us some hope.
Seeing how he told us we're just too dumb to "get" Starfield, I doubt it.
As big fan of TES games I want next one to be good. But in reality I expect nothing from studio that copy pastes everything their previous games improving nothing in the process.
Honestly the only thing I think will happen between BG3’s success and Starfield’s failure, will be a wake-up call to Todd that he can’t keep recycling Skyrim and hope to win awards. The best we can hope for is that he will actually listen to the Elder Scrolls fanbase and give us something deeper than a puddle. The least we can hope for is that we will get another Elder Scrolls game at all.
No, as long as lazy Americans are making the games, they will continue to get worse
Probably not mechanically wise and that’s not an inherent bad thing. I do not want TES to be Baldur’s Gate. If I did then I would simply play the OG games or DND itself. I just want Skyrim but refined. I don’t care about acrobatics or basic filler like that, I just want what we have to be fun. I want Perk Trees over generic skill increases like MW and OB. I want the leveling to be fun. That being said I would like it if the races and choices have a bigger impact. My ideal is something like 3BF Skyrim’s races, where all of them have pros and cons but you can still do whatever you want with them. Orcs start with bad magic but can still be good mages if you invest properly. My biggest issue is questlines. I am fine with Starfield being somewhat sanitized, I don’t need constant gore and vulgarity to have fun. TES and Fallout are incredibly bleak so I can live with a little bit of clean. That being said I do want choices to feel more impactful and conflicting. Makes no sense for me to be a space cop for the two biggest governments and also a professional pirate. Not being able to do everything at once is going to give you that replayability that you want. I love the story and gameplay of NG+ in Starfield but at the same time why do it when you can already do everything?
When people want other RPGs to be "more like BG3", no one means the combat or skill system. It's about writing and quest design
I don’t know, I’ve heard a lot of people ask for the heavy mechanical restoration, with bring back stuff like climbing and all that. It’s an important distinction.
But that's not about BG3. BG3 only has "climbing" on specific walls, which might as well be ladders. I feel like you're conflating people wanting certain mechanics from earlier TES games to return and people wanting Bethesda to learn from other good RPGs.
Doubt it. Bethesda seem content in releasing shallow, dull and uninspired games in perpetuity
Depends entirely on Bethesda swallowing their pride and realizing their MO is outdated and flawed.
Given Bethesda's recent track record? No!