Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13

[Deleted member 11852]

Redfall yes, but Startfield? As far as I've read, that's been hands on from MS throughout, in terms of support. No heard anything about MS being disappointed / rolling in new execs to provide oversight to BGS.

When Pete Hines announced his retirement, Microsoft put Bethesda directly under Xbox's Matt Booty instead of retaining that original structure. I liked Starfield, and I look forward to seeing what Bethesda do with the title in future DLCs and what comes with official mod support, but it's difficult to look past the game receiving the lowest metascore of any single player Bethesda RPG game for 20+ years.

 

[Albuquerque]

I liked Starfield, and I look forward to seeing what Bethesda do with the title in future DLCs and what comes with official mod support, but it's difficult to look past the game receiving the lowest metascore of any single player Bethesda RPG game for 20+ years.

I hate this, and at the same time I begrudgingly see it.

I too liked Starfield, and I also didn't expect anything more than what BGS is typically known for: lots of lore buried in places where you have to go looking (eg not fed to you just through the main storyline), some game mechanics that aren't always obvious, some not-well-thought-out perk trees that make for hilariously OP character builds, and some curiously animated and textured objects and NPCs. Could they have delivered even more? Sure, I think they could. There are aspects of the TES and FO games which I would've liked to see come over into Starfield, ilke NPCs who seemingly had "lives" where they wander from work to home or city to city. Or better FO4-like outpost building opportunities where they could better defend themselves and repairs to damaged items were an easier resolve. I'd also like less NPCs flagged as invincible which means some storylines could become impossible to complete if you murder-hobo'd your way through. And man, I still feel sometimes like even 12 years ago Skyrim had so many more unique POIs, even if a lot of them were smaller caves or just interesting individual buildings or whatnot.

At the same time, one of my favorite things about the TES and FO games was the enormous modding potential and how much more those mods really brought to the experience. DLC also seemed to be pretty good for most of the TES and FO games, although I do admit there were some crappy ones too.

Anyway, the begrudging portion is how Todd told everyone they'd been "developing" this game for more than a decade. I'm pretty sure I understand what he was trying to convey, in that they were "developing" the concept of it all -- the art style, the sorts of POIs and characters you'd meet, how the various big storylines might play out. It doesn't really mean they were literally building code and assets for all those years, they were just fleshing out the actual lore itself... And I get it. But man, talk about a crap way to introduce a first-of-its-lore game by telling everyone it had been developed for double-digit years only to seem like ELDERFALLOUTSCROLLS IN SPAAAAAAAACE with just a ton of fallout 3-sized maps, lightly filled with randomized autogenerated POIs, all glued together?

I've got ... checks Steam... uh, 206.3 hours into Starfield as of last night when I last played, and IIRC I'm level 69 and juuuust started my first NG+ level two nights ago. I'll get at least one more play-through on this NG tip to see how I can do things differently than I did the first time. And then I'll probably put it back on the virtual bookshelf and wait for the DLC to come out. All in all, I got my money's worth already and I'm not unhappy with it, but I also understand how and why some people hoped for more.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I hate this, and at the same time I begrudgingly see it.

I too liked Starfield, and I also didn't expect anything more than what BGS is typically known for: lots of lore buried in places where you have to go looking (eg not fed to you just through the main storyline), some game mechanics that aren't always obvious, some not-well-thought-out perk trees that make for hilariously OP character builds, and some curiously animated and textured objects and NPCs.

I think the riskiest thing Bethesda did with Starfield was breaking that seemless open overworld. For me, a big part of the appeal of open world RPGs like Elder Scrolls and Fallout is that connected environment where you can see something interesting on the horizon, then go to see what it is and encounter fun things along the way. Starfield breaks that in a significant way but breaking the world up into hundreds, maybe thousands, of individual pieces that are only connected through load screens.

What really made me realise how little Starfield had progressed as a RPG compared to Fallout and Elder Scrolls, was playing Baldur's Gate 3 immediately after. I am very glad, I played Strafield first because if I hadn't , I'm not sure I would have finished it.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

BG3 is a better RPG than Starfield, but Starfield is still a good game and deserves the 8.5 it got and it should evolve into a 9 over time. Nevertheless it should have started at a 9 to begin with given the amount of time they had. More oversite early on may or may not have helped this.

MS is claiming they will release a AAA game every quarter now. Let's see if Avowed, Hellblade 2, FS 2024, next CoD deliver on that score.

 

[Albuquerque]

See, I've tried some of the "more genuine" RPGs and I just can't get into them. Full transparency: I haven't really looked at Baulders Gate 3, however I did play the original BG back in the day and it just wasn't my cup of tea. That said, somehow Bethesda seemed to capture more of the RPG flavor that I liked, and I think it comes from the combination of character creation and a basic lack of any backstory to the character I'm playing. Meaning, I can basically fill in my own role, which means I can play almost whatever and however I like. I dunno, maybe BG3 does that too? Maybe it's my love of sneaky ranged weapon builds?

Anyway, I do agree Starfield really didn't seem to add anything to the RPG elements of FO and TES, and I think it could be argued several parts regressed. The upside is, the modding community for these games is enormous and the talent pool seemingly endless. It doesn't let Bethesda off the hook for what could have been, yet at the same time I knew what I was getting into and I'm happy enough with what I got.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

When Pete Hines announced his retirement, Microsoft put Bethesda directly under Xbox's Matt Booty instead of retaining that original structure. I liked Starfield, and I look forward to seeing what Bethesda do with the title in future DLCs and what comes with official mod support, but it's difficult to look past the game receiving the lowest metascore of any single player Bethesda RPG game for 20+ years.

Yup, instead of only reporting to Nadella or Spencer, they now report to someone whose job it is to oversee operations in Xbox Gaming Studios. So basically Matt Booty's job was expanded and Bethesda Studios freedom was curtailed slightly. Matt Booty still operates mostly hands off, but I imagine he'll step in if it appears things aren't going well.

It'll be interesting if ABK will also be giving a few years of MS being mostly hands off to see if they can handle operating without much oversight similar to how Bethesda was given a few years of mostly self-governing independence.

At least MS isn't over-reacting and going into hands-on everything mode like they did when Lionhead Studios started to chronically miss deadlines, underperform, etc. when they were given full independent freedom.

Regards,
SB

 

[Albuquerque]

Ugh, this all just reminded me: I want TES:6 damnit! Microsoft better not eff with my newest installment of the elder scrolls!!!

Also, I'm sure I'll end up being one of a hojillion losers who preorders the game no matter how much crap it ends up being. Sigh

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Btw, I take the user ratings for Starfield with a grain of salt. Likely there was review bombing going on there by people who never even played it due to its exclusivity.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

BG3 is a better RPG than Starfield, but Starfield is still a good game and deserves the 8.5 it got and it should evolve into a 9 over time. Nevertheless it should have started at a 9 to begin with given the amount of time they had. More oversite early on may or may not have helped this.

Bethesda has been on a steady journey to simplify RPG mechanics over time. I've not played Morrowind myself but I've seen it played and Oblivion had greatly simplified RPG mechanics, but still required a lot of mental RPG math to understand how the different skills and perks interacted. Oblivion was my first "proper" RPG and I loved it. Fallout 3, Skyrim and Fallout 4 iterated on simplifying the RPG and I'm sure this was deliberate. The conventional wisdom for a long time was that RPGs are niche so Bethesda veered into the "action RPG" genre and now you're up against Mass Effect, Diablo, Dragon Age, Witcher and Cyberpunk.

I'd really like to see Bethesda do a Morrowind/Oblivion level RPG again.

MS is claiming they will release a AAA game every quarter now. Let's see if Avowed, Hellblade 2, FS 2024, next CoD deliver on that score.

You can't blame Microsoft for it, but it sounds like Activision phoned-in Modern Warfare 3 and they already said last year that they planned to slow down the cadence of development.

See, I've tried some of the "more genuine" RPGs and I just can't get into them. Full transparency: I haven't really looked at Baulders Gate 3, however I did play the original BG back in the day and it just wasn't my cup of tea.

I am also not a RPG person, but I was kindly gifted BG3 knowing I'd like it but never buy it and they're right. BG3 is utterly amazing. The world is amazing, the opportunities endless, the options seemingly limitless. You try things not expecting them to work and they work. I have not played a game with so few barriers to getting things done ever. If they run a free weekend on Steam, check it out.

 

[eastmen]

Ugh, this all just reminded me: I want TES:6 damnit! Microsoft better not eff with my newest installment of the elder scrolls!!!

Also, I'm sure I'll end up being one of a hojillion losers who preorders the game no matter how much crap it ends up being. Sigh

From what I've heard MS is bulking up the amount of people working on the creation engine after the issues starfield has had. They are also taking feed back from what people like and dislike from Starfield. There is also another 3 or so years before Tes comes out.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

There is also another 3 or so years before Tes comes out.

I would be worried like hell if Bethesda announced Elder Scrolls VI was launching as soon as 3 to 4 years from now. Massive immersive open world games are amongst the complex and content rich games developed, it's why Ubisoft rotated multiple teams across Far Cry, Assassin's Creed and Watch Dogs.

The only way Bethesda are going to deliver their next game faster is is they lower the quality or scope. If they bulk up the creative team but then dilute the creativity and culture that's there now. You could also have more than one team and limit Todd Howard's role as being ultimate arbiter for all creative decisions.

 

[eastmen]

I would be worried like hell if Bethesda announced Elder Scrolls VI was launching as soon as 3 to 4 years from now. Massive immersive open world games are amongst the complex and content rich games developed, it's why Ubisoft rotated multiple teams across Far Cry, Assassin's Creed and Watch Dogs.

The only way Bethesda are going to deliver their next game faster is is they lower the quality or scope. If they bulk up the creative team but then dilute the creativity and culture that's there now. You could also have more than one team and limit Todd Howard's role as being ultimate arbiter for all creative decisions.

I have to disagree. They announced the game years ago and are using an engine they are quite familiar with. The engine has also received tons of updates for starfield and is continuing to get new enhancements and performance increases . Looking at the scope difference between starfield and what a TES game would be, they should be able to provide quite a stunning game with the engine.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

My guess is 2028 or so.

 

[arandomguy]

I would be worried like hell if Bethesda announced Elder Scrolls VI was launching as soon as 3 to 4 years from now. Massive immersive open world games are amongst the complex and content rich games developed, it's why Ubisoft rotated multiple teams across Far Cry, Assassin's Creed and Watch Dogs.

The only way Bethesda are going to deliver their next game faster is is they lower the quality or scope. If they bulk up the creative team but then dilute the creativity and culture that's there now. You could also have more than one team and limit Todd Howard's role as being ultimate arbiter for all creative decisions.

Morrowind - 2002
Oblivion - 2006
Fallout 3 - 2008
Skyrim - 2011
Fallout 4 - 2015

3 to 4 years would seem fairly standard. The gap between Fallout 4 and Starfield was really due to Fallout 76. Starfield was also delayed and I would guess likely affected by the pandemic.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Morrowind - 2002. Oblivion - 2006. Fallout 3 - 2008. Skyrim - 2011. Fallout 4 - 2015. 3 to 4 years would seem fairly standard. The gap between Fallout 4 and Starfield was really due to Fallout 76. Starfield was also delayed and I would guess likely affected by the pandemic.

It was much easier to turn around the earlier games, the engine was janky as well, the writing was less sophisticated and, let's be honest, the voice acting performances outside of the main quest lines were barely adequate. I'd say that was true of all the games released inch 360/PS3 generation, but these are things which can make or break a RPG. Just look at Baldur's Gate 3 which is doing stellar work on story, interactions, voice work and character animation as well.

Fallout 76 was developed by Bethesda Games Studio Austin, a different studio to the team that worked on Oblivion, Fallout 3, Skyrim, Fallout 4 and Starfield.

 

[hughJ]

The bigger gaps came with the hardware generation jumps where they got to overhaul the tech somewhat. Morrowind | Oblivion, FO3, Skyrim | FO4 | Starfield. I'd expect the next couple titles to be akin to FO3 and Skyrim in their relative technical ambition after Oblivion. Presumably the time and energy spent on integrating and padding-out the base building and survival+crafting elements in FO4/Starfield can be shelved for ES6. On the other hand, given their knack for adding new mechanics like that maybe they'll attempt to graft on something new. Maybe town-based management, combat, reputation, etc.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

The bigger gaps came with the hardware generation jumps where they got to overhaul the tech somewhat. Morrowind | Oblivion, FO3, Skyrim | FO4 | Starfield.

Whilst Elder Scrolls VI may be cross-gen, I expect Microsoft will want that game to be a showcase for the next Xbox hardware because unless ES6 is coming inside of 4 years, it's releasing on next generation console hardware - assuming Microsoft are not ceding the next-gen launch window to Sony.

Bethesda absolutely need to overhaul key aspects of their tech. Whilst faces have massively improved from the literal potato faces we had in Oblivion, Starfield is way behind the curve in, particularly the animation trying to belay emotion. Not to mention whatever is going on in Starfield with the random NPC's weirdly eyeballing you constantly. Starfield is an action-RPG and I think Bethesda have done a tremendous work on the action parts and, as I said before, their environmental procedural generation is really good. Environment interiors are also good and massively detailed, but the tech trying to support the RPG side of the game has really fallen behind. The faces are worse than two generation-old Mass Effect, not even mentioning Baldur's Gate 3 which was made by a small studio.

I think it's really a case of priorities, or possibly decisions. Do Bethesda want to continue to make RPGs where characters are important, as are their motivations, because if so that tech needs work.

 

[cheapchips]

not even mentioning Baldur's Gate 3 which was made by a small studio.

Larian's about the same size as BGS, 450 employees. BG3 might even have more hours invested on it's development that Starfield, but hard to say.

I wonder what sits behind Larien's great character work, as I haven't seen anything on it. Are they brute forcing it or using more progressive tech, like Cyberpunk?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Larian's about the same size as BGS, 450 employees. BG3 might even have more hours invested on it's development that Starfield, but hard to say.

Fair enough, then a studio without Zenimax's and Microsoft's resources.

 

[function]

Bethesda has been on a steady journey to simplify RPG mechanics over time. I've not played Morrowind myself but I've seen it played and Oblivion had greatly simplified RPG mechanics, but still required a lot of mental RPG math to understand how the different skills and perks interacted. Oblivion was my first "proper" RPG and I loved it. Fallout 3, Skyrim and Fallout 4 iterated on simplifying the RPG and I'm sure this was deliberate. The conventional wisdom for a long time was that RPGs are niche so Bethesda veered into the "action RPG" genre and now you're up against Mass Effect, Diablo, Dragon Age, Witcher and Cyberpunk.

This is what struck me about New Vegas - it had more in depth gameplay systems the Fallout 3. At first it turned me away as I couldn't be arsed, but then a few years later I tried again because I really loved The Outer Worlds. After about 15 hours of annoyance and wanting to stop, things started to click and a further 100+ hours in (probably a lot more) I finished it and all its DLC and with it firmly as one of my very favourite games ever.

Classic case of gaming PICNIC.