4 ms·

After playing Starfield I don't really have any expectations for Bethesda to deliver on anything interesting anymore. The progression from Oblivion to Starfield

After playing Starfield I don't really have any expectations for Bethesda to deliver on anything interesting anymore. The progression from Oblivion to Starfield has been one of becoming less like a small shop with character willing for its developers to take big risks with unique and intricate features, and more of trying to be a generic AAA studio that prefers predictable blandness. I don't think you can really hope that they'll magically return to making games the way they did 20 years ago. They seem to now be under the mistaken impression that radiant AI is to get more content out of the game by implementing infinite permutations of simple quests, and that customers will think X things permuted Y ways is X*Y content and not just X+Y content. But the purpose of radiant AI was, I think, to make the world feel alive and even unique. Which means I really shouldn't even see every x in X or every y in Y. If you want an interesting implementation of the same concepts as in Radiant AI I recommend checking out Dwarf Fortress. Every dwarf fortress world is essentially an entire history of thousands of radiant AI interactions up until you enter it, at which point your adventurer/fort becomes part of the world and continues the radiant interactions with its civilizations/wildlife/monsters/etc. I think DF is probably the ideal existing game to considering adding LLM-characters and conversation to as a drop-in augmentation. DF already has the simulation and generation of realistic characters and stories working, but unfortunately it's very formulaic to interact with it as an adventurer. In that case the game actually is quite "alive" already, just without a voice.

jasonjmcghee 1y ago
Maybe through a mod. Hard to imagine Tarn would have any interest involving LLMs.
ksynwa 1y ago
Yes. IMO Starfield's biggest failure is in the creative department. It is not interesting at all (for me) in terms of things like writing and voice acting etc. It is not a technical problem that can solved by innovative game mechanics like a roided up version of radiant AI (whatever that is). Games like RDR2 and Witcher 3 left such a mark on me becauss they had bold personalities. Starfield in comparison feels like corporate memphis despite a nice Nasapunk foundation.
- holoduke 1y ago
  And dont forget Mass Effect series.
  - ksynwa 1y ago
    Ha. I just finished replaying ME2. I could never imagine someone like Jack or Grunt or (my beloved) Legion in Starfield.
Night_Thastus 1y ago
To me, Starfield is a massive admission that either the developers don't understand what made their previous games work - or that no one will step in at a top level and prevent them breaking that core. The modern TES games have been all about environmental storytelling, exploration, combat and crafting. All else is secondary. Whether you like that focus or not is up to you, but that's the draw of games like Skyrim and FO4. But Starfield completely broke it. They wanted hundreds of planets to explore, but the only practical way to do that is procedural generation. No one wants to explore procedural spaces. There's never anything interesting in them. You can't do environmental storytelling because that requires a human hand. Due to engine limitations, making all the travel seamless was also completely impractical. So instead of seeing a location and going "Oh man, I want to go there!", then just walking there encountering distractions on the way...it's Loading screen -> Loading Screen -> Loading screen -> Generic planet with nothing interesting to see. How no one at a top level said "this can't work, the game's concept is bad, start over" is baffling. No one had a vision at the top level for how the game was supposed to work - or that vision was just wrong. If Bethesda can't understand the fundamentals of their own best-selling game, I don't see how they can make a sequel.
- Fade_Dance 1y ago
  Proc gen can be engaging if emergent content is complex, dynamic, and novel. But again that goes back to Radiant AI being a vessel for generic fetch quests in the newer games, while in a proc gen game you would think there would be a major, if not the major dev focus on fleshing out the system in other ways (from dynamic tribes and factions to more fully fleshed out STALKER-esque persistent fellow space travellers with agency). The final missing component would be inspiration in design of the pieces, so they interact together in interesting but emergent ways, which is of course another element that the game sorely lacks.
- hibikir 1y ago
  Bethesda had been doing procedural generation since forever though: Have you played Daggerfall? It's always been part of their studio's DNA. Bethesda has always relied on top of the line technological innovation that makes us forgive all the jank that came with it. Whether it was a bad combat system, a level scaling mechanism that just doesn't work, uncanny graphics... this has always been there. It's the opposite of the old Nintendo Way, where the games always were less ambitious, but had so much polish that the games counted as mirrors. We've reached a moment of much diminished returns though. 5, or even 10 year old games aren't so technologically inferior that they are uncomfortable. A very shiny things has more trouble covering for jank, and high budget games are just so expensive that neither coherent vision. nor significant innovation are likely. So the Bethesda way is just not workable anymore. What I'd want Bethesda to do, Breath of the Wild/Tears of the Kingdom meets Morrowind/Oblivion, is just really hard to wrangle logistically. Getting anything done under those kinds of constraings just takes too long.
Der_Einzige 1y ago
The overwhelming majority of folks even here will not play DF. If you want them to play a DF like game, talk about rimworld please!
- tumsfestival 1y ago
  RimWorld is only superficially comparable to Dwarf Fortress, if you want to talk about basic gameplay then sure, but what makes the latter special is the immensely complex world simulations and interactions going on in the background, RimWorld has absolutely nothing like that.
- benlivengood 1y ago
  I'd be surprised if the majority is overwhelming since DF has sold a million copies on Steam so far. For comparison, Civilization V has sold about 10M.
- throwaway314155 1y ago
  FWIW I thought by DF you meant Daggerfall.
ModernMech 1y ago
Games have a similar lifecycle to social scenes. Now and again, an amazing game comes along that captures the imagination of gamers. Usually it's made by really creative and innovative people with a clear vision and direction. Also these people usually have taste, which is a crucial element. Their good taste attracts a bunch of early adopters, people with a finger on the pulse and who are eager to play and appreciate the game for what it is. But this interest attracts poseurs, people who play the game but just to say they are, to feel included and a part of something cool. There are far more poseurs than otherwise, so at this stage the scene can grow exponentially. This growth attracts vultures commoditize the scene in the form of penny pinching and "enshitification" through dark patterns. Monied interests strip out everything that made the game interesting and fun (because a good, fun experience isn't profitable), and then they milk it for everything it's worth until it's a dried corpse. These are the people who are driving the bad gameplay decisions and who aren't listening to the taste makers. Usually in games this comes in the form of a pivot to MMOs. By that measure, TES died in 2014. IMO this also applies to Final Fantasy (RIP 2010, plenty of new FF games but nothing that recaptured the magic of 6 and 7) and Warcraft (RIP 2004, no new warcraft games since).
- kjkjadksj 1y ago
  Reminds me how more people play oldschool runescape than the newer version. Anytime jagex tries to implement some change to that game they poll the community forums. Seems to work alright for keeping people around.
sesm 1y ago
* from Morrowind to Starfield Oblivion was a big step back from Morrowind: generic art style, map markers, no deep story.
- throwaway314155 1y ago
  That's a fairly reductive take in my opinion. Oblivion made the game approachable to a much wider audience. That may have been to the detriment of the core gameplay but it wasn't a _clear_ step backward. Some things went backwards while others moved forward.
- KronisLV 1y ago
  I really liked the map markers from a practical point of view and the combat also felt way better (hits landing when it looks like they should). Definitely a different type of experience, though.
thinkingtoilet 1y ago
The funny thing about using AI to create an infinite amount of bland quests is that there is literally no audience for it. The people who play the game through once or twice aren't going to care about it and the people who want more of the game will download one of the thousands of mods created by the community. Oh, wow, you used AI to come up with a quest where I have to go to a cave and kill a creature. Amazing.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
GrantMoyer 1y ago
I think Starfield gets a lot more flak than it deserves. Yeah, compared to Fallout 4, where there's something hand placed to observe or interact with seemingly every 100 ft in any direction, the world feels barren. But I think the departure is intentional; Starfield felt much more like a spiritual successor to Daggerfall than to anything since Morrowind. Overall, I spent less time in Starfield than in older Bethesda titles, but I liked what was there, despite it being less dense, and I spent more time than I have in many other games. Why should Bethesda have to refine the same exact formula over and over? That would just turn into what Ubisoft does with Assassins Creed, pumping out soulless entry after entry into the franchise. In other words, Starfield was Bethesda taking a risk and trying to introduce unique features rather than releasing yet another another predictable "Bethesda RPG".
- vkou 1y ago
  > Why should Bethesda have to refine the same exact formula over and over? Because they are the only ones who can pull off that formula, and when they stray from it, they end up as just one mediocre title in a sea of similar mediocrity.
- a_wild_dandan 1y ago
  Perhaps Starfield was the most important Bethesda release. The animus toward Starfield will serve as an enormous signal/reminder to course correct away from this "unique feature." One can hope.
cynicalsecurity 1y ago
Don't wait on Bethesda to deliver. Try Enderal. Your expectations will be fully met.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

jasonjmcghee 1y ago

Maybe through a mod. Hard to imagine Tarn would have any interest involving LLMs.

ksynwa 1y ago

Yes. IMO Starfield's biggest failure is in the creative department. It is not interesting at all (for me) in terms of things like writing and voice acting etc. It is not a technical problem that can solved by innovative game mechanics like a roided up version of radiant AI (whatever that is). Games like RDR2 and Witcher 3 left such a mark on me becauss they had bold personalities. Starfield in comparison feels like corporate memphis despite a nice Nasapunk foundation.

holoduke 1y ago
And dont forget Mass Effect series.
- ksynwa 1y ago
  Ha. I just finished replaying ME2. I could never imagine someone like Jack or Grunt or (my beloved) Legion in Starfield.

Night_Thastus 1y ago

To me, Starfield is a massive admission that either the developers don't understand what made their previous games work - or that no one will step in at a top level and prevent them breaking that core. The modern TES games have been all about environmental storytelling, exploration, combat and crafting. All else is secondary. Whether you like that focus or not is up to you, but that's the draw of games like Skyrim and FO4. But Starfield completely broke it. They wanted hundreds of planets to explore, but the only practical way to do that is procedural generation. No one wants to explore procedural spaces. There's never anything interesting in them. You can't do environmental storytelling because that requires a human hand. Due to engine limitations, making all the travel seamless was also completely impractical. So instead of seeing a location and going "Oh man, I want to go there!", then just walking there encountering distractions on the way...it's Loading screen -> Loading Screen -> Loading screen -> Generic planet with nothing interesting to see. How no one at a top level said "this can't work, the game's concept is bad, start over" is baffling. No one had a vision at the top level for how the game was supposed to work - or that vision was just wrong. If Bethesda can't understand the fundamentals of their own best-selling game, I don't see how they can make a sequel.

Fade_Dance 1y ago
Proc gen can be engaging if emergent content is complex, dynamic, and novel. But again that goes back to Radiant AI being a vessel for generic fetch quests in the newer games, while in a proc gen game you would think there would be a major, if not the major dev focus on fleshing out the system in other ways (from dynamic tribes and factions to more fully fleshed out STALKER-esque persistent fellow space travellers with agency). The final missing component would be inspiration in design of the pieces, so they interact together in interesting but emergent ways, which is of course another element that the game sorely lacks.
hibikir 1y ago
Bethesda had been doing procedural generation since forever though: Have you played Daggerfall? It's always been part of their studio's DNA. Bethesda has always relied on top of the line technological innovation that makes us forgive all the jank that came with it. Whether it was a bad combat system, a level scaling mechanism that just doesn't work, uncanny graphics... this has always been there. It's the opposite of the old Nintendo Way, where the games always were less ambitious, but had so much polish that the games counted as mirrors. We've reached a moment of much diminished returns though. 5, or even 10 year old games aren't so technologically inferior that they are uncomfortable. A very shiny things has more trouble covering for jank, and high budget games are just so expensive that neither coherent vision. nor significant innovation are likely. So the Bethesda way is just not workable anymore. What I'd want Bethesda to do, Breath of the Wild/Tears of the Kingdom meets Morrowind/Oblivion, is just really hard to wrangle logistically. Getting anything done under those kinds of constraings just takes too long.

Der_Einzige 1y ago

The overwhelming majority of folks even here will not play DF. If you want them to play a DF like game, talk about rimworld please!

tumsfestival 1y ago
RimWorld is only superficially comparable to Dwarf Fortress, if you want to talk about basic gameplay then sure, but what makes the latter special is the immensely complex world simulations and interactions going on in the background, RimWorld has absolutely nothing like that.
benlivengood 1y ago
I'd be surprised if the majority is overwhelming since DF has sold a million copies on Steam so far. For comparison, Civilization V has sold about 10M.
throwaway314155 1y ago
FWIW I thought by DF you meant Daggerfall.

ModernMech 1y ago

Games have a similar lifecycle to social scenes. Now and again, an amazing game comes along that captures the imagination of gamers. Usually it's made by really creative and innovative people with a clear vision and direction. Also these people usually have taste, which is a crucial element. Their good taste attracts a bunch of early adopters, people with a finger on the pulse and who are eager to play and appreciate the game for what it is. But this interest attracts poseurs, people who play the game but just to say they are, to feel included and a part of something cool. There are far more poseurs than otherwise, so at this stage the scene can grow exponentially. This growth attracts vultures commoditize the scene in the form of penny pinching and "enshitification" through dark patterns. Monied interests strip out everything that made the game interesting and fun (because a good, fun experience isn't profitable), and then they milk it for everything it's worth until it's a dried corpse. These are the people who are driving the bad gameplay decisions and who aren't listening to the taste makers. Usually in games this comes in the form of a pivot to MMOs. By that measure, TES died in 2014. IMO this also applies to Final Fantasy (RIP 2010, plenty of new FF games but nothing that recaptured the magic of 6 and 7) and Warcraft (RIP 2004, no new warcraft games since).

kjkjadksj 1y ago
Reminds me how more people play oldschool runescape than the newer version. Anytime jagex tries to implement some change to that game they poll the community forums. Seems to work alright for keeping people around.

sesm 1y ago

* from Morrowind to Starfield Oblivion was a big step back from Morrowind: generic art style, map markers, no deep story.

throwaway314155 1y ago
That's a fairly reductive take in my opinion. Oblivion made the game approachable to a much wider audience. That may have been to the detriment of the core gameplay but it wasn't a _clear_ step backward. Some things went backwards while others moved forward.
KronisLV 1y ago
I really liked the map markers from a practical point of view and the combat also felt way better (hits landing when it looks like they should). Definitely a different type of experience, though.

thinkingtoilet 1y ago

The funny thing about using AI to create an infinite amount of bland quests is that there is literally no audience for it. The people who play the game through once or twice aren't going to care about it and the people who want more of the game will download one of the thousands of mods created by the community. Oh, wow, you used AI to come up with a quest where I have to go to a cave and kill a creature. Amazing.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

GrantMoyer 1y ago

I think Starfield gets a lot more flak than it deserves. Yeah, compared to Fallout 4, where there's something hand placed to observe or interact with seemingly every 100 ft in any direction, the world feels barren. But I think the departure is intentional; Starfield felt much more like a spiritual successor to Daggerfall than to anything since Morrowind. Overall, I spent less time in Starfield than in older Bethesda titles, but I liked what was there, despite it being less dense, and I spent more time than I have in many other games. Why should Bethesda have to refine the same exact formula over and over? That would just turn into what Ubisoft does with Assassins Creed, pumping out soulless entry after entry into the franchise. In other words, Starfield was Bethesda taking a risk and trying to introduce unique features rather than releasing yet another another predictable "Bethesda RPG".

vkou 1y ago
> Why should Bethesda have to refine the same exact formula over and over? Because they are the only ones who can pull off that formula, and when they stray from it, they end up as just one mediocre title in a sea of similar mediocrity.
a_wild_dandan 1y ago
Perhaps Starfield was the most important Bethesda release. The animus toward Starfield will serve as an enormous signal/reminder to course correct away from this "unique feature." One can hope.

cynicalsecurity 1y ago

Don't wait on Bethesda to deliver. Try Enderal. Your expectations will be fully met.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]