- @[email protected]
- deleted by creator
- 0 Posts
- 57 Comments
Nesmith said he no longer remembers the exact sales figures for the add-on, but he remembers it being a lot. “It must have been in the millions, it had to be millions,” he said.
So… No accounting for how many of these sales came from bundles/GOTY editions, and we are just going off his memory of the sales numbers?
Great reporting, this really vindicated Horse Armor’s legacy…
I mean, when the only quest available at launch was “FalloutNV has stopped working”, and it only had one solution, I’d say 84 is pretty damn good.
Still, there is something that just feels terrible about Obsidian not getting the bonus considering they made one of the best RPGs of all time in 18 months…
It does not. A bit of intense work arounds can kind of make it happen, but many lists just fail.
Best bet it to use a VM of Windows, (or dual boot or whatever). But if you use Virtualbox, dont try to use a shared folder to make moving the mods easy, it just crashes the whole VM. My lazy work around was to use sftp to move the mods after.
Yeah, its a good thing Bethesda games aren’t really known for having a vibrant modding community. Otherwise a bunch of headlines saying “new update breaks mods” might turn away a bunch of players who had originally played it on console and would have bought it on PC to try those mods.
Sarcasm aside, the amount of potential new players who changed their minds due to broken mods are far greater than the amount of new players who wouldn’t have gotten it if not for the update. If Bethesda dropped the update even a couple months ago, they could have had the best of both world. It was poorly timed, and definitely cost them sales.
Far be it from me to speak to the validity of your feelings. But, to me, that seems like a bit of a massive over generalization. Many 3D games look like shit, many look amazing. Many 2D games look like shit, many look amazing.
I mean, saying a 3D game like Gollum looks better than a 2D game like Hollow Knight, just because it’s 3D sounds insane to me.
I like Bethesda, and obviously they do have very vocal detractors. Though you might want to pull back on the overly zealous defense of Bethesda, as you are kind of just being the opposite side of the Bethesda hate coin.
Plus, it’s not really fair to say Fallout would have been dead and mostly forgotten if Bethesda hadn’t picked it up. It was a popular enough series that Bethesda went into a bidding war to get it. And Troika games, a studio started by Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky, and Jason Anderson (the original creators of Fallout), also tried to buy the rights to the series but were outbid. If not but for Bethesda’s big wallet, it’s very possible we could have seen the rise of a very different Fallout with the original creators at the helm. Which a part of me will always be sad we didn’t get to see. Still, I can cry myself to sleep on my copy of New Vegas, so at least we got two fun Bethesda games and one of the greatest RPGs of all time out of Bethesda’s purchase.
Also, if we are going to shit on BoS, then it’s only fair to say that Bethesda’s handling of the franchise has also gotten worse overtime. It’s not like 76 is a shining example of quality. (To be fair, I actually enjoyed both BoS and 76, as I’m a bit of a Fallout shill, but that doesn’t mean I can’t be objective about the problems of the series.)
As a big fan of 3, NV, and 4, I have to ask… What is groundbreaking or revolutionary about any of them?What did any of them bring to the table that hadn’t been done before?
Dont get me wrong, 3 and 4 are enjoyable “comfort blanket” style games with fun maps to explore. And NV is one of the gold standards in interactive narratives. But Bethesda hasn’t really broken ground since Oblivion.
Anyways, I think people view fallout 1 and 2 with rose tinted glasses, I tried playing them after I became a fan of 3 and nv. And it was a slog playing the old ones, I didn’t get far.
I also got into the series via FO3, and had a similar experience when I tried to play the first one shortly after completing 3. I couldn’t get past the dated gameplay and thought the hype must just be nostalgia. But the recent TV show inspired me to take another swing at the originals (being the only Fallout’s I didn’t play to death), and I actually am now of the opposite opinion.
Make no mistake, the game play feels clunky and dated even for '98 standards. And as such playing it can be a bit of a slog, especially the first couple hours. But the world building and quest design are honestly still better than 90% of modern games. I love Bethesda’s games, but the stark difference in quality regarding these two aspects can’t be overstated.
After running through both 1 and 2, I can fully see why fans of the originals seem to often feel like Bethesda’s entries failed to deliver on what long time fans came to know and love the series for. I will always love the Bethesda games, but it really isn’t just rose tinted glasses, there was some magic in the originals.
Well no, not really. They are just stating the fact that the update will almost certainly break their mod (and many others tbh) and just want time to fix it so even unexpierenced modders can enjoy it. They also say they are excited for Bethesda’s update since they love FO4.
“Before you grab the pitchforks to go after Bethesda or tell us that we’re idiots and you know how to stop the update – remember, that’s you know how to do it, not the collective. This is a collective project; we want everyone to have the past four years of work to come out and be the best mod possible for all of our followers."
“The fact that Bethesda is keeping what is an old game updated is honestly a great thing – many members of the team are very excited to see this,” he notes. “On the technical front, being able to play Fallout London with the new potential engine improvements and the performance upgrades is fantastic. It’s going to mean that we can push the engine even harder than we’ve already pushed it. This is all going to be a boon.”
The Bethesda never changes bit was a joke that in context seems like he means it in a positive way.
"Bethesda. Bethesda never changes,” he concludes with a smile.
I guess my point is that you have no argument.
I think you are mistaking me for t0fr. While I do think you had a terrible take, and did ask how it was relevant to what t0fr said about Bethesda’s Fallouts being known for having worse writing, I never argued that Bethesda’s games weren’t the most well known in the series. So, again I fail to see how what you are saying has any relevance to what was asked…
But, for the sake of argument, the StarWars sequel trilogy had the highest combined box office of any of the trilogy’s by far. Does that mean the Sequel trilogy is the best of the three? Did it have the best writing? Does that mean that long time fans shouldn’t get an opinion when stories that they loved get steamrolled over?
Dont get me wrong, I’m enjoying the Fallout show, and I like the Bethesda games. But sales numbers and ownership aren’t the be all end all of what makes good fiction. And pretending like it is largely plays a roll in why we get so much high budget schlock.
Your comment got me curious, so I did some digging. Unfortunately Steam caps out filtering reviews at “above 100”, so I couldn’t find a way to get data on the difference between 100-200 hour players vs 500-1000 hour players for example. But I broke it down by 0-24 hours, 25-49 hours, 50-99 hours, and 100+ hours to see the results.
Unsurprisingly, folks who played it for less than 25 hours liked it the least, with an average of 50% positive reviews. This is also the largest sample size by far, accounting for 51,686 of the roughly 140,000 reviews.
More surprisingly however, the next three data sets (25-49, 50-99, and 100+), order themselves naturally from “most positive sentiment to least”. Essentially, the longer you play it after 25 hours, the more likely you are to rate it negatively.
Breaking it down:
0-24 hours: 50% positive reviews out of 51,686 players.
25-49 hours: 69% positive reviews out of 34.644 players
50-99 hours: 64% positive reviews out of 30,775 players
100+ hours: 61% positive reviews out of 22,800 players.
Oh, and because I just reread your comment, I checked out the 1-10 hour players as well, and your guess there was accurate. 40% positive reviews out of the 27,316 players in that range.
And given that there were more negative reviews in the 0-24 hour range than reviews from people who even played it for more than 100 hours, I would say you were mostly right about the guess that players who played it for a very extensive time and reviewed it negatively were a minority. Even if that minority was made up of about 8,900 reviews, or roughly 6.3%.
While this is far from a “definitive scientific test”, the data on Steam seems to indicate that among people who liked the game enough to put significant time into it, the more they played, the less likely they were to rate it positively.
Has that lawsuit gone anywhere? I’ve seen games published on origin and GoG for cheaper then they are on Steam. And Steam will honor developer provided game keys (hence why places like Humble and Green Man can sell games so cheaply). And after trying to research the claims, all I found was reports about the lawsuit existing. It seems like if that was real, there would be more than reports of a lawsuit and contradictory evidence by way of literally being able to buy games for cheaper on other platforms.
Not saying it’s total bullshit, just seems kind of suspect all things considered.
Buddy, you have literally misrepresented what I have said multiple times, and what @[email protected] said, and now you are saying I’m going by my feelings? I did ask for clarification…
Could you point out where they were “fairly clear” that they wanted to avoid all awkward social interactions, and could you explain how you are so confident you know what interactions they deem awkward?
You told me it wasn’t worth your time to “nitpick”.
And I don’t believe I missed the mark at all. You either misunderstood or misrepresented what they wanted, just to tell them that they should go play something else, as opposed to possibly just letting them enjoy the game in their own way. Even though they clearly enjoyed it enough to get through aspects they didn’t like.
When pressed on this, you exaggerated the extent of their issue to fit your original viewpoint. And when asked for clarification, you said I should have asked for clarification… Do you honestly just skim everything you read or?
When did I ask you to nitpick? You said something that didn’t make sense to me, and I asked for clarification. If you didn’t have any reason to believe they were referring to all NPC interactions in the first place, why were you so confident that they weren’t enjoying the game? And how is the point of view we were discussing unrelated? Why when they mentioned a single thing they would like changed did you feel it would be helpful to tell them to stop playing the game entirely?
I get the feeling that you were arguing just for the sake of arguing and at this point have noticed you were kinda just wrong about your assumptions and have decided to abandon ship and pretend this whole thing was beneath you all along…
Honestly, I tried to make your arguments make sense, but they really only do if I assume you ignored most of what was said and cherrypicked the information you wanted to argue against.
Speaking of which, you recommending someone try a different game that they would enjoy more in good faith didn’t upset me. I even acknowledged that I possibly misinterpreted your meaning on that front. I also explained why I interpreted it the way I did. I just think even if your assumptions were correct, it was still bad advice. Not upsetting advice, just bad.
Anyway, I suppose it’s bad form of me to bother someone after they said they don’t feel like engaging anymore. So sorry to take up your time and have a good one. Cheers.
Could you point out where they were “fairly clear” that they wanted to avoid all awkward social interactions, and could you explain how you are so confident you know what interactions they deem awkward? Because it seems to me like you are making a lot of assumptions.
They were specifically talking about the awkwardness they feel when turning down romantic advances. They did say they “hate awkward social interactions”, but seeing as they also are talking about turning down romantic advances detracting from their enjoyment, it’s fair to assume they found that specific event awkward. They very well could have (and indeed seemed to me to have) meant that they don’t like personally rejecting the advancements of people they are close with. That does not mean that they find the same awkwardness in any of the other role-playing events.
Also, since they were saying removing those specific interactions would enhance their enjoyment, it’s fair to assume they were enjoying the game.
In regards to “how it was gatekeeping”, you might have missed that I indicated I could have misunderstood your intent. But telling someone that they shouldn’t play a game they want to and it sounds like they enjoy, just because it has an aspect they don’t enjoy that could be modded out, is gatekeeping. I get that you believe they hate all of the interactions that could possibly be seen as awkward, and that under that impression you made what I’ll assume to be an honest attempt to steer them away from playing a game they might not enjoy. But frankly, we disagree on how much of the game they found to be awkward, and just as you seem to have missed my point, and I believe you missed their point, I guess it was just very easy to misinterpret your “friendly recommendation” as telling them if they don’t like every aspect of a game you like out of the box, they should stop playing it, when they could very well just mod it to be even more fun for them.
If I took advice like yours, even in it’s best intent, I would have missed out on some of my very favorite games. Daggerfall, couldn’t get into it at all, Daggerfall Unity, amazing. New Vegas at launch on the PS3, frustrated me to no end, modded a decade later, top 5 games of my life. Warcraft 3 (hell any RTS), can’t stand em. DOTA, lost countless hours to (and that one they gutted 90% of the game). Sometimes, being willing to make your game your own is the path to enjoyment.
You didn’t say it was a big deal, I said I didn’t think it was a big deal. Even if someone wanted to remove all of the dialogue from the game because they just loved the combat, classes, skill, etc, I wouldn’t think its a big deal. I love the RPG elements in BG3 (frankly, awkward social interaction simulators are some of my favorite games), but I don’t really mind if someone plays something just because it’s popular and they want to see what the buzz is about. Nor do I mind if they have specific anxieties that they don’t want to be subjected to (no different from turning the giant spiders into bears in Skyrim imho). Nor if they just want to be on a power trip in a world that they like the design and lore of. And if they can have fun doing so, I really don’t see why they should avoid that just because they might have to experience the fun of modding as well.
Maybe I misread your comment, but you saying:
If you cant handle awkward social interactions in the “fantasy social interactions simulator” youre probably playing the wrong game
In response to their comment:
My point was that me being friendly was taken as me wanting to bang. That happens irl and it happens in this game. Just because this happens irl does not mean i have to enjoy them ingame. I simply hate awkward situations and while i might be able to dodge them irl i can dodge them in my games which would not make me an anyphobe. There were 4 Characters that hit on me and only one romance i was interested in. Indeed i have felt the same level of awkwardness no matter the sex of the character i rejected.
Made it seem like you believed @[email protected] wanted to remove 50% of the game, as opposed to the single situation they said they wanted to avoid. I can see how you might have assumed their statement that they “hate awkward social interactions” meant all possible interactions that could be construed as awkward. But when I read their comment, it seemed to me like they meant a specific interaction they personally find awkward, and to me that one interaction does not constitute 50% of the game. Rather it is just 1% of that 50%.
Guess I just choose the “people should be allowed to enjoy the games they want the way the want” hill to die on today. Gatekeeping fun has never sat right with me.
I am all for exposure, and building empathy. I do think representation is extremely important. And I greatly appreciate you sharing your point of view with me. I hadn’t considered that to the extent I should have. And I whole heartedly agree that greater exposure to the situations being discussed would lead to a more ideal society.
My only point was that if they want to mod out the awkward conversations where they have to turn down their friends advances, regardless of the characters sex, gender, or orientation, and that is the only road bump preventing them from fully enjoying one of the best RPG’s, then I think it’s okay that they get to enjoy their game. They didn’t strike me as being bigoted, they didn’t ask for LGBTQ+ representation to be removed from the game, they just felt bad about hurting their friends feelings. That to me already shows a fair amount of empathy.
And if such a mod (again, not the bigoted mod the post is about, but the hypothetical mod being discussed in this comment thread that “allows you to have less awkward methods of not engaging in relationships with characters you are not romantically interested in so as to avoid feeling bad about turning down your friends”) is the difference between them playing the game or not, then wouldn’t also be fair to say they are getting more exposure just by being able to play the game?
If you feel that wanting to avoid hurting your friends feelings in a game through mods would cause a significant blow to society developing empathy for and getting exposure to LGBTQ+ issues, while we do have a difference of opinion on that line, I still respect the battle you are choosing to champion and say more power to you. Good luck fighting the good fight.
lol. Don’t get me wrong, I see your point (fwiw, I did not mod sword combat out of Dark Souls, or difficult role playing decisions out of my RPG’s). But I just don’t think someone else doing so in a non-bigoted way is that big of a deal. Especially when they made it clear that they just don’t want to hurt their in game friends feelings, regardless of their sex, gender, or orientation. And if that is the only little road bump to them enjoying what is one of the best RPG’s I’ve ever played, then I say I would rather have them not miss the game.
I dunno Yogi, seems hypocritical to champion inclusively in gaming on one hand and tell folks they are probably playing the wrong game for wanting to avoid a specific feature in it.
I fully agree that mod sites should not tolerate bigoted mods. But saying someone should avoid playing a game they enjoy just because there is a specifically uncomfortable social interaction for them, when it could be modded out had the same energy as the folks saying the Sekiro easy mode mod shouldn’t exist.
Should they remove the “feminist Nerevarine” mod from Morrowind as well because there is sexism in the game, just because some folks still want to play it but not be forced to personally engage in sexist behavior? Should they remove the “Spiders are Wolves” mod in Skyrim? Should people not play games they only enjoy modded? If so, Bethesda is in big trouble…
Man, feels like we played totally different games regarding Morrowind. Most of Morrowind’s dungeons are the smallest of any Bethesda game, and honestly it had the least amount of quests that even sent you to dungeons. Still, if you found them tedious you found them tedious. (anychance you installed other mods besides MP?)
All the same, I think the story is by far Bethesda’s magnum opus. (I mean Bethesda proper, since New Vegas was Obsidian and all)
And while I find exploration in Starfield to be extremely tedious, I will say they employed a “Skyrim/FO4” style sensibility where each dungeon should roughly take 10-20 minutes, making for nice bite sized chunks of gameplay.
I completely agree that NV had stellar use of dungeons that almost never overstayed their welcome.
Though if you want real tedium, in both winding dungeons and exploration, give Daggerfall unity a try. Great game, but my god does it go on and on and on.
They fill a similar narrative role, but they are not the same character. Protoman is from the original MegaMan games, and is Dr. Light’s first humanoid robot (The “First Son of Light”). The “pre-MegaMan”. He mostly went around being cool, soloing stuff, and occasionally helping MegaMan.
Zero is in the MegaMan X series, which takes place “a long time later”. He is one of Dr. Wily’s last designs, who got put into hibernation until the events of MegaMan X, and is one of the central figures in the Maverick Hunters. He mostly went around being cool, soloing stuff, and partnering up with MegaMan X. Also he went into hibernation again and woke up to his own really good game series.
I really don’t understand the dog pile this game has gotten.
It’s similar to the situation Cyberpunk 2077 faced. When expectations are set extremely high, nothing can meet them, and Starfield fell far short of the immense hype it generated. And frankly, the mistakes Starfield made are the same issues people have been criticizing Bethesda for since Fallout 3, and even earlier with Oblivion, depending on who you ask. Combined with Fallout 76’s disastrous PR and release, this has left many people frustrated with Bethesda. Consequently, there’s a strong wave of negativity surrounding the game.
For what it’s worth, I’m a big fan of Bethesda’s formula, and I genuinely enjoyed Starfield. However, I’m not surprised by the negative reactions. In fact, I’m somewhat glad that people are expressing their disappointment because Bethesda has a unique style, and I don’t want to see them stay stuck in this creative rut. If they finally genuinely listen to the complaints, there are a lot of valuable suggestions they could benefit from.
This will sound weird, but I believe these complaints stem from a place of love for Bethesda’s games. People know that Bethesda is capable of so much more, and that’s why they are so passionate. Other game companies don’t inspire this level of passion. Hence why I feel it is reminiscent of the negativity that surrounded Cyberpunk 2077. Both games were genuinely good, but they felt generic, safe, and they were overhyped and well below the potential of their respective developers.
The negativity doesn’t make it a bad game, it really is a lot of fun. But it is warrented all the same.
P.S. I agree that some of the story lines in Starfield were fantastic, especially the faction quest lines.
Edit: Someone replied to this and then deleted it saying something to the effect of, “Cyberpunk’s biggest issue is that it tried to run on old consoles, while Starfield’s biggest issue is that it feels old and outdated”.
Which in a lot of ways is very true. In adding my 2 cents regarding the “complaint dog pile” on Starfield, I only intended to compare the two games hype and lack of quality compared to what fans expect from their respective publishers as a way to explain why Starfield (and Cyberpunk) got more vocal hate than worse games.
I realize that my comment makes it sound like I’m saying both games have similar design issues, which I do not believe to be the case. Fwiw, I think Cyberpunk was a much more enjoyable and polished game than Starfield.
Yeah… No. I agree that people will always bitch about shit, but Starfield released with many optimization issuses worth bitching about. Such as flatout bad memory allocation (causing it to misalign with the CPU page size), an incorrect imlementation of DirectX12’s ExecuteIndirect feature causing major issues with GPU’s, and some insanely stupid choices regarding basic customization features (why do you have to change the resolution of your desktop to play the game in full screen at your desired resolution ffs!?).
If it was a case of the game being so cutting edge it needed top of the line hardware that would be one thing. But frankly it was just so poorly optimized that they hoped top of the line hardware would mitigate their quality control issues.
Thank Vivec for modders at least, as this has been Bethesda’s MO for decades.
I didn’t expect him to do anything. But does he expect anecdotal evidence provided without context to change my mind on horse armor? Come on man!