lol. lmao.

  • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah. Every time someone comes up with “games are too cheap” I always point to the fact that the vast majority of AAA games have insane amount of bloat. If AAA devs were struggling to make a profit then a clear way to cut costs would be to streamline the product. If leveling is not vital, cut it. If randomized loot is not necessary, cut it. If horse balls shrinking/expanding with the weather is not necessary, cut it.

    There are always ways to cut corners in a AAA games and if the cost was an issue they’d do it. But the fact that they don’t shows how little the actually struggle. So far Bethesda is the only company that is clearly cutting the corners of their AAA products.

    • Sina@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      So far Bethesda is the only company that is clearly cutting the corners of their AAA products.

      Starfield is the sloppiest Bethasda game ever, cutting corners to save cost is not how I would describe its development at all.

      I agree with what you are saying though. Spending 40% of the budget on voice acting and cinematographic dialog is extremely wasteful. As long as the gameplay is good and graphics are pretty gamers will like the product.

      • jivemasta@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is it really the sloppiest though?

        I’d say its about on par with their past games. It’s clearly their game engine, modified to do space stuff.

        If you come at it with the mindset that not every game has to get bigger and more expansive and have more and more realism/mechanics that don’t serve the core gameplay, it achieves it’s goal.

        Not saying its game of the year material or anything, but if I was doing an employee review, I’d give it a meets expectations grade.

        • ursakhiin@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Starfield is by far their cleanest release. It’s honestly the first game I have played from them that hasn’t crashed in 100+ hours.

          There are aspects I wish had received a bit more attention, sure. But to date, Skyrim and Fallout 4 both have stability mods that are basically requirements to reduce crashing.

          And I’m saying this as somebody with near 2k hours in Skyrim. So I definitely enjoy that game.

          • Sina@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I played Morrowind, Oblivion & Skyrim at release. Compared to Starfield they were far more polished to me. Yes crashes & the odd broken quest happened, but overall they were playable, people without an internet connection could buy the games in a shop & then finish them. Also Oblivion had the best graphics for an open world rpg when it came out, while also running pretty well on the shit tier GPUs of the time. In my mind, Starfield is not pretty on ultra, runs like shit on decent hardware even at relatively low settings and the list of broken things is endless.

            • ursakhiin@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m honestly not experiencing the same. I’m running on ultra with an RTX 3080 and rarely even see a stutter and the only consistent bug I see is just comical. When I sprint for a bit and enter a door, my companion will be sprinting into a wall for a bit.

              I actually do find Starfield to be a pretty game, as well. They have learned better lighting strategies from previous games and the trees look much much better. I wish the facial and running animations were better, but that’s not so bad as to be too skewer the game.

              As far as Oblivion having the best graphics of it’s time, sure. But 2006 basically every game that was going for good graphics achieved the best at release. That was a pivotal period for graphics in games.

      • Moonguide@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Honestly, I’d rather have stellar voice acting and okay graphics (not good, just not bad enough to turn it off after it makes me dizzy) than the other way around. Graphics lose their appeal after a short while in-game.

        • Sina@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Imagine if people could buy a background music only -subtitle dialog- edition of Baldur’s Gate 3 for €40. How would the sale distribution go? I think this is a rather interesting thought experiment, I would personally opt to buy the cheaper version for sure, even though I do know the voice acting in BG3 is a landmark in gaming.

          • Evergreen5970@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I would definitely buy that. I usually keep my game volumes on low and click through the dialogue because I already read the subtitle, why wait around to finish having the line delivered verbally? (Interestingly enough I’ve never ever thought “hurry up, speak faster” in an in real life conversation, this impatience only exists in video games.) Because of the value of voice acting, but for me personally voice acting is just not a priority.