I’m not sure I understand what’s wrong with dissecting the points of a perspective when one’s process involves questioning that perspective. It seems the most relevant points altogether.
The problem is that by nitpicking his specific suggestions, you were avoiding engaging with his central idea. Which, from my point of view, seems to be that for a game as interested in creating a believable world as Starfield, it felt rather fake due to limited options and the inconsistent way it chose what actions to react to.
His suggestions weren’t even that extreme, and could have been accounted for in a myriad of ways. New Vegas’s disguise system, little improvements to the trespassing system, level design that compensated for the limited AI, more frequent use of scripted areas that do react more authentically. Even just a system that has NPC’s react to being shot at would go a long way. Hell, earlier Bethesda titles would give you a persuasion penalty if you had your weapon drawn.
Are you aware of the ever popular “stealth-archer meme”? Can you think of any games where that meme is relevant or has been used? Are any of them not Bethesda games?
I am aware of the “stealth-archer meme”. I suppose I just view the word iconic as synonymous to exemplary. Or as Webster puts it: widely known and acknowledged especially for distinctive excellence. Which I would not call Bethesda’s stealth mechanics. But I’ll chalk this up to a difference of word usage, and can definitely agree with the idea that Bethesda’s stealth is certainly iconic in the sense that it is “identifiable by it style”.
he clearly didn’t know what he signed up for in purchasing it despite it having one the most established featuresets of any game. It would be like me buying the new Madden and complaining because it’s not a driving simulator.
While I can kind of see your point, you are being hyperbolic to an extreme here. Madden does not advertise itself as a driving simulator, Starfield on the other hand did advertise itself as a living breathing universe to explore. Starfield does try to react to the players actions, and the discrepancy between what is accounted for and what is ignored is stark. Coming face to face with this discrepancy often breaks immersion as much as if Madden suddenly asked you to drive him to Chili’s halfway through a football game.
To drive the metaphor a bit further, Starfield’s lack of reactivity would be more akin to receiving no penalty in Madden for tackling someone after a play had stopped. Sure, the developers didn’t have to account for actions the player could take, but when trying to convince players of the legitimacy of the world, little things like this go along way. And Bethesda’s advertising definitely tried to sell players on the notion that the world would “feel alive”, and given the way they used to push the industry forward in this regard, it’s fair for players to feel disappointed in the stagnation of the design. Especially when so many other games have raised the bar in this regards.
Edit:
I suppose I should respond to this as well.
Bethesda’s game mechanics have often been somewhat simplified versions of their intended concepts, spanning from dialogue systems to stealth and combat
…exactly!
While it’s true that the mechanics are shadows masquerading as the action, the glue that tied these shallow actions together in a Bethesda title was the believability of the world around you. Making the world oblivious to many of your actions draws the flaws of the games into sharp focus and breaks immersion. It’s to be expected that players notice and complain about this.
The problem is that by nitpicking his specific suggestions, you were avoiding engaging with his central idea
He was comparing it to Hitman, intentionally or not.
that for a game as interested in creating a believable world as Starfield, it felt rather fake due to limited options and the inconsistent way it chose what actions to react to.
I’m not sure I really agree that’s his central point. At least, it’s definitely not what I’m critiquing. If he thinks Bethesda games are not believable, that’s his right.
I am aware of the “stealth-archer meme”. I suppose I just view the word iconic as synonymous to exemplary
The Stealth-archer meme is as much an insult as a compliment to Bethesda games, but it is Iconic. We all note that wonderful way you can walk literal circles in full view of people while picking them off and everyone else stands their with their thumbs in their ears.
While I can kind of see your point, you are being hyperbolic to an extreme here. Madden does not advertise itself as a driving simulator, Starfield on the other hand did advertise itself as a living breathing universe to explore
I firmly disagree. Please be careful accusing your interlocutor of exaggeration. My point is that Starfield clearly presented itself as a Bethesda game. Despite possibly “hyperbolic” in its marketing to diehards who watched Todd Howard, it definitely did not involve misleading advertising.
To drive the metaphor a bit further, Starfield’s lack of reactivity would be more akin to receiving no penalty in Madden for tackling someone after a play had stopped
Ever play Blood Bowl? Would you have taken points away from Blood Bowl 7 if you were allowed to decapitate the other players because “that’s not realistic”?
He was comparing it to Hitman, intentionally or not.
No, you were comparing his suggestions to Hitman. He was saying that the premise of the in game situation did not react to the players actions believably, which is something Bethesda tries to sell the the facade of, successfully or not. He was just using examples of how he felt the sense of world cohesion could be restored. Though you did say you were not trying to critique his central idea, so it’s fair enough if you do just want to engage with his suggestions on how well you feel they fit into your preferences for a Bethesda game.
The Stealth-archer meme is as much an insult as a compliment to Bethesda games, but it is Iconic.
Again, definitional dispute, if you feel the word iconic fits your meaning, I understand your point well enough to not argue over the usage of the word.
I firmly disagree. Please be careful accusing your interlocutor of exaggeration. My point is that Starfield clearly presented itself as a Bethesda game. Despite possibly “hyperbolic” in its marketing to diehards who watched Todd Howard, it definitely did not involve misleading advertising.
I chose my words carefully, and your claim that a person asking for additional stealth mechanics to lend belivability to a game containing stealth elements that tries hard to create the impression of a real universe is tantamount to “buying the new Madden and complaining because it’s not a driving simulator” is extremely hyperbolic. I’m sorry if that offended you, as that was not my intent, but I stand by my point.
And I don’t think Bethesda was specifically misleading in it’s advertising, at least that I’m aware of. My points are evident by the game design itself. The game presents itself as a world that reacts to your actions and choices, the game sets these expectations right out of the gate, in character creation it tells you how your choices will impact the world. It wants you to believe in its world. And in many ways, it does react to your actions, with a crime system, trespassing, failing dialogue checks, etc. This is what causes many players to feel a sense of dissonance when the NPC’s are completely oblivious to the actions the player is taking.
An no, I would not take points away from Blood Bowl for letting you decapitate a player, because that is literally what the premise of the game is selling itself on. Just as I would not detract points from Madden for trying to create a more realistic NFL experience. Just as I would not detract points from Starfield for trying to create systems that react to the players actions. I would however detract points from these games for failing to execute on their premise, such as if Blood Bowl failed to have over the top violence, Madden failed to recreate football as played in the NFL, and Starfield failed to create a universe where players actions illicited believable responses from the NPC’s
Quoting him: “and plenty of lockers where to steal the same clothes it’s not crazy for somebody to think that was an option”. I can count on one hand the game where “stealing clothes” is an option. New Vegas had something like that, but so halfass nobody ever brings it up except as contrivance.
Though you did say you were not trying to critique his central idea
Not quite. I was disagreeing with you on what the central point of the post had been.
I chose my words carefully, and your claim that a person asking for additional stealth mechanics to lend belivability to a game containing stealth elements that tries hard to create the impression of a real universe is tantamount to “buying the new Madden and complaining because it’s not a driving simulator” is extremely hyperbolic
Then we will agree to disagree, and move on. Because the only step I would have left is to concede your statement I know to be untrue or accuse you of bad faith. Neither would be productive. And this is a discussion about video games. But that’s also why throwing concepts like that around won’t work. There is no useful next line after what amounts to “I know you think your point was good, but it’s stupid”.
I can count on one hand the game where “stealing clothes” is an option. New Vegas had something like that, but so halfass nobody ever brings it up except as contrivance.
New Vegas, Outer Worlds, and Elder Scrolls Online all have a form of a disguise mechanic. A simple to impliment (even with the limited mechanics) attempt to address the situational dissonance many players feel when playing Bethesda’s open world RPG’s and the game fails to react in a belivable manner, causing the player to be pulled from the game world and made acutely aware of the facade surrounding it. That situational dissonance being the central problem XTornado was trying to express. Or in story telling jargon, XTornado is feeling the effect known as “violating the aestetic distance”. His suggestions would mitigate this, but are not the only means of accomplishing such.
And I know you believe his central probelm was about specifically not having a disguise system or other specific additional mechanics, but I think he made his point pretty clear in saying:
that’s the point… No locks no body complaining about what the hell I am doing there as I said zero attempt at making like oh no you shouldn’t be here… No locking no guards complaining… Only if you pick up some random object… It was really stupid.
He made it pretty obvious that he took issue with the way game reacted to his actions and the way even scripted quests failed to provide the player with sensible in-universe options to resolve them. He wasent even married to the specific solutions he suggested, he consistently repeated things such as “I mean I expect something not necessarily that”. But you were so focused on his suggested solutions, you failed to ever even notice (or at least aknowledge) the core problem he was trying to convey.
And the thing is, it’s not like Bethesda had to create situations where the tools they provided didn’t make sense in context, they literally designed the game. No one complained when a dungeon filled with dragur didn’t care about your choice of outfit. Building the world around your game goes a long way to avoid these problems.
Because the only step I would have left is to concede your statement I know to be untrue or accuse you of bad faith.
Well, we can definetly agree on this point. Becuase I don’t really see how you can, in good faith, argue that wanting to add mechanics that other very similar games (even a Fallout and Elder Scrolls game) had, means a person wishes it was an entierly different genre. To take a quote from you on this, I know you think your point was good, but it was stupid. Or as I tried to say kindly, hyperbolic. And as you said, there’s nowhere to go after that. Or so I would have said…
But I was thinking about this discussion before you made your most recent comment, and somthing you had said stood out that I think explains why you get so defensive when people suggest additional features that would enhance the fun they have playing the game.
We all note that wonderful way you can walk literal circles in full view of people while picking them off and everyone else stands their with their thumbs in their ears.
We did all note that, but not everyone would call it “that wonderful way”. For many players, the awkward mechanics of Bethesda’s games were neccessary concessions due to technological limitations of their time. And these players forgave these issues due to the sincerity with which Bethesda tried to create a beleivable world to adventure in. These players saw the progress Bethesda made with their early titles, and imagined what the future would bring. Continuing to advance the promise of early Bethesda games, creating more beleivable, immersive, and reactive worlds to explore. And for these types of players, the stagnation of the formula has been a cause of dissapointment. Which is fair frankly.
But sometimes it’s easy to forget that for many other enjoyers of Bethesda’s games, they didn’t see these technologically imposed limitations as a neccessary evil, they viewed them as selling points. Where they derivied their fun as it were. And I think for you that is the case. And it is valid to want these games not to advance anymore. There is no obligation for Bethesda to continue to build on its formula, many players like it for what it is, not for the fantasy it attempts to sell. Just as it’s okay for Pokemon to keep creating new versions of the same game, so too can Bethesda.
To circle back around, I don’t think your cretique of XTornado’s points are valid. His suggestions were simple, easy to impliment, would largely remedy some of the problems many players feel regarding Bethesda’s formula, and wouldn’t interfere greatly with the gameplay style of players who chose not to make use of them. And even if his specific suggestions were not implimented, mitigating the problem he was complaining about could have been done with just a bit more thoughtful world and quest design.
But I do think enjoying Bethesda’s games for what they are is valid, and I don’t think you need to like the idea of someone suggesting Bethesda tinker with a formula that works for you. So I hope you continue to enjoy the game for what it is.
The problem is that by nitpicking his specific suggestions, you were avoiding engaging with his central idea. Which, from my point of view, seems to be that for a game as interested in creating a believable world as Starfield, it felt rather fake due to limited options and the inconsistent way it chose what actions to react to.
His suggestions weren’t even that extreme, and could have been accounted for in a myriad of ways. New Vegas’s disguise system, little improvements to the trespassing system, level design that compensated for the limited AI, more frequent use of scripted areas that do react more authentically. Even just a system that has NPC’s react to being shot at would go a long way. Hell, earlier Bethesda titles would give you a persuasion penalty if you had your weapon drawn.
I am aware of the “stealth-archer meme”. I suppose I just view the word iconic as synonymous to exemplary. Or as Webster puts it: widely known and acknowledged especially for distinctive excellence. Which I would not call Bethesda’s stealth mechanics. But I’ll chalk this up to a difference of word usage, and can definitely agree with the idea that Bethesda’s stealth is certainly iconic in the sense that it is “identifiable by it style”.
While I can kind of see your point, you are being hyperbolic to an extreme here. Madden does not advertise itself as a driving simulator, Starfield on the other hand did advertise itself as a living breathing universe to explore. Starfield does try to react to the players actions, and the discrepancy between what is accounted for and what is ignored is stark. Coming face to face with this discrepancy often breaks immersion as much as if Madden suddenly asked you to drive him to Chili’s halfway through a football game.
To drive the metaphor a bit further, Starfield’s lack of reactivity would be more akin to receiving no penalty in Madden for tackling someone after a play had stopped. Sure, the developers didn’t have to account for actions the player could take, but when trying to convince players of the legitimacy of the world, little things like this go along way. And Bethesda’s advertising definitely tried to sell players on the notion that the world would “feel alive”, and given the way they used to push the industry forward in this regard, it’s fair for players to feel disappointed in the stagnation of the design. Especially when so many other games have raised the bar in this regards.
Edit: I suppose I should respond to this as well.
While it’s true that the mechanics are shadows masquerading as the action, the glue that tied these shallow actions together in a Bethesda title was the believability of the world around you. Making the world oblivious to many of your actions draws the flaws of the games into sharp focus and breaks immersion. It’s to be expected that players notice and complain about this.
He was comparing it to Hitman, intentionally or not.
I’m not sure I really agree that’s his central point. At least, it’s definitely not what I’m critiquing. If he thinks Bethesda games are not believable, that’s his right.
The Stealth-archer meme is as much an insult as a compliment to Bethesda games, but it is Iconic. We all note that wonderful way you can walk literal circles in full view of people while picking them off and everyone else stands their with their thumbs in their ears.
I firmly disagree. Please be careful accusing your interlocutor of exaggeration. My point is that Starfield clearly presented itself as a Bethesda game. Despite possibly “hyperbolic” in its marketing to diehards who watched Todd Howard, it definitely did not involve misleading advertising.
Ever play Blood Bowl? Would you have taken points away from Blood Bowl 7 if you were allowed to decapitate the other players because “that’s not realistic”?
No, you were comparing his suggestions to Hitman. He was saying that the premise of the in game situation did not react to the players actions believably, which is something Bethesda tries to sell the the facade of, successfully or not. He was just using examples of how he felt the sense of world cohesion could be restored. Though you did say you were not trying to critique his central idea, so it’s fair enough if you do just want to engage with his suggestions on how well you feel they fit into your preferences for a Bethesda game.
Again, definitional dispute, if you feel the word iconic fits your meaning, I understand your point well enough to not argue over the usage of the word.
I chose my words carefully, and your claim that a person asking for additional stealth mechanics to lend belivability to a game containing stealth elements that tries hard to create the impression of a real universe is tantamount to “buying the new Madden and complaining because it’s not a driving simulator” is extremely hyperbolic. I’m sorry if that offended you, as that was not my intent, but I stand by my point.
And I don’t think Bethesda was specifically misleading in it’s advertising, at least that I’m aware of. My points are evident by the game design itself. The game presents itself as a world that reacts to your actions and choices, the game sets these expectations right out of the gate, in character creation it tells you how your choices will impact the world. It wants you to believe in its world. And in many ways, it does react to your actions, with a crime system, trespassing, failing dialogue checks, etc. This is what causes many players to feel a sense of dissonance when the NPC’s are completely oblivious to the actions the player is taking.
An no, I would not take points away from Blood Bowl for letting you decapitate a player, because that is literally what the premise of the game is selling itself on. Just as I would not detract points from Madden for trying to create a more realistic NFL experience. Just as I would not detract points from Starfield for trying to create systems that react to the players actions. I would however detract points from these games for failing to execute on their premise, such as if Blood Bowl failed to have over the top violence, Madden failed to recreate football as played in the NFL, and Starfield failed to create a universe where players actions illicited believable responses from the NPC’s
Quoting him: “and plenty of lockers where to steal the same clothes it’s not crazy for somebody to think that was an option”. I can count on one hand the game where “stealing clothes” is an option. New Vegas had something like that, but so halfass nobody ever brings it up except as contrivance.
Not quite. I was disagreeing with you on what the central point of the post had been.
Then we will agree to disagree, and move on. Because the only step I would have left is to concede your statement I know to be untrue or accuse you of bad faith. Neither would be productive. And this is a discussion about video games. But that’s also why throwing concepts like that around won’t work. There is no useful next line after what amounts to “I know you think your point was good, but it’s stupid”.
New Vegas, Outer Worlds, and Elder Scrolls Online all have a form of a disguise mechanic. A simple to impliment (even with the limited mechanics) attempt to address the situational dissonance many players feel when playing Bethesda’s open world RPG’s and the game fails to react in a belivable manner, causing the player to be pulled from the game world and made acutely aware of the facade surrounding it. That situational dissonance being the central problem XTornado was trying to express. Or in story telling jargon, XTornado is feeling the effect known as “violating the aestetic distance”. His suggestions would mitigate this, but are not the only means of accomplishing such.
And I know you believe his central probelm was about specifically not having a disguise system or other specific additional mechanics, but I think he made his point pretty clear in saying:
He made it pretty obvious that he took issue with the way game reacted to his actions and the way even scripted quests failed to provide the player with sensible in-universe options to resolve them. He wasent even married to the specific solutions he suggested, he consistently repeated things such as “I mean I expect something not necessarily that”. But you were so focused on his suggested solutions, you failed to ever even notice (or at least aknowledge) the core problem he was trying to convey.
And the thing is, it’s not like Bethesda had to create situations where the tools they provided didn’t make sense in context, they literally designed the game. No one complained when a dungeon filled with dragur didn’t care about your choice of outfit. Building the world around your game goes a long way to avoid these problems.
Well, we can definetly agree on this point. Becuase I don’t really see how you can, in good faith, argue that wanting to add mechanics that other very similar games (even a Fallout and Elder Scrolls game) had, means a person wishes it was an entierly different genre. To take a quote from you on this, I know you think your point was good, but it was stupid. Or as I tried to say kindly, hyperbolic. And as you said, there’s nowhere to go after that. Or so I would have said…
But I was thinking about this discussion before you made your most recent comment, and somthing you had said stood out that I think explains why you get so defensive when people suggest additional features that would enhance the fun they have playing the game.
We did all note that, but not everyone would call it “that wonderful way”. For many players, the awkward mechanics of Bethesda’s games were neccessary concessions due to technological limitations of their time. And these players forgave these issues due to the sincerity with which Bethesda tried to create a beleivable world to adventure in. These players saw the progress Bethesda made with their early titles, and imagined what the future would bring. Continuing to advance the promise of early Bethesda games, creating more beleivable, immersive, and reactive worlds to explore. And for these types of players, the stagnation of the formula has been a cause of dissapointment. Which is fair frankly.
But sometimes it’s easy to forget that for many other enjoyers of Bethesda’s games, they didn’t see these technologically imposed limitations as a neccessary evil, they viewed them as selling points. Where they derivied their fun as it were. And I think for you that is the case. And it is valid to want these games not to advance anymore. There is no obligation for Bethesda to continue to build on its formula, many players like it for what it is, not for the fantasy it attempts to sell. Just as it’s okay for Pokemon to keep creating new versions of the same game, so too can Bethesda.
To circle back around, I don’t think your cretique of XTornado’s points are valid. His suggestions were simple, easy to impliment, would largely remedy some of the problems many players feel regarding Bethesda’s formula, and wouldn’t interfere greatly with the gameplay style of players who chose not to make use of them. And even if his specific suggestions were not implimented, mitigating the problem he was complaining about could have been done with just a bit more thoughtful world and quest design.
But I do think enjoying Bethesda’s games for what they are is valid, and I don’t think you need to like the idea of someone suggesting Bethesda tinker with a formula that works for you. So I hope you continue to enjoy the game for what it is.
Anyways, thanks for the chat. Have a good one.