After the success of Fallout Shelter the renown Maryland developer, Bethesda, now wants to make more mobile games. Creative director Todd Howard revealed that a mobile Fallout is on top of the three new games Bethesda is working on.
Starfield's creative producer, Tim Lamb, reflects on the game one year later, telling us that Bethesda is its own harshest critic.
"telling us that Bethesda is its own harshest critic."
If this is actually true, games from this company will never be at current standards.
It's a thing people say to make them feel better. Pretty sure their biggest critics are unrelenting gamers who love to hate for longer than it's worth.
This is true. And I would like to add their critics are also people that liked their games but had to begrudgingly move on because of the drastic drop in quality.
Hannan from eXputer inquires: "Bethesda games' fans will likely be familiar with using mods to make its titles playable, but why do players do what Bethesda should?"
"Bethesda games' fans will likely be familiar with using mods to make its titles playable, but why do players do what Bethesda should?"
Because players won´t have to do the heavy lifting job, which is: create, planning, test, and pay 5 hundred developers out their pockets.
Because it´s easier to create mods that breaks a game when you won´t face the consequences of your failure, you don´t have to endure pressure of any kind by higher ups or have to put yourself at risk of losing your job. That´s why.
Players are players, not creators and they shouldn't be required or preferred for them to do any type of creating
What about low level creators who enjoy doing it?
Also I'm pretty sure it's not required.
H9,
But only... it's not required, and some people like modding. There are thousands of mods for thousands of games.
every one of their games can be played from beginning to end.
Your comment makes no sense. Most modders are doing it on their own free time and aren't expecting anything in return.
The Bethesda games are playable without mods.
This article all the way down to the comments is just knee jerk hyperbole.
"test, and pay 5 hundred developers out their pockets."
500 devs, but spaceship space travel in a space game is missing. good one.
meanwhile on 'No mans sky': https://www.youtube.com/res...
Obscure that's a bs excuse. No way around that. I'm saying that as someone who generally likes their games.
@shinoff2183
"Obscure that's a bs excuse. No way around that. I'm saying that as someone who generally likes their games."
It´s not excuse, it´s a fact!
How many games had Nexus developed after all those years?! You´re right... none! Have you ever wondered *why*?
I´m willing to bet that you don´t even know that some of the best Skyrim and Fallout 4 modders were in fact hired by Bethesda and are actual developers behind Starfield! THAT game you sh!t on? Yeah, some of those "lazy and/or incompetent" Starfield developers used to be highly regarded as modders on both Skyrim and Fallout 4 back in the day, because they obviously weren´t the people in the front lines.
So you can´t stop with your fake concern act, because for people like you modders are "heroes" until they eventually get hired and have to deal with actual development of a game, everything that it entails and be held accounted for its final quality.
Again, to create mods from someone else´s work is easy when you don´t have to develop a game from the scratch or been held accounted by anything, including the backlash from "fans" such as yourself.
Come on now lol. This has to be one of the most backward responses I have ever heard. The question was 'why should players have to make mods to make a game playable'. Your response is Bethesda shouldn't have to make their own games playable because... it costs money and because the pressure of losing your job?
This is unreal.
@Eonjay
"This is unreal."
What is truly unreal is you calling Bethesda games unplayable. After that, I don´t think we should entertain this conversation any further.
But the question beckons. Is the game playable without mods? I haven’t played it, but from what I’ve seen and heard plenty of people have finished or still playing without mods. So the Title is deceptive.
There is some truth in what you say about the time to create, plan, and test. But, if it takes a handful of modders only a month to create a massive improvement to the game, why aren't Bethesda doing that themselves? Why leave it as it is knowing full well what the community has done? And I'm not talking about graphical options, just from UI enhancements, performance fixes, gameplay enhancements/options, and the like?
Not to mention the simple step of making any of the unofficial patches ( skyrim, fallout) a real official patch. These things have more testing hours than any mod bethesda has put out themselves.
Because modders are free to do what they, not what they´re told.
Studios are organized by a set of priorities that developers will look into given order of importance and relevance. Critical or more serious issues will always comes first.
Modders might have interest in the things that you mentioned while Todd might have something different in mind.
I mean, whenever a more serious or critical issue pop up like crashing, freezing, save files corrupted or deleted, it automatically becomes number one priority above anything else. All that at the top of two big upcoming expansions they´re already working on.
@Obscure_Observer: You're sidestepping the argument, which is that Bethesda as a company isn't making these decisions by trying to make it about who is told what to do and they can't do it is the issue. The people who make decisions are the ones not getting this done, that's the point.
***while Todd might have something different in mind***
And that something different is doing nothing until over a decade later with a repackaged upgrade. Again, it took the modder a month to implement, if that, and update it with updates as necessary. Bethesda should be surpassing that. They are not.
Every developer has to create plan test.
no one told them to make a game of that size if they couldn’t handle it, they should’ve lowered the scope.
Their games are notorious for not being polished. They rely on the mods to finish their dirty work going as far as to call it a feature (starfield).
It’s easier to create mods that brick a game when you don’t face the consequences of your failure?? They are FIXING the broken aspects That higher-ups allowed to be shipped in the first place.
Thats why you’re argument is invalid.
Exactly, Bethesda builds game like Boeing makes their airplanes, in terms of quality... :/
Obscure I think you should ask your handler to send you a fresh set of answers. The shilling had been showing for some time now.
Good luck.
Skyrim has bad UI, one of the most recommended mods is SKY UI.
Starfield has bad UI, most recommended mods is star UI.
Bethesda knows the mods exists
Bethesda makes bad UI
are u saying that those 500 developers are not capable of delivering a functioning game?
are u saying that we should fix their game, which they charge us for?
are you saying that ur ok with broken games?
Have been playing Bethesda games for ages without mods. I didn't know the games I've been playing were unplayable...
Same here. i guess we have been doing it wrong from the start.
Now i have used mods in other games (not Bethesda) because they either change the dynamics to be more balanced or they give the character more pizazz but, again, those are not required either.
yeah idk what's wrong with those people. Playing Starfield probably popped a vessel in their brain and now they can't remember anything accurately anymore.
Actually watched someone do a playthrough of Morrowind and Oblivion and it was completely fine. No it wasn't without bugs and no it wasn't perfect but he had a great time playing it and me watching it, without any mods, can you believe that?
They aren't unplayable, just janky as shite. There are many things outright broken in their games 10+ years later that only mods have bothered to fix. Also you can't forget most their games have been in pretty broken states at launch. Each more or less, but broken nonetheless.
"Have been playing Bethesda games for ages without mods. I didn't know the games I've been playing were unplayable..."
Exactly! Me neither!
Same here. I played Fallout 3, New Vegas, Skyrim and Fallout 4 vanilla with no issue at all. I honestly only remember one bug being i needed to fix was Fallout 4's incredibly long load times on the PC. Which I fixed with dropping a single file into the directory.
Funny how I actually did. Beat it three times, twice on the 360, and again on PC. Sorry you had a poor experience.
Unplayable? Nah. But I'm 100% waiting on content mods before I step back into Starfield. It needs more content.
OG Skyrim on 360 was so broken that in the starting sequence Ralof doesn't even speak, he just stares at you and eventually the cart goes towards a wall and gets stuck. The game was literally unplayable.
That's what I was thinking. Sure, mods can make the games better, introduce QoL changes, etc., but they're in no way needed to make the games *playable*.
Replies(2)Mods should be more accessible on console, it sucks we can't get stuff that adds assets and change npc scripts
I believe that limitation is only on PS. That was the concession Bethesda had to make to get PS to allow mods for Fallout 4 and Skyrim. On Xbox you can get new assets like weapons, sounds, textures, etc.
True but sometimes I think sony drags Microsoft with them like with the stalker collection mods. Sony has a lot of terrible and outdated policies like returning games , they're lucky that they can deliver on games because they're terrible in a lot of aspects, just look at ps stars it's been broken for like a month, that's not what you expect from a massive company
so they made one game that is awful and even mods cant fix it and now all of a sudden their whole library is unplayable? people use so many mods in skyrim cause it's a 15 year old game and by todays standards just doesn't look great and there is so many mods available out of love for the game so why shouldn't you use them?
Piss off
The series producer says the priority is making sure the originals remain playable…
That's a bs excuse wasteland 1 was put on console. He probably doesn't wanna be shown up by games they didnt make. Fallout 1 and 2 are a much better product then what bethesada has put out, and I like the new ones to.
The older ones would be amazing on console. Damn shame
Wouldn't want to give Bethesda money for something they didn't create anyway, can play these on Vita (homebrew ports of FO 1/2 Community Edition) and now on 3DS too
I actually got a vita for this specifically. Would just prefer a console experience. I guess more of a TV experience is what I'd like.
Fair enough, i have a Vita TV too which is how i actually have been playing these again opposed to handheld - you might know about this, but just in case, you can output video via USB [UDCD UVC] to a computer or smart tv. Not ideal but for a turn based game like this should be fine
Honestly, that's fine. It'd be cool to have 3D remakes, but I'd be good with console ports someday if possible.
Why? As we've seen before, mobile games are not a lasting source of revenue for most game studios. Devs that have gone full mobile (which I'm not saying is Bethesda) didn't stay there long and came running back. Studios see mobile and think "Low Dev Costs, less work, microtransactions = ¢a¢hing!!!"
Then they find out that the market is oversaturated and competition is insanely high and innovation is not really a consideration to people who buy mobile games and they find out that the land of milk and honey they thought they found is actually powdered milk and table syrup.
*sigh* I'm old.