Alex G writes "With Fallout 76, Bethesda doesn't seem to have taken any cues about the series need to improve its graphical engine."
I kinda think it's a part of their games' charm, honestly.
Other companies can make high fidelity generally polished open world games, why can’t Bethesda?
It's a bit strange to me when people hold developers to the same standards as others. Not everyone can squeeze the most out of a platform like Naughty Dog or deliver a crazy open world experience like CDPR, R*, and now Guerrilla Games. They are exceptionally great studios. Honestly, I've always questioned Bethesda's ability to really deliver on visual fidelity or performance. Their games are notoriously buggy. So to answer the question of "why can't Bethesda"..... the answer is because it's Bethesda. I'm not saying it CAN'T be done, but again, they're not really known for that.
They should be held to the same standards as every other AAA developer, and if they can't maintain that standard then maybe the price of their games should reflect that.
Lazy development. They have been like that since day one. It won't change. People praise them. I don't know why. Their games are a buggy utter mess.
It's same as Telltale games. You have mostly static environment. The games should be unbelievably strong with graphics and performance but nooooo, graphics makes you recollect the PS2 days!
Because they know its not really necessary, and spend more money on marketing, instead of allocating those resources to getting things like that done internally before the release of the game. it's not that they can't, it's that they don't care to. If people didn't buy their games at release because they tended to be buggy, and don't offer up the visual standards that are set by others, and are often years behind in that regard, then they'd allocate resources to such a thing. But marketing can easily overcome many thing, and despite those problems with their games, they do tend to be fun, and they have some popular franchises.
Bethesda has never been at the high end graphically. If great graphics are what your looking for. Look elsewhere. If a great game with a palpable atmosphere and fun gameplay are what your looking for, you will probably love their games.
Unoptimized, Buggy, poorly animated, jank is part of the charm?
I think it is.
@ElementX Seems you've become accustomed to turd. As for many of us we've been exposed to AAA open world titles the likes Horizon etc. Anything less is laughable unless it's an indie game.
Cell shading IS charming, visual fidelity, animations like its 2006 all over again and bugs galore on the hand ARE not. Even personal preference has a limit guys...we need to get with the program at some point.
well it is part of Bethesda history. Charm is not. I can't think of a single game they've released that wasn't a buggy mess at least to begin with. In my recollection animations have never been their strongest suite either. However back when Oblivion released it was a sight to behold as was, I believe, Skyrim. Like others have said. Perhaps it's simply this outdated engine. But you'd think even then that they'd still be able to polish a turd enough to make the game look good. Whatever the case may be it seems Bethesada better get the hint and make changes because even the loyalist of fans will lose faith and interest at some point. I've never really been interested in Fallout after playing 3 for about 35-60 hours. A friend has told me a million times how much better FO4 was but I just never had the desire or time to get around to it. However I was looking forward to 76 but with everything surrounding it.... With it's release so close it certainly can't be in Alpha like some idiots at IGN said in a video. Hopefully they're able to work the final touches in by launch and release a great game that looks good. That seems highly unlikely though but I guess we'll see.
I think occasional graphical/physics glitches can be fun. NPCs that float away when you talk to them should be celebrated. Game breaking glitches, not so much.
Ninver - If you compare all games to Horizon, then you must not enjoy a lot of games..
I think their games thrive on the story aspects, although I personally sometimes wonder about that, coupled with game play which is pretty solid. Buggy sure, but a lot of people appreciate what it is those games do well, and often overlook, or at least live with the things that bring it down. I'm sure if we looked beyond Bethesda, we could find other games which get the same treatment by fans.
@ftlmaster. This is why they continue to give us buggy, bad performing games. It's because of people like you that keep purchasing and defending their bullshit... Why spend time and resources to resolve issues when customers will still purchase the product regardless ??
People buy their games because they enjoy them, maybe you've heard of Skyrim & Fallout 4? It's impossible for all developers to reach the same amount of polish when their games are so mechanically, technically, visually and practically different. It's easy to say they should do X because Y but it doesn't work with that, they have different resources, budgets, ideals and so many other underlying factors that no 2 developers should be held to the same standards. It would be nice if my games were bug & glitch free, & frankly I've never come across any game-killing issues in any of their games, but even so, I'm prepared to live with clothes clipping through armour on occasion because as a package, I determined the overall product was worth the insignificant inconvenience and the known potential for worst.
I'm not a huge Bethesda fan. I don't run out and buy their games day one, or really get that hyped up over their every big release. I enjoy elder scrolls though despite all the bugs and outdated presentations. Because I enjoy their games, I will buy them eventually, and probably enjoy them. Im' not into fallout because of the setting, but if i were into that kind of thing, I'm sure I'd enjoy it. If I enjoy something, is it wrong to want to spend money on it? I don't excuse the shortcomings of the games, and can easily criticize what those games do wrong, but I don't typically go so far as to blame the customer for spending money on a game they enjoy, as if what they do is something outright terrible. Their games aren't up to the standards of some other developers, but when I buy one of their games, I am buying that with the full knowledge that they aren't up there with Naughty Dog, R*, or any other developer in the upper echelon.
"Part of their charm". O_O. You need help.
It's people like you that are the reason fallout and elder scrolls suffer the same mechanical problems they been suffering for 20 years
FTL No its gamers like you who think it is and reviewers who are too scared to call out Bethesda In today's age where huge open world games come polished why can't Bethesda do that So tired of hearing that echuse on how all the bugs and glitches and a 15 year old game engine is theor charm Reviewers/gamers should hold all publishers and developers to the same standard instead of defending their favorite developers even if they are wrong
Cant hold all the developers to the same standards when there games are different. People here are comparing Bethesda to Naughty dog.... Naughty dog, the studio that makes linear story driven games. Which studios games are better is subjective; however, which studios games are larger in scale is not. People underestimate Bethesda.
Larger doesn't mean better though. What about CD project red who make huge open world games why can't we compare them to Bethesda and we have conclusive evidence to which is better
Yes you can compare the Witcher to Bethesda games. However, you are wrong about something: There is no conclusive evidence as to which game is better. I like Bethesda games better than the Witcher, but Its not my place to say which is better. People have a habit of picking their favorite games and sayng they are objectively better than another, just because said game has something that appeals to them more. The Witcher has superior qualities to Bethesda games, but dont think for a second that the opposite is not also true. I have friends that think that the Witcher 3 is garbage, and I have to debate with them that it is not garbage. One friend did not even make it out of Geralts dream. He looked out of the window behind Yennefer in Kaer Moern, and then said "This game is ass". Turned it off and never played it again. I kid you not. He enjoyed Fallout though. It all depends on what a person is looking for in a game, dont forget that.
One can easily analyze technical implementations and compare those two games. Or other games that fall into similar categories. The Witcher in many places excels far beyond what Bethesda has delivered. This isn't an opinion based thing, it's a matter of technical analysis on what is an improvement over something. There are subjective matters which are less clear cut. That comes from the story, fun factor, overall feelings on how the game play combines to form a "good" game, etc. But most of the criticisms revolving around Bethesda games are purely technical in nature....frame rates, quality of graphics, game breaking bugs, animations, etc. Those are all quantifiable outside the realm of the subjective.
No free passes allowed here Bethesda is not a start up indie company. They are intelligent with data and the talent of devs to drive them. The thing is Bethesda wants to put it out there ASAP they have a somewhat reasonable launch date any delays will screw them due to the upcoming major games coming up this season. They delay now might as well wait for next year but guess what??? The shareholders come first plus the luxury of patches they will push so ultimately don't excuse them the charm doesn't come first.
You'll love this game called Ride to Hell then. Really though, don't excuse developer laziness for "charm". This isn't some small studio that managed to push out a AAA-esque experience with some flaws. This is one of the biggest, most funded developers on the planet, with giant development windows.
No it’s not. Bethesda has long outgrown its “getting a pass” phase.
Generally, companies that get a free pass, tend to never outgrow that phase, as too many tend to keep giving passes, particularly in the media which influences the course of discussion among the community which will actually make a fuss about it, and has more influence over the average consumer who doesn't discuss this thing too much, if at all. If they see a Bethesda game,they aren't often thinking about how it's Bethesda, and their other games are buggy. They remember liking ES or FO or whatever. Then they see the high reviews that barely touch on, or don't say at all the flaws that exist, so they are fine buying it again.
It may be a charming turd, but it's still a turd.
Yes they can 60mill morons will buy it
And they will love it because it is fun
Their fans have very very low standards.
I have high standards. I just have low expectations for Bethesda games. At least their biggest IP's. Some of their less popular games aren't always bad. I tend to have fun with their games despite their flaws. I don't get excited for them, but I'll play them eventually.
Bethesda isnotorjous for broken and ugly games.. This isnt news to me...
Bethesda is notorious for jank, bugs,etc. in their games. Outside of Doom (2016), Wolfenstein 2 and very likely Rage 2, Bethesda games have subpar visual fidelity and often questionable optimization.
And they are never marked down for it. For some reason reviewers let them off, something they wouldn't do for other publishers.
That is because the reviewers likely factor in the Herculean task it is to make games as dense as theres. Its a miracle they get these games to hold together at all.
@Armaggedon That doesn't explain why other games which can be just as dense don't get the same consideration. Some games get torn apart over minuscule problems, but Bethesda games often barely have them mentioned in reviews, or they're written off as not a big deal. While this is a generalization, it's pretty obvious that Bethesda gets what is known as a free pass by many. people buy their games because they're familiar with the franchises. If you notice, the games that don't have the Fallout and Elder Scrolls name in them, they spend more time polishing the games. Bethesda knows that these games will sell, and that the media will overlook these problems, so they have no real incentive to change things. The only reason they might is if they just feel like doing it on their own, but they seem like they want to spend more on marketing to sell more, than on the resources to actually make a better game.
The Evil Within games too, those look and play great. But yeah, TES and Fallout need to start stepping up.
Bethesda has developed only two games since 2011. Skyrim and fallout 4. The rest are only published by them. That is why you don't see the same level of bugs in these "other" Bethesda titles. They try to fool gamers by publishing some very good games here and there but let's not forget here that their games have always been unoptimized mess with sub-par graphics. One would expect them to have updated their graphics engine by now but nope Bethesda is quite happy in their own la la land.
I'm so glad we live in a timeline now where Bethesda isn't proclaimed Gods for releasing something and people actually call them out when something is lackluster.
I've been watching the gameplay videos and I think it's fine they have already promised the performance issues will be fixed on release. I'm actually slowly converting my thoughts on fallout 76 as a die hard single player fan and fallout fan I was going to give the game a hard pass but the recent gameplay shows that it won't be as great as previous entries but will still have some charm and cool back story. I think I might actually get it on a steep discount.
But wasn't it an old build? If the final game releases with subpar graphics, fine, that's certainly a big problem. But why is everyone judging an old demo build like it's the final build of the game? Am I missing something here?
I think you're missing Bethesda's track record for graphics quality in the FO and TES franchises. They aren't really known for their graphics prowess. There may be some improvements in the final release, but I wouldn't expect them to be so much to overcome some of the criticisms presented.
watched a gameplay video the other day and i am pushed away. this doesn‘t look very appealing to me, graphics-wise. the tech level is much higher today. there is a difference between charme and lame assets. but that‘s my main criicism of this whole release. it‘s a really low effort. and pointless.
Finally a n4g article I agree with
Bethesda Can't Get Away with Jank Anymore But they will just wait these reviewers will praise them regardless because of all the perks and advertisement money they get
A broken buggy game that you’ve paided full price for, part of its charm. God they must love people like you.
Even Assassin Creed Odyssey looks better than this game! This one needs a makeover.
How many bugs do we recon this game will have upon launch?
Most of them.
I will be surprised if bethesda fixed any; won't feel like a bethesda game.
Reviewers always give Bethesda a free pass. After games like The Witcher, Horizon, Spiderman, Ass Creed Origins etc you can't just say the scope of the game justifies the lack of polish.
Not just the scope, the density as well. All the systems in a Bethesda game that are all working in tandem. Their stuff is virtually singular. Only Obsidian has tackled making a game of their scale, and that game was buggy as sin . But wait, people always talk about how that game is the best fallout without any criticism. The Witcher also gets a pass on buggy glitchy nonsense.
The only difference is, developers care about fixing their games' bugs and glitches. Bethesda doesn't give a shit. 5 years later a new 'remastered' Skyrim released, and what do we get? Same bugs and glitches with graphics out of late PS3/XBOX360 generation.
Bethesda patches bugs. Most developers patch bugs. Alot of games that people praise constantly still have the same bugs pop up. People keep saying Bethesda doesnt care, and Im not sure where they are getting that from. Ask Naughty dog to make a Bethesda style rpg, and lets so how immaculate it comes out to be. Its going to have bugs
No one gave the Witcher 3 any crap for there game being buggy. Big open world with alot of different systems equals bugs. Try to be understanding
Firstly it was no where near as buggay as bethesda titles are at launch. Secondly CDPR actually makes a real effort to improve and fix their games post launch. Lastly, the witcher is a great looking game with more advanced rendering and simulations systems yet still performed better than fallout 4.
No where near as buggy because not as dense and interactive. Yes, the games we pay for should be beyond polished. But if we are going to criticize Bethesda, we should be sure that it is criticism, and not a crucifixion. Large scale games have this as a curse. The more systems working in tandem, the harder it is to catch.
@Armaggedon Tbh I always felt like scale of the witcher 3 was more grand than the scale of the fallout 4. Loot interaction is a lot better in F4 but that doesn't change the fact that witcher 3 does a whole lot of other stuffs better... and in larger quantity. Your argument would probably work for last gen game like skyrim but it falls apart in case of fallout 4 in this gen because clearly they were lacking the manpower to tackle this game (remind you, 100 people dev team despite selling crap ton of games) and were too lazy to revamp the engine for this gen. Now that studios like cdpr is going ahead finally it seems like they are trying to get a move on by hiring more people and upgrading their tech. We are yet to see the result though, only the next reveal of starfield will say how much they are actually progressing
Lazy? There games are the exact opposite of lazy my friend. Besides, its simple fundamentals: If you have a system in place, in which the engine is the foundation, you have to be very careful what you change. It would be similar to Sony changing the foundation of the ps4. Why do you think it always takes until near the end of a console life cycle before the super games start coming out one after the other? The developers have to get used to it and adapt to the system. As they practice with it becomes more instinctual to navigate. Try jumping from being a master at a game like Tekken to Streetfighter. Sure, the fundamentals are similar; however, there is no replacement for experience. Developers still develop, but they still have to adapt to change s between engines. Its not "Let's just switch" and know where everything is at.
The Witchers bugs were pretty marginal overall. bethesda games have rather distracting bugs that are prevelent from start to finish. On top of that, despite this density you keep going over, many of the things you see in their games are implementations of of a quality which was outdated even when those games first released. Now, it's nice to say that Bethesda fixes these things post release, but I recently started playing SkyrimVR, and it has some of the same distracting bugs that I remember the first time I played Skyrim....and I first played that a year after release when apparently they were already fixing bugs. A new release, of easily apparent bugs that even a game tester wouldn't need to bring to the attention of the programmer for them to notice. The Whitcher, or other games of the same scope, with bugs, were mostly intermittent bugs, and very rarely were distracting. Of all the companies out there who makes games of this scope, only Bethesda has the reputation of releasing buggy messes with outdated graphics and animations. You think that's by design? Or is it just possible that bethesda just releases buggy games with outdated implementations? And stop acting like the scope of TES or FO are somehow much more impressive than any number of open world games. GTA is immensely more complex than Bethesda games, and yet it's bugs aren't as much of a problem. Sure the budget is bigger, but the games are 3-4 times bigger overall as well. You talk about not changing the system on which they work with...the game engine I presume your tying to imply...and it's just silly to say they should be careful changing it. If they're building their modern games using what has been outdated for a while, then it's only building upon a flawed foundation. Their system has nothing to do with the low quality of their graphics. Their system has nothing to do with the lower than standard animations. Consider that Telltale games never changed their system, and they were heavily criticized for it as time went on. Bethesda should be as well, because if they can't keep up with the times, then they're going to get left behind, and not adapting to modern conveniences that exist in game engine design is just holding them back, and ultimately making it more costly to develop their games. These developers can easily adapt to new systems. The underlaying structure of how a game is built doesn't change between game engines. The majority of developers on any team are contract employees. They often move quickly from one company to another, and can at any time be required to work with often different technologies. I work in the industry, and when I was working on actual games, I worked for 3 different companies. One using their own in house engine, one using Unreal, the other using Sony's provided API with no front end engine. I managed to be up to speed within a day or two of getting the job, because I understand what it is I was supposed to do with the programming.
If people really want there games to be so immaculate, tell them to make more scaled down linear games. Much easier to manage than being able to interact with almost every item in a big open world
This argument falls apart when you look at the rest of the AAA industry.
It should be understood that Bethesdas games are somewhat unique. Horizon zero dawn is big, but players can interact with remarkably little. I was a bit disappointed by it, but the game is still good. Witcher 3 had bugs, no ones complaining though. But none of these games have as many systems working in tandem as Bethesdas rpgs. It is their blessing, and there curse.
explain all the systems that work together in Bethesda games that is so unique to those games. I'm really not seeing it. Bethesda has a lot of stuff thrown into their games, but interaction isn't any more deep than I see in other games. Its not like if you pick up something in one place, it causes some butterfly effect that changes other parts of the game. There are some of those kinds of things where certain actions cause a reaction elsewhere in the game, but they aren't of the complex butterfly effect nature. Having more interactive object may make it dense, but it doesn't make it more complex. Picking up an object, causes a function to process some data. Same as it does in a game with low interaction. Adding more, does not increase the complexity of the design, just the scope of the content. Beyond interactive objects, I'm hard pressed to think of any overly complex systems that all work in tandem, which have more than one or two effects on other systems....and I'm even struggling to recall anything on the scale of what you're suggesting. Hell, I'd say that Quantic Dreams has more complex design when it comes to changes based on game play interaction, as they're multi-leveled and diverse. Any changes like that in Bethesda games is usually pretty binary, or at most, maybe based on a couple factors which effect a general overall variable, which itself shouldn't be too hard to program other systems to react with.
And with how big they are now, I cant believe their games still look and play like this. Stiff animations, robotlike npcs, poopy graphics, tons of glitches. Part of why I just cant enjoy their games... But hey millions of ppl still play their games so they dont really need to change that do they?