From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Bethesda just dropped their 'next gen update mod' for "Fallout 4", and apparently it's a dud.

With a name like 'Next Gen Update' you'd expect some significant
changes, but apparently it mostly just adds (imperfect)
ultra-wide-screen support and (very buggy) 'weapon debris' feature. IT
doesn't really add any graphical improvements at all. You can't even
crank the FPS past 60 without the physics engine going wild.

Oh, and it breaks all existing mods too.

But, fine. That's Bethesda, right? Half-assing it and breaking mods is
what they do. Except it's also a mandatory update on Steam (yeah, you
can delay it if you don't have it installed yet... but eventually
you're going to have to accept it). Why Bethesda couldn't have
released it as a 'DLC' pack that could be toggled on (or off) is a
mystery.

Not that it really affects me. While I've played all the games the
"Fallout" franchise has never really been one of my favorites, and
"Fallout 4" is possibly my least favorite of the bunch. It was
unlikely that I was going to reinstall the game just to see what the
'Next Gen' update offered. It's even more unlikely now that we see how
pathetic it actually is.

But this (and "Starfield"... and "Skyrim Special Edition"... and
"Redfall".. and... and... and...) makes you really wonder what's going
on at Bethesda HQ. There seems to be an increasing lack of quality
from their products recently (and Bethesda games have been pretty
janky from the start). It's like watching a slow-motion car crash.
Will they be able to turn it around, you wonder? Or is everything
going to end up in fire and ruin?


--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 26/04/2024 16:39, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

Bethesda just dropped their 'next gen update mod' for "Fallout 4", and apparently it's a dud.

With a name like 'Next Gen Update' you'd expect some significant
changes, but apparently it mostly just adds (imperfect)
ultra-wide-screen support and (very buggy) 'weapon debris' feature. IT doesn't really add any graphical improvements at all. You can't even
crank the FPS past 60 without the physics engine going wild.

Oh, and it breaks all existing mods too.

But, fine. That's Bethesda, right? Half-assing it and breaking mods is
what they do. Except it's also a mandatory update on Steam (yeah, you
can delay it if you don't have it installed yet... but eventually
you're going to have to accept it). Why Bethesda couldn't have
released it as a 'DLC' pack that could be toggled on (or off) is a
mystery.

Not that it really affects me. While I've played all the games the
"Fallout" franchise has never really been one of my favorites, and
"Fallout 4" is possibly my least favorite of the bunch. It was
unlikely that I was going to reinstall the game just to see what the
'Next Gen' update offered. It's even more unlikely now that we see how pathetic it actually is.

But this (and "Starfield"... and "Skyrim Special Edition"... and
"Redfall".. and... and... and...) makes you really wonder what's going
on at Bethesda HQ. There seems to be an increasing lack of quality
from their products recently (and Bethesda games have been pretty
janky from the start). It's like watching a slow-motion car crash.
Will they be able to turn it around, you wonder? Or is everything
going to end up in fire and ruin?

Maybe a new release date for Fallout London is now planned as this
update will no longer break it.


--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 11:39:49 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

But this (and "Starfield"... and "Skyrim Special Edition"... and
"Redfall".. and... and... and...) makes you really wonder what's going
on at Bethesda HQ. There seems to be an increasing lack of quality
from their products recently (and Bethesda games have been pretty
janky from the start). It's like watching a slow-motion car crash.
Will they be able to turn it around, you wonder? Or is everything
going to end up in fire and ruin?

Interesting view about them. We'll see in time if you are onto
something here.

I own a lot of Bethesda titles and yet I don't really recall having a
great time with any of them. I don't have any idea why I buy their
games.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 4/26/2024 8:39 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

Bethesda just dropped their 'next gen update mod' for "Fallout 4", and apparently it's a dud.

With a name like 'Next Gen Update' you'd expect some significant
changes, but apparently it mostly just adds (imperfect)
ultra-wide-screen support and (very buggy) 'weapon debris' feature. IT doesn't really add any graphical improvements at all. You can't even
crank the FPS past 60 without the physics engine going wild.

Oh, and it breaks all existing mods too.

Which would be the actual point of it....
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:18:35 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 11:39:49 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson ><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

But this (and "Starfield"... and "Skyrim Special Edition"... and >>"Redfall".. and... and... and...) makes you really wonder what's going
on at Bethesda HQ. There seems to be an increasing lack of quality
from their products recently (and Bethesda games have been pretty
janky from the start). It's like watching a slow-motion car crash.
Will they be able to turn it around, you wonder? Or is everything
going to end up in fire and ruin?

Interesting view about them. We'll see in time if you are onto
something here.

I own a lot of Bethesda titles and yet I don't really recall having a
great time with any of them. I don't have any idea why I buy their
games.

I can't say I never have fun with them... but their games always
require some effort to love. Even from the earliest games, it's been
that way.

I remember playing "Terminator: 2029" and - as much as I loved it -
even at the times I recognized it as a flawed game. It used tile-based movement. Its enemies respawned constantly. Its maps were stupidly
large and mazelike. Its missions - which could take hours to complete
- lacked in-game saves. There were a lot of filler missions. It was
often a struggle to keep playing. But it captured the feel of the
Terminator franchise very well, it had (for its time) impressive
visuals, and the battle-armor you wore into battle was awesome kit. So
I kept playing it, and generally came away satisfied... but it
required effort on my part to get there. Effort I am not entirely sure
was justified given the reward.

Later Bethesda games were similar. Some of their games ("Terminator:
Rampage" and "Elder Scrolls: Battlespire", for instance) were flat-out terrible. But most of their games had great potential /if/ you could
overlook the flaws. Most of the "Elder Scrolls" series falls into that category, but it also includes games like "Call of Cthulhu: Dark
Corners of the Earth'. You could see the brilliance behind the games,
but it was always lessened by an imperfect implementation.

Bethesda's "Fallout" series never ranked that highly for me. Oh, I had
fun with "Fallout 3", and "New Vegas" was an interesting spin-off. But
the series always felt like an also-ran, mostly because it too closely
aped the "Elder Scrolls" series. Sure, the Fallout games had their own personality, but mechanically it took no chances and offered little
novelty.

Sadly, their "Fallout" games were indicative of the future. Bethesda
was releasing games that were little more than slightly improved
versions of games they'd released a few years prior. Morrowind,
Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, Fallout 4, Fallout
76, Starfield... Bethesda was quickly becoming the Ubisoft of
open-world RPGs. Worse, they were making little attempt to fix the
glaring flaws - the aging engine powering their games, the awful
writing, the lackluster plots, the poor world-building, the bad
physics, the ridiculous AI - that had been with those games from the
start. Bethesda was stuck in a rut.

It didn't help that they got hooked to pointless DLC and re-releasing
older games with increasing ridiculous "game of the year" and "special editions", milking every title over and over again. Nor did their
attempts to profit off their fans creations, when it was often those
creations that made their franchises so popular to start with. It
painted a picture of a company that didn't have a clear vision
anymore, other than to somehow make money.

I still like Bethesda games. I have very fond memories of playing
"Skyrim" and "Oblivion" and even "Fallout 3". But those memories also
include dealing with a lot of Bethesda jank. For a long time, the good
parts of their games - the visuals, the fun of exploring their well
detailed worlds - outbalanced the bad. But the company's reliance on
formula, the lack of novelty... it only makes the flaws in its process
all the more obvious. I can understand why opinion is turning against
them.





--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 4/27/2024 7:17 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:18:35 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Apr 2024 11:39:49 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

I still like Bethesda games. I have very fond memories of playing
"Skyrim" and "Oblivion" and even "Fallout 3". But those memories also
include dealing with a lot of Bethesda jank. For a long time, the good
parts of their games - the visuals, the fun of exploring their well
detailed worlds - outbalanced the bad. But the company's reliance on
formula, the lack of novelty... it only makes the flaws in its process
all the more obvious. I can understand why opinion is turning against
them.

I never thought they were very good. I did like Daggerfall quite a bit,
but it had it's own issues. That was probably the first Bethesda game I
ever played. The second game I played of theirs was probably
Battlespire, and that was a disasterpiece.

I didn't care for Morrowind, I don't remember a single NPC, and the
combat was ridiculously easy. I only bought it because so many said it
was good.

Oblivion I held out a long time on, and actually only played it because
a friend loaned me his copy, back when that worked. At least remember a couple things from, though one of them was how bad the characters
looked, and how badly balanced the character builds were again.

Fallout 3 I only played because it was Fallout. Initially I didn't like
it, but with enough mods it played well, and it had lots of memorable
things to run into exploring. The main quest was trash though. Trying
to replay it a couple years later, of course I found pretty much every
mod I enjoyed the first time around was broken by their constantly
patching the game - ironically of which the patches didn't seem to do
anything to improve the game. It also didn't do anything for me on
replay now that I had explored everything, and played all the builds
long enough to know their gameplay.

I'm not counting Fallout NV, as that was mostly Obsidian, not to mention
I didn't really care for it either. The crafting and scarcity wasn't my thing. It didn't feel like it had any of the humor, or maybe I just
didn't get the humor that even Fallout 3 had, and it felt more like a
slow slog than a fun game. For some reason most if not all of the mods
leaned more into the crafting and scarcity which I didn't like.

Fallout 4 went even further into collecting, crafting, added base
building on top of that, and the only memorable quests were ones I
didn't like, such as the first Minuteman quest where you have to fight a Deathclaw. Which feels like the game strongly pushes you toward very
early.

Skyrim surprised me though, I actually enjoyed it, and found the wizard
and assassin guild quests well done and memorable. It had it's issues
of course, and modding helped, but there were just so many mods often conflicting it was hard to find just the right ones.

Fallout 76 by the time I played it was good. We all know what a
disaster it was on release though. I still felt that Bethesda games
needed mods, and it continued the base building and crafting trend they
had with 4, and of course added mtx, yuck. I felt that multiplayer was
for 95% of the game of no point and detracted from the game. Bethesda obviously didn't get multiplayer.

Starfield got such bad reviews, and what I read on it seemed like it
leaned into almost everything I didn't like about some of their games,
that I haven't tried it, and don't intend to, unless it's given away at
some point.
--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114