Exactly, and this is the problem I've always had with Bethesda games.
Their games always fail in almost everything, but the gamers themselves insist they're the greatest games ever because there's a very high amount of sidequests and a world to explore.
When I look at games like Max Payne 3 and Arkham City, and then see Bethesda's games get similar scores, a little part of me dies.
I've tried dissecting why they're so loved before and I never come up with anything. Granted the mods for oblivion actually make it into a good game, but the modding community shouldn't have to put forth that much effort just to make their games acceptable, and there's always the amazing amounts of bugs that bethesda just leaves in just because they know people will buy it and/or make their own bug fixes. Hell, PS3's version of it inevitably dies after a while!
I mean, oblivion does almost nothing well. The characters never seem human, their idle chat with other NPC's is obviously done with a random phrase generator, the animations are always boring and bad and the story is very forgettable could be much better. People around here have been complaining about the ending of Skyrim already!
The parts of the main quests become tedius and run into each other all the time, becoming a chore with each one (gates, dragons, etc.), and I could say that they lack imagination, too. I mean, medival times with kings and dragons is the most overdone thing in the world. It's a trope done by even the most basic of stories we'd been told when we were kids, but I guess that's debatable.
Making an offline WoW with less vision, half-baked main features (boring combat, boring story, fetch quests, etc.), and millions more bugs should not be encouraged, but it is anyway.
Like, when I get into the game industry, is that all I need to do? Just make a huge world for everyone to run around in, add a bunch of generic side-quests, ignore the bugs, and generally pay less attention to anything else? Is that really the kind of game that should be given high scores?
What sort of score would Oblivion have gotten if they'd actually paid attention to detail on the main things that the player has to interact with every time they play? What I mean is, what if they made actually fun combat, good AI, and cleaned up all of their bugs AS WELL AS making their huge world and sidequests?
What if the player didn't have to pretend the main quest doesn't exist and just entertain themselves on the sidequests?
That's what I wish Bethesda would do. I guess this has become sort of a rant, but there's so many major parts of game design they obviously don't care about, but in every single case, people would rather not acknowledge it!
EDIT: now that I think about it, I guess it's less a problem I have with Bethesda, and more a problem I have with people who always ignore the game's (many, many) faults and insist their games are worthy of an A+.
Their games always fail in almost everything, but the gamers themselves insist they're the greatest games ever because there's a very high amount of sidequests and a world to explore.
When I look at games like Max Payne 3 and Arkham City, and then see Bethesda's games get similar scores, a little part of me dies.
I've tried dissecting why they're so loved before and I never come up with anything. Granted the mods for oblivion actually make it into a good game, but the modding community shouldn't have to put forth that much effort just to make their games acceptable, and there's always the amazing amounts of bugs that bethesda just leaves in just because they know people will buy it and/or make their own bug fixes. Hell, PS3's version of it inevitably dies after a while!
I mean, oblivion does almost nothing well. The characters never seem human, their idle chat with other NPC's is obviously done with a random phrase generator, the animations are always boring and bad and the story is very forgettable could be much better. People around here have been complaining about the ending of Skyrim already!
The parts of the main quests become tedius and run into each other all the time, becoming a chore with each one (gates, dragons, etc.), and I could say that they lack imagination, too. I mean, medival times with kings and dragons is the most overdone thing in the world. It's a trope done by even the most basic of stories we'd been told when we were kids, but I guess that's debatable.
Making an offline WoW with less vision, half-baked main features (boring combat, boring story, fetch quests, etc.), and millions more bugs should not be encouraged, but it is anyway.
Like, when I get into the game industry, is that all I need to do? Just make a huge world for everyone to run around in, add a bunch of generic side-quests, ignore the bugs, and generally pay less attention to anything else? Is that really the kind of game that should be given high scores?
What sort of score would Oblivion have gotten if they'd actually paid attention to detail on the main things that the player has to interact with every time they play? What I mean is, what if they made actually fun combat, good AI, and cleaned up all of their bugs AS WELL AS making their huge world and sidequests?
What if the player didn't have to pretend the main quest doesn't exist and just entertain themselves on the sidequests?
That's what I wish Bethesda would do. I guess this has become sort of a rant, but there's so many major parts of game design they obviously don't care about, but in every single case, people would rather not acknowledge it!
EDIT: now that I think about it, I guess it's less a problem I have with Bethesda, and more a problem I have with people who always ignore the game's (many, many) faults and insist their games are worthy of an A+.
