this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
221 points (97.8% liked)
PC Gaming
8392 readers
480 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's still buggy after 13 years of patches and re-releases.
People said that but I played the game I'm sure over 100 hours and bugs impacted maybe .2% of my playing time.
People remember Skyrim bugs because they're funny.
Because Bethesda didn't focus on fixing script bugs in those re-releases, only engine ones. The game logic remains a tangled mess of bugs and the unofficial patches that actually fix things barely needed to change at all to support each new edition.
Bugs be bugs, home slice.
Right, and they should have fixed them - especially since people literally put together wiki pages documenting every known bug in the game. But all Bethesda did was upgrade the engine a bit (make it 64-bit, add some new graphical effects, implement support for microtransactions) and release the same broken game again and again. The engine upgrades fixed a few crashes, but for some reason Bethesda refuses to patch logic errors in their Papyrus scripts (the code that controls the actual game content) even though those are way easier to fix than engine bugs.
If asked, I'm sure they'd say it was to avoid breaking mod compatibility or something, which is kind of bullshit considering nearly every mod works with the unofficial patches that do what Bethesda refuses to. And they've been like this since the very beginning. Their studio is synonymous with bugs.
It's mind-boggling how they get away with putting such little care into their multi-billion dollar franchises.
Well yeah, that's what happens when you make enormous games with basically no player safely rails. With unrestricted freedom comes unpredictable interactions and inevitable bugs. Feel free to point out any other game that comes close to the scale of a Bethesda game without being full of bugs.
Skyrim is full of safety rails in the form of essential NPCs and places that won't unlock unless you're at the right part of a specific quest. Newer bethesda games are even worse in those regards.
How quickly people forget how common it was to see Roach on rooftops in the Witcher 3.
GTAas an entire series has tons of reels of people doing ridiculous and hilarious things.
I've never understood the weird hate for Bethesda games in that regard.
No one forgets that—the artwork for Roach’s Gwent card has her ON A ROOF.
Zelda TOTK?
Admittedly haven't played it yet, but BOTW was absolutely a masterpiece.
That said, the NPC scripting and interactions are way simpler than Bethesda games, and there's very little in terms of even marginally open ended quests. It's a great open world, but it's pretty on rails story wise outside the order in which you tackled areas.
Elden Ring?
I love Elden Ring and From Soft games in general, but the way they work is completely different.
There are no dialog trees in Elden Ring, no skills outside of combat, rudimentary crafting mechanics, rudimentary "enchanting" through things like affinity or ashes of war in ER.
Blatantly put, the focus is on completely different mechanics/systems that are much more simple, meaning much easier to not run into lots of bugs.
It's just not really a good comparison.
RDR2
Just look at the mod sites to see how many bugfixes are out there. It's been improved in the years since it launched, but it's far from a bug free game.
For all the complaints about Starfield, being Bethesda-buggy wasn't really one of them. It was possibly their most polished release.
Are you not from the same reality as me?
Not saying there weren't bugs, but the consensus seemed to be that it was the most polished, bug-free title they've ever launched.
Edit: ...which is a pretty low bar, I know. But it seemed more inline with the bugs that most "AAA" games tend to have at launch.
Did you even play it, or are you just jumping on the hate bandwagon? It's hardly perfect, but I literally didn't find any significant bugs in over 20 hours of playtime. The game has plenty of fundamental issues certainly, but the bugs are more of a meme than anything.
I did play it, thank you, and it did have multiple bugs I've experienced in previous games.
Literally the first time I played it, the very first planet told me I wasn't supposed to be seeing it.
And I waited a year to buy it.
Did that have any effect on your game? Minor UI issues are pretty common in plenty of games, I personally can't see that as much of an issue. Certainly not the game-breaking bugs of launch Oblivion and Skyrim
Yes. It affected my enjoyment of the game.
On my first playthrough, once I got the quest to find the first space temple it bugged, with the quest marker pointing to a specific place in a planet, but no temple spawning there. I had to start a new game as I didn't have any saves from before starting that quest. Not fun.