Oh, no, that's not what I meant. I absolutely agree that it had issues, but it proves that a game isn't crap simply because it's developed by Bethesda.
Oh, I wasn't saying they make crap games. I love their games for the most part. Just... Skyrim went in a direction I don't particularly care for. At least not a direction I like in Elder Scrolls.
We can't act like Obsidian is god's gift to PC gaming either. Both Bethesda and Obsidian have their own issues, but, strangely, they tend to not overlap.
Yeah, Obsidian games definitely tend to have their own issues. Hopefully Pillars of Eternity is polished though. And I haven't played South Park yet so I dunno how they did there.
Really, we just need a collaboration between Bethesda and Obsidian and we might end up with a decent game.
Monkey's Paw time: It ends up having the flaws from both. D:
Jørdan;134680018 said:
It was already in development and it takes time for design decisions to brew, take stock of previous games and find how best to move forward. Although I think Todd Howard takes reductionism to far at times.
Yeah, I know that, it's jut fun to prod at them from time to time. To top it off I don't think Bethesda really paid all that much attention to New Vegas while it was in development anyway.
Morrowind had many flaws - some critical in vanilla, none of them prevent the games strongest elements from making it one of the most intriguing and beautifully crafted worlds in the genre.
I definitely agree. I think Skyrim definitely came close to the right balance, it just had some flawed foundations. I haven't done a modded playthrough of it, so I dunno if any of it is fixable or even feasibly fixed.
To be honest, I tend to day one Elder Scrolls games (that aren't TESO), so even if I dislike it I support Bethesda in the hopes that I'll like what they've done. I usually get a pretty decent product, I think.