A game can be either great or awful, with no more room for meh games.
I think it’s more just that expectations are much higher for a AAA studio like Bethesda. They built so much hype and asked for nearly $100 at launch for a game that didn’t live up. There’s plenty of meh games out there, they’re just priced accordingly. There’s also a ton of really great games out there priced way lower than what AAA studios are asking. I think it’s very fair to hold those studios to a standard that reflects the prices they’re charging.
GalacticHero@lemmy.world 1 day ago
“Harbinger of failure” is the term you’re looking for. Not sure it applies here, though; I think most of these games were commercially successful.
And because I can’t resist sticking my own opinion everywhere, I personally thought Starfield had a ton of potential and squandered it with some highly questionable design choices and poor execution. Some of that may be fixed now, but some of it is baked in. There’s genuinely a lot to like, but as a whole I thought it was really dragged down by some of those bad decisions.
I also liked AC1, though, and was a little disappointed with 2. The first one was imperfect but bold and new and interesting. The second got rid of most of what made the first one unique in an effort to appeal to broader audiences. I still liked it, but it wasn’t special.
absquatulate@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Yeah, no amount of mods will fix some of Starfield’s faults, but it foes have some of that old bethesda coziness, so it’s not all bad.
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Starfield’s main issue is that it isn’t fleshed out as much as the other Bethesda games. And there’s a lot of mods to do that for Elder Scrolls and Fallout. The issue is that it didn’t capture enough attention to get as much TLC from the mod community
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Kinda tough sell to release a $70 game, then leave it up to the modding community to finish it for you