That’s not what I meant by not improving it. Take any Studio that Sony has purchased and compare the quality of their work before to after, and then ten years after. I’m not talking about bugs, I’m talking about visual fidelity, narrative, technological advancement, etc. Uncharted, Last of Us, God of War, Horizon, Spider-Man, Ratchet and Clank. Sony also gives these devs the freedom to stop making their successful IPs and move on to something else.
Comment on [deleted]
NuPNuA@lemm.ee 1 year agoI disagree with the “doesn’t improve” statement. Starfield has launched in a much better state than most Bethesda Studios games due to the extra development time MS money gave them. Also Pentiment, a game Sawyer said he wouldn’t have been able to do without MS support for Obsidian.
phillaholic@lemm.ee 1 year ago
WhiteHawk@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Technological advancement? After ten years? In the gaming industry? A true miracle.
phillaholic@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Compared to Microsoft who pushes out mediocre to poor 5th 6th etc sequels by shells of studios that used to be revered before Microsoft took over. I think it’s worth noting.
CitizenKong@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s funny that the quality criteria for a Bethesda game is “not as buggy and unfinished as previous games”. Which still means plenty of bugs, of course.
Hadriscus@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Well yea, it makes sense that you would compare a new game with previous games from the same studio in the context of a discussion asking “did the owner/publisher help improve the productions of this studio they bought out ?”
I’ve had one bug in Starfield so far, my right thumbstick stopped working. 😂 I had to restart the game
NuPNuA@lemm.ee 1 year ago
The size of the games they make with the amount of variables, I can understand how some stuff gets through QA. I’m not just talking about bugs though, stuff like touching up the graphics in the last year, getting ID to help tighten the gunplay, etc.