It's not like Cyberpunk's world is filled with anything either dawg. You've got the main story being somewhat interesting and the rest of it is pretty much a flop. They're actually very similar games.
yeah that's the spirit, reply with shitty memes instead of actually coming up with a counterpoint. Tell me you're a brainlet Cyberpunk simp without saying you're a brainlet Cyberpunk simp @@catton1
@@catton1 Both games are open world games with kinda pointless "worlds". Yes, CP is miles better game, but remove the open world, make the mission selection / crafting / weapon loadout and modding into menus and 90% of the game will still be there and a lot more concise. 2c
@@SDKSeizO nah night city is the main character of the game. sometimes i just hop back in to appreciate the mind blowing attention to detail givin to every alley. climbing around trying to find alternative routes to ghost gigs some of my fondest moments. driving at night weaving between traffic and the commute home after a long day of blowing people away is just a whole vibe idk how else to put it. seeing the world brought to life is incredible the way the city is built on top of older city with roads that are so insanely layed out due to lack of city planning really brings so much more character and life to the game imo. also i like ncpd hussles. combat is so fun i dont mind an excuse to eliminate a squad of gangoons in the most stylish possible way. i just love that game man it blows my mind the people made it and it exists and its all there to just wonder around in
Except it isn't, so I doubt Joe would ever just say that. All the proper BGS games - TES especially - have immense RP scope for those who really click with that structural freedom. In some respects, SF is the best they've done on that count (more dialogue variation, lots of backgrounds, a pretty decent range of factions, etc). At times SF can look about two gens old... But it can equally look amazing on certain planet surfaces. Ship building is great fun, too, and extends RP rather like F4's build mode did. Most of BGS's issues remain, but I accepted they weren't really interested in real improvement (or art... ) by Skyrim. Unless they have direct competition (scale, structural freedom, modding, etc), people will still keep looking forward to what they produce, despite the flaws.
@@MultiMasterworld I mean, I made very reasonable/well reasoned points - to your initial hyperbole - and that's your response? Something can be flawed, but if it's doing something nothing else is, it has intrinsic value.
What reply do you think hype fanboyism deserves? This is not a good Bethesda game. Actually, the best Bethesda game wasn't even made by them, because it's Fallout: New Vegas. Even Joe talks about this: the appeal of a Bethesda title is the pleasure of seeking in a hand-crafted broad location. It's the gameplay of the Wanderer. Starfield is a game that is supposed to be about the fun inherent in exploration but it punishes efforts to explore and spent the least care on the core loop of other Bethesda titles. Your argument was ignored because it's deluded.
@@leavemynameoutofthis If my - reasonable, pretty darn accurate [and based on decades worth of experience and thought/criticism of BGS] - comments are "fanboyism", then, well, discourse is truly dead... I said what BGS make doesn't even really count as art any more (they're mostly toys, and have been since Oblivion). I said I just came to accept their limitations by Skyrim. And I explained why I'm still invested in their games (zero direct competition). I think SF is - currently - akin to a mostly failed experiment. But it is not without its merits. The notion that it is 'dogshit' is ignorantly facile, and - as Joe has remarked on a few times - indicates someone hasn't really played any truly bad, terrible games. "The" appeal of BGS games isn't *just* in what you described. For a decent group of fans over the years, the structure of factions, side stuff, and the MQ is equally if not more important to their own storytelling, ergo RP. It's the incredibly rare ability to just give the middle finger to the MQ, and still have an adventure or story lasting, potentially, 200hrs+. I remember one time on Morrowind (the last piece of art they made... ) spending about 50hrs on Solsteim as a Nord before even setting foot [back] on Vvardenfell. And Alt Start mods massively boost your RP options. *That* freedom is a huge deal in TES, in particular. Oblivion may've been lobotomised and gutted of identity, but it still had that quality. And Starfield has that to it. Out of the box it's a better RPer in that sense in certain ways, e.g. you now have *some* tonal control over your dialogue responses. They're usually quite poorly written, but this is BGS... Add the backgrounds and starter traits, and in this it's an improvement. It helps those players create and express their own stories better than in prior titles. Whether *you* personally value that kind of experience is irrelevant - lots of people do. Still, SF suggests BGS are myopic, or insular. I'm not sure how they thought some of their key design choices would be received by the players or press/critics. Will the negative feedback lead to positive changes in TESVI? Doubtful. I'll almost certainly play the fuck out if it, though, if it continues that ethos (of structural agency) of design SF still carries.
Your dedication to science is enviable.
seeing this after replaying cyberpunk 2.0 i think id fall asleep playing this
It's not like Cyberpunk's world is filled with anything either dawg. You've got the main story being somewhat interesting and the rest of it is pretty much a flop. They're actually very similar games.
@@logans.6498 tell me you havent played cyberpunk without telling me you havent played cyberpunk
yeah that's the spirit, reply with shitty memes instead of actually coming up with a counterpoint. Tell me you're a brainlet Cyberpunk simp without saying you're a brainlet Cyberpunk simp @@catton1
@@catton1 Both games are open world games with kinda pointless "worlds". Yes, CP is miles better game, but remove the open world, make the mission selection / crafting / weapon loadout and modding into menus and 90% of the game will still be there and a lot more concise. 2c
@@SDKSeizO nah night city is the main character of the game. sometimes i just hop back in to appreciate the mind blowing attention to detail givin to every alley. climbing around trying to find alternative routes to ghost gigs some of my fondest moments. driving at night weaving between traffic and the commute home after a long day of blowing people away is just a whole vibe idk how else to put it. seeing the world brought to life is incredible the way the city is built on top of older city with roads that are so insanely layed out due to lack of city planning really brings so much more character and life to the game imo. also i like ncpd hussles. combat is so fun i dont mind an excuse to eliminate a squad of gangoons in the most stylish possible way. i just love that game man it blows my mind the people made it and it exists and its all there to just wonder around in
God of War Ragnarök review is the best weapon
The black background of their mouths just fucking creeps me out. i fucking hate looking at it
Man I wonder if Joe eventually stopped being "diplomatic" and accepted that the game is just dogshit
Except it isn't, so I doubt Joe would ever just say that. All the proper BGS games - TES especially - have immense RP scope for those who really click with that structural freedom. In some respects, SF is the best they've done on that count (more dialogue variation, lots of backgrounds, a pretty decent range of factions, etc).
At times SF can look about two gens old... But it can equally look amazing on certain planet surfaces. Ship building is great fun, too, and extends RP rather like F4's build mode did.
Most of BGS's issues remain, but I accepted they weren't really interested in real improvement (or art... ) by Skyrim. Unless they have direct competition (scale, structural freedom, modding, etc), people will still keep looking forward to what they produce, despite the flaws.
@@SabiJD ok Todd
@@MultiMasterworld I mean, I made very reasonable/well reasoned points - to your initial hyperbole - and that's your response?
Something can be flawed, but if it's doing something nothing else is, it has intrinsic value.
What reply do you think hype fanboyism deserves? This is not a good Bethesda game. Actually, the best Bethesda game wasn't even made by them, because it's Fallout: New Vegas. Even Joe talks about this: the appeal of a Bethesda title is the pleasure of seeking in a hand-crafted broad location. It's the gameplay of the Wanderer. Starfield is a game that is supposed to be about the fun inherent in exploration but it punishes efforts to explore and spent the least care on the core loop of other Bethesda titles. Your argument was ignored because it's deluded.
@@leavemynameoutofthis If my - reasonable, pretty darn accurate [and based on decades worth of experience and thought/criticism of BGS] - comments are "fanboyism", then, well, discourse is truly dead...
I said what BGS make doesn't even really count as art any more (they're mostly toys, and have been since Oblivion). I said I just came to accept their limitations by Skyrim. And I explained why I'm still invested in their games (zero direct competition).
I think SF is - currently - akin to a mostly failed experiment. But it is not without its merits. The notion that it is 'dogshit' is ignorantly facile, and - as Joe has remarked on a few times - indicates someone hasn't really played any truly bad, terrible games.
"The" appeal of BGS games isn't *just* in what you described. For a decent group of fans over the years, the structure of factions, side stuff, and the MQ is equally if not more important to their own storytelling, ergo RP. It's the incredibly rare ability to just give the middle finger to the MQ, and still have an adventure or story lasting, potentially, 200hrs+. I remember one time on Morrowind (the last piece of art they made... ) spending about 50hrs on Solsteim as a Nord before even setting foot [back] on Vvardenfell. And Alt Start mods massively boost your RP options.
*That* freedom is a huge deal in TES, in particular. Oblivion may've been lobotomised and gutted of identity, but it still had that quality. And Starfield has that to it. Out of the box it's a better RPer in that sense in certain ways, e.g. you now have *some* tonal control over your dialogue responses. They're usually quite poorly written, but this is BGS...
Add the backgrounds and starter traits, and in this it's an improvement. It helps those players create and express their own stories better than in prior titles. Whether *you* personally value that kind of experience is irrelevant - lots of people do.
Still, SF suggests BGS are myopic, or insular. I'm not sure how they thought some of their key design choices would be received by the players or press/critics. Will the negative feedback lead to positive changes in TESVI? Doubtful. I'll almost certainly play the fuck out if it, though, if it continues that ethos (of structural agency) of design SF still carries.