@@dianapennepacker6854 Yep. Crouch by some cover. When you aim down the sights, you'll pop up out of the cover a bit, then back down when you're not aiming anymore.
I loved some of the games you highlighted, Deus Ex in particular. However I don't want extensive stealth mechanics in Starfield. Also, you mentioned simplicity in combat as a negative. Simplicity in combat is an absolute positive in an RPG. If you want to play an action shooter, play an action shooter. If you want to play an RPG, play an RPG.
@@MediaKitGaming Thanks for the reply. I assert that an RPG must, by its nature, have fewer mechanics. I want my RPG to focus on what it does best - ask interesting questions about developing your character. I'm perfectly happy to disagree on this, and have no desire to change your opinion. But for me and my family, we will follow the RPG path.
One thing I hate about Skyrim's combat is that blocking doesn't cancel all damage. It only halfs it. That means you die from attacks you blocked, and kill enemies by swinging at their shield over and over again. Just simply making blocking cancel all damage, but drain stamina to do so would instantaneously make combat 1,000x better, because you can actually do something to prevent taking damage, instead of just upgrading your health until you can tank greybeard shouts.
I think the thing I hate the most is there's no evade move. Unforgivable! Melee combat games that were 10 years old when Skyrim dropped had an evade/dodge.
There's no Evade, Block is useless, and two handed weapons swing unusably slow. It's also an Attack Cone, instead of weapon collision (Essentially, hitscan for melee. In the cone at the hit time, you get hit.) The cone is wider than the swing arc and weapon length, and the hit time's too soon.
Chivalry and Mordhau are both pretty much the same combat skeleton as Skyrim, but way better. Blocking uses stamina, In Mordhau, you can dodge attacks by keeping your crosshair on the weapon while moving the camera, both have an evade button. They are all based in the same Martial Arts discipline, HEMA, meaning combo moves are pretty much a no go. HEMA's all about blocking and landing one or two decisive hits.
@@MediaKitGamingFallout 4 actually did make an attempt at positive change. Blocking eliminates all damage, but you can't hold the button. It was an attempt, not a successful one. The window to block attacks seems to keep changing with no change of animation. And almost all enemies use guns, bullets obviously can't be blocked, making any attempt at melee worthless anyway.
@@StephenYuan Oh, I get that, I'm all for exploration and rewards. But the system of modding your weapon is what I'm talking about. As explained in the video, you can't just remove a scope, it HAS to be replaced by another type of scope. That's just silly. Why not just be able to pull it off?
I loved how you went into each topic and mentioned the mechanics that Skyrim and Fallout 4 lacks, and honestly those are very justified criticism. But you've to also consider the time frame. Skyrim came out in 2011. 99% of the games that you have mentioned are post 2015 games. None of the games that came out in 2011 did any of that stuff. Skyrim was very much limited by the console hardware it had to run on, the Xbox 360 and PS3. It was the new gen systems like the PS4 and Xbox One that enabled developers to implement more complex gameplay mechanics. Fallout 4 did implement cloaking and the power armour in itself adds a new depth to combat. Making power armour customization fun. Then FO4 also got the survival mode update which made everything much better, but also very hard for most players. Secondly, all the games you have shown as examples are 3rd person games. Even though Bethesda games have a 3rd person mode, they are really meant to be played in first person. Bethesda games when they come out are always like this, missing features that we take for granted in other video games. Then comes all the modders, who start implementing those "taken for granted" features in the game. Though this time around, its gonna be very hard for Bethesda and Starfield to leave a mark. It's not 2011. Video games have come a long way since then. There are a lots of impressive games out there who've introduced new gameplay mechanics into the industry and made them a standard. So if Bethesda releases a game that plays and feels like a game that came out in 2011/2015, then they are gonna get criticized really hard. Though it's no surprise that it's the modding community who is gonna save the day again. And honestly I'm not complaining. I just really want Bethesda to learn from the modders and implement their work into their games officially, so that their games could stay relevant when compared to other new games in the industry.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. The best melee combat game I've ever played, Oni, came out in 2001. It wasn't an open world and didn't have the beautiful graphics Skyrim has, but it smokes any game ever made for melee. Here's my video on Oni: ua-cam.com/video/0Pyrb6hireU/v-deo.html Sleeping Dogs (ua-cam.com/video/h2y_H9Tp9DU/v-deo.html) came out a year after Skyrim with an impressive melee system and WAS open world. The original Deus Ex came out in 2000, considered one of the OG Immersive Sims and a great stealth game. Arkham Asylum was doing interesting things with stealth in 2009. Games HAVE come a long way since Skyrim, but they'd also already come a long way. Why doesn't Skyrim at least have an evade move? Console hardware doesn't limit movement and mechanics as much as it limits graphics. And while Skyrim hasn't aged well, back in the day it looked amazing! Look again, I deliberately included 1st-person games in many of my examples. And I should have included Deus Ex (1st person) for corner attacks and takedowns. Very few mechanics I showed wouldn’t work in 1st person. But since Bethesda games try to have it both ways, I think 3rd person criticism is valid. Personally, I’d rather play in 3rd person all the time. 3rd person games always have better melee and traversal mechanics. I'm honestly on your side. I was excited to play Starfield too. But take away the spaceships and pretty graphics and it feels like Fallout 4, which I finished despite how bored I was playing it. Skyrim's melee and stealth should have been better, but my intent was not to beat up Skyrim, but rather to show how little Bethesda progressed in the 4 years between the 2 games. And looking at the Starfield gameplay preview, I was getting flashbacks. I showed more modern games because my real focus was on Starfield, and how it could play if it embraced what other games have. If I’m wrong, I’ll be right there with you singing Starfield’s praises. But I think the player will stat their way to success rather than having to use playable mechanics. And that’s legit. There’s no reason a game can’t do that. But I don’t want to play such a game.
Idk what you mean by modders saving the day mods improve bgs games and some even improved it a lot but the base game are pretty good for when they released the reason they all review pretty well
I never said Skyrim and Fallout 4 were bad games. I never said Starfield will be bad. I said the Bethesda game bored me and Starfield looks to be going in the same direction. Because they lack interesting player mechanics for interacting with their worlds. I also never said anything about modders saving the day.
@@MediaKitGaming I get what you're saying. But a lot of the things that you're asking for in terms of gameplay modernization goes completely against the "Classic Bethesda game". When Todd himself said that "Starfield is just Skyrim in space", to a non-Bethesda fan, it will sound like Starfield is just gonna be the same game that Skyrim and FO4 was, but to a Bethesda fan (like me), it was just perfect news. And if you go and check out the Starfield sub-reddit, you'll see that a majority of the Bethesda fans share that exact feeling. We don't want the stealth to be like MGS or the combat to be like Elden Ring or Call of Duty/Deus Ex. We don't even want Starfield to be GOTY. We just want it to be a classic Bethesda game set in space, that we always wanted since Morrowind and Oblivion. There are lots of things that Starfield is doing better than other games out there. From outpost building, ship building, in game economics, dialogues and persuasion mechanics, to a more active and alive open world simulation (Will Shen talked about the new random encounter mechanics which has been vastly enhanced and expanded upon). Lets not forget that all the objects that you see in a Bethesda open world game is completely interactable and has their own physics. That makes putting a bucket on the head of a shopkeeper or stacking cheese wheels under your bed, a silly, but a fun thing to do. Then comes a variety of open world designs to go along with multiple planets out there. As for the space combat itself, even if the basic premise is similar to 1983 Star Wars, the gameplay itself has been modernized, and has more tension and weight behind it now. I personally feel that the basic premise comparison is really bad, since by that same logic, COD MW 2 2022 and BF 2042 couldn't out do the DOOM 1 or N64 Golden Eye first person combat. It's all tap on the head to kill enemy faster. Flying through a wreckage of pirate spaceship that you blew up sounds and feels really good in Starfield. And if some speculations are to be believed then Starfield space combat has some depth in it too. Like shooting down space ship engines to stop the ship and then board them. Then we also have the whole micromanagement of "space ship energy" during combat. This mechanic will definitely feel inconsequential at "Easy difficulty", but at "Legendary/Survival difficulty", it will definitely play a huge role. Even though Starfield seems to have a lot of it's father and mother's DNA in it, the game itself is very ambitious in it's own right. Now I'll be honest. If people are expecting a cinematic 3rd person open world flashy graphical powerhouse that Sony and Ubisoft seems to churn out very year, then they'll be sorely disappointed. Because that's just not the thing that Bethesda does or ever excelled at doing. If people are expecting something in the veins of Oblivion, Skyrim and FO4, which is set in space, then they might be impressed by what Starfield has to offer.
At the end of my video, I think I made it pretty clear that Starfield would definitely deliver for a certain type of gamer. That will probably end up being a large number of gamers. What motivated me to make this video was my recent playthrough of Fallout 4. I was bored all the way through it and still pushed through to the end. (200+ hours, according to Steam) While many of my commenters are calling foul for comparing RPGs to action games or Bethesda to Guerrilla games… I only saw it as comparing open worlds to open worlds… melee to melee… ranged combat to ranged. Stealth to stealth… And found Bethesda mechanics vastly inferior in every comparison. Play in an open world where skill doesn't matter, only stats? Play a game where skill isn't even possible because the mechanics aren't there? This is the pinnacle of disappointment. Not for you but for me. Bethesda can make any game they want and gamers are free to play it or not. But don't forget Morrowind used dice rolls and stats to determine hits. Later games, Skyrim and Oblivion (I assume), used actual hitboxes and player-controlled mechanics for archery and melee. So it's not like Bethesda hasn't improved their games to incorporate more player mechanics. I trying to raise awareness for what a Bethesda game COULD be… for the kind of player who WOULD appreciate it. But as is said in my video, they're way behind the pack. Maybe one day, Bethesda will make an open-world game with complex player mechanics. If that day comes, it will be my turn to get just what I wanted and you'll be disappointed. But what is more likely is if every point I've made about Starfield ends up being wrong you'll point the finger and say, “See, idiot! It's way better than you predicted.” And for every mechanic that's missing, you'll say, “That's just how Bethesda does games and I wouldn't want it any other way.” You win either way. Nevertheless, in all sincerity, thank you for your thoughtful reply in this debate. I really appreciate a person who can argue their position without stooping to personal attacks. Feel free to rebut.
I've always enjoyed the worlds that Bethesda makes, but I agree with a lot of your points. The gameplay in these great worlds is very lackluster. In the past with games like Morrowind they were much more similar to a tabletop RPG in combat, where dice rolls and stat modifiers were all that mattered. They continued to build games off that engine but make them feel more modern, but it doesn't really work well and comes off as shallow gameplay. Bethesda probably can't easily modify their game engine to add in more modern movement/combat without a significant rewrite.
The change to the lock pick mini-game is a clear indication that Bethesda have built Starfield from the ground up, with very little mechanics being taken from previous games. I say little because clearly they've built on some mechanics from previous game, but my impression is that this will be their biggest leap in tech and new mechanics they've ever made and despite everyone saying it will feel like an obvious Bethesda game I think it will actually feel a lot different than previous titles. The scale is clearly bigger and this is the first time Bethesda are doing a game not set in fantasy and when you have realism to deal with, a lot has to change. I'm with you on many of the concerns I truly hope they pull it off.
I want you to be right. But the gun and ship combat we seen, plus the “skills” we've seen discourage me. It's shaping up to be another stats fest instead of creative mechanics. But you're right about the lock-picking system. Glad to see that get an overhaul.
@@MediaKitGaming Yea, Bethesda games don't really have challenging combat, it's all about role playing. Why would I spend perks on increasing my gun dmg when I can just lower the difficulty to very easy :)
Still... Fallout 4 and Skyrim are played more today than any of the games you took as an example. Seems those games can learn more from Bethesda Games than the other way around.
I may have to give that one to you. But I never said Bethesda games were bad (beyond their UIs). Only that they bored me. You might be right. Perhaps having more player mechanics would be too much for people and they'd lose players. I can't say. But I'm just not looking forward to a space game that feels like Fallout 4. I can't play another game that asks me to battle in almost every quest where the winner is more about my character's level than using playable mechanics to outwit or outmaneuver the enemy. In the Starfield gameplay reveal, that character opens a door and starts shooting at 3 guys that barely react. One of them gets shot in the back trying to run away. Opening up on a group of 3 guys without cover should be suicide. I wanted better. But people have different interpretations of “better.”
It's still just an iteration of the Gamebryo engine Morrowind was built on. There will be a few buggy mechanics added to differentiate it from mom and pop, but it will be the same. I like Bethesda games for all the other stuff, especially making mods, but it would be nice if the combat was at least as interesting as ESO, their own MMO.
Oh. Didn't notice how static their games are. This just made me realize why I get so bored in between story and spend more time installing mods to try to have fun outside of story. Such a chore to do anything in between. Love their IPs concepts especially Fallout but outside of New Vegas. Replayability is eh. Not to say I didn't spend 100+ hours on each of their games regardless haha.
IKR? Like, I spent a ton of time in Skyrim, but looking back, I can't do it again because of how static they are. Like, dragon fights are not epic anymore, and it's a shame they couldn't be more complex. Hate to say, I got really bored with mechanics that are there but not deep. Like the whole Civil War. That SHOULD have been a deeper aspect of the game, but it was just shallow. I think that is the best takeaway from this video, Bethesda puts in cool ideas, but they are all shallow, and that doesn't excite me to jump into Starfield as of RIGHT NOW. They'll need to convince me when it comes out, is what I'm saying.
@@jerico9263 Fair point that it is old, but that is not my point. At the time when I was playing it (and I got it on day 1), the battles became static even back then. I wanted dragon battles to be more, but they only increased HP, not any tactics or new challenges. That was what disappointed me then.
@@jerico9263 New Vegas is older but has what Skyrim lacks depth and dynamics, at least in the way the player interacts with the game world and characters, if not so much with combat.
Yes I wish Bethesda would update or borrow fearures from other games. But it often goes the other way around for me, too. Rarely do other games attempt what Bethesda does.
Moderately credible rumors out there are that the delay has accounted for a revamp of the gun-play mechanics. This would be welcome. Although it didnt look like it in the trailer a couple months ago. Honestly, if all else fails, i'll still enjoy it. The dilemma is that by adding very many options to combat mechanics, you potentially multiply effectiveness in leveling and crafting buffs, creating overpowered characters early with a little bit of controller skill. Or if they downplay leveling buffs to counterbalance more player options (example, magic in skyrim had high options, low power), weaker players will get drowned in gameplay .. a minimalist combat system governed mainly by leveling buffs ensures quality control of tiered difficulty along the game... Thats not to say they couldnt implement some things you mentioned, just a general thought. I am ok with a pure leveling/buff system as long as the world building makes it worth spending time in the game. The world building is the principle thing that makes Bethesda Bethesda
If we're talking combat… Horizon Zero Dawn, Seeping Dogs, Mad Max, Days Gone, Elden Ring, Far Cry 3-5, Ghost Recon Wildlands. All those games, if you don't fight smart, you die. Stat boosting and skill unlocks help, but you still have to play smart because the challenges get harder. Even Skyrim and F4 were difficult until you up your stats and became a walking tank. All these games (including Bethesda's) are heavily based on combat and/or stealth. Those mechanics HAVE to deliver. Otherwise, they're just open-world walking simulators.
Want to point out that Skyrim does actually have different attacks for moving left, right, and forward/backward, and also that fallout 4 has a pseudo-peeking cover system in first person.
I’ve since realized that both of your observations are true. Other commenters have pointed that out too. That peaking was integrated into F4, even surprised some of the other commenters because the mechanic was not well known. Those oversites aside... I think both games are mediocre RPGs and poor action games. Thanks for your polite correction. I’m placing my hope on Star Wars Outlaws. Fingers crossed.
Let’s goooo!!!! Melee…in a space game? It really is sad how limited beatemup mechanics are these days. For example superhot…amazingggg game but no wall running, more gun kata or other cool mechanics. It baffles me how un-innovative games are these days. That’s why Dishonored has always been a. Favorite series. You’re not jus shooting things or turning on/off stuff. You’re actually interacting with the world & using amazing movement options to do it. Or borderlands. The skills are almost always centred around damage or inhibiting opponent movement. There’s no portal guns, ‘blink’ abilities, hook n chain grabs/swinging, or anything that changes the gameplay loop. Idk man…it just seems devs largely are so lazy in terms of innovation…not to say games are shit. But I get tired of people accepting this stuff. So it’s refreshing to see a perspective that wants the bar to be higher especially with UI/UX
The dishonored games were excellent. Any game with good stealth mechanics will get my attention. Borderlands 3 had a character who could make a clone of himself, run away from it, and then swap places with it. It was pretty cool. Firstly, I wouldn't blame the developers. I'd blame project managers/creative leads. Second, I believe developers want to be more creative, but don't want to make gameplay too difficult to learn lest they lose a sale. I admit I struggled to master the combat of Jedi - Fallen Order… and by that I mean I never really nailed it.
Techland or Titan Fall 2 Relic should sell their movement systems for first person. Not sure what game has the best 3rd person fluidity of movement but there is a ton. Assassin Creed... Anyway its always a struggle playing Dying Light 2 and going back to a regular FPS. Like it is so stiff! My dumbass tried playing Gears of War after Dying Light 2 and got like 3 minutes in before I wanted to quit. I forced myself to spend 20 minutes and just couldn't. So yeah all games should be like Dying Light 2 when it comes to traversal. The game doesn't need to be focused on it but it makes everything so much fun. Also shooting? Need stagger animations and make the weapons feel like they have weight or mass and effect the enemy. Cover system is a must if it isn't melee focused of movement focused like Titan Fall 2. Mech Warrior or World of Tanks for space combat sounds good to me.
Great video, like many of your previous ones. I really hope that you will continue to do this, but at the same time devote no less time to promoting your content. It should be seen by more people!
I agree. How should I promote? I'm open to your ideas and advice. I don't really have a presence on any of the other social media platforms. I'm a graphic designer, animator, and gamer. But I'm not a marketer.
@@MediaKitGaming First of all, marketing just begins with the presence on these same social platforms. Reddit, possibly ResetEra, other popular gaming platforms where there are custom feeds, subs, etc. (I can’t advise specific links, since I’m from the east and this information will not be very relevant for you). You can and should place your videos (highly desirable with a partial and sometimes full, maybe even with pictures if it's in the spirit of the platform) text description, so that it doesn't look like an advertisement for your videos) in topics and feeds , which will correspond to these very videos. That is, you can try to advertise a video about a specific game in a public corresponding to it (unless the video is negative, otherwise you will be bombarded with dislikes and curses :), or you can search for general thematic publics with game reviews or even promotion of streamers like you. It is highly desirable, in addition to publishing your videos, to also participate in discussions on the forum so that your account looks like a live one, and not an advertising one. Of course there is also paid promotion, but at this stage it can be a waste of time and money. As an option, you can agree on mutual advertising (text or directly in your videos) with other UA-cam channels or Facebook groups, for example, which have approximately the same level of development and number of subscribers as your channel. And yes, the same Facebook is also of great importance. Register your group in it, upload all the videos (including old ones) that you have done and are doing to the feed. Repost these videos from the group to your personal page (if possible). At first, there will be very little response, but as soon as the video shoots somewhere, you will notice a huge jump. One of the key marketing strategies is to show up in as many places as possible, thereby increasing your chances of getting noticed. In fact, there are a lot of options and ways to gain popularity, there is no universal way. But one thing is clear - you need to invest in this time. And sometimes (especially at the beginning) it can be tens or even hundreds of hours. On the other hand, without investing in advertising, you essentially work at best at half strength, and instead of each of your videos gaining 10-100k views, it is gaining 1k. I think you understand this yourself, it can be sad when you put a lot of effort into your videos but didn't get enough response. We can discuss this via PM if you want, but there are probably hundreds of videos on UA-cam anyway on this topic. And at least worth a look at least a couple of them in any case. :)
I kinda do hope they do take what the modding community has done to heart and do eventually add many of the Modding Community's additions especially to ES6 like Combat Gameplay Overhaul, Player Face-Tracking, more fleshed out & less intrusive followers like Inigo, Lucien & Serana from the DLC off the top of my head. I would prefer better skill tree navigation and perks. More detailed cities and towns "something I think Skyrim lacked, they feel too small/unfinished sometimes without mods unlike there previous games", I do wish Stealth was a little bit better at least "mods do fix this as well" Note, learning invisibility does help a-lot but does not work for many scripted events.... but with a-lot of the issues... mods do fix a good bit of the issues there games have but I wish many of these mods were just part of the game and built in without 100+ mod downloads.
95% of everything you said about things starfield doesn't have and other games do, literally only applies to 3rd person action games, games that focus more than anything on having good 3rd person melee combat or 3rd person gun combat, only a few things you said really apply to starfield in terms of movements in 1st person, and yeah sure starfield has a 3rd person mode but it is not a game that is optimized to be that led alone be the example of what a 3rd person game should be, what you do does not make sense, it is like if I make a video on why spiderman doesn't have a dialogue system or detailed skill tree like RPGs.....well it's because it's not an rpg...be better than this
I identified 25 mechanics. Of those, 10 did not include first person examples. That’s 40%. Corner attacks, and lethal takedown mechanics can be found in the 2 most recent Deus Ex games (first person). Metal Gear Solid V will move to first person while prone in places with low overhead. Amnesia The Dark Descent and Alien Isolation (both FPS games) have closet/locker hiding. Drones and interrogations don't require a specific POV. Which leaves these 4… attacking left or right, combos, diving to prone position, and lock-on - exclusive to 3rd person POV. 4/25 or 16% would be hard to do in first person. But I'd be willing to bet there’s a first person game out there with combos. I’m just not aware of it. And as you correctly stated, Bethesda games want to have it both ways… 1st & 3rd POV. I played Skyrim almost exclusively in 3rd person… and I REALLY wanted to attack left and right.
@@MediaKitGaming fallout 4 had a cover system, it was just not shown to the player and often pretty janky. I imagine it will have been improved upon in the 8 years between then and now. Fallout also had cloaks in the way of stealth boys and chameleon armor, which in my opinion are the way to go with Bethesda-style games rather than a skill to unlock. Lethal takedowns were also a thing in fallout 4, but were poorly implemented, and not told to the player. You have to power attack an enemy from behind with a melee, and that attack has to already kill them, which makes it very niche and not at all useful. The very basic ideas were already there, they just need to be improved, which they will hopefully do. Proning, and everything to improve melee are sadly missing, but I hope that starfield will address at least some of that. Worst case scenario, giga-chad modders will do it for Bethesda.
@@MediaKitGaming unless you within a certain radius of another enemy I think they were. That may have been an addition from a mod though. Its been a minute since I have played vanilla fo4
I really hate the F3 and onward lockpicking mechanic. It's so rubbish. Oblivion's was the GOAT. Also the problem with boats in skyrim is that there's nowhere to really go with them that actually requires you to take a boat.
There were times I didn't want to swim across a lake and had to walk around. And there is a janky mod for usable boats. So, I guess I'm not the only one.
Nice video dude, it its a decent insight on what we should expect from Starfield. However, I think you're conflating the meaning of skills and perks, switching them, to be precise. Skills are, by their RPG nature, buffs. If I put more points into the "Rifles" skill I should get better with any weapon that fall under that skill, now how the buff is applied can vary from game to game, either be Bethesda's damage buff like they always do or something more meticulous like weapon sway, reload speed and or accuracy. Perks in the other hand work similar to what you call "skills" in the video, they shake up the gameplay in interesting ways, maybe allowing you have special dialogue choices with the opposite sex or having a mysterious stranger help you in combat or even intimidate an enemy to turn against their teammates. The problem with Fo4 (don't think Elder Scrolls ever had perks) is that by removing skills, all the boring buffs are now made by perks which removed a lot of the gimmicks they used to have. The Outer Worlds is expected to have skills as other Obsidian games had, unfortunately the perks leave a lot to be desired, as a lot of them are just stat boosters, like skills.
I was not aware there was an official definition of skills vs perks as it applies to gaming. Can you point me to a source? Skyrim calls them skills and perks interchangeably. Rewatch that part of my video, I show the actual Skyrim menus using both terms. To my knowledge, Fallout 4 only uses the term perks. I'm using them thusly: PERKS are stat boosts that make a character better without introducing any new mechanics... Bullet resistance, more damage from a weapon, smarter, more mana, etc. SKILLS introduce a new mechanic or tool to the player that changes how they interact with the world. In Fallout 4, I'd consider the “Targeting HUD” a skill (even though it was an armor mod). It highlighted living targets which was helpful in combat. Other games may unlock a combat move or the ability to see through walls when triggered. Those too would be SKILLS. It would appear that you and I have completely opposite ideas about what constitutes a perk or skill. Consulting dictionary.com… PERK is actually short for PERQUISITE (I didn't know that): 1) an incidental payment or advantage over and above regular income - "Among the president's perquisites were free use of a company car and paid membership in a country club." 2) a gratuity or tip. Both definitions denote a kind of addition to an existing sum SKILL: a learned power of doing something competently: a developed aptitude or ability (merriam-webster.com) SMH, we could probably go around in circles pinpointing the minutia of how these terms might apply to gaming and never reach a consensus with each other or the developers who make the games. Whether or not you agree with my world choice, I hope my intent was conveyed clearly. Thanks for your input.
@@MediaKitGaming Look for the og Fallout games, KOTOR (has feats instead of perks), TES I to IV (had no perks), The Outer Worlds, Wasteland, GURPS or even D&D (has feats instead of perks) as examples of what I mean. Not really saying games in general need to obey this nomenclature, that's why I said "by their RPG nature", in the genre of RPGs skills and perks usually have specific meanings. In previous Fallout games one would level up and assign a certain number of points to a specific skill of their choosing (i.e. Small guns, big guns, lockpicking or medicine) which would make them better in that specific skill (shoot better with small firearms, pick harder locks, stimpaks healing more, etc...), that is the buffing aspect. However depending on the game you're playing, when you reach a certain level (and if you meet the requirements) you can select a perk which would grant you benefits that change gameplay in a certain way. (a mysterious stranger, laser shots deflecting off of metal armor, wild animals that help you in a fight, etc...) That is the interesting aspect that we desire. But in Fo4 they removed skills, so all of the boring buff aspect had to be done by the perks, so a lot of the cool effects had to go, yes Fo4 has PERKS but most are pretty dull stat raisers, which was the whole point of SKILLS. Also, despite both being kinda of the same thing (both are stat raisers), Skyrim does not call perks and skills interchangeably, perks are contained within skills, to raise a perk first you need it's respective skill to be in the required level, skills level up by using them, perks however do not. This whole mess is due to Bethesda's recent design when it comes to RPG systems, and as your video has proven it, I don't think Starfield will be any different. Yes I do believe we have different views on what Skills and Perks mean, judging from your footage, some of the games you contrasted with Skyrim/Fo4/Starfield are of the action genre, so I figure you must draw your idea of Skills and Perks from them. While I draw from Role Playing games, which is what Bethesda is known to make.
This is a comparison of a decade old RPG to action games. The UI, crafting & modification critique bring up good points. To expect Starfield to turn into a fighting game is to set yourself up for disappointment. Oblivion had lacking animation and each game after has improved upon it. Play on a highly capable PC, that will eliminate a ton of performance issues.
But Bethesda games ARE fighting games. Stories? Yes. Dialog trees? Yes. Branching paths? Exploration? Yes. But what are you doing most of the time and why are you putting so many stats into combat-centric skills?
I did a ton of research. And not only did I say it WOULD be in the game, but that I hadn't seen evidence of it. If it's in the gameplay footage, then I missed it. You obviously misunderstand the difference between overlooking a detail and not doing research. And of course there's melee combat in Starfield. Question is, will it be any better than Fallout 4's melee.
I wouldn’t bet on any of those additions lol we’ll all still buy it though lol no need to compete when no one is competitive to you, same thing was why Pokémon hasn’t improved, though arceus has clear competed with main line Pokémon now, so it’s gonna need to improve finally. Also, rpgs shouldn’t be action games, why are those your comparisons? Don’t expect games that aren’t in your favorite niche to change to your niche, I don’t expect call of duty to become a turn based rpg
“no need to compete when no one is competitive to you” - very astute. But Bethesda games ARE action games, they're ARPGs. And regardless of how you classify them, they are all combat-heavy games. Adding story, and branching paths make the games better. I didn't put melee, ranged, stealth, and traversal in their games, they did. Tell Bethesda their games shouldn't be action games.
I dont get it you talking about a game that came out in 2011 of course its going to have all those missing things you want. all they did just increase the graphics of it they not going to add anything
If you're right, the game will be amazing! I'll love it, and I'll even make a video about how wrong I was. But the combat preview we were given (on foot & in space) looks vapid. It looks like it will lean more on skill stats than playable skills. I'd love to be wrong.
Being respectful, most of the games you showed are games that came out after Skyrim or after FO4. Most of those no one is playing anymore nor are they critically acclaimed. So I think Bethesda knows what they’re doing.
At no point did I suggest Bethesda does not know what they are doing. Nor did I suggest the game would be bad, as that would be subjective and also a poor bet considering their fan base. I think the effort and creativity going into Starfield is unimaginable… it's on another level. It looks amazing… as Skyrim did before it. The mechanics, on the other hand, appear to be straight out of Fallout 4. The purpose of my video was to showcase game mechanics that have developed before and since Skyrim and F4 so when I talk about why I think Starfield will be as boring as those games were, you understand exactly what I'm talking about. Everyone seems to have overlooked that I stated, if you liked Skyrim and F4, then Starfield is definitely gonna work for you. Personally, I want a Starfield with better user-executed mechanics. I'm done with Bethesda games, and it's largely because I've played so many better games. Lastly… The popularity and staying power of the games I pulled from is irrelevant. Nevertheless, I believe you have under-represented their success, reception, and current player base (which is largely unknowable). I predicted Starfield's gameplay will be average and will still be their best game yet. That's not a prediction of failure. Thank you for your contribution to the conversation.
We now have confirmation that there are no vehicles for exploring planets. This is a huge miss. We know Star Wars Outlaws has at least one speeder, hoping for more like in Watch Dogs. Starfield still looks gorgeous AF, a Bethesda staple. Combat looks like it’s right out of Fallout 4… with a jetpack, not great. We now know outpost construction can include some form of resource acquisition… giving bases at least 1 reason to exist. Will there be missions where you have to create a particular base for an outpost to solve a specific problem they have? Doesn’t look like it. Quests are all going to be “go there, kill people or a creature and come back.” Typical Bethesda, typical video game. Cities have different personalities, looks, backstories… but will interacting with them feel distinct? I doubt it. Character creation? Don’t care. Skills and skill levels are uninspired. e.g. Level 4 Intimidate, “Targets now flee for a substantial amount of time.” Most skills are just buffs. Few introduce new playable mechanics. Again, it looks like stealth mechanics will be more about skill unlocks than playing stealthy. Being able to steal everyone’s sandwiches isn’t a feature unless Skyrim is all about collecting every bucket. Who cares? Ship customization is cool, but it’s obvious from the “mech” ship shown that the modules are mostly 2x1 Lego bricks. Just like in Fallout 4 base building, people will customize the hell out of their ship before they realize the game hasn’t changed. Ship combat: you have to unlock a skill to target enemy ship subsystems. In Horizon Zero Dawn you (the player) had to target machine subsystems. So it was a player challenge not some unlock. Bethesda boasts you can do anything in this world. Looks like you can unlock anything so your character can automatically do anything in this world and you can boast that you did something when actually your character did it for you with a buffed die roll... Like that guy who was the right religion so some culture didn’t bother him. Cool. And what did you, the player, do different? Skyrim in space? I can’t think of a more appropriate description. Millions will love pretending to be a space person. Look at my decorated base I can’t interact with. Look at all the buffs I unlocked so everything is less challenging. Look at my cool ship that can’t hold a land vehicle because they don’t exist. I played Skyrim and Fallout 4. I don’t want another Bethesda experience.
@@ddmaster08 I'm not into star citizen either. But I'm genuinely enthusiastic about Star Wars Outlaws. Kinda early, but I'm getting a good vibe from what we've seen. And my genuine “best” to all StarField players. May it deliver on all your hopes.
I'm gonna guess and say BGS doesn't know how to implement the mechanics of those other games. From my understanding most of the staff at BGS have been there around 20+ years. An old school team that never adapted and grew with the industry, and are still using 80's/90s dice roll mechanics. So while you see things like the visuals improve in their games, there's a glaring competency problem in their ability to implement mechanics like stealth and cover systems that have become a norm in the industry.
Comment makes little sense tbh.. The main thing is if you compare Skyrim and Fo4 no there's no new implementation, cause the games came out a year apart however if you compare Oblivion to Skyrim the implications are FARRRR better and more mechanics where created.. Seeing as that's about how long of a time from Skyrim to now pretty sure it's gonna be honestly epic..
@@MrMynamesjake Didn't mean Oblivion meant Morrowind, thanks for the corrections however I'm still not wrong in 4 years people went from Xbox 360 to Xbox 1.. There wasn't some major overhaul like going from PS2 to PS3 😂.. 7.5 is a decade (which is what I was trying to say with Morrowind to Skyrim comparison) I was trying to point out that games and studios don't make major anything overhauls in a few years times but decades tend to change them DRASTICALLY.. And yeah from what they've shown this is gonna kinda blow Skyrim and Fo4 out the water on all ends..
That's why game will be good at it's worst. In worst case scenario we will get something like Fallout 4 in space. UI problems are manly because of consoles. If you play PC only games you have clear UI, but when you have games that are for consoles you have tons of menus.
It's all yours, man. Enjoy. And no, consoles are not notorious for having bad menus. Almost 100% of AAA games come out for consoles and have good menus Bethesda games are outliers.
@@Kintabl Where Skyrim’s UI falls short is not in the leveling menus or dialogue but in inventory management. A critical area for a game with so many gatherable assets. Also the organization of spells and shouts. Deus Ex Human Revolution released in 2011, the same year as Skyrim. It has a classic fullscreen menu for inventory. It released on console and PC. ua-cam.com/video/3-hp_O-UUUA/v-deo.html&ab_channel=AverRaiher How Dark Souls (2011) did inventory i.redd.it/m9qia6myfya61.jpg The Witcher 2 (2011) inventory static.wikia.nocookie.net/witcher/images/a/a2/Tw2_inventory.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110610152900 All 3 games had console releases. I'm not going to do any more research for you on this subject. But I invite you to look at just about ANY game on console and see how they handled inventory management. Bethesda's games will rank among the worst. I've found that, since most games release on PC and console simultaneously, the menu experience is the same for both platforms. Further, many PC gamers prefer controllers over keyboard & mouse, making the experience nearly identical to console. But I think we are arguing different things. Rereading your comments, you are equating MANY MENUS with BAD. I'm not counting menus as a quantity. I'm equating bad UI design with a bad user experience.
Bethesda makes the best lore, exploration, and RPG games today. I don't care about action if it takes away from the three before mentions. It would be cool to have Assassin's creed level combat, but definitely not at the expense of a dull open world and linear story. Comparing Elders scrolls and Fallout to obviously inferior Ubisoft games with decent combat, but terrible in almost every other thing is a crime. Bethesda knows what their making, if the open world is great, story is great, and lore is good people will buy it.
People will definitely buy it… and enjoy it. But why does it have to be an either or situation? There is no question that Starfield will be an action heavy game as were Fallout 4 and Skyrim before it. Why can't the action be as good as their stories?
I'm not criticizing Skyrim for the game it was. I'm criticizing Starfield for being stuck in the past and not moving past Skyrim and Fallout 4. Better graphics? Yes. Better gameplay? Not so much. I'm comparing open-world games to open-world games. And while Bethesda games ARE RPGs, they are also absolutely action adventure games!
This is all here say, I get that previous Bethesda games are disappointing in these categories. But you can’t rule it out without seeing more of the game. If you are this pessimistic of a game that hasn’t come out yet then don’t play it.
I think this sum of the parts' evaluation of a game is kinda dumb. This is just like going over all the games you like, saying you'd like this feature in star field and docking starfield points for not having it. Which is a bit absurd. Like the premise of the video is so silly. "My Cooking Mama has cooking minigames! Will starfield have cooking minigames? I think not! What was Bethesda thinking?!"
@@BaseStation Exactly, but you just stated the same thing again. You have a preference for how certain mechanics work based on other games you played. For every game that has a mechanic, there are 100 other and sometimes better games that don't have that mechanic. It's an rpg game. It's going to have RPG systems. I think it's fine to want a game to have something, but having a mechanic or not has anything to do with its quality.
If you finished my video, you'd see I stated this game would definitely deliver for a certain kind of game. Further, I didn't say this game would be bad. I said I'd be bored playing it… as I was with Skyrim and F4. I would definitely consider Skyrim bad but too many people like it, so I can't really call it bad, can I? I just don't like it. And the lack of mechanics that could/should be there is the reason. I get what you're saying. Why criticize checkers for not being chess? I think it’s because the line between RPG and non-RPG open worlds is very fuzzy. Bethesda games have shooting, stealth, melee, and traversal. So do other open worlds that do it better… what is it about having “RPG” mechanics that precludes the rest of the game from having better mechanics? Will “RPG” forever mean level up with numbers in place of player tools and controllable skills? Elden Ring just won Best Role Playing… “for the best game designed with rich player character customization and progression”… a game that had buffs, yes, but also diverse mechanics. And if I’d said, Bethesda games don’t have ANY mechanics. You’d call me out and say, “yes, they definitely do!”
@@MediaKitGaming that's you're misunderstanding. RPG mechanic literally means using numbers to represent actions, attributes and skills. That's very literally what RPG means. Elden Ring didn't win best role playing game because it had the best role playing mechanics. It RPG elements are actually pretty terrible, unbalanced and largely meaningless. It won because it was best game with RPG elements, not because it had the best RPG elements. My point is you start the video with if the game will be good then go into personal shit no one cares about. If you don't like RPGs, why would the majority care about your opinion on an RPG game?
Your definition of RPG wouldn't be accurate even if we were talking about tabletop gaming. Just because RPGs HAVE had dice, chance and numbers, does not mean that's what defines them. But feel free to update the Wikipedia entry on RPGs if you think I'm wrong. And you didn't answer my question… “what is it about having “RPG” mechanics that precludes the rest of the game from having better mechanics?” Behind the glossy graphics, ALL games use numbers in their code to track movement, damage, and defense.
@MediaKit Yes, that's what an RPG is. Taking stat based systems out and replacing them with player abilities/skills is what makes something an action game. Games like ER straddle this line, but ER's stats and damage scaling systems are critical to the success of players and understanding how all the numbers work is what makes coming up with builds in Souls games very rewarding. Any discussion that involves RPG systems neccesarily being inferior because they use numbers or "dice rolls" is probably not worth having, because it's poisoned right off the bat. Whether or not Bethesda pulls off RPG combat well is a separate discussion (and I'd argue that they're just okay at it), but if you're looking at a Bethesda stealth system and you're upset that it's based on character stats and numbers rather than pure player reactivity, just play something else.
@@michelegarella2794 Your retort implies that once money is spent on a product, there should be no expectation of satisfaction with that product. So if I buy a watermelon and it's rotten inside… that's on me. Can't say I share your perspective on commerce. Or perhaps you think I should have enjoyed or disliked the games BEFORE I bought and played them. Would that be more acceptable?
It seams you want Starfield to be an action game. Well it's not an action game it's an RPG. You did nothing but compare Starfield to shooter action games.
No, I want Starfield to be a GOOD action game. Skyrim, Fallout 4, & Starfield all fall under the umbrella of ARPGs… Action RPG. They are all heavily combat-focused games. There is no reason an ARPG can't have better combat and still remain an RPG. And Deus Ex: Mankind Divided IS an RPG. If you discount story paths as a requirement to be an RPG then most of the games I compared ARE RPGs, as most of them have XP and skill trees. If you require story paths as your definition of RPG, that has nothing to do with combat and should not get in the way of better combat mechanics.
Game isn't even out...NOT EVEN A DATE !...and you're already talking about "too much dna?"..wtf?!...we haven't even played it yet... feels like click bait
No comparto tus criticas del todo, en algunas cosas si, al 100%, pero basicamente si te gustan las mecanicas que nombras no es un juego para ti, no son ese tipo de juego. Que se podrian mejorar con algunas cosas que nombras por supuesto, y estaria genial, pero ni Fallout 3 ni el 4, ni Skyrim ni Oblivion eran asi.
No, no es ese tipo de juego. Pero los juegos de Bethesda podrían serlo. Y están tratando de serlo. Combate cuerpo a cuerpo, combate a distancia, hechizos mágicos, sigilo. Otros juegos hacen todas estas cosas mejor. Desde Morrowind hasta Skyrim se realizaron muchas mejoras. ¿Crees que deberían volver atrás? Si tengo que aceptar que los juegos que no me gustan “simplemente no son para mí”, entonces es imposible criticar ningún juego. Gracias por compartir.
@@MediaKitGaming la critica en ciertos aspectos es compartida pero Fallout y Elders Scroll no tienen lo que pides y no creo que las incluyan de la manera que esperas. De todos modos como dices, son juegos que no te gustan, por algo sera, a mi hay juegos que no me gustan por mil cosas y ni los toco, no hago un video criticandolos y esperando a que incluyan todo lo que querria, sin acritud lo digo. Insisto en que algunas de tus criticas sobre mecanicas las comparto.
I find it a little disingenuous that you would compare Bethesda games, which dabble in multiple mechanics but focus on RPing and immersion, to games whose mechanics are the central focus of their gameplay. You can't compare Starfield's gun combat to COD, AND compare its stealth to Assassin's Creed, AND compare its melee combat to Kingdom Come, and so on, because those games don't share each other's mechanics; they're focused on their own mechanics, whereas Starfield is all those things and more. We know from past titles and from provided materials that Starfield WILL have some mechanics that you dismissed: - peeking (from Fo4) over low obstacles and around corners, which is subtle and doesn't require its own button as cover-shooters do - clamor (from Fo4), which is contextual and uses the jump button to vault low obstacles (which can be seen in third person). The existence of jet packs implies that we'd also be able to clamor over high ledges that we bump into at mid-body - juking (from Release Date Trailer), which again uses the jump button (jet pack) and is direction dependent - distraction (Throw Voice from Skyrim), which works identically to other games by drawing NPC's to that location Frankly, Bethesda games don't need mechanics like non-lethal takedowns, melee combos, clinging to cover, climbing tall obstacles, or crawling while prone, because the game is so many more things than those mechanics (diplomacy, crafting, etc); because the game world isn't built to take advantage of them; and because including so many mechanics would burden the player's already busy key/button assignments. Bethesda games are meant to be minimalist so that we don't have to master the mechanics before exploring deeper into the game world. In other words, player skill is not meant to be a barrier to progress, but character attainment is. Games like Metal Gear or HZD require that you complete the puzzle-box that is their deep game mechanics so as to take on greater challenges; whereas Bethesda provides you with a broad toolbox of skills and equipment with which to approach any given situation in myriad ways that manifest the various synergies that you discover among all the skill trees. Puzzle Box vs Toolbox; two completely different paradigms.
Botmes, I actually agree with most of your points. • Bethesda games are meant to be minimalist - agree • Player skill is not meant to be a barrier to progress - agree • Bethesda game worlds aren’t built to take advantage of more complex mechanics - agree • Other games don't share each other's mechanics; they're focused on their own - agree And for all those reasons and more, I hate them. I only recently played F4 for the first time. Finished it. And found it to be a bloated slog. Skyrim’s combat is horrendous. When I saw the Starfield reveal, I only got flashbacks. Bethesda makes impressive strides in world-building. But their gameplay is stuck in the days of Baldur's Gate. By choice? Yes. Do people still love them? Obviously. But with all the “go here & kill thing” mini-missions in F4 and Skyrim, I would argue those games are NOT focused on diplomacy or crafting. Diplomacy and crafting are just a veneer to explain why you’re spending so much time killing. It’s a problem with most games, actually but most games make it more fun. I wish Bethesda made funner games to complement their amazing worlds. And make no mistake, I’m 100% genuine in that feeling. Thank you for clarifying some of the mechanics I missed in Bethesda games. Where I disagree is that I can't compare open-world games with stealth, traversal, and melee & ranged combat to other games with those same attributes. Thanks for sharing your insight.
Your channel is criminally underrated, dude
Fantastic video as always
Thanks. Tell a friend!
Fallout 4 technically has a cover and shooting from cover mechanic, but it's not very well telegraphed and easy to miss that it's even there.
Wait what? On console?
@@dianapennepacker6854 Yep. Crouch by some cover. When you aim down the sights, you'll pop up out of the cover a bit, then back down when you're not aiming anymore.
Yeah, even NPC's shoot around cover
Ye soft lean mechanic hopefully they expanded on it with some 3rd person animations
The stealth boy works pretty good as a cloak.
I loved some of the games you highlighted, Deus Ex in particular. However I don't want extensive stealth mechanics in Starfield. Also, you mentioned simplicity in combat as a negative. Simplicity in combat is an absolute positive in an RPG.
If you want to play an action shooter, play an action shooter.
If you want to play an RPG, play an RPG.
I reject the assertion that an RPG must (by its nature) have inferior/fewer mechanics. This is a false dichotomy.
@@MediaKitGaming Thanks for the reply. I assert that an RPG must, by its nature, have fewer mechanics. I want my RPG to focus on what it does best - ask interesting questions about developing your character.
I'm perfectly happy to disagree on this, and have no desire to change your opinion. But for me and my family, we will follow the RPG path.
@@Patrick462 I Made this just for you. ua-cam.com/video/Han_4PKHAb4/v-deo.html
I hope starfield devs watch this video.
It’s way too late for Starfield I’m afraid. At this point they’re working on bugs and performance.
@@MediaKitGamingtrue.but atleast modders can add some of those missing features.
One thing I hate about Skyrim's combat is that blocking doesn't cancel all damage.
It only halfs it. That means you die from attacks you blocked, and kill enemies by swinging at their shield over and over again.
Just simply making blocking cancel all damage, but drain stamina to do so would instantaneously make combat 1,000x better, because you can actually do something to prevent taking damage, instead of just upgrading your health until you can tank greybeard shouts.
I think the thing I hate the most is there's no evade move. Unforgivable! Melee combat games that were 10 years old when Skyrim dropped had an evade/dodge.
There's no Evade, Block is useless, and two handed weapons swing unusably slow. It's also an Attack Cone, instead of weapon collision (Essentially, hitscan for melee. In the cone at the hit time, you get hit.)
The cone is wider than the swing arc and weapon length, and the hit time's too soon.
Chivalry and Mordhau are both pretty much the same combat skeleton as Skyrim, but way better. Blocking uses stamina, In Mordhau, you can dodge attacks by keeping your crosshair on the weapon while moving the camera, both have an evade button.
They are all based in the same Martial Arts discipline, HEMA, meaning combo moves are pretty much a no go. HEMA's all about blocking and landing one or two decisive hits.
@@pugnippelz69 You've played a lot more of those older games than I have.
@@MediaKitGamingFallout 4 actually did make an attempt at positive change. Blocking eliminates all damage, but you can't hold the button. It was an attempt, not a successful one. The window to block attacks seems to keep changing with no change of animation. And almost all enemies use guns, bullets obviously can't be blocked, making any attempt at melee worthless anyway.
Gonna admit, the crafting of Fallout 4 kinda pissed me off when MediaKit explained it. Just... why Bethesda, why?
Think of it as a reward system for exploration,which is the great strength of BGS games.
@@StephenYuan Oh, I get that, I'm all for exploration and rewards. But the system of modding your weapon is what I'm talking about. As explained in the video, you can't just remove a scope, it HAS to be replaced by another type of scope. That's just silly. Why not just be able to pull it off?
I loved how you went into each topic and mentioned the mechanics that Skyrim and Fallout 4 lacks, and honestly those are very justified criticism.
But you've to also consider the time frame. Skyrim came out in 2011. 99% of the games that you have mentioned are post 2015 games. None of the games that came out in 2011 did any of that stuff. Skyrim was very much limited by the console hardware it had to run on, the Xbox 360 and PS3. It was the new gen systems like the PS4 and Xbox One that enabled developers to implement more complex gameplay mechanics. Fallout 4 did implement cloaking and the power armour in itself adds a new depth to combat. Making power armour customization fun. Then FO4 also got the survival mode update which made everything much better, but also very hard for most players.
Secondly, all the games you have shown as examples are 3rd person games. Even though Bethesda games have a 3rd person mode, they are really meant to be played in first person. Bethesda games when they come out are always like this, missing features that we take for granted in other video games. Then comes all the modders, who start implementing those "taken for granted" features in the game.
Though this time around, its gonna be very hard for Bethesda and Starfield to leave a mark. It's not 2011. Video games have come a long way since then. There are a lots of impressive games out there who've introduced new gameplay mechanics into the industry and made them a standard. So if Bethesda releases a game that plays and feels like a game that came out in 2011/2015, then they are gonna get criticized really hard. Though it's no surprise that it's the modding community who is gonna save the day again. And honestly I'm not complaining. I just really want Bethesda to learn from the modders and implement their work into their games officially, so that their games could stay relevant when compared to other new games in the industry.
Thank you for the thoughtful response.
The best melee combat game I've ever played, Oni, came out in 2001. It wasn't an open world and didn't have the beautiful graphics Skyrim has, but it smokes any game ever made for melee.
Here's my video on Oni: ua-cam.com/video/0Pyrb6hireU/v-deo.html
Sleeping Dogs (ua-cam.com/video/h2y_H9Tp9DU/v-deo.html) came out a year after Skyrim with an impressive melee system and WAS open world. The original Deus Ex came out in 2000, considered one of the OG Immersive Sims and a great stealth game. Arkham Asylum was doing interesting things with stealth in 2009. Games HAVE come a long way since Skyrim, but they'd also already come a long way. Why doesn't Skyrim at least have an evade move?
Console hardware doesn't limit movement and mechanics as much as it limits graphics. And while Skyrim hasn't aged well, back in the day it looked amazing!
Look again, I deliberately included 1st-person games in many of my examples. And I should have included Deus Ex (1st person) for corner attacks and takedowns. Very few mechanics I showed wouldn’t work in 1st person. But since Bethesda games try to have it both ways, I think 3rd person criticism is valid. Personally, I’d rather play in 3rd person all the time. 3rd person games always have better melee and traversal mechanics.
I'm honestly on your side. I was excited to play Starfield too. But take away the spaceships and pretty graphics and it feels like Fallout 4, which I finished despite how bored I was playing it. Skyrim's melee and stealth should have been better, but my intent was not to beat up Skyrim, but rather to show how little Bethesda progressed in the 4 years between the 2 games. And looking at the Starfield gameplay preview, I was getting flashbacks. I showed more modern games because my real focus was on Starfield, and how it could play if it embraced what other games have. If I’m wrong, I’ll be right there with you singing Starfield’s praises. But I think the player will stat their way to success rather than having to use playable mechanics. And that’s legit. There’s no reason a game can’t do that. But I don’t want to play such a game.
Idk what you mean by modders saving the day mods improve bgs games and some even improved it a lot but the base game are pretty good for when they released the reason they all review pretty well
I never said Skyrim and Fallout 4 were bad games. I never said Starfield will be bad. I said the Bethesda game bored me and Starfield looks to be going in the same direction. Because they lack interesting player mechanics for interacting with their worlds. I also never said anything about modders saving the day.
@@MediaKitGaming I get what you're saying. But a lot of the things that you're asking for in terms of gameplay modernization goes completely against the "Classic Bethesda game". When Todd himself said that "Starfield is just Skyrim in space", to a non-Bethesda fan, it will sound like Starfield is just gonna be the same game that Skyrim and FO4 was, but to a Bethesda fan (like me), it was just perfect news. And if you go and check out the Starfield sub-reddit, you'll see that a majority of the Bethesda fans share that exact feeling. We don't want the stealth to be like MGS or the combat to be like Elden Ring or Call of Duty/Deus Ex. We don't even want Starfield to be GOTY. We just want it to be a classic Bethesda game set in space, that we always wanted since Morrowind and Oblivion.
There are lots of things that Starfield is doing better than other games out there. From outpost building, ship building, in game economics, dialogues and persuasion mechanics, to a more active and alive open world simulation (Will Shen talked about the new random encounter mechanics which has been vastly enhanced and expanded upon). Lets not forget that all the objects that you see in a Bethesda open world game is completely interactable and has their own physics. That makes putting a bucket on the head of a shopkeeper or stacking cheese wheels under your bed, a silly, but a fun thing to do. Then comes a variety of open world designs to go along with multiple planets out there. As for the space combat itself, even if the basic premise is similar to 1983 Star Wars, the gameplay itself has been modernized, and has more tension and weight behind it now. I personally feel that the basic premise comparison is really bad, since by that same logic, COD MW 2 2022 and BF 2042 couldn't out do the DOOM 1 or N64 Golden Eye first person combat. It's all tap on the head to kill enemy faster. Flying through a wreckage of pirate spaceship that you blew up sounds and feels really good in Starfield. And if some speculations are to be believed then Starfield space combat has some depth in it too. Like shooting down space ship engines to stop the ship and then board them. Then we also have the whole micromanagement of "space ship energy" during combat. This mechanic will definitely feel inconsequential at "Easy difficulty", but at "Legendary/Survival difficulty", it will definitely play a huge role. Even though Starfield seems to have a lot of it's father and mother's DNA in it, the game itself is very ambitious in it's own right.
Now I'll be honest. If people are expecting a cinematic 3rd person open world flashy graphical powerhouse that Sony and Ubisoft seems to churn out very year, then they'll be sorely disappointed. Because that's just not the thing that Bethesda does or ever excelled at doing. If people are expecting something in the veins of Oblivion, Skyrim and FO4, which is set in space, then they might be impressed by what Starfield has to offer.
At the end of my video, I think I made it pretty clear that Starfield would definitely deliver for a certain type of gamer. That will probably end up being a large number of gamers. What motivated me to make this video was my recent playthrough of Fallout 4. I was bored all the way through it and still pushed through to the end. (200+ hours, according to Steam) While many of my commenters are calling foul for comparing RPGs to action games or Bethesda to Guerrilla games… I only saw it as comparing open worlds to open worlds… melee to melee… ranged combat to ranged. Stealth to stealth… And found Bethesda mechanics vastly inferior in every comparison.
Play in an open world where skill doesn't matter, only stats? Play a game where skill isn't even possible because the mechanics aren't there? This is the pinnacle of disappointment. Not for you but for me.
Bethesda can make any game they want and gamers are free to play it or not. But don't forget Morrowind used dice rolls and stats to determine hits. Later games, Skyrim and Oblivion (I assume), used actual hitboxes and player-controlled mechanics for archery and melee. So it's not like Bethesda hasn't improved their games to incorporate more player mechanics. I trying to raise awareness for what a Bethesda game COULD be… for the kind of player who WOULD appreciate it. But as is said in my video, they're way behind the pack. Maybe one day, Bethesda will make an open-world game with complex player mechanics. If that day comes, it will be my turn to get just what I wanted and you'll be disappointed.
But what is more likely is if every point I've made about Starfield ends up being wrong you'll point the finger and say, “See, idiot! It's way better than you predicted.” And for every mechanic that's missing, you'll say, “That's just how Bethesda does games and I wouldn't want it any other way.” You win either way. Nevertheless, in all sincerity, thank you for your thoughtful reply in this debate. I really appreciate a person who can argue their position without stooping to personal attacks. Feel free to rebut.
Incredibly well done video! Keep up the good work.
Thank you, sir!
This was a well-constructed breakdown from start to finish. Let's see how Starfield delivers whenever that is...
I've always enjoyed the worlds that Bethesda makes, but I agree with a lot of your points. The gameplay in these great worlds is very lackluster. In the past with games like Morrowind they were much more similar to a tabletop RPG in combat, where dice rolls and stat modifiers were all that mattered. They continued to build games off that engine but make them feel more modern, but it doesn't really work well and comes off as shallow gameplay. Bethesda probably can't easily modify their game engine to add in more modern movement/combat without a significant rewrite.
The change to the lock pick mini-game is a clear indication that Bethesda have built Starfield from the ground up, with very little mechanics being taken from previous games. I say little because clearly they've built on some mechanics from previous game, but my impression is that this will be their biggest leap in tech and new mechanics they've ever made and despite everyone saying it will feel like an obvious Bethesda game I think it will actually feel a lot different than previous titles. The scale is clearly bigger and this is the first time Bethesda are doing a game not set in fantasy and when you have realism to deal with, a lot has to change. I'm with you on many of the concerns I truly hope they pull it off.
I want you to be right. But the gun and ship combat we seen, plus the “skills” we've seen discourage me. It's shaping up to be another stats fest instead of creative mechanics. But you're right about the lock-picking system. Glad to see that get an overhaul.
@@MediaKitGaming Yea, Bethesda games don't really have challenging combat, it's all about role playing. Why would I spend perks on increasing my gun dmg when I can just lower the difficulty to very easy :)
@@samtate2011 That is an astute question.
@MediaKit it's a rpg lol it isn't a action adventure game skills are supposed to play a big part in rpgs
Still... Fallout 4 and Skyrim are played more today than any of the games you took as an example. Seems those games can learn more from Bethesda Games than the other way around.
Can you quantify this claim with data?
@@MediaKitGaming Steam Stats
@@MediaKitGaming And if one is above Skyrim, it is much newer. My point is the replay and long term value of the games
I may have to give that one to you. But I never said Bethesda games were bad (beyond their UIs). Only that they bored me. You might be right. Perhaps having more player mechanics would be too much for people and they'd lose players. I can't say. But I'm just not looking forward to a space game that feels like Fallout 4. I can't play another game that asks me to battle in almost every quest where the winner is more about my character's level than using playable mechanics to outwit or outmaneuver the enemy. In the Starfield gameplay reveal, that character opens a door and starts shooting at 3 guys that barely react. One of them gets shot in the back trying to run away. Opening up on a group of 3 guys without cover should be suicide. I wanted better. But people have different interpretations of “better.”
Amazing editing man
This is great, would updated look at Starfield! Keep up the great work, thank you!
It's still just an iteration of the Gamebryo engine Morrowind was built on. There will be a few buggy mechanics added to differentiate it from mom and pop, but it will be the same. I like Bethesda games for all the other stuff, especially making mods, but it would be nice if the combat was at least as interesting as ESO, their own MMO.
Skyrim does have left and right attacks and fallout 4 has shoot from behind cover
Oh. Didn't notice how static their games are. This just made me realize why I get so bored in between story and spend more time installing mods to try to have fun outside of story.
Such a chore to do anything in between. Love their IPs concepts especially Fallout but outside of New Vegas. Replayability is eh.
Not to say I didn't spend 100+ hours on each of their games regardless haha.
IKR? Like, I spent a ton of time in Skyrim, but looking back, I can't do it again because of how static they are. Like, dragon fights are not epic anymore, and it's a shame they couldn't be more complex. Hate to say, I got really bored with mechanics that are there but not deep. Like the whole Civil War. That SHOULD have been a deeper aspect of the game, but it was just shallow. I think that is the best takeaway from this video, Bethesda puts in cool ideas, but they are all shallow, and that doesn't excite me to jump into Starfield as of RIGHT NOW. They'll need to convince me when it comes out, is what I'm saying.
@Squishy Rat the game is over 10 years old ofcourse its static now
@@jerico9263 Fair point that it is old, but that is not my point. At the time when I was playing it (and I got it on day 1), the battles became static even back then. I wanted dragon battles to be more, but they only increased HP, not any tactics or new challenges. That was what disappointed me then.
@@jerico9263 New Vegas is older but has what Skyrim lacks depth and dynamics, at least in the way the player interacts with the game world and characters, if not so much with combat.
Honestamente me encanta este canal, se siente el esfuerzo que hacen 🍷
Muchas gracias, Eduardo Burgos Montaño. Aunque no grabo videos en español, me alegro que disfrutas lo que he echo.
Yes I wish Bethesda would update or borrow fearures from other games. But it often goes the other way around for me, too. Rarely do other games attempt what Bethesda does.
An excellent point. I can't disagree there. A rich RPG with really good action/stealth mechanics would be my dream.
This was a great video
Thank, you sir!
Moderately credible rumors out there are that the delay has accounted for a revamp of the gun-play mechanics. This would be welcome. Although it didnt look like it in the trailer a couple months ago.
Honestly, if all else fails, i'll still enjoy it. The dilemma is that by adding very many options to combat mechanics, you potentially multiply effectiveness in leveling and crafting buffs, creating overpowered characters early with a little bit of controller skill. Or if they downplay leveling buffs to counterbalance more player options (example, magic in skyrim had high options, low power), weaker players will get drowned in gameplay .. a minimalist combat system governed mainly by leveling buffs ensures quality control of tiered difficulty along the game... Thats not to say they couldnt implement some things you mentioned, just a general thought.
I am ok with a pure leveling/buff system as long as the world building makes it worth spending time in the game. The world building is the principle thing that makes Bethesda Bethesda
This is a Bethesda game. The point is exploration of a world. BTW, how many open world games actually have challenging gameplay?
If we're talking combat… Horizon Zero Dawn, Seeping Dogs, Mad Max, Days Gone, Elden Ring, Far Cry 3-5, Ghost Recon Wildlands. All those games, if you don't fight smart, you die. Stat boosting and skill unlocks help, but you still have to play smart because the challenges get harder. Even Skyrim and F4 were difficult until you up your stats and became a walking tank. All these games (including Bethesda's) are heavily based on combat and/or stealth. Those mechanics HAVE to deliver. Otherwise, they're just open-world walking simulators.
Want to point out that Skyrim does actually have different attacks for moving left, right, and forward/backward, and also that fallout 4 has a pseudo-peeking cover system in first person.
I’ve since realized that both of your observations are true. Other commenters have pointed that out too. That peaking was integrated into F4, even surprised some of the other commenters because the mechanic was not well known. Those oversites aside... I think both games are mediocre RPGs and poor action games. Thanks for your polite correction. I’m placing my hope on Star Wars Outlaws. Fingers crossed.
Let’s goooo!!!! Melee…in a space game? It really is sad how limited beatemup mechanics are these days. For example superhot…amazingggg game but no wall running, more gun kata or other cool mechanics. It baffles me how un-innovative games are these days. That’s why Dishonored has always been a. Favorite series. You’re not jus shooting things or turning on/off stuff. You’re actually interacting with the world & using amazing movement options to do it. Or borderlands. The skills are almost always centred around damage or inhibiting opponent movement. There’s no portal guns, ‘blink’ abilities, hook n chain grabs/swinging, or anything that changes the gameplay loop. Idk man…it just seems devs largely are so lazy in terms of innovation…not to say games are shit. But I get tired of people accepting this stuff. So it’s refreshing to see a perspective that wants the bar to be higher especially with UI/UX
The dishonored games were excellent. Any game with good stealth mechanics will get my attention. Borderlands 3 had a character who could make a clone of himself, run away from it, and then swap places with it. It was pretty cool. Firstly, I wouldn't blame the developers. I'd blame project managers/creative leads. Second, I believe developers want to be more creative, but don't want to make gameplay too difficult to learn lest they lose a sale. I admit I struggled to master the combat of Jedi - Fallen Order… and by that I mean I never really nailed it.
Techland or Titan Fall 2 Relic should sell their movement systems for first person. Not sure what game has the best 3rd person fluidity of movement but there is a ton. Assassin Creed...
Anyway its always a struggle playing Dying Light 2 and going back to a regular FPS. Like it is so stiff! My dumbass tried playing Gears of War after Dying Light 2 and got like 3 minutes in before I wanted to quit. I forced myself to spend 20 minutes and just couldn't.
So yeah all games should be like Dying Light 2 when it comes to traversal. The game doesn't need to be focused on it but it makes everything so much fun.
Also shooting? Need stagger animations and make the weapons feel like they have weight or mass and effect the enemy.
Cover system is a must if it isn't melee focused of movement focused like Titan Fall 2.
Mech Warrior or World of Tanks for space combat sounds good to me.
Great video, like many of your previous ones. I really hope that you will continue to do this, but at the same time devote no less time to promoting your content. It should be seen by more people!
I agree. How should I promote? I'm open to your ideas and advice. I don't really have a presence on any of the other social media platforms. I'm a graphic designer, animator, and gamer. But I'm not a marketer.
@@MediaKitGaming First of all, marketing just begins with the presence on these same social platforms. Reddit, possibly ResetEra, other popular gaming platforms where there are custom feeds, subs, etc. (I can’t advise specific links, since I’m from the east and this information will not be very relevant for you).
You can and should place your videos (highly desirable with a partial and sometimes full, maybe even with pictures if it's in the spirit of the platform) text description, so that it doesn't look like an advertisement for your videos) in topics and feeds , which will correspond to these very videos. That is, you can try to advertise a video about a specific game in a public corresponding to it (unless the video is negative, otherwise you will be bombarded with dislikes and curses :), or you can search for general thematic publics with game reviews or even promotion of streamers like you. It is highly desirable, in addition to publishing your videos, to also participate in discussions on the forum so that your account looks like a live one, and not an advertising one.
Of course there is also paid promotion, but at this stage it can be a waste of time and money. As an option, you can agree on mutual advertising (text or directly in your videos) with other UA-cam channels or Facebook groups, for example, which have approximately the same level of development and number of subscribers as your channel.
And yes, the same Facebook is also of great importance. Register your group in it, upload all the videos (including old ones) that you have done and are doing to the feed. Repost these videos from the group to your personal page (if possible). At first, there will be very little response, but as soon as the video shoots somewhere, you will notice a huge jump.
One of the key marketing strategies is to show up in as many places as possible, thereby increasing your chances of getting noticed.
In fact, there are a lot of options and ways to gain popularity, there is no universal way. But one thing is clear - you need to invest in this time. And sometimes (especially at the beginning) it can be tens or even hundreds of hours. On the other hand, without investing in advertising, you essentially work at best at half strength, and instead of each of your videos gaining 10-100k views, it is gaining 1k. I think you understand this yourself, it can be sad when you put a lot of effort into your videos but didn't get enough response.
We can discuss this via PM if you want, but there are probably hundreds of videos on UA-cam anyway on this topic. And at least worth a look at least a couple of them in any case. :)
If Ghost Recon does a better job there, then it's a problem!
Actually, I thought Ghost Recon Wildlands was a great game.
I kinda do hope they do take what the modding community has done to heart and do eventually add many of the Modding Community's additions especially to ES6 like Combat Gameplay Overhaul, Player Face-Tracking, more fleshed out & less intrusive followers like Inigo, Lucien & Serana from the DLC off the top of my head. I would prefer better skill tree navigation and perks. More detailed cities and towns "something I think Skyrim lacked, they feel too small/unfinished sometimes without mods unlike there previous games", I do wish Stealth was a little bit better at least "mods do fix this as well" Note, learning invisibility does help a-lot but does not work for many scripted events.... but with a-lot of the issues... mods do fix a good bit of the issues there games have but I wish many of these mods were just part of the game and built in without 100+ mod downloads.
Bethesda …making great games for modders to make great.
95% of everything you said about things starfield doesn't have and other games do, literally only applies to 3rd person action games, games that focus more than anything on having good 3rd person melee combat or 3rd person gun combat, only a few things you said really apply to starfield in terms of movements in 1st person, and yeah sure starfield has a 3rd person mode but it is not a game that is optimized to be that led alone be the example of what a 3rd person game should be, what you do does not make sense, it is like if I make a video on why spiderman doesn't have a dialogue system or detailed skill tree like RPGs.....well it's because it's not an rpg...be better than this
I identified 25 mechanics. Of those, 10 did not include first person examples. That’s 40%. Corner attacks, and lethal takedown mechanics can be found in the 2 most recent Deus Ex games (first person). Metal Gear Solid V will move to first person while prone in places with low overhead. Amnesia The Dark Descent and Alien Isolation (both FPS games) have closet/locker hiding. Drones and interrogations don't require a specific POV.
Which leaves these 4… attacking left or right, combos, diving to prone position, and lock-on - exclusive to 3rd person POV. 4/25 or 16% would be hard to do in first person. But I'd be willing to bet there’s a first person game out there with combos. I’m just not aware of it. And as you correctly stated, Bethesda games want to have it both ways… 1st & 3rd POV. I played Skyrim almost exclusively in 3rd person… and I REALLY wanted to attack left and right.
@@MediaKitGaming fallout 4 had a cover system, it was just not shown to the player and often pretty janky. I imagine it will have been improved upon in the 8 years between then and now. Fallout also had cloaks in the way of stealth boys and chameleon armor, which in my opinion are the way to go with Bethesda-style games rather than a skill to unlock. Lethal takedowns were also a thing in fallout 4, but were poorly implemented, and not told to the player. You have to power attack an enemy from behind with a melee, and that attack has to already kill them, which makes it very niche and not at all useful. The very basic ideas were already there, they just need to be improved, which they will hopefully do.
Proning, and everything to improve melee are sadly missing, but I hope that starfield will address at least some of that. Worst case scenario, giga-chad modders will do it for Bethesda.
But were the lethal takedowns inherently silent?
@@MediaKitGaming unless you within a certain radius of another enemy I think they were. That may have been an addition from a mod though. Its been a minute since I have played vanilla fo4
I really hate the F3 and onward lockpicking mechanic. It's so rubbish. Oblivion's was the GOAT.
Also the problem with boats in skyrim is that there's nowhere to really go with them that actually requires you to take a boat.
There were times I didn't want to swim across a lake and had to walk around. And there is a janky mod for usable boats. So, I guess I'm not the only one.
We technically do have cloak ability
my bad… I forget to consider ALL the potions.
Nice video dude, it its a decent insight on what we should expect from Starfield. However, I think you're conflating the meaning of skills and perks, switching them, to be precise.
Skills are, by their RPG nature, buffs. If I put more points into the "Rifles" skill I should get better with any weapon that fall under that skill, now how the buff is applied can vary from game to game, either be Bethesda's damage buff like they always do or something more meticulous like weapon sway, reload speed and or accuracy.
Perks in the other hand work similar to what you call "skills" in the video, they shake up the gameplay in interesting ways, maybe allowing you have special dialogue choices with the opposite sex or having a mysterious stranger help you in combat or even intimidate an enemy to turn against their teammates.
The problem with Fo4 (don't think Elder Scrolls ever had perks) is that by removing skills, all the boring buffs are now made by perks which removed a lot of the gimmicks they used to have.
The Outer Worlds is expected to have skills as other Obsidian games had, unfortunately the perks leave a lot to be desired, as a lot of them are just stat boosters, like skills.
I was not aware there was an official definition of skills vs perks as it applies to gaming. Can you point me to a source? Skyrim calls them skills and perks interchangeably. Rewatch that part of my video, I show the actual Skyrim menus using both terms. To my knowledge, Fallout 4 only uses the term perks. I'm using them thusly: PERKS are stat boosts that make a character better without introducing any new mechanics... Bullet resistance, more damage from a weapon, smarter, more mana, etc. SKILLS introduce a new mechanic or tool to the player that changes how they interact with the world. In Fallout 4, I'd consider the “Targeting HUD” a skill (even though it was an armor mod). It highlighted living targets which was helpful in combat. Other games may unlock a combat move or the ability to see through walls when triggered. Those too would be SKILLS. It would appear that you and I have completely opposite ideas about what constitutes a perk or skill.
Consulting dictionary.com… PERK is actually short for PERQUISITE (I didn't know that):
1) an incidental payment or advantage over and above regular income - "Among the president's perquisites were free use of a company car and paid membership in a country club."
2) a gratuity or tip.
Both definitions denote a kind of addition to an existing sum
SKILL: a learned power of doing something competently: a developed aptitude or ability (merriam-webster.com)
SMH, we could probably go around in circles pinpointing the minutia of how these terms might apply to gaming and never reach a consensus with each other or the developers who make the games. Whether or not you agree with my world choice, I hope my intent was conveyed clearly. Thanks for your input.
@@MediaKitGaming Look for the og Fallout games, KOTOR (has feats instead of perks), TES I to IV (had no perks), The Outer Worlds, Wasteland, GURPS or even D&D (has feats instead of perks) as examples of what I mean.
Not really saying games in general need to obey this nomenclature, that's why I said "by their RPG nature", in the genre of RPGs skills and perks usually have specific meanings.
In previous Fallout games one would level up and assign a certain number of points to a specific skill of their choosing (i.e. Small guns, big guns, lockpicking or medicine) which would make them better in that specific skill (shoot better with small firearms, pick harder locks, stimpaks healing more, etc...), that is the buffing aspect.
However depending on the game you're playing, when you reach a certain level (and if you meet the requirements) you can select a perk which would grant you benefits that change gameplay in a certain way. (a mysterious stranger, laser shots deflecting off of metal armor, wild animals that help you in a fight, etc...) That is the interesting aspect that we desire.
But in Fo4 they removed skills, so all of the boring buff aspect had to be done by the perks, so a lot of the cool effects had to go, yes Fo4 has PERKS but most are pretty dull stat raisers, which was the whole point of SKILLS.
Also, despite both being kinda of the same thing (both are stat raisers), Skyrim does not call perks and skills interchangeably, perks are contained within skills, to raise a perk first you need it's respective skill to be in the required level, skills level up by using them, perks however do not.
This whole mess is due to Bethesda's recent design when it comes to RPG systems, and as your video has proven it, I don't think Starfield will be any different.
Yes I do believe we have different views on what Skills and Perks mean, judging from your footage, some of the games you contrasted with Skyrim/Fo4/Starfield are of the action genre, so I figure you must draw your idea of Skills and Perks from them. While I draw from Role Playing games, which is what Bethesda is known to make.
Can you please make a video about the features in GTA 6 shown in the leaked footage showcasing how its taking from previous Rockstar Games mechanics?
I've never completed a Rockstar game. I'm not the right guy for the job.
@@MediaKitGaming Oh okay understandable! Thank you for responding. :)
This is a comparison of a decade old RPG to action games. The UI, crafting & modification critique bring up good points. To expect Starfield to turn into a fighting game is to set yourself up for disappointment. Oblivion had lacking animation and each game after has improved upon it. Play on a highly capable PC, that will eliminate a ton of performance issues.
But Bethesda games ARE fighting games. Stories? Yes. Dialog trees? Yes. Branching paths? Exploration? Yes. But what are you doing most of the time and why are you putting so many stats into combat-centric skills?
You obviously didn't do your research. Sliding is literally shown in the reveal trailer, along with melee combat in the skill tree.
I did a ton of research. And not only did I say it WOULD be in the game, but that I hadn't seen evidence of it. If it's in the gameplay footage, then I missed it. You obviously misunderstand the difference between overlooking a detail and not doing research. And of course there's melee combat in Starfield. Question is, will it be any better than Fallout 4's melee.
Bethesda will drop the ball. Give modders a year to fix it.
I wouldn’t bet on any of those additions lol we’ll all still buy it though lol no need to compete when no one is competitive to you, same thing was why Pokémon hasn’t improved, though arceus has clear competed with main line Pokémon now, so it’s gonna need to improve finally.
Also, rpgs shouldn’t be action games, why are those your comparisons? Don’t expect games that aren’t in your favorite niche to change to your niche, I don’t expect call of duty to become a turn based rpg
“no need to compete when no one is competitive to you” - very astute. But Bethesda games ARE action games, they're ARPGs. And regardless of how you classify them, they are all combat-heavy games. Adding story, and branching paths make the games better. I didn't put melee, ranged, stealth, and traversal in their games, they did. Tell Bethesda their games shouldn't be action games.
But what is and RPG? ua-cam.com/video/Han_4PKHAb4/v-deo.html
I dont get it you talking about a game that came out in 2011 of course its going to have all those missing things you want. all they did just increase the graphics of it they not going to add anything
If you're right, the game will be amazing! I'll love it, and I'll even make a video about how wrong I was. But the combat preview we were given (on foot & in space) looks vapid. It looks like it will lean more on skill stats than playable skills. I'd love to be wrong.
Being respectful, most of the games you showed are games that came out after Skyrim or after FO4. Most of those no one is playing anymore nor are they critically acclaimed. So I think Bethesda knows what they’re doing.
At no point did I suggest Bethesda does not know what they are doing. Nor did I suggest the game would be bad, as that would be subjective and also a poor bet considering their fan base. I think the effort and creativity going into Starfield is unimaginable… it's on another level. It looks amazing… as Skyrim did before it. The mechanics, on the other hand, appear to be straight out of Fallout 4. The purpose of my video was to showcase game mechanics that have developed before and since Skyrim and F4 so when I talk about why I think Starfield will be as boring as those games were, you understand exactly what I'm talking about. Everyone seems to have overlooked that I stated, if you liked Skyrim and F4, then Starfield is definitely gonna work for you. Personally, I want a Starfield with better user-executed mechanics. I'm done with Bethesda games, and it's largely because I've played so many better games. Lastly… The popularity and staying power of the games I pulled from is irrelevant. Nevertheless, I believe you have under-represented their success, reception, and current player base (which is largely unknowable). I predicted Starfield's gameplay will be average and will still be their best game yet. That's not a prediction of failure. Thank you for your contribution to the conversation.
i wonder how is your opinion after de direct
We now have confirmation that there are no vehicles for exploring planets. This is a huge miss. We know Star Wars Outlaws has at least one speeder, hoping for more like in Watch Dogs. Starfield still looks gorgeous AF, a Bethesda staple.
Combat looks like it’s right out of Fallout 4… with a jetpack, not great. We now know outpost construction can include some form of resource acquisition… giving bases at least 1 reason to exist. Will there be missions where you have to create a particular base for an outpost to solve a specific problem they have? Doesn’t look like it. Quests are all going to be “go there, kill people or a creature and come back.” Typical Bethesda, typical video game. Cities have different personalities, looks, backstories… but will interacting with them feel distinct? I doubt it.
Character creation? Don’t care. Skills and skill levels are uninspired. e.g. Level 4 Intimidate, “Targets now flee for a substantial amount of time.” Most skills are just buffs. Few introduce new playable mechanics. Again, it looks like stealth mechanics will be more about skill unlocks than playing stealthy. Being able to steal everyone’s sandwiches isn’t a feature unless Skyrim is all about collecting every bucket. Who cares?
Ship customization is cool, but it’s obvious from the “mech” ship shown that the modules are mostly 2x1 Lego bricks. Just like in Fallout 4 base building, people will customize the hell out of their ship before they realize the game hasn’t changed.
Ship combat: you have to unlock a skill to target enemy ship subsystems. In Horizon Zero Dawn you (the player) had to target machine subsystems. So it was a player challenge not some unlock. Bethesda boasts you can do anything in this world. Looks like you can unlock anything so your character can automatically do anything in this world and you can boast that you did something when actually your character did it for you with a buffed die roll... Like that guy who was the right religion so some culture didn’t bother him. Cool. And what did you, the player, do different? Skyrim in space? I can’t think of a more appropriate description.
Millions will love pretending to be a space person. Look at my decorated base I can’t interact with. Look at all the buffs I unlocked so everything is less challenging. Look at my cool ship that can’t hold a land vehicle because they don’t exist. I played Skyrim and Fallout 4. I don’t want another Bethesda experience.
@@MediaKitGaming i see... Well, i want another bethesda experience. So... Lets Just hope star citizen comes out great so you can play a space sim
@@ddmaster08 I'm not into star citizen either. But I'm genuinely enthusiastic about Star Wars Outlaws. Kinda early, but I'm getting a good vibe from what we've seen. And my genuine “best” to all StarField players. May it deliver on all your hopes.
@@MediaKitGaming i hope it does...about outlaws...i don't know...i just hope is not another assassins creed with a star wars skin.
I'm hoping for more of a Watch Dogs with a Star Wars skin.
I'm gonna guess and say BGS doesn't know how to implement the mechanics of those other games. From my understanding most of the staff at BGS have been there around 20+ years. An old school team that never adapted and grew with the industry, and are still using 80's/90s dice roll mechanics. So while you see things like the visuals improve in their games, there's a glaring competency problem in their ability to implement mechanics like stealth and cover systems that have become a norm in the industry.
I don't see nothing wrong in using dice rolls mechanics. This is supposed to be an RPG, not an action adventure game.
Comment makes little sense tbh.. The main thing is if you compare Skyrim and Fo4 no there's no new implementation, cause the games came out a year apart however if you compare Oblivion to Skyrim the implications are FARRRR better and more mechanics where created.. Seeing as that's about how long of a time from Skyrim to now pretty sure it's gonna be honestly epic..
@@ktdagoat1289 fo4 was 4 years after skyrim in 2015, skyrim was 4 years after oblivion in 2011. Fo4 was 7.5 years ago. You suck at timeframes
@@MrMynamesjake Didn't mean Oblivion meant Morrowind, thanks for the corrections however I'm still not wrong in 4 years people went from Xbox 360 to Xbox 1.. There wasn't some major overhaul like going from PS2 to PS3 😂.. 7.5 is a decade (which is what I was trying to say with Morrowind to Skyrim comparison) I was trying to point out that games and studios don't make major anything overhauls in a few years times but decades tend to change them DRASTICALLY.. And yeah from what they've shown this is gonna kinda blow Skyrim and Fo4 out the water on all ends..
@@sexyjon589 Bethesda games are definitely action-adventure games. ua-cam.com/video/Han_4PKHAb4/v-deo.html
That's why game will be good at it's worst. In worst case scenario we will get something like Fallout 4 in space.
UI problems are manly because of consoles. If you play PC only games you have clear UI, but when you have games that are for consoles you have tons of menus.
It's all yours, man. Enjoy. And no, consoles are not notorious for having bad menus. Almost 100% of AAA games come out for consoles and have good menus Bethesda games are outliers.
@@MediaKitGaming OK tell me an example.
An example of what? Be specific.
@@MediaKitGaming Of a good console AAA game UI.
Every game that is on cosole has UI with tons of menus.
@@Kintabl Where Skyrim’s UI falls short is not in the leveling menus or dialogue but in inventory management. A critical area for a game with so many gatherable assets. Also the organization of spells and shouts. Deus Ex Human Revolution released in 2011, the same year as Skyrim. It has a classic fullscreen menu for inventory. It released on console and PC. ua-cam.com/video/3-hp_O-UUUA/v-deo.html&ab_channel=AverRaiher
How Dark Souls (2011) did inventory i.redd.it/m9qia6myfya61.jpg
The Witcher 2 (2011) inventory static.wikia.nocookie.net/witcher/images/a/a2/Tw2_inventory.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110610152900
All 3 games had console releases. I'm not going to do any more research for you on this subject. But I invite you to look at just about ANY game on console and see how they handled inventory management. Bethesda's games will rank among the worst.
I've found that, since most games release on PC and console simultaneously, the menu experience is the same for both platforms. Further, many PC gamers prefer controllers over keyboard & mouse, making the experience nearly identical to console.
But I think we are arguing different things. Rereading your comments, you are equating MANY MENUS with BAD. I'm not counting menus as a quantity. I'm equating bad UI design with a bad user experience.
Thanks god that Skyrim didnt hard skills like eso, thanks god.
I haven't played ESO. How is melee or stealth different?
Bethesda makes the best lore, exploration, and RPG games today. I don't care about action if it takes away from the three before mentions.
It would be cool to have Assassin's creed level combat, but definitely not at the expense of a dull open world and linear story.
Comparing Elders scrolls and Fallout to obviously inferior Ubisoft games with decent combat, but terrible in almost every other thing is a crime. Bethesda knows what their making, if the open world is great, story is great, and lore is good people will buy it.
People will definitely buy it… and enjoy it. But why does it have to be an either or situation? There is no question that Starfield will be an action heavy game as were Fallout 4 and Skyrim before it. Why can't the action be as good as their stories?
A lot of your comparisons are comparing bgs to 3rd person action adventure games maybe look at other rpg games that released at the same time
I'm not criticizing Skyrim for the game it was. I'm criticizing Starfield for being stuck in the past and not moving past Skyrim and Fallout 4. Better graphics? Yes. Better gameplay? Not so much. I'm comparing open-world games to open-world games. And while Bethesda games ARE RPGs, they are also absolutely action adventure games!
Is there a difference between action and RPG games? ua-cam.com/video/Han_4PKHAb4/v-deo.html
It just looks boring to me. I'll still likely give it a chance but idk man
Just tell me there's a hoverbike for exploring and I'M IN! But that gun combat looks atrocious.
This is all here say, I get that previous Bethesda games are disappointing in these categories. But you can’t rule it out without seeing more of the game. If you are this pessimistic of a game that hasn’t come out yet then don’t play it.
What about my video gave you the impression I was going to play it?
Promo SM
I think this sum of the parts' evaluation of a game is kinda dumb. This is just like going over all the games you like, saying you'd like this feature in star field and docking starfield points for not having it. Which is a bit absurd. Like the premise of the video is so silly. "My Cooking Mama has cooking minigames! Will starfield have cooking minigames? I think not! What was Bethesda thinking?!"
@@BaseStation Exactly, but you just stated the same thing again. You have a preference for how certain mechanics work based on other games you played. For every game that has a mechanic, there are 100 other and sometimes better games that don't have that mechanic. It's an rpg game. It's going to have RPG systems. I think it's fine to want a game to have something, but having a mechanic or not has anything to do with its quality.
If you finished my video, you'd see I stated this game would definitely deliver for a certain kind of game. Further, I didn't say this game would be bad. I said I'd be bored playing it… as I was with Skyrim and F4. I would definitely consider Skyrim bad but too many people like it, so I can't really call it bad, can I? I just don't like it. And the lack of mechanics that could/should be there is the reason.
I get what you're saying. Why criticize checkers for not being chess? I think it’s because the line between RPG and non-RPG open worlds is very fuzzy. Bethesda games have shooting, stealth, melee, and traversal. So do other open worlds that do it better… what is it about having “RPG” mechanics that precludes the rest of the game from having better mechanics? Will “RPG” forever mean level up with numbers in place of player tools and controllable skills?
Elden Ring just won Best Role Playing… “for the best game designed with rich player character customization and progression”… a game that had buffs, yes, but also diverse mechanics. And if I’d said, Bethesda games don’t have ANY mechanics. You’d call me out and say, “yes, they definitely do!”
@@MediaKitGaming that's you're misunderstanding. RPG mechanic literally means using numbers to represent actions, attributes and skills. That's very literally what RPG means.
Elden Ring didn't win best role playing game because it had the best role playing mechanics. It RPG elements are actually pretty terrible, unbalanced and largely meaningless. It won because it was best game with RPG elements, not because it had the best RPG elements.
My point is you start the video with if the game will be good then go into personal shit no one cares about. If you don't like RPGs, why would the majority care about your opinion on an RPG game?
Your definition of RPG wouldn't be accurate even if we were talking about tabletop gaming. Just because RPGs HAVE had dice, chance and numbers, does not mean that's what defines them. But feel free to update the Wikipedia entry on RPGs if you think I'm wrong. And you didn't answer my question… “what is it about having “RPG” mechanics that precludes the rest of the game from having better mechanics?” Behind the glossy graphics, ALL games use numbers in their code to track movement, damage, and defense.
@MediaKit Yes, that's what an RPG is. Taking stat based systems out and replacing them with player abilities/skills is what makes something an action game. Games like ER straddle this line, but ER's stats and damage scaling systems are critical to the success of players and understanding how all the numbers work is what makes coming up with builds in Souls games very rewarding.
Any discussion that involves RPG systems neccesarily being inferior because they use numbers or "dice rolls" is probably not worth having, because it's poisoned right off the bat. Whether or not Bethesda pulls off RPG combat well is a separate discussion (and I'd argue that they're just okay at it), but if you're looking at a Bethesda stealth system and you're upset that it's based on character stats and numbers rather than pure player reactivity, just play something else.
Who hurt this man?
Who hurt you lol
Ultimately… Skyrim and Fallout 4. I paid money for those games.
@@MediaKitGaming yeah it's unacceptable for bethesda to let people spend money on their own will. Unacceptable.
@@michelegarella2794 Your retort implies that once money is spent on a product, there should be no expectation of satisfaction with that product. So if I buy a watermelon and it's rotten inside… that's on me. Can't say I share your perspective on commerce. Or perhaps you think I should have enjoyed or disliked the games BEFORE I bought and played them. Would that be more acceptable?
It seams you want Starfield to be an action game. Well it's not an action game it's an RPG. You did nothing but compare Starfield to shooter action games.
No, I want Starfield to be a GOOD action game. Skyrim, Fallout 4, & Starfield all fall under the umbrella of ARPGs… Action RPG. They are all heavily combat-focused games. There is no reason an ARPG can't have better combat and still remain an RPG. And Deus Ex: Mankind Divided IS an RPG. If you discount story paths as a requirement to be an RPG then most of the games I compared ARE RPGs, as most of them have XP and skill trees. If you require story paths as your definition of RPG, that has nothing to do with combat and should not get in the way of better combat mechanics.
Made this for you. ua-cam.com/video/Han_4PKHAb4/v-deo.html
Non of your example videos are rpgs. You’re comparing two different entire genres.
Nope. Bethesda games are Action RPGs, and the action is precisely what I’ve taken aim at.
Made this for you... ua-cam.com/video/Han_4PKHAb4/v-deo.html
Game isn't even out...NOT EVEN A DATE !...and you're already talking about "too much dna?"..wtf?!...we haven't even played it yet... feels like click bait
lol it was ass
No comparto tus criticas del todo, en algunas cosas si, al 100%, pero basicamente si te gustan las mecanicas que nombras no es un juego para ti, no son ese tipo de juego. Que se podrian mejorar con algunas cosas que nombras por supuesto, y estaria genial, pero ni Fallout 3 ni el 4, ni Skyrim ni Oblivion eran asi.
No, no es ese tipo de juego. Pero los juegos de Bethesda podrían serlo. Y están tratando de serlo. Combate cuerpo a cuerpo, combate a distancia, hechizos mágicos, sigilo. Otros juegos hacen todas estas cosas mejor. Desde Morrowind hasta Skyrim se realizaron muchas mejoras. ¿Crees que deberían volver atrás? Si tengo que aceptar que los juegos que no me gustan “simplemente no son para mí”, entonces es imposible criticar ningún juego. Gracias por compartir.
@@MediaKitGaming la critica en ciertos aspectos es compartida pero Fallout y Elders Scroll no tienen lo que pides y no creo que las incluyan de la manera que esperas. De todos modos como dices, son juegos que no te gustan, por algo sera, a mi hay juegos que no me gustan por mil cosas y ni los toco, no hago un video criticandolos y esperando a que incluyan todo lo que querria, sin acritud lo digo. Insisto en que algunas de tus criticas sobre mecanicas las comparto.
I find it a little disingenuous that you would compare Bethesda games, which dabble in multiple mechanics but focus on RPing and immersion, to games whose mechanics are the central focus of their gameplay. You can't compare Starfield's gun combat to COD, AND compare its stealth to Assassin's Creed, AND compare its melee combat to Kingdom Come, and so on, because those games don't share each other's mechanics; they're focused on their own mechanics, whereas Starfield is all those things and more.
We know from past titles and from provided materials that Starfield WILL have some mechanics that you dismissed:
- peeking (from Fo4) over low obstacles and around corners, which is subtle and doesn't require its own button as cover-shooters do
- clamor (from Fo4), which is contextual and uses the jump button to vault low obstacles (which can be seen in third person). The existence of jet packs implies that we'd also be able to clamor over high ledges that we bump into at mid-body
- juking (from Release Date Trailer), which again uses the jump button (jet pack) and is direction dependent
- distraction (Throw Voice from Skyrim), which works identically to other games by drawing NPC's to that location
Frankly, Bethesda games don't need mechanics like non-lethal takedowns, melee combos, clinging to cover, climbing tall obstacles, or crawling while prone, because the game is so many more things than those mechanics (diplomacy, crafting, etc); because the game world isn't built to take advantage of them; and because including so many mechanics would burden the player's already busy key/button assignments.
Bethesda games are meant to be minimalist so that we don't have to master the mechanics before exploring deeper into the game world. In other words, player skill is not meant to be a barrier to progress, but character attainment is. Games like Metal Gear or HZD require that you complete the puzzle-box that is their deep game mechanics so as to take on greater challenges; whereas Bethesda provides you with a broad toolbox of skills and equipment with which to approach any given situation in myriad ways that manifest the various synergies that you discover among all the skill trees. Puzzle Box vs Toolbox; two completely different paradigms.
Botmes, I actually agree with most of your points.
• Bethesda games are meant to be minimalist - agree
• Player skill is not meant to be a barrier to progress - agree
• Bethesda game worlds aren’t built to take advantage of more complex mechanics - agree
• Other games don't share each other's mechanics; they're focused on their own - agree
And for all those reasons and more, I hate them.
I only recently played F4 for the first time. Finished it. And found it to be a bloated slog. Skyrim’s combat is horrendous. When I saw the Starfield reveal, I only got flashbacks. Bethesda makes impressive strides in world-building. But their gameplay is stuck in the days of Baldur's Gate. By choice? Yes. Do people still love them? Obviously.
But with all the “go here & kill thing” mini-missions in F4 and Skyrim, I would argue those games are NOT focused on diplomacy or crafting. Diplomacy and crafting are just a veneer to explain why you’re spending so much time killing. It’s a problem with most games, actually but most games make it more fun. I wish Bethesda made funner games to complement their amazing worlds. And make no mistake, I’m 100% genuine in that feeling.
Thank you for clarifying some of the mechanics I missed in Bethesda games. Where I disagree is that I can't compare open-world games with stealth, traversal, and melee & ranged combat to other games with those same attributes. Thanks for sharing your insight.