Bethesda... How early is "early"?

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Wii U
  3. Bethesda... How early is "early"?

User Info: kissdadookie

3 years ago#51
mjc0961 posted...
quickposter posted...
WTF is he on about? Gearbox, Team Ninja, Ubisoft, Treyarch and many others confirmed Nintendo kept changing the hardware according to their feedback.

What he's on about is that Wii U doesn't have as much memory as PS4 and Xbone, which means Bethesda would have to try harder to get their games on their crappy, bloated, inefficient engine to run properly on Wii U (just look at how bad they are on PS3). So instead they're taking the lazy route (no surprise there) and just sticking to the consoles that have more RAM so they don't have to fix their garbage, memory hogging engine.

What kind of asinine argument are you making here? Have you even bothered to play Skyrim? Please oh wise one that apparently knows all about optimizing game engines, how do you suppose they make something like Skyrim any more efficient and less memory hungry when you can literally walk every inch of the outdoor world without any load screens AND have essentially EVERY object you knock over, pick up, drop down, etc. actually STAY where they are when you go back to them 10 hours later? Granted, the PS3 version was pretty bad BUT the PS3 also had a ridiculously limited memory system in place. It was shocking that they actually were able to get something like Skyrim to run at all on the PS3.

Here's the problem, you know nothing about how the game was designed and you know NOTHING about the scope of a game like Skyrim. All you know is about the critics and gamers complaining about the PS3 version of Skyrim and then just assume that Bethesda was just being lazy. No, Bethesda was actually NOT being lazy, what they WERE doing was being greedy. They forced a game that REALLY should not be running on the PS3 on to the PS3 just to cash in on that large PS3 customer base. It was a bad logistical decision but not really a bad technical flaw. It wasn't being lazy programmers, if anything, Bethesda has put TREMENDOUS amount of work being able to get that game to run on the PS3 hardware at all.

Do you even understand what further innovation in video games involves? It involves MORE of the kinds of games that Skyrim is. MORE games where everything you do in the world is persistent. Where you can play a game like Last of Us and be able to explore ALL the buildings and doors you see in the environment. Where your bullet holes basically all stay in place even 20 hours later traveling a map the size of 4 US states. Guess what? You're going to need the proper hardware to be able to support moving video gaming FORWARD. You think Zelda games are efficiently programmed? They only really appear to be efficiently programmed because they are essentially incredibly linear games, no real persistance system in the game world, etc. Nintendo still design their games much like how they have been designing games since the NES. Nintendo also builds their hardware to first and foremost support THEIR OWN VISION of what video games should be. 3rd party developers want to develop games the way THEY want to develop and design games, they don't want to be boxed into what Nintendo wants them to design.

User Info: ZimbabweBob

3 years ago#52
overkillwfo1978 posted...
Emerald_Melios posted...
overkillwfo1978 posted...
NerdimusPrime posted...
Bethesda wanted all consoles to be gaming PC's with controllers, Nintendo didn't agree with that approach. If Sony had went with their plan A ( GPCPU design similar to the Wii U), we wouldn't be having this discussion. Since Nintendo was the only company making a gaming console instead of PC for your TV, they didn't fit into this vision.

Yes. Exactly. And clearly Sony was very smart for changing to meet the needs of everyone else. This isn't just about Bethseda. It's about Rockstar, it's about EA, it's about every major developer of AAA titles and what they want and need. The end result is that because the other consoles listened to the giants of the industry and what they required, those systems will all see high grade, amazing, AAA multiplats, while hard headed Nintendo will have only their 1st party titles, because the dinosaur of the gaming industry has to have things it's way or no way at all. The losers are Wii U only owners who will miss out on many, many awesome titles... all while repeating those laughable lines "I never wanted that game anyway, I'm glad it's not on the Wii U". Sad.

Do you seriously believe EA's games are "high grade, amazing?" I'm beginning to wonder if this is a corporate shill.

Poor Nintendo fanboy. Is that the best you've got? Disregarding every single other point in my post to pick out one developer and pair that with a description I gave? Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Grasping at straws to support your laughable defense of Nintendo when you know I am right about their horrible decision making processes regarding 3rd parties causing them to flee in flocks from the system. EA has had some great games under their belt, so has Bethseda, so has R*, so has Gearbox.. the list goes on and on. PS4 and Xbone will surely see tons of awesome multiplats from all of these companies. How many will hard headed Nintendo see? You guessed it. Zero.

How's that for "corporate shill"?

Most companies avoiding the Wii U are not doing so because of the hardware. EA is taking a dump on the Wii U because they are still mad that Nintendo Network isn't Origin (crysis 3 was running nicely on Wii U). Bethesda hasn't made a Nintendo game in gods knows how long, so they weren't exactly chomping at the bit to dev for them. Rockstar, same deal and Gearbox shot it's wad with Borderlands 2, essentially gimping Aliens so badly that no one would have wanted to buy it anyways.

Nintendo does things their own way. I personally think it's a good thing for gamers and gaming, you seem to feel otherwise. Perhaps you should get a gaming PC with an HDMI out and controller ports, it sounds like that is what you are wanting. I still enjoy what Nintendo has to offer as they focus more on the gameplay than spectacle. they still get support from companies that see their vision. If you don't agree with how Nintendo does things, there are other options. I, for one, will be sticking with them because I know when it comes to gaming entertainment, they deliver like no other company on the planet.
You only get smarter by playing a smarter opponent.
NNID: ZimbabweBob

User Info: Emerald_Melios

3 years ago#53
That's why the only third-party support that matters are compies like Atlus. The big name companies like EA, Square Enix, Bethesda, etc. have generally pissed me off too much.

User Info: arvilino

3 years ago#54
overkillwfo1978 posted...
Mankind2pointO posted...
Nintendo doesn't have to play ball with the 3rd Party Cartel. Sony and MS are beholden to 3rd parties. Every dick movie that MS tried to pull and is trying to pull with Xbox One can be attributed to the 3rd parties. They say "jump," MicroSony say "how high sirs?!" They're pulling the strings. Nintendo retains its autonomy. That's why the 3rd Party Cartel hates Nintendo and pulls support from them, under the most transparent of guises no less. This gen these fools blamed Nintendo 1st party strength and the user base for why their lazy, shovel wear garbage couldn't sell on Wii. With the Wii U, it's something else.

Ever stop to think that Nintendo rejects the 3rd parties' "cinematic" vision of video games? They have a their own vision of video games that doesn't align with where the Industry wants to go. Games as games, not as movies or hiking simulators. They are still rooted in arcade philosophy. Sony and MS are rooted in the philosophy of offering watered down PC gaming, multi-media mastery, and cinematic tomfoolery.

The Wii was a terrible, terrible system bent on pleasing casuals who want to jump around in their living rooms with motion controls. Imo, the worst home console Nintendo has ever made by far. The only thing that sub-HD trash system was good for was shovelware... and lol @ you trying to discount an entire segment of the most popular games on the market just because they don't fit into Nintendo's 30 year old vision of how gaming should be. A real, all-encompassing console has EVERYTHING. Not just Nintendo's vision of what games should be, but a sampling of the best games from every genre, from many developers... if you are too closed minded to see that, I feel sorry for you.

This is when most of HD last gen proved is a group of good developers can produce fewer games(that aren't copy-paste sequels) with less variety and more homogeneity that functioned and recieved worse than their sub-HD previous entries in the same time span.

Best example is how between 1997-2001 Final Fantasy VII, VIII, IX and X were released. Between 2006-2010 Final Fantasy XII and XIII were released, HD development in generation 7 totally worth it right?
"The fact of the matter is that we've been here constantly. We've been betraying peoples expectations, in a good way, for a long time."
  1. Boards
  2. Wii U
  3. Bethesda... How early is "early"?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived