Not being intended as a joke makes it even funnier. I mean, the lack of awareness is amazing.

Wait, you think I’m defending them?

Making statements about why shitty games are not the fault of old technology is not a defense of said shitty games.

They always make the same game, they ship it broken and keep it broken. The best game in their franchises since at least since Morrowind was made by another studio. The lore is derivative and as deep as a puddle. They sell their games based on bullet points and features and not quality.

I don’t like their recent output at all. I find their design philosophy and quest design outdated and lacking, recent games feel older that previous ones.

But none of those things are the engine’s fault. They ship exactly the game they want to ship, and use the engine that lets them do it as efficiently as possible. If they are limited at all is in their production organization or lack thereof.

Are you denying that Skyrim, Fallour 3 and 4, or Starfield are commercial successes? Even Starfield was a critically acclaimed game for a while.

Most people are okay without mods because they can’t install them in their platform of choice so they don’t expect them. They have heard about them in articles and videos and find them an oddity of PC gaming, at most.

It is really easy to fall into an echo chamber and believing most of the people that buys Bethesda games are fixing them with mods. That’s an option only for a minority of players, and of those many won’t install them. They play 30~60 hours and won’t launch the game ever again.

It’s not easy to change engines. But they could afford it, if they could justify it.

I think you overestimate how many people actually install or care about mods. Many people just seems to like what Bethesda does.

Oblivion was a smash hit on Xbox without mods. Since that the main sellers seems to be the console versions.

I’m sure that many people in the studio are having a bad time with how quick the internet discourse has gone into “Starfield Actually Bad” territory. It’s not easy refining that kind of feedback.

BUT. BUT. I’m not sure about the “until now” because Starfield has sold incredibly well, even for a game launched directly in game pass and not supporting PS5.

Even if internet gaming people don’t like the game, the market said it’s ok. BioWare survived a few blunders until destroying their brand, and Blizzard still goes strong.

They don’t want to. They have a formula, and the public and the market have spent decades saying that it’s good enough and want “Skyrim in Space”

If they want to change how inventory works they can, in whatever engine they are using. But why would they?

Also, I find pretty ironic to expect “Innovation” in a game with a number 6 attached to it, from a studio known for doing 3 franchises so similar to each other in gameplay and features that are used to describe each other. And to blame the tech for the lack of it.

I thing you are looking at this backwards.

They have the money and resources to change engine. They CHOSE not to. Because they can make the game they want to make faster and more efficiently on Creation Engine. If they could not make the game they want they would be forced to move to another game engine.

If their idea for Elder Scrolls 6 can be made in CE they won’t change engines. If it does not, they aren’t some indie studio, they have the resources to swap.

As I said Creation Engine did mot stop another studio from being creative.

They are not being hold back by Creation Engine in game design, they are stuck in a design philosophy and production strategy that until now has and got them lots of praise and sales.

They use the chest trick because saves reworking the inventory and container system. That would take time and left the game almost the same, so they don’t.

If they used Unreal engine they’d have to build a new inventory and container system from scratch, who knows if they would end up taking the hidden chest idea (it mostly works) and porting it?

The “Update your engine Bethesda” discussion is valid from many points of view, but most of the problems with current Bethesda releases are cultural. They don’t test nearly enough, they don’t have a “fun” game until a couple months before release, they don’t coordinate the content and mechanics production in any way, the quest writing is a free for all.

And until now things worked out. So they refuse to address those issues.

How would a engine change affect the game design philosophy of Bethesda?

Performance? Visuals? Alright. But game design?

Creation Engine powers Starfield and Fallout New Vegas. Quests can be complex, dynamic, with multiple endings, with lots of ways to approach them. Or they can be flat fetch quests. The tools allow both and everything in between.

Bethesda just chooses to use the current game design framework and would choose the same on any other engine.

They are actually updating their game design principles. They stopped using game design documents, they simplified the quests, they try to make sure every play through gets to see as much content as possible. Maybe they should stop updating.

The apple third party App Store solution should be in a list under the title: Notable Examples in Malicious Compliance

When has that stopped any tech or fake-tech company from making their IPO?

The IPO is where the Venture Capitalist get their paychecks. Is that or being acquired by some big tech like Google or Microsoft.

The current vc investments can not really be recouped with profits. They exist to make company valuation as big as possible before the IPO, so they can as much money as possible selling as much as the company as they can without losing control of the board.

The company will pump REVENUE just before the IPO to increase valuation, but the PROFIT right now is inconsequential in comparación with the total addressable market. It’s all pure speculation and a terrible way to make a sustainable business, but it’s the best way to get a lot of money for the VC and the founders.

Well, I have spent countless hours between Zachtronics games and Factorio, so…

Yes, I’d play that.

It’s getting bigger, but I said they WERE less than an 1%. And macOS was bigger that Linux for ages.

Then Apple proved they were not an ideal alternative platform, being even more closed than Microsoft, and not understanding the games ecosystem, so Valve pivoted and got into the Linux thing, failed with the Steam Machines, pivoted into Proton, and now I have a Deck.

The technology used by Valve is Irrelevant. The operating system losing support is not even supported by apple. The users of that version of MacOs are at risk because they use a closed source unmantained operating system.

As I said Apple is not concerned with kind of old software. They expect everyone to move up with them, developers and users, or get left behind.

Portal is a game released THE SAME YEAR the iPhone was. In classic hit PC game time that’s “nothing”, you expect to be able to run it, but in Apple’s timeline is ancient history. Take a look into how many iPhone games just won’t work anymore.

They tried. Then apple dropped 32bit binaries support.

Apple is a very expensive partner to have. They do whatever they want with their ecosystem and many developers have been burned when apple decides to make their work obsolete or outright copies it and makes part of the bundled in apps.

So. It would be amazing if valve updated every one of their games for new versions of macOS and if they would kept MacOS proton support. But macOS is a moving target that will break backwards compatibility whenever it suits apple. So I understand that is hard to justify the investment.

In the end MacOs and Linux where less than a 1% of the Steam user base. But one is an open ecosystem where there is competition and some semblance of respect for backwards compatibility and the other is a closed and sometimes hostile environment.

Some media organizations have started nuking old articles to please the Google algorithm

Sounds like a “you want us to buy Nintendo? Me too buddy…”

What I’m saying it’s that for many games and for many gamers it does not matter, and you can in fact play the game even if it goes bellow 30fps in the deck. But if you need a mouse for clicking “Start Adventure” you can’t play it without doing some hop jumping on your part.

So, for the Deck Verified badge

• Frame rate is not important (it’s a subjective opinion if 30fps, 40fps or 60fps are needed and for what percentage of the play time is acceptable to go bellow.
• Game can be played with gamepad is important (objetive. If you need extra hardware you need to know it)
• Game will launch is important (objetive. Non launching games can’t be played)
• Game text can be read is important (objetive. Most games have text that you need to read to actually play them)

In my opinion expecting the badge to mean any other thing than what Valve means with it will be an exercise in frustration on your part.

“Technically good” or “Technically bad” are not the benchmarks for the label. Maybe you should look for that in another place?

It’s not (only) a port thing. The game is 30fps locked in every platform.

Doom was 35fps hardcode locked. Could not go above that. Not a port. There are always compromises, and sometimes they are in frame rate.

And, in another order of things, what do you get from 60fps Europa Universalis? 60fps is a cool metric for the usually available monitors and TVs, and I love having at least that in most games. But in many games 30fps and 60fps are the same with a somewhat jumpier mouse cursor. And they are usually the most PC games of them all.

Would I play 30fps Devil May Cry? I don’t think I could if I wanted. Would I play Baldur’s Gate 3 at 24fps? Doesn’t really make that much of a difference in most of the gameplay. Would it be cool to play BG3 at 120fps? Yeah, but my computer is ancient and the deck does not have that kind of power.

I can’t play Deathloop for example. 30fps first person games are really hard in my eyes. The camera movement and input lag are too much.

Many people play games at 40fps on the deck. Maybe taking a look in ProtonDB or Steam reviews is more useful than having a 8 tier verification system?

As I understand Verified should be runs on the deck in SteamOS stable, at 30fps most of the time, text can be read, game is 100% playable with gamepad.

Playable should be you will jump hops. Text is not legible on the deck screen, input with a keyboard or mouse is required, launchers make weird launching the game.

The Verified program is not a performance benchmark. It’s a baseline and each gamer has different performance thresholds.

Some games won’t run at 60fps in any platform (Dark Souls original release) so they should not be PC verified?

I’m on act 3. The performance level is acceptable to me. 30fps/1080p (docked) on low settings.

I’m having more bugged quest or game does not want to detect your mouse right now problems than graphics or performance ones.