Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文（簡体字中国語）
繁體中文（繁体字中国語）
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština（チェコ語）
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia（インドネシア語）
Magyar（ハンガリー語）
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português（ポルトガル語－ポルトガル）
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română（ルーマニア語）
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
ルールとガイドライン
この投稿を報告する
its a decent game, it has a fallout style atmosphere but with a Mass Effect feel to it
And, it's also woke AF, if you wondered. But then, Fallout 5 is also very likely to be woke AF. That's what people obviously want these days, the wok as-F-ness.
What Starfiled rather suffers from is that it wants to be everything, and, obviously, can only be a tiny bit of everything: A (bigger) big of RPG, a bit of space combat simulator, a bit of build strategy.
A game should be focused, and do something very good, instead of doing a dozen things reasonably well. Quality > quantity. Unfortunately, that's not the Zeitgeist. It has to be BIG, and you have to be able to do A LOT of stuff, regardless whether it makes the game repetitive, unpersonal and boring as hell. And, that's mainly the issue with 99,9% of AAA games these days.
If Starfield was only a RPG, like the old Fallouts (Fallout 3 and New Vegas), then I'd probably be playing it now.
See here, for example: https://gamerant.com/starfield-success-sales-bestselling-games-2023-failure-critical-reception/
And, Redfall and Wolfenstein aren't developed by Bethesda. You could even argue that Fallout 76 wasn't developed by Bethesda. Different team.
Did Starfield sell well? Yes.
Is Starfield highly regarded? No.
Don't get me wrong, Starfield has its fans, but overall public reception has been poor.
I guess it depends what you consider as success? The development costs skyrocketed with Starfield as did marketing. It was originally meant to cost less than 200 million, which more than doubled. With marketing included it made 100-150 million profit while it was expected to break billion in total sales so final profits were fraction of what was expected. To put in perspective Fallout shelter made more money and it was a free game that came as freebie marketing for fallout 4(production costs were small and it made money with micro transactions).
Starfield fell into obscurity to the point nobody talks about the game so effectively it's not gonna rake in money with DLC either. I guess we could label it as simply massive disappointment failing to live expectations both financially and by players, but still technically making profit if we wanna be nice about it. It's unlikely to ever get second game to the hoped franchise given it took 7 years to develop which means ROI per year were plain bad. Standard S&P 500 would've been better investment for them(and since it failed as franchise you can't really justify it as future value either).
As for the studios, they are still under Bethesda. It's not like fallout 76 was made by the main team either, it was studio Austin which made Redfall too(this branch is being or has been shutdown). Main team is working on ES6 currently.
The resurgence in popularity recently proves there is a market, and Fallout London proves Bethesda aren't the only studio that can make a Fallout game.
On the other hand, Fallout 76 is a continuous money machine, so, financially, there is not much pressure for a new Fallout game.
I frankly don't set my hopes too high anyway, considering that a new Fallout would be a lot in line with most of AAA productions these days: Politically trimmed for the modern generation, and full of quantity and repetitive gameplay and needless bloat. I wouldn't be surprised if I don't buy it at all, and Fallout would be pretty much dead for me with anything coming after Fallout 4.
I probably won't buy the new GTA either, even though I'm a big GTA fan. Full of modern crap I can't relate to or identify myself with it.
It would seem that ALL the major consoles have gotten themselves into a serious problem. They are all suffering at all levels, and add to that the AAA development houses falling flat for the last year or more, and you have all the factors of a major gaming implosion for the second time (although I doubt many of you were alive for the first one)
AAA studios are blowing major budgets and -for the most part- can't sell enough copies to recoup losses. Live service games released in the last year have all collapsed - along with the supposed revenue streams they were to bring. Major Studios are breaking exclusivity deals because consoles haven't sold enough systems to meet minimum sales numbers for what studios have spent on the games for these consoles...
Meanwhile, small A and AA studios have stepped up and released some of the biggest hits of the past year, all for a fraction of the costs of the AAA studios. -And even then the Consoles shoot themselves in the foot (see Sony & Arrowhead)
its almost like the Pareto Principle in action combined with Modernity and and Echo Chamber!
imagine if all the effort poured into fallout 3, fallout 4, and fallout 76 got dumped into Fallout New Vegas instead?
I'm sure that made sense in your head. 🙄
NV is my second least favorite Fallout game, so what's my incentive here?