Forums - Gaming Discussion - Is Bethesda Softworks better than Bethesda Game Studios?

Bethesda's reputation has taken a hit recently. Fallout 76 was a disaster, and the series was already on decline under Bethesda. Skyrim has been ported to death, they attempted to monetize mods, even though the mods single handedly fix their often broken games, And many of their games are still running on that aging and dated Creation Engine. It's safe to say recent years haven't been too kind to Bethesda. At least, when you're talking about Bethesda Game Studios, the company's in-house development division. The actual publishing company, Bethesda Softworks on the other-hand, has actually been doing pretty well for itself.

Todd the Modd Howard and his group of fools may be spinning out of control, but Bethesda as a publisher has been maintaining a consistent track-record of quality. In fact I'd go as far as to say Bethesda puts out often some of the more unique AAA games in the Market. When BGS isn't doing them any favors, the company's 4 other subsidiaries and external co-productions are able to pick up the slack. Fallout New Vegas was farmed out to Obsidian (now owned by Microsoft) who did a better job with the series, than any of Bethesda's attempts at it. Doom 2016 not only brought the series back to relevance, but also proved that old-school FPS games were profitable in an era drowning in copy-paste CoD clones. Arkane Studios has also made a name for itself with Prey 2017 and the Dishonored series, and is currently working on a new IP Death Loop. Shinji Mikami's Tango Games put out some underrated Horror games this generation with The Evil Within 1 & 2, and its new game Ghostwire Tokyo. And Machine Games has been able to make some solid Wolfenstien reboots, despite the more modern game-play compared to Doom.

Is Bethesda perfect? Of course not, they've got their share of dumb BS like any gaming company out there. But I think Bethesda Game Studios is responsible for most of it. Really, the problem with BGS is the same problem with Game Freak's Pokemon team. There's some real talent at the studio, but they insist on using outdated technology, dumb things down with no rhyme or reason, and is so hell bent on living in the past. Something needs to change there, and I think it starts with firing Todd Howard, I think it's clear he's little more than dead weight at this point, using his ego and past accomplishments to make up for a lack of creativity and polish in his games.

But otherwise, Bethesda as a publisher though, isn't half bad. They put out consistently great games, and have some really talented studios under their belt. Even when BGS and Todd are making them look bad, they're still way better than EA or Activision, so that's at least something.


Around the Network

Weird... I don’t think I agree with a single thing you said other than fallout 76 was bad... I agree with that. However, fallout has been freaking amazing under Bethesda, I love all the creation engine games, and I don’t care at all about 99% of the other games Bethesda publishes...



The last good game the Game Studios have released is Oblivion. So yeah, over 10 years of trash let all the other studios shine.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Bethesda E3 says you're wrong, they're not better at publishing than at bringing bug-free games that just work. Just look what they did to Commander Keen...



They've been in creative freefall ever since Morrowind - Skyrim, while not a terrible game, is but a shadow of what TES once was.
They've bought Fallout, managed to completely miss the feel and idea behind the orginals and eventually completely fucked it up.

But I have no worries for them - mass market will gobble up another dumbed down TES/Fallout, so what they set out to do (make shitload of money) is working quite good.



Around the Network
gergroy said:
Weird... I don’t think I agree with a single thing you said other than fallout 76 was bad... I agree with that. However, fallout has been freaking amazing under Bethesda, I love all the creation engine games, and I don’t care at all about 99% of the other games Bethesda publishes...

If i would criticize fallout 4 i would say that it looks and behaves like it is a whole generation behind,it seriously looks like a ps3 game and the animation of the models is just so awful to look at while the story is bland in and boring in my opinion and there is not much variety and creativity put into the enemy's.

Voiceacting is just plainly bad and effortless,the building and customization is mildly creative but it is purposeless in my opinion.

I could excuse a lot of this if it was done by a small studio but Bethesda should have been evolving for a long time now and i just do not see that,they should take note from Obsidian.

I do hope the best for the next Elder scrolls and Star field but Fallout 4 felt to me like it was meant as a funding for those two without being a too big investment.



I dont know, arent Fallout 4 and Skyrim the most successful games of their respective franchises?
I know a lot of people criticized Skyrim for minimizing the role playing and having a more easier adventure approach, but thats exactly what made it break into a much bigger market than the TES franchise ever did before. To me, Morrowing was a slug fest. I dont have time to play games like that anymore.



It’s been a while since I read an OP here as bad as this one.

Can’t say I agree to anything that was said except for the part about Fallout 76.

So props for that I guess.




Jpcc86 said:
I dont know, arent Fallout 4 and Skyrim the most successful games of their respective franchises?
I know a lot of people criticized Skyrim for minimizing the role playing and having a more easier adventure approach, but thats exactly what made it break into a much bigger market than the TES franchise ever did before. To me, Morrowing was a slug fest. I dont have time to play games like that anymore.

Well, EA is a successful publisher with many successful games and series. Doesn't mean that they are good guys, or that their games are really good - just that they have much marketing going for them.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
Jpcc86 said:
I dont know, arent Fallout 4 and Skyrim the most successful games of their respective franchises?
I know a lot of people criticized Skyrim for minimizing the role playing and having a more easier adventure approach, but thats exactly what made it break into a much bigger market than the TES franchise ever did before. To me, Morrowing was a slug fest. I dont have time to play games like that anymore.

Well, EA is a successful publisher with many successful games and series. Doesn't mean that they are good guys, or that their games are really good - just that they have much marketing going for them.

Sure, but the numbers we are talking here are not exactly "average" at all. In any case im not talking only sales-wise. EA for example can make (and it does) bad games that sell very well, but those games are not exactly in the "goty" discussion like Skyrim or Fallout4. 

But my point is I dont really consider these to be "its got good reviews but its got bad rep amonst the audience games" like, lets say, The Last Jedi film did. I literally cant picture Skyrim as a game were we say "this is where TES went downhill" like I do with FF13, because I very rarely encounter anyone who gives it bad rep, almost everyone loves it. And again, it made TES a more accesible franchise for general audiences, and not only the niche hardcore role playing audience it had.