But did you see the sheer number of bugs on launch in previous Bethesda games? This is like saying "lighters are the least dangerous fire yet." Shit's still gonna burn your house down, yo.
Fallout 4 wasn't bad at launch. A whole LOT better than New Vegas, I'll say that much.
I'll never understand why Bethesda catches these accusations so much harder than other devs that are just as bad. Hell KOTOR 2 was so broken at launch an entire mod needed to be made to finish the game. Not unofficially patch it, literally add so much that we just saw a company have to give out refunds because they couldn't include it in official console releases.
Obsidian has a long history of this, yet they're somehow beloved even though their entire rep is "we make well thought out games, and then don't finish them because we're awful at time management". I mean look at the full list. Neverwinter Nights 2: Buggy at launch, busted, toolset was messed up so nobody came over from part 1. Kotor 2: Buggy at launch, missing a ton of content, never got fixed. Alpha Protocol: demolished for having awful AI. Again, largely unpolished and taken to task for it. Dungeon Siege 3: literally killed the franchise.
It's hard to be a Bethesda fan on the internet, so many developers lean on fans to come in with patches and fix their games and ONLY THEY get heat for it. Heck, V:TM Bloodlines is one of the most popular games of all time, and it's NOTORIOUSLY glitchy without the unofficial patch.
And none of this was ever a problem whatsoever until Bethesda rescued Fallout.
I half wonder if people remember that Van Buren was canceled, and the last canonical Fallout in production was the sequel to the Slipknot soundtrack having bawls guarana shilling dumpster fire that was Brotherhood of Steel.
That’s one of the least reassuring statements I’ve ever seen a company make about their own product. They’re basically saying “it sucks less than the other stuff we’ve crapped out!”
The set of integers is a countable infinity. This is pretty obvious, since you can easily count from one member to the next.
The set of irrational numbers is an uncountable infinity. This is because if I give you one member, you can't give me an objectively "next" one. There's infinitely many choices.
Example: I say what's the next member of the set of irrational numbers after 1.05? Well, there's 1.050001, 1.056, etc.
Can a member of an infinite set be mapped to a corresponding member of another infinite set? And if so, how?
In this situation, the sets are both countable. QA can open bug #1, bug #2, etc. It's also - for now - at least a surjective mapping of Starfield bugs -> Skyrim bugs. Because they're both countable, for each bug in Starfield you can find at least one bug in Skyrim (because it's a known bigger set at the moment).
This is pretty obvious, since you can easily count from one member to the next.
I'd just like to chip in that it isn't necessary for a countably infinite set to have an obvious method of counting. Listing all of the rationals in numerical order isn't possible (what's the smallest fraction above 0?) but it is nevertheless possible to create a bijection with the naturals.
In all seriousness zenimax's studios have struggled to release compelling titles since the aquisition, i truly hope the ABK deal is 100% dead before we get even worse games...
Add comment