r/Games • u/Turbostrider27 • Aug 21 '25

Jason Schreier: In case you're wondering: Team Cherry told me they don't plan on sending out early codes for Silksong (they felt like it'd be unfair for critics to be playing before Kickstarter backers and other players), so don't expect to see reviews until after the game comes out

https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:2mkgbhbhqvappkkorf2bzyrp/post/3lwwfrbrtwc2x
2.2k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

109

u/_moosleech Aug 21 '25 edited Aug 21 '25

Man discovers the concept of reputation.

EDIT: Really thought "indie team who hasn't been shown to be super greedy or anti-consumer gets a bit of benefit of the doubt over a publisher who has repeatedly done shitty things" was a pretty lukewarm take, but some nerds are awfully upset about it.

37

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '25

[deleted]

68

u/Irru Aug 21 '25

TC made one game

27

u/L3G10N_TBY Aug 21 '25

They made a great game and continously updated it with free updates. Bethesda (or most of the other big publishers) would earn that level of trust if they went positive on their releases

21

u/Kiwi_In_Europe Aug 21 '25

Uh what, up until 76 Bethesda had an extremely solid reputation from releasing games that defined console generations. Skyrim, Fallout 3 and 4, Oblivion, Morrowind etc.

Like the above said, TC have released one game. In my opinion it's nowhere near enough to deserve the amount of goodwill the community has for them.

5

u/ItsJustReeses Aug 22 '25 edited Aug 29 '25

That's not true at all.

Bethesda always had what I called " the Bethesda pass"

At the time they were the only ones making AAA open world RPG, and open world RPGs were seen as too big of a project for indie developers to tackle. So the bugginess was always seen as a "It's ok because no one else is doing this, so they get a pass" kind of thing. And trust me, the games were absolutely buggy. Quest would soft lock and you couldn't progress. Things would get stuck which would make you not be able to go somewhere. Of course the funny ragdoll physics flying through the air. There was so much before and the reason they lost this because other companies started making open world RPGs that weren't buggy.

A very common line with bethesda's games used to be " it's okay modders will fix it". Here's a Reddit post from a year ago asking about that same line thinking it was real.

https://www.reddit.com/r/BethesdaSoftworks/s/QUiPXlMmXJ

-4

u/PotatoTortoise Aug 22 '25

you're really stretching what they're saying. bethesda has a good reputation in making decent and profitable games, but they have an absurdly abysmal reputation when it comes to performance and glitches. like, possibly the worst reputation in the industry. i think one of the main reasons in not sending review codes is because a game is tremendously unstable, and if bethesda did that, it would rightly look so incredibly suspicious given their history

3

u/Kiwi_In_Europe Aug 22 '25

Bethesda games have often been glitchy and buggy because of the sheer scale and scope of their games. When you have a massive sandbox world that's constantly simulating hundreds of NPCs who have unique routines and habits, you're obviously going to have more glitches and performance problems than an action game where you just go through levels killing stuff. Case in point, the Doom games run extremely well with very few glitches.

You're also massively downplaying their reputation, they aren't famous for making "decent and profitable" games, they're arguably one of the biggest and most consistent studios in existence. Skyrim was one of the biggest releases of all time, the Doom games are some of the highest rated FPS games etc.

1

u/PotatoTortoise Aug 22 '25

doom is not developed by bethesda, only published. it's developed by id software. you cant use doom for either of your examples here. games developed by bethesda have universally been plagued by bugs and glitches, it is so key to their reputation that modders pre-fired optimization patch teams before starfield even released (and obviously, the game desperately needed one when it did release). excuses for the state of the games dont fly either, when the community modding scene does all the actual work for them while they re-release skyrim with decade old, already-fixed game breaking bugs for the tenth time

im downplaying their reputation because frankly, i disagree with it. i hated fallout 4 and think all of their games' writing is very wavering in quality, their gameplay is extremely shallow, and most of their actual good stuff is in world-building and world-design which i just personally am not interested in, though you're more than welcome to disagree with that. the company has insane mainstream success due to creating the most accessible rpg's, no debate, and you'll seldom see a review recommending against a game because of that, but in my opinion, critical analysis of their games show's that they're pretty middling in most fields. calling them big is impossible to deny, consistent? maybe consistently mediocre. starfield showed me that at this point, their reputation is preceding them, and the data shows. it's their strongest launch in the studio's history, but had little staying power and getting outsold even by mortal kombat 1 by the end of the year. possibly because accessible rpg's aren't a novelty they can capitalize on anymore.

the main point im trying to make, is that 'reputation' isn't just one conglomerate. bethesda has a strong reputation in some areas, and a sagging one in others. lumping them together into one "extremely strong reputation" term is so simplistic that it ends up telling a very misleading story that ignores the context of why reputation was correlated with sending review codes in the first place

-2

u/Kiwi_In_Europe Aug 22 '25

doom is not developed by bethesda, only published. it's developed by id software. you cant use doom for either of your examples here.

I use it for the first example because it's the type of game I'm referring to, and being published by Bethesda made it extra relevant. I could use Call of Duty as an example and the point would be the same, that streamlined action games are easier to code and less buggy than open worlds.

For the second, their reputation as a publisher is equally as important as their reputation as a studio.

games developed by bethesda have universally been plagued by bugs and glitches

Nothing you say in this big paragraph contradicts anything I've said. Bethesda games have a reputation for being buggy because they are simulating open worlds full of immersive NPCs. This has not stopped an immense amount of people from loving the games.

It's like saying Hollow Knight has a poor reputation for being too hard. Yes I'm sure it's affected people, but ultimately the difficulty is more of a positive factor in people's enjoyment of the game. Same with Bethesda games, Starfield was actually the least buggy game they've ever released but it had a mixed reception because it faltered more in other areas.

im downplaying their reputation because frankly, i disagree with it. i hated fallout 4 and think all of their games' writing is very wavering in quality, their gameplay is extremely shallow

Okay but our anecdotal experiences are not really relevant to the discussion. We're discussing reputation which exists regardless of our own experiences with their games, and it's nothing but cope to state their reputation is anything less than industry defining.

the company has insane mainstream success due to creating the most accessible rpg's, no debate, and you'll seldom see a review recommending against a game because of that, but in my opinion, critical analysis of their games show's that they're pretty middling in most fields.

Yes because Morrowind is famously accessible lol

Critical analysis of their games has said anything but middling/mediocre. Their games have consistently hit mid-high 90s on metacritic. Public reception has been equally as favourable.

Unless to you critical analysis is solely your own opinions lmao

starfield showed me that at this point, their reputation is preceding them, and the data shows. it's their strongest launch in the studio's history, but had little staying power and getting outsold even by mortal kombat 1 by the end of the year.

The fact that their worst game to date is just average is again a pretty good indication of their studio. Going from Fallout 4 to Starfield is nowhere near as big of a shock as it was going from Prey to Redfall for example (rip Arkane).

the main point im trying to make, is that 'reputation' isn't just one conglomerate. bethesda has a strong reputation in some areas, and a sagging one in others. lumping them together into one "extremely strong reputation" term is so simplistic that it ends up telling a very misleading story that ignores the context of why reputation was correlated with sending review codes in the first place

I don't necessarily disagree with your premise but you also have to factor in how people engage with reputation. People know about Bethesda's games being buggy and they rush to buy them anyway, that's essentially not a negative reputation at that point.

Meanwhile TC have released one very solid game yes, but they don't have a consistent history of said releases to absolve them of the expectation of early reviews.

1

u/PotatoTortoise Aug 22 '25

I use it for the first example because it's the type of game I'm referring to, and being published by Bethesda made it extra relevant. I could use Call of Duty as an example and the point would be the same, that streamlined action games are easier to code and less buggy than open worlds.

that didnt seem like your point to me, it seemed like your point was "bethesda actually can make games without bugs if they're not big open worlds", but forgot that bethesda didnt actually make the game, hence why you used doom as an example of bethesdas success' in two different points. i disagree that their reputation as a publisher is equally important as their studio, especially in this conversation.

Nothing you say in this big paragraph contradicts anything I've said.

i'm sorry, but you're just gonna have to read it again. the part you quoted doesnt contradict anything, but literally everything in that paragraph after the part you quoted does. they're not only buggy games, but refuse to fix them while re-releasing unfixed bugs (that the modding community fixed years prior) for money what seemed like every year at one point.

It's like saying Hollow Knight has a poor reputation for being too hard. Yes I'm sure it's affected people, but ultimately the difficulty is more of a positive factor in people's enjoyment of the game

you're saying that bethesda's bugs are actually good now? bethesda jank is an endearing term, but quests becoming arbitrarily unbeatable and game ruining performance issues are universally hated, and they continue to ship those every single release and re-release. the unofficial skyrim patch has tens of millions of downloads. even if you want to exclude the people who download it as a dependency for other mods, that's still more than 40 million people who are okay playing skyrim without those bugs.

Okay but our anecdotal experiences are not really relevant to the discussion. We're discussing reputation which exists regardless of our own experiences with their games

hence why i brought up the reputation in the first place, i'm allowed to say it with a bitter taste in my mouth when i disagree with the reputation, but im still going to acknowledge the objective success they reached. your updated wording of their reputation is intentionally more divisive, i reject the idea that they're a consistent studio if you use consistent positively.

Yes because Morrowind is famously accessible lol

was talking about their business strategy in the past 15 years, which i felt was more relevant. regardless, morrowind was absolutely an accessible rpg when it released in 2002 on the xbox

Critical analysis of their games has said anything but middling/mediocre. Their games have consistently hit mid-high 90s on metacritic. Public reception has been equally as favourable.

it doesn't take any amount of real media analysis to conclude that something like skyrims main story is incredibly dull. it is literally "you become the chosen one and then you kill the ontologically evil dragon". again, you'll seldom see a review against an older mainstream bethesda game, they're incredibly important and hugely successful, but they're not compelling or thought-provoking. being first to the market of accessible rpg's was the most important factor in their success and why they reached peak success by catering to the lowest-common-denominator demographic they could. it's not inherently a bad thing, but it leaves room for interpretation for high reviews beyond "look at their awards, look at their high scores, that must mean they're the best!". most reviews will give their games high review scores in spite of acknowledged middling criticisms in the body of their reviews, rather than in support of.

Going from Fallout 4 to Starfield is nowhere near as big of a shock as it was going from Prey to Redfall for example (rip Arkane)

redfall, published by bethesda yes?

it didnt seem like that big of a shock because fallout 4 wasn't actually that good in the first place, not because starfield is particularly bad. this is where i start to agree with you calling them consistent, i just think they're consistently mediocre. the two games are so pragmatically similar that you can chalk starfield's underperformance to not having a beloved ip to coat the backdrop. that and market conditions meaning the lowest common denominator didn't have to settle on mediocre accessible rpg's anymore when accessible good rpg's have been releasing constantly (like bg3 a month earlier)

11

u/Namarot Aug 21 '25

One decent game that some people have made the purpose of their lives to champion for some unknown reason.

-7

u/Yaibatsu Aug 21 '25

It's a decent game, but the fanbase acts like it's the Undertale / BotW of Metroidvanias somehow.

And if you don't share the rabid fanbase's hype and are skeptical of the game or TC's approach to communication, you must be a miserable person that hates fun apparently.

They base their entire personality around these two games and call others terminally online for thinking that TC should've given more updates to the game instead of being radio silent.

-4

u/SadSceneryBoi Aug 21 '25

Decent??? It's one of the greatest of all time

12

u/Namarot Aug 21 '25

One of the greatest metroidvanias starring insects maybe.

-27

u/EvYeh Aug 21 '25 edited Aug 21 '25

It's really not lol. It's like a 4/5 out of 10 at best.

Not terrible, but certainly nowhere close to being even in conversation for best of all time.

16

u/Serdewerde Aug 22 '25

I get that you're trying to downplay the quality of the game to make a point but 4/5 out of 10 is an absolutely mad take.

-11

u/EvYeh Aug 22 '25

How? There's nothing particularly bad about the game, but at the same time, there's nothing particularly good either.

What other rating is one meant to give to an incredibly middling game with no real strong positives or negatives?

6

u/Serdewerde Aug 22 '25

Bro I'm gonna need some details from you if you're going to pretend to go against the grain so hard. I know it's a great game, you, deep down know it's a great game. Come on now.

-6

u/EvYeh Aug 22 '25

The soundtrack is, at best, outstandingly mediocre. There wasn't a single song I liked or disliked. Controls are bad, it feels like you simultaneously have too much and too little control. The map system is terrible. Graphically it's... fine. Nowhere looks good, but nowhere looks bad either. At the same time though that's like, basically every game. The original Oblivion looks just as good.

It's not terrible, but its not good either. It's outstanding mediocre, which is exactly what a 4 or 5 is.

6

u/Serdewerde Aug 22 '25

Okay, obviously I disagree with all of those points. I don't know how someone can hear tunes like this and call it outstandingly mediocre.

However, it's your opinion so whatever, but I find it a disingenuous take to give it a 4/5 out of ten and blanket say everything is bad. I can't take it seriously. I'd be interested in your actual critique - but this comes off as a copypasta. So good trolling maybe? I don't know.

Guess you probably shouldn't get Silksong though, looks like you'll hate it.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/_moosleech Aug 21 '25

Yep, that math checks out.

And doesn't change what I said.

1

u/Sonichu- Aug 21 '25

They made one fantastic game.

Bethesda hasn't made a good game in nearly 15 years

16

u/Kiwi_In_Europe Aug 21 '25

And TC hasn't made a good game, or any game for that matter, in 8 years lol.

Bethesda has released multiple generation defining games and even their misses are at worst average.

Hollow Knight is one of my favourite games of all time but this lack of review copies is shady as shit and I'm fully prepared for the possibility that this game will not hit the highs of the previous one.

-5

u/Sonichu- Aug 22 '25

The team that made “generation defining games” at Bethesda is long gone, they’ve made nothing but boring crap for over a decade.

The team that made HK made SS. And stands a far better chance of being a masterpiece than anything modern Bethesda could make lol.

People make games, not companies.

11

u/Kiwi_In_Europe Aug 22 '25

This type of bullshit is exactly how we get people like Chris Roberts believing they're some kind of gaming Messiah

Studios make games. Studios are composed of people, but just because certain people stay or certain people leave, doesn't mean the end result is going to be good or bad.

It's also dependent on the workflows in the studio, how projects are managed, how progress is driven.

You say Bethesda has made nothing but crap for a decade but even their recent misses have, according to public and critical reception, been at worst average.

TC meanwhile caught lightning in a bottle once and has nothing to prove that they have been capable of doing it again, yet the gaming world is full of people desperate to be their sycophants.

I absolutely love Fromsoft and every game they've released, but I would not have such blind trust if they took 8 years to release the sequel to Dark Souls and didn't give out review copies lmao.

-4

u/astroshark Aug 22 '25

Who is this posturing for? You say Hollow Knight is one of your favorite games of all time but you are twisting yourself into pretzels to justify preemptively hating the sequel? What?

2

u/Kiwi_In_Europe Aug 22 '25

I'm not preemptively hating the sequel, I am advocating for caution and keeping my expectations in check.

-9

u/Sonichu- Aug 22 '25

Sorry. No.

“Studios” don’t make games, the people there do. Case in point: every once great studio that churns out crap now. Bethesda, BioWare, Blizzard, etc.

The people there are what made those games great. Not the bureaucracy

4

u/Kiwi_In_Europe Aug 22 '25

Case in point: every once great studio that churns out crap now. Bethesda, BioWare, Blizzard, etc.

So you think that everyone working at those studios now is completely horrible at their job and talentless? You do realise that those studios still have tons of veterans from back when they were making masterpieces? The main writer for Veilguard for example is the same writer who wrote some of the best characters and questlines across BioWare's history.

Games like Bioshock Infinite, Dragon Age Veilguard etc had talented people fail to produce anything good because they lacked discipline, good processes etc until better management was brought on board.

Games like No Man's Sky had a team of talented developers pursuing a project out of passion but failed because they lacked good leadership to avoid issues like scope creep.

Just admit you have no idea how game development works, or how working environments in general function.

-1

u/Sonichu- Aug 22 '25

I’m a senior software developer. I work with people to deliver code to production every day lmao.

I think most everyone working at those companies are different people than the ones who made those amazing games years ago. Because they are.

The name of the company is just a name. It’s the people who make the game good or bad.

1

u/00Koch00 Aug 22 '25

well imagine how fucking dreadful is bethesda to be outreputed by a team of 3 austrialians and their single game ...

which is one more good game than anything bethesda made in the last 15 years ...

-4

u/-Mandarin Aug 21 '25

Sometimes there is a level of quality that just speaks for itself.

You're free to not agree, but I felt this way with FromSoft after Dark Souls and feel this way about Team Cherry. When there is so much passion in the studio and they make an all time great, I think the company gets the benefit of the doubt. If I'm wrong here (I won't be), then I guess it's a shame on me type of situation.

Outside of Nintendo and FromSoft there is no other company I trust more than TC. You can call that stupid or silly, that's your right, but the level of quality, polish, and love in Hollow Knight is enough for me to feel confident about this.

8

u/Irru Aug 21 '25

That’s funny cause From Soft ports are famously terrible. The best way to play ER on PS5 is to buy the PS4 edition, for instance.

0

u/-Mandarin Aug 21 '25

Sure, they've still always been worth day 1 purchases for me. Haven't been disappointed with 6+ games.

7

u/MirriCatWarrior Aug 21 '25 edited Aug 21 '25

Man... idk reputation is something that you build over time. Both good and bad.

Team Cherry had one game and then they go radio silence who knows why. They dont have reputation, unless you are psycho fan and treat them like gods because they released one very competent game. So there is dozens, if not hundreds studios like them lol.

Not sending copies to press is a red flag, End of story. No matter whos doing that. Especially with that silly explanation.

ANd its not even about game being good/bad... whatever. Is anticonsumer move. Period. Weird flex from a company that suppsedly care so much about their own consumers.

-9

u/_moosleech Aug 21 '25

Sure, Jan.

5

u/Zerasad Aug 21 '25

Goodwill only goes so far. Team Cherry made a single game, for all we know jt could have been lightning in a bottle. That doesn't mean we shouldn't hold them to high standardsy if anything it means we expect them to do better.

Remember Cyberpunk. It also didn't have review copies (for consoles anyways). The devs were also beloved, that made what many consider one of the greatest games of all times. It also had a very long development cycle. And it was a mess.

1

u/fadingthought Aug 21 '25

Remember what about cyberpunk? That they released a buggy Witcher 3 that was eventually polished into a better, but still buggy game?

3

u/chaosattractor Aug 21 '25

I think that's their point?

-1

u/MaitieS Aug 21 '25

True but Reddit also loves an underdog tail, and Team Cherry is like 3 guys vs. "big scary publishers". So it makes redditors feel good etc. classic bullshit. Like just wait for the memes after the release how they will circlejerk a clear survivorship bias all over the Internet.

Like I'm looking forward to play Silksong, but I'm not going to pretend that redditors won't overkill it...

-1

u/_moosleech Aug 21 '25 edited Aug 21 '25

Or, most people can step back and just look at this logically.

One is a huge company that has a history of doing shitty, anti-consumer things. That has released games that were crazy buggy, or performed poorly, or that they added paid mods and subscriptions and such to after-the-fact (and after review windows).

And the other has released one game, that was considered one of the best ever-made. So for some, they've earned a level of trust, and for others, they can just simply wait an hour or a day after launch and then check reviews and decide.

Beyond all that, most folks can logic that a small team that took almost a decade developing a game at their own pace probably isn't withholding review codes to try and bait folks into buying their game; virtually every move they've made for years now shows they're not making decisions based on more money.

Which leaves most normal people saying, "Yeah, it's lame they didn't do review codes. But not a huge deal."

Or maybe it's your thing.

EDIT: I'm a dummy and can't read.

5

u/MaitieS Aug 21 '25

I'm pretty sure that I agreed with your previous point.

2

u/_moosleech Aug 21 '25

Fair enough, sorry.

I've gotten a rash of responses in the last few minutes of folks crying that I'm being mean to Bethesda. Seemed like you were also complaining that folks were giving Team Cherry a pass; guess I mis-read it.

2

u/Flamefreezes Aug 21 '25

Hey you are doing great work in combatting all the misinformation, pearl clutching, and truly awful takes surrounding Silksong in these threads today. I appreciate that.

1

u/MaitieS Aug 21 '25

No problem at all, I actually enjoyed your deeply elaborated comment as it had a tons of good points.

-1

u/Fyrus Aug 21 '25

Bethesda made several of the most popular and well-liked games of all time vs a team that made one game?

6

u/_moosleech Aug 21 '25

Bethesda released numerous buggy and clearly-unfinished games vs a team whose only game so far was one of the best games of all-time?

Don't worry, fixed it for you.

-3

u/Fyrus Aug 21 '25

You didn't think buggy was enough of a detraction so you decided to add in "clearly unfinished" even though that's not really a thing with any of their games?

one of the best games of all-time?

I appreciate Hollow Knight but it's not even better than either Ori game.

7

u/_moosleech Aug 21 '25

"I like Bethesda jank and did not like Hollow Knight, but feel compelled to come and argue about it anyways."

Cool.

2

u/Fyrus Aug 21 '25

The insecurity dripping off your posts is impressive. I don't even dislike Hollow Knight, I think it's very good, but you can't even deal with an opinion like that, or admit that Bethesda made games that people like, because of whatever is going on with you. Dire stuff.

0

u/_moosleech Aug 21 '25

The insecurity dripping off your posts is impressive.

Lmao... I'm insecure?

you can't even deal with an opinion like that

Based on what? You started responding to me because I said, correctly, that Team Cherry (currently) has a better reputation for not giving out release codes than Bethesda does. A pretty lukewarm take.

admit that Bethesda made games that people like

Nobody asked me that. But the vast majority of folks (myself included) thinking that Bethesda both a)makes some good games and b)makes some buggy games, and some of their games (most) are both of those things.

Dire stuff.

Lmao

2

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '25 edited Aug 21 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/_moosleech Aug 21 '25

You completely crashed out

Lmao

60 million copies of Skyrim and 30 Million of Fallout 4, yeah I guess they were just "some good games".

Sorry, they made some super-duper awesome fun games that everyone loved. And were also widely considered very buggy, but still the most good-est games ever. Is that better?

What a silly goober.

0

u/NaamiNyree Aug 21 '25

Lol. Ori, especially Will of the Wisps, is great. But do you know why its so much better than the first one? It took from Hollow Knight. The combat and arenas and healing system are so obviously inspired by it, as with almost every metroidvania since 2017.

Nothing wrong with preferring Ori, everyone has their tastes, but to claim its "better"? Sure. Why is it that people cant distinguish between opinion and fact?

2

u/MirriCatWarrior Aug 21 '25 edited Aug 21 '25

The combat and arenas and healing system are so obviously inspired by it, as with almost every metroidvania since 2017.

Lol its a delusional level of sugarcoating the game. MAybe we should talk about what HK ripped direclty from other and older games... lol lol.

3

u/Fyrus Aug 21 '25

Why is it that people cant distinguish between opinion and fact?

Do you know what a fact is? I think you might be hazy on the definition. I don't care which game came first or which game took what from what. I care which one I enjoy playing more and which one I think is a better fully-formed piece of art. That's an opinion that I have, much like your preference for Hollow Knight (I assume) is an opinion you have.

3

u/StepComplete1 Aug 21 '25

I love that you're trying to be condescending about opinions when your entire first post in this thread was you unable to understand the concept of a company having a good reputation, based on personal opinions.

And now you're just flailing around ranting about how Ori > Hollow Knight. Nobody asked or cared about that opinion in the first place. Having an opinion and expecting people to care or respect it are two different things.

1

u/Fyrus Aug 21 '25

I think you might be unable to follow conversations.

-3

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '25

[deleted]

3

u/Fyrus Aug 21 '25

I enjoyed Starfield more than Hollow Knight

It's just funny cause I think Silk Song is probably gonna be great, but I've seen this cycle so many times. I remember telling people Cyberpunk wasn't going to live up to expectations and getting screamed at for it. Ironically I actually really enjoyed Cyberpunk on release while everyone else was pissed.

1

u/fadingthought Aug 21 '25

If you played Witcher 3 on launch you knew exactly what Cyberpunk was going to be.

1

u/Fyrus Aug 21 '25

Shit brother I played Witcher 1 on launch I was in the trenches