Bethesda’s latest can’t help but feel shallow by comparison.
It’s kind of amazing to me that Larian bumped up the release of BG3 by a month on PC because they didn’t want to compete against Starfield (and given the two big patches, maybe they could have put that extra month to good use), and it turns out it was Bethesda that should have been the one worried.
Bethesda games have always been incredibly shallow. How is there anyone that doesn’t see this?
The problem is people defending the games as perfect 10/10 GOTY. And just the general gamers who get super whiny and mad if anyone complains about anything in Starfield, saying that’s just the “Bethesda genre”.
And people romanticizing bugs like it’s something good
— This starfield is so buggy it sucks!
— What? Bugs are part of the experience, it’s a Bethesda game!!!
Idk man, Skyrim felt pretty deep in its time period. I spent so much time becoming a member of the thieves guild, and it felt important and immersive. It’s shallow compared to BG3, sure, but it also came out 20 years prior.
I think it’s the time of development. Bethesda games used to be shallow, but they also came out moderately paced. Now things like starfield take the better part of a decade and it’s still just as shallow, which has some people a bit underwhelmed. Personally it’s been so long since a Bethesda game came out, as a person who isn’t a Bethesda fan to start with, I forgot how shallow Bethesda games were.
I haven’t played Starfield. But I have been amazed at the depth of Baldur’s Gate 3. You can see the handcrafted world every where you look. And this makes a world you enjoy spending time in.
I’m enjoying Starfield far more than I expected.
That said the NPC interactions are incredibly sterile in comparison to the full mo-capped acting of the BG3 NPCs. The Starfield NPCs feel like mannequins just spitting out their lines.
That’s like 75% of the work for BG3. There’s absolutely some work implementing DnD mechanics into code and designing encounters, and obviously the assets for the world have to be created as well, but the vast majority of their time was spent on dialogue choices and designing the story in general.
It’s a great game for it, but we’re a good ways away from being able to do the same in an FPS/TPS with real time combat that isn’t absolutely brutal. BG3 could be what it was in terms of interactions because it was a CRPG. But it had to be a CRPG to do it. ARPG isn’t the term for what Starfield is, but games with reasonably rewarding action take too much work on that element to invest the time into every encounter that BG3 does. Balancing probabilities and maps for encounters for a CRPG isn’t trivial, but it costs way less to do than building out all those mechanics and skill trees into real time physics.
They’re different games with different goals.
Between Elden Ring’s UI-free exploration and Baldur’s Gate 3 character interactions, I’m sadly doubting Starfield will do for me.
It’s not fair for the rest of the Triple A games this year.
BG3 is a hard act to follow considering it was molded from the wishes of players for several years before release.
It’s totally fair. Other companies _could _engage in more dialog with players and take feedback into consideration before release, but they’d rather lean on their prior accolades and slowly leak teaser trailers and whatnot to build hype instead.
It is obvious that Baldur’s Gate 3 was a labor of love, and they really put their all into it.
I think you mean, time for Bethesda to get their act together rather than create trash. I love skyrim, morrowind, and am excited for starfield, but larian is a bit smaller than Bethesda who is owner by zenimax who is owned by Microsoft and therefore has the folks to make awesome things. And yet you have BG3 as a masterpiece. It’s all excuses to me. I wouldn’t call it unfair. I’d call it fair. I’d say larian is even handicapped, and they just kicked the pants off Bethesda.
A lot of times those big companies get in the way of making something perfect. They demand unrealistic timelines, shut down more creative paths, and structure a release around their stock performance. Smaller companies have more creative and direct control over their process.
Yeah I finished my playthrough of bg3 just in time for starfield. Been playing it constantly since. Loving the game. Hard to compare the two as well, they’re rpgs sure but very different. Should pc gamer start writing articles about the lack of base building in bg3?? Bottom line is if you like Bethesda games, you’ll like Starfield. Didn’t like Skyrim or Fallout very much? You won’t like Starfield.
I like Skyrim and Fallout New Vegas, hate Fallout 3, 76, and Starfield. The former are not comparable to the latter.
I am on the same page as you. New Vegas especially since it was really Obsidian not Bethesda and it shows. FNV is in my top 5 of all time. I liked Skyrim enough. Not a fan of Fallout 3, 4, or 76 so I have a feeling I am not going to like Starfield much. Though I am going to give it a try anyway.
Lost me at “Disco Elysium had arrived and absolutely blown the doors off the RPG genre.”
I’ve never played a more restrictive game with worse dialog choices.
a) Can’t tell if brain damaged.
b) Can’t tell if drunk.
c) Can’t tell if high.
d) Can’t tell if stupid.No good choices. Thank god Steam let me refund it.
Looked pretty though!
LOL, I have never heard of Disco Elysium. Must not be my type of game.
If you’re interested in politics, existentialism, the human condition, coping with depression, addiction, trauma and loss and want to read a novel about these themes told through the story-telling medium of an isometric RPG then it is the game for you.
Despite claiming to be an “isometric CRPG detective game about solving a murder mystery” on its About page Disco Elysium is actually none of those things at the end of the day, and if those things are what you want you’ll probably end up disappointed.
This is an interesting take. I adore Skyrim and just yesterday started playing BG3. I am enjoying it, but I never did anything else with DND (parents thought it would make Jesus sad or whatever) and so I am finding it more complex from the get-go than I would like, but I’m trying to learn. I still do feel like I’m missing out on a lot by just going with “whatever” and not putting enough thought into character creation, spells, etc, but it’s a lot to learn and I’m only 1 day in :)
Skyrim, on the other hand, was very easy to pick up, start playing, and just…explore and discover. Because of that, I was eagerly anticipating Starfield but sadly I do not possess the platform required to play it so I am reading the reviews to see if it’s worth buying an entire XBox for. If it’s as great as Skyrim, yes. If it’s meh, no.
So, reviews like this make me wonder if the author enjoys and/or is already familiar enough with the steep learning curve for it not to get in the way and by extension the game itself. Would they have been fine with Starfield had they never played BG3? And is Starfield “simple” enough for me to have a great time, or is it too much of what the author complains about here? - Repetitive quests, limited choices, etc?
It’s a hard question to answer, and the stakes are higher for me because of the console thing. I guess I could send the console back at least if the game isn’t for me? Idk.
You’re doing it right. Just keep playing, and you’ll learn as you go. Don’t be afraid to search for answers online, or compare D&D to BG3. Later, when you understand the system and a spell’s impact to your journey, you can talk to Withers and respec your character, changing your spells and abilities. You can also just use an online guide. Many of the guides have optimized builds that work really well. That’s what I did for my companions, since it was a bit much to learn every single class in one playthrough.
Edit: example, this Astarion build is off the hook amazing!
