I think it’s less bias towards Larian, and more that they did so many things right with BG3, we can accept some bugs, as long as they are working on fixing them. It’s such a massive game with so many moving parts that some bugs are inevitable, but they don’t stop the rest of the game from being amazing.
But whether this stance is going to be accepted (via upvotes/downvotes) in this type of community comes down to a simple popularity contest.
If I thought that Starfield was fun and tried this type of sentiment, I would be downvoted. Would that be because there is some objective measure of quality that separates the two games, or just because more people are fans of Larian than Bethesda?
I did say “they did so many things right”, with which I was referring to this objective measure of quality. There is a good reason this game is so universally beloved, and there are good reasons why Starfield isn’t.
If you want a random assortment of these “right things”:
Many, many choices that strongly impact your gameplay (Starfield has few interesting quests, most “choices” lead to the same outcomes)
Very interesting companions that have their own well-defined personalities and perspectives (Starfield/Bethesda companions just don’t have as many interesting things to say/as much cross-interaction)
Dialogues with interesting animations (Starfield/Bethesda dialogues are pretty static, looking at you, since… Oblivion I think?)
Interesting and detailed world design without constant repition and emptiness (Starfield is mostly empty, and mostly not unique)
An interesting story with a few twists (Starfield feels very generic Sci-Fi to me, but your mileage may vary)
Relatively few loading screens for a pretty big world (Starfield has constant loading screens)
Strong replayability due to many different options (Starfield has a few interesting NG+ ideas, but generally isn’t too interesting to repeat)
Should supposed “good” games get a pass? Nay I say both bad and others game be put on the same weighing scale. The subjective “goodness” of a game shalt have no bearing on the sanctity of the product.
Did somebody say “let’s ignore all problems good games have”?
If a game is good, and bugs are getting fixed, why shouldn’t the bugs be viewed more leniently than a non-good game with bugs that are not getting fixed? Why must we view these things as equivalent, when they are different in multiple dimensions?
Personally, I don’t get frustrated so much by the presence of bugs themselves (though it can depend on their impact) as the longevity of some of them. A lot of the bugs were cute in Skyrim, but if you see the same or similar bug in the new game, it gets less cute.
But there could be a part of it that comes from “familiarity breeds contempt”. BG3, while being a sequel to BG2, is new and fresh. Starfield feels like Skyrim in space. Bethesda has been a powerhouse for a long time, while Larian wasn’t as popular going in, so expectations are higher for Bethesda, too.
Though I’ve gotta admit I haven’t played any BG3 and not much Starfield, so this is a bit speculative.
I think it’s less bias towards Larian, and more that they did so many things right with BG3, we can accept some bugs, as long as they are working on fixing them. It’s such a massive game with so many moving parts that some bugs are inevitable, but they don’t stop the rest of the game from being amazing.
But whether this stance is going to be accepted (via upvotes/downvotes) in this type of community comes down to a simple popularity contest.
If I thought that Starfield was fun and tried this type of sentiment, I would be downvoted. Would that be because there is some objective measure of quality that separates the two games, or just because more people are fans of Larian than Bethesda?
As I previously said, there is an objective measure of quality that separates the two games.
You didn’t say that, so I’m curious what you feel that measure would be.
I did say “they did so many things right”, with which I was referring to this objective measure of quality. There is a good reason this game is so universally beloved, and there are good reasons why Starfield isn’t.
If you want a random assortment of these “right things”:
Should supposed “good” games get a pass? Nay I say both bad and others game be put on the same weighing scale. The subjective “goodness” of a game shalt have no bearing on the sanctity of the product.
Did somebody say “let’s ignore all problems good games have”?
If a game is good, and bugs are getting fixed, why shouldn’t the bugs be viewed more leniently than a non-good game with bugs that are not getting fixed? Why must we view these things as equivalent, when they are different in multiple dimensions?
Edit: case in point: https://lemm.ee/post/16532405
Personally, I don’t get frustrated so much by the presence of bugs themselves (though it can depend on their impact) as the longevity of some of them. A lot of the bugs were cute in Skyrim, but if you see the same or similar bug in the new game, it gets less cute.
But there could be a part of it that comes from “familiarity breeds contempt”. BG3, while being a sequel to BG2, is new and fresh. Starfield feels like Skyrim in space. Bethesda has been a powerhouse for a long time, while Larian wasn’t as popular going in, so expectations are higher for Bethesda, too.
Though I’ve gotta admit I haven’t played any BG3 and not much Starfield, so this is a bit speculative.