Bethesda’s latest can’t help but feel shallow by comparison.

  • positiveWHAT@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Between Elden Ring’s UI-free exploration and Baldur’s Gate 3 character interactions, I’m sadly doubting Starfield will do for me.

  • Poob@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Bethesda games have always been incredibly shallow. How is there anyone that doesn’t see this?

    • Crow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Silverseren@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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”.

  • Everblue@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Silverseren@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I like Skyrim and Fallout New Vegas, hate Fallout 3, 76, and Starfield. The former are not comparable to the latter.

  • Hairyblue@kbin.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • iforgotmyinstance@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.