Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Starfield is lame - Bg3 is going to win GOTY - Taking bets.

Let’s keep things friendly and civil. Or try to make them friendly and civil if they weren’t to begin with. Folk are allowed share negative views of the game, and while I know that when those are expressed in a heated fashion it tends to provoke an equal and opposite reaction, it’s never okay to resort to personal insults.

Can someone explain to me why exactly Starfield claims that Earth lost all its atmosphere, because it lost its magnet field ?

It doesnt actually serve any actual story purpose and its also incorrect.

Earth has in its past survived millions of years without a magnet field. It wouldnt instantly lose its atmosphere if it lost its magnet field now, either. That would be a very slow process.

Obvious science errors in science fiction material is really annoying.

I’m far from an expert, but I know the magnetic field is the result its molten core, so this is the first I’ve ever heard about Earth “surviving millions of years without a magnetic field.”

If it somehow lost its magnetic field, Earth would be subject to intense solar radiation, so life on this planet would end very quickly and dramatically,

However, the process of Earth losing its magnetic field itself would be a very slow process, I’d think. Starfield is set 300 years in the future, and I’m not sure if that’s a realistic timescale for that to occur.

As to why Earth lost its atmosphere in Starfield, there is a practical purpose for that: you can leave it barren and don’t need to populate it with people and cities, because an inhabited Earth 300 years in the future should be heavily developed.

It gets explained near the end of the main story.

Ha, I didn't even think of that. Makes total sense, then they can treat each planet like a single tiny city and the rest just empty space, because it's easier for them than to create planets that have been fully colonized and developed by humanity.

Starfield is such a deeply disappointing work. Like I can't even imagine playing Starfield when Cyberpunk 2077 is risen from the ashes as a brilliant work of art.

All the time I was playing Starfield I kept asking: "What the fuck were they doing for 7 years with $400 million dollars?!"

I dunno what this obsession with comparing BG3 to Starfield is...
It's kinda low-hanging fruit to compare it to a Bethesda game lmao especially when it comes to things like stilted characters.
Altho BG3 does have quite a bit of stilted and weird animations too at times.

But well, these are my thoughts.

For me the Resident Evil 4 Remake is my GOTY still, I dunno if remakes can win GOTY but I don't rly care about those rewards anyway it's my personal pick.
I did enjoy BG3 but I do think it kinda nose dives in act 3 and is clearly not finished, I beat it on release patch too so I ran into a massive amount of bugs the last stretch of the game was borderline unplayable for me and I do think that's unacceptable and do take that into consideration too.
Stuff like that does harm my trust in developers and I did lose quite a bit of respect and trust in Larian I don't think it's okay to release a game in that state especially without disclosing it imo ( especially performance issues, which no is not a hardware issue ).
I dunno why gaming is the only industry where we kinda just accept being sold borked products in no other industry would it be accepted.

Even without all of the bugs too it's clearly rushed with unfinished animations and awkward scenes and writing etc ( imo the writing of the main plot was really disappointing in act 3 and really hurt the replayability for me ).
The dead three were really disappointing too and took a backseat to a less interesting plot twist, the only character I felt like I got a fair bit of interactions with was Orin and she was ultimately quite one-dimensional.
I also think the progression just stops and the game is way too easy even without min-max, it feels so bare-bones in hindsight.
A lot of people excuse it with '' they'll fix it later '' and point to the same happening in Divinity 2 but I mean...
If the same happened last game then that just makes it worse? It kinda just shows that they haven't learned anything I dunno why people act like it's worthy of praise especially when other devs get criticized for that.

Imho I don't believe a game should qualify for GOTY when it released in a state that BG3 did.
I don't really say that easily because I did enjoy act 1 and most of act 2 a lot and act 3 does have genuinely good bits.
But I don't think it's revolutionary and I think it's kinda silly how people are using the game to shit on other devs, to me it's basically an unfinished DA:O.
It really just feels like a very significant amount of people talking about the game online didn't even play it or only played act 1.

Pathfinder WoTR came out in 2021 but it's my favorite RPG I've played this year, I think it released in a borked state too tho ( not okay either.... -_- ).
The level of difference in depth is quite staggering, BG3 wins in presentation tho it's a significantly bigger budget game.
And WoTR definitely has a lot of weird jank and balance issues too, even tho I think BG3 is way too easy I do prefer the consistency of it over WoTR at least.



To be a bit less negative, I did really enjoy how immersive the writing was for the characters.
The writers and voice actors did an incredible job, I like that characters like Lae'zel for instance actually feels distinctly different and '' non-human ''.
Only character I didn't like was Karlach ( it's my opinion, relax... ), her writing felt bizarrely too modern and off-putting to me.
Everyone else sorta had this LoTR timeless feeling to them but she didn't, she just came across like someones Tumblr OC.
Shadowheart also had one of my favorite companion storylines in any RPG, she definitely did feel A LOT more tied to the main plot than the rest tho.
And I liked Astarion more than I expected, Cazador was hilarious too lmao his voice actor was great.

But yeah the companions and their writing and voice acting overall was definitely the highlight and elevated the game a lot for me and I don't think I am alone in that.
I think they're a pretty HUGE part of the games success and why people like it.

It's being compared to Starfield (instead of TotK, A6, FF16, RE4, Dead Space, etc) precisely because it's low hanging fruit. A not insignificant portion of the internet is intent on making it the face of anti-AAA sentiment which falls apart if you acknowledge BG3's flaws or Larian doing the same thing, so they either pretend it doesn't exist or downplay it.

The comparison is being made because they came out a month apart.

Well, that is what this thread is partially about so you are of course welcome to ignore it and take part in all the non-Bg3/Starfield comparison threads which is basically all of the other threads here :P

The comparison is being made because they released close to the same time, are both AAA games, and would have previously been considered contenders for GOTY. I do not consider Starfield a contender for GOTY...it's barely a game.

Is it low-hanging fruit because Bethesda is so disappointing and unskilled as a studio? And everyone knows it so there is no point in continually pointing out how lame they are when it's not a point of contention? So we agree that Bethesda sucking is common knowledge? :P



No one is doing that. There are plenty of people, including myself who have discussed the flaws with Bg3. You are just disappointed that most people are not having your level of emotional reaction to it. Stop creating illusionary straw men.

It' so funny, I see this kind of shit all the time. On the Rick and Morty subreddit the fanbois had created illusionary straw men of people that would be psychotically upset about the change in voice actors to the point they fantasized that the new actors would be in actual danger. It was literally one of the first comments and nobody had said anything yet. The actual reaction ended up being mostly "Meh, they are ok".

Let's keep the fantasy to the video games we play.
.

Why are people comparing Tetris to Mortal Combat?

I'm 75% sure it's part of proxy console war.

Because the other game is literally available on console first.

BG3 wasn't. It's PC game first but got dragged into this comparison war.

I mean what we could actually compared between BG3 and Starfield apart from writing? - which always comes down to: I like this one better.

Starfield is not an RPG, it's action adventure with RPG elements, TOTK is hack and slash 3d platforming/puzzle with RPG elements, FF16 is hack and slash action adventure game with rpg elements - none can be compared with proper RPG like BG3 is.

Well, From what I could find out so far: Starfield seems to be like TES5 Skyrim or Fallout 4, but unlike the later, which are fantasy and post apocalyspe, respectively, its science fiction. So for example theres Terramorphs which are basically Fallout Deathclaws, and there are special powers the player gains which are basically Skyrim Dragon Shouts, etc. It also has some No Man's Sky elements with procedual content. The most original part of Starfield seems to be the spaceship designer, which unlike many other games is finally truely 3D; if the rest of the game would be more interesting, I would love to have such a thing in a game.

All in all I dont really get how it compares much to Baldur's Gate 3. Even TES5 Skyrim, which would be closer in genre to BG3, doesnt really compare.

I don't disagree, but just to clarify. this is more about the quality of the gaming experience based on the prestige level and resources of the studio.

Larian produced a triple A game of much higher quality than Bethesda with 1/3 the resources and in the same time frame. That bears looking into and leaves a lot of unanswered questions.

- The quality difference isn't in contention. BG3 - despite flaws - is the much higher quality game in every single measurable way.

- That they are different types of games doesn't really matter either unless someone is claiming one of these games is harder to make.

- That Bg3 is the much better reviewed game isn't in contention, it's pretty obvious.

So the remaining questions are: "What the fuck bethesda? How the hell did you screw the pooch this badly? Are you just going to take nothing from this and be a high-cost factory of mediocrity?"

Also, bonus question, "Does Todd Howard stand in front of a mirror and tell himself he makes great games all day in contravention of reality, just psychotically repeating it to himself with a crazy smile on his face?" Inquiring minds want to know.

At this point I am beginning to feel this conversation has run it's course. A lot of the discussion has become circular and this is really not a place to bash other games. We are here to talk about BG3, our loves and our hates.

If the other mods agree I think it is time to lock this thread.