The author’s arguing that BG3 makes Starfield look like a shallow RPG by comparison. Their broader point is that Starfield is behind the times compared to most RPGs released in the last couple decades, even compared to something like Fallout 3.
It’s even better when Bethesda themselves describes Starfield as the “next-generation of RPGs”. It’s the same type of Bethesda game that I’ve been playing for 15+ years just with a new coat of paint. If this is the next-generation, then the future has no ambition whatsoever.
The game seems (to me) to essentially be FPS, Sci-Fi Skyrim, with some space fight minigames. There’s a lot of stuff you can do, but the main storyline is pretty short, the AI sucks, and most of the appeal is side content and looks.
That’s what I expect from Bethesda, and that’s what they delivered. It’s only really “next gen” in the procedural generation department, so it’s basically a regular Bethesda game, with a little bit of experimentation thrown in. That’s what Bethesda delivers, and they deliver pretty consistently.
I’m guessing there will be a ton of cool mods in the next few years for a deeper story, interesting space combat, etc.
For sure. That’s just how articles have to be titled to get clicks unfortunately. It can be annoying, but it helps keep journalism alive, so you take the good with the bad.
Hol’ up. It’s another games mistake that the author does not like Starfield as much as expected?
Or do I mixing something up here?
The author’s arguing that BG3 makes Starfield look like a shallow RPG by comparison. Their broader point is that Starfield is behind the times compared to most RPGs released in the last couple decades, even compared to something like Fallout 3.
It’s even better when Bethesda themselves describes Starfield as the “next-generation of RPGs”. It’s the same type of Bethesda game that I’ve been playing for 15+ years just with a new coat of paint. If this is the next-generation, then the future has no ambition whatsoever.
That’s just marketing fluff.
The game seems (to me) to essentially be FPS, Sci-Fi Skyrim, with some space fight minigames. There’s a lot of stuff you can do, but the main storyline is pretty short, the AI sucks, and most of the appeal is side content and looks.
That’s what I expect from Bethesda, and that’s what they delivered. It’s only really “next gen” in the procedural generation department, so it’s basically a regular Bethesda game, with a little bit of experimentation thrown in. That’s what Bethesda delivers, and they deliver pretty consistently.
I’m guessing there will be a ton of cool mods in the next few years for a deeper story, interesting space combat, etc.
Got you. To me it’s the style it gets communicated. Why not writing it like “Starfield needs to pace up to a higher standard” or similar?
For sure. That’s just how articles have to be titled to get clicks unfortunately. It can be annoying, but it helps keep journalism alive, so you take the good with the bad.
Fair enough I guess. Still find it kinda unlucky. Anyway.
Then again, BG3 is behind Ultima 7, which was released in 1992. Time is a flat circle?
The author didn’t say it was a mistake. Where did you get that from?
Pretty much the title already.
The title reads like “Starfield is pretty bad compared to BG3” to me. I don’t see how that implies BG3 is in the wrong.
Yeah right. I guess it has a different effect on us.