My gaming journey has involved extensive exploration of Bethesda’s worlds, with several hundred hours in Skyrim and over a hundred in Fallout 4. Currently, I’m immersed in the rich experiences of Baldur’s Gate 3 and Cyberpunk 2077, with Baldur’s Gate 3 standing out as a remarkable masterpiece. Despite the enticing 30% discount on Starfield, the average reviews it has received haven’t piqued my interest. When juxtaposed with the intricate and thoughtful design of Baldur’s Gate 3, Starfield doesn’t quite seem to live up to the expectations of a AAA title. Moreover, as time is a scarce commodity in my life as an adult and parent, I find it impractical to dedicate what little gaming time I have to Starfield, especially considering the other compelling options available in the gaming market.
I played Starfield for around 150 hours. I went from that game to BG3. So far, I enjoyed Starfield more, but the games are so different they’re hard to compare.
Starfield was much more “turn off brain, sneak around, fight bandits” with story bits in between. I often didn’t have to put any thought into encounters if I didn’t want to. Mainly because it’s a Bethesda game, and I’ve played several before.
BG3 is slower, more methodical, with way more (and obviously better) story.
Starfield was more like comfort food, where BG3 is more like fine dining. Both great in different ways.
I’d say so, mostly like weapons, armor, potions, scrolls is what you’ll have in your inventories. Those and other small trinkets, you can just sell at vendors.
Also you, and I can not stress this enough, NEED to get Balders Gate 3.
@MindSkipperBro12@BruceTwarzen Unless you are also into tabletop gaming, in which case you may not want to provide more financial support to Wizards of the Coast. It isn’t too difficult to find info on what they have been up to over the last year. If you don’t care about their impact on that particular side of gaming, then support away.
Personally, I don’t plan on ever owning/playing BG3.
I’m thankful that I bought BG3 when early access released, and WotC hadn’t shit the bed yet. It would have been a bitter pill to see such a great game release and know that I would have to actively give them money after they had been so anti consumer.
I’ve boycotted WotC since the start of the year; been playing Pathfinder and have no intention of giving them any more money!
Other compelling options available in the gaming market
Names everyone’s game of the year and complete disaster from idk 3 years ago that’s somehow started to be playable after several patches and fanboys pretending it is a great game.
The difference between cyberpunk 2077 and starfield is that cyberpunk screwed up the technical side of things at launch, but had a rich story with great characters and an immersive world full of environmental story telling even in very off the beaten track locations. CDPR has been able to improve the performance to match the quality of the rest of things
Subjectively speaking, Starfield in contrast had a decent technical launch but the world feels empty, the story is “meh” at best, the companions are one note boyscouts and the exploration gets stale very quickly. I don’t see Bethesda completely overhauling the game’s systems to change those things.
As an example, in CP2077 I was in a random section of Chinatown far away from any quest or location marker and decided to explore. I found my way to some enclosed pipe tunnel which lead to a huge pit with a platforming puzzle leading to a junk pile with a corpse which had a note on it and an exotic weapon. No reason to ever go that way, but there was something interesting to find.
In contrast, beyond my example of the frozen labs in my comment above, in 90 hours playing Starfield I never once found something of value in a cave. That is certainly not something that encourages exploration.
Subjectively. Like it or not, as it was at release all three “different” starting options was considered to be the same with only small difference in between.
Otherwise, it was just default CDPR style linear story.
I didn’t played it, but from the looks of those who played, cyberpunk isn’t even considered to be immersive simulator. I yet to hear people discuss different ways of going through same exact levels.
Not to say, CDPR wasn’t even able to make one simple city to work while Bethesda played with galaxies. Scale, man, it means a fucking lot, when you actually consider world building.
Yeah, there might be some shit to collect in some locations cuz CDPR was trying to duplicate GTA. There might be linear story aka “we tried to copy GTA” and subjectively you might find it interesting, but it’s just funny to consider this game to be immersive sim and compare it to starfield. It’s gta without everything that makes gta great
Good thing that everyone is entitled to their opinion. To me, the game was pretty good at 1.0 (running on AMD hardware) and the story was very compelling.
Nonsense! A few more patches and price drops and it’ll be playable and affordable right when I can also afford a video card that won’t make it look like ass.
My gaming journey has involved extensive exploration of Bethesda’s worlds, with several hundred hours in Skyrim and over a hundred in Fallout 4. Currently, I’m immersed in the rich experiences of Baldur’s Gate 3 and Cyberpunk 2077, with Baldur’s Gate 3 standing out as a remarkable masterpiece. Despite the enticing 30% discount on Starfield, the average reviews it has received haven’t piqued my interest. When juxtaposed with the intricate and thoughtful design of Baldur’s Gate 3, Starfield doesn’t quite seem to live up to the expectations of a AAA title. Moreover, as time is a scarce commodity in my life as an adult and parent, I find it impractical to dedicate what little gaming time I have to Starfield, especially considering the other compelling options available in the gaming market.
I played Starfield for around 150 hours. I went from that game to BG3. So far, I enjoyed Starfield more, but the games are so different they’re hard to compare.
Starfield was much more “turn off brain, sneak around, fight bandits” with story bits in between. I often didn’t have to put any thought into encounters if I didn’t want to. Mainly because it’s a Bethesda game, and I’ve played several before.
BG3 is slower, more methodical, with way more (and obviously better) story.
Starfield was more like comfort food, where BG3 is more like fine dining. Both great in different ways.
Bethesda is the McDonalds of RPG games.
Rpg means collecting garbage to sell it for hours, right?
Looks at massive amount of stuff in my characters inventory in New Vegas and Baldur Gate 3.
Maybe.
I haven’t played Baldurs gate yet, is it a trinket game as well?
I’d say so, mostly like weapons, armor, potions, scrolls is what you’ll have in your inventories. Those and other small trinkets, you can just sell at vendors.
Also you, and I can not stress this enough, NEED to get Balders Gate 3.
@MindSkipperBro12 @BruceTwarzen Unless you are also into tabletop gaming, in which case you may not want to provide more financial support to Wizards of the Coast. It isn’t too difficult to find info on what they have been up to over the last year. If you don’t care about their impact on that particular side of gaming, then support away.
Personally, I don’t plan on ever owning/playing BG3.
I’m thankful that I bought BG3 when early access released, and WotC hadn’t shit the bed yet. It would have been a bitter pill to see such a great game release and know that I would have to actively give them money after they had been so anti consumer.
I’ve boycotted WotC since the start of the year; been playing Pathfinder and have no intention of giving them any more money!
Names everyone’s game of the year and complete disaster from idk 3 years ago that’s somehow started to be playable after several patches and fanboys pretending it is a great game.
What’s your point?
Even when Starfield gets ironed out, the story and gameplay will still be sub par.
Cyberpunk is a shitty game that doesn’t even deserve to be viewed as sub par even to this day. That’s my point.
The difference between cyberpunk 2077 and starfield is that cyberpunk screwed up the technical side of things at launch, but had a rich story with great characters and an immersive world full of environmental story telling even in very off the beaten track locations. CDPR has been able to improve the performance to match the quality of the rest of things
Subjectively speaking, Starfield in contrast had a decent technical launch but the world feels empty, the story is “meh” at best, the companions are one note boyscouts and the exploration gets stale very quickly. I don’t see Bethesda completely overhauling the game’s systems to change those things.
As an example, in CP2077 I was in a random section of Chinatown far away from any quest or location marker and decided to explore. I found my way to some enclosed pipe tunnel which lead to a huge pit with a platforming puzzle leading to a junk pile with a corpse which had a note on it and an exotic weapon. No reason to ever go that way, but there was something interesting to find.
In contrast, beyond my example of the frozen labs in my comment above, in 90 hours playing Starfield I never once found something of value in a cave. That is certainly not something that encourages exploration.
Subjectively. Like it or not, as it was at release all three “different” starting options was considered to be the same with only small difference in between.
Otherwise, it was just default CDPR style linear story.
I didn’t played it, but from the looks of those who played, cyberpunk isn’t even considered to be immersive simulator. I yet to hear people discuss different ways of going through same exact levels.
Not to say, CDPR wasn’t even able to make one simple city to work while Bethesda played with galaxies. Scale, man, it means a fucking lot, when you actually consider world building.
Yeah, there might be some shit to collect in some locations cuz CDPR was trying to duplicate GTA. There might be linear story aka “we tried to copy GTA” and subjectively you might find it interesting, but it’s just funny to consider this game to be immersive sim and compare it to starfield. It’s gta without everything that makes gta great
Good thing that everyone is entitled to their opinion. To me, the game was pretty good at 1.0 (running on AMD hardware) and the story was very compelling.
I feel bad for Cyberpunk fans, they’re are victims of tying themselves to a sunken ship.
Bought it on sale, stayed away for years.
Pretty fucking great game now, I do love it. Bought the DLC…not worth the full price but not bad.
Only took years of patches and changes
Nonsense! A few more patches and price drops and it’ll be playable and affordable right when I can also afford a video card that won’t make it look like ass.
I may be cheap, but I’m cheap like a fox!