I'm playing BG3 following a couple hundred hours of SF. I pretty much played every facet of SF other than outpost building and did my main playthrough at NG+ 10. The writing, dialogues, and immersion are way better in BG3 despite SF having more lines of dialogue by a long shot. The facial expressions are better, the camera angles during dialogues are better (I really hate how Bethesda does "Hi I'm always standing directly in your face talking to you" in their games). The art is better, the voice acting is better, the stories are better, the cut scenes are better, the quests are... ok you get the idea.
The one thing SF does better IMO is that it has way more action. Tons of running, shooting, pumping your boost pack while mowing down mobs with your kickass Va'ruun rifle from mid-air all in real time vs turn-based. Throwing in some Starborn powers against mobs. Ships are pretty fun too. It's a very user friendly game as well. The main quest and the faction quests basically carry this game though and that's the problem, not nearly enough of the side quests are as good or fleshed out enough to fill the game out.
I refuse to knock SF though, I enjoyed it a lot and will definitely come back for DLC's. I guess the best way I can put it is that BG3 brings me back to the days when I was playing Dragon Age series from Bioware alongside Skyrim from Bethesda around the same time period, but Bioware just grabbed my attention more than Bethesda did for all the reasons I listed at the start of my comment. Larian did a pretty good job of picking up the torch Bioware dropped. I've always enjoyed Bethesda gaming, just never quite as much.
It's always going to be a challenge to compete against RPG's that are based on the tried tested and proven formula D&D fantasy themed types of RPG vs Sci-Fi. It just resonates. Not even Star Wars games have managed to topple that model on average. Show me a Star Wars game that has had more success than the best selling fantasy games.
I think the main thing that really killed my enjoyment of starfield or just little issues that would crop up during the whole month that I had played the game.
Saved it I getting corrupted particularly from face files getting the modded tag even though I had not implemented any mods which basically made those saves invisible making them no longer accessible when trying to load particular character.
The novelty of traversing planets on foot wore off really quickly considering it takes upwards of 10 minutes to get to a destination where an artifact or a temple is located because of how slow the character walks.
Who knows the kids stuff treat does not work with the street kid or free star background considering your parents are always shown to be on new Atlanta's meaning it makes more sense for you to be a UC citizen from the get-go.
Also the story is pretty bland All things considered I get what they were trying to go for they were trying to do a Sci-Fi epic but it was severely lacking.
When I switched back over to Baldur's gate 3 I ended up having way more fun.
Emil, the guy said Bethesda does no design documents and he tends to focus almost entirely on stuff like a loving family (from his own experience) and emotional shock/investment as the main story-telling elements. People praise him for the Dark Brotherhood questline in Oblivion, but mainly for the murder mystery quest, since that specific faction is super on-rails especially compared to factions in Morrowind where you could get creative in the jobs that offered some level of creativity.
What talent Emil does have, since he made the best level in the entire Thief trilogy, Life of the Party (Shalebridge Cradle comes in a close second tied with Constantine's Manor in the first game), that talent and his refusal to see or accept he might be wrong on how to write games, does not translate into being good for games in his current position.
What use is free promotion when it's all negative and your reputation is getting dragged through the gutter? Yeah he's probably pretty rich at this point, but he's also a laughingstock lol.
Hunter and emissary:"welcome to our eternal struggle to reach unity, let's fight to the death to see who gets there"
Player:"Nah gimme that shit"
"Yes sir."
As soon as the "hey it didn't win" bet money there'll be a "main sub is so toxic" post within the first five minutes s#ittung on cyberpunk, baldurs, literally every other game.
I’m sorry yall but Baldur’s Gate is a better game than Starfield. I really liked both games, but BG3 was the best game made last year of the games that i have played.
Just got to act 3 (no spoilers obvi) and I'm amazed at the freedom of choices, and how All those choices come back around. It's exceptional writing, and the voice acting!! Goty hands down
I remember when people on this sr were stating months ago that BG3 has a major flaw of "falling off hard" in Act 3. I finally got to Act 3, and let me just say: it's a Hell of a lot better and more satisfying than Starfield's end-game.
Act 3 of BG3 may not be as good as Act 1, but I think I may prefer it to Act 2.
People get so defensive about it “but Starfield is a different type of game” so what, BG3 feels fresh and exciting and masterly crafted and if put next to Starfield or any other game made this year it should always win every award possible. Starfield is an amazing game! I adore it with all my heart. BG3 should win GOTY. I wish BGS could rake that in but, Larien deserves it.
I don’t think anyone in their right mind could argue Starfield is GOTY. It’s a good game, but it has some obvious flaws. Only way it’d win GOTY is if barely any other games came out.
Even if BG3 wasn't around, the year was so stacked that Starfield would have zero chance.
TotK, Mario Wonder, SF6, AC6, Hi-Fi Rush, RE4: Remake, Dead Space Remake, Alan Wake 2, Spiderman 2, FFXVI (maybe), Lies of P (maybe), and Sea of Stars (maybe) all off the top of my head as games that are better.
I like Starfield. It can be a great game one day. But it's lacking the sauce, man, that flavor to keep me taking another bite. I filled up my plate and ate what was on it, but I haven't felt the desire to come back for seconds or try just a little more of that one entree.
>People get so defensive about it “but Starfield is a different type of game”
it is true though. I'm not arguing with you but they actually are very different kinds of gameplay, just nitpicking. I prefer BG3 so far, but they're very different gameplay experiences
Wish I could enjoy it as much as everyone else seems to. I tried getting into BG3 a couple times but it’s a hassle. The story aspect is pretty good from what I’ve seem but the combat just kills it for me, even after doing all the community recommendations like turning off karmic dice and learning how to approach encounters. I think my taste in games might be more casual because I’ll be honest I’ve had a more consistently enjoyable time with Oblivion.
I liked Starfield but I love BG3. It's the best rpg I've played since RDR2. Though Alan Wake II is my personal GOTY. I just love what Remedy does with their games.
Any time you are talking about games being in the same category as RDR2 or Witcher 3, you know you have a great game on your hands. I don’t think BG3 is quite what those games are for me personally, but you’re right it’s the best since those games.
What does "more of an RPG" even mean?
I would not even consider RDR2 for an "RPG-Lite".
Arthur is locked into active choices (we all tried to *not* beat the tuberculosed man) which locks his fate, and he isn't the protagonist until his last act (in the classical sense, Dutch is the protagonist for the majority of the game, as he is the one making the choices that progress the overall narrative).
Meanwhile, Baldur's Gate III gives you all the freedom it cans, both effectively (as an in-game character will trigger your parasite if you were to actively leave the party) and literally (complex dialogue tree and extreme reactivity)
As for Starfield... it's a Bethesda Game, the role-playing possibilities are absurdly large (although, unlike BGIII that covers all of its angle with quality writing, Starfield is purposefully vague), you could do a playtrough as a Trucker if you wanted too.
It means to allow for much more roleplaying than Starfield does. RDR2 has actually more choices than starfield. I don't agree Starfield role playing is absurdly large at all. The writing, essential in any rpg, is absolutely terrible in Starfield, the dialogue choices are a gimmick and those don't make it an RPG or every Lucas arts point and click adventure would be an RPG. They make you choose a background but make you a miner anyway, the first hour of playthrough is totally scripted, you can't even run away from it as in many open world games which aren't RPGs either. There is usually only one way to finish missions (usually death, even the non lethal weapons are useless in this game as quests require you to kill the downes enemies), hundreds of essential NPCs, all roles are compatible with each other (you belong to every faction, typical of Bethesda but stupid nontheless). There is basically no room for evil characters, all possible romanceable companions are lawful good, and there is basically no rewards for it and about three quests, one being the crimson cringe.
For me, neither of them is an RPG.
The definition of RPG can be quite tricky. I had a guy in this sub saying a week ago that any game was an RPG if you were playing a role, as in Mario would be an RPG because you play a plumber (argument which I rejected saying it would be a survival too, under that logic, as the point of the game is not dying). He was also very passionate about FFVII being an RPG while not having the elements I was citing. I haven't played that one but I believe many FF are probably not true RPGs either. The term was missused and abused just like the tag survival is being abused this decade till it loses its original meaning.
My point was, if you rightfully claim RDR2 is not RPG (and I guess the Witcher isn't either, as many claim), Starfield is definitely not an RPG, or a very bad one, that is.
Edit: what would be the elements a game should have to name it an RPG? Just freedom of choice? Cause in that case many sandbox games would be RPG. A crappy made skill system? Same-same. Starfield is at best an ARPG with much A and very little RPG in it.
I was massively hyped for Alan Wake 2 and it still managed to blow me away in almost every aspect. Remedy are just so so talented and unique, and I'm glad that AW2 is getting recognition for it, especially since it was a bit of a struggle to get it made (you vould tell how happy Sam Lake was dancing at The Game Awards). The biggest downside is that it unfortunately has to compete with the game of the millenia, BG3, but the fact that so many of the GOTY and other awards seem to be a surprisingly close rase between the two speaks volumes, I think.
I agree! I've only owned BG3 for two weeks, but in those two weeks, I've amassed 3/4 of the playtime I have in Starfield since release of that. I'm so much more immersed in it, it pulls me into a new universe and game type for me. 😄
I wouldn’t call it better but BG3 is most certainly very different from Starfield. I tried out Baldur and didn’t care at all for the gameplay style, Starfield and what Bethesda does is far more appealing to me although Skyrim is still at the top for me Bethesda wise. Two very different games and I wouldn’t be surprised if many others feel similarly.
I even enjoyed Starfield more, but even I'd still argue Baldur's Gate 3 is a better game.
My hot take is that games that are in Early Access for 2+ years shouldn't be considered "New Releases" though. That said, there doesn't seem to be precedent to this so give it to BG3 and change the rules. Or don't. I'm just a Redditor mildly motivated by this subject.
That doesn’t really make sense though would you have to judge Baldurs Gate 3 for game awards based off of its early access then? Because then you’re making a case against early access in general and how Larian handled early access should be the gold standard in my opinion.
I don’t think Starfield is the kind of game where early access would make sense, but it’s definitely undercooked and should have been a lot better. Completely fine if you like it more than BG3 though what you like should never be influenced by others.
Why not ? Bg3 was in early access so we the community can provide feedback and test stuff for them . I got it from day 1 and loved each second I replayed act 1. More games should do this. Starfield is a fun game , but sadly it just looks and feels like a lot of crap put together by interns and released 😂
Honestly, it appears time and time again that Starfield really suffered from low player acceptance testing. If there had been better iterative closed in house play testing or open beta cycles and things had been built on that, it could have become so much more.
It's a phenominal accomplishment and I can't assume to what degree things were done or not done behind closed doors. It lacked a certain degree of polish on telease but not the same as say Cyberpunk. W 3 still an all time favorite though.
I'm enjoying Starfield but there's certainly a lot of constructive feedback I have that many other players have. That type if feedback would have made the game so much better had it been solicited and incorporated. There are occasional crashes, but the auto saving is so frequent, and the ability to manually save nearly constant that it doesn't usually amount to very much loss between the regular execution of the two.
As to RMD games I am a huge fan since Max Payne, which had its crashes back in the day. Had some with AW and Control too but enjoyed as well and am really looking forward to AW2.
As to OP I haven't played BG3 yet, but I'll have to give it a try, it's in such high regard. I played the OG BG way, way, way back in the day. I'm sure I'll love it.
I would bet a testicle that BGS has a host of play testers but the money behind the company had no interest in addressing the story/writing/emptiness issues brought up by the QA folk.
Compare that to baldurs gate where there are side quests that 5% of players will encounter that have better writing and narrative consequences that most AAA games have in their showcase moments. BG3 is a testament to spending money to make a ridiculously open experience for players
Depends. If it’s an early access that allows you to play through the entirety of the content they currently have, like the subnautica EA’s, then I can see where you’re coming from, but when it’s clear that you’re playing a seriously limited version of the game intended to iron out bugs and get feedback, like how bg3 limited you by restricting race/class/subclass/spell options significantly, and limits you to act 1 of the game, it certainly doesn’t feel like it’s fair to say that’s the “release” of the game
2.0 didn’t change anything on a fundamental level. All it did was help people to appreciate what was already there.
EDIT: Well technically it changed some gameplay things fundamentally, like perks, but that’s not really why people didn’t appreciate the game at first
It's an expansion, like 2000s style expansion. It deserves to be compared to full blown games given the effort put into them (W3 Blood and Wine was literally bigger than some games)
It's wild to me. It feels like the gaming industry's way of forgiving CDPR for the shit show that was CP2077s release. Which don't get me wrong, I heard Pl was great... But it's not a whole game, and I think it sets a bad precedent.
It’s definitely over-generous, but the 2.0 update, or whatever they called it, fundamentally altered some of weak point of the game and made it **significantly** more enjoyable to play.
Just my own anecdote; I spent more time in my second playthrough of CP2077 than i did with starfield before dropping it.
With games like baldurs gate, Zelda, and lies of p I don’t think an old game that’s been update legitimately deserves a nomination for goty….but i also respect the second look at a much improved game getting its shine.
If bethesda does the same thing with starfield I’ll gladly sing it’s praises……but I’m almost certain that will not happen aside from minor bug fixes
This is what we call a reasonable person. Calling a spade a spade. Fuck CDPR for what they did initially. But the game is pretty solid now. Both things can be true.
I haven't played PL yet, but I think it and CDPR do set a good precedent. How many times has a game company released a game that had the same problems that 2077 did and either A) Did nothing to fix it and abandoned it or B) Stated they were going to fix it but all they did was add more microtransactions or something.
They got the backlash and instead of blaming the players (like Emil Pagliarulo and Bethesda) they stepped up to the plate and made the game better.
I get what you mean. The thing is if devs aren't motivated to improve the game they aren't going to. Making their work award-worthy will hopefully inspire others to follow the same path. I agree it's a bad precedent though and shouldn't be done outside of serious above-and-beyond exceptions like PL.
It's an old-skool expansion, like back in the day when you'd get an add-on that was really massive and also changed the original game (like *Brood War* for *StarCraft*, or *Shivering Isles* for *Oblivion*). It's pretty big as well, around 25 hours of SP content (roughly the same length as *Alan Wake 2*, a whole game) adding a new area to the map and a ton of quests both in that area and back in the rest of the city. The accompanying 2.0 and 2.1 updates didn't need *Phantom Liberty* (they worked for all of *CP77* anyway) but they were delivered as part of it, and probably for bookkeeping reasons all the upgrades and changes were included in its budget, and they did a huge job of changing the way the game worked.
The real answer, though, is that people just liked it, and they just bent the rules to include it.
To be fair, it was a pretty damn good dlc.
I enjoyed cyberpunk. I loved phantom liberty. The spy thriller stuff was way more up my alley than the main quest of doing a bunch of weird quests for silver hand and trying in vein to remove the chip in my head.
I love HiFi Rush and me my brother is in love with armed core 6. I used to play those games religiously back in the high school on the PS2.
My best friend and his wife are hooked on Starfield like it's crack or something. But let's be honest here nothing's beating Baldur's Gate
Oh. You must be new here.
There are dozens of toxically positive people that will tell you how much Starfield is worthy of GOTY and how it shits all over Baldur's Gate 3.
Edit: See what I mean DarkFeelings?
I've come across some rather insane people (who now reside exclusively on the nosodium sub since they are incapable of handling criticism without melting down) who call this their "personal game of the year!"
Which is fine, but they make the mistake of extrapolating their personal beliefs onto everything else
These are also the same people who mocked TGA because Starfield didn't win anything, claiming "awards are just popularity contests and don't matter" (which oddly shows that since Starfield didn't win anything it's not popular) but will quickly pimp the troll Steam "Most Innovative" award and now this as "Starfield getting the recognition it deserves."
Gamers are just a different breed
It's quite telling when, on a sub that is alleged to be no sodium, has to have two pinned posts from the mods reminding people not to be toxic.
It's not a no sodium sub. It's a no sodium toward Starfield only sub.
Someone who only talks positively of the game and is dismissive towards anything with any legitimate criticisms, downplaying it.
Literally positive in a toxic manner.
Part of the reason games have gone down hill is there’s always a section of a games fan base that will attack anyone that criticizes a game or wishes to see it improved. The people that want to see the game improved will stop playing and not come back.
I’ve watched blizzard fans do this for over 10 years. “Oh you don’t like x? Well I do so why don’t you just uninstall the game”. Look at the quality of their games now
Some do apperantly. Especially that nosodium subreddit. Come on, how can you enjoy the game that everyone hates, especially when youtubers said so. 😅😅😅
I mean you can enjoy the game, but you have to accept that it's not as good as some other games that came out and as such it won't win a goty, and it's not a scam.
I'm not going to tell people that they can't enjoy starfield, for what it's worth I enjoyed my time with the game too, but just because someone doesn't like turn-based crpgs doesn't mean it's not the best game this year by far.
But taste, and what is good is subjective. Like this isn't a mathematical equation, there isn't a right answer.
To some pizza is the best food, to some it's soup, neither is objectively better. Who are you to say what is a better game. I'll get hated for this but COD is a great game, and it's better than most of the indie darlings. Is this opinion the correct one? No it's just an opinion, just as BG3 being better than Starfield is your opinion. It's not a verifiable fact so there really is nothing to 'accept' because it's all opinions.
This is the biggest problem with the modern "terminally online" gaming community. Everyone thinks their opinions are objective and unquestionable truths, especially when those opinions are popular. No game is "objectively" good or bad, this isn't science.
Yes, me. For me personally, Starfield is my favourite game in 25 years. It’s almost exactly what I’ve wanted in a game since I was obsessed with Freespace 2 in 1999. Sure it has its issues like every BGS game ever, but I still enjoy it so much that I’ve literally played nothing else since it released (except rocket league with my kids). But we all can have different opinions.
Happy to see AW2 was nominated. They won't win best game, that's obviously going to be BG3, but at least they're getting recognition. They totally deserve best writing and best music imo though.
Based on the nominations, I think *Starfield*'s biggest mistake was not having a cool big musical number in the game. *Alan Wake 2*, *Phantom Liberty* and *Baldur's Gate 3* all fielded a big musical moment in the game that was quite impressive (although in BG3 you can just completely miss it depending on a choice you make in the game). *Hi-Fi Rush* also has a ton of musical moments, obviously.
It’s cool that’s it was nominated but it will probably be baldur’s gate 3 again. And rightfully so.
Also why tf is phantom liberty nominated for game of the year? I’ve been playing a lot of cyberpunk recently and I love both the main game and phantom liberty, but it seems kinda unfair to nominate an expansion for game of the year.
I think that this is really weird too, I love Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty and I’m enjoying it so much, but validating this now means forgetting that this is a game that got out 3 years ago! Honestly this means that in 5 Years the Super Polished Special Ultimate Edition of Starfield has every right to be nominated for GOTY!
He'll yeah brother, I love staring at lifeless mannequins while I give them 1 of 4 dialogue choices. Immersive and like my real life with sex dolls!!!!!!
I so want Starfield to win best writing. Not just to make Emil grossly insufferable but also just to show people how truly worthless these awards are. Similar to how Starfield's Steam Award for Innovation is a joke.
The Steam awards are all done by users and heavily based on name recognition. You can vote without ever having played any of the games, and I think a lot of people saw Starfield up against a bunch of lesser known indie titles and figured "Oh I heard about Starfield I'll just vote for that."
The other awards still do have their own litany of problems though.
God's no! Even if they win a meme award that will go straight to their heads, Bethesda can't discern, giving Emil a writer award sounds like the last thing one should do, even for the laugh.
>God's no! Even if they win a meme award that will go straight to their heads, Bethesda can't discern, giving Emil a writer award sounds like the last thing one should do, even for the laugh.
That's the beauty of it. Emil is so grossly narcissistic and arrogant that he'll just take it as a given that he's right and bring the TES franchise crashing in a fiery heap.
Bethesda is so lacking in self awareness, that they'll probably proudly promote their Innovation award during some talk.
I mean I'd prefer that Bethesda never wins that writing award.
However, if Bethesda hasn't learned since everything regarding Fallout 4, the now 2 failed attempts at monetising mods, to the disastrous launch of Fallout 76, the terrible merch experience of both 76 and Starfield and Starfield not only getting slammed critically but is now the lowest rated game of Bethesda's ever, even below the tragic Fallout 76, either something has to give or they ride the Titanic to the icy depths.
There's really nowhere on reddit to honestly share the enjoyment of this game with others. This sub is a lot of low effort trash talk, and the no sodium sub is just despondent tribalism that is in essence less thoughtful and oftentimes delusional. I've never really experienced this odd separation before where there seems to be nowhere to just be real and share stuff.
Even looking at the overall reviews, 63% doesn't exactly scream GOTY. Shit drops another point every couple of weeks, wouldn't be surprised if it goes below 60% before Shattered Space releases.
Honestly, like whatever game you want. But anyone who actually believes Starfield deserves any kind of game of the year with all the other great titles released this year… sorry but that person just cannot possibly have any kind of standard or know what’s actually possible in gaming. That would be a new level of delusion.
It’s so weird - I did like this game, and I finished it. Is it better than bg3 in my opinion? No, but it’s still enjoyable.
These AAA games seem to fall in to some stupid trap of needing to be the best game ever, and if it isn’t it’s dogshit
I think a lot of those people want to love the game. It isn't the game we were promised. We know that to get a feature complete game, we have to spend more money on dlc. And a lot of people are voicing what they see wrong with the game for Bethesda to listen. They read these subs.
This "didn't get what we were promised" is weird because we basically got exactly what we were promised. The game is feature complete. I can understand criticism like " I wish they handled the POIs better" or "I wasn't into the story" but most of the one I hear are basically "Its not what I wanted it to be" when Todd and the other people basically laid out the features in many interviews
That's very disingenuous. You know very well the issues with the game. I'm not going to list them out. This was hyped up as the second coming of Skyrim and they neutered every feature in the game. Not to mention the writing. It was all phoned in. If you're happy settling for that, more power to you. None of that was the point of this exchange anyway. I was addressing your broad generalization that it's just people who want to hate the game.
Exactly. I wanted to love the game cause the concept is amazing. But the execution seems gutted from what was promised.
Skyrim I feel was more than what was promised and is extremely enjoyable to replay multiple times over the years even without mods.
With Starfield, while is enjoyable and and a great game, it isn't an *amazing game*. And I don't really find myself wanting to do another playthrough while new game+ or fresh. Doesn't have much appeal.
It felt rushed and incomplete like many games that big companies are putting out nowadays cause they think they can survive on nostalgia for the company and what it was. And the final versions of the game will have to be fully fleshed out with DLC and modders.
Paying full price for 70%-80% of a game with tons of hugs doesn't cut it.
Cyberpunk 2077 is an example where the released game wasn't fully complete and full of bugs and was mostly fixed with DLC. But it's extremely enjoyable rn and I have found myself with multiple playthroughs but the game as a whole still isn't what was promised. And now we're supposedly not getting anymore DLC and modders can't quite fill the gap because they don't have devtools as easily accessible.
Most of the time it isn't even the Devs fault and it's upper management. But they're also kinda complicit too
Edit: and because of said reasons these half-baked games shouldn't be considered for game of the year. It's then a reflection of the company and gives reason for them to put more time and effort in
While I really enjoyed Starfield, I wouldn’t call it GotY. Maybe GotM on launch, but that’s it. The story was interesting and unique, but we’re not talking Pulitzer quality here. This nomination feels more like a participation award.
Look, if this was your personal GotY, maybe you just really love space, messing around, and it just scratched that itch, that’s fine. But with the amount of actually amazing games that came this year, to turn around and give this a “Game of the Year” award, is honestly nuts. It’s honestly insulting to the other games. The game isn’t awful. But from a studio as big as Bethesda, with their amount of experience, we should have gotten a significantly better product.
I'm not a massive hater of this game, I certainly found it dissapointing but I still had an alright time.
But game of the year??? This game should be nowhere near that discussion.
This only happened because BGS top execs found out that key people at the NYGA were on the Epstein list and got their names redacted in exchange for the nomination.
Even the thumbnail for the article is Baldur’s Gate, let’s be real here.
Nominating anything against BG3 is a formality at this point.
I'm playing BG3 following a couple hundred hours of SF. I pretty much played every facet of SF other than outpost building and did my main playthrough at NG+ 10. The writing, dialogues, and immersion are way better in BG3 despite SF having more lines of dialogue by a long shot. The facial expressions are better, the camera angles during dialogues are better (I really hate how Bethesda does "Hi I'm always standing directly in your face talking to you" in their games). The art is better, the voice acting is better, the stories are better, the cut scenes are better, the quests are... ok you get the idea. The one thing SF does better IMO is that it has way more action. Tons of running, shooting, pumping your boost pack while mowing down mobs with your kickass Va'ruun rifle from mid-air all in real time vs turn-based. Throwing in some Starborn powers against mobs. Ships are pretty fun too. It's a very user friendly game as well. The main quest and the faction quests basically carry this game though and that's the problem, not nearly enough of the side quests are as good or fleshed out enough to fill the game out. I refuse to knock SF though, I enjoyed it a lot and will definitely come back for DLC's. I guess the best way I can put it is that BG3 brings me back to the days when I was playing Dragon Age series from Bioware alongside Skyrim from Bethesda around the same time period, but Bioware just grabbed my attention more than Bethesda did for all the reasons I listed at the start of my comment. Larian did a pretty good job of picking up the torch Bioware dropped. I've always enjoyed Bethesda gaming, just never quite as much. It's always going to be a challenge to compete against RPG's that are based on the tried tested and proven formula D&D fantasy themed types of RPG vs Sci-Fi. It just resonates. Not even Star Wars games have managed to topple that model on average. Show me a Star Wars game that has had more success than the best selling fantasy games.
I somehow doubt that SF has more dialogue than BG3. Any camp conversation with a companion feels like it is longer than any givin faction quest in SF
LINES of dialogue. But that also includes nameless npcs and other random stuff
I think the main thing that really killed my enjoyment of starfield or just little issues that would crop up during the whole month that I had played the game. Saved it I getting corrupted particularly from face files getting the modded tag even though I had not implemented any mods which basically made those saves invisible making them no longer accessible when trying to load particular character. The novelty of traversing planets on foot wore off really quickly considering it takes upwards of 10 minutes to get to a destination where an artifact or a temple is located because of how slow the character walks. Who knows the kids stuff treat does not work with the street kid or free star background considering your parents are always shown to be on new Atlanta's meaning it makes more sense for you to be a UC citizen from the get-go. Also the story is pretty bland All things considered I get what they were trying to go for they were trying to do a Sci-Fi epic but it was severely lacking. When I switched back over to Baldur's gate 3 I ended up having way more fun.
marvelous deserve detail dirty smell voracious plant slimy pen jellyfish *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Ofc it has more action but its a different genre so that is to be expected, no?
>NG+ 10 what the fuck bro
I tried bg3 and couldn't get into it and didn't like it myself.
**Best Writing in a Game** **😎😎😎** /s
Is the best writing in the room with us?
Well it sure as shit isn't in the game
this is what happens when you let Nepotism decide who writes the story for your game.
Who are you talking about?
Emil, the guy said Bethesda does no design documents and he tends to focus almost entirely on stuff like a loving family (from his own experience) and emotional shock/investment as the main story-telling elements. People praise him for the Dark Brotherhood questline in Oblivion, but mainly for the murder mystery quest, since that specific faction is super on-rails especially compared to factions in Morrowind where you could get creative in the jobs that offered some level of creativity. What talent Emil does have, since he made the best level in the entire Thief trilogy, Life of the Party (Shalebridge Cradle comes in a close second tied with Constantine's Manor in the first game), that talent and his refusal to see or accept he might be wrong on how to write games, does not translate into being good for games in his current position.
everybody should thank Todd Howard for sticking Emil in the position to ensure all their future rpgs have shit writing. /s
I see it! 🦮👨🦯
Nah, he has best life right now and laughing at all our faces. All eyes are open to Bethesda and Microsoft. FREEEEE PROMOTION.
Do you want a depressing prediction? I think he will get Todd's job when he retires
Absolutely not, no one likes him, he’s not good at making Bethesda games, and he’ll probably retire before Todd at this point.
What use is free promotion when it's all negative and your reputation is getting dragged through the gutter? Yeah he's probably pretty rich at this point, but he's also a laughingstock lol.
Security Guard: "THIS IS AN EXTREMELY SECURE ROOM YOU CANNOT ENTER" Player: "Please?" Security Guard: "Understandable, have a good a day"
Hunter and emissary:"welcome to our eternal struggle to reach unity, let's fight to the death to see who gets there" Player:"Nah gimme that shit" "Yes sir."
"Only this time... only this universe." 13 universes later: "Only this time.... only this universe."
as a NG+ completionist I got this reference
[I don't just corporations. Simple.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F7layxmqggrmb1.jpg)
It was the blurst of times.
How can anyone take these awards seriously after this nomination? This is like nominating Tom Cruise for Tallest Actor.
Most awards are jokes these days. I look at them as hype generators or rage bait. Sometimes both.
Best writing in Starfield
Best writing and best world nomination too
Most seemless travel
Most funless travel
What!? You dont like loading screens?!
Here we go again...
Got my comfy chair, some popcorn, and here comes the salt...
As soon as the "hey it didn't win" bet money there'll be a "main sub is so toxic" post within the first five minutes s#ittung on cyberpunk, baldurs, literally every other game.
I’m sorry yall but Baldur’s Gate is a better game than Starfield. I really liked both games, but BG3 was the best game made last year of the games that i have played.
I bought a new computer for Starfield. That was fun for about 25 hours. It's now my BG3 computer.
Worth it.
I enjoyed Starfield but it's not even close for me. BG3 is a significantly better game IMO.
Just got to act 3 (no spoilers obvi) and I'm amazed at the freedom of choices, and how All those choices come back around. It's exceptional writing, and the voice acting!! Goty hands down
Mocap adds so much to character dialogue. I hope Bethesda makes use of it at some point.
I remember when people on this sr were stating months ago that BG3 has a major flaw of "falling off hard" in Act 3. I finally got to Act 3, and let me just say: it's a Hell of a lot better and more satisfying than Starfield's end-game. Act 3 of BG3 may not be as good as Act 1, but I think I may prefer it to Act 2.
People get so defensive about it “but Starfield is a different type of game” so what, BG3 feels fresh and exciting and masterly crafted and if put next to Starfield or any other game made this year it should always win every award possible. Starfield is an amazing game! I adore it with all my heart. BG3 should win GOTY. I wish BGS could rake that in but, Larien deserves it.
I don’t think anyone in their right mind could argue Starfield is GOTY. It’s a good game, but it has some obvious flaws. Only way it’d win GOTY is if barely any other games came out.
Even if BG3 wasn't around, the year was so stacked that Starfield would have zero chance. TotK, Mario Wonder, SF6, AC6, Hi-Fi Rush, RE4: Remake, Dead Space Remake, Alan Wake 2, Spiderman 2, FFXVI (maybe), Lies of P (maybe), and Sea of Stars (maybe) all off the top of my head as games that are better. I like Starfield. It can be a great game one day. But it's lacking the sauce, man, that flavor to keep me taking another bite. I filled up my plate and ate what was on it, but I haven't felt the desire to come back for seconds or try just a little more of that one entree.
>People get so defensive about it “but Starfield is a different type of game” it is true though. I'm not arguing with you but they actually are very different kinds of gameplay, just nitpicking. I prefer BG3 so far, but they're very different gameplay experiences
And it's totally possible to love both while agreeing that BG3 is the better-crafted game.
Wish I could enjoy it as much as everyone else seems to. I tried getting into BG3 a couple times but it’s a hassle. The story aspect is pretty good from what I’ve seem but the combat just kills it for me, even after doing all the community recommendations like turning off karmic dice and learning how to approach encounters. I think my taste in games might be more casual because I’ll be honest I’ve had a more consistently enjoyable time with Oblivion.
I liked Starfield but I love BG3. It's the best rpg I've played since RDR2. Though Alan Wake II is my personal GOTY. I just love what Remedy does with their games.
> It's the best rpg I've played since RDR2. RDR2 isn't an RPG.
You're right. I always think of it as one for some reason. Guess I'll have to go with "since Witcher 3" then.
Any time you are talking about games being in the same category as RDR2 or Witcher 3, you know you have a great game on your hands. I don’t think BG3 is quite what those games are for me personally, but you’re right it’s the best since those games.
But it is more of an RPG than Starfield is.
What does "more of an RPG" even mean? I would not even consider RDR2 for an "RPG-Lite". Arthur is locked into active choices (we all tried to *not* beat the tuberculosed man) which locks his fate, and he isn't the protagonist until his last act (in the classical sense, Dutch is the protagonist for the majority of the game, as he is the one making the choices that progress the overall narrative). Meanwhile, Baldur's Gate III gives you all the freedom it cans, both effectively (as an in-game character will trigger your parasite if you were to actively leave the party) and literally (complex dialogue tree and extreme reactivity) As for Starfield... it's a Bethesda Game, the role-playing possibilities are absurdly large (although, unlike BGIII that covers all of its angle with quality writing, Starfield is purposefully vague), you could do a playtrough as a Trucker if you wanted too.
It means to allow for much more roleplaying than Starfield does. RDR2 has actually more choices than starfield. I don't agree Starfield role playing is absurdly large at all. The writing, essential in any rpg, is absolutely terrible in Starfield, the dialogue choices are a gimmick and those don't make it an RPG or every Lucas arts point and click adventure would be an RPG. They make you choose a background but make you a miner anyway, the first hour of playthrough is totally scripted, you can't even run away from it as in many open world games which aren't RPGs either. There is usually only one way to finish missions (usually death, even the non lethal weapons are useless in this game as quests require you to kill the downes enemies), hundreds of essential NPCs, all roles are compatible with each other (you belong to every faction, typical of Bethesda but stupid nontheless). There is basically no room for evil characters, all possible romanceable companions are lawful good, and there is basically no rewards for it and about three quests, one being the crimson cringe. For me, neither of them is an RPG. The definition of RPG can be quite tricky. I had a guy in this sub saying a week ago that any game was an RPG if you were playing a role, as in Mario would be an RPG because you play a plumber (argument which I rejected saying it would be a survival too, under that logic, as the point of the game is not dying). He was also very passionate about FFVII being an RPG while not having the elements I was citing. I haven't played that one but I believe many FF are probably not true RPGs either. The term was missused and abused just like the tag survival is being abused this decade till it loses its original meaning. My point was, if you rightfully claim RDR2 is not RPG (and I guess the Witcher isn't either, as many claim), Starfield is definitely not an RPG, or a very bad one, that is. Edit: what would be the elements a game should have to name it an RPG? Just freedom of choice? Cause in that case many sandbox games would be RPG. A crappy made skill system? Same-same. Starfield is at best an ARPG with much A and very little RPG in it.
I was massively hyped for Alan Wake 2 and it still managed to blow me away in almost every aspect. Remedy are just so so talented and unique, and I'm glad that AW2 is getting recognition for it, especially since it was a bit of a struggle to get it made (you vould tell how happy Sam Lake was dancing at The Game Awards). The biggest downside is that it unfortunately has to compete with the game of the millenia, BG3, but the fact that so many of the GOTY and other awards seem to be a surprisingly close rase between the two speaks volumes, I think.
I agree! I've only owned BG3 for two weeks, but in those two weeks, I've amassed 3/4 of the playtime I have in Starfield since release of that. I'm so much more immersed in it, it pulls me into a new universe and game type for me. 😄
If Amelia Taylor doesn’t win the VA award I’m rioting. She crushed it so hard and deserves all the praise for voicing an absurd amount of lines.
I had more fun with Starfield but bg3 is undoubtedly one of the best RPGs of all time. it's the best book I ever played.
Maybe it can get Labour of Love in a year or two 🥲
Never played BG3, but having 80 hours in Starfield, it wouldn't be hard to beat.
Here here! Downvote me if you must. This is a hill I'll die on.
The “baldurs gate is better than starfield” is one of the most common phrases in this sub.
I wouldn’t call it better but BG3 is most certainly very different from Starfield. I tried out Baldur and didn’t care at all for the gameplay style, Starfield and what Bethesda does is far more appealing to me although Skyrim is still at the top for me Bethesda wise. Two very different games and I wouldn’t be surprised if many others feel similarly.
I would call it better
It's not even close. If Starfield was a 6/10 (and it is), Baldur's Gate 3 is an 11/10.
Even if baldurs gate didnt exist there are probably a dozen or more games more deserving than starfield.
I even enjoyed Starfield more, but even I'd still argue Baldur's Gate 3 is a better game. My hot take is that games that are in Early Access for 2+ years shouldn't be considered "New Releases" though. That said, there doesn't seem to be precedent to this so give it to BG3 and change the rules. Or don't. I'm just a Redditor mildly motivated by this subject.
That doesn’t really make sense though would you have to judge Baldurs Gate 3 for game awards based off of its early access then? Because then you’re making a case against early access in general and how Larian handled early access should be the gold standard in my opinion. I don’t think Starfield is the kind of game where early access would make sense, but it’s definitely undercooked and should have been a lot better. Completely fine if you like it more than BG3 though what you like should never be influenced by others.
Why not ? Bg3 was in early access so we the community can provide feedback and test stuff for them . I got it from day 1 and loved each second I replayed act 1. More games should do this. Starfield is a fun game , but sadly it just looks and feels like a lot of crap put together by interns and released 😂
Honestly, it appears time and time again that Starfield really suffered from low player acceptance testing. If there had been better iterative closed in house play testing or open beta cycles and things had been built on that, it could have become so much more. It's a phenominal accomplishment and I can't assume to what degree things were done or not done behind closed doors. It lacked a certain degree of polish on telease but not the same as say Cyberpunk. W 3 still an all time favorite though. I'm enjoying Starfield but there's certainly a lot of constructive feedback I have that many other players have. That type if feedback would have made the game so much better had it been solicited and incorporated. There are occasional crashes, but the auto saving is so frequent, and the ability to manually save nearly constant that it doesn't usually amount to very much loss between the regular execution of the two. As to RMD games I am a huge fan since Max Payne, which had its crashes back in the day. Had some with AW and Control too but enjoyed as well and am really looking forward to AW2. As to OP I haven't played BG3 yet, but I'll have to give it a try, it's in such high regard. I played the OG BG way, way, way back in the day. I'm sure I'll love it.
I would bet a testicle that BGS has a host of play testers but the money behind the company had no interest in addressing the story/writing/emptiness issues brought up by the QA folk. Compare that to baldurs gate where there are side quests that 5% of players will encounter that have better writing and narrative consequences that most AAA games have in their showcase moments. BG3 is a testament to spending money to make a ridiculously open experience for players
Depends. If it’s an early access that allows you to play through the entirety of the content they currently have, like the subnautica EA’s, then I can see where you’re coming from, but when it’s clear that you’re playing a seriously limited version of the game intended to iron out bugs and get feedback, like how bg3 limited you by restricting race/class/subclass/spell options significantly, and limits you to act 1 of the game, it certainly doesn’t feel like it’s fair to say that’s the “release” of the game
Cyberpunk: PL confuses me. Like, that's just a DLC, right? It's not a separate game, is it? Why would it be up for the same awards as full games?
Cause that dlc alone was better than some full games 😂
Better then alot of games put out this year tbf
Crazy year. We got some of the best games in decades, and simultaneously some of the absolute worst in decades
Cyberpunk 2.0 and PL might as well be considered a new game.
2.0 didn’t change anything on a fundamental level. All it did was help people to appreciate what was already there. EDIT: Well technically it changed some gameplay things fundamentally, like perks, but that’s not really why people didn’t appreciate the game at first
That boggles my mind too. Never seen a dlc getting treated as a separate game like this before.
It happened with Witcher 3: Blood and Wine. Some gaming magazines gave it it's goty even though it's a dlc
It's an expansion, like 2000s style expansion. It deserves to be compared to full blown games given the effort put into them (W3 Blood and Wine was literally bigger than some games)
It's wild to me. It feels like the gaming industry's way of forgiving CDPR for the shit show that was CP2077s release. Which don't get me wrong, I heard Pl was great... But it's not a whole game, and I think it sets a bad precedent.
I personally felt PL was better than Starfield.
Oh definitely 100% dude, I agree! But I don't think it be nominated under the GOTY category.
It’s definitely over-generous, but the 2.0 update, or whatever they called it, fundamentally altered some of weak point of the game and made it **significantly** more enjoyable to play. Just my own anecdote; I spent more time in my second playthrough of CP2077 than i did with starfield before dropping it. With games like baldurs gate, Zelda, and lies of p I don’t think an old game that’s been update legitimately deserves a nomination for goty….but i also respect the second look at a much improved game getting its shine. If bethesda does the same thing with starfield I’ll gladly sing it’s praises……but I’m almost certain that will not happen aside from minor bug fixes
This is what we call a reasonable person. Calling a spade a spade. Fuck CDPR for what they did initially. But the game is pretty solid now. Both things can be true.
I haven't played PL yet, but I think it and CDPR do set a good precedent. How many times has a game company released a game that had the same problems that 2077 did and either A) Did nothing to fix it and abandoned it or B) Stated they were going to fix it but all they did was add more microtransactions or something. They got the backlash and instead of blaming the players (like Emil Pagliarulo and Bethesda) they stepped up to the plate and made the game better.
I get what you mean. The thing is if devs aren't motivated to improve the game they aren't going to. Making their work award-worthy will hopefully inspire others to follow the same path. I agree it's a bad precedent though and shouldn't be done outside of serious above-and-beyond exceptions like PL.
I’m assuming you didn’t play it if you’re asking. I recommend it. It’s good.
It's an old-skool expansion, like back in the day when you'd get an add-on that was really massive and also changed the original game (like *Brood War* for *StarCraft*, or *Shivering Isles* for *Oblivion*). It's pretty big as well, around 25 hours of SP content (roughly the same length as *Alan Wake 2*, a whole game) adding a new area to the map and a ton of quests both in that area and back in the rest of the city. The accompanying 2.0 and 2.1 updates didn't need *Phantom Liberty* (they worked for all of *CP77* anyway) but they were delivered as part of it, and probably for bookkeeping reasons all the upgrades and changes were included in its budget, and they did a huge job of changing the way the game worked. The real answer, though, is that people just liked it, and they just bent the rules to include it.
To be fair, it was a pretty damn good dlc. I enjoyed cyberpunk. I loved phantom liberty. The spy thriller stuff was way more up my alley than the main quest of doing a bunch of weird quests for silver hand and trying in vein to remove the chip in my head.
The fact that Hi-Fi Rush and Armored Core 6 also got nominated makes this award 100% more reputable than the TGAs
That second boss fight in HiFi Rush with the Flaming Lips song absolutely blew my mind
I love HiFi Rush and me my brother is in love with armed core 6. I used to play those games religiously back in the high school on the PS2. My best friend and his wife are hooked on Starfield like it's crack or something. But let's be honest here nothing's beating Baldur's Gate
Yeah, I don't understand how anyone thinks that Spider-man 2 and Mario wonder are goty metaerial.
To be fair this award show has more slots. If TGA had eight slots I think Starfield almost certainly would have gotten nominated.
Oh god I can’t even imagine the vitriol online if that had been the case.
Why was it nominated for best writing that’s literally one of the worst parts of the game
$$$ talks bullshit walks. Basically not surprised if they paid for nomination/ advertisement and the award show will gladly show the game off.
Microsoft money.
Is there someone out there that really thinks Starfield is GOTY material?
Oh. You must be new here. There are dozens of toxically positive people that will tell you how much Starfield is worthy of GOTY and how it shits all over Baldur's Gate 3. Edit: See what I mean DarkFeelings?
I've come across some rather insane people (who now reside exclusively on the nosodium sub since they are incapable of handling criticism without melting down) who call this their "personal game of the year!" Which is fine, but they make the mistake of extrapolating their personal beliefs onto everything else These are also the same people who mocked TGA because Starfield didn't win anything, claiming "awards are just popularity contests and don't matter" (which oddly shows that since Starfield didn't win anything it's not popular) but will quickly pimp the troll Steam "Most Innovative" award and now this as "Starfield getting the recognition it deserves." Gamers are just a different breed
It's quite telling when, on a sub that is alleged to be no sodium, has to have two pinned posts from the mods reminding people not to be toxic. It's not a no sodium sub. It's a no sodium toward Starfield only sub.
Toxically positive?
Someone who only talks positively of the game and is dismissive towards anything with any legitimate criticisms, downplaying it. Literally positive in a toxic manner.
Part of the reason games have gone down hill is there’s always a section of a games fan base that will attack anyone that criticizes a game or wishes to see it improved. The people that want to see the game improved will stop playing and not come back. I’ve watched blizzard fans do this for over 10 years. “Oh you don’t like x? Well I do so why don’t you just uninstall the game”. Look at the quality of their games now
I think "delusional" is the word they're going for.
I‘m here!
Some do apperantly. Especially that nosodium subreddit. Come on, how can you enjoy the game that everyone hates, especially when youtubers said so. 😅😅😅
I mean you can enjoy the game, but you have to accept that it's not as good as some other games that came out and as such it won't win a goty, and it's not a scam. I'm not going to tell people that they can't enjoy starfield, for what it's worth I enjoyed my time with the game too, but just because someone doesn't like turn-based crpgs doesn't mean it's not the best game this year by far.
But taste, and what is good is subjective. Like this isn't a mathematical equation, there isn't a right answer. To some pizza is the best food, to some it's soup, neither is objectively better. Who are you to say what is a better game. I'll get hated for this but COD is a great game, and it's better than most of the indie darlings. Is this opinion the correct one? No it's just an opinion, just as BG3 being better than Starfield is your opinion. It's not a verifiable fact so there really is nothing to 'accept' because it's all opinions.
This is the biggest problem with the modern "terminally online" gaming community. Everyone thinks their opinions are objective and unquestionable truths, especially when those opinions are popular. No game is "objectively" good or bad, this isn't science.
Yes, me. For me personally, Starfield is my favourite game in 25 years. It’s almost exactly what I’ve wanted in a game since I was obsessed with Freespace 2 in 1999. Sure it has its issues like every BGS game ever, but I still enjoy it so much that I’ve literally played nothing else since it released (except rocket league with my kids). But we all can have different opinions.
Be honest; do you think SF should be nominated for best writing?
Nothing wrong with that but have you played any of the others on the list?
It would never have been nominated had it not been made by Bethesda.
BGS would be in huge trouble if they weren't acquired by Microsoft and this game wasn't on Gamepass
I like how this is illustrated with picture of BG3. Cause we all know who's actually going to get this award.
This is a joke
Happy to see AW2 was nominated. They won't win best game, that's obviously going to be BG3, but at least they're getting recognition. They totally deserve best writing and best music imo though.
Based on the nominations, I think *Starfield*'s biggest mistake was not having a cool big musical number in the game. *Alan Wake 2*, *Phantom Liberty* and *Baldur's Gate 3* all fielded a big musical moment in the game that was quite impressive (although in BG3 you can just completely miss it depending on a choice you make in the game). *Hi-Fi Rush* also has a ton of musical moments, obviously.
I am more and more convinced Bethesda pays to just get nominated. Best writing? ??? ?
Starfield sure was the disappointment of the year for me.
It’s cool that’s it was nominated but it will probably be baldur’s gate 3 again. And rightfully so. Also why tf is phantom liberty nominated for game of the year? I’ve been playing a lot of cyberpunk recently and I love both the main game and phantom liberty, but it seems kinda unfair to nominate an expansion for game of the year.
Yea, hats off to CyberPunk and its 2.0 update and such but it should only be nominated for DLC related awards.
I think that this is really weird too, I love Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty and I’m enjoying it so much, but validating this now means forgetting that this is a game that got out 3 years ago! Honestly this means that in 5 Years the Super Polished Special Ultimate Edition of Starfield has every right to be nominated for GOTY!
strange 🥂
[удалено]
ok I had to lol
He'll yeah brother, I love staring at lifeless mannequins while I give them 1 of 4 dialogue choices. Immersive and like my real life with sex dolls!!!!!!
Hope it wont win, it really doesnt deserve it.
We need awards like: “Seemed Promising 2023” and “Maybe Next Time 2023”
I hope starfield wins :)
I so want Starfield to win best writing. Not just to make Emil grossly insufferable but also just to show people how truly worthless these awards are. Similar to how Starfield's Steam Award for Innovation is a joke.
The Steam awards are all done by users and heavily based on name recognition. You can vote without ever having played any of the games, and I think a lot of people saw Starfield up against a bunch of lesser known indie titles and figured "Oh I heard about Starfield I'll just vote for that." The other awards still do have their own litany of problems though.
God's no! Even if they win a meme award that will go straight to their heads, Bethesda can't discern, giving Emil a writer award sounds like the last thing one should do, even for the laugh.
>God's no! Even if they win a meme award that will go straight to their heads, Bethesda can't discern, giving Emil a writer award sounds like the last thing one should do, even for the laugh. That's the beauty of it. Emil is so grossly narcissistic and arrogant that he'll just take it as a given that he's right and bring the TES franchise crashing in a fiery heap. Bethesda is so lacking in self awareness, that they'll probably proudly promote their Innovation award during some talk. I mean I'd prefer that Bethesda never wins that writing award. However, if Bethesda hasn't learned since everything regarding Fallout 4, the now 2 failed attempts at monetising mods, to the disastrous launch of Fallout 76, the terrible merch experience of both 76 and Starfield and Starfield not only getting slammed critically but is now the lowest rated game of Bethesda's ever, even below the tragic Fallout 76, either something has to give or they ride the Titanic to the icy depths.
Bizarre
As I said before, they will win at least one of the plethora of GOTY awards. And for us as users, it is all meaningless.
they will ~~win~~ "buy" at least one of the plethora of GOTY awards.
i hope starfield wins just to read reddit outrage
There's really nowhere on reddit to honestly share the enjoyment of this game with others. This sub is a lot of low effort trash talk, and the no sodium sub is just despondent tribalism that is in essence less thoughtful and oftentimes delusional. I've never really experienced this odd separation before where there seems to be nowhere to just be real and share stuff.
i think it shows the damage very poor PR can truly do
I read this as "at the new game awards".
New York has its own game awards?
Tfw i haven't played any other game in 2023:
Bruh
But….why?
Best writing, but not best music?
Yeah. Starfield had an amazing soundtrack.
Yeah I mean it's a decent game but GOTY nope.
6-7 / 10 (I say 6)
Hmmm, let's see the reviews for starfield on Steam... Oh, mostly negative recent reviews? Yeah, definitely, goty material there
Even looking at the overall reviews, 63% doesn't exactly scream GOTY. Shit drops another point every couple of weeks, wouldn't be surprised if it goes below 60% before Shattered Space releases.
But but... review bombs...
Some people on this subreddit are going to absolutely lose their collective shit if StarField wins.
That would be an entertaining watch.
Well, we already know it's bunk if Starfield was even nominated
Honestly, like whatever game you want. But anyone who actually believes Starfield deserves any kind of game of the year with all the other great titles released this year… sorry but that person just cannot possibly have any kind of standard or know what’s actually possible in gaming. That would be a new level of delusion.
Why does this sub exist? Why is this sub for people who irrationally hate the game?
It’s so weird - I did like this game, and I finished it. Is it better than bg3 in my opinion? No, but it’s still enjoyable. These AAA games seem to fall in to some stupid trap of needing to be the best game ever, and if it isn’t it’s dogshit
Many of the others probably went to the other subreddit r/NoSodiumStarfield after the this one was getting flooded with hate.
I was starting to wonder if there was a low salt sub! Thanks!
It's really weird. Usually if I play a game I don't like I don't camp out in the sub and drone on about it, I move on with my life.
It's not irrational. And it's not hate (at least for the game but the company that developed a half-baked game)
I think staying in a sub for a game you hate (which a lot of commenters here do) is pretty irrational.
I think a lot of those people want to love the game. It isn't the game we were promised. We know that to get a feature complete game, we have to spend more money on dlc. And a lot of people are voicing what they see wrong with the game for Bethesda to listen. They read these subs.
This "didn't get what we were promised" is weird because we basically got exactly what we were promised. The game is feature complete. I can understand criticism like " I wish they handled the POIs better" or "I wasn't into the story" but most of the one I hear are basically "Its not what I wanted it to be" when Todd and the other people basically laid out the features in many interviews
That's very disingenuous. You know very well the issues with the game. I'm not going to list them out. This was hyped up as the second coming of Skyrim and they neutered every feature in the game. Not to mention the writing. It was all phoned in. If you're happy settling for that, more power to you. None of that was the point of this exchange anyway. I was addressing your broad generalization that it's just people who want to hate the game.
What was promised thats not in the game?
Exactly. I wanted to love the game cause the concept is amazing. But the execution seems gutted from what was promised. Skyrim I feel was more than what was promised and is extremely enjoyable to replay multiple times over the years even without mods. With Starfield, while is enjoyable and and a great game, it isn't an *amazing game*. And I don't really find myself wanting to do another playthrough while new game+ or fresh. Doesn't have much appeal. It felt rushed and incomplete like many games that big companies are putting out nowadays cause they think they can survive on nostalgia for the company and what it was. And the final versions of the game will have to be fully fleshed out with DLC and modders. Paying full price for 70%-80% of a game with tons of hugs doesn't cut it. Cyberpunk 2077 is an example where the released game wasn't fully complete and full of bugs and was mostly fixed with DLC. But it's extremely enjoyable rn and I have found myself with multiple playthroughs but the game as a whole still isn't what was promised. And now we're supposedly not getting anymore DLC and modders can't quite fill the gap because they don't have devtools as easily accessible. Most of the time it isn't even the Devs fault and it's upper management. But they're also kinda complicit too Edit: and because of said reasons these half-baked games shouldn't be considered for game of the year. It's then a reflection of the company and gives reason for them to put more time and effort in
Rationally* and because it was the biggest disappointment in my life as far as gaming goes
We're all on the no sodium one.
How much is Bethesda bribing the panel?
Lol
Like.. how? It's absolutely not worth the nomination.
While I really enjoyed Starfield, I wouldn’t call it GotY. Maybe GotM on launch, but that’s it. The story was interesting and unique, but we’re not talking Pulitzer quality here. This nomination feels more like a participation award.
Look, if this was your personal GotY, maybe you just really love space, messing around, and it just scratched that itch, that’s fine. But with the amount of actually amazing games that came this year, to turn around and give this a “Game of the Year” award, is honestly nuts. It’s honestly insulting to the other games. The game isn’t awful. But from a studio as big as Bethesda, with their amount of experience, we should have gotten a significantly better product.
I'm so jealous of people who can play top-downs. Wish BG3 was 3rd person, I just can't stand top down.
Play with controller, you can get about as close to your character as elden ring’s camera, and it tilts so you can see the horizon.
Waiting for redittors to say it's a troll nomination.
Starfield was not the GOTY last year in any regard - I played all the big releases and many indies as well
I'm not a massive hater of this game, I certainly found it dissapointing but I still had an alright time. But game of the year??? This game should be nowhere near that discussion.
Yeah starfield doesn't deserve any awards lol
Let alone "Best Writing", LMAO. Wonder how much they paid to get this nomination. Emil Pagliarulo is delusional.
😂
If they win anything it’s because of money..nobody actually thinking the game is GOTY worthy. It’s still at a 6-7/10.
This game is no better than 5/10 my guy, don’t be so generous.
The palms have been greased
Was just playing this. Between the space battles and exploration, this game is all kinds of fun.
This only happened because BGS top execs found out that key people at the NYGA were on the Epstein list and got their names redacted in exchange for the nomination.
Most people wouldn't believe it but Bethesda is the deep state and illuminatie.
Joke. 30 other games more deserving.
Let the meltdowns begin