There's an RPG liker's apocalypse looming on the horizon: Baldur's Gate 3 and Starfield are launching within a month of each other, and each is looking like a whopper.
With a game like Baldur's Gate 3, a number of factors make it successful—but perhaps none are as powerful as its side quest design.
Article makes a great point and I agree with it but is spoiler heavy. It should be marked. If you haven’t played through the game be warned as it even spoils parts of act 3.
Thanks for this dude, I am very interested in playing when I have time and am trying to avoid spoilers.
While we were so hoping to not have to update owners of the console physical Deluxe Edition with any further news of delay, we’ve now run into more production issues which means that players who pre-ordered their PS5 North America copy that was expected to ship later this month, will now have to wait until July before they can get their hands on them.
Got that email like 2 weeks ago. Tbh I'm not tripping. I understand sht happens. I'm just glad they changed their minds on the physical release
I with you. I got the email is well. Happy to eventually own a physical copy and glad it’s not digital only.
Baldur's Gate 3 is so good it might actually be a bad place to start with RPGs.
Baldurs Gate 3 was great, but I dont think it is as crazy as people make it out to be. I actually think Starfield is closer to being a crazy insane once in a lifetime game, but Im ready for the flak Im about to get.
If you think that then you either A never played Bg3 or B never watched anyone else play it, or C you don't know anything about the game, or D you played it and have no idea of the marvel it is in every single aspect of game design. It doesn't matter what game you compare it to, it doesn't hold a candle. Let alone starfield.
A. Ive played it thrice
B. Played with others, so there are moments of watching
C. Know more than I would care to about the game
D.
Thats quite bold, seeing as there are an inumerable amount of games for it to contend with. I also know plenty of people with their own gripes with the game.
As someone that creates things, and has actively sought to gather intel and understanding, I would say Baldurs Gates very nature makes it so it would have a hard time sitting upon the lofty throne you have given it. Similar to a Bethesda game, it is a game with a very large number of permutations and variables to consider, despite being smaller in scale by direct comparison.
Exemplary mastery of design philosophy is more certain to appear in a game that is for confined. One of the reasons I see Starfield the way I do is simply Bethesedas approach of breaking the rules. Anyone should hopefully know that you just dont try to fit a Bethesda game into a space game, but they found a way to pull it off. Do to the nature of large scale open world games, whether it is efficient or not depends on the angle one is looking at.
Many people would tell me immediately that loading screens and empty planets prove that they failed to pull it off. If you play Starfield like a conventional game yes
Part 2:
Many people would tell me immediately that loading screens and empty planets prove that they failed to pull it off. If you play Starfield like a conventional game yes, it will seem disjointed and lazy; however, to those who realize what Bethesda were going for, you will see that the game is severely underestimated. The idea of God is hated and loved by many, and there is much controversy. Starfield is closer to that idea than people even notice.
I think bloat is a big problem in games today which is why as much as I love open world games, when I see linear or semi open games I get excited and generally speaking 90% of the content in there is meaningful and not just mind numbing collectathons and terrible sides quests or bases.
Very few open world games get it right, gta series, red dead, the witcher 3, elden ring, botw are all top class examples of getting it right.
Ghost of tsushima, horizon, skyrim and fall out are good examples of it done right aswell.
Given larians experience with the divinity games I think there gonna hit the nail on the head for both quality and quantity.
Starfield will depend, for me I'm a story gamer so I'm looking forward to the main quest and all the different faction quests and doing meaningful stuff of new planets.
The dead planets that are used for mining and what not, basebuilding hold no value to me.
I'm confident starfield and BG3 will be great but generally speaking gaming has a bloat problem full of brain numbing stuff.
Give me a fantastic 20- 45 hrs game and I'm loving it, usually once you go past that it's dries up quickly, only the games I mentioned above for the most part have kept the fun going for double that time
BG3 is top-tier RPG stuff while Starfield is looking like a another "modders please help us" game.
Both are bloated.
Larian has always been both, quality and quantity. Recently finished OS1, played OS2 first actually. Both extremely good games and can be played in any order. My brother played all the Divinity games, and I've watched longplays of them, clearly Original Sin is a step up from their previous games, OS2 another one up, and Baldur's Gate 3 yet another masterpiece.
Bethesda is quantity. Their stories, writing, content etc. is pretentious, superficial, shallow and generic. Bethesda does know how to create an interesting combination of a world, put music in it and combine a decent atmosphere with some nice vistas. Bethesda games always make a great first impression, a splash, but they become stale fast.
Larian games on the other hand, they give an okay first impression, but become increasingly interesting and complex as you go forward. They have that "need to know what happens next, where can I go next, what's behind that corner!" feel to them, like old school games used to have. Bethesda games are just "okay, another forest, another generic NPC, another generic town with some generic dialogue and dead eyed characters"
Being back multiple story paths and ending, then we can talk.