this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
1150 points (96.1% liked)
> Greentext
7551 readers
1 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Meanwhile, BG3 launches and shows what a proper RPG is capable of.
Very different design philosophies. Bethesda try to create dynamic worlds to explore where every npc has a schedule they follow over the course of the day and you find new things organically, but end up not having the resources to create much depth in their quests.
Larian put a lot of work into their quests, but have a very static world where there is no day/night cycle and npcs repeat the same path and barks every few minutes.
except they don't in Starfield
I mean maybe you can argue you can still do this but it's less "stumble on ancient tomb" and more "click on a interesting looking marker on the map"
Man you really haven't played a Bethesda game since Skyrim
I have played them all. Although I only played the first 10 hours of starfield.
Stand in one place in the middle of Baldur's Gate and listen to the same barks repeat every minute.
Larian do not have the tools and experience to build a Skyrim game. Bethesda do not have the tools or experience to build a Baldur's Gate game.
A cyberpunk developer made the exact same point when people were comparing them to Starfield, two games with far more in common than Baldur's gate.
https://www.gamingbible.com/news/cyberpunk-2077-developer-defends-starfield-against-fan-criticism-664007-20231005
It is fine to criticise starfield for it's faults. It's rediculous to imply they should have built a Larian game instead. They can't