I did say “they did so many things right”, with which I was referring to this objective measure of quality. There is a good reason this game is so universally beloved, and there are good reasons why Starfield isn’t.
If you want a random assortment of these “right things”:
Many, many choices that strongly impact your gameplay (Starfield has few interesting quests, most “choices” lead to the same outcomes)
Very interesting companions that have their own well-defined personalities and perspectives (Starfield/Bethesda companions just don’t have as many interesting things to say/as much cross-interaction)
Dialogues with interesting animations (Starfield/Bethesda dialogues are pretty static, looking at you, since… Oblivion I think?)
Interesting and detailed world design without constant repition and emptiness (Starfield is mostly empty, and mostly not unique)
An interesting story with a few twists (Starfield feels very generic Sci-Fi to me, but your mileage may vary)
Relatively few loading screens for a pretty big world (Starfield has constant loading screens)
Strong replayability due to many different options (Starfield has a few interesting NG+ ideas, but generally isn’t too interesting to repeat)
Should supposed “good” games get a pass? Nay I say both bad and others game be put on the same weighing scale. The subjective “goodness” of a game shalt have no bearing on the sanctity of the product.
Did somebody say “let’s ignore all problems good games have”?
If a game is good, and bugs are getting fixed, why shouldn’t the bugs be viewed more leniently than a non-good game with bugs that are not getting fixed? Why must we view these things as equivalent, when they are different in multiple dimensions?
Personally, I don’t get frustrated so much by the presence of bugs themselves (though it can depend on their impact) as the longevity of some of them. A lot of the bugs were cute in Skyrim, but if you see the same or similar bug in the new game, it gets less cute.
But there could be a part of it that comes from “familiarity breeds contempt”. BG3, while being a sequel to BG2, is new and fresh. Starfield feels like Skyrim in space. Bethesda has been a powerhouse for a long time, while Larian wasn’t as popular going in, so expectations are higher for Bethesda, too.
Though I’ve gotta admit I haven’t played any BG3 and not much Starfield, so this is a bit speculative.
As I previously said, there is an objective measure of quality that separates the two games.
You didn’t say that, so I’m curious what you feel that measure would be.
I did say “they did so many things right”, with which I was referring to this objective measure of quality. There is a good reason this game is so universally beloved, and there are good reasons why Starfield isn’t.
If you want a random assortment of these “right things”:
Should supposed “good” games get a pass? Nay I say both bad and others game be put on the same weighing scale. The subjective “goodness” of a game shalt have no bearing on the sanctity of the product.
Did somebody say “let’s ignore all problems good games have”?
If a game is good, and bugs are getting fixed, why shouldn’t the bugs be viewed more leniently than a non-good game with bugs that are not getting fixed? Why must we view these things as equivalent, when they are different in multiple dimensions?
Edit: case in point: https://lemm.ee/post/16532405
Personally, I don’t get frustrated so much by the presence of bugs themselves (though it can depend on their impact) as the longevity of some of them. A lot of the bugs were cute in Skyrim, but if you see the same or similar bug in the new game, it gets less cute.
But there could be a part of it that comes from “familiarity breeds contempt”. BG3, while being a sequel to BG2, is new and fresh. Starfield feels like Skyrim in space. Bethesda has been a powerhouse for a long time, while Larian wasn’t as popular going in, so expectations are higher for Bethesda, too.
Though I’ve gotta admit I haven’t played any BG3 and not much Starfield, so this is a bit speculative.