• Goronmon@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    You didn’t say that, so I’m curious what you feel that measure would be.

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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)
      • Cybersteel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.