Support NeoGAF

[RoboFu]

The two best next gen RPGS !!!

 

[SEGAvangelist]

While they are both RPGS, the Starfield vs Baldur's Gate thing seems a little forced. They will definitely appeal to different audiences when it comes to actual gameplay. I'd much rather play an FPS RPG than pointing and clicking all over the place, and my wife represents the opposite. This just feels like forced controversy.

 

[Punished Miku]

I care more about ideas than graphics and voice acting, so I always eat well, I'm never content starved.

Same. I like all kinds of games.

 

[Filben]

Typical PC Gamer article. Both a very different kind of RPGs. The thing about the recycled procedural generated content is still alarming, though.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

I love BG3, but I'm also really enjoying Starfield. I don't think the two naturally cancel each other out. To write an article about it just seems like doing it for the clicks.

Again, everyone is different so experiences may vary. I'd say both BG3 and Starfield are a win for gaming in general.

As the article mentioned (Kotaku had a similar article today) - BG3 pushes the medium forward, Starfield is stuck in the past.

 

[Dr. Suchong]

. I assume you haven’t actually played Starfield.

In all honesty, no.
But with my knowledgeable friends feedback and more trusted review sources, I think I can safely assume it's something I'd probably pick up later when it's on sale or possibly fleshed out with dlc to make it more desirable.
The "Stalefield" is just for the yuks.

 

[Portugeezer]

Someone inform him that BG3 is Rockstar levels nonsense; an anomaly. Starfield is a warm hearted working man's RPG.

 

[ManaByte]

Completely different types of games. BG3 is the best representation of D&D in a video game ever. Yes, it's even better than the old BW/Black Isle games. Those used AD&D 2nd rules, but ALL of the rolls were done behind the scenes. They were basically just Gold Box games. BG3 uses 5E but the die rolls are seen and you actually have to roll for certain checks. Again, best D&D game ever done easily.

 

[Darsxx82]

Absolutely. Clearly seemed like it wasn’t written up in good faith to me.

You can be pretty sure it's not done in good faith.

PCGamer has been making clear an unhealthy hatred against Bethesda and Starfield. From his review to the various articles (retweeted to the point of indecency) all of them designed to discredit and hit any positivity towards Starfield.

They are clear that the harassment and attack on Xbox/Bethesda through the launch of Starfield produces visits and clicks from a concrete community...... It is, as you say, the current situation of the video game media and press.

 

[Senua]

Play Stalefield first, then play Baldur's gate 3.
Problem will then be somewhat mitigated.
Or just skip Stalefield.

Thanks papa Shuchong

 

[Magic Carpet]

The hyperbole surrounding both these games is getting out of hand. The poor state of the industry that these games are all thats being talked about.
Barbenheimer for movies.
Baulderfield for games. Stargate?

 

[Kacho]

Starfield really damaged a lot of people

PC Gamer is always pumping out trash like this for clicks. Didn’t Bethesda snub them on a timely review code?

 

[Skifi28]

Ohhh, a thread about Starfield. DIdn't see this coming!

 

[Luipadre]

I really enjoyed BG3. Still not finished, im in act 3 and really enjoying starfield aswell

 

[LakeOf9]

I like both. Wild concept, I know ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

Completely different types of games. BG3 is the best representation of D&D in a video game ever. Yes, it's even better than the old BW/Black Isle games. Those used AD&D 2nd rules, but ALL of the rolls were done behind the scenes. They were basically just Gold Box games. BG3 uses 5E but the die rolls are seen and you actually have to roll for certain checks. Again, best D&D game ever done easily.

Strong disagree here... the Gold Box games (well, at their best: Pool of Radiance, and the fantastic Unlimited Adventures community) feel much more authentically D&D.

That's mainly because they use 2e rules, so they actually handle things like morale correctly (shock a couple of the monsters with a brutal takedown and the rest of them might begin to flee, or even panic depending on the level differences; removing morale checks in battle was one of the worst changes made by 5e).

Having a 2e system also means much more of a "squad tactics" approach; old-school AD&D did not follow the corny approach of the new rules where "every character is a badass." Instead, you have to strategically protect your weaker members, bulid a front wall to your party with the slower but more armored members, move carefully, etc -- because it's guaranteed that even higher level mages can be obliterated easily if a foe reaches them. Different classes of the party absolutely need each other to survive, instead of this nonsense where everyone is tearing through the battlefield.

Pool of Radiance is also more classically sandbox-like, with a huge world of different directions to take and very few pre-set story beats to guide you. This is how D&D modules used to be written. I prefer that over the newer idea that "a module is a narrative and you just get to rearrange the path through that narrative."

 

[Dane]

I love BG3, but I'm also really enjoying Starfield. I don't think the two naturally cancel each other out. To write an article about it just seems like doing it for the clicks.

Again, everyone is different so experiences may vary. I'd say both BG3 and Starfield are a win for gaming in general.

PC Gamer making hit pieces against bethesda and Starfield the months preceeding was a sign.

Its truly sad that instead of enjoying both games, they need to trash the other, and it goes even far as trashing older stuff, same shit when they have to put New Vegas and Outer Worlds against Fallout 3-4 instead of enjoying them.

 

[BossLackey]

I agree that BG3 is a superior game.

However, it was very expressly built from the ground up with impactful choices in mind. That isn't the only hallmark of an RPG. If anything, that's quite rare anymore and nearly non-existent outside of CRPGs.

They're trying to do completely different things.

 

[pasterpl]

Another starfield thread. Definitely the most talked about game of the generation.

 

[Topher]

Some gamers can’t just be happy having a year of great games, can they?

 

[Dr. Suchong]

Another starfield thread. Definitely the most talked about game of the generation.

At least it'll win an award for that if nothing else

 

[Kacho]

Some gamers can’t just be happy having a year of great games, can they?

Right? we should be celebrating the 1-2-3 punch of BG3, Starfield and Phantom Liberty, but some people feel the need to prop one up by tearing the rest down. It’s incredibly petty

 

[TehGoomba7s]

Sad.

The uniqueness Bethesda games have in being able to have an open world with lots of handcrafted areas and experiences to discover is lost with Starfield. Copy paste locations on planets is a big step back to what made Skyrim and Fallout so good.

 

[SirTerry-T]

Man, I wish some one would do for Warhammer Fantasy what the Baldur's Gate games have done for D & D.
And also....fuck Games Workshop.

Carry on!

 

[Deft Beck]

Such a silly comparison. They only wrote around that headline because of SEO.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Two pretty different games. I don’t see how one ruins the other.

This is PC Gamer we’re talking about though.

 

[Kataploom]

Haven't played non of them but IMO they seem like totally different games for different audiences/moods so I don't think one would exclude the other...

 

[Krappadizzle]

Ruined might be a strong word, but it definitely tempered my enthusiasm. I have both and want to play both, but if I have a long set of time to play, I'm gonna choose BG3 right now until I finish it. It's one of the best RPG's I've ever played.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

Play Stalefield first, then play Baldur's gate 3.
Problem will then be somewhat mitigated.
Or just skip Stalefield.

Just don't bother playing SF. Life is too short.

 

[fart town usa]

Hype is the mind killer. Every damn time. Doesn't mean that "shallow" mechanics should be applauded but man, it's like so many in the community forgot that's it's OK to enjoy a game for what it is and let the hype fall to the wayside.

Twitter right now is absolutely insane with the console fanboys warring, they always do but it's like, the game is out. Why not just play it and post clips of what you enjoy about the game? All I see in the algorithm is metacritic scores and info wars theories on why IGN is trying to bring down XBOX. It's all so dumb. It's like the exclusivity narrative is out the window and somehow XBOX is the underdog against the monolith that is IGN. It's all so absurd.

 

[M.W.]

I didn't like Baldur's Gate 3. I like Starfield. Funny how that works.

 

[twilo99]

Starfield has ruined BG3 for me. I doubt I'll go back to BG this year.

It pulled me away from it as well but I do plan on finishing BG3 by the end of the year..

Both games provide top notch entertainment.

 

[L*][*N*K]

then don’t play Starfield you dipshit

 

[iorek21]

Kind of an unfair comparison since BG3 is one of a kind game with a quality that rarely happens in the industry.

But yeah, just as with Horizon facing BotW in 2017, the experience side to side might be a little stale.

 

[twilo99]

I really enjoyed BG3. Still not finished, im in act 3 and really enjoying starfield aswell

That kind of behavior is not allowed around here..

 

[iQuasarLV]

Strong disagree here... the Gold Box games (well, at their best: Pool of Radiance, and the fantastic Unlimited Adventures community) feel much more authentically D&D.

That's mainly because they use 2e rules, so they actually handle things like morale correctly (shock a couple of the monsters with a brutal takedown and the rest of them might begin to flee, or even panic depending on the level differences; removing morale checks in battle was one of the worst changes made by 5e).

Having a 2e system also means much more of a "squad tactics" approach; old-school AD&D did not follow the corny approach of the new rules where "every character is a badass." Instead, you have to strategically protect your weaker members, bulid a front wall to your party with the slower but more armored members, move carefully, etc -- because it's guaranteed that even higher level mages can be obliterated easily if a foe reaches them. Different classes of the party absolutely need each other to survive, instead of this nonsense where everyone is tearing through the battlefield.

Pool of Radiance is also more classically sandbox-like, with a huge world of different directions to take and very few pre-set story beats to guide you. This is how D&D modules used to be written. I prefer that over the newer idea that "a module is a narrative and you just get to rearrange the path through that narrative."

I feel there are two thought processes that need addressing between you and Mana's commentary.

1st: You obviously are more nostalgic for the older D&D systems and must actively dislike 4e and 5e rulesets. Instead of breaking down you disagreement it would be better served to just admit that outright and just agree to disagree

2nd: Mana's take BG3 better representing D&D is because I feel he hits the nail on the head; the table top nod is front and center in the presentation of the game. Instead of just converting mechanics into video game form and slapping a story on it and calling it D&D which is what the late 90s and early 2000s did for any game using the D&D rulesets. The narrator is there. The dice rolls are visual. The system is left instact and not butchured like DA:O did.

3rd: If you took Someone who plays BG3 and sat them down at a table session their indoctrination time would be greatly reduced compared to someone solely introduced to the D&D universe through BW / Black Isle / Obsidian games. Only because their brains would snap onto the visual elements of dice and numbers and DMs narrating the action. Now people whom grew up with AD&D / 2e / 3e tabletop games would adapt to early BG games more easily which I suppose is what the studios of the time were attempting. By introducing nerds to video games via the very medium they recognized and not video gamers to the D&D tabletop universe via a masterclass of a presentation.

 

[MaestroMike]

one is fantasy one is sci-fi i'm not going to suddenly watch lord lf the rings if im in the mood for aliens. ur either in the mood for wizards, elves and magic and dragons or ur in the mood for space and robots and aliens. this reviewer is probably more into the fantasy genre and thats fine i myself am usually more into sci-fi and feel more hype for sci-fi games. i can still get into fantasy games no problem but I don't think u should compare fantasy games with sci-fi games imo the settings of the game is totally different and actually do play a huge factor in which game you would rather play at the moment

 

[amigastar]

Man, I wish some one would do for Warhammer Fantasy what the Baldur's Gate games have done for D & D.
And also....fuck Games Workshop.

Carry on!

Isn't Total War: Warhammer III THE game when it comes to Warhammer Fantasy?

 

[Catphish]

I've been playing BG3 since release, and only took a break to play SF the last couple of days.

If nothing else, BG3 annihilates SF in the cut-scene and voice-acting departments. Like, pro-vs-division-3 annihilates. They're not on the same shelf, nevermind the same book.

I haven't played SF long enough to have a solid overall opinion yet but, in terms of presentation and immersive storytelling, BG3 mops the floor with SF.

 

[Pimpollo818]

I started Starfield last night b/c it was GP and I already got that OH NO feeling. I saw the skill tree and saw, do +5% more damage! At least the guns have really nice animations and are well detailed.

 

[Kacho]

Isn't Total War: Warhammer III THE game when it comes to Warhammer Fantasy?

Yep, but I think he's asking for a cRPG set in the Warhammer fantasy universe. Pre-Age of Sigmar.

There's a 40k cRPG coming this year by Owlcat. Should be interesting.

 

[StereoVsn]

Strong disagree here... the Gold Box games (well, at their best: Pool of Radiance, and the fantastic Unlimited Adventures community) feel much more authentically D&D.

That's mainly because they use 2e rules, so they actually handle things like morale correctly (shock a couple of the monsters with a brutal takedown and the rest of them might begin to flee, or even panic depending on the level differences; removing morale checks in battle was one of the worst changes made by 5e).

Having a 2e system also means much more of a "squad tactics" approach; old-school AD&D did not follow the corny approach of the new rules where "every character is a badass." Instead, you have to strategically protect your weaker members, bulid a front wall to your party with the slower but more armored members, move carefully, etc -- because it's guaranteed that even higher level mages can be obliterated easily if a foe reaches them. Different classes of the party absolutely need each other to survive, instead of this nonsense where everyone is tearing through the battlefield.

Pool of Radiance is also more classically sandbox-like, with a huge world of different directions to take and very few pre-set story beats to guide you. This is how D&D modules used to be written. I prefer that over the newer idea that "a module is a narrative and you just get to rearrange the path through that narrative."

I kind of agree with this. Between that and spellcasting being a bit less interesting due to low levels, for me BG2 overall is a better game. And further, Pathfinder WotR is possibly best at this sort of combat.

BG3 is excellent and I think wins with immersion factor though.

 

[ClosBSAS]

I love them both. I am having an absolute blast with starfield. Bg3 just satisfies another type of itch

 

[TonyK]

Lucky me I will play Baldur's Gate 3 after Starfield, so I will enjoy both games.

 

[cireza]

Enjoying two different games that offer different experiences is beyond some people it seems.

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

I feel there are two thought processes that need addressing between you and Mana's commentary.

1st: You obviously are more nostalgic for the older D&D systems and must actively dislike 4e and 5e rulesets. Instead of breaking down you disagreement it would be better served to just admit that outright and just agree to disagree

2nd: Mana's take BG3 better representing D&D is because I feel he hits the nail on the head; the table top nod is front and center in the presentation of the game. Instead of just converting mechanics into video game form and slapping a story on it and calling it D&D which is what the late 90s and early 2000s did for any game using the D&D rulesets. The narrator is there. The dice rolls are visual. The system is left instact and not butchured like DA:O did.

3rd: If you took Someone who plays BG3 and sat them down at a table session their indoctrination time would be greatly reduced compared to someone solely introduced to the D&D universe through BW / Black Isle / Obsidian games. Only because their brains would snap onto the visual elements of dice and numbers and DMs narrating the action. Now people whom grew up with AD&D / 2e / 3e tabletop games would adapt to early BG games more easily which I suppose is what the studios of the time were attempting. By introducing nerds to video games via the very medium they recognized and not video gamers to the D&D tabletop universe via a masterclass of a presentation.

I agree that a major difference is how Gold Box games were built for pen-and-paper players, giving them a video game format of what they love--instead of being built for gamers, and converting them back into the tabletop hobby. That's absolutely true. In fact, when I first started Pool of Radiance when it released, it wasn't familiar enough with AD&D rules and had to come back to it once I learned more. It just assumed that the player already grasps THAC0, encumbrance, complex spell and combat limitations, classes dynamics, etc.

I would add one layer on top of that though: one problem I have with 5e rules is that the tabletop already feels like the entire game system was made for people who play video games. The tabletop itself is jus so video-gamey; everything is expected to be scaled to the characters, as the narrative moves along from set-piece to set-piece. In classic (A)D&D, the story is something that largely emerges from the world's sandbox, and the world is hostile or indifferent to the players rather than scaled (so you constantly have to make risk/reward calculations, and you an easily run into monsters or forces that are far beyond you, at any time).

 

[diffusionx]

The question isn't whether or not PC Gamer is full of clickbait garbage, it is. The question is whether or not his criticisms are fair. I haven't seen anyone say that he was totally wrong or missed something major in Starfield that could change his opinion.

 

[iQuasarLV]

I agree that a major difference is how Gold Box games were built for pen-and-paper players, giving them a video game format of what they love--instead of being built for gamers, and converting them back into the tabletop hobby. That's absolutely true. In fact, when I first started Pool of Radiance when it released, it wasn't familiar enough with AD&D rules and had to come back to it once I learned more. It just assumed that the player already grasps THAC0, encumbrance, complex spell and combat limitations, classes dynamics, etc.

I would add one layer on top of that though: one problem I have with 5e rules is that the tabletop already feels like the entire game system was made for people who play video games. The tabletop itself is jus so video-gamey; everything is expected to be scaled to the characters, as the narrative moves along from set-piece to set-piece. In classic (A)D&D, the story is something that largely emerges from the world's sandbox, and the world is hostile or indifferent to the players rather than scaled (so you constantly have to make risk/reward calculations, and you an easily run into monsters or forces that are far beyond you, at any time).

That is the thing man. Money talks. WotC made a concious decision way back in 4e development to make it more videogame-y. They saw the huge windfall Warcraft was making and they wanted a piece of that. Not to mention the AD&D 3e crowd was aging out and no new generations were buying into the platform, so they made a choice of irrelevancy or adaptation.

Now we are coming full circle of those 4e/5e kiddos becoming old enough to develop a game reliving those moments in a magnum opus of coming full circle to reintroduce the next generation to what awesomeness that tabletop is. All after the sheer success of Critical Role in introducing people to D&D as a whole.

 

[Bkdk]

To be fair, starfield did stop me from playing bg3 after 170 hours of gameplay, but I totally agree with pc gamer and extremely disappointed with starfield’s vanilla release. Might still become my favorite of the year due to modding scene. However now I’m just playing Skyrim and fallout 4 with mods again while I wait for phantom liberty. Starfield’s direction seems closer to what ff16 is trying to do, simply to appeal to a whole new group of players. Starfield is trying to build new market from gamers who are into collecting stuff, build outposts and customize spaceship. However SE did it to do ff16 because ff 7 rebirth will be out soon and closer to the classic ff formula.

Who knows when elder scrolls 6 would be released and next time you will have 2 companions to choose from only, 6 hour main quest with little choices, while whole game is just to collect, build outposts, plant trees, customize and feed dragons.

 

[iQuasarLV]

The question isn't whether or not PC Gamer is full of clickbait garbage, it is. The question is whether or not his criticisms are fair. I haven't seen anyone say that he was totally wrong or missed something major in Starfield that could change his opinion.

True that. After actually reading the article I realized that most people posting in here read the title of the op-ed and drew their own outrage responses.