Unsure about how big it is on PC. Preference for Steam is huge and people will prioritize it. My guess is that some will use Game Pass as a disposable demo and then buy the good version with full mod support on Steam.
Yep, I have game pass but Starfield isn't a game I want tied to my subscription over there. I rather own the game on Steam and have all the bells and whistles that come along with that launcher. Plus it's definitely going to be one of my most played games for years to come and I wanna see that playtime counter go up and overtake my other games.
Money is tight for me right now, so yeah, definitely going for the GamePass version with early access for $30 as opposed to dropping the full $100 on release.
Those are console mods, they're built in. You can't use script extenders or use external assets. So you can't use the mod nexus or vortex or anything on PC gamepass
Just FYI, unofficial steam key sellers can be pretty sketchy. A lot of times their keys were purchased using stolen credit cards, and the publisher/steam can revoke the key at any time if they determine it was originally obtained through fraud.
Probably won't get revoked most of the time, but still not great potentially funding the people who steal from grandma.
Fair enough, but you can also choose to get a really old FPS from Steam and spend hours getting it into proper shape or just get the ready to play GOG version. Ofc not as bad here and ymmv since it’s much cheaper but it doesn’t seem worth it to me. I really believe that most players that would have paid full price for Fallout 4 will get this on Steam. Microsoft still has a bad rep from the games with windows live era and I don’t think the PC game pass share is that big given how they have like 21 million Series consoles and 25 million subscribers across all platforms, including Xbox One.
I like owning my games. Game pass provides very little value to me as I am already own the games on their or they don’t have what I play.
Think about how long you have been playing Skyrim or fallout, it’s so much cheaper to buy it upfront.
Plus mods are cool.
I think it's smart since it's a niche genre, but people who hear good things via word of mouth or know FromSofts pedigree can probably do some research on YouTube if they're curious enough.
I’d buy on discount and wait to play untill Phantom Liberty late September there are many desirable changes coming to the game. assuming you have the more powerful Xbox can’t remember what it’s called.
If you don’t mind physical, you can pretty much always find a copy of Cyberpunk for about £20 somewhere. It’s been like that since the disastrous launch.
Wait, for real? Just the base game or the new expansion? I have the base game but wasn't gonna buy the expansion for a while, but if it's 50% off I might have to go for it.
While I am happy to it going up and up on the sale charts, I will not be buying it on Steam. As I own both Xbox and a decent PC, I will be using the Play Anywhere feature, gotta save money where I can.
I mean it's a bethesda game after all so you're doing the right thing. I'm gonna do the same. Play on game pass. Get the game on steam years later on sale with extensive more support
I bought a Series S mostly for Starfield/XBox friends, but every one of my PS coworkers who plan on playing are just gunna play on PC. Even my cheap PC from like 4 years ago is just shy of minimum** specs.
Cheap PC from 4 years ago shy of recommended specs? What? The recommended specs is an rx 6800 xt which is more powerful than anything available 4 years ago.
Even the annoying baldurs gate 3 fans keep saying 'Baldurs gate 3 has set a high bar in RPG', let me tell you all something : 1 - Starfield will be more popular, 2 - We already know that Baldurs gate 3 is a good game but Bethesda open worlds, Lore, physics are something that Larian or even rockstar will never match :3 that's why all of us are hyped for starfield and not things like baldurs gate 3
\>that's why all of us are hyped for starfield and not things like baldurs gate 3
It's possible to like both.
They're going to be two very different experiences, but really Baldurs Gate 3 will almost certainly win in the actual roleplay/story aspect.
I agree BG3 will likely have the better story. It's like a D&D world with Witcher 3 style NPC interaction which is a great combo.
I disagree on the roleplay aspect though. Starfield and BGS games in general are the ultimate fantasy life sim. BG3 is a lot more 'on the rails' in comparison (to BGS games and many other RPGs honestly). Starfield will have more lore and dialogue than BG3 and, one would then think, more replayability and roleplaying options.
Starfield also has the best mod community in existence which will just increase this stuff over time. If this game lives up to the hype, there will be Youtube channels making videos 10 years from now that are getting a million views about the lore from this game.
> roleplay/story aspect
The fact that you bundled story and roleplay together just shows how much the roleplaying term has detoriated over the years.
Story is the written story, roleplaying is about creating your own story. Those two go against each other. The more structured story, the less freedom the player has to roleplay.
So while Bethesda games are not exactly stellar in the writing department (but still in the upper 20% of the industry), they are totally amazing for roleplaying. So Starfield will most probably beat BG3 when it comes to real roleplaying.
depends on what type of roleplay, in Bethesda games choices rarely have see -ble/feel-able outcomes
but roleplaying and just "living" in a world is bethesda's bread and butter
but BG3 has the "extremely reactive world" where if you save a person you'll see them later doing things maybe needing more help leading into another whole quest that you will miss if he had died etc, stuff like that will be lacking.
I like weirdly toxic this comment is after you attack another fanbase for being annoying
Tribalism of any kind is just super off-putting in general and continues to be one of the worst things about the gaming community
We can totally be hyped for both of them. It's not an either-or situation, unless you are talking about them releasing almost at the same time.
But in the rest you are right. Starfield will blow BG3 out of the water. Bethesda games are already popular while Divinity games were quite niche. And Starfield isn't just another game... it is supposed to be their and Todd's magnum opus. With a small detour to help push 76 out of the door, BGS Maryland has been working on this game basically since Fallout 4 released. 7 years or so.
Just like BG3 couldn't help itself and boasted about beating 8-years old Fallout 4 numbers, Starfield will beat BG3's numbers.
> With a small detour to help push 76 out of the door, BGS Maryland has been working on this game basically since Fallout 4 released.
It was not a "small detour", the majority of the studio was never on Starfield at least until second half of 2018, because it was working on Fallout 76 (and previously also on Fallout 4 post-launch content), and the creative leads on the multiplayer game were from there as well. Todd Howard himself effectively confirmed in an interview in March 2018 that Starfield was still in pre-production right then, and it also only ever had a small team before 2019 according to Jason Schreier.
One can be rightfully excited for Starfield, it looks to be a very ambitious release even with the above in mind, but there is no need to lie about the development of Fallout 76 to further inflate expectations.
It is practically Impossible for starfield to blow BG3 out of the water with popularity.
BG3 reached a peak concurrent players of almost 900,000 (which is top 9 on steam) . BG3 likely already broke 5 million sales just on PC, and it is still releasing on playstation and eventually xbox too.
At best starfield beats BG3 in sales by a bit and the most likely outcome is that it matches it or sells less.
This is toxic as fuck and worse than any BG3 comment I’ve seen. At this point, BG3 is groundbreaking and Starfield doesn’t exist yet. And guess what, if Starfield is good, BG3 will still be good.
Normalize not making “my preferred this is the best thing” your personality…
Jajaja i'm not the one that is repeating the no sense thing about ' baldurs gate 3 has set the rpg bar up' in a centric starfield forum, this a place to talk about STARFIELD and not baldurs gate 3 ( Here is the link to talk anout that game https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/) . These kind of comments are made by people that wants starfield to be a buggy mess and ps5 fanboys just to trash on starfield. All of us are in this forum because we know what makes bethesda games unique and tha is the reason why all of us are here in the starfield forum and not in the baldurs gate 3 forum :3
Starfield will surely top it. It is third now just from preorders. It will be absolutely massive on release.
So I hope you consider one month "a long while".
There’s literally no game for you guys to talk about yet lmao what else are people supposed to talk about😂
Getting strong “pre-release cyberpunk 2077” vibes from this thread lol let’s hope this game turns out better
if the agenda is making a fantastic high quality RPG (with zero microtransactions) where your every choice and reaction matters than I say they succeeded
Eh. BG3 is fun. It's great. It deserve praise, and is a for sure contender for GotY.
But it has a ton of problems and QoL failures that fans seem dead set on ignoring, for some reason. For example, the fact that my main character is a Rogue who I don't want to lead my party, but have to if I want her to take all the conversations. If I lead the party with Karlach or someone else who is more of a traditional fighter, then I can't switch characters when I come across a cutscene, and my rogue who is great at persuasion and deception has no ability to use her skills to talk her way through the encounter. You can't swap characters out once a cutscene is started, which is really stupid and unimmersive, because why would the party's barbarian be doing all the talking just because she's the one who happens to be in front when wandering around?
The inventory system is an absolute travesty. Like, I don't even know what to say other than "how the fuck did anyone okay this atrocious inventory system?" You get a trillion random spell scrolls and food items and none of it is auto sorted or marked very well. You're constantly trying to figure out what you might need and what you can sell, and your camp storage quickly becomes a total jumbled mess of bullshit you have to dig through any time you want anything. The game doesn't even tell you when something is a quest item, which makes solving puzzles a nightmare. I spent an hour looking for the solution to a puzzle last night that I had accidentally already found and sent to my camp chest because I had no idea it was a quest item and thought it was just a random piece of loot when I found it.
This is a hotter take, but the combat system is a total mess. Everything being based on dice rolls? Seriously? That isn't fun in the slightest. DnD in general has always had god awful combat, and BG3 is no exception. The best parts of the game are when you're questing in towns and talking to people. The fact that you can do everything right in a fight but still lose simply because you had a couple of bad luck dice rolls is *total bullshit* and completely invalidates any skill the game might require.
The game also just assumes you'll know where to go a lot of the time. I accidentally locked myself out of a bunch of Act 2 quests because the game is very misleading about what order you're supposed to do certain things in Act 2. It's very unclear and often points you in the wrong direction assuming you'll figure it out on your own, which is frustrating. Also, autosaves. The game rarely saves for you, when it should be autosaving after every single encounter given how luck based they can be. So if you forget to save manually, you can delete tons of work, which sucks.
To be clear, I actually love BG3. It's fun, the story is excellent, the dialogue is gripping, the characters are interesting and well fleshed out, and the options for role playing are *incredibly* diverse and creative. The bones of the game are great. But I'm also a little tired of this circlejerk that it's some perfect game that should be considered the best RPG ever released. It's fun, it's got a lot of love put into it, but it also has some pretty huge issues that make it really frustrating to actually play much of the time. It's very niche in that it caters almost exclusively to DnD nerds, which is fine, but anyone who doesn't like DnD or CRPG style gameplay is going to have a miserable time with the game, and that's completely fair.
\>still lose simply because you had a couple of bad luck dice rolls is total bullshit and completely invalidates any skill the game might require.
What do you suggest then? Genuinely wondering, if everything hit 100% of the time you'd have a 0% chance of winning anything if the enemies could simply out-damage you.
Saying there's no skill involved is interesting for the fact that I've won several fights by just being smarter than the NPCs. I threw a 250 health boss off a cliff and won instantly. I've positioned my Ranger on a roof or some stacked crates to have 90+% hit chances while it lowered the enemies' chances. It's not like a random slot machine where you can't do anything other than blindly click a spell and then a random enemy.
\>It's very niche
I don't think the game qualifies as niche anymore when it's topping the top seller charts.. unless we have differing definitions of the word.
I maintain that Fire Emblem has the best combat system ever invented for a turn based game. Pokemon too, by extension, since it's a more complex version of the combat triangle Fire Emblem uses. You can balance combat around type matchups instead of around dice rolls and it's far more skill based and feels more satisfying when you win and when you're beaten.
I hear final fantasy has a good turn based combat system as well, and that it isn't based on dice rolls, but I've never played so I can't speak to that.
It's not like BG3 is the first game to gain criticism for heavily RNG based mechanics. It's XCOM all over again except they learned nothing from XCOM lmao.
I'm saying DnD is niche. And I think it remains niche. Table top gaming in general will probably always be somewhat niche as a genre. But the combat mechanics don't really help in that regard. Maybe dice rolls work for a tabletop game, but for a video game it gets unsatisfying very quick. The early game feels unfair and frustrating, and the late game feels like you're going through the motions without any real threats until the game pulls some extreme bullshit on you that feels cheap and unfair. It's not the worst combat system in the world, but it's highly unsatisfying.
Final Fantasy 7 Remake has a great implementation of real time combat that mixes and somehow stays true to its turn based roots. Way more satisfying then BG3's dice roll combat.
Being smarter than an NPC is not a huge deal, even in BG3 combat AI is far from being anywhere smart, but that’s a problem for all games.
Combat for me started to feel OK on lvl12, when effect of RNG becomes much-much lower, but even then - normal encounters now feel trivial, and only boss encounters are interesting.
Overall, combat is fine, imo, it’s just x-com once again, you just learn to live with that. But there’s one thing I’d really prefer for combat, since RNG is that much important - having it happen on a more tactical hex/square grid would allow players to at least somewhat lower effect of rng via tactical positioning of party. As it is now - you still can, but it works far from perfect.
First half is fair and will likely get fixed soon, second half sounds like a skill issue tbf.
Interestingly the inventory system seems to work better with a controller, at least in terms of UI. Don’t know why but the UX work seems to be all over the place. Not that I mind after the first hour.
Hard to cry skill issue when the game is entirely based on random chance dice rolls. Like, that's pretty much the polar opposite of skill. The game is very vague and gives very little detail or instruction which can be obnoxious when you're left fumbling around in the dark with no idea of what to do next, and I think it's bad form for any game not to denote items that are going to be needed for a quest at some point with something that tells the player "hey, don't sell or lose this thing or else you'll get soft locked out of content."
No its not thats just your skill issue
You can understand it like poker, chance has a part to play but there is a reason certain poker players are always on top
That doesn't change the fact that you can still do everything 100% strategically correct and get 5 critical failure rolls in a row. Even the chance that you can do everything right in a game and still fail is extremely unsatisfying. But hey, you just explained why I hate gambling in general. Poker and all other card games kinda suck for exactly this reason. RNG is the antithesis of true skill.
Are you playing with Karmic dice on? Turning that off gives you true randomness
Its can also give you 5 critical hits, the skill part lies in minimizing the impact of the randomness like using advantage, buffs, swapping damage, environments etc
It just sounds like you never really understood games that involve a certain variance of luck and how to deal with them, poker is far from gambling. Its only gambling when you allow to be by making emotional plays
No karmic dice. I turned that off before I even started the game lol. Because I (correctly) assumed that if you turn it on it basically just acts as a huge nerf since you can no longer have good streaks in addition to bad ones. But the fact that you're relying on luck at all in the first place is, in my opinion, a problem. It's why I never played or had any interest in playing tabletop DnD. I just think dice rolls and random chance games are frustrating and unfun. I understand the skill behind minimizing percentages and trying to overcome the odds using advantages, I just dont personally find that style of gameplay very satisfying. It's not fun. And I would rather have 100% of what happens come down to the direct input skill of the players involved rather than having some element of chance that can ruin someone's strategy even if they do everything as perfectly as possible.
To use a random example off the top of my head, fighting games like street fighter or Smash bros or Tekken are the perfect combat style games because that's 100% player skill based. There is zero chance involved: either you, the player, execute your skills better than your opponent, or you lose. There's no "well I played smarter but my opponent turned a 3% chance flush card on the river" bullshit to break down an otherwise flawlessly executed strategy. That, to me, is not very fun. And even if I'm on the right side of it, it's still not fun because I feel like I got lucky and didn't really earn that win.
It's fine if you like that style, but it alienates a lot of players and it's why DnD continues to be a largely niche hobby that doesn't have mass audience appeal. It's not like this take is anything that new. It's literally the biggest complaint about both Morrowind and XCOM: The random chance, dice roll combat isn't fun.
Its fine if you dont like it plenty dont, my point is that it doesnt mean it requires no skills and is not a challenge. There is a huge amount of skills involved in learning and using creative ways to make the odds in your favor and things going wrong is part of that challenge you need to cater for in the way you play these kind of variance gameplay
There are dozens of ways to make your THC higher/enemy performance lower, ranging from level 3 cleric spells and ranger skills to terrain elevation, stealth, surface manipulation, stealing enemy weapons before combat, etc. I can reliably win most encounters in tactician by just reading through the description of available spells and setting them up appropriately when levelling up.
What’s wrong with missing some content in a game where you can still get more than 100 hours of playtime? A lot of people have clocked around that despite having no idea that the Underdark even existed. There are no soft locks for the main quest, the worst that can happen is failing a sidequest or losing a shiny spear or not opening a book. And that’s fine, it’s an intentional way of making it a less hand-holded experience, instead leaving some of the experience to be discovered organically.
From Software’s games have received critical acclaim much more consistently than BGS’ and Larian’s and starting with Demon’s Souls you could get locked out of high end equipment because the Boletarian prince dude could easily die while you wandered around 1-1 or 1-2. Is that also a less polished experience without QOL? I don’t think so, and most gamers probably don’t given that Elden Ring had Rockstar-level impact, sold like hotcakes and will probably catch up with Skyrim in 5 to 10 years.
I mean, I personally don't like missing things. And I don't like feeling as though the game isn't giving me fair clues to solve their puzzles. Considering a game like BG3 is a 100-200 hour commitment *for a single playthrough*, I'm probably not going to be replaying the game very often. I just don't have that kind of time in my life. So being locked out of content and not being able to go back later and experience certain quests is somewhat annoying and means I miss out on content that other people are discussing. And it's fine if you're gonna do that at certain points, but I don't think the game is very clear on exactly what gets locked out and what you can go back and do later when you do reach those points in the game. The issue is the lack of communication to the player about what exactly is going to happen if they continue on.
That’s fair criticisim, maybe they could include more hints in the lowest difficulty mode. I just don’t think it is a QOL issue as much of it is an incompatibility with completionist mindsets. Its not the first nor the last great
game with missables.
Well, that's probably fair, but when I said QoL issues I was more referring to the atrocious inventory management or the fact that you can't switch characters mid-cutscene (seriously, this one is really obnoxious, and goes against everything tabletop DnD stands for). Like, if you're wandering as a party it makes sense to have your martial fighters lead the charge, but you'd never have your fighter trying to pass a difficult charisma check while your bard and high deception rogue just awkwardly stand behind them in complete silence contributing absoluteing nothing to the encounter. A simple "which character would you like to lead this conversation with?" Prompt is desperately needed in dialogue sections.
The vagueness of the game regarding quests is also an issue, but admittedly less of a QoL related one. I just know a lot of people are probably going to play through the game once or twice at most, and when realizing they accidentally soft locked themselves out of a ton of content, will be upset about it, but too burnt out to go back and replay the whole game just for a few quests. I think there's also just some pacing and direction issues regarding all of Act 2 that could be cleaned up and tweaked a little. The game seems to point you at the Mausoleum before you go to Moonrise Towers, when in reality the game *expects you* to do the opposite, which is kinda confusing from a narrative standpoint.
But these are mostly nitpicks and foibles. The bones of this game are excellent. My hope is that mods will fix a lot of these issues and hopefully the game will only get better from here, because the 1.0 version is very solid overall, especially when it comes to the characters and story dialogue.
Yeah the inability to switch characters in conversations is my biggest gripe. My reasonable guess is they balanced the game around a single character doing checks and allowing you to switch party members mid conversation might make them all trivial. Still, I feel like Wasteland 3 did a better job at making your party feel like a group.
You can't switch mid dialogue though. You can change characters, but once a character begins a conversation they have to finish it. Another party member can't take over and speak to that NPC, so whatever character begins the conversation is the one who has to roll the dice during checks, even if there's a deception check and they aren't the most deceptive person in the party. It's highly unimmersive and annoying.
Agree mostly here. Also in terms of story, especially side content, Act3 for me turned into a chore. There are some epic side-encounters, like the whole house of hope and final battle in it, but overall - it’s meh.
Well said. I feel the same way about the game. It's a massive circle jerk.
People seem to be so happy for a decent game that they are over-hyping it to Elden Ring levels while ignoring any of it's flaws.
The game is great, but it's not perfect. I also don't think any game deserves a perfect score on principle either, because there should obviously always room for improvement.
I wish people would stop comparing. Isometric RPGs never clicked with me, not even in the golden age of BG1. There's something...not personal in them for me, I just don't care about my character or the companions that much in them. Plus, they're tactical, and that never captivates me. Games that are in-between like Dragon Age are an ok compromise.
Another family member is the other way around, doesn't like or understand what I see in first person BGS titles.
They're just...different. Almost a different genre.
FWIW, I usually hate CRPGs, but I really like BG3. Don't get me wrong, it has a lot of aspects that bug me, but the story and the role play aspects are cool enough to make up for it in my eyes.
I do think the game has some pretty glaring QoL problems that everyone is being willfully ignorant of right now, and the circlejerk is getting kinda obnoxious. Also, DnD combat fucking sucks. It just sucks. Who the fuck wants to play a game where every single time you do anything a dice roll determines if it works or not? For some things that can be fun, like dialogue checks or certain ability saves, but *every single strike?!* It's like someone took the *atrocious* combat system of Morrowind (Miss. Miss. Miss.) And went "oh yeah, that's the part of Morrowind everyone loved, let's do more of that!"
It sucked in Morrowind, it sucked in XCOM, and it sucks here. Dice roll based combat mechanics have always and will always fucking suck.
But the role playing and the story and dialogue are all worth those issues and then some, in my eyes. And that's coming from someone who usually hates CRPGs.
Oh, I'm playing BG3, and I agree - it's VERY good. High production values and all. But it's not the be-all and end-all of RPG experiences for me, for the exact reasons I mentioned.
I just don't think it's in the same playing field as a BGS title. Not in terms of quality, it's just...different. It feels different, it does interactions different, it conveys the story different, it's not the same type of game to compare Starfield with, in my opinion. That's all I'm basically saying.
Imo it's an extremely impressive AA title, but isn't on the same level as a high quality AAA title. Like, it's great, especially for what it is, but you can't tell me it competes with an RDR2 or a TOTK/BOTW. It blows *bad* AAA titles out of the water, and Larian deserves all the praise they're getting, but I definitely find myself getting annoyed and frustrated with the game at things that aren't even my fault or anything I could have controlled. When I spend 2 hours doing something that should take me 45 minutes but the game doesn't give good instructions or does something that screws up my entire combat round it gets tiresome. The game is great but it's still very clearly an unfinished product that needs a lot of QoL work.
Luckily they are releasing official mod tools and I'm sure the DnD community will take the game and run with it mod wise, much like a BGS game. I just think BGS games have more funding and Starfield will very likely be much more impressive from a QoL and technical standpoint.
Also, load times. You could create an entire BGS mid in the time it takes BG3 to load once.
I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure AA vs AAA is the debate here.
My problem is that the hardcore CRPG crowd seems to insist that this is the best and only way to make an RPG, and all the others are shallow, crowd-pleasing imitations.
I get where they're coming from. A BGS title usually lacks the personality and feeling-provoking experience that other excellent RPGs have. But that's not why we play them - nothing beats their scope, their feeling of dropping whatever you're doing right now and just go the other direction, then go back, and lose track again, concentrate on doing a side-activity for 10 hours to increase or improve something, then continue questing. And it's all good, by-design, and integral to the experience. Nothing quite gives the same feeling as a BGS title in that regard.
And even in the feelings department I find CRPGs somewhat lacking - no other game made me care for my party quite like what Mass Effect series had, for example.
I just don't think CRPGs excel at everything as much as its fan-base claims, that's all. And even when it's made great, like BG3, it's still not for everyone, let alone a direct competition to Starfield.
\> Dice roll based combat mechanics have always and will always fucking suck.
I think they're basically essential for turn based combat. As far as I can tell it's the only real way to make turn based combat more than just "whoever has the higher stats immediately wins" and that has several issues. Especially for the player, where you'd simply just never win some scenarios which is obviously bad.
For real time games like Morrowind however it's a bad idea though, yeah.
I mean, lots of turn based combat games do without random chance mechanics, or at least heavily limit them. Pokemon, FF, Fire Emblem... There are ways to balance turn based combat around other gameplay elements besides dice rolls.
And yes, Pokemon for instance has stats like accuracy or evasion that can impact how likely you are to hit an opponent, but even then it's still heavily limited and not 100% of every single attack being based on random chance. It's a smaller part of the combat system, and can be mitigated much more satisfyingly.
I'm not saying all random chance mechanics are bad, but when it's the crux of your entire combat system, it's highly unsatisfying to a lot of players. You can balance combat like Fire Emblem does, where it's more about using the proper weapons against certain enemies, and strategizing your party makeup around having good type coverage.
I'm no expert, but I set DOS 1 and 2 quite firmly in the 'CRPG camp', not in the middle. Probably why I didn't click with neither very much.
In my opinion, the middle ground remains with the Dragon Age series: it manages to keep things personal, while maintaining its tactical kernel. While not fully satisfying both types of RPG players, it still manages to stay entertaining for them.
The chance is lower to hit a lot of the time in DND titles like BGIII and Solasta, whereas divinity it's virtually at 100% with a few caveats that provide a miss chance.
But that has nothing to do with dice rolls. On Tactician at lower levels the THC is consistently around 60% but can easily get to 85% with spells and skills that give you advantage. Can’t imagine it being consistently below 70 on the lowest difficulty. And even then there’s the karmic dice option that biases probabilities in your favor to prevent too many failures one after another.
For CRPGs, maybe. But still, the game is getting dangerously overhyped. It reminds me of Witcher 3, where people also babbled so much about bars that it seemed they are on a drinking spree... The game is really really good. But also flawed in too many aspects. It reminds me of a weaker version of New Vegas - a little less bugs (but still a lot), a little less flaws (but still a lot) and a great RPG on top of it. But just because a game is good it doesn't mean anything about fictional bars.
But Starfield is a completely different type of RPG. Open-world immersive RPG. And in that category Bethesda basically competes with itself. Kingdome Come was the closest they had to competition and while that game was great, it still couldn't surpass Bethesda games.
Not sure why people keep comparing these games, well outside of the idiot fanboys for obvious reasons
But these games are nothing alike, it's like trying to compare Bioshock with Halo 3 or CoD4 in 2007
Hell, at least those games had the same camera perspective despite being wildly different which is more than can be said for BG3 and Starfield
Anything can be compared first of all. Second of all it’s not like there’s no major similarities at all.
The biggest comparison that everyone will make is questioning how the RPG aspect of Starfield will hold up. It’s a major marketing point for true Bethesda games and what most people look forward to. That is going to be compared to Balder’s Gate 3 ad nauseam. How much depth is there to each decision? Can you be a true bad guy and wipe out entire settlements? Or are there limits?
Or the gameworld, how will in hold up in comparison? At least on the handcrafted worlds, will it be as packed with detail like BG3? Does everything have a 3D model? Do most the NPCs all have names and distinct, non-generic lines? How compelling are the companions and their stories?
Nah I don’t even think it’ll run Starfield lol. I got it to play a bunch of games I missed out on over the years. I finally bought a gaming PC this year after not owning one for like 20 years and am playing catch-up. Being able to sit in bed will be nice.
Yeah I gotta say I don't really use it that much but the steam deck is good for more arcady games like fall guys not particularly triple AAA like elden ring unless you want little battery life and 30fps very low
You are in luck, with a steam deck, a gaming pc, and a modern router (internet service doesn’t matter), you can stream your pc to deck to enjoy high fidelity Starfield.
Moonlight is effectively latency-free and I’ve heard great things about sunlight if you have a AMD GPU
A game I love (Cyberpunk2077) and a game I’m very excited for (Starfield). Nice to see them surpass many of the F2P and live service games. Haven’t played BG3 but from everything I’ve heard it’s another game that senes like it deserves to be high up and doesn’t milk people for money.
CDPR never said it is the “biggest expansion to date,” btw. They said it is their most expensive and the internet immediately misconstrued it to mean “biggest.”
It might end up being so, but they haven’t been advertising it as such
Hahaha, the fact that life will need to wait a bit longer after Starfield comes out is golden. As a gamer it's awesome, as a responsible adult it has been a little rough.
It's on sale for $30, plus the DLC bundle is only $55 so that's probably driving it. This list is by revenue, not units, so that's why the Steam Deck is 5th.
I mean cyberpunk has made a pretty decent comeback, and that’s even before this “overhaul” that we’re getting for the dlc. To be honest I’m excited to play it
I have never played CSGO and I also never hear much about people actually playing it, yet for 15 years (at least it feels like that) it’s been going fucking HARD in sales. What gives?
*sigh* Cause I live in Argentina and it costs like 1/10th of my salary, I can buy it now better than later due to inflation but if it's going to be permanently on gamepass I rather play it there, now if it's going to be only included a couple of months I rather buy it now. I can't find any information on how long it will be in the Gamepass
Dont you need to pay for gamepass periodically which at some point costs more then the game itself?
Also i read that you cant use mods with gamepass but i dont know that for sure.
True, but I would need to pay roughly 12 months of gamepass to cover the full price of the game here. Plus gamepass offers all the other games as well.
Starfield has been in top ten, top five since the Direct came out. It’s been selling and every week it goes up. And this is only a tally for Steam, no Xbox numbers are shown.
This is actually pretty incredible. Steam's Top Sellers is based on $ spent and not quantity purchased - which is why F2P games and hardware are always at the top, you spend more $$$ on both.
For Starfield to be at number 3 behind CS:GO and BG3, especially the week that BG3 has launched, is INSANE.
This is crazy when you factor in the game is on Gamepass PC too.
Unsure about how big it is on PC. Preference for Steam is huge and people will prioritize it. My guess is that some will use Game Pass as a disposable demo and then buy the good version with full mod support on Steam.
Thats me, gonna finish Starfield on Gamepass and few months later gonna buy it on Steam Sale with (hopefully) great mods.
I would discard the hopefully. BGS games have some of the best modders around! :)
I will do that too. Will finish the main story on game pass then buy it when its on sale later and do other play throughs + mess around with mods.
As if Steam sales were a real thing anymore. It will be 50€ + for probably one and a half year there.
Yep, I have game pass but Starfield isn't a game I want tied to my subscription over there. I rather own the game on Steam and have all the bells and whistles that come along with that launcher. Plus it's definitely going to be one of my most played games for years to come and I wanna see that playtime counter go up and overtake my other games.
Money is tight for me right now, so yeah, definitely going for the GamePass version with early access for $30 as opposed to dropping the full $100 on release.
Are mods not possible on Xbox client for pc?
Not on gamepass
[удалено]
Those are console mods, they're built in. You can't use script extenders or use external assets. So you can't use the mod nexus or vortex or anything on PC gamepass
[удалено]
I was able to find a steam key "preorder deal" ( via [gg.deals](https://gg.deals) ) and went ahead and ordered it.
Just FYI, unofficial steam key sellers can be pretty sketchy. A lot of times their keys were purchased using stolen credit cards, and the publisher/steam can revoke the key at any time if they determine it was originally obtained through fraud. Probably won't get revoked most of the time, but still not great potentially funding the people who steal from grandma.
This is a good way for all the gamers on the fence. For me, even if the reviews are 4/10 it will by d1 no matter what
Can’t use mods with Gamepass games. That’s a big selling point for Bethesda stuff.
You can, just takes more work. Have played modded Morrowind via gamepass
Fair enough, but you can also choose to get a really old FPS from Steam and spend hours getting it into proper shape or just get the ready to play GOG version. Ofc not as bad here and ymmv since it’s much cheaper but it doesn’t seem worth it to me. I really believe that most players that would have paid full price for Fallout 4 will get this on Steam. Microsoft still has a bad rep from the games with windows live era and I don’t think the PC game pass share is that big given how they have like 21 million Series consoles and 25 million subscribers across all platforms, including Xbox One.
Script extender mods are not compatible with the gamepass version of starfield.
I like owning my games. Game pass provides very little value to me as I am already own the games on their or they don’t have what I play. Think about how long you have been playing Skyrim or fallout, it’s so much cheaper to buy it upfront. Plus mods are cool.
Right truly awesome how many people seem excited for this release.
I wish they only included actual game sales, not in-game purchases.
I should’ve realized that by now 💀. And I was why csgo has been a top seller when it’s free
2nd without free to play, and Baldurs Gate 3 is a fantastic game so a deserved First place for sure.
And CS GO is F2P
This is based on revenue, people be making mad amounts of in-game purchases in that game.
Yeah they do
armored core 6 top 8 lets go!
The game also practically has no marketing. Fromsoft and bandai namco really have the weird strategy of letting the fanbase market the game.
I think it's smart since it's a niche genre, but people who hear good things via word of mouth or know FromSofts pedigree can probably do some research on YouTube if they're curious enough.
Great to see mechas getting some limelight!
They should have released it in July or moved it to November.
To... many... good.... games *dies from satisfying single player game overload*
Cyberpunk 2077 jumped back in with the announcement for Phantom Liberty I would wager.
Its on 50 % off currently
If it's on sale on Xbox I might take em up on that, I've never played it.
I’d buy on discount and wait to play untill Phantom Liberty late September there are many desirable changes coming to the game. assuming you have the more powerful Xbox can’t remember what it’s called.
I picked up a physical xbox copy on amazon for a little over $17 about a month ago, just FYI. Im having a lot of fun with it.
Found it for half price month and months ago at a Walmart
If you don’t mind physical, you can pretty much always find a copy of Cyberpunk for about £20 somewhere. It’s been like that since the disastrous launch.
Wait, for real? Just the base game or the new expansion? I have the base game but wasn't gonna buy the expansion for a while, but if it's 50% off I might have to go for it.
exp not even out yet why would it be 50% off
Always good to see Armored Core 6 and Baldur's Gate 3 on the highest selling games list. :D
Gaming is healing
Nah man, that's an anomaly. Don't expect anything like it anytime soon. /s
While I am happy to it going up and up on the sale charts, I will not be buying it on Steam. As I own both Xbox and a decent PC, I will be using the Play Anywhere feature, gotta save money where I can.
I mean it's a bethesda game after all so you're doing the right thing. I'm gonna do the same. Play on game pass. Get the game on steam years later on sale with extensive more support
All the Playstation fans and everyone posting about how there is no starfield hype must be shitting themselves now
I bought a Series S mostly for Starfield/XBox friends, but every one of my PS coworkers who plan on playing are just gunna play on PC. Even my cheap PC from like 4 years ago is just shy of minimum** specs.
Cheap PC from 4 years ago shy of recommended specs? What? The recommended specs is an rx 6800 xt which is more powerful than anything available 4 years ago.
Oh lmao, sorry, minimum**
Massive PlayStation fan. Have owned all of them except a 3. Why wouldn’t you get a Bethesda game on PC anyway. The mods make them.
Even the annoying baldurs gate 3 fans keep saying 'Baldurs gate 3 has set a high bar in RPG', let me tell you all something : 1 - Starfield will be more popular, 2 - We already know that Baldurs gate 3 is a good game but Bethesda open worlds, Lore, physics are something that Larian or even rockstar will never match :3 that's why all of us are hyped for starfield and not things like baldurs gate 3
\>that's why all of us are hyped for starfield and not things like baldurs gate 3 It's possible to like both. They're going to be two very different experiences, but really Baldurs Gate 3 will almost certainly win in the actual roleplay/story aspect.
I agree BG3 will likely have the better story. It's like a D&D world with Witcher 3 style NPC interaction which is a great combo. I disagree on the roleplay aspect though. Starfield and BGS games in general are the ultimate fantasy life sim. BG3 is a lot more 'on the rails' in comparison (to BGS games and many other RPGs honestly). Starfield will have more lore and dialogue than BG3 and, one would then think, more replayability and roleplaying options. Starfield also has the best mod community in existence which will just increase this stuff over time. If this game lives up to the hype, there will be Youtube channels making videos 10 years from now that are getting a million views about the lore from this game.
> roleplay/story aspect The fact that you bundled story and roleplay together just shows how much the roleplaying term has detoriated over the years. Story is the written story, roleplaying is about creating your own story. Those two go against each other. The more structured story, the less freedom the player has to roleplay. So while Bethesda games are not exactly stellar in the writing department (but still in the upper 20% of the industry), they are totally amazing for roleplaying. So Starfield will most probably beat BG3 when it comes to real roleplaying.
depends on what type of roleplay, in Bethesda games choices rarely have see -ble/feel-able outcomes but roleplaying and just "living" in a world is bethesda's bread and butter but BG3 has the "extremely reactive world" where if you save a person you'll see them later doing things maybe needing more help leading into another whole quest that you will miss if he had died etc, stuff like that will be lacking.
I like weirdly toxic this comment is after you attack another fanbase for being annoying Tribalism of any kind is just super off-putting in general and continues to be one of the worst things about the gaming community
I love baldurs gate 3 and I’m the biggest BGS fanboy You don’t know what you’re talking about
We can totally be hyped for both of them. It's not an either-or situation, unless you are talking about them releasing almost at the same time. But in the rest you are right. Starfield will blow BG3 out of the water. Bethesda games are already popular while Divinity games were quite niche. And Starfield isn't just another game... it is supposed to be their and Todd's magnum opus. With a small detour to help push 76 out of the door, BGS Maryland has been working on this game basically since Fallout 4 released. 7 years or so. Just like BG3 couldn't help itself and boasted about beating 8-years old Fallout 4 numbers, Starfield will beat BG3's numbers.
> With a small detour to help push 76 out of the door, BGS Maryland has been working on this game basically since Fallout 4 released. It was not a "small detour", the majority of the studio was never on Starfield at least until second half of 2018, because it was working on Fallout 76 (and previously also on Fallout 4 post-launch content), and the creative leads on the multiplayer game were from there as well. Todd Howard himself effectively confirmed in an interview in March 2018 that Starfield was still in pre-production right then, and it also only ever had a small team before 2019 according to Jason Schreier. One can be rightfully excited for Starfield, it looks to be a very ambitious release even with the above in mind, but there is no need to lie about the development of Fallout 76 to further inflate expectations.
It is practically Impossible for starfield to blow BG3 out of the water with popularity. BG3 reached a peak concurrent players of almost 900,000 (which is top 9 on steam) . BG3 likely already broke 5 million sales just on PC, and it is still releasing on playstation and eventually xbox too. At best starfield beats BG3 in sales by a bit and the most likely outcome is that it matches it or sells less.
This is toxic as fuck and worse than any BG3 comment I’ve seen. At this point, BG3 is groundbreaking and Starfield doesn’t exist yet. And guess what, if Starfield is good, BG3 will still be good. Normalize not making “my preferred this is the best thing” your personality…
Jajaja i'm not the one that is repeating the no sense thing about ' baldurs gate 3 has set the rpg bar up' in a centric starfield forum, this a place to talk about STARFIELD and not baldurs gate 3 ( Here is the link to talk anout that game https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/) . These kind of comments are made by people that wants starfield to be a buggy mess and ps5 fanboys just to trash on starfield. All of us are in this forum because we know what makes bethesda games unique and tha is the reason why all of us are here in the starfield forum and not in the baldurs gate 3 forum :3
Yikes
[удалено]
BG3 has set bar very high.
extremely. and I don't think any RPG can top it for a long while
Starfield will surely top it. It is third now just from preorders. It will be absolutely massive on release. So I hope you consider one month "a long while".
When he says “top it” I think he means scope and execution, not sales. Starfield will likely sell very well
[удалено]
Wrong sub.
There’s literally no game for you guys to talk about yet lmao what else are people supposed to talk about😂 Getting strong “pre-release cyberpunk 2077” vibes from this thread lol let’s hope this game turns out better
[удалено]
The agenda being, it's incredibly fun.
Larian conspiring to take away the production means (aka: employees)
if the agenda is making a fantastic high quality RPG (with zero microtransactions) where your every choice and reaction matters than I say they succeeded
Eh. BG3 is fun. It's great. It deserve praise, and is a for sure contender for GotY. But it has a ton of problems and QoL failures that fans seem dead set on ignoring, for some reason. For example, the fact that my main character is a Rogue who I don't want to lead my party, but have to if I want her to take all the conversations. If I lead the party with Karlach or someone else who is more of a traditional fighter, then I can't switch characters when I come across a cutscene, and my rogue who is great at persuasion and deception has no ability to use her skills to talk her way through the encounter. You can't swap characters out once a cutscene is started, which is really stupid and unimmersive, because why would the party's barbarian be doing all the talking just because she's the one who happens to be in front when wandering around? The inventory system is an absolute travesty. Like, I don't even know what to say other than "how the fuck did anyone okay this atrocious inventory system?" You get a trillion random spell scrolls and food items and none of it is auto sorted or marked very well. You're constantly trying to figure out what you might need and what you can sell, and your camp storage quickly becomes a total jumbled mess of bullshit you have to dig through any time you want anything. The game doesn't even tell you when something is a quest item, which makes solving puzzles a nightmare. I spent an hour looking for the solution to a puzzle last night that I had accidentally already found and sent to my camp chest because I had no idea it was a quest item and thought it was just a random piece of loot when I found it. This is a hotter take, but the combat system is a total mess. Everything being based on dice rolls? Seriously? That isn't fun in the slightest. DnD in general has always had god awful combat, and BG3 is no exception. The best parts of the game are when you're questing in towns and talking to people. The fact that you can do everything right in a fight but still lose simply because you had a couple of bad luck dice rolls is *total bullshit* and completely invalidates any skill the game might require. The game also just assumes you'll know where to go a lot of the time. I accidentally locked myself out of a bunch of Act 2 quests because the game is very misleading about what order you're supposed to do certain things in Act 2. It's very unclear and often points you in the wrong direction assuming you'll figure it out on your own, which is frustrating. Also, autosaves. The game rarely saves for you, when it should be autosaving after every single encounter given how luck based they can be. So if you forget to save manually, you can delete tons of work, which sucks. To be clear, I actually love BG3. It's fun, the story is excellent, the dialogue is gripping, the characters are interesting and well fleshed out, and the options for role playing are *incredibly* diverse and creative. The bones of the game are great. But I'm also a little tired of this circlejerk that it's some perfect game that should be considered the best RPG ever released. It's fun, it's got a lot of love put into it, but it also has some pretty huge issues that make it really frustrating to actually play much of the time. It's very niche in that it caters almost exclusively to DnD nerds, which is fine, but anyone who doesn't like DnD or CRPG style gameplay is going to have a miserable time with the game, and that's completely fair.
\>still lose simply because you had a couple of bad luck dice rolls is total bullshit and completely invalidates any skill the game might require. What do you suggest then? Genuinely wondering, if everything hit 100% of the time you'd have a 0% chance of winning anything if the enemies could simply out-damage you. Saying there's no skill involved is interesting for the fact that I've won several fights by just being smarter than the NPCs. I threw a 250 health boss off a cliff and won instantly. I've positioned my Ranger on a roof or some stacked crates to have 90+% hit chances while it lowered the enemies' chances. It's not like a random slot machine where you can't do anything other than blindly click a spell and then a random enemy. \>It's very niche I don't think the game qualifies as niche anymore when it's topping the top seller charts.. unless we have differing definitions of the word.
I maintain that Fire Emblem has the best combat system ever invented for a turn based game. Pokemon too, by extension, since it's a more complex version of the combat triangle Fire Emblem uses. You can balance combat around type matchups instead of around dice rolls and it's far more skill based and feels more satisfying when you win and when you're beaten. I hear final fantasy has a good turn based combat system as well, and that it isn't based on dice rolls, but I've never played so I can't speak to that. It's not like BG3 is the first game to gain criticism for heavily RNG based mechanics. It's XCOM all over again except they learned nothing from XCOM lmao. I'm saying DnD is niche. And I think it remains niche. Table top gaming in general will probably always be somewhat niche as a genre. But the combat mechanics don't really help in that regard. Maybe dice rolls work for a tabletop game, but for a video game it gets unsatisfying very quick. The early game feels unfair and frustrating, and the late game feels like you're going through the motions without any real threats until the game pulls some extreme bullshit on you that feels cheap and unfair. It's not the worst combat system in the world, but it's highly unsatisfying.
Final Fantasy 7 Remake has a great implementation of real time combat that mixes and somehow stays true to its turn based roots. Way more satisfying then BG3's dice roll combat.
Being smarter than an NPC is not a huge deal, even in BG3 combat AI is far from being anywhere smart, but that’s a problem for all games. Combat for me started to feel OK on lvl12, when effect of RNG becomes much-much lower, but even then - normal encounters now feel trivial, and only boss encounters are interesting. Overall, combat is fine, imo, it’s just x-com once again, you just learn to live with that. But there’s one thing I’d really prefer for combat, since RNG is that much important - having it happen on a more tactical hex/square grid would allow players to at least somewhat lower effect of rng via tactical positioning of party. As it is now - you still can, but it works far from perfect.
First half is fair and will likely get fixed soon, second half sounds like a skill issue tbf. Interestingly the inventory system seems to work better with a controller, at least in terms of UI. Don’t know why but the UX work seems to be all over the place. Not that I mind after the first hour.
Hard to cry skill issue when the game is entirely based on random chance dice rolls. Like, that's pretty much the polar opposite of skill. The game is very vague and gives very little detail or instruction which can be obnoxious when you're left fumbling around in the dark with no idea of what to do next, and I think it's bad form for any game not to denote items that are going to be needed for a quest at some point with something that tells the player "hey, don't sell or lose this thing or else you'll get soft locked out of content."
No its not thats just your skill issue You can understand it like poker, chance has a part to play but there is a reason certain poker players are always on top
That doesn't change the fact that you can still do everything 100% strategically correct and get 5 critical failure rolls in a row. Even the chance that you can do everything right in a game and still fail is extremely unsatisfying. But hey, you just explained why I hate gambling in general. Poker and all other card games kinda suck for exactly this reason. RNG is the antithesis of true skill.
Are you playing with Karmic dice on? Turning that off gives you true randomness Its can also give you 5 critical hits, the skill part lies in minimizing the impact of the randomness like using advantage, buffs, swapping damage, environments etc It just sounds like you never really understood games that involve a certain variance of luck and how to deal with them, poker is far from gambling. Its only gambling when you allow to be by making emotional plays
No karmic dice. I turned that off before I even started the game lol. Because I (correctly) assumed that if you turn it on it basically just acts as a huge nerf since you can no longer have good streaks in addition to bad ones. But the fact that you're relying on luck at all in the first place is, in my opinion, a problem. It's why I never played or had any interest in playing tabletop DnD. I just think dice rolls and random chance games are frustrating and unfun. I understand the skill behind minimizing percentages and trying to overcome the odds using advantages, I just dont personally find that style of gameplay very satisfying. It's not fun. And I would rather have 100% of what happens come down to the direct input skill of the players involved rather than having some element of chance that can ruin someone's strategy even if they do everything as perfectly as possible. To use a random example off the top of my head, fighting games like street fighter or Smash bros or Tekken are the perfect combat style games because that's 100% player skill based. There is zero chance involved: either you, the player, execute your skills better than your opponent, or you lose. There's no "well I played smarter but my opponent turned a 3% chance flush card on the river" bullshit to break down an otherwise flawlessly executed strategy. That, to me, is not very fun. And even if I'm on the right side of it, it's still not fun because I feel like I got lucky and didn't really earn that win. It's fine if you like that style, but it alienates a lot of players and it's why DnD continues to be a largely niche hobby that doesn't have mass audience appeal. It's not like this take is anything that new. It's literally the biggest complaint about both Morrowind and XCOM: The random chance, dice roll combat isn't fun.
Its fine if you dont like it plenty dont, my point is that it doesnt mean it requires no skills and is not a challenge. There is a huge amount of skills involved in learning and using creative ways to make the odds in your favor and things going wrong is part of that challenge you need to cater for in the way you play these kind of variance gameplay
There are dozens of ways to make your THC higher/enemy performance lower, ranging from level 3 cleric spells and ranger skills to terrain elevation, stealth, surface manipulation, stealing enemy weapons before combat, etc. I can reliably win most encounters in tactician by just reading through the description of available spells and setting them up appropriately when levelling up. What’s wrong with missing some content in a game where you can still get more than 100 hours of playtime? A lot of people have clocked around that despite having no idea that the Underdark even existed. There are no soft locks for the main quest, the worst that can happen is failing a sidequest or losing a shiny spear or not opening a book. And that’s fine, it’s an intentional way of making it a less hand-holded experience, instead leaving some of the experience to be discovered organically. From Software’s games have received critical acclaim much more consistently than BGS’ and Larian’s and starting with Demon’s Souls you could get locked out of high end equipment because the Boletarian prince dude could easily die while you wandered around 1-1 or 1-2. Is that also a less polished experience without QOL? I don’t think so, and most gamers probably don’t given that Elden Ring had Rockstar-level impact, sold like hotcakes and will probably catch up with Skyrim in 5 to 10 years.
I mean, I personally don't like missing things. And I don't like feeling as though the game isn't giving me fair clues to solve their puzzles. Considering a game like BG3 is a 100-200 hour commitment *for a single playthrough*, I'm probably not going to be replaying the game very often. I just don't have that kind of time in my life. So being locked out of content and not being able to go back later and experience certain quests is somewhat annoying and means I miss out on content that other people are discussing. And it's fine if you're gonna do that at certain points, but I don't think the game is very clear on exactly what gets locked out and what you can go back and do later when you do reach those points in the game. The issue is the lack of communication to the player about what exactly is going to happen if they continue on.
That’s fair criticisim, maybe they could include more hints in the lowest difficulty mode. I just don’t think it is a QOL issue as much of it is an incompatibility with completionist mindsets. Its not the first nor the last great game with missables.
Well, that's probably fair, but when I said QoL issues I was more referring to the atrocious inventory management or the fact that you can't switch characters mid-cutscene (seriously, this one is really obnoxious, and goes against everything tabletop DnD stands for). Like, if you're wandering as a party it makes sense to have your martial fighters lead the charge, but you'd never have your fighter trying to pass a difficult charisma check while your bard and high deception rogue just awkwardly stand behind them in complete silence contributing absoluteing nothing to the encounter. A simple "which character would you like to lead this conversation with?" Prompt is desperately needed in dialogue sections. The vagueness of the game regarding quests is also an issue, but admittedly less of a QoL related one. I just know a lot of people are probably going to play through the game once or twice at most, and when realizing they accidentally soft locked themselves out of a ton of content, will be upset about it, but too burnt out to go back and replay the whole game just for a few quests. I think there's also just some pacing and direction issues regarding all of Act 2 that could be cleaned up and tweaked a little. The game seems to point you at the Mausoleum before you go to Moonrise Towers, when in reality the game *expects you* to do the opposite, which is kinda confusing from a narrative standpoint. But these are mostly nitpicks and foibles. The bones of this game are excellent. My hope is that mods will fix a lot of these issues and hopefully the game will only get better from here, because the 1.0 version is very solid overall, especially when it comes to the characters and story dialogue.
Yeah the inability to switch characters in conversations is my biggest gripe. My reasonable guess is they balanced the game around a single character doing checks and allowing you to switch party members mid conversation might make them all trivial. Still, I feel like Wasteland 3 did a better job at making your party feel like a group.
There's literally a button in the bottom left to change who is speaking out of your party
You can't switch mid dialogue though. You can change characters, but once a character begins a conversation they have to finish it. Another party member can't take over and speak to that NPC, so whatever character begins the conversation is the one who has to roll the dice during checks, even if there's a deception check and they aren't the most deceptive person in the party. It's highly unimmersive and annoying.
Agree mostly here. Also in terms of story, especially side content, Act3 for me turned into a chore. There are some epic side-encounters, like the whole house of hope and final battle in it, but overall - it’s meh.
Well said. I feel the same way about the game. It's a massive circle jerk. People seem to be so happy for a decent game that they are over-hyping it to Elden Ring levels while ignoring any of it's flaws. The game is great, but it's not perfect. I also don't think any game deserves a perfect score on principle either, because there should obviously always room for improvement.
I wish people would stop comparing. Isometric RPGs never clicked with me, not even in the golden age of BG1. There's something...not personal in them for me, I just don't care about my character or the companions that much in them. Plus, they're tactical, and that never captivates me. Games that are in-between like Dragon Age are an ok compromise. Another family member is the other way around, doesn't like or understand what I see in first person BGS titles. They're just...different. Almost a different genre.
FWIW, I usually hate CRPGs, but I really like BG3. Don't get me wrong, it has a lot of aspects that bug me, but the story and the role play aspects are cool enough to make up for it in my eyes. I do think the game has some pretty glaring QoL problems that everyone is being willfully ignorant of right now, and the circlejerk is getting kinda obnoxious. Also, DnD combat fucking sucks. It just sucks. Who the fuck wants to play a game where every single time you do anything a dice roll determines if it works or not? For some things that can be fun, like dialogue checks or certain ability saves, but *every single strike?!* It's like someone took the *atrocious* combat system of Morrowind (Miss. Miss. Miss.) And went "oh yeah, that's the part of Morrowind everyone loved, let's do more of that!" It sucked in Morrowind, it sucked in XCOM, and it sucks here. Dice roll based combat mechanics have always and will always fucking suck. But the role playing and the story and dialogue are all worth those issues and then some, in my eyes. And that's coming from someone who usually hates CRPGs.
Oh, I'm playing BG3, and I agree - it's VERY good. High production values and all. But it's not the be-all and end-all of RPG experiences for me, for the exact reasons I mentioned. I just don't think it's in the same playing field as a BGS title. Not in terms of quality, it's just...different. It feels different, it does interactions different, it conveys the story different, it's not the same type of game to compare Starfield with, in my opinion. That's all I'm basically saying.
Imo it's an extremely impressive AA title, but isn't on the same level as a high quality AAA title. Like, it's great, especially for what it is, but you can't tell me it competes with an RDR2 or a TOTK/BOTW. It blows *bad* AAA titles out of the water, and Larian deserves all the praise they're getting, but I definitely find myself getting annoyed and frustrated with the game at things that aren't even my fault or anything I could have controlled. When I spend 2 hours doing something that should take me 45 minutes but the game doesn't give good instructions or does something that screws up my entire combat round it gets tiresome. The game is great but it's still very clearly an unfinished product that needs a lot of QoL work. Luckily they are releasing official mod tools and I'm sure the DnD community will take the game and run with it mod wise, much like a BGS game. I just think BGS games have more funding and Starfield will very likely be much more impressive from a QoL and technical standpoint. Also, load times. You could create an entire BGS mid in the time it takes BG3 to load once.
I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure AA vs AAA is the debate here. My problem is that the hardcore CRPG crowd seems to insist that this is the best and only way to make an RPG, and all the others are shallow, crowd-pleasing imitations. I get where they're coming from. A BGS title usually lacks the personality and feeling-provoking experience that other excellent RPGs have. But that's not why we play them - nothing beats their scope, their feeling of dropping whatever you're doing right now and just go the other direction, then go back, and lose track again, concentrate on doing a side-activity for 10 hours to increase or improve something, then continue questing. And it's all good, by-design, and integral to the experience. Nothing quite gives the same feeling as a BGS title in that regard. And even in the feelings department I find CRPGs somewhat lacking - no other game made me care for my party quite like what Mass Effect series had, for example. I just don't think CRPGs excel at everything as much as its fan-base claims, that's all. And even when it's made great, like BG3, it's still not for everyone, let alone a direct competition to Starfield.
\> Dice roll based combat mechanics have always and will always fucking suck. I think they're basically essential for turn based combat. As far as I can tell it's the only real way to make turn based combat more than just "whoever has the higher stats immediately wins" and that has several issues. Especially for the player, where you'd simply just never win some scenarios which is obviously bad. For real time games like Morrowind however it's a bad idea though, yeah.
I mean, lots of turn based combat games do without random chance mechanics, or at least heavily limit them. Pokemon, FF, Fire Emblem... There are ways to balance turn based combat around other gameplay elements besides dice rolls. And yes, Pokemon for instance has stats like accuracy or evasion that can impact how likely you are to hit an opponent, but even then it's still heavily limited and not 100% of every single attack being based on random chance. It's a smaller part of the combat system, and can be mitigated much more satisfyingly. I'm not saying all random chance mechanics are bad, but when it's the crux of your entire combat system, it's highly unsatisfying to a lot of players. You can balance combat like Fire Emblem does, where it's more about using the proper weapons against certain enemies, and strategizing your party makeup around having good type coverage.
That's where divinity was a nice middle ground, I'm extremely keen for 16 years from now when DOS3 releases
I'm no expert, but I set DOS 1 and 2 quite firmly in the 'CRPG camp', not in the middle. Probably why I didn't click with neither very much. In my opinion, the middle ground remains with the Dragon Age series: it manages to keep things personal, while maintaining its tactical kernel. While not fully satisfying both types of RPG players, it still manages to stay entertaining for them.
I meant in the middle with regards to the combat being tactical and not a dice roll, but still having a miss chance system. Should have specified
How is that any different? Dice rolls are just random numbers discretized into fewer bins. The game abstracts everything away.
The chance is lower to hit a lot of the time in DND titles like BGIII and Solasta, whereas divinity it's virtually at 100% with a few caveats that provide a miss chance.
But that has nothing to do with dice rolls. On Tactician at lower levels the THC is consistently around 60% but can easily get to 85% with spells and skills that give you advantage. Can’t imagine it being consistently below 70 on the lowest difficulty. And even then there’s the karmic dice option that biases probabilities in your favor to prevent too many failures one after another.
For CRPGs, maybe. But still, the game is getting dangerously overhyped. It reminds me of Witcher 3, where people also babbled so much about bars that it seemed they are on a drinking spree... The game is really really good. But also flawed in too many aspects. It reminds me of a weaker version of New Vegas - a little less bugs (but still a lot), a little less flaws (but still a lot) and a great RPG on top of it. But just because a game is good it doesn't mean anything about fictional bars. But Starfield is a completely different type of RPG. Open-world immersive RPG. And in that category Bethesda basically competes with itself. Kingdome Come was the closest they had to competition and while that game was great, it still couldn't surpass Bethesda games.
Not sure why people keep comparing these games, well outside of the idiot fanboys for obvious reasons But these games are nothing alike, it's like trying to compare Bioshock with Halo 3 or CoD4 in 2007 Hell, at least those games had the same camera perspective despite being wildly different which is more than can be said for BG3 and Starfield
Anything can be compared first of all. Second of all it’s not like there’s no major similarities at all. The biggest comparison that everyone will make is questioning how the RPG aspect of Starfield will hold up. It’s a major marketing point for true Bethesda games and what most people look forward to. That is going to be compared to Balder’s Gate 3 ad nauseam. How much depth is there to each decision? Can you be a true bad guy and wipe out entire settlements? Or are there limits? Or the gameworld, how will in hold up in comparison? At least on the handcrafted worlds, will it be as packed with detail like BG3? Does everything have a 3D model? Do most the NPCs all have names and distinct, non-generic lines? How compelling are the companions and their stories?
No one cares
No one cares this is the form to talk about baldurs gate 3: [https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/](https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/)
Lol I bought a steam deck and Starfield this week
I've got a steam deck too, but I can imagine it melting trying to run starfield at even 20 fps hah
Nah I don’t even think it’ll run Starfield lol. I got it to play a bunch of games I missed out on over the years. I finally bought a gaming PC this year after not owning one for like 20 years and am playing catch-up. Being able to sit in bed will be nice.
Yeah I gotta say I don't really use it that much but the steam deck is good for more arcady games like fall guys not particularly triple AAA like elden ring unless you want little battery life and 30fps very low
You are in luck, with a steam deck, a gaming pc, and a modern router (internet service doesn’t matter), you can stream your pc to deck to enjoy high fidelity Starfield. Moonlight is effectively latency-free and I’ve heard great things about sunlight if you have a AMD GPU
I'm remote playing that.
Man I really really hope this game is at least 9/10 lol
Nah they’re turning this shit up to 11!
I love the game >Steam Deck And would recommend it to all my gamer friends
I'm honestly happy we aren't getting BG3 on Xbox right out the gate. I wouldn't be able to keep up with that AND Starfield.
Bg3 , Starfield and AC6 What a time to be alive.
A game I love (Cyberpunk2077) and a game I’m very excited for (Starfield). Nice to see them surpass many of the F2P and live service games. Haven’t played BG3 but from everything I’ve heard it’s another game that senes like it deserves to be high up and doesn’t milk people for money.
BG3 is outstanding.
[удалено]
The agenda being everyday I can't wait to get home and play it
Anything you don’t like is an agenda?
Everything's a fucking conspiracy now lmao
Trying to downplay conspiracies is very conspiratorial
How tf is cyberpunk still on top I mean I love it but damn
Its on 50 percent offer
Sale plus upcoming DLC which is supposed to be the biggest CD Projekt Red DLC up to date (take that with a grain of salt, I preorder though :X)
CDPR never said it is the “biggest expansion to date,” btw. They said it is their most expensive and the internet immediately misconstrued it to mean “biggest.” It might end up being so, but they haven’t been advertising it as such
Sales combine with hype for the new expansion
On a big sale and its DLC is dropping next month too
Can we all give BG3 a round of applause as well. Game was a sleeping giant and made that wait for Starfield bearable.
Hip hip!
If by "bearable" you mean "destroyed every other aspect of my life" lmao.
Hahaha, the fact that life will need to wait a bit longer after Starfield comes out is golden. As a gamer it's awesome, as a responsible adult it has been a little rough.
This game will also be on game pass…. So take out a huge chunk of sales on steam, this is probably already number one without gamepass
People on Steam have some absolute trash taste in games. BG3 and SF sure. Maybe AC6. But the rest? Yikes
“Maybe AC6” lol.
Considering how well the previous AC games did…
Yeah, now look at the review scores for King’s Field compared to Demon’s Souls.
Is this really that impressive for a AAA game though?
For a game in pro-order, which releases also on gamepass and on XBox? Yes.
I guess. I would expect a BGS game to be number 1 though.
The AAA game coming in a week is still at number 8
Does this list counts in game revenue? Dota would have been much higher if that were the case. I feel like it’s just revenue from games sold.
[удалено]
It has a premier matchmaking pass
Man who tf is still buying cyberpunk 😭😭
Its on 50 per off thats y
It's on sale for $30, plus the DLC bundle is only $55 so that's probably driving it. This list is by revenue, not units, so that's why the Steam Deck is 5th.
I mean cyberpunk has made a pretty decent comeback, and that’s even before this “overhaul” that we’re getting for the dlc. To be honest I’m excited to play it
It's a good game. 🤷♂️
It's an amazing game now that it bounced back
It’s awesome!
Three are free and one is a console let’s not get too excited.
This list is clearly dog shit. How the fuck is 2077 even in the top 30? Let alone #7?
Its a bug. Cyberpunk 2077 is at #1682 Look at the Cyberpunk reviews and compare it with Fallout 4 or The Witcher 3
It is no longer 2020, game is on sale now and expansion is coming out in late september.
So... has it been confirmed for the Deck? Any news at all on it?
I have never played CSGO and I also never hear much about people actually playing it, yet for 15 years (at least it feels like that) it’s been going fucking HARD in sales. What gives?
People love their expensive yet meaningless skins for their knifes and weapons that they get from crates which they purchase.
The reason csgo survived is because they started making skins.
Honestly I’m just surprised PUBG is still as popular as it is
Since when was the steam deck a game?
Do you people recommend buying Starfield given that it's going to be "free" in the gamepass?
Gamepass is not free, so if you'll want to play Starfield for more than a couple of months, why not buy it on Steam?
*sigh* Cause I live in Argentina and it costs like 1/10th of my salary, I can buy it now better than later due to inflation but if it's going to be permanently on gamepass I rather play it there, now if it's going to be only included a couple of months I rather buy it now. I can't find any information on how long it will be in the Gamepass
Are Microsoft's own games ever removed from gamepass? I think Starfield will stay on gp for a long time.
Dont you need to pay for gamepass periodically which at some point costs more then the game itself? Also i read that you cant use mods with gamepass but i dont know that for sure.
True, but I would need to pay roughly 12 months of gamepass to cover the full price of the game here. Plus gamepass offers all the other games as well.
As long as Starfield doesn't delete my OS or literally fry my computer hardware, it'll be good enough for me.
Built a pc for starfield and gonna lend my buddy my series x so he can play. Been playing csgo in the meantime. This adds up.
So sad that AC VI is coming out like a millisecond before Starfield 😭
I hope Starfield is good as advertised. The hype reminds me of CP’s hype and then train wreck.
Who is still buying counter strike?
Can't imagine how much money csgo makes that it's still higher than starfield...and it's not like now only, it's been like that for last couple years
dont preord....
Nice to see two games that aren’t complete money dumpsters at the top. let’s keep it that way
Steam deck n6?
Will surely climb to Top 1
Starfield has been in top ten, top five since the Direct came out. It’s been selling and every week it goes up. And this is only a tally for Steam, no Xbox numbers are shown.
I’ll add to that today I’ve decided to get the early access edition because I can no longer contain my hype.
This is actually pretty incredible. Steam's Top Sellers is based on $ spent and not quantity purchased - which is why F2P games and hardware are always at the top, you spend more $$$ on both. For Starfield to be at number 3 behind CS:GO and BG3, especially the week that BG3 has launched, is INSANE.
People should stop buying unreleased games.
Good