Was Starfield Snubbed from the Game Awards?
Is it fair that the epic space RPG by Bethesda did not get a shot at game of the year?
Starfield has been Bethesda's priority for a long time. They made us believe that the game was going to be one of the most epic space adventues ever made. Despite a couple of lengthy delays, we patiently waited for the game to be polished before it was released.
Once the game came out, it immediately started to shine in all of its Bethesda glory (the good and bad). The game felt like a space Fallout. The typical bugs here and there, a cumbersome inventory system, the lack of maps, and a ton of loading screens made the game feel rushed.
So, how does a game like that miss the Game Awards' main category nomination, while Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom which does not revolutionize gameplay and visuals, compared to Breath of the Wild (2017) got 6 nominations, including GOTY? Let''s take a look a the things that put Starfield on the sideline.
Marketing: a double edged sword.
It's true, good marketing can make you sell ice to an eskimo, however, make sure you set the expectations properly.
Starfield was marketed as the next big thing out there. We were led to believe that it was going to be a game changer. We felt that it was going to be a Fallout/No-Man's Sky hybrid with a pinch of Destiny.
Whenever Bethesda relased a blog, trailer or social media post, the more we believed we had the holy grail of gaming in our hands.
Space exploration was a huge part in Bethesda's marketing strategy with Starfield. We were going to explore 1000 planets! So much room for activities! The plethora of characters, side quests, base building, resource gathering and so many other fun things to do in 1000 worlds was just the tip of the iceberg.
The reality was that only 10% (about 100 planets) were going to feature life. In hindsight, it is a pretty significant number if you ask me. The problem is that despite containing life, those 100 worlds feel barren and generic. It's not even worth exploring half of them.
Another thing that makes exploration an absolute hassle is exploration itself. What I mean by this is that you can only explore the planet in chunks. You cannot go where you want like in No Man's Sky, you literally hit an invisible wall and have to get back to your ship and move forward so the next chunk loads.
The inventory system makes this task even more hideous. You cannot easily manage inventory and can be encumbered pretty quickly. The point of extra vechicular activities on a planet is to gather resources! If you are careless about this, you will find yourself encumbered and with a huge way to go back to the ship.
I know the game tries to be realistic in some things, but inventory should never be a hassle to the player. If anything, it should provide the tools to quickly manage whatever you have gathered. Perhaps a drone can take your extra stuff back to the ship immediately, asuuming all ships have decent storage compartments.
Buying and selling loot or things also needs to feel like a breeze. We are talking about many advanced civilizations in space. Maybe there is a space delivery service that can pick up what you want to sell or deliver what you want to buy. You don't have to be forced to go to a shop to buy/sell things. If you want to encourage the player to go to a store, you can add loot only available for in-person customers. Generic loot should be easily traded.
The old tale of graphics.
We were expecting a next-gen space RPG that not only looked amazing, but it benefited from all the power of next-gen hardware (consoles included). I know that the game has been in development for many years; probably the hardware architecture used back then was significantly different.
The results were not great: consoles run the game at a dreaded 30fps, and average PCs have to make significant sacrifices. Don't get me started on handheld devices like the Steam Deck or ROG Ally, you simply cannot get any decent framerate, even if you run the game on low settings.
Todd Howard infamously said that you need to get a good PC to run Starfield as intended. This whimsical statement felt like an insult to the majority of PC gamers out there; especially considering that we are still suffering the aftermath of the silicon crysis.
Visually, the game looks great, with the usual formula used by developers nowadays. Volumetric lighting, ambient occlusion, ray tracing and all the necesarry things needed to make the game look stunning.
The Creation Engine is currently on its second iteration, it was specifically designed for Starfield and the upcoming Elder Scrolls IV. It certainly a jump forward from its previous version which was used in games like Skyrim, Fallout 4, and more.
With so many games targeting 4k60 on consoles, the decision to run Starfield at 30fps in order to preserve authenticity has made more than one fan upset. At the end of the day it is not a huge deal breaker, but it certainly makes you wonder if consoles are really that powerful. Then again, you look at games like Cyberpunk 2077 run at a decent framerate/resolution on consoles at begin to see the potential of the Xbox Series X and PS5.
Quality of life
Another reason the game feels rushed is because many quality of life features are not present from the get-go. For instance, city maps are not present, so navigating through the only few places worth exploring becomes extremely frustrating.
Many say that this was a deliberate choice by Bethesda so that people can walk around and take their time exploring the cities. If this is true, then it's a very bad decision. For starters, Bethesda's games have always had city maps, and second of all, these games are driven by point A to point B quests.
A map is essential when trying to complete quests; the time to explore on your own is your choice. It simply makes no sense to force players to play the game a certain way. Everyone has different approaches when playing. Some are explorers, and the majority just want to finish the quests and move on.
Maps are not the only issue with Starfield's quality of life features. The amount of loading screens present in the game not only takes away the imersion, but makes you wonder if it's a true 'Next-Gen' videogame.
I know RPGs like Starfield are complex to program. Developers are getting all they can from the game engine and its subsystems, but having too many loading screens will make players conscious that loading screens are there.
Zelda was nominated, but...
Yes, Tears of the Kingdom was nominated for GOTY but it did not win. It serves as a bit of a warning to Nintendo. TOTK shares many similarities to Breath of the Wild, which won GOTY in 2017. Perhaps this was both a blessing and a curse for the game.
BOTW is an incredibly amazing game, which by the way, has aged like fine wine. TOTK will probably follow that route. They are ageless gems that will be forever in our hearts and minds.
The problem with TOTK is that it did not innovate so much, compared to its 6 year old prequel. Experts say that it feels like a DLC for BOTW, which is in part, true.
TOTK got nominated for GOTY and other 5 categories, but only managed to win 'Best Action/Adventure Award', which in itself, is ,more of a jab to Spider-Man 2 than to Starfield, but that's a story for another day.
TOTK put its name on the Game Awards based on the hertiage that a franchise like The Legend of Zelda carries, and I mean it in a positive way. There is a high standard by Nintendo when developing a Zelda game. Both BOTW and TOTK feel like genuine works of art, well crafted games, and overall incredible gaming experiences.
Perhaps the hardware limintations of the Nintendo Switch condidtioned the scope of TOTK, but Nintendo executed its development plan to perfection based on what they had, in terms of hardware.
We're all expecting what is going to be Nintendo's next console, and I'm sure that we will see a port of TOTK to the new console. We always speculate about framerate, resolution, and other graphical improvements. Who knows? perhaps we will see a 1080p 60fps handheld hybrid.
Baldur's Gate 3 made everyone 'look bad'
Baldur's Gate 3 was the black horse on the Game Awards, the game was a pleasant surprise for PC gamers back in august. Console gamers are now getting the chance to experience such a great RPG.
The game simply owned the Game Awards, it won so many nominations, including GOTY. The game has a high artistic value, with great visuals, soundtrack, writing, and gameplay. Perhaps having so many 'good' contenders for GOTY pushed Starfield to the side, which felt like yet another Bethesda game, rather than the company's next step into the future.
At times Starfield feels generic and dated, all the opposite to Baldur's Gate 3, which looks and plays incredibly well. Even a game like Spider-Man 2 had to be pushed aside. That game is another PlayStation gem, however, the competition on the Game Awards was simply too tough for it to be the center of attention.
What are your thoughts on Starfield's fate on the Game Awards? Do you feel they got snubbed? Let me know in the comments below.
Happy gaming.
