That's why it's stupid to give incentives to people to vote. I hadn't even heard of 90% of the games up for selection in the awards. But I sure as hell voted on every one, usually just picking a game I'd heard the name of, or one with a cool looking banner.
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
146 points (100.0% liked)
PC Gaming
230 readers
10 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This right here is the exact reason Starfield won most innovative, and the same reason Hogwarts Legacy won best on Steam Deck. People who hadn't played any of the games in the votes only voted on games they had heard of.
I just assume it's based on who pays more and votes don't even matter. Even if the votes matter, then awards never mattered unless I'm getting something out of it
Steam awards is just popular vote and memes, why did last of us get best soundtrack? Why did rdr2 get labor of love? Why did hogwarts win best on steam deck? Dont take awards seriously, they are just a bit of fun.
I voted for all those games lmao
Because a significant portion of people like doing things on the internet in the most inappropriate way possible, in this case voting for the choices that make the least sense for any given category.
many aren't old enough to understand "innovative" means simply because they lack the reference material, history of said genre, etc. And yes, trolling is probably a reason like review bombing.
Starfield is innovated in that it took me almost 18 hours of on and off game play over a couple months before I was actually interested in it enough to actually think about it. By that point I would have normally just tossed it over to the mothball drive and never thought about it again
How'd you end up putting 18 hours in in the first place without being interested?
I have played all the bethesda games since Morrowind (I even beat that!) except Fallout 76 or whatever it was called. I figured it had to have something going for it. I would play for an hour here and there and just be like meh. I am still kinda meh on it but at least I have some understanding of the path the main story wants to drive me in now... It's a shit story but I figured I will do the main story and see how I feel about the game. As it is, the main story is barely enough to keep me coming back. Also my friend spoiled a major plot point for me and I want to see how that comes about (main character death or something haha)
That makes sense. Glad you got something out of it in the end. I've long been a fan of the Elder Scrolls games and was cautiously optimistic about Starfield, liked the gritty but optimistic aesthetic and the idea of going out to find the little side stories that made me love the Elder Scrolls games. Looks like I might need to keep waiting a bit though
From what I can tell, it's difficult to actually make a choice in Starfield. It's like you can do something or choose not to but any shades of choice are very dim.
I'll start this by saying I played Starfield for around 100 hours and mostly enjoyed it so you understand where I'm coming from.
Starfield has about the least compelling main story Bethesda has ever released. The main story is very short and very shallow.
The game overall has about as much content as any Bethesda game. The main reason people are calling it sparse is that content being spread out across the galaxy rather than a functionally small area.
I thought the faction quests were all enjoyable. I also think people are quick to discount how stable the game is. The stability improvements were a massive change to Creation engine. In 100 hours, I had 2 crashes. Compare that to Skyrim, which I have 2k hours in, or fallout 4 that require an unofficial patch to keep vanilla from crashing at least every 30 minutes.
Ultimately, Starfield seems to lean more into people who will talk to everybody than it does people who want to be guided. For the guided, there's probably about 30 hours of content. For the explorers, there's probably closer to 150 hours plus the shallower radiant stuff. I'm not in love with the main story or the perks system and I definitely don't think the game provided the industry with any innovations, but I don't feel like I wasted my money even a little.
My suggestion to anybody would be once you can ignore the main quest, do everything else first. The main quest doesn't enhance gameplay or the universe in any real way.
It was slightly innovative to have buildable starships, wasnt it? Probably enough that the average steam voter went 🤯.
Should've added the /s at the end, my dude. Sarcasm detectors don't work on Internet text.
Also, after reading your comment I immediately thought of the gummy block ships from Kingdom Hearts and lol'd at myself.
Yeah. But the part about average steam voter being easily impressed wasnt sarcasm.
If you can send Pitbull to Kodiak, Alaska...
People on the Internet will vote for all kinds of stupid nonsense. At least the Alaska visit was funny.
The right grease on the right palms.
Award shows are like political polls. They don't mean shit!
It was the new lock picking mini game.