It makes sense that BG3 and Starfield would get comparisons, despite being wildly different games - two major triple-A RPG releases in a roughly one-month period, that's not common nowadays.
It's a shame that the attitude of so many people nowadays is "let's piss and moan about everything and decide to hate shit before we've even played it", because what we've got here is:
BG3, a turn-based cRPG with stellar world design (at least in the first act), great environmental interactivity, and enjoyable combat
Starfield, a Bethesda game that offers the type of freedom and mechanical variety and depth that Bethesda games have been lacking for years, has what appears to be genuine C&C, and allows for distinct character builds with strengths and weaknesses
And they're both critically and commercially successful with the mainstream, which bodes enormously well for the future of the genre. Neither game is perfect, especially Starfield's first few hours and BG3's final few hours, both could be improved in obvious ways, but both are good games that, hopefully, will have a positive effect going forward if developers take the right lessons from them.
