No, the argument is that these two games have almost 0 to do with each other. I'm sure those at Bethesda would be happy to win some GOTY awards but in the end that's only a very little bonus to the success of a game. And I also think other comparisons in the past have been dumb so just because they happened already doesn't change that they make no sense. 

There's also only one game which can be sports game of the year. So, if a golf game will win that GOTY award, why should that matter to the person who wants to play the best football game? 

Yes, GOTY awards are talked about in forums because it's nice if games you like win them and people in gaming forum love their bragging but you really try to tell me that they matter to the success (most games sold already most units before the awards happen) or that they matter to the guy playing his favorite game? You think those millions who play all those most played games on Steam lie Rust or PUBG (even before it was free) care about if their game they play every day won some awards? Or that Starfield will release as very good game but people will even think one minute about BG3 when they play Starfield or when they think about buying it?

Let's say Starfield will get a 90 Metascore and will sell 30m the next 5 years and still have hundred thousands playing it every now and then. What exactly will it matter how many awards it won? It wouldn't sell 10m more units just because of the award. 

Agreed that both are totally different games within the RPG genre, Starfield is of course a shooter-RPG hybrid, while Baldur's Gate 3 is an old-school style CRPG with D20 mechanics, D20 being something that I don't think any AAA RPG has done since Obsidian's KOTOR 2 in 2004. My only reason for comparing them was in discussing which will win the most RPG of the Year awards from gaming publications and award shows later this year. Does it matter in the end really which wins? Not to sales, Starfield and BG3 are both going to sell very well, BG3 already is selling well (4th biggest singleplayer launch of all-time on Steam) while Starfield will surely sell 20m+ lifetime with probably at least 2x that many players thanks to Gamepass. 

I mention the comparison only for 1 main reason: I had personally hoped to see Bethesda reclaim their crown as the undisputed King of RPG's that they had lost back in 2015 when Fallout 4 got beat by Witcher 3. Again, not saying it matters much in the long run, even if they're not able to reclaim their lost crown they will still be one of the top dogs in the RPG genre in terms of game quality, and likely still the top dog in terms of sales/players. I just think it would have been nice to see them reclaim their RPG crown is all. But props to Larian if they did indeed make the better RPG, can't wait to play both personally and decide for myself which is better. 

This particular discussion of Starfield vs Baldur's Gate 3 is very much wrapped up in console wars, nobody was even comparing the two until Sony got temporary exclusivity. History plays a part as well and you in particular have a long history of being wrapped up in the console wars, dooming Xbox if it goes a single day without megaton news or the opposition (Sony) receives some positive news. You're very clearly someone who is wrapped up in the console wars and that is why you're often called out.

If Starfield won Best RPG, it'd be a nice win but ultimately irrelevant to how well it does, "Best RPG" is even less relevant to the mass market than GOTY is and even at isn't very relevant to the mass market, only enthusiasts care about these awards and even at that, most enthusiasts only care about the GOTY award which most already accepted TOTK was winning.

It'd be a nice win for the developers and maybe some Xbox fans can brag about it, nothing more. You do realise that Starfield will have already sold millions before TGA's anyway? Word of mouth will do 1000x more than any possible "GOTY" could do for Starfield, nobody is going to give a shit if they're busy enjoying and playing the actual game.

People often do point out that there's no RPG like a Bethesda RPG and why comparisons fall flat, Obsidian doesn't make RPGs like Bethesda does and vice versa. People compare them at a superficial level but ultimately when you get into roots they're completely different types of RPGs which can appeal to a large portion of gamers on their own.

You complain that our counter argument is that Starfield will make more money and yet here is what you said "Seems Bethesda gets owned in every way possible" So you can make a claim that Bethesda gets "owned in every way possible" but we aren't allowed to make a claim that, actually, they don't get "owned in every way possible" makes sense, Lol.

Let me rephrase it then, I'm sure Bethesda will care about being "owned" when they're making millions and I'm sure the millions who will be enjoying Starfield and playing it will suddenly hate the game and be in tears when it doesn't win a "Best RPG" award, Lol. /s. This is why people take issue with your comment, the "owned in every possible way" just screams console wars (and isn't true).

• Dragon Age Inquisition "owned" Bayonetta 2, Dark Souls II, Shadow of Mordor
• The Witcher 3 "owned" Bloodborne, Fallout 4, Metal Gear Solid V
• Overwatch "owned" Doom, Inside, Titanfall 2, Uncharted 4.
• Breath of the Wild "owned" Persona 5, PUBG, Super Mario Odyssey.
• God of War "owned" Spider Man, Monster Hunter World, Red Dead Redemption 2.
• Sekiro "owned" Resident Evil 2, Smash Bros Ultimate.
• The Last of Us Part II "owned" Animal Crossing New Horizons, Doom Eternal, FF VII Remake, Hades.
• It Takes Two "owned" Metroid Dread, Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart, Resident Evil Village.
• Elden Ring "owned" God of War Ragnarok, Forbidden West, Xenoblade Chronicles 3.

Right? Does anyone say this stuff? Lol.

Controller, PC, headphones, and now gaming chair..

NO CONSOLE THOUGH. 

WTF NOBLE GOT INTO THE CHAIR BUSINESS. 

Who tf takes GOTY seriously. Only crumbside dents on YT do that... Shit lost all credibility once OW won.

Honestly I agreed with the critic panel decision on Keighley's show that year. 2016 was a weak as hell year for games with many lackluster releases, the only real competition for GOTY being Overwatch and Uncharted 4, and frankly I got alot more enjoyment out of playing Overwatch than I got out of Uncharted 4, which was one of the weakest games of the Uncharted series imo.

Worth noting that Uncharted 4 did beat Overwatch on the overall tracking that year though, both in critic voted awards and fan voted awards:

https://www.gameawards.net/2020/09/2016.html

No objections to your comparisons but some others are so obviously wrapped up in console wars, Lol.

Sure it would be nice but ultimately I don't care either way, Bethesda like you said will still be "one of" the top dogs and if Starfield delivers (for me) they will be the top dog. Skyrim despite Bethesda "losing" their crown is still one of the most played WRPGs even today and I think Starfield will have great legs on PC thanks to the modding community which I anticipate will do amazing things with Starfield.

We should all be celebrating two WRPGs being highly successful instead of the pitting them against each other some are doing.

And like, JFC...Get over it not coming to Xbox at launch already, it launches a month later on PlayStation, it will late later on Xbox, but it IS coming, you know what isn't coming though? Starfield on PlayStation, ever. For the life of me, Xbox fans losing their minds over a game being temporarily delayed despite the fact that they'll likely receive two highly successful and high quality WRPGs because the opposition will receive one!

I'm sure a lot of PlayStation fans would fucking LOVE if Starfield was coming to PlayStation but delayed, Lol.

It also beat Doom, Titanfall 2 and Inside as well...

I haven't played Overwatch admittedly but Titanfall 2 and Doom were amazing.

Comparing Baldur's Gate 3 to Starfield is like comparing Call of Duty to Overwatch. Both are in the FPS genre but you're getting VERY different experiences.

I never once saw discussion, especially from console players, about BG3 until the accidental exclusivity was part of it. 

Honestly I never played Doom or Inside, neither seemed like my type of game so I skipped them both. As for Titanfall 2, the campaign was indeed great, but the multiplayer was widely regarded as worse than Titanfall 1, which is ultimately why Titanfall 2 flopped and we never got Titanfall 3 and got stuck with Apex Legends being their main product instead. I do think that Overwatch 1's multiplayer was better than Titanfall 2's MP, better by quite alot, there is a reason why I put like 500 hours into Overwatch 1 between PC, Xbox One, and PS4, and only like 30 hours into Titanfall 2 MP (which is alot less hours than I put into Titanfall 1).

Overall I do think 2016 was a weak year for gaming, especially for my gaming tastes. Many of the games that I did play just weren't as good as I wanted them to be. Uncharted 4 was the 2nd weakest game in the series imo. We had Dishonored 2 and Deus Ex Mankind Divided both coming in weaker than their predecessors (their predecessors both got about a 90 on metacritic, while Dishonored 2 got like 87 and Mankind Divided got like 83). FF15 was a bit of a hot mess, with a butchered storyline, mediocre action combat, poor open world design, and lack of playable party members (some of the issues were later partially fixed with DLC, but it was just not the game that Nomura originally intended it to be as FF Versus 13). CoD Infinite Warfare had a good campaign, much like Titanfall 2, but it's MP was ass. I personally enjoyed Quantum Break, but critics just didn't like the flow of gameplay to tv show episode, that game was never going to review well being half tv show. 2016 was just a weak year for video games, and it felt especially weak as a follow-up year to 2015, which had amazing games like Witcher 3, Fallout 4, Ori and the Blind Forest, Rise of the Tomb Raider, and Assassin's Creed Syndicate.