I'm not going to debate the quality of the two games as they're very different products for very different audiences - but I suspect that BG3 has earned its 98% by being an uncommonly well made game *and* a game with a very specific (and under-served) audience - 'proper' CRPG's are pretty thin on the ground these days so if you make one and
make it well then it's going to win you a lot of love - and deservedly so.
It doesn't hurt that it was a successful re-imagining of a fondly remembered IP either - plus, it coincided with
Dungeons & Dragons seeing a resurgence in popularity due in part to the pandemic, but also the success of streamers like
Critical Role.
All you can really glean from Starfield's review numbers is that it's a
divisive game - and that's not really adding anything new to the conversation. Some reviews call it a 'loading simulator' - and sure, the loading is egregious and the game would be far better without it - did that stop me from enjoying the game? Absolutely not.
You say the game has little exploration but I've spent many hours discovering derelict ships, space stations and side-quests that take you to a bunch of unique locations - and I had fun doing it - but that's
me and if you found it lacking then that's valid too.
Personally I'll never play Baldur's Gate 3 for a multitude of reasons:
I don't like 5th Edition D&D.
I never played the original Baldur's Gate games.
I played a bunch of traditional CPRGs (like the Gold Box stuff from SSI) when they were new and have zero nostalgia for them.
I find the Forgotten Realms to be the blandest, most cookie-cutter of fantasy settings.
Also (subjectively) I find the art style of BG3 to be ugly and unappealing.
That's fine though - BG3 wasn't made for me and I'm happy the people playing it are enjoying themselves and getting to play something that was clearly a passion project for its creators.
What I
don't do is hang out on the BG3 thread telling people why they shouldn't enjoy it