Unlikely. Bethesda has carved out a slot for itself as one of the most popular and profitable devs. Starfield sold extremely well, even though the reviews and hype have seemingly crashed down back to earth now. My point being they can get away with mediocrity, unfortunately
Bethesda has that niche because they earned it with many of their previous titles.
A lot of this hate comes off as residual (and deserved) anger from the release state of Fallout 76. In the years since that games release though it’s gotten a lot better in large part due to seeing what fans wanted (questlines and NPC’s) and implementing that in the game.
Starfield had the unfortunate luck to release in the same year as a once in a generation game Baldur’s Gate 3 (which Larian Studios was basically built from the ground up to make over a decade of work) and the final complete form of Cyberpunk (which took years after a poor release to finally be in a state that it should have been and was advertised as).
The game and its engine are certainly showing its age, I don’t think many people who have played Starfield for more than a few hours would dispute that, but it’s still certainly a fun experience if you go in wanting a Fallot/Skyrim in space.
Graphics I'll give it, but that's the sort of thing that gets better over time regardless.
Gunplay? Not particularly seeing Starfield's as better.
Character creation? Absolutely not. There's a system of traits and backgrounds that's in stark contrast with the game, so it HUGELY takes you out of it
Just in my run, I was a Diplomat who at multiple times said "I'm not a diplomat, why am I doing this?", I was a Snake Worshipper who had, for most of my Andreja romance, had her tell me that it was so awful I wasn't a snake worshipper and I was going to hell, and when I ditched her to move on, I had Kid Stuff and two loving parents who didn't even come to my wedding with Sarah.
AI? Once again, no. I go into Skyrim and draw my sword in a town, guards cautiously mention it. I dragon shout to the sky, one approaches me to tell me while there's no laws against that, I should stop.
I draw my gun and start blasting around people in Aquila City, no one flinches. Nothing happens. Enemies aren't better, their tactics haven't advanced, they're stagnant.
Gunplay? Not particularly seeing Starfield's as better.
Easily better than Fallout 4 with a far bigger array of mods.
There's a system of traits and backgrounds that's in stark contrast with the game, so it HUGELY takes you out of it
Gonna respectfully disagree boss. It is by no means a perfect system, but it improved VASTLY over Fallout 4 and Skyrim.
I get it, the backgrounds/traits are lacking in some aspects. Fully agreed. But are you really unable to understand how they are still vastly better than Fallout 4's mandatory Concerned Parent background, or Skyrim's Ambushed Prisoner one?
AI? Once again, no.
Strawman fallacy. I never said "AI", I said "Enemy AI". Guard behavior has nothing to do with Enemy AI.
Enemies aren't better, their tactics haven't advanced, they're stagnant.
This is just downright false. They are demonstrably smarter than Fallout 4/Skyrim enemies which is patently obvious to anyone who played these games.
Easily better than Fallout 4 with a far bigger array of mods.
Pffh, no. Fallout 4's mods were actually cool and relevant to the gun, even unique guns, making some look very cool. It was awesome turning a minigun into a tri-barrelled spike machine.
Starfield just lets you throw anything together half-heartedly. Knife with double magazine capacity, lmao? Do better.
Gonna respectfully disagree boss. It is by no means a perfect system, but it improved VASTLY over Fallout 4 and Skyrim.
No. I'd rather have no traits than traits that are constantly contradicted in ways that ruin immersion and cripple role-play.
But are you really unable to understand how they are still vastly better than Fallout 4's mandatory Concerned Parent background, or Skyrim's Ambushed Prisoner one?
Skyrim just held that I was trying to cross a border for some reason. That can work for any character I want to roleplay.
Weirdly, you're leaving out that Starfield also has a mandatory background, Argos Miner. Me, experienced Diplomat, or whatever my background, who for some weird reason, left that life to go melt rocks.
An obvious downgrade.
I never said "AI", I said "Enemy AI". Guard behavior has nothing to do with Enemy AI.
Alright, just another inferior part, then.
This is just downright false. They are demonstrably smarter than Fallout 4/Skyrim enemies which is patently obvious to anyone who played these games.
No, they're as unimpressive as ever, quite patently. Played 100 hours of Starfield before I couldn't bear finishing and had to admit I'd wasted my money.
Fallout 4's mods were actually cool and relevant to the gun
Starfield has every mod FO4 has...
even unique guns
You gotta be joking, Fallout 4 has like, 3 unique weapons. Everything else are generic weapons with a Legendary effect.
I'd rather have no traits than traits that are constantly contradicted
God no, screw that shit. Imagine what modders can do with Starfield's system of traits & backgrounds! Damn glad they don't need crazy workarounds because Fallout 4 and Skyrim are so restrictive.
ruin immersion and cripple role-play.
Sounds like you need to roleplay better mate. /s
Skyrim just held that I was trying to cross a border for some reason. That can work for any character I want to roleplay.
Uh no, it cannot. Skyrim forces you to be a criminal breaking Imperial law, incompetent enough to fall to an ambush, and places you into an antagonistic situation against the Legion.
No wonder Alternate Start mods are so popular for Skyrim.
you're leaving out that Starfield also has a mandatory background, Argos Miner.
Yes it does, and it is limiting as well, but not as much as Skyrim/Fallout 4 because backgrounds exist.
Me, experienced Diplomat, or whatever my background, who for some weird reason, left that life to go melt rocks.
Sounds like you need to roleplay better mate. Unironically this time.
Surely you have heard of e.g. doctors and lawyers on hard times leaving for gold rushes, or working menial jobs post-Great Recession. Not impossible to picture out.
An obvious downgrade.
How the fuck is being able to pick a previous profession + being a miner is a downgrade, let alone a obvious one, from being a prisoner about to be beheaded? You are trolling, gotta be.
just another inferior part
Uh yes, that's what we already defined. Why are you pointing out the obvious?
Played 100 hours of Starfield [...] wasted my money.
Then you are the biggest "idiot" I met this week.
Either because you are a troll-liar who never played these 100 hours, or you are a masochist who took 100 hours (?!?!) to realize you don't like a game (lmao), or because you actually like the game and wish it to be better, you just suck at expressing it and resort to randomly bashing it on the internet as an escape valve.
Starfield lives rent-free in your head. Let it go, mate. You'll feel better.
I love the game and play it every day. It's NOT perfect, but pretty damn good. OF COURSE it's in my head, nothing free about it.
Question is: why the fuck would trolls like you bother commenting about a game you "dislike" so strongly (if you even played it)? It does live rent-free in your tiny heads. Instead of forgetting about it like normal people, you whine and moan like a slut in heat.
Now admit it, capitalizing up and down whatever that sentence means was the most effort you put in all day. Lmao
The Argos Miner origin definitely could have been so much better. Why not something like survivor of a spaceship crash so the player is better able to role play their origins?
Unfortunately exploration and the sense of discovery and wonder is what makes Bethesda games shine. It just isn’t fun to explore in Starfield. I also think crafting is better in Fallout 4. And outpost/settlement creation.
I completely agree with you that exploration and sense of discovery is why most people play their games. I also think that the settlement building took away from that.
I don’t think it’s the settlement building for me. Fallout 4 had a similar system and it didn’t bother me at all. It’s the repeated POI’s and most planets just being reskinned lifeless rocks with absolutely nothing interesting to see or do
I’m just talking about FO4 in comparison to FO3 and FONV. Made for fewer interesting pois in comparison as well. I want a fleshed out sandbox to explore.
Enemy AI is god awful still. Also improving on graphics is not much of a accomplishment. Gunplay is fine but not great
Also the story, the one redeeming element of bethesda games is terrible. Besides there's not a lot of freedom anymore, it's a sandbox without the appealing elements. Let me just load my way from one planet to the next without ever wanting to discover anything.
It is markedly superior to previous Bethesda games.
Also improving on graphics is not much of a accomplishment.
That's moving the goalposts. So Starfield has made no positive progress compared to past games, except where it did? Sounds like bullshit.
Gunplay is fine but not great
It feels great to me, best I ever saw in a RPG since Cyberpunk. Gunplay is better than Fallout 4 and that's the point.
the story, the one redeeming element of bethesda games
Man this anti-Starfield circlejerk is so annoying. Are you fucking kidding me? Bethesda games, redeemed by their story? Why are folk inventing stuff is beyond me.
The ONLY Bethesda game with a passable story was Morrowind. Arena, Daggerfall, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Skyrim, Fallout 4, each and every one of those have the most cliche-ridden stories one could think of. Starfield improved a lot on the quality of side quests writing-wise, some are superb, but mostly follows the safe playbook.
"I cried after that one quest in Skyrim", said no one ever.
Bethesda games became icons due to their unique commitment to sandbox freedom + moddability.
I would have been happy with Skyrim in space, but Starfield isn't that at all. The defining characteristic of Skyrim is that you can walk in any direction and encounter hand crafted content; this form of exploration is simply not present in Starfield to any appreciable degree.
The Elder Scrolls Daggerfalls map is the size of the UK in 1998.. The problem with games today is everyone’s a disingenuous critic.. What’s making things worst is you guys speak with no knowledge and because you typed it confidently it’s getting almost 20+ upvotes of people liking a FALSE statement lol.. “Looked out and see handcrafted content” smh.. Skyrim was made by 90 devs if you believe they handcrafted the content go back and watch the documentary on Skyrim from No Clip.. Todd explains they usually have LITTLE handcrafted content and start with Proc gen on almost everything to be made.. And have since TES daggerfall in the 90s…
Again, hopefully Bethesda takes all of that criticism seriously and makes their next game better for it.
As for Starfield, not every game is for every player. If you enjoy it then great, if not then also great. Find one of the many other games to play on Game Pass or elsewhere.
Lmao. People have been saying this about Bethesda for almost 10 years now. They ain’t taking shit to heart. They’re fulfilling their internal roadmap and that’s it.
No offense I stg whatever ten you’ll say EVERYONE can name JUST as many problems for..
In all honesty it’s weird how Starfields the ONLY game I’ve ever seen judge based on what’s it’s NOT???
BG3 is TERRIBLE in EVERYTHING but choice.. Which guess what?? It’s a D&D game, that’s GOING to happen..
But the story’s bad, combats terrible, bro basically EXACTLY what you just listed for Starfield..
But why people also IGNORE the THOUSANDS of bugs, bad pacing, boring filler storylines, the overhead view which just isn’t… It.. It’s like playing Diablo jr.. Plus all things you named for Starfield..
Gamers are fickle af now.. If enough media people would’ve said it was greatness you would’ve accepted it as a goat..
Just like BG3 or even worst Spider-Man which was just not good even if it didn’t have a bug.. We gotta stop acting like cause you can find flaw in a game it makes it bad cause every game can be done that way..
And even to those saying “the games not good” if you ask how MAJORITY say “Idk it just isn’t the same”… That’s what happens when you follow..
Name things you can insert anywhere while ignoring those SAME points when saying “but this games greatness”..
I dont know why you are taking people disliking a game as a personal attack.
As someone who has played baldurs gate 3, spiderman 2 and starfield.
It's just very clear it's not on their level.
The other two games are flaws experiences too. As they both had some bugs and issues
I'm not giving starfield shit for what it's not.
I'm giving it shit for what it is.
What it is. Is subpar. Nearly every aspect in that game. Is done in mediocre fashion. Combat, side objectives, hell even the story is lack luster.
Yes there are good elements. But. There's a reason starfield isn't getting the accolades the others are.
It's not a conspiracy. It's just not that great to most. I'm glad you enjoyed it. And feel differently. But it's not an attack on you
Also worth noting "If enough media people would've said it was greatness you would've accepted it as a goat"
There's a reason they didn't say it was greatness. It was a flawed experience.
I played it. Put a ton of hours in it. It's not bad. It's just. very mediocre.
Baldur's gate and spider-man have flaws as well. But what they do well they do exceptionally well.
Starfield has nothing i felt was done exceptionally well. Maybe ship customization. But that's about it.
That’s LITERALLY applied to BG3 and Spider-Man but you’re proving me right... They BOTH have those flaws.. Again BG3 story IS subpar, like LITERALLY doesn’t get good until halfway through the 4 act..
Spider-Man 2 story was NOT subpar to you???
Spider-Man 2 is MM and 2018 together with NOTHING new.. And it’s 17 hrs long with JUST as many bugs as Starfields 50 hr main quest.. Side quests almost don’t even exist in terms of Spider-Man dude..
Truth is I didn’t enjoy Starfield.. I LITERALLY bought it and it’s off my Xbox at this point.. The point is I’ve bought BOTH the other games and they were JUST as bad 😂..
Fuck Starfield and Bethesda, BG3 and Spidey.. Hogwarts legacy is GOTY THATS facts..
The other fact is BG3 isn’t some “Elden Ring” Elden did well on ALL platforms not just PC..
Fact is Spider-Man 2 is about as good as watching paint dry.. Like bro I can sit my controller down, walk away, and it’s STILL sitting..
No lbh it’s a Xbox thing.. Ghost of Tsushima was a 83 meta is “mediocre” now??? Cause it got a GOTY nom, and has ALWAYS been seen as one of the best RPGs PS ever made??
What Starfield does better than either is be FUN..
Spider-Man’s NOT fun.. It’s nice to watch.. But NOWHERE is it fun..
BG3 is in all honesty just good outside of choice.. It’s why the games selling point isn’t “This epic story” or “A great this”.. It’s “You can fuck bears”….. Yes media tells you guys what to say cause as I said from start..
You guys have no explanations of your own.. You keep saying yeah all these games are flawed but ONLY Starfield is REALLY subpar because… Well.. The other games better at what they good at…
Dude it’s clear your reasoning for not liking those games is Microsoft didn’t make them. Those games are reviewed highly and nominated for several awards for a reason, they’re amazing. Starfield missed the mark, that doesn’t mean it’s a bad game it’s just not as good as those other ones.
Nah, the anger started before Fallout 76 was even released. Fallout 4 received a similar amount of hate by the online “community” in much the same fashion. So many complaints about the damn game it was ridiculous. The subreddit was a shithole and r/fallout was even worse.
Somehow now it’s the golden standard and Starfield is the shitheap. It’s a predictable cycle with literally every release in a franchise, aside from titles that are absolutely special/rare achievements.
The problem with Starfield is much more fundamental than the engine showing its age. The game feels lifeless and boring to explore in a way no other Bethesda game has before imo. The inventory management and menu navigation is a atrocious. Travel feels terrible. But I could all of that if it wasn’t for the recycled points of interest. I’ve never had something ruin my sense of immersion worse than when I realized that “oh shit this is the exact same mine”.
Bandwagoning doesn't help. You ever like a band until everyone kept telling you they sucked? Ever met a Nickelback fan that doesn't feel weird about it? Adult Bieber fan? Guy that's really into the music of Taylor Swift?
Following the crowd is a compelling urge, we're literally wired to do that mentally.
It’s a 4 review on Xbox, a 77% on Steam (nowhere NEAR mixed) which is positive.. Tf type of bs you guys are on in order to ignore fact and say “it’s approaching mixed territory” when it HASNT nor close on any platform??
So the Xbox score don’t count now??? Bro that’s mostly likely where MOST played the game on Xbox not PC.. It sold well not just because of PC it’s sold well because Xbox also which NOBODY tracks the digital sales of.. However that’s where 80% of ALL gamers buy games..
The one I gave was from last month, and 69% isn’t mixed.. I gave outdated ones and you left out a ENTIRE platform that has it 4 out of 5 stars.. To say “everyone says it’s mixed”.. It’s LITERALLY never been under 6th most played gamepass game and top of the store since launch.. See how you “can’t listen to people like me” but ignore you doing the SAMETHING a different way??? This why the Starfield hate seems like hate.. It’s the only game disliked for what it’s not.. Guess what?? BG3 is rated trash user wise on PS and hasn’t even sold a million copies there since release.. But let me guess “it’s better”..
Even people in the starfield sub are pretty mixed on it. Nearly every comment is, I liked it at first but now I’m bored. And that’s a sub dedicated to it.
That I don’t disagree with. But I do think it’s accurate to say reviews are very mixed on Starfield. It’s certainly not a 1, I don’t think many games are even below a 4…that being said starfield is probably a solid 7.
Yeah, but very few people are actually playing those games. I know I’m not. A game that is average out of the subset of games that I play is still probably in the 90th percentile of all games ever made. It’s probably inaccurate to say “I don’t think many games are even below a 4” (hard to say what the bell curve on this would look like) but it’s probably accurate to say “the vast majority of people aren't playing games below a 4.” It could even be accurate to say that the vast majority of people have never played a game below a 4.
Its rife with fucking losers who spend their time stalking the sub of a game they claim to hate.
It was flooded in the 2 weeks prior to launch, numbers flew up sharply. Probably just full of angry PS kids and MS haters.
Much of the negativity, especially shortly after launch was from people who hadn't even played the game.
Its fucking bonkers. People have watched streamers, then written full on review posts.
The problem with Starfield is not that it isn't a great game.
The problem with Starfield is many people assumed they would love it, purely because of the hype.
So they didn't actually manage expectations for anything about the actual reality of the game.
It was clearly going to be like all the other Bethesda games, but in space with a spaceship and lots of planets. Which for some people, is amazing. For some not so much. Fine, fuck off move on.
It was fucking obvious they hadn't reinvented the wheel for anyone who watched any of the gameplay videos.
So many fucking morons now in the gaming "world", i miss the days when it was niche and not every fucking pleb with a smartphone had a 2 page opinion for a game they played for 2 hours, acting like it was life or death.
not true, especially with games like starfield, were people tried to force themselves to enjoy it, and then you get a one star review after 100+ hours...thats as close as you can get to the truth
I'm sorry, if you play a game, any game, for a 100+ hours and rate it a 1/10, what's wrong with you?
Like the game was good enough for you to pour a 100 hours in? Were you sitting there going, AH SHOOT I HATE THIS GAME IT SUCKS LET ME JUST KEEP PLAYING IT for 90 hours straight?
Like be real, if you spend even 25 hours on a game it definitely means its at least a decent game. At least a 5/10 regardless. A 1/10 would mean the game is so bad it's unplayable to you.
I see some people saying "Oh I got bored 50 hours in, so the game sucks" and I'm so confused was the expectation that you get 1000 hours without getting bored? The vast majority of players aren't pouring thousands of hours into these games? The average amount of hours a skyrim player has across its player base is 75.
i'm sorry, but are you like the ghost of christmas past? why would you come to a post thats over a month old and regurgitate arguments that have been discussed a thousand times, since then? how did you even end up here? do you think i want to discuss this with you? nobody else will read this.
tbf people are emotional because they wanted an evolution of skyrim and fallout and they got something worse.
todd said we have this great new engine and exploration on a level you have never seen before, while creation engine still looks like hot garbage and there is no exploration at all. you get a list of fast travel locations and half of those locations are not worth visiting.
i gave it a 6/10 for main story and factions alone and i liked interior graphics detail (rendered buttons etc.) but it did feel much worse than a 6/10 to me. it felt like i wasted my time on that game.
thats what persuades some people to give it the lowest ranking possible.
of course there are always trolls that give low scores, because they hated some kind of social/political message, thats true. just look at TLOU2
Could the same not be said for critic reviews? Do they even review a game below a 7/10 these days unless it’s like irredeemably bad? Review publishers don’t want to lose out on early copies and basically hand out 8’s and above like candy
I totally agree that there are a lot of garbage user reviews. Still doesn’t change the fact that Starfield has mixed reviews. There are Bethesda games that are positively rated. Cyberpunk had a much bigger hate campaign against it and still has very positive reviews.
There’s a reason the reviews for Starfield are the way they are now
You should look at the some of the games that have overwhelmingly positive reviews on steam. They are the ones that aren’t highly mediocre or bad.
Steam has a solid review system and steam tags reviews as refunded for people who refunded the game. Also shows their playtime. And people can vote and award reviews.
Xbox, however, does have a horribly broken joke of a review system.
Steam tags reviews as “refunded” from people who refunded the game. Also it shows the playtime of the person reviewing the game. Also people can award and vote on if a review is helpful or not.
You are probably basing your experience on Xbox which has a broken joke of a review system.
There's a reason that they don't review many if any games under 5-6/10. Those games are simply not worth reviewing because there's too many better games to review. Why pay someone a salary to review a 3/10 game that no one has any interest in?
That's simply not true. It's not a five star system. Because a seven isn't the same as a two. And a six isn't a one. It's not a five star system. It's a ten star system but the lower scores are generally not used because they are for terrible games. But they do get used sometimes. Like Gollum and King Kong. It's just more rare. It's not because they don't reach the quality to be ranked. It's because, ones again, there's not much interest in terrible games. And you can't review every single game that gets released.
Critic reviews are worse. They're either overly positive because they were paid to give a good review, or overly negative because they're playing a game in a genre they don't enjoy or understand.
especially if the publisher is known to blacklist people over bad reviews, which bethesda is one of them. with starfield a lot of xbox focused influencers got a review copy but established gaming journalist outlets of all sizes didn't (eurogamer at first, the guardian, edge and metro for example)
User reviews were garbage to start because of the reaction and brigading from PS fans. It’s only hitting mixed now because it’s getting more positive reviews from actual players not the other way around
The game is getting review bombed now, but even so, there's 80,000+ positive to its 40k negative. So a majority of players willing to write a steam review enjoyed it. And like scrolling through the reviews most of the negative ones were less than a few hours played. People love to bandwagon and hate on popular games.
you mean the reviews where people are basically only allowed to get early review copies if they continue to post favorable reviews? and if they dont they wont receive those copies anymore? Yeah the current review system is basically rigged... companies want those clicks so they need to stay on devs "good side" to get those early review copies. Starfield in no way deserves all those 9s and 10s.
There's a reason starfield is under 50% recommended on steams recent reviews.
It’s scary how long the real experience was reflected here; everyone was blinded and deusional playing this menu simulator. I was yelled at and violently criticized for claiming this game was a massive disappointment.
I don't think "there's a good reason" based on the recent reviews. The review patterns on the game are a little absurd, really. You're telling me that suddenly after two months a bunch of people finally decided to review the game? Nah. Maybe if there had been a sale that would make sense, but there hasn't been.
You’re telling me that suddenly after two months a bunch of people finally decided to review the game?
Yes, how exactly is that absurd? The game can take a long time to get through and not everyone has 10 hours a day to play games you know that right? Not only that tons of people have games they were already playing and probably finished them first before starting starfield. There are dozens of different scenarios that can easily explain why people didn’t review the game until now, it’s not unheard of in the slightest lol.
The absurdity is concurrency, not timeline. If you look at the review history, there is a day with an excessively large number of negative reviews. That simply doesn't make sense this many days post release.
Really only from smaller reviewers who were afraid to upset Bethesda fans. The bigger ones gave it pretty mediocre reviews. Unfortunately I trusted the smaller ones
I watched a video of a guy on IGN give Starfield a 7 and the same guy gave Fallout 4 a 9.5... This guy was clearly mad that it's a Xbox exclusive so he just killed the game even though it's Fallout in space.
People need to stop this thing. People aren't mad that it's an Xbox exclusive. That's just a made up thing that fanboys tell themselves to make them feel better. He works for IGN. He likely has all the consoles anyway. I really enjoyed Fallout 4. I played some 45 hours and only stopped playing because I moved to another country and couldn't bring my gaming computer. Starfield I stopped playing within two weeks. I find 7/10 for starfield to be generous. It's a 6/10 for me. It's not fallout in space at all. It's more like someone tried to copy fallout and make a space game with it. But missed what makes fallout good. And no. I don't own any Sony products.
He clearly gave it a 7 because it's a Xbox exclusive. He posted on twitter that it's not right for games that use to be multiplatform being turned into exclusives.
Gamespots review of Hogwarts is proof they use reviews to push agenda. Gamespot gave Hogwarts a 6 and at the end of the review the guy said "we cannot support JK Rowlings views" then gave a small speech about it. WTF does JK Rowlings have to do with a video game review?
Who cares about console wars. I play on PC, consoles don't matter to me.
I don't even care about user reviews now. IGN and Gamespot started a shit show BEFORE the game was released and people played the game ALREADY THINKING it sucked.
No he clearly didn't. Starfield isn't good. It's mediocre. Doesn't matter if it's on PS, Xbox, or pc. It's just not a good game and doesn't deserve a decimal over 7.0. And you can say you wish a game didn't go exclusive and still give it a proper review where that doesn't affect the score. And no they didn't go into it thinking it sucked. You have absolutely no proof of that. And gamespot has nothing to do with IGN. So i don't know why you bring it up. It's hilarious that you think he was biased when you clearly think it should get a better score because it's an Xbox exclusive. You are the only biased one here. Like I said. Fallout 4 was good. Starfield is significantly worse.
I initially felt strongly that the 7/10 was harsh. I’ve played every Bethesda game since Morrowind and have over 2k hours on Skyrim and FO4 (2k apiece).
I was SO exited to play and the game sucked me right in. Got a solid 80 hours in, completed all quest lines, then stopped playing and… haven’t turned it on since. I have no desire to build ships or outposts because:
Outposts have no benefit outside of RP.
If I NG+, I lose everything I spent time on and don’t have blueprints to remake stuff.
Hopefully QOL improvements, DLC and mods will suck me back in.
Yep. I’m a big fan of BGS and have played their games my whole life. Naturally I was super excited for their first new IP in however many years.
The game was around a 7/10 for me as well, which is fine , but left so much to be desired.
Overall, it’s a good game it just felt they stripped away a lot of things that I love in BGS games and expanded upon systems that I don’t particularly care for, nor do they give me a reason to care for. But I put a good 30-35 hours in, probably will give it another try down the line now that I know what to expect. Just a lot of other good/great games to play atm, and this one did not pull me in enough.
I think any time a game gets a bunch of hype, there’s no way for it to live up to the hype. Anyone who thought this wasn’t going to be space fallout with an extra focus on creating a big rich sandbox for the mod community to play, was going in with the wrong expectations.
That’s exactly what this game is and that’s a fantastic addition to the BGS line up for all of us who live to putz around in these type of games for years to come.
I think it’s funny all the reviews said it started slow but ramped up, and maybe that’s a little true but honestly the farther in the game I got the more I realized the issues
I felt like it was true to a point. Like it grew on me after like 3 hours. The problem was that it got really stale just a few hours after that. So after 20 hours I couldn't bring myself to play anymore.
what good is 1000 planets if only 20 are interesting?
Because you have the choice of whether or not to visit those other planets. Todd was pretty clear in pre-release interviews that making 1 planet is basically the same amount of work as making 1000, so they might as well include them for atmosphere rather than come up with some contrived reason as to why you’re limited to 2-3 systems.
I explored every system and only found so many unique events. Would be nice if more systems had a "this quest will always be here" event in them. Finding the crucible was interesting, but theres nothing else like it in the far corners of space
The only time you're "paralyzed by choice" is when you choose to do something random. Most of the worlds simply aren't worth visiting and once you realize that the game feels better. The vast majority of the planets I have visited are randomly selected to place the artifacts on (and, yes, several of them were bland). I have gone to a few spots in the same systems just to check it out, but there is really very little reason to branch out.
I found that fine in this game. There is plenty to do and enjoy just blazing through the larger stories and tackling some side content along the way. I never found myself particularly bored, though I did run into the same POIs a few times (which would easily be my largest complaint about the game that hopefully they are working on in some capacity).
It seems to me like a lot of people went into this game thinking they could just randomly select a planet and have an exciting adventure. As someone who was disappointed by this in multiple space games in the past decade already, I never expected that was going to work and was therefore not disappointed by the fact that it doesn't really.
I've had that experience in BGS games before, however I would hard disagree that the majority of "random locations" in Skyrim in particular but even in FO3 and 4 turned into anything cool. There are plenty of them where you fight some things and then leave.
But there's an overwhelming problem of density here. You can make as much procedural content as you want but if it takes me 5 minutes to walk from one location to another, or if each "tailored" planet has only one small city, then in reality Starfield is an extremely small game, just with an enormous skybox.
I don't know what insane expectations people had, but this was my exact expectation. And this is what I got. It's like people have no idea what kind of games BGS makes.
Eh, I don't really agree with that. The problem is that in saying that it's "essentially fallout/skyrim in space" people aren't usually talking about just wandering around, they are talking about the gameplay loops, missions, characters, etc. that make up the core game. And that's exactly what it is.
I'll agree that it's soft-RPG, but BGS has been softening the RPG elements for two decades now. Starfield is obviously a heavily market-researched game that is targeting the greatest audience, and I think the sales numbers on Steam alone (estimates put it between 2-5 million sold) speak volumes about how successful that has been.
Obviously that doesn't mean it has no problems. I just think people are a little crazy acting like this isn't a space translation of Skyrim and Fallout 4.
While none of what you said is incorrect, I don't see what that has to do with my comment. It is absolutely a step down from Fallout/Skyrim in RPG mechanics and world exploration, while still maintaining the same gameplay loop. I know Starfield was a huge financial success, but I still the game was underwhelming in all honesty
Or play a couple of rounds of 7 days to die, with their poi system and the insane amount of possible POIs I really think 7 days has one of the best procedural generations of all games, and I really enjoy it!
Hell, even NMS gets a kick out of you in the first 7-10 planets
Nah it’s still good for them to fix it. For a company like Bethesda, sales for your latest game are more of a reflection of the quality your last big game than the current one.
If Starfield still just ended up being okay, it will come back to bite them later on.
If they fix up the game and it ends up being closer to the game people imagined later then yea, it’ll be great.
BREAKING NEWS: Huge Studios Exploit Stupidity of Proudly Moronic Gamers, Record Profits
Honestly, if you start seeing Bethesda as less of a games company, and more of a company that has built a business model of profiting off of people who view their own stupidity as a social currency.
Meaning, Bethesda isn't so much of a software company, as it is a social engineering enterprise, much like Zynga.
If it is as "mediocre" as Fallout 4 than I really am OK with that. Game has a laundry list of issues and gripes but something about it hit me right. I dumped so much time into my two playthroughs.
97
u/AuthoritarianSex Nov 20 '23 edited Nov 20 '23
Unlikely. Bethesda has carved out a slot for itself as one of the most popular and profitable devs. Starfield sold extremely well, even though the reviews and hype have seemingly crashed down back to earth now. My point being they can get away with mediocrity, unfortunately