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
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 I gave outdated ones and you left out a ENTIRE platform that has it 4 out of 5 stars..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.
518
u/APunnyThing Nov 20 '23
Cool, hopefully it gets better over time and Bethesda takes the criticism to heart on whatever project they make next.
Starfield is a fun enough game but it could have been a lot better and a lot less tedious to navigate both in menus and in space.