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.
2nd best game of this generation and it didn’t even crack a nomination for GOTY? Lmao. There’s debate over whether this was even the best xbox game this year
You are allowed to like it. But it’s a janky disjointed mess running on dated systems not able to handle the vision they had for the game. It’s an objectively mediocre game.
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)
-19
u/UnHoly_One Nov 20 '23
User reviews aren’t worth the bandwidth you use reading them.