As usual, the same crowd of numbnuts looking for things to hate about games they don't play.
Not real gamers just 2nd hand reviewer wannabes.
That is uncalled for. I've rarely hated on much but when it comes to game that rips off a lot of other games, almost like someone said to the AI engine "make a game like half life 2, Star Citizen and Mass Effect" and Starfield is what came out.
There's a lot of of question marks for me.. and PCGamer comfirmed a few them with a generous GENEROUS 75% score.
It's also been unearthed Bethesda has sent the game to specific reviewers who are helping to maintain a score of 80 on metacritic.
Then twitter, holy crap it's like a chinese labor camp of gooshing clickbait positivity of the game.
For me, the game reeks of corrupted review sources, a horrid letter to reviewers, and a marketing machine that not even EA could produce. It's positivity is more ridiculous then Cyberpunk's Negative launch.
Star Citizen isn't a game. It's tech demo that's duped rubes out of hundreds of millions of dollars. I'll be happily playing Starfield for years to come while you wait another 10 years for SC to get toilets that swirl in tune with the southern hemisphere of the planet.
hows that real time multiplayer ? :P
I don't need mutliplayer, thanks. Didn't need it in the Elder Scrolls or Fallout series. either. Baldur's Gate 3 proved people were hungering for a good RPG that didn't require multiplayer (I know it has co-op, but the overwhelming majority of people play solo).
Your little quip wasn't quite the W you were looking for. Maybe your grand kids might finally get to play the for-real-this-time-we-swear Star Citizen pre-alpha someday. Meanwhile, in Starfield, I'll be having fun jacking ships from pirates and adding to my collection without having to pay Chris Roberts $10k per ship.
my win came long ago before the game launched because I was mostly right on it's game play, then with PcGamers 75 as a cherry on top. Then the sprinkles was the sympathy letter sent to reviewers.
I put in about $250 dollars in star citizen and not regretted it once. I was luckyu enough to get the rpomotion for a Constellation Taurus upgrade for 5 dollars.
You keep talking about the 75% PCgamer review but the average score is 88% with 50 reviews. You keep bringing up Star Citizen which is a completely different genre of game and pales in comparison to Starfield as an RPG ( just like Starfield pales compared to SC as a seamless space sim, which it also isn’t). Their letter also doesn’t contain anything dubious except the love for their own game, shame on them I guess?
You just seem very badly informed, whether that is intentional or not is up for debate but it makes a useful discussion impossible.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I only use pc gamer and have done so for over 25 years.... Averages can be manipulated.
As usual, the same crowd of numbnuts looking for things to hate about games they don't play.
Not real gamers just 2nd hand reviewer wannabes.
That is uncalled for. I've rarely hated on much but when it comes to game that rips off a lot of other games, almost like someone said to the AI engine "make a game like half life 2, Star Citizen and Mass Effect" and Starfield is what came out.
There's a lot of of question marks for me.. and PCGamer comfirmed a few them with a generous GENEROUS 75% score.
It's also been unearthed Bethesda has sent the game to specific reviewers who are helping to maintain a score of 80 on metacritic.
Then twitter, holy crap it's like a chinese labor camp of gooshing clickbait positivity of the game.
For me, the game reeks of corrupted review sources, a horrid letter to reviewers, and a marketing machine that not even EA could produce. It's positivity is more ridiculous then Cyberpunk's Negative launch.
Star Citizen isn't a game. It's tech demo that's duped rubes out of hundreds of millions of dollars. I'll be happily playing Starfield for years to come while you wait another 10 years for SC to get toilets that swirl in tune with the southern hemisphere of the planet.
hows that real time multiplayer ? :P
I don't need mutliplayer, thanks. Didn't need it in the Elder Scrolls or Fallout series. either. Baldur's Gate 3 proved people were hungering for a good RPG that didn't require multiplayer (I know it has co-op, but the overwhelming majority of people play solo).
Your little quip wasn't quite the W you were looking for. Maybe your grand kids might finally get to play the for-real-this-time-we-swear Star Citizen pre-alpha someday. Meanwhile, in Starfield, I'll be having fun jacking ships from pirates and adding to my collection without having to pay Chris Roberts $10k per ship.
my win came long ago before the game launched because I was mostly right on it's game play, then with PcGamers 75 as a cherry on top. Then the sprinkles was the sympathy letter sent to reviewers.
I put in about $250 dollars in star citizen and not regretted it once. I was luckyu enough to get the rpomotion for a Constellation Taurus upgrade for 5 dollars.
You keep talking about the 75% PCgamer review but the average score is 88% with 50 reviews. You keep bringing up Star Citizen which is a completely different genre of game and pales in comparison to Starfield as an RPG ( just like Starfield pales compared to SC as a seamless space sim, which it also isn’t). Their letter also doesn’t contain anything dubious except the love for their own game, shame on them I guess?
You just seem very badly informed, whether that is intentional or not is up for debate but it makes a useful discussion impossible.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I only use pc gamer and have done so for over 25 years.... Averages can be manipulated.
That's cool that you have a site you trust for reviews. That doesn't mean that their score is the only valid score, though, and other people may have other sites they trust just as much. I do find your use of their score as the "cherry on top" quite humorous. A 75 is in no way a bad score, and if nothing else, with 75 being one of the lower scores, it adds validity to the other outlets that think it is amazing.
As usual, the same crowd of numbnuts looking for things to hate about games they don't play.
Not real gamers just 2nd hand reviewer wannabes.
That is uncalled for. I've rarely hated on much but when it comes to game that rips off a lot of other games, almost like someone said to the AI engine "make a game like half life 2, Star Citizen and Mass Effect" and Starfield is what came out.
There's a lot of of question marks for me.. and PCGamer comfirmed a few them with a generous GENEROUS 75% score.
It's also been unearthed Bethesda has sent the game to specific reviewers who are helping to maintain a score of 80 on metacritic.
Then twitter, holy crap it's like a chinese labor camp of gooshing clickbait positivity of the game.
For me, the game reeks of corrupted review sources, a horrid letter to reviewers, and a marketing machine that not even EA could produce. It's positivity is more ridiculous then Cyberpunk's Negative launch.
Star Citizen isn't a game. It's tech demo that's duped rubes out of hundreds of millions of dollars. I'll be happily playing Starfield for years to come while you wait another 10 years for SC to get toilets that swirl in tune with the southern hemisphere of the planet.
hows that real time multiplayer ? :P
I don't need mutliplayer, thanks. Didn't need it in the Elder Scrolls or Fallout series. either. Baldur's Gate 3 proved people were hungering for a good RPG that didn't require multiplayer (I know it has co-op, but the overwhelming majority of people play solo).
Your little quip wasn't quite the W you were looking for. Maybe your grand kids might finally get to play the for-real-this-time-we-swear Star Citizen pre-alpha someday. Meanwhile, in Starfield, I'll be having fun jacking ships from pirates and adding to my collection without having to pay Chris Roberts $10k per ship.
my win came long ago before the game launched because I was mostly right on it's game play, then with PcGamers 75 as a cherry on top. Then the sprinkles was the sympathy letter sent to reviewers.
I put in about $250 dollars in star citizen and not regretted it once. I was luckyu enough to get the rpomotion for a Constellation Taurus upgrade for 5 dollars.
You keep talking about the 75% PCgamer review but the average score is 88% with 50 reviews. You keep bringing up Star Citizen which is a completely different genre of game and pales in comparison to Starfield as an RPG ( just like Starfield pales compared to SC as a seamless space sim, which it also isn’t). Their letter also doesn’t contain anything dubious except the love for their own game, shame on them I guess?
You just seem very badly informed, whether that is intentional or not is up for debate but it makes a useful discussion impossible.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I only use pc gamer and have done so for over 25 years.... Averages can be manipulated.
I don't care for any one site but I do consider the reviewer themselves. With PC gamer this reviewer is not one I agree with on most of his reviews.
Time on Frog Island and Dying Light 2 scored higher than Starfield for Livingston (the reviewer) Two scores I highly disagree with.
With IGN (Dan Stapleton) He scored The Outer Worlds 8 out of 10 score (Another Microsoft game btw) Starfield is just The Outer Worlds but better.
He also scored Mass Effect Andromeda a higher score than Starfield..............that is all that needs to be said right there.
Both of these scores are from sites I frequent but by reviewers I don't usually align with. Neither of their reviews align with my score and findings with the game. Site regardless.
Of course it's not a space sim. I have no idea why anyone would have expected it to be one.
It's a Bethesda RPG with enough fast-traveling that flying your ship is barely necessary... unless you want it to be because the game is sandboxy enough that getting into a space dogfighting style of game play is doable.
I'm not doing that at all... yet. I'm powering through the main quest line because doing that empowers the way I personally want to play. Won't say much 'cause spoilers but once you've done enough of the main quest to have visited the Constellation space station, "The Eye" and done the follow-up mission, you'll have a pretty good idea why I'm doing it the way I'm doing it. NG+, which BTW, is solidly game lore compliant, is when I will really start playing the game more slowly, visiting nooks and crannies, or just exploring or dog-fighting as the mood strikes me.
But my way is just one of hundreds of possible ways to play the game.
The game is very good at what it is and sucks at what it isn't. This is Squadron 42 on steroids, not the SC persistent universe with toilets that flush... when they work
Have you been to the Freestar town and went through that leg yet? I ended up doing that after talking to Sam even Sarah recommended checking in with Barrett first. I have a feeling it may not matter, but I'm heading to check in on him next before heading to the space station.
The Freestar is an interesting place. Love the theme. I also like how I feel slight nods to other games, like The Outer Worlds or Fallout 76.
I like the Freestar Collective too and plan to spend a lot of time there eventually now that I'm on NG+.
So far I've just done the main quest part there which I also did as my 2nd of the 3 main quests they give you at that point. I followed the Barret part first and did The Eye as the last of those 3. That felt like the right order to me.
I'm now wrapped up on the Vanguard quest line with all of its political intrigue and just got my UC citizenship so I can buy property in New Atlantis. I might get sidetracked by housing for a while.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I'm now wrapped up on the Vanguard quest line with all of its political intrigue and just got my UC citizenship so I can buy property in New Atlantis. I might get sidetracked by housing for a while.
Wait a second, you don't have to (see spoilers)
wait 3 years for the UC citizenship? Or was that line just filler and they just give you the citizenship after the mission?
Because i got a perfect 6/6 score in the flight simulator and they said i'd get my UC citizenship after 3 years of service in the Vanguard. xD
Fishing on Gilgamesh since 2013 Fishing on Bronzebeard since 2005 Fishing in RL since 1992 Born with a fishing rod in my hand in 1979
I'm now wrapped up on the Vanguard quest line with all of its political intrigue and just got my UC citizenship so I can buy property in New Atlantis. I might get sidetracked by housing for a while.
Wait a second, you don't have to (see spoilers)
wait 3 years for the UC citizenship? Or was that line just filler and they just give you the citizenship after the mission?
Because i got a perfect 6/6 score in the flight simulator and they said i'd get my UC citizenship after 3 years of service in the Vanguard. xD
Grats on your score but no. There's a Vanguard quest that gives you instant citizenship and it comes quite early - it's the follow-up to the Mars quest.
The bad news though is that property to buy is scarce unless you've always dreamed of owning a hovel in The Well
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
The game gets so much better the more I play it. More things open up and perks can honestly change the game. Great system in place. I just spent I don't know how long on a planet and completely lost track of what I actually came there to do. The boundary issue is overblown. I Put down an outpost. I wandered around a planet, found myself in a cave. Went down a rabbit hole of a new quest and saved a bunch of people trapped and found a couple epic pieces of equipment. Leveled up twice and had to open my mission log to see what the heck I was even doing there to begin with. It is the same experience I had in Skyrim. Just wandering through discovering things and quests and sidetracking my way around.
If you liked Skyrim, I have no idea how you could not like Starfield, which is why I think it is already a massive success and a critical hit.
Great game.
This sums it up for me: "If you liked Skyrim, I have no idea how you could not like Starfield"
Well most of the gaming population did, but some didn't and it is not heresy to say you did not like Skyrim. But yes, I find it hard to understand why anyone would not think Skyrim was a great game and I am very likely to hold exactly the same view about Starfield after playing it.
I only use pc gamer and have done so for over 25 years.... Averages can be manipulated.
That's cool that you have a site you trust for reviews. That doesn't mean that their score is the only valid score, though, and other people may have other sites they trust just as much. I do find your use of their score as the "cherry on top" quite humorous. A 75 is in no way a bad score, and if nothing else, with 75 being one of the lower scores, it adds validity to the other outlets that think it is amazing.
Yeah, using one site is just not feasible these days. I remember back when we only got reviews via physical magazines, even then we used to make sure one of us got every mag there was about four or five of them, that way we could compare scores when we met up once a month.
Today it is far, far harder to get a solid idea of how good a game is going to be. I look at Metacritic, I read the low scoring reviews. I check Steam and read the low scoring reviews. That's the best way to find pet hates, high scoring reviews will just tell you why you were interested in the game in the first place. An example would be humour, I can find humour out of place for the setting of the game of it just falls flat. So when I read Starfield was deemed rather too serious at the beginning that was a plus for me.
If it passes that I look at a video for gameplay. I know many of you download trials I just can't be bothered with that, but the way things are going I may well end up doing that.
By this point from release I would have dozens of hours in an Elder Scrolls or Fallout, playing until I have to absolutely sleep and then anxious for getting back in as soon as possible..
I have 7.5 hours in Starfield since release and aren't even bothered whether I go back in or not.
I don't think it's a bad game overall ( for what limited time I've drifted uncaring through ). But it is not providing the entertainment or "feel" I guess you'd call it I get from their mainstream titles. This feels more like Toddy decided to do another "experiment" with letting another "B" team have a go ala FO76 ( albeit with better quality control ).
He gets it ( the things he points out, not necessarily his "score")
Edit: Just for info, you can refund on Steam regardless of gametime until the 6th, as the "early access" is still considered a pre-order until that date when it "officially" releases.
His follow-up video is even better! Mack just rarely manages not to entertain me and is the only one I'm 100% positive that he's not buyable by any developer, which doesn't mean that I automatically always agree with him. He's just dead honest while admittedly a bit over the top.
By this point from release I would have dozens of hours in an Elder Scrolls or Fallout, playing until I have to absolutely sleep and then anxious for getting back in as soon as possible..
I have 7.5 hours in Starfield since release and aren't even bothered whether I go back in or not.
I don't think it's a bad game overall ( for what limited time I've drifted uncaring through ). But it is not providing the entertainment or "feel" I guess you'd call it I get from their mainstream titles. This feels more like Toddy decided to do another "experiment" with letting another "B" team have a go ala FO76.
I feel the same way. I have now tried to put in roughly 12ish hours, focusing mainly on the Main Story quests + handful of side missions. Some of the missions were pretty fun, unique and great, while over half of them were very much a repetitive copy&paste (Dejavu) affair.
I have visited about two/three dozen planets by now give or take and most of these planets look exactly the same. A third were cold ice planets with vegetation, over half the planets were barren grey moon like rock planets that looked exactly the same. Then the remaining few were the main planets with hub (like New Atlantis, Neon City, etc).
The enemies you are fighting pretty much look all the same, except for their faction name tag and dropping different type of weapons.
There is a hell lot of Copy&Paste going on this game, recycling the same few assets over and over. Every cave looks the same. Every Cave with artifact extraction site looks the same. Almost every hab + interior with enemies on planets looks the same, just with a limited set of different layouts.
The procedural generation in this game seems to have an awful limited amount of assets, creating repeating Dejavu moments when playing.
Even in the Main quest line, which is ridiculous and lazy! I had at least expected that every Main Story mission would be hand crafted (planet, environment, assets, etc). Is it really that hard to be a bit more creative in hunting/retrieving artifiacts? 95% of the artifacts I have retrieved so far, sit in the same looking cave, in same looking rock in same position. Shoot space pirates through a facitility. Go into cave. Use mining laser to losen rocks and retrieve artifact. It's just stupid and lazy! ( Only 2 artifact missions so far were actually different and fun, but won't spoil the details. )
And lets not even talk about the writing and dialog (especially main story). It's gotta be the worst part of the game. Do they only have B writers left at Bethesda? Or were their A writers busy on some other project? The "Persuasion" dialog system is even worse. It's just a stupid RNG mini-game. It's awful and makes absolutely no sense.
It's clear that most of the development time has been spend on the main hubs (like Neon City, New Atlantis, etc), Ship customization and outpost development. As this content is absolutely excellent and looks great!
Unfortunately everything else just feels mediocre at best, bringing the whole overall experience down. Which is a shame.
Ohh...on a side note. The game has plenty of bugs and glitches. It's your typical Bethesda game alright. :P
All in all, Luke Stephens has been absolutely spot on with his review:
While it's a valid review I think it's weird. Who the heck was compare Starfield to games like No Man's Sky and Elite Dangerous? In no way did I ever get that from anything the company said.
The only thing that comes as a disappointment given what the company said is that you can't just "keep going" on a planet and instead it's a generated map with boundaries.
Other than that the comparison is just over the top.
Totally agree. After hands on with the game it is definitely not an open sandbox in terms of procedural generated content like no mans sky. I can see the modding community coming up with a solution for planetary boundaries. The story and RPG game play is really good.
The game gets so much better the more I play it. More things open up and perks can honestly change the game. Great system in place. I just spent I don't know how long on a planet and completely lost track of what I actually came there to do. The boundary issue is overblown. I Put down an outpost. I wandered around a planet, found myself in a cave. Went down a rabbit hole of a new quest and saved a bunch of people trapped and found a couple epic pieces of equipment. Leveled up twice and had to open my mission log to see what the heck I was even doing there to begin with. It is the same experience I had in Skyrim. Just wandering through discovering things and quests and sidetracking my way around.
If you liked Skyrim, I have no idea how you could not like Starfield, which is why I think it is already a massive success and a critical hit.
Great game.
This sums it up for me: "If you liked Skyrim, I have no idea how you could not like Starfield"
Well most of the gaming population did, but some didn't and it is not heresy to say you did not like Skyrim. But yes, I find it hard to understand why anyone would not think Skyrim was a great game and I am very likely to hold exactly the same view about Starfield after playing it.
I'm one of those who didn't think Skyrim was particularly good (and i really didn't like the FO series) which is why im still on the fence for Starfield.
In my opinion, the Elder Scrolls series has gotten progressively better at designing / building mechanics, but have gotten progressively worse at world building and the meta game.
Like, combat in Skyrim was better than Morrowind, but the world building was much worse.
But for my tastes, the improvements to mechanics haven't outweighed the downgrades to world design. So, overall, Morrowind still remains my favourite ES game.
The thing that has me most confused about Starfield is the usual sandbox vs themepark debate. Bethesda usually make themeparks, the whole ES series are pure themeparks. But space games usually have a sandbox feel to them. I've been reading lots of reviews about Starfield but they haven't helped me at all.
That PC gamer review (75%) frequently praised the sandbox feel of Starfield.....whilst also calling Skyrim a sandbox, which it isn't. I see stories in this thread about setting up bases, hiring NPCs and building drug empires, which all sounds amazing from a sandbox perspective......whilst a few posts later I hear the game referred to as a classic story-focused RPG.
I have zero interest in a story-focused RPG. I really dislike them, and have for years. But I really want a sandbox RPG, and it sounds like Starfield *might* be offering some of this.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Totally agree. After hands on with the game it is definitely not an open sandbox in terms of procedural generated content like no mans sky. I can see the modding community coming up with a solution for planetary boundaries. The story and RPG game play is really good.
I find the main story one of the weakest parts of the game due to poor writing (with very few exceptions here and there, which I will not mention due to spoilers). Mainly because of poor to terrible and disjointed dialog options. Made worse by the epic fail of "Persuasion" dialog system, which is nothing but a stupid annoying RNG mini game (which just encourages save/load scumming to get through it a la BG3). Next to that with the majority of the main story missions being lazy done and insultingly repetitive.
And when it comes to Planetary boundaries, that is the least of this game's problems. It's the complete lack of variation!
This game's procedural generation system is one of the worst I have seen to date. It's either completely broken or the game really has that laughable little amount of unique assets to cycle through.
Dejavu is incredibly strong in this game.
Like I said in my previous post. It seems the vast majority of dev resources went into Ship customization and outpost development. As those systems are really polished and excellent. Plus they clearly spend a lot of time making New Atlantis and Neon City. Though I find New Atlantis a bit mehh (mostly due to poor textures, color choices and very sterile look). Neon City on the other hand looks pretty cool.
I personally believe the game's main downfall is the heavily outdated Creation Engine and Todd Howard's stupid idea of cramming 1000 planets in the game and endlessly boasting about it! Grossly overselling! And then trying to develop a poorly done Procedural generation system to get there, with far too little amount of unique assets!
I rather they limited the amount of planets to just 100 or maybe even just 50 or so and hand craft each one and make them more unique for way more variation. Would have made the overall experience infinitely better! ( But that sadly still doesn't fix the poor writing and dialog in this game /sigh )
As usual, the same crowd of numbnuts looking for things to hate about games they don't play.
Not real gamers just 2nd hand reviewer wannabes.
That is uncalled for. I've rarely hated on much but when it comes to game that rips off a lot of other games, almost like someone said to the AI engine "make a game like half life 2, Star Citizen and Mass Effect" and Starfield is what came out.
There's a lot of of question marks for me.. and PCGamer comfirmed a few them with a generous GENEROUS 75% score.
It's also been unearthed Bethesda has sent the game to specific reviewers who are helping to maintain a score of 80 on metacritic.
Then twitter, holy crap it's like a chinese labor camp of gooshing clickbait positivity of the game.
For me, the game reeks of corrupted review sources, a horrid letter to reviewers, and a marketing machine that not even EA could produce. It's positivity is more ridiculous then Cyberpunk's Negative launch.
Star Citizen isn't a game. It's tech demo that's duped rubes out of hundreds of millions of dollars. I'll be happily playing Starfield for years to come while you wait another 10 years for SC to get toilets that swirl in tune with the southern hemisphere of the planet.
hows that real time multiplayer ? :P
I don't need mutliplayer, thanks. Didn't need it in the Elder Scrolls or Fallout series. either. Baldur's Gate 3 proved people were hungering for a good RPG that didn't require multiplayer (I know it has co-op, but the overwhelming majority of people play solo).
Your little quip wasn't quite the W you were looking for. Maybe your grand kids might finally get to play the for-real-this-time-we-swear Star Citizen pre-alpha someday. Meanwhile, in Starfield, I'll be having fun jacking ships from pirates and adding to my collection without having to pay Chris Roberts $10k per ship.
my win came long ago before the game launched because I was mostly right on it's game play, then with PcGamers 75 as a cherry on top. Then the sprinkles was the sympathy letter sent to reviewers.
I put in about $250 dollars in star citizen and not regretted it once. I was luckyu enough to get the rpomotion for a Constellation Taurus upgrade for 5 dollars.
You keep talking about the 75% PCgamer review but the average score is 88% with 50 reviews. You keep bringing up Star Citizen which is a completely different genre of game and pales in comparison to Starfield as an RPG ( just like Starfield pales compared to SC as a seamless space sim, which it also isn’t). Their letter also doesn’t contain anything dubious except the love for their own game, shame on them I guess?
You just seem very badly informed, whether that is intentional or not is up for debate but it makes a useful discussion impossible.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I only use pc gamer and have done so for over 25 years.... Averages can be manipulated.
That's cool that you have a site you trust for reviews. That doesn't mean that their score is the only valid score, though, and other people may have other sites they trust just as much. I do find your use of their score as the "cherry on top" quite humorous. A 75 is in no way a bad score, and if nothing else, with 75 being one of the lower scores, it adds validity to the other outlets that think it is amazing.
Name another pc gaming publication that been around longer ? There's a reason why I trust is because every score has fit my palette. I'm not saying any other score is wrong, I'm saying for me and my gaming palette PC Gamer in over 25+ years has never let me down.
I got to say sendingout a sympathy letter, is just bad optics all the way.
I only use pc gamer and have done so for over 25 years.... Averages can be manipulated.
That's cool that you have a site you trust for reviews. That doesn't mean that their score is the only valid score, though, and other people may have other sites they trust just as much. I do find your use of their score as the "cherry on top" quite humorous. A 75 is in no way a bad score, and if nothing else, with 75 being one of the lower scores, it adds validity to the other outlets that think it is amazing.
Name another pc gaming publication that been around longer ? There's a reason why I trust is because every score has fit my palette. I'm not saying any other score is wrong, I'm saying for me and my gaming palette PC Gamer in over 25+ years has never let me down.
I got to say sendingout a sympathy letter, is just bad optics all the way.
That seems weird to me personally. Sites trade out their reviewers so really it should be: 'Follow the reviewer not the site' Align with certain reviewers and if they leave the site move to reading their reviews at other sites. I generally like Game Informer (Since 1991)
(Matt Miller is the reviewer I like the most on that site. He gave Starfield an 85 which I align with. He also is heavy into tabletop which is cool)
The site (or publication) doesn't matter to me though it is the reviewer doing the review.
I don't get the bashing a game that people are enjoying when your not. Just go play something else and be happy for the people loving what ever game.
I think it's fine for someone not to like a game. I do think it's crap if they judge the game not on what's offered but what they "wanted" it to be. It seems like that's what's going on here in here.
Though, part of this could be Bethesda's fault as they needed to be very clear on what was being offered. Especially knowing that there is a contingent of gamers who let their imaginations run away with them and add all sorts of fantasies about the game they are going to get.
I still can't seem to find the "lie" that people claim was said. I've been searching videos and it all seems pretty straight forward.
This could have easily been mitigated with clearer communication from Bethesda so they could nip in the bud any misconceptions.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
This could have easily been mitigated with clearer communication from Bethesda so they could nip in the bud any misconceptions.
Nah it's worse than that and I doubt that there was anything Bethesda could have done to mitigate the usual hate from the usual sources.
There's a crowd of streamers dedicated to finding fault with any AAA game, playing up minor details into big deals for clicks and those streamers have their followers.
There's even a video linked in this thread talking about "pronoun controversies" and woke AAA developers.
It's the same old shit repeated over and over again by the same streamers and the same crowd here.
Bethesda has no duty to preemptively try to mitigate bad takes from the lunatic fringe because they will find their ridiculous shit to scream about regardless.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I don't get the bashing a game that people are enjoying when your not. Just go play something else and be happy for the people loving what ever game.
You cant please all of the people all of the time....There are people that flat out hate Bethesda.....They can do no right in their eyes.....IF it isnt the next Skyrim then they hate it.
I don't get the bashing a game that people are enjoying when your not. Just go play something else and be happy for the people loving what ever game.
You cant please all of the people all of the time....There are people that flat out hate Bethesda.....They can do no right in their eyes.....IF it isnt the next Skyrim then they hate it.
They will also hate the next Skyrim no matter what.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Comments
I only use pc gamer and have done so for over 25 years.... Averages can be manipulated.
With PC gamer this reviewer is not one I agree with on most of his reviews.
Time on Frog Island and Dying Light 2 scored higher than Starfield for Livingston (the reviewer) Two scores I highly disagree with.
With IGN (Dan Stapleton) He scored The Outer Worlds 8 out of 10 score (Another Microsoft game btw) Starfield is just The Outer Worlds but better.
He also scored Mass Effect Andromeda a higher score than Starfield..............that is all that needs to be said right there.
Both of these scores are from sites I frequent but by reviewers I don't usually align with.
Neither of their reviews align with my score and findings with the game. Site regardless.
So far I've just done the main quest part there which I also did as my 2nd of the 3 main quests they give you at that point. I followed the Barret part first and did The Eye as the last of those 3. That felt like the right order to me.
I'm now wrapped up on the Vanguard quest line with all of its political intrigue and just got my UC citizenship so I can buy property in New Atlantis. I might get sidetracked by housing for a while.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Fishing on Gilgamesh since 2013
Fishing on Bronzebeard since 2005
Fishing in RL since 1992
Born with a fishing rod in my hand in 1979
The bad news though is that property to buy is scarce unless you've always dreamed of owning a hovel in The Well
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Well most of the gaming population did, but some didn't and it is not heresy to say you did not like Skyrim. But yes, I find it hard to understand why anyone would not think Skyrim was a great game and I am very likely to hold exactly the same view about Starfield after playing it.
Today it is far, far harder to get a solid idea of how good a game is going to be. I look at Metacritic, I read the low scoring reviews. I check Steam and read the low scoring reviews. That's the best way to find pet hates, high scoring reviews will just tell you why you were interested in the game in the first place. An example would be humour, I can find humour out of place for the setting of the game of it just falls flat. So when I read Starfield was deemed rather too serious at the beginning that was a plus for me.
If it passes that I look at a video for gameplay. I know many of you download trials I just can't be bothered with that, but the way things are going I may well end up doing that.
I feel the same way. I have now tried to put in roughly 12ish hours, focusing mainly on the Main Story quests + handful of side missions. Some of the missions were pretty fun, unique and great, while over half of them were very much a repetitive copy&paste (Dejavu) affair.
I have visited about two/three dozen planets by now give or take and most of these planets look exactly the same.
A third were cold ice planets with vegetation, over half the planets were barren grey moon like rock planets that looked exactly the same. Then the remaining few were the main planets with hub (like New Atlantis, Neon City, etc).
The enemies you are fighting pretty much look all the same, except for their faction name tag and dropping different type of weapons.
There is a hell lot of Copy&Paste going on this game, recycling the same few assets over and over. Every cave looks the same. Every Cave with artifact extraction site looks the same. Almost every hab + interior with enemies on planets looks the same, just with a limited set of different layouts.
The procedural generation in this game seems to have an awful limited amount of assets, creating repeating Dejavu moments when playing.
Even in the Main quest line, which is ridiculous and lazy! I had at least expected that every Main Story mission would be hand crafted (planet, environment, assets, etc).
Is it really that hard to be a bit more creative in hunting/retrieving artifiacts? 95% of the artifacts I have retrieved so far, sit in the same looking cave, in same looking rock in same position. Shoot space pirates through a facitility. Go into cave. Use mining laser to losen rocks and retrieve artifact. It's just stupid and lazy!
( Only 2 artifact missions so far were actually different and fun, but won't spoil the details. )
And lets not even talk about the writing and dialog (especially main story). It's gotta be the worst part of the game. Do they only have B writers left at Bethesda? Or were their A writers busy on some other project?
The "Persuasion" dialog system is even worse. It's just a stupid RNG mini-game. It's awful and makes absolutely no sense.
It's clear that most of the development time has been spend on the main hubs (like Neon City, New Atlantis, etc), Ship customization and outpost development.
As this content is absolutely excellent and looks great!
Unfortunately everything else just feels mediocre at best, bringing the whole overall experience down. Which is a shame.
Ohh...on a side note. The game has plenty of bugs and glitches. It's your typical Bethesda game alright. :P
All in all, Luke Stephens has been absolutely spot on with his review:
Totally agree. After hands on with the game it is definitely not an open sandbox in terms of procedural generated content like no mans sky. I can see the modding community coming up with a solution for planetary boundaries. The story and RPG game play is really good.
Mainly because of poor to terrible and disjointed dialog options. Made worse by the epic fail of "Persuasion" dialog system, which is nothing but a stupid annoying RNG mini game (which just encourages save/load scumming to get through it a la BG3).
Next to that with the majority of the main story missions being lazy done and insultingly repetitive.
And when it comes to Planetary boundaries, that is the least of this game's problems. It's the complete lack of variation!
This game's procedural generation system is one of the worst I have seen to date. It's either completely broken or the game really has that laughable little amount of unique assets to cycle through.
Dejavu is incredibly strong in this game.
Like I said in my previous post. It seems the vast majority of dev resources went into Ship customization and outpost development. As those systems are really polished and excellent.
Plus they clearly spend a lot of time making New Atlantis and Neon City. Though I find New Atlantis a bit mehh (mostly due to poor textures, color choices and very sterile look).
Neon City on the other hand looks pretty cool.
I personally believe the game's main downfall is the heavily outdated Creation Engine and Todd Howard's stupid idea of cramming 1000 planets in the game and endlessly boasting about it! Grossly overselling!
And then trying to develop a poorly done Procedural generation system to get there, with far too little amount of unique assets!
I rather they limited the amount of planets to just 100 or maybe even just 50 or so and hand craft each one and make them more unique for way more variation. Would have made the overall experience infinitely better!
( But that sadly still doesn't fix the poor writing and dialog in this game /sigh )
Sites trade out their reviewers so really it should be:
'Follow the reviewer not the site'
Align with certain reviewers and if they leave the site move to reading their reviews at other sites.
I generally like Game Informer (Since 1991)
(Matt Miller is the reviewer I like the most on that site. He gave Starfield an 85 which I align with. He also is heavy into tabletop which is cool)
The site (or publication) doesn't matter to me though it is the reviewer doing the review.
I guess this is what people can expect when the Union can pump out mediocre and have no consequences...
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
There's a crowd of streamers dedicated to finding fault with any AAA game, playing up minor details into big deals for clicks and those streamers have their followers.
There's even a video linked in this thread talking about "pronoun controversies" and woke AAA developers.
It's the same old shit repeated over and over again by the same streamers and the same crowd here.
Bethesda has no duty to preemptively try to mitigate bad takes from the lunatic fringe because they will find their ridiculous shit to scream about regardless.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
You cant please all of the people all of the time....There are people that flat out hate Bethesda.....They can do no right in their eyes.....IF it isnt the next Skyrim then they hate it.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED