Support NeoGAF

[Draugoth]

In a Bloomberg report Jason Schreier says that Starfield only got a high score on Metacritic thanks to Xbox fan sites. Not to mention that the game wasn't released for PlayStation.

"It may not seem like a fantastic performance for the studio's first game since being acquired by Microsoft, but there are some mitigating factors. Starfield wasn't released for the competing PlayStation console, received poor reviews (although the aggregate score is deceptively high thanks to various Xbox fan sites) and, most importantly, was immediately available on Microsoft's Netflix-like subscription service, Xbox Game Pass, where players can access the game by paying $10 a month instead of buying it outright for $70. Bethesda recently claimed that Starfield had 13 million players, suggesting that many people used the Game Pass to play it."

Some Angry Users went after him on Twitter due to the statement:

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Oh hell yes

Avengers Assemble

 

[LavitzSlambert]

No offense, but that’s a good game

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

 

[NonPhixion]

They hand picked who got review copies early. They 100% tried to control the pre-launch review scores.

 

[stn]

I've been playing it as of late and it is very solid. Is it the best game ever like they wanted it to be? No, not so far at least, but its literally a Bethesda RPG in space (with better combat than Fallout, I would argue).

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

I mean...it's no surprise Xbox has people on their payroll, either editors and gaming jornalists, websites, etc...

And what he says on that tweet is 100% correct tbh.

 

[llLeonhart]

Well, does it even matter? Some people like Starfield for what it is, Most people still hate it. The MetaScore isn't exactly tipping any scales.

 

[SHA]

 

[SEGAvangelist]

I don't agree with the lack of PlayStation reviews helping the score. I bet the game would have scored higher as a multiplatform game without all the exclusivity hype.

 

[SlimySnake]

Yeah, the game started at like 90 and then dropped all the way down to 83.

Typically, games only drop around 3 points from their initial review embargo.

83 is way too high for this game. I think this shouldve been rated like Mass Effect Andromeda, Destiny and GT Sports. 70-75 metacritic.

 

[winjer]

 

[AmuroChan]

I don't disagree, but surely this is not unique to just XBox games.

 

[The Cockatrice]

He is right but also why do you care about critic scores? Just play the fuck u want dumdums.

 

[analog_future]

Notable Playstation fanboy, Greg Miller, chose Starfield as his Game of the Year .

 

[Cyberpunkd]

I've been playing it as of late and it is very solid. Is it the best game ever like they wanted it to be? No, not so far at least, but its literally a Bethesda RPG in space (with better combat than Fallout, I would argue).

Solid means something between 7/10 and 8/10, while it is higher than that.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Notable Playstation fanboy, Greg Miller, chose Starfield as his Game of the Year .

There is no accounting for shit taste. It was 2023, surely there are better games not named Baldur’s Gate 3 that pushed medium further than Fallout 4 re-skin.

 

[Punished Miku]

Most embarrassing thing Schrier has said since he went after Dragon's Crown.

 

[Josemayuste]

As much as I agree with the general opinions about Starfield being a bit of a let down, I really liked the game for what it is and not for what it promised to be, it deserves an 80+ score, I think.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Well, does it even matter? Some people like Starfield for what it is, Most people still hate it. The MetaScore isn't exactly tipping any scales.

It does, otherwise we can just agree that medium is aniołek, or media publications worthless and the only action is to buy and see for yourself.

 

[analog_future]

There is no accounting for shit taste. It was 2023, surely there are better games not named Baldur’s Gate 3 that pushed medium further than Fallout 4 re-skin.

I mean according to this very community, it was the 5th best game of the year, ahead of games like Spider-Man 2, Final Fantasy XVI, and Armored Core 6.

 

[Gamer_By_Proxy]

MS also handpicked friendly reviewers to start with, then the more critical ones came like a week later.

 

[diffusionx]

Xbox Addict - 100
Generacion Xbox - 99
SomosXbox - 98
MondoXbox - 97
Xbox Tavern - 97

Also:
TheXboxHub - 90
WindowsCentral - 90
TrueAchievements - 90
PureXbox - 90

Only two Xbox sites seem to have given it under a 90, one an 89 and one an 85.

 

[Elbereth]

 

[Xenon]

Slow news day. I guess he is championing the poor souls who have to deal with a game they don't like having a higher score then they would like it to have.

 

[Robochobo]

Scheier is an idiot. If he knew how the aggregate scores for Metacritic and Opencritic worked he'd find out that larger outlets have a heavier weighting/overall influence on a score. IGN giving a game a 9/10 is going to influence the score by a factor of 10x if not more than a fan site giving that exact same score.

 

[tomato shrub]

Well duh. Never trust an outlet focussed on a single platform. There's so many 7/10 platformers on WiiU/Switch/3DS for which only Nintendo sites went "9/10 BEST THING SINCE YOSHIS ISLAND" before the same games were forgotten two days later.

 

[Chuck Berry]

Is that tub of blubber Jiz around to confirm this

 

[Mister Wolf]

Starfield is not a bad game. It was just massively overhyped. I've been saying for a while now that Avowed would be the better videogame.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Yeah, the game started at like 90 and then dropped all the way down to 83.

Typically, games only drop around 3 points from their initial review embargo.

83 is way too high for this game. I think this shouldve been rated like Mass Effect Andromeda, Destiny and GT Sports. 70-75 metacritic.

Yep. 83 is really far too high for how poor this game actually is

If it wasn’t majorly hyped as a messiah game of the millennium/forever with a big early access push to favorable outlets, the score would be in the 70s where it belongs

I also feel like outlets got pressured as this was a “too big to fail” type game and felt bad for MS after Redfall

 

[Elios83]

Water is wet Jason, you should have realized when Halo Infinite reached 87

 

[SlimySnake]

I don't disagree, but surely this is not unique to just XBox games.

Not unique, but there are definitely more Xbox oriented sites out there handing out 100s than PS outlets. You can see this across the board with PS metacritic averages of multiplatform games being lower than xbox ones.

Also went and checked metacritic reviews of Spiderman 2, and only found 3 reviewers with PS or Playstation in their website name that gave it a 95 or above. Compare that to 15 for starfield, a much more divisive game overall with 50 fewer reviews.

 

[Thief1987]

Scheier is an idiot. If he knew how the aggregate scores for Metacritic and Opencritic worked he'd find out that larger outlets have a heavier weighting/overall influence on a score. IGN giving a game a 9/10 is going to influence the score by a factor of 10x if not more than a fan site giving that exact same score.

Opencritic doesn't have any weight system

 

[Krieger]

The actual score Starfield deserves:

 

[SEGAvangelist]

Also, what's funny is that the PC score is 86 on Metacritic. It should be higher than 83, but Metacritic doesn't combine those scores like OpenCritic.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

If Xbox Tax is real then the Xbox Subsidy must be real as well.

You can not have one whitout the other.

 

[Robochobo]

Opencritic doesn't have any weight system

Yes it does. The Top Critic score is ONLY represented by whitelisted/"validated" review sites. The only thing smaller sites scores count for on that site is the Critics Recommend rating.

 

[nowhat]

I mean according to this very community, it was the 5th best game of the year, ahead of games like Spider-Man 2, Final Fantasy XVI, and Armored Core 6.

According to this very community, Halo Infinite was GOTY. Take that how you will.

 

[Fake]

People are find out Metacritic just now?

 

[Punished Miku]

Not unique, but there are definitely more Xbox oriented sites out there handing out 100s than PS outlets. You can see this across the board with PS metacritic averages of multiplatform games being lower than xbox ones.

Also went and checked metacritic reviews of Spiderman 2, and only found 3 reviewers with PS or Playstation in their website name that gave it a 95 or above. Compare that to 15 for starfield, a much more divisive game overall with 50 fewer reviews.

I recall reading a lot of divisiveness around Spiderman 2. It just almost never shows up in reviews, just audience conversation. Same thing happened with Ragnarok. Same thing happened with FFXVI.

 

[LakeOf9]

But - how is this different from PlayStation or Nintendo fan sites boosting the scores of their exclusives?

 

[Adam_802]

Lol the only way to make gaf like jason screier

 

[mejin]

Why talk about a dead game? Move on

 

[SaucyJack]

Indeed. I had a look at their MC score just now. It is definitely true that many of the sites scoring it 90+ have Xbox or Windows in their name and there are quite a few smaller sites at the top end too. Equally among the sites scoring it 70 or lower are: IGN, Eurogamer, Edge, Gamespot and PCMag.

 

[DenchDeckard]

It's all rigged!

The green rat shills, are at it again!

 

[SEGAvangelist]

The actual score Starfield deserves:

Just like The Last of Us.

 

[TommyCronin6969]

Why is only Starfield getting picked out for this. Literally every other Publisher does this and who gives a fuck about the meta score for a game anyway.

 

[diffusionx]

But - how is this different from PlayStation or Nintendo fan sites boosting the scores of their exclusives?

The first PS fan site that comes to mind is Push Square, and they gave Spiderman 2 an 8/10, which is a *lower* score than any of these Xbox sites gave Starfield.

Review: Marvel's Spider-Man 2 (PS5) - A Familiar But Fantastic Superhero Sequel

Heal the world

www.pushsquare.com

I don't want to hint at some grand conspiracy but I do think there is something interesting/funny about the way the Starfield reviews shook out especially when put next to the general reception of the game when it came out.

 

[Gojiira]

I mean no shit, even when Xbox sites did bring up major negatives they just glossed over them,9/10…In no conceivable way is Starfield a 90+, its not a 75+ either. But of course Xbox needed a ‘win’ and since they had no games the entire generation its no wonder the copium was strong.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Indeed. I had a look at their MC score just now. It is definitely true that many of the sites scoring it 90+ have Xbox or Windows in their name and there are quite a few smaller sites at the top end too. Equally among the sites scoring it 70 or lower are: IGN, Eurogame, Edge, Gamespot and PCMag.

Seems like Phil Spencer’s “internal review process” that scored Redfall 10 points higher is just all these official early access Xbox shill sites….