• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Jason Scheier: "Starfield 83 Metacritic Score was only possible because of Xbox outlets"

Draugoth

Gold Member


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:

 

James Sawyer Ford

Gold Member
Seth Meyers Lol GIF by Late Night with Seth Meyers
 

llLeonhart

Member
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.
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
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.
 

Cyberpunkd

Member
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.
 

Josemayuste

Member
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

Member
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.
 

Robochobo

Member
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:

James Sawyer Ford

Gold Member
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
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
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

Member
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
 
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.
 

Punished Miku

Human Rights Subscription Service
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.
 
Last edited:

diffusionx

Gold Member
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.


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.
 
Last edited:

Gojiira

Member
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

Gold Member
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….
 
Top Bottom