SEGAvangelist
Member
Starting to feel like the thread has run its course, yeah. Also, Opencritic had this still as an 87. I wish Metacritic would combine platforms. It's weird they haven't yet.
-
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.
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
Starting?
I'm in favor of pinning it to the top of the page and keeping it open forever though. It's a great containment thread.
Last edited:
SEGAvangelist
Member
Well there are some reviews probably left.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Banjo64
cumsessed
I think it’s more a case of should Bethesda have deliberately excluded certain reviewers in the first place.
If Bethesda consider petty retaliation as terrorism then yeah, they’ll probably be content to always have sweaty undeserved negative scores attached to their games.
Banjo64
cumsessed
If I had to guess using my petty detector it’ll be 3/5 and Edge will give a 6 or 7.
SEGAvangelist
Member
Was it ever confirmed what happened? Didn't the entire parent company not get review codes or something?
BbMajor7th
Member
Ah, yes... Metro, the home of journalistic deep-dives into games industry best practice... I'm not going to dignify this with further back and forth.
I'm familiar with the tactics on display here - the sort deployed by people who look at protests and strikes and say 'I don't disagree with them, but this isn't the time or the place', followed with the old 'they're only harming their own cause' chestnut. The proper time or the place is always somewhere where it'll have far less impact and can quite easily be ignored. Nice try, but it's not as subtle as you'd think.
Last edited:
Bernoulli
M2 slut
Metro UK 6/10
Starfield review - the final verdict: outdated, unambitious and disjointed
GameCentral completes its review of Bethesda’s new sci-fi epic and explores why Starfield fails to live up to its full potential.metro.co.uk
seemingly in an attempt to manipulate the Metacritic score prior to launch, we’ve been playing catch-up. We’ve avoided reading any reviews, but we have seen the general reaction, which is understandably mixed."
Topher
Gold Member
Your sarcasm makes my point for me.
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
It's really simple to understand. If you are reviewing a game professionally and honestly, whether you get a free copy early or not is literally irrelevant. It literally has no place in the review by definition. Including it as if it is related to the score and the impression of the game proves that they link those two things together and just makes them look wildly unprofessional and petty about their privileges.
If you want to write a meta-commentary article about access journalism and get into you can but it's an uphill battle to really get that many people to care about game journalists not getting free games. Comparing this to protests is delusions of grandeur.
Tomeru
Member
Banjo64
cumsessed
I don’t think Bethesda are going to confirm why they didn’t send codes to certain reviewers, that’s an internal decision they’ve made. But we can safely say from what has come out that it was a deliberate choice and not an error.
BbMajor7th
Member
Clearly, I'm stupid.
Then why do almost all review outlets acknowledge the source of the review copy? Do you want to call them all out for saying 'review copy provided by...'
A review, by definition, can contain whatever the review thinks is relevant to the review, and that very often does include things not specific to the game (no one generally cares about these, normally). It's being picked on here is a peculiarity and it's not that hard to see why: rather than engage with the meaningful substance of the claim, instead derail onto whether this is the time or place to say it. A common rhetorical tactic and not a smart one - didn't stop you from doing it though:
TL;DR: "Moan about it elsewhere if you must, I doubt anyone will listen."
Last edited:
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
The fact they think its relevant is the damning part.
But by all means, take their word for games coverage. I'm sure they're super reliable.
Last edited:
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Not saying Starfield will follow the same trajectory but this is not the death nail many here are hoping it to be.
BbMajor7th
Member
mitchman
Gold Member
DF did mention it in some video.
Flutta
Banned
The irony. This only seems to matter when a game gets a low score…
Dude said ”professionally and honestly” with a straight face. Tell me are those perfect scores this game got from people who are ”professionally and honestly” according to you?
You mean to tell me that when people get free shit from these compnaies they will act ”professionally and honestly” towards them? That’s not how things work… and you should now
that.
You want honesty? Here’s a good quote from that Metro review
"What complicates Starfield’s
evaluation is its status as Microsoft’s most important first party release in a generation, with many Xbox and Bethesda fans having convinced themselves of its excellence long before they had a chance to play it for themselves."
graywolf323
Member
it won’t, that was a weaker year
Not saying Starfield will follow the same trajectory but this is not the death knell many here are hoping it to be.
Starfield isn’t going to pull that off in a year with Tears of the Kingdom, Baldur’s Gate 3, and if Spider-Man 2 lives up to it’s potential, etc.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Hogwarts Legacy pulls off more GOTYs than Starfield
I miss when your avatar was Rivet and you were a Sony fanboy
Last edited:
SEGAvangelist
Member
Are you intentionally leaving out the PC reviews?
Humdinger
Member
I'm focused on the Xbox version.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
I guess Hogwarts Legacy reviews that referenced JK Rowling's alleged "transphobia" were fine too?
Gojiira
Member
Thats literally the most accurate review so far, sub par exploration, poor story and mission structure, spread too thin etc, ruined immersion by all the loading and fast travel.seemingly in an attempt to manipulate the Metacritic score prior to launch, we’ve been playing catch-up. We’ve avoided reading any reviews, but we have seen the general reaction, which is understandably mixed."
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
That really is a juvenile bullshit quote though. I get that you probably love it so I can understand now why this outlet has an audience. But talking about a video game while literally saying you're unable to separate fan banter from a sober evaluation is embarrassing and I'm shocked anyone thinks that is a noteworthy quote for anything other than embarrassment. They are openly including multiple outside factors that they're telling you are biasing their coverage and you think it makes it better?
Like I said, by all means follow these guys for your news lol.
jm89
Member
There is one thing missing with this though
Not saying Starfield will follow the same trajectory but this is not the death nail many here are hoping it to be.
"Kojima effect"
Last edited:
SEGAvangelist
Member
I don't think the review percentage of this thread would be focused on just the console version. Opencritic should be a better indicator since it includes 50+ PC reviews in the aggregate. It's sitting at 87 currently.
mejin
Member
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
People focus on the MC page with the most reviews and that's the console version which typically has more reviews than the PC version.
SEGAvangelist
Member
Other than for controversy, I can't think of any good reason to focus on a score that lacks 33% of the reviews.
GymWolf
Gold Member
They were talking about the underground metro gazzette, 5 trains out of 5, i would pay the ticket again.
Last edited:
BbMajor7th
Member
If they're not marking the game up or down on that basis, but merely acknowledging the broader context of the product or review then what's the problem? That will be a factor that influences some people's purchases.
Does it bother you when 90% of games journalists acknowledge that their review copy was provided by the publisher? Or do you say they're being unprofessional and that if they want to talk about who provided the free code they should write a separate article? 'Cause, you know, where codes come from is either relevant or it isn't and should be included or shouldn't.
Last edited:
GymWolf
Gold Member
He said a shit person not a shit sandwich.
Yeah, if Death Stranding can get overall GotY Starfield will get some votes. But like some said, this is a stronger year tho.
Not saying Starfield will follow the same trajectory but this is not the death nail many here are hoping it to be.
Death Stranding also had a very slow start before the game got better. And I would argue it was more divisive than Starfield.
As for this year....BG3 just came out of nowhere.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
If they're not marking the game up or down on that basis, but merely acknowledging the broader context of the product or review then what's the problem? That will be a factor that influences some people's purchases.
Does it bother you when 90% of games journalists acknowledge that their review copy was provided by the publisher? Or do you say they're being unprofessional and that if they want to talk about who provided the free code they should write a separate article? 'Cause, you know, where codes come from is either relevant or it isn't and shouldn't be included or should.
Really? Ok, then. I guess we just won't see eye to eye on game reviews in this case. That's fine. Agree to disagree.
Game reviewers typically do not mention how the review code was obtained. If that is noted then it is done outside the review itself.
Thirty7ven
Banned
Not saying Starfield will follow the same trajectory but this is not the death nail many here are hoping it to be.
It’s insane that Death Stranding won GOTY, specially in the same year as Sekiro. But one thing that sets Death Stranding apart from Starfield is that it really was a new game unlike any other, giving you brand new mechanics and style of gameplay, coupled with Kojima’s auteur vision (whose quality will be debatable as it should be). Starfield on the other hand is exactly like the games that came before it from the same studio, with very standard gameplay mechanics for the genre, a downgrade on exploration vs Bethesda’s previous, and a lack of singular artistic vision. The writing is mid at best too which for an RPG doesn’t help at all.
2023 is also a bigger year. No doubt some people will put it as their GOTY though.
Last edited:
SEGAvangelist
Member
Yeah, I think Starfield at least wins a best on Xbox award and gets a GotY nomination, but BG3 is winning everything, everywhere this year. Coming out of nowhere actually helps that game a lot. Imagine Starfield releasing with the same amount of hype BG3 had. People would be blown away. That's not to take anything away from BG3. It's clearly GotY material even if the release would have had higher expectations.
Zheph
Member
Humdinger
Member
You can do that if you like. I consider the Xbox version the important one, since the game was hailed as a marquee Xbox exclusive -- the biggest one for a long time. It is also where most of the reviewers are playing the game. I consider PC sort of an adjunct platform (no offense to the master race), so that's why I am focused on the Xbox version. But I'll add a note to my post, though, to clarify.
As for PC reception, I actually think it's worse there, at least judging by Steam reviews. It's currently sitting at 72%, only one percentage point higher than Fallout 76.
yazenov
Member
I knew this would happen. It's not that I think Metro's review is not fare, but they didn't pull any punches. MS gets what it deserves.
SEGAvangelist
Member
BG3 had pretty good hype, but nowhere near Starfield's release. The massive swell of excitement for the game came postlaunch. Also, the early access period clearly set expectations for the finished product.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
MS owns Havoc though. Havoc can do better player/environmental physics than that. Tap into the resources, then again, F this engine and it's dated design.
Last edited:
SEGAvangelist
Member
It's a third of the reviews missing, and BGS has PC roots. It's not like the PC version is an add-on to make extra money or something. Also, Steam reviews are obviously not included in a review score aggregate, so I'm not sure why that's relevant to my earlier point. Those Steam reviews will likely go the other way once performance is better.
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
People have always focused on Metacritic on review threads. Opencritic barely gets mentioned.
Topher
Gold Member
Yes, but several have noted that the console metacritic has several Xbox branded sites giving inflated scores. The PC version only has one such site. Seems like folks would trust the PC reviews more then.
Last edited: