• 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.

Starfield | Review Thread

What scores do you think StarfieId will get?

  • 40-45%

    Votes: 3 0.5%
  • 45-50%

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 50-55%

    Votes: 1 0.2%
  • 55-60%

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 60-65%

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 65-70%

    Votes: 2 0.3%
  • 70-75%

    Votes: 5 0.8%
  • 75-80%

    Votes: 15 2.3%
  • 80-85%

    Votes: 81 12.5%
  • 85-90%

    Votes: 241 37.3%
  • 90-95%

    Votes: 243 37.6%
  • 95-100%

    Votes: 55 8.5%

  • Total voters
    646
  • Poll closed .

reinking

Gold Member
Can't believe people expected this game to have space travel with 1000 explorable planets after thats what they told us it would have
I did not expect detail in every inch of the planets or even every planet to be that detailed, but yes, this is my biggest disappointment in what I am hearing from leaks/reviews.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
6 of 51 Outlets

Out of 99.


poster_eb27c785b5bc400f9fa6b4dde12b4cb1.png
 

Chronicle

Member
Wish I had an xbox but I'll have to pass. Enjoy.

I am however interested to see how such a well reviewed game is given away 'free' on gamepass. A lot of lost sales me thinks.
 
Some of the criticisms I've seen about "space exploration" have been a little ridiculous. Some were complaining that you don't have the ability to traverse an entire solar system, but why would you want to spend hours flying through nothing? They'd complain about that too.
I knew about not landing and taking off from the planet, I did not know you couldn't even fly from planet to planet. It doesn't take hours to fly through a solar system... Have you not seen Star Trek, Star Wars, No Mans Sky, Elite Dangerous? You get a hyper drive and you blast thru spaces ass at light speed. I was excited about making a ship. Customizing it, upgrading parts. I had hoped that I could upgrade the engines, install a hyper drive so I could hyper drive to the next system. I've played Elite Dangerous, I've played NMS... it's extremely satisfying to go into hyper drive and then come out of it in a whole other system.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Neither did Fallout 4 or 76, and yet they were full of loadings, while every other open world game of past gen didn't.

But okay, lets see how people will move goalposts when the next Elder Scrolls also have loading screens.

Who said anything about not having any load screens at all. I'm talking about the frequency added by space travel etc. Obviously you won't be space traveling in TES VI.
 

SABRE220

Member
85-87 is a good score and pretty much on par with their games. Enjoy the game.
The score is great honestly, I have played games that are 82 and were easily more impressive to me than a 90 ranked one. That being said critically compared oblivion was 94, skyrim was 96 and fallout3 was 93 so basically this and fallout 4 were disappointing on that aspect. Fallout4 was pretty underwhelming and while I wont knock it without playing, the limited exploration, walled planets/terrain and barren empty areas make me cautious about starfield.
 
Last edited:

StereoVsn

Member
I knew about not landing and taking off from the planet, I did not know you couldn't even fly from planet to planet. It doesn't take hours to fly through a solar system... Have you not seen Star Trek, Star Wars, No Mans Sky, Elite Dangerous? You get a hyper drive and you blast thru spaces ass at light speed. I was excited about making a ship. Customizing it, upgrading parts. I had hoped that I could upgrade the engines, install a hyper drive so I could hyper drive to the next system. I've played Elite Dangerous, I've played NMS... it's extremely satisfying to go into hyper drive and then come out of it in a whole other system.
Bigger issue to me (well more annoying really) are the planet "boundaries" where they force you to get in the ship and hop a few miles next door to explore the same planet a bit more.
 
What gives? TOTK and GOWR have 140-150 reviews on metacritic. This has tapped out at like 50?

I know a few UK sites didn’t post theirs yet but a ~100 review difference?
 

twilo99

Gold Member
87/88 is a good score. That's a win for Xbox.

I read the IGN review, and it sounded very fair in its criticisms. I still rate 7/10 a good game.

People overhyped this game too much as expected.

Exactly, it was never going to match the hype...

7/10 is exactly what I expected it to be
 
Well well oblivion was 94, skyrim was 96 and fallout3 was 93 so basically this and fallout 4 were disappointing on that aspect. Fallout4 was pretty underwhelming and while I wont knock it without playing, the limited exploration, walled planets/terrain and barren empty areas make me cautious about starfield.
Okay fine, but don't forget Fallout 76 then.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Ragnarok isn’t a great example, it got 10/10’s from most outlets, including IGN.

I meant an example where PlayStation or Nintendo sites score very differently from other reviewers.


Sure





S7NikQW.png
 

jm89

Member
What gives? TOTK and GOWR have 140-150 reviews on metacritic. This has tapped out at like 50?

I know a few UK sites didn’t post theirs yet but a ~100 review difference?
Reviews split between Xbox and pc, for example ign review is only on pc version. There is probably more reviews to come aswell.
 
Last edited:

StereoVsn

Member
I think some of the issues will be rectified by mods, like inventory, potentially how open planets up, better procedural generation, etc. It will take time though.

Might play a bit on Xbox or even take a risk with PC Game pass version, but I am going to let it cook for couple of months before buying on Steam.

Besides, not even done with Act 2 on BG3, lol.
 
Bigger issue to me (well more annoying really) are the planet "boundaries" where they force you to get in the ship and hop a few miles next door to explore the same planet a bit more.
I can understand that. I think Bethesda's biggest problem is they're just not good at setting expectations properly. They sell an idea really well, but are vague and nonspecific on the details... and it allows for ppls minds to run wild.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
What gives? TOTK and GOWR have 140-150 reviews on metacritic. This has tapped out at like 50?

I know a few UK sites didn’t post theirs yet but a ~100 review difference?

ToTK and GoW R only reviewed one platform (no one reviewed the PS4 version of Ragnarok).

The reviews are split in 2 platforms here. Opencritic aggregates all of them, MC divides by platform.
 

GametimeUK

Member
Starfield looks boring as fuck to me. The reviews aren't doing much to sway my mind. I'm interested to see what user reviews say.

Also the actual metascore of a game doesn't really matter to me. I just need to know if a game is worth my time or not. I've seen games score 80 that I think can be argued as being a lot better than some games that score 90+.
 

damidu

Member
I can understand that. I think Bethesda's biggest problem is they're just not good at setting expectations properly. They sell an idea really well, but are vague and nonspecific on the details... and it allows for ppls minds to run wild.
you make it sound like they are doing it as a honest mistake.
its their spiel since forever, i mean the man has a "dont believe his lies" meme to his name.

its just that since they are first party now, they have themselves a new crowd of rabid fanboys and defenders.
i could see the game tored apart for this stuff if it were 3rd party. that engine needed to die last decade
 
Last edited:

EDMIX

Writes a lot, says very little
Dream is over holy shit bethesda. Cyberpunk still king then .

Nah, I think you wish that was true lol, but Bethesda attempted more and succeeded in more. Cyberpunk is out here struggling to meet 2001 PS2 concepts.

I think the score for Starfield right now btw is fair, i predicted 80-85 and was pretty fucking close compared to how many were thinking this would be some 94 type game lol I think because of the jank, bugs etc its hard to get it beyond that, but its score is just imho.

Cyberpunk on the other hand, at launch I struggled to even give a 6.5, because I felt games that I've given 7s to are at least fucking functional and with the features shown, Cyberpunk was not only buggy, it lacked many promised and marketed features and its core design was literally worse then even the worst Far Cry title. Objectively, I just can't over look all those issues, yet bitch about a Far Cry game that has

Ai that can fucking use vehicles
You can fly a plan
Drive a car
Drive a boat etc

It means even the titles i felt were bland, still objectively did more regarding their function then Cyberpunk, shit even Saint's Row reboot does MORE and that really isn't a game I'd be giving a 7 or an 8, so do you see why one might give Cyberpunk a 6.5 or below?

So when the bugs or jank is cleared out, you still have a better game by Bethesda with working functional features and design beyond anything in Cyberpunk.

So I'd argue, my 6.5 is pretty fucking generous considering.


Cyberpunk deserves the 5.5
Starfield deserves the 8.5

At least they put out what they promised and its what they claimed it was and is actually a real RPG, not great value Far Cry with less functions lol
 
Nah, I think you wish that was true lol, but Bethesda attempted more and succeeded in more. Cyberpunk is out here struggling to meet 2001 PS2 concepts.

I think the score for Starfield right now btw is fair, i predicted 80-85 and was pretty fucking close compared to how many were thinking this would be some 94 type game lol I think because of the jank, bugs etc its hard to get it beyond that, but its score is just imho.

Cyberpunk on the other hand, at launch I struggled to even give a 6.5, because I felt games that I've given 7s to are at least fucking functional and with the features shown, Cyberpunk was not only buggy, it lacked many promised and marketed features and its core design was literally worse then even the worst Far Cry title. Objectively, I just can't over look all those issues, yet bitch about a Far Cry game that has

Ai that can fucking use vehicles
You can fly a plan
Drive a car
Drive a boat etc

It means even the titles i felt were bland, still objectively did more regarding their function then Cyberpunk, shit even Saint's Row reboot does MORE and that really isn't a game I'd be giving a 7 or an 8, so do you see why one might give Cyberpunk a 6.5 or below?

So when the bugs or jank is cleared out, you still have a better game by Bethesda with working functional features and design beyond anything in Cyberpunk.

So I'd argue, my 6.5 is pretty fucking generous considering.


Cyberpunk deserves the 5.5
Starfield deserves the 8.5

At least they put out what they promised and its what they claimed it was and is actually a real RPG, not great value Far Cry with less functions lol
Lol cyberpunk has no loading screens for interior. 9.0 for that alone.
Cheers.
 
you make it sound like they are doing it as a honest mistake.
its their spiel since forever, i mean the man has a "dont believe his lies" meme to his name.

its just that since they are first party now, they have themselves a new crowd of rabid fanboys and defenders.
i could see the game tored apart for this stuff if it were 3rd party. that engine needed to die last decade
Yes, it was on purpose. I wanted to try and be as "civil" as I could, as you stated... rabid lol

Trust me, I know all the memes and I don't believe a damn thing Todd Howard says.
 
What gives? TOTK and GOWR have 140-150 reviews on metacritic. This has tapped out at like 50?

I know a few UK sites didn’t post theirs yet but a ~100 review difference?
Microsoft didn't give review copies to everyone and it's not out yet I'm sure on launch day it'll be over 100+ reviews
 

Mr Reasonable

Completely Unreasonable
Bigger issue to me (well more annoying really) are the planet "boundaries" where they force you to get in the ship and hop a few miles next door to explore the same planet a bit more.
I'm expecting this to be a total non issue and I'm surprised how often it's been brought up. I'm not attempting to pick on you or be dismissive when I say this, but this sounds like a hiking simulator.

Surely the things people will want to do is to advance the plot, to go talk to people, have a gunfight, buy some equipment or design a ship. Play a structured game. Not trudge for 15 hours across a generated plant surface.

It seems like people didn't want Fallout in space, they wanted Firewatch in space. Firewatch in space without dialogue or a story.
 

EDMIX

Writes a lot, says very little
A process more commonly know as "lying".

lol Its hard to say in a situation like this.

The only lie regarding the traveling on planets is barely that, you can travel and walk around, clearly with a catch, but it can be done. I do believe they should have been more transparent btw, but even that situation might be a stretch to say its a lie based on what they've said.
 

ByWatterson

Member
J Jalucan , I think the biggest indictment of the game is that it doesn't include some obvious space fantasy pieces (planetary vehicles) BECAUSE there is such a limit on exploration.

It's not that their engine couldn't pull off takeoff and in-atmosphere flight - it's that their relatively small exploration zones would show their seams too fast.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom