Gudji
Member
Xbox metacritic publisher of the year 2023 confirmed.
Btw 46,1% of people who voted in the poll thought this game would be a 90+ MC game. So most of you can stop pretending that the game met your expectations.
Last edited:
-
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.
Btw 46,1% of people who voted in the poll thought this game would be a 90+ MC game. So most of you can stop pretending that the game met your expectations.
existensmaximum
Member
First mod download: Proper strippers!
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
Oh for fuck sake I only just now realized you exclusively showed Sony games. This is why I never post on the gaming side. You people over here always try to paint every single legitimate criticism between exclusives as a fucking Corpo-War between the consoles. Sony sucks sometimes. Sometimes they fucking cook. Microsoft sucks sometimes. Sometimes they fucking cook. Both have legitimate criticisms in both circumstances. Microsoft and more specifically Bethesda has some SERIOUS criticisms here that are legitimate outside of the console war nonsense. There is no reason to try and tie up every single flop or success into a god damn console war of imaginary bias.For the people that think Starfield as an exclusive is a failure due to the MC score, are these games a failure also? Because I enjoyed them A LOT, so if Starfield is close to them I will be more than happy.
The game is locked at 30FPS on console for example. That is a legit criticism. That is not the evil Sony-Ponys riding up and shitting their little britches over a big nothing. 60FPS on next gen is the standard. That is not some imagined slight upon the game just because it is an exclusive. They fell short of the now accepted standard for next gen gaming. Its okay to criticize that. Same goes for its deceptive advertising. These are perfectly real and legitimate things to complain about that MATTER to the average consumer. Especially in a world that just got games like BG3 or TotK. Criticism of an exclusive by an outlet or by a user does not inherently mean that the criticism is unfounded or biased. Can it be? Of course. But trying to dismiss fair and balanced criticism as console war bias and using a Metacritic score as ""proof"" is just ridiculous and does not help the conversation or anyone else involved in it.
Can we please just debate each game individually on their own merit and flaws without having a titty fit over what game was made by who or what imaginary bias took place with which game 3 years ago?
Please?
Last edited:
StealthGoblin
Banned
Watched Luke Stephens’ critique and the IGN podcast Unlocked on the game where the game was discussed in detail.
There is a strong sense that for people this sits between Elder Scrolls and Fallout in terms of enjoyment.
Someone definitely needs to count up the number of exportable planets because Luke mentioned that moons are included in that 1000 and they don’t have the interactivity.
There is a lot of repetition of assets in the generated planets. Even down to enemy placement. Some bases, mines etc were seen seven times in exactly the same config within the first 20 hours.
The tiles aren’t congruous meaning that if you see a mountain outside of a tile you are on, when you load into another tile it isn’t there.
Space combat and gunplay is largely praised, but not to an extent where it is better than other games.
The biggest disappointment seems to be that for a game about exploration, the exploration is poor and disjointed. It’s a fast travel game loading into lots of randomly generated maps.
Disclaimer: I’m not interested in the game nor will I ever be. I’m not a fan of Skyrim or Fallout so my interest in this is purely on the technical side. I’m curious about the development cycle.
Looks like the scope was great but the reality has fallen short of expectation. For me, I can see why the public didn’t get any hands on time. The run in to launch felt very controlled (even down to reviewers selected so I believe Bethesda knew that it was going to get strong criticism for some elements and tried to deliberately hide that).
There is a strong sense that for people this sits between Elder Scrolls and Fallout in terms of enjoyment.
Someone definitely needs to count up the number of exportable planets because Luke mentioned that moons are included in that 1000 and they don’t have the interactivity.
There is a lot of repetition of assets in the generated planets. Even down to enemy placement. Some bases, mines etc were seen seven times in exactly the same config within the first 20 hours.
The tiles aren’t congruous meaning that if you see a mountain outside of a tile you are on, when you load into another tile it isn’t there.
Space combat and gunplay is largely praised, but not to an extent where it is better than other games.
The biggest disappointment seems to be that for a game about exploration, the exploration is poor and disjointed. It’s a fast travel game loading into lots of randomly generated maps.
Disclaimer: I’m not interested in the game nor will I ever be. I’m not a fan of Skyrim or Fallout so my interest in this is purely on the technical side. I’m curious about the development cycle.
Looks like the scope was great but the reality has fallen short of expectation. For me, I can see why the public didn’t get any hands on time. The run in to launch felt very controlled (even down to reviewers selected so I believe Bethesda knew that it was going to get strong criticism for some elements and tried to deliberately hide that).
Better sell your Xbox then.
Xtib81
Member
For the people that think Starfield as an exclusive is a failure due to the MC score, are these games a failure also? Because I enjoyed them A LOT, so if Starfield is close to them I will be more than happy.
Except that no other game in that list has had the budget and development scope of Stafield. Starfield was supposed to be THE heavy hitter for MS, the kind of game that hits 95. Now, don't get me wrong, Starfield is a good game there's no doubt about it but it's not the genre defining game some were expecting.
Last edited:
Gudji
Member
Are you sure? Some people here were arguing that it could be as good as Destiny.
ZehDon
Member
The attempt at a counter-narrative over the course of today has been interesting to watch develop. Start at page one and you can literally watch it change.
"Review scores are in: big ooof. Redfall all over again."
"Some reviewers seemed to have enjoyed it, but seeing lots of 7/10s flooding in."
"Yeah, but 80MC is a pretty much worst-case scenario for Xbox. This is a disaster."
"Usual suspects bumping the MC score up. Wait for the DF video - this will kill a Series S."
"Oh, its Bethesda's least buggy game and most polished game? And it runs great on Series S? Pfft - can't trust DF - there's that picture of them with Spencer - clearly biased."
And now we seem to have settled on: "This isn't the 11/10 it absolutely had to be. Starfield is a disappointment."
I'm off for today, but super keen to see what this morphs into tomorrow.
Last edited:
PeteBull
Member
I love bethesda rpgs, back from the times of morrowind, which btw i beat on og xbox, and i still voted 75-80% score, when u play enough of their games u can roughly guess whats expected, and w/o the shill reviews it would land there, who knows after we get more reviews final review score in few weeks might be pretty close to 80, ofc its still great game and i will enjoy it in due time(singleplayer, so no rush, i got huge backlog anyways), but its not goty/masterpice microsofts marketing wanted u to believe
Red5
Member
But 46,1% is not most people it's quite the opposite, most people voted 80-90% so it did meet expectations.
Dr. Suchong
Member
I heard the Imagine Dragons song for Starfield today....
Quite possibly the only time I've been grateful for having partial hearing.
Quite possibly the only time I've been grateful for having partial hearing.
Gudji
Member
They know who they are.
Last edited:
Red5
Member
Starfield Reviews
Starfield is rated 'Mighty' after being reviewed by 186 critics, with an overall average score of 85. It's ranked in the top 5% of games and recommended by 84% of critics.
opencritic.com
88 at 99 reviews in, I think it will plateau at 85-86%.
THE DUCK
voted poster of the decade by bots
The more I play the more silly reviews that give 7's seem to be. If you read IGN final summary alone you'd think it got at least an 8.5. I.mean you played the game for 60+ hours and are saying it's pulling you back in for more, that doesn't sound like a 7 game to me.
Last edited:
BlueLyria
Member
I went with 90~95% because I was expecting a 89, so I'd say even if I overshot it a bit, it was exactly what I expected.
StealthGoblin
Banned
100% sure. I’ve read many reviews and watched a lot in the last 24 hours or so. It’s considered BGS’ best effort in that regard, but still not up to other games.
It’s considered a good game. But the overwhelming sense is that it is disappointing and there isn’t a sense of immersion found in Fallout or Elder Scrolls.
From the outside looking in, it’s easy to see why.
If I had to summarise my take-away from my time with reviews, I’d say that Starfield is ‘a Jack of all trades but a master of none’.
Last edited:
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
.
Last edited:
Gudji
Member
It's one of the best shooters in the market when it comes to gameplay and gunplay."As good as Destiny" feels like a mistake.
That would imply that Destiny as a game is something to strive for and uh......
SkylineRKR
Member
The loading screen breaking up many areas seem to be disappointing. The review I saw pointed out that while the game is good, its just not as immersive as they expected.
I think its mechanically horrible but each to their own.
I think its mechanically horrible but each to their own.
Last edited:
GigaBowser
The bear of bad news
annnnnd right againnnnnn
TonyK
Member
I did it intentionally because I think there is a positive bias towards Sony exclusives and a bad one towards Microsoft's, so the same score for both brands are perceived as different. I have both consoles and played all those games in the image (except Starfield, obviously).
And I say there is a different bias because I HAVE IT also. I play any PS5 exclusive no matters the score, because I have the feeling they are good. Meanwhile Xbox exclusives feel like is they still need to proof something. So, it's like a 87 for a Sony or Nintendo exclusive is a good game inside a pool of masterpieces, meanwhile a 87 for Xbox is like, ok this is the peak of what Microsoft can deliver inside their mediocre catalogue of exclusives. But all that shitty thoughts are subjective, a mental lie, a 87 it's a 87 but for some reason, brain doesn't work in that way.
I didn't want confrontation with PS5, but to notice the scores perception is broken, and if you like a game an 87 is a great score, but if you don't like the game (and worse if you don't have the hardware that can run the game), an 87 is a disgrace. For all the sides, not only for one brand to another.
Zheph
Member
Just like when MS got Publisher of the year on metacritic? They get reviews as good as others stop with that bias bs
Most people already explained that there was a lot of weight on Starfield and it is about expectations and not the score itself
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
You are hyperfocusing on a single thing the game does well and then pretending the game itself is something to strive for as a result.
That is not how gaming should be talked about. It ignores the OCEAN of flaws in favor of the one thing it got right.
Last edited:
Zheph
Member
They were specifically talking about the gunplay
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Yeah the idea that areas are tiles gated by invisible walls, not vast open landscapes, seriously puts me off.
Also, no vehicles! What were they thinking. Should have dialled the scale back by 1000% and made several large open worlds to explore, possible on an engine that is not the pos they used.
NMS does space exploration infinitely better if you want to fly to different planets and not just select them and wait on a loading screen.
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
And? You don't go to a bad example of a game as a defense just because it got one thing right.
You could have chosen so many other games where both the gunplay and the game itself is actually good lol
Gudji
Member
Some users a couple of days ago argued with me right here in this very forum that the gameplay/gunplay could be as good as destiny, because some fool with an early copy of the game said it felt as good as Destiny for him... well it doesn't. I'm just bringing some receipts, there's nothing more with it.
Last edited:
nightmare-slain
Gold Member
If this was on PS5 it’s be a great score!
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
There is no bias here. Starfield is getting good reviews because it is what it is. The vast majority of the criticisms however is because it isn't what was advertised or because it does not live up to the current expectations of a Current-Gen exclusive. You can criticize the game and lament its failings without bowing down to the Meta-Score it was given. BG3 has a 96 and is still fixing bugs and problems. It will still be GOTY most likely. You can celebrate and criticize in the same breath. You don't have to be black and white.
A criticism is not an assassination attempt.
Last edited:
Zheph
Member
Someone said that the gunplay in Starfield is as good as the one in Destiny, that's the premise
Go talk to that person if you are unhappy with the choice
I am not defending Destiny and its bs mtx design or whatever, hell I don't even play the game
SkylineRKR
Member
Even gunplay is debatable. There is a ton of AA, and slow moving enemies and damage numbers that make zero sense, while making a lot of enemies bullet sponges and makes weapons feel weak. They just lack some sort of punch or impact, especially against those ridiculously boring bosses.
AI is also horrible. I don't know but the overall gameplay of Destiny bored me to tears, not to mention the PvP of D2. For me this game is a slog on all accounts. But I can see some people enjoying its gunplay and grindy gameplay loop.
But, if Starfield's gunplay is comparable, it would be a win for Bethesda. Because I expect almost nothing in terms of gunplay when it comes to games like Starfield and Cyberpunk. They chase different things overall.
Last edited:
xHunter
Member
If TLoU 3 scores an 87 we might see the biggest review thread ever. Same goes for any major nintendo IP. Some games just have higher expectations than others. Have you not seen all the "what are you going to eat while playing starfield" and other threads like that?
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
I am not defending the game. I am in the crowd that says it fell well short of expectations.
Because it did.
Last edited:
Flutta
Banned
I think they are talking about the gunplay in Destiny which i believe is a class above the rest."As good as Destiny" feels like a mistake.
That would imply that Destiny as a game is something to strive for and uh......
From what’ve seen i don’t think Starfields comes even close to that. Looks average at best.
Last edited:
Gudji
Member
Don't worry, you'll be buying this game for 20 years at least.
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
I went ahead and deleted the post. I don't want to get a million blips off of that one post.
Flutta
Banned
for Destiny players 
Last edited:
STARSBarry
Gold Member
annnnnd right againnnnnn
Your using the light theme! What are you? Some kind of savage?
Last edited:
GymWolf
Gold Member
But you have the patience to watch greg "cringe fuck" miller?
✂️ inventory system is a disaster
28 seconds · Clipped by Black Tux · Original video "Starfield Review - Kinda Funny Gamescast" by Kinda Funny Gamesyoutube.com
The inventory system sounds absolutely abysmal. I dont think I have the patience for it.
Last edited:
killatopak
Gold Member
true, just disappointed I guess. There was so much expectations over this personally speaking.
Even before MS acquired them, I was so hyped for this as Todd described it as his dream game. A dream game isn’t supposed to be good enough considering he made Skyrim, a genre defining game.
Codeblew
Member
What? It works really well in NMS. NMS problem, IMO, is that the story is pretty bland. Mix in the procedural generation with some of the planets/moons/systems having a good storyline.
eNT1TY
Member
I like to think those people were rather hoping it would exceed expectations yet were at the very least certain it would meet them. Game seems to have delivered more-or-less what it set out to do gameplay-wise, i don't think Bethesda ever directly over-promised what the gameplay loop would entail. They did state it was a skyrim in space afterall and apparently they meant it.
Hawking Radiation
Member
Hope everyone is enjoying the game
Just fired up mine sitting here having a vodka/orange juice mix. Hope I don't get drunk while playing cause i haven't eaten yet
Just fired up mine sitting here having a vodka/orange juice mix. Hope I don't get drunk while playing cause i haven't eaten yet