mxbison
Member
To be fair most reviews I've seen had the same criticism, they just weigh it differently I guess.
-
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.
To be fair most reviews I've seen had the same criticism, they just weigh it differently I guess.
Lucifers Beard
Member
That’s what is so funny about this. Xbox fanboys and paid shills like colt are the ones actively making it difficult for Microsoft. If you hype a game up that much, expectations are unmatchable.
The game is good from what I’ve played so far. It’s not genre defining at this point and it’s certainly no better than games from the competition.
MonkeyClaw36
Banned
This. Anyone who's disappointed has no-one else to blame but themselves for setting the bar so high in a time where you damn well know games almost never meet expectations.
Horseganador
Member
If it weren't for all those "xbox whatever..." pages the average would be in the low 80s, on top of that there are still only about 50 analyzes (many banned pages...) when games like Ragnarok or FFXVI have 140 or more, The average will drop more when more notes come in, Starfield has not come close to all the excessive hype that has been created about it.
Last edited:
Bojanglez
The Amiga Brotherhood
Yeah it has happened multiple times now, Xbox's willingness to dogwhistle and let a certain narrative propagate and often become unfulfilled, makes things that are actually good products (like the Series X and Starfield) appear as a bit of a let down. I've said for a long time they need to start underpromising and over delivering, they would also probably benefit from distancing themselves somewhat from 'the community' who often do their reputation more harm than good in the long term.
In the lead up to this people were painting this as the start of a new era for Xbox, but the reality is this game and anything that's been in development since before the takeover have not been through the full Xbox studios process yet (for better or worse). This seems to be a very good game that is an iteration of their previous games and probably afforded an extra year of polish thanks to Microsoft's money, so MS should be commended on helping in that respect.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Yeah someone compared it to FF16 MC but that ended on 87 it didn't start on 87 like Starfield. It'll drop to ~85 when 100 reviews are weighted. Seems pedantic but important to be accurate.
Mephisto40
Member
It's nice to know Bethesda staff actually play their own games, this turned out to be a complete lie
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
If you want that, boot phil Spencer and his Co workers. Bring in new management that are strict as hell.
Opening your mouth isn't helpful, if you have nothing to show for.
You can't say xsx is the most powerful console, if there is no 1st party game that shows that.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
It's nice to know Bethesda staff actually play their own games, this turned out to be a complete lie
From the reviews I've watched so far, they're pretty polarising between the ones who had issues with it (IGN, Gamespot) and the ones who absolutely loved it.
Reviewers do have a habit of jumping on the 10/10 bandwagon, but after watching some of the hour long reviews on youtube, I can see why some think it's an amazing game.
It just seems to be down to the individual. It's primarily down to what kind of game they were expecting vs reality.
- Those hoping for endless exploration using ships with seamless gameplay i.e. a better no man's sky are disappointed.
- Those who have come hoping for a next generation Bethesda RPG are the ones who seem to be impressed
There are some genuine issues raised with this game like not having a decent map, but other ones like repeating structures can be attributed down to the size of the game.
There also seem to be those who absolutely shower it with praise for the writing where others thought it's mediocre.
I've watched quite a few now and I think it's really down to the person for where you'll sit and your own experiences. This doesn't seem like the type of game where it can fit so easily into a fixed scoring system. There are so many mechanics which gel with some, while others dislike it and just focus on the things which matter to them.
I guess for all the freedoms this game provides you with how you approach this game, it can be a little jarring to not be given the open-ended space adventure and traversal. Still, that was a design decision which for better or worse places more emphasis on the ground than in space.
Ultimately, if we're inclined to play (I will as I love Bethesda RPG's), we'll all have to make up our own minds. Regardless of scores, I can see a lot of people put many (many) hours into this game for the foreseeable future.
Reviewers do have a habit of jumping on the 10/10 bandwagon, but after watching some of the hour long reviews on youtube, I can see why some think it's an amazing game.
It just seems to be down to the individual. It's primarily down to what kind of game they were expecting vs reality.
- Those hoping for endless exploration using ships with seamless gameplay i.e. a better no man's sky are disappointed.
- Those who have come hoping for a next generation Bethesda RPG are the ones who seem to be impressed
There are some genuine issues raised with this game like not having a decent map, but other ones like repeating structures can be attributed down to the size of the game.
There also seem to be those who absolutely shower it with praise for the writing where others thought it's mediocre.
I've watched quite a few now and I think it's really down to the person for where you'll sit and your own experiences. This doesn't seem like the type of game where it can fit so easily into a fixed scoring system. There are so many mechanics which gel with some, while others dislike it and just focus on the things which matter to them.
I guess for all the freedoms this game provides you with how you approach this game, it can be a little jarring to not be given the open-ended space adventure and traversal. Still, that was a design decision which for better or worse places more emphasis on the ground than in space.
Ultimately, if we're inclined to play (I will as I love Bethesda RPG's), we'll all have to make up our own minds. Regardless of scores, I can see a lot of people put many (many) hours into this game for the foreseeable future.
Portugeezer
Member
I was expecting to get a Series S for this. I can happily wait for now, especially with BG3 around the corner.
StereoVsn
Member
GameSpot had the same score and I thought their review was quite reasonable.
Ok the other hand I find some of the gushing 10/10 a bit suspect.
StereoVsn
Member
It's not just that it's repeating structures. It's exactly the same structures, often with same nearby landmark (science station with acid pool was one example), but it's the same enemy numbers, types AND placement. And even loot was described as being the same.
That's ridiculous.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Every person in my office upgraded to the premium edition today. Its going to be doing very well this weekend I imagine.
Sanepar
Member
I would agree if NMS gave a good experience on space and not a super mario world space with all colored.
FinalBossWithTheMostPower
Member
While Starfield was always at risk of receiving similar reviews due to inflated expectations and unmet lofty promises, the launch of BG3 has unquestionably set a new standard for the RPG genre. This has skewed viewpoints and influenced how we assess other major game releases.
When a game pushes boundaries the way it did, it shifts our expectations.
It's akin to watching a revolutionary film or reading a groundbreaking book; everything that comes after is seen through that lens. It's a testament to BG3's impact but also a reminder to approach each game as its own unique entity.
GametimeUK
Member
It's a shame people are putting so much emphasis on Metascores. Ultimately the scores are only there as ammunition for fanboys. At the end of the day there are plenty of people who think Fallout New Vegas is better than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 scored in the 90's and New Vegas in the 80's.
My personal favourite game of this year is Hifi RUSH and that game scored in the high 80's.
Starfield at the time of writing this is at a higher Metacritic score than Spider-Man on PS4. I prefer Spider-Man to God of War Ragnarok, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone enjoys Ragnarok more than Spider-Man.
Great games are great games. It's just splitting hairs at this point.
My personal favourite game of this year is Hifi RUSH and that game scored in the high 80's.
Starfield at the time of writing this is at a higher Metacritic score than Spider-Man on PS4. I prefer Spider-Man to God of War Ragnarok, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone enjoys Ragnarok more than Spider-Man.
Great games are great games. It's just splitting hairs at this point.
Stafford
Member
Sounds like the game has broken HDR and SDR? This is just insane, wtf? Skyrim and Fallout 4 were fine with the black levels. I guess I'm not even shocked about HDR, Fallout 76 was horrible with it too. In the comments I'm seeing a lot of people reporting the same. Not even any options for brightness, bro come on.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
You need to look at Paris. Guy gave it 4.5. That alone makes the 10/10 from Xbox reviewers worthless.
You can't give a 10/10 for a game that has constant loading screen and late game bugs, unless you really liked the game.
I love Bethesda, but current review is fair. Hope this makes them ditch creation engine. They are a talented studios and it's waste for their vision to be held back by a shit engine.
Cyberpunkd
Member
Here’s what I don’t get: why not say “we have 100 hand crafted planet you can fully explore. They are not procedurally generated, they are all unique, they all have events and locations you cannot have anywhere else”.
Isn’t it also more exciting to work on a game like this than do copy/paste of the same research outpost or mining facility?
This is the issue here: the underlying principle of “scope” (but not really) being more important that authentic gameplay experience. Starfield is McDonald’s of a videogame.
Sanepar
Member
But that is the problem with Xbox(executives, influencers and fanboys) they don't let a game come out and people make their minds about it or let the game speak for itself. They hype anything to the stars. They always prefer to do the talk first. People who would move to Xbox influenced by the hype is already there. But they never learn. They have 6-8 journalist hyping Xbox on Twitter everyday and didn't learn.
Last edited:
Bojanglez
The Amiga Brotherhood
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
What about Hifi Rush? Announced and released at the same time.
More generally speaking, are you saying that game developers and publishers should fund and develop a game for years and then not let anyone know about it? There's been some wild takes on here recently but as criticisms go, saying a company shouldn't advertise their product is one of the best.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Nah, don't want him near Bethesda.The time will come
GHG
Gold Member
xHunter
Member
Like this too:It's nice to know Bethesda staff actually play their own games, this turned out to be a complete lie
From all that we have heard, can you even go to space without a loading screen?
Edit: timestamped, but it starts at 15:20
Last edited:
STARSBarry
Gold Member
GHG
Gold Member
feynoob
Banned
Launching to space is loading screen animation. Landing is animation. They mentioned that during the showcase.
Also in space, the distance is far away. It will take you hours to reach a planet that are close to each other.
Space isn't just your normal driving road.
Edit: I think Todd is talking something else in this clip.
Your ship can launch to space if you leave the cell space which it belongs to (game has a lot of cells for each object). It can boot you from the ship if you leave that space (saw the bug video).
Last edited:
supernova8
Banned
EDMIX
Writes a lot, says very little
Agreed that's why I always saw this game as fallout in space and I was always completely okay with it just being that, so I"m happy I picked the 80-85 as we knew this would likely be that type of game lol
I think they're world building and how they implement specific RPG mechanics fits this type of setting really well, Conceptual idea of fighting a ship in space and disabling it and boarding the ship to then shoot the people is already a fantastic concept.
This idea by itself is not the most revolutionary thing in gaming, But it is also more grounded feasible and within reason.
So I would say I felt more comfortable with how this game was being released because this team does its best work with these type of realistic concepts.
The way this development team has done RPG's the idea of going from a spaceship to the planet in real-time has never really been something that's part of their core design in terms of how they really build exploration stuff, Their worlds are more about what is going on when you are there in terms of your interaction.
So I feel selecting the planet and then landing zone or something isn't really going to kill this because I don't really believe they were ever going for this type of idea, Even if someone is to do this a handful of times I don't really see that it was ever going to create this meaningful interaction in which something could occur, I would say maybe just the opposite.
With how they design games going on some pre design spot Allows for a lot to go on, So imagine you land the ship after some loading scene and then you end up getting robbed by some rival pirate ship.
Or imagine you land in some spot and there's quicksand and your ship is stuck until you complete some quest.
In my mind at least I already started to see why they might specifically design something like this.
If anything the best example would be between how Bethesda develops these experiences versus how Rock star does. Rockstar if anything would be the ones to create some scenario in real-time we're traversing from one place to another created in altercation.
Bethesda is the type of developer in which there is a barrier in between that to guarantee the interaction takes place.
Edmund
Member
Are you the only person in your office today?
CosmicComet
Member
If it's at 87 now this early then there is a great chance it will drop to 84-86 when all is said and done.
After seeing the limitations of this game it really does seem like No Man's Sky (in it's current form) is the better space game, if you can forgive the lack of strong narrative.
After seeing the limitations of this game it really does seem like No Man's Sky (in it's current form) is the better space game, if you can forgive the lack of strong narrative.
Last edited:
xHunter
Member
I dont know what the fuck you are saying.
Todd said the following thing in the interview at 15:20:
"Let's see. Just a few weeks ago, I had landed on one of the early planets and this sandstorm blew through and I went to run away from it. And ships can randomly... Once in a while, they can randomly land. Enemy ships can land. So I'm going through the sandstorm, the ship landed and I get in this firefight and I got on the ship. And while I'm shooting the guys on the surface of the planet in the ship, the ship took off into space. So now I'm in outer space on the ship, and I was just like, "Can that happen? I guess that can happen."
So a ship lands on his cell, he gets into a fight, storm into their ship and then suddenly he is fighting in outer space. The last part can only happen when a loading screen happens before. So the way he describes it makes it seem like its a seamless switch from planet to outer space, which is not the case.
Last edited:
Gudji
Member
Last edited:
Top_Gunner_82
Member
He works from home...
donkey_oaty
Member
Dude probably runs his own business from home.
Edit: Beat to the punchline and I can't figure out how to delete a post
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Because the ship has its own cell.
Tods character stepped inside the cell, which the ship was located.
Since the ship took off, he is stuck on that cell(the ship).
That is not seamless.
captainnapalm
Member
I have to say, I don't have a dog in the console wars, I'm an exclusive pc gamer, but it's pretty interesting to see when the IGN and Gamespots of the world suddenly feel like getting super critical and pedantic. It just seems they sort of went in like a teacher with a red pen kind of attitude, for whatever reason. Even IGN's performance review was bizarrely hostile.
Of course, most of these reviewers are just blasting through it, when from all accounts it's a game that rewards player investment. Some of the video reviews I've watched really give a complete different view of the game, but they noticeably also clearly have a completely different attitude towards it.
Of course, most of these reviewers are just blasting through it, when from all accounts it's a game that rewards player investment. Some of the video reviews I've watched really give a complete different view of the game, but they noticeably also clearly have a completely different attitude towards it.
Cyberpunkd
Member
See, you’re wrong. He doesn’t say it is seamless, he also doesn’t say there are no loading screens.
It’s all same PR nu-speak.
killatopak
Gold Member
It was the bare minimum I expected and would be happy already if it was so. Said it multiple times before but after the trailers, interviews and the hour long presentation, it promised even more beyond just being Fallout in space which is why the result is much more disappointing. It could score 0 and I would eat it up. It's just frustrating that I fell once again from Todd's sweet words.
reinking
Gold Member
No. I was going to chill in bed and play on the XBSX but it felt like ass to me. I will play it on PC with M/KB.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
He didn't describe it like there's no load at all. You've made up the scenario and are trying to use it as a gotcha
feynoob
Banned
IGN America uses Xbox for clicks these days.
Don't know what happened between them, considering the way they have been treating them on social media.
Other ign don't seem to have an issue with them.
I think they learned that they will get more clicks if they give them polarizing reception.