DeepEnigma
Gold Member
And to think, a certain arachnid had over 10 pages alone bitching about realism in water physics and its look from just a trailer.
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.
And to think, a certain arachnid had over 10 pages alone bitching about realism in water physics and its look from just a trailer.
No one expected those scores. People expected 85-95 and its in that range. I suspect if BG3 hadnt come out just before it would have scored at the higher end of that range not the lower end.
In the end it doesnt matter, game will be played and modded for a decade by millions. Hard to see how it wont be a commercial success even with gamepass accounting for 10+ million "lost" sales.
Last edited:
ZehDon
Member
I find the complaints around this game really fascinating to watch evolve.
People complain that you can't just fly through empty space for hours and hours. Then, it turns out you can, and reviewers didn't actually bother to check. Then they complain that the empty space they wanted to fly through is actually empty. Beautiful.
Varteras
Member
The problem people have is that it's not an actual realized space. You cannot actually fly to a planet. When you do, it's just an image you fly through. There is nothing beyond the small number of assets loaded into a generated space. It is not No Man's Sky or Star Citizen or Elite Dangerous. Which was what was being hyped. It's a series of loading screens.
Last edited:
ZehDon
Member
It absolutely wasn't hyped as a Space Sim. It was hyped as a Bethesda RPG in space. That's what they showed, that's what they sold. And, based on all the feedback I've seen, that's precisely what they delivered, for better or for worse. The idea that we're now complaining that this isn't Star Citizen and Elite Dangerous says a lot about the nature of these complaints.
yazenov
Member
Yeah, those late-to-the-party review outlets that didn't receive the code/invite won't be lenient with their reviews.
It will be fun to watch how low the score dips and the reactions of the fans who claim they don't care about review scores yet continue to post in the review thread claiming that they don't care.
Varteras
Member
I don't blame you for not paying attention to how people were hyping this game. I wouldn't want to be on Twitter and seeing the trolls on the Star Citzen profile making stupid comparisons on how Starfield is better, either.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Bet you haven't been fucked by a pony though
Karak
Member
No, I am not into Zoophilia. Thanks for the offer, however.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
I wasn't implying you had a choice in the matter
ZehDon
Member
I mean, Starfield is better than Star Citizen because Starfield is a real game that actually exists
In all seriousness, "people" != Bethesda Game Studios. Bethesda didn't promise a space sim, and they didn't intend to deliver one. Their deep dive earlier in the year showed off exactly the game they delivered.
j0hnnix
Member
That snippet... Some what how I feel. On top of the series x crashes I've run into, three times. It's been a boring start for myself. Honestly today decided to go to Marshalls with my gf than continue playing it. I have nothing better to play at the moment so I'll stick with it to kill time. Loved seeing two ships collided together spinning around for 6 mins after my jump arrived at it's Destination
.
Gudji
Member
Imagine what will happen when it drops 1 or 2 more points in a couple of days.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
If that happens I'll probably have to refund the game
Topher
Gold Member
That really wasn't the complaint though. Well.....it wasn't mine anyway. I don't want to stare at a planet for hours. We are traveling all around the planets and systems in a matter of seconds......we just can't see it happen. Being able to see the traversal is what I wanted, like how it was done in Everspace 2 which is also not a space sim, but really nailed the sense of space exploration. That's what I envisioned with Starfield. I also felt they left out a lot in ship movement that would have made space combat more enjoyable. Other than those two points and the NPC facial expressions, I feel like they knocked the rest out of the park.
Karak
Member
Thank god you don't run reality.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
True. I struggle to run outside, never mind reality.
Karak
Member
I would love to see more supercruise activities for sure.
I can sympathise with this comment.
Another thing I would like to see in Starfield is the ability to drop stuff while bouncing back and forth in the inventory with your party member.
finding the attempts at defence much more fascinating honestly,
do you really think flying 10 hours is the intended space travel they secretly baked into the game.
most probably the person broke whatever is keeping you still in your place and clipped through the background image at the end.
MR ARCADE FOREVER
Member
Bethesda is a joke
Joshmyersbv
Member
I forgot all about this cringe meme and now I hate you.
Last edited:
ShadyAcshuns
Member
And then they said "it doesn't have any hype" and that was lol enough, but then when it didn't score 10/10 by every reviewer, they said "it totally failed because it was supposed to be the second coming of games" so something isn't right here. Haters just moving goal posts like always I suppose.
Varteras
Member
I mean, Starfield is better than Star Citizen because Starfield is a real game that actually exists
In all seriousness, "people" != Bethesda Game Studios. Bethesda didn't promise a space sim, and they didn't intend to deliver one. Their deep dive earlier in the year showed off exactly the game they delivered.
Freshly. Baked. LIES! I have played Star Citizen! It is real! Believe the hype! Millions of people parted with $600 million for an alpha can't be wrong!
But, yes. At the end of the day, Bethesda didn't say "This is our Star Citizen or No Man's Sky". However, comments like "you can go to that Moon" created certain ideas. Dwellers on this very forum made comments comparing them in that way. For and against. Frequent discourse on the net was how robust the space exploration must be. At least being adequate. Regardless of who started it, little effort was put into dispelling it. It's not just fanboys being fanboys. Even
HeisenbergFX4
was surprised how very limited space flight was. Alanah Pearce did her video showing how limited it was despite an apparent expectation. This was widespread and believed by people in all circles of the industry.At the end of the day, it's not even close to what Skyrim was for gaming in 2011. It's not the GOTG like some spouted. It's very unlikely to even win GOTY at this point. In a year stacked with great games, it just doesn't stand our for being anything special. It's standing out more for its criticisms, like tons of loading screens, and coming up short of its hype.
Kilau
Member
ZehDon
Member
With the "attempts at defence" seemingly being "I played the game and I enjoyed it", it's not all that fascinating. The baseless takes - like the rest of your post I cut - are way more interesting to read.
And yet, the loudest complaints are that Starfield isn't exactly this. This reminds me of Cyberpunk 2077, where CDPR point-blank said "This isn't our GTA, this is a FPRPG" and then people complained that it wasn't GTA. That's why this is so fascinating - Bethesda delivered what they said, and people are hung up on them not delivering what they didn't say they would.
There are certainly some valid criticisms - as
Topher
posted above - but the idea that an 87MC game that's setting Twitch records before its actually released is "standing out more for its criticisms" feels disingenuous at best. The early access thread is pages of people loving the game, punctuated by people posting legitimate criticisms, such as performance and loading screens. It would seem Bethesda have delivered a solid game, with room to improve it.
Varteras
Member
With the "attempts at defence" seemingly being "I played the game and I enjoyed it", it's not all that fascinating. The baseless takes - like the rest of your post I cut - are way more interesting to read.
And yet, the loudest complaints are that Starfield isn't exactly this. This reminds me of Cyberpunk 2077, where CDPR point-blank said "This isn't our GTA, this is a FPRPG" and then people complained that it wasn't GTA. That's why this is so fascinating - Bethesda delivered what they said, and people are hung up on them not delivering what they didn't say they would.
There are certainly some valid criticisms - as
The discourse and disappointment is what it is. Many people thought the space part would be far more robust than it is. It's barely worth mentioning.
Sure. You can probably find a lot of people enjoying it. But it's not doing anything particularly special and the criticisms of too much menu play, too many loading screens, not enough space gameplay, very limited and copy/paste planetary exploration, obstructive perk system, lacking visuals... all legit.
I'm sure Bethesda fans are just happy to get a good game since Fallout 4 was the last one, and even that one didn't tickle them all. Then, of course, you've got Xbox fans who haven't exactly been getting fed. Been a couple years.
Also, I wouldn't look to Twitch metrics for any kind of indication of how well-recieved a game is.
ZehDon
Member
I think that might be a little bit unfair. There are scant few developers who produce RPGs like this - period. It's why Skyrim and Fallout 4 keep selling all these years later. Whether or not they're to your liking is fair game, and its design choices might very well be deal breakers for you. But, this isn't an annual release title. You can count the number of games that've ever tried to do what Starfield's done without taking your shoes off. Simply by the nature of its rarity, I'd say Starfield is at least trying to do something a little bit special. Everything past that is up to you.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
I love MOST of my wife's family but glad they just left and tomorrow I get to get back to the game.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I love MOST of my wife's family but glad they just left and tomorrow I get to get back to the game.
Brother. You ain't kidding. I love (some) of my in-laws (some) of the time.
I didn't get any time today either.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
I am a planner, if Kim and I are doing something or going somewhere to visit someone they know months in advance so we know its good to go.
I love seeing her brother, his wife and my 3 young nieces
We saw them often back in Indiana and just saw them all a little over a month ago for family pictures.
But man I am not a fan of them calling when they have landed in Miami saying they wanted a last minute beach trip and asking if we "wanted" company
I mean
Rant over
Humdinger
Member
Apologies if this review has been posted already, but I found it funny. He starts out relatively calm, then gradually loses his shit. I've come to trust him over the years. He says the game is "absolutely soulless" and lacks immersion. Combine that with lack of rewarding exploration, and I'm out. It just doesn't have what I value in a Bethesda game.
Last edited:
Varteras
Member
That's fair. I would say, though, that it becomes a question of if it being a Bethesda-style RPG is enough for the general consensus to agree that it deserves recognition just for that. Especially in a time where open-world or sprawling games are a dime a dozen. I'm guessing, based on what I've seen and heard so far, that it won't. It just doesn't seem to be that standout title many expected. It's no Skyrim. It's not even Fallout 3. Which, really, is what it needed to be in a year like this. Many were banking on that for their own reasons. Yes, some were banking against it, too.
StereoVsn
Member
There will be patches, but Bethesda isn't exactly well known to properly patch up their games.
They just rely on modders for free work.
Green_Eyes
Member
Waiting for the Crowbcat video.
ZehDon
Member
If we're not judging games on their own merits, and appraising them for what they actually are, I really have to ask: just what are we judging them on? The "general consensus" is an 87MC. Thats above Fallout: New Vegas, and alongside titles such as Spider-man, Horizon, Ghost of Tsushima, etc. None of those games - not even New Vegas - were pulled apart for not immediately having the "general consensus" of being amongst the greatest games of all time. New Vegas specifically was heavily criticized for its smaller scope and technical issues. Now, it's considered one of the best games ever made by a good number of gamers. Games, especially RPGs, and especially ones of this scope, take time to digest - and we're barely 24 hours before the game actually releases.
If we're at a point where it's "games must be 95+ and immediately the best game ever to be considered OK" then I'd say there's nothing wrong with the game, but there's a heck of a lot wrong with the discourse.
Mibu no ookami
Demoted Member® Pro™
With it dropping to an 86, it's really nearing that bottom 15 percentile on neogaf's. Will be hard to argue that isn't below expectations.
I expect we'll get significantly more reviews over the next couple of days and these reviewers largely will not have had early review codes, so they're likely to be lower ratings.
I think at this point it's likely the XSX rating will end up between 83-85. That's well outside of game of the year nomination area without a huge consumer campaign in its favor.
I expect we'll get significantly more reviews over the next couple of days and these reviewers largely will not have had early review codes, so they're likely to be lower ratings.
I think at this point it's likely the XSX rating will end up between 83-85. That's well outside of game of the year nomination area without a huge consumer campaign in its favor.
FlyyGOD
Member
There are also some people who have no intent of playing the game because it's not on their favorite console and will shit on it every chance they get without giving the game a play through.
lefty1117
Gold Member
Its not even replicated there.
Amazon.com Movers & Shakers: The biggest gainers in Video Games sales rank over the past 24 hours
Amazon.com Movers & Shakers: The biggest gainers in Video Games sales rank over the past 24 hourswww.amazon.com
I would put this more down to them not having any previously, and getting some for the launch.
More relevant would be if the monthly sales have increased, more than the change in 24 hours, but hey ho, as it stands, xbox series x (15th) is a couple of places above the pre-order spiderman 2 edition of PS5 (18thj. For comparison, the special edition of the starfield series x is 54th.
lefty1117 if you are happy that when someone took a screenshot it was selling way better than it previously was in that 24 hour period, then more power to you brother.
Not happy or sad, someone mentioned that Starfield wasn't moving consoles so I posted an article I had seen. I wasn't aware that there was some criteria for number of days in a row or whatever you've decided it should be, but it doesn't change the fact that there was a sales spike that appears to be associated with the release.
Mibu no ookami
Demoted Member® Pro™
Again, I think this is ignoring the context and hype surrounding the game as well as its development cycle. Spider-Man, Horizon, and Ghost were not in development for 8 years. No one pinned the success of the PS4 on these games, hell Ghost was living in the shadow of Last of Us until it hit its own stride after release.
Spider-Man (87) was largely overshadowed by God of War (94).
Horizon Zero Dawn got an 89, but even then was overshadowed by Breath of the Wild (97)
So the conversation isn't about Starfield being "ok". The conversation is whether this is the "starting gun" for Microsoft's first party, whether the 7.5 billion dollar investment by Microsoft is paying dividends, whether this game was going to turn the tide for XSX.
lefty1117
Gold Member
Audience was hyping it as NMS or Elite, not Bethesda, but if I do agree on one thing it's that Bethesda didn't do enough to properly set expectations.
Varteras
Member
The issue, I believe, stems from the exaggerated hype and hopes placed on the game. Bethesda fans wanting a fantastic game like they got with Skyrim and Fallout 3. Not the disasters that were Fallout 76 and Elder Scrolls Blades. The more recent Bethesda games. Xbox fans who were, let's be honest, desperate for big, impactful games that validate their purchase. It is no secret that this game was being touted as a huge deal. Some even went as far as declaring it some turning point in the console war. It was Titanfall all over again.
We also saw with Deathloop how a game scored high but, in the months and years that followed, even big Arkane fans like MattyPlays don't understand how critics liked it that much. So not only is Starfield not what many people hoped it would be, there is also a lingering doubt that it's even as good as the reviews say. This is going to be one of those games whose worth won't be clear until well after the dust settles.
Starfield is just an unfortunate victim of the console war and Bethesda's legacy.
Last edited:
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
Man Deathloop was such a letdown after Dishonored 1&2, I don't get its score either...Prey should've scored better though.
The Infectious Paradox
Gold Member
Can we get a vid on this story please? Lol
Salty Popsicle
Banned
Review scores aren't a metric for gauging whether a business acquisition for a trillion dollar company was worthwhile or not. Only sales numbers will determine that. Seeing as to how 250,000 people on Steam purchased a $100 Premium Edition, that measure is already looking very good.
As to whether the launch of one game will make people forget about PS5 and Switch and flock to Xbox, that is just a silly expectation. Even Phil Spencer himself already stated that no one game can have that type of effect.
ZehDon
Member
... as it should? In what world is this a negative? All I can really respond with is to repeat my own post:
While you can certainly have that conversation, that's not "the" conversation, despite attempts to force it to be. And heck, I might even engage with that conversation if it wasn't so blatantly disingenuous.
Deathloop scored a least a handful of 10/10s, but according to the consensus, the review scores don't matter - only thing that matters is what players think, and heaps of players bounced off. Ok, I actually agree with that sentiment. So, Starfield lands an 87MC and lots of people are happy with it - in fact, many have come back to post that their initial impressions were wrong, and the game really grows on you. Now, suddenly all players are paid shills and only reviews matter. But not all reviews actually matter, only sites like IGN - fucking IGN! - should count. And, actually an 87MC is really pretty terrible anyway - just ignore the variety of 87MC games, including this year's FFXVI, which was apparently "GOTY" material.
It's so obvious, so transparent, I'm absolutely fascinated by it. It reminds me of the attempts to paint TLOU2 as some kind of platform ending disaster, a failure unlike anything ever seen - attempts that are still running to this very day, I might add. Underperformed? Maybe, but it still sold 10m+ copies and has legions of diehard fans that love it endlessly. Publishers would kill to "fail" like that.
Last edited:
ShadyAcshuns
Member
I think it's insane if a game that averages under an 85 can't be considered for a goty candidate. That whole ideology is just petty and warped imo.
demigod
Member
Spiderman and spiderman 2 were never overhyped as game of the generation. Starfield scores are highly inflated. That 88 will go down further.I enjoyed SM as well but its funny how so many PS guys are like "Oh 88 thats trash wait for SM2"
Meanwhile..
Watching now
Varteras
Member
In most years, I'd agree. But 2023 is stacked and it has almost 3 months before the cutoff just for TGA. Enough time for a few more big games and surprises to drop. Look at the games released this year. Zelda. Baldur's Gate. Resident Evil. Street Fighter. Sea of Stars. Hi-Fi Rush. Dead Space. Diablo. Pikmin. Final Fantasy. Armored Core. Octopath Traveler. Jedi Survivor. Hogwart's Legacy. Then you have Alan Wake, Mortal Kombat, Spider-Man, Mario, and Assassin's Creed. All of which are expected to do well. Sure, some of those games are remakes and fighting games. Which don't typically get nominated. But even minus those, the year is nuts.
It's not that an 85 or less disqualifies it automatically. It's that this year has so many contenders and big deals that a game scoring in that range makes it much less likely that critics will put it up for GOTY over the other possible entries. Nomination slots are typically limited. Last year, TGA allowed 6 entries, for example. What would be the likelihood that critics would nominate it for one of the other 4 spots, since Zelda and Baldur's Gate are clear frontrunners? As well, taking your stance, that should also mean that even if Starfield settles at an 87 or 88, it shouldn't get an automatic nod over something like Armored Core or Hogwart's Legacy, right?
Again, the reality is that this year just has too many big hitters to be comfortable in declaring that Starfield would definitely be nominated for GOTY. Let's be honest. If the game scores an 85 in this year, of all years, and still gets a nomination over other possible entrants, you know as well as I do that people will suspect it only got it because there was too much hype behind it and it did just well enough. To avoid backlash from snubbing the game.
Big ooooofs. Makes the complaints over Spider-Man's water seem like a joke by comparison.
Last edited: