It could get even worse for Starfield when Phantom Liberty is out. Baldur's Gate 3 on PC moving its release a week ahead of Starfield got Starfield sandwiched between it and Cyberpunk. A domino effect that Starfield doesn't want to be in.User reviews are down to 75% on Steam and the CCU is below 250k on Friday night
It's the best metric we have to gauge sales on Steam. Release week even more important with preorders.
Starfield | Review & Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Gamernyc78
- Start date
You need to know how to use a metric properly and compare it to itself for it to mean something.
To each their own. I would give Starfield a 8.5/10.
Starfield has bugs but its not a buggy mess. BG3 also had thousands of bugs. 10/10. Loading screen are only like 5 seconds. Weird thing to complain about it. Starfield takes place on hundreds of different maps. Facial animations are fine. Their not good, but not bad. You act like their Mass Effect Andromeda level.
Yes, they are. But most people subjectly believe the game is mid.
Okay, but is there any process wherein we can objectively determine a game is good? Is there possibly anyway for us to describe whether Starfield is objectively good or bad?
Random but I think lies of P of all things, and to a lesser extent the cyber punk dlc will eat what’s left of this mindshare.
Yes. We know on a technical level, it's quite bad. Dated engine, mid-of-class character models, skin textures, animations, motion-capturing, environmental detail and variety, particle effects, lighting models etc. Less seamless immersion than many other open-world action/adventure and RPG games of current and even years past.
There are aspects of it, like any game, which can be measured objectively. Something staunched defenders of the game and its score don't want to accept. They're the sorts who go "Your truth is your truth", as if objective truths don't exist in the world alongside subjective ones.
the thing is: you could have those deficiencies and have a good, great or even amazing game.
I think videogames have 3 major types of engagement:
1. Storytelling/Narrative/drama (which could even be applied to the moment to moment game loop)
2. Escapism, fantasy, immersion.
3. Gameplay and mechanics.
Different people could favor one of these types of engagements and this is the root of the drama and confusion around this (or any high-profile game).
a videogame to achieve 90+MC score it has to do all of the above at a very high level.
Todd Howard says Starfield's barren planets are boring on purpose
To be fair, not all 1,000 planets can be fun
Last edited:
I certainly agree it's possible to do so for a variety of factors, I just want Crow to admit that there is no such thing as objective game reviews (because he has to say that, as Starfield is objectively bad in many ways).
They are, true. But aggregated verified user reviews represent what the majority thinks of something.
In case of Starfield, the majority thinks that it is a very mid game that's closer to Fallout 76 in terms of quality than it is to Fallout 4.
you agreed with me. Im not arguing what the majority think.They are, true. But aggregated verified user reviews represent what the majority thinks of something.
In case of Starfield, the majority thinks that it is a very mid game that's closer to Fallout 76 in terms of quality than it is to Fallout 4.
A review viewed in isolation is subjective.
Aggregated reviews, viewed collectively, are not subjective anymore. They represent the objective state of a game.
That is subjective and what average reviews give you.
After all it is pretty simple…
Most people or reviewers thinks the game is good = good.
Most people or reviewers thinks the game is bad = bad.
The agregate subjective opinions define it.
Of course there will be that single digite % of the gamers that are out of the norm that will have a different opinion but that is why averages gives you the best result because follow what most likes or dislike.