Starfield | Review & Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Gamernyc78
- Start date
Total damage control the way they are going about "87 is a good score"
It's like they want us to forget Starfield was supposed to be the Elden Ring of the year going against Zelda for GOTY.It's literally what they were saying a few days ago. We don't have amnesia.
They spent two months shitting on FFXVI for scoring lower than 90… what goes around, comes around o I guess.Total damage control the way they are going about "87 is a good score"
It's literally what they were saying a few days ago. We don't have amnesia.
DDr4 3000mhz, I could try turning off XMP but it doesn't make sense at all, it seems to be a gpu crash in the log.
Honestly, taking into account pc stability right now, 88 seems a bit too high.
I think the other issue is that Todd/Bethesda over-promised and under-delivered. Or, as most of us see it, they lied about what the game could do and what you can do in it. It's par for the course with Bethesda and MS, but some people refuse to accept it.
- Reviewers who didn't like souls like games were praising Elden Ring and started playing this genre because of it.
- People who didn't like games were praising Tears of The Kingdom and becoming gamers because of it
- People who hated open world games were falling in love with Red Dead Redemption 2
If there are polarizing reviews on game, that's what i need to know about it's quality.
Starfield should be on the level of these games, but it's inferior to even Fallout 4 in some aspects and Fallout 4 was far from perfect, but still exceeded on the exploration regard, which is what you usually need on Bethesda titles.
This is a Diablo 4 situation, people are praising over the initial hours of the game and presentation, but very soon people will start noticing the issues and will start feeling scammed.
I'm so incredible bummed by this. I have the feeling Bethesda accepted the Microsoft deal knowing they couldn't deliver this games expectations and were afraid they could go bankrupt or something.
I believe the game was supposed to be bigger/better but MS cancelled the PS5 version and we all know how developing for the Series S goes. I think the scope changed when they got bought out.
Seriously, a mid 80s score is FAR from bad. FAR. Problem is, MS REALLY needed a HUGE blockbuster. They haven't had a "WOW!" game in over a decade. They still don't have that Ghost of Tsushima or Spider-Man moment.
The worst part is, this was the one game that could have and should have done it. If Bethesda, with all their history and IP pull couldn't what hopes do Awoved and Fable have?
I hate to say it - but having worked with MS during the 360 days, and watching what they do now - they don't think long term - this is about getting as much positivity NOW to feed sales inertia than what it means to the overall player perception of the game long run. Because - by the time gamers realize the bait & switch - the next big announcement has been made, or next big game has been released, and it has been forgotten (except for people like us, on this forum here
)
I might talk smack on the series s, but every single shortcoming of this game has nothing to do with the little machine that couldn't. It's all Gamebyro's fault. I don't believe the scope changed for a single minute after the acquisition.
I don't agree. FF16 problems stem from a lack of time and proper investment in all the design goals of the game. Starfield's problems come from being unable to achieve their vision with the tech they're using.
So what i gathered is that Starfield is poor man's NMS?
There is literally no scope in this game. They never had talent to pull that off what they promised. Todd is a scammer. The same as whole m$.
There is literally no scope in this game. They never had talent to pull that off what they promised. Todd is a scammer. The same as whole m$.