Same here, 80% is about right for how I feel about the game. It's good nothing great.
Starfield | Review & Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Gamernyc78
- Start date
Compared to the other Bethesda IPs (Fallout and Elder Scrolls) do you feel this new IP is an evolution or more of the same?
People enjoy mid games all the time, see Stranger of Paradise. Nothing wrong with that.
But for a game that was overhyped, treated as the second coming and savior of Xbox, it's an utter failure and disappointment.
The game is a victim of its own hype.
OP
OP
Fucking reminds me of the water and amusement parks that now have "turbo pass" to allow ppl to skip lines endlessly. Fucked up practices that should be regulated and/or banned.
If reviewers gave Starfield a 7/10 because it "wasn't good enough to save xbox", that would be pretty bad critique.
A game is not responsible for its hype, and even if a final product has all kinds of broken promises from the development period, it should still be assessed based on what it is rather than what it's not.
Unfortunately, that doesn't matter and it doesn't work like that.
A product will be judged according to the hype it had, yeah. that goes for every single product out there, not only games.
If I read a review that gives me that impression, that critic/outlet goes down in credibility.
The hell bro, would never go without such a pass. Spending your day in line in a fun park is no fun at all - extra charge is a small price to pay.
I've decided to restart my save since I made a bunch of dumb mistakes. Started as an Explorer, and added Alien DNA and Neon Street Rat as my perks. Below is a brief review of my previous experience + current playthrough. I had around 8h with my previous character and am just sitting shy of 4 with my current character.
Graphics [8/10]
"Fun factor"
Graphics [8/10]
- I'm running the game on the highest possible graphical settings, with diminished motion blur and film grain. I have VRS, DRS set to 0.85, and FSR2 enabled.
- I have not measured my framerate, but it seems mostly stable and fluid. I'm actually impressed that the game runs as good as it does
- Quality is inconsistent. Some stuff, like your ship, the first cave, etc. look good, while others, like New Atlantis, look dated. The game is not a looker by any stretch of the imagination, and is behind games like RDR2, HFW, or Cyberpunk.
- Visually, the game is an ode to interstellar (the movie).
- Sound design is passable, but the soundtrack... gets on my nerves. Not only there's random volume swells that make little to no sense, but there's also the inappropriate usage of certain tracks that do not fit the mood. Sometimes I glance at an enemy super far away, not engaging in combat, but the game thinks the enemy has gone aggro (they haven't) and plays a more action focused theme.
- The sountrack itself would not be out of place in interstellar or AI, however it's like the wish version of these. It's very copy paste from recognisable themes. Me and @Dr Bass even discussed this more in depth.
- I'm actually impressed at how well the game controls, but it's dated. Compared to other Bethesda titles it would be a 10/10, but unfortunately I cannot in good conscience leave it at that.
- You can't reload while running, your character briefly freezes when being attack, especially melee, the "climb" animation is janky as sin, some key bindings make no sense...
- Inventory management is ass, absolute ass. It's confusing, janky, there's too many menus that make little sense, everything seems like it was designed by a five year old.
- Loading screens are everywhere and this breaks immersion. While I can almost forgive a loading screen to get into orbit, it's inexcusable to have a loading screen (fade in / fade out) when getting in and out of buildings, or caves. This is archaic game design
- The AI is pretty bad. While enemies are passable and not completely horrible, your companions and certain AI elements like turrets are... Absolutely redundant, stupid, and borderline useless.. An example comes from a dynamic side quest - I boarded their ship, enabled the turrets to help me defend, and started killing enemies. There was 1 enemy missing, and both the ships captain and the turret were firing... at a wall. He was on the floor below behind a door, stuck.
- Will not comment on the story since I haven't completed the game
"Fun factor"
- I'm actually having fun. I genuinely feel this game is better than the sum of its parts. If I had to review it based on what I experienced so far and ignoring the story, I'd give the game an 8/10, even though the above would point to a 6/10. My opinion may change, of course.
Then it should have been sold as what it is, not some pile of bullshit that misrepresented it massively, don’t you think?
What is it being sold as other than what it is? I'm not pretending the context around Starfield doesn't exist, but Bethesda isn't responsible for it. The game started development certainly with a PS5 port on the agenda. It wasn't conceived as the savior of Xbox Game Studios.
Here it isI knew his name seemed familiar.
It's probably this guy from gaf.
Besides the act man, most of the big youtube game reviewers (that i am aware of anyways) have give it extremely poor to middling reviews. I dont keep up with reviews for most games or even care but the Zeitgeist around starfield and it being the "game of the Generation" claim has me invested. It seems to me that its a at best typical, janky bethesda rpg that Phil's cult built up to be the next big thing but couldnt deliver on such lofty claims and expectations.
Earlier this year people on era were laughing about Spider-Man 2 being able to compete with zelda and starfield for GOTY
While i don’t think SM2 will be competiting for it, im almost positive it will end up reviewing better than Starfield and selling better.
While i don’t think SM2 will be competiting for it, im almost positive it will end up reviewing better than Starfield and selling better.
"It starts with a comprehensive character creator" - it sucks actually and is blatantly worse than recent notables like D4, BG3, and even Cyberpunk imo.
Different opinions…
I believe what was advertised should take in consideration of what the game delivered.
A dumb hypothetical example… a game was advertised as a TPS and when the reviewer go score it and find out it is a FPS then he should score it low because he didn’t get what was advertised.
And that affects a lot of consumers that will probably buy the game thinking it is TPS and realize it is a FPS… that consumer has all the right to score it lower and even ask refund.
So if you market/advertise your game buy it end not filling these promises then it should be reviewed lower imo… 1-2 points? I don’t know that is up to each reviewer.
