Gaming Starfield | Metacritic (Series X): 83, OpenCritic: 86

Berbaclass said:
Won "most innovative gameplay" in the Steam Awards :lol:
Click to expand...
Yeah I saw that. They were either taking the piss or offered it was some consolation award to Bethesda. I looked at the nominees and it wasn't exactly a decorated list. Mostly unknown indie games.

EDIT: Yeah just realised they're based on community votes. Folks definitely taking the piss.
 
This award would be well deserved if the game was released in 1996, even if it was almost identical to Daggerfall.
 
Kaos said:
Yeah I saw that. They were either taking the piss or offered it was some consolation award to Bethesda. I looked at the nominees and it wasn't exactly a decorated list. Mostly unknown indie games.

EDIT: Yeah just realised they're based on community votes. Folks definitely taking the piss.
Click to expand...

A lot of the steam awards were pisstake votes.

Red Dead Redemption 2 won "Labour of Love", despite not having any sort of content update, and Hogwarts Legacy, while playable, won "Best Game on Steam Deck".
 
What a colossal yet unsurprising disappointment this game turned out to be.
 
Macern said:
Starfield will be a great game in a few years.
Click to expand...

It's already a great game don't let the Sony marketing mafia spin machine fool you.

It's thrice the game of the new Final Fantasy and look at the reviews that got.
 
Alock1 said:
See. This is what I'm talking about.

But Ubisoft's Spiderman 2 is excellent.

Love it.
Click to expand...
Not sure which was the last AC game to get 90 on metacritic.

I tried very hard with Starfield but it was so painfully ancient and bland - not terrible or anything but just felt like playing a game from the early 00s that hasn’t aged well. 7/10 for me.

I also played Hi Fi Rush and Ori and the Will of the Wisp which were very good and excellent respectively.
 
Alock1 said:
It's already a great game don't let the Sony marketing mafia spin machine fool you.

It's thrice the game of the new Final Fantasy and look at the reviews that got.
Click to expand...
Being thrice the game of final fantasy 16 isn’t a high bar given how shit that was.
 
Massive Spanner said:
It’s not even a first party Sony game though so makes no sense in your comparison. They just can’t be arsed with Xbox because nobody has one.
Click to expand...

You have one. Guess you're a nobody.
 
amolbhatia50k said:
Not sure which was the last AC game to get 90 on metacritic.

I tried very hard with Starfield but it was so painfully ancient and bland - not terrible or anything but just felt like playing a game from the early 00s that hasn’t aged well. 7/10 for me.

I also played Hi Fi Rush and Ori and the Will of the Wisp which were very good and excellent respectively.
Click to expand...
But they change far more between games than Spiderman does. Spiderman 2 is the DLC to the DLC. They just merged Spiderman and Miles Morales and sent it out as a new game.

When EA spurn out FIFA games every year but just give it a new paint job they get slagged off for it.
 
Fully Fledged said:
But they change far more between games than Spiderman does. Spiderman 2 is the DLC to the DLC. They just merged Spiderman and Miles Morales and sent it out as a new game.

When EA spurn out FIFA games every year but just give it a new paint job they get slagged off for it.
Click to expand...
Yeah but both were fantastic. Sequels can be similar and also excellent. I prefer that than actually poor games that change things up but do it badly, albeit innovation always being a positive.

I haven’t played SM 2 but the consensus seems to be that is is terrific. Based on my recent play though of SM Remastered that wouldn’t suspense me.
 
Last edited:
amolbhatia50k said:
Yeah but both of those were fantastic. Sequels can be similar and also excellent. I prefer that than actually poor games that change things up but do it badly.

I haven’t played SM 2 but the consensus seems to be that is is terrific. Based on my recent play though of SM Remastered that wouldn’t suspense me.
Click to expand...
I hope you have fun if you play it.
I put more than 200 hours into Starfield and loved that. I'm not the type of guy who needs someone else to tell me what to like. I also put more than 200 hours into AC Valhalla and love that. I love games that other people call bloated. I started with games like World of Warcraft where I put probably a thousand hours into that before I moved on.

£70 for a 15 hour game seems far too short for me.
 
Alock1 said:
It's already a great game don't let the Sony marketing mafia spin machine fool you.

It's thrice the game of the new Final Fantasy and look at the reviews that got.
Click to expand...

About the same metacritic score.
 
Alock1 said:
See. This is what I'm talking about.

But Ubisoft's Spiderman 2 is excellent.

Love it.
Click to expand...
I actually quite like Ubisoft games and most of them would be a 7 or 8 for me (AC, Farcry, Watchdogs etc)

But spiderman is clearly a better fun game in terms of combat and traversal which would obviously score it an extra point or two

Starfield was a disappointing game for many. Its not people making things up because its Xbox. I was very excited for the game and it pissed me off enough to quit it barely even halfway through
 
My question is why do people go on a thread for a game they don't like 4 months after it's out to reiterate that they don't like it? When I don't like something I move on.
 
Fully Fledged said:
My question is why do people go on a thread for a game they don't like 4 months after it's out to reiterate that they don't like it? When I don't like something I move on.
Click to expand...
Because they / we are gamers? Starfield may not be great but it was a major title from an esteemed developer.

Fully Fledged said:
I hope you have fun if you play it.
I put more than 200 hours into Starfield and loved that. I'm not the type of guy who needs someone else to tell me what to like. I also put more than 200 hours into AC Valhalla and love that. I love games that other people call bloated. I started with games like World of Warcraft where I put probably a thousand hours into that before I moved on.

£70 for a 15 hour game seems far too short for me.
Click to expand...
To each their own but I’m a strong believer in quality over quantity. In fact I almost always want games to be shorter, snappier and with as little bloat barring a few exceptions here and there. I prefer a Rachet type experience where I’m hooked and loving every minute rather than a AC Valhalla style obese experience which is just mediocre throughout. I forced myself to play 10 hours of that one before giving up.
 
amolbhatia50k said:
Because they / we are gamers? Starfield may not be great but it was a major title from an esteemed developer.


To each their own but I’m a strong believer in quality over quantity. In fact I almost always want games to be shorter, snappier and with as little bloat barring a few exceptions here and there. I prefer a Rachet type experience where I’m hooked and loving every minute rather than a AC Valhalla style obese experience which is just mediocre throughout. I forced myself to play 10 hours of that one before giving up.
Click to expand...
And because of that I understand people talking about it around release. 4 months later though.
 
Fully Fledged said:
My question is why do people go on a thread for a game they don't like 4 months after it's out to reiterate that they don't like it? When I don't like something I move on.
Click to expand...
I enjoy people waking up to the shortcomings of Bethesda games which have annoyed me since Fallout 3. Only way towards better output from them. It will certainly take more than some shit reviews for them to feel the need to improve, they need to feel it financially.
 
amolbhatia50k said:
Nah doesn’t matter. Love gaming chatter. It’s not like it’s much trouble to pop in and post.
Click to expand...
Same here, I pretty much just click on every single gaming thread that has new posts, doesn't even matter what game or platform. :lol: I guess I just enjoy talking about video games on here more than on dedicated gaming forums, for whatever reason.
 
What sort of sad gimp talks about games on a football forum?
 
GhastlyHun said:
I enjoy people waking up to the shortcomings of Bethesda games which have annoyed me since Fallout 3. Only way towards better output from them. It will certainly take more than some shit reviews for them to feel the need to improve, they need to feel it financially.
Click to expand...

I can’t say to what extent they’ll feel anything financially now that they have Microsoft backing them, but anecdotally, they’ll be losing out on players with the inevitable exclusivity that will come with future TES and Fallout games.

I don’t (and likely never will) own a proper gaming quality PC and game on PlayStation, and I’ve bought Fallout 3/4/NV and Skyrim on the PS3 and 4, but going forward I will likely be locked out, and that’s the case for a few people I know who would have been looking forward to the next TES game. Anecdotal, I know, but it would be interesting to see what sales are like when that time comes.
 
Alock1 said:
It's already a great game don't let the Sony marketing mafia spin machine fool you.

It's thrice the game of the new Final Fantasy and look at the reviews that got.
Click to expand...

Starfield isn't shit, but it's not great either. Imo most accurate thing to say is that it's a pretty good game.

It's difficult to compare FFXVI to Starfield, but it's not hard to note that Starfield isn't thrice the game FFXVI is. It's probably a bit better overall, but no single element in Starfield is anywhere near as compelling as FFXVI's combat. I said in that game's thread that FFXVI is probably the most uneven gaming experience I've ever had, because its brilliant in parts and truly shit in others. I don't think Starfield is truly shit at anything, but nor do I think any part of Starfield stands out (maybe the ship builder).

I'm not sure the Sony marketing spin is to blame for the perception of Starfield (where the internet thinks its much worse than it is) as much as the Microsoft spin prior to release is. "One of the most important RPGs ever" and all that.
 
It's not great. I'm up to about level 40 or so and have done most of the missions at this stage.

Some of them were great fun but there's wild inconsistency between the difficult levels in different missions. Some stealth missions you literally walk in and lift the thing and walk out while others you've to be a frickin Ninja and save every time to pass a guard.

Overall it's frustrating and they've definitely over-stretched themselves and tried to do too much which has left the game with an unfinished feel. There's so many little bits and pieces to polish up and improve and they become more and more annoying the more time you spend playing it. And the outposts are an absolute waste of time. Really poorly designed shit-show of a feature. It's possible they'll resolve all of the issues over time but I won't be bothering to find out..

I've got the final main mission and a couple of other final missions for some factions to do but I'm not sure I'll bother.
 
Wow I can't believe that no one has posted in here since January, apologies for the bump of an old thread but I've recently got back in to this since the many updates and the adding of mods. It's made a huge difference and I'm really enjoying the game again. And there's alot more to come in the future too.

Some of the mods people have added are just incredible, especially anything relating to ships and outposts. I love building so it's just great fun now.
 
I don’t think I ever finished it, it was pretty empty and got quite boring after about 30 hours.

Decent game, maybe it’s better with mods and stuff now but unfortunately you only get one chance to make an impression on people. There’s too much to play these days, no point in coming back to see if a 6/10 game has improved slightly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.