Real mixed bag of reviews so far. PC Gamer and Wired also have poor reviews, Destructoid and Game Rant gave 10/10s.
Gaming Starfield | Metacritic (Series X): 83, OpenCritic: 86
- Thread starter Jimble
- Start date
90 on Metacritic is bad now?
Some reviews saying they should have done less planets with more polish and content instead of a 1000 empty spaces seems like classic Bethesda.
Still gonna buy it for PC, because feck it.
Still gonna buy it for PC, because feck it.
90 on Metacritic is bad now?
91 on PC at the moment
Reviews have alwasy been a thing. Growing up in the 80's and 90's plenty of games I got were as a result of reviews.
I still find metacritic useful if I am on the fence. in the case of Starfield its on GP so I will play it but I wouldnt be going out to buy it at full rice based on reviews so far
Not a review but DF say console performance is very good and virtually bug free. Lots of very positive things to say about the game.
It's 86 and will go down. So, by the way AAA games are reviews it's average. But this game need to be a 90 plus.90 on Metacritic is bad now?
On Metacritic? It's currently 91 on PC
It is 91 on Metacritic for PC. Even on XBSX is higher than 86.
Even IF, big IF it finishes on 84 or something, that is not bad, we live in times where 7/10 is considered bad and 80+ is also bad, mind blowingly stupid.
Oooof, it seems you can't fly around space between planets. That's a huge yikes when so much has been made about the ships you can build.
Also the inventory system sounds exactly as shite as Skyrim's when it launched (and still is vanilla).
Thank feck for PC and mods!
it cant be counting the IGN and Gamespot ones. This game will finish low 80's when all is said and done. Which is perfectly good but not the potential game of the year I kind of hoped it might be
I wouldn't say it's sad. I've been burnt many a time by disappointing games with unrealistically high scores.
Sorry, I was looking at opencritic.
It is sad when some people just look at several scores and never look back, allowing few people with different tastes to influence what they might enjoy. Reviews should be used for decisions, but not as blindly as some people do.
It's always like a typical Bethesda Fallout/elder scrolls. Which is incredibly old hat in 2023.
Hope you’re ok.
91 on metacritic. Nice.
Who cares about IGN or Gamespot etc. What are the smaller independent reviewers saying? Still gash?
It's amusing me the guy who threw a fit and wouldn't play a game over leaks, is ranting about people using reviews as a guide 
It's worse than Street Fighter 6 stop coping lad
How do you know it'll finish low 80's? There's still both high and lower scores to enter the system.
Why does it?
Well, I guess it doesn't 'need it' but Xbox have had a especially crap 1st party year. I know people liked high fi rush, but apart from that it's been rough.
Average would be 8-9/10
Not that I trust them either, but the general consensus under those always silly scores seems to be that none of the elements are particularly great, and it starts off with those elements glaring in your face, but as it goes on it gets better and the scope is worth a play through.
Interestingly, I've not yet read a review saying what this NG+ hype was about from Howard. They all mention they got there so far, but none say the game changes at all.
Oh ok that's great, just seen the thread title too. Looks to be a great game.
Metacritic weigh larger publications like IGN higher than others. I just think thats were itll end up
Agreed it’s had a crap year - but the game looks awesome - it doesn’t need to 90+ (but a shame it’s not)
Coping about what? I am only saying we live in idiotic times where 85 is considered bad, that is all.
Amazing, 90 hours in Baldur's Gate 3 and enjoying the feck out of it, why?
I've not been massively infatuated with Starfield trailers and gameplay, or even the concept, so that's not a surprise to me. I'm more interested in the RPG elements and whether they are solid.
I think bad game might be bit much but disappointing more appropriate, especailly considering the hype
Nah mate, if you ask some people on here, that is terrible average, trash game.
That is also stupid, when hype literally decides score for some reviewers, I just read a low score because it didn't reach his personal expectations and hype. And these are the people that should be trusted with reviews?
Fallout 4 got 84 in metacritic. This is currently 91. Some average reviews in there but consensus generally is that they've pulled it off.
FO4 had major flaws but I still spent way too much time in that world.
I am going to play the shit out of this
FO4 had major flaws but I still spent way too much time in that world.
I am going to play the shit out of this
Well its turning out to be PlayStation fanboi's favourite release of the year.
What a horrible world the gaming world is.
What a horrible world the gaming world is.
I meant for us. No reviewer called it a bad game iirc
Seems like it's par for the course action adventure in much like Skyrim. Which isn't necessarily bad.
Everyone seems to hate the inventory and weight system though. And building is no better than FO4 which is a big shame.
I'm still eager to jump in though!
It's amusing me the guy who threw a fit and wouldn't play a game over leaks, is ranting about people using reviews as a guide
Well consistently bad takes seem be their forte.
Let me be clear here, I don't care much about Starfield and neither was hyped for it, I will play it but will still go through few more runs of Baldur's Gate 3 before touching Starfield on GP probably. What actually triggered me was all this scoring system degeneracy and importance it is given and how twisted it is.