This game is just ridiculous. Overhyped advertising, terrible optimalization, 10 years old graphics, so many loadscreens, plain story, no real space exploration, perk wall to do anything, horrible UI and they call it next gen open world space exploration RPG. I stopped playing after 10 hours so I can make a good assumption but it got only worse and worse. I don’t have time to waste it on this. Even if it starts being more enjoyable later it doesn’t excuse all the issues.
I feel you. The first 10-15 hours did feel like kind of a slog. I will say, I hit a point where I’m legitimately enjoying the game and things seem to have coalesced in a way they just don’t in earlier game. I’m 20 hours in though. That’s a slow starter if there ever was one.
You’re a patient man. If you enjoy it, that’s good. But that game is not for me. Last game I enjoyed from Bethesda was Oblivion so I’m not much surprised. I’m quite picky…
I was so prepared to love this game today. Woke up early and fired it up almost two hours ago. It’s crashed 5 times and I’ve only made about twenty minutes worth of progress into the intro.
I’m playing on a Series X. There’s no reason for this type of bullshit.
Sure, it’s a first world problem, but this has really set a bad tone for the day and this game in general.
I might try again later, but I’m probably already over it.
But the Xbox OS isn’t crashing. I just suddenly go back to the home screen, but trying to go back into Starfield relaunches the game. My kid said it was happening to him when he played earlier this week, but I thought he was just exaggerating because he’s like that.
Here’s where it crashed: #1: Saying goodbye to Lin. #2: Space pirates land (no combat yet) (I decided to quicksave after talking to Barrett) #3: Conversation after the pirate fight #4: Spaceship combat tutorial (2 ships)
I get the same crashes in the same places. On a windows 10 pc with less than current parts. I thought it was my aging machine.i have 82 minutes in game and may just refund.
I wouldn’t even say anything if I was on PC, I’d just assume I wasn’t up to spec (I’ve never had a high end machine, I’m used to it) but theres not much I can do to improve my series x.
Gaming “journalism” is shoddy, low quality, biased, and untrustworthy. Every bad game coming out of a big studio will get dozens of 10/10s. Not even talking about starfield, but just every botched release.
Using gamer news or review outlets as a source is useless.
The people that are saying good things about it seem to be people that don’t play that many non-betheada RPGs so don’t have anything to compare it to, or are just excited for a space theme. People that are playing high quality RPGs like persona 5 or baldurs gate are not happy with starfield
Are user reviews on places like Metacritic or Steam ever relevant? Review bombing happens consistently any time anyone is slightly miffed at something, which in gaming is literally all the time.
I'm not exposed to that many "gamer takes" lately, luckily. I watched a recent dunkey video on Starfield reviews, that had some thumb-headed idiot screaming in falsetto about the pronoun switch (oh, the horror, for such a thing to exist! oh, the humanity!). Other than that I haven't seen that much complaining about that specific thing. While it could still be about that, I also think it could easily be getting underwhelming scores because it's... a bit underwhelming. (So far, anyway, I haven't played a lot yet)
I hate Steam’s review system, though. Binary yes or no is not useful to me. I want to know if a game is good (maybe a play eventually) vs absolutely amazing (where I might prioritize playing it right away). Such granularity is also useful because a 10/10 might be worth it even if it’s not my favourite type of game, but a 7/10 can be very worthwhile if it is the type of game I adore.
It’s a shame that user reviews on sites like Metacritic are just consistent trash. Too many users only know 0 or 10 and the user reviews are often review bombed. I wish regular users could at least give numbers like critics. No professional critic is gonna give a game a 0 because of a handful of problems, for example, but average people will totally give a game a zero for that. Only problem with critics is that they often have a perspective that makes them detached from the average person, since they spend all their time reviewing. Ideally user reviews would fill that gap, but users are incredibly fickle.
I think Steam’s Yes/No system is the best option we’ve got for user review scores. As you said yourself, for most people, it’s either 0 or a 10. And while granularity can help, it’s worthless when it differs on a user to user basis. One users 5 is another users 7. And is the difference between a 1 and a 2 even remotely the same between a 9 and a 10? Probably not.
The biggest argument I could see is that “Mixed” option where it’s neither option, but I feel like that doesn’t really help anyone overall and is just indecisive.
If you just ignore a score of 0, then why even have it and conversely, why not show the same treatment towards the equally as ridiculous score of a 10?
for the most part it seems to work better than on Metacritic or other review sites with 5-10 star ratings. a lot of people are very unreasonable with 0 star reviews where they’ll give it a 0 for a slight inconvenience even if the game is completely playable
might as well lump the 0-4 star people together on a 10 scale
I’ve seen some pretty absurd complaints, like the not being able to land on gas planets, or people complaining due to ridiculously high but present area limitations.
Absurd complaints always seem to surround the media people whom people blame of being “woke”, which is why I usually give the media being criticized the extra benefit of a doubt since people will make or criticize shit for reasons they don’t say out-loud. I usually find out it’s not really that bad, but it’s just amplified because they create an environment of criticism that other people that have no underlying agenda still follow.
Then there’s the real complaints about performance, which I personally haven’t experienced because of a top tier PC (although I’m curious what people on the Xbox have to say, as Microsoft would hang them if it wasn’t playable on it as one of their new hallmark exclusives for it), and people not liking the Bethsoft sort of gameplay loop, which this is and has definitely improved upon IMO. Not only will this game be played for years on end like Skyrim, but I suspect it will also spark a much needed MMO off-shoot in the space genre just like their Fallout and The Elder Scrolls games did.
Just tried starting it this morning on a Series X. It crashed 5 times on less than two hours. The last time, I was barely into the “learn how to pilot a ship” part of the tutorial, and I’m already over this. I’m so disappointed. I was really looking forward to getting sucked into a new game.
I’ve played about 40 hours so far on a Series X. It froze on loading twice in that time, but otherwise I’ve had no performance problems. I even tried remote play streaming from my Series X to my PC and it worked well also.
That said, Starfield is fine. It’s not great- I don’t think it would be considered GotY even if BG3 and TotK hadn’t come out this year- but it’s otherwise solid. If you like the Bethesda formula, Starfield plays it absolutely straight (for better or worse). The usual critiques of Bethesda games in general apply- it has that look of a Bethesda game, the NPCs have the facial animation range of a post-botox Barbie, Radiant quests abound, the exploration gameplay loop is pretty shallow, etc.
Don’t get me wrong- there’s a lot it could do better, much of which other games already do. It’s a sci-fi fi version of Skyrim, and that’s good enough for me, but it probably won’t live on in the gaming zeitgeist.
I would agree with you in that if Starfield has any longevity, it would be because it would serve as the foundation for mods rather than on its own merits. But I disagree that it could stand on its own as-is.
I can’t play it because I own neither.a gaming PC nor an Xbox, but the impression I’m getting from all the reviews and reactions I’ve seen is that it’s basically a good game, if it had been released in 2008.
It looks like they did the best they could, but they did it using an outdated engine that simply cannot be used to make a modern game.
I’ve been seeing similar, with people saying they would have liked Starfield more if they hadn’t played Baldur’s Gate 3 first. That’s where I feel like a fair number of the “meh” scores are coming from. It’s like people are saying it’s really good, but not mind-blowing.
I played BG3 first. Near the end of it now. What could Bethesda have done to measure up to BG3?
Be less buggy? SF is a more complicated game than BG3. More stuff than can go wrong. Also BG3 has a lot more bugs later in game, in the part that hasn’t been out for early access for years now.
Have more story branches? If ME didn’t convince Bethesdas earlier games to put in more choices, why should BG3? Most people know what they get from these games.
Better writing? Thats a very subjective thing. And BG3 have a lot of already existing lore to build on top of.
Some times the quality of a game comes down to luck, timing, and what skill you got available. And trying to figure out which of two good games is objectively the “best” is a waste of time. We should be happy we got two good new games. In two different genres. And measure them against their prequels instead. Has the game evolved since the last game? BG3 has two parent games, BG2 and D:OS. It has improved on them both in combining them. Starfield was born from Fallout. Definitely an upgrade too, while staying true to what we expect in that line of games.
Thats my take on it. If a new XCom came out tomorrow, I wouldn’t be disappointed it wasnt BG3, I’d be happy and hope it had improved on XCom 2.
It’s not about “trying to figure out which of two good games is objectively the “best”,” but more like Horizon Zero Dawn coming out right after Breath of the Wild. Horizon is a truly great game, but it suffered from coming out right after what turned out to be a definitive open-world game. It’s not about better, it’s about timing. People would have had different expectations of Starfield had it come out before BG3, just because BG3 changed some people’s expectations of things like quests and ways to do them.
And again, I’m just going by what I’ve seen in reviews and something I’ve noticed in them. I’m never going to play Starfield (nothing against it, but I physically can’t play first person games), so I can’t say one way or the other about what the quests and worlds are like.
I would take the whole “old crappy bethesda engine” meme with a grain of salt.
IMO it is a good engine, it is getting updated by them on every new game like any other engine. And there are a lot of changes all over. For that reason modders have to develop new tools to create meshes, reverse egnineer the changed data formats, etc. Saying that it is the same engine as Skyrim or Fallout 4/76 is just not true.
It is also one of the most mod friendly engine. The content creation tools from Bethesda and modders make it really easy to work with, even for people not able to code themselvs.
And personally the game looks and works fine. Of course you can critique the game itself, but attacking the whole engine is exagerated. Sure it has bugs, and you can attack bethesda about not fixing them, but suggesting that they throw away the whole engine because of a couple of bugs or subjective “looks bad” opinions is ridiculus.
Also, I don’t think just using Unity or UE4 (where bethesda devs first need to learn them first) magically fixes every complaint and bug. But it might make the game not as easily moddable.
Is it just an exaggeration, though? It is old. It is... kinda crappy. I've played and loved a bunch of Bethesda games, but they do tend to fuck up in some pretty characteristic ways. So characteristic that they happened in Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallouts 3, NV and 4, and now apparently Starfield. In my hour or so of gameplay I already encountered the "corpses somersaulting around" thing, a tradition since at least Skyrim.
True, it doesn’t have raytracing, like most big game engines now. And the first city you come to is VERY plain and clean and oversized and underdetailed. It would probably be better if one started out in Akila or Neon or The Well somewhere with more details. But not every game, particularly one as open and customizable as this, can have EA level models or Cyberpunk level details. Nor is it the engines fault. Seen the Unreal Engine? How old is that one, 1998 i think? Nobody complains about that.
It is the fault of what they want to create. They want an engine that can do big open worlds, with interactable and persistent junk of all kinds, but that they can also very quickly create new content for. And is easily moddable with as little risk of mod conflicts as possible. And a very simulated AI, one that doesn’t need handhelding through pre-placed paths, but can navigate freely even through user-created buildings and chaotic situations. They end up looking dumber than other games AIs, but thats only because other games rely more on the illusion of a smart AI.
I agree! The content of the game is the issue, not the engine. Bashing Bethesdas engine is just a meme, at this point.
Linux is 32 years old, people wanting to throw everything away and start new, just because they don’t like certain aspects of it, are crazy.
Personally, I don’t really care about raytracing, or even improving the graphics that much, IMO they should reuse assets and code if that will make them invest more of their time to improve their writing, quests and let people go their own paths through the quests instead of just having 2 or 3 options (do the quest, don’t do the quest and sometimes rat the people out to the authorities). So that we have BG3 level of writing and quests, in different kind of game.
And for god sakes, do simple things like let companions whisper when sneaking.
Also, New Atlantis doesn’t look build for Humans but for giants, too much scaled up.
Is whispering while sneaking so easy though? It would double the voice acting budget, time, and the audio asset size. Theres no magic audio filter for making believable whispering out of regular voices.
Well, maybe there will be once game studios start using AI voice actors.
At the very least just lower the voice volume of companions in sneak even if it’s lazy fix. I don’t need breathy whispers in my ear for funny or throw away dialogue. But that’s just my thoughts maybe other people are different.
I told my wife I’d have been thrilled to get this game in 2016. In 2023 it does feel dated though, If they don’t update the engine significantly before their next game it may actually hurt sales.
I can echo that sentiment. The MQL starts really slow and has a lot of exposition overlord as is normal for Bethesda games. Once I started doing side missions for the UC Vanguard and “pimped my ride” xzibit style I got hooked.
Exactly what I experience in every Bethesda game. Boring ass main quest line where a bunch of British people telling me about starsigns or some shit and then I joined the vanguard and never touched the main plot again because exploding pirates and space hobos while exploring planets is where it’s at.
People like to claim any big ticket game that doesn’t get like 8/10 or higher is being review bombed. Seems as if people have legit criticisms of the game and it’s pretty fairly reviewed.
Metacritic’s user rating system is just shit. You see the game rated higher than deserved and you can either
give it an honest rating resulting in the total score dropping by 0.01
give it a zero rating and have the score drop by 0.1
Of course most people chose to rate it in a way that has more impact on the total score, so it’s no wonder we see 0/10 and 10/10 more than anything else.
This phenomenon will be even more exaggerated if critics ratings are undeservedly high, as is the case with Starfield.
The reason it’s lower on metacritic is mainly due to the fact that the critics rating is too high, imo. This leads to disappointed players leaving extra bad scores (i.e. 0/10) to offset the total score. In a way that’s review bombing, but only as a reaction to the inflated critics’ reviews (which I often suspect to be bought or bribed).
Usually the Steam reviews are a lot more reliable. As I said, metacritic’s system is shit and encourages rating manipulation.
Because my initial comment was about metacritic and my argument is that metacritic is a bad indicator of review bombing because it actually encourages it
So my question repeats: why mention it as if I’m defending it when I merely correctly stated its a review bomb. Like why are you trying to make that a discussion when it’s not…
I’m not even making it a discussion. You mentioned metacritic in your (now edited) comment and I explained why metacritic’s system actively encourages review bombing. So it’s no wonder you’ll see a decent amount of review bombing there.
To me it was a disaster because I expected it to be way more next gen after all these years. And it was very expensive compared to the quality I got.
Meanwhile my friend was all like “Eh, it’s fine. Pretty much what I expected.”
So I think people had very different expectations.
What I absolutely cannot comprehend is those who say “10/10, game of the century!”
Come on… No way. If you really think that, you have really low standards or haven’t played a new game in 8 years.
I’m normally very anti-grinding in games. Except with Warframe, because the regular gameplay is so fun. Definitely try and find someone more experienced to start playing with though, it throws way too much at new players way too quickly
I can't tell if I don't like Starfield, or playing games anymore. I got it on September 1st, and played it for a few hours that night. I played it for a couple hours the night after that, and then I played it for like 30 minutes yesterday. I haven't really been hardcore about any game since before the pandemic. It's not the same now that my gaming machine lives at the desk that is also my home office. I've typically wanted to just get out of this room when work is done, so a game has to be really good to keep me sitting here.
Huh. I was just watching a review for No Man's Sky that made virtually the same point about that game, down to the 50 hours. The review said that the first couple hours were very boring, but once the intro and early game was out of the way, it got way more interesting. His pinned comment reads "I have now sunk in 50+ hours into this game. It keeps showing new stuff. Please help me. My family hasn't seen me in days. "
Maybe open-world game developers need to see if they can streamline the intros somehow. Even if the intro isn't a large percentage of the time you play the game, it does make the first impression.
I made a post like this sentiment elsewhere in this thread but I agree 100%. I was kinda forcing my way through some parts because I was just barely interested enough to continue. Then I had a few ohhh shit moments like taking over my first varuhn great serpent fanatic pirate ship and some of the UC Vanguard missions. I don’t know how they could improve/streamline it but they should work on it for sure.
Not that buying more stuff is ever the answer but... As someone who also spends way too much time at the same desk, getting a Steam Deck has totally revamped my love for gaming. Most of the time I'm not bringing it out with me (although I have traveled with it), but just being able to play PC games from bed, on the couch, or even outside in the back yard has been a ton of fun for me.
That’s how mine are these days. I just noticed that my prescription expires after a year (the paper one), so if I’m tempted to get an updated pair of frames, it’s going to mean an eye exam for me.
I can’t tell if I don’t like Starfield, or playing games anymore.
I don’t know your tastes, but it’s probably the latter if you only stick to the AAA realm of games. I sure as hell have burned on them - the indie and mid-budget space is where you’ll find games focused on simply being fun. Hi-Fi Rush, Pizza Tower, Bomb Rush Cyberfunk to name a few that came out this year.
Screwed over? What promised stuff didn’t 76 deliver on?
For me it seemed like Bethesda wasn’t entirely sure what they wanted from 76, except that they wanted to create a multiplayer version of Fallout, and make money on micro-transactions. Todd tried to drag it in the PvP direction, which was ridiculous when its their first multiplayer and fallout haven’t exactly been known for being balanced. Someone internally dragged it in the coop PvE direction, someone else towards roleplaying and building. And after a backlash, they reacted by focusing on getting NPCs in and on PvE coop. And house building because that sold.
I liked the initial story personally. The changed story with NPCs became too disjointed from the world already built. And had no driving force in it. No reason to care except seeing one faction win.
youtu.be
Najnowsze