It’s probably about right. It’s a decent game, it just doesn’t hit the heights of Skyrim, and it doesn’t completely deliver on an immersive, excellently executed space game either. It’s just… enjoyably mid.
It’s not. I personally love the game, but it has a lot of flaws and that number seems about right to me. I think it’s a better game than Fallout 4.
Some of the storylines are fantastic, but they’re pretty disjointed from the rest of the world. Some of them feel like they have loose ends that didn’t get finished in time.
There are several game systems that are neat, but unfinished, and superfluous.
I really don’t understand the dog pile this game has gotten.
Man flying my ship has been a massive disappointment. I did not expect NMS, but it is truly soulless and seemingly pointless. The only positive thing I can say about it is sitting in your cockpit floating around is incredibly eerie and the sound design is cool. That’s about 60 to 90 seconds of entertainment.
A buddy of mine on a gaming discord also put it really well: The game has little to no culture. Cyberpunk, for all of its flaws, drips with culture. There’s language, fashion, architecture, just so much style and feel. Starfield is very same-y outside of 1 or 2 locations. Very little variety.
Character models are also a little iffy. The look and the changes in expressions/movements are not on the same level. You get some really uncanny valley moments
Sometimes it feels like people had the entirely unrealistic expectation that they were going to be landing on Planet Skyrim and wander around a handcrafted world full of quests. And then have a completely new experience of the same scale on the rest of the 999 planets.
It was clearly put in to play interspersed with the questlines and for some endgame looting, but some people wanted to be able to just wander planets endlessly as if it could possibly have the scale of content that would make it worth playing like that. Maybe they’ll come back when modding lets them insert hundreds of new POI prefabs off the workshop into the procgen pool.
I really don’t understand the dog pile this game has gotten.
It’s similar to the situation Cyberpunk 2077 faced. When expectations are set extremely high, nothing can meet them, and Starfield fell far short of the immense hype it generated. And frankly, the mistakes Starfield made are the same issues people have been criticizing Bethesda for since Fallout 3, and even earlier with Oblivion, depending on who you ask. Combined with Fallout 76’s disastrous PR and release, this has left many people frustrated with Bethesda. Consequently, there’s a strong wave of negativity surrounding the game.
For what it’s worth, I’m a big fan of Bethesda’s formula, and I genuinely enjoyed Starfield. However, I’m not surprised by the negative reactions. In fact, I’m somewhat glad that people are expressing their disappointment because Bethesda has a unique style, and I don’t want to see them stay stuck in this creative rut. If they finally genuinely listen to the complaints, there are a lot of valuable suggestions they could benefit from.
This will sound weird, but I believe these complaints stem from a place of love for Bethesda’s games. People know that Bethesda is capable of so much more, and that’s why they are so passionate. Other game companies don’t inspire this level of passion. Hence why I feel it is reminiscent of the negativity that surrounded Cyberpunk 2077. Both games were genuinely good, but they felt generic, safe, and they were overhyped and well below the potential of their respective developers.
The negativity doesn’t make it a bad game, it really is a lot of fun. But it is warrented all the same.
P.S.
I agree that some of the storylines in Starfield were fantastic, especially the faction quest lines.
Edit:
Someone replied to this and then deleted it saying something to the effect of, “Cyberpunk’s biggest issue is that it tried to run on old consoles, while Starfield’s biggest issue is that it is old and outdated”.
Which in a lot of ways is very true. In adding my 2 cents regarding the “complaint dog pile” on Starfield, I only intended to compare the two games hype and lack of quality compared to what fans expect from their respective publishers. I realize that my comment makes it sound like I’m saying both games have similar issues, which I do not believe to be the case. Fwiw, I think Cyberpunk was a much more enjoyable and polished game than Starfield.
Ehhh I’m not sure cyberpunk is a great example in this regard. It was truly busted at launch. Sony forced CDPR to pull the game from PS4 listings, which is incredibly rare in general and completely unheard of for a AAA release. Not even NMS or Anthem got that treatment.
So was Witcher 3 at launch, but that doesn’t stop all the people with goldfish memory from sucking its dick either.
Cyberpunk’s launch shouldn’t even have been that much of a surprise. People set their expectations for Cyberpunk’s launch based on Witcher 3 after it had years of post-launch work put into it, not based on how Witcher 3 launched.
No need for the homophobic description but that aside, I did play W3 at launch and while it definitely had serious issues, cyberpunk is truly a benchmark in disastrous launches.
There’s nothing inherently gay about sucking dick. And yeah, Witcher 3 was definitely buggy on launch, particularly for consoles what with the crashing, and while it was marginally more stable on PC (sounds familiar, right?), there was a massive controversy about them silently downgrading PC graphics between the trailers and launch.
That’s not the problem. You are describing it as a bad thing. Are you trying to say that people “sucking the Witcher 3’s dick ” are doing a good thing? Of course not. Which is why people tell guys “suck my dick” as an insult. It’s almost exclusively men saying it to men. You can’t possibly argue it’s anything less than a pejorative statement.
It’s a homophobic and/or sexist insult. Plain and simple. A cursory google search would show you that.
It’s normally a desirable thing being done to an undeserving party, which is exactly the colloquial use of the metaphor and why it’s used in a negative context. I don’t have a problem with sucking dick, personally.
I am fine with most of the game. It’s basically what I expected from a Bethesda game.
Two things stand out for me in different ways:
The space travel feels implemented in a way that seems to show their helplessness in getting it right. It ends up with a weird mix of Freelancer and just lazy fast travel and the game doesn’t portrait a clear line for me what it would actually expect me to do with it and how they would like me to travel. Especially since even the “manual” travel involves a lot of kinda-fast-travel steps. It’s just weird.
No maps in cities. It’s the damn future with space travel across the universe and they forgot how to cartograph cities or planets? Come on!
When fallout 4 was in development, Bethesda had to crunch and have non-developers who had little to no experience in the engine (like writers) work in the creation kit to flesh out the rest of the game. This led to many quests being implemented entirely separate from each other with little to no input from other teams or staff members and is a major reason why fallout 4 base game feels so disjointed once you actually start exploring it.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they had to do the same thing with starfield.
I’m in the same boat. I feel like most new games that come out that aren’t a clever indy title or on par with Witcher 3 need to be perpetually shit on. People were kinder when Fallout 4 released, while it was buggier than starfield at launch, and also has disjointed mechanics und a subpar story. I personally enjoyed Starfield more as well but both are more than ok games.
Fallout 4 is fun to explore. I can still get lost in its world. There’s nothing interesting to find in starfield and it’s all locked behind the same sequence of jump drives, loading screens, and barren landscapes.
It’s how hyped it was and expectations set by Skyrim. Starfield was seen as the next step on from Skyrim in terms of game scale, and Bethesda hyped it up as their biggest and best game ever. It’s neither of those things.
Also frankly in terms of RPGs, it feels dated. Witcher 3 set a new bar for what an RPG should be, but Starfield doesn’t seem to have learnt those lessons. Baldurs Gate 3 has also set a high bar for RPGs this year, and Cyberpunk 2077 (for all its own flaws) also set a high bar for RPGs.
Starfield is an ok game but when it’s hyped as it going to be the greatest game ever from Bethesda and going to be biggest game of the year, I’m not surprised it’s being shat on when it turns out it’s not.
But hopefully Starfield will be an important bump on the road for Bethesda. Bigger is not necessarily better and hopefully that lesson will carry in to Elder Scrolls VI.
Witcher was also bug riddled and still is. The combat was sloppy as shit, but the story was great and it wasn’t a pain to just stick to it, so the game worked overall. Starfield is just an expanse of nothing with a subpar plot and nothing to do but build on empty moons. Bethesda should have took the time to either adopt/adapt/create a new engine, I don’t know how much longer they can go just patching the creation engine.
I agree, couldnt get through the game myself, ended up watching it on the side. Was just trying to be fair to it (but I secretly think it was very overrated).
Based on everything I’ve heard of it, this seems a bit too high.
It’s probably about right. It’s a decent game, it just doesn’t hit the heights of Skyrim, and it doesn’t completely deliver on an immersive, excellently executed space game either. It’s just… enjoyably mid.
In my experience and talking with friends, it’s a very love it or hate it game. I stand firmly in hate it but others think it’s the best Bethesda game
It’s not. I personally love the game, but it has a lot of flaws and that number seems about right to me. I think it’s a better game than Fallout 4.
Some of the storylines are fantastic, but they’re pretty disjointed from the rest of the world. Some of them feel like they have loose ends that didn’t get finished in time.
There are several game systems that are neat, but unfinished, and superfluous.
I really don’t understand the dog pile this game has gotten.
Man flying my ship has been a massive disappointment. I did not expect NMS, but it is truly soulless and seemingly pointless. The only positive thing I can say about it is sitting in your cockpit floating around is incredibly eerie and the sound design is cool. That’s about 60 to 90 seconds of entertainment.
A buddy of mine on a gaming discord also put it really well: The game has little to no culture. Cyberpunk, for all of its flaws, drips with culture. There’s language, fashion, architecture, just so much style and feel. Starfield is very same-y outside of 1 or 2 locations. Very little variety.
Character models are also a little iffy. The look and the changes in expressions/movements are not on the same level. You get some really uncanny valley moments
deleted by creator
I don’t get it, I spend like +40 hours in the game and didn’t touch the randomly generated content even once.
Why is it an argument when it should be obvious that it is end-game stuff?
Sometimes it feels like people had the entirely unrealistic expectation that they were going to be landing on Planet Skyrim and wander around a handcrafted world full of quests. And then have a completely new experience of the same scale on the rest of the 999 planets.
It was clearly put in to play interspersed with the questlines and for some endgame looting, but some people wanted to be able to just wander planets endlessly as if it could possibly have the scale of content that would make it worth playing like that. Maybe they’ll come back when modding lets them insert hundreds of new POI prefabs off the workshop into the procgen pool.
It’s similar to the situation Cyberpunk 2077 faced. When expectations are set extremely high, nothing can meet them, and Starfield fell far short of the immense hype it generated. And frankly, the mistakes Starfield made are the same issues people have been criticizing Bethesda for since Fallout 3, and even earlier with Oblivion, depending on who you ask. Combined with Fallout 76’s disastrous PR and release, this has left many people frustrated with Bethesda. Consequently, there’s a strong wave of negativity surrounding the game.
For what it’s worth, I’m a big fan of Bethesda’s formula, and I genuinely enjoyed Starfield. However, I’m not surprised by the negative reactions. In fact, I’m somewhat glad that people are expressing their disappointment because Bethesda has a unique style, and I don’t want to see them stay stuck in this creative rut. If they finally genuinely listen to the complaints, there are a lot of valuable suggestions they could benefit from.
This will sound weird, but I believe these complaints stem from a place of love for Bethesda’s games. People know that Bethesda is capable of so much more, and that’s why they are so passionate. Other game companies don’t inspire this level of passion. Hence why I feel it is reminiscent of the negativity that surrounded Cyberpunk 2077. Both games were genuinely good, but they felt generic, safe, and they were overhyped and well below the potential of their respective developers.
The negativity doesn’t make it a bad game, it really is a lot of fun. But it is warrented all the same.
P.S. I agree that some of the storylines in Starfield were fantastic, especially the faction quest lines.
Edit: Someone replied to this and then deleted it saying something to the effect of, “Cyberpunk’s biggest issue is that it tried to run on old consoles, while Starfield’s biggest issue is that it is old and outdated”.
Which in a lot of ways is very true. In adding my 2 cents regarding the “complaint dog pile” on Starfield, I only intended to compare the two games hype and lack of quality compared to what fans expect from their respective publishers. I realize that my comment makes it sound like I’m saying both games have similar issues, which I do not believe to be the case. Fwiw, I think Cyberpunk was a much more enjoyable and polished game than Starfield.
Ehhh I’m not sure cyberpunk is a great example in this regard. It was truly busted at launch. Sony forced CDPR to pull the game from PS4 listings, which is incredibly rare in general and completely unheard of for a AAA release. Not even NMS or Anthem got that treatment.
So was Witcher 3 at launch, but that doesn’t stop all the people with goldfish memory from sucking its dick either.
Cyberpunk’s launch shouldn’t even have been that much of a surprise. People set their expectations for Cyberpunk’s launch based on Witcher 3 after it had years of post-launch work put into it, not based on how Witcher 3 launched.
No need for the homophobic description but that aside, I did play W3 at launch and while it definitely had serious issues, cyberpunk is truly a benchmark in disastrous launches.
There’s nothing inherently gay about sucking dick. And yeah, Witcher 3 was definitely buggy on launch, particularly for consoles what with the crashing, and while it was marginally more stable on PC (sounds familiar, right?), there was a massive controversy about them silently downgrading PC graphics between the trailers and launch.
That’s not the problem. You are describing it as a bad thing. Are you trying to say that people “sucking the Witcher 3’s dick ” are doing a good thing? Of course not. Which is why people tell guys “suck my dick” as an insult. It’s almost exclusively men saying it to men. You can’t possibly argue it’s anything less than a pejorative statement.
It’s a homophobic and/or sexist insult. Plain and simple. A cursory google search would show you that.
It’s normally a desirable thing being done to an undeserving party, which is exactly the colloquial use of the metaphor and why it’s used in a negative context. I don’t have a problem with sucking dick, personally.
I am fine with most of the game. It’s basically what I expected from a Bethesda game.
Two things stand out for me in different ways:
When fallout 4 was in development, Bethesda had to crunch and have non-developers who had little to no experience in the engine (like writers) work in the creation kit to flesh out the rest of the game. This led to many quests being implemented entirely separate from each other with little to no input from other teams or staff members and is a major reason why fallout 4 base game feels so disjointed once you actually start exploring it.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they had to do the same thing with starfield.
I’m in the same boat. I feel like most new games that come out that aren’t a clever indy title or on par with Witcher 3 need to be perpetually shit on. People were kinder when Fallout 4 released, while it was buggier than starfield at launch, and also has disjointed mechanics und a subpar story. I personally enjoyed Starfield more as well but both are more than ok games.
People on forums were not kind to fallout 4 lol but I enjoyed it a lot.
Fallout 4 is fun to explore. I can still get lost in its world. There’s nothing interesting to find in starfield and it’s all locked behind the same sequence of jump drives, loading screens, and barren landscapes.
It’s how hyped it was and expectations set by Skyrim. Starfield was seen as the next step on from Skyrim in terms of game scale, and Bethesda hyped it up as their biggest and best game ever. It’s neither of those things.
Also frankly in terms of RPGs, it feels dated. Witcher 3 set a new bar for what an RPG should be, but Starfield doesn’t seem to have learnt those lessons. Baldurs Gate 3 has also set a high bar for RPGs this year, and Cyberpunk 2077 (for all its own flaws) also set a high bar for RPGs.
Starfield is an ok game but when it’s hyped as it going to be the greatest game ever from Bethesda and going to be biggest game of the year, I’m not surprised it’s being shat on when it turns out it’s not.
But hopefully Starfield will be an important bump on the road for Bethesda. Bigger is not necessarily better and hopefully that lesson will carry in to Elder Scrolls VI.
Witcher was also bug riddled and still is. The combat was sloppy as shit, but the story was great and it wasn’t a pain to just stick to it, so the game worked overall. Starfield is just an expanse of nothing with a subpar plot and nothing to do but build on empty moons. Bethesda should have took the time to either adopt/adapt/create a new engine, I don’t know how much longer they can go just patching the creation engine.
Witcher 3 had boring slow combat and an awful magic system.
To me that is more important than a good story.
Plus, it wasn’t an RPG the same way Tomb Raider isn’t one. Because you aren’t playing a role.
Witcher 3 is an open-world adventure game, not an RPG.
I agree, couldnt get through the game myself, ended up watching it on the side. Was just trying to be fair to it (but I secretly think it was very overrated).