Support NeoGAF

[Crispy Gamer]

I guess by now it's not hard to make the assumption Microsoft hand picked those initial review sites because they figured they'll score the game favorably and it almost worked. The so called games journalists need to call out the practice of companies selling a game in early access and hand picking reviewers just to try to manipulate the score in turn generating more hype so early access sales go up because it's becoming more obvious that's exactly what happened here.

 

[Bernoulli]

 

[Zathalus]

Name them please. I honestly can’t think of that many.

I already did. It's further in the thread.

 

[Brute]

This game feels more like work than fun. It's your usual Bethesda jank, too. NPCs behave like they did back in the Xbox 360 era.

I'm 21 hours in and can't go on. Just finished the Rangers side quest and then played the main quest where I go to Neon with that old dude. But I'm so bored.

Cyberpunk, even at release when it was buggy as all hell - I couldn't stop playing for weeks. Starfield is just a boring pile of dung beetle.

Shoulda just called it Fast Travel Simulator. Food models look good though.

 

[twilo99]

Wrap it up folks twilo has given their verdict time to move on

If it was an FPS title I would agree lol, but since I don’t play RPGs my opinion on the matter is close to zero.

If there is any people who’s opinion matters here is the ones who have played Bethesda’s previous games..

 

[mckmas8808]

That's a bold call out. They should probably not expect another code from Bethesda at this point.

Wouldn't this just PROVE Metro's point even more correct? Do you think MS wants to start a war with the UK press?

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Wouldn't this just PROVE Metro's point even more correct? Do you think MS wants to start a war with the UK press?

They are already at war.

 

[Tomeru]

They are already at war.

 

[Madflavor]

Eurogamer's 3/5 just dropped it down to 83. I suppose at this point an 82 might be possible if Edge gives a middling/poor review along with some other less than stellar reviews. But I believe Edge is the latest heavily weighted reviewer left.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Eurogamer's 3/5 just dropped it down to 83. I suppose at this point an 82 might be possible if Edge gives a middling/poor review along with some other less than stellar reviews. But I believe Edge is the latest heavily weighted reviewer left.

It's all making sense now. The whole, DF gets a code "but don't share it with Eurogamer that hosts your content."

 

[DeaDPo0L84]

Yep, this is exactly what happened. They gave review copies to Twitter fanboys like KidSmoove and ColtEastwood instead of Metro and Eurogamer for a reason.

Ummm excuse you, Metro gave it a 5/5.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Ummm excuse you, Metro gave it a 5/5.

 

[HeWhoWalks]

120 pages of nonsense. Why arent you all playing the game or something else? wtf

You must like nonsense.

 

[The Cockatrice]

You must like nonsense.

I am massive shitposter. Ofc.

 

[Klayzer]

Dude. You and GHG never fail to make me laugh.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I’d say it will probably reach the 81-79 range.

I think 83 is the lowest it'll go. It doesn't have 120-130+ reviews that AAA game usually get.

If it were to have that many reviews, I could see it going down below in the 70s, but with ~75-85 reviews (which I think is what it'll get overall), I think it'll only down to 83.

Edit: Just saw that it's already on 83 lol. I guess Edge can push it down to 82 now.

 

[Elios83]

Dropped to 83 metacritic in the meantime.
Seems like reviewers were indeed cherry picked to have the "good" reviews in time for the early access, right before launch....
It didn' work well though, the game just didn't live up to the hype and pre-release expectations.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I think 83 is the lowest it'll go. It doesn't have 120-130+ reviews that AAA game usually get.

If it were to have that many reviews, I could see it going down below in the 70s, but with ~75-85 reviews (which I think is what it'll get overall), I think it'll only down to 83.

That's odd, isn't it? A game of the generation should have just as many as Elden Ring and the like.

 

[TheGodfather07]

The longer I play, the worse it gets. I doubt I'll continue for much longer. I said it was a 7/10 at around 25 hours in but now I'm lowering that to a 6. It's nowhere near as good as elder scrolls or fallout. Those games made you want to explore but starfield doesn't have that because there is nothing to really discover. They took away the main thing of enjoying Bethesda games. Who the heck plays Bethesda games for tons of dialogue and stories? They suck at that! Even the current 83 metascore is too high imo.

 

[DeaDPo0L84]

Starfield has to be the biggest regression by an established AAA publisher. The game simply doesn't even deserve to be in discussion with Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, FO3, or heck even FO4. After 50 hours I can't even force myself to continue playing, the sense of wonder and excitement that previous games had is simply not here, huge disappointment.

 

[Klayzer]

That's odd, isn't it? A game of the generation should have just as many as Elden Ring and the like.

I do find it rather curious/strange, Starfield doesn't have as many reviews, compared to other big AAA releases.

 

[SlimySnake]

Dropped to 83 metacritic in the meantime.
Seems like reviewers were indeed cherry picked to have the "good" reviews in time for the early access, right before launch....
It didn' work well though, the game just didn't live up to the hype and pre-release expectations.

The thing is the two BIGGEST gaming outlets IGN and Gamespot were given access and they both gave it a 7 so they must have thought they had friends there because none of the UK outlets got it lol

PCGamer also gave it a 7.5 right? Thats another massive outlet that was given review codes. This is honestly kinda baffling. They either believed in the game or they didnt. Doesnt make sense why some reviewers got it while others didnt.

 

[Bernoulli]

Eurogamer's 3/5 just dropped it down to 83. I suppose at this point an 82 might be possible if Edge gives a middling/poor review along with some other less than stellar reviews. But I believe Edge is the latest heavily weighted reviewer left.

 

[mckmas8808]

LMAO at the 37% gaffers who voted 90-95 MC. Who are those people ?

Me. There wasn't a universe that exists that made me think this game was getting under a 90. I was thinking a 91-93 range. No way would it get a 95 or more do to Bethesda jank. But no way would it get under Halo's 87 either. That was my thought process.

 

[DeepEnigma]

The thing is the two BIGGEST gaming outlets IGN and Gamespot were given access and they both gave it a 7 so they must have thought they had friends there because none of the UK outlets got it lol

PCGamer also gave it a 7.5 right? Thats another massive outlet that was given review codes. This is honestly kinda baffling. They either believed in the game or they didnt. Doesnt make sense why some reviewers got it while others didnt.

Probably hoping Destin or McCaffrey would be the reviewer on it with IGN.

 

[Reckheim]

Probably hoping Destin or McCaffrey would be the reviewer on it with IGN.

the guy that reviewed starfield gave Fallout 4 a 9.5.

 

[DeepEnigma]

the guy that reviewed starfield gave Fallout 4 a 9.5.

The gaming landscape has most definitely change since then.

Would be even funnier if they got to handpick him.

 

[Klayzer]

Me. There wasn't a universe that exists that made me think this game was getting under a 90. I was thinking a 91-93 range. No way would it get a 95 or more do to Bethesda jank. But no way would it get under Halo's 87 either. That was my thought process.

Not a big fan of western rpg's personally, but I, like many thought Starfield was going to score in the 90-93 ish range.

 

[Bernoulli]

How many reviews left and what is going to be the final score ?

 

[Strategize]

Here's my review, undoubtably the most important, objective and honest review in the history of gaming.

Game fun, is good, I enjoy. Score: whofuckingcares/10

That is all.

 

[Reckheim]

The gaming landscape has most definitely change since then.

Would be even funnier if they got to handpick him.

Honestly, I feel like Starfield is quite different from both Skyrim and Fallout. It depends heavily on why you liked those types of games to begin with.

if you got your fun from emergent gameplay and exploration then Starfield is definitely a bit disappointing.

I can see someone that loved fallout4 and skyrim give the game a lower score.

 

[DJ12]

Todd Howard vs prime 2015 Sean Murray in a lie off hyping their next game.

Who wins? Who can spin taller tales of their game?

Well Sean apologised, fixed that shit and then kept improving the game upto now to the point where it far outweighs the promises he made.

Todd blames you, makes sure to mod scene still know how to fix their shit and moves on to the next bag of lies.

 

[TheHolyGhost]

EDGE Review still has to come.

I don't get the low scores though around the 25 hours mark now and yeah it isn't a TOTK/Elden Ring or BG3 game but better than most shit that comes out like Ubi games, Sony Ubi open world or cinematic movies or most broken shit like Forspoken and Star Wars Jedi Survivor.

Imagine if the game also had performance issues and bugs like FA4 or some of the other releases this year, oh lord.

 

[Lokaum D+]

Eurogamer's 3/5 just dropped it down to 83. I suppose at this point an 82 might be possible if Edge gives a middling/poor review along with some other less than stellar reviews. But I believe Edge is the latest heavily weighted reviewer left.

 

[Gudji]

 

[Solidsnake_1]

Eurogamer's 3/5 just dropped it down to 83. I suppose at this point an 82 might be possible if Edge gives a middling/poor review along with some other less than stellar reviews. But I believe Edge is the latest heavily weighted reviewer left.

never forget :

XBOXAdiccit 10/10
Genertion XBOX 9.9/10
Somos XBOX 9.8/10
Mondo XBOX 9.7/10
Pure XBOX 9/10
The XBOX Hub 9/10
XBOX era 9.7/10

 

[HeWhoWalks]

I do find it rather curious/strange, Starfield doesn't have as many reviews, compared to other big AAA releases.

I noticed that last week.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Genertion XBOX 9.9/10

I think a 9.9 is infinitely more cringe that just giving it a damned 10.

 

[HeWhoWalks]

EDGE Review still has to come.

I don't get the low scores though around the 25 hours mark now and yeah it isn't a TOTK/Elden Ring or BG3 game but better than most shit that comes out like Ubi games, Sony Ubi open world or cinematic movies or most broken shit like Forspoken and Star Wars Jedi Survivor.

Imagine if the game also had performance issues and bugs like FA4 or some of the other releases this year, oh lord.

this should be fun...

How so and what games are cinematic movies?

 

[BoxFresh123]

I thought I had one right.......................

 

[Gudji]

OC dropped to 86 too.

 

[HeWhoWalks]

I wonder — has any other Xbox exclusive been this propped up by sites with Xbox in the name? A sincere curiosity.

 

[graywolf323]

I thought I had one right.......................

I mean based on OpenCritic we’re still right (only down to 86 there) mostly because they have an odd number of Xbox sites in their Top Critics average but still a win’s a win

Starfield Reviews

Starfield is rated 'Mighty' after being reviewed by 183 critics, with an overall average score of 85. It's ranked in the top 5% of games and recommended by 84% of critics.

opencritic.com

 

[DJ12]

I wonder — has any other Xbox exclusive been this propped up by sites with Xbox in the name? A sincere curiosity.

Forza horizon 5 is a good game don't get me wrong, but it's basically a slightly better looking forza horizon 4. (I play on pc so next gen made little difference)

It's essentially a map pack, add little to nothing new and should've got no more than 8s because that's all they deserved for phoning it in.

 

[havoc00]

I give it like a 7.5 I’m playing more like a action fps with a lot of content though so the Rpg stuff not being crazy deep isn’t a huge deal for me

 

[StealthGoblin]

Yeah it’s an interesting thing to do to remove the fan sites out of the equation and take the average of the general reviewers. Starfield would be a lot lower. It’ll be interesting to do that for other exclusives moving forward for all platforms.

 

[Topher]

Yeah it’s an interesting thing to do to remove the fan sites out of the equation and take the average of the general reviewers. Starfield would be a lot lower. It’ll be interesting to do that for other exclusives moving forward for all platforms.

If we look at the PC side of metacritic that only has one Xbox branded site listed and the score is 87.

Starfield critic reviews

Metacritic aggregates music, game, tv, and movie reviews from the leading critics. Only Metacritic.com uses METASCORES, which let you know at a glance how each item was reviewed.

www.metacritic.com

Fan sites have always been part of the equation for first party games. Why is it different now versus any other first party game?

 

[ProtoByte]

I don't really understand how they'd consider it worth excluding certain outlets from recieving a review copy tbh. It brings bad press (at least when going to such lengths as to providing DF with a code and explicitly saying its not to be shared with Eurogamer) and when all is said and done there's like one week of a slightly higher MC score. Feels like the juice isn't worth the squeeze, so to speak.

It was totally worth the squeeze. If Starfield launched at a low 80s threshold on Metacritic, or by God a high 70s, it would've been disastrous for them. If I thought they were any more calculated in how they've staggered the discourse around this game, I would say thay they probably knew to insert the "play for 15 hours before judging the game" messaging into the critics sphere, alongside an early and therefore limited access period and an incomplete critics pool. Everything they could do to push out honest critiques on both personal and large scales.

It's not a good front, as even reading the hype reviews giving it 8s-9s or even some if the 7s made it sound like a game far below that. But people don't actually read reviews. Similar to Rotten tomatoes, they look at the aggregate score and base their preconceptions on it. Publishers know that, and there's every incentive for the less competent ones to game that system for appearances.

 

[Topher]

I don't really understand how they'd consider it worth excluding certain outlets from recieving a review copy tbh. It brings bad press (at least when going to such lengths as to providing DF with a code and explicitly saying its not to be shared with Eurogamer) and when all is said and done there's like one week of a slightly higher MC score. Feels like the juice isn't worth the squeeze, so to speak.

Really isn't worth the backlash at all.

 

[Topher]

I wonder — has any other Xbox exclusive been this propped up by sites with Xbox in the name? A sincere curiosity.

That's the case for most first party games.