Same, actually. Though I'm frequently tempted to go back and finish it. I think part of the problem is that environments feel very samey. It makes sense in context (greedy corporations making the same kinds of structures and layouts over and over to save money), but it makes exploration kinda boring. And the lack of any lockpicking or hacking minigames.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
simpatico
Member
Could be how well they each achieved what they set out to do. The game review scale is not based on which game can properly simulate space.
GigaBowser
The bear of bad news
Still getting it next week I must review to choorse GOTY it I dont trust gamings reviewers all the times
Hugare
Member
Similar in themes only
Outer Worlds never promissed thousands of planets to explore, starship combat and etc.
Starfield was made by Bethesda, had huge budget and expectations, so it wont be judged as an AA game like Outer Worlds.
Last edited:
I don't remember seeing anything that suggested they set out to do anything other than Fallout in space. It seems they achieved that pretty well. Better than The Outer Worlds did, based on the consensus.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
Nice watermark. Guess I shouldn’t find it surprising some of you follow these obsessed console war twitter accounts. Sucks that the well is poisoned on discussion of this game because of sad console warriors.
Games should be reviewed for what they are, not what surrounds the game's reputation. For example, if a movie is reviewed super well, and then you watch it and aren't as impressed with it, you shouldn't give it an even lower score than you might have otherwise, simply because other people liked it so much. The review should be for the product itself, not the marketing or hype.
RJMacready73
Simps for Amouranth
Tbh I don't know why the majority of you give a shit what the score is, it's on bloody Gamepass so it doesn't matter, you can try it for free ffs, like it.. great, think it's shite no money wasted and can go back to Skyrim version 8.0..
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
Last edited:
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
NGL The time sink to get to the good part sounds exhausting.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
That's just bizarre. I'm not gonna rush through anything and play the game at my own pace the first go.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
Yeah I have so many questions about it but dont REALLY want the answers
I hate the thought of putting say 100+ hours into it then get to NG+ and wish I would have gotten there faster
XXL
Member
Regarding New Game +
Yes, new New Game + changes things.
But (if accurate) SOME people (depending on how they play the game) will be kinda pissed off starting NG+, which partially why reviewers are suggesting B lining the story.
I won't list why here, but I can give you some advice without spoiling much if you want to know, PM me.
(based on what the leakers said about it)
Yes, new New Game + changes things.
But (if accurate) SOME people (depending on how they play the game) will be kinda pissed off starting NG+, which partially why reviewers are suggesting B lining the story.
I won't list why here, but I can give you some advice without spoiling much if you want to know, PM me.
(based on what the leakers said about it)
rhodesianshepard
Member
Then you completely missed the marketing for the first 5 years. Yes, Bethesda made it much clearer about the limitations of Starfield in the recent "Direct", however, before that, they were completely vague about how much of a space sim Starfield is. In fact, they mentioned the "1000" planets you can explore every chance they had. Which led to people rationally think that space exploration would be a main feature of the game.
Agent_Nobody
Member
This can't be real, right?
It’s real. There was a really stupid distance to eyesight ratio graph (without taking into account visual acuity at all) that was making it’s way around the internet about that time and they bought it hook line and sinker, and turned it around as a ’nobody can see it’ thing despite most people having 20/20 vision being able to see it along with everybody with better than 20/20 vision…of course half the people around the table need glasses.
Last edited:
I remember seeing the bit about 1,000 planets, which I believe was first mentioned last summer, and immediately rolled my eyes. If you thought that would be anything other than procedurally-generated boredom, you're a less cynical person than I am. And they clarified that fact in that same week.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Madflavor
Member
OC and MC are both 87 right now. Looks like it'll eventually settle between 85-88. That's...fine? It sounds like it's a lot of fun and a good game, but not the GotG people were claiming. I think the game will get better in time after some DLC and Mods.
Going forward I wonder if the "Savior of Gaming Todd Howard" memes will dilute after this. I was surprised after Fallout 4 and 76 that people were doing that with Starfield.
Going forward I wonder if the "Savior of Gaming Todd Howard" memes will dilute after this. I was surprised after Fallout 4 and 76 that people were doing that with Starfield.
Laieon
Member
Pentiment is a masterpiece though imo.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
As sad as they are, it is effective.
All those fake high scores have successfully bolstered the game, Sony and Nintendo could learn a thing or two from MS.
Hawking Radiation
Member
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
This is all pretty much exactly what I expected. Game just isn't going to be for me - it sounds like it's largely "the parts of Bethesda's games I don't like" X 1000. Ie: a slog.
I hope people who were looking forward to the game dig it, but it's a pass for me.
I hope people who were looking forward to the game dig it, but it's a pass for me.
Wastelander92
Member
Holy fuck the Xbox fanboys on Twitter (peterOvo, Colt, TimDog, Senjutsu) are going abslutely crazy lmfao.
diffusionx
Gold Member
That’s really not good enough imo.
Todd is Todd and that’s never gonna change
Last edited:
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
You presume they were ever sane.
I mean yeah I see that, but if he's trying to troll, at least be witty. There's got to be some nuance in what he's trying to accomplish, and it's literally just shitting on games without being funny lol. My take at lease. Anyway, 1 hour 27 minutes to go!
Little Chicken
Member
IGN Japan 10/10
IGN Spain 10/10
IGN Brazil 9.5/10
IGN France 9/10
...IGN US 7/10
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
We all knew they'd be procedurally generated. They never needed to clarify that. Doesn't have anything to do with the space sim point.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Could? Look up the aggregates for the games, you'll find multiple "platform name" - suffix websites in the top scorers.
VideoGameEnjoyer
Member
You don't even keep equipment in NG+...
You only keep skills and levels.
You only keep skills and levels.
Salty Popsicle
Banned
Why are all the people who for the past 2+ years have been downplaying Starfield as nothing more than a run-of-the-mill Bethesda RPG now all of a sudden saying it was supposed to be the gaming messiah and required a 99 Metacritic score to save Microsoft? WTF???
ByWatterson
Member
You misspelled "the most technically perfect game ever made."
Topher
Gold Member
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
Some hyped this up way too much though, so for them an 87 is a massive disappointment
It’s a good game for sure with a great score but it’s just another good game, not the be all end all many had proclaimed it to be
Im not even sure if it’s a system seller or on the level of Skyrim type appeal.
IGN Pros?
The pros who gave us
I've never seen you defend a game this much, aren't you the industry insider?
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Yeah, but they didn't clarify stuff like:
- Not being able to actually explore the planets freely (you can only explore a rather small box until you have to load into another such box)
- Not being able to fly in the atmosphere to go between different places on the planet
- Not being able to seamlessly take off and land
- Not being able to fly from planet to planet (or fly anywhere at all really)
- Pretty much everything being instanced and nothing being seamless
diffusionx
Gold Member
They’re already resorting to “they played the game wrong” cope lmao.
Look I am sure this is a great game and will absolutely click with some people, but it’s probably not what people hoped. All the 99s from Xbox sites seem a lot more suspicious than the 7-7.5 it got from other sites.
Last edited:
simpatico
Member
Tbh everything reads like what I expected. The 1000 fully explore-able planets was never possible. I had the idea that despite the marketing, in some ways this would be Bethesdas least ambitious game. (See my post above about the nature of open world space games being an impossible fool’s errand)
If anything it’s exceeding my expectations because of the lack of bugs and decent performance.
The most exciting thing about Starfield releasing hasn’t changed for me. It’s been the same for me since the first announcement since space isn’t really my jam. The best thing about Starfield releasing is that now we get hyped for TES VI !!!
If anything it’s exceeding my expectations because of the lack of bugs and decent performance.
The most exciting thing about Starfield releasing hasn’t changed for me. It’s been the same for me since the first announcement since space isn’t really my jam. The best thing about Starfield releasing is that now we get hyped for TES VI !!!
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Got any examples?
Negotiator101
Member
Does the US IGN hold more sway in the Metacritic rating? Some sites affect the score more than others right?
Draugoth
Gold Member
Bethesda, Microsoft, Todd and Phil overhyped this game. They had two entire showcases dedicated to it. They really wanted this to be the Resident Evil 4/The Last of Us/Final Fantasy VII of this generation.
Expectations for the game were just as high as Cyberpunk 2077. Sure it's considerably better game, but it did not deliver.
Salty Popsicle
Banned
Yes, except many of the people saying the review scores have dampened their excitement to the point they will no longer even play the game don't even own a platform that the game is available on. If you catch my drift.
Hugare
Member
My point is that an independent movie won't and shouldnt be judged with the same optics as Oppenheimer, for example
Its the same as going to your nephew's science fair and saying "I rate your rocket 1/10, looks like shit compared to SpaceX spaceships". No shit.
Not only that, but Outer Worlds goals were very different from Starfield's. So maybe the reviewer thought that OW succeeded in their goals more than Starfield with theirs.
Flutta
Banned
https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/starfield-review-to-infinity-but-not-beyond/1900-6418110/
Gamespot gave it a 7.0
Gamespot gave it a 7.0
Negotiator101
Member
You played it?
Stardust_Dragon
Banned
Immortals of Aveum got an 8 out of 10 from IGN, while Starfield only got a 7 out of 10 from IGN. Therefore, Immortals of Aveum is a better game than Starfield, who would have seen that coming at the beginning of the year?
Immortals of Aveum > Starfield
Ok, I know that's *probably* just a joke to compare the two like that.
Immortals of Aveum > Starfield
Ok, I know that's *probably* just a joke to compare the two like that.
Draugoth
Gold Member
I don't need to ( i will because i know i will like the game) but when there's too much discrepancy between reviews it's because the game will suck to half the audience and be loved by the other half.
I'm here hoping it's a New Vegas case.
Last edited:
