STARFIELD discussion

method115 said:
BG3 came out of nowhere though and IMO it should win it this year.



IMO the Skepticism was overblown. 76 is the only bad game they've had. ESO had a rocky start and now it's very good and has some of the best PVP in an MMO if not the best.
Click to expand...
I think the skepticism was somewhat justified in that there was the excuse made that the main Bethesda studio wasn't involved in Fallout 76, which was a outright lie..

Starfield basically had a skeleton team at that point and most of two studios (Maryland and Austin) had been working on 76.. which obviously released as a complete mess.
 
Zazen said:
With over 100 reviews and sequels are usually better
Click to expand...

Sure, sometimes. Sometimes theyre worse and sometimes theyre pretty much on par.

Also, this isnt a sequel. If people want to crticise a game for averaging 87, when most of the scores are in the 9-10 range, I have no idea what to say. Some awesome games that are near universally loved have scores around that or even lower. This is the same thing as every other Bethesda release. A great game that a minority of people want to sum up only as its flaws.
 
Deadwing88 said:
I think the skepticism was somewhat justified in that there was the excuse made that the main Bethesda studio wasn't involved in Fallout 76, which was a outright lie..

Starfield basically had a skeleton team at that point and most of two studios (Maryland and Austin) had been working on 76.. which obviously released as a complete mess.
Click to expand...

I just don't think one bad game is enough to look at a studio who's done so many great things with skepticism. Now if you want to hold off cause you think it will be riddled with bugs, well fair enough they earned that.
 
Zazen said:
People were calling this game of the generation. A game 10 years in the making. This is definitely a disappointment. It won’t even be in the top 10 by the end of the year. How’s that not a failure?
Click to expand...
I find it difficult to view high 80s as a disappointment.

A new IP by Bethesda was always going to be hyped up ad infinitum but there's always going to be issues with how janky their games are.. which critics find more difficult to ignore in 2023 compared to the heyday of oblivion, Fallout and Skyrim.
 
method115 said:
I would be careful with the review score. MS was careful who they handed it out to. For instance Eurogamer didn't get a review score. Digital Foundry did and was explicitly told not to give it to anyone else in the company (they are own by Eurogamer).
Click to expand...
Looks like they shorted Europe...probably because the UK is being moronic about the merger. @Zazen is clearly a disgruntled PS fanboi. 86 is a failure.

quantum-leap.gif


However, if I play it and it sucks. I'll agree with him :)
 
Deadwing88 said:
I find it difficult to view high 80s as a disappointment.

A new IP by Bethesda was always going to be hyped up ad infinitum but there's always going to be issues with how janky their games are.. which critics find more difficult to ignore in 2023 compared to the heyday of oblivion, Fallout and Skyrim.
Click to expand...
I guess I felt this was supposed to be their Zelda or god of war moment where a game easily breaks the 90 threshold instead it just seems to be a pretty good game
 
The ign scores are all over the going from region to region.


 
Surprised Gamespot and IGN scores are in the 7. IGN said it took nearly a dozen hours for the game to get fun. One thing is the gunplay seems to be fun which was another worry of mine.

Also 2080ti is landing in 45-50 FPS range so seems PC performance is good. I have a 3080 so I'll be getting 60 for sure.
 
method115 said:
My exact same feelings about the game. Most disappointing thing I've heard so far is a Portuguese review saying that there is to many loading screens which I do hate in games. Apparently the guy would rather fast travel then get onto his ship because you can skip two extra loading screens that way.
Click to expand...

Yeah one of the main criticisms I saw was also that it doesn't feel seamless. Lot's of single parts that don't really fit together that well.

Sounds like it might be an issue of having these huge developer teams and plenty of outsourcing.
 
So far the concern is the sheer amount of loading screens you experience throughout the game from what I've seen so far. Oliver Mackenzie from DF also noted that maybe a smaller scope in scale of the game would have provided a more "carefully curated experience" but he didn't have much else to complain about. Some minor stuttering (and one instance of an actual 1 sec freeze frame) should be cleaned up in future patches.

Personally i prefer games that have very little or short loading screens that are hidden really well so this is going to bug me a bit. It seems decently long on console (seen a GRAV jump that was +7 seconds). Hopefully it'll be shorter on PC. The less loading screens you see the more immersive the game is IMO.
 
It could have went a lot worse.. trying to bolt on space flight, 1000 planets, all this shit in a engine not exactly known for its flexibility sounds like a technical recipe for something akin to a Cyberpunk 2.0 disaster.
 
Deadwing88 said:
I find it difficult to view high 80s as a disappointment.

A new IP by Bethesda was always going to be hyped up ad infinitum but there's always going to be issues with how janky their games are.. which critics find more difficult to ignore in 2023 compared to the heyday of oblivion, Fallout and Skyrim.
Click to expand...

I think his point is Starfield was/is expected to be the new flagbearer for MS. Like the very tippy top tier of exclusives for Sony/Nintendo such as God of War, Uncharted or Zelda he is surprised it's not at least 90 or above. Expectations were extremely high for this game. And from what i hear there were critics there were not given a copy of this game for early review so the score might actually drop a bit more once those people review it. Will they be unbiased? At the very least they didn't score any brownie pts by withholding a review copy from these people...

Meh... 80's will please the majority of gamers anyway. Give me 40-50+ hours of enjoyment and the game is good IMO.
 
Deadwing88 said:
It could have went a lot worse.. trying to bolt on space flight, 1000 planets, all this shit in a engine not exactly known for its flexibility sounds like a technical recipe for something akin to a Cyberpunk 2.0 disaster.
Click to expand...

Hey I am all for reaching for the stars (literally). Just wondering if the endless number of loading screens will make me abort the voyage early or not...

poetic heh? :)
 
Zazen said:
People were calling this game of the generation. A game 10 years in the making. This is definitely a disappointment. It won’t even be in the top 10 by the end of the year. How’s that not a failure?
Click to expand...

Top ten what? It hasn't even come out yet and we haven't even played it, yet it's a disappointment?

I recall getting CP2077 thinking it would be amazing considering how much I loved W3. It was a mess and I put it down after about 20 hours for a year, went back to it and it's a solid 8/10, which I enjoyed immensely. I'm pretty sure Starfield will have it's issues, but I highly doubt it's anything like that. The small issues it may have will more than likely get patched over time.

At the end of the day, it's a Bethesda's Fallout/Skyrim in space. Everyone knows what they're getting to a certain extent.
 
SaiWa said:
I think his point is Starfield was/is expected to be the new flagbearer for MS. Like the very tippy top tier of exclusives for Sony/Nintendo such as God of War, Uncharted or Zelda he is surprised it's not at least 90 or above. Expectations were extremely high for this game. And from what i hear there were critics there were not given a copy of this game for early review so the score might actually drop a bit more once those people review it. Will they be unbiased? At the very least they didn't score any brownie pts by withholding a review copy for these people...

Meh... 80's will please the majority of gamers anyway. Give me 40-50+ hours of enjoyment and the game is good IMO.
Click to expand...
Every Bethesda game has immense financial legs and mainstream appeal so I wouldn't discount it being a flag bearer for Microsoft despite it not reaching 90.

Fallout 4 got 88% and has sold 20+ million copies.

Funnily enough xbox's highest rated first party game this year remains HiFi Rush (89% on opencritic, which got shadowdropped lol).
 
Fextralife gives it a 9.4 and he is one of my preferred reviewers because of the quality of games the channel focuses on. Guess I’m gonna go ahead and pre-install it. I’m thinking that I’m gonna go the hardass space cowboy route haha.
 
Deadwing88 said:
Every Bethesda game has immense financial legs and mainstream appeal so I wouldn't discount it being a flag bearer for Microsoft despite it not reaching 90.

Fallout 4 got 88% and has sold 20+ million copies.

Funnily enough xbox's highest rated first party game this year remains HiFi Rush (89% on opencritic, which got shadowdropped lol).
Click to expand...

I have no doubt many will play this game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,793
Messages
58,318,229
Members
175,998
Latest member
Rosabelot

Share this page

Back
Top