I’ve been watching lots of gameplay footage and it’s literally a loading simulator. You fly to space “loading screen” you land on a planet “loading screen” you exit your ship “loading screen” you open a door “loading screen” It will honestly put you to sleep watching people streaming the game. And don’t get me started on the dead eyed NPCs that literally stare into your soul.
Yep, there's nothing seemless about it, I think a 4/10 is harsh, I finished the story the other day and I'd rate it a 6, maybe a 6.5, not a bad game per se, but very underwhelmed is how I'd describe it for me.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I just can't fathom the 9 and 10 scores, interested to see where it'll end up score wise on metacritic, as it's definitely skewed with the selective code distribution so far
The 9 out of 10 comes from Xbox players having a new game to play after a record horrible drought. If you drink only water for 3 years a new green tea will be the greatest drink ever. PS fans are sipping on different kind of Sodas so we looking at XBox fans like whatever.
yeah definitely not a 4/10.. I'm 6 hours in and I'd rate it 6-7/10. It truly gets boring fast, and I don't know why but there seems a bit too much loading screen between plays even though I always use fast travel in other games too, but they're never as annoying as the one here.
It's fallout 4 in space.. literally, there's nothing different to the gameplay from their previous games other than space dogfight.
Sounds like you rushed through the story so that explains why your score it so low and if you followed a decent critic score site like opencritic, you would see it has a lot more reviews with a higher score
I had an early copy and did not rush the story, I never rush games like this. I tried to enjoy the exploration but when it's mostly just procedurally generated barren wastelands with repetitive actvitis it got old for me fast.
I feel for many including myself that rate the game as a 9 or a 10 because of all the game elements combined make it that fun for us. Between designing our own ships, our own settlements, NG+ variants, exploration yes it exists even though many claim it doesn't, gunplay is good (much better than fallout 4). I love being able to store whatever I want on my ships, I love being able to take everything I can see mostly. If you only focus on the main story and that's it I could see people thinking it's a great game. I find it hard to believe anyone who enjoys alot of the different aspects of the game would be that low on it.
Hot take: TES and Fallout are also pretty mid as a whole. BGS just keep cranking out the same basic game and it’s always been quite shallow, certainly after Morrowind.
It’s not hot take. Fallout new Vegas was the best and it wasn’t even developed by Bethesda. If you look at it fallout 3 was their best work and since than they have been good not great
Fallout is TES with guns TES is fallout without guns Starfield is fallout in space
That's what's putting me off from playing. So many loading screens when I'm just getting handed fetch quests or go to that planet in another solar system and kill a leader but first I need to chart a path with means going to a bunch of other systems first which means even more loading screens and menus
You should try actually playing games before forming opinions by watching others play. I’ve been playing it for 5 days straight and having a lot of fun. Maybe it’s not for you but watching videos isn’t experiencing the game.
I agree starfield doesn't stream well with lots of loading screens and inventory management, must seem boring to watch, however other types of games do well and can still be experienced watching. I just don't think starfield is one of them watchable games with the points I mentioned above.
As Bethesda have demonstrated for decades, it is possible to have fun with their games despite all the issues present in them. They can't even properly procedurally generate interiors, I have already visited several duplicated abandoned robot research facilities. How hard could it have been to create some more variation?
There are load screens everywhere, how on earth can there be a load screen when walking into a shop? Bethesda have been making the same game for decades but every step forward, is another 2 steps back.
There are a heap of people that are watching hamfisted videos of other people trying to make the game look bad and forming their opinion from that. If you like Skyrim/fallout then you are very likely to enjoy this. I’m having a blast and the game gets better and better the longer you play
Honestly, there are a lot of loading screens (quick, but many) and menu navigation. That definitely detracts from the core gameplay, which is classic Bethesda RPG and still fun. I'm only a few hours in and will keep playing. Currently it's landing at about an 8 out of 10 for me, and this score is only because the missions have been a lot of fun. Navigating the map and space exploration is quite cumbersome and, frankly, boring. Other games have found a good balance with navigating planets, flying in and out of atmospheres, and generally have better exploration on planets*. It makes me realize Bethesda's engine doesn't match well with true open "worlds" gameplay.
* Elite Dangerous, Starlink, Outer Worlds, No Man's Sky
The later, negative reviews reminds of the recent articles involving Rotten Tomatoes. Studios would have early screenings for friendly critics, some of whom were paid by the studios’ PR teams, to pump up the early Tomatometer rating. Then when the larger audience of critics could see the movie, the score would drop. But the studios got their great Tomatometer rating for the first weekend. Anyway, don’t be surprised by the less than enthusiastic response from later reviews.
Maybe Jimbo needs to get a new hobby he clearly doesn't like gaming and doesn't play to have fun it seems. She also has countless hate vids on how bad AAA gaming is. There's definitely truth to some of the stuff that she says however her hate with AAA gaming often reflects her scores across most AAA games now no matter how good said AAA game is she always find something wrong with it. A very extreme pessimist in the gaming space.
That is a surprising drop. last time I checked it was 88 with 50 reviews. It further went down to 85 when 11 new reviews came in. I can only imagine if this had 110+ review.
Sure...its gotta be that and not the game isn't game that good. When I watched my boy play starfield via discord on gamepass and when he took his weapon and started shooting around people as they just didn't react unless a bullet hit them. yeeeeeah, Cyberpunk looked better than this game ..within 20 seconds at a city, I'm sitting there looking at everyone either standing or walking...thats it though...so unrealistic and uncanny as the game facial animations. You guys enjoy your subpar space RPG. Looks like Baldurs Gate and LoZ are the only real contenders for GOTY so far.
@vengeance1138 if werent for xboxaddict, generacion xbox, somosxbox, mondxbox and other xboxes reviewer this game doesnt review high though. Its a good game compare to other released by xbox and im happy for them.
It's all to hype their games, The whole thing about Halo half a billion$ to make was just bs and the same goes for Sf, 25 yrs planning/ making...Bunch of lies from them.
85 out of 100 means a game isn't good now? Seriously, some of the takes on here are ridiculous. And if you take user scores on Metacritic seriously...maybe stop commenting on public forums.
Nobody is saying it isn't good, just not a 9 or 10 game. It's a solid 8 for me with some improvements needed to the enemy AI and map over haul via an update would bump it up to a 9. Reviewers are on crack for 10s.
Heavy rain, la noire and other titles have better facial animations and detail and that's 2 gens ago. The copy and paste trees also look shite. Enjoyed the story and writing though but I don't think it's a stunning looking game overall, it's kinda all over the place gfx wise, some parts look great then other area poor looking.
Average user score of Series X version on metacritic right now are at 6.1 I guess we're playing a different game than all the critics and gaming sites as they clearly played one early with "Benefits"
It would probably be lower if there was more reviews. 61 so far and at 85. If it had the same amount of reviews as say Spiderman or god of war they both have over 100 reviews. If starfield had over 100 reviews it could be lower than 85 or even be higher than 85.
Yes, because you can really trust aggregate scores that are open to the public and literally anyone can come along and give it a zero and a sterling review, like this one for example:
"This is another "game pass"quality game. I realy want it to shine,but STAREFILD is not a good game at all. Simple is that!"
Starfield is the 12th best game on Xbox Series for the year so far but the 1st most hyped. I predicted a low 80s high 70 when all the reviews come in. I didn't say much about the game because it always looked mediocre and I think an 80 should be considered an unmitigated success for something so poor looking.
85 on metacritics and going down. Now you see why they didn't send review codes out to a lot of outlets including many in Europe. Most of the XSX reviews have Xbox sites inflating the scores as usual.
Going down because of fraudulent reviews from some sites. But it still doesn't matter because the game is already a success and still getting good scores and a sure GOTY contender.
One thing I'm kinda disappointed in is the lack of things to read. I loved going around in fallout and reading notes and computers. Not so much in this. So far most computers aren't accessible and the books are repetitive as can be. That's part of the reason I think even with the delay I still think it wasn't 100 percent complete. I still really enjoy it
I would like to know the Answer to this question. Why did you buy or stay with xbox and not Sony this gen.
A) You've Always been with xbox, so just stayed with same company. B) Your friends bought xbox, so you did as well. C) You don't like Sony because it's a Japanese company and MS is American D) Your GF ordered you to buy and xbox. E) You forget why you went in and bought the first thing on sale. F) ALL PS5's were Sold out, so it was your only choice. G) You thought of buying a Switch, but realized it was in fact a potato. H) You were struck by lightning on your way into the store and as you fell, You grabbed an xbox and the guy assumed you wanted it.
''It’s the sheer lack of imagination that truly makes Starfield so sad to play'' ''you can’t land on a planet without a menu and loading screens'' ''identical buildings / identical encounters / identical caves . there’s one cave that's been recycled hundreds of times'' ''I found an incendiary shotgun within the first few hours that was so laughably strong I could take down level 80 aliens while being at level 20'' ''enemies mostly just stand and accept a pummeling'' ''there’s no real local maps, you’ll forever be trying to remember where all the shops are'' ''the controls for building stuff is awkward as all hell'' ''NPCs bumble around with little more than a handful of catchphrases to offer'' ''missions devolve into tiresome fetch quests''
His conclusion is correct... "If you believe Bethesda doesn’t need to exhibit growth as an artistic outlet and hasn’t had to change a thing about the way it’s made games since 2008, I can safely say you’ll adore Starfield because it’s all that a Bethesda game has always been... and literally nothing more. Starfield is a shallow ocean, hiding its lack of creative ambition behind the physical size of a universe that’s minuscule where it counts."
"To call Starfield the least broken Bethesda game is akin to calling any single TERF the least embarrassing fascist. Then again, given how Zenimax and Bethesda seem to treat trans employees, that comparison may hit too close to home. "
The word I have to describe what I feel about the StarField experience so far is “sterile”. It’s a good game but it does feel more empty than a fictional experience should IMO. I hoped they would stop pretending this is a space simulation and make it a Bethesda game with grit, charm and that silly Bethesda flair that made last games really fun to goof off in. As it stands it has the flaws of No Man’s Sky feeling devoid of character due to being too big, without the density of a plot experience that Skyrim had, and lacks the intuitive and much better conceived planet to space travel experience of No Mans Sky.
It would be fascinating to see an alternate reality where Starfield was never made Xbox exclusive to see what the absolute surrounding it would be like. I bet there would be little to none.
If this was multiplatform it would have gotten worse scores and Bethesda’s worst game after Fallout 76 (which it is). Xbox fan sites are pumping it up.
The engine should have been replaced or rebuilt from scratch. There are too many fade to blacks for the game this wants to be. The nvme should have been used better.
Thankfully ive found my stride playing it, mostly for the gravity physics...watching dead enemies fall slowly or spin in the air has a certain catharsis to it. If only they would have found ways to trick you into thinking you were not loading this could have been much greater. At the very least they should have made the solar systems completely navigable if you wished...all it would have required is their starships to move fast between planets like eve or rebel galaxy...they could have picked the speed so it wasnt boring.
If you want a reflection of the wide range of scores...drop the top and bottom 10% of scores.
Cope harder! Talking about a loading screen simulator when y’all were playing a walking simulator like it was the best game ever. We still gonna play the hell out of this game while y’all sit online being salty.
Great review. Still i think he was to generous with the score. The game is a solid 2 out of 10, an abysmall regurgitating of the same old stuff and nothing more. It's tragic that the masses love this stuff. It's because of them there are so few good games, damn them to hell.
All, is Starfield similar to Cyberpunk 2077? That game required months to get great. Granted, Starfield is much more ambitious, but I think this game will be magic in 2-3 months after several patches and mod support. Frankly, Skyrim only became awesome to me thanks to the great mods on offer.
2-3 months? Highly doubtful as cyberpunk was simply incomplete and riddled with bugs. Starfield is not riddled with game breaking bugs and devs are backing their stance on design decisions publicly. This game will only change dramatically on the PC with the mod community.
He gave it 4, for me is a 2/10, because its not only the loading screens but the optimization doesn't exist, you literally try to get the game.running better fiddling with graphics settings and it doesn't do nothing, it improves 1 or 2 fps at most.
Starfield low settings is above ultra of other games. It looks stunning what are you talking about. Theres not many graphic settings either. No texture settings for an example. They always look very high resolution and textured.
Just started this morning 2h in it's. It bad but it's too fiddldy as your all the time hitting star to jump to different areas and load load load it's non stop
I give it 95/100 if people actually had attention spans today not everything would seem booring without flashing lights and shit going on all the time with instructions on screen and "meta" guides online for how to play your game step by step becouse you are too simple to play a videogame without "c0ckmOngre4l669" from reddit telling you how to do so. Im ashamed of playstation community(n4g etc) toxity againts games they cant play and pure pettyness. We get an epic singleplayer game with Alot to do and is polished to the bone all around without mtx which have tons of content triple a quality all around. Starfield greatness is up there with Elden Ring and God of War and it have more flesh than those games combined, given specially Elden Ring is goty masterpiece with tons of replay value. Gow not so much, its excellent game for the 30hour run, but thats it. 30 hours in starfield is mere the begining. Its like playing a movie. It have the best recipe. Rpg with better roleplay and dialogue than best fallout games. Epic lootershooter with tons of content. Spacetravel, spacecombat. So much to explore. There are so much ground to cover and places to find on planets. Theres content all over you never come across on your first playthroughs.
Clickbaits and this level of toxity only proof how starfield hit the nerve of those people who cant play it.
Like being said as a gamer you own it to yourself to play this game, even if its just from cloud streaming. If it was from sony to playstation this would been the game of the decade. And i own series x, PS5 and PC so my opinion is not 1 sided. Im mad becouse when we the gamers get something nice pettyness shit on it becouse people defend their console companys like its life on the line.
You cant deny Bethesda greatness. Ghostwire Tokyo and Starfield withing less than 2 years apart. One failure called redfall on the middle. Bethesda proved to be up there with the best.
There is a reason Bethesda only sent review copies to select media outlets before the launch. They knew the game will get panned by a fair few unbiased reviewers so only chose those who favour their games or Xbox consoles.
4/10 is hard..6 is legit....more of the same whitout the same...let alone the optimisation....30 fps on serie X....missing lot a feature on pc...and the game dont look great....
I’ve been watching lots of gameplay footage and it’s literally a loading simulator. You fly to space “loading screen” you land on a planet “loading screen” you exit your ship “loading screen” you open a door “loading screen” It will honestly put you to sleep watching people streaming the game. And don’t get me started on the dead eyed NPCs that literally stare into your soul.
The later, negative reviews reminds of the recent articles involving Rotten Tomatoes. Studios would have early screenings for friendly critics, some of whom were paid by the studios’ PR teams, to pump up the early Tomatometer rating. Then when the larger audience of critics could see the movie, the score would drop. But the studios got their great Tomatometer rating for the first weekend. Anyway, don’t be surprised by the less than enthusiastic response from later reviews.
Jin must have wrote this lol….crazy review
Luckily there is now a PC mod that lets you put in a PlayStation boot sequence in the game.
Oh wow! This review just made the XSX version Metascore take a dive! Down to 85 now.
The meta dropped to 85 for critics and is a stable 6.1 for users. The game isn't good. To think Todd has been planning this game for 25 years...