A disappointingly low-tech space exploration game that relies too much on the legacy of Skyrim and Fallout and lacks the innovation and imagination to do its concept justice.
@generic Unfortunately they couldn't exclude the two biggest outlets in IGN and Gamespot without making their little plan too obvious. Too bad it backfired on them since they are too big to care about hurting Microsoft's feelings and gave it an honest score.......just like all the reviews coming in are doing now.
MS didn't cherry pick shit, look at the OpenCritic it has over 133 reviews and it's still sitting at 87, where as BG3 only has 106 reviews so did they cherry pick
@Lightning77: That works the other way as well, then? People praising the game for the last year are suspect to give the game a good score just as much as Metro is of giving it a bad one, no? This is logical fallacy territory we're entering in here. We should look at the words presented and base them on their merit alone, not try and scapegoat some sort of reporting history, especially that about the parent company and not Starfield itself, as a means to discredit a review.
Having read this review, I'm not certain I agree with their resulting score, but I can't deny their opinion and objective points made seem on point as far as I can tell.
I find it's scores people disagree with; not so much worded opinion. I agree with much of the criticism of the more popular critical reviews - IGN, GameSpot, et al. I'm still having a great time with the game though.
People don't disagree with Dan Stapleton as much as they disagree with the number 7. It's all about Metacritic and fanboy flexing. Comparing Baldur's Gate to Starfield and Spider-Man to Starfield is ridiculous on every level, but they'll slap those numbers side by side as if it's meaningful.
Stapleton could've given the game an 8 with the exact same worded opinion and it wouldn't have made as much of a ruckus.
@Chris When you have publications like IGN who gave it a 7 despite all the hype for the past year from them as if they were gonna give it a 9 maybe even a 10 is telling. IGN did Hype campaigns and still gave it a 7. While Metro had smear campaign's and gave it a 6/10. I guess you can say that's "generous" the hate train they've been on but it still reflected the score nonetheless.
Regardless the general consensus is the game is very much liked and favored definitely not perfect even I have some serious gripes but the game generally is very much liked. Even breaking several milestones compared to their other Bethesda titles.
Seriously. Even most people playing it say they'll give it an 8 at the most. I've watched multiple streamers play this game, not one has praised it as a perfect game.
MS manipulated reviews clearly and got what they wanted. It may not matter now but it definitely matters to many later. You guys defending MS behavior is crazy
just look at how they figured out week 1 sales with GP? Let's use early access as a selling point!! People even paying extra for a game they don't technically own! Bloody brilliant...
TBH alot of Xbox fans who paid the 35$ for the EA with gamepass dont know they dont own the GAME u only own the dlc u bought if ur gamepass runs out u cant use it LOL There was a sub reddit on the xbox page about it LOL
They haven't said it's a commercial success yet. They've only said they got 6 million players. No sales data has been finalized or given here yet.
To give you some perspective. If you pretend that the 6 million are Gamepass subs then they've made absolutely 0 profit. Any subscriber that was already on Gamepass contributed 0 additional dollars...maybe 35 for early access.
If you were to assume all 6 million paid 35 for the game your at a little over 200 million in revenue.
Not sure that's a success for this studio..after taking into account costs
Yep and we also don't even know if the game contributed to a significant increase in gamepass subscribers either. We know sweet fuck all about what the FINANCIAL gains have been for this game and I doubt we ever will, since I predict it is going to be waaay under MS' expectations and needs.
We all know the game is going to be lauded a success publicly it's the behind doors conversations we don't know about that will determine its success seemingly they want the game to be drawing in subscriptions so they have a whole bunch of metrix to determine its success however did it make money back no don't think it ever will unless it goes multiplatform in a year or two ps5 and next gen switch as a launch game could possibly find success
its the #1 most sold game on Steam for 2 weeks in a row with a steam concurrent player peak of 330k players after full launch (all bought the game), with 234k concurrent players during early access (paid the $100 for early access). That's just Steam early access lol. It also topped the UK physical sales charts on Xbox. I think it will most definitely be considered a financial win.
Lol, you guys are hilarious. The obsession ppl have with this game is tickling on what planet does making 200 million considered a failure? Regardless of that it's breaking milestones for Bethesda and yall like holding out hope it isn't a success cause we don't know the hard numbers outside of steam, UK and it moving Xbox into a top seller on Amazon 😆
A game in development for 7yrs and only managing 6M sold is quite under performing. Can't even beat Elden Ring or Hogwarts.
Definitely a far way from being some massive runaway success like most people predicted. Right now it's just average numbers for any half decent AAA title.
Hogwarts sold 12M in it's first 2 weeks, no chance at all for Starfield to come even close to that. I thought Xbox was all about reaching more users? Also Hogwarts came out on only 1 more platform, it was on PS5, XBX, PC. Last gen versions didn't arrive until much much later.
It might not even match Baldur's Gate 3's sales. It sold 2.5 million on Steam in early access. I'm seeing some suggest it sold 5.2 million as of like 3 weeks ago, but that looks suspiciously like a flipped 2.5. Now add on whatever has sold on PS5.
6m sold isn't even accurate just 6m played and that could be a shared subs like primary on GP and 3 other accounts played it or similar on PC best estimates I've seen is 300k actual purchases based on steam data. That is likely under representing sakes so call it 500k.
Elden Ring and Hogwarts are on PS5 as well Starfield is not how do you expect it to sell as well when it's missing the largest console base and was either of those games on gamepass?
Creating impulse purchasing through sponsees reviews and creating a false demand through contracted sponsored content creators and streams backs up what you say… The “success” has already been bought way before the actual reality sets in.
“Do not sell what the people want, make the people buy what you are selling” Bill Gates
Disjointed is the biggest offender IMO. The mediocre space travel, the loading screens, etc really make it look and feel like a re-release of an old game.
@ravens52 I would probably give it a 7.5/10 maybe a 7.8. But a 7/10 is a solid good game in my scale none of this "8 or higher or it means its shit" nonsense.
"What complicates Starfield’s evaluation is its status as Microsoft’s most important first party release in a generation, with many Xbox and Bethesda fans having convinced themselves of its excellence long before they had a chance to play it for themselves."
I haven't played the game so I won't give my opinion yet, but people like Observer are exactly what this comment is talking about. He's already doing it with forza calling it the best and most advanced racing game this generation before he even gets a chance to play it.
Same person always talking about playstation games using outdated ps4 engines and outdated systems but completely ignores THIS games so called outdated engine and systems? Let's see if that idiot makes those same claims when spiderman 2 releases, probably will pretend he never typed that comment.
Maybe you should read more Starfield articles, there is one particular Sony fan boy who admits to never playing it but is in every article slagging it off. It works both ways.
"He's already doing it with forza calling it the best and most advanced racing game this generation before he even gets a chance to play it."
The question regarding Forza Motorsport turn out as the *best* racer of the generation, remains to be seen. But I have no doubt in my mind that we won´t have a most advanced and true current gen racing game to compare the current generation started.
It took 6 years to develop the upcoming Forza Motorsport for a reason. Here´s some information for you:
Feel free to question my opinion providing actual sources, facts and information instead of some fanboy nonsense.
"Same person always talking about playstation games using outdated ps4 engines and outdated systems but completely ignores THIS games so called outdated engine and systems?"
Digital Foundry said that Starfield is a huge leap over Fallout 4 due it´s new Creation 2 engine, that´s just another fact against your narrative. You didn´t play Starfield and based on your comments I´m assuming that you hadn´t played Fallout 4 either.
"Let's see if that idiot makes those same claims when spiderman 2 releases, probably will pretend he never typed that comment."
You are in for a shock. I´ll stick with my previous comments and opinions regarding old PS4/PS3 tech powering PS5 games.
The only known Sony first party studio working on improvements for it´s inhouse engine right now is Guerrilla with Decima under Michiel van der Leeuw´s leadership. I could bet that you don´t even know that.
Insomniac has been working overtime delivering game after game, so how the f%*# did you expect them to be working on a brand new engine?
It took Turn 10 nothing but 6 six year to develop a true next game in a new next gen engine, everything has to be reworked and remade from the scratch. The last Spider-Man game was released in 2020, so if you´re expecting Spider-Man 2 to deliver some huge next gen leap over Miles Morales, be prepared for major disappointment!
I agree. I mean I get it, Skyrim fans have been waiting a long time, a real long time. It takes a special amount of cope to deal with the fact they just reskinned a couple of games from the early 2000s and served it up after such a long wait.
Anast, at basicly every post about Starfield, you bitch about it, taking the low scores as truth while you haven’t even played one minute. Play the game, then and only then you can give a fair opinion about it. So did you play it?
"Even if it’s final score is 80, does that make it a bad game?"
A Metacritic score can't MAKE a game good or bad. A single, individual critic score is at best a reflection of how the game would be popularly received by the reviewer's target audience. A Metacritic score is determined using an inherently flawed process of curating outlets to include for reviews, assigning different weights based on the outlet doing the review, sometimes converting scores to fit their 10 point scale, and averaging the scores of the reviewing outlets, each of which is merely at best a reflection of how the game would be popularly received by the target audience for that outlet, to produce an average that is supposed to represent the overall reception for a game.
That's without getting into potential discrepancies between how Meta characterizes a Meta score versus how each of the reviewers contributing to the Meta score would characterize the same score under their review system. A 7/10 Meta score may not mean the same as a 7/10 from one of the reviews used to produce the Meta score.
If it keep getting those low or average scores it'll go down more. It went down a point after ign, it went down a point after this one. It seems it wont go up after other perfect score or high scores but it'll go down aftwr 1 or 2 average score
Why are we suddenly pretending that a score in the 80s is bad?
Other examples of 80's games:
Resident Evil Village FFXVI Horizon Zero Dawn Horizon Forbidden West HFW: Burning Shores Ghost of Tushima TLOU 2 TLOU Part 1 Gran Turismo 7 Spiderman Spiderman Miles Morales Diablo 4 Hogwarts Legacy
For a Todd Howard title, that score is underwhelming. If it wasn't a Todd Howard title, I would agree with you. Everyone hyped up this game, like if it was going to be a GOTY contender or win GOTY and on the same level of Elder Scrolls 🤔
I have to agree starfield is a good game but it's no materpiece which just proves how bare bones and how starved Xbox gamers have been imo. If this came out also on playstation, this game would be nothing more than a very good 3rd party game, it doesn't hit the heights of a AAA 1st party game imo.
The reviewer from the very start of the article lets you know that he was already in his feelings about not receiving a review copy. The review may be his true feelings but it’s hard to ignore that it could be biased/vindictive because of his opening statement.
That could also be said for the hand picked early reviews, take away the top scores from the earlies and take away the bottom scores from the late to the party reviews should give a better consensus
That's correct. Outdated Engine. Umambitious design; Copy and paste planet with Invisible walls. No vehicles explorations. Disjointed; Navigation through menu. No maps, and full of loading screens.
84 on metacritics and falling... As usual they launched the game and only provided the codes to Xbox outlets who inflated the scores and then gave it to a few big US outlets who shat on it (IGN, Gamespot etc.). Now that everyone is getting a chance to play it, you understand the game is an average RPG which has lost all the charm that Skyrim and the original Fallout had.
If it was running at 60 on SeriesX I could almost deal with the other baggage. Unfortunately after watching the amazing new mods video mixes I just can't ignore the laziness/poor workmanship of the actual developers of the base game. 24 hours for someone else to fix so many issues for them, that pathetic stat itself make this a game a 3.0 to me.
That's the correct score i would give it, i have about 8 hours in, and it has been a chore, the game is boring lifeless, Outdated Engine, 30 fps sludge. skyrim still is 100x better.
The experience is very disjointed. That's my main critique of the game. I love the quests and characters, and enjoy much of the skill system (except having to use a skill point to even use your boosters, and another skill point to get a stealth meter).
When a review starts with bitterness about a situation and already put some false claims you get this kind of review similar to Gamespot Harry Potter.
1) If MS wanted to manipulate Metacritic they would have selected some media and not ALL UK media.
2) A positive 80+ on Metacritic isn't a generally mixed reaction it's a generally positive reaction.
Also, the author brings in the introduction a great observation "with many Xbox and Bethesda fans having convinced themselves of its excellence long before they had a chance to play it for themselves."
But should also look into the mirror about reviewers and haters who had already a score in mind way before the game got released.
Now I won't judge the review or the game but will simply mention that this is the reason I don't care about reviews anymore simply because of the Pygmalion effect and how it always affects reviews of the game.
Already mentioned: 1) Authors claim: "Thanks to Bethesda’s refusal to send review copies to multiple UK websites, seemingly in an attempt to manipulate the Metacritic score prior to launch" As I said if it was about manipulating Metacritic MS would have targeted some specific media and not the majority of UK media and if the majority of UK media would have all said the game is a 6/10 versus the current consensual of the world that it's around 8.5 wouldn't it be UK medias trying to manipulate Metacritic?
2) Author claim: We have seen the general reaction, which is understandably mixed. Current Metacritic reviews score 84 to a definition of "Generally favorable" https://www.metacritic.com/...
So no MS didn't try to manipulate the score since it denied all UK reviews (unless all UK has the same score) and there's not a mixed reaction from reviewers as the game is generally well accepted according to Metacritic amongst reviewers.
And guess how? Did MS deny the Majority of UK media outlet review codes or just specific outlets? https://metro.co.uk/2023/08... Answer: All media that don't have an American branch So how could they manipulate the score if they prevent all UK media review codes?
2) Are you saying that a black-and-white statement explaining the value of a score on Metacritic is guessing?
Honestly, as one of those players even prior to release, I wouldn't brag so much, easy to shout from the hills when the game is basically given away on consoles.
Strong sales on steam I expect, but I look forward to seeing MS reveal copies sold, particularly on consoles and how much gamepass subscribers went up by, who knows what MS count as a 'player' these days.
Not bragging. Believe what you like fact of the matter what I posted is fact, But you on the other hand what ever bru of concoction you are taking believe the figures are all copies giving away.
I'm quite sure most XBS owners are playing Starfield through Gamepass. Saving themselves from paying $70 + tax. I'm playing Starfield through Gamepass as well.
@hoy where did I say every single one of those players was a gamepass give away? We'll never know because MS are all smoke and mirrors about that, but I can wager it's a fair chunk of them.
Yep game feels dated. How did Witcher 3 creat a huge seamless world with better graphics and even on last gen and starfield can’t even create a town without splitting it up into sections where u have to load for every building really wanted to like it but it sucks
I will still be banging the drum here that the Microsoft team should have done much better in managing this game. Coming out of the poor fiscal results for the last 5 years, the lack of killer exclusives, and...Redfall. The Xbox executive team seems like a boy's club and their producer team seems incompetent.
No surprise. Metro complained about not getting a review code and now they are handing out a shitty review in response. It’s all opinions, but in my opinion this is the game I have spent most time with this year. I don’t do that with 6/10 games
Oh dear I thought this shit was supposed to be the second coming of Christ. Obviously just shit lol. Oh well I will just have to wait for Spider man 2 & Mario Wonder, AAA stuff right there.
I have played Starfield for about 9 hrs doing side quests only & my experience so far has been interesting but not without some gripes. The resolution of Starfield running on the XBSX looks great, it's crisp & clear. My gripes are shooting feels awkward, running is lame because you run out of stamina, traveling to some planets can be confusing & awkward, when visiting planets their should be vehicles to travel to destinations including for exploration. I've experience audio glitches & some npcs with either their backs turned or disappearing when speaking. Otherwise my experience with Starfield has been an interesting one but so far nothing revolutionary or any WOW jaw dropping gameplay experiences. So far I give Starfield a decent 7.
Starfield Metacritic taking ANOTHER hit, dropping and dropping on XSX... 84 now and dropping... how low can it go? Let's limbo! For a game in dev for 7yrs that is devastating and vastly lower than expected.
I'm loving this game. Definitely one of the best ever. Huge win for Microsoft. Congrats to Phil for making this happen for xbox gamers. Game of the year for sure.
I read the review and saw no such admission. I did see where you may have misread what was written and confused accolades (such as "best exclusive on Xbox Series X") for the review score.
"The software situation on Xbox is considerably different than the Switch though and Hi-Fi Rush has not been ignored. Which is a good job because it’s the best exclusive on Xbox Series X.
"Admittedly, that’s not saying much, given this is also the first Xbox Series X exclusive to be published by Microsoft themselves. The wasteland that has been the Xbox release schedules for the last few years limits the accolades we can give the game but it’s a breath of fresh air for Xbox gamers, developer Tango Gameworks, and the rhythm action genre as a whole."
This site sometimes literally makes me laugh. People care more about bashing games than they do anything else. Older I get the more and more I realize how dumb reviews are unless it's a game like cyberpunk that was literally broken or no mans sky that was nothing like what was promised. If you like open world games with freedom to pretty much do what ya want and like just getting lost in a game you'll like it maybe even think it's a refreshing game to play (was for me). If you like purely sticking to a quest and focused on story telling and not much else then you'll probably think it's around this score.
Here we go again.
What did you expect after Metro wasn't given a review copy?
This type of review has 0 impact at this point so maybe it was good strategy to delay some review copies.
The game is a commercial success already
Disjointed is the biggest offender IMO. The mediocre space travel, the loading screens, etc really make it look and feel like a re-release of an old game.