Starfield

A number gave more appropriate scores, but still that is quite crazy. So many perfect scores, or near perfect. Did they not ever play the older Fallout games? Or any other game?

but look at some of the names of those sites that gave out those high scores- Cinelinx, Evening Standard, Revolution Arena etc...not exactly well known review sites...not to mention they chose IGN Japan and IGN Espana versus the IGN US site which gave the game a 7/10
 
I don't know if there are any trustworthy review sites anymore. The last one I trusted was RPS but that was years ago and they're now no better than Kotaku, or any of those other sites. I usually see what the [H] community says, check the Steam Reviews, and a handful of Youtube reviewers; ACG, SkillUp, AngryJoe, TheLazyPeon, etc. I don't always agree with their opinions but I can at least somewhat trust that they're not totally getting paid off for a good review.
 
Screenshot_20241002-055357.png

Coming soon!! Bethesda Valari Pillows.
 
Last edited:
Metacritic has Starfield at 85%, which is too high IMO. And I plan to play both DLCs because I found the game enjoyable enough but it isn't an 8.
With all the shovelware being released even an average game can feel like an 8 initially, until realization hits that it is really not that good. But that took months for me with starfield.
 
Metacritic has Starfield at 85%, which is too high IMO. And I plan to play both DLCs because I found the game enjoyable enough but it isn't an 8.
Agreed.

Dated gameplay mechanics aside, I think its biggest problem is that its characters are ultimately bland and utterly forgettable. You could literally interchange any one character with any other and you wouldn't ever notice the difference. Each character has the same opinions about everything and judge the players actions the same way. They are all so homogeneous as to be completely interchangeable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Q-BZ
like this
With all the shovelware being released even an average game can feel like an 8 initially, until realization hits that it is really not that good. But that took months for me with starfield.

We're certainly entering an era of mediocrity, even if the graphics look good. I've been saying this for a while but almost everything that is AAA these days is an on foot hybrid RPG of some type. Which makes it even worse because I get deja vu when playing a lot of games these days.

Agreed.

Dated gameplay mechanics aside, I think its biggest problem is that its characters are ultimately bland and utterly forgettable. You could literally interchange any one character with any other and you wouldn't ever notice the difference. Each character has the same opinions about everything and judge the players actions the same way. They are all so homogeneous as to be completely interchangeable.

That is true and also common for most other games now. There are dozens upon dozens of characters, but few of them are memorable. I've played a number of recent games where I forgot who the NPC/character was, and have to try and remember why my character talks as if they know them. For Starfield this is an issue because it makes the factions and places feel just check marks/objective markers to cross off, much like most other games. You go there, listen to someone who doesn't really have an impact on anything, and then go about your task. Take Benjamin Bayu. I thought the story would build up in some way and this character would come into play somehow. You constantly hear about them throughout your visits in Neon. But when you do encounter them more or less nothing happens.
 
Starfield: Shattered Space Review

Yes, this is “more Starfield,” a game I liked, but I am very disappointed in the way it has barely evolved a year later, and the best thing about is Bethesda going back to a Bethesda-like zone structure. That’s good, but also feels very inauthentic to what the game was supposed to be. This is not going to convert anyone, nor may it satisfy many veterans. I did get some pretty screenshots, though.

Score: 6.5/10

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulta...shattered-space-review-one-tiny-step-for-man/
 
Starfield: Shattered Space Review

Starfield: Shattered Space is a big disappointment in almost every way. We loved the base game, for all its flaws, and we were willing this to be the big, exciting DLC drop that'd make us love it all over again. However, what we've got here is a very average narrative expansion that fails to add any big choices, upgrades, new enemies, biomes, loot or anything that could potentially excite or draw in new players. It's buggy, janky, badly acted in places, and there are a myriad of bugs and performance issues to be ironed out. What a missed opportunity

Score: 5/10

https://www.purexbox.com/reviews/xbox-series-x/starfield-shattered-space
 
Starfield: Shattered Space Review

Yes, this is “more Starfield,” a game I liked, but I am very disappointed in the way it has barely evolved a year later, and the best thing about is Bethesda going back to a Bethesda-like zone structure. That’s good, but also feels very inauthentic to what the game was supposed to be. This is not going to convert anyone, nor may it satisfy many veterans. I did get some pretty screenshots, though.

Score: 6.5/10

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulta...shattered-space-review-one-tiny-step-for-man/
That guy is the same nincompoop who gave the game like a 9 or 10/10 in his initial review and then felt compelled to publish a follow up questioning his initial score when he realized how much gamer backlash the game was getting, he probably wanted to align himself with whatever the prevailing opinion was. He lacks the integrity and or the critical thinking skills required to do his job well.

Prodessional game journalists are such conformists. Now that gamers have spent a year rightly trashing the game and Bethesda is more widely seen as a joke of a studio behind the times, these same journalists are more liable to pan Bethesda games, when they never would have done so before.
 
That guy is the same nincompoop who gave the game like a 9 or 10/10 in his initial review and then felt compelled to publish a follow up questioning his initial score when he realized how much gamer backlash the game was getting, he probably wanted to align himself with whatever the prevailing opinion was. He lacks the integrity and or the critical thinking skills required to do his job well.

Prodessional game journalists are such conformists. Now that gamers have spent a year rightly trashing the game and Bethesda is more widely seen as a joke of a studio behind the times, these same journalists are more liable to pan Bethesda games, when they never would have done so before.
I have to play devils advocate here. Isn't it better to change your position based on arguments provided, than doubling down on your initial opinion and resorting to gaslighting which most reviewers would do when confronted?
I'm definitely not defending Paul Tassi here, just the idea that changing your opinion is not necessarily bad.
 
I have to play devils advocate here. Isn't it better to change your position based on arguments provided, than doubling down on your initial opinion and resorting to gaslighting which most reviewers would do when confronted?
I'm definitely not defending Paul Tassi here, just the idea that changing your opinion is not necessarily bad.
Sure but his review was so ridiculously uncritical glossing over what the game community has vocally criticized, that I have to ask, why must gamers be the ones to do the job of the professional game critic? He and probably others like him so thoroughly failed to provide a critical assessment of the game as to be negligent in their job. In his case he obviously became aware of that once the game started getting panned by actual gamers that his retraction seems to me more an instance of him covering his ass/doing damage control to try to retain his journalistic integrity.
 
Last edited:
so to the people saying mainstream reviews don't give out lower scores to denote a bad or disappointing game (or scores lower than 7)...yes they do
Sure, but only after huge amounts of actual gamers do it first, for those studios with the influence to curry favor from journalists for 7/10 as the lowest score
 
so to the people saying mainstream reviews don't give out lower scores to denote a bad or disappointing game (or scores lower than 7)...yes they do
The marketing budget for the DLC isn't nearly as big as it was for the base game. For weeks before Starfield was released there were commercials everywhere; the only reason I even know the DLC is coming out is because of this forum. Bethesda knows that it's too late to dump money into marketing as it's not going to change anyone's mind, so the 'Professional Reviewers' are aligning with the internet's disappointment.
 
so to the people saying mainstream reviews don't give out lower scores to denote a bad or disappointing game (or scores lower than 7)...yes they do
I never said they didn't. They give out biased scores that are often weighted in a way that doesn't make sense. Concord and Dustborn getting a 7/10 for example. However, they do obviously give out lower scores. I would suggest this happens under two specific conditions:
  1. The game goes against whatever agenda these idiots champion. Black Myth Wukong's 6/10 from Screenrant for not having any diversity in it is a great example of this.
  2. It's popular to hate the game.
In the second condition, its often warranted and there is the security that they are insulated from any backlash by the publishers because everyone else is bagging on the game too. There is another factor at play here. Bethesda didn't provide any review codes for the expansion at all. These reviews were all done based on copies paid for by their respective outlets or the reviewers themselves. Thus, they didn't owe Bethesda jack shit. The second condition is also usually a case where the game is so bad that they have to give it a negative review or risk losing any and all credibility. Sometimes, something is just that bad.
 
so to the people saying mainstream reviews don't give out lower scores to denote a bad or disappointing game (or scores lower than 7)...yes they do
Every rule has exceptions, these include: When it is no longer tenable to hold the shill position they will often enact revisionism pretending they always were on board with the prevailing sentiment. Another exception is when a game ignores progressive sensibilities.

Their scoring is not informative, that is the point. I don't think anybody said they never give a lower score than 7, I said they only use the upper half of the scale 5-10, but you can probably find a few exceptions to that too, but that is not proof that their scoring is reliable or informative.
 
That's not good, I somehow expected more. I guess instead of trying to make up for the shortcomings they were going for MVP instead.
 
Bethesda usually makes a few smaller DLC's then caps the game off with a big one.
What are the odds everything after Shattered Space has been scrapped at this point?
 
It's really lame they didn't do more with this first DLC. I had really hoped this DLC would add a bunch of extra complexity into the game and sort of redeem it. But no. It's just a lame mission DLC, nothing more. At this point i'm going to say the game is largely unredeemable. I put some solid hours into it at initial launch, but I doubt i'll ever touch it again like I have with all prior Bethesda games.
 
Yoy people jeep buying their garbage. Only ones to blame is yourselves.
I bought it day one, the base game I still enjoyed. I got 100 hours out of it. However, I doubt I’ll preorder any of Todddddds games again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M76
like this
The problem is that Starfield was still the second best game of 2023.
Was it though? Maybe as I can't recall anything other than Phantom Liberty coming out last year off the top of my head.
 
Was it though? Maybe as I can't recall anything other than Phantom Liberty coming out last year off the top of my head.
I didn't count that since it is only a DLC, but still third if I include that.
  1. Phantom Liberty
  2. Jagged Alliance 3
  3. Starfield
 
I seriously doubt that, but opinions are subjective
I got much less mileage from Hogwart's Legacy, Armored Core 6 was a joke for a 2023 game as it played and felt like one from the early 90s. And I didn't buy BG3, because my spidey senses tell me I would not like it. I don't think there were any other big releases in 2023 that I'm missing.
 
It's really lame they didn't do more with this first DLC. I had really hoped this DLC would add a bunch of extra complexity into the game and sort of redeem it. But no. It's just a lame mission DLC, nothing more. At this point i'm going to say the game is largely unredeemable. I put some solid hours into it at initial launch, but I doubt i'll ever touch it again like I have with all prior Bethesda games.

It really didn't need to change much. Just make an interesting story with some interesting decisions to make. Though that is hard to do as an expansion if the main story/characters are not that interesting, so it will be hard if not impossible to improve in those areas.

I got much less mileage from Hogwart's Legacy, Armored Core 6 was a joke for a 2023 game as it played and felt like one from the early 90s. And I didn't buy BG3, because my spidey senses tell me I would not like it. I don't think there were any other big releases in 2023 that I'm missing.

I still liked Armored Core 6, and think it is probably one of the more fun games I played over the last few years. I like some of its "old" design like a proper mission based structure. But then other parts were just not up to par, like the odd map limit zones and whatnot. Disappointing because it could have been a good bit better. I really hope they make another sequel but put more effort into designing better maps, enemy types and whatnot instead of another Assassin's Witcher of Gods of War in Dark Fantasy game.
 
Bethesda needs to move most of their team over to Elder Scrolls VI instead of continuing to waste time with Starfield expansions
 
  • Like
Reactions: w35t
like this
Bethesda needs to move most of their team over to Elder Scrolls VI instead of continuing to waste time with Starfield expansions
The crazy thing is Shattered Space was announced before release.
FO4 had all of it's DLC released in less than 1 year. Skyrim was a little over 1 year.

Dunno what took them so long with this. But it doesn't seem like Bethesda had high hopes for Starfield DLC at the start.
 
Bethesda needs to move most of their team over to Elder Scrolls VI instead of continuing to waste time with Starfield expansions
They are going to mess that up just as badly as they've messed up Starfield. Bethesda is using the same tried and true formula they've used forever. Not only do they refuse to innovate or at least catch up to other studios, but now they are executing on that formula even worse than before. Starfield is in many ways a step backwards compared to their other games. This is the same company that thought Fallout 76 was a good idea. That game made the base Cyberpunk 2077 game look like Cyberpunk 2077 v2.0 / Phantom Liberty on launch day.

Bethesda does not learn. They are tone deaf when it comes to feedback. That is, they don't really seem to hear the most important complaints about their games and only listen to the weirdest things. At best they seem to only address the lowest hanging fruit. "You don't like running everywhere or using a jetpack like a pogo stick? I got you." They addressed this issue by creating a vehicle with worse physics than we had with the Mako in the original Mass Effect which was released in 2007. A vehicle so bad that you end up having to walk/run or bounce everywhere because its unusable on anything without gravity higher than Earths.
 
Back
Top