Starfield

[mr_zen256]

No.

It was advertised as a sedan with all the features, when you got a Honda instead of a Bentley you decided the Honda is trash and a terrible car.

Still justifying the game being misrepresented I see. It's cool mate. You enjoy and promote a subpar game while other like minded people will convey our thoughts on how disappointing it actually is

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

I enjoyed the game but I still think the Direct showcase was very misleading. Parts of it may have been outright lying, I would need to rewatch it.

 

[mr_zen256]

I enjoyed the game but I still think the Direct showcase was very misleading. Parts of it may have been outright lying, I would need to rewatch it.

It was clever marketing. I wont dispute that. As soon as they mentioned procedural generation and thousands of planets, I knew it was going to be sparse in terms of content. How sparse and repetitive it actually is however, that is on Bethesda.

 

[FearTheCow]

Still justifying the game being misrepresented I see. It's cool mate. You enjoy and promote a subpar game while other like minded people will convey our thoughts on how disappointing it actually is

I mean the game is good enough it's living rent free in your head.

 

[NightReaver]

It's okay to like games that other people don't like, or even that a lot of people don't like. Doesn't mean that the criticisms are just "rent free" lol.

 

[Drexion]

Neon could’ve been a single area but no

Not on the Gamebryo Engine. It's a 30 year old engine and many of its bugs/glitches/restrictions still apply. It's one of the primary requests from Bethesda's fans, please switch to another engine. (Creation is just Gamebryo at its core)

the game was marketed and touted as a game with massive amounts of replayablilty and hundreds of hours of content where in truth, it becomes repetitive and shallow after 20 hours or so.

They would have been telling the truth if modders embraced the game like they did their previous titles. Unfortunately for Bethesda, modders are nowhere as interested in this title as their previous titles. The marketing was based off of what could-have-been with mods, for eg. Skyrim with some of its biggest mods would fulfill that advertisement.

 

[Dan_D]

No.

It was advertised as a sedan with all the features, when you got a Honda instead of a Bentley you decided the Honda is trash and a terrible car.

If you were told you were getting a Bentley and paid the agreed upon asking price for a Bentley, you have every right to be disappointed upon receiving a Honda Civic or Accord instead.

However, if we were to actually use a car analogy more accurately we'd have to change things up quite a bit. Starfield is the equivalent of paying for an expecting a brand new Camaro ZL1 and receiving a rusted out, barely running, beat up 1993 Camaro Z28 shitbox. The car was fun, good looking and super cool back in 1993. Unfortunately, times have changed. Styles are different now and what was acceptable for fuel economy, interior quality, safety and even performance is totally unacceptable in 2023. To add insult to injury, you overpaid for something that doesn't work properly and you cope by waiting on a friend who's a mechanic (modders) to restore your car in their spare time and dream of what could be rather than facing the situation for what it is.

 

[mr_zen256]

I mean the game is good enough it's living rent free in your head.

Absolute troll response. This simply compounds all of the points I have made previously and nullifies any of yours.

 

[FearTheCow]

It's okay to like games that other people don't like, or even that a lot of people don't like. Doesn't mean that the criticisms are just "rent free" lol.

It's their constant shitpost that comes down to "game is shit, people don't actually like it at all" that makes me say it's living in their head.

If you were told you were getting a Bentley and paid the agreed upon asking price for a Bentley, you have every right to be disappointed upon receiving a Honda Civic or Accord instead.

However, if we were to actually use a car analogy more accurately we'd have to change things up quite a bit. Starfield is the equivalent of paying for an expecting a brand new Camaro ZL1 and receiving a rusted out, barely running, beat up 1993 Camaro Z28 shitbox. The car was fun, good looking and super cool back in 1993. Unfortunately, times have changed. Styles are different now and what was acceptable for fuel economy, interior quality, safety and even performance is totally unacceptable in 2023. To add insult to injury, you overpaid for something that doesn't work properly and you cope by waiting on a friend who's a mechanic (modders) to restore your car in their spare time and dream of what could be rather than facing the situation for what it is.

I'd say more a brand new ZL1 then get delivered a base model v6. It's basically bug free and gets you to where you are going. Now it gets you there with a cheap interior, a mediocre stereo, boring engine/transmission, manual seats, etc...

in the end it could be a 20 year old shit box or it could have been a new hot rod, but it's neither.

Absolute troll response. This simply compounds all of the points I have made previously and nullifies any of yours.

You are mad a video game doesn't have everything you imagined in it and come in to just repeatedly call it a bad and shit game, and I'm the troll?

 

[Dan_D]

I'd say more a brand new ZL1 then get delivered a base model v6. It's basically bug free and gets you to where you are going.

Starfield is anything but bug free.

 

[Domingo]

Definitely not bug free, but I found Starfield to be the least buggy Bethesda game so far. Fallout 76 is probably #2, so I think it's something they're getting better at. Considering they've been making the same type of game for 30 years, that's probably to be expected. Most of the bugs I ran into with Starfield were really, really minor. Stuff like getting stuck after sitting in the pilot's seat or quest icons not showing up properly. Once I had everyone on my team turn on me like I'd shot down the entire UC fleet (I hadn't), but that's still small potatoes compared to my experiences with everything else going back to Daggerfall. For an open world RPG with lots going on, it's on par with most linear games.

 

[FearTheCow]

Starfield is anything but bug free.

Compared to my personal experience with previous Bethesda games it seems pretty bug free I should say.

 

[mr_zen256]

You are mad a video game doesn't have everything you imagined in it and come in to just repeatedly call it a bad and shit game, and I'm the troll?

Yes, yes you are. Not once did I call it a bad or shit game. I called it shallow, misrepresented, subpar, sparse, repetitive and hollow. But sure, make up any story you wish.

 

[FearTheCow]

Yes, yes you are. Not once did I call it a bad or shit game. I called it shallow, misrepresented, subpar, sparse, repetitive and hollow. But sure, make up any story you wish.

Do you really want to play semantics?

Let's make it easy, is the game bad (shit), ok (medicore), or good?

 

[mr_zen256]

Do you really want to play semantics?

Let's make it easy, is the game bad (shit), ok (medicore), or good?

Pretty sure I've made my thoughts pretty clear on the game in previous posts.

 

[FearTheCow]

Pretty sure I've made my thoughts pretty clear on the game in previous posts.

Yup, which is why it's pretty obvious you are calling it a bad (shit) game.

You decided the game is bad (shit) and can't seem to grasp that some of us think it's a decent game that can provide fun and entertainment with what it does have to offer.

 

[mr_zen256]

Yup, which is why it's pretty obvious you are calling it a bad (shit) game.

You decided the game is bad (shit) and can't seem to grasp that some of us think it's a decent game that can provide fun and entertainment with what it does have to offer.

Now you're simply making assumptions. Not once have I told someone they are wrong for liking the game. It's great that you enjoy the game and you're entitled to your positive opinion of the game just as I am entitled to my negative opinion of the game. It seems that you can't grasp that the game is disappointing for many.

 

[FearTheCow]

Now you're simply making assumptions. Not once have I told someone they are wrong for liking the game. It's great that you enjoy the game and you're entitled to your positive opinion of the game just as I am entitled to my negative opinion of the game. It seems that you can't grasp that the game is disappointing for many.

How many hours do you have in the game.

 

[mr_zen256]

How many hours do you have in the game.

Over 20 hours. Enough to get into NG+ and realise the quests and content simply aren't compelling enough to warrant another playthrough.

 

[KickAssCop]

Playing this game thrice? I would rather opt for lobotomy. Sorry Dan_D but buddy you got waaaaay too much time on your hands. lol.

 

[Armenius]

I can't take anyone seriously that puts over 100 hours into a game and gives it a 5/10.

Step out from your tiny box and look at the big picture. You just played a game over 100 hours. You chose to spend over 100 hours on that game instead of millions of other games and activities. Do the math on that. It's not a 5/10.

If you got bored with a game and now feel it isn't as fun as it used to be that's completely normal, but that isn't how you rate games. It's supposed to be based on your overall experience. You aren't supposed to continually update your rating based on how you feel in the exact moment. That's not useful to anyone but yourself.

I can't take anyone seriously who thinks putting over 100 hours into a game entitles that game to a score higher than 5/10.

Reviewers are often criticized for judging a game over being exposed to a small piece of it; that their opinion isn't valid because they have not experienced the full game. Now we're going to criticize somebody who has experienced the full game and gives it a mediocre review after giving it a fair shake? I've put around 150 hours into Fallout 4, gotten all the achievements, and completed every non-radiant quest it has to offer. That game is a 5/10 for me.

1. Why are you posting it on the fourm then?

2. You gave it a 6/10 and kept playing for 300 hours? 6/10 implies there are many, many better games. So you could have been having a much more enjoyable experience but chose to continue having a bad one. This is the reason I can't take your opinion seriously. You either don't want to have fun or you're lying about the 6/10.


There is a huge difference between an overall rating and a game being perfect. No game is perfect, and you can have plenty of fun with something that is far from perfect.

So in your opinion, what is the floor for the score somebody who has put 300 hours into a game should be allowed to rate a game? 7-8/10 just because of the time invested? That is absurd.

Not on the Gamebryo Engine. It's a 30 year old engine and many of its bugs/glitches/restrictions still apply. It's one of the primary requests from Bethesda's fans, please switch to another engine. (Creation is just Gamebryo at its core)

They would have been telling the truth if modders embraced the game like they did their previous titles. Unfortunately for Bethesda, modders are nowhere as interested in this title as their previous titles. The marketing was based off of what could-have-been with mods, for eg. Skyrim with some of its biggest mods would fulfill that advertisement.

It's not the lack of interest from the modding community. The modding tools for the game haven't even been released yet. Everything being done so far is very surface-level. Bethesda said they'll release the "creation kit" early next year. I'm sure there are many modders who are very interested in ripping this game open and seeing what they can do with it when that happens.

 

[sharknice]

I can't take anyone seriously who thinks putting over 100 hours into a game entitles that game to a score higher than 5/10.

Reviewers are often criticized for judging a game over being exposed to a small piece of it; that their opinion isn't valid because they have not experienced the full game. Now we're going to criticize somebody who has experienced the full game and gives it a mediocre review after giving it a fair shake? I've put around 150 hours into Fallout 4, gotten all the achievements, and completed every non-radiant quest it has to offer. That game is a 5/10 for me.

So in your opinion, what is the floor for the score somebody who has put 300 hours into a game should be allowed to rate a game? 7-8/10 just because of the time invested? That is absurd.

It's not the lack of interest from the modding community. The modding tools for the game haven't even been released yet. Everything being done so far is very surface-level. Bethesda said they'll release the "creation kit" early next year. I'm sure there are many modders who are very interested in ripping this game open and seeing what they can do with it when that happens.

You aren't a paid reviewer. You're a consumer playing a game. Reviewers play games for money. I play games for fun. Why do you?

I would never spend 300 hours playing a game I don't like. If you do that your values aren't compatible with mine, hence I will not take your rating on a game seriously.

 

[Ebernanut]

I find it funny how divisive this game is and the amount of rhetoric being used on both sides when the fans seem to agree that it's hardly the best game and the haters seem to agree that it's hardly the worst game.

I don't ever plan on playing a Bethesda game until it's been out for at least 6 months and the bulk of the bugs get patched so I haven't played it yet. However I've seen enough that I'm fairly sure that I'll have some fun with it but I'm also pretty sure that it won't be making my list of personal favorites which is about what I expect out of a Bethesda game these days. The real question for me is whether it will be good enough to warrant any replays.

 

[Domingo]

After spending 20 minutes in NG+ I've decided to move on and maybe revisit it once some additional content rolls out. It's just more of the same and it's not like my decisions really altered very much.

It's fun to mess around with decorating your outposts/apartments and ships and such, but there's not really a reason for it beyond goofing around. I spent a lot of time customizing every single one of my guns all the way to the max in my first pass...but there was never really a need for it. You can do fine with only one gun and it's not like the game is particularly challenging. There are some great components there, but they need purpose. If Bethesda really wants people to keep playing it, hopefully those things might be coming. They eventually got Fallout 76 in a pretty good place, so it's definitely possible.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

You aren't a paid reviewer. You're a consumer playing a game. Reviewers play games for money. I play games for fun. Why do you?

I would never spend 300 hours playing a game I don't like. If you do that your values aren't compatible with mine, hence I will not take your rating on a game seriously.

Your argument is self defeating. That means the only people you will listen to are people that agree with you. You're explicitly stating that those with differences of opinion (values) are to be ignored.

Going directly to your own statement, the values of a "paid reviewer" and the reasons they are playing the game are different from your motivations, so you would by your own admission ignore what they also are saying.

Just because people do things differently from you doesn't mean that their positions are invalid. It's generally even more beneficial to hear people out with differences in motivation from yourself. To deal with your statement directly, why is a "paid reviewers" 'opinion' more valuable than someone who is not? Especially considering that the reasons a paid reviewer is doing what they are doing is explicitly for money and not enjoyment?

 

[Domingo]

Maybe it's worth asking what 5/10 means to people? Do you see that as mediocre (half the games out there are better, half are worse) or do you see that as a school grade where it's a dismal failure? That might account for some discrepancy.

 

[sharknice]

Your argument is self defeating. That means the only people you will listen to are people that agree with you. You're explicitly stating that those with differences of opinion (values) are to be ignored.

Going directly to your own statement, the values of a "paid reviewer" and the reasons they are playing the game are different from your motivations, so you would by your own admission ignore what they also are saying.

Just because people do things differently from you doesn't mean that their positions are invalid. It's generally even more beneficial to hear people out with differences in motivation from yourself. To deal with your statement directly, why is a "paid reviewers" 'opinion' more valuable than someone who is not? Especially considering that the reasons a paid reviewer is doing what they are doing is explicitly for money and not enjoyment?

No it isn't. Plenty of people do things for fun that they think are fun. I can and often do value their opinions even if I don't agree with them.

Spending over 300 hours playing a game you don't enjoy is not normal. It's fundamentaly different than how I spend my leisure time. It sounds like mental illness to me.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

No it isn't. Plenty of people do things for fun that they think are fun. I can and often do value their opinions even if I don't agree with them.

You just hand waved an entire response. Just say instead: "I can be logically inconsistent and ignore anyone I disagree with for any arbitrary reason that I feel like." It'll be faster and more honest. Just don't expect that you can have any real discussions with anyone afterwards, because you certainly aren't interested in any.

Spending over 300 hours playing a game you don't enjoy is not normal.

You are the arbiter of all that is 'normal'.

It's fundamentaly different than how I spend my leisure time. It sounds like mental illness to me.

Cool. I assume you have a degree in psychology and have the capability to diagnose people you've never met? Even psychologists by nature of their profession would never do that. And this is ignoring that you're more or less using "mental illness" as a way to again, ignore people's opinions.

This is just an ad hominem attack with extra steps. Rather than discuss someone else's points on their merits: just attack their character, their values, and their mental status instead. Anything other than the actual content of the criticisms.

 

[Algrim]

No it isn't. Plenty of people do things for fun that they think are fun. I can and often do value their opinions even if I don't agree with them.

Spending over 300 hours playing a game you don't enjoy is not normal. It's fundamentaly different than how I spend my leisure time. It sounds like mental illness to me.

Since you want to make this personal: Fuck you.

 

[mr_zen256]

It's pretty interesting that there are a couple of individuals in this thread that seem to find it to be a personal affront to them if someone criticizes the game in any shape or form. It's almost as if they find it to be a personal attack if someone has a sliver of anything negative to say about the game.

Most of the people have candidly spoken about the reasons they have found the game disappointing after directly being asked by these individuals for said reasons. In a couple of distinct cases these individuals got defensive and retaliatory as if defending their own offspring. It's quite amusing to say the least.

 

[horrorshow]

It's quite amusing to say the least.

I find it pretty childish and, honestly just plain pathetic.

Lor' knows I wouldn't put that kind of effort into arguing/debating on the internet over a video game that both sides agree is mediocre at best.

 

[GoldenTiger]

Been on any gaming boards lately? All the cool kids talk about how much they hate Starfield. A lot.

Gaming boards such as? Just curious. I don't know of any good ones nowadays.

 

[sharknice]

Since you want to make this personal: Fuck you.

Sorry, I don't mean to offend you, but I think you have an addiction problem and would probably have more fun playing other games that you enjoy more. If you don't think so, that's fine, continue playing the games you want for however long you want.

As for people that think I'm defending Starfield. I'm not. I somewhat enjoyed it for a few hours, then there were a bunch of boring parts so I stopped playing and moved on to more enjoyable games. My total playtime is less than 15 hours. I would not recommend it. I'm glad I didn't buy the Constellation Edition.

 

[KickAssCop]

Still playing. Still sucks. But a better game than Alan Wake 2 so worth my time.

 

[Ebernanut]

It's pretty interesting that there are a couple of individuals in this thread that seem to find it to be a personal affront to them if someone criticizes the game in any shape or form. It's almost as if they find it to be a personal attack if someone has a sliver of anything negative to say about the game.

Most of the people have candidly spoken about the reasons they have found the game disappointing after directly being asked by these individuals for said reasons. In a couple of distinct cases these individuals got defensive and retaliatory as if defending their own offspring. It's quite amusing to say the least.

There also seem to be a few that consider it a personal affront if anyone says anything positive about the game. Both sides have become incredibly toxic in this thread.

 

[mr_zen256]

There also seem to be a few that consider it a personal affront if anyone says anything positive about the game. Both sides have become incredibly toxic in this thread.

Unfortunately confirmation bias is strong and some people are unable to handle opinions of differing nature. I have offered both positive and negative opinions on the game because I feel that it's important to give credit where credit is due, but also to call out any areas where I see a game is lacking. Just a shame that often people are blinded by their opinions as if they are fact.

 

[Ebernanut]

Unfortunately confirmation bias is strong and some people are unable to handle opinions of differing nature. I have offered both positive and negative opinions on the game because I feel that it's important to give credit where credit is due, but also to call out any areas where I see a game is lacking. Just a shame that often people are blinded by their opinions as if they are fact.

From my perspective your comments the last few pages has been overwhelmingly negative and refused to acknowledge that others might have different opinion that's legitimate.

 

[mr_zen256]

From my perspective your comments the last few pages has been overwhelmingly negative and refused to acknowledge that others might have different opinion that's legitimate.

No, I simply stated my case why I am disappointed with the game with valid reasons. I didn't say anyone's opinion was incorrect, I said it baffles me that peoples standards and expectations of a triple AAA game studio has fallen so low.

 

[Ebernanut]

No, I simply stated my case why I am disappointed with the game with valid reasons. I didn't say anyone's opinion was incorrect, I said it baffles me that peoples standards and expectations of a triple AAA game studio has fallen so low.

The most substantive criticism I've seen from you in recent pages is that they didn't live up to their hype without actually saying what it was that didn't live up to it.

As for the second part I'm not sure exactly how to read the following comments from you other than you don't believe the positive comments can be legit:

It's actually a little bit insane how people defend Starfield when it's obviously a sub par, mediocre game.

The only reasons I can imagine why is A) They are Todd Howard B) They simply have to like the game to justify their purchase.

How is this a surprise? If you buy a game that was hyped to the nth degree and turns out to be a hollow shit show... I'm sorry but the more hilarious factor is the fact some people are still defending it.

We have already posted MANY times about the reasons it's not a great game, yet still, people such as yourself still defend it. I'm not sure exactly if you're a troll, a Bethesda employee or truly do enjoy the game at this point.

 

[mr_zen256]

The most substantive criticism I've seen from you in recent pages is that they didn't live up to their hype without actually saying what it was that didn't live up to it.

As for the second part I'm not sure exactly how to read the following comments from you other than you don't believe the positive comments can be legit:

If you're going to select comments, it's only fair to dig a little deeper as to what has been said prior to recent comments. I went into great detail to explain my reasons with nary a reply from anyone explaining why they feel it is an enjoyable / good game.

Kinda surprised I need to explain myself here.

Look, I'll be the first to admit that Starfield is fairly fun for the first 20 hours or so until the cracks start showing.

First I'll get the good parts out of the way. The gunplay is solid and fun and the powers make for some great dynamic battles. The loot system is also very good and rewarding. It's simply not enough to carry the game though.

Now to explain what I mean about wide as the ocean, deep as a puddle.

1. It doesn't take long before the procedural content repeats... A lot. More so than even Skyrim I would say.
2. Albeit optional, TEDIOUS resource collection on vastly empty planets for essentially purposeless base building. It is literally, "build a base for sake of building a base"
3. Ship building is fun for a while coming up with some unique designs, but outside of that, there is literally zero reason to build a ship. Also, you essentially only need to upgrade your ship once for a bigger jump drive. Outside of that there is no real ship progression.
   Spoiler: Just Sayin'

   You practically get the "ultimate" ship at the end of your first run
4. Levelling and character progression: Its passable. It is by no means inspired or exciting in any way outside of probably getting the jet pack ability.
5. Replayability: They touted new game plus as being a huge feature with incentive to have multiple playthroughs. Umm, no. Once you've played the game once, maybe twice, you're essentially just repeating the same content over and over. And yes, the game does NOT have enough depth to sustain that.
6. Quest design: Fairly run-of-the-mill main and side content. Some of the quests are just downright tedious.
7. Did I mention incentive? Incentive, incentive, incentive.. There is literally no incentive to motivate you to do practically anything in the game. And at times it actually feels arduous.

Does the game have potential? Absolutely yes. Once the full modding tools are out, the game could become absolutely massive and have tons of depth. In it's current state? Wide as the ocean, deep as a puddle...

In the posts following this, the counter arguments have ranged from "It's your fault for expecting it to be a good game in the first place" to "Develop your own game then" to "Just because it lacks in almost every area the developers promised doesn't make it a bad game".

Interestingly in not one of those replies did the poster mention the games REDEEMING values, which I originally did. Instead they simply chose to focus on what I considered negative aspects of the game.

I'm sorry but when someone starts to lay personal blame for not enjoying the game instead of explaining the reasons why they find it to be an enjoyable, satisfying experience, their social credit and opinion becomes void to me.