• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Starfield | Review Thread

What scores do you think StarfieId will get?

  • 40-45%

    Votes: 3 0.5%
  • 45-50%

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 50-55%

    Votes: 1 0.2%
  • 55-60%

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 60-65%

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 65-70%

    Votes: 2 0.3%
  • 70-75%

    Votes: 5 0.8%
  • 75-80%

    Votes: 15 2.3%
  • 80-85%

    Votes: 81 12.5%
  • 85-90%

    Votes: 241 37.3%
  • 90-95%

    Votes: 243 37.6%
  • 95-100%

    Votes: 55 8.5%

  • Total voters
    646
  • Poll closed .

Banjo64

cumsessed
Do you guys REALLY think that will be a 90+ metacritic game? Guys, Fallout 4 score at 84. I'll be really surprised if Starfield surpass the 87.
But 87 and 88 on PlayStation and Xbox so I’d be inclined to say 84 was not the overall consensus.
 
What is even crazier is most people on this forum despise games journalists. We may have a couple that we like but the overall feeling is they are a bunch of clowns. That all goes away at a major come release when we all live or die by the numbers from the very clowns we claim to dislike. It truly is madness.

I despise some of them, their in your face lack of integrity with a immature defiance . They are not journalists.
 

Montauk

Member
What is even crazier is most people on this forum despise games journalists. We may have a couple that we like but the overall feeling is they are a bunch of clowns. That all goes away at a major come release when we all live or die by the numbers from the very clowns we claim to dislike. It truly is madness.

It blows me away man.

They’re not even talking about particular reviewers or outlets, it’s just aggregate scores (which is flawed process) from one site.

How do these people even talk about games?

“So what did you think?”

“7/10”

“But what’s the gameplay like? Does it have depth or is it superficial”

“75 Metacritic”

“Er….is it just clicking buttons like too many games or did you feel the ‘teeth’ of the mechanics? Is there a bit of dance of decisions or you are just watching cutscenes”

“Metacritic 75 to Metacritic 82 for different parts”

“I’m asking how it really plays, is it hard? Superficially hard or really challenging?”

“7.5/10 for difficulty”

“What the fuck is wrong with you?”

“metacritic aggregate score”

“Bye”
 

Pagusas

Elden Member
Meh if ai is so bad game is not challening at all...
It's space and earth sim then :/
Yeah the AI is very basic from what I've seen in the 50 minute review. He did say that overall the combat was fun.
The good news about that is mods can and have fixed these issues in other Bethesda games, so I'm not too worried on that front.
 

Gudji

Member
There's no way this is correct.
He said he talked to other reviewers and they complained about the same. I doubt he's wrong.

He even said the compass that they used to have in skyrim and FO4 is now different and confusing.
 
Last edited:

Montauk

Member
These are review scores we're talking about from "professional" critics. They mean nothing to me and are just a proxy for console wars. I couldn't care less what critics have to say 99% of the time. I'm simply talking about the reality of the situation and the fact that often dev bonuses are tied to MC scroes... so they are definitely seriously relevant for many. For me, it's just a fun aside, and it seems to be you who is taking them all too seriously. I do however respect aggregate user scores, but those lately have been trash too with review-bombing becoming a regular occurence.

Aggregate user scores? Are you kidding me? The only people who bother to post them are insane fanboys. So every user score is laughable.

If I see low critic reviews and high user reviews that’s a flashing red light to me. I don’t care what over-invested randos think.
 
Last edited:

Hugare

Member
There's no way this is correct.
He is known as being a bad player, but its probably true.

It makes sense due to the procedural generated planets, but those who have cities (Neon and etc.) should have had a map

Huge oversight

Will post it again since I posted it at the end of the page
--------------------------

A brazilian reviewer (really bad one imo, but popular in Brazil) leaked his review

Scored it 8.5

Some points:

+ Said good things about the graphics. Looks really, really good in general ("lighting is brilliant")
+ Performance is pretty great, 30 with some rare dips. Complained about it lacking 60 FPS mode, but it was a very pleasent 30.
+ Soundtrack is "epic" and sound design is really good and satisfying. Dub is okay.
+ Most polished Bethesda game ever. No crashes at all and few bugs, but nothing major. Talked to other reviewers, no one experienced some serious bugs.
+ Spaceships look awesome (but combat is bad)
+ Main missions and sidequests are really good. They are simple in design, but they are well written and engaging. Best part of the game.

- Loading galore. Lots, lots of loading screens (shows 22 seconds long loading to enter one planet)
- There's no map. You have a galaxy map, but you dont have a planet map. So exploring cities, finding vendors and etc. is really hard. You have to memorize where they are.
- AI is really simple. No challenge during combat (companion AI is also pretty bad)
- Facial expressions are really bad. Nothing that would make you drop the game, but it sticks out.
- Exploration mechanics are underutilized. He never needed to prepare to explore an specific planet due to its toxic nature and etc., they all played the same
- No vehicles, so you have limited options for traversal

Overall: Great game.
 
Last edited:

Represent.

Represent(ative) of bad opinions
It gives as a good unrestanding on how people are feeling about the game prior to release. Which is the one and only purpose of such poll.

Why do you need information about each individual user's vote? What the hell?
Because its more fun. Its a video game forum not an election. Why are you so set on privacy lmao

I wanna see who voted 40%
 

Interfectum

Member
Aggregate user scores? Are you kidding me? The only people who bother to post them are insane fanboys. So every user score is laughable.

If I see low user critic reviews and high user reviews that’s a flashing red flag.
I go by aggregate user score on Steam. Each user has a timestamp of how long they played the game, if they refunded it, they have to own it and you can see their profile for more information. Steam reviews have very rarely led me astray. MC user reviews are worthless because there is no verification if they even own the game.
 

DonkeyPunchJr

World’s Biggest Weeb
This is the modern insanity of score inflation at work.

Now 8/10 - 8 out of 10! - is a bad score lol. Literally 2 points off a genre-defining masterpiece.

This is so common though, people don’t blink at it anymore. The scale runs 0-10 but nobody wants to score under 7 and 7 is treated as basically 0 by way too many gamers.

Madness. This obsession with numbers.
Modern? This has been the case for at least 20 years. If anything it’s not as bad as it used to be. No matter how badly you wish 5/10 = average, that’s not how it is and everybody knows it.

Bottom line:
A = 90+
B= 80-89
C= 70-79 and so on.

I don’t want to have open-heart surgery done by a C surgeon, I don’t want to hire a C employee, and I probably don’t want to spend much time playing a C game.

That said, I’m not stupid. I can read a variety of reviews and judge if their various pros/cons line up with my own tastes. But if there’s a big, highly anticipated game from a dev with a history of genre-defining games, and across the board the reviews are “not great, merely good” then there are probably good reasons for that and yes it’s a disappointment.
 
Aggregate user scores? Are you kidding me? The only people who bother to post them are insane fanboys. So every user score is laughable.

If I see low user critic reviews and high user reviews that’s a flashing red flag.
I literally said that those scores are trash when manipulated.
 

Tomi

Member
The good news about that is mods can and have fixed these issues in other Bethesda games, so I'm not too worried on that front.
I understand, but what did they doing all those years if we need to get help from mods to fix Ai?
We will need to w8 for another year to fix game with mods now, that's kinda fu**ed if you ask me
 
Last edited:

Montauk

Member
I locked myself into 84 the second that I heard it's 30fps even on Series X. There's no way they put in enough effort into the game for a flagship title like this to be 30fps on the "most powerful console of all time". I know it's an old topic and lots of people don't care it's 30fps, but it really grinds me the wrong way still.

It’s not a matter of effort. No amount of effort could deliver everything they want to (graphics + everything) at 4K/60. If they could then they would.

There is no engineering solution to get around this. If this game looked 10% worse the backlash would be unbelievable.
 

Madflavor

Member
The constant loading screens sounds like something that'll greatly annoy me. It was like that for previous Bethesda games. Walk through ANY door, 30 second loading screen.
 
Modern? This has been the case for at least 20 years. If anything it’s not as bad as it used to be. No matter how badly you wish 5/10 = average, that’s not how it is and everybody knows it.

Bottom line:
A = 90+
B= 80-89
C= 70-79 and so on.

I don’t want to have open-heart surgery done by a C surgeon, I don’t want to hire a C employee, and I probably don’t want to spend much time playing a C game.

That said, I’m not stupid. I can read a variety of reviews and judge if their various pros/cons line up with my own tastes. But if there’s a big, highly anticipated game from a dev with a history of genre-defining games, and across the board the reviews are “not great, merely good” then there are probably good reasons for that and yes it’s a disappointment.
Exactly. This is not a recent phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination. Don't know where OP is coming from or how old that poster is if they think scores have only recently gotten inflated.
 

Gudji

Member
The constant loading screens sounds like something that'll greatly annoy me. It was like that for previous Bethesda games. Walk through ANY door, 30 second loading screen.
The dude shows a 22 second load time in his review and yes it was running on series X.
 
I've honestly never been so interested in a MC score of a game I've no interest in playing. LOL

If it gets 95%+ I will definitely install it though and check it out, which is something I presently have almost zero intention of doing.
 

GymWolf

Member
The good news about that is mods can and have fixed these issues in other Bethesda games, so I'm not too worried on that front.
The bad news is that many people don't wanna wait for patches and want a complete game at launch because they don't plan on doing multiple runs of what is a gigantic ass game.

Some people put too much faith on mods that are gonna come months away from now when we already played the first and most significant (and probably only) run already.

I hate this "modders are gonna fix any problem" mentality, it doesn't fucking work like that with other games, bethesda doesn't have a special pass...

(I'm not mad at you, just the whole narrative)
 

Lokaum D+

Member
Modern? This has been the case for at least 20 years. If anything it’s not as bad as it used to be. No matter how badly you wish 5/10 = average, that’s not how it is and everybody knows it.

Bottom line:
A = 90+
B= 80-89
C= 70-79 and so on.

I don’t want to have open-heart surgery done by a C surgeon, I don’t want to hire a C employee, and I probably don’t want to spend much time playing a C game.

That said, I’m not stupid. I can read a variety of reviews and judge if their various pros/cons line up with my own tastes. But if there’s a big, highly anticipated game from a dev with a history of genre-defining games, and across the board the reviews are “not great, merely good” then there are probably good reasons for that and yes it’s a disappointment.
LOL, what is that grade ?

nowadays is more like

S = 99+
A = 95-98
B = 90-94
C = 85-89
D = 80-84
.
.
TRASH = 79 and below
 

Pagusas

Elden Member
The bad news is that many people don't wanna wait for patches and want a complete game at launch because they don't plan on doing multiple runs of what is a gigantic ass game.

Some people put too much faith on mods that are gonna come months away from now when we already played the first and most significant (and probably only) run already.

I hate this "modders are gonna fix any problem" mentality, it doesn't fucking work like that with other games, bethesda doesn't have a special pass...

(I'm not mad at you, just the whole narrative)

Oh I know, I'd rather the game have no major issues, or at least no major glaring ones. I just know how Skyrim launched vs how it was by year 1 and 2. A completely different experiance. If Starfield does thes same, I wouldn't complain, given Skyrim went from a 8/10 game to a 20/10 game for me.
 

Gudji

Member
The bad news is that many people don't wanna wait for patches and want a complete game at launch because they don't plan on doing multiple runs of what is a gigantic ass game.

Some people put too much faith on mods that are gonna come months away from now when we already played the first and most significant (and probably only) run already.

I hate this "modders are gonna fix any problem" mentality, it doesn't fucking work like that with other games, bethesda doesn't have a special pass...

(I'm not mad at you, just the whole narrative)
Yeah people shouldn't have to use mods. I don't like using mods at all... I installed a couple on skyrim (SkyUI or whatever its called) but that's about it.
 

Flutta

Banned
I've never expected great enemy AI in a Bethesda game. I basically just sneak everywhere and headshot everyone.

* I never expect great enemy AI in Bethesda games
* I never expect nice graphics in Bethesda games
* I never expect Todd be honest
* I never expect Bethesda games to have less bugs
* I never bla bla bla and still i'll buy your games...

Maybe this is the reason why they are still using a 25 year old engine where they just add new skins, a new title and expect regular people to do the rest....embarrassing!


It's the wrong mindset to have, gamers need to demand more and stop expecting less from these multibillion dollar companies.
 

Montauk

Member
Modern? This has been the case for at least 20 years. If anything it’s not as bad as it used to be. No matter how badly you wish 5/10 = average, that’s not how it is and everybody knows it.

Bottom line:
A = 90+
B= 80-89
C= 70-79 and so on.

I don’t want to have open-heart surgery done by a C surgeon, I don’t want to hire a C employee, and I probably don’t want to spend much time playing a C game.

That said, I’m not stupid. I can read a variety of reviews and judge if their various pros/cons line up with my own tastes. But if there’s a big, highly anticipated game from a dev with a history of genre-defining games, and across the board the reviews are “not great, merely good” then there are probably good reasons for that and yes it’s a disappointment.

Nah. It’s because American culture dominates the world and American reviewers are obsessed with the school grading system where under 7/10 would be a failure.

But - and this is crazy - not everyone is American. Even more importantly, reviewing consumer products isn’t the same as grading someone’s essential education needs.

There’s no point to having a 0-10 scale if you’re rarely gonna use below 7.

I know how long it has been going on, thanks very much. But it has gotten worse and worse over that whole time.

It’s just a standard part of gaming culture now that anyone who likes the look of a game says “it better be AT LEAST an 8 or 9” in this aggressive way and unironic way.

7/10 is treated as a black mark, like it’s actually 4/10 or even 0!

Games come out and get generously reviewed (most games are slop) 1 point below some arbitrary line and half this board will go into meltdown.

Look at the amount of people coming in to ritualistically say “X MC”. Ooh yeah, there’s gonna be a lot to talk about if it’s 87 MC or 88.5 MC, isn’t there?

What the fuck happened, man?
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I was just hoping for some major improvements to their loadings screens, since 8 years ago with Fallout 4.

From some of the leaked videos, the only long load screens are when you land on a planet the first time, most other things like space flight etc are fade in, fade outs and the animations for the ship flying etc.
 

Montauk

Member
Exactly. This is not a recent phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination. Don't know where OP is coming from or how old that poster is if they think scores have only recently gotten inflated.

You all WANT inflated scores. You think there’s nothing that matters except 7-10, with 7 being a disaster. What is rest of the scale for?
 
Last edited:

Montauk

Member
I've honestly never been so interested in a MC score of a game I've no interest in playing. LOL

If it gets 95%+ I will definitely install it though and check it out, which is something I presently have almost zero intention of doing.

And what if it gets 94 MC?

Do you not realise how bizarre a way to think about games this is?
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
If it gets 95%+ I will definitely install it though and check it out, which is something I presently have almost zero intention of doing.

LOL, what is that grade ?

nowadays is more like

S = 99+
A = 95-98
B = 90-94
C = 85-89
D = 80-84
.
.
TRASH = 79 and below



Frustrated Headache GIF by Kelly Clarkson
 
Top Bottom