nanoUFOReviews for Starfield on Steam drop to "Mixed"
fosforusBased on everything I’ve heard of it, this seems a bit too high.
It’s not. I personally love the game, but it has a lot of flaws and that number seems about right to me. I think it’s a better game than Fallout 4.
Some of the storylines are fantastic, but they’re pretty disjointed from the rest of the world. Some of them feel like they have loose ends that didn’t get finished in time.
There are several game systems that are neat, but unfinished, and superfluous.
I really don’t understand the dog pile this game has gotten.
Totally agree. People are supremely critical of this game, I think it’s because it had so much hype. I have a friend that played 70 hours and he said it’s a 4 or 5 out of 10. Come on, when was the last time you played a 4 for 70 hours. A 6 or 7 sure, but you played and talked about the game non-stop for 3 weeks. Talking about how you didn’t want to work, just wanted to play all day. A 4 does not do that to you.
The problem with Starfield is, I think a lot of us expected Bethesda to take a big step forward, and they dropped a 7.5.
Sure, we can blame hype, but it’s not like they didn’t contribute to it. And dropping right after BG3 certainly didn’t help.
AngrilyEatingMuffinsYeah dropping in between BG3 and phantom liberty doomed them
And honestly? Rightfully so! They made a game that would’ve been incredibly impressive 5 to 8 years ago. Their peers outdid them. And peers is generous. This is Bethesda bankrolled by Microsoft to make a system seller.
Where did Bethesda overhype?
They marketed it as Skyrim in Space and delivered it exactly like that.
Most overhyping happened because of the players.
I am not getting bogged down in interpreting their words. They absolutely acted like this is the next big leap forward, and it really wasn’t. If you don’t agree with that that’s fine it’s an opinion. One I think that is wrong, but an opinion nonetheless.
30 of those 70 hours were spent on loading screens. Seriously though, it takes time to give the game a chance and with all they hype behind it, I thought I was missing out on something and kept telling myself “maybe it’ll start getting good after this mission” …I wasn’t missing anything, it was the game that was lacking
NeatoAfter so much time and so many iterations Bethesda hasn't improved much on the things they suck at. This is just fallout in space with all the issues previous games have.
Come on, when was the last time you played a 4 for 70 hours. A 6 or 7 sure, but you played and talked about the game non-stop for 3 weeks. Talking about how you didn’t want to work, just wanted to play all day. A 4 does not do that to you.
There have been plenty of games over the years where I got hooked on one aspect that was fun or compelling, only to tire of it much later and realize the overall game was actually mediocre and just happened to scratch the right itch for a while.
Open world RPGs tend to make up a lot of that list since they have repeated content that draws you in the first time you encounter it, but wears out its welcome by the hundredth. It sounds like Starfield had this problem, combined with a terrible fast travel system that gutted exploration and threw the samey content into the spotlight. Once the new game shine wore off a lot of players were like “is this it?”
(I’ll note that I haven’t played the game yet, this is just the gist of the complaints I’ve read)