So.. Starfield...

[Miauzi]

15 minutes ago, WandererZero said:

Wenn Sie Rosinen auswählen möchten, verwenden Sie zumindest eine bessere Quelle als IGN.

 

Schauen wir mal hier:

Offener Kritiker.

 

Metakritisch:

 

Meiner Meinung nach geht es Starfield, was die Kritiken angeht, ganz gut. Ich bin mir sicher, dass die Punktzahl etwas sinken wird, sobald die Playstation Haterbois anfangen, sich auf MC einen runterzuholen. In jedem Fall wird das Spiel gute Zahlen liefern.

 

Ehrlich gesagt ist es ziemlich urkomisch, Leuten in der „Lass uns Scheiße erfinden“-Phase einer Spielveröffentlichung zuzusehen, aber es ist immer urkomischer, wenn es sich um ein Bethesda-Spiel handelt. Die Leute üben monatelang, ihre weißen Rüschenhöschen für den Entlassungstag zu verknoten.

 

Läuft kichernd in die Ferne.

 

Already rated by some computer magazines in Germany - who hyped it massively at first - with only 82% - Fallout and Skyrim were above 90%.

 

And as for Playstation (we have the PS4 as well as the PS5) - they are quite happy that the dirt is passing them by

?

 

[31971207]

1 hour ago, WandererZero said:

If you're going to cherry pick, at least use a better source than IGN.

 

Let's see here:

Open Critic.

 

Metacritic:

 

Seems to me Starfield is doing just fine, review wise. I'm sure once the Playstation Haterbois start wanking themselves off on MC, the score might dip a bit. Either way, the game will be doing good numbers.

 

Honestly, it's rather hilarious to watch people in the "lets make shit up" phase of any game release, but it's always more hilarious when it's a Bethesda game. People practice for months tying their frilly white panties in knots for release day.

 

Walks off chuckling into the distance.

 

Of course I am cherry picking. Opencritic and Metacritic have been muddied by paid-for game reviewers for years. The sites that still having some editorial standards I go by are pcgamer, gamespot and ign.

 

EDIT: It's call quality control. Just because someone put out an average # it means nothing if the samples are tainted. I actually read the reviews and a lot of the reviewers that routinely give up 10s don't sound anywhere close to 10 in the review while others are obviously paid by the publisher.

 

All review aggregators are problematic and any educated person would know by now how foolish it is to use those in arguments. Opencritic and Metacritic don't vet their reviewers so the scores have always been tainted by paid-for reviewers or in user scores review bombs. Rottentomato vet its top critics but it's a pass/fail score because many movie critics don't give up specific scores so a decent movie that offended no one could get a score of 100 but that might be all Cs that would be forgotten in a few years. A masterpiece that would be viewed for decades to come might get a lot of A scores but not 100% fresh because the movie had something to say and offended a few. Reviews are always subjective but after reading a LOT of them the phonies are pretty easy to spot.

 

This is all I will say on this matter. I put out that post as a single FYI that Starfield "might" not be as well regarded as Skyrim or even FO4 and cited the likely reasons. Refute it with a useless number without context just to score Internet points has no substance.

 

 

Edited September 1, 2023 by 31971207

[Wandering_Mania]

After watching The Arch Cast for about 2 hours, so far it really don't look anything like it's worth even $20 to me.

- The melee has no impact.

- The firearms have next to no recoil.

- O2 is now 'stamina' for some reason, and you can literally 'run to your death'.

- And there's no reason to explore the 'massive maps' because there's nothing out there.

 

This was Todd's 'great vision' that he dreamed of making? It looks like dog shit.

[WandererZero]

One word salad later...

 

2 hours ago, 31971207 said:

Of course I am cherry picking.

 

The number of people in this thread, and across the internet tubes who are upset that people are paying money for things they want and enjoy is hilarious. Absolutely breathtaking and hilarious.

 

Thanks for the laughs. How many shows a night are you doing? Is this a limited engagement? Or are you here all week?  

 

 

[Wandering_Mania]

1 hour ago, WandererZero said:

that people are paying money for things they want and enjoy

Well if you enjoy walking around in a void, that's your choice. But as for me, I'm glad I didn't pay a cent, let alone $100USD for this 'fast travel loading screen simulator'. I'll stick to FO4, at least until mod creators can fill those voids.

[Psalam]

Everyone, please stay on track. Wandering off onto other topics (than Starfield) will result in your post being removed (at least).

[Guest]

Zero interest into playing it. 

However, from what I have read, Skyrim will be relieved of a lot of cabbagers. They are going to migrate en masse to Starfield, together with their 9038290382 Whiterun overhauls and spoon retextures. 

This means resources will be easier to find. No more swimming in a sea of cabbages trying to find assets (the Nexus search engine is broken). 

Finally the cabbage nightmare is coming to an end. I hope TES VI follow next. I think it will be released in 25. Would be better if Bethesda released it next year, but they are going to milk Starfield first. 

Edited September 1, 2023 by Wolfstorm321

[bjornk]

Pete's legendary defense of buggy Bethesda games...

 

“We could make a safer, less buggy, less risky game if we wanted to... Yes, there's going to be some little things here and there where your companion might stand a little too close to you sometimes, yet the freedom you get, and the things that happen because of that, we absolutely love and embrace."

 

https://www.pcgamer.com/pete-hines-on-starfield-we-could-make-a-safer-less-buggy-less-risky-game-if-we-wanted-to/

 

Yes, definitely, I have always embraced the freedom I get from my annoying follower blocking my way, triggering traps, alerting the enemy... ?

 

[bjornk]

Skyrim in space...

 

 

Gotta share this one. At least the memes are amusing.

Edited September 2, 2023 by bjornk

[FauxFurry]

As the opinions of those who have not actually played the thing do not mean much of anything, it is more useful to pay mind to one who has seen everything that there is to see in the game instead.

From another perspective, it could be more informative to listen to the rants of those who saw too much of what they did not want to see or were not impressed by what they did see.

 

[bjornk]

1 hour ago, FauxFurry said:

As the opinions of those who have not actually played the thing do not mean much of anything, it is more useful to pay mind to one who has seen everything that there is to see in the game instead.

From another perspective, it could be more informative to listen to the rants of those who saw too much of what they did not want to see or were not impressed by what they did see.

 

 

The first reviewer was given a free review copy by Bethesda, the second wasn't. For some reason, I tend to believe it's a 4.5 out of 10.

 

Also, this was in the news recently, apparently Bethesda was being really picky about who to give review copies.

 

https://www.neowin.net/news/bethesda-snubbed-some-game-outlets-refusing-access-to-starfield-review-copies/

https://www.eurogamer.net/eurogamer-and-bethesda-starfield

 

Edited September 3, 2023 by bjornk

[gladonos]

I don't wanna shill for Bethesda but surely I am not the only person here who is just happy that Bethesda games can be modded to have sex in them right?

[Naria]

Really seems like people expected Bethesda to not make a Bethesda game. Like, I don't know why people thought Starfield was going to be a combination of Destiny combat and No Mans Sky, but it was never going to be that. 

 

Temper your expectations, and if a game doesn't meet that then move on.

[sativa]

 

 

[Wandering_Mania]

20 minutes ago, Naria said:

Really seems like people expected Bethesda to not make a Bethesda game. Like, I don't know why people thought Starfield was going to be a combination of Destiny combat and No Mans Sky, but it was never going to be that. 

 

Temper your expectations, and if a game doesn't meet that then move on.

What you just said makes no sense. Because what Starfield is, is not the 'a-typical Bethesda game'. As there is no big open world to explore and find little things here or there.

 

What Starfield is, is closer to an 'a-typical Old School Bioware game', something like Mass Effect 1. The only difference is that Mass Effect 1 was fun because it has character, and world building, good writing that props it up, interesting characters that you meet along the way, and so on. And Starfield has none of that. But it does have the load screen spam that ME1 had, and it was only tolerable in ME because ME had good writing.

 

People expected a 'Bethesda game', and Starfield is not a 'Bethesda game'; It looks more like another one of Bethesda's attempts to imitate the old 'Casey Hudson Bioware'. They went 'small scale' in FO4 with the 'voiced protagonist', and abandon that for Starfield. But they went 'large scale' in other ways for Starfield, and it seems that they failed quite spectacularly this time.

[xking]

3 minutes ago, Wandering_Mania said:

What you just said makes no sense. Because what Starfield is, is not the 'a-typical Bethesda game'. As there is no big open world to explore and find little things here or there.

 

What Starfield is, is closer to an 'a-typical Old School Bioware game', something like Mass Effect 1. The only difference is that Mass Effect 1 was fun because it has character, and world building, good writing that props it up, interesting characters that you meet along the way, and so on. And Starfield has none of that. But it does have the load screen spam that ME1 had, and it was only tolerable in ME because ME had good writing.

 

People expected a 'Bethesda game', and Starfield is not a 'Bethesda game'; It looks more like another one of Bethesda's attempts to imitate the old 'Casey Hudson Bioware'. They went 'small scale' in FO4 with the 'voiced protagonist', and abandon that for Starfield. But they went 'large scale' in other ways for Starfield, and it seems that they failed quite spectacularly this time.

There are plenty little things you can find, what are you talking about? Are we even playing the same game here

Edited September 3, 2023 by xking

[xking]

14 minutes ago, sativa said:

 

 

What a strange thing to complain about? pronouns? Yeah it's a game where you can create almost any character you want. I swear the woke and the anti-woke crowds have become utterly cringe.

[Wandering_Mania]

13 minutes ago, sativa said:

 

 

Damn! I never seen Az go off the hinges like that. Crazy shit, I honestly expected his head to 'explode hollywood style' at the end. But I also gotta agree 100% with everything he said.

[xking]

My man is back from the dead

 

 

[Wandering_Mania]

5 minutes ago, xking said:

There are plenty little things you can find, what are you talking about? Are we even playing the same game here

Marked, and unmarked, side quests, little tale-tale pieces of lore (like the holotapes found in Fallout 3 that told the story of the Keller family), POI locations, and other stuff. But there's none of that in Starfield. It's all centered around where you land, to find anything new, you have to go through another set of load screens, and landings. That's not really what a Bethesda game is known for.

[xking]

13 minutes ago, Wandering_Mania said:

Marked, and unmarked, side quests, little tale-tale pieces of lore (like the holotapes found in Fallout 3 that told the story of the Keller family), POI locations, and other stuff. But there's none of that in Starfield. It's all centered around where you land, to find anything new, you have to go through another set of load screens, and landings. That's not really what a Bethesda game is known for.

Starfield has all those things, Give the game a try, if you don't like it, you don't like it. As for the loading screens, yeah there's a bit much. But they're so fast, like two seconds. You don't really notice after about 30 minutes. ( with some annoying exceptions to that, Quest that require you to go to two different points on the same planet )

Edited September 3, 2023 by xking

[Naria]

28 minutes ago, Wandering_Mania said:

What you just said makes no sense. Because what Starfield is, is not the 'a-typical Bethesda game'. As there is no big open world to explore and find little things here or there.

 

What Starfield is, is closer to an 'a-typical Old School Bioware game', something like Mass Effect 1. The only difference is that Mass Effect 1 was fun because it has character, and world building, good writing that props it up, interesting characters that you meet along the way, and so on. And Starfield has none of that. But it does have the load screen spam that ME1 had, and it was only tolerable in ME because ME had good writing.

 

People expected a 'Bethesda game', and Starfield is not a 'Bethesda game'; It looks more like another one of Bethesda's attempts to imitate the old 'Casey Hudson Bioware'. They went 'small scale' in FO4 with the 'voiced protagonist', and abandon that for Starfield. But they went 'large scale' in other ways for Starfield, and it seems that they failed quite spectacularly this time.

 

If anyone thinks this isn't a typical bethesda game then you have an agenda against the studio themselves. The game has every staple that's been in every Bethesda game. Generic combat, bad AI, decent to good writing, boring companions, detailed world, a large playground, scuffed UI, lackluster animations, no mocap.

 

What's amusing is that all your complaints about Starfield can be applied to Skyrim, Fallout, etc, but you choose to ignore that entirely. They get a pass but not Starfield? You bring up writing as a poor spot for Starfield but it's Bethesda. They've always had average writing in every on of their games.

 

Your complaints are valid, but they're entirely based on expecting Starfield to not be a Bethesda game, because those complaints could be applied to Fallout 4, Skyrim, and ES6.

 

Further more to say Starfield isn't an open world because it has loading screens and that there aren't easter eggs, or tons of tiny little details you can find, your just lying to yourself to hate on the game.

[Vallsz]

Huge potential. Not only does the game already provide lots of resources for mod potential and it's huge diversity in cities offering lots of templates to work with. But I can already see how modders will go harder on this game than they did in fallout 4 especially in housing and buildings. Thing about fallout 4 try as you might you couldn't make a bunch of ugly and destroyed textures look pretty. Assets in Starfield are pretty. Even the building system provides much cleaner assets that all the different destroyed and ugly structures in fallout 4.

 

The world's and terrain are pretty. And not just muddy everywhere. Diamond City was trash, Goodneighbor even more trash and it's assets didn't do much to inspire people to create new interiors. Or that many overhauls. Starfield not only has much bigger cities, but they're diverse in both exterior and interior with multiple levels and different cells as are it's dungeons and their interiors. In short Starfield provides x10000 more assets to work with than Fallout 4. Makes Fallout 4 assets really seem boring by comparison.

Edited September 3, 2023 by vallixas

[sherrif]

This was one of the things for Fallout that turned me off the game entirely, they had the institute and some well kept vault textures but when it came to overworld building, and the settlement system, you were throwing together not only rusty scrap walls, a lot of them were oddly shaped.

[Wandering_Mania]

5 minutes ago, Naria said:

What's amusing is that all your complaints about Starfield can be applied to Skyrim, Fallout, etc, but you choose to ignore that entirely. They get a pass but not Starfield? You bring up writing as a poor spot for Starfield but it's Bethesda. They've always had average writing in every on of their games.

Well I'm not saying that Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3, & 4 (FO76 not included because that wasn't a BGS game), didn't have the same bland(ish) combat, writing, animations, and so on.

 

But the difference between those and Starfield, is that at least with those, you weren't 'forced' to go through 1,000 load screens to do something as simple as exploring. You could walk to your next destination, and choose not to fast travel while finding little things along the way.

 

With Starfield, there is no other way. It's fast travel, or your stuck in the same spot forever.

 

And Bethesda completely removed that 'backbone' of what their games where known for.

 

15 minutes ago, Naria said:

Further more to say Starfield isn't an open world because it has loading screens and that there aren't easter eggs, or tons of tiny little details you can find, your just lying to yourself to hate on the game.

And if you are going to keep up with the baseless accusations, simply because I state my opinion of what I saw; You can just cease replying to me, because I will never change my opinions based on what you say.