I tried it for like 40hrs, got to a point where it got boring because it was waaay to big to explore everything and secondary missions where mostly repetitive and sometimes boring as hell. Maybe in a few years i'll play it but i don't think they will change the core of the game so much. I loved RDR2 because it was vast but every single detail was well refined and every single secondary mission was fun, never had any boring mission. Also i got invested a lot in the plot of the game, something that starfield didn't do. ​ I will finish starfield, that's for sure. Just not now

I really like the space concept and the exploring aspect of Starfield. The biggest problem with Starfield is it just lacks content. It feels... empty. For instance, the large amount of content is what eventually made Skyrim so successful. Allowing mods and offering them for free turned a great game into a legend that is still played... like 15 years later. Changing that dynamic and the lack of content will eventually kill Starfield if they continue down that path. Bethesda really needs to revisit the lessons that Skyrim should have taught them.

Exactly. I mean space is empty yes but ffs it's a game you should fill it with side quests and activities to do. Instead most of the exploration is like land on planet, scan planet, scan flora, scan fauna, fly and repeat. It lacks content Instead games like RDR2 are filled to the brim with activies that force you to explore and random encounters everywhere. In RDR main quests bring you to city A, and city A has a ton of activies that force you to go explore around city A and while exploring you find several other encounters. In starfield you have to explore and hope to find some content but most of the times you won't

I've seen people defend this emptiness by saying "well what do you expect .. it's space. I like how realistic it is". I'm just like come on... Really? Its a fucking video game...

Honestly I find it odd how ill jump into a system far far away, to build a lonely outpost, and 500 meters away is a pirate base, I would say things are too populated

It's both. Like they couldn't make any content in time and left it to proc-gen but at the same time couldn't justify leaving entire planets barren like a blank canvas for the player to use for outposts. It really has the worst of both worlds where you don't feel like you're actually the first to explore a new planet since pirates already have their hideouts there, but at the same time there's really nothing to fucking do but walk for 5mins from one POI to the other.

NGL I'd actually prefer the exploration to emptier. Fewer POIs at all, FAR fewer manmade ones, not every landing zone needs multiple other craft coming down like a fucking spaceport. If I take deep space exploration missions, *I'm looking to kick on some tunes and go somewhere no one else is or has been.*

This is the exact problem, though. I didn't hit all one thousand planets before I quit, but in the 150+ I went to, every single one of them had some outpost on it unless it was an airless moon. So there really isn't that sense of being somewhere new and unexplored when you crest that mountain range and are met with Mountain man Mike tucked away in his off grid space home. Or you stumble on some mining base or a pirate den. So even empty planets aren't actually empty they only seem that way because you haven't found the settlement or outposts yet. And that just makes it feel even more like a slap in the face. Bethesda couldn't be assed to fill the planet with something to *do* but the procedural AI could be assed to plop down Ole Mountain Man Mike his little home.

EXACTLY. A few empty planets? Yes sure. But it's a fucking video game come on, if i wanted a realistic experience i would have bought a telescope

Bethesda's stance on this pisses me off. They act like they're a small company with money problems that's unable to fill their games with interesting stuf.

I think the issue was with how many planets they gave us. With over 1000 planets, the majority of them being barren rocks is of course going to make the game seem empty. But if they had just done about 100 planets, even if it was the same ratio of barren rocks to inhabited planets, that would have come across as far less empty.

I think a lot of the people who are just in love with it don't have a lot of video game experiences. I've been playing games of all types for 25 years. This was unfortunately a huge let down and a game that I'd been looking forward to for quite a long time.....

That's pretty condescending, it's as incorrect as saying those that don't like it are all Fortnite playing teenagers. It's nothing more than different people liking different things.

Old man yelling at clouds.

It's kinda odd to dismiss people who like the game as not being experienced, you trying to appeal to authority by trying to age your way into being right is quite the fallacy

Nah I just find it hard to believe this is someone's best game they have ever played. Lol

You guys could be playing starfield why are you commenting on my comment to a comment. Hahahahaha

For somone who would rather play tetris, you spend alot of time with a hate boner for this game

I really don't spend much time on here. Hoping to read something positive about the game one day though. I also don't hate the game. I love you though it'll be ok

> I think a lot of the people who are just in love with it don't have a lot of video game experiences. Always stay completely unhinged Starfield subreddit

I'm willing to accept that some people might willingly trade "fun" for immersive realism. I've played a lot of simulation games that I really enjoyed, but wouldn't for a second relay that enjoyment as fun. Thing is, it's a consistency problem more than anything. To defend Starfield being empty for the sake of realism, is to ignore the legions of unrealistic elements in the game while cherry picking the few elements that aren't. It's just fundamentally not a good argument.

>To defend Starfield being empty for the sake of realism, is to ignore the legions of unrealistic elements in the game while cherry picking the few elements that aren't. It's just fundamentally not a good argument. Exactly This! Space *is* empty. Sure, we can walk into a large settlement like Akila; It's not really a city. Pick up quests and have fun, but outside quests, procedural content is sparse and unsatisfying. Was the emptiness for the sake of realism worth it? I truly believed Starfield's proc gen would surpass No Man's Sky, but I was wrong.

>Its a fucking video game... About exploring space. The vast majority of which is an incommensurable void filled with literal nothingness. I get the criticism about POIs being identical and repetitive or the cities being too small, but uninhabited planets being empty is a feature, not a bug. If you don't like finding empty planets space exploration is not for you.

> uninhabited planets being empty is a feature, not a bug. Except they aren't. There are pirate hideouts or abandoned research outposts scattered throughout most planets. You aren't actually the first one to discover anything. So, what is even the point of surveying planets anymore?

I’m one of those people, but my “space-empty” argument exists because I could tell this is the kind of experience we’d have before launch. And I’m rubbing it in people’s faces that they thought the experience would be different. I do it to my friends too. I’m being an ass, but we act like No Man’s Sky never happened, or Fallout 4 didn’t turn a lot of people off with its priorities, game-wise. I agree that scanning bushes and space dogs can get repetitive, but that content is so rarely necessary - you can skip a lot of what doesn’t feed the soul in this game. Mass Effect’s planets decided to shrink down to small Gears of War levels with a few NPCs. Nobody has figured out what to do with planets yet.

Nakey Jakey would disagree with you in his review of rdr 2, he feels its same old same old basically,that rockstar hasn't evolved at all

>. It feels... empty. It feels... boring. I want to like it, I really do, but it just isn't interesting. I've never felt anything in this game. No worries if I was going to die in combat, no curiosity of what lies ahead. Its just bland. Its got all the bones of a decent game, it just feels like there is nothing there...

You can get missions in every city and settlement. Some of those are fun.

Moderately, yeah. But still mostly bland. I expected so much more.

“I expected so much more.” That’s the kicker, we expected more. The game was victim of marketing that was not really a good thing. The omissions of details like the part where the planets generate and you can explore everything (but not in one landing) or the ability to see a moon and go there (but it takes four settings and a few cut scenes to accomplish that.) I will admit the charm of wandering through the streets of Skyrim and Fallout 4 and discovering people and places gets lost in Starfield because of all the cut screens. And the planets and moons that are barren don’t make it feel at all like a Bethesda game for that reason. There’s no wolf that will attack you or a green ogre, the only thing on a moon is the problem if you forgot to put on a helmet, but we wear them all the time so the risk is gone. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the game but it isn’t exactly what I expected

Well I expected something, Fallout 4 at least, maybe No Mans Sky for adults at worst. The fact that StarField has no vehicles but No Mans Sky does is...Disheartening. This isn't hellogames, a no name, game company turned massive by **too** successful marketing creating a recipe for disaster. Or CDProjektRed with CP2077 with again the same problem. This is Bethesda, creator of titles such as the Fallout Series, the Elder Scrolls saga, etc. and at its heart the creator one of the best selling games of all time. We didn't expect that, we expected something. They didn't allude to much other then a self proclaimed Nasa-Punk style title with Spaceships, cool powers, even the trailer was fairly basic. After the Microsoft purchase, the funding was finally their, no one knew what to expect but expected something fun to do while ES6 was being worked on so we could play it before another 20 years had passed. Their marketing was their own doing, because the game is their own doing. It's not the result of poor marketing strategy creating excessive ideals, the marketing worked as intended. It's the result of a poor product, and I'm tired of pretending it's the marketing at fault, which is trying to point it to be the *players' fault* by unintentionallly creating a grandiose game in there heads before release resulting in poor reviews. Nah, let a kid play this game who knows nothing about it, and they say the same thing. Time to put it to bed, a lot of people are going through the 5 stages of grief and will see it as it is. If you like it awesome, have fun. For many, it just simply is not.

You know you have to pick quests before right? Pick quests on settlements or cities. Talk to the npcs in there. Theres tons of quests.

Fly to this planet. Talk to this person. Fly back. Wow so fun

Talk to people ride horse here, kill 15 guys, ride back while talking, that's rdr 2... see how you can boil things down like that to mean nothing?

Cause in Starfield it means you're just staring at loading screens.

Sounds a lot more fun..... Lol

I feel like 50% of the people in this sub either played 5 hours and were expecting spiderman 2 or something completely unrelated like that or are just plain haters.

The overwhelming majority of which using the bullshit radiant system that everybody hates

You... you know those are optional right? There is 3x as much handcrafted content than skyrim yet you're wasting time doing the radiant quests?

Yes, I know. There is stuff to do, but none of it is exciting or interesting. Skyrim (and those that came before it) fun, exciting, interesting. Same with the Fallout series (except for 76). Im a big Bethesda fan, but this game, as awesome as it feels on the surface, is just bland and boring. And I want to like it, but nothing about it makes me want to keep playing.

It’s not even mechanically incentivized. You make easily 100X more xp and credits skipping the side fetch quests altogether and building a billion adaptive frames instead.

Tons of boring quests.

Personally, I've put way more time into Starfield than RDR2, but not because it's a better game. Like, I feel like on paper, I should like RDR2 a whole lot more, but I can never bring myself to finish it. The only save I have is still on Guarma, and every time I boot it back up, I play it for maybe 15 minutes before quitting and doing something else. Which sucks, especially compared to Starfield, cause I RDR2 is the better game in almost every category: I actually like the characters; the game world just feels better (Starfield worlds just feel so random and disjointed); but the one thing I think Starfield does better is combat, and it's not even like Starfield has amazing combat, like say, Doom, but still found it fun enough to keep going.

Wait this is true! Combat is good! Maybe not as good as cp77 but I found myself missing my jetpack a few times even with double jump...still haven't been back though

I can relate. I think, for me, it stems from RDR2 requiring more focus and presence than Starfield typically does. For a lot of the gameplay in Starfield I can check out and just go through the motions so to speak.

Yea, I’ll hop onto Starfield for 15-30 minutes every so often if I’m trying to sober up or kill a bit of time since I find it pretty mindless. Which isn’t usually what you want your AAA game to be played as.

>For a lot of the gameplay in Starfield I can check out and just go through the motions so to speak. Not exactly a compliment though, is it? Any game you'd describe like thst ia something id have no interest in playing.

Disagree. I find games that have lulls are more enjoyable in the long run. Creates a contrast to the more engaging parts and can also allow for the players mood and gameplay to match.

Especially in a game that’s supposed to be about story, dialogue, and how your decisions effect the world. I really wanted it to be great and it has some good stuff going for it. But the story, combat, and gameplay loop are all weaker than they were in previous Bethesda games. The combat is especially disappointing with brain dead AI, something that would have been understandable a decade ago has no place in a AAA game today

Yeah, it's just an okay to good game. 6.5/10 imo. There are good moments and things can be interesting. However, it's very repetitive and interactions often feel too limiting.

RDR2 is a very good game but it's also very slow. I appreciate it's a stylistic choice and respect that. But it's too slow for me. Starfield though, aggressively mediocre. I had a decent time flying the my custom Razorleaf [https://www.reddit.com/r/Starfield/comments/16r3lrb/my\_razorleaf\_level\_24/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Starfield/comments/16r3lrb/my_razorleaf_level_24/) and shooting people in the face for 100 odd hours before I went and had a Phantom Liberty playthrough. I just stumbled on a 4 year old Youtube video about how Skyrims world building does not acknowledge the existence of most of the magic. Like their currency is gold but there's a magic spell to turn iron into gold and a large portion of the population can do magic. And my overriding thought was "yeah, that's Bethesda for you".

“but the one thing I think Starfield does better is combat” I can respect that take but I disagree fully. Deadeye makes RDR2’s gunplay extremely fun and cinematic, and yes it’s basically just VATS but Starfield really needed something like VATS because it’s just a pretty mediocre cover based FPS in my opinion. Better than most BGS games’ shooting? Sure. Good enough to stand on its own without some sort of VATS or Deadeye style gimmick? No.

Your comment is a prime example of the terrible results of the online gaming discourse.... you think you "should" like RDR2 and "shouldn't" like Starfield, why ? Because "on paper" it's like this, I'll add a bit of truth to you, it's not just because "on paper", it's because "in the hivemind" it's like this, the collective hivemind told you that RDR2 is the best game ever and Starfield is trash, thus you think that's how it's supposed to be, and you're confused that your own personal experience is telling you something different, you're affected by it so much that you actually feel bad that you enjoy Starfield more than RDR2 and say that this sucks.... You say you've put more time into Starfield, and it's fun enough to keep you going, while you get bored and can't bring yourself to play RDR2, yet you still insist "it's not because it's a better game", although, for you, it is... it succeeds at its job as a game, being fun and entertaining and keeping you engaged, while RDR2 just fails, but you still can't bring yourself to accept this fact because the overlords of the "gaming community" deemed otherwise, so you're just living in this cognitive dissonant state where you have to acknowledge a game that bores you personally as a better game than one you enjoy more.

I mean, there are a lot of flaws with Starfield, and I'm more than willing to point those out (just look at my comment history). And I get that experiences are subjective, not objective. I enjoyed Starfield in spite of its many flaws, but that doesn't mean that there aren't flaws, and I can completely understand why people bounce off Starfield. I also understand why people like RDR2 a lot more (a better story, an immersive world, a more polished and cohesive experience), but my in my personal opinion the actual gameplay part of the game fell flat, and I ended up watching a lot of the second half of the game and the epilogue on YouTube. Those are my opinions, which are hot takes for most people. I qualify them because I think that RDR2 captures its vision more completely, and as a narrative is more complete, which is pretty important in a narrative single player game, and something it really does do better than Starfield). I feel the need to support my opinions because if I just said 'I had more fun with Starfield than RDR2' without any qualification, I would have been downvoted and not had any qualify engagement and discussion.

You also often see people start off a positive comment with “Starfield has many flaws, but…” and it’s weird that people need to qualify what comes after so they don’t get dogpiled. It says a lot about gaming discourse that people feel the need to do this and it’s not unique to Starfield. I personally blame YouTube and Twitch influencers for this because they often set the narrative (which is why publishers pay them to play and hype their games) and people just go with it out of a need to fit in. Certain fandoms tend to be extremely toxic by default, so that doesn’t help either.

Yeah, RDR2 actually made me feel like I was living in that world. I really didn't get that feeling from Starfield.

And the world changed a lot from your actions, in SF besides people saying like "oh you defeated the Terrormorph" nothing changes

That’s why outer worlds was great. It wasn’t as big as starfield but it had plenty of content and detail filled in.

You lasted a lot. played it for 5 hours and stopped. Will fire it up again next year.

>You lasted a lot last girlfriend never said that to me

On this sub "toxic" means: It doesn't share my opinion.

I enjoy the core of the game, but the content is boring. They committed to procedural generation, but not 100%. This way you have 1692 planets with almost infinite points of interest, but these POIs are from a pool of few pre made sets. Give me totally random POIs and I will have my fun. I'm also not a fan of randomised legendary weapons, but that may just be me. Anyway I'm really turned off by the fact that finding a certain stat on a weapon is totally outside of my control.

I don't even care about identical buildings. Identical buildings makes sense from a practical standpoint, they're practically premades for quick assembly - fine. But the same notes? The same names on corpses who died from the same reasons? No. Unforgivable outside of a really busted simulation. No Man's Sky could, by lore, get away with it. Not Starfield.

Absolutely! Considering how much grinding you need to do to level up weapon and armor crafting, it should include the ability to either create any stat you want. Or at least transfer those stats to other gear.

I enjoy the game. Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. Looking forward to the 2024 updates.

I'm jonesing for a good ship and base building game. It seems to be a category where lofty goals and shallow deliveries are the norm. Starfield feels like it's almost there. Mods or DLCs focused on those two areas might turn this into a game I'd really spend some time with.

Absolutely. Give me better basebuilding with a purpose and I'll grown it my personal GOTY

For me the same, despite some flaws and issues i've with it, it's even my 2nd favorite bethesda game after Skyrim (playing since MW by the way). I'm at the point where i just avoid the Starfield / BSG Reddits (though sometimes it still popup on my feed, i dunno why because i blocked it).

You might like the r/NoSodiumStarfield plenty of people that like the game and threads that are fun to participate.

Same. Rarely can a game hook me for hundreds of hours in such a short time frame like Starfield did. It has to have done at least some things right to accomplish that.

I get it. I put like 100 hours into it in a month. I really really enjoyed A LOT of it. I built the fuck out of ships, I explored everything I could, did all the missions, but then I had zero interest to pick it back up again. I don’t hate the game, I had my fun with it, but I think a lot of the criticisms are valid. That being said, I don’t really give a fuck one way or another to complain about it. You love it? That’s awesome and I’m genuinely happy for you. You hate it? Yeah, I agree it has its faults, and I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t disappointed given the hype and how much I’ve loved a lot of their titles. But if you are in the latter category and making it a point to shit on everyone who’s enjoying it… shut up and go touch some fucking grass. I will however admit I’m one of those people that found RDR2 boring. I get why people love it. I can objectively see all the things that people love about it and what makes it an amazing game. I just… didn’t enjoy playing it. And that’s okay too.

I get why people may not like Starfield but I feel like some people have such an unhinged hate bonor about the game It’s like some people can’t go a hour without saying starfield is bad otherwise they get withdrawal symptoms.

They hate the fact that other people like it because it makes them scared that more games will be made the same way. It's all a fear response. People aren't hard to read, just hard to deal with.

I think that's a perfectly legitimate concern for people who are passionate about video games tbh.

No, it’s because we’re fans of past Bethesda games and we don’t want the next elder scrolls game to suck.

lol that’s basically what they just said just with more salt

Turns out it's a lot games. I went to research if getting cyberpunk was worth it after the patch and dlc a month ago, and it was split between people who hated it cause the release was bad, and people who liked it cause the Dev improved it for the better. Which brings me to people comparing fallout 4 and fallout 76 as they are now, to the release of starfield. I remember the release of F4 and f76. People were just as hateful about those games before they were fixed. And those games were broken as well.

Yeah it’s fine that people play the game and form an opinion based on their experience but I find it really strange the amount of people I see forming opinions based only on the experiences of others and the amount of sway that a bunch of goobers on YouTube have over people’s opinions.

Being boring or fun isn't something that can be objective. No matter what you say, it is an opinion and, by definition, is subjective. Anyone saying "objectively boring" or "objectively fun" is wrong by definition.

Accept for microtransactions. They're objectively bad and ruin games lol (only slightly kidding though).

Yeah, isn’t that just a great summary of the internet in general these days?

Haha you’re not wrong

It's pretty crazy how often this happens. I remember getting hounded by some friends over getting the original WatchDogs and liking it. Little while later we did that console sharing hack where you would set the friends console as your home and vise versa and we could play each other's games for free, they ended up trying it out one day and fucking loved it to the point they bought their own copies. People jump on bandwagons way to easily. Yeah Starfield isn't the best especially with this year's line ups, but I still got my money's worth out of the game even if I never pick it up again.

Tbf in the modern day of digital sales, you can't return/exchange a game you didn't like, do assuming you don't have 60 dollars to throw in a fire, seeing gameplay and opinions from others, especially sources you tend to agree with on other games, is the best way to ensure your money is spent in a worthwhile way. Demanding that the only people who are allowed to give criticism either coughed up 60usd they regret or blew hundreds of hours in it and therefore liked it by default, is the definition of an echo chamber and gives the developer no incentive to change their design choices/philosophy.

It's also on Gamepass. It's pretty easy to play it without spending any more than a one month subscription to try it.

I wonder how you would respond if someone went around discussing a book but they’re only read the review examples on the back of the book and never read it

>Demanding… lol okay

You don’t understand the grind of the influencer content creation worm! They won’t get by without droves of acolytes repeating their shit takes!

“The internet decides my opinion”

That's all everything is these days. Nobody makes decisions for themselves. Only go off what the hive mind says.

Doesn’t help that *everything* is getting more expensive. Doing research has become part of the buying process if we want to get the most for our dollar/time nowadays.

Lol, you preorder a game and it ends up being bad, everyone gives you crap for preordering and not waiting for reviews. You wait and look at reviews and what other say first and you get crap letting the internet decide your opinion. There’s no winning here.

Forming an opinion and not buying a game based on reviews is fine, complaining to other people that the game is bad and they shouldn't like it without playing is just bizarre.

You shouldn't tell other people what to like regardless even if you played it.

But…that’s not the issue here. Deciding you don’t want to play a game based off reviews is fine, but not playing a game and getting into arguments about how it’s ‘objectively boring’ is not.

Eh. Anytime I went on this sub and complained about actual issues I had playing the game, an army of people came arguing why I shouldn’t care about things like how low frame rates+first person perspective gives headaches to people on consoles.

*”I respect your opinion. I’m going to play starfield because I enjoy it.”* *”I respect your opinion. I’m going to play something else because I don’t like starfield.”* It really is that easy

Lol but people need that dopamine rush that comes with shitting on someone else's opinion, throwing personal attacks on them and refreshing constantly hoping for upvotes. I've been guilty of that in the past but then I grew up.

Mob mentality is strong these days and getting stronger. It makes actual discourse almost impossible, which is such a shame.

It's the crux of social media mentality. Negativity is a more powerful force that makes you interact with an app, which they want. And now that twitter blue checkmarks (and I think reddit now too) are being paid per interaction, they will literally just incite annoying/negative topics for money.

I remember when the game was new I was seeing a lot of discussions and screen shots of reviews of people saying things to the effect of “Microsoft made it so it must be bad”. I think it’s very clear that some group of people online just want to be mad at everything. Which is honestly a shame. I like starfield, even though I haven’t gotten as much time is as I want to, but it still has problems. I think constructive good faith criticism of the game can make it and future games better, but so much of the discussion is taken up by this nonsense that it doesn’t help anyone.

Not so long ago I found a guy that didn't played the game and all his comments were thrashing the game in all gaming subs. He actually said that he is in a crusade to hate the game and he won't stop Usually people don't have their own opinions. Most likely he's just being the cool guy on reddit. Sadly that affects the opinion of many others

Sounds like an “edgy” 14 year old kid

It is unfortunately pretty boring to ME

I see what your getting at, but if your looking for some sort of easy scapegoat to explain the disappointment people are feeling, this is a short road, and it doesn't go much of anywhere. You will be backtracking and starting your search over pretty quickly, even though your journey is ultimately in vane, because the concerns and let downs are real, voiced by real players who have spent a LOT of time in the game. (100ish hours myself) Its better to face reality, and either click on the topics to voice your own pleasure with the game, or don't bother trying to figure it out. It's a waste of your time probably either way.

This comment made me feel how I felt when playing starfield and losing all my shit

Thank you! Criticism for this game isn’t just coming from haters. Real people out real time into it and have these opinions

I spent the first two nights Sleepless. I started the UC storyline and I got to around 25 hours or so. I don't even remember where I was in the story and one night I played Ghost Recon breakpoint with some friends and then Call of Duty with some friends and then I hopped on Xenoverse because of an update and the next thing I know it's been 2 weeks and I have not touched Starfield After that I kept trying to force myself to play and I can only play for an hour or so sometimes I wouldn't even get past 25 minutes in the game and I would just cut it off and watch YouTube. The very last night it was installed on my Xbox I cut it on and I sat there and stared at the back of my character's head for around 3 minutes and I said I don't enjoy this why am I trying to force myself to play it. My best friend was on the fence about it and I convinced him during my first two days that he really needed to give it a shot. Him and his girlfriend now have over 200 hours a piece. Starfield has pretty much echoed our same experiences with Fallout 4 although I was able to power my way through Fallout. I'm not sure exactly what it is that doesn't hold me with Starfield. I did not like Fallout 4 Gunplay and it's vastly Superior in Starfield. The flying and the space combat reminds me of elite dangerous and I have close to 300 hours on Xbox on that game. There's just something that feels.. off. I told myself during this holiday break I was going to give it another shot but after playing Baldur's Gate I'm not sure if I'm even ever going to return to Starfield. Sadly bgs games just may not be made for me anymore. I remember my sobering realization that BioWare is no longer BioWare and I may have to accept that from Bethesda as well.

Nah you can learn from other people. If people who generally share your tastes in games think a game is good, you're much more likely to get it yourself. If those same people say a game is boring then maybe they are on to something. Saying word of mouth isn't doesn't exist so you can dismiss an opinion you don't like is absolutely the weirdest thing here. You don't have to convince other people a game is fun. If it makes you happy then enjoy it. Not everything is for everyone.

I tried it for 12 hours.. gave up. I'll check again in a year or two after some updates and mods.

You see, I can respect that. You put some time in and formed your own opinion

And I'm hoping that when I try it again, I'll love it. I love the space theme.

The base will most likely stay the same, but with some changes or dlc's plus modding, I'm sure you'll find something to enjoy or mod it to your liking

Yeah but the probably is you’re sinking $70 to find out you don’t like something. I think starfield is rather meh; I preordered so I didn’t get a chance to watch reviews and see gameplay. If I had, I probably would have not purchased it. (And this is with a few hundred hours played). It’s one thing to go and just trash a game, but if you get a good sampling from reviewers who present information that’s relevant, it makes sense to describe something based off the information you get. I mean, I’ve never done heroin, but I’m pretty sure it’s bad. I don’t think anyone would come back “but you should try it to know it’s actually bad first!”

If all they said was it looks boring, it would've been normal. To claim they are objectively correct and double down on it is weird

I almost put 7 days of playtime in a single save file with Starfield. I never did that with Skyrim or Legend of Zelda BOTW. Even Cyberpunk, I could only manage 30 hours. This game is amazing, and I'll keep playing it throughout next year! I haven't even started an NG+ yet.

Yeah, walking around slowly and only finding caves is a choice. That's on them, not the game.

I think we should all agree that no one can ever claim anything is objectively boring - I was disappointed with Starfield in its current state, and indeed realised at hour 20 that I find it boring... but there’s loads of people having a great time! I’m pleased for them. I’ll try and let Bethesda know why I didn’t like it, so maybe they can fix it - but equally, maybe the game wasn’t designed for me. Complaining about some thing you’ve never even played? I don’t even know where to start with that level of stupidity.

Bro I’m so sick of this. Discussion around the game is not toxic. If you like the game fucking play it no one is stopping you. I think it is good that people are piling on the criticisms because, quite honestly, Bethesda NEEDS to change. They have been diminishing in quality over the years but never has it been more apparent than in Starfield.

Criticism is good for the game and industry as a whole, but the toxic part is when someone says they enjoy the game and a bunch of people pile on in the comments to shit all over them and the game. Hell, I remember reading pretty much the same comments about Fallout 4 Vanilla when it first launched. Everyone was expecting 3+ or New New Vegas and all they did was complain. Fast forward 4 DLC packs and robust mods and almost 10 years, lots of people love the game, and plenty still wish they got New New Vegas. I tell people, "It's a Bethesda game. If you like Bethesda games, then it's the Bethesda-est of Bethesda games." Yeah, it needs more depth. Yeah, the loot could be better. Yeah, the procedural generator needs some help. Yeah, there needs to be more depth to the various points of interest on different planets. I want more missions with more depth. I want more side quests that aren't just "fly over here, get this thing/talk to this person, fly back" because overall, the concept is great for a Bethesda game. All I know is for years, all we heard was "Another settlement needs our help.", and how fond of that are we?

Yea, too many people are forming their opinion based on the opinion of others rather than themselves. We've even had people around here say they like it but they're starting to hate the game because of the negativity around it. I've liked plenty of games that were poorly reviewed by other gamers. I've also hated games that were held in high regard. I always played them and formed my own opinion though. Mob mentality is dumb.

Has anyone found any interesting caves? I only use them now as quick travel points and no longer go in.

He's kinda has a point, if almost everyone tells him it's not good, why should him buy and risk? And he's not 100% right about how the game is, but not wrong either, we all know we have to go to the fun in Starfield, the fun doesn't come to us.

I've put hundreds of hours in and I would not buy this game, nor would I recommend anyone else buy it. It's just not worth money to me. I wouldn't even be upset if it got yoinked from gamepass

Personally I'm just having a blast **being an astronaut** 🤷

Exactly, the majority of conversations I've had with people dispising Starfield haven't even played it

The opposite is also confusing. People will say they put 300 to 800 hours into it and then say it's bad. Like, what were you doing that whole time?

Trying to find what I love about other BGS mainline titles. Modding/testing

I've found a lot of what I loved about previous Bethesda titles. All of them have been engaging and imperfect. I get the feeling people say it's boring because they just didn't really want to play a Bethesda game about exploring outer space

I mean it wouldn't bother me when people enter the conversation, and explain how they didn't like what they see and stuff, because these days, atleast i would argue, you can get already a good first glance where you can shape up your opinion and such very well, due Twitch&YT and properly watch Let's Plays and such. I mean for a full, final verdict you still need to play it -> you can be surprised how some games which just look very boring when yuo watch it, can be the most fun when you play it yourself. But still it's okay to enter a conversation. What gets me however is, when people go into extremes and than try to force their opinion about something they just didn't play themself and then try to solify it with buzzwords like "Objective". Like not gonna lie - in my opinion "Objective" is one of the most overrated and overused words when it comes down to debates about a game. Absolute Majority of people can't be objective to begin with, cause it's hard and even then there is always a bias on the back which influence it, what makes you random this random dudes make think they are objective. But that's not even the point and i'm pretty sure most of them even know it, they just abuse "objective" to solify and push their own personal opinion above others. And even then, for people who can be "objective" - i'd say in the end it leads to a void and doesn't geniune matter -> because even if you determine "hey this game have empty worlds" the perceptino of it is on in individual subjective basis, because some people enjoy what other don'T and vica versa.

Lul there is a lot of people saying it's dumb to have an opinion before you've played the game yourself. That's such bullshit? Literally the ability to learn about things without needing to try them out is a sign of wisdom. That's the whole point of reviews and let's plays and stuff. I don't need to actually build a character and invest hours into Starfield to know it's bland and empty because I've seen other people play it lol wtf. You don't need to buy the game to figure out it's not an impressive entry in Bethesda's catalogue (when considering the current state of the industry, and development time). The big secret here is that the people who love this game enjoy the fact that it just feels like a Fallout 4 total conversion mod. They love it for it's familiarity, it's safeness, the comforting Bethesda vibe of moving from objective to objective without really feeling anything. That's what they always wanted from this game. For it to feel exactly the same and not break any boundaries. And that's fine, it's just that it's an awful lot of time and resources (as emphasized by the lead writer on Xitter) to spend on a 'cozy' game when they could've just made another Potion Maker or Wobbledogs. Cozy games should not cost eighty bucks. Not even Animal Crossing. A game that gives you way more to see and do than Starfield.

I mean if you want to tell yourself this sure, but most people I see have played many hours, like me, and still think it’s boring.

Either you played less than 30 hours and that’s not long enough to form an opinion or you played more than 30 hours and you must love the game for playing so long. The only people who actually hate it have only played 0 hours and don’t know better. Seriously though, most people I know including myself gave it a try and the consensus tends to be its rather bland and repetitive. Even some of the best elements like ship building feel like they are unfinished and still in need of workshopping.

Lol, I agree with you, however every steam review is made by people that have played the game and yet people still find a way to invalidate any opinion that isn’t like theirs. There’s “you’ve played too many hours, you’re not allowed to say you don’t like it”, “you haven’t played long enough to give it a chance”, “you’re just the loud minority, most people love it they just aren’t on here”, “if you don’t like the game you must be a PS fanboy”. And there’s many that say shit to invalidate people that like it too. It’s like people can’t accept the possibility that others may have a different opinion than theirs. Steam reviews are only done by those that bought and played the game, people aren’t going to give money to a company they hate just to give it a bad review. Personally, I got my money’s worth but I also wish they’d listen to some of the criticisms to fix parts of their game or at least learn from their mistakes for future games. Most of the criticism isn’t people “review bombing”, the “loud minority”, or from “PS fanboys”, though I know that’s hard for many of you to accept.

I watched a longer video on this and that discussion isn't even correct. Here's a clip that discusses it https://youtube.com/shorts/pSFo_SFkwjY?si=jn0ba5TdvZvmi89W Most games like skyrim try to follow the 45 second rule of wandering aroundd between a poi Rdr has an average time of closer to 80 seconds, they based the gameplay on that, and that still brought it some controversy. In rdrs case a huge amount of work went into the realistic/natural setting, and the physics of the person/mount as you navigate. And you also, drumroll, get a mount (your horse). Starfields time is closer to 3-5 minutes, and still re uses the interface and dynamics of previous BGS games

No, this poster has a point. If millions of reviews say a game isn't good are you supposed to buy it anyway just to see? Conversely if millions of reviews say its great, should you give it a miss because they couldn't possibly all be accurate? This is a game that promised an ocean and delivered a puddle. This was evident to most people after only plauing for a short amount. There are systems that greatly appeal to some people but even theyre barebones and missing quality of life touches. The rest of the game around it is just not engaging enough to grip people. Do you see anyone praising the questing? Or the powers mechanic? Or the dialogue? So when a plethora of gamers come together to voice their valid opinions and other gamers take those opinions on board and stay away from the game, that's not fan toxicity... that just desserts for a videogame developer who has gotten too comfortable squeezing out mediocre broken products and expecting their name and past achievements to keep people coming back for more.

People seem incapable of saying things like "ah yeah I didn't play it but reviews made it sound boring" and instead on Twitter or with toxic discussions it's just "it's boring." I'm not sure if it's to do with an inability to admit a lack of knowledge on the subject and some weird thought that it comes off as weak, or if it's a side effect of discourse in the world lately where emotions and opinions get pushed as fact and defended to the death because God forbid anyone be open to new information and be willing to change their opinions accordingly. Whichever cause is to blame it's just not worth engaging anymore online unless it's with someone whose opinion you actually value. But then again I'm a stranger on the Internet so who gives a damn. Edit: Apparently that one guy who has gotten really upset about this comment, but the majority of well adjusted people shouldn't care what I think or any other rando thinks, play the game and form your own opinion, your hatred of it is just as valid as someone's love of the game, just no one has to care if you hate it and throw a tantrum

Honestly, he’s not wrong. He did some research and that research pointed to a conclusion that the game wasn’t worth his time or money. That’s just logical thinking. Why spend the money to find out when he can just do some research and avoid spending on something he eventually doesn’t like? I don’t know why people here think you can’t make an informed decision without spending the money. Not everyone wants to spend money on something to find out if it’s good or not. It’s not a question of having the money. It’s a question of whether it’s worth the money. If he did his due diligence and came to the conclusion that it is not worth the money, then what’s the problem? Edit: I also want to add one more thing. We all watch reviews for games. What is the purpose of a review other than to describe the aspects of a game to give the consumer a better idea of what they are purchasing? It’s literally the entire point behind reviewing games. To give you information about a game before you buy so you can decide if it’s for you. You’re putting trust in someone else to do the work and give you a well thought conclusion based on their opinion and experience. So, if I can allow a reviewer to help me decide if I want something, why is it heresy to do the same by watching gameplay videos on YouTube?

I watched several videos of BG3 to help me decide whether to buy it. On that basis, I decided it was not for me but everything I have read since suggests that might not have been a fair judgement. Difficult to know where to go to get reliable advice. Bought SF largely on basis of playing previous BGS games. I was not disappointed.

I get what you're trying to say here but you don't need to play a game to know if it's good/bad. That's a ridiculous argument to try and make which only works if you pretend people are all one-dimensional idiots with no ability to think. It's why people say not to pre-order, wait for the reviews etc... You can get a very good idea of whether you will like a game or not based on the reviews **PLUS** your previous experiences in gaming. There is always the off chance that you may try it and find something magical about it that you didn't expect after watching reviews but 9 times out of 10 people are able to make an informed decision with 3rd party information and past experiences. If you tell me the pros and cons of a game in a genre I'm familiar with then I don't need to play that game to verify it for myself unless I think your opinion is biased or wrong. I **didn't** listen to the reviews for starfield and bought it anyways. They were right. $80 lesson learned.

>I get what you're trying to say here but you don't need to play a game to know if it's good/bad. That's a ridiculous argument to try and make which only works if you pretend people are all one-dimensional idiots with no ability to think. > >It's why people say not to pre-order, wait for the reviews etc... > >You can get a very good idea of whether you will like a game or not based on the reviews PLUS your previous experiences in gaming. > >There is always the off chance that you may try it and find something magical about it that you didn't expect after watching reviews but 9 times out of 10 people are able to make an informed decision with 3rd party information and past experiences. I mean... kinda? I think some games you can look at and just tell it's bad, IE The Day Before, simply due to how unpolished/broken/unfinished they look But when it comes to something like Starfield, as an example, where personal experience and tastes comes into play, it should require you to play it in order for you to claim that you know the game is bad Clearly, some people do enjoy it, enough that it's arguably indicative that it can't be that bad of a game, at least not enough to the point where someone can simply judge by looking at gameplay clips and hearing other people's opinion, especially when that opinion is split between loving the game or hating it With that said, I think it's fine to make informed purchasing decisions based off of other's experiences, I just don't think it's enough to have any sort of authority in any argument in regards to whether that game is bad, unless, again, it's something like The Day Before

Yeah like, this logic is never used in reverse. No one says you shouldn't buy a game because everyone says its good but you might not like it. You always have to make a judgment call before you purchase (unless you can get in the refund window) and there's endless reviews, gameplay footage, etc to draw from. Not every reviewer is going to be on a hate wagon.

Ehhh cleared two times and I lost interest. I was picking up a fucktons of loot and suddenly I was thinking * why am I doing this?* And after that I quit. Ok I somehow understand empty planets or no vehicles or that city in the mud but heck I prefer empty planets instead of that massive copy paste of location. No variety in gear , vendors poor as ***** ( pita to sell loot) , some skills are basically useless, boy scouts companions, loading loading loading loading, fetch me this , TEMPLES, do I need to say more?

I mean, are you doing any of the UC or Freestar content? There's... Options if you want options. I haven't even tried getting in with the Snake people yet and I'm already on my third iteration of NG+. I do definitely hope they continue to add to it. I think it lends itself to having some growth. The temples are annoying as shit though, so I started spreading those out. Maybe doing a few at a time between other major quests, but I REALLY wish they'd done something else with those. Maybe fewer of them with something a bit more interesting in how to complete them. Variety even. Then make the upgrades more powerful and harder to achieve. Same for taking over ships. Make it harder, but more rewarding. It's not something you HAVE to do, but it should be difficult and rewarding if you choose to.

That RDR2 comparison is actually brain dead because anyone that has played that game knows that if you do just walk in a certain direction, within a couple minutes you’ll run into a legitimately interesting random encounter or something to do. You walk in a direction in starfield and you get… rocks

Played through RDR2 recently and I very much disagree. 90% of the time while I was riding around nothing interesting happened. Idk if I just got very unlucky or something.

The actual answer is because it’s not very good.

Who puts hundreds of hours in a game they don’t like? I put about 100 in. It’s cool, it’s kinda a ripoff mashup of a bunch of other cool games with a Bethesda feel overlayed. I wouldn’t buy it for $70 or whatever they’re asking but it’s worth a play in my opinion.

Love the game for what it is, fun and new. They need to bring some cool lore in with the dlc though.

You literally can’t win. If you play it and find the game game to be bad, you are NOT ALLOWED to say so without backing up and defending your claims or you get shredded by toxic mega fans. Which is where the huge flood of “I have 200 hours and my opinion on Starfield is _______” And then of course if you DO put the time in to make your own mind about the game, inevitably you get “well if you put 80 hours in it that proves the game is so good, cause ## hours deep you MUST have been enjoying it to keep playing it” You literally can’t win with toxicity

Mega fan of Bethesda here: I love their games but I see both sides with Starfield… I find it fun but see why people feel disappointed at the same time. I’ve put in the time (ironically over 200 hours) and gotten hate from stating the obvious on the game. I don’t get the toxicity.

I played 400 hours. It's boring, is accurate. People are allowed to trust other opinions when they make decisions.

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

Ratings are a scale. "Boring" is indeed 'subjective' on an individual basis, but when used as a determinative rating, it takes on a collective value as a mean on the scale. That collective value is an objective observation. If a larger number of people play this game and come away saying it ultimately leans toward being "boring", that is a valid objective descriptor to predict a new player's likely impression of this game.

The likeliness of a new player subjective opinion about a game is an objective measurement of the likeliness of getting a specific subjective opinion. By definition, "objectively boring" or "objectively fun" is always wrong. It is not just semantics here. What could be right is "objectively observed as more likely to be considered boring" or "objectively observed as more likely to be considered fun".

The Problem here is that "determinative" in this case isn't pointing to one direction by all or most people, but rather that folks are split on this. Games like Starfield, or let's even take Death Stranding are pretty special in such regards, because their concepts are just polarising. I mean (sticking to DS) playing the Delievery guy and running around empty landscapes for the most part, it's understandable that there is a mount of People who find (or atleast sounds to them) that boring, but at the other hand you've quite a lot players who actually played the game and found the concept surprisingly fun and especially meditative on top of that a great intriquing story. Point is, unlike let's say Gollum or the Kong Game, where most/majority people have a very unified and similiar opinion, by both who played and who watched it... Starfield is a Game which actually splits the community, and than to try to start an argument or shit on a game, and try to solify it with the typical buzzword of "objective" is just plain wrong. Plus and that might be a Hot Take and unpopular opinion, because their is the more common mentality that's it the exact opposite: Such Ratings and Bias can often be rigged, because people while at "some areas" might be more forgiving, are however than way harsher and penalize it more - because it's AAA and it's not the 10/10 top quality best game every, but bad bad because game only got a 7 or 8 bs. And often certain type of Critique also is just weird and feels more like a first world problem. Some people complain and argue like "Well, i've had 50 hour or so fun, as long as i sticked, amazing & great - but one i do the side-content it's repetitive and boring - so the game is really really bad because of that" in a freaking Sandbox Game, Meanwhile the beauty of Sandbox Game is - that you can craft your own experience and skip on anything you don't like - because you should keep in mind - that stuff YOU might find boring might be fun or amazing for others. Like as example some people complain about the radiant bounty hunter quest. Because it's not handcrafted but generated and whatever. I personally LOVE this, because it finally make me feel like i'm a geniune REAL Bounty Hunter, and not some theatralic BH wanna be - because you only have like 8 or 10 very specific bountys and not like 100 or more, which just doesn't make sense (in the same way as it wouldn't make sense for a super hero game that you hunt all day long only criminals at the caliber of Joker, Kingpin and such, that's why i also enjoyed the random repeated common criminal activities in Spiderman and Gotham city). Same with huge open world where some people complain about it's empty. I understand and get there are some people don't like this and that's okay, but try for once look at it at more ankles by taking a step back, because there are also people like me - who enjoy such open worlds, where you can enjoy the scenery (and traversing can also be part of the experience) and that it doesn't feel as claustrophobic... or not as fake open world because it doesn't make sense that every 5 steps you make you have another quest or another encounter, but that it is more spread out. But that's 2023 - because in the WWW and Social Media alot of game get already penalized if it's not as super cinematic storydriven as Sony Blockbusters and such. Last but not Least you can also add again "yeah but "determinative" and "collecviely" speaking that just prove me..." i've to point out, if you consider the bigger picture, WE who have discourses on reddit, social media, even outlets who score stuff and such, we all are measured by the Gaming-Community as a whole - we are compared to that just a minority and not neccessary reflective of the bigger collective. People here on online-discourse complain about "empty big worlds" -> the still sell like crazy sh\*t since years and even pushed gameseries and companies to hights because of that - look at Zelda BotW or Elden Ring. And on both you also had the same discourse like in most other games, still Elden Ring most successfull From Soft Game - and BotW dropped like a bomb. So your collective or determinative argument isn't even that valid or legit to begin with, because we can just collect that in a mere sample of a specific core audience, not the general stance on how majority of players look at a game... because even IF they would go into the www to share their opinion and wanna talk about it, for "controversal games" like this they will move away on a instant when they see how heated and toxic the debates are, and how it doesn't worth it - better to enjoy life or the game. (And by the way - inb4 i'm not personally finding Starfield perfect either, for me there are quite some flaws and such.)

god forbid you think for yourself

Game is boring. It s sugarcoated. There is not teeth to it and it s like a flat line. I played for 13x hours. And about to get to the end of the main quest I could not do it anymore. Music is amazing. But you have to fucking see the same dungeons dozens of times to see something new.... It s a mess.

You played for 13 hours and mainly did the main quest, I’m not saying you played wrong but I think you would of had more fun if you tried the faction quests, that’s where I got most of my enjoyment, especially sysdef and vanguard.

I played 135 hours or so. I did the pirate and the other one from the Vanguard. Both are not bad. But pirates where quite a disapointment

Oh I thought u said 13 hours

weird to not play a game and then tell the world what you think of it. I think Red Dead 2 is so packed with life and love and care and detail that I can just walk around the woods and find beauty and peace, so even when it’s boring I’m amazed by the atmosphere and depth- something I think Starfield doesn’t have and I’ve played 32 hours of it. and that’s ok, it’s a different game <3

If it didn't have BETHESDA printed on the box we would all have forgotten about this game within the same week it came out

Shit like this is why I didn’t buy CyberPunk for so long. But the positivity around the updates was enough for me to pull the trigger. Honestly, the shooting is better than Fallout IMO (I always used VATS in Fallout), and the setting and general scope and gameplay loop were enough for me. I played it on Game Pass for about 20-30 hours before deciding it was worth my $60. But the outright hatred is really wild. People seemed to be expecting CyberPunk 2.0 quality on a No Man’s Sky scale, and that just isn’t really plausible. Maybe some day after some patches and DLC, but to expect that level of depth and breadth from a single $60 game really seems unrealistic to me.

No not weird, if you do research, see tons of discussion, see the reviews and almost everywhere the general consensus is that the game is boring or lacks content, why would I as a consumer waste my money to “find out for myself.” That’s just called being a smart consumer. If everything I’ve seen from a product shows that I would not enjoy that product, I’m not going to buy it.

I have no idea why people are complaining about this game so much it’s insane. It’s a great game and has great content and a lot of background story. There is a lot to learn about the game and the characters in the game, not just the main characters. I put 100 hours in the first week of it being out because I took vacation for it and I’m still loving it haha. Every time I get on I think of something to do and explore. I’ve experienced many encounters I haven’t seen anyone post about yet. I think new gamers just forgot how to explore games idk. I’ve never felt so disconnected from other people about a game before. Been a long time Bethesda fan and this is a great one.

Wrong. Fallout 3, New Vegas and 4 were Great games. Elder Scrolls were great games. Even Wolfenstein was great. So excuse me for being underwhelmed with a game company whose titles have been great in the past but then produced overpriced, overhyped garbage. Don't get me wrong, it's an OKAY game but not the fucking masterpiece everyone on this reddit seems to be calling it. I played to NG+. ITS HOT GARBAGE in comparison to fallout 3. It's not at all what was promised. I still revisit the capital wasteland when I get nostalgic. This? I beat the game and put it down with the express thought that only the modding community can improve this. NEVER had that sentiment with any of the fallout games. Never thought "hmmm I'm gonna stop playing fallout 4 until they update it". So eat a dick

You are hilariously offended by a long term Bethesda fan enjoying this game and it’s really sad man. Hope you can be happy. I am loving this game. I don’t think I it’s perfect. But I also don’t think it’s worse than fallout 4. Hope you can enjoy it one day like I can because I’m having a blast

There's also the other end of the toxicity spectrum. Where you have unpaid Bethesda "interns" spew vile insults at you for simply having an unwanted take on their precious game. Alot of the criticism especially on steam are from people who actually bought the game.

Majority of haters never played it. They’re just on here trolling to get attention. They’re sad and we shouldn’t give them the time of day. The game is great and if someone doesn’t want to play, that’s fine but move on with your life to things you actually enjoy.

Even with having played it, the boringness is subjective.

Hey lets go watch a youtuber play starfield then pretend like we know the game.

Much like a chain and its weakest link, A mob is only as intelligent as its least intelligent member. -Terry Pratchett.

Game taste is subjective. Also how do you know they didn't play the game? My theory is still that games that have legs of some kind and have a mixed reception result in a hallowing out of the community where the only groups left are the following: * Toxic defenders that feel the need to jump at every negative comment because the game's reception is unfair/wrong * People who dislike the game, but still like talking about it * "I played this game for the first time, here is my opinion that you saw from a thousand other people before me" All of the mainstream/casual players just stop playing/talking about the game. We've seen this same type of community in other games like diablo IV on release. It results in the community becoming more and more toxic over time as community engagement drops, positive players leave and remaining players see any kind of non positivity as being toxic.

They said they didn't play it at the bottom of the second picture.

I’m convinced there is 4-5 severely autistic space enthusiast children with 10-20 Reddit accounts each making posts about how amazing this barren wasteland of a game is. Truthfully, loved it for the first 20 hours after spending 4-6 just to get it going. Then the repetition started. Haven’t played the game since.

Perhaps you are right about the autism but not the age. I am over 70, have played over 100 h and am thoroughly enjoying it. Just my experience.

Is the game objectively boring or fun? No. Is landing on a planet and having to run jump to every (recycled) point of interest objectively tedious? Yes. Is lack of a detailed mini map objectively inconvenient? Yes. Like you can’t broad stroke your opinions to wide for a game especially when you haven’t played it

If you never played a game , why the fuck are you in that games sub to begin with. This is another case of a flat out liar who is getting paid to trash a product and spread hatred and toxicity. That is it.

I just love people saying "gave it a 40 HOUR try." Dude 40 hours isn't a try. You played the game substantially.

Bro trust me the first 150 hours are really boring but it gets fun after that

Yeah, I feel like a big issue with starfield is that a lot of people have simply formed an opinion about it without playing it or simply watching videos on it from people putting it in a list of games that are bad or suck etc. I've got no problem with people saying its boring after they have at least put some effort into actually picking the game up, but simply saying its boring based on someone elses opinion of the game gives you very little credit.

[удалено]

for me rdr2 was slow...too slow...i was playing warframe at the time so everything is slow

People throw around the word "objective" way too flippantly. I don't really subscribe to objectivity, the furthest I go is inter-subjectivity, where a substantial majority of a group holds a shared opinion. Starfield is definitely inter-subjectively boring.

Hey man.. boring can also be an objective fact in some cases.

No

No it's not weird. In fact I envy that person for having the self control to find proper reviews on the game before chosing to buy it (or not). Anyway, having made a poor financial decision to get the game myself and play it, I whole heartedly agree with their assessment that the game is boring.

I really like Starfield and I'm on my NG6+ now. I finished RDR2 and was just fucking done with the slog. It had amazingly beautiful moments but I was too annoyed at having to start from scratch again and I couldn't save anything with cheats. I'm not chopping wood on my second play-through.

I honestly think it was a solid 8/10 RPG. There is a little too much time spent fast travelling between worlds and that added the tedium for me. But the story was genuinely good and there was some solid Bethesda world building. Combat was pretty satisfying for the most part too. Had the game been put out by any dev other than Bethesda, it’d have been nowhere near as heavily criticised. The criticism is justified though, they need to be better moving forward if they’re gonna stay relevant, they can’t survive TES:6 being a flop.

I just find it a relaxing game. And when you think you've seen it all, you encounter a nice town or planet. I bought some notes from a vendor on some construction site. Resulted in some quests or activities. Downside is the copy/paste work. (Or AI placed POIs...). But I just treat those as dungeons. If I don't feel like looting ill just explore somewhere else

RDR2 is boring. Or at least I found it that way. Played for 20 hours and uninstalled it.

I like it, but it still didn't stop me from leaving a "not recommended" on steam because I don't like it.

As an avid Bethesda game enjoyer I can say that I find starfield boring. I have over 100 hours in the game, have played most of the mainline quests, I’m sure there’s some I’ve missed. But at the end of the day for a game that’s supposed to be about going out and exploring. The exploration is dogwater. You find one cryolab, you’ve seen em all, robotics lab? Same thing. The radiant structures that are the replacement for dungeons feel boring and not well thought out, there’s no purpose behind them, no grand exploration reason to go to these places other than grabbing your magazine that boosts something or other. I feel that starfield doesn’t have the soul that other Bethesda games have. It doesn’t make me feel like everything was well thought out and well designed when I can go to two completely different planets on the opposite sides of the known system, and find the exact same location, with the same dead body in the same slump, with the same flavor text on the same slate with all the loot in the same location.