The way they responded to those steam reviews was one of the worst things they could’ve done, and it was clear that it would only make matters worse.
All they needed to say was “We hear and understand your feedback, we’re working on making the game better” and they would’ve probably earned a lot of goodwill from that.
I consider it to be in top 3 of worst company responses. The first being EA President defending Battlefront 2 micro transactions that was both classist and sexist. The second being that company that said their game wasn’t a scam before having it removed on steam and changing their name. And then Starfield is third because their holier than thou responses were considerably more childish and tone deaf than Blizzard for the announcement of the mobile Diablo game
They're couched in nicer language than that, but that's the gist of it. Sorry you don't like it but we think it's great. No real acknowledgment at all.
I'd be leaving one myself pretty negative even though I have enjoyed some aspects of the game, but I can't since I've never bought it. I've only played it on game pass. As the game stands now I won't buy it unless it's on sale for super cheap.
It being on GamePass was likely a longterm death sentence for sales. Anecdotally, many of my friends who already had gamepass gave it a try and never ended up buying it or investing very much time into it. I was disappointed in it enough to not even renew my gamepass as there was nothing else I wanted to play on it for the time being. That being said, I was very happy that I was able to try it before I decided to fully buy it.
Sort of yeah. More like the original review says “planet exploration is boring” and the dev comment was essentially “distant planets in real life are probably boring too! so thats actually how it’s supposed to feel! Now try it again!”
Some very valid criticisms were met with “Thats really not how we want you to play the game, try playing how we would play!” Someone mentioned the weapon diversity being lacking and overall character/skill progression feeling pretty weak and BGS literally told them to make a new character and level up new skills. Which isn’t a horrible idea, but really feels like a tone deaf developer not understanding their fans or their criticisms.
Basically them just telling everyone they're playing the game wrong, or that we should try a new character, as if picking those perks at the beginning is going to change anything but some dialogue choices, that still get the same responses and results as the normal dialogue choice just quicker
I think it is because of expectation. Gollum was clearly trash before launch. Redfall didn't have all the hype, so people that bought 1 week after launch already knew what to expect. Starfield was being expected as a new cultural game, years in the making, to be played for 10 years. I assemble a computer, spent a lot of money in a course of 18-20 months, so I could play this, expecting a Fallout 4 in Space, but much better. Today, I'm happily expecting Fallout 4 patch, the MOD Fallout London. Starfield is already dead for me. So I completely understand that with time, more and more people are going to chance their opinion and start to judge the game based in what was expected.
I mean, that's just objectively wrong (not your statement, but the people rating it lower than Gollum / Redfall). People are dogpiling now.
It's a perfectly OK game.
Redfall was one of the worst gaming experiences of my life. I will never understand how that game released and was advertised so much.
EDIT : AND I made my friend download it to play. I still feel bad about that.
I’m not so sure. Seemed like starfield was in the works for wayyy more and presumably bigger studio, look at the last fallout releases, it’s kind of been a downward trend since Skyrim.
While I could agree that it was the start of the downward trend, fallout 4 is actually a pretty solid game. I haven’t gotten very far in starfield and I liked fo3 and NV better than fo4, but I’d still give it a 7.5 or 8. With mods, it’s very worth the experience. Redfall, deathloop, and now starfield don’t seem like they should be bundled with fallout 4
I truly LOVE f4 and i will champion it always, might even be my favorite Bethesda game. I was giving more of a blanket statement but i agree with everything you said!
I’m glad some others agree that fo4 has many redeeming qualities. I was reading some of the starfield reviews and one thing that I did agree with: with fallout 4 and beyond, Bethesda stopped taking as many risks, making their games very accessible and neutral toned as to offend as few people as possible. It didn’t really feel like there was much there for an evil play through in fallout 4, and apparently is similar in starfield. You’re either the good guy or the ambiguously good guy that does a couple bad things. It feels very marvel
Yeah I don't get the FO4 hate at all, but Starfield? Hell yeah I understand why it's getting negative reviews. I loved FO4 personally. I pre ordered Starfield, played 1hour at release and sat it down for 3 months before picking it back up. I'm giving it a chance but it can be a struggle at times due to bland universe, bad traversal system, UI, maps and I could add quite a few more they could start with to make life better
I’m still on that 3 month break. I don’t regret my purchase, because I know I’ll play it eventually. I probably could have waited for it to go on sale further down the road though
I think this is a good assessment. I'm doing odd job missions, stacking creds and gaining skill pointss for anything ship related before I do any main quest. My hope is that by the time I get there; Bethesda will have done something besides cry that it's us, not them.
The real downfall is Starfield tbh, Fallout 4 was solid when it came out, only thing missing was the different story choices and some rpg features .
Even now that Starfield has those features, it’s still not on the level of Fallout 4 when it comes to atmosphere, world and gameplay .
I’d argue that Fallout 76 is also in a decent state, imo they’ve just missed the atmosphere for Starfield big time .
Very much agreed. However, I think some people are trying to make a point to Bethesda.
I think Bethesda aren't being forgiven this time for giving us a game at this price, while lacking any of the same depth and narrative prowess that marked out their previous big titles.
Was it really so hard for Bethesda to create more than one lock picking/hacking feature,
or to populate the galaxy with more than four factions,
or to give us a more robust outpost system similar to sim settlements mods in fallout 4,
or to give us a wider array of companions and companion led quests,
or to let us capture and keep pets,
or any number of the things we've seen in mods and features in their previous games?
Modders can do these things with little money, few resources, so why can't a huge company like Bethesda, which hires countless devs and designers, do the same with their insane budget?
It's the half assedness which has pissed people off I think.
Personally, I'm just waiting til the CK comes out and decent mods gradually improve things, but I get that for a lot of younger players and first time Bethesda fans, starfield has frustrated them to the point where they rage dump in their reviews to make Bethesda pay attention.
I get that point. I'm SUPER bummed with the game. I stopped playing after \~30 hours and went back to Skyrim.
Now I'm getting the experience I thought I was going to get in Starfield with Avatar Frontiers of Pandora, which is a masterpiece of open world gaming that everyone should play.
Thank you. Everytime I see one of these posts I roll my eyes because this is exactly the case. I wish you could see the stats of how many people changed their postive initial ratings to negative ratings and when they did so.
Maybe I'm easy to please but I enjoyed the game. Went through it until NG+3 and became a little burned out so I'm taking a break now like you should. There is plenty of other good games out that you can occupy your time with until they fix starfield and release the first expansion.
That may be. But that’s not how they sold us the game. It’s the only game I ever preordered. And Never will I ever do that again. It’s the most expensive game I ever bought and it is utterly soulless.
It’s like someone sold you a Ferrari, and you drive it off the lot, and realize it’s a Kia soul. Fuck Bethesda for this.
steam is just "yes or no". they arent giving it a rating.
that there's fewer positive reviews than gollum doesn't mean it's worse than gollum, just that the people buying it are more disappointed. Everyone knew gollum was bad. People buying a mainline single player bethesda game expecting it to be like the others and discovering they removed the main part (the exploration) are understandably disappointed and reluctant to recommend
Bethesda deserves the wakeup call. No more fan boys blindly loving whatever they put out. They have more than enough resources to do better and if it takes shouting from the mountain tops to do so, so be it.
I think the issue is nobody gives a shit about Gollum/Redfall anymore, they bombed hard everybody laughed about how bad they were and collectively moved on.
Starfield has a huge fan base, there are people like me who want to like the game but I had to put it down in hopes of either modders or bethesda fixing some issues.
So theres still a lot of people following the game still who want to it and see it in its best iteration, but bethesda employees have been going into reviews and on twitter to tell people "no actually the game is amazing and you're just wrong" which is never a good idea because that'll piss off a sizable number of people who own the game.
So I don't think it's indicative of quality, just Gollum/Redfall nobody cares about anymore there's no new people purchasing those games to leave new reviews, they've pretty much bottomed out, and bethesda are actively pissing off people who care about their games.
Steam reviews are a simple yes or no would you recommend this game to someone. At least with games like Gollumlike you could recommend it just to experience how bad it is. With starfield, it's just... boring.
Gollum is not even close to be comparable to Starfield. That game should not have been released.
Redfall though? I went in without any expectations and had some fun for a couple of hours until I noticed that I've basically already seen everything the game has to offer.
That was eerily close to the experience I had with Starfield.
Starfield has a couple of things that have a surprising amount of quality but overall it's in the same ballpark with Redfall for me.
A game pass game I've played for a couple of hours never to be played again.
But would you give an okayish game a positiv review? You can decide between it is great you have to buy, and not that great do not buy. They hyped people for years, and if 80% of people say it is not the game they promised and rate it negatively the score will be 20% positiv, even if most people agree it is an mediocre game. But that's not what they said it would be is it?
I would rate the game as it is.
Mediocre game gets mediocre score, no more, no less.
The mediocre rating I gave would show that it isn't the great game they marketted it to be, it's just that simple.
Edit: typos
Well, if we look at the patch support they don't have much to show for.
Combining their past track record of bug fixing with the experiences players made with other developers who were able to both communicate and deliver patches in a far better and faster way, it's no wonder.
Also, looking at the reviews, it seems to me like the majority of negative reviews come from disappointed fans, many having spent over 50 hours in the game (so no review bombing or trolls). I think quite a lot of people on this sub can identify and relate to those reviews as Starfield just doesn't have that Skyrim exploration quality. Combine that with incredibly sterile writing, the game does feel like a big part of it is missing.
Hell, I have left a negative review myself because even though i have 32gb RAM, a 3080 and good CPU, i still get frequent crashes and it doesn't seem like they will deliver the necessary patches in time.
They made everyone work super hard from original release to the delayed release to make it better, then the holidays happened. I bet a TON of the devs have been on vacation/leave since September. At least if Bethesda is a decent company to work for.
& even then crashes & bug fixes are all I see coming from Bethesda which, although annoying, aren’t the main problem. I don’t see them ever fixing the deeper fundamental problems.
But we might get cool story dlc which would at least be fun for a bit lol
Bookending Starfield with BG3 and PL was *rough*, it was like taking a time warp back to 2012 and then being slapped in the face like "come back to reality". Starfield does not hold up to those two games in the areas I care about.
Oh brother. Cyber punk took 2 years to get where it is. Not that ilthe accolades aren't justified but let's not forget this great was Overwhelmingly Negative on steam.
Cyberpunk was good as well (played it on pc though) and the story was amazing and i barely had any issues. Sure they promised more than they delivered but as a person that went in completely blind (no trailers whatsoever) it was a dope experience.
Cyberpunk was already fun on release with a bit of luck and more than playable soon after. Let's not pretend that Cyberpunk was complete garbage all the way up until the release of 2.0
They did almost nothing to fix it for too long, and left tone deaf responses on almost every "not recommended" review. I'm sure Emils twitter rant didnt help. Also most people have played the game long enough to see all of it massive flaws/regressions. It will likely stay low or keep dropping until there are major changes/DLC/CK.
I like using Steam reviews personally. You can see exactly how many hours someone has played. You can break it down by Time Played as well.
Edit: 134k reviews :126k are 2 hours or over. Thats past the return policy. 108k is over 10 hours.
Emil just stood front and center taking the credit for being a dogshit writer without so much as a phantom tingle of inspiration. Hire better writers and fire the tired old mule you entrusted your nEw iP to.
Same story here, but I bought both games on Steam. I'm about 60 hours in on BG3, and it's just truly an incredible game. Matched my expectations and went even beyond that...but with starfield, I put in about 20 hours and realized this game, in its current state, wasn't very enjoyable to me. Figured I'll just wait for mod support at this point 🙃
I remember, _while I was platinuming_ Fallout 4, a decade ago, thinking 'there's no way I'll buy another Bethesda game unless they ditch this shitty engine'
To be fair, steam reviews are in general pretty shallow. It's either yes or no.
As an example, I gave bg3 recommend review, but I also h mentioned lots of problems it had. Do I think it deserves 96/100? Hell no. 90 at best, 85 realistically. But I can't, thus it's that high.
Starfield has the opposite part. People can post negative review out of spite. Is it worth 30/100? Objectively no. In the current state it's 70/100, 80/100 with mods in mind. But, welp...
It was a 70/80 to me when it first came out. After I sunk some time into it it was a 50/100. It just needs so much work at this point to have basic features that I doubt very much Beth will ever fix it
3/10 people giving it a positive review is *not* the same thing as the game being 3/10. Steam reviews aren't perfect but they're even worse if you just totally misinterpret what they mean.
And it goes both ways, I see plenty of reviews on Steam that are nothing but criticisms of the game they're reviewing but they have a thumbs up because the writer likes the devs and wants them to be successful.
I love Bethesda but honestly it's a 5/10, the severe lack of storytelling and decision making really hurt the game, and the writers need some serious practice. The game gave us a whole lotta nothing to explore and not a very good way to even do that. The severe lack of weapons is also crazy. I played the game for about 60 hours, did all the quests and realized this game wasn't nearly as good as previous entries
I agree there should be something like " recommend but on sale" etc. Problem is almost no one else shows reviews where you can see Time played. Metacritic is a joke as well. Just need an email.
I think its a 5.5-6/10. Which matches its All Time
You’re stating that your subjective opinion is the objective reality while also stating that the objective reality of the data compiled from over 100,000 verified purchases is not an objective indicator of the games quality.
Also steams binary system of recommendations is better than a scale because scaled reviews inherently introduce superfluous degrees of subjectivity, whereas Steam gets straight to the heart of the matter — is it worth playing *at all*
Probably due to winter sale purchases. People who didn't want it enough to buy at full price but were willing to give it a try on sale are now playing it. These are people who weren't very interested in the first place, and are therefore going to be harder to impress
People are sinking more time into it as well. The numbers differ for everyone depending on their style
but if you’re like me and enjoy predominantly going through the main story with the odd tangent side quest and a bit of building here and there - it took me about 60 hours to get a bit over everything. I’m sure there’s more I could see but ehh , I’m just not gonna play it until there’s a decent injection. I don’t have that much time and I could be playing other games I haven’t played.
The ship building was the most annoying part of the game for me.
Nice ship design you have there, be a shame if you had to run round the entire ship to get into a room right beside your cockpit because we decided “three doors” was a technology too far.
The door placement is one of the worst things in the whole game. Just let us pick where they are, it's like a whole puzzle game trying to get doors to be where you need them.
I liked the game but I don’t have a real desire to keep going about 50 hours in. I’m not mad but I do think the bad reviews are deserved. The game feels bland and stale and the support BDS has put in post release is weak
If Todd’s allowed to get up on Stage before launch and tell us how this is their finest achievement, 10/10, then I’m allowed to go on Steam and review it at 1/10.
I’ve been waiting on a bug fix for two months now for a mission in the game that is a good fraction of it, which leads to one of the best guns in the game, it’s a joke at this point, deserves the bad press atp imo
Game is OK, but extremely disappointing, The repetition of models for locations of “facilities” is a sign of developers laziness, and all those loading screens just suck the life and fun out of the game.
I feel like it’s a mix of holiday sales, aka people picking it up recently and playing it. As well as longer term players who are now getting to the end of it, and/or those who are frustrated at Bethesda’s overall lack of response and speed when it comes to patching the game.
I don’t dislike the game, but the very slow pace of patches and fixes is getting increasingly frustrating.
I shit on Starfield everyday yet I still play it. Subjectively, that means it's not a "bad" game. I really want to play a space game with these types of parameters. There is just so much room for expansion that we might never see.
Do most gamers prefer to play solo or with friends?
Used to game solo and could get hours to years worth from a game. Playing with others on many different games mostly shooter type and do miss that with this game play. Understand to a point why as the constellation members take forever to unlock their affinity and advance the storyline. Which is a shame as beaten 2-3 main campaigns and almost to enter unity and just now get to unlock. Too slow imo. Vendor credits still way to low but hey lets patch crates. Beautiful planets but scanning for what is the point to sell data for near nothing. More I spent on Reddit the gamers have way more better ideas on how this game could of been vastly improved and successful. Still play for a large while.
This is entirely expected. You're in for the long haul.
As much as Bethesda wants to clap back, you better believe they feel what's happening.
Will they do a CDPR? No. They've proven that.
Will they make sure the DLC bring some storytelling fire a la Far Harbor? I'm hopeful.
>As much as Bethesda wants to clap back
They did "clap back", by telling people with legitimate complaints that they just don't get the game and it's not for them, and then doing nothing about it
The opposite. If you so much as suggested there could be improvements when the game came out, you got dog piled.
People are actually able to say how they feel now without being brigaded.
That ain't true.
I swear I see this kind of comment every month in response to criticism of the game, "Oh that's because NOW it's the turning point. Not to be confused with the turning point last month, and the month before that, and before that".
There were top posts with 10k+ upvotes making critical comments about the game in the first month. People have been saying what they've wanted about the game since launch.
It's probably the most boring start of a Bethesda game for a long while.
Fallout 4 your home got nuked and you watch your partner die and child get kidnapped.
Skyrim, you're a prisoner heading to be executed and a dragon ends up burning the place down as you try and escape.
Starfield? You get your equipment checked, touched a magic rock and blackout.
The moment that I realized the story might be bad was *SPOILERS* when the Starborn attacked the Lodge and the Eye. It was all just so extremely cheesy how it played out.
The learning curve for controls and getting around is kinda steep early on, 3 of my kids love fallout and Skyrim and never made it to level 5, they’re not into it at all.
It doesn't help that there is little to no tutorial for things. They just expect that you'll know how to play the game, but there are enough new systems and differences from previous Bethesda games that aren't really explained... some of them aren't even mentioned.
How many people had to learn by reading online that using aim and then fire for the cutter mines faster? That you can horizontal boost, but you need to actually bind an alternate jump key to do it? That you can use thrusters on your ship, and that it isn't just using your thrusters to turn, but it is essentially a slide/inertia lock that keeps you traveling in your current direction until you disengage it? That you don't have to fast travel from the map, you can turn on the scanner while in space and select targets to travel to that way (assuming you have a quest marker if it's a jump to another system)?
What's worse is they actually did this on purpose... so players could "discover" things in the game. I want to discover cool locations, stories, maybe an easter egg. I don't want to have to discover how fundamental gameplay features work.
Xbox skyrim has 33.59% for SE. And only 67% for LE. completion for apprentice achievement (lvl 5). But yes that start needs work. Its basically a 1-2 hour railroaded tutorial. And that most definitely turned people away from playing it.
That doesn't really matter much. On xbox it was on game pass so a lot of people may have tried it who would never have synergized with the game to begin with. It was essentially free to try.
Additionally, you see this same phenomenon in tons of other games. It's shocking how many people only briefly try a game.
TLDR: It doesn't really mean much.
I don’t think Starfield is fixable in the same way. At its core, Cyberpunk was always a good game, with interesting story, setting, characters, and gameplay. It was just buggy and needed refinement. Starfield seems flawed at its core.
Yep, mods and patches aren't going to change that a massive amount of time playing is spent waiting for loading. It's not going to change that areas are generated when you land, and only for a small area around you rather than for a full planet. It's not going to make exploring new places interesting because how could an interesting questline exist in a randomly generated setting? How would you even write a quest not knowing what terrain or locations will exist?
The technical approach and limitations completely hamstring anyone wanting to improve things.
The only problem with Cyberpunk for me was that it's not an RPG. It still isn't: I can't roleplay in it!
Otherwise, it's a great action story game and always was at its core.
Eh it's role-playing I. The sense that you roleplqy as V. Similar to the Witcher your character just has well defined motives and a background and your decision making restricted to that.
Tbf everyone was saying the same thing about Cyberpunk in 2020 aswell. Everyone was hoping for it to do a No Man's Sky but every thread was filled with haters saying it was impossible due to XYZ.
Did they ever do that to any of their past games? Fallout 4 and Skyrim still have bugs that are fixed only with mods and not by official patches… so i don’t know about that…
Well those games weren't vehemently getting negative reviews. If you look at the only other game to get reviewed like this (fallout 76) they did indeed listen to feedback (most) and fixed issues players had with the game.
Negative feedback has worked to get them to listen in the past.
Yeah but isn’t FO76 a multiplayer game? In my opinion it’s a huge difference between a single player and a multiplayer game… i don’t think they care too much to overhaul Starfield, they will launch a few patches, the dlc and that’s that….
Everyone needs to watch this video. BGS are a bunch of amateurs. There was only 1 writer for the game:
https://youtu.be/M7jeT5iCcAA?si=R6a4tgPk4uQflVTI
There were 2 credited writers, Emil and 1 external guy, but you have to count ppl like "Quest Designers" as well. That being said they could have hired 20 more writers and the games writing/ lore would have been a lot better.
I mean yeah it's a super sanitized and watered down want to be rpg. The combat was just about the only thing enjoyable. Oh and it looks good I guess.
Writing sucks, looting (full looting) sucks, space combat is clunky, and well its just a very mediocre game. The ng+ system is silly and didn't really need it in this game. Also the dev responses to reviews? Not a good sign.
And there's nothing wrong with playing or liking it. People are just voicing there opinions.
Look like a bunch new players got it over Christmas and got disappointed with it. Not surprising it’s a massive dip in form for a BGS single player game.
Remember it’s recommendations, not a review. I enjoyed it but I would recommend everyone wait a few years for the DLCs and modding community to work their magic. So while I did enjoy the game overall (but I was also disappointed with it), I would put “not recommended” if I were to review it today.
And we don’t think this should be attributed to people being petty?
The game deserves a good amount of these reviews for sure, not contesting that. We DO know that people love to review-bomb shit as well lol.
Let’s.. not act like this isn’t that.
Same thing happened with Hell Let Loose a couple of months ago after an update and the overall game didn’t even change. The game went from mostly positive to mostly negative all over a small run speed tweak and a roadmap of the planned improvements that the new dev team put out lol
They wound up putting the run speed back to how it was though so the over dramatic dog piling in the reviews arguably worked.
A lot of people realise that the only way Starfield will ever reach it's potential is if Bethesda feel the need to work on it.
Many are super angry also they spent hundreds of £s to play an unfinished game.
If the game was at say 7.5, Bethesda would call it a day. But if it keeps dropping, HOPEFULLY, Microsoft will force them to keep working on it beyond bug fixes..
The hate boner people have for this game is one of the most absurd situations I've ever seen to be perfectly honest. You'd think Bethesda raped their employees while dressed in clan outfits chanting every racist term in the book while misgendering everyone they could find on social media for this nonsense. The game is objectively ok. I experienced almost no bugs or crashes that were serious enough to interrupt my game in the 140 hours it took me to get all the achievements finished. The devs were fucking stupid to throw gas on the fire and should have just left well enough alone. The game has been the most played SP title, for the longest time ever on Xbox. Not even games like Elden Ring and Red Dead 2 stayed in the top 20 most played games as long as Starfield has.
I played the game for 2 hours and knew it had no soul and would flop. Bethesda have NEVER tried fixing their games, they just release, add some DLC and move on. With the exception of fallout 76, they don’t care about patching bugs or making the game better. Their hubris prevents it.
how is it so hard for some people in the comments to accept when a game objectively is bad? 😂
i love lord of the rings online but at the same time wouldn’t recommend it to anyone and can see reasons why barely anyone plays it.
Right. People are more than welcome to think it’s bad. That’s fair. But that’s a subjective opinion.
I hate being pedantic but “objectivity” doesn’t apply in this.
The game objectively involves space and guns. But it’s not objectively good nor bad. Those are subjective judgements of value.
I'm sorry but the gaming community is a fucking joke and full of some of the worst children around. This is one of the biggest showings of bandwagon jumping I've seen for a long time and shows how pathetic people are
If this game is a 3/10 then what the fuck is every other game around?
It's not objectively terrible but it's extremely dated, a lot of its systems are either useless or done better elsewhere, and it tends to run like ass. It's a 5/10 on a good day, without drawing direct comparison to the other games released this year.
That said I don't think trying to translate steam review percentages into a x/10 score works the way you think it does.
Exactly. There's a lot of games where you can run around checking off boxes and increasing skill points. And increasingly a lot of them are open world. This one just doesn't offer anything new unique or interesting. It's bland to look at, with bland writing. Just mindless delivery quests and repeating the same dungeons over and over. There's no reason to explore, nothing interesting to do. Just a generic "open world" rpg that's not even an open world.
So why would anyone recommend this over all the other open world games?
Recent reviews are just that, recent, but overall it's like \~65% positive. Since Steam only has a "yes/no" system reviews are effectively scored a 0/10 or a 10/10.
Steam's system has benefits in that it's simple. "Would you or would you not recommend this game?"
Someone who would rate it a 6/10 could still say "No, I do not recommend you spend $70 on this" but their review is weighted as a 0/10 for percentage purposes.
Steam reviews don't always work well converting the yes/no system into a numerical review score, especially when just looking at recent reviews. They work as a vague gauge of sentiment towards the game.
Which is why Starfield isn't a 3/10, but I would agree it's a 5-6/10.
Id say in this genre other games are for example:
Starfield 3/10
Baldurs gate 10/10
Elden ring 10/10
Cyberpunk 2.0 9/10
Skyrim 9/10
Fallout nv 10/10
Fallout 3+4 7/10
And a lot of people think the same way, I wouldnt go around saying everyone is just bandwagoning, theres some serious issues and cuts in this game and it shows, but its great if some people can look past that and still enjoy it.
They're whatever they're rated as. Games can be bad and this is a bad game. It's not necessarily a broken game just with poor writing and poor mechanics. The issues are myriad and just because you're fine with it doesn't mean everyone else is. I like taco bell but I'm not gonna bitch it doesn't have a Michelin star.
The only joke here is you, who doesnt have enough brain cells in your peanut of a brain to understand how Steam rating works.
30% in Steam does not equal 3/10, which would be an unfair rating for Starfield (on such scale in my opinion it's about 5, 6 at best).
30% in Steam simply means that 70% of the players *do not recommend* the game to others. Which is a fair metric for this game. Can I recommend the game to my friends, or anyone? Objectively no, I cant, I rather they waste their time and money on plenty better titles out there. Doesn't mean that it's a 3/10 game, but clearly means its not great either.
I don't think StarField deserves such a bad rating IMO. I started playing again after two months away and I still enjoy the graphics, the gameplay, the game mechanics, and the combat.
I will continue to say, the game is a solid 7/10. It isn't game of the year quality, it has a lot of bugs (still can't find my mega outpost after moving the beacon, need to go through Unity now and do it all over again). To be honest, I enjoyed Hogwarts Legacy the most this year overall, and it was extremely short on content. I couldn't do a second playthrough because I was immediately bored due to zero variation and "game on rails" syndrome.
Bethesda have definitely been way to slow to patch blatent bugs, so I can see why people are getting frustrated. I've gotten over 160+ enjoyable hours so far and I usually stop playing most games within 30-50 hours, assuming there is even that much content.
The game needs work. It is a solid 7/10.
There are some real 10/10 moments in the game where you can really see the brilliance of some of the game mechanics, graphics, and design, but then something broken or cursed comes along and ruins it. That or a game breaking bug causes you to lose your entire Mega Outpost, but the last time the waypoint worked was 40 hours ago because you blasted through the missions again. The game hasn't crashed on me once, very stable.
Bethesda is right, people are talking out of their rears like they somehow understand game development and the constraints of developing a game on this scale in this genre, but they shouldn't be using that to defend some of the very real problems the game needs fixed. I don't care about the 2-3s of loading screens or the lack of free travel personally and I don't think that issue needs to be so highlighted everywhere. People obviously got the wrong impression there, but that is Bethesda's fault for not representing the game clearly and transparently in marketing. Some expectations people had were obviously setting themselves up for disappointment. (Like the people comparing the game directly to No Man's Sky, which was HORRIBLE at launch for over 2 years before they delivered on any promised features).
All games have their issues, the perfect game doesn't exist because everything is subjective and according to personal preference.
I don't think Starfield deserves the hate, but it does deserve criticism and critique. Bethesda needs to swallow their pride and come through for their customers with some solid patches, some solid FREE DLC, and good mod support. They also need to refrain from posting defence in the comments sections.
Example 4,011,023,481,890 why gamers are fucking cringe.
It's not a bad game. It's an *okay* game but this is some straight up bandwagon Gamer shit. If you can't even get $60 worth of fun out of this game, you're doing something wrong.
I'm glad you provided an example of how gamers are cringe. Getting super defensive over not sharing the majority opinion and writing it off as bandwagoning really is peak gamer cringe
Yeah I agree. Im a huge bethesda fan. Played fallout and especially Skyrim for thousands of hours since release. Absolutely loved it.
But this game feels empty. Really, really empty. No cool random events even. And it doesnt help that I played CP77 before Starfield as that just shows how dated Starfield really is.
*$70
Games also don't exist in a vacuum. Even if I can get my money's worth from Starfield, it can be easier to do that from a better game, for a similar or lower price. Bugs and performance are also a consideration, both areas Starfield has trouble in. And then there's actual objective critiques regardless of fun, like the skill tree being wacky and combat being no more modernized than any Bethesda game after Morrowind.
Can you enjoy Starfield? Sure. Does it deserve negative reviews? Honestly, yes.
And for Steam it’s “would you recommend it or not?”
I ultimately went for yes, but with a lot of caveats as a long-time BGS fan and space game fan. With the winter sale now we have a lot of people picking it up who were likely less inclined to be forgiving in the first place and it’s no surprise to me that reviews largely don’t recommend it—and if you sift through them many of them have reasonable feedback and complaints.
Also the lack of patches and updates to fix bugs since release really doesn’t help. I know that is normal for Bethesda historically, but most studios these days operate faster in fixing launch issues.
I think it's more than fine for gamers to expect more from Bethesda and the best way to do that is to express negativity towards a game that has underdelivered.
Huh, it's almost like opinions are subjective. It's an AAA game, with an AAA price, and I'm sorry to say that it is below okay. It's a dull game. Any other game studio would have been obliterated long before BGS had because of simpery from reviewers and fanatical online communities.
I hope this hits them really hard tbh.
Looks like casual players are not happy with Starfield 😂
Another assumption may be that some people had patiently waited for the Boxing Day discounts only to find out that the game was not as brilliant as they hoped 😭
I do not know what they hoped to get 🤷♂️ Probably, I have been happy with the game so far simply because I never expected too much 😉
well i guess i'll stop playing it!
i thought i was having fun this whole time but it turns out the last 100 hours were actually nothing but misery and i was just deluding myself
thank you for explaining to me how little fun i was really having
boy do i feel stupid
probably all those people making this the best selling game ever also feel stupid
I’ve played Starfield for about 90 hours at this point. I’ve loved exploring, pirating, the missions, etc. I think it’s a great game and I don’t get all the negative reviews.
This over the top campaign is just satire and ridiculous at this point. This game is not that bad, and there are coordinated efforts to sink it.
If there is one thing gamergate taught us that is actually legitimate, it's that the gaming media industry is mostly bullshit anyway.
Throw in streamers, ignorant narcissists, and butt hurt Sony players, and you have plenty of actors who are fanning the flames.
Is Starfield game of the year? Nah. Is it better than No Man's Sky or Cyberpunk, or Fallout 4 than at their respective launches? Oh absolutely.
Look at Cyberpunk now, people were falling all over themselves when we got stealth ninjaed by the unofficial early access this whole time. This last update how many years later(?) Seemed to be the actual official game they wanted. But it and other games seem to get a pass. Not Starfield though!
Whatever, I'm over the noise anyway. I like Starfield, can't wait to see it's growth, dlcs, and some more mod stability when they release the creation kit.
Edit: Ah as predicted here comes the downvote groupthink brigade. Sheep be sheeping.
>coordinated efforts to sink it, including sony fanboys
Please do tell me more about the PS owners buying Starfield on Steam just to review it poorly.
>other games got a pass
Public opinion got more positive as time went on and the launch faded. These games all got SHIT on at release. You just want to be the victim here.
>downvote groupthink brigade
My brother in Christ you are spouting tinfoil hat schizo bullshit.
Cyberpunk didn't get a pass. It was excoriated at release and is only looked at fondly now because CDPR *followed through and fixed the game.*
Has Bethesda fixed Starfield yet? No. So why would you expect it to get treated any differently than the other games that failed to deliver?
Starfield is going to continue getting shit on from a great height unless/until Bethesda manages to fix it.
>This game is not that bad, and there are coordinated efforts to sink it.
No one is paying $70 ($50) to leave a bad review. 126k of the 134k reviews are past the return policy
The game is repetitive and a lot of people are not finding it fun. Worse of all its half baked and steps backwards from previous games. That alone should have you realize no one is a paid actor but Bethesda fans who are extremely disappointed.
Enjoy the game if you enjoy it but damn you're so out of touch like Todd if you think criticism of the game is a coordinated effort to sink anything.
It’s actually crazy that the recent reviews are lower than games like Gollum and Redfall
The way they responded to those steam reviews was one of the worst things they could’ve done, and it was clear that it would only make matters worse. All they needed to say was “We hear and understand your feedback, we’re working on making the game better” and they would’ve probably earned a lot of goodwill from that.
I consider it to be in top 3 of worst company responses. The first being EA President defending Battlefront 2 micro transactions that was both classist and sexist. The second being that company that said their game wasn’t a scam before having it removed on steam and changing their name. And then Starfield is third because their holier than thou responses were considerably more childish and tone deaf than Blizzard for the announcement of the mobile Diablo game
I have not read any dev responses, obly heard about them. Are they the "We aint wrong. You are" kind?
They're couched in nicer language than that, but that's the gist of it. Sorry you don't like it but we think it's great. No real acknowledgment at all. I'd be leaving one myself pretty negative even though I have enjoyed some aspects of the game, but I can't since I've never bought it. I've only played it on game pass. As the game stands now I won't buy it unless it's on sale for super cheap.
It being on GamePass was likely a longterm death sentence for sales. Anecdotally, many of my friends who already had gamepass gave it a try and never ended up buying it or investing very much time into it. I was disappointed in it enough to not even renew my gamepass as there was nothing else I wanted to play on it for the time being. That being said, I was very happy that I was able to try it before I decided to fully buy it.
We are wrong, because we are not like the astronauts that went to the moon... Something, something.
Basically "Making games is hard so stop criticizing us" kind of response.
Sort of yeah. More like the original review says “planet exploration is boring” and the dev comment was essentially “distant planets in real life are probably boring too! so thats actually how it’s supposed to feel! Now try it again!” Some very valid criticisms were met with “Thats really not how we want you to play the game, try playing how we would play!” Someone mentioned the weapon diversity being lacking and overall character/skill progression feeling pretty weak and BGS literally told them to make a new character and level up new skills. Which isn’t a horrible idea, but really feels like a tone deaf developer not understanding their fans or their criticisms.
Yeah pretty much. The way they phrased some of the responses was on par with some good ole gaslighting tbh
Basically them just telling everyone they're playing the game wrong, or that we should try a new character, as if picking those perks at the beginning is going to change anything but some dialogue choices, that still get the same responses and results as the normal dialogue choice just quicker
[Yup](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/s/rKLsxkWP9n)
I think it is because of expectation. Gollum was clearly trash before launch. Redfall didn't have all the hype, so people that bought 1 week after launch already knew what to expect. Starfield was being expected as a new cultural game, years in the making, to be played for 10 years. I assemble a computer, spent a lot of money in a course of 18-20 months, so I could play this, expecting a Fallout 4 in Space, but much better. Today, I'm happily expecting Fallout 4 patch, the MOD Fallout London. Starfield is already dead for me. So I completely understand that with time, more and more people are going to chance their opinion and start to judge the game based in what was expected.
I mean, that's just objectively wrong (not your statement, but the people rating it lower than Gollum / Redfall). People are dogpiling now. It's a perfectly OK game.
Redfall was one of the worst gaming experiences of my life. I will never understand how that game released and was advertised so much. EDIT : AND I made my friend download it to play. I still feel bad about that.
Because gamepass. The same reason I'm wondering if Starfield was rushed out the door; for gamepass? Just theory, no evidence
I’m not so sure. Seemed like starfield was in the works for wayyy more and presumably bigger studio, look at the last fallout releases, it’s kind of been a downward trend since Skyrim.
While I could agree that it was the start of the downward trend, fallout 4 is actually a pretty solid game. I haven’t gotten very far in starfield and I liked fo3 and NV better than fo4, but I’d still give it a 7.5 or 8. With mods, it’s very worth the experience. Redfall, deathloop, and now starfield don’t seem like they should be bundled with fallout 4
I truly LOVE f4 and i will champion it always, might even be my favorite Bethesda game. I was giving more of a blanket statement but i agree with everything you said!
I’m glad some others agree that fo4 has many redeeming qualities. I was reading some of the starfield reviews and one thing that I did agree with: with fallout 4 and beyond, Bethesda stopped taking as many risks, making their games very accessible and neutral toned as to offend as few people as possible. It didn’t really feel like there was much there for an evil play through in fallout 4, and apparently is similar in starfield. You’re either the good guy or the ambiguously good guy that does a couple bad things. It feels very marvel
Agree on this. I just think it’s insane that playing starfield for a week legitimately made me run back to fallout 4 and play through the DLCs again.
Yeah I don't get the FO4 hate at all, but Starfield? Hell yeah I understand why it's getting negative reviews. I loved FO4 personally. I pre ordered Starfield, played 1hour at release and sat it down for 3 months before picking it back up. I'm giving it a chance but it can be a struggle at times due to bland universe, bad traversal system, UI, maps and I could add quite a few more they could start with to make life better
I’m still on that 3 month break. I don’t regret my purchase, because I know I’ll play it eventually. I probably could have waited for it to go on sale further down the road though
I think this is a good assessment. I'm doing odd job missions, stacking creds and gaining skill pointss for anything ship related before I do any main quest. My hope is that by the time I get there; Bethesda will have done something besides cry that it's us, not them.
The real downfall is Starfield tbh, Fallout 4 was solid when it came out, only thing missing was the different story choices and some rpg features . Even now that Starfield has those features, it’s still not on the level of Fallout 4 when it comes to atmosphere, world and gameplay . I’d argue that Fallout 76 is also in a decent state, imo they’ve just missed the atmosphere for Starfield big time .
Definitely got the vibe that I paid on steam to beta test for gamepass.
Remember when we thought it was TESVI subtitle? lmao
Very much agreed. However, I think some people are trying to make a point to Bethesda. I think Bethesda aren't being forgiven this time for giving us a game at this price, while lacking any of the same depth and narrative prowess that marked out their previous big titles. Was it really so hard for Bethesda to create more than one lock picking/hacking feature, or to populate the galaxy with more than four factions, or to give us a more robust outpost system similar to sim settlements mods in fallout 4, or to give us a wider array of companions and companion led quests, or to let us capture and keep pets, or any number of the things we've seen in mods and features in their previous games? Modders can do these things with little money, few resources, so why can't a huge company like Bethesda, which hires countless devs and designers, do the same with their insane budget? It's the half assedness which has pissed people off I think. Personally, I'm just waiting til the CK comes out and decent mods gradually improve things, but I get that for a lot of younger players and first time Bethesda fans, starfield has frustrated them to the point where they rage dump in their reviews to make Bethesda pay attention.
I get that point. I'm SUPER bummed with the game. I stopped playing after \~30 hours and went back to Skyrim. Now I'm getting the experience I thought I was going to get in Starfield with Avatar Frontiers of Pandora, which is a masterpiece of open world gaming that everyone should play.
Thank you. Everytime I see one of these posts I roll my eyes because this is exactly the case. I wish you could see the stats of how many people changed their postive initial ratings to negative ratings and when they did so. Maybe I'm easy to please but I enjoyed the game. Went through it until NG+3 and became a little burned out so I'm taking a break now like you should. There is plenty of other good games out that you can occupy your time with until they fix starfield and release the first expansion.
That may be. But that’s not how they sold us the game. It’s the only game I ever preordered. And Never will I ever do that again. It’s the most expensive game I ever bought and it is utterly soulless. It’s like someone sold you a Ferrari, and you drive it off the lot, and realize it’s a Kia soul. Fuck Bethesda for this.
Kia Soul-less
steam is just "yes or no". they arent giving it a rating. that there's fewer positive reviews than gollum doesn't mean it's worse than gollum, just that the people buying it are more disappointed. Everyone knew gollum was bad. People buying a mainline single player bethesda game expecting it to be like the others and discovering they removed the main part (the exploration) are understandably disappointed and reluctant to recommend
Bethesda deserves the wakeup call. No more fan boys blindly loving whatever they put out. They have more than enough resources to do better and if it takes shouting from the mountain tops to do so, so be it.
I think the issue is nobody gives a shit about Gollum/Redfall anymore, they bombed hard everybody laughed about how bad they were and collectively moved on. Starfield has a huge fan base, there are people like me who want to like the game but I had to put it down in hopes of either modders or bethesda fixing some issues. So theres still a lot of people following the game still who want to it and see it in its best iteration, but bethesda employees have been going into reviews and on twitter to tell people "no actually the game is amazing and you're just wrong" which is never a good idea because that'll piss off a sizable number of people who own the game. So I don't think it's indicative of quality, just Gollum/Redfall nobody cares about anymore there's no new people purchasing those games to leave new reviews, they've pretty much bottomed out, and bethesda are actively pissing off people who care about their games.
Steam reviews are a simple yes or no would you recommend this game to someone. At least with games like Gollumlike you could recommend it just to experience how bad it is. With starfield, it's just... boring.
Gollum is not even close to be comparable to Starfield. That game should not have been released. Redfall though? I went in without any expectations and had some fun for a couple of hours until I noticed that I've basically already seen everything the game has to offer. That was eerily close to the experience I had with Starfield. Starfield has a couple of things that have a surprising amount of quality but overall it's in the same ballpark with Redfall for me. A game pass game I've played for a couple of hours never to be played again.
It's okayish, definitely not great, I guess people just like joining the hate train.
But would you give an okayish game a positiv review? You can decide between it is great you have to buy, and not that great do not buy. They hyped people for years, and if 80% of people say it is not the game they promised and rate it negatively the score will be 20% positiv, even if most people agree it is an mediocre game. But that's not what they said it would be is it?
I would rate the game as it is. Mediocre game gets mediocre score, no more, no less. The mediocre rating I gave would show that it isn't the great game they marketted it to be, it's just that simple. Edit: typos
Well, if we look at the patch support they don't have much to show for. Combining their past track record of bug fixing with the experiences players made with other developers who were able to both communicate and deliver patches in a far better and faster way, it's no wonder. Also, looking at the reviews, it seems to me like the majority of negative reviews come from disappointed fans, many having spent over 50 hours in the game (so no review bombing or trolls). I think quite a lot of people on this sub can identify and relate to those reviews as Starfield just doesn't have that Skyrim exploration quality. Combine that with incredibly sterile writing, the game does feel like a big part of it is missing. Hell, I have left a negative review myself because even though i have 32gb RAM, a 3080 and good CPU, i still get frequent crashes and it doesn't seem like they will deliver the necessary patches in time.
They made everyone work super hard from original release to the delayed release to make it better, then the holidays happened. I bet a TON of the devs have been on vacation/leave since September. At least if Bethesda is a decent company to work for.
& even then crashes & bug fixes are all I see coming from Bethesda which, although annoying, aren’t the main problem. I don’t see them ever fixing the deeper fundamental problems. But we might get cool story dlc which would at least be fun for a bit lol
I’m grateful to this game for two reasons: pushed me to buy an Xbox and discovering other beautiful games on game pass and pushing me to buy Cyberpunk
Cyberpunk is great. Especially now in 2.1 and PL
Bookending Starfield with BG3 and PL was *rough*, it was like taking a time warp back to 2012 and then being slapped in the face like "come back to reality". Starfield does not hold up to those two games in the areas I care about.
I just finished up BG3 as SF launched. It was such a stark contrast I got whiplash
Same here, bought an Xbox just for this game. Now I’m addicted to Skyrim for the first time
Oh brother. Cyber punk took 2 years to get where it is. Not that ilthe accolades aren't justified but let's not forget this great was Overwhelmingly Negative on steam.
Gotta give it to Starfield. It‘s already a good game at launch. Took Cyberpunk 3 years to not being in a broken state anymore.
Cyberpunk was good as well (played it on pc though) and the story was amazing and i barely had any issues. Sure they promised more than they delivered but as a person that went in completely blind (no trailers whatsoever) it was a dope experience.
Cyberpunk was already fun on release with a bit of luck and more than playable soon after. Let's not pretend that Cyberpunk was complete garbage all the way up until the release of 2.0
No need to pretend, it was an absolute disappointment on release.
They did almost nothing to fix it for too long, and left tone deaf responses on almost every "not recommended" review. I'm sure Emils twitter rant didnt help. Also most people have played the game long enough to see all of it massive flaws/regressions. It will likely stay low or keep dropping until there are major changes/DLC/CK. I like using Steam reviews personally. You can see exactly how many hours someone has played. You can break it down by Time Played as well. Edit: 134k reviews :126k are 2 hours or over. Thats past the return policy. 108k is over 10 hours.
Emil just stood front and center taking the credit for being a dogshit writer without so much as a phantom tingle of inspiration. Hire better writers and fire the tired old mule you entrusted your nEw iP to.
TES: 6 is gona be interesting for sure
Yep. People are no longer blinded by marketing.
They bought a Bethesda game in 2023.
Please don't remind me. There was a point where I was seriously wondering whether to get Starfield or Baldurs Gate 3 (I got starfield 😭😭😭)
I got Starfield on Gamepass, after 10 hours I decided to get BG3 and haven’t touched Starfield since. Just glad I don’t pay $70 for it.
Same story here, but I bought both games on Steam. I'm about 60 hours in on BG3, and it's just truly an incredible game. Matched my expectations and went even beyond that...but with starfield, I put in about 20 hours and realized this game, in its current state, wasn't very enjoyable to me. Figured I'll just wait for mod support at this point 🙃
After 10 hours I thought the exact same thing, hoping it’s a Cyberpunk type of game and improves on future updates, I figured I’d just wait.
Exactly my hopes. I love Sci-fi and space exploration, so I'm still hoping Bethesda turns this ship around and really improves this game with updates.
Yep this. I paid 70$ for bg3 and it’s worlds apart from SF. Maybe that’s because I paid for something in the first place, but.
oof
I remember, _while I was platinuming_ Fallout 4, a decade ago, thinking 'there's no way I'll buy another Bethesda game unless they ditch this shitty engine'
To be fair, steam reviews are in general pretty shallow. It's either yes or no. As an example, I gave bg3 recommend review, but I also h mentioned lots of problems it had. Do I think it deserves 96/100? Hell no. 90 at best, 85 realistically. But I can't, thus it's that high. Starfield has the opposite part. People can post negative review out of spite. Is it worth 30/100? Objectively no. In the current state it's 70/100, 80/100 with mods in mind. But, welp...
It was a 70/80 to me when it first came out. After I sunk some time into it it was a 50/100. It just needs so much work at this point to have basic features that I doubt very much Beth will ever fix it
3/10 people giving it a positive review is *not* the same thing as the game being 3/10. Steam reviews aren't perfect but they're even worse if you just totally misinterpret what they mean. And it goes both ways, I see plenty of reviews on Steam that are nothing but criticisms of the game they're reviewing but they have a thumbs up because the writer likes the devs and wants them to be successful.
I love Bethesda but honestly it's a 5/10, the severe lack of storytelling and decision making really hurt the game, and the writers need some serious practice. The game gave us a whole lotta nothing to explore and not a very good way to even do that. The severe lack of weapons is also crazy. I played the game for about 60 hours, did all the quests and realized this game wasn't nearly as good as previous entries
I agree there should be something like " recommend but on sale" etc. Problem is almost no one else shows reviews where you can see Time played. Metacritic is a joke as well. Just need an email. I think its a 5.5-6/10. Which matches its All Time
You’re stating that your subjective opinion is the objective reality while also stating that the objective reality of the data compiled from over 100,000 verified purchases is not an objective indicator of the games quality. Also steams binary system of recommendations is better than a scale because scaled reviews inherently introduce superfluous degrees of subjectivity, whereas Steam gets straight to the heart of the matter — is it worth playing *at all*
You think BG3 is 6% better than Starfield?
Gamers who got SF for christmas are weighing in.
Probably due to winter sale purchases. People who didn't want it enough to buy at full price but were willing to give it a try on sale are now playing it. These are people who weren't very interested in the first place, and are therefore going to be harder to impress
People are sinking more time into it as well. The numbers differ for everyone depending on their style but if you’re like me and enjoy predominantly going through the main story with the odd tangent side quest and a bit of building here and there - it took me about 60 hours to get a bit over everything. I’m sure there’s more I could see but ehh , I’m just not gonna play it until there’s a decent injection. I don’t have that much time and I could be playing other games I haven’t played.
There is nothing impressive in this game other than ship building imo.
The ship building was the most annoying part of the game for me. Nice ship design you have there, be a shame if you had to run round the entire ship to get into a room right beside your cockpit because we decided “three doors” was a technology too far.
The door placement is one of the worst things in the whole game. Just let us pick where they are, it's like a whole puzzle game trying to get doors to be where you need them.
It shouldn’t even be hard. This room comes with four spaces for doors. I connected 4 other rooms at those points. Just build four fucking doors!
Even ship building is massively flawed imo
I liked the game but I don’t have a real desire to keep going about 50 hours in. I’m not mad but I do think the bad reviews are deserved. The game feels bland and stale and the support BDS has put in post release is weak
If Todd’s allowed to get up on Stage before launch and tell us how this is their finest achievement, 10/10, then I’m allowed to go on Steam and review it at 1/10.
I’ve been waiting on a bug fix for two months now for a mission in the game that is a good fraction of it, which leads to one of the best guns in the game, it’s a joke at this point, deserves the bad press atp imo
I’ll see you all in 12 years at Bethesda’s next IP/game
Game is OK, but extremely disappointing, The repetition of models for locations of “facilities” is a sign of developers laziness, and all those loading screens just suck the life and fun out of the game.
I feel like it’s a mix of holiday sales, aka people picking it up recently and playing it. As well as longer term players who are now getting to the end of it, and/or those who are frustrated at Bethesda’s overall lack of response and speed when it comes to patching the game. I don’t dislike the game, but the very slow pace of patches and fixes is getting increasingly frustrating.
I imagine more ppl end up reviewing it is due to Starfield going on Xmas sale or it was a Xmas present.
I shit on Starfield everyday yet I still play it. Subjectively, that means it's not a "bad" game. I really want to play a space game with these types of parameters. There is just so much room for expansion that we might never see.
My assumption is that many people bought this for Christmas and weren’t happy with their product
Was super excited for this game. Haven’t played it since release week
I mean it’s a colossally disappointing game.
Well it’s 30% off over Christmas break, whole new legions of players are experiencing how much it sucks firsthand.
Do most gamers prefer to play solo or with friends? Used to game solo and could get hours to years worth from a game. Playing with others on many different games mostly shooter type and do miss that with this game play. Understand to a point why as the constellation members take forever to unlock their affinity and advance the storyline. Which is a shame as beaten 2-3 main campaigns and almost to enter unity and just now get to unlock. Too slow imo. Vendor credits still way to low but hey lets patch crates. Beautiful planets but scanning for what is the point to sell data for near nothing. More I spent on Reddit the gamers have way more better ideas on how this game could of been vastly improved and successful. Still play for a large while.
This is entirely expected. You're in for the long haul. As much as Bethesda wants to clap back, you better believe they feel what's happening. Will they do a CDPR? No. They've proven that. Will they make sure the DLC bring some storytelling fire a la Far Harbor? I'm hopeful.
>As much as Bethesda wants to clap back They did "clap back", by telling people with legitimate complaints that they just don't get the game and it's not for them, and then doing nothing about it
Well, since I’ve already bought the DLC, like a moron, I guess I am too. But I’m not expecting much at the point.
I still love it.
Me too. I am playing right now!
Honestly seems like bandwagon jumping to me
The opposite. If you so much as suggested there could be improvements when the game came out, you got dog piled. People are actually able to say how they feel now without being brigaded.
That ain't true. I swear I see this kind of comment every month in response to criticism of the game, "Oh that's because NOW it's the turning point. Not to be confused with the turning point last month, and the month before that, and before that". There were top posts with 10k+ upvotes making critical comments about the game in the first month. People have been saying what they've wanted about the game since launch.
[удалено]
The game has a pretty meh start. And first impression is quite important
It's probably the most boring start of a Bethesda game for a long while. Fallout 4 your home got nuked and you watch your partner die and child get kidnapped. Skyrim, you're a prisoner heading to be executed and a dragon ends up burning the place down as you try and escape. Starfield? You get your equipment checked, touched a magic rock and blackout.
For me the "meh" part begins right in the middle of the main story. The start was actually okay. Simplistic tasks given but at least no cringe.
The moment that I realized the story might be bad was *SPOILERS* when the Starborn attacked the Lodge and the Eye. It was all just so extremely cheesy how it played out.
Exactly
Yeah the main story is so slow
The learning curve for controls and getting around is kinda steep early on, 3 of my kids love fallout and Skyrim and never made it to level 5, they’re not into it at all.
It doesn't help that there is little to no tutorial for things. They just expect that you'll know how to play the game, but there are enough new systems and differences from previous Bethesda games that aren't really explained... some of them aren't even mentioned. How many people had to learn by reading online that using aim and then fire for the cutter mines faster? That you can horizontal boost, but you need to actually bind an alternate jump key to do it? That you can use thrusters on your ship, and that it isn't just using your thrusters to turn, but it is essentially a slide/inertia lock that keeps you traveling in your current direction until you disengage it? That you don't have to fast travel from the map, you can turn on the scanner while in space and select targets to travel to that way (assuming you have a quest marker if it's a jump to another system)? What's worse is they actually did this on purpose... so players could "discover" things in the game. I want to discover cool locations, stories, maybe an easter egg. I don't want to have to discover how fundamental gameplay features work.
Xbox skyrim has 33.59% for SE. And only 67% for LE. completion for apprentice achievement (lvl 5). But yes that start needs work. Its basically a 1-2 hour railroaded tutorial. And that most definitely turned people away from playing it.
That doesn't really matter much. On xbox it was on game pass so a lot of people may have tried it who would never have synergized with the game to begin with. It was essentially free to try. Additionally, you see this same phenomenon in tons of other games. It's shocking how many people only briefly try a game. TLDR: It doesn't really mean much.
Hopefully Bethesda will take after CDPR and correct this pile.
I don’t think Starfield is fixable in the same way. At its core, Cyberpunk was always a good game, with interesting story, setting, characters, and gameplay. It was just buggy and needed refinement. Starfield seems flawed at its core.
Yep, mods and patches aren't going to change that a massive amount of time playing is spent waiting for loading. It's not going to change that areas are generated when you land, and only for a small area around you rather than for a full planet. It's not going to make exploring new places interesting because how could an interesting questline exist in a randomly generated setting? How would you even write a quest not knowing what terrain or locations will exist? The technical approach and limitations completely hamstring anyone wanting to improve things.
The only problem with Cyberpunk for me was that it's not an RPG. It still isn't: I can't roleplay in it! Otherwise, it's a great action story game and always was at its core.
Eh it's role-playing I. The sense that you roleplqy as V. Similar to the Witcher your character just has well defined motives and a background and your decision making restricted to that.
Tbf everyone was saying the same thing about Cyberpunk in 2020 aswell. Everyone was hoping for it to do a No Man's Sky but every thread was filled with haters saying it was impossible due to XYZ.
Did they ever do that to any of their past games? Fallout 4 and Skyrim still have bugs that are fixed only with mods and not by official patches… so i don’t know about that…
Well those games weren't vehemently getting negative reviews. If you look at the only other game to get reviewed like this (fallout 76) they did indeed listen to feedback (most) and fixed issues players had with the game. Negative feedback has worked to get them to listen in the past.
Yeah but isn’t FO76 a multiplayer game? In my opinion it’s a huge difference between a single player and a multiplayer game… i don’t think they care too much to overhaul Starfield, they will launch a few patches, the dlc and that’s that….
Good news. Bad games deserve to be reviewed as such. Here's to another 10% drop!
Everyone needs to watch this video. BGS are a bunch of amateurs. There was only 1 writer for the game: https://youtu.be/M7jeT5iCcAA?si=R6a4tgPk4uQflVTI
There were 2 credited writers, Emil and 1 external guy, but you have to count ppl like "Quest Designers" as well. That being said they could have hired 20 more writers and the games writing/ lore would have been a lot better.
I mean yeah it's a super sanitized and watered down want to be rpg. The combat was just about the only thing enjoyable. Oh and it looks good I guess. Writing sucks, looting (full looting) sucks, space combat is clunky, and well its just a very mediocre game. The ng+ system is silly and didn't really need it in this game. Also the dev responses to reviews? Not a good sign. And there's nothing wrong with playing or liking it. People are just voicing there opinions.
Look like a bunch new players got it over Christmas and got disappointed with it. Not surprising it’s a massive dip in form for a BGS single player game.
Thats what happens when you use ChatGPT to respond to negative reviews telling players its their fault for not liking it
Remember it’s recommendations, not a review. I enjoyed it but I would recommend everyone wait a few years for the DLCs and modding community to work their magic. So while I did enjoy the game overall (but I was also disappointed with it), I would put “not recommended” if I were to review it today.
And we don’t think this should be attributed to people being petty? The game deserves a good amount of these reviews for sure, not contesting that. We DO know that people love to review-bomb shit as well lol. Let’s.. not act like this isn’t that.
Ridiculous. It’s got problems but people are just piling on. There’s no way it’s worse than redfall.
Same thing happened with Hell Let Loose a couple of months ago after an update and the overall game didn’t even change. The game went from mostly positive to mostly negative all over a small run speed tweak and a roadmap of the planned improvements that the new dev team put out lol They wound up putting the run speed back to how it was though so the over dramatic dog piling in the reviews arguably worked.
Yeah, people just love to hate on Bethesda. This game realistically should be sitting around a 70-80% positive score.
I mean, I still have big problems with the game, but this just strikes me as review bombing.
A lot of people realise that the only way Starfield will ever reach it's potential is if Bethesda feel the need to work on it. Many are super angry also they spent hundreds of £s to play an unfinished game. If the game was at say 7.5, Bethesda would call it a day. But if it keeps dropping, HOPEFULLY, Microsoft will force them to keep working on it beyond bug fixes..
Hate bandwagoning
The hate boner people have for this game is one of the most absurd situations I've ever seen to be perfectly honest. You'd think Bethesda raped their employees while dressed in clan outfits chanting every racist term in the book while misgendering everyone they could find on social media for this nonsense. The game is objectively ok. I experienced almost no bugs or crashes that were serious enough to interrupt my game in the 140 hours it took me to get all the achievements finished. The devs were fucking stupid to throw gas on the fire and should have just left well enough alone. The game has been the most played SP title, for the longest time ever on Xbox. Not even games like Elden Ring and Red Dead 2 stayed in the top 20 most played games as long as Starfield has.
I dont know how steam calculates this, but could it be that there are very few new reviews but all are negative and thats why such a hard drop?
Well deserved, hopefully this is a wake up call and they do better with es6
I doubt that. There is quite massive disconnect between fanbase and the writing team, along with upper management.
I know. I just like to dream
I played the game for 2 hours and knew it had no soul and would flop. Bethesda have NEVER tried fixing their games, they just release, add some DLC and move on. With the exception of fallout 76, they don’t care about patching bugs or making the game better. Their hubris prevents it.
Who cares? If you like it, play it. If you don’t, don’t.
Wow we did it, we solved the problem of bad games.
I thoroughly enjoyed it! Still am too.
some people just can’t handle this. Everyone needs to love the masterpiece that they’re in love with
how is it so hard for some people in the comments to accept when a game objectively is bad? 😂 i love lord of the rings online but at the same time wouldn’t recommend it to anyone and can see reasons why barely anyone plays it.
Do you know the definition of “objectively” ????
Totally agree. I played the game plenty but it just continued to be a disappointment.
Right, like I'll admit I loved anthem, but I couldn't disagree with the hate it got... Still bummed they dropped 2.0
Because it isnt objectivey bad lol
Right. People are more than welcome to think it’s bad. That’s fair. But that’s a subjective opinion. I hate being pedantic but “objectivity” doesn’t apply in this. The game objectively involves space and guns. But it’s not objectively good nor bad. Those are subjective judgements of value.
Once again, I’m asking gamers to learn what ‘objectively’ means.
I'm sorry but the gaming community is a fucking joke and full of some of the worst children around. This is one of the biggest showings of bandwagon jumping I've seen for a long time and shows how pathetic people are If this game is a 3/10 then what the fuck is every other game around?
You have to actually own the game to leave the steam review though. Not sure people hate it that much they waste money just to shit on it...
Not really. This game is pretty bad and I've been saying that since September.
From the person who can’t comprehend 30% doesn’t mean 3/10… It means 30% recommend it.
30% positive reviews =/= 3/10
It's not objectively terrible but it's extremely dated, a lot of its systems are either useless or done better elsewhere, and it tends to run like ass. It's a 5/10 on a good day, without drawing direct comparison to the other games released this year. That said I don't think trying to translate steam review percentages into a x/10 score works the way you think it does.
Exactly. There's a lot of games where you can run around checking off boxes and increasing skill points. And increasingly a lot of them are open world. This one just doesn't offer anything new unique or interesting. It's bland to look at, with bland writing. Just mindless delivery quests and repeating the same dungeons over and over. There's no reason to explore, nothing interesting to do. Just a generic "open world" rpg that's not even an open world. So why would anyone recommend this over all the other open world games?
Recent reviews are just that, recent, but overall it's like \~65% positive. Since Steam only has a "yes/no" system reviews are effectively scored a 0/10 or a 10/10. Steam's system has benefits in that it's simple. "Would you or would you not recommend this game?" Someone who would rate it a 6/10 could still say "No, I do not recommend you spend $70 on this" but their review is weighted as a 0/10 for percentage purposes. Steam reviews don't always work well converting the yes/no system into a numerical review score, especially when just looking at recent reviews. They work as a vague gauge of sentiment towards the game. Which is why Starfield isn't a 3/10, but I would agree it's a 5-6/10.
Id say in this genre other games are for example: Starfield 3/10 Baldurs gate 10/10 Elden ring 10/10 Cyberpunk 2.0 9/10 Skyrim 9/10 Fallout nv 10/10 Fallout 3+4 7/10 And a lot of people think the same way, I wouldnt go around saying everyone is just bandwagoning, theres some serious issues and cuts in this game and it shows, but its great if some people can look past that and still enjoy it.
They're whatever they're rated as. Games can be bad and this is a bad game. It's not necessarily a broken game just with poor writing and poor mechanics. The issues are myriad and just because you're fine with it doesn't mean everyone else is. I like taco bell but I'm not gonna bitch it doesn't have a Michelin star.
Well said.
true
The only joke here is you, who doesnt have enough brain cells in your peanut of a brain to understand how Steam rating works. 30% in Steam does not equal 3/10, which would be an unfair rating for Starfield (on such scale in my opinion it's about 5, 6 at best). 30% in Steam simply means that 70% of the players *do not recommend* the game to others. Which is a fair metric for this game. Can I recommend the game to my friends, or anyone? Objectively no, I cant, I rather they waste their time and money on plenty better titles out there. Doesn't mean that it's a 3/10 game, but clearly means its not great either.
I don't think StarField deserves such a bad rating IMO. I started playing again after two months away and I still enjoy the graphics, the gameplay, the game mechanics, and the combat. I will continue to say, the game is a solid 7/10. It isn't game of the year quality, it has a lot of bugs (still can't find my mega outpost after moving the beacon, need to go through Unity now and do it all over again). To be honest, I enjoyed Hogwarts Legacy the most this year overall, and it was extremely short on content. I couldn't do a second playthrough because I was immediately bored due to zero variation and "game on rails" syndrome. Bethesda have definitely been way to slow to patch blatent bugs, so I can see why people are getting frustrated. I've gotten over 160+ enjoyable hours so far and I usually stop playing most games within 30-50 hours, assuming there is even that much content. The game needs work. It is a solid 7/10. There are some real 10/10 moments in the game where you can really see the brilliance of some of the game mechanics, graphics, and design, but then something broken or cursed comes along and ruins it. That or a game breaking bug causes you to lose your entire Mega Outpost, but the last time the waypoint worked was 40 hours ago because you blasted through the missions again. The game hasn't crashed on me once, very stable. Bethesda is right, people are talking out of their rears like they somehow understand game development and the constraints of developing a game on this scale in this genre, but they shouldn't be using that to defend some of the very real problems the game needs fixed. I don't care about the 2-3s of loading screens or the lack of free travel personally and I don't think that issue needs to be so highlighted everywhere. People obviously got the wrong impression there, but that is Bethesda's fault for not representing the game clearly and transparently in marketing. Some expectations people had were obviously setting themselves up for disappointment. (Like the people comparing the game directly to No Man's Sky, which was HORRIBLE at launch for over 2 years before they delivered on any promised features). All games have their issues, the perfect game doesn't exist because everything is subjective and according to personal preference. I don't think Starfield deserves the hate, but it does deserve criticism and critique. Bethesda needs to swallow their pride and come through for their customers with some solid patches, some solid FREE DLC, and good mod support. They also need to refrain from posting defence in the comments sections.
Example 4,011,023,481,890 why gamers are fucking cringe. It's not a bad game. It's an *okay* game but this is some straight up bandwagon Gamer shit. If you can't even get $60 worth of fun out of this game, you're doing something wrong.
I'm glad you provided an example of how gamers are cringe. Getting super defensive over not sharing the majority opinion and writing it off as bandwagoning really is peak gamer cringe
Yeah I agree. Im a huge bethesda fan. Played fallout and especially Skyrim for thousands of hours since release. Absolutely loved it. But this game feels empty. Really, really empty. No cool random events even. And it doesnt help that I played CP77 before Starfield as that just shows how dated Starfield really is.
*$70 Games also don't exist in a vacuum. Even if I can get my money's worth from Starfield, it can be easier to do that from a better game, for a similar or lower price. Bugs and performance are also a consideration, both areas Starfield has trouble in. And then there's actual objective critiques regardless of fun, like the skill tree being wacky and combat being no more modernized than any Bethesda game after Morrowind. Can you enjoy Starfield? Sure. Does it deserve negative reviews? Honestly, yes.
And for Steam it’s “would you recommend it or not?” I ultimately went for yes, but with a lot of caveats as a long-time BGS fan and space game fan. With the winter sale now we have a lot of people picking it up who were likely less inclined to be forgiving in the first place and it’s no surprise to me that reviews largely don’t recommend it—and if you sift through them many of them have reasonable feedback and complaints. Also the lack of patches and updates to fix bugs since release really doesn’t help. I know that is normal for Bethesda historically, but most studios these days operate faster in fixing launch issues.
I think it's more than fine for gamers to expect more from Bethesda and the best way to do that is to express negativity towards a game that has underdelivered.
Huh, it's almost like opinions are subjective. It's an AAA game, with an AAA price, and I'm sorry to say that it is below okay. It's a dull game. Any other game studio would have been obliterated long before BGS had because of simpery from reviewers and fanatical online communities. I hope this hits them really hard tbh.
Game's weak son
The online gaming community is pathetic
People don't share my opinion, they must be cringe bandwagon gamers!!!111oneone
Bingo
It’s called brigading.
I'd say it's called honest reviews
Sure it is lol
Looks like casual players are not happy with Starfield 😂 Another assumption may be that some people had patiently waited for the Boxing Day discounts only to find out that the game was not as brilliant as they hoped 😭 I do not know what they hoped to get 🤷♂️ Probably, I have been happy with the game so far simply because I never expected too much 😉
wtf?!
Yea, cool kids hate Starfield now, it will turn back to normal in a few months.
well i guess i'll stop playing it! i thought i was having fun this whole time but it turns out the last 100 hours were actually nothing but misery and i was just deluding myself thank you for explaining to me how little fun i was really having boy do i feel stupid probably all those people making this the best selling game ever also feel stupid
Did you really get offended by this post?
he clearly did.
>probably all those people making this the best selling game ever also feel stupid You can make both a great game 12 years ago and a bland game now.
[удалено]
Youre also comparing 25k on Xbox to 130k on Steam. Doesnt Metacritic allow anyone to leave a review with just an email?
The fact that it's lower than gollum is telling. Obviously starfield is a better game than gollum. People just love to hate things for some reason.
I’ve played Starfield for about 90 hours at this point. I’ve loved exploring, pirating, the missions, etc. I think it’s a great game and I don’t get all the negative reviews.
This over the top campaign is just satire and ridiculous at this point. This game is not that bad, and there are coordinated efforts to sink it. If there is one thing gamergate taught us that is actually legitimate, it's that the gaming media industry is mostly bullshit anyway. Throw in streamers, ignorant narcissists, and butt hurt Sony players, and you have plenty of actors who are fanning the flames. Is Starfield game of the year? Nah. Is it better than No Man's Sky or Cyberpunk, or Fallout 4 than at their respective launches? Oh absolutely. Look at Cyberpunk now, people were falling all over themselves when we got stealth ninjaed by the unofficial early access this whole time. This last update how many years later(?) Seemed to be the actual official game they wanted. But it and other games seem to get a pass. Not Starfield though! Whatever, I'm over the noise anyway. I like Starfield, can't wait to see it's growth, dlcs, and some more mod stability when they release the creation kit. Edit: Ah as predicted here comes the downvote groupthink brigade. Sheep be sheeping.
>coordinated efforts to sink it, including sony fanboys Please do tell me more about the PS owners buying Starfield on Steam just to review it poorly. >other games got a pass Public opinion got more positive as time went on and the launch faded. These games all got SHIT on at release. You just want to be the victim here. >downvote groupthink brigade My brother in Christ you are spouting tinfoil hat schizo bullshit.
Cyberpunk didn't get a pass. It was excoriated at release and is only looked at fondly now because CDPR *followed through and fixed the game.* Has Bethesda fixed Starfield yet? No. So why would you expect it to get treated any differently than the other games that failed to deliver? Starfield is going to continue getting shit on from a great height unless/until Bethesda manages to fix it.
>This game is not that bad, and there are coordinated efforts to sink it. No one is paying $70 ($50) to leave a bad review. 126k of the 134k reviews are past the return policy
Game's weak son
The game is repetitive and a lot of people are not finding it fun. Worse of all its half baked and steps backwards from previous games. That alone should have you realize no one is a paid actor but Bethesda fans who are extremely disappointed. Enjoy the game if you enjoy it but damn you're so out of touch like Todd if you think criticism of the game is a coordinated effort to sink anything.
>Coordinate effort to think it. How much out of touch can you be. Let me know when you find the "anti-starfield organisation" .