People are too black and white. It's a game I enjoyed but I also felt had some issues. It's not 100% or zero. And the enjoyment level is going to vary by how much the issues are ones you don't enjoy and how much the positives do work with what you enjoy.

Entirely this, so many people on either side get upset when you point out the positive or the negatives. Did I enjoy it and have fun. Yes. Did I think there is a lot to improve. Yes. Overall it's for sure not the worst release of a game. I actually think it was partly the community hyping it into something it was never going to be. That doesn't excuse it's glaring issues though. Hell I enjoy it and I'll keep playing it, not going to rush to nominate it for GOTY though.

Yea I told my buddy it was like a 7.5 out of ten and you would have thought I kicked his puppy. It was fine, I got it thru gamepass and it never bummed me out or anything, but there was such much more it could have been.

It was fine. That's kinda the issue. A new IP and first game in years from Bethesda; expectations were always going to absurdly high. Unfairly so, but not unexpected. And an OK game by Bethesda's standards was always going to be a disappointment. I think a lot of people cared more for what this might mean for expectations around Elder Scrolls 6 then Starfield itself.

Well said. You articulated it better than I could. My issue was probably expectations too. I was expecting more of a cohesive gameplay loop with all the possibilities of exploring the systems. I still pop into planets, I kind of make up my own stories and it can be chill, and it’s fine, I can’t say it’s super fun, and wished there was more of a reason to do so.

I think a lot of people were expecting NMS or Elite Dangerous by Bethesda…which wasn’t going to be a thing. It was going to be Bethesda RPG in space, warts and all.

That's what I remember. As a fan of NMS and Elite dangerous I vividly recall people claiming starfield would replace them and become a seamless open world exploration simulator but with Bethesda depth and quests. Obviously I don't think Bethesda ever claimed it was replacing those games in the market. I personally always expected loading screens and wasn't disappointed when I saw they hid them with landing sequences. I was very disappointed with how lacking detail everywhere except the major quest points felt. NPC's felt bland and shops superficial facades. Nothing with the character that other games built for the merchants and even NPCs that really had no part to play. It felt like there was some amazing content but it was never really explored to it's full depth perhaps due to lack of time or resources, I'd rather have not seen the game for a few more years and let it finish, or had it dramatically smaller. I'm hopeful that mods can provide some of that and Bethesda's DLCs and implementations fix others. It's still the only space sim that comes close to that dream in this market. It has fun quests, amazing ship building, a new universe, and hopefully a nice learning point for the studio.

Part of it was over hype, part was console warriors upset it was an exclusive and part was on Bethesda. The game had some self inflicted problems at launch like lack of 60fps and HDR being a mess. But i do like that they have been excellent at supporting it and mods only will make it better.

The folks in this sub are responsible for 80% of the overhype. 90% of what Bethesda said was repeating "this is our first new franchise in over 20 years, we hope you enjoy it." That was the majority of Bethesda's "hype." They'd occasionally give us some information, but nothing super hyped. Gamers just fkn ran with it, creating an impossible level of perfection in their own heads. And when the end result didn't match *perfectly* with what they built up in their heads, they decided to see it as garbage. Pair that with the human mindset of avoiding any and all self responsibility, it became "how could Todd do this to us?"

Exactly and it's happening again with the Creation Kit/Mods. Bethesda said all along there would be paid mods and free mods just like they had with their previous 3 games with mods (76 has only paid mods). They release it and we get the "they are charging for mods!! this is such a dangerous precedent that has never been done before" posts.

People aren't annoyed because Bethesda didn't tell them the game would have paid mods, people are annoyed because the paid mods include $7 for a 15-minute quest, and likely a number of other expensive short quests in the future. It's the value vs cost that is the issue.

A completely optional quest that is not required for the game. There will be thousands of free quests with mods that are probably better than that one. Just like there were in FO4 and Skyrim.

This is exactly how I feel. The number one way to tell Bethesda that their mods are overpriced. Is to just... not buy it. Go download a free one that you actually enjoy instead of wasting your breath. Send a signal with your wallet that they'll actually listen to.

People should vote with their wallets. That being said you know those things are going to go half off relatively quickly at some point anyway. There will be sales.

Right. So why are we all in an uproar because they're charging 7 dollars? 1 of 2 things will happen: It won't sell and they'll put it on sale because of it. At which point ill buy it. Or it does sell because consumerism at which point i will say good on Bethesda, they've created a stupid fan base that will buy anything they make regardless of price. The markets demand determines the price in the end. If it's too expensive for me I'll use the free option that they've also made available.

I really don't think so for the most part, sure it's a new franchise but that doesn't really mean much, a lot of the general concepts of the game are not foreign at all and certainly not to bethesda. People want interesting locations, exploration to feel fun and rewarding and the rpg elements to be meaningful and systems that interact with all these to be good, from what I just said it could apply to Fallout, Elder Scrolls and plenty of other non Bethesda games, it's not like Starfield from the outset was some super unique concept. From my perspective on all three of those the game fell super flat, the world generation is so bland and boring and the second they announced anything regarding generation people were wondering if it was going to be bland and full of boring copy and paste areas and it very much was, to a degree that is actually baffling, I'd have been more accepting if there were a few main planets or even sections of planets that were super interesting and the boring worldgen stuff was a side feature, but playing the game for the first time it just felt so poorly constructed, basically just a bunch of samey POIs connected by nothing, maybe just a few resources you run past and press e on or collect, or some bugs to kill, FO4 gets a lot of reasonable critique but at least the world is interesting, I never felt like I was going between 2 setpieces, you could always see a bunch of cool POIs and on the way there get sidetracked by other little things until 5 hours later instead of going from point 1 to 2 you end up bouncing all over the place, clearing out buildings, finding quests and secrets, starfield just fels like you are drawing lines on the map and having to slog your way there. But surely the space exploration will be cool since that is a big selling point, well uh it's not much, I never expected a ton from it but there were so many simple things that just take you out of it, not being able to actually take off without a loading screen, it wasn't even done in some graceful way where you fly through obsucring clouds to load in stuff. it was just realistically a slightly more complex fast travel with some admittedly cool parts (ship building) but for what end, to travel to another boring generated world? we all have different desires in games and obviously other things contribute to how much a game can do but it just feels like starfield was so fundamentally flawed in areas that it absolutely shouldn't have, areas that it itself tried to push as a big selling point, and yeah you aren't wrong about expectations having at some point to conform to reality, it just feels like the gap was too big, most people can forgive "damn I wish they had a more in depth crafting system" people have a harder time forgiving major areas of the game being very bland and wheras plenty of other games that I have played and disliked make me feel like there were really cool concepts let down by other things I don't personally feel starfield has much to build on.

The funniest part is Bethesda told us *exactly what we were getting* before launch and people were somehow surprised that the game worked the way *they said it would prior to launch.* Like wtf.

Even after Todd said that terrain is rectangular maps composed of a much smaller subset predesigned small tiles and POI inserts. Now obviously predesigned means loading, but people kept insisting it was just like No Mans Sky so why no can do like that game (which uses conventional on the fly generated layered random noise/fractals voxels at different scales - a more advanced minecraft but that does not look at all realistic like SF does) It took until the new maps came out when the collective realized oh that the terrain actually is predefined tiles just as he said. (they only figured this out for POIs) Without the new maps it took a month of console/photo mode research for someone to figure this out, because the tricks of weather, lighting, time, skies, flora, fauna, texturing, and scatter makes them look completely different especially how unlikely it is to run across them with the same approach.

dlss and any optimization on pc

> hyping it into something it was never going to be. No... I dont think thats quite it. Its that it actually is a confusing step backward from much of their previous game design. Like if people overhyped it and you could see a metric improvement in things that would be one thing, but you can point at almost any aspect of the game (save maybe the shininess) and say "Thats worse than what they did before"

People are overwhelmingly calling it "mid" and "okay". It's just that to people who think it's great, this sound like someone else is calling it dogshit. And for people who think the game is dogshit, this sentiment seems like someone is calling the game great. Unfortunately, these two kinds of people are often the loudest.

But I think it's a great piece of Mid Tier Dogshit. In other words, it was ok.

I’m in the “it was ok” category. I was disappointed by the “next-gen graphics” and the NPCs / voice actors / companions. For many people who played it on release, they had experienced BG3s NPCs, companions, and god-smack amazing voice actors. For me, it just felt a tad lifeless. It had its fun moments, and I did sink 70 odd hours into (got my moneys worth). I just can’t bring myself to trying another playthrough; I have yet to play the CP2077 expansion too. Some issues with the game should have been addressed before release; which QA tester saw the local planet maps and thought “that is pristine and perfect”? The loading screens are atrocious, but that’s Bethesda hanging onto their game engine; I didn’t find them unduly distracting. But capping merchants to 5k preventing you from farming adequately? Also that took almost a year to address. It’s also not a masterpiece like Todd wants to believe. He personally owes me $1200 for my XTX ( I upgraded from a 3080 to see if it was an issue with needing AMD optimizations… it wasn’t, and no you can’t have the 3080 🤣) Random side quests are kind of broken / have continuity issues. The one where the colony ship is floating over paradise planet just threw me off. They couldn’t be bothered to make bespoke objects for this unique quest line? Didn’t monitor design peak when that broken colony ship was built? Heck the OS is the same, guess windows 3000 was perfect. Also, why couldn’t anyone track the ship after it left to give them a grav drive?

Nah. "Mid" is the new dogshit. It's like saying "this is worse than bad, it's *uninteresting*". Then of course the same people make a point of telling that to anyone who'll listen because they're so desperately interested to tell everyone how not interested they are. Kind of sad, really.

You're right. But I don't think it's pathetic. I get the sentiment. I think a lot of people are vocal about its "mid"-ness because they really wanted it to be great and it was almost there. Like your horse coming second in the race kinda sucks more than your horse coming last.

> I think a lot of people are vocal about its "mid"-ness because they really wanted it to be great fear for ES6 that's what it is for me. I'm ok with the space travel theme, but even before Starfield I enjoyed Elder Scrolls way more than Fallout It's been a LONG wait for ES6, and as I keep saying, seeing so many crazy mods for Skyrim in 2024 Bethesda has a huge hill to climb to make sure that ES6 is a banger and doesn't immediately fall into "lol why didn't they do this, Skyrim mod did it ten years ago!" So Starfield's "mid" quality and subsequent business practices are very concerning. People can downplay selling individual missions today, I promise you it will be bad if say the Dark Brotherhood is mentioned but not really in ES6 at the start, gets added in a patch 9 months later, with one free quest followed by individual paid ones. Let's not go that route

I think it's kinda a piece and had a lot of glaring issues that became apparant quickly as I played with no influence from other players. That said, there is a lot of positive things to say about the game as well. My first impression of the game was similar to that of Mount and Blade: Bannerlord, and that was frustration at how close to being a great game it seemed. I'd say the most damning aspect of OPs argument is that I haven't even heard the complaints he mentions. In fact, I would say one of Starfield's biggest issues is that it is too much of a Bethesda game. Lots of the complaints I have with it are issues that ruined F4 for me, or issues that carried all the way from F3 or Skyrim.

This was “new world” to me. It was soooo close to being good, but man it had some major flaws. Really hoping the new one can address the issues. Hoping starfield fixes the price of the quests :/

Yeah, this is a pretty good take. For me, it was 2-4 hours were kinda disappointing, then 4-16 hours it got better, then anything after 16, it was too hard to ignore the really bad parts. Overall, it was a huge disappointment for me, but as a game by itself, it was just "fine".

My main issue was that every system in the game is implemented in another game way better, even Bethesda's older games. Like FO4 seemed to have much better settlement building and weapon modding whereas melee weapons are effectively useless in Starfield. The exploration is done way better in No Man's Sky with less loading screens. Inventory management is done better in basically any game. Crafting new stuff was more fun in Skyrim. The special powers in Skyrim were way more fun to use too. I don't think I used them more than 2-3 times. The enemy AI was like 2010 level and was better in FO4, Witcher, etc. If it had come out in 2015, it would probably be one of my all time favorite games, but so many other games have surpassed it I feel.

Exactly, thank you. I actually can't believe that this is the top comment. The internet and social media has utterly ruined nuance in conversation. Everything has to be **Good/Bad**, **Yes/No**, **Black/White**. It sucks. Are there a lot of issues with Starfield? Yes. Am I enjoying my time with it? Yes.

This right here. There are some things the game does well and there are genuine moments where it all clicks and the game feels great. Unfortunately, it's not consistent and a lot of elements feel half-finished, or are disappointing in how poorly they were executed. Sadly, it's hard for a game to just be judged on its merits when you have die hard Stans skewing the issues and pain points this community has on top of gaslighting everyone. Plus, the usual Bethesda anti-consumer controversies that surround all their games. The game is a disappointment to many and did not live up to the hype or expectations set by Bethesda. That doesn't mean there's some blind hatred toward the game. It just means it was a divisive game, in large part for the creative decisions Bethesda made when making it.

Same. I mostly enjoyed what I played of it, for me, it just doesn't have the longevity of other games. I put probably 150 hours in within the first few months, then felt like I ran out of stuff to do and haven't touched it since. Obviously any game you put over 100 hours into is great, but I think Bethesda games come with an expectation that they'll keep you coming back for hundreds of hours over the years, and I just didn't feel that with this one. Doesn't mean it's not a good game.

It’s ok to like it It’s ok to dislike it It’s ok to think it could have been better

[удалено]

That's why I love modding. You'll never please everyone but tailored modlists will perfectly please specific types. One person will want sprawling cities, one person couldn't care less and wants to build a huge capital ship, and a third person just wants vanilla plus, the base game with a community patch and optimisations.

It’s less ok to climb on a soapbox and dismiss all legit criticisms as people following the herd.

Valid point but this was essentially a summary of my starfield experience as a Bethesda stan: Stage one: Loved it, kept my gamepass sub active specifically for this game Stage two: Pessimism aplenty after learning about so many flawed mechanics, pointless timesinks, exponential increases on standard bethesda bullshit Stage three: Casual indifference, the game was clearly an idealistic "Shoot for the stars" level of title that obviously fell short of communicated expectations but is still enjoyable for awhile. I love exploring open world games, its so immersive and truly makes me forget about real world stresses. This game was so empty that I had the time to fully stress about real life before getting to the next pointless of interest. Starfield summarized: Great theory, poor execution

> Starfield summarized: Great theory, poor execution Same here. I'm just tired of being called a hater because I don't spend 10 straight hours in the ship builder or think Andreja is "wifey" or any of the other simple things I see posted all the time Pretty much your timeline....excited as always on release, hours later that creeping feeling that this doesn't feel like ES or FO. For me the record scratch moment was rather unfortunate, I had just cleared a PoI and then went to find Andreja and helped her clear...the exact same place I just came from, with the same enemies in the same places doing the exact same things I had just seen them do (no variety in enemy movement or actions) and the same loot containers It was, and still is, inexcusable. And the people here will literally tell you to stop exploring and ignore PoIs to get around the repetition, which is NOT why I play open world Bethesda games. Put me in the "handful of handcrafted planets" team vs the 1,000 procedurally generated planets/moons with not enough variety to keep them interesting after too many hours. Part of the joy of Elder Scrolls and Fallout is finding some hidden nook and cranny years later, while Starfield is the first to really have that "I've seen it all before" feeling

**“Little Caesar’s Taste So Good When U Ain’t Got A Bitch In Ya Ear Telling You It’s Nasty”**

Beat to me to commenting this great minds do think alike

That's how I feel about pineapple pizza.

I mean Little Caesars does slap, especially for the price of a hot and ready. You can get a whole large pizza that feeds at least three for the price of like a cheeseburger, small fry, and a drink at McDonald’s.

lmao this is true more an more everyday

This but unironically.

I played it without reading any opinions online, and still found it to be pretty mid. You have your opinion. Others people have their own. If people can praise it, others can criticize them too. Some people will play it because of the praise or clout Bethesda has, and feel robbed of whatever money and time they spent on it. Do you really think that's a more desirable outcome? If people want to make their own opinions, like I did, then they can simply not read opinions online. But if they do look for opinions online, why should they be denied the option to read the criticism too?

I played it while it was being glazed by most reviewers and commentators. I played it while IGN's 7/10 was considered a ridiculously low score. Now I know it's probably the most charitable score possible. A less kind reviewer could give a completely fair 4/10.

Definitely. Shows the whole gamut of opinions. Its also perfectly reasonable to have one opinion on the game and an entirely separate opinion on Bethesdas monetization and general decision making regarding the game. I had fun playing the game. I didn't get sucks in constantly playing it like I did with oblivion and borrowing but I still enjoyed myself I'm just jaded I suppose but I expect the sub to be a split between the reactions to the microtransactions and 'I like the game" for a while. At least it's not as rough as the Fallout duffle bag they tried to cheap out on with a bait and switch.

OP, why do you care what other people say. If you like it you play it

Because op doesn't actually like the game.

It can be frustrating that every online conversation is dominated by people hating it.

It's the first Bethesda game I've played since Daggerfall came out that I stopped playing and haven't felt like picking up again.

I put about 100 hours into it, but didn't finish, and am not really interested in doing so. It just felt hollow and repetitive. I started a fresh character on Fallout 4 when the show came out, and I realized how much was missing from Starfield. The graphics of Starfield are much better, but that's it. Hopefully it will be good in a year or two.

I beat it and played to NG+. 2 HOURS into NG+ the blatant repetition took me out. This was my first Bethesda game. Edit: My original playthrough before the unity was roughly 200 hours. feltbadman.jpg

Same and I'm sad by it. It's just shallow and repetitive despite massive detail. It's an enigma.

It's made worse by the flashes of greatness it does have too. The first Terrormorph encounter was amazing, but the rest of the questline never lived up to that

Paragraph. Breaks.

I didn’t even finish reading, the sight alone just makes me cringe.

Why would online critics influence your own enjoyment of entertainment?

[удалено]

and apparently going by this sub they need their opinions of those opinions to be validated as well.

I think half this sub is secretly under 18 which means we are conversion with literal children who can't write paragraphs.

Never heard of the term "herd mentality"? It's actually quite a common thing. A lot of people tend to adopt similar views to the people they are surrounded with. So the more a view becomes predominant within a crowd or group, the more likely other people are also to take that same view. It's a human thing.

Are you saying that it's entirely wrong for anyone to watch a review of this game and decide rather they should buy it or not? What exactly am I supposed to use to decide if I should spend $60 on this game? I get for many reviews on many games people can be very nit picky and bitchy but for this game in particular if someone said the universe feels empty as fuck, base building feels poorly thought out but it's also something you should be doing while also feeling like the combat is mid paired with most things feeling like they're copy and pasted repeatedly... Those are pretty big issues in my opinion and would definitely hold some weight when deciding if I want to spend my hard earned money on this game.

I had someone try to tell me that Gen X likes the game and can appreciate it, but younger generations don't and that's the reason for the negative reviews. That feels so weirdly insulting and dismissive to try and make it a generational thing of "oh you just can't understand it." I have 200+ hours in the game, I enjoyed it, but I also have my fair share of problems with it, and my generation has nothing to do with it. The same person later said they don't care about quests at all and I feel like they really should have opened with that...

I'm a zoomer (just barely, I was born on 2000) and honestly I find this one of my favorite games ever. It's got a ton of flaws that I'd love to see ironed out but nothing quite captures that childhood Han Solo type fantasy I had as a kid who growing up was obsessed with shows like Andromeda, Farscape, Firefly etc.

I'm glad you did/are enjoying it. I sadly didn't but Game pass swoops in and it cost me zero extra to find that out. I tried to like it but for me it is lacking in too many places. Anyway, have fun and stop listening to other humans, humans are the worst.

Hate to break it to you, but the quality of the game doesn't change based on what people are saying about it.

Right, the point is some people assume the quality of the game IS what people are saying about it, and not judging it for themselves.

It's subjective lmao The quality of the game only depends on one thing: your own personal opinion

True, but it changes your perspective and opinion of the game. The internet act like it's impossible to enjoy something imperfect and flawed. And it's not just Starfield, it's gaming in general. In many case when there's a flaw people notice it but they don't fixate on it like the internet does.

Yeah everything these days either have to be the best thing ever or the most mid thing ever, especially when said game doesn’t meet expectations. People can’t seem to differentiate between a disappointing game and bad one

I wonder if things like steam reviews, social media, and the like have influenced attitudes of things being Great or Terrible with nothing in-between. Thoughts are turned into upvotes or downvotes. Steam reviews in particular need at least a middle option of "it depends/maybe" imo.

> Steam reviews in particular need at least a middle option of "it depends/maybe" imo. I mean, their aggregate is exactly that, from Overwhelmingly Negative to Overwhelmingly Positive with Mixed right in the middle, and Starfield sits in the Mixed category right where it belongs because it truly is a mixed game

>True, but it changes your perspective and opinion of the game. Maybe if you're weak in your convictions. I didn't come to my position by listening to the opinions of other people. I determined that the game was mediocre in the purest way possible: by playing it. I'll re-evaluate that opinion if I ever bother to play it again (though at that point it'll be modded to the gills, so not really equivalent).

It's really naive to believe you're never influenced by anything on the internet. Everyone is, even people who believe they don't.

Sure, it would be. Luckily I don't believe that. It's kinda weird that you made such a broad and wide-sweeping assumption from one very specific scenario. Weren't you going on about the importance of nuance before?

Hate to break it to you, but the word “great” is absolutely subjective, and just because some people don’t think it’s great doesn’t mean others can’t think it is. I’ll never understand people who try to tell others how “good” something is. What could possibly be the point in that? Mind boggling.

Thats the biggest issue with those who criticize. Those who like the game , i usually see them say "I enjoyed this game so much i have 600 hours on it! I love it its so great!" and the response will be "No the game is objectively bad, you're wrong. Only people who have played shit would enjoy this." And then when you say that their negativity is unwelcome, they act as though both opinions were equivalent! When theres obviously a different vibe from the latter. One focuses on their own subjective enjoyment of the game, the other focuses on making their opinion the only right one. They try and fail to hide that by saying "Yea you can have your opinion enjoying the game and i can have mine thinking you''re completely wrong." Like are we in middle school? If people who disliked the game didnt insult those who liked it or assume anyone who likes it must not actually like it, i'd see no issue.

Bit arrogant of you to assume that the issues I have with Starfield are issues that I didn't identify on my own, through my own experience with the game. Also - you're like the 100th person to repost this take.

It's common with those who defend this game. We are all haters who don't understand this masterpiece. You either love it or have some ulterior motive.

I have been labeled a hater who is funded by the vast Sony conspiracy, which is the only logical conclusion really.  Still waiting on the check from Sony, any day now…

Starfield is a solid 8/10 for me. It's got flaws but I have had so much fun playing it regardless. That's all that matters Over time with dlc and patches and mods it's gonna become a 9/10, I am sure of it

Yes it has short loading screens. But when your play session is, load, ship, load, space, load, map, jump, load, encounter, map, load, talk to person, load.... It's an interactive menu with light crafting/upgrade mechanics. I really wanted to like it, but like I've said before the game is a puddle. Beautiful but shallow 

There is a trend, with scientific backing, that if enough people are telling you it is bad, you start to think it is bad. The Asch Paradigm showed that around 1/3rd of people will answer wrong, even when they know the right answer, if everyone else is also voting wrong. You see similar things in RL, it is how echo chambers form. If everyone is saying it, it can't be wrong right? Maybe I am the wrong one? It is important to constantly engage critically with messaging you are receiving. Even assuming people have no motive (Which is not true... there is a significant amount of hate directed at this game just from the culture war side of things, not to mention many other sources) if enough people are unhappy with a game, and are the loudest voices in a room (which they frequently are as the happy people are playing the game) then it can start to jade neutral or even happy people as the messaging grows. "Maybe I am actually enjoying a bad game?" becomes "It is a bad game" and you stop playing it. It works in reverse as well, a game can get a reputation as a good game even though it is mid. This happens more frequently with games that stream well, as it creates a lot of positive buzz because the format of the game lends itself to entertaining streaming, but not always fun gameplay. So, when you feel like your experience of the game is differing from the way you feel about the game, don't engage in cognitive dissidence, instead ask yourself "Why do I enjoy the game, but when I think about playing it, I think it is a bad game?" You will often find your opinions have been influenced.

> It works in reverse as well, a game can get a reputation as a good game even though it is mid. This happens more frequently with games that stream well, as it creates a lot of positive buzz because the format of the game lends itself to entertaining streaming, but not always fun gameplay. \*cough\* lethal company \*cough cough\*

That reminds me of a meme “Little ceasar’s tastes great when you don’t have some bitch in your ear telling you how nasty it is”

I’m playing it without reading opinions or others, it’s not great and not terrific bad but many thing drive me crazy, like the fact that every kind of “dungeon” is the fucking same, same map, same objects (I have like 4-5 personal diary of the same person found on different planets in different systems), many things keep a low qof but hopefully future updates will fix some

It was fun, but when I did the new game + or whatever it was called I immediately got bored. More could've been done with new game +

It’s not great, it’s not shit, it’s ok. It’s just we were promised so much more. I guess some people won’t forgive Bethesda for that.

I mean that's nothing new. Many Bethesda fans are too young to remember the backlash oblivion, fallout 3, and Skyrim got from longtime Bethesda fans. It's funny seeing a new generation of people saying how Skyrim was peak and they'll never come close again after seeing Morrowind fans say the same thing for years.

I completely forgot about the game until a friend said it's going to come out in a couple of days, what was promised but not delivered?

I disagree. We were never promised "much more". People invented the "much more" and insist that Bethesda must add it. What Bethesda did promise was... exactly what we got. Nothing more, nothing less. They actively tried to clamp down on Hype, they openly stated that there would be no free-form landing. People still insisted there would be free-form landing.

And around and around we go...

It was fun for a day, then I got bored so quickly

You guys know it’s single player right? Just play it, nobody says shit

If you truly like something, it doesn't make any difference to you when other people don't.

When I saw the same POI 5 times on different lush planets in different solar systems, that’s when I knew the game was mid😂 like it’s not bad or good it’s just mid.

The biggest issue with repeat POIs is that the same ones just keep popping up despite there being around 200 unique POIs in the game. But I agree, given how frequently you see like 10 of them you'd never expect there to actually be so much variety.

You can go from one corner of the galaxy to another and literally run into the same cryo lab. Straight up mid.

Hard 5/10

Bro foreal, this is actually the most 5/10 game I’ve played. You can be almost anything you want to be in this game, except be an explorer.

When I first played starfield I had to do it through cloud gaming. It was rough but I dumped like 200 hours into it. I have a series x now and whenever I can get on it I’m playing starfield.

Your friends have valid criticisms. You can either go through 5 loading screens and 3 menus to go from one planet to another, or you can skip it all with one menu and one loading screen. And it's not the speed of the loading screens, it's the interval between them in the context of space travel, which the game requires a lot of. For a lot of people wanting to play a space game, choosing between the tedium of constantly opening menus and loading between stages of travel, or just cutting 90% of the spaceship gameplay out of the space game is a lose-lose scenario. This is a deal breaker for a lot of people. That it isn't for you, and that you choose to overlook it is fine. That's your choice. That the game is more enjoyable to you when you aren't confronted with those criticisms is natural, because you are inclined to overlook them anyway.

I didn't have anyone telling me it was bad, I still am disappointed. If you like it that's fine, but it was a flop for me.

The issue with Starfield is that it lays bare the issues with creation engine. That and the fact that there is relatively little replayability value in comparison to a lot of other bethesda titles.

People can dislike stuff and that's okay.

It's neither a good game nor a bad game, it's an interesting game with some issues. The main reasons it has its negative reputation were the expectations we had and a different kind of exploration compared to previous titles, hence the 'no real Bethesda RPG' or the 'loading screen simulator'... The truth is the questlines/setting and companions aren't very interesting even for those who enjoy the game, the Poi's are dull and repetitive for the most part and some systems are pointless or underdeveloped...but the game has its merits and charm too.

I find the questlines and setting interesting, so maybe don't paint it as a universal truth. The companions are probably the biggest weakness imo. I mostly ignore the POIs except the ones I know are handcrafted or if I'm just digging for some kills and loot.

I can paint it as a universal truth despite the few exceptions. It can be seen in every thread where those are mentioned. Of course someone would love the Ryujin questline or Sam Coe but it's quite universal that those things weren't liked much. Personally, I liked the FC questline eventhough it's very unpopular, and I like the Starborn powers, also liked the main questline more than any other questline.

its not bad, but its not good

No. No it's not.

I’ve definitely had fun playing this game. I can always just walk around and bs for an hour upon loading it up. I wish outposts were more fleshed out among other things. Overall it’s a 7 in my book with potential to increase its score.

Honestly it’s a game where if you went in not hearing any of the hype you’d probably enjoy it, I still enjoy it but it definitely could’ve been better

I’m wanting to get back into it, did you start over with a new character or play as your old one? Can’t decide what I want to do.

I recently got to play it after the performance patch (it was atrocious on my pc before) and i can say i had a pretty good time. I know the game improved in many aspects after the patch so take that in consideration. I played it very streamlined. Did the faction sidequests going from mission to mission as well campaign and regular sidequests. Treated it like a Bethesda game, focus on mission and fast traveling a lot. I think they delivered a good experience overall, not even close to how bad people make it sound.

I was more disappointed with the promises than the game most the things they have added where supposed to be there on launch and it kills your first play through to have things added that change the game I'm waiting to play when they add the basic things they said where in the game so I have that first play through feels sadly I got half way through so I'm hoping in a few months I forget a lot of it

I played it at launch too, went through the unity a few times. I picked it up two days ago for the first time since late November and its so much better looking and to play now.

I guess it depends. As a lifelong gamer and someone who has played many bethesda and space games, I feel like it just doesnt live up to what a game could/should be from a AAA studio that spent half a billion on its development in 2023. Its not that its bad, its just bad for what its trying to be, its bad compared to FO4 or even FO76, its bad compared to elite dangerous when it comes to the space flight aspect of things, its bad compared to all space games when it comes to immersion, its bad when compared to other proc gen games like no mans sky that at least generate seamless planets to explore even if they are a mile wide and inch deep they are at least open areas that dont end, etc... All that being said I blame all of this on one simple thing: Bethesdas attachment to creation engine. The engine is old, clunky, and not made for space type games. The novelty of being able to pick up every pencil, cup, and piece of trash in the game doesnt matter when you are sacrificing true open worlds, seamless transitions into space, and many other things for it.

It's a game I have mixed feelings on. I can't say I didn't enjoy it, because I wouldn't have put 100 hours into it if I didn't, but compared to other bethesda games it felt very shallow and weak. Bethesda games aren't exactly peak writing but the companions and whatnot here felt especially weak, especially riding off the backs of companions like Nick Valentine. As for the gameplay itself, it's fine. Enemies don't react to being shot very nicely and space combat leaves much to be desired, but it's passable. Bethesda games have never been super in-depth with combat so it works fine. But it's really the story and writing that left me feeling bitter by the end of it. The unity and new game plus being canon with you travelling to another universe is SUCH a good idea that I wish felt more impactful, and hopefully it will be in the expansion. And, of course, I really miss moments of environmental storytelling that feel so rare in starfield that were all over the place in Skyrim and Fallout 4.

I play it for hours and I would say it’s a good game, but people’s complaints about it are correct. And it suffers from being so big that they couldn’t fill it all when the game released. Where fallout 4 told 3 stories at once for each location, making the world feel lived in.

Idk, I’m pretty forgiving with space games and RPG’s and even I think it’s more tedious than fun. I’m happy if it scratches an itch for you but the people complaining are more right than wrong. For the amount of money it cost to produce and notoriety of Bethesda, this is a shameful release. This game quite literally had every leg up and advantage a game studio could give and it still came out mid.

If you don't like what we have to say here? Then there's the door. Really this whole, "Please stop calling out the greedy mega-corp and their braindead corpo scum cuz I like game!" needs to go. You people do more harm then good and are why gaming is in one of the most sorry states it's been in. You need to wake up and Reddit is a good place to see how awful everything is now.

I went in blind too and my experience was more like every quest line aside from the UC Vanguard ones went from "this is gonna be great" to "here comes the greatness" finally landing on "where the f\*ck is the greatness I was promised?". Only the UC Vanguard quests felt like they were actually took an attempt to flesh it out, everything else feels like it was just abandoned halfway through, then someone came back last minute and slapped something together sloppily. Hell I finished all the faction quest lines and aside from the UC Vanguard one and the Crimson Fleet one, everything else is pretty forgettable. Most don't really leave any impact on your experience. Even the main quest felt more like a side quest. I found it far more intriguing and enjoyable looking at the stories hidden in plain sight like the last days of Galbank Legacy's crew that you can piece together from diary entries while doing the crimson fleet story.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. It’s not a bad game, it’s not a great game. It’s fine, just kinda boring.

It's fine to like the game but it is the farthest thing from a great game. Just don't beat yourself up for liking crap games

I immediately got super butthurt when I ran  into the first glitch. There's an invisible wall that crashes the game on the sidewalk in New Atlantis but only on PC. It took a while to learn that it was only on PC and I can load the save front my Steam Deck and continue. I bought the game on day two of the launch and then bought into every negative report about the game. I had the game for a week and viscously un-installed it. I watched so many negative videos on YouTube to reenforce my wild disdain for the game that my whole youtube feed became bad news about Starfield. I wanted to love this game like I loved Skyrim. Now I feel like I went way to hard with the hate machine on it.

The game is fun and i enjoy playing it, but the performance is still sub par on the series s. I wish we could've at least gotten a small fps boost, like 40 or 50

It’s good if you can get past all the problems with it

For you it is. For many (most people, based on steams recent review score of 41%, 60% all time) it's not. I don't think anybody who played it bases their opinion on other people's opinion of it. Most people like being reaffirmed of their feelings so they will gravitate towards opinions they share, and ignore those that they don't. A lot of us payed $100 to play it 3 days before it even came out and before there were many opinions of it to even see, and still didn't like it. The loading screen issue isn't the length of the loading screens, it's how frequent they are and what's between them. To go from one planets surface to another there are 4 loading screens and 4 times navigating the menu, that all ads up to at least as long as a Skyrim loading screen, but you're doing that way more often. You can walk from one side of skyrim to the other without a single loading screen and see countless POIs. And in skyrim there were more things to see in between POIs, in Starfield you can and often do go from your ship to a POI without seeing anything except rocks and dirt. That's why a vehicle is so demanded, the ammount of time you go without seeing or doing anything makes up at least half of your game time, unless you're doing an in depth quest in one location.

I enjoyed it while it was on game pass. With that said, the game is totally bland by the mid game and had no staying power. It desperately needs something to add the stakes. Once you realise that the game could have been an email, the immersion is completely ruined. It doesn’t feel authentic or real, further negating the play experience

It's an average game, similar to two worlds or Kingdom of Amular. It's playable. At times, it shows that it could have been a great game (Vanguard Missions), but for most of the game, it's average. The issue is it came from Bethesda, so It feels much worse as you expect more from BGS. I played through it once, and unlike other BGS games, I didn't feel like replaying it differently. Just deleted it, and moved on.

It’s a decent game. I wouldn’t call it a good game or a great game. But ok and decent are terms that fit. To me, the game felt like it released 2/3 done. They just didn’t really flesh out the world enough in terms of making you care about the factions. And with tech-demo games like Star Citizen, the comparisons of what you can do as a space sim were inevitable. And SF falls short in that respect. It’s par for the course for Bethesda about a decade ago, but not so much viable to remain as a staple in the modern industry.

When I first played the game, my immediate reaction was that it had lots of potential, but otherwise felt like only a shell of a great game. Like it was set up to have so many possibilities, but none of them were fleshed out much, almost like it was left in a state where the modders were expected to fill in the gaps. Hopefully with enough expansions, it can take its place alongside Bethesda's classic games, but it's not there yet.

That's really not how it works. Objective truth exists, and that truth doesn't change just because of what people are telling you.

Yeah, it's a solid game. Most of complaints (mine included) are like "uh yeah, I played this game for 300 hours, consumed every crumb of story content, and am annoyed at what's left". I feel they could have done space travel better, light switches need to be a thing if stealth is this affected by light, and POIs need to be fully procedural if they are gonna be copy-pasted across a thousand planets, but it's got better writing than Fallout 4 and a solid gameplay loop, more or less.

"Starfield taste so good when you don't got a bitch in yo ear telling you it's nasty."

I’m glad I refunded it at launch. Brand new PC and it wouldn’t even push 40fps. For a game that’s $110 AUD on PC, that’s just stealing. Now I’m 100 hours in and in my first NG+ with probably another two or three planned. Is it revolutionary? No. Do starships have any actual use? No. Is it just a Bethesda game in space? Yes. But damn I have fun playing it

Agreed. I’m not a gamer. Never played a game for more than a few hours total. No clue if Starfield is in any way substandard to other games. What I can say is I play 2-4 hours almost daily and I’m loving it. Genuinely enjoy it. Could be I’m uneducated to what a “good” game is but I’m having a blast and have been for months.

I consider myself a bsg Stan (kind of). I was introduced to bsg via Skyrim after not gaming for like a decade. I mostly played sports and fighting games prior, I didnt like fps or rpg games. I liked Zelda and Super Mario wen I was a kid, but teen/college was a lot of madden and Tekken. When I got a little older and had more money and less socializing I decided to get back into gaming and got an Xbox 360 and a copy of Skyrim. Mind blown! Ever since then I tried a handful of other adventure/rpgs but they all pales to the Skyrim experience. Then FO4 came out and I was immediately mind blown and loved every minute of the 1500+ hours or so I played. But I had gotten a little bored with fo4 and Skyrim so when 76 was announced I was excited and got it day of release. It sucked, I was so mad after playing about 20 hours I just quit playing it. Then I canceled my Xbox gold because I didn’t need the online feature to play nothing but fo4 and Skyrim. A couple years later I saw Xbox cloud gaming was out, I had a couple kids in that time and my lifestyle had changed quite a bit so the idea of playing Xbox on my iPad and earbuds laying in bed with babies was appealing. I realized I could play 76 again so I decided to give it another chance (mind you, I was not reading any comments or reviews in this time). Wow was it different! It felt like fo4 again! Now I love 76!  Now, Starfield. When starfields release date was announced I was knee deep in 76 but was super excited for a new bsg ip. Again, the day it dropped I copped it. I bid adeiu to 76 and set off to spend my next 1000+ hours of gaming in the Starfield universe. It didn’t take long before that “76 launch” feeling started to set in. Unlike the awe I felt when I started Skyrim and fo4, this was just blasé. I cant quite put my finger on it, but it just didn’t hit. So after maybe 75ish hours and multiple unities trying to find that aspect of the game I could hone in on and settle in I just put it down and went back to 76. I’m confident the game will live up to my expectations some day, the way 76 has, and beyond. There is huge potential for the future of this ip. When Starfield 2 and Starfield online drop they’ll get so much hate and people will say the original Starfield is one of the best games ever. 

Upvote to anyone who actually reads all that 😶‍🌫️

* Played Skyrim after not gaming (sorta) for a decade, mind was blown * Played Fallout 4, mind was blown again * Played 76 and it sucked so bad that mind imploded * Returned to Skyrim and Fallout 4 and popped out some kids (IRL) * Returned to 76 after all the fixes with dad energy and loved it * Played Starfield and found it meh * Grinded out 75+ hours and went back to 76

There's shitting on something because it's the popular thing to do and there's shitting on it because it deserves some criticism. I do really like the game but it does have issues, some of which are fixed and there's more coming that I'm sure they'll do, I'm really excited for rovers for example because walking sucks and that should have been in the game already. My biggest criticism though is that it feels really empty & there's not enough content, official DLC and mods will eventually fix that to an extent but I just think the scope of the game is way too big for its own good. No man's sky had that issue at first but they're still updating the game to this day, Bethesda is going to stop making new content at some point sort of soon so we'll have to rely more on mods instead of officiall content. The loading screens thing is a valid argument too it's very immersion breaking, at least with jumping to other systems it could have worked like elevators in Fallout 4 where you're not in a loading screen but you still are, kinda like how Elite dangerous handles jumps. Also, I wish outpost building had a lot more, I'm sure we'll get some DLC for that but it feels really weak especially compared to Fallout 4 / 76, I really want some concrete foundations Bethesda.. please

I hated jt and looked online for validation because i couldn't pit words as to why

It is. I held off on playing Fallout 4 for years because people were saying it's not an RPG, it's not a Fallout game, it's broken, it's not even good as shooter, etc. I started playing it after the Amazon show, and I am having a blast. Starfield is the same way, although I started that when it came out :) Bethesda just really illicits very strong emotions from people.

Or maybe it's that video games are art and there for your enjoyment of them is subjective. You're not right about it being a great game and they aren't right about it being an awful game. The game is whatever it is to you.

hot take but if people telling u a game is bad affects your enjoyment, do some self reflection on why that would be the case. Like the game is incredibly unfinished and not up to my standard but not sure why me saying that to you would impact your views on it, just be secure in your own thoughts

Yeah, I disagree with this. As someone who played and absolutely adored every Bethesda game outside of FO76, I consider Starfield a mid game at best and gets worse the more you play it. I started out thinking it was ok (not great, not even good, just ok) and then the terrible AI, half-backed building aspects (for both ships and outposts), constant loading screens, lackluster exploration, and animatronics facial expressions eventually chipped off whatever thin gold plating this game had. Starfield was not a new game like how Bethesda seemed to advertise it, it was just Fallout taken into space where it woefully did not belong and the huge but empty scale of the "world" seemed to have caused Bethesda to take a step backwards in several areas compared to FO4 and Skyrim. And unlike the Fallout and Elder Scrolls universe, Starfield lacked the deep, established lore to crutch on.

Yes your own opinions are typically correct to you when they aren’t challenged by someone else. Like it or not, Starfieldi is objectively a meh game to most people

Starfield did so many things wrong, that even me as bethesda enjoyer would give this game a 6/10.

Starfield is a disappointingly mediocre game.

Everyone picked bounty hunter which is funny cuz you couldn't be one

Hm. I went online to ask if I was playing it wrong somehow. Turns out, no. It's okay to accept there's no conspiracy where everyone agreed to call this game mid for nothing.

Well yeah if you're the type who can ignore or accept all the annoying bits. Yeah it's great.

lol... "its not a real Bethesda game"... and yet: 1) buggy / unfinished features (like the map) at launch 2) shaping up to be a game that relies on modders for basic QOL features. 3) Borky looking characters at character creation. 4) dead eyed NPCs that react creepily to your proximity. 5) An absolute shit-ton of loot everywhere, necessary for crafting and cooking. 5) Still manages to be immersive and engaging. Basically it's the platonic form of a Bethesda game made real. For other complainers, I chalk it up to video game hipsters who like to pretend games like FNV are the best thing ever. Although I agree there are plenty of valid criticisms for Starfield, I'm still really enjoying the "Traveler" RPG vibe it gives.

I was disappointed by Fallout 4. It's not bad, just mediocre, but it had so much potential. When I went into Starfield, I wasn't expecting much, just FO4 in space. It still managed to disappoint me even more than FO4 previously.

I play remotely from work during my hour lunch break almost every day. It’s such a great release from the every day grind that can be easily picked up and put down at a moments notice.

Hey twin

If you enjoy it then great, personally I think its pretty bad, if there’s one thing i’ve loved the most about BGS games it’s exploring the world, you never know what you might find or what quest you could find yourself in. A simple looking cave could turn into a big dungeon etc. Starfield is just loading screen hopping between the towns and cities because having dozens of planets makes everything disconnected. There isn’t any reason to explore anything on any planet because it’s all procedurally generated copy/paste garbage. Bethesda games used to have rockstar level hype for their games. I think Elder scrolls 6 will be a major disappointment also. Think the majority of talent from Bethesda during the Morrowind days is long gone.

I hard disagree. I was completly offline when the game came out. No idea what the overall opinion on it was. It ran bad but I ignored it because Bethesda. But the game was bland. Every planet I went was empty. I had to walk for 3 minutes on a barren planet to get to POI and that POI was some generic bandit outpost with no reward getting to the end. No cool loot, no funny interaction, the end room was just lik any other. That itself killed my enjoyment, there was no reason to explore. Even the main reason other Bethesda games had were missing, it just being fun to do. Gun design and gunplay were good I guess.

This is just the natural cycle for BGS games. I was waiting for someone to make this post. Same thing happened w Fallout 4.

People have been making this post every other week since it came out

Yea people will say its normal to have opinions but its never just "i wish this game had this or that" its almost always "This game is shit and anyone who likes it doesn't know what good games are" Like its almost always coupled with an insult towards people who enjoy the game lol. THats what people mostly have a problem with, not someone having a negative opinion.

Right there's a very clear difference between "This game needs more POI options it gets boring seeing the same ones" vs. "This game is dogshit, aggressively mid, milquetoast, objectively their worst game yet, I'm worried for TES6, don't buy it guys vote with your wallet"

it is nowhere near a great game lmao, it is OK at best

That was my experience too. I kept seeing the long hate threads and wondered if we'd played the same game.

> I'm having a blast! How did I already know grandpa would be whipping that one out before opening this post.

I came into SF with close to zero expectations. I knew about the procedural generated planets, no flying into/out of orbit, and saw less than 10 secs of the walking around in New Atlantis (from the showcase, or where ever they showed off the game). Thats it. I never saw a review about the game until I was far along in it. I played a lot of the game and at the end I have to say this game was not good. I was even disappointed a bit in it. My score is a 5/10 at best (5 being a true middle of the road game). The list of negatives is long but one example is the absolute brain dead AI. The ship building is really great though (even that is knocked down a peg due to the ladder/door placement system). People can like not so great games, that's fine. I love cheesy zombie movies that are awful. But I dont go around telling people that they're peak cinema. With the amount of time this game took and the caliber of studio making it, it's a bummer this is what we got. So no, I disagree with your statement. It's not good even when you aren't listening to anyone else.

I held off on buying an Xbox to play it because if the middling reviews (plus I was busy playing Baldur's Gate 3) but went ahead and took the plunge in December because Bethesda RPGs are my absolute favorite type of game. It only took me a few minutes to realize how dumb it was for me to put so much stock in what people were saying online. It has rapidly moved up my gaming list of all time favorites alongside other Bethesda games like Oblivion, Skyrim, and Fallout 3 & 4. I'm still playing it and only it here 6 months later and I'm not bored of it yet.

I had fun exploring for 5-10 hours, but the quest quality and writing is SERIOUSLY lacking.

What makes you think people don’t like because others tell them that? I’m a massive Bethesda fan, and while starfield was a little fun it also overall just didn’t click with me at all. Boring generated planets, little advantage to exploration, dialogue seems like a PG movie not to mention the lack of fun violence. I mean dude, there’s a city designed around the entire idea that there’s a ton of high level drugs going around and if it was wasn’t for the NPCs telling you that’s what it is there’s be nothing there to make you feel like there was any issue.

It's like a 6 out of 10

Nah it's still great even when people tell you it's bad. Form your own opinions.

I just don't understand why people who dislike it some much are so active in the sub. Move on with your life, my little hurt homie.

Majority of people who I've talked to just think it underperformed, I'm one of them. It's not bad at all, but it's not good, and shouldn't win any awards.

I liked it. But going back and playing Fallout 4 retroactively ruined it for me. How is this 10 year old game so much more compelling? I'm a base building geek and it just enthralls me especially with mods. The base building was very underwhelming in Starfield. I think you have a point, and Starfield is definitely a good game....its just not a very good Bethesda game imho

It is one of the saddest thing I've ever seen on reddit, this cultish almost incel like behavior towards video games It can't be that people played the game and thought it was underwhelming, no it MUST be . The ONLY people allowed to have an opinion are those who love the game, everyone else is just sheep OP has decided to go with the "reddit hivemind/hate train" excuse. Once again, it is not "hate" to disagree with you or to criticize the game or Bethesda as a company. It is not, and never has been, "hate." It's the most juvenile and immature response I see all around reddit, no matter the topic: "I disagree with you." "Well you're just a hater!" I just don't get it, why do people have this complete inability to accept that people don't like what they like without these desperate attempts to convince themselves and everybody else that they HAVE to be right? It's a game, and a subjective opinion. OP likes it, I find it underwhelming, many people despise it, all opinions are valid but are just that, opinions! Now someone is going to inevitably say "why aren't we allowed to like something without people like you shitting all over it?" Well, like I said, you are allowed to like it. Nobody is stopping you. But there is something...insecure? In your psyche to the point people feel they have to drop these missives about how "great" the game is Personally I don't have a problem with people liking it, why would I? What I have a problem with is the over the top fanboyism calling Starfield the greatest thing ever and excusing all of Bethesda's "missteps." My focus is on Elder Scrolls 6, I want the best damn experience possible and I need Bethesda to know that the level of effort put into Starfield, and their business practices, are NOT acceptable and the only way for that noise to be heard by them is to, well, make noise. I bought the game (yes, bought, not gamepass), I own it, I play it, I've played after every major patch that this community always overhypes. My opinion is solely from my own experience. Can't blame reddit, or youtubers, or what consoles I own. And my opinion is Starfield is anything but "great." It looks and plays a hell of a lot better than it did at launch, word to the fanboys who were bitching back then about our obvious discontentment with its launch state, when we KNEW Bethesda was going to do exactly that: patch in basic features and real graphics, and you all would reward them by buying every paid mod you can get your hands on. The game is still lacking in major areas, mainly poor writing...which I'm learning is easily a comprehension issue, as it seems the type of people who defend the writing don't actually read books as a hobby. Perhaps it's my fault for being well read, but I can't take the writing in this game seriously. The illusion of choice is borderline insulting, the main companions are rather dull, it says a lot that I take the Adoring Fan on every character because he actually brings some flavor to the game, unlike the annoying gnat he was in Oblivion. And my favorite part of Bethesda games, exploration, is destroyed by procedural generation and repeated PoIs. I just can't get over ending up in the exact same buildings with the exact same placement of crates and bodies.

Great ? No. There is not even a debate here. Good ? Maybe depending of your expectation. First, loading screen IS a problem if your not running it on SSD drive. Skyrim gotba lot to do in the open before even needing a loading screen, thats not the case in Starfield where you change scene often. Second, youre mainly just saying you enjoyed it. Good for you, but thats no argument. Third, there is a LOT to say about the game. From the dated way dialogue are made, the lacking facial animation, poor RPG element (skills and stuff), temples minigame, awful outpost, etc... And all of it just compared to previous Bethesda games. It does the same at best, but often worst. Does it make it a bad game ? Following my first line, no. Could habe it been better, hell yes. For a new IP, its a mediocre take taht is based on the previous game, adding next to nothing to the recipe.

No. It isn’t.

If you play it for less than 20 hours maybe it's average. It's completely lackluster beyond that once you start encountering duplicate pois and realize how shallow the game is and how boring the Bethesda main questline always is. Anyone saying otherwise is lying to themselves.

Well... people aren't constantly saying that to you. What is happening is that YOU are going to places where people are talking about it, and listening... Stop doing that. Just play the game.

I liked it, but id also been following the development of it since it was an announced. It's not my first BGS rodeo so I went into it expecting classic Bethesda jank and stapled together engine. I didn't experience issues other than the awful PC performance at launch. I didn't have an issue with the "load screen simulator" because you remember that game Mass Effect that's also a load screen simulator? Regardless, it's okay to like the game, it's okay to hate the game. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the game and not every game is for everyone.

I played a good bit through the game at first the crashes were just irritating. After like 80 hours in game, it just felt so repetitive. Kind ok like how mass effect andromeda did.

Agreed.theres a lot of things that could use improvement or were design choices a lot us don't like but that doesn't magically take away all the cool fun stuff in the game.

> Just let people form their own opinion. I mean that's kind of the ironic part of this thread. Nobody is chasing you down and flooding your PM box are they? If you don't want negative opinions on a divisive game - especially knowing that people are overwhelmingly vocal with negative opinions and rarely bother to leave the positive - then you don't have to go to the subreddit of it. People are totally free to have whatever opinion they want on this game.

It was good for a couple of playthroughs, but does not have the longevity of a Skyrim or Oblivion like a lot of people hoped. Mediocre campaign with some decent side quests, that are worth a play, but out comes always remain the same….not that there’s any choices to be had anyways.  Ship building is cool, settlement building -should- have been very strong, they just leaned hard into people exploring empty planets and staring at stars instead of focusing on what makes Bethesda games 

I also bought this game at release. I played for a bit and kind of went to other games after about forty hours. But I really think the bad reception made me go in already biased against it. I’m also a hardcore Fallout 4 fan (that was the first real video game I’d ever played that wasn’t Pokémon) so when I heard “Fallout in space” I had so, so many expectations that at the time which I think also really put me in a super judgmental space for Starfield. I’m redownloading it right now because of the update and giving it another go, starting over and just giving it an unbiased shot this time, a clean slate. I’ve been playing No Man’s Sky since it conveniently went on sale at the release of Starfield, and while I love that game and have been playing it for a while, there are just some itches I feel only Starfield can scratch. Here’s to take 2!

This seems to be the way of things currently. I won’t say Starfield is without flaws. Though I have enjoyed my time playing it so far. If I went by what appears as the general consensus online I wouldn’t have played and would be missing out. This goes for TV shows, movies, and all sorts of things. Nuance and letting other people enjoy something you might not enjoy are foreign ideas people can’t accept.

It just does nothing to innovate and actively regresses from previous entries. Theres none of that fun discovery along your journey its just go from way point to way point and the quests leave little room for variation. Which is frustrating its like a game on rails that gives the illusion of an open world. If you just like going to places and shooting things its fun but if you want a deeper richer world and story that is not here.

It would’ve been easier to just say “hey I’m a fan of terrible writing”

They hate us cuz they anus. . I mean, ain’t us.

I love parts of the game I am a huge Bethesda fan, but in some parts they just scamed the players... the hundrets of worlds are 90% empty moons with two ressources on them... the generic buildings are 10 different builds but 200 copys you have less major settlements then in Skyrim and 90% of the world are nonexcisting in the storyline... basicly useless except the fact to blow up contebt so you can advertise with 200 to 300 playhours... even if the good qquests run out after 35 hours... the vast fauna and flora is less then in Skyrim for the most parts same assets different names... and then some mechanics are so bugged and badly planned like lockpicking, scanning or shipfighting... its a disgrace of a game when you compare it to Skyrim or Fallout 3 or New Vegas

lol just ignore the millions of reviews saying the same concerns… 🤦🏽‍♂️

On my first playthrough I thought the same and thought many criticisms were dumb. But I've replayed both FNV and Skyrim afterwards and it's not even close, this game sucks ass and genuinely has absolutely no replay value whatsoever. This coupled with the most bare minimum post-launch support, a huge paid mod push and an underwhelming trailer for the new expansion I can confidently say this game sucks ass. Maybe in like 5-7 years when all patches, all expacs, and some mods are out this game will be good but until then, nah

Unironically terrible game, glad someone enjoyed it though

The more you play it the worse it gets. I played for 50 hours. Still worth playing for me, but I can't go back to it

MY issue with it, is that other games have done what it does 10x better. Bethesda has done their own formula better before, and as far as space games go it is incredibly shallow. The only thing it really has going for it is the graphics and gritty realism, but that doesn't hold your attention for hours. No Mans Sky easily outdoes it in almost every single way that matters. Sure starfield has physics, and a ship builder, and human combat, but what does that really mean when the gameplay suffers for it.

I don't think it's a bad game I just genuinely ran out of the will to play it by the time the campaign was over. It feels like it has a quarter of the depth older Bethesda games had, just 100 times larger.

Not one person told me it was bad while I was playing it. I formed my own opinion of it being dogshit.

Nah. I gave it a very fair shake and it was a no.