***The Official Starfield Thread*** (As endorsed by TNA)
- Thread starter Tek81
- Start date
Just checking, do I need to pretend I didn't enjoy the game now because of other people's opinions?
Or do I need to dislike the game and then spend a weird amount of time talking about it, not sure what the rules are here.
Also lol at "THIS IS INSANE", yes of all the things going on in the world. A video game score is definitely insane well done mate. Pop off back to youtube.
Or do I need to dislike the game and then spend a weird amount of time talking about it, not sure what the rules are here.
Also lol at "THIS IS INSANE", yes of all the things going on in the world. A video game score is definitely insane well done mate. Pop off back to youtube.
Last edited:
The recent reviews are definitely an embarrassment for Bethesda but they're also a small % of the overall reviews (hence the overall mixed rating) - in total, there are still more positive reviews than negative (84k positive vs 48k negative):
Reading some of these reviews, the 'noise to signal ratio' is wild and at the extremes we're seeing stuff like this:
and then this:
Seriously? 281 hours played and they hated it?
What's with these people?
Reading some of these reviews, the 'noise to signal ratio' is wild and at the extremes we're seeing stuff like this:
and then this:
Seriously? 281 hours played and they hated it?
What's with these people?
Steam reviews are always a bit lop-sided and driven by social media. However, the one at the top has a fair point.The recent reviews are definitely an embarrassment for Bethesda but they're also a small % of the overall reviews (hence the overall mixed rating) - in total, there are still more positive reviews than negative (84k positive vs 48k negative):
Reading some of these reviews, the 'noise to signal ratio' is wild and at the extremes we're seeing stuff like this:
and then this:
Seriously? 281 hours played and they hated it?
What's with these people?
There is a lack of gameplay and the replayability is 0 in my opinion.
I enjoyed the game to a point. My biggest gripe is the engine, it is janky and way too CPU-bound. Also, the sheer number of loading screens breaks any sort of immersion.
I am sure I will play the DLC when it is released but have no desire to replay from the start.
With all that in mind, I have 140 odd hours played. My copy came with a new card but I started out on game pass, so I am not out of money in that respect but it was nothing like I expected and that is a real shame.
The recent reviews are definitely an embarrassment for Bethesda but they're also a small % of the overall reviews (hence the overall mixed rating) - in total, there are still more positive reviews than negative (84k positive vs 48k negative):
Reading some of these reviews, the 'noise to signal ratio' is wild and at the extremes we're seeing stuff like this:
and then this:
Seriously? 281 hours played and they hated it?
What's with these people?
I've got about 600 hours in Elite Dangerous. 200 of those in the Odyssey DLC, in many ways i love that game, but stopped playing it a while ago, every time i do got back i'm out again after a few hours, its a great game but has fundamental issues with its game play, it forces you to grind, if you don't grind you can't progress and that grind is extremely tedious.
They did that because they think that's how they can get people to spend many hours playing it so they can show their investors those hours played, ironically that's whats killed it, instead of fixing that, and they know that's the problem because people have been screaming it at them for years they try to fix it by adding more and more extravagant gameplay loops, which does bring people back and then they realise they need to grind to progress in those loops, they role thier eyes, ask why aren't they listening? And leave again....
Now compare that to Star Citizen, because of the funding model the developers have no choice but to listen to its user base, if they do not they have no income and they are all out of a job.
I'll give you an example, a couple of years ago they spent a year developing an atmospheric flight model, specifically on planets with a level of gravity and for when you're not flying, when you're hovering, you see up until them you could have ships weirdly hang in the air and move too freely, they could be what we call "nose down" just hanging in the air standing on the nose looking for ground troops, its odd that the nose thrusters could just hold the ship up like that and indefinitely.
So they developed like a hover mode with V-Toll thrusters, so it would hover like a helicopter, if you pitched the ship in any direction it would move and if you did that to much it would begin to fall out of the sky.
People agreed with the concept and the reasoning but didn't like the implementation, people were vocal about it, explaining why they didn't like how it felt.
By the next quarterly patch it was gone, with CIG saying "ok fine, we will look at it again" about 2 years later, just now they have announced its coming back but far more sophisticated and completely reworked.
That is why this game has taken 10 years so far, bare in mind it took Bethesda, a long time established studio 7 years to make this, CIG started in 2012 in the basement of a house, no joke....
But its why despite Star Citizen's many bug problems, its more often a buggy mess than it is stable, i still enjoy playing it after many years and countless thousands of hours, had they kept that flight model i wouldn't be playing it, because i couldn't get on with it, CIG in their own self reflection have many times admitted they got that wrong and cringe at themselves about it.
If publishers want to know "how the hell have they gone for so long with a buggy incomplete game and raked in so much money.... and its still growing?????"
Because its our game, not your investors.
Last edited:
I enjoyed it as you know. Just was not what I expected and it should have been so much better.
Makes me happy to see the negativity as I am hoping they take it into account for future games.
Yeah I am the same, just really weird behaviour to keep popping in to threads for games you don't like to 'gloat' over something as inane and arbitrary as a steam user score. Most of the chat is at least objective and some thought has gone behind it but there's a few persistent NPC mouth breathers.
Edit: Also lol @humbug managing to shoehorn Star Citizen propaganda in here
Last edited:
Last edited:
"We've taken your feedback to heart, and now in Starfield 2 we've added the thing that every gamer wants. You vote with your wallet time and time again, it's impossible for anyone to miss how much you guys love them, and we're only sorry we didn't have them in the first one. Loot boxes are here!"
If you loved Skyrim (I did), liked Fallout 4 (I did) then Starfield is just a bit.....meh. Feels like the natural order is going down. What will Elder Scrolls 6 be like then?
I still feel the need to give Starfield a chance though, and I'm not that far in really but it's just not got 'it' so my motivation is low.
I still feel the need to give Starfield a chance though, and I'm not that far in really but it's just not got 'it' so my motivation is low.
Last edited:
Starfield in Steam's top-sellers of the year:
store.steampowered.com
(measured by gross revenue - it's also in 'most played')
Best of Steam - 2023
A look back at the year's top sellers, new releases, most-played games, and more!
(measured by gross revenue - it's also in 'most played')
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,258
It was the "it gets better later on" excuse at some point, to be fairThe recent reviews are definitely an embarrassment for Bethesda but they're also a small % of the overall reviews (hence the overall mixed rating) - in total, there are still more positive reviews than negative (84k positive vs 48k negative):
Reading some of these reviews, the 'noise to signal ratio' is wild and at the extremes we're seeing stuff like this:
and then this:
Seriously? 281 hours played and they hated it?
What's with these people?
) So yeah, pushing this further, hopping it gets better, messing around with building ships, it could get you to those playing times. Heck, probably it probably pushed itself playing more because it was paid for anyway )
Last edited:
Starfield in Steam's top-sellers of the year:
Best of Steam - 2023
A look back at the year's top sellers, new releases, most-played games, and more!
(measured by gross revenue - it's also in 'most played')
A lot of people have rose tinted glasses when comparing Starfield to older Bethesda RPGs. I always remembered Skyrim and Fallout games being quite lacking in depth, especially Oblivion and Fallout NV. Skyrim was the best of the bunch but with janky combat and the poor level scaling, it was quite a subpar experience overall. All of them took extensive community modding to reach their potential. I remember I couldn’t even play Skyrim for a few weeks, until a mod was released that allowed key rebinds for left handers like me.
I find Starfield exactly like previous Bethesda releases, a good core game with some janky design choices and the experience is a bit all over the place. At times you are completely blown away with some excellent quests and at other times you think “is that it”.
Ultimately I came away very happy with the overall experience. I would play it again in a year or so with some of the community mod packages and gameplay fixes installed.
Last edited:
I have 360 hours in it and I thought it was trash after about 100 hours of continually "giving it the benefit of doubt".The recent reviews are definitely an embarrassment for Bethesda but they're also a small % of the overall reviews (hence the overall mixed rating) - in total, there are still more positive reviews than negative (84k positive vs 48k negative):
Reading some of these reviews, the 'noise to signal ratio' is wild and at the extremes we're seeing stuff like this:
and then this:
Seriously? 281 hours played and they hated it?
What's with these people?
The slide really began when I started building outposts and I realise how lazy much of the game was, not just outposts but crafting, modding and NPCs. It all starts to fall to pieces when you step back from the pretty visuals (at times). I was running on a decent PC so averaging around 95-100 FPS so that was never an issue for me but as I set out to 100% it I decided to see just how hard it would be. Ironically the one that took me longest was actually the companion ones as I hated playing with them so rarely took them on missions.
I'd argue the problem is more with those who don't fully play the game then laud it as some masterpiece after 5 hours.
Got over 500 hours on Starfield - still love it - still my personal GOTY.
I actually ended up really enjoying the outposts once I decided to make a Vytinium Fuel Rod farm - then it became this big puzzle of getting stuff transported across 10 outposts - still love seeing multiple transport ships taking off and landing at some of my outposts - damn, they're loud
I also really enjoyed all of the companion quests - Barrett's was a little dull but (in small doses) he's OK.
Last edited:
Props to you mate, I think the base building element is the one that if modders can fix could help a lot with the rest of the game, but it's sad that I don't see Bethesda ever fixing that part. They simple don't have the staff now and certainly don't have the writers for missions etc.
I played around 150 hours and enjoyed my time.
To me, feels like there was a plan to be more complex than it ended up being, but then someone pulled the plug on certain mechanics that were considered a bit too much like hard work for it’s target market, eg
- the outposts, which felt to me that an earlier design intended for players to mind for materials to build ships from and also to fuel them
- mining, similarly dumbed down
Strikes me that some mods could re-engage those at least as options to create a more believable universe and give players more to do.
The ship combat feels like an utter after thought mini game. Where’s the option to fly around in another area that isn’t an asteroid field, or on a planet? That was just “cheating out”. Maybe as a DLC?
To me, feels like there was a plan to be more complex than it ended up being, but then someone pulled the plug on certain mechanics that were considered a bit too much like hard work for it’s target market, eg
- the outposts, which felt to me that an earlier design intended for players to mind for materials to build ships from and also to fuel them
- mining, similarly dumbed down
Strikes me that some mods could re-engage those at least as options to create a more believable universe and give players more to do.
The ship combat feels like an utter after thought mini game. Where’s the option to fly around in another area that isn’t an asteroid field, or on a planet? That was just “cheating out”. Maybe as a DLC?
Last edited: