Support NeoGAF

[GHG]

Let me just say this, I'm glad that I won't be playing this until mods exist to fix all of the glaring and obvious issues with the game. Space traversal mods, AI mods, difficulty mods, performance and visual mods (and I'm sure someone will dig into the procedural generation side of things and mod that as well).

My experience with the game will be much better for it, but shame on Bethesda, with all their resources it shouldn't take unpaid members of the public to make this a genuine 10/10 contender.

 

[GymWolf]

Disagreed. Just look at the run animation in Starfield. There are PS2 games with much better animations. It really feels like the only focus BGS has is making bigger and bigger game worlds and adding on build-like functionality (bases, ships). Everything else they do feels incredibly dated.

Was i unclear when i specifically said "falling animations".

You can bet your ass that 99% of games look like that when you fall off a cliff, not just starfield.

Sure as hell i'm not gonna defend the entirety of their animation system if that is what you got from my post.

 

[GymWolf]

Let me just say this, I'm glad that I won't be playing this until mods exist to fix all of the glaring and obvious issues with the game. Space traversal mods, AI mods, difficulty mods, performance and visual mods (and I'm sure someone will dig into the procedural generation side of things and mod that as well).

My experience with the game will be much better for it, but shame on Bethesda, with all their resources it shouldn't take unpaid members of the public to make this a genuine 10/10 contender.

I have no fucking idea why they don't hire the best modders.

A little money investment for huge results.

I just can't wrap my head around it.

Hire the goddamn people who fix your shitty, broken games, it is THAT easy.

 

[Madserb2023]

What the hell are you talking about? It's not "the reverse" anything. If anything the formula is more like marmite.

The late reviews (and the reviews which were not pressured by a review embargo) are pretty much universally mixed/negative.

How many times do you propose someone needs to complete this game before they are qualified to give their review and opinion on it?

I don't take issue with what reviewers are saying as the design of the game is awful. The issue is with a game like this being such being such an unstructured mess, it's quite possible to have 10 reviewers even after spending dozens of hours all experiencing different content. I have seen stuff by complete chance that is hard to believe that it isn't something that was mandatory. Very easily missed. Imaging in TOTk not getting ultahand until 20 hours into the game but not just that, you get it completing a random side quest that is hidden in a cave that most players might miss. There would be reviews who literally won't see the best part of the game. Now Nintendo is not stupid enough to do it but Bethesda is. It's their crappy design.

 

[GHG]

I don't take issue with what reviewers are saying as the design of the game is awful. The issue is with a game like this being such being such an unstructured mess, it's quite possible to have 10 reviewers even after spending dozens of hours all experiencing different content. I have seen stuff by complete chance that is hard to believe that it isn't something that was mandatory. Very easily missed. Imaging in TOTk not getting ultahand until 20 hours into the game but not just that, you get it completing a random side quest that is hidden in a cave that most players might miss. There would be reviews who literally won't see the best part of the game. Now Nintendo is not stupid enough to do it but Bethesda is. It's their crappy design.

I suspect it's all by design to artificially elongate playtime. I won't elaborate further.

 

[Zuzu]

Who the fuck wrote the main story for the game? Todd Howard himself?Holy fuck.

I finished the main story yesterday and yeah it's terrible. I seriously have to question some people who have played it and think it's good. Like have you played the main quests of other RPGs? Compare it to the main story of The Witcher 2, Final Fantasy 9 and many others. Or compare it to another contemporary open-world RPG like Cyperpunk. Cyperpunk's main quest is much better than Starfield's.

 

[Pelta88]

Metro UK 6/10

seemingly in an attempt to manipulate the Metacritic score prior to launch, we’ve been playing catch-up.

This is actually a big deal. Needs it own thread.

 

[Topher]

I still remember someone calling you a Sony fanboy and using your bunny avatar at the time as proof. It was pretty funny lol.

That happened more than once because of that avatar. Thanks Ass of Can Whooping

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

That happened more than once because of that avatar. Thanks Ass of Can Whooping

Feel honoured you even experienced a fraction of our glory you dirty xbot

 

[FunkMiller]

My experience with the game will be much better for it, but shame on Bethesda, with all their resources it shouldn't take unpaid members of the public to make this a genuine 10/10 contender.

I don't honestly think there's anything that can be done to make it a 10/10. Too many things are hard baked right into the game's systems for modders to raise it up that much. It's a solid 8/10 game now, and I guess maybe it can be elevated to 9/10. But there's just not enough that's original, creatively interesting, envelope pushing, or dynamic in the gameplay or narrative that could get it to GOTY status. Bethesda have managed to create a game that combines a lot of pre-existing things into a cohesive and enjoyable whole, but there's nothing about it that feels new or ground breaking.

 

[GHG]

I don't honestly think there's anything that can be done to make it a 10/10. Too many things are hard baked right into the game's systems for modders to raise it up that much. It's a solid 8/10 game now, and I guess maybe it can be elevated to 9/10. But there's just not enough that's original, creatively interesting, envelope pushing, or dynamic in the gameplay or narrative that could get it to GOTY status. Bethesda have managed to create a game that combines a lot of pre-existing things into a cohesive and enjoyable whole, but there's nothing about it that feels new or ground breaking.

There will eventually be an Enderal style total conversion mod that will thoroughly embarrass Bethesda and be a 10/10. Mark my words.

But yeh, I get what you're saying with the base game. I have hope though, strides are already being made.

 

[Topher]

I don't honestly think there's anything that can be done to make it a 10/10. Too many things are hard baked right into the game's systems for modders to raise it up that much. It's a solid 8/10 game now, and I guess maybe it can be elevated to 9/10. But there's just not enough that's original, creatively interesting, envelope pushing, or dynamic in the gameplay or narrative that could get it to GOTY status. Bethesda have managed to create a game that combines a lot of pre-existing things into a cohesive and enjoyable whole, but there's nothing about it that feels new or ground breaking.

Pretty much feel the same way. I feel the game itself is a 9/10, but the poor performance and bugs brings it down to an 8. Winning overall GOTY isn't in the cards. It may be my own personal GOTY, that remains to be seen though. Cannot help but think Todd Howard's attitude toward the game is "let the modders fix it like they always have".

 

[Banjo64]

Metro UK 6/10

Starfield review - the final verdict: outdated, unambitious and disjointed

GameCentral completes its review of Bethesda’s new sci-fi epic and explores why Starfield fails to live up to its full potential.

metro.co.uk

While it’s not unheard of to be reviewing a game well after it first came out, it is unusual to be doing so after other outlets have already rendered their verdict. Thanks to Bethesda’s refusal to send review copies to multiple UK websites, seemingly in an attempt to manipulate the Metacritic score prior to launch, we’ve been playing catch-up. We’ve avoided reading any reviews, but we have seen the general reaction, which is understandably mixed.

 

[Topher]

While it’s not unheard of to be reviewing a game well after it first came out, it is unusual to be doing so after other outlets have already rendered their verdict. Thanks to Bethesda’s refusal to send review copies to multiple UK websites, seemingly in an attempt to manipulate the Metacritic score prior to launch, we’ve been playing catch-up. We’ve avoided reading any reviews, but we have seen the general reaction, which is understandably mixed.

Personally, I do not think that was a very smart comment in their review. Makes them sound butthurt and biased as a result.

 

[Banjo64]

Personally, I do not think that was a very smart comment in their review. Makes them sound butthurt and biased as a result.

100% they should have made sure they appeared to be the bigger man by not mentioning it. But it was to be expected, because video game reviewers.

 

[Flutta]

Comes back to the biggest sin committed by Bethesda in developing this game: sticking with this old ass engine. I'm at nearly 100 hours and the game is a solid 9 to me ("low standards" be damned), but I'm dinging the game mostly for Bethesda's stubbornness here. They took the easy route and tried to refit their old engine. Obviously they hit a wall and came to the point where the changes required needed for this engine to be the equivalent of modern engines was nearly as big a task as creating an entirely new one. I don't know that, but makes sense to me. Beyond that the sheer amount of content in this game is absolutely what one would expect from Bethesda and that makes up a lot of ground lost, imo.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Bethesda's probably too scared to greenlight a new engine. It's a unique risk to them alone with the "Bethesda feel" and the modding tools. If they fuck it up it could do irreparable damage.

Oh, and you get to stack cheese. Definitely don't want to lose that useless feature.

 

[Fools idol]

Let me just say this, I'm glad that I won't be playing this until mods exist to fix all of the glaring and obvious issues with the game. Space traversal mods, AI mods, difficulty mods, performance and visual mods (and I'm sure someone will dig into the procedural generation side of things and mod that as well).

My experience with the game will be much better for it, but shame on Bethesda, with all their resources it shouldn't take unpaid members of the public to make this a genuine 10/10 contender.

I don't think that stuff is going to be up to snuff for a good 2-3 years at this point.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

While it’s not unheard of to be reviewing a game well after it first came out, it is unusual to be doing so after other outlets have already rendered their verdict. Thanks to Bethesda’s refusal to send review copies to multiple UK websites, seemingly in an attempt to manipulate the Metacritic score prior to launch, we’ve been playing catch-up. We’ve avoided reading any reviews, but we have seen the general reaction, which is understandably mixed.

That's a bold call out. They should probably not expect another code from Bethesda at this point.

 

[Banjo64]

That's a bold call out. They should probably not expect another code from Bethesda at this point.

Bethesda may want to salvage the relationship because Metro can (and may) just deliberately continue to underscore their games.

Nobody uses Metro as an actual measuring stick for quality games and their reviews are piss anyway, but no developer wants a stinky looking score attached to their game IMO.

 

[hinch7]

Wrong thread oops.

 

[Duchess]

Very interested to see what Eurogamer will score the game. I'm actually guessing 4/5.

(for those that don't know, Eurogamer was initially refused a review copy by MS, who gave Digital Foundry a copy, with the stipulation it mustn't be shared with Eurogamer)

 

[Freelance Yakuza]

Metro UK 6/10

Starfield review - the final verdict: outdated, unambitious and disjointed

GameCentral completes its review of Bethesda’s new sci-fi epic and explores why Starfield fails to live up to its full potential.

metro.co.uk

Wait, didn't MS say Metro gave 5/5

 

[BbMajor7th]

Personally, I do not think that was a very smart comment in their review. Makes them sound butthurt and biased as a result.

Not really. They're just highlighting a lack of professional courtesy on the part of the publisher here - Beth/MS aren't alone in being selective in review cycles, but it takes more courage to call it out and risk a blacklisting than play along. If every reviewer took this tact, publishers wouldn't be able to rely on this kind of sleight of hand. DF's 'look at how far they've come' coverage, benchmarking the game against Bethesda's own historical output rather than against the wider industry, is very telling here, particularly when you realise they were the only ones at their own outlet to be offered access.

(for those that don't know, Eurogamer was initially refused a review copy by MS, who gave Digital Foundry a copy, with the stipulation it mustn't be shared with Eurogamer)

Client Journalism at its finest - DF have should have called them on it (they don't rely on being first out the gates for traffic and impressions), but they capitulated and were complicit in a snub on their own colleagues. Scummy when you think about it.

 

[Lokaum D+]

Wait, didn't MS say Metro gave 5/5

6/5

 

[killatopak]

That's a bold call out. They should probably not expect another code from Bethesda at this point.

That’s like threatening to throw water in the face of someone who is showering.

They already didn’t send review codes.

 

[GHG]

Personally, I do not think that was a very smart comment in their review. Makes them sound butthurt and biased as a result.

Nah its about time they (and any other publisher who tries this shit) got called out on attempting to manipulate the narrative and metascore of this game.

They are doing exactly the same thing again with Forza Motorsport by refusing to give codes out to the most trustworthy and experienced racing game/sim outlets and instead opting to give codes to the likes of Klobrille.

It's 100% dogshit. If you're that fucking afraid of the reception that your game is going to get from those who are capable of being honest and are not under your thumb then maybe it's time to reconsider whether the game should be made available for purchase at the specified date.

 

[Topher]

Not really. They're just highlighting a lack of professional courtesy on the part of the publisher here - Beth/MS aren't alone in being selective in review cycles, but it takes more courage to call it out and risk a blacklisting than play along. If every reviewer took this tact, publishers wouldn't be able to rely on this kind of sleight of hand. DF's 'look at how far they've come' coverage, benchmarking the game against Bethesda's own historical output rather than against the wider industry, is very telling here, particularly when you realise they were the only ones at their own outlet to be offered access.

Client Journalism at its finest - DF have should have called them on it (they don't rely on being first out the gates for traffic and impressions), but they capitulated and were complicit in a snub on their own colleagues. Scummy when you think about it.

Nah its about time they (and any other publisher who tries this shit) got called out on attempting to manipulate the narrative and metascore of this game.

They are doing exactly the same thing again with Forza Motorsport by refusing to give codes out to the most trustworthy and experienced racing game/sim outlets and instead opting to give codes to the likes of Klobrille.

It's 100% dogshit. If you're that fucking afraid of the reception that your game is going to get from those who are capable of being honest and are not under your thumb then maybe it's time to reconsider whether the game should be made available for purchase at the specified date.

Then Metro editors should write column highlighting that specific issue. Don't insert that commentary into a review where it does not belong. A review is supposed to inform readers about the game, not air grievances about how Bethesda handled giving out review codes.

 

[GHG]

Then they should write column highlighting that specific issue. Don't insert that commentary into a review where it does not belong. A review is supposed to inform readers about the game, not air grievances about how Bethesda handled giving out review codes.

I think the point of that line is to directly address Bethesda. They will read it.

 

[Topher]

I think the point of that line is to directly address Bethesda. They will read it.

And so will the readers which could very well cause them to distrust the review itself as now it looks as if Metro has an axe to grind.

 

[jm89]

Yeah metro uk are never getting a review code from microsoft lmao. They tanked the meta score for the xsx version to 84.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

I think the point of that line is to directly address Bethesda. They will read it.

They are already accusing Bethesda of trying to manipulate metacritic.

It's all out war, that ultimately undermine credibility of the review outlets.

Games will be what they are. Won't change a thing by marking it down. Especially when you can play them on gamepass.

 

[GHG]

And so will the readers which could very well cause them to distrust the review itself as now it looks as if Metro has an axe to grind.

Let's be honest though, Metro is an outlet very few people will use as the deciding factor whether or not to purchase the game.

And in this case the horse has already bolted anyway (given how late the review is).

Games will be what they are. Won't change a thing by marking it down. Especially when you can play them on gamepass.

Not going to change anything with this game but if enough people call it out then it allows there to be a discussion across the industry which might change things for the better in the future.

 

[Elysium44]

Personally, I do not think that was a very smart comment in their review. Makes them sound butthurt and biased as a result.

I like that they did it because Microsoft and Bethesda deserve to have a light shone on them for this shady practice imo. Most people are probably unaware of it, so the more publicity it gets the better, so it hopefully never happens again.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

Bethesda may want to salvage the relationship because Metro can (and may) just deliberately continue to underscore their games.

Nobody uses Metro as an actual measuring stick for quality games and their reviews are piss anyway, but no developer wants a stinky looking score attached to their game IMO.

But should you negotiate with terrorists?

 

[BbMajor7th]

Then Metro editors should write column highlighting that specific issue. Don't insert that commentary into a review where it does not belong. A review is supposed to inform readers about the game, not air grievances about how Bethesda handled giving out review codes.

Oh, so first it was butthurt and biased and now it's simply out of place? It's one paragraph that gives context to the late publication and gives broader context to the odd review process around the game. It's not like he spent three paragraphs waffling on about something totally unrelated. The rest of the review is concise and direct.

All it shows is courage and integrity, rather than a willingness to play along with client journalism.

 

[Ozzie666]

I am a bit concerned that if drops any lower the number of threads > the review score average.

 

[Topher]

Oh, so first it was butthurt and biased and now it's simply out of place? It's one paragraph that gives context to the late publication and gives broader context to the odd review process around the game. It's not like he spent three paragraphs waffling on about something totally unrelated. The rest of the review is concise and direct.

All it shows shows is courage and integrity, rather than a willingness to play along with client journalism.

No, it is out of place because it makes them look "butthurt and biased". One out of place paragraph that compromises the integrity of the review. That's not courage. Just poor journalism, imo.

 

[Gudji]

Metro UK 6/10

Starfield review - the final verdict: outdated, unambitious and disjointed

GameCentral completes its review of Bethesda’s new sci-fi epic and explores why Starfield fails to live up to its full potential.

metro.co.uk

Fucking UK PlayStation fanboys.

 

[Flutta]

Nah its about time they (and any other publisher who tries this shit) got called out on attempting to manipulate the narrative and metascore of this game.

They are doing exactly the same thing again with Forza Motorsport by refusing to give codes out to the most trustworthy and experienced racing game/sim outlets and instead opting to give codes to the likes of Klobrille.

It's 100% dogshit. If you're that fucking afraid of the reception that your game is going to get from those who are capable of being honest and are not under your thumb then maybe it's time to reconsider whether the game should be made available for purchase at the specified date.

I thought only Sony cared about those meta scores?

Remember people having a fit about it and now it looks like MS cares about those scores even more by being selective on who gets a code. This is digusting on so many levels. Glad Metro called them out on it and not cave out for fear of not getting a review copy in the future. More should follow suit.

 

[Thirty7ven]

What the hell are you talking about? It's not "the reverse" anything. If anything the formula is more like marmite.

The late reviews (and the reviews which were not pressured by a review embargo) are pretty much universally mixed/negative.

How many times do you propose someone needs to complete this game before they are qualified to give their review and opinion on it?

It has become patently clear who the game appeals to. It seems many of the people who love it have an over inflated ego that convinces themselves they understand quality better than others.

 

[Gudji]

Metro added the review to XSX seems like it dropped to 84.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Not going to change anything with this game but if enough people call it out then it allows there to be a discussion across the industry which might change things for the better in the future.

This is between Metro and Bethesda. Only they can fix this, rest of the industry have no role in this.

Metro is not backing off though, with that accusation within the review itself.
Will you work with someone who accuses you of something like this?

 

[SEGAvangelist]

It has become patently clear who the game appeals to. It seems many of the people who love it have an over inflated ego that convinces themselves they understand quality better than others.

Well that's a hot take.

 

[Punished Miku]

Well that's a hot take.

If you like Starfield you're a piece of shit person. I see this thread is going well.

 

[GHG]

This is between Metro and Bethesda. Only they can fix this, rest of the industry have no role in this.

Metro is not backing off though, with that accusation within the review itself.
Will you work with someone who accuses you of something like this?

Metro are not the only ones implicated in all of this.

If you like Starfield you're a piece of shit person. I see this thread is going well.

Said nobody.

 

[Clear]

Fucking UK PlayStation fanboys.

Metro? LOL

I think if you look at their past review-scores., I think you'll find it very hard to find any evidence of them being pro-Playstation and anti-Xbox.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Metro are not the only ones implicated in all of this.

Yeah, there is a long list. 2 reviews have come out of those. Both weirdly hostile towards Bethesda itself.

 

[Gudji]

Metro? LOL

I think if you look at their past review-scores., I think you'll find it very hard to find any evidence of them being pro-Playstation and anti-Xbox.

It's joke.

 

[Flutta]

Metro? LOL

I think if you look at their past review-scores., I think you'll find it very hard to find any evidence of them being pro-Playstation and anti-Xbox.