Starfield | Review Thread

What scores do you think StarfieId will get?

  • 40-45%

    Votes: 3 0.5%
  • 45-50%

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 50-55%

    Votes: 1 0.2%
  • 55-60%

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 60-65%

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 65-70%

    Votes: 2 0.3%
  • 70-75%

    Votes: 5 0.8%
  • 75-80%

    Votes: 15 2.3%
  • 80-85%

    Votes: 81 12.5%
  • 85-90%

    Votes: 241 37.3%
  • 90-95%

    Votes: 243 37.6%
  • 95-100%

    Votes: 55 8.5%

  • Total voters
    646
  • Poll closed .
High 80s is very good and aside from the trolling I'll be trying it out for sure. Worries me that some reviews are saying that it gets good after a dozen hours, I drop games I find boring way before that mark lol
 
Majority of the scores are in 9s and 10s. IGN and GameSpot must he bored out of their fucking minds trying to stir controversy for those desperate clickbait clicks.
Chill, differing opinions is not surprising, its not for clicks like all you conspiracy people like to think.

IGN generally always gives good scores to big games.
 
Last edited:
EpaaW6U.gif

What does this mean?
 
Decent reviews so far, but I honestly expected better. The thing is, it had to be perfect... considering all the backlash Bethesda got after Fallout 76.
 
Wait, what happened to Eurogamer and Edge not receiving code implying the scores would be skewed?
What does this mean for gaming press transparency?
I thought this was very important.
 
Anyone else think this is a case of a very well reviewed RPG game, BG3, being a direct comparison to it being a reason for the lower scores?

Like I imagine people thinking why can't I do this arbitrary thing that was in BG3 on Starfield and maybe vice versa?
 
This will probably settle in a lower 80's, if IGN and Gamespot are giving 7/10 just wait for Eurogamer and Edge to come in with their heavily weighted 5 or 6.
Don't forget about our/mine score. We sadly didn't get a copy, but reviewing it nonetheless and will be adding it to OpenCritic in a week or so.
 
What fucking settings did ign play at; graphics were mediocre, just a cut above Outer Worlds or lightly modded FO4. These are some of the worst looking next gen npcs too.
 
Haven't watched any reviews yet but some of the scores are definitely lower than I would've thought. Still a great average so far though, but didn't expect all these 7/10 for sure.
 
lol.....what? I'm seeing great overall scores my man. You seem very invested in this.
The scores are very good.

A game like this will have a lasting legacy as well (just like TES and Fallout).

It'll be hugely popular for years and years and will get better and better as mods are introduced.
 
Not sure of what coping you speak off. I am going to be playing the game regardless. To say the game deserves a 5/10 is just downright disengenous and you know it. A game that's rated 5/10 usually means that it has a lot of technical issues and bugs which doesn't seem to be the case here at all. These idiots have no clue how to properly score games lol.
The coping of you saying "IGN and Gamespot must be trying to be controversial for clicks" lol. Thats about as cope as it gets man......

Neither of them gave it a 5/10? You should maybe wait to play the game before being this gung ho about how awesome it is?
 

LMAO Paste Magazine gave it a 5/10

Doesn't matter, game is still gonna be great. Seeing all the sites/reviews I care about in the 9/10 range.

It's actually a thoughtful review with some legitimate concerns and issues. If you actually would read it...

In fact, everything that they took points off for are things that I've been concerned with.
 
Chill, differing opinions is not surprising, its not for clicks like all you conspiracy people like to think.

IGN generally always gives good scores to big games.
I work in the gaming industry and have my own website with my own team. I can tell what's for clicks and what is not. I know how the media works, our score will be added within the next 7 days. Thanks.
 
Worse MC than FF16 is actually an insult.

Starfield asks you to collect garlic after defeating a literal god?
Garlic no, maybe moon rocks tho?



On another note, those NPCs look a little jarring to me, hopefully we can make them look better on PC somehow.
 
Well, it didn't take long for people to start screaming shit from the rooftops about how disappointing these scores are.

The game is sitting around 86-88 get a fucking grip. That's a great score.
 
IGN is a very easy reviewer, the fact that they give this 7 is rough. Can't lie about that. Gamespot giving this a 7 isn't that surprising.

Gamespot's review was the first one I saw and thought "that's lower than expected, but it's Gamespot". Then I saw IGN, the softballer, give it a 7. That's when you know things aren't great.
 
It sounds from these reviews like the game is very slow to get rolling. That could bias early review scores lower than those that are going to come in the next few days. We'll see.

88 MC is still a good enough showing, similar to Fallout 4, but the big sites like IGN and GameSpot seem to be pretty hard on it.
 
this feels like ffxvi review thread all over again.
 
God damn.

So my fears came true. 1000 planets. But they are lifeless and pointless. Even the main ones lack NPC density. Scope was way too big. There's no point of such massive scale, it's ridiculous. Make your world more lively. Hopefully other devs learn from this. BIGGER is not better unless the big includes life
Was my fear as well. Gathering resources on big empty planets put me to sleep in No Mans Sky and this seems too similar to that. I have game pass though, so i'll give it a fair shot.
 
I work in the gaming industry and have my own website with my own team. I can tell what's for clicks and what is not. I know how the media works, our score will be added within the next 7 days. Thanks.

Lol sure you can dude. You've got nothing. There's no grounds for your conspiracy theories.
 
Top Bottom