Xbox |OT|

[Ryuu96]

Mnementh said:

shikamaru317 said:

It's absolutely feels targeted. I noticed that within about an hour of Starfield's steam overall average user reviews falling into "Mixed" and recent user reviews falling to "Mostly Negative", multiple websites had articles out about it, almost as if they already had the article written beforehand and were just waiting and hoping the average review score would fall enough to post the article. 

I don't think I've ever seen a mostly good game get dog-piled on to the degree that Starfield has. There are people with hundreds of hours in the game posting negative user reviews of it on Steam, so strong is the bandwagon effect. Nobody that truly dislikes a game puts 100+ hours into it, I don't think I've ever even put 20 hours into a game that I truly disliked. Somehow it became cool to hate on Starfield, so cool that people are doing it even if they like the game.

It also feels off, because it has not the bullshit that in my eyes make such a stuff worth it:microtransactions, lootboxes, predatory bullshit. Starfield has none of it. I can see a game that starts without this kind of shit and adds it later on through patches gets negative reviews by people that played hundreds of hours, because they are the target of this predatory bullshit. But all Starfield has is, that it may be a mediocre game, depending on your tastes and that it has the usual amount of Bethesda jank. I mean I saw in Skyrim Mammoths fall from the sky, rocks without a backside texture (making them invisible from that side) or corpses that stood upright. And I bought the game years later with millions of patches already. But nobody seems to care here. Starfield made a decision: they wanted a realistic human universe. That lead to space mostly empty and planets looking kinda samey. Because it is realisitc. Would I personally had liked an approach with a more phantastic universe more? Absolutely! But I can recognize that this was not a decision according to my tastes without it making the game bad. Do I think it was rightfully snubbed in awards? Sure, but not because it is a bottom of the barrel game, but simply because other games were better. It is not great, but definitely not the shit it seems with recent reviews.

Really liked this part, very mature take

For me I liked the realistic focus, it gave me Expanse vibes, Lol. It set itself further apart from things like Halo and Mass Effect too, it feels more "hard sci-fi" than both of those (still with a sprinkling of fantasy elements though like those two also have, Halo delving more into fantasy than the other two, Lol). But I've said it before as well, I love space and find space to be one of the most horrifying and yet beautiful things that we can see, I loved those moments in Starfield where I was in the middle of nowhere, cold vast emptiness, looking up at the sky and seeing an absolutely stunning vista.

I get that isn't for everyone though, I would accept the criticism that instead of 1000 planets they could have instead focused on a few galaxies and therefore populated more planets with colonisers and things to do. They can keep a galaxy for each major faction (United Colonies, Freestar Collective, Crimson Fleet) and also a few extra galaxies populated by stragglers or people not associated with any faction, then maybe a few galaxies not populated at all, maybe too dangerous to colonise due to weather or wildlife, instead of doing 1000 planets focusing on around 500 or so.

Didn't bother me much though, I liked how big space felt, I'd just say that I wish United Colonies, Freestar Collective felt "bigger" in reach/population, it's sort of explainable by the "leaving Earth and following wars" why humanities population seems low but still feels too small, like humanity would struggle to survive as a species this spread out and these few numbers, haha.