By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Chazore said:

I find it illogical how with gaming there is no "bad", or "objectively bad" (especially with games that are busted or impossible to control for the majority), yet with anything else outside of the games industry we have such distinctions.

Sure you can like a game, a story or a movie for having bad writing/acting, but that does not automatically stop it from having those poor qualities. liking something doesn't remove the the impurities of an object/item, even within the digital realm, and I wish those eldest on these forums would get that hint and adhere to it, instead of wasting time trying to defy reality.

I liked many a sitcom from the old days that either died on the spot or was critically panned, but even then I liked the shows, despite the jokes being comically bad on all accounts, I was still able to recognise the shows themselves and why they were bad, rather than wasting time in trying to defend the negative qualities.

See I am starting to find this a bit contradictory and amusing at the same time, because like with this thread, we've seen customers express their distaste for what SF presented after many years of baking in the oven, and on the other side of the spectrum we have seen devs complain about the Series S, and do you know what stuck out to me about the two?

Both got shot down by the same party that just so happened to like the company providing both the system and the game. So now we have pete hines shitting on customers/fans of bethesda, but at the same time we have people on here shitting on devs for daring to talk about the Series S and it's specs, what a duality that makes for.

See with what transpired with SF has now caused a divide within the fanbase, with half remaining that Bethesda will release a banger with ES VI, and those who have had their hopes dashed at how SF turned out and now do not hold as much hope for ES VI (especially when you consider just how long it is taking to make).

The point I'm trying to make here is that maybe instead of shitting all over those who take issue with bethesda or even MS for that matter, you should instead demand better, not less, and stop making all sorts of excuses for why your validated in causing a further divide to those who expected better (really it's no different than the crabs pulling one another back into the bucket, and there's no excuse out of that one, this has happened on this site for years now and I'm quite done with it, there is no excuse for not expecting better, stop trying to stamp that out).

I want MS to do better by making better games, that drive more refined competition, but having dated writing for a Scifi game with proced generation for content that matters very little to the grand scheme of the game does not make for universally good content.

I never said there are *no* objectively bad games. All the battle passes, loot boxes, always online GaaS, gacha and so on is objectively bad. Starfield doesn't have that. Is it optimal? Sure as hell not. But I do agree with the 80+ Meta, which puts it in the area of solid game. That score is not a critically panned game, not a bad game, surely not a train wreck, it is a solid but not great game. The problem is purely hype. Starfield didn't match the hype. But that doesn't mean it is on the same level bad as Forspoken or Redfall. Do you think the reviewers that gave these scores are all biased?



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]