Azzanation said:
Well here is one example. Jim sterling gave the game a 4/10 Here is a quote from his review "To call Starfield the least broken Bethesda game is akin to calling any single TERF the least embarrassing fascist. Then again, given how Zenimax and Bethesda seem to treat trans employees, that comparison may hit too close to home." https://www.thejimquisition.com/post/starfield-empty-spaces-review Ill let you process that and come to your own conclusion. |
Azzanation are you claiming Jim Sterlin is a console warrior who is playstation biased, and thats why he gave it a 4/10???
That dude is a huge PC guy, afaik.
Also look at what he said about bugs:
enemies getting stuck in doors
NPCs materializing out of thin air
stuck on dialog screens, unable to advance a conversation
trapped in my ship’s cockpit, unable to move until I’ve sat back down in my seat and stood up again.
Companions have just disappeared on me.
Mission-critical enemies have spawned inside walls (rendered almost impossible to kill.)
gotten softlocked more times than is forgivable, and I dread to think how much progress I’ve cumulatively lost as a result.
"While Starfield’s galaxy is nebulously “big,” its vast array of barren planets populated by recycled assets"
"On a fundamental level, Starfield plays exactly like any other Bethesda game, only with features borrowed - and subsequently lessened – from No Man’s Sky and The Outer Worlds. "
"The same rudimentary combat (only without VATS to wallpaper over how sloppy it is). The same archaic approach to exploration and questing. The same stilted dialog propelled by non-sequitur exchanges. The same moronic A.I. and robotic animations. The same old narrative cliches in a world of cardboard where every stranger tells you their life story and immediately trusts you with sensitive tasks for seemingly no other reason than the fact you’re a videogame protagonist and they somehow know it. "
He even adresses the No Man Sky's take people have had:
"People have referred to Starfield as No Man’s Skyrim, and while some have intended that as a slight against this game, I actually think it’s more insulting to Hello Games’ work. No Man’s Sky at least had a universe you could seamlessly explore, with planets you were able to approach and land on in real time. That was actually ambitious. Starfield’s planets can be flown to manually over the course of hours, but you can’t land on them without a menu, loading screens (get used to seeing those), and dull cutscenes."
(Please remember that I really didn’t like No Man’s Sky, to the point where its fans notoriously DDoS’d this website in response to my review. )
"Another thing pretty much any comparable game can hold over Starfield is that you aren't so constantly encumbered by gathering resources - Starfield is a game that encourages you to pick up crafting materials but swiftly punishes you for doing so thanks to its harshly restrictive carrying capacity. By the time it started trying to push me to build outposts, I was thoroughly disinterested because of how much of a hindrance the crafting supplies became."
it goes on and on.
I feel like this is pretty valid, and a fair way to judge a game based on his experiance.
That plus hes tired of the old tropes, and isnt a fan of space exploration..... you can see why he choose to give it the score he did.
