Well, I think the game got a lot of undeserved flak online as well, but it did review quite decent and in line with what I personally feel about right. Starfield got a 83 on Metacritic and a 84 on OpenCritic. This is a lot higher than many other games, which didn't get as much backlash online. So I think the reviewers are fair with the game and about 80 feels right on a personal level.
True is also, that online users are very against the game. The User Score on Metacritic is only 6.9. That is lower than the 8.0 for Stranger of Paradise, and not much higher than the 6.2 for Immortals of Aveum - very mediocre games. That cannot be right, Starfield is clearly better than these.
So yes, some users unfairly put down Starfield. Is it due to platform exclusivity? I kinda doubt it. Basically for me Starfield was what I expected, in line with Fallout and Elder Scrolls. But for many it was a disappointment. Somehow people expected something much, much better than Skyrim and Fallout 4. I don't knwo why, Bethesda has a pretty clear formula and never showed much ambition beyond that (core Bethesda, Arkane and Tango were different stories).
Todd Howard probably didn't help, telling everyone who wanted to hear and also everyone who didn't, that Starfield would be the next coming of Jesus Christ or something. I personally completely ignore the hogwash Todd Howard tells, but I can understand if people were disappointed after that. But it wasn't Todd Howard alone, people seem to think on their own, that Bethesda somehow evolves, even though we clearly see with Elder Scrolls, that they only slowly adapt to modern tech but otherwise have basically the same game.
Starfields setting isn't helping, as they were going for a more realistical setting (instead of the very phantastic universe of No Man's Sky for example), the result is a bit predictable.
Also the year had really great games with Hogwarts Legacy, Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom, Alan Wake II and Baldur's Gate III. In a more normal year Starfield had probably stood out more.
But if you get away with all the expectations and comparisons to other games, what you are left with is a decent and entertaining game. It has it's flaws, but so do Skyrim and Fallout 4, which are highly valued. It has glitches and bugs, but again, so do Skyrim and FO4. All of what I found with Starfield matched pretty much what I expected to find with a new game by Bethesda and given the setting. Not better, but also not worse. It is the next little step in the Bethesda games as they had before. But people allowed their expectations to fly off the handle. And this lead to this enormous backlash.
All of this makes me worry for TES VI. It will be another Bethesda game, the next little step. It will not radically change, as the Bethesda games never really did. It will look better and fix some stuff here and there (while still having lots of bugs and glitches) and it will streamline some stuff to appeal to mass market which will enrage the core players. But already I see people expect too much, expect the sky and beyond for TES VI. If that goes on and Todd howard inevitably will chime in and add to ballooning expectations, then I already see how people will be massively disappointed by TES VI.
I for one look forward to the next evolution, not expecting the best game ever, but another Bethesda game, which will be good enough. Hopefully the universes Bethesda own (Fallout, TES and now Starfield) can be used by other Microsoft studios as well, which might bring some good results. I certainly would enjoy to see a TES spinoff by Obsidian in the style of Awoved and an isometric strategic Fallout from InXile. And also I look forward to Starfield 2. It is a good world. Bethesda can build upon it.
