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

Will be a “fun” few weeks of discourse, as the negative reviews are few enough (and some of them from suspect outlets) that people will be able to plausibly accuse the reviewers of bias

Stick to this thread Play the game for yourself, make your own judgement, ignore the console war morons, they were always going to kick up a fuss whether it was 80s or 90s, The Elder Scrolls VI will be 10x worse, haha.



Around the Network
Imaginedvl said:
shikamaru317 said:

Can't say I'm particularly surprised by the Starfield score, with anti-Xbox and anti-Bethesda bias going against it, was always going to score at least 5 points lower than it deserved to score. There is no way that the most polished game that Bethesda has ever produced, with deeper RPG systems than their last 2 singleplayer RPG's to boot, is actually an 87 game, one point lower than Fallout 4's 88. Without the anti-Xbox and anti-Bethesda bias this would be sitting on a 92-93 average most likely.

I mean IGN Japan gave the game 10 out of 10 lol.

The guy that did the review is basically a space simulator fan... Not an RPG player...

The same guy gave Fallout 4 a 9.5/10, Lol.

His verdict really doesn't scream 7/10 to me.





Ryuu96 said:
Imaginedvl said:

I mean IGN Japan gave the game 10 out of 10 lol.

The guy that did the review is basically a space simulator fan... Not an RPG player...

The same guy gave Fallout 4 a 9.5/10, Lol.

His verdict really doesn't scream 7/10 to me.

Yah I'm reading through it and I have no idea how he came up with 7... 



A friendly neighborhood reminder:

I don't think an individual review score particularly matters. They are an individual's expression of their own opinion, and they might have had various reasons for feeling that way. Someone having a different opinion doesn't make them particularly biased for/against a game. How they feel is unlikely to be any objective measure, and can be influenced by things like expectations.

Additionally 85+ is a great score. Starfield is clearly a great game. It isn't going to be everyone's favorite game, because that game doesn't exist.



Around the Network

Only review that matters:



https://www.trueachievements.com/gamercards/SliferCynDelta.png%5B/IMG%5D">https://www.trueachievements.com/gamer/SliferCynDelta"><img src="https://www.trueachievements.com/gamercards/SliferCynDelta.png

https://www.gematsu.com/2023/08/volition-shuts-down-after-30-years

Saints Flop killed them, as I suspected it would. Sad to see them kill themselves by completely misunderstanding their own fanbase.



shikamaru317 said:

Can't say I'm particularly surprised by the Starfield score, with anti-Xbox and anti-Bethesda bias going against it, was always going to score at least 5 points lower than it deserved to score. There is no way that the most polished game that Bethesda has ever produced, with deeper RPG systems than their last 2 singleplayer RPG's to boot, is actually an 87 game, one point lower than Fallout 4's 88. Without the anti-Xbox and anti-Bethesda bias this would be sitting on a 92-93 average most likely.

PC Gamer gave it a low review as expected, though surprisingly the other outlet that constantly attacked Starfield pre-release, Game Rant, gave it a 5/5. Guess the hate articles were nothing but a clickbait grift because they are struggling financially.

I think it definitely doesn't help that we have a combination of Bethesda has to deliver after Fallout 76 so expectations are sky-high and Xbox has to deliver for a lack of major AAA exclusive so that adds even more expectations. Although PCGamer is a typically harsh reviewer either way, even before their clickbait articles I thought they'd score it low, they gave Hi-Fi Rush a 69, Lol.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 31 August 2023

rapsuperstar31 said:
Libara said:

That's some wishful thinking metas right there. People forgetting the media bias that goes against MS and the outlets that will give it a lower score than deserved in order to drive traffic.

They did win the 2021 metacritic publisher of the year.

Thanks to Bethesda who had games release before the acquisition closed. IGN literally gave the Starfield review to a known Xbox hater and racist, it's clear what they were going for.



Imaginedvl said:
carlos710 said:

Not surprised about the score, but I'm surprised to see IGN from all sites having the courage to call it as they see it.

Why are you not surprised? I mean the average is 87 on meta and the majority scores it at 8, 9, or 10; so if anything the 7 is an outstanding score...

(Not to mention IGN Japan gave the game 10 out of 10, the dude at IGN is a space simulator fan, not the best person to review an RPG...)

I'm curious as to why you were not surprised and even seemed to expect it. Also, saying that IGN from all sites has the courage to call it, implies that other sites should have gone lower than 8, 9, or 10 too in your opinion, care to elaborate?

Mostly I believe review scores tend to be super inflated.. from all the games I have played I think I would count with one hand the ones that I would grant a 95+, let alone throw around 10's like these companies do. Also, most  major publications like IGN seems super corrupted to me, and the smaller ones always seems to be scared of looking "not cool" by not giving high scores to hyped games ( or maybe they are scared of not getting review copies anymore )

From the Bethesda games I have played the best ones were Skyrim (would have been an 85 - 90 at most for me) and Fallout 4 (around 80 for me). 

Additionally the first couple months always seems to be a bugfest for most games, and yet for some weird reason reviewers tend to ignore that. Not sure if that's the case with starfield, just talking in general about game releases nowadays

None of this is really xbox / bethesda / starfield specific btw.



carlos710 - Capitán Primero: Nintendo Defense Force

"Wii are legion, for Wii are many"