Starfield isn't objectively bad. But it's objectively divisive and disappointing.

If you are on one planet and want to get into your ship and go to another one, there is about seven loading screens/loading sequences. How is that not objectively bad? You would spend more time loading then flying in a space exploration game. 

It has weak elements, but a lot of people liked or even loved the game that you just can't call it objectively bad yet. This may change over the years and the new consensus would consider it a "bad game" but this isn't the case at the moment. It's definitely divisive though, and the majority of those who do like it seem disappointed that it didn't quite live up to the hype.

The excuse they give to excuse the "Emptiness" of Starfield because it "reflects real life" kind of misses the point of being a video game.

We don't want a replica of real life.

We want entertainment. (That and we haven't colonized the stars yet anyway.)

If I can go to the movies and accept that there is a talking squirrel that wields guns... I am sure I can accept a heavily populated universe.

In saying that... Starfield is not actually a bad game.
More like an incomplete game.

Which was ironically the issue Fable 3 had.

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.

Also this is kinda the "strong point" of bethesda games.
Like in fallout and elder scrolls games, there so many little hidden places with fun story elements and jokes, you can run into if you go exploreing.
The combat was never a strong point for their games, its the RPG elements and story/exploration that makes their games.
Its very odd, they did like a 180 turn, and just left that behinde in starfield.

Talking squirrel /w guns? do you mean Rocket Raccoon from Guardians of the Galaxy?

If your a fan of the older games bethesda made, I suspect most would be dissappointed atleast.
Might not be a bad game, but its a dissapointing one.

Cyberpunk2077 vs Starfield:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4ADco41g9s



This video makes a very clear point.
The storytelling and animation, atmosphere and vibe.... theres a huge gap, in quality.

Starfield feels dated and lazy, if compaired to cyberpunk.

------------------

should xbox end their generation early?

Maybe if they can launch a year or so before the Playstation 6, it could make a small differnce.
Might not even need to be a full year, do a Nintendo, and launch early in the year, so your first holiday sales, arnt canabalised by early adopters, that will buy reguardless.

The thing is, you need all aspect to go together hand in hand.
Is there a new proccess node avalible? new tech to use? can you have a launch lineup of games ready for that date? ect ect.
Doing a new gen, just for the sake of a new gen, without much to show for it, wont improve things.

However if they can get all the stars to align, just right, a year before playstation (who might want to milk, the PS5 if the gen goes well).... it could result in a better start for xbox, imo.

Oh sure, another Youtuber realizing drama brings in more views than honest opinions is the epitome of objective. I guess Forspoken and Immortals of Aveum are objectively better games, as not as much Youtubers make drama videos about them. I guess all the reviewers that put Starfield into 80+ Meta and Forspoken and Immortals in the 60s are just paid shills.

And I already said: grat and much praised games have loading screens.

I agree with this. Disappointing is a measurement compared to expectations, and for some reasons expectations for Starfield were on the moon. Part of this is Todd Howard, but he does that all the time, I don't believe anything anymore this gus says. But the community itself created a lot of hype. And I think for some time now, hype is dangerous, leads to toxicity pretty quick. Distrust the hype. And yes, then were the ones that saw in Starfield the saviour of Xbox. But as it turned out, Starfield wasn't Jesus, it is just a game. Similarly as Mario Kart 8, Splatoon or Smash Bros couldn't save the WiiU. Must all be pretty bad games, amirite?

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?

But it's only divisive like that because the devs overpromised and underdelivered.