**** Starfield ****

Icyseanfitz

This is now on GeForce now btw, runs great at 1080p on priority.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121108043#Comment_121108043

Obvious troll is obvious. Just put them on ignore and move on.

TheAnalyst_

Not liking a game equals troll despite playing every BGS rpg since Morrowind.

johnny_ultimate

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121108114#Comment_121108114

Mod note: Not liking a game does not equal trolling. What is trolling is constantly popping into the thread with pointless, repetitive one-line posts and link dumps in order to elicit a reaction.

You've had plenty of warnings. Please don't post in this thread again.

johnny_ultimate

Eurogamer has finally published their review of the game, after all the drama. And, predictably, it is an eloquent and fair analysis of the game from one person's perspective (read beyond the headline and star rating, of course). In many ways, it's beneficial for a review to be liberated from the time-sensitivity of embargo day, because IMO this is a really smart, thoughtful piece of criticism that doesn't feel as rushed or raw as you inevitably get with release days reviews. Even if you disagree with the conclusions, it's a review from a genuine, thoughtful perspective that I personally really enjoyed reading on its own terms.

https://www.eurogamer.net/starfield-review

Sephiroth_dude

Did a bit of the base building last night and next time I looked at the clock it was 2am 😂 oops, this could get addictive.

I actually find myself in agreement with a lot of the non trolling criticisms of the game.

I also went into this expecting "Fallout in space" but it definitely isn't that. I mean to an extent it is, but in many ways it isn't.

For the first 5-10 hours of gameplay I was not sure about Starfield. But the more I played it, the more it clicked with me.

As soon as I stopped expecting it to be Fallout/Skyrim I started to just see it as it's own thing and I enjoyed it a lot more. I guess that's why I kept making the same point much to the annoyance of Grassy Noel. 😄

This isn't Fallout. This isn't Skyrim. It's Starfield. It's something different.

But I can completely empathize with someone who wanted the Fallout/Skyrim experience and feeling disappointed with Starfield. You'll have to wait for ES6 or FO5 I guess...

It's definitely not perfect but I'm enjoying it. So yay for me I guess.

DarkJager21

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121108310#Comment_121108310

Whatever about the review content but there is simply no way that Starfield is a 3/5. It's about time Eurogamer ditched the pretense of being an actual unbiased review outlet and just accept that they are really only interested in a niche side of gaming now.

Look at the previous reviews, a couple of ugly ass Indie games getting 4 and 5 stars - the higher ones in particular where a diversity checklist gets ticked or there is heavy leaning in to LGB themes or characters.

I'd read an IGN review any day now over Eurogamer, and that's sad because years ago they were the go to for reviews. Their interests and ideas of what constitutes a "good" game have become wildly skewed from the original EG. Too much politics now.

johnny_ultimate

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121108419#Comment_121108419

"Whatever about the review content" - did you actually read it? Because the review content is, you know, the important thing.

pixelburp

It's only in video-games that 3/5 is somehow considered an appalling condemnation or outrage? Every single review written by every single human is biased; and there's more to a review than a final score while bemoaning "diversity checklist"s says more about the complainant than the review TBH. Just because EuroGamer don't like Specific Game X isn't some validation about one's distaste for their politics - for which we're free to pass on - not unless the review openly criticises some political aspect.

Sephiroth_dude

When you assign a follower to an outpost, can you assign them jobs? do outposts ever get attacked?

awec

From reading this thread and elsewhere, my impression is that:

1. Very few people just love this game without qualification
2. Lots of people enjoy the game, but have a list of issues / things they don't like, or have to play in a certain way to make it enjoyable. Some of the things they don't like are fairly fundamental to the game.
3. Lots of people don't like it

With this in mind, 3/5 seems like a reasonably accurate score, no?

DarkJager21

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121108433#Comment_121108433

I did, sounds to me like he was overwhelmed and didn't fully understand the game systems and let that sour his playthrough. Also this line is **** ridiculous, what did he expect to start in - floating in the depths of space??:

"Starfield does not begin well. You start this game of space and exploration in an elevator, trundling down"

Skyrim doesn't begin well cos you are trundling in the back of a horse cart.

Half life doesn't begin well because sure you're only stuck on a train.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121108465#Comment_121108465

1. No, they just add a stat buff to your outpost, unless I'm missing something. Maybe they are required for something like mining to function but I don't think so. If I was to change one thing about Starfield I would request a separate Output Management UI where you can manage all outposts in one place, where you can see stats, production, etc. Maybe set one outpost as your primary and have a terminal there for this UI.

2. Yes, they do. Turrets are handy for this.

johnny_ultimate

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121108523#Comment_121108523

I'm sorry, I can't believe you're arguing that in good faith because several paragraphs in that review describe the opening sequences in substantial detail and context.

"Clunky as it sounds, absolutely none of this stuff is a problem. In fact really, it's actually classic Bethesda, and much as I'm being a little harsh about the cave puppets' patter I am more than on board with this part: it's the run-up to arguably the best moment of any Bethesda RPG, the "walkout moment", where our typically wordless chosen one begins somewhere dark and claustrophobic - the sewers beneath Cyrodiil's Imperial City, the prison escape through the caves of Skyrim, the vaults of Fallout (so apt, when you think about it, it's almost like that whole series was conceived before Bethesda even had rights to it, just for the studio to have the perfect walkout scenario) - only to emerge out into the grand expanse."

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121108496#Comment_121108496

I feel like you've described every Bethesda game ever made.

I think scores are a load of crap anyway. It's completely subjective. I've played games that have an insanely high Metacritic score that I didn't like at all.

It's really up to the individual. If you enjoy a game, that's all that matters. Too much focus is placed on review scores.

ahnowbrowncow

Starfield is now 84 on Metacritic, I wonder if Todd and Pete Hines will get their bonuses this year?

DarkJager21

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121108567#Comment_121108567

Oh he does yeah and none of it is positive:

Your first view of the wider world is the grey-brown non-place of the planet Argos, the sci-fi equivalent of a car park by an industrial estate off the M4. After a little scuffle here on the outskirts of space-Croydon, it's a fast-travel jump into a largely static tutorial sequence in orbit.

Back to my point:

In this case, I suspect it's because Starfield has just too many systems happening, in too many places, for it to provide one clean route to a totally hands-off release into the world. You need a tutorial for mining, and you need a tutorial for combat, and a tutorial for planetary exploration, and a tutorial for space combat, and a tutorial for space navigation, and on and on.

God forbid a complex game tries to introduce you to it's mechanics in the opening hour 🙄

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121108647#Comment_121108647

They were complaining that there's too many tutorials? I've seen comments online where they said there aren't enough tutorials and that the game just throws you in the deep end after the first quest.

I don't know. I don't read the reviews for a reason. No journalist can tell me if I'm going to enjoy a game or not. Nor can random people online.

I just use my own judgement.

DarkJager21

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121108658#Comment_121108658

I agree, I'm just making the point that Eurogamer can't seriously with a straight face put a 3/5 on a game because it's "too complex" but award 5/5 to something put together in MS paint because it has themes that tick a box for them. Starfield has 60 hours from me so far, the stuff they throw 4 and 5's at probably wouldn't get 60 mins.

Maybe I'm just completely out of touch with what the majority of casual gamers and even enthusiasts deem to be bang for buck now but point stands - 3/5 from that site for a game of this scale is a joke.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121108716#Comment_121108716

Honestly you're better off just not caring if people like the game or not.

If you like it, that's all that matters to you.

johnny_ultimate

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121108658#Comment_121108658

Nah, the argument is more that the opening hours are flat compared to other Bethesda games - a common complaint even among fans of Starfield - because its systems and mechanics are too separate from another and have to be introduced in almost self-contained little sections. Whereas Bethesda games are known for their swift 'go nuts' reveal moment when the world opens up following a short linear / tutorial section, here the opening (and, in the author's opinion, the rest of the game) is a lot more piecemeal and more uneven as they have to introduce a bunch of disparate environments and systems that don't coalesce that well together. Having played said opening section, I would entirely agree with that assessment. But I can't really comment on the game beyond that.

MadYaker

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121108716#Comment_121108716

That review is way too long and read like it was written by some neckbeard who loves crap Indy games and watching movies by Polish directors that nobodies heard of.

Starfield is the gaming equivalent of a triple A blockbuster action movie with Dwayne Johnson or Jason Statham in it. It’s not meant to be particularly revolutionary or high brow. It’s light entertainment, chewing gum for the brain.

That said I don’t think the 3/5 is too far off. I’d probably give it a 7/10.

McFly85

I genuinely don’t understand how people can think someone gave a game an incorrect score. It’s one persons opinion.

You can disagree with them, but ultimately they might not find certain things fun that you do or vice-versa.

If you find Eurogamer scores regularly differ wildly from what you think, then don’t read Eurogamer and find a reviewer/publication that you have similar tastes to?

johnny_ultimate

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121109005#Comment_121109005

For some reason, there's a huge swathe of the online gaming community (which, thankfully, doesn't reflect actual reality) that refuses to accept anything other than blind consensus. You see it in the demented comments section of EG's Starfield review. There are people who treat a variety of opinions as something to be feared and condemned, rather than encouraged and respected. It's very weird, totally anti-art / individuality and all just a bit silly.

You increasingly do see a bit of it in some other media circles too, especially around superhero movies. But it's comically exaggerated and extreme within video game communities particularly, and has been for years.

ahnowbrowncow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121108964#Comment_121108964

I think that's unfair, I would have Chris Tapsell as one of the best reviewers out there. It is a long review but I wouldn't say that it's verbose because it's a large game deserving of a thorough review and each paragraph shows how he arrived at his final score.

I've played the game for about 60 hours now and I'm setting it aside. It's fallen short of what I had hoped for and in my view it's worse than its predecessors, and they weren't without their flaws.

To paraphrase J.R.R Tolkien, it feels like butter that has been scraped over too much bread. There's lots and lots of bread, with some tasty morsels to be found but there's just not enough butter. Hopefully future updates, DLC and mods will all add the missing butter and maybe even a bit of jam.

CatInABox

I've only got a few hours put in, I'm enjoying it, but can definitely see where the EG (and others) criticism is coming from.

_CreeD_

The EG review summed up my own issues pretty well I think. Similarly from the start it lacks an 'Oh wow, what's that on the horizon' factor driving me anywhere, and the systems for manually navigating outside of mission based tracking are clunky at best. I also disagree with comments on this game being complex, or that reviewer disliking it for that reason, it's not complex at all I think the issue with the systems there is the lack of enjoyable depth to some players - more tasks than interesting systems to learn and enhance enjoyment. I'd also give it a 7/10 in respect of what it does well but honestly 25 or so hours in I've stopped being interested in playing anymore. Not that there's anything critically wrong with it but there's nothing drawing me back in - normally with a AAA open world RPG I'd have done those hours in the first weekend :). It has however started me reinstalling MorrowBlivion though...

I think the problem with scoring a game is that it gives an air of objectivity to a subjective opinion. Like numbers are mathematical so they must be "correct".

Even the interpretation of the score is subjective.

For example, some people might view a 10/10 as meaning a game is perfect. Like there's no possible way to improve it.

Others might view a 10/10 as exceptional but not necessarily perfect, just extremely high standard.

So when a reviewer gives something a 10 there's no universal agreement as to what that number even means.

Like I said, it's all bollox. You'll never know unless you try it yourself.

pixelburp

It's a shame Eurogamer abandoned their "no scores" policy; I can't recall their justification but simply having the reviews and a broad "recommended" tag for particular games was as precise a yardstick as should be expected.

Gamers tearing strips out of journalists or each other over percentage points is a waste of everyone's time.