Starfield Is Bethesda's Lowest-Rated Game On Steam
Starfield Is Bethesda's Lowest-Rated Game On Steam
Steam users have given Bethesda's long-awaited interstellar adventure a lower score than any other title the studio has produced.
Overblown and knee jerk.
I'm enjoying the absolute fuck out of this game - hundreds of hours already and no regrets. This game is a lot deeper than anyone gives it credit for, it's fantastic, and I'm looking forward to more of it.
No Man's Sky bores the hell out of me and yet I'm having so much fun exploring planets and raiding pirate bases and being surprised by handbuilt content in what I thought would be a procedurally generated dungeon. Not to mention the surprisingly deep side and faction quests. Oh and so many hours playing with the shipbuilder.
I'm sorry you're not having fun guys. But maybe you should focus on things that are fun for you?
It just wasn't that good. Not terrible, but very bland. I put 30 hours in but finally stopped when I realized I wasn't having fun, I was only chasing the idea of fun.
I don't even like DND and I thought BG3's first act put the entire story of Starfield to shame.
Now I'm playing through Phantom Liberty and loving the hell out if it.
It’s just a clunky reskin of fo4 with no depth. I’ve put about 50 hrs in at this point & will probably continue for a bit because it’s a comforting loot cycle that pleases my lizard brain. It really lacks the feeling exploration possibilities that Skyrim & fallout worlds have. The bugs, UI, bland emptiness, and shit tier maps are why I wouldn’t recommend…but is a decent time kill if you’ve enjoyed their previous games
I really really hope that the expectation vs reality of Starfield is the final straw that makes people pause the next time a game markets itself as having an scope and quality that is absurdly beyond anything else on the market.
We have seen this story time and time again and the claims never, ever, materialize on launch. Maybe they get closer to the initial scope over the next few years if they can afford continued development and support, but that's exactly the point, that you need way more man hours and budget than what is acceptable in a realistic development cycle to reach that kind of scope while maintaining overall quality of the game.
The next time that a game claims to have absurd size or whatever million planets or that you can be anything you want or whatever other immense thing like that, ask yourself what parts of the game have taken a significant backseat to achieve that. Because we are well past the point of the industry having proven that the limitations for the scope of a game are not technical anymore, but budgetary. And there's only so much that can be done in 8 years.
I'm not surprised...it's just okay. I've put maybe 25 hours into it and it's not grabbing me like I hoped it would. Fast traveling everywhere is boring, inventory management is a nightmare, and the UI is frustrating. The last straw for me was during the " Rook Meets Queen" mission >!where I'm supposed to be deep undercover in the Crimson Fleet yet I can't progress until I pay them 45,000 credits because there's a bounty on my head. Seriously? Either I'm undercover or I'm not. !< So I put it down to revisit Cyberpunk, and I'm hoping once I get through that the kinks will be ironed out and the mod tools with MO2 support will be ready. I still have more fun playing a heavily modded Skyrim.
Fast travel simulator 2023
Every time I go play it I barely make it an hour before I get incredibly bored. I think the Bethesda formula really didn't translate well to the bland space theme and has just run its course in general, at least for me. The nagging issues like endless loading screens, forced fast travel, miniscule carry weight, annoying UI, and lack of basic settings don't help either. I know there are mods to fix some of those, but we really shouldn't have to rely on mods to do something as basic as change the FOV in a game published by a billion dollar company.
"Bethesda has garnered a bit of a reputation for releasing games with loads of bugs in them,"
A bit? Lolololol
Game is kind of 'meh' at the moment. I paid more for this game than any other in my life, yet I am disappointed in what it's achieved.
The outpost mechanic is completely and utterly pointless, inventory management is a disgrace, questlines are forced and inflexible.
I will revisit in 6 months or so in the hope that modders finish making the game that Bethesda started. I have learnt my lesson to not buy a Bethesda game straight away though.
That's just Steam. Perhaps it's being held in higher esteem by the Playstation communi... oh wait.
It's OK, it's definitely less polished than other Bethesda games and given they're not known for polish it'd saying something.
It gives a 'rushed out the door for a midnight deadline' vibe.
As buggy as Fallout 4 was I absolutely loved it and got me started on the Bethesda Train. Played New Vegas and Skyrim afterwards and those were great.
Starfield almost bored me to tears. Combat and Ship building are great but everything in between is just very average at best.
And then with Cyberpunk releasing it's 2.0 update and DLC these past week, I have almost no urge to go back to Starfield anytime soon.
So you're telling me that a game that is an unoptimized, buggy, shallow mess isn't game of the year? No...
Starfield just doesn't look or play like a game that came out in 2023. Fallout 4 was already behind the curve for it's time, and Starfield is basically just Fallout 4 in Space 8 years later. Rpgs have evolved in both gameplay and narrative and Bethesda just isn't keeping up. Don't know if it's a skill issue or it's corporate suits playing it safe and setting unreasonable deadlines, probably a mix of both.
Starfield may be a success financially and find a fan base for now, but it's going to be forgotten soon by most and definitely won't be seeing rereleases a decade later.
As to be expected from Todd "it just works" Howard 🙄 He has this weird ability to snatch failure from the jaws of success alot of the time.
It has it's share of problems, but for the most part I'm enjoying it greatly.
The biggest issue (for me) is that outposts are largely useless and can safely be ignored. Exploration is useless and can safely be ignored. They both need to be fleshed out and made much more important to the game as a whole.
I feel like I need to do outposts and scan planets to experience the game fully, but I don't want to do either of those things because they're pointless.
However on the flip side of that, a LOT of the quest lines are super fun and some of the best I've seen in a Bethesda game for sure. The whole Crimson Fleet storyline was great, for example, although I wish there were more options to subvert it. (I found myself wanting to drop certain evidence off with the news reporter rather than where I was supposed to. I was sad when it didn't let me.)
Ship building is great, but companions are clingy and needy.
The biggest positive is that we simply have a proper single-player game again instead of the pseudo-single-player crap from ubisoft where for certain missions you need to "team up" with other people online who may or may not be annoying as fuck.
So all in all, swings and roundabouts. But for me, the positives more than outweigh the negatives.
...so far...