Starfield [XBSX|S, PC, XGP]

[Riddlewire]

They are really going to try no mans sky this arn't they, I appreciate them not just dumping it and running but i'm not sure they can get it to the place that will satisfy the most vocal critics. I'll jump back in when they release an expansion.

The "most vocal critics" hated the game long before it ever released.
And they'll continue jabbering on forums and comments about it for many years.

 

[Putas]

It's a good game already. Who cares about the most vocal critics? Wasn't it the 4th best selling game on Steam last year or something?

Is there any honest critic who considers it good? I bet there are, but the ratio is indicative.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Well the average critic score is 84 and the average user score is 69 (likely brought down by review bombing). So most people think it's good.

Your post falls on the wrong side of signal to noise ratio.

 

[Putas]

But is an average critic a honest one?

 

[Albuquerque]

Let's not let this slide into a pissing match about whether the game is good or not. This is a Starfield thread. If we want to talk about "are reviewers real?" or "are people being paid to shill games?" then feel free to create another thread for it. This thread isn't for evaluating if metacritic scores are to be trusted.

Please keep the conversation to the topic at hand, which can include updates, DLC, mods, interesting easter eggs or findings or interviews, that sort of thing.

 

[Davros]

If this isnt a thread about whether the game is good or not what is it a thread about ?
and who gets to decide what the topic is about is it you? The thread title just says "Starfield [XBSX|S, PC, XGP] [2023.09.06, 2023.09.01 Early Access]"
If we take the title at face value the thread should just be about the early access version of starfield.
The first post is just "a new game is coming out here's an announcement video"
I dont see anything that says Starfield Technical discussion or Starfield updates, dlc's and mods

 

[Albuquerque]

The conversation was veering heavily off the Starfield path into questioning whether reviews, or even reviewers, were legitimate in their claims.

It's no secret that a number of people harbor bad feelings for the game; it's also no secret a lot of people also like it. No matter your persuasion, everyone is welcome to state their own opinions as to what they do and don't like. However, when the conversation devolves into "does anyone REALLY think it's good?" then we're off track. Both parties are correct, in that their specific perception of the game is theirs -- and everyone needs to realize, it's theirs alone.

There is no "right answer" for whether Starfield is good or not. Do you have an opinion on the game you'd like to share, of your own experience?

 

[arandomguy]

I do wonder if there would be interest in a broader discussion about reviews in the modern landscape in terms of critic reviews (and possible agenda based reviews), types of critics (eg. "influencers" vs traditional), user reviews (agenda and review bombing), aggregation, and so on.

 

[pharma]

I do wonder if there would be interest in a broader discussion about reviews in the modern landscape in terms of critic reviews (and possible agenda based reviews), types of critics (eg. "influencers" vs traditional), user reviews (agenda and review bombing), aggregation, and so on.

It would be too heavily moderated, so would hardly be worth the effort too start any type of discussion.

 

[Davros]

O.K Alby

 

[Albuquerque]

I do wonder if there would be interest in a broader discussion about reviews in the modern landscape in terms of critic reviews (and possible agenda based reviews), types of critics (eg. "influencers" vs traditional), user reviews (agenda and review bombing), aggregation, and so on.

We've had these sorts of conversations before, IIRC my last solid memory of such was during the Ratchet and Clank debacle. The conversation can certainly happen; it would be more useful if perhaps we (as a whole forum, not anyone specifically from this thread) constructively think of ways to make it better rather than as a bash session.

Diversity of thought is important, and it's not just a buzzword "woke" thing you hear from your employer. The world needs more ideas, which means occasionally people will have ideas which don't align. Both are ok, so long as we recognize the positives this can bring.

 

[SmooTh]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1753448192488747186

 

[Malo]

I look forward to trying out FSR3 for the first time. I was impressed with the FSR2 implementation once they fixed the initial issues, good quality in motion.

 

[Albuquerque]

Also hoping perhaps they've enabled FSR3's frame gen support. I was very happy with AMD's frame gen on my 3080Ti, although frankly I never had much use for it in Starfield.

 

[GhostofWar]

Ooof I seem to have taken some heat on my comment from the previous page, let me clarify what I was trying to say. Firstly I've got over 100 hours in starfield and enjoyed it for what it is. I wasn't actually talking about reviews, I was trying to say even if they do turn it around to the degree nms did I don't think it will get the same level of appreciation or credit for doing it like nms did from all different types of sources. I do think some of the nms hype is a bit over blown aswell, most of the content updates are very short but I havn't played again since the derelict ship update so I may have just soiled the bed again with this take.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Unlike NMS they don't need to turn it around. It's already good. Theyre just improving an already good game.

 

[Davros]

Not sure I agree with that sentiment. I think people who thought NMS was bad weren't judging what it was but what it was claimed to be.
I bought it when it came out because it was a space game and I like space games and I liked it a lot. I knew nothing of the hype surrounding this game I didn't know who Sean Murray was or any of the claims he had made

 

[Johnny Awesome]

NMS was a fiasco when it released. A far cry from some complaints about too many fast travel load screens.

 

[GhostofWar]

I'm not going to make any comparisons to other games anymore but I will just say a few things that I would like to see improved/expanded. Firstly space combat I felt was very shallow, I honestly expected at some point to attack like a big space station or spacebourne mothership. Yes I know the story reasons now I got to ng+4 so maybe some other factions large mothership/deathstar whatever. Instead of the slomo target traits that actually would have been the perfect place to bring back the vats system so you could sit there and watch your ship firing in a pretty cool cinematic way. I'm not asking to manually fly around a whole system just space combat to be more engaging, even fighting the legendary high level ships around the universe isn't special. First one I killed I didn't even realise it was something of note.

I would also like the ship to have some more use in atmosphere, i'm not talking about space to planet entry and all that drama but some small things like an upgrade or modules so you could take off and fly slowly in atmosphere and use mineral scanners to try find exactly the combo your trying to find, or even the option to then land and deploy mining modules on the ship that would then mine for you.

I will concede to you Johnny that I didn't play nms at release, I only went and checked it out when the hate turned to praise.

 

[BRiT]

I do wonder if there would be interest in a broader discussion about reviews in the modern landscape in terms of critic reviews (and possible agenda based reviews), types of critics (eg. "influencers" vs traditional), user reviews (agenda and review bombing), aggregation, and so on.

One could always create such a thread in RPSC for these sociolo-pseudo-political talking points.