You should have seen the fucking starfield subreddit before release lmao. One guy on there was genuinely convinced this was “something special” and would revolutionize the gaming industry.
The basis for that claim? The way Todd fucking Howard was acting, and the marketing material for the game.
The game is a solid 7 and still holds immense potential. The lack of updates combined with a lot of quest & progression breaking bugs and dismissal of such criticism is a 0 and why I wrote a negative review.
I think Fallout 4 was a solid 7. Starfield seems to have been aiming for F4 in space but it falls short in just about every arena. I remember the settlement feature being really cool but unfortunately not very well integrated into the game, and a little half baked. I was so hype to see Starfield would be bringing it back, but instead it was entirely pointless and a total waste of time, as well as being far more restrictive.
The main quest in F4 was at least relatable and interesting enough with some very nice side quests. Starfield has the most boring narrative of every game I’ve ever played, the mind brainless go-hum fetch quest side quests, and no interesting characters in sight. It was literally the 7/10 Fallout 4 but somehow worse.
A solid 7? I’d give it a 4-5. I very stupidly preordered and I very much regret it. The one and only time I ever did so as well.
The game shows a shocking lack of care. It definitely has some systems which ought to be interesting but they’re rendered pointless by the game and the main plot is utterly appalling.
Solid 7 out of what? If you say out of 100, then yes I agree drinking diarrhea water out of a toilet bowl is more fun to do than playing that shit. If you say out of 10 then you are claiming it’s well above average (5) which means you have been drinking diarrhea water.
My 7 isn’t loving the game. It’s an above average “good” rating. I don’t think I’ve even played a game that I would rate 7 out of 100 because they’d be so obviously bad that I wouldn’t even buy them in the first place. For me, 5 out of 10 is already “bad” and everything below that is just varying degrees of trash.
When I rate a movie 7/10, I’m saying it’s a great movie that’s DEFINITELY worth a watch. Some of my favorite movies are 6/10.
When these people rate a shit game 7/10, they mean “it needs improvement.”
If Starfield was a movie, it’d be rated as a 4-5/10. It’s okay. It’s fine, but it’s not revolutionary. It’s mediocre at best. That’s a five. It’s worse than The Outer Worlds, which is maybe a six.
Please stay here with your vulgarity, you’re the reasonable one here.
Ok, but by your own measure, youre the thin skinned cock. See? You said a big boy word when I told you that you were an idiot, so now that magically makes you thin skinned by childrens playground rules.
I still think the game is fine. I still think it did some very interesting things. I got over 100 hours of playtime from it. I played on gamepass too. So I definitely got my monies worth.
Does it have problems? Sure. Quite a few, but it’s still enjoyable enough of you don’t expect the too much. It also had tons of potential of they actually release the creation kit.
I don’t think it’s the worst game ever. It’s not even their worst game.
Throwback to the hard cope when this game released, the fanboy dismissal of any criticism was insane.
You should have seen the fucking starfield subreddit before release lmao. One guy on there was genuinely convinced this was “something special” and would revolutionize the gaming industry.
The basis for that claim? The way Todd fucking Howard was acting, and the marketing material for the game.
The game is a solid 7 and still holds immense potential. The lack of updates combined with a lot of quest & progression breaking bugs and dismissal of such criticism is a 0 and why I wrote a negative review.
I think Fallout 4 was a solid 7. Starfield seems to have been aiming for F4 in space but it falls short in just about every arena. I remember the settlement feature being really cool but unfortunately not very well integrated into the game, and a little half baked. I was so hype to see Starfield would be bringing it back, but instead it was entirely pointless and a total waste of time, as well as being far more restrictive.
The main quest in F4 was at least relatable and interesting enough with some very nice side quests. Starfield has the most boring narrative of every game I’ve ever played, the mind brainless go-hum fetch quest side quests, and no interesting characters in sight. It was literally the 7/10 Fallout 4 but somehow worse.
Fallout 4 was very mid compared to FO3 and Skyrim.
Fallout 4 was much better than Fallout 3. Only New Vegas on the other hand would be hard to beat.
A solid 7? I’d give it a 4-5. I very stupidly preordered and I very much regret it. The one and only time I ever did so as well. The game shows a shocking lack of care. It definitely has some systems which ought to be interesting but they’re rendered pointless by the game and the main plot is utterly appalling.
Solid 7 out of what? If you say out of 100, then yes I agree drinking diarrhea water out of a toilet bowl is more fun to do than playing that shit. If you say out of 10 then you are claiming it’s well above average (5) which means you have been drinking diarrhea water.
Considering how you verbalize yourself I think we both know who’s drinking diarrhea, and likely undiluted.
And if you lack so much nuance you might as well go back to Reddit btw.
I gotta stand behind that guy and say if this game is a seven, you’ve really been playing some terrible games.
His way with words leaves a little to be desired but he’s not wrong
Opinions can’t be wrong.
But his is equally as valuable as the people loving the game.
My 7 isn’t loving the game. It’s an above average “good” rating. I don’t think I’ve even played a game that I would rate 7 out of 100 because they’d be so obviously bad that I wouldn’t even buy them in the first place. For me, 5 out of 10 is already “bad” and everything below that is just varying degrees of trash.
Ah, yes, the IGN rating scale.
Not really.
Removed by mod
When I rate a movie 7/10, I’m saying it’s a great movie that’s DEFINITELY worth a watch. Some of my favorite movies are 6/10.
When these people rate a shit game 7/10, they mean “it needs improvement.”
If Starfield was a movie, it’d be rated as a 4-5/10. It’s okay. It’s fine, but it’s not revolutionary. It’s mediocre at best. That’s a five. It’s worse than The Outer Worlds, which is maybe a six.
Please stay here with your vulgarity, you’re the reasonable one here.
“I was joking”, “go fuck yourself”. Yeah, clearly, with such thin skin.
Nah the first comment is pretty obviously a jokey response, and we arent little children, you can say fuck.
Yeah, but you don’t have to be a thin-skinned cock.
Ok, but by your own measure, youre the thin skinned cock. See? You said a big boy word when I told you that you were an idiot, so now that magically makes you thin skinned by childrens playground rules.
Removed by mod
also good handle you’ve got there
Because people can’t have different opinions?
I still think the game is fine. I still think it did some very interesting things. I got over 100 hours of playtime from it. I played on gamepass too. So I definitely got my monies worth.
Does it have problems? Sure. Quite a few, but it’s still enjoyable enough of you don’t expect the too much. It also had tons of potential of they actually release the creation kit.
I don’t think it’s the worst game ever. It’s not even their worst game.
It’s the worst Bethesda RPG game I’ve ever played. What did you think was worse? I suppose the MMOs?
Brink, Rogue Warrior and Fallout 74 come to mind.
Bethesda doesn’t only make RPGs
OK, fair. I was just thinking of the rpgs. Would you agree that it’s their worst RPG?