Redlambs
Creator of the Caftards comics
Won "most innovative gameplay" in the Steam Awards
People should look at the steam rating it has for context. Steam reviews >>>>>> metacritic
Won "most innovative gameplay" in the Steam Awards
I suppose it was an innovative gameplay decision to design a game around crafting and ship construction...then lock all that behind skill trees that take dozens of hours to fill out.Won "most innovative gameplay" in the Steam Awards
I enjoyed the game but ...Won "most innovative gameplay" in the Steam Awards
Yeah I saw that. They were either taking the piss or offered it was some consolation award to Bethesda. I looked at the nominees and it wasn't exactly a decorated list. Mostly unknown indie games.Won "most innovative gameplay" in the Steam Awards
A lot of the steam awards were pisstake votes.Yeah I saw that. They were either taking the piss or offered it was some consolation award to Bethesda. I looked at the nominees and it wasn't exactly a decorated list. Mostly unknown indie games.
EDIT: Yeah just realised they're based on community votes. Folks definitely taking the piss.
It's already a great game don't let the Sony marketing mafia spin machine fool you.Starfield will be a great game in a few years.
See. This is what I'm talking about.It’s bang average and will always be.
Not sure which was the last AC game to get 90 on metacritic.See. This is what I'm talking about.
But Ubisoft's Spiderman 2 is excellent.
Love it.
That's exactly my point my friendNot sure which was the last AC game to get 90 on metacritic.
Being thrice the game of final fantasy 16 isn’t a high bar given how shit that was.It's already a great game don't let the Sony marketing mafia spin machine fool you.
It's thrice the game of the new Final Fantasy and look at the reviews that got.
Pretty sure it would put its metascore in the 200s palBeing thrice the game of final fantasy 16 isn’t a high bar given how shit that was.
It’s not even a first party Sony game though so makes no sense in your comparison. They just can’t be arsed with Xbox because nobody has one.Pretty sure it would put its metascore in the 200s pal
You have one. Guess you're a nobody.It’s not even a first party Sony game though so makes no sense in your comparison. They just can’t be arsed with Xbox because nobody has one.
Me being a loser is besides the point. Look at the company I keep. @Vidyoyo ffsYou have one. Guess you're a nobody.
But they change far more between games than Spiderman does. Spiderman 2 is the DLC to the DLC. They just merged Spiderman and Miles Morales and sent it out as a new game.Not sure which was the last AC game to get 90 on metacritic.
I tried very hard with Starfield but it was so painfully ancient and bland - not terrible or anything but just felt like playing a game from the early 00s that hasn’t aged well. 7/10 for me.
I also played Hi Fi Rush and Ori and the Will of the Wisp which were very good and excellent respectively.
Yeah but both were fantastic. Sequels can be similar and also excellent. I prefer that than actually poor games that change things up but do it badly, albeit innovation always being a positive.But they change far more between games than Spiderman does. Spiderman 2 is the DLC to the DLC. They just merged Spiderman and Miles Morales and sent it out as a new game.
When EA spurn out FIFA games every year but just give it a new paint job they get slagged off for it.
I hope you have fun if you play it.Yeah but both of those were fantastic. Sequels can be similar and also excellent. I prefer that than actually poor games that change things up but do it badly.
I haven’t played SM 2 but the consensus seems to be that is is terrific. Based on my recent play though of SM Remastered that wouldn’t suspense me.
About the same metacritic score.It's already a great game don't let the Sony marketing mafia spin machine fool you.
It's thrice the game of the new Final Fantasy and look at the reviews that got.
I actually quite like Ubisoft games and most of them would be a 7 or 8 for me (AC, Farcry, Watchdogs etc)See. This is what I'm talking about.
But Ubisoft's Spiderman 2 is excellent.
Love it.
Because they / we are gamers? Starfield may not be great but it was a major title from an esteemed developer.My question is why do people go on a thread for a game they don't like 4 months after it's out to reiterate that they don't like it? When I don't like something I move on.
To each their own but I’m a strong believer in quality over quantity. In fact I almost always want games to be shorter, snappier and with as little bloat barring a few exceptions here and there. I prefer a Rachet type experience where I’m hooked and loving every minute rather than a AC Valhalla style obese experience which is just mediocre throughout. I forced myself to play 10 hours of that one before giving up.I hope you have fun if you play it.
I put more than 200 hours into Starfield and loved that. I'm not the type of guy who needs someone else to tell me what to like. I also put more than 200 hours into AC Valhalla and love that. I love games that other people call bloated. I started with games like World of Warcraft where I put probably a thousand hours into that before I moved on.
£70 for a 15 hour game seems far too short for me.
And because of that I understand people talking about it around release. 4 months later though.Because they / we are gamers? Starfield may not be great but it was a major title from an esteemed developer.
To each their own but I’m a strong believer in quality over quantity. In fact I almost always want games to be shorter, snappier and with as little bloat barring a few exceptions here and there. I prefer a Rachet type experience where I’m hooked and loving every minute rather than a AC Valhalla style obese experience which is just mediocre throughout. I forced myself to play 10 hours of that one before giving up.
Nah doesn’t matter. Love gaming chatter. It’s not like it’s much trouble to pop in and post.And because of that I understand people talking about it around release. 4 months later though.
I enjoy people waking up to the shortcomings of Bethesda games which have annoyed me since Fallout 3. Only way towards better output from them. It will certainly take more than some shit reviews for them to feel the need to improve, they need to feel it financially.My question is why do people go on a thread for a game they don't like 4 months after it's out to reiterate that they don't like it? When I don't like something I move on.
I think that's a bit harsh. Ubisoft games actually give you good value for money.See. This is what I'm talking about.
But Ubisoft's Spiderman 2 is excellent.
Love it.
Same here, I pretty much just click on every single gaming thread that has new posts, doesn't even matter what game or platform. I guess I just enjoy talking about video games on here more than on dedicated gaming forums, for whatever reason.Nah doesn’t matter. Love gaming chatter. It’s not like it’s much trouble to pop in and post.
I can’t say to what extent they’ll feel anything financially now that they have Microsoft backing them, but anecdotally, they’ll be losing out on players with the inevitable exclusivity that will come with future TES and Fallout games.I enjoy people waking up to the shortcomings of Bethesda games which have annoyed me since Fallout 3. Only way towards better output from them. It will certainly take more than some shit reviews for them to feel the need to improve, they need to feel it financially.
Starfield isn't shit, but it's not great either. Imo most accurate thing to say is that it's a pretty good game.It's already a great game don't let the Sony marketing mafia spin machine fool you.
It's thrice the game of the new Final Fantasy and look at the reviews that got.