Won "most innovative gameplay" in the Steam Awards
People should look at the steam rating it has for context. Steam reviews >>>>>> metacritic
Gaming Starfield | Metacritic (Series X): 83, OpenCritic: 86
- Thread starter Jimble
- Start date
People should look at the steam rating it has for context. Steam reviews >>>>>> metacritic
that's funny as feck.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
Also, the ingenious lack of city maps means players have to find out where to fast travel all on their own. Really takes exploration to the next step.
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
EDIT: Yeah just realised they're based on community votes. Folks definitely taking the piss.
This award would be well deserved if the game was released in 1996, even if it was almost identical to Daggerfall.
A lot of the steam awards were pisstake votes.
Red Dead Redemption 2 won "Labour of Love", despite not having any sort of content update, and Hogwarts Legacy, while playable, won "Best Game on Steam Deck".
What a colossal yet unsurprising disappointment this game turned out to be.
So @Alock1 was full of shit? Who’d have thought.
No it's a great game. People just see what they want to see and hate on it for obvious reasons.
https://store.steampowered.com/sale/BestOf2023?tab=1
Congratulations to Starfield for featuring in the top 12 on Steams Platinum List( The Year's Top Games measured by Gross Revenue) while having no microtransactions, launching on Game Pass, and only coming out in September.
Congratulations to Starfield for featuring in the top 12 on Steams Platinum List( The Year's Top Games measured by Gross Revenue) while having no microtransactions, launching on Game Pass, and only coming out in September.
Last edited:
Starfield will be a great game in a few years.
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.
It’s bang average and will always be.
See. This is what I'm talking about.
But Ubisoft's Spiderman 2 is excellent.
Love it.
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.
That's exactly my point my friend
Being thrice the game of final fantasy 16 isn’t a high bar given how shit that was.
Pretty sure it would put its metascore in the 200s pal
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.
You have one. Guess you're a nobody.
Me being a loser is besides the point. Look at the company I keep. @Vidyoyo ffs
anyway I haven’t played Starfield but it’s obviously shit.
A great shit though
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
About the same metacritic score.
I actually quite like Ubisoft games and most of them would be a 7 or 8 for me (AC, Farcry, Watchdogs etc)
But spiderman is clearly a better fun game in terms of combat and traversal which would obviously score it an extra point or two
Starfield was a disappointing game for many. Its not people making things up because its Xbox. I was very excited for the game and it pissed me off enough to quit it barely even halfway through
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.
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.
And because of that I understand people talking about it around release. 4 months later though.
Nah doesn’t matter. Love gaming chatter. It’s not like it’s much trouble to pop in and post.
Still having a blast with this tbh
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.
I think that's a bit harsh. Ubisoft games actually give you good value for money.
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.What sort of sad gimp talks about games on a football forum?
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 don’t (and likely never will) own a proper gaming quality PC and game on PlayStation, and I’ve bought Fallout 3/4/NV and Skyrim on the PS3 and 4, but going forward I will likely be locked out, and that’s the case for a few people I know who would have been looking forward to the next TES game. Anecdotal, I know, but it would be interesting to see what sales are like when that time comes.
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 difficult to compare FFXVI to Starfield, but it's not hard to note that Starfield isn't thrice the game FFXVI is. It's probably a bit better overall, but no single element in Starfield is anywhere near as compelling as FFXVI's combat. I said in that game's thread that FFXVI is probably the most uneven gaming experience I've ever had, because its brilliant in parts and truly shit in others. I don't think Starfield is truly shit at anything, but nor do I think any part of Starfield stands out (maybe the ship builder).
I'm not sure the Sony marketing spin is to blame for the perception of Starfield (where the internet thinks its much worse than it is) as much as the Microsoft spin prior to release is. "One of the most important RPGs ever" and all that.