• RagingInside@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Totally agree. People are supremely critical of this game, I think it’s because it had so much hype. I have a friend that played 70 hours and he said it’s a 4 or 5 out of 10. Come on, when was the last time you played a 4 for 70 hours. A 6 or 7 sure, but you played and talked about the game non-stop for 3 weeks. Talking about how you didn’t want to work, just wanted to play all day. A 4 does not do that to you.

    • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The problem with Starfield is, I think a lot of us expected Bethesda to take a big step forward, and they dropped a B to B+ game.

      Sure, we can blame hype, but it’s not like they didn’t contribute to it. And dropping right after BG3 certainly didn’t help.

      Credit where credit is due though. It’s definitely the most stable release they have dropped on day one by a large margin. I commend them for that.

        • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          And honestly? Rightfully so! They made a game that would’ve been incredibly impressive 5 to 8 years ago. Their peers outdid them. And peers is generous. This is Bethesda bankrolled by Microsoft to make a system seller competing with a reputation-battered CDPR and Larian Studios, the latter of which most people had never heard of until recently.

    • Neato@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      After so much time and so many iterations Bethesda hasn’t improved much on the things they suck at. This is just fallout in space with all the issues previous games have.

    • distantsounds@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      30 of those 70 hours were spent on loading screens. Seriously though, it takes time to give the game a chance and with all they hype behind it, I thought I was missing out on something and kept telling myself “maybe it’ll start getting good after this mission” …I wasn’t missing anything, it was the game that was lacking

    • Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Come on, when was the last time you played a 4 for 70 hours. A 6 or 7 sure, but you played and talked about the game non-stop for 3 weeks. Talking about how you didn’t want to work, just wanted to play all day. A 4 does not do that to you.

      There have been plenty of games over the years where I got hooked on one aspect that was fun or compelling, only to tire of it much later and realize the overall game was actually mediocre and just happened to scratch the right itch for a while.

      Open world RPGs tend to make up a lot of that list since they have repeated content that draws you in the first time you encounter it, but wears out its welcome by the hundredth. It sounds like Starfield had this problem, combined with a terrible fast travel system that gutted exploration and threw the samey content into the spotlight. Once the new game shine wore off a lot of players were like “is this it?”

      (I’ll note that I haven’t played the game yet, this is just the gist of the complaints I’ve read)