• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.

Reviews Starfield Review Thread | 87 OpenCritic, 87 Metacritic

Hero of Hyrule said:
You can’t do a space game that doesn’t go for the illusion of size, sorry.
Click to expand...
The_Milky_Way_V2.png
 
Hero of Hyrule said:
Not a space game as much as it is a game set in space. A space game is a game where the space setting is the point. And space is, to quote a very wise man, big
Click to expand...
This is a bad argument, because Starfield isn't a space game either by this definition, it's a planetary game - just like Mass Effect. Thr actual amount of stuff you can do in space is minimal. Mass Effect might focus on a few bespoke planets, but it even has a lot of empty worlds you can explore as well, just like Starfield.
 
The map doesn't show you where you are? What?

Mike Drucker (@mikedrucker.bsky.social)

I’m loving Starfield outside of the fact it may have the most insanely awful map system I’ve ever played in an open world game. The rest is great so far. But wow they really thought it was a good idea to not allow you to see where you are in a city. I looked up a guide because I thought I messed up.
bsky.app bsky.app
 
0
AngryAlchemist said:
This is a bad argument, because Starfield isn't a space game either by this definition, it's a planetary game - just like Mass Effect. Thr actual amount of stuff you can do in space is minimal. Mass Effect might focus on a few bespoke planets, but it even has a lot of empty worlds you can explore as well, just like Starfield.
Click to expand...
I think am not conveying my point well haha, the point I am making is that the space setting, and exploration of that space setting, is the central hook to Starfield. It is a game about space exploration, it is not a game about a story happening in outer space (like Mass Effect).

A game about space exploration has to be big, because space is big. If you made a game about space exploration and limited it to a couple dozen planets, then that's not really a space exploration game in any real meaningful way.
 
Hero of Hyrule said:
I think am not conveying my point well haha, the point I am making is that the space setting, and exploration of that space setting, is the central hook to Starfield. It is a game about space exploration, it is not a game about a story happening in outer space (like Mass Effect).

A game about space exploration has to be big, because space is big. If you made a game about space exploration and limited it to a couple dozen planets, then that's not really a space exploration game in any real meaningful way.
Click to expand...
I wasn't sure what comments you were replying to and thought maybe you were defending the marketing, hence "space game" and "illusion of size". I just read it as an excuse for Starfield's marketing - which I wouldn't agree with, in that context. Bethesda could have been a lot clearer from early on that there was no No Man's Sky / Elite Dangerous / Star Citizen aspect to it. Of course, I don't think most people expected it to have the depth of those games! But I do think most people expected actual space exploration. That's where I was coming from with your comment - it sounded to me like a defense of the marketing and under that context Bethesda could have been a lot clearer, especially because Starfield basically does have the Mass Effect map system. We can agree, of course, that Mass Effect, being a story based game, contextualizes space differently than something like Starfield.

Now that I get the context - I think you were just replying to the people who said they should have gone with a few planets? - I do think there's something to be said about having a few planets that are very well designed and different, though. If Starfield had 7-10 planets and they were the size of Breath of the Wild's map, and they were all very different, I imagine it could still feel like a space game. But that's theoretical and not really worth getting into. My bad if I misread your point, the lack of a quote made me assume the context.
 
AngryAlchemist said:
I wasn't sure what comments you were replying to and thought maybe you were defending the marketing, hence "space game" and "illusion of size". I just read it as an excuse for Starfield's marketing - which I wouldn't agree with, in that context. Bethesda could have been a lot clearer from early on that there was no No Man's Sky / Elite Dangerous / Star Citizen aspect to it. Of course, I don't think most people expected it to have the depth of those games! But I do think most people expected actual space exploration. That's where I was coming from with your comment - it sounded to me like a defense of the marketing and under that context Bethesda could have been a lot clearer, especially because Starfield basically does have the Mass Effect map system. We can agree, of course, that Mass Effect, being a story based game, contextualizes space differently than something like Starfield.

Now that I get the context - I think you were just replying to the people who said they should have gone with a few planets? - I do think there's something to be said about having a few planets that are very well designed and different, though. If Starfield had 7-10 planets and they were the size of Breath of the Wild's map, and they were all very different, I imagine it could still feel like a space game. But that's theoretical and not really worth getting into. My bad if I misread your point, the lack of a quote made me assume the context.
Click to expand...
No it’s totally fine, I should have been clearer haha. There were a couple of posts discussing making it a smaller game and I just meant it as a response to them but I definitely should have quoted them.

I can only speak for myself personally, but I would be bummed with a space exploration game that only had a couple dozen planets even if they were all BOTW level of quality and quantity. Just speaking for myself, that illusion of vastness is important.

I will agree fully though that that size shouldn’t ever be at the expense of quality. I think Starfield does a good job of balancing the two, but I get why the sheer size makes people cautious on principle.
 
Reading some reviews saying it gets good after beating the story or like 20ish hours is a big disappointment type thing for me to read lol.

I’m not one to have a lot of time gaming so probably won’t be trying this one out anytime soon.
 
DecoReturns said:
Reading some reviews saying it gets good after beating the story or like 20ish hours is a big disappointment type thing for me to read lol.

I’m not one to have a lot of time gaming so probably won’t be trying this one out anytime soon.
Click to expand...
That sounds like the opposite of the typical Bethesda game experience.
 
0
My wife will play it over the winter months, and I'll gladly just watch. 😂 She gets into these kinds of huge-but-kinda-shallow RPGs, while I do not.
 
0
I’ve been playing this for a few hours now.

I was sold on the trailers. The designs looked just like the popular science books I read when I was 11, complete with the orange/blue/white color schemes.

I’ve played Skyrim for 100 hours and morrowind for 3 times that amount, with morrowind being one of my favorite games ever.

It feels too much like elder scrolls to me. You can see the seams; the rigid conversation structures, the division of the environment in cells, the jank. It’s all there.

The menu’s are horrible btw. Switching guns mid fight means going through the menu system and the loot is the exact same list based shit as Skyrim.

I’m still going to play it a bunch. I have gamepass and it’s one of the few games on there that interests me. But I’m kind of dissapointed right now. It’s a lot more familiar than I thought it would be.

It’s like elder scrolls without the serendipity and adventure.
 
Just finally had the chance to watch a review... the map design? Wtf were they thinking?
 
0
Party Sklar said:
87 seems enough for a lot of people

Click to expand...

When I play the game after early access I'll get a better opinion on it, but the reviews seem divisive. Based on what I've seen I may very well lean higher as the core mechanics all seem solid and the scope is impressive.

This looks like a game a lot of people are going to enjoy and an 87 score is not certainly going to stop it... in truth it's good enough to help it... feeling bullish about its consumer reception.
 
0
The feeling I get from impressions is that there is a “wrong” way to enjoy the game. Thats not the player’s fault at all, but it might explain the 10s and 7s.

The push for completing the main story I see circulating is very much at odds with my own expectations of BGS games. I could easily see myself falling into the same less than ideal path for the experience. My excitement hasn’t diminished at all tho, as I’ll just take advice from folks like Gene Park (and I guess Pete Hines, Todd Howard) - focus on the campaign and see where the game takes me. Ive been eager to play a BGS game since Fallout 3. Circumstances at the time prevented me from playing Fallout 4, but I’m willing to bet I’d enjoy it.
 
I am surprised they couldn't get this running at 60 on Series X. Or at least given us an option. It's a very good looking game in parts but idk if I've seen anything where too much was going on to allow a higher framerate.
 
Hero of Hyrule said:
I think am not conveying my point well haha, the point I am making is that the space setting, and exploration of that space setting, is the central hook to Starfield. It is a game about space exploration, it is not a game about a story happening in outer space (like Mass Effect).

A game about space exploration has to be big, because space is big. If you made a game about space exploration and limited it to a couple dozen planets, then that's not really a space exploration game in any real meaningful way.
Click to expand...
Outer wilds would like to have a word
 
Hero of Hyrule said:
I have not played that. Heard great things though!

One day the Switch version will be out and I will give it a go 😭
Click to expand...
Yeah. I heard about it from the nintendo direct and ended up buying it on Ps4. I'm also waiting for the switch version tho😭
 
0
JorgenRaft said:
I am surprised they couldn't get this running at 60 on Series X. Or at least given us an option. It's a very good looking game in parts but idk if I've seen anything where too much was going on to allow a higher framerate.
Click to expand...
Large partsn if not the majority of the game could probably run at 60, but then there are areas that can't so they locked it to 30 for consistency.
 
0
The more populated areas and certain combat sequences are tanking the performance on PCs quite a bit, so I could see these also dropping fps significantly on consoles. I think Bethesda made the right call here with aiming for consistency, though a mode with an unlocked framerate would have been a welcome option for VRR TVs and such, no doubt.
 
0
Branduil said:
I recommend Elite Dangerous for people who just want seamless space exploration, it will be much better for that kind of thing.
Click to expand...
I think Elite is a merchant simulation at core, if people talk about space exploration they probably think of adventures on distant stars, not moving Good from planet A to planet B.
 
Wish it looked nicer on Steam Deck. However, I don't get the complaints people have with the inability to walk around an entire planet. Who in their right mind is holding forward to walk on a blank planet for half an hour? Seems like a superficial complaint to make, unless you really like walking in a straight line, for whatever reason.
 
0
JorgenRaft said:
I am surprised they couldn't get this running at 60 on Series X. Or at least given us an option. It's a very good looking game in parts but idk if I've seen anything where too much was going on to allow a higher framerate.
Click to expand...

this game has a lot of ways to strain the CPU. like, gravity can go off and EVERY ITEM IN THE ROOM has unique physics and goes flying.
 
JorgenRaft said:
I am surprised they couldn't get this running at 60 on Series X. Or at least given us an option. It's a very good looking game in parts but idk if I've seen anything where too much was going on to allow a higher framerate.
Click to expand...
It is very systems and physics intensive
 
Dolce said:
this game has a lot of ways to strain the CPU. like, gravity can go off and EVERY ITEM IN THE ROOM has unique physics and goes flying.
Click to expand...
Bethesda should team up with Nintendo. Their story telling and settings with Nintendo's technical know how would make for some dream team Nintendo/Rare level shit.
 
0
AngryAlchemist said:
This is a bad argument, because Starfield isn't a space game either by this definition, it's a planetary game - just like Mass Effect. Thr actual amount of stuff you can do in space is minimal. Mass Effect might focus on a few bespoke planets, but it even has a lot of empty worlds you can explore as well, just like Starfield.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they always pitched it as a Bethesda game in space, set that very expectation. And it seems that we got what was pitched. What happened, though, is a lot of people watched the deep dive video and joined a bunch of dots that didn't exist, leading the game to No Man's Sky. Which, incidentally, was another game that didn't live up to speculation, none of which was set expectation.

EDIT:

And I feel that ME is a great comparison, Bioware RPG makers do a space game -> Bethesda RPG makers do a space game.

I'll now ruin my edit by also stating that Mass Effect isn't an RPG.
 
EnergyDrink said:
I think Elite is a merchant simulation at core, if people talk about space exploration they probably think of adventures on distant stars, not moving Good from planet A to planet B.
Click to expand...

I dropped out of Elite because I found that to enjoy the game it expected you to have HOURS to dump into it at a time. Which is a shame as the atmosphere and actual sensation of ship flying is incredible - for a long time it was my "I want to try this in VR" game.

However, I visited the OT thread elsewhere after many years out of the loop, and it seems that development absolutely stalled nowadays?

Weird to think that the underdog of Star Citizen, Elite Dangerous and No Man's Sky is the only one that delivered.
 
0
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom