It sure feels impossible to have an honest conversation about Starfield online right now.
There are nine reviews on metacritic from various outlets that score the game 100/100. I would love for every single one of those reviewers to look me in the eye and with a straight face, repeat the claim that Starfield is perfect and there is absolutely nothing in the game that could possibly be improved on. If you want to know who’s not conversing honestly, that’d be a good kicking-off point.
Well, they wouldn’t, because not all of the nine thought the game was perfect. A 100 on Metacritic only means the game placed in the top score for a given publication (4 out of 4 stars in WaPo’s case, for example).
In games criticism, a top score doesn’t always mean a perfect game. It can mean the game met or surpassed the current benchmark in its genre, or it simply was good enough to be in a top tier.
Slight tangent.
Maximum score (4 stars, 5 stars, 10/10, 100%, whatever they’re calling it) not meaning the game is perfect is not at all a problem to me. There are games I absolutely love and would recommend to just about anyone and even then I don’t think they’re “perfect”.
The thing that bothers me most is how average scores specifically for games are basically never used, and below average scores are just a handful of the most broken things ever.
It’s so absurd that on metacritic for games, “average” goes from 50 to 74%. In movies it goes from 40 to 64. I don’t know for everyone else, but I don’t consider 7 out of 10 an “average” mark. And a game so broken it almost doesn’t run at all doesn’t deserve 5/10 (really, I’ve seen some).
Anyway, review scores are silly. Read the guys’ opinions, see why they like it and why they don’t. Someone’s absolute favorite masterpiece is someone else’s most unplayable shit.
It feels a lot like scores have been artificially inflated for a long time. Like you said, games that can barely run will get a 5, or a 4 at the lowest. It’s like half the possible scores have been lopped off, so there’s no real way to tell what a score actually means. A 7 should be a perfectly serviceable game, but it’s treated like you’ve called a game complete trash for anything below a 8.
@Ashtear Exactly. The 100% rating is often misunderstood. It does not mean perfect game, plus every publication has their own standards. Therefore one 100% is not comparable to another 100%. And like in your example conversions from 4/4 to 100% (because it can only be 0%, 25%, 75% or 100%), is done so an overall Metacritic score can be calculated.
For the longest time I think Metacritic is a bad for the gaming industry, if they lean too much towards (in example bonuses for developers, if they reach a certain rating).
I don’t think that we need to continue to “think” it’s bad for the games industry. It IS bad for the industry. Period. Very famously, obsidian got less money and lost out on a bonus from the initial release of fallout NV because it didn’t hit 80 on metacritic. We need to stop pretending these scores are objective or reflect anything about user enjoyment of a game. Users maybe, but the critic score is worse than useless. It’s downright misinformation to aggregate critic scores.
Like the entire point of critics is to provide different perspectives on a game. Why would I want their average? The average of their opinion is not the average gamer opinion and it also isn’t the average of the individual readers opinion.
I need no further proof than go look up the last 5 games you played on metacritic and try to guess the critic and user score and get within 5 points each time.
I have serious questions for anyone who gives a game, any game, a completely perfect score, especially one that is known to have some technical issues.
To me, a perfect score doesn’t (or shouldn’t) mean a game is literally perfect. It means “I recommend this game without reservation. Everyone with the slightest interest in the genre should play it.”
Granted, even by that standard a lot of these perfect scores are pretty questionable
And that’s why comparing different people’s ratings is so difficult. 10/10 can mean “absolutely perfect and impossible to ever improve upon”, it can mean “the best possible execution right now”, it can mean “the best expected result with no major flaws”, it can mean “I had a good time and would recommend this to anyone”, and so on. All of these definitions are valid.
Aggregate scores paper over those differences. That automatically makes them less accurate.
Then read the text of the review where that should be explained. Stop putting so much stock in scores. Most sites would do away with them if Meta/Open Critic hadn’t screwed up the system so they have to rely on clickthroughs. Eurogamer actually did for almost a decade but recently had to bring them back.
Did you ask the same question when Witcher 3, Legend Of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, etc etc the same question?
It’s sort of dishonest when Starfield get this sort of treatment when metacritic score has been inflated for ages, no thanks to both gamer, journalist, and publisher.
Is it possible to block a domain without blocking the OP? I’m sure they’re a nice person, but they post the dumbest rage bait articles, and I’m sick of seeing them in my feed.
Wait it’s the same person posting all these weird rage bait articles for every new big game?
They’re always weird too because they’ll talk about an issue everyone already discussed at length like 2-4 weeks ago, as if it’s a new topic.
I think the ones that bother me more are the ones that are rage bait for a thing that the OP hasn’t even experienced themselves. Maybe everyone else enjoys X and you find an article that summarizes your feeling on it, so you post that article and say how you share that position. That’s all well and good. But posting an article that’s angry about FFXVI’s depiction of slavery, even though OP has no first-hand experience with the game to say if the article is full of shit or not; that bugs me. I don’t know how many of the topics the OP has first-hand experience with, but I know they have none with FFXVI, and all of these articles are just designed to get people angry about something. Plenty of games have slavery in them without having to make their story about slavery being bad; we know slavery is bad. If OP has a problem with it after playing the game and that article sums up their thoughts, then it’s okay to post that article. If OP is sincerely as pissed off about every one of these things that the articles they post are pissed off about, then maybe I should block them, because they’d have to be a miserable person. We also don’t need 3 slightly updated posts about Baldur’s Gate 3’s split-screen not working on the Series S.
I post things that I think can get people talking and spark conversations along with things I think are interesting. I posted this, for example, because of the way it was talking about how gamers can get tribal and make it so you can’t seriously talk about a game when that happens because of how some folks lose their shit when you try.
Just block me, bro. It won’t hurt my feelings. Curate your feed as you need to.
I am so incredibly sick of posts about starfield.
And I’m really sick of people complaining about seeing posts on topics they personally aren’t interested in, instead of just scrolling by.
Looks like neither of us has gotten what they want today.
Respectfully, you are in a gaming forum, and starfield is one of the biggest games that has come out this year.
This comment contributes nothing to the topic the thread is about, besides getting a rise out of people.
Please think about this before commenting in the future. Thank you
I like the game. it’s easy to spend hours in it if you just take it for what it is without thinking what you wanted it to be
I think you literally just described to secret to a content and fulfilled life.
No doubt. Enjoy your video games the way you want to enjoy them. I picked up RDR2 again recently, got to the point where you’re supposed to break Micah out of prison, and I’m just like, fuck that guy. I’m going hunting and playing dress-up.
From what I’ve seen and heard, Starfield is on par with Fallout 3. I can’t imagine being upset about that. Fallout 3 is great. Seems like some people wanted it to be No Man’s Sky + Star Citizen + Cyberpunk and like… no, it’s a Bethesda game. You know what that means already. I’m looking forward to picking it up and playing it, as I’ve always enjoyed their games for the weird sandboxes that they are.
Yes, but Fallout 3 came out in 2008. You’d think there would be some advancements in that time.
Exactly. I went in blind. No trailers, no interviews, no hype. All I knew was it was a Bethesda space game. It started off slow, but after about 12 hrs (half of which was me goofing off and gun running for money), I’m starting to really like the game.
Seeing a trashcan explode into a tesseract-can is pretty funny, albeit a bit concerning about what other props have multiple copies embedded in them. I do hope Bethesda seriously re-evaluates their stance and does some optimization and scrubbing. The game runs ok on my system, but my card should not be screaming as hard as it is.
“if you just take it for what it is without thinking what you wanted it to be”
Why would I do that for any video game? With that mindset, you could claim any game is good, because you aren’t actually engaging with its content on the level that it deserves.
Don’t prop up bad games.
that’s an intellectually dishonest way of quoting the person that you quote
I had no expectations going in (wasn’t planning to play it) and came out having fun. I don’t know what expectations you or anyone else had, but maybe those expectations are what ruined the game. I don’t think anyone’s claiming the game is perfect (anyone who is probably is trolling), but it’s pretty dismissive of its strengths for people to say it’s unplayable (unless you legit can’t run it, which is fair). If all you focus on is what the game doesn’t do well, then you might as well only ever play perfect masterpieces because all other games will be a disappointment. If the price is a concern, it will probably go on sale eventually anyway, assuming you don’t find alternatives before then.
I do think there are a lot of flaws with the game, but those flaws have already been elaborated in great depth by others. Despite those flaws, game is still fun and has a lot of room for mods to come in and make it better.
lol it actually is what I wanted it to be.
It’s a mechanically reasonably modern (it feels very comparable to Deus Ex or Cyberpunk gunplay/stealth wise, with better perk/level-up design) Bethesda RPG. You have to fly around more because it’s set in space and most of space is empty, but there are still a lot of places to go and it’s easy to get sucked down a rabbit hole.
My complaints are pretty mild. I’d like some kind of speeder for the empty “run a mile” bits, I miss the aimless wandering of terrestrial maps and kind of wish there had been some places set up to feel like that, and I occasionally see issues with texture loading. But it’s the game the direct said it was going to be, and I’m personally very happy with it (though if it could get cleaned up enough to run a little better on my steam deck I wouldn’t complain).
is it impossible to have a balanced conversation about starfield in particular, or does the internet ad economy tend to exclude the middle of every conversation in favor of loud antagonism and engagement bait?
