I liked Starfield (I even 100%ed the achievements on Steam). I also loved No Man’s Sky long before the shift in pubic sentiment towards it, so maybe I’m just weird. But if you’re reading this and thinking “this guy wouldn’t know a good game if it shat a voxel-based turd onto his chest”, you’re WRONG. I also loved MindsEye. So there.
Starfield is… trying to be part Mass Effect with big-budget cutscenes, but it has less charisma than Wrex has in his toe.
I’d argue it’s a bad “Bethesda wandering RPG,” without the quirky, charming side areas Oblivion or even Fallout 76 have.
But it’s an alright No Man’s Sky-like.
You want some crafting? Looting? A vast amount of chill exploration area? Reasonable “I’m in space” fidelity and tasks to tickle your brain? Starfield’s got it in droves. BGS games scratched this NMS kind of “looting exploration sandbox” itch for some, when there was no big-budget alternative back then, and I think Starfield leans into it more.
Hence my hypothesis is that gamers who love No Man’s Sky like Starfield, those who are looking more for “Mass Effect 2” loathe Starfield. And you and @[email protected] seem to be further datapoints supporting my observations.
The problem is Starfield’s expectation for most us internet dwellers was “Skyrim but Mass Effect.” And it’s kind of Bethesda’s fault for setting that expectation instead of leaning into Starfield’s real niche (and wasting cash on what BGS isn’t very good at).
Omg me too! Wasn’t there a marketing term for person that tends to buy only failed products and based on them liking a product they could predict whether it would fail or not? Always thought I’m one of those. Mafia 3 - loved it, but hated mafia 2. Love AC 1,3 and syndicate but didn’t vibe with 2 or black flag. Loved Borderlands 1, hated all the sequels etc. Still, I feel the hate against starfield is way overblown and there’s too much polarization. A game can be either great or awful, with no more room for meh games.
A game can be either great or awful, with no more room for meh games.
I think it’s more just that expectations are much higher for a AAA studio like Bethesda. They built so much hype and asked for nearly $100 at launch for a game that didn’t live up. There’s plenty of meh games out there, they’re just priced accordingly. There’s also a ton of really great games out there priced way lower than what AAA studios are asking. I think it’s very fair to hold those studios to a standard that reflects the prices they’re charging.
“Harbinger of failure” is the term you’re looking for. Not sure it applies here, though; I think most of these games were commercially successful.
And because I can’t resist sticking my own opinion everywhere, I personally thought Starfield had a ton of potential and squandered it with some highly questionable design choices and poor execution. Some of that may be fixed now, but some of it is baked in. There’s genuinely a lot to like, but as a whole I thought it was really dragged down by some of those bad decisions.
I also liked AC1, though, and was a little disappointed with 2. The first one was imperfect but bold and new and interesting. The second got rid of most of what made the first one unique in an effort to appeal to broader audiences. I still liked it, but it wasn’t special.
Starfield’s main issue is that it isn’t fleshed out as much as the other Bethesda games. And there’s a lot of mods to do that for Elder Scrolls and Fallout. The issue is that it didn’t capture enough attention to get as much TLC from the mod community
I liked Starfield (I even 100%ed the achievements on Steam). I also loved No Man’s Sky long before the shift in pubic sentiment towards it, so maybe I’m just weird. But if you’re reading this and thinking “this guy wouldn’t know a good game if it shat a voxel-based turd onto his chest”, you’re WRONG. I also loved MindsEye. So there.
Actually this makes perfect sense.
Starfield is… trying to be part Mass Effect with big-budget cutscenes, but it has less charisma than Wrex has in his toe.
I’d argue it’s a bad “Bethesda wandering RPG,” without the quirky, charming side areas Oblivion or even Fallout 76 have.
But it’s an alright No Man’s Sky-like.
You want some crafting? Looting? A vast amount of chill exploration area? Reasonable “I’m in space” fidelity and tasks to tickle your brain? Starfield’s got it in droves. BGS games scratched this NMS kind of “looting exploration sandbox” itch for some, when there was no big-budget alternative back then, and I think Starfield leans into it more.
Hence my hypothesis is that gamers who love No Man’s Sky like Starfield, those who are looking more for “Mass Effect 2” loathe Starfield. And you and @[email protected] seem to be further datapoints supporting my observations.
The problem is Starfield’s expectation for most us internet dwellers was “Skyrim but Mass Effect.” And it’s kind of Bethesda’s fault for setting that expectation instead of leaning into Starfield’s real niche (and wasting cash on what BGS isn’t very good at).
Omg me too! Wasn’t there a marketing term for person that tends to buy only failed products and based on them liking a product they could predict whether it would fail or not? Always thought I’m one of those. Mafia 3 - loved it, but hated mafia 2. Love AC 1,3 and syndicate but didn’t vibe with 2 or black flag. Loved Borderlands 1, hated all the sequels etc. Still, I feel the hate against starfield is way overblown and there’s too much polarization. A game can be either great or awful, with no more room for meh games.
I think it’s more just that expectations are much higher for a AAA studio like Bethesda. They built so much hype and asked for nearly $100 at launch for a game that didn’t live up. There’s plenty of meh games out there, they’re just priced accordingly. There’s also a ton of really great games out there priced way lower than what AAA studios are asking. I think it’s very fair to hold those studios to a standard that reflects the prices they’re charging.
“Harbinger of failure” is the term you’re looking for. Not sure it applies here, though; I think most of these games were commercially successful.
And because I can’t resist sticking my own opinion everywhere, I personally thought Starfield had a ton of potential and squandered it with some highly questionable design choices and poor execution. Some of that may be fixed now, but some of it is baked in. There’s genuinely a lot to like, but as a whole I thought it was really dragged down by some of those bad decisions.
I also liked AC1, though, and was a little disappointed with 2. The first one was imperfect but bold and new and interesting. The second got rid of most of what made the first one unique in an effort to appeal to broader audiences. I still liked it, but it wasn’t special.
Yeah, no amount of mods will fix some of Starfield’s faults, but it foes have some of that old bethesda coziness, so it’s not all bad.
Starfield’s main issue is that it isn’t fleshed out as much as the other Bethesda games. And there’s a lot of mods to do that for Elder Scrolls and Fallout. The issue is that it didn’t capture enough attention to get as much TLC from the mod community
Kinda tough sell to release a $70 game, then leave it up to the modding community to finish it for you