Reviews are not good for Starfield

[Mtjeeves]

I'm seeing alot of 7,s and lower, I expected way higher. I think it's not worth to buy full price on steam but play it on gamepass instead.

[Left Clompton]

LOL even the 7 from IGN wasn't a bad review and a recommendation. Sounds like they just wish they could have gotten to the meat a little faster than a dozen hours.

[♥ Beepy ♥]

Publicado originalmente por Blackfrost:

5/10 Paste Magazine
7/10 Saudi Gamer
7/10 Digital Trends
7/10 PCGamesN
7/10 Gamespot
7/10 IGN

looks rough shiesh

10 - Destructoid
10 - Infinite Start
5/5 - VGC
9.7 - XboxEra
9.5 - Gaming Nexus
9 - MP1st
8.5 - Game Informer
8 - Tech Raptor
4/5 - GamesHub
4/5 - Comicbook
7 - PCgamesN
7 - Gamespot
7 - IGN
10 - GamingBolt
5/5 - Gamesradar
9.5 - GamePressure
9 - Press Start
9 - Wccftech
9 - RPG Site
9 - Shacknews
4.5/5 - Windows Central
8.5 - Well Played
8 - Tom's Guide
7.5 - PC Gamer

[Viper]

Publicado originalmente por morph113:

Game has 88 on metacritic, Fallout 4 had 84. That's a pretty good score for a Bethesda game.

and Fallout 4 was an all time great game.

[Mid-Forever]

Publicado originalmente por NTense:

Publicado originalmente por LeftIsBest-James:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blQjbbF7HlQ
This guy does 100% achievement reviews.

The motion blur looks horrible

That carp, and DoF, get turned off first thing in my games anyways, lmao!

[Pugs]

Publicado originalmente por Blackfrost:

5/10 Paste Magazine
7/10 Saudi Gamer
7/10 Digital Trends
7/10 PCGamesN
7/10 Gamespot
7/10 IGN

looks rough shiesh

You're trying to create a false narrative by purposely not showing all the scores above a 70%.

[Merik Lobo]

Publicado originalmente por Blackfrost:

5/10 Paste Magazine
7/10 Saudi Gamer
7/10 Digital Trends
7/10 PCGamesN
7/10 Gamespot
7/10 IGN

looks rough shiesh

just going to leave this here:

Publicado originalmente por -={LG}=-:

Starfield - Reviews

10 - Destructoid
10 - Infinite Start
10 - GamingBolt
5/5 - VGC
5/5 - Gamesradar
9.7 - XboxEra
9.5 - GamePressure
9.5 - Gaming Nexus
9 - Press Start
9 - Wccftech
9 - RPG Site
9 - Shacknews
9 - MP1st
4.5/5 - Windows Central
8.5 - Game Informer
8.5 - Well Played
8 - Tom's Guide
8 - Tech Raptor
4/5 - GamesHub
4/5 - Comicbook
7.5 - PC Gamer
7 - PCgamesN
7 - Gamespot
7 - IGN

When all the wokiest publications are panning it, but everyone else is giving it 10's you have a winner.

Don't cherry pick bad reviews and think you're making a point.

[SunsetAmethyst]

https://youtu.be/05ccrMV40bQ

[Varlus]

Publicado originalmente por SunsetAmethyst:

https://youtu.be/05ccrMV40bQ

Nahh, never ever trust SHillhead. That dude is straight up paid by Bethesda. Dude posts weekly clickbait videos with straight up lies.

Just wait for a public view on the game. Its just a few days left. You will get a much fairer point of view.

My best guess for the game: 7-8/10 so still a good game

[H3g3m0n]

Reviews are largely worthless now days. Doesn't matter if it's praising Starfield or saying it sucks

The review meta is basically:

* Publish outliers to draw clicks and get ad revenue. If thousands of reviews are praising it then one more won't see much attention. But A controversial negative review right before a major release will draw people concerned. So will a %95-100 from people wanting their hopes confirmed. More extreme example Wired did that woke 0/10 review for wizard game.
* Or publish in line with expectations. Starfield is hyped and expected to be 'good' so reviewers publish high scores to be inline with the expected outcome of the hive mind. If your going against the collective will make people hate you. Even if it doesn't happen on the company level an individual level the reviewer doesn't wan't a bad take, if they have too many they will be umployable.
* Or publish mid reviews. Don't know what way the hive mind's collective opinion will fall after release? Don't want to damage your reputation just pick a middle ground and it's got to be close enough that you just look like your slightly higher or low.
* Plenty of game journalists that don't play games. Turns out English lit majors are more likely to read a book or something. Or they play different games. Or their reviewing an in-depth game from a 'casual' gamer perspective (or a casual game from an in-depth gamer perspective). Indie enjoys vs AAA. I got the impression one of the reviewers just seemed to hate sci-fi.
* Astroturfing from rival companies, or companies with business models. We see this with Baldur's Gate 3 "Don't expect games to actually be good. Just keep buying Gatcha and micro-transaction Skins like a good little consumer. Everything needs to be always online subscription based.". I suspect Cyberpunk suffered from this somewhat too, the bugginess was overstated and once that became the direction the hivemind wen't in the rest fell in line with the collective (although I found the game kind of mid gameplay wise, none of the news about it really commented much on the gameplay).

Somewhere buried in the pile someone actually playing the game and reviewing it, but good luck figuring out who.

[Varlus]

Publicado originalmente por H3g3m0n:

Reviews are largely worthless now days. Doesn't matter if it's praising Starfield or saying it sucks

The review meta is basically:

* Publish outliers to draw clicks and get ad revenue. If thousands of reviews are praising it then one more won't see much attention. But A controversial negative review right before a major release will draw people concerned. So will a %95-100 from people wanting their hopes confirmed. More extreme example Wired did that woke 0/10 review for wizard game.
* Or publish in line with expectations. Starfield is hyped and expected to be 'good' so reviewers publish high scores to be inline with the expected outcome of the hive mind. If your going against the collective will make people hate you. Even if it doesn't happen on the company level an individual level the reviewer doesn't wan't a bad take, if they have too many they will be umployable.
* Or publish mid reviews. Don't know what way the hive mind's collective opinion will fall after release? Don't want to damage your reputation just pick a middle ground and it's got to be close enough that you just look like your slightly higher or low.
* Plenty of game journalists that don't play games. Turns out English lit majors aren't likely to game. Or play different games. Or their reviewing an in-depth game from a 'casual' gamer perspective (or a casual game from an in-depth gamer perspective). Indie enjoyers vs AAA. I got the impression one of the reviewers just seemed to hate sci-fi.
* Astroturfing from rival companies, or companies with business models. We see this with Baldur's Gate 3 "Don't expect games to actually be good. Just keep buying Gatcha and micro-transaction Skins like a good little consumer. Everything needs to be always online subscription based.". I suspect Cyberpunk suffered from this somewhat too, the bugginess was overstated and once that became the direction the hivemind wen't in the rest fell in line with the collective (although I found the game kind of mid gameplay wise, none of the news about it really commented much on the gameplay).

Somewhere buried in the pile someone actually playing the game and reviewing it, but good luck figuring out who.

THis

[Nox]

Again, pretty much this is bethesda every. single.game.

There will be stuff to love about it and stuff to hate. I love bethsoft and have since daggerfall but man, I'm honest about it.

[Holeshot BMX]

Publicado originalmente por Blackfrost:

5/10 Paste Magazine
7/10 Saudi Gamer
7/10 Digital Trends
7/10 PCGamesN
7/10 Gamespot
7/10 IGN

looks rough shiesh

Your profile is private, you're probably not even a PC gamer, You're probably a PlayStation fanboy on their potato PC coping lol

[Blackfrost]

5/10 Paste Magazine
5.8/10 Meristation
6.5/10 The So Videogames Podcast
7/10 PCmag
7/10 Saudi Gamer
7/10 Digital Trends
7/10 PCGamesN
7/10 Gamespot
7/10 IGN
7.5/10 PCGamer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y3CHpJLqgY

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cope#:~:text=%3A%20to%20deal%20with%20and%20attempt,even%20terms%20or%20with%20success

[SunsetAmethyst]

Publicado originalmente por Varlus:

Publicado originalmente por SunsetAmethyst:

https://youtu.be/05ccrMV40bQ

Nahh, never ever trust SHillhead. That dude is straight up paid by Bethesda. Dude posts weekly clickbait videos with straight up lies.

Just wait for a public view on the game. Its just a few days left. You will get a much fairer point of view.

My best guess for the game: 7-8/10 so still a good game

Sure dude, whatever you say. lol

[ΛΞL™⚡]

After watching some trusted reviewers id say this game is above average better than Fallout 76 but thats not something difficult to achieve.