88/100 on Metacritic. Looks like a great ARPG game.

[RodroG]

Based on Metacritic (50 critic-scored reviews, 46 positives, and only four mixed), it doesn't look like a flop but a great and solid ARPG game with an aggregated score of 88/100.

https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/starfield/critic-reviews

I don't regret purchasing the Premium edition and am eager to start playing and testing it in about 6 hours.

[DudeBro69]

It's dope af.

My fav game of 2023

[alex010300]

Paid reviews

[Caduryn]

Originally posted by alex010300:

Paid reviews

"If it doesnt fit MY Agenda,then its paid"

Thats you

[Recjawjind]

This is decidedly not an ARPG.

[patrick68794]

Originally posted by alex010300:

Paid reviews

The journalists did get paid by their employees to write them, yes.

[BoBas]

Originally posted by Recjawjind:

This is decidedly not an ARPG.

light action RPG maybe.
more action than RPG

[alex010300]

Originally posted by Caduryn:

Originally posted by alex010300:

Paid reviews

"If it doesnt fit MY Agenda,then its paid"

Thats you

It’s actually pretty well know that game devs or publishers will force games news site up write a good review of the game. Only user reviewers are accurate and in the steam forum we know what the score really is.

[kalashnjkov21]

the agent of B.E.T.H.E.S.D.A, say hail Larian, please.

[alex010300]

Originally posted by patrick68794:

Originally posted by alex010300:

Paid reviews

The journalists did get paid by their employees to write them, yes.

And their employers got the screw to make sure the reviews are good when the game isn’t.

[DudeBro69]

Originally posted by Recjawjind:

This is decidedly not an ARPG.

Lol its heavy on the rpg.

People are just making up nonsense now.

[Call Sign: Raven]

I love how when Metacritic scores are high for a game they like, people put it forward as a good metric. Yet, when Metacritic scores are low for a game they enjoy, those folks will put the site down as "meh, it's just user reviews, nothing important."

lol

[Zunnoab #931]

Originally posted by alex010300:

Originally posted by Caduryn:

"If it doesnt fit MY Agenda,then its paid"

Thats you

It’s actually pretty well know that game devs or publishers will force games news site up write a good review of the game. Only user reviewers are accurate and in the steam forum we know what the score really is.

How do you believe a conspiracy theory that is so easily proven wrong?

I saw a comment that put it nicely:
The more out outlandish the theory is the more likely a conspiracy theorist is to believe it.

Unless there is easily verifiable proof it's wrong. Then it changes to 100%.

[Adam Beckett]

I will endanger myself in throwing a torch into this 'discussion'.

"Metacritic scores" of video games used to be two handful of well established publications (those, who did print and then print AND/OR websites). Gamestar, IGN, PCGamer, Gamespot, etc. ... - none, without flaw, since they make money by selling ads to the publishers, which games they 'review'.

These days, looking at the Metacritic video game 'critics' names, these are completely unknown, random websites or 'Influencers' (bah!), or non-game related websites (Forbes, NPR, Sports Illustrated(!)) who get their pre-release Steam keys and are either just glad to be recognized and get a free key (the former) or write about video games, because they are desperate to 'catch' a few ad-clicks by the 'young readers' (the latter).

Those additional "100" and "90" scores are how the publishers get to circumvent the Metacritic idea of unbiased average results. Infest the website with amateur 'fan websites' and non-gaming publications. Or has anyone really ever heard of "App Trigger", "Checkpoint Gaming", "COGconnected", "Digital Chumps", etc, etc?

That gamedev bonuses depend on this kind of 'gaming the system' marketing is a shame.

If it wasn't for the 'negative reviews' on Steam - the well written, longform ones, not the 'game broken' or mistaken - there would be no way for consumers to learn about what is bad (or good!) about any given game.

... and then there is the concept, that even a game that has the lowest scores or the 'overwhelmingly negative' reviews, CAN be a ton of fun ... for that one person, who is smart enough to ignore scores and just have her/his own opinion and like something, nobody else dares to like.

'Scores' are just an overall flawed system to judge the quality of something. "Does it run? Is it broken? How long is it?" are question that need answers. "Is it fun? Is it good?" is something only everyone can answer for themselves?

[patrick68794]

Originally posted by alex010300:

Originally posted by patrick68794:

The journalists did get paid by their employees to write them, yes.

And their employers got the screw to make sure the reviews are good when the game isn’t.

Incorrect. Most people just think the game is actually good

[tyke]

Originally posted by Adam Beckett:

I will endanger myself in throwing a torch into this 'discussion'.

"Metacritic scores" of video games used to be two handful of well established publications (those, who did print and then print AND/OR websites). Gamestar, IGN, PCGamer, Gamespot, etc. ... - none, without flaw, since they make money by selling ads to the publishers, which games they 'review'.

These days, looking at the Metacritic video game 'critics' names, these are completely unknown, random websites or 'Influencers' (bah!), or non-game related websites (Forbes, NPR, Sports Illustrated(!)) who get their pre-release Steam keys and are either just glad to be recognized and get a free key (the former) or write about video games, because they are desperate to 'catch' a few ad-clicks by the 'young readers' (the latter).

Those additional "100" and "90" scores are how the publishers get to circumvent the Metacritic idea of unbiased average results. Infest the website with amateur 'fan websites' and non-gaming publications. Or has anyone really ever heard of "App Trigger", "Checkpoint Gaming", "COGconnected", "Digital Chumps", etc, etc?

That gamedev bonuses depend on this kind of 'gaming the system' marketing is a shame.

If it wasn't for the 'negative reviews' on Steam - the well written, longform ones, not the 'game broken' or mistaken - there would be no way for consumers to learn about what is bad (or good!) about any given game.

... and then there is the concept, that even a game that has the lowest scores or the 'overwhelmingly negative' reviews, CAN be a ton of fun ... for that one person, who is smart enough to ignore scores and just have her/his own opinion and like something, nobody else dares to like.

'Scores' are just an overall flawed system to judge the quality of something. "Does it run? Is it broken? How long is it?" are question that need answers. "Is it fun? Is it good?" is something only everyone can answer for themselves?

Whether you find something fun isn't a measurement of quality. things can be objectively good or bad as the target audience is constrained to certain characteristics and so what they appreciate is is constrained to an objective spectrum. More broadly to talk of all man, man is biologically constrained and so the possibilities of what man interacts with cannot be indefinite.

I don't like final fantasy or MOBA, nor do I like Counter Strike, but I can recognise objectively good games from the quality of their artistry and design and so on. I can recognise games that I really enjoy but which objectively aren't very good.

There are games which are undeniably good and have virtually no critics besides some contrarian. Classic games such as StarCraft 2 and Age of Empires 2, or minor games like Frostpunk, who has anything bad to say about Frostpunk? Frostpunk is one of the most flawless games of the past decade, undeniably, that it's minor and niche and most people wouldn't interested in it doesn't change that it's objectively a very good game.
Like Frostpunk vs Starfield? No competition. Frostpunk is easily 9/10 if not 10/10, Starfield is a mess.

The job of a review is not to talk about how much all different sorts of people may enjoy it, it's to review how well that it does what it's doing. The truth is that Game Journalism is not written by individuals who have an appreciation for a variety of genres nor who are particularly into games, they are hype-followers and approach it from a box ticking exercise and whether something seems shiny and would have wide appeal, that's why their reviews never get into really talking about what a game is actually like.
Similarly the problem with a scoring system is when it's applied in terms of the wide appeal, such as the stupid steam review format of box ticking.