So called 'critic' reviews......

[trevorbergershank]

I'm assuming that the vast majority of gamers pay no attention to the 'bought and paid for' so-called 'critic' reviews of any game, given their innate dishonesty and disinterest in actually reflecting the quality of a game.

But, if there was any room left for doubt about how utterly meaningless critic reviews really are, then surely Starfield has now completely eradicated it? A prime example has to be IGN, who recently gave Starfield a 7/10. A quick look at their top-scored games reveals instantly how ridiculous this score is.

IGN are happy to give scores of 10/10 to 'retro' titles or games like GTAV and completely ignore massive abundances of design flaws but yet, award a 7 to Starfield and deride the game for the most insignificant of cons. Besides the fact that in well over 20 years of gaming I've yet to encounter a 10/10 game, the scoring mechanisms of these alleged critics are actually laughable.

I'm 17 hrs in and although it is a cliché to say so, I've yet to scratch the surface and can see only an incredible amount of detailed content - certainly not perfect but an undoubtedly peerless game that can still improve a lot. I watched the IGN 'review' on Aug 31st and without even playing the game, was certain that it was an oddly biased, dishonest smear rather than an actual review. Happily, I was correct, with the only valid point from that review that I've found, being the cumbersome inventory management.

Thoughts on these garbage reviews? Any accurate ones out there?

[trevorbergershank]

After another 18+ hrs on top of my starting 17 and after reading the PC Gamer 'review' my stance on so-called 'critic' reviews being garbage hasn't changed. Whilst the IGN 'review' for Starfield was one of the most inaccurate, unprofessional and negatively biased reviews I've ever seen from an actual critic, the PC Gamer one wasn't far behind.

Obviously all reviews are going to feature some subjective opinions but the PC Gamer review touts these as objective facts that reflect the quality of the game. For example, they deride Starfields companions, claiming that they don't hold up to the 'lovable' companions of Fallout 4 - a bizarre claim given that I'm reading the review as someone who thought Fallout 4 companions were absolutely awful.

Hopefully those still waiting to play the game are totally ignoring these ridiculous, opinionated smear-articles as they really do not reflect the quality of the game at all.