Forbes Review and Starfield's weird launch reviews. What is going on?

[Wobblyshrimp]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/01/19/starfield-patch-notes-promise-quality-of-life-fixes-there-arent-any/?sh=415051bd583e

So this journalist for Forbes gave the game a 9.5 on his review at release. Think about that. 9.5 is near perfect. He has since published numerous articles criticizing several aspects of Starfield. Such as this article expressing how painfully Starfield needs QOL updates.

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ excuse me but a 9.5 game should not be desperately in need of QOL updates at this point after launch. Honestly what the hell is going on with this industry and Bethesda in particular? Was this guy "encouraged" to give Starfield a near perfect review right off the bat before he began discussing all the issues with the game?

[Sparhawk122]

Access media are paid shills when it comes to reviews.

[Major Ahole]

The biggest problem was when youtube reviewers like gmanlives gave it a 9/10

You know legacy media are shills but youtubrrs livelihood is their sub count...

[BillyBozarth]

1. I actually enjoy the game and give it a positive review.
2. All of those "reviewers" and YouTube "influences" are paid shills and lie about games. Watch someone actually playing the game to form a good opinion about it. (Should add here to form your opinion by their actual game play and not their commentary)

[Wobblyshrimp]

Originally posted by Sparhawk122:

Access media are paid shills when it comes to reviews.

It's disgusting and becoming so painfully obvious. I remember growing up and watching people like Greg Kasavin review games honestly. There is nobody like that to rely on for reviews anymore.

[jerrypocalypse]

It's possible to enjoy something and think highly of it while also acknowledging flaws. Things aren't as extreme black and white as gamers around here seem to think.

[BillyBozarth]

Originally posted by jerrypocalypse:

It's possible to enjoy something and think highly of it while also acknowledging flaws. Things aren't as extreme black and white as gamers around here seem to think.

9.5.....thats not acknowledging many flaws. It smells more like paid shilling which I think we all know is happening.

[Major Ahole]

Originally posted by jerrypocalypse:

It's possible to enjoy something and think highly of it while also acknowledging flaws. Things aren't as extreme black and white as gamers around here seem to think.

Lets go over some of Metacritics top games of all time by score and compare them.

https://www.metacritic.com/browse/game/?releaseYearMin=1958&releaseYearMax=2024&page=2

Here are some of the games with a 95 score:

The entire original GTA 3 trilogy on ps2
Baldurs Gate 2
Red Dead Redemption
Halo 2
The Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess
Portal 2
The Last of Us

Even if you think a 9.5/10 is 'acknowledging flaws (LMFAO)' are you REALLY going to come here and tell us this crusty skyrim in space rehash is on the same level as those games?

[ULTRA]

Originally posted by Major Ahole:

The entire original GTA 3 trilogy on ps2
Baldurs Gate 2
Red Dead Redemption
Halo 2
The Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess
Portal 2
The Last of Us

Even if you think a 9.5/10 is 'acknowledging flaws (LMFAO)' are you REALLY going to come here and tell us this crusty skyrim in space rehash is on the same level as those games?

Yeah, not even close. Access media at best, paid review at worst.

[Humpenstilzchen]

Isn´t it obvious that they got paid for this glowing 9.5 review like so many others. How naive are you? Bethesda is not the trustworthy and honest developer that many think they are.

They bought reviewers for some glowing reviews which they could use to attract all those gullible fools who actually believe Bethesdas marketing tricks and then buy the game.

[Bunker]

just for fun. click on the store and sort by release date and look at how much trash is on steam. if those are all 0 .. yes starfield is a 10

[alanc9]

Tassi actually published quite a few articles criticizing various parts of Starfield. Some in the same week as the review. Check the archive. Hell, the review itself mentions a bunch of faults in the game.

Looks to me like a 9.5 from him just doesn't mean that a game doesn't need QoL improvements.

[Rommel]

Originally posted by Wobblyshrimp:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/01/19/starfield-patch-notes-promise-quality-of-life-fixes-there-arent-any/?sh=415051bd583e

So this journalist for Forbes gave the game a 9.5 on his review at release. Think about that. 9.5 is near perfect. He has since published numerous articles criticizing several aspects of Starfield. Such as this article expressing how painfully Starfield needs QOL updates.

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ excuse me but a 9.5 game should not be desperately in need of QOL updates at this point after launch. Honestly what the hell is going on with this industry and Bethesda in particular? Was this guy "encouraged" to give Starfield a near perfect review right off the bat before he began discussing all the issues with the game?

Is he also the idiot who wrote about how in 4 years SF would make Bethesda\Microsoft
Billions LOL!!!!!!!! Oh and will you look at that.....user reviews are now sitting at 62%
total reviews on the store page.....and still dropping lol.

[Berserk Belta]

Looking at how the game is, 95% and 30% are both wildly off. Almost by the same amount, give or take.

There sure does seem to be a lot of corruption around.

[Anticitizen 1]

Originally posted by Major Ahole:

The biggest problem was when youtube reviewers like gmanlives gave it a 9/10

You know legacy media are shills but youtubrrs livelihood is their sub count...

Most youtubers are shills unfortunately. Both shillup and gman are straight up shills while even AngryJoe and ActMan are very suspect at this point.

I generally just listen to worthabuy at this point.

[Knight_Kin]

Originally posted by alanc9:

Tassi actually published quite a few articles criticizing various parts of Starfield. Some in the same week as the review. Check the archive. Hell, the review itself mentions a bunch of faults in the game.

Looks to me like a 9.5 from him just doesn't mean that a game doesn't need QoL improvements.

Absolutely not, the purpose of 9.5 is to give the absolute maximum review without giving a 10. It has nothing to do with just "his opinion" it has to do with influencing your opinion. Most people look at the score and don't read the content and they know that. Clearly by design, they know what they are doing. I bet that review alone sold 50,000 copies, don't be so coy.