288

Starfield's first DLC is one of the worst Bethesda DLCs of all time (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by Buttflapper@lemmy.world to c/games@lemmy.world

167 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Starfield steam page for the DLC currently shows eight user review score of 41%, making this one of the worst Bethesda DLC's released of all time. This is so horribly, shockingly bad for Bethesda, because it shows as a gaming company, they are no longer capable of delivering a really good gaming experience as they had in the past. Some of the reviews sum up quite nicely what is wrong with this DLC....

Less content than any skyrim DLC. Less than The Fallout 4 story DLCs. Doesn't change of the complaints people had with the base game, writing is still at a 4th grade level.

Quick: If you are looking to buy my answer is no, you aren't missing much content. I was really hoping to enjoy this DLC. Took about 4 hours for the main story and maybe 2 more hours to 100% the achievements.

These two reviews I think really summed up what Starfield has become, $70 for an AAAA title that has extremely little buy-in from the community, horrifically low amount of replayability and can be breezed through easily. It's mind-boggling to see this

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 months ago

Sometimes I wonder whether Starfield truly deserves all the bad publicity

Having played it on games pass, which I was mostly paying for for other games I was enjoying at the time:

It's quite literally the worst Bethesda game I've ever played. And yes, I've played Battlespire.

Honestly even the harsh reviews tend to go nicer on it than it deserves, imo

[-] gcheliotis@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Well with an average in the 80s on metacritic one would assume it’s a very decent game. But user reviews tend to be a lot harsher indeed.

[-] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago

If you take any major gaming publications scores as at all legitimate then I have a bridge to sell you

Major publications give it a passable score because "lol glitches are Bethesdas thing", ignoring objective critique because of reputation, as well as our of fear that they won't be given access to the next product released by the or Microsoft because they give games "bad publicity"

Starfield is a broken, poorly written, dumpster fire of a game. It objectively doesn't function correctly often, like many Bethesda products, and was designed by a team lead by a man allergic to basic game design ethos (seriously fuck Emil, my dog could do game design better than me "fuck design docs). It has moments of being interesting and, much like Skyrim, could be the base for some cool mods, but people hated it so much it won't ever even get that