Bethesda's Starfield was generally a well-regarded RPG,
According to whom? It was a hollow shell of a game with a main storyline that can be summed up as "there is none."
I liked it.
I enjoyed what little of it there was too, but there just wasn't anything substantial to it. What was there was mechanics FO4 did better 8 years earlier supporting a non existent story and a largely empty world. I was willing to overlook that snapping/building ships/outposts was FO4's settlement building but somehow worse. I was prepared to accept that individual clothing pieces were no longer a thing in favor of monolithic outfits even though it felt like a step backwards. I was even willing to accept that I couldn't walk from one side of a settlement to the other without 3 load screens but by the time it got to the "ending" and my own gorram character just chuckles at me for thinking anything whatsoever would be explained it was obvious that I'd been taken for a ride. I liked what was there, or maybe I just really wanted to, but I was much more disappointed by what wasn't there.
It has an 83 critic rating and a 69 user rating on metacritic. Its definitely low in the context of Bethesda’s catalog but its not a complete dud.
69 user rating on metacritic
Not Nice.
That's pretty low for user scores.
This is 10 years old so it’s tough to tell if this is still the case, but it looks like the average user score for games sits at around 66-68 from 2011-2014. I’d love to see an updated one of these graphs.
The update I’ve been waiting for to keep on exploring in NG8
Finally, they’ve optimized this game. Shameful that they released it in an unfinished state, but at least Bethesda is continuing to work on it.
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
Comments.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities: