139
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Art3sian@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago

I love Starfield. My mates love Starfield. It’s Fallout meets No Man’s Sky meets Mass Effect.

It’s just another kick ass Bethesda game in a long list of kick ass Bethesda games IMO.

[-] ShadowRam@kbin.social 81 points 1 year ago

its a solid B

75/100

It's good.

It's not earth shattering, its not game of the year.

It scratches that Skyrim RPG itch but in space.

It's less buggy and less crashy than people were expecting.

It's not without its flaws.

It's a solid B

[-] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

This might be the most concise and accurate review I've seen. Nothing long winded, no excuses, no fanboyism, being fair and holding it up as it is.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 year ago

Personally I'd give it like a C or maybe B- at the top. It's fine, but there are so many missing basic quality of life features that should be there.

My biggest gripes are all focused on outposts though. Outposts seemed to be one of the focuses from the marketing material, but they're a pain in the ass to actually use. There's somehow no list of the outposts you have, let alone a way to view what they're producing. Outposts need to be linked together, but there's no way to sort or auto-delete items, so it all eventually will get clogged up with lead, or whatever other resource doesn't get used often. You'll have to manually go through your containers to remove the clog and just dump it on the ground, where it'll remain for the rest of your playthrough. There's no snapping for anything except storage containers and the habitation modules. Everything else has to be placed by hand with manual rotations, so nothing is ever lined up. The alignment will also change after you place an object, so literally nothing will ever be aligned.

I have issues with many other parts of the game too, but outposts seem so incomplete, and somehow generally worse than what we had in FO4. Yet, outposts were prominent in their marketing. How?

[-] timespace@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I’m not sure where you’re from, but in the US a 75/100 is a C. B would be 80-89.

[-] jet@hackertalks.com 8 points 1 year ago
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] hyperhopper@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 year ago

It's another subpar Bethesda game in a long line of subpar Bethesda games. Lifeless bland NPCs, tons of glitches, bad gameplay issues, and the same "shallow ocean" criticisms we've been going over since Skyrim.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Poggervania@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

Bruh, Bethesda arguably peaked like 20 years ago with Morrowind. Everything else since has been more or less downhill lol.

[-] Dee@lemmings.world 12 points 1 year ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

Their only great game since Morrowind wasn’t even made by them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Silverseren@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

So Fallout 4 and Fallout 76 were kickass Bethesda games?

[-] thanevim@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

They were certainly Bethesda games. I'm not even remotely fond of multiplayer fallout. But for 4, it's a marvelous modding world that I've sunk over a thousand hours into.

[-] Norgur@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

And thanks to their cultish adherence to their engine, I could copy paste some mods between Skyrim and Fallout.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Mandy@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 year ago

Ou for fucks sake people, games dont have to be perfect tens Its okay to be a 8/10 or 7/10

[-] nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago

The funny thing is that "Publisher Bethesda was not permitted to pay additional royalties for the RPG because it scored 84 on Metacritic, according to Fallout New Vegas developer Chris Avellone. It appears that Obsidian's publishing contract included a deal that meant the studio would be issued bonuses if the game hit a Metacritic of 85." scores matter to Bethesda a lot even enough to ruin relationships and screw developers.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

I think Bethesda knows how to make one game in different settings, sadly that game was most popular in the early 10s.

[-] hypelightfly@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think this is an accurate way to put it. I happen to like that game but if it's not what you were expecting or you're tired of it you're not going to like the game.

I have to say the best change from FO4 is ditching the voiced protagonist. That was a big mistake at the time.

[-] eochaid@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What a wierd take, given that people STILL play Skyrim, Morrowind, and Fallout games in droves to this day. And that there are a ton of YouTubers that have made careers exclusively off of Beth lore and build videos and such.

Also given the post is about the game shifting to "mostly positive" on Steam. Which means the vast majority of reviews on steam are actually positive. And a lot of the negative reviews have to do with performance and technical issues, not the gameplay itself.

Also the fact that other "open world story-based shooters with rpg and crafting mechanics" are actually really popular - you know like Cyberpunk, or Mass Effect, or RDR2, or arguably, Jedi Survivor.

If you don't like Beth games, that's fine. They're not for everyone. But it doesn't mean your opinion is universal.

[-] dmrzl@programming.dev 23 points 1 year ago

Is the score of Starfield really the only gaming topic Lemmy has to offer since like 4 days?

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] woelkchen@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

I don't understand the people who spend a hundred hours on a game to then give it a bad rating, calling it boring. Why don't they just quit much earlier and play Chrono Trigger or something?

[-] lustyargonian@lemm.ee 62 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Plays game for 2 hours, rates poorly

"How can they review it without completing it"

Plays game for 60 hours, rates poorly

"Why are they rating it poorly if they spent so many hours on it?"

[-] cdipierr@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

It's such a bizarre, but real issue. I've always been boggled by the idea that you can't offer your opinion on some games without first giving them a full work week. "I know you just sat there for the length of 5 movies and didn't like it, but it doesn't really get good until you sit through another 10."

If you give it 2 hours, a game should have made it worth your time.

[-] grill@thelemmy.club 7 points 1 year ago

2 hours is more than enough for general impression IMO. Just imagine watching a 2 hour movie that is boring AF. I can't judge them for quiting.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] rubicon88@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 year ago

With some games after 20+ hours the honeymoon phase is over. But I want to finish it so that all this time doesn't feel wasted. And there's hope that the game will get better. I mean everybody else loves it so it must be a great game right?

However, often it just feels like work and it makes the flaws of the game even more obvious. And I just end up despising it.

[-] burgundymyr@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

This is the best answer, players are invested after a certain point, but the realization that they don't like the game comes later in the process. The more you play the game you don't like the more you're frustrated with it and the more likely you are to give it a poor rating, especially when the things that are your biggest complaints feel like obvious bug fixes that should have already happened, but continue to exist.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] 9point6@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

The world would be a better place if more people just played Chrono Trigger when they got upset at a game.

Honestly moba fans alone would make it the best selling game of all time

[-] DrQuint@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago

If a narrative-heavy game takes 60 hours and then fucks it up on the third act, it deserves the hate. Games having a bad payoff 200% warrants bad reviews.

Oh sorry, this isn't a Danganronpa thread.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You can put a ton of hours into a game and not like it. This isn’t a new concept.

Ask any LoL or Destiny 2 player.

But in all seriousness, sometimes a game is just too massive to form an opinion on in any reasonable amount of time.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 year ago

Hello, I have 80 hours on Skyrim recorded in Steam.

I do not like Skyrim.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 15 points 1 year ago

Honestly, the games that take the most time I often have more negative opinions about. The Assassin's Creed games, for example, purposefully waste your time. They shove a bunch of junk in and try to make you interact with it when I could be doing something enjoying with my time. Enjoyment per hour should be the measure of a good game, not hours alone. If the game takes me 300h to complete and I only enjoyed 10h of that, it's a bad game.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago

To be fair, the game is so massive, any review (positive or negative) done on less than 60 hours probably won't do the game justice. It's entirely possible to hold hope for redeeming qualities only to be a bit disappointed in the end.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Well they kept getting told this game is a slow burn, so they kept at it, waiting for the fun.

(Just cracking a joke here folks, based off the reports it takes a dozen hours for it to get good)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] poke@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago

Eh, guess I'll drop my review.

The game seems good and mostly well made, with the best hand-crafted environments I've ever seen from Bethesda.

But when it comes to the core gameplay loop, I feel like I've played this game already and I got bored very, very quickly.

It truly plays like Fallout 4 but with more menus and loading screens in order to fast travel somewhere. There is space combat, but it doesn't feel compelling to me. Click on bad ship until kaboom.

You want to fast travel? Drop some things, you can't fast travel while encumbered. Please undock first, we have some quest events tied to undocking and we don't want you to miss those. Please fast travel to the planet before landing at a location, we have some quest events tied to the space around planets and we don't want you to miss those.

Again though, the game is generally well made and I can see a lot of people truly enjoying it and the many gameplay systems you can dive into like settlement, ship, crew building, and side questing.

The slower-paced looter shooter gameplay loop just really isn't for me right now. I'd rather play Fallout or Borderlands.

Note that I haven't commented on the story. I don't feel like I've experienced enough of it to really give a good opinion on it. I've played 4 hours.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] echoplex21@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Aww man it’s actually a bummer to hear so many people are disliking the game. This has been the first game in a while where I’ve gotten hooked. I love the RPG elements in the game and the story has been brilliant. I’ve enjoyed games recently like Ragnarok and Control but this is the first one where I’m excited to just get back and sucked into the world. The last Bethesda game I played was actually Fallout 3 over a decade ago. It makes sense as Mass Effect is my favorite franchise and this feels like an evolution of that. My perfect game would probably be Starfield with ME: Andromeda combat.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Pregnenolone@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

I think I’m just getting old. Games like Starfield are boring the hell out of me. I played it for about 1.5hrs then uninstalled it.

[-] nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago

I did the same thing with fallout 4, I think it's just todd that's boring.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] kemsat@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

If this game had dropped in 2016, I’d be ecstatic. But… I played Elden Ring & it felt a bit like a modded Skyrim, that was better than Skyrim. Now, Bethesda games feel stale.

[-] jopepa@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Does this mean they get no bonuses and obsidian gets a turn again?

[-] kilodelta@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Is it just me, or do the planets look like they have no lighting at all? (Playing on Xbox Series X)

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
139 points (86.0% liked)

Games

16845 readers
896 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

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:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS