this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
338 points (94.5% liked)

Starfield

2850 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to the Starfield community on Lemmy.zip!

Helpful links:

Spoiler policy:

Post & comment spoiler syntax:

<spoiler here>

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] voxelastronaut 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sunk cost. Some people got so hyped up for it, they felt like they had to like it. Turns out that's not how it works and it's just... Not a great game.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean, we see this kind of review all the time. It's generally people that run out of things to do and start complaining that the game doesn't have infinite content.

[–] Iceblade02 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

The art of countering a bad review:

Negative review at 2hrs (refunded)

-Hey, you barely even opened the game!

Negative review at 5hrs

-You can't say that, you're barely through the tutorial!

Negative review at 15hrs

-You just haven't gotten to the good bits yet!

Negative review at 30hrs

-You rushed through it and missed all the good stuff!

Negative review at 60hrs

-Well if you played that long, it can't have been bad!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Isn't the comment I answered to doing the same though? Based entirely on whether it is positive or negative and the play time, they reached the conclusion that it was sunk cost fallacy.

My point was that user reviews are a mixed bag and people will leave negative reviews on games they enjoyed for whatever reason but I guess it didn't come across very well.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago

and every positive review is a fanboy who licks the boots of the devs. there is no winning

[–] voxelastronaut 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh for sure, a lot of that too. But I've also noticed an overall essence of boredom and disappointment especially when compared to initial expectation, so it wouldn't do to dismiss most criticism in this way. Bethesda really fed into the "big immersive universe 25 years in the making" thing and even, for example, emphasized the player's ship in marketing, even though you hardly really fly the ship at all in-game. NPCs feel flat and buggy, most planets are largely empty, and most quests are just... Fetch quests.

I feel like, as with most Bethesda titles, mods are going to breathe new life into this one eventually.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I feel like Bethesda really missed the mark on what makes their games special.

You can see the improvement in quest design and writing with questlines like the crimson fleet but it's missing the glue holding everything together, the fantastic open world map that's always there and Starfield does not have.

I think mods are eventually going to make Starfield into another timeless classic but they've never felt necessary before, Skyrim took everyone by storm as soon as it came out.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I don't even believe mods could save this game. The major things it lacks are also symptoms of the decrepit engine they keep using; such as the overall size of each individual zone of the game and why you have to load between ground, space, and star systems.

I would not be surprised if the space segments were considered interior cells, as they're actually quite small and empty if you fly around to find the invisible walls.

[–] voxelastronaut 2 points 11 months ago