its seems like most of those negitive reviews have 60+ hours, some of the top negitive reviews are 250+ hours. the standard for boring seems a little funny to me.
devbo
joined 1 year ago
i think they thought it would be more fun than most people seem to think it is. and being wrong is an easy path to failure.
yeah i would agree with you for the most part. i guess im lucky i ignored the hype after the announcement. i have seen the hype train derail too many times.
i watched all of the update for NMS. the updates are cool but non of them made it more interesting. i would like to say i think it is a good game, but at the end of the day starfield aligns with my likes much better.
yeah pretty much. i wouldnt recommend it to anybody that doesn't love bethesda's other games.
i agree that the exploration outside of the main areas is very sparce, but i think its important to cosider thats is what was promised, and the lore backs it up. i liked the hand-crafted areas a lot but outside of those areas tends to feel like NMS with a couple generic things to do every some often. but i still enjoyed building my bases and running in a circle around them destorying all abandon factories with rando baddies i could find.
i agree the fact that they are a AAA studio is irrelevant, but most people do judge things differently when considering this. its too often i see people praising indie games that i eventually try and hate. but i dont freak out and call it terrible, i stop playing. and i see well made AAA games that i greatly enjoy get review bombed for defending there design decisions which were based of what the designers consider fun.
but i dont agree that they made a "pile" of bad decisions. Again i think they were trying to make a fun game and most of the designer probably enjoyed playing it before releasing. but the majority of people who thought bethesda was making "their" dream space shooter didn't like it so know bethesda is evil for some reason. i liked this game, i will play the dlc, and likely replay it.
well, i thought of it as fallout 4 in space before playing. it has a couple core gameplay changes i liked and a couple i didn't. it is the slowest paced bethesda game for sure, which is why i think most people call it boring. if you didnt replay skyrim i doubt you would replay this game. i give it a 7/10 for people of my taste and i would consider myself the intended audience. i have played bethesda games since oblivion and average about 200 hours per bethesda game, usually 3 playthroughs seperated by about a year or 2. for reference here are my top bethesda games:
- Fallout: New Vegas - 9/10(obsidian for a major win)
- Fallout 3 - 9/10
- Oblivion - 9/10
- Skyrim - 8/10
- Fallout 4 - 8/10
- Starfield - 7/10
- Fallout 76 - 3/10 - i wish i could enjoy this game
these scores reflect how much i enjoyed each game. but if New Vegas had no technical issues it would be 10/10 for me.
i had a lot of fun. i think people just expect too much from this type of game and bethesda. look at no mans sky, i still think its just as boring as when it released but it has gained a great following. people now seem to just assume if a game is made by a AAA team everyone must love it regardless of personal taste. in my opinion that mind set is the reason most AAA get focus grouped to death. im scared that people are going to kill off the type of games i like because everyone acts like its crime to release a game that doesn't appeal to everyones exact tastes/desires.
i will say though starfield is my least favorite bethesda game. starfield 7/10
the stoner is probably the happiest out of all three.
why do CEOs never say "lets take our time to avoid making mistakes and insure quality"?
as a satilite software engineer. your just an asshole. smart and better protected, but thinking less of people due to something so silly makes you asshole.