this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Starfield
2861 readers
2 users here now
Welcome to the Starfield community on Lemmy.zip!
- Follow instance rules (no spam, keep it civil and respectful, be constructive, tag NSFW)
Helpful links:
Spoiler policy:
- No spoilers in titles; if you want to share images with spoilers, preferably post the image in the body of the post. If you do make an image post, mark it NSFW.
- Add
[Spoilers]to your title if there will be untagged spoilers in the post. - Game mechanics and general discoveries (ship parts, weapons, etc) don't need a spoiler tag.
- Details about questlines and other story related content are spoilers. Use your best judgement!
Post & comment spoiler syntax:
<spoiler here>
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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!
and every positive review is a fanboy who licks the boots of the devs. there is no winning
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.
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.
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.
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.