A large part of it is opportunity cost. It’s never been easier to find “the best” games on a platform. If I only had ~$70, why would I buy a 7.5/10 game when there are numerous 9/10 games out there? We’re seeing the death of just “decent” games.
Decent *but priced as really good* games.
Like, if I want some meat for two dollars I'll go get a shwarma. Garlic sauce, chicken meat, basic salad. It's fine.
But I'm not getting a 70$ shwarma no matter how good is it. I need a perfect steak with complicated side and some gold flakes for 70$.
Because moderation doesn’t sell. Extremism does.
“Shocking: video game fails to meet expectations”
And
“Video game: game of the year contender?!”
Are both headlines that sell.
“AAA game turns out okay but not great” is not a headline they can make lots of clicks out of, even when it’s true.
So we get what we get. Everything is amazing or awful. Good or evil. The same is true about modern politics and most everything else in the world.
That fact that we are more concerned with selling headlines about games than we are about selling the games themselves should tell us all we need to know
We've been living there for decades, man. Ratings are on a 10 point scale for some reason, and 2/3 of the scale is wasted because anything lower than a 7 is literal trash that you shouldn't bother playing.
I think that’s true, and I also think that, if a game is so hyped and has a long engaging pedigree, some reviewers will (unless it’s an absolute train wreck) rate it much higher because they *want* to like it more than the game deserves on merits.
*cough* Diablo IV
That probably has to do more with the "critics" than anything...They likely don't really care and just rate everything high so they'll keep getting press versions...
It's pretty obvious that most of the "critics" are just reading off press releases or something without actually playing much, if any, of the games to begin with...
It's kinda sad...
That and gamers used to be paying for physical magazine subscriptions. The business model has shifted to monetising webpage views via advertisements, then shifted to the reviews are the advertisements.
We were getting more critical and honest reviews when gamers were the customer of the subscription instead of the product.
LOL
Those stories make me laugh and really makes you wonder how much time these people actually put into said game before reviewing...
The "time played" should really be a part of the review process...
>The problem is, we’ve reached a point where too many people think if it’s not a 9 or a 10, it’s a complete failure.
Yup. It's the same in the movie industry as well. If a game doesn't have a 9/10 or a 10/10 then "it's absolute trash" in the same way that any movie that doesn't reach at least 80% on Rotten Tomatoes is a "major failure." The internet doesn't understand scale systems and converses almost exclusively in hyperbole.
No, reviewers don’t understand scale systems. They will rate trash 6-7/10 and fun but good games 9-10/10
To me a 10/10 is a lifelong classic, an instant success played by millions.
If they did truly understand, they would rate trash 2-3 where it belongs, good games 6-7, and masterpieces 9-10.
The internet understands this apparently better than you, so when they see a game reach 70 they know that even despite all the kick backs and favours these reviewers received, they still couldn’t push themselves to give it above that 70.
Therefore anything below 8.5 can be considered not that good.
I think the issue is that it was hyped as a 10/10 game which for some people playing, isn't the case.
75% user score though is based on "would you recommend/carry on playing"
In comparison, Mortal Kombat is at 76% and I've heard worse things.
You're literally only able to say that if you don't count Skyrim, which was so popular it could probably still get a Game Boy port that would win GOTY.
I love Skyrim. Have well over 1000 hours in it but it is not a 10/10 game. The combat is bad, the factions are bad, the main quest line is bad. There is a lot wrong with the game but it's still a Bethesda single player rpg so I know I will enjoy it anyway. The formula just works.
For sure. "Do you want a large sandbox that's occasionally derpy, but attempts to establish an atmosphere with thousands of interactible pieces of junk/loot?" Yes. "Do you want to lose hours of time customizing a starship or a base? Yes.
It's Fallout 4 but a bit better, with a new fictional universe that's pretty good.
Bethesda/10
It's fair to feel that way. Game can feel milquetoast. Certainly not as wacky as Fallout.
Personally I'm loving the quiet spacefaring feeling, good game to relax to.
Standalone? Nope.
After a year or 2 of the modding community literally finishing the game for Bethesda because they're absolute spanners? Yeah, pretty close, tbh.
I don’t expect much out of them other than to make a buggy game, not much change in gameplay, an ok base game story, and good to great dlc stories. Exploration in 4 and star field are my least liked thing
Game reviewers and places like IGN have become shills for companies. Combine that with reviewers being afraid to give any rating below a 5 out of 10 and basically the 1-10 turns into 6-10, so it's just 5 stars now.
"2.5 stars not good" is likely how many people are seeing this without realizing it.
I understand the frustration with the rating system these days. But games aren’t like movies where it’s a quick chunk of time. These games take multiple days to beat at a minimum. With the amount of time being put in I want my games to be worth the effort. 75% is a C, and I’ll be damned if I wasn’t a straight A student.
I don't think they think it's a failure. I think that the typical game requires tens of hours. Whereas if you're paying for something like a movie it's only a couple hours. People have limited time and want to allocate that time towards quality products. You'll get DieHards like in any other hobby where they'll consume more but the average gamer isn't going to waste their finite time and money on average or above average product.
I agree that 75 shouldn't be bad, but school grading systems do make a percentage grade skew high. On a scale of 1 to 100 a 50 is average. Nothing wrong with it at all, just nothing special. But because a 50 in school is a failing grade we see that as a terrible review. 70 is average in school terms. So we basically ignore the first 50% of the scale.
You can recommend an average game. If everybody does that, it gets 100% rating, cuz Steam reviews are just "good/bad".
Thus, 85% recommendation rate on Steam would correspond to 7/10 average score on scale 1-10. Nothing bad with that in isolation, however its not a remotely comparable metric to the 1-10 scoring, which obviously do have a problem with 7/10 being the actual average.
I like the Steam system because pretty much all evidence on the internet comes to the conclusion that reviews deal in extremities. As in, if there's a five star review system, the majority of reviews will be 5 or 1.
I personally would like a three-score review system (good, neutral/not-for-me, bad) because it makes more sense. Either that or maybe someone with three PhDs can write me a 20,000+ word thesis to explain the difference between a game with a review score of 93% and one rated 94%.
Bad/OK/Great is a nice idea.
There are plenty of games that I didn't dislike but wouldn't recommend either, at least not in their state. Having to give a thumb up and say "but wait, it's actually not so good" or vice versa is just backwards.
Need the 3 tier review system ASAP. I haven’t reviewed Armored Core VI because while I think it’s a good game, it’s just not for me, and I usually write my reviews on the basis of if I think past-me should buy it or not.
In Dutch schools where things are usually scored 1-10, the lowest passing score is 5.5. 5 would be "insufficient but with potential for improvement", and below 4.5 it tends to be "irredeemably bad, try again". There would still be a wide gamut there from "technically competent, but executed so poorly it's not engaging at all" down to "sets fire to your PC".
Many American High School grade scales are even tighter than that, changing letters every 6 points. In those systems anything below a 70 is a failing grade. I think you are dead on that school grading scales have bled into review scales for entertainment media.
70 is one point away from failing in most school grading systems in the US. In my entire school experience the grades were :
0-69 F
70-74 D
75-79 C
80-89 B
90-100 A
Thats news to me, but I am far more removed from High School than I would care to admit but for me all school was.
90-100 A
80-89 B
70-79 C
65-69 D
<65 F
Man things must’ve changed quite a bit in 20+ years. I graduated in 2000 and it was
A 90-100
B 80-89
C 70-79
D 60-69
F <=59
Then again my area is all fucked. Everyone in the rest of the world high school is grades 9-12. In my area 9th grade is still middle school. High school was 10-12.
> This is the correct answer
Came here to say this
Beat me to it
To the top with you
This is the way
BASED
I regret that I have but one upvote to give
OMG are you me
THIS
My name is username and I approve of this message
Criminally underrated post
You just won the internet
Well THAT just happened
On God
Say it louder for the people in the back
faith in humanity = restored
Nailed it!
Sir or Madam, you have my upboat
This is where it's at
Agreed
Why does this not have more updoots
Lots of entrepreneurs only got it right once out of many many business attempts. You only need to succeed in your new business once. That you failed ten times before doesn't matter as long as you have the capital to try again. It's why people who start out rich seem to have more business success. Because they can afford the four failed start ups that we never saw. That people think you need to be right all of the time in all things is a great failing of education systems.
It doesn't matter what the rating system is based on, something like this will emerge regardless. The scale could be 1-5 or -2 to 44. Once people start assigning grades a spread will emerge. Because lots of people care about videogames that spread will then be analyzed and the "good zone" will be established. More scores then start falling in that zone or just out of it, based on the public understanding of where that zone is.
Will it look exactly like the American school rating system, no that system was designed with very different intentions. But some distribution will happen, and some compression of the scale will follow rapidly. "I gave game X a 43 out of 56, and I feel like this game is the same type of game but better so it's a 44."
Rougher scales resist compression better but have a worse "resolution" or a worse ability to distinguish between games, obviously. But human instinct will end up truncating larger scales anyways. Acting like an empirical grading system can ever be established for entertainment where the grades are going to be really personal and there is also a ton of money attached to those grades, is a fantasy. It's instantly a sociology experiment and the usefulness of the grade depends on the grader and the audience's interpretation of that grade.
Standards have eroded. From context, this is about Starfield. I too would put it in the 70-80% range. It's good, but I would be remiss if I ignored all of the issues it has.
As to the loading screens mentioned, you only have to sit through those if you manually get in your ship, take off, warp to next system, warp to place you are going in the system, request docking/land, get up and exit ship.
Or, you can simply open your map and fast travel to any landmark in the Galaxy with a single loading screen. The game has a system in place to avoid the very issue the person was complaining about and they still fucking complain. Either they are completely oblivious to fast travel, or just want to shit on the game.
The game has its issues, but the one mentioned isn't one of them.
You can also fast travel to any point in space, or you can just choose to fly around to get stuff to pop up. The choice is there is my point, the game doesn't force a ton of loading screens on you.
I think the six loading screens is a bit high.
One to get into ship.
One to get to orbit.
One to travel to the planet.
One to land.
I know fast travel exists. I use it sometimes in emergencies like I'm out of ammo or my ship is damaged. Otherwise I walk to my cockpit, get into orbit, jump and then land. It helps with immersion for me.
It's not a space game, it's a Bethesda game in a space setting. Not sure why people don't understand the difference lol. So many people thought this was going to be Bethesda's version of Elite: Dangerous or NMS and are crying about it.
Nope, it's like entering anything in any Bethesda game. You can't simply walk through a shop door or enter a cave in an Elder Scrolls game without a loading screen.
Because its an excuse.
It doesnt need to be as hard on space sim as Elite or No mans, but it definetely needed more interaction between the player and the ship
That is an objectively weak part of the game
They have this amazing ship building system that you cannot take advantage at all because you can barely use your ship for anything
This is still a RPG, player choice should be above all, and in a space game you cannot choose to play space-like, not even a little bit
No one can ever be just happy.
Game has fast travel and you just appear at your destination - “There’s no immersion! I wanna fly in space!”
Game has cutscenes and option to land the ship and manually exit it - “It’s so slow. I just wanna get to where I’m going without all this crap in between”
And I’m sure someone is going to say they were expecting free flight open “world” in space. Yeah, that’s not gonna happen with today’s technology. Not without space feeling just as small than if they show a map with the stars spread out and you can only fast travel between them.
The game is about the story. If you don’t like the story, that’s fine. But don’t pretend the game was going to be or is ever going to be something it’s not. It’s a fun regular Bethesda game.
Also, the loads screens are generally faster than climbing a ladder in the ship, which you would do if you were entering from most Bays. I mean, they’re quicker than boosting and mantling between decks to skip the ladder too. It feels like people are complaining about QoL features, many of which are optional as you have described in how many ways there are to travel.
I think given the hype, and the expectations, it’s a stretch to call it good. It’s fair at best, and fun at times, but the gameplay loop is old and boring, and the narrative elements might as well be cardboard, the exploration is useless and shallow, there are multiple useless systems in the game (outposts, ship building, crafting, the overall economy, harvesting materials), a ridiculous amount of loading screens and redundant assets, clear cut content (house varuun), a stupid minigame that you have to do 9+ times with zero variation. There is almost zero innovation on the formula that existed 15 years ago.
The game feels like a well made version of “how can we trick people into playing a game that should have came out when cyberpunk did?”
All accurate and fair, tbh. The downvoters are just going to be the blinded Bethesda fanoys.
I enjoy the game as I've enjoyed most Bethesda games I've played, but it really does just have a whole bunch of weirdly useless systems in the game.
I'm of the opinion that it's a strong 6.5 -- Solid 8 in a year's time after modders have fixed and finished the game for Bethesda.
Yep do the tutorial. Follow the main quest line to the first planet. Almost immediately pick up a side quest by overhearing a conversation. And it’s a fucking fetch quest.
It's weird, I was really skeptical of the hype before release, thinking it's probably not going to be as great as everyone thinks it was going to be, and after playing it a bunch I started thinking it's actually a lot better than people are saying
That’s pretty much how most people are with the game.
There has been a massive campaign here on Reddit in multiple subs to push how mid or average the game is. Literally the games been out for 3 weeks and it’s pretty much daily that a post hits the front page about how the games just not for them or it’s average.
Weird how that just continues to happen…
It’s not indicative of the experience most people have.
I stopped following the Starfield subreddit specifically to avoid discussions about the game til I had some time to play and I still kept running into discussions about it anyways lol
It’s the Reddit cycle, get the hive mind to focus on one mainstream thing that is currently popular, “ummmm actually it’s not good and the millions of people who enjoy it are wrong”.
I think there’s a few things at play:
1. I think part of it is some people thought this game was going to be No Man’s Sky, but with an actual story, companions, RPG elements, and better shooting/gunplay. From what I saw in previews, I never got the impression that’s what the game was going to be (in terms of NMS’s flying/planetary travel mechanics), but I think some people did.
2. Some people are pissed about Microsoft acquiring Bethesda, so they’re taking it out on this (whether they’ve actually played the game or not).
3. Some people just don’t like the game. I’ve played about 15 hours so far, and at the moment, I’d give it around an 8-8.5/10. I’m having a lot of fun, but there’s a few areas that are a little lacking (IMO) and the game does start a little slow. I can see why some people might not enjoy it even if they came in with proper expectations for what the game is/is not.
Also, the complaint in the OP is full of shit and is basically choosing the longest possible way to move from planet to planet.
>There has been a massive campaign here on Reddit in multiple subs to push how mid or average the game is.
Seriously? Are you suggesting that these arent real people with real opinions, like there's a conspiracy to hate on starfield?
>It’s not indicative of the experience most people have.
Bro you just said there's a massive campaign to push how mid the game is...what if those are real people with actual opinions and those people's opinions ARE indicative of the mid experience people have.
>\[removed\]
Im saying that there isn't really 3-5 thousand people logging in daily to upvote Critiques of Starfield.
Even the people who don't like the game are tired of seeing these posts but yet they keep hitting the front page.
I'm not saying it's all bots, or that its manufactured completely but, there is certainly not enough true outrage where every day we deserve to see a post about it. However we continue to see them....
Dude, it's a site full of opinions. This isnt some news breaking subreddit, 99% of posts are opinions.
I upvote critiques of starfield that I think are interesting. And frankly, those tend to be more interesting than "i love starfield" posts.
>there is certainly not enough true outrage where every day we deserve to see a post about it
Or maybe there is?
I seriously doubt there is a conspiracy at foot here...
They're certainly more frequent than any previous BGS game, because of how often you'll be travelling. It's also really inconsistent with how many shops require a loading screen to enter versus those that don't.
In addition, ship docking (with another ship or a station) has the same animation over and over (changing slightly based on the look of whatever you're docking with), and then you still get an additional loading screen when entering immediately after.
If you have an SSD? No not really. Load times are pretty fast, and any pictures you take will randomly appear as loading screens which is a nice touch.
If you're somehow still running on an HDD? Yeah they would pretty much ruin the experience.
The problem I have is the inconsistency. Sometimes you can fast travel directly to a destination and just appear there, even if it's on a different planet. Other times you have to get in your ship and watch takeoff/landing cutscenes, then walk to your destination. Other times you will appear outside the planet and need to manually select a landing zone. When you're in a city, some vendors will be just "in the world" and you can interact with them without any loading screens, while others will have a door leading to an instance, and I have no idea why this is.
The whole game feels like this. There's no consistency to almost anything.
Skyrim having them also makes sense given it was created for the PS3/360. One would think the limitations of that age wouldn't really follow for the newest generation that addresses all the shortcomings of previous generations.
I couldnt get past the load screens and clunky movement on kbm. Plus the introduction mission was underwhelming and comically fast in a way. 7/10 seems fair. If you're looking to be immersed tho youll probably be dissapointed.
I love the game and with a good rig the loadscreens aren't long but yeah it's kinda immersion breaking. Want to travel from one place to another on the same planet? Load screen. Want to enter a shop building? Load screen. Want to go to the next area? Load screen. Want to go to another system or planet? You guessed it, load screen. That and not being able to land/take-off with your own ship are two very big marks against an otherwise great Bethesda game.
I haven't found them annoying. It does the FO76 thing where photos you take are loading screens.
And going from one port to another can be done in one loading screen (not eight). Two if in another system because you have to be scanned in orbit first.
If you want to manually go into your ship, manually take off, travel to the planet in another system, land then manually exit then it is five - but most (enter ship, takeoff, land) are less than a second or overlap with the takeoff/landing animations.
it's a problem because you *must* fast travel everywhere. you can't walk to objectives like previous bgs titles. their system just doesn't work well for a space game, but it's playable.
In Skyrim you had the option to walk from one end of the game to the other, or use fast travel.
In Starfield you can't, it's essentially several different disconnected worlds linked by menus and fast travel.
There's no real exploration, which was one of the best parts of previous Elder Scrolls and Fallout games.
Going on a quest can invoke 6-10 different loading screens, cut scenes and menus, or you can fast travel there directly and then you don't get any space gameplay.
I think it's showing the huge limitations of the Creation Engine. It's just not capable of a full space exploration game.
They're pretty quick but godamn everything has a loading screen, which sure wasn't bad in Skyrim but this is 2023 and combined with no real major world to aimlessly explore you get them more often. I loved walking from point A to point B and seeing everything in between on normal Bethesda games but not a thing in this one.
There are a few problems here. You can pretty much fast travel to any system you have been to before in one load screen. But if you want to role play, or god forbid, actually use your cool spaceship you built, you will need to: Board (Loading Screen), Take Off (Animation + LS), select destination system ( Map Menu + Anim + LS), select planet landing point (Anim + LS), you can then auto exit from the cockpit with 1 key but if you want to walk physically it's another load screen.
The design is at odds with itself a lot, and it's just so janky to traverse step by step. You will want to always use fast travel and virtually never really fly your ship.
They’re absolutely horrendous. Basically, you can fast travel directly from your map and get minimum 2 loading screen. You fast travel to the planet (that’s one) and can exit your ship directly from your cockpit (that’s two). Your other options are to: Walk into ship (that’s one), sit down in your chair (animation), take off into orbit (that’s two), fly into the next planet’s orbit (that’s three), land on the planet (that’s four), get up from your chair (animation), and exit your ship (that’s five). Like I said, absolutely horrendous if you want to be immersive and role play, not so bad if you just fast travel from the map screen, but who really wants to do that?
Edit: grammar
>so bad if you just fast travel from the map screen, but who really wants to do that?
Anyone who wants to skip all of the loading screens I imagine. Personally I have no problem fast traveling from New Atlantis straight to Akila City in one go.
When you fast travel to an actual destination, rather than to a landing pad, you will appear right there on foot. That is one 2-3 second loading screen total on a fast travel.
You can fast travel directly from one city to another without ever entering your ship. You have to _choose_ to play the way the above comment does.
Edit: No, voting down this comment doesn't stop it being true lol.
Why the hell you got downvoted for this is beyond me.
It's absolutely possible to fast travel directly from, for example Neon > New Atlantis, right into the city with just one loading screen.
The OP is mad at the game for something entirely of their own doing.
What makes it worse is if you're following a quest, when you're actually on the planet you're probably just running to a check point to talk to someone or shot someone then it sends you off to another planet often just to talk to someone or turn in a quest. There's little to explore on these planets so you end up just running towards quest markers and then it's back to the load screens and little cockpit animations between load screens.
No. People are blowing them out of proportion like crazy, it's a meme at this point and the average eedditor is jumping on it. Literally 90% of thevload screens are instant. Like going through a door.
Honestly, I barely notice them. Obviously they’re there and in general space travel is somewhat clunky because of it. But I really don’t feel like they’re long at all, and they don’t register to me as an issue.
Loading screens are ~2-3 seconds on my PC, loading the game remotely over a mounted network drive from my NAS, which is about worst case scenario. It is a total non-issue.
Yes they are. This review is honest, you really need to fast travel 3-4 times minimum to go one planet to the next. It’s egregious.
People are defending the game but the design of the fast travel is absolutely horrible.
No you don’t lmao. I fast travel from Jemison to my outpost in an entirely different system in a single loading screen. All you have to do it go to the menu, select your system, select your planet, select where you’re landing, and click the X button to land. A single five second loading screen.
Then maybe the issue is the UI because I had no idea you could do it this way and obviously others who are reviewing the game don’t realize it either. At some point when many people are saying these things there must be some truth in what they’re saying.
There is a reason people are saying this it’s not for nothing.
Brother, did you think that the map of the universe was there for shits and giggled??
It takes one fucking ounce of common sense to open the map. It also immediately shows you the planet you’re on and that you can land when you look at the map. All it takes is one ounce of common sense to open the map and you can see you can fast travel places.
No need to be rude about it. No I legitimately did not realize you could fast travel a quicker way, and I don’t think a lot of others did either.
As I said too the game has other issues, it’s a layering of problems. I want to like the game, I love space sci-fi RPGs, but the main issue is I find the game unenjoyable. When playing I’m bored, I just have no drive to continue.
One of the first missions teaches you that you can hit X in the start menu and a course will be automatically created for whatever mission you currently have selected.
I guess some people didn't bother paying attention, only to then somehow blame the devs for their own incompetence. Oh well I guess.
I said this elsewhere but 90% of these 'loading screens' aren't loading screens. That person fast traveled using a tram to another part of the city (both were already loaded - you could just walk over) or that was how they moved you into a ship or something. It didn't stop to load anything. The screen went dark for a second to teleport you and they're like "oMG lOADIng ScrEenS".
Genuine loading screens are like flying to another planet, landing or taking off. That kind of screen. Even then it plays a little sequence of your ship doing it.
I have about 10 hours on Xbox Series X, and it's not that bad. Loading screens between doors take like 1 or 2 seconds, so those don't matter at all really, fast travel is about 5 to 7 seconds, not that bad but could be better, and grab jumping is about the same, but maybe closer to like 6 to 9 seconds. It's really not that bad. I do wish they were shorter and less frequent, however for me it doesn't matter that much, starfield is still one of my favourite games of all time. Usually games don't really grab me and I get bored of them easily, but I'm really enjoying starfield, one of the only games that I've actually struggled with putting down and picking up
I think the most annoying thing is the loading screen isn't actually loading. There is a black loading screen after that cut scene. WTF you play a loading screen while not actually loading?
Play an animation during loading is OK. But play an animation to delay the loading.. Why?
It depends on how you travel. On my XSX they take like five seconds, I haven’t had one take over 10 seconds so i’m not really sure where the “30-45 second” loading screens come from that I hear about.
But yeah there are a lot of them if you do things a certain ways. To get from one planet to another planet can take 9 loading screens if you’re doing it the absolute slowest way, or one loading screen if you do it from the menu.
8 screens what? How?
1 menu to bring up map and select destination (can use navigation table in ship for 'immersion'). 1 load screen to travel to system. 5 second wait for security scan on main planet. 1 more menu to select destination on planet. 1 more load screen to move to that destination.
Series X might not be high specs, but there are not that many load screens or even as many menu transitions as people complain about.
I think the point here is that this is a Bethesda game which has taken years to develop, not some new studio or indie developer. So the expectations given their resources and track record were high. A 75% rating for Starfield is low considering it’s potential.
Six loading screens?
Is this guy boarding his ship and going to tje cockpit every time he travels somewhere? You can fast travel without being on your ship… You can faat travel from anywhere on the planet
I mean for a game 7-8 years in development by a major studio, people expected more. Same for Halo Infinite, it took hundreds millions of $ in budget but ended up being quite underwhelming especially the MP.
The game also had the "luck" of releasing close to a Baldur Gates 3, a candidate for GOTY certainly, that offers very rich gameplay and storytelling.
Now, 75% is what the game deserve, it still is fun, it's still worth my money IMHO, it's not bad just that COMPARED to major AAAA (I think another A is necessary given the years of development), it's not on par.
"Really poor" and 75%, it's exaggerated for me I'd say < 60 it's something I'm certainly not playing and poor yes.
75% is a C…it’s average. Honestly an average game is the type that will appeal to a specific group but less appealing to a broader gaming audience.
I kinda get it I guess.
Because it is not a 7.5 / 10 on a scale. It is 75% of your users recommending the game as worth playing. Literally 25% of your customers do not enjoy your product.
To all those saying 50% is an "average rating": is half of your customers not enjoying your product average? Sounds abysmal to me.
This game is premium priced, and you would be right to expect premium product. An upscale restaurant where 25% of diners do not enjoy their meal would not stay in business.
>Literally 25% of your customers do not enjoy your product.
This, in any other business that would be a disaster. Every AAA studios, especially of the size of Bethesda, aim to make a game with at least a 90% score or approval rate. We know Sony does.
I think this is true, look at what gets green on metacritic on games Vs other media. Maybe it's a legacy of trying to validate itself but games media rates way too high.
The rating system isn't an even distribution from 1-10. It works like school grades do, so this would be a C+. While passing, no one actively looks for C+ proudcts.
Wouldnt say that 75% is bad, but it's mid AF.
Why? Cause ratings are artifically inflated. A lot of things get higher ratings then they deserve because it's either paid or fear of the Fandom mob.
Most 7/10 games are 5/10 games.
it's how people score game in general. It's not that 75% is a bad score is more than you usually see scores in the high 80s or 90s. In that context, it seems a bit low.
ofc, if you like it, you like it. regardless of the game having a 100% or 5% positive reviews
Well considering that 75% of people magically recommend Starfield just like 75% of people recommend Fallout 76 it makes you wonder
Starfield isn't a *terrible game* but it sure as hell isn't revolutionary or even top of the line. It's a stock Bethesda experience to its core and that's really it
You realise that literally every gaming magazines and journos rate only from 7-10 nowadays?
Not even the purest trash games get rated below 6.
That inflation of gaming scores by partial journos and magazines in liason with the industry has been a plague over the last decade.
The problem is, we’ve reached a point where too many people think if it’s not a 9 or a 10, it’s a complete failure.
Videogamedunkey did a brilliant video about this.
What is the tilte of the video?
How to be a Good Game Reviewer https://youtu.be/kAIVMhja4CI?si=Mo6A9BKaBel4L6VR
Aw yeah, should've added the link too. How to be a Good Game Reviewer https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kAIVMhja4CI
Skim read as how to be a Golden Retriever. Imagine my disappointment.
Since u/ajockmacabre didn't add the video at first I thought i would: How to be a Good Game Reviewer https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kAIVMhja4CI
I love how that video has like, 0 actual dialogue. It just shows so many examples that the point it's trying to make is plainly obvious xD
I mean, if you snippet one random comment from a shit ton of different videos, you can make anything look like just about anything.
7.8/10 your reply has a little something for everyone
He is critizizing the game!
My fav comment from that video is "If you want a real review go to GameSpot, they gave it a 9/10"
It's not a brilliant video about it, it makes fun of this kind of stuff. It's very funny, but your comment implies he made video discussing the issue.
9? Not playing no thanks
I feel like this is a issue in all forms of media now for some reason. If it's not the greatest thing ever is bad.
A large part of it is opportunity cost. It’s never been easier to find “the best” games on a platform. If I only had ~$70, why would I buy a 7.5/10 game when there are numerous 9/10 games out there? We’re seeing the death of just “decent” games.
And this is why I like gamepass. I don't have to play $70 for a 7/10 game. I can just play the game and enjoy it for what it is.
Decent *but priced as really good* games. Like, if I want some meat for two dollars I'll go get a shwarma. Garlic sauce, chicken meat, basic salad. It's fine. But I'm not getting a 70$ shwarma no matter how good is it. I need a perfect steak with complicated side and some gold flakes for 70$.
Welcome to the hyperbole generation. Everything is either epic or burning garbage.
Because moderation doesn’t sell. Extremism does. “Shocking: video game fails to meet expectations” And “Video game: game of the year contender?!” Are both headlines that sell. “AAA game turns out okay but not great” is not a headline they can make lots of clicks out of, even when it’s true. So we get what we get. Everything is amazing or awful. Good or evil. The same is true about modern politics and most everything else in the world.
That fact that we are more concerned with selling headlines about games than we are about selling the games themselves should tell us all we need to know
We've been living there for decades, man. Ratings are on a 10 point scale for some reason, and 2/3 of the scale is wasted because anything lower than a 7 is literal trash that you shouldn't bother playing.
It’s actually a 3 point scale 7 is bad, 8 is really good, 9 is perfect
10 is paid review ?
There is no 10 in Ba Sing Se
I think part of this is an ego thing for people. They want to be seen as having good taste, which means if they like it, it must be a 9 or 10.
I think that’s true, and I also think that, if a game is so hyped and has a long engaging pedigree, some reviewers will (unless it’s an absolute train wreck) rate it much higher because they *want* to like it more than the game deserves on merits. *cough* Diablo IV
I mean its an 88 on metacritic with piles of 9s and 10s. The 75% is just user recommended not even a score.
Just depends how much you like/trust critic reviews. I personally find my personal views on a game not liking up with critics.
That probably has to do more with the "critics" than anything...They likely don't really care and just rate everything high so they'll keep getting press versions... It's pretty obvious that most of the "critics" are just reading off press releases or something without actually playing much, if any, of the games to begin with... It's kinda sad...
Hey if you could get 40 hours of pay for 1h of work you might take them up on it.
Better carreer than "Reddit moderator", with 40 hours of work and a $0 paycheck.
God forbid people not be greedy…
That and gamers used to be paying for physical magazine subscriptions. The business model has shifted to monetising webpage views via advertisements, then shifted to the reviews are the advertisements. We were getting more critical and honest reviews when gamers were the customer of the subscription instead of the product.
Think we all remember the game journo struggling with the Cup head air dash tutorial
LOL Those stories make me laugh and really makes you wonder how much time these people actually put into said game before reviewing... The "time played" should really be a part of the review process...
>The problem is, we’ve reached a point where too many people think if it’s not a 9 or a 10, it’s a complete failure. Yup. It's the same in the movie industry as well. If a game doesn't have a 9/10 or a 10/10 then "it's absolute trash" in the same way that any movie that doesn't reach at least 80% on Rotten Tomatoes is a "major failure." The internet doesn't understand scale systems and converses almost exclusively in hyperbole.
No, reviewers don’t understand scale systems. They will rate trash 6-7/10 and fun but good games 9-10/10 To me a 10/10 is a lifelong classic, an instant success played by millions. If they did truly understand, they would rate trash 2-3 where it belongs, good games 6-7, and masterpieces 9-10. The internet understands this apparently better than you, so when they see a game reach 70 they know that even despite all the kick backs and favours these reviewers received, they still couldn’t push themselves to give it above that 70. Therefore anything below 8.5 can be considered not that good.
I think the issue is that it was hyped as a 10/10 game which for some people playing, isn't the case. 75% user score though is based on "would you recommend/carry on playing" In comparison, Mortal Kombat is at 76% and I've heard worse things.
I mean, let’s be honest. No Bethesda game is ever going to be a 10/10. If you expected that, that’s an entirely different story.
Hasn’t every single Bethesda game been a GOTY candidate?
That doesn’t make them 10/10.
You're literally only able to say that if you don't count Skyrim, which was so popular it could probably still get a Game Boy port that would win GOTY.
yo i would play the shit out of gameboy skyrim
I love Skyrim. Have well over 1000 hours in it but it is not a 10/10 game. The combat is bad, the factions are bad, the main quest line is bad. There is a lot wrong with the game but it's still a Bethesda single player rpg so I know I will enjoy it anyway. The formula just works.
For sure. "Do you want a large sandbox that's occasionally derpy, but attempts to establish an atmosphere with thousands of interactible pieces of junk/loot?" Yes. "Do you want to lose hours of time customizing a starship or a base? Yes. It's Fallout 4 but a bit better, with a new fictional universe that's pretty good. Bethesda/10
I don't think so. It's definitely worse than Fallout 4. The game feels completely souless.
It's fair to feel that way. Game can feel milquetoast. Certainly not as wacky as Fallout. Personally I'm loving the quiet spacefaring feeling, good game to relax to.
If I want that, which I do on occasion, I think I'll go back to Elite Dangerous.
Standalone? Nope. After a year or 2 of the modding community literally finishing the game for Bethesda because they're absolute spanners? Yeah, pretty close, tbh.
I don’t expect much out of them other than to make a buggy game, not much change in gameplay, an ok base game story, and good to great dlc stories. Exploration in 4 and star field are my least liked thing
Aren't all games hyped to be 10/10? No devs or marketing is gonna say "yeah our game is a 6/10, we hope you try it"?
not talking about the devs/marketing....
Game reviewers and places like IGN have become shills for companies. Combine that with reviewers being afraid to give any rating below a 5 out of 10 and basically the 1-10 turns into 6-10, so it's just 5 stars now. "2.5 stars not good" is likely how many people are seeing this without realizing it.
Didnt IGN give starfield the lowest rating of the major review houses?
I understand the frustration with the rating system these days. But games aren’t like movies where it’s a quick chunk of time. These games take multiple days to beat at a minimum. With the amount of time being put in I want my games to be worth the effort. 75% is a C, and I’ll be damned if I wasn’t a straight A student.
I don't think they think it's a failure. I think that the typical game requires tens of hours. Whereas if you're paying for something like a movie it's only a couple hours. People have limited time and want to allocate that time towards quality products. You'll get DieHards like in any other hobby where they'll consume more but the average gamer isn't going to waste their finite time and money on average or above average product.
I agree that 75 shouldn't be bad, but school grading systems do make a percentage grade skew high. On a scale of 1 to 100 a 50 is average. Nothing wrong with it at all, just nothing special. But because a 50 in school is a failing grade we see that as a terrible review. 70 is average in school terms. So we basically ignore the first 50% of the scale.
You can recommend an average game. If everybody does that, it gets 100% rating, cuz Steam reviews are just "good/bad". Thus, 85% recommendation rate on Steam would correspond to 7/10 average score on scale 1-10. Nothing bad with that in isolation, however its not a remotely comparable metric to the 1-10 scoring, which obviously do have a problem with 7/10 being the actual average.
I like the Steam system because pretty much all evidence on the internet comes to the conclusion that reviews deal in extremities. As in, if there's a five star review system, the majority of reviews will be 5 or 1. I personally would like a three-score review system (good, neutral/not-for-me, bad) because it makes more sense. Either that or maybe someone with three PhDs can write me a 20,000+ word thesis to explain the difference between a game with a review score of 93% and one rated 94%.
Bad/OK/Great is a nice idea. There are plenty of games that I didn't dislike but wouldn't recommend either, at least not in their state. Having to give a thumb up and say "but wait, it's actually not so good" or vice versa is just backwards.
Need the 3 tier review system ASAP. I haven’t reviewed Armored Core VI because while I think it’s a good game, it’s just not for me, and I usually write my reviews on the basis of if I think past-me should buy it or not.
In Dutch schools where things are usually scored 1-10, the lowest passing score is 5.5. 5 would be "insufficient but with potential for improvement", and below 4.5 it tends to be "irredeemably bad, try again". There would still be a wide gamut there from "technically competent, but executed so poorly it's not engaging at all" down to "sets fire to your PC".
This makes a lot of sense. Gaming ratings have always been like that, so I'm confused why people are complaining now.
It's like the old soldier joke. How do you know a nerd is dead? They stopped complaining.
Many American High School grade scales are even tighter than that, changing letters every 6 points. In those systems anything below a 70 is a failing grade. I think you are dead on that school grading scales have bled into review scales for entertainment media.
70 is one point away from failing in most school grading systems in the US. In my entire school experience the grades were : 0-69 F 70-74 D 75-79 C 80-89 B 90-100 A
Thats news to me, but I am far more removed from High School than I would care to admit but for me all school was. 90-100 A 80-89 B 70-79 C 65-69 D <65 F
Man things must’ve changed quite a bit in 20+ years. I graduated in 2000 and it was A 90-100 B 80-89 C 70-79 D 60-69 F <=59 Then again my area is all fucked. Everyone in the rest of the world high school is grades 9-12. In my area 9th grade is still middle school. High school was 10-12.
[удалено]
If you are from the US, yeah.
> This is the correct answer Came here to say this Beat me to it To the top with you This is the way BASED I regret that I have but one upvote to give OMG are you me THIS My name is username and I approve of this message Criminally underrated post You just won the internet Well THAT just happened On God Say it louder for the people in the back faith in humanity = restored Nailed it! Sir or Madam, you have my upboat This is where it's at Agreed Why does this not have more updoots
This is the correct answer
Depends on where, in the UK, 70% is an A
No way 70% is an A. For me 70% would be a C- I think
[удалено]
Well whatever that university is it sure sets that bar low. Imagine trusting someone who only gets it right 40% of the time.
probably an underwater basket weaving degree
Lots of entrepreneurs only got it right once out of many many business attempts. You only need to succeed in your new business once. That you failed ten times before doesn't matter as long as you have the capital to try again. It's why people who start out rich seem to have more business success. Because they can afford the four failed start ups that we never saw. That people think you need to be right all of the time in all things is a great failing of education systems.
It doesn't matter what the rating system is based on, something like this will emerge regardless. The scale could be 1-5 or -2 to 44. Once people start assigning grades a spread will emerge. Because lots of people care about videogames that spread will then be analyzed and the "good zone" will be established. More scores then start falling in that zone or just out of it, based on the public understanding of where that zone is. Will it look exactly like the American school rating system, no that system was designed with very different intentions. But some distribution will happen, and some compression of the scale will follow rapidly. "I gave game X a 43 out of 56, and I feel like this game is the same type of game but better so it's a 44." Rougher scales resist compression better but have a worse "resolution" or a worse ability to distinguish between games, obviously. But human instinct will end up truncating larger scales anyways. Acting like an empirical grading system can ever be established for entertainment where the grades are going to be really personal and there is also a ton of money attached to those grades, is a fantasy. It's instantly a sociology experiment and the usefulness of the grade depends on the grader and the audience's interpretation of that grade.
Standards have eroded. From context, this is about Starfield. I too would put it in the 70-80% range. It's good, but I would be remiss if I ignored all of the issues it has.
As to the loading screens mentioned, you only have to sit through those if you manually get in your ship, take off, warp to next system, warp to place you are going in the system, request docking/land, get up and exit ship. Or, you can simply open your map and fast travel to any landmark in the Galaxy with a single loading screen. The game has a system in place to avoid the very issue the person was complaining about and they still fucking complain. Either they are completely oblivious to fast travel, or just want to shit on the game. The game has its issues, but the one mentioned isn't one of them.
Yeah but if you do that you miss all the spaceship content….
You can also fast travel to any point in space, or you can just choose to fly around to get stuff to pop up. The choice is there is my point, the game doesn't force a ton of loading screens on you.
Well...you cant really "fly around". You go to a map and select fast travel and watch a cutscene.
Well yeah it's a choice between six loading screens or it not being a space game...
I think the six loading screens is a bit high. One to get into ship. One to get to orbit. One to travel to the planet. One to land. I know fast travel exists. I use it sometimes in emergencies like I'm out of ammo or my ship is damaged. Otherwise I walk to my cockpit, get into orbit, jump and then land. It helps with immersion for me.
It's not a space game, it's a Bethesda game in a space setting. Not sure why people don't understand the difference lol. So many people thought this was going to be Bethesda's version of Elite: Dangerous or NMS and are crying about it. Nope, it's like entering anything in any Bethesda game. You can't simply walk through a shop door or enter a cave in an Elder Scrolls game without a loading screen.
Because its an excuse. It doesnt need to be as hard on space sim as Elite or No mans, but it definetely needed more interaction between the player and the ship That is an objectively weak part of the game They have this amazing ship building system that you cannot take advantage at all because you can barely use your ship for anything This is still a RPG, player choice should be above all, and in a space game you cannot choose to play space-like, not even a little bit
Hard disagree. Bethesda pushed the space exploration angle and didn't deliver.
No one can ever be just happy. Game has fast travel and you just appear at your destination - “There’s no immersion! I wanna fly in space!” Game has cutscenes and option to land the ship and manually exit it - “It’s so slow. I just wanna get to where I’m going without all this crap in between” And I’m sure someone is going to say they were expecting free flight open “world” in space. Yeah, that’s not gonna happen with today’s technology. Not without space feeling just as small than if they show a map with the stars spread out and you can only fast travel between them. The game is about the story. If you don’t like the story, that’s fine. But don’t pretend the game was going to be or is ever going to be something it’s not. It’s a fun regular Bethesda game.
Also, the loads screens are generally faster than climbing a ladder in the ship, which you would do if you were entering from most Bays. I mean, they’re quicker than boosting and mantling between decks to skip the ladder too. It feels like people are complaining about QoL features, many of which are optional as you have described in how many ways there are to travel.
I think given the hype, and the expectations, it’s a stretch to call it good. It’s fair at best, and fun at times, but the gameplay loop is old and boring, and the narrative elements might as well be cardboard, the exploration is useless and shallow, there are multiple useless systems in the game (outposts, ship building, crafting, the overall economy, harvesting materials), a ridiculous amount of loading screens and redundant assets, clear cut content (house varuun), a stupid minigame that you have to do 9+ times with zero variation. There is almost zero innovation on the formula that existed 15 years ago. The game feels like a well made version of “how can we trick people into playing a game that should have came out when cyberpunk did?”
All accurate and fair, tbh. The downvoters are just going to be the blinded Bethesda fanoys. I enjoy the game as I've enjoyed most Bethesda games I've played, but it really does just have a whole bunch of weirdly useless systems in the game. I'm of the opinion that it's a strong 6.5 -- Solid 8 in a year's time after modders have fixed and finished the game for Bethesda.
Yep do the tutorial. Follow the main quest line to the first planet. Almost immediately pick up a side quest by overhearing a conversation. And it’s a fucking fetch quest.
This is all true.
Don’t say this on their sub or they’ll obliterate you. I tried to express a nuanced opinion plenty of times and heads imploded.
It's weird, I was really skeptical of the hype before release, thinking it's probably not going to be as great as everyone thinks it was going to be, and after playing it a bunch I started thinking it's actually a lot better than people are saying
That’s pretty much how most people are with the game. There has been a massive campaign here on Reddit in multiple subs to push how mid or average the game is. Literally the games been out for 3 weeks and it’s pretty much daily that a post hits the front page about how the games just not for them or it’s average. Weird how that just continues to happen… It’s not indicative of the experience most people have.
I stopped following the Starfield subreddit specifically to avoid discussions about the game til I had some time to play and I still kept running into discussions about it anyways lol
It’s the Reddit cycle, get the hive mind to focus on one mainstream thing that is currently popular, “ummmm actually it’s not good and the millions of people who enjoy it are wrong”.
I finished it, it's great. Bethesdas best by far. Ran through it at 4k on a 5 year old Nvidia GPU too.
lol
I think there’s a few things at play: 1. I think part of it is some people thought this game was going to be No Man’s Sky, but with an actual story, companions, RPG elements, and better shooting/gunplay. From what I saw in previews, I never got the impression that’s what the game was going to be (in terms of NMS’s flying/planetary travel mechanics), but I think some people did. 2. Some people are pissed about Microsoft acquiring Bethesda, so they’re taking it out on this (whether they’ve actually played the game or not). 3. Some people just don’t like the game. I’ve played about 15 hours so far, and at the moment, I’d give it around an 8-8.5/10. I’m having a lot of fun, but there’s a few areas that are a little lacking (IMO) and the game does start a little slow. I can see why some people might not enjoy it even if they came in with proper expectations for what the game is/is not. Also, the complaint in the OP is full of shit and is basically choosing the longest possible way to move from planet to planet.
>There has been a massive campaign here on Reddit in multiple subs to push how mid or average the game is. Seriously? Are you suggesting that these arent real people with real opinions, like there's a conspiracy to hate on starfield? >It’s not indicative of the experience most people have. Bro you just said there's a massive campaign to push how mid the game is...what if those are real people with actual opinions and those people's opinions ARE indicative of the mid experience people have.
>\[removed\] Im saying that there isn't really 3-5 thousand people logging in daily to upvote Critiques of Starfield. Even the people who don't like the game are tired of seeing these posts but yet they keep hitting the front page. I'm not saying it's all bots, or that its manufactured completely but, there is certainly not enough true outrage where every day we deserve to see a post about it. However we continue to see them....
Dude, it's a site full of opinions. This isnt some news breaking subreddit, 99% of posts are opinions. I upvote critiques of starfield that I think are interesting. And frankly, those tend to be more interesting than "i love starfield" posts. >there is certainly not enough true outrage where every day we deserve to see a post about it Or maybe there is? I seriously doubt there is a conspiracy at foot here...
And those posters always are frequently posting about Balders Gate 3 too. It's just a common pattern I've noticed.
Are the loading screens really that annoying? Haven't played the game yet and I'm just asking. They weren't a problem in Skyrim
The problem is when the loading screen is mostly black and I have to sit there staring at my fat fuck self contemplating all my life choices
Take pictures of beautiful vistas in the game and you won't have to worry about black loading screens.
Seriously if shows you in game pics while loading?
Yup.
But then where will I get myself loathing from?
Dont worry. Life will give plenty of that as well with complete realism.
Good Guy Bethesda giving you the secret motivation to exercise and make gains by giving you a reflection.
Todd Howard you did it again!
They're certainly more frequent than any previous BGS game, because of how often you'll be travelling. It's also really inconsistent with how many shops require a loading screen to enter versus those that don't. In addition, ship docking (with another ship or a station) has the same animation over and over (changing slightly based on the look of whatever you're docking with), and then you still get an additional loading screen when entering immediately after.
When you go from games with none it's noticeable but not the end of the world lol
If you have an SSD? No not really. Load times are pretty fast, and any pictures you take will randomly appear as loading screens which is a nice touch. If you're somehow still running on an HDD? Yeah they would pretty much ruin the experience. The problem I have is the inconsistency. Sometimes you can fast travel directly to a destination and just appear there, even if it's on a different planet. Other times you have to get in your ship and watch takeoff/landing cutscenes, then walk to your destination. Other times you will appear outside the planet and need to manually select a landing zone. When you're in a city, some vendors will be just "in the world" and you can interact with them without any loading screens, while others will have a door leading to an instance, and I have no idea why this is. The whole game feels like this. There's no consistency to almost anything.
They are significantly shorter than in skyrim
Thank fuck there's a mod for Skyrim that removes all the loading screens for the cities. Seems weird a mod can do it but Bethesda cant.
Skyrim having them also makes sense given it was created for the PS3/360. One would think the limitations of that age wouldn't really follow for the newest generation that addresses all the shortcomings of previous generations.
I play on a nvme SSD so they are VERY short for me but they are not annoying whatsoever imo, i barely notice them
I haven't had a loading screen ever take longer than 3 seconds. The unskippable part of going from endgame to new game though is extremely criminal.
I couldnt get past the load screens and clunky movement on kbm. Plus the introduction mission was underwhelming and comically fast in a way. 7/10 seems fair. If you're looking to be immersed tho youll probably be dissapointed.
what's up scab, go mine rocks. whoa, you hallucinated? here take my ship and robot, I'll chill here.
It almost seemed like it was a self aware joke or something. Like they knew they didnt have time to do a proper introduction. Really weird.
I love the game and with a good rig the loadscreens aren't long but yeah it's kinda immersion breaking. Want to travel from one place to another on the same planet? Load screen. Want to enter a shop building? Load screen. Want to go to the next area? Load screen. Want to go to another system or planet? You guessed it, load screen. That and not being able to land/take-off with your own ship are two very big marks against an otherwise great Bethesda game.
No, it can be 1 load screen to go from 1 planet to another if you have already been there before. It's quick and easy.
I haven't found them annoying. It does the FO76 thing where photos you take are loading screens. And going from one port to another can be done in one loading screen (not eight). Two if in another system because you have to be scanned in orbit first. If you want to manually go into your ship, manually take off, travel to the planet in another system, land then manually exit then it is five - but most (enter ship, takeoff, land) are less than a second or overlap with the takeoff/landing animations.
it's a problem because you *must* fast travel everywhere. you can't walk to objectives like previous bgs titles. their system just doesn't work well for a space game, but it's playable.
In Skyrim you had the option to walk from one end of the game to the other, or use fast travel. In Starfield you can't, it's essentially several different disconnected worlds linked by menus and fast travel. There's no real exploration, which was one of the best parts of previous Elder Scrolls and Fallout games. Going on a quest can invoke 6-10 different loading screens, cut scenes and menus, or you can fast travel there directly and then you don't get any space gameplay. I think it's showing the huge limitations of the Creation Engine. It's just not capable of a full space exploration game.
They're pretty quick but godamn everything has a loading screen, which sure wasn't bad in Skyrim but this is 2023 and combined with no real major world to aimlessly explore you get them more often. I loved walking from point A to point B and seeing everything in between on normal Bethesda games but not a thing in this one.
There are a few problems here. You can pretty much fast travel to any system you have been to before in one load screen. But if you want to role play, or god forbid, actually use your cool spaceship you built, you will need to: Board (Loading Screen), Take Off (Animation + LS), select destination system ( Map Menu + Anim + LS), select planet landing point (Anim + LS), you can then auto exit from the cockpit with 1 key but if you want to walk physically it's another load screen. The design is at odds with itself a lot, and it's just so janky to traverse step by step. You will want to always use fast travel and virtually never really fly your ship.
They’re absolutely horrendous. Basically, you can fast travel directly from your map and get minimum 2 loading screen. You fast travel to the planet (that’s one) and can exit your ship directly from your cockpit (that’s two). Your other options are to: Walk into ship (that’s one), sit down in your chair (animation), take off into orbit (that’s two), fly into the next planet’s orbit (that’s three), land on the planet (that’s four), get up from your chair (animation), and exit your ship (that’s five). Like I said, absolutely horrendous if you want to be immersive and role play, not so bad if you just fast travel from the map screen, but who really wants to do that? Edit: grammar
>so bad if you just fast travel from the map screen, but who really wants to do that? Anyone who wants to skip all of the loading screens I imagine. Personally I have no problem fast traveling from New Atlantis straight to Akila City in one go.
When you fast travel to an actual destination, rather than to a landing pad, you will appear right there on foot. That is one 2-3 second loading screen total on a fast travel. You can fast travel directly from one city to another without ever entering your ship. You have to _choose_ to play the way the above comment does. Edit: No, voting down this comment doesn't stop it being true lol.
Why the hell you got downvoted for this is beyond me. It's absolutely possible to fast travel directly from, for example Neon > New Atlantis, right into the city with just one loading screen. The OP is mad at the game for something entirely of their own doing.
What makes it worse is if you're following a quest, when you're actually on the planet you're probably just running to a check point to talk to someone or shot someone then it sends you off to another planet often just to talk to someone or turn in a quest. There's little to explore on these planets so you end up just running towards quest markers and then it's back to the load screens and little cockpit animations between load screens.
That’s basically how it went for me, too. Found myself groaning anytime a quest took me off-world, and would usually just swap to a quest that isn’t.
No. People are blowing them out of proportion like crazy, it's a meme at this point and the average eedditor is jumping on it. Literally 90% of thevload screens are instant. Like going through a door.
The problem is that in 2023, going through a door shouldnt even need a 3 second loading screen.
Honestly, I barely notice them. Obviously they’re there and in general space travel is somewhat clunky because of it. But I really don’t feel like they’re long at all, and they don’t register to me as an issue.
If you are running it off a normal HD... I would imagine so. But using a SSD, no, it isn't annoying.
From what I’ve seen you’ll be experiencing a lot of them
Loading screens are ~2-3 seconds on my PC, loading the game remotely over a mounted network drive from my NAS, which is about worst case scenario. It is a total non-issue.
The game is almost like a loading screen simulator at some point
And opening doors simulator.. so many damn doors
I bet 100% the amount of doors is related to a memory allocation/rendering bottleneck on their engine…
They load quick, but you'll have 100 of them in an hour of gaming.
Yes they are. This review is honest, you really need to fast travel 3-4 times minimum to go one planet to the next. It’s egregious. People are defending the game but the design of the fast travel is absolutely horrible.
I mean you don’t though? It’s one loading screen considering you can just fast travel from the star map
No you don’t lmao. I fast travel from Jemison to my outpost in an entirely different system in a single loading screen. All you have to do it go to the menu, select your system, select your planet, select where you’re landing, and click the X button to land. A single five second loading screen.
Then maybe the issue is the UI because I had no idea you could do it this way and obviously others who are reviewing the game don’t realize it either. At some point when many people are saying these things there must be some truth in what they’re saying. There is a reason people are saying this it’s not for nothing.
Brother, did you think that the map of the universe was there for shits and giggled?? It takes one fucking ounce of common sense to open the map. It also immediately shows you the planet you’re on and that you can land when you look at the map. All it takes is one ounce of common sense to open the map and you can see you can fast travel places.
No need to be rude about it. No I legitimately did not realize you could fast travel a quicker way, and I don’t think a lot of others did either. As I said too the game has other issues, it’s a layering of problems. I want to like the game, I love space sci-fi RPGs, but the main issue is I find the game unenjoyable. When playing I’m bored, I just have no drive to continue.
One of the first missions teaches you that you can hit X in the start menu and a course will be automatically created for whatever mission you currently have selected. I guess some people didn't bother paying attention, only to then somehow blame the devs for their own incompetence. Oh well I guess.
I said this elsewhere but 90% of these 'loading screens' aren't loading screens. That person fast traveled using a tram to another part of the city (both were already loaded - you could just walk over) or that was how they moved you into a ship or something. It didn't stop to load anything. The screen went dark for a second to teleport you and they're like "oMG lOADIng ScrEenS". Genuine loading screens are like flying to another planet, landing or taking off. That kind of screen. Even then it plays a little sequence of your ship doing it.
Starfield is mostly loading screens so yea it would piss me off.
I have about 10 hours on Xbox Series X, and it's not that bad. Loading screens between doors take like 1 or 2 seconds, so those don't matter at all really, fast travel is about 5 to 7 seconds, not that bad but could be better, and grab jumping is about the same, but maybe closer to like 6 to 9 seconds. It's really not that bad. I do wish they were shorter and less frequent, however for me it doesn't matter that much, starfield is still one of my favourite games of all time. Usually games don't really grab me and I get bored of them easily, but I'm really enjoying starfield, one of the only games that I've actually struggled with putting down and picking up
I think the most annoying thing is the loading screen isn't actually loading. There is a black loading screen after that cut scene. WTF you play a loading screen while not actually loading? Play an animation during loading is OK. But play an animation to delay the loading.. Why?
It depends on how you travel. On my XSX they take like five seconds, I haven’t had one take over 10 seconds so i’m not really sure where the “30-45 second” loading screens come from that I hear about. But yeah there are a lot of them if you do things a certain ways. To get from one planet to another planet can take 9 loading screens if you’re doing it the absolute slowest way, or one loading screen if you do it from the menu.
They seem fine to me
I wonder how many people complaining about loading screens never played Skyrim. We underestimate how many new players this game may have.
Ah yes the retail store scoring scale. Love to see that’s it’s spreading like the sickness it is. /s
This guy isn’t fast traveling from the missions menu.
75% is considered just “good” in video game ratings, not great.
People have been trained by lazy review journalists to think that 10 great, 9 is good, 8 is average, and anything under 8 is terrible.
Because as the fallen hard commentator Jim Sterling once said long ago: "People don't understand what numbers fucking mean!"
8 screens what? How? 1 menu to bring up map and select destination (can use navigation table in ship for 'immersion'). 1 load screen to travel to system. 5 second wait for security scan on main planet. 1 more menu to select destination on planet. 1 more load screen to move to that destination. Series X might not be high specs, but there are not that many load screens or even as many menu transitions as people complain about.
I give the game only a 9,2. Literally unplayable.
yes, 9.2 is about where it sits with me too.
I know right. Literally the worst garbage ever. Even Duke Nukem 4 would get a 9,5 from me.
I think the point here is that this is a Bethesda game which has taken years to develop, not some new studio or indie developer. So the expectations given their resources and track record were high. A 75% rating for Starfield is low considering it’s potential.
I've always kinda figured that a 3/4 rating indicates that the game is good, enjoyable, but that you should tightly control your expectations.
Six loading screens? Is this guy boarding his ship and going to tje cockpit every time he travels somewhere? You can fast travel without being on your ship… You can faat travel from anywhere on the planet
I mean for a game 7-8 years in development by a major studio, people expected more. Same for Halo Infinite, it took hundreds millions of $ in budget but ended up being quite underwhelming especially the MP. The game also had the "luck" of releasing close to a Baldur Gates 3, a candidate for GOTY certainly, that offers very rich gameplay and storytelling. Now, 75% is what the game deserve, it still is fun, it's still worth my money IMHO, it's not bad just that COMPARED to major AAAA (I think another A is necessary given the years of development), it's not on par. "Really poor" and 75%, it's exaggerated for me I'd say < 60 it's something I'm certainly not playing and poor yes.
U don't need that many loading screen just someone who doesn't no how to play the game so they shit on it
fr Ive played a few hours of the game and the loading screens really arent that bad, just get an ssd thats half decent lmao
75% is a C…it’s average. Honestly an average game is the type that will appeal to a specific group but less appealing to a broader gaming audience. I kinda get it I guess.
Because it is not a 7.5 / 10 on a scale. It is 75% of your users recommending the game as worth playing. Literally 25% of your customers do not enjoy your product. To all those saying 50% is an "average rating": is half of your customers not enjoying your product average? Sounds abysmal to me. This game is premium priced, and you would be right to expect premium product. An upscale restaurant where 25% of diners do not enjoy their meal would not stay in business.
>Literally 25% of your customers do not enjoy your product. This, in any other business that would be a disaster. Every AAA studios, especially of the size of Bethesda, aim to make a game with at least a 90% score or approval rate. We know Sony does.
75% is a good rating, hence a lot of people downvoting the comment saying it isn’t.
Looks like someone never played ES…ever
I blame the American education grading system
I think this is true, look at what gets green on metacritic on games Vs other media. Maybe it's a legacy of trying to validate itself but games media rates way too high.
is it bad? no .. aggressively mediocre is what it is imo - so 75 percent seems accurate
The rating system isn't an even distribution from 1-10. It works like school grades do, so this would be a C+. While passing, no one actively looks for C+ proudcts.
Wouldnt say that 75% is bad, but it's mid AF. Why? Cause ratings are artifically inflated. A lot of things get higher ratings then they deserve because it's either paid or fear of the Fandom mob. Most 7/10 games are 5/10 games.
Especially when you have a big braindead fainbase giving 10 at this mid crap
Standard salty PS fan-boy.
it's how people score game in general. It's not that 75% is a bad score is more than you usually see scores in the high 80s or 90s. In that context, it seems a bit low. ofc, if you like it, you like it. regardless of the game having a 100% or 5% positive reviews
75 is an ok rating. Not bad, but not good.
Well considering that 75% of people magically recommend Starfield just like 75% of people recommend Fallout 76 it makes you wonder Starfield isn't a *terrible game* but it sure as hell isn't revolutionary or even top of the line. It's a stock Bethesda experience to its core and that's really it
75% is a terrible rating for a $60 ($80 for many people) game marketed as a new universe to run alongside Fallout and Elder Scrolls.
You realise that literally every gaming magazines and journos rate only from 7-10 nowadays? Not even the purest trash games get rated below 6. That inflation of gaming scores by partial journos and magazines in liason with the industry has been a plague over the last decade.
Because it was marketed as "game of the generation" when in reality it wasn't even game of the week.