What is going on with Starfield?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ส.ค. 2024
- IGN gave Starfield the same score as Battlefield 2042, just sayin.
Like and subscribe if you like content like this :]
Check out these reviews of the game if you're interested!
ACG Review: • Starfield Review "Buy,...
gameranx Review: • Starfield - Before You...
IGN Review (for reference): • Starfield Review - เกม
Only thing I was disappointed about was not being able to get out of your space ship while in space and can’t Manually fly to planets (have to fast travel). Besides that I’m having fun with it
Yeah all the loading screens is the only thing I don't really like
It's actually really good. I went in without any feeling and expected to not like it. But instead I love it.
But yeah, you're right.
Yeah I can understand being disappointed about that. Being able to get out of your ship and hover towards an enemy spacecraft, breaking in through a hatch of some sort, and highjacking it sounds really sweet
Manually flying to planets is not possible, you'll die of old age. Besides, that is not what the game is about.
Warp speed is close to being fast travel.
I’m enjoying it but I have to admit the fact that the planets are all segmented and so many planets are dead and barren feels like a wet blanket on the sense of exploration. The combat, story and progression all feel good so I’m sticking with it because it does a lot well but I question the decision to make such a segmented Bethesda RPG
Those dead and barren planets can still serve as an outpost and you can automate mining of resources on that planet. Those planets could be better than ones with life cause mobs attack your base
@@julianmoore1910 I don’t doubt they are useful I’m just saying they aren’t fun to explore. As far as base building and auto mining I am still early on main story wise and haven’t had a chance to do any of that stuff yet
Interesting. I’m hoping it being segmented in this way doesn’t dampen the experience for me. If a game does enough or what it’s trying to do well (as you’ve stated) I’m more than likely just going to appreciate what it’s trying to do and their overall effort behind that. Just give me a Bethesda RPG in space and I’m interested
@@bokey_1da the segmentation is noticeable in the experience imo. In a Bethesda RPG you are thrown into a sandbox where here it feels more like you are given a thousand smaller bowls of sand. It’s still very good but it loses a lot of that go anywhere feeling a typical Bethesda RPG has. It’s not getting hated on because it’s bad per say it’s getting hated on because it doesn’t hit how people expect a Bethesda rpg to hit
Idk what people were expecting from this game. Its gonna be best open world game for a while. Bethesda games always have great freedom and interactive objects.
Without even playing it yet, just after seeing the videos about it, I can say that I am disappointed there are no vehicles, including an exoskeleton suit (like the powerarmor in Fallout). I hope they are planning to add them with the DLC, but there is no space exploration without such things. No maps for lore places, like cities and quest hubs, is a major letdown. I hope the devs don't plan on modders to finish the game development for them. Right now there can't be any comparison with Skyrim. Skyrim's plot took you on an epic path right away, and your story became like a saga. Skyrim was grand because of that, everything came together naturally, even with the known shortcomings. I don't see that with Starfield yet. Instead I see a long grind of dull planets with kill X side missions, to get to that point where you can build outposts and buy large ships, but for what purpose? Fallout 4 was great for me until I started micromanaging settlements and saving settlers from trouble. I hope Starfield won't have these kind of chores as "end game". I really hope to enjoy this game, because it looks so great in concept!
You can't walk across the planets and there's not much on most of it
@@_nom_ I don't see the point of walking across planets, I am fine with a few areas to explore for each, but it would be much more interesting to do it in some sort of vehicle, if you want, like using a speeder, a rover, or some glider. Not to mention some sort of mech. You wouldn't go on a highly radiated or -200 degC cold planet in just a flimsy spacesuit!
Regarding walking across, I played Daggerfall (TES2) which had one of the largest game worlds to date, so you could walk for hours if you really wanted, but after a while you went and did more interesting stuff the game had to offer. Same here, I guess... there is little point on walking for hours on a barren rock!
Traveling to a planet to planet is cool the first time but then it gets boring and fast travel is more fun.
The real killer for me is that its gonna be like 100 gb and eat my entire processing power but maybe just maybe if they actually optimize their game then i could get really into it
Dont expect AAA to optimize games anymore!
They just pack it and sell it !! Get use to it or stop buying AAA games !
What AAA game isn't close to 100gb lmao
Oh yeah optimization is no longer a priority haha. Honestly I could see games like Warzone/Modern Warfare doing as much as they possibly can to make games at 200 gb so that it’s the only game you can even play 😂
@@weldmaster1825U have not played starfield
@@TWAAAAACKSZelda?
So, I give credit where credit is due, the Ship Builder is fun, lots of parts and customisation to choose from, though you have to worry about Mass, understandable.
You get to assign crew, build outposts, do research, craft weapon mods, basically the typical Fallout Settlement cue. Combat also seems okay, it's what you'd expect from a typical RPG Shooter with sponge enemies. Some moments are funny when it comes to interaction, and while graphically it looks nice and the VA in the game is great, there's some stuff I feel like they just missed the mark.
Space travel, space combat, it really doesn't compare to what we have in ED or NMS. You can't seamlessly travel to planets or land on them, you are forced to stay in this pocket of space, when it comes to boarding or ship combat, it's either mission based, or you do it yourself in that one little pocket of space. Flying towards the planet does nothing as you don't progress. This is where the negatives come in for me.
Menus, menus, menus. You can't seamlessly travel to planets, land on them, or go around the system or to others, without being forced to go through the Map Menu, if you want to land you need to go into the menu to choose a point, you want to travel to another planet, or the mission point? Menu, it's all Fast travel, which really takes out the exploration part. While I understand people find this more convenient, I may have to agree. But therefor during this time of technology, you could simply increase the speed. Similar to what we've had with NMS, as it doesn't take that long to get from A to B.
And the other issue is simply the Performance problems, hopefully we'll see a fix if they decide to drop a Day 1 Patch on release.
Either way, just my opinion on that case, who knows, might improve down the line, unless the Modders end up adding things in.
I really appreciate your thorough comment! I agree that I would likely prefer fast traveling but it would be nice if traveling on your own was still an option. And players that choose to travel, maybe add benefits to make it worthwhile so that traveling yourself isn’t a waste of time: shooting through meteors and somehow collecting resources or hijacking enemy spacecrafts, getting rewards for shooting them, etc. Would you say combat feels better than Fallout 4 at least? FO4 was a step in the right direction but I still wouldn’t consider it that great, but serviceable.
If I take it for what the game is, I’m sure I’ll have a fun time. Truly I try not to overhype games anymore or overthink the potential of what a game has to offer, even if it’s Bethesda. The higher the expectations, the higher the disappointment. The less serious I take it the more fun I have. I hope you’re enjoying the game though! I’ll likely get it this upcoming week.
@@bokey_1da Combat doesn't seem terrible, it's definitely a mix of Skyrim and FO4 in relation to the two different combat ettiqutes. The Melee seems more refurbished, but still has a slight delay on input swings.
Normal firearms combat feels fun, and it offer's the same whacky ammunition and mods you'd get from FO4, since I found a assault rifle from one of the Spacers that gave me extra explosive damage.
So it's not terrible, but you can definitely tell that the movements are still jittery when you move side to side, they aren't as smooth as you might see in other games. But I feel that Modders may fix these smaller issues in time.
I have never played anything from Bethesda, or any Fallout games. I just started the Outer Worlds and I am enjoying it a lot. It reminded me a bit of what I have watched with this game.
I was never fooled.
I feel like the issue is people who expected Space RPG and got it while others expected a Space Sim and where disappointed. Its not really a fallout in space or Skyrim in space but more like oblivion mixed with mass effect. It has everything rpg wise people were complaining about in their recent games that was lacking. Imo best Bethesda game in a long time.
Ahhh oblivion mixed with mass effect I haven't heard that yet. Interesting. You digging combat too?
I agree with you, gamers today are spoiled just the sheer size of the game makes it a 8/ 10 not including all else.
@@bokey_1da oblivion, Morrowind both great rpgs, but yeah better than the recent fallouts in my opinion, the only thing I’m getting used to is the new outfit system but to be fair everything there is pretty good and I imagine wearing all of it unlike other Bethesda games where I would just avoid certain things because it looked downright weird. And with mods the game’s potential and replay ability is endless. Not even close to beating went off the beaten path
After the ending, that 7/10 is way too generous.
It's neither a space-sim (like No Man's Sky) nor an exploration open world (ala Skyrim)
Strongly suggest you skip this and buy it way down the line.
You mentioned the Mass Effect trilogy, which storytelling-wise is light years ahead of Starfield.
You could draw comparisons between it and Mass Effect 1, a game from _2007_ but unfortunately, would be for all the wrong reasons.
It is 'fun', but some aspects of the design and gameplay are bafflingly bad.
Much similar to how ME: Andromeda was a regression from the previous games kind of bad.
Yeah, people think Bethesda should be a 9 or 10 out of 10. Because its good with mods and all that. But mods does not make a good foundation to grade something on. To be honest, like you say! Its not that impressive considering how long it took and the overhyped the game had!
Interesting! I’m curious on what this ending is all about based on your comment, that might enough for me to get it 😂 would it be most comparable to Fallout 4 then? Factions, RPG elements, combat, settlements/outposts, etc. Because I do like Fallout for what it is, but I just prefer its world over the space theme overall and the story for Starfield would have to be strong for me to stay engaged I think. Ty 👍
I’m absolutely enjoying it, based on the complaints, people are nitpicking and being petty. They just like to complain.
@@bokey_1da*[Ponders]*
Hmm, it would be kinda difficult to fully articulate the idea without spoiling, which is obviously _not_ the idea.
I would not say it is like Fallout 4 though.
it's not nit picking if there's tons of things that was articulated by the devs to be amazing and they are far from, wouldn't point them out if they hadn't talked them up so much. When i got to the first city half the NPC's where sprinting into walls. There's a ton of people with the sound bug which is very frustrating. These things will hopefully be ironed out in the future but it's not nit-picking it's reasonable criticisms. Saying people just want to complain is the same as saying people just want to like the game and ignore the issues. @@JohnWick-om9bq
Ever going to play Rx? - Also you videos are so perfect.
Meh! And thanks mayne
What's changed about Bethesda in this game is space ships and a space sim it is fallout 4 with a space mod thats starfild
I played for a few hours. way over hyped. Think ill just play cyberpunk dlc then gta 6
1:28 since when is a 7/10 a bad score? I suppose, given the huge amount of hype for this game, that a 7 would be disappointing for those who hyped it up. But it’s not bad.
Hell, below the 7/10 it even said “GOOD.” Y’all need to chill on hyping up games and y’all need to chill when the game you tried to convinces everyone to preorder with you doesn’t live up to your expectations
so you must be new to IGN
7 out of 10 is ABOVE average, is this really an above average game? In this day and age where most games are crap maybe it is.
@@primusro 7/10 is higher than what I would’ve rated it
the problem is that ign rates any modern triple a release above a 6 out of prinicple. ign 7/10 = a 5/10 by most.
I would give it a 8 out of 10. The space part of the game was a little disappointing and there are soo many loading screens. It’s a good thing my storage and memory are close to the top of the line. I can only imagine those with slower memory and storage are suffering.
*update: new rating I would give is 5/10. There is so much wrong with this game.
Are you on Xbox? I’m curious what load times are on high-end PCs
@@bokey_1da I’m playing it on my PC. Been hearing that it runs poorly on Xbox.
I’m updating my rating. The more I play it the worse it gets. My new rating is 5/10.
The whole Mass Effect Series and Andromeda are better than Starfield. MEA got murdered for its faces, Starfield btw has way worse faces, and its like not a problem ppl love it because Bethesada. 5/10 or 6/10 seems fair to me, does not mean its not fun to play but there are a lot of great games that exist and compete for gamers time an money.
7/10 is above average, 5/10 would be mid, a real average, and thats exactly what this game is, just an average game, its not a 7 or an 8, its barely a 5. I wish these reviewers would use the rating system properly for once, its a damn shame too.
100%
The lack of maps is stunning. Just. Get some maps into the cities please...
Exactly! I was baffled to hear this lol
Only thing wrong with the game for me so far is that it's hard to run at a solid 60. Ryzen 9 7900X + RTX 4070 Ti + 32GB RAM + Gen 4 NVMe which is a very modern high end expensive system and I had to drop it from Ultra to High to be able to play at stable 60FPS 1440p native resolution. Most people will be experiencing the game on Low/Medium settings at sub native resolution.
That’s not something wrong with the game
I personally prefer the game being exclusive because xbox needs more reasons to buy a series x or s
There's still no reason. As you can play it on computer.
30fps is ass
Most of IGN review are Biest always take there review with a grain of salt.
You use the scanner to find your point of interest and to compare the UI to Skyrim when everyone complained about the UI in Skyrim when it came out. I find the game fun.. loading screens barely exist because I have a m.2. The game is fun/stable and been playing since Thursday not one crash. The game is Fallout in space. It's a typical Bethesda game and it's fun. ID software has also helped on the shooter side of things and it's smootht. As far as reviews, I stopped paying attention to that in early 2000s. I'd say this game is a 8.5.
A Bethesda RPG experience is plenty for me to buy honestly, clearly the effort is always there and you just don’t find that with many developers. Sure they take awhile to release and sure there are always going to be shortcomings, but these guys can at least be proud of most of their projects
7:44 it’s really not hard to review a game. You just record what you like and didn’t like about the game and then you give it a 1-10 based on how it compares to its peers and predecessors that you’ve played. Reviews are entirely subjective and not objective. You can have a “hot take” but you can technically never be wrong
Oh no I totally get what you mean. I enjoy reviewing games on my channel for sure. Good point in having hot takes too, because it’s true that if you feel a certain way then it’s honest and true to you - and that’s all that matters. I was referring to competing with other YTubers on the platform when there are so many reviews that come out for a new released game. Racing to review a game for more clicks isn’t worth it, I much prefer reviewing older games or just whenever I get done with them - however the potential to get views is obviously lower but I get to really take my time with them. Ty
@@bokey_1da competing with others is fair challenge. I apologize if I came off as antagonizing.
@@aviatinggamer9051 not worries at all dude!
I believe that Bathesda, knowing the huge community of modders that exists behind the games it releases, thought: You know what? Let's release the game anyway and let the community create mods to add new things and fix things.
Thats a really shitty mentality.
It's not like that. There are tons of things to do in Starfield, the game is solid. It's Bethesda least buggy game and has more content than any other game. The visuals are beautiful, the characters are interesting. The freedom it gives you is great.
The problem is that people were waiting for a space sim, and Starfield never tried to be that. From the start it was said that Starfield was a rpg game. Bethesda style rpg. And it does what it promised.
@@End-phoenix exactly!! Whatever Bethesda is TRYING to do with this game is how I’m going to play it. People just want another groundbreaking experience like Skyrim again. A Bethesda RPG game is plenty enough for me 👍
@@End-phoenix Content? You can fill it with content but is it even good content? Ugly models, poor reactivity and empty voids of planets.
I don’t trust IGN with anything I’ll trust it when everyone gets there hands on it
If you're not a "space-guy", give it a while before you get it then. That will give the modding community a chance to fill in the blanks, bugs to be fixed, features to be added, etc. I will say it's incredibly stable for a Bethesda title upon launch. It's fun and engaging. Perfect it is not, but so long as you going into it accepting the game for what it _is_ instead of what you _wished it was_, you should be okay. But yeah, wait for a bit if you're put off by the reviews or space isn't your jam. It'll probably be on sale by Spring or Summer, give it a try then. If it winds up having "legs" like Skyrim, folks will be playing it for the next 12 years and beyond, so don't sweat missing anything.
Appreciate this! I'm still undecided because I genuinely just enjoy Bethesda RPG games. But the thought of playing this as a winter game and maybe getting a black friday discount sounds much more preferable lol
It's currently unplayable for me. Freezing, stuttering, extremely lag, audio skips, etc.
I'll come back when the community patch releases.
Sounds like your PC is the issue?
Are you playing in PC? And if so what kind of GPU are you rockin?
@@bokey_1da
RTX 3060
@@The_Babe
It's an MSI Trident, not at all an unusual build, so this is certainly on Bethesda's QA
I think 7 to 8 is fair, I like the game like 9-10, but it's personnal and I understan/see the flaws with it. For me, the bigger issue I think is when I see compagnies like IGN, compagnies with a lot of people having just ONE opinion of ONE guy on a game. Plus, if the person don't like the game that much by pur personnal interest, for sure the review is mid. Those site, at least for big game, should have like 10-ish reviewer on it, make a numbered critic, by like points, and do an average with clearly listed Good and bad things about it. A small TH-cam channel of one guy, I can deal with one opinion and maybe watch 4-5 of them to make my average opinion, but IGN got like 300 employees, I'm mesn bruh.
Good content brother
Much appreciated bro! Thanks
can always go to the rotten tomatoes of game reviews which is an aggregate of reviews games at metacritic.
Think we wanted a modern Mass Effect 2 but its 15 years later
Yeah and the problem with developing a game for so long is that they’re likely using assets and game mechanics from back in 2015 when they first started. Now we have UE5 etc and technology for game development has progressed so much within that time frame. I’m still interested for sure I’m just not as eager to play it day 1 like I once was 😅
The game is "good" whatever that means.
However...
The game has some serious problems.
The story and polish overall and the "Bethesda world building" is probably the best they have ever done.
The ground combat is fun and snappy so all good there.
The space combat has no depth. Spaceships as a whole feel like an after thought. Going into that as a specialization is pretty useless.
Ship building is cool though.... but... kind of pointless.
The other major issue is the loading. It is everywhere. Sometimes youll play for 30 minutes and figure out that you spent 15 of that fast traveling and loading...
It kills the flow for sure.
As a space themed opera by Bethesda it will be a phenomenal game.
If you already enjoy No Mans Sky for exploration, Everspace 2 for arcadey ship fighting or Elite Dangerous for the sim aspect there is no reason to play this game.
Its really all about the story that ties everything together. The systems themselves are not very deep compared to the others on offer.
So in short its a mixed bag.
Space nerds will like it for awhile I think but will go back to more honed experiences they already enjoy.
For the Bethesda crowd I think the game will do fine.
I love it.
Here's a question, why does all my guns keep having no ammo after I purchase a 💩 ton? $100 bugged pile of 💩 game. How is that overlooked?
By now most gamers know that IGN and Gamespot "reviewers" don't play games they "review"
The game is a 10/10. Stop hating on it for the sake of it.
Are the AI 10/10?
Are the copy paste assets 10/10?
are the excessive load screens 10/10
are the bullet sponge npc's 10/10
are the bugs 10/10?
@@Nero_1069 dont forget those "amazing" animations for anything. From bulging eyes of bystanders, to NPCs dont even having animations for entering things.
No man. Its not even close to 10/10.
Mass Effect Andromeda IS better than Starfield and no bokey, you cannot make that judgement call without playing Starfield. Played both and currently playing MEA right now running in the background MEA is better game. Starfield poo poo compared to the entire MEA series of games.
4:21 if you’ve never played the game then how on earth can you complain about a score given to it?
I have played Andromeda and it wasn’t as bad as people made it out to be. It wasn’t as good as the previous ME trilogy, but it was bad. And given everything I’ve heard about starfield, I would put them on the same level.
It's no baldur's gate 3, that's for sure.
Ya bg3 is a snoozefest is why.
IGN is just a bunch of hipster reviewers 😂😂😂
Because they reviewed a game 7/10?
@@chummygun Na, but it is probably why they gave it a 7 though. I'd give it an 8-9 so far. Very slow start
@@ModernMercenary personally, it's either an 8 or a 7, can't find a better score.
Who still listen to IGN? They are so full of themselves.
fallout 4 reskin trash. bethesda is dead.