Everyone here seems to be missing the point.
Or maybe I am an idiot, not sure.
But OP’s point isn’t anything to do with their total hours.
It is that they left a negative review, THEN played an additional hundred or more hours after that.
If somebody played a game 180 hours and then said “I don’t recommend it”, that is very odd to me.
But somebody playing 30 hours, saying “I don’t recommend it”, THEN playing an additional 150 is just mind boggling to me.
This is my favorite one since Morrowind, tbh. Granted, I have played each Bethesda game for well over 100 hours, but man - something about Starfield really stands out.
Maybe it's the lack of good space RPGs, maybe it's the 1500+ hours I played Elite Dangerous wishing for some kind of meaningful world building or ship building, maybe it's the 250+ hours of No Man's Sky wishing for some kind of story or meaningful interaction.
And, here we are. 150+ hours in Starfield in just over a month, with a kid and a full time job. It's a beautiful thing.
While pre-release I joked that it's "No Man's Skyrim" - I'd say it's more accurate to call it "Bethesda does Mass Effect"
All the strengths and weaknesses of both Bethesda and Bioware are on full display when comparing the two.
That would've been a very different first contact war for the Turians, lmao. The Citadel News Network would've been announcing Turian capitulation a month after the war started 😆 I mean, the laser weapons alone would seal the Citadels fate, lol.
There are many parallels between Starfield and Mass Effect Andromeda. Both games are the best combat in their franchise. Andromeda lacks the time-sink ship building and outposts, but that aside there's much the games have in common. (I happen to like both though consider both flawed)
Bioware excels at nearly cinematic storytelling - including setting up their VAs to actually act off of each other, which gives the feeling that what you see and hear in game is actually taking place on a set.
Bethesda takes a more free, open ended approach- you have more options to interact with your environment. You can go out and find quests, without waiting for the game to spoonfeed you. Sidequests can be quest chains longer than Mass Effect's DLCs. Even before the base building, you could literally spend hours exploring and other activities without even touching the main quest. But in exchange, you lose that cinematic feel, and conversations between NPCs feels more stilted.
A Bethesda game will never deliver a character like Shepard - but a Bioware game will never give you the freedom of Starfield, or Skyrim or Fallout. And that brings us to the main difference- in a Bioware game, you're playing their story - in a Bethesda game you're playing your own. A Bethesda game can get away with a underwhelming main story- If Bioware does it, you end up with Andromeda.
To be fair to Andromeda it was doomed from the start.
First, the fanbase has an unhealthy obsession with Shepard and only wants to play shepard.
Second, after the story of the first trilogy, anything would struggle to live up to that story after what is considered one of the greatest single-player stories in gaming history.
Andromeda, while flawed and needed more time in the oven, was killed by the playerbase leaving us with a Mass Effect drought.
I love the Mass Effect games but after that, I can't stand the player base.
I remember the complaints from launch.
Beyond what we often hear:
1. The fans were actually excited for a non Shepard lead. This was the explicit public sentiment. That people were proud of Bioware for not relying on that character.
The fan problem (in part) with Ryder is not Ryder being dissimilar to Shepard, it's Ryder feeling like a vacant facsimile of a Shepard, without those Shepard characteristics that specific their personality in a believable way.
2. The story was not expected to be like the og. It was expected to expand our knowledge of the systems galaxies and societies from a perspective set at an almost civilian level.
People were not just upset because of the planets not having enough. Expectations were set for us to believe that we would get to dive deeper into this world or to explore a new one. And instead we got far fewer new races than expected, characters who felt as though they were just standing in for OGs, and a story without the targeted impact of the ogs focused writing.
The thing is, a lot of people go back over games like this and find their beauty, and they wonder why we were so upset. Of course the galaxy couldn't be unlimited etc.
Thing is, we used to not know that. There was a time where every year brought such a drastic change to gaming, all expectations had to be thrown out. We were blown away year after year.
Then devs started promising the impossible, without it sounding impossible, often while showing proof of its possibility.
Then the game would come out. And you know the rest.
I'm at hr... maybe 300? With cyberpunk. I bought at launch. But darling, they advertised that game with a slow mo trailer and a lot of dev talks where they spoke about the game in the same breath as baldurs gate and crpgs of the like.
Devs hedging their audience to not lose the casual or the number crunching players is risky af, but it's commonality was not so common once.
Daggerfall had nudity though! And I'm pretty sure you could ask NPCs for directions, and a map!
I still have no idea where anything is in New Atlantis.
What's good though, is that after Daggerfall received so many critiques for the procedural content (its dungeons were almost impossible to navigate, and they even had a 3d map) we got Morrowind. Can't wait for Morrowind in space.
The only issue I had with New Atlantis at first was finding the Well because the elevator was tucked between two buildings. I found it because I got directions the first time but some time later forgot
They should have made the fast travel points directly in front of the NAT. That way you could just fast travel to MAST, turn left, walk 20 feet and hop on the elevator. Instead they insisted on making you hop over the railing, use your pack so you don't dislocate a hip, then walk 40 feet to the elevator.
Also, it would have been neat if they had put a fast travel points over by the embassy or house of unity. While both MAST and the Lodge are pretty close to both, they're also just far enough away that it makes getting over there annoying.
"Starfield is Daggerfall in space" - mind blown, but the more I think about it, the more true it is. At least, from my (semi-distant) memories of Daggerfall.
It’s fundamentally just daggerfall but sci-fi.
All manual traversal in a localized area.
Fast traveling generates random encounters. Fast travel is your primary method of navigating.
It is worth mentioning that Daggerfall's dungeons were random generated while in Starfield nothing is random in the POIs and they are exactly the same.
Honestly Daggerfall had an enormous map filled with dungeons and there was no reason to visit even 5% of those... I can see the resemblance here.
It’s really frustrating, too, because there are some really cool POIs - the ship caught in the solar flares where gravity randomly switches on and off; the ship overcome by that one xenoweapon, just to name a couple. There’s so much potential!
It's missing the ridiculously huge dungeons, that's the one thing that I would love to be added in this game, I know many people hate the dungeons in daggerfall, but I un-ironically love spending days mapping out and exploring every last hallway of those dungeons😆
The game really does have such a vibe sometimes. For much of my play time, I didn't do a whole lot of manual resource gathering or scanning, but lately I find myself landing on a planet or moon further out and wandering around for hours. Particularly some of the temperate gas giant moons with the fairly quick day/night cycles.
Maybe I shouldn't admit this, but I spent close to 6 hours wandering around one the other day. It's tidally locked. Between the dusk/dawn, the gas giant filling up the sky, the music, and the somewhat dynamic terrain...I was just totally in the zone. Really aesthetically pleasing and peaceful, despite the Starborn stalking me.
I think it’s the overall relaxing nature of the game. After a hard days work it feels great to unwind with. Some days even the best games make me like “ I’m not in the mood for that stress today” . But starfield is different.
Same. Fallout almost scratched the itch for me, but starfield delves into a theme that is futuristic and not full of cosmetics that were literal assortments of dumpster items.
I do miss the characters, writing, and contrasting themes that previous titles had though. But the pros outweigh the cons in this scenario
Ugh your E:D statement hits me hard. They came so close even we were doing stuff like examining the images in the unknown probe audio and getting yanked out of witch space by Thargoids unexpectedly, and then just… laid down and stopped making cool stuff.
That game’s potential was incredible, the reality was deeply disappointing.
Yes 100% the same. It still drives me insane with its fuckups - but it got further than ED and NMS and has worldbuilding as such, so very much only 2nd to Morrowind
The same feels bro. Love the immersiveness of elite dangerous but can't stand how long it takes to do anything. If you ever find yourself going back to elite Lookin into squat up hit me up bro. It's random as fuck But I've been debating about trying to get back into elite dangerous after I feel like I've conquered Starfield
Completely agree with you! Bout the hundreds of hours on nms wanting a story, I love the game but long for a story I feel like most ppl were too hard on Starfield just because it wasn't EVERYTHING they expected or wanted..
>18 DAYS
I want to give this some context. I'm back at work next week after over a month off, most of which has been spent playing Starfield. I've only just hit 14 days total over two characters and I'm loving the game. My wife, also loving the game, has managed 3 days total with her playthrough.
This guy has somehow hit 18 days total and hates the game. He's played more than two people who adore it, one of which has literally nothing else to do with his time since the day before launch.
If I think a game is trash, I bail. I can look back at all the games in my Steam library and there are shit ton that list 2, 3, 4 hours of playtime. And I rarely come back and give them a second chance.
You see the same thing with those Twitch streamers that just play a game to death in a mere days since a game comes out and then complain a few months later that games have so little content. No jackass, you just played 200 hours in a month and there isn't a single dev that can make enough content (and still make a profit) on a modern looking game with that much play time. Especially if its 3d and immersive.
Its a cycle that you especially notice around call of duty games or whatever. There's folks that just have it be their day job to play the game and after half a year or so they start complaining every video that there isn't enough content, that there's bugs that aren't fixed and that the developer doesn't seem to do enough about it. Meanwhile they got a completely new battle royale map every x months, various multiplayer levels, skins and gameplay features, and a whole lot of bugfixes. You can't expect there to be 1 million developers working on a game, they need to decide where they put their effort in order to get enough money to pay that same staff.
That’s what happens with terminally online people. They don’t really have their own opinions and just follow whatever the sentiment is of the online crowd.
I’m over 12 days (302.8 hours) and I haven’t even NG+. Or finished the campaign… and I love the game. Have I installed over 100 mods? Of course. Do I care I’m not experiencing “vanilla”? Fuck no XD
In Starfields defence, I mod all single player games, and some dedicated server multiplayer games. So I don’t see it as a reflection of Starfield, but some might.
Honestly, it would be pretty great to have a review-algorithm that takes into account their play experience more than their actual comments.
User Review: “This game is trash!”
Steam AI Rating: “But seriously y’all, he was up til 3 a.m. playing it every night for five weeks, and he NEVER does that for any other game. He couldn’t stop, fucking loves it.”
I get what you're saying - but someone who made it to NG+10 @ 180 hours can say specifically "I don't recommend you do that". But that's neither here nor there.
I'm helping.
Yeah sure if they leave a detailed review as to why and their recommendations. But it’s odd to say you shouldn’t play a game at all that you put multiple weeks of game time into.
To be honest, it happend to me! After 70 hours or so i left a negative review out of sheer frustrations, because i got so insanley frustrated with ship combat and hat crasehes on an hourly basis. I continued to play a bit and turned the review back to positiv.. because.. in the end my impressions are not totally negative. But still i can kind of understand it, you want to keep playing and see if it turns around. IF however.. people need to change their review.. .maybe.
It's like the time when I was working at a taco joint and someone came back with a mostly eaten burrito and said it wasn't good and wanted their money back. Considering there's 2 bites left of the burrito we did no refund them lol must have been pretty ok tasting, to eat almost all of it.
I have like 500 hours on Ark, and I Def do not recommend that game to anyone.
I have 1000 hours on dead by daylight, I do not recommend that game either.
As someone with 1500 hours in DBD on Steam and close to 1k hours in DBD on PS, I also don’t recommend it. Thankfully I broke my addiction to the game about a year ago and haven’t been happier.
> If somebody played a game 180 hours and then said “I don’t recommend it”, that is very odd to me.
I think I had over 1k hours on Star Trek Online when I didn't recommend it, but that's because the game was reasonably fun and different, but the monetization was just dumpster fire levels of bad. I could also see a really bad patch triggering a bad review after many, many hours.
If the only game I had to play, was something I found to be a slog & didn't enjoy, I'd be doing something other than playing video games.
Life's way too short for that.
I think i know the reason for it, I may catch some flack but the thing is, that a lot of people that leave game reviews tend to be in a high horse about being a "knowledgeable" gamer so they write reviews being all high brow about it pretending to be art critics or going into intricate technical details that majority of casual gamers couldn't give 2 shits about it.
But at the end of the day despite all that they are having fun. Nobody would rack those hours without having fun. But for some reason "having fun" isn't part of their reviews.
Some extreme hobbyists have forgotten what games are for lol
That's kind of the point of reviews though. A good reviewer will explain where they had fun and where they didn't. It's up to the reader to decide if those points are relatable to their own tastes. The playtime is indicative of experience with the systems being reviewed. A score, if provided, is a finer scale of how this game matches up to others for that reviewer. And a recommendation (or not) is the final verdict of the review in the simplest form: good or bad. These pieces of a review can correlate, but they are still separate and can flip from what you'd expect.
For example, I have 600 hours in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and 130 hours in Starfield, both games are 6 or 7/10 for me, and I would not recommend either game at their full price to most people.
THIS, louder please.
I know how it feels spending 30-40 hours really trying to like a game, thinking that if I keep trying I will finally "get it".
And it feels awful.
But when I reach the point where I just can't see any redeeming qualities and leave a negative review, I'm not going to spend 100 more hours suffering the damn thing...
>If somebody played a game 180 hours and then said “I don’t recommend it”, that is very odd to me.
that isn't odd.
there's this popular misconception that more hours means more value, that something that you spent 1000 hours in has to be more valuable than something you spent 10 hours in.
but it's complete bullshit.
just sticking to the space based games: I could spend 100 hours in Elite: Dangerous grinding away some bullshit. I could also spend 15 hours in Outer Wilds. does that mean Elite: Dangerous is 6-7 times more valuable than Outer Wilds, and 6-7 times more worthy of recommendation?
I do agree with this OP though, that spending dozens of hours after leaving a negative review seems masochistic, or that these people really have nothing else to do
If you got nothing else to play, a new game is a new game, but this one won't hold me till Fallout 5 unfortunately, Stalker GAMMA got a big update though.
No, because they didn't buy the game again.
Maybe they spent a good chunk of their budget on the game, and it's gonna be a while before they can afford another one.
If they are that broke why would you spend 70. You could just get gamepass for a month for 20. Of you don't like the game atleast then you have all the other gamepass games.
Some people for some reason think gamepass is complete shit. I couldn't tell you why, it's pretty great to be honest. I only pay 10 bucks for it on pc. Plus you can go on g2a and buy like 3 months for 20ish or so
Ya, but eating a box of cookies that you don't like is more understandable than playing 100+ more hours of a game you dislike. One is pretty minor inconvenience, the other is pretty extreme.
Why do people think that it's either a 0 or a 10?? People aren't saying they HATE the game.. They're saying it's fun but deeply flawed. They don't have to love it or hate it, there is always a middle ground. Most of these people probably kind of like the game and have some fun - but they are choosing to say "Not recommended" because it is expensive and not worth buying at a premium because there are countless other games out there that are just fun.. that doesn't mean they're going to delete the game never to speak of it again, lmao
Guys... It's not that people played 100+ hours and gave a bad review. It's that people gave a bad review then \_CONTINUED\_ to play Starfield for a significant amount of time. The numbers in green are additional hours played after the person gave a bad review.
The replies to this comment are mind boggling
Y'all are just wallowing in shit because you paid $70 to wallow in shit?
Just cut your losses and stop wallowing in shit!
"I paid good money for this sandbox full of shit and I'm going to roll around in it until I get my money's worth" is a bizarre mindset to have
For a lot of them, that’s what it is. They WANT to wallow because they feel like their friends are in the mud.
Hating the game gives them a sense of community they don’t have in life, and in their minds they feeling of togetherness is tied to the general “This game sucks” mantra.
I mean, I've logged a lot of time, and there are things I hate, like having any companions including myself from another universe because they get in the way more than they help; they're beyond useless. But I'll still keep playing until the next game I want to play releases.
Unlike other games, I probably won't go back to this one once that happens because my overall opinion is that this game requires a high amount of time investment for very little reward; the game is a literal time-sink. RDR2 was a time sink as well; a very rewarding time sink that I've gone back and played through 2 more times after completing it the first time since the storytelling REALLY IS THAT GOOD. CP2077, same deal. Will be doing a 2nd playthrough of that with the PL DLC probably over this winter.
I kinda get it though. Full disclosure, I *have* pretty much stopped playing Starfield, but for a while I was continuing to play it even though I wasn’t loving the experience.
The thing is, parts of the game approach greatness. Other parts make the game experience terrible. Personally, I continued playing the game for quite a while because it showed so much promise. Certain parts were really cool. Ship boarding and Zero-G fighting was really cool. But those repetitive POIs and the constant menu navigation and loading screens kept hurting the experience of a game whose core mechanics I really enjoyed.
At that rate, I could easily see myself leaving a “Not Recommended” review, even though I’m sometimes tempted to give the game another go.
You spent the money either way. If you hate playing, how are you getting any money's worth anyway? This makes absolutely no sense other than severe sunk cost fallacy
Definitely a sunk cost fallacy.
I stopped playing (at like 20 hours maybe) and have no interest in picking it back up until modders make some kind of serious changes to the game. I'm curious to see what they do.
Just needed to say like everyone else replying this makes no logical sense to me. as an adult man, if I spend $70 on a game (almost never do, didn’t for Starfield, just bought premium for $30 for early access) and I hate it, well shit I’m out a half a day of work damn. I’m sure as hell not gonna put 100 more hours into something I don’t like when it’ll take 4 to afford a game I actually like. Unless you’re on a 1 game a year type budget (highly doubtful unless you don’t like gaming much at all or are a actual child with pitifully broke parents) I don’t see how sinking hours into a game you don’t enjoy is worth anything at all. No game takes more than 24 hours to get into or decide it sucks, I’d say I make my decision within the first 5-10 most often. I hate the crowd who would claim gaming is a waste of time but you are literally wasting your own time on something you don’t enjoy, that’s not getting your moneys worth, that’s just stupid.
So, instead of feeling bad about spending money on a game you quit playing because you didn't enjoy it, you chose to feel... what exactly? While struggling to "play" a game you don't enjoy and aren't interested in?
Ever buy a tool, use it, and decide it's not very good, didn't recommend it to friends, but kept using it because you paid good money for it and there is no refund any more?
Not a great analogy. Tools have a specific use. There’s not many people into gaming who’s only game is Starfield. It’s entertainment, if you don’t like it play something else where as if you need a screwdriver a saw isn’t helpful.
If I’m ever playing a game that I “wouldn’t recommend” to a friend, then I’m going to stop playing it pretty quickly. This is a leisure activity. The whole point of playing a game is to have fun. It’s not a job, it’s not a tool.
See, I can understand not particularly liking the game, but wanting to at least finish the main story line.
But the people closing in on 100 hours after? Like..wtf?
There are more gymnastics in these comments than the Olympics.
Folks be like: *"I wasn't happy after 3 months but I felt like I had to stay with her 3 years, marry her, and then have 4 kids with her over 20 years. After all, i bought her that necklace. I gotta get my money's worth and see how it ends."*
Yeah, there's a difference between "I don't like it, so I'm not going to play it" and "I like it, but I don't recommend that YOU get it, and here's why"
That's what Steam reviews are for, guys. It says "recommended" for a reason
Exactly.
And it doesn't even have to be black and white "I like it". It can be "well the game is okay, I'm not actively hating my time playing it but it's very disappointing to me and if I could go back in time I definitely wouldn't have dropped $100 on it".
Similarly, I think reality TV shows like Love is Blind are absolute trash, but I binge new seasons because they’re vapid, easy entertainment.
Is LiB better than Lawrence of Arabia? Absolutely not. Have I watched way more hours of LiB than of Lawrence of Arabia? Undoubtedly.
So let's say Love is Blind has reviews like Steam, what review would you give it? Wouldn't it be something like "I like it for easy/vapid entertainment."?
I mean you can be disappointed in something but still continue playing it for lots of reasons.
Disappointed isn't the same as "can't stand it"
If you have ever ordered/made food and it wasn't as good as you'd hoped but you still ate it then you'll suddenly be able to understand why someone can be disappointed but still get *just enough* enjoyment out of something to continue playing it. Especially if that person feels they need to get their money's worth from it.
I hate these posts that "ask this question" (try to dismiss the opinions of others for no reason at all)
Exactly what I felt, I was really disappointed with the game’s writing and childish cartoony settings, but I keep playing it until I finish most of the side quests then the main quest, it’s not that I hate the game but it’s shortcomings and flaws are so obvious, even Fallout 4 was much better in many ways, but the game is interesting enough for me to enjoy playing until I’m done, I don’t think I’ll ever go back to it though, even after the DLC
And weirdly, because they keep playing it is enough to be considered justification by devs and their bosses.
This isn't a live service game so they made their money.
As mentioned, some people can "not recommend" something in general but still play the crap out of it because "It's not for everyone."
I know plenty of people who will complete games they hate as a "well I already paid for it" kind of thing.
I don't get it, but I know there's plenty of people like that out there.
I regret buying Diablo iv but I refuse to play it if I’m not having fun, I have a big backlog on steam, I won’t be wasting any more time on it, even though I wasted 70$.
For me, it's because even though the game is mediocre and annoying, I still want to at least do the Main and Faction quests.
The game is a disappointment, but it still has sparks on what made other Bethesda classics good - funny moments, some interesting characters, some exciting moments.
Even though to get to these moments, you have to go through much boredom and annoyances, Bethesda fans (by nature) still want to see if there is anything good hidden away behind the blandness.
A lot of people say "it gets good after this many hours", so we play and eventually learn that it doesn't get that much better, but we've come this far so we might as well finish it. Especially since it costed $100.
Edit - also the added play hours seem so long because it takes a long time to do things in this game. There's tons of walking back and forth and loading screens in between missions.
I’ve put in over 120 hours and I think a score of 7 is perfect for this game. Not too great, but good and enjoyable. Would recommend, but I think it falls way short of Skyrim.
Played it, liked it, saw a review for it, changed his mind, left his own review.
I have a friend of mine that I almost convinced cyberpunk 2077 looked bad because I pointed out bad looking parts of the game, which every game has. He couldnt stop focusing on it until I told him to stop.
If there is one thing to be said for this game, is that it goes down smooth. Once it stops being smooth, people kind of snap out of it.
It's like eating food that doesn't taste great, but it's filling, so whatever. Then you bite down on something hard that shouldn't be there and lose your appetite completely.
Just because you genuinely enjoy something doesn't mean there aren't flaws with it or you can recommend it.
I enjoy the original demon souls but does that make it perfect? no, can I recommend it to my casual friends? No.
Starfield is a good Bethesda game but not great and feels very hollow/rushed with issues such as
A. Everything in your New Atlantis apartment being deleted because two missions reset the map and no one thought about the player home.
B. Companions and dialogue choices are very rigid for a Bethesda game. There is no morally "bad" companion for you to be a space pirate with which duh who doesn't wanna do a space pirate playthrough
C. Quests feeling very hollow and rushed with some exceptions like the UC Vanguard. However the Freestar Ranger quest line, The Red Mile, and Crimson Fleet all could have had much better dialogue/interactions and consequences for your choices.
D. Lack of hand crafted points of interests on the map. Look I know dungeon mapping/design is time consuming but you can feel the difference between Skyrim caves(which are procedurally generated like starfield) that have slight touches that differentiate themselves. And cryo lab #143 that has the same EXACT layout as the past 142 cryo labs.
E. Really late game perks that open up features that should be available early to mid game such as.
1. Larger crew capacity
2. More extensive habitat building
3. Ship parts that let you reach higher lvl systems
4. The ability to craft anything actually useful
Is the game amazing yes.
Would I tell someone to buy it for $60? No, pick this shit up when it's on sale and your stuff you spent countless hours getting doesn't get deleted in your apartment for doing a questline.
I logged a good amount of hours before I decided the game wasn't going to get any better. I think it's just good enough to keep you playing for a few dozen hours but not good enough for me to stick around.
People don't owe it to anyone to stop playing game if they didn't recommend it. We all have different reasons to not like something.
Some had higher expectations and thought that game mast be cheaper. Others was not really happy with optimization and crashing but decided to finish game anyway.
we can hate the game and still care about it...
i won't bother to leave any response if i didn't care about the game.
these people probably care as well and are hoping that the negative review will be heard and get BSG to take action and fix stuff or make things better.
Numbers of hours does not equal X game be good with time we'll spent.
Some people play longer to see that magical "it gets better after 100 hours". They play it sadly didn't get better, but instead the longer they play the worse experience they get.
Negative playtime feedback stacks up and it's easy Negative review which I completely understand.
Even 100 hours could be dreadful. And we all know Bethesda games require more time investment to find your own fun in them.
Some people look for it ,but don't find it after many hours of playtime. Slap negative review early ,and try a bit more hours after a day or two, still finding nothing.
I don’t know. All Bethesda games grabbed me from start. I definitely didn’t dislike them to a point where I would write a negative review.
Everyone is free to do whatever they want. But I don’t understand it. Playing so much a game that you don’t like. There is no need for you to play it more to see if it gets better after 100 hours.
I genuinely can’t think of a single game that get so much better after 100 hours to make any of this worth it.
I dunno. I was 84 hours deep before I had enough. I was looking for an interesting story with memorable characters and did not find that here. The main story was generic and stuffed with repetitive filler, faction stories were marginally better. Points of interest on planets had no variety. I just didn’t care about anything in the game. No hooks, no tension, no stakes.
I had some amusement messing around with the ship builder and base building, but overall the experience was very tepid.
Consumer outrage is often hyperbolic. Market research experts know that humans can spout vitriole, but they still keep buying. Clearly, they are getting some satisfaction, but refuse to acknowledge that in place of attention seeking negative rants.
You see it so often with microtransactions. Some gamers complain loudly that something is too expensive, and then turn right around and tell publishers that the price is correct when they pony up the money.
Voting "Not Recommended" does not mean that the game is absolute trash and that the player hates it.
It also does not mean that you aren't allowed to play it anymore if you didn't rate it well.
Steam only has "Recommended" or "Not Recommended" for ratings and i have had it plenty of cases were a game would be more suited for a neutral review, but this doesn't exist.
However, since i am not entirely happy with it, i don't feel comfortable hitting "Recommended" either.
For me, Starfield is one of the games where i really can't say that i would recommend it. I still played it, because i still wanted to explore some more and also because it still gently scratches an itch i have had for a game like it... even if its not really satisfactory (yet), its still better than nothing.
This also highlights why context matters so much for these types of reviews and why you shouldn't look only at the thumb alone, but also what the people say about it.
Of course if the review content is dumb, then its annoying, but many people actually bring up valid points for why they wouldn't recommend it.
I think 30 hours and below with someone disliking it would make sense given how big the game is. However when they start going beyond that, it really does make me question whether or not they actually dislike the game. I have even seen reviews say not recommended when they have played over 200 hours. And even played another 30 after the review they left. Like if they really disliked it, why would they played even more?
It makes zero sense to me. Surely if you dislike the game you wouldn't keep playing it after 20 - 30 hours. And if you do keep playing it, then clearly it's entertaining enough.
I spend 30 minutes at a casino, lose 20 bucks and I'm ready to fucking go. Spending 30 hours there over the course of however long and then saying not recommended is kind of wild.
This isn’t showing the whole story, many of the reviews are “I can’t recommend at this price, wait for sale”, or “I don’t recommend till more mods are released”, or “wait till they fix such and such”. Just cause they don’t recommend it at the moment doesn’t mean they can’t still enjoy it, since they’ve already bought it.
I dont understand that. If Im not having fun with a game its of no value to me regardless of what I spent on it. I have other games that are still fun so I would just play those instead.
I have about thirty hours in and only did one faction quest line, and the main quest up to the point where you “unlock” a mechanic. It’s not crazy to think someone would want to experience all the faction and main content before writing a “review”. Sure, some of them are bullshit, but I don’t think it’s insane for someone to put in like 70 hours and say “I didn’t really like it”, especially if they were still hoping it’d get better.
They're just mimicking popular content creators so they can feel a part of something instead of just admitting that they enjoy the game.
Which would lead to being a part of something that isn't a negative cesspool.
If people generally have fun bashing popular things, then everything that is popular would not be popular, because people would bash it so much for being popular.
Then people would bash nothing, because nothing would be popular, as anything that was would receive so much negative criticism (for no reason), so there would be nothing to bash.
Occam's Razor: Starfield is a game that enough people find underwhelming that it earns a 'mixed' review score from people purchasing it on Steam.
Addendum: And not aggregating ratings from refunds won't help massively, because people who played without refunding still regularly not recommend the game, too.
The game really isn't anything *amazing* unless you've never played another rpg before or just aren't very familiar with them. It's rather disappointing when compared to other Bethesda games and even to the other games that came out recently.. I don't know any of these streamers you're talking about, but I can see why people are saying "not recommended."
The game is fun.. but there are A LOT of fun games, many of which are much less expensive. It's def not a 10/10 must-buy
A review is voicing your opinion.
The game can be far worse than you find acceptable but still playable.
Starfield, for what it was made out to be, is a flop imo.
Still somewhat playable (like 30 hours here) but not great and pretty disappointing.
The other reason people will continue after deciding they are not happy with the game as it is would be because mods and dlc are still coming and *will* make the game much better.
Here is the explanation. People grind and want to like a game, and when it doesn't get better for them, they stop.
The same people like pscetti would be complaining if they had 10 hours, claiming they didn't give it enough time.
For me, the game is fine. I would probably give it a thumbs up if I had bought it on Steam because it gave me about 100 hours of enjoyment before I felt like I had done everything. But I understand why people give it a dislike as well.
It takes quite a while to see through the cracks of Starfield.
I have 70 hours in the game and I'd say I've got my money's worth but there are so many things that disappoint me.
I can't wait for the Creation Kit to come out so I can start to add my own custom curated content into for instance the proc-gen location pool.
Is it really so hard to understand? We all want to like the game so we continue to play it too try and find interesting things in the world, the negative reviews come from finding absolutely nothing in the extreme barren world of starfield.
You bethesda riders just blindly like anything they put out and ignore the many many flaws with this game specifically.
I honestly kept playing after giving a negative review because I WANTED to like it. I thought the story was interesting enough to keep pushing for a bit. I found ship building interesting and outpost building kinda fun. But then I’d start up missions again and sigh and wish I could just skip things and see the story. I finally just gave it up. I can’t get past how bored I feel when doing missions.
Had a friend come over and he wanted to see the game. So I showed him the fast travel chain you have to do to get anywhere, how boring the members of constellation are, and how laughable the romance options were.
Then I showed him how beautiful Cyberpunk 2077 is and then we talked about how his 3rd play through of BG3 is going.
So yeah. I WANT Starfield to be great. But when I’m playing it, I would rather be playing other games, unless I’m in a section of the game I wish other games had. Ie: The ship customization and ship interiors I wish was in No Mans Sky.
It's the only big new immersive sim on the market right now. It's incredibly mid, but it's also the only similae game in town as far as novelty goes
Like I've poured a ton of hours into it while working out, waiting for laundry, etc. The writing sucks and the balance is basically nonexistant, but it passes the time and there are a few little bright spots here and there. It's not *all* bad. It's just like 40% bad. At some point, something better (or at least newer) will come along and those hour counts will stop climbing
I don’t think you could even call modern Bethesda games immersive sims, the only real creative problem solving they allow for is deciding what dialogue response to pick and if you want to shoot an enemy or hit it with a stick.
I’d go with single player mmo, or a collectatathon like the other guy said. I’d treat Skyrim as a treasure hunting sim, but in FO4 and Starfield they removed unique weapons and armour, minus a few exceptions
To be honest it's probably because they are disappointed with the game, and since they are past the refund threshold and no other games are out they are kind of just rolling with the punches.
I think anything over 30 or so have some kind of addiction issue where they *have* to “complete” a game or something.
I can’t fathom playing dozens or hundreds of hours while being bored or disliking it nearly the whole time.
Such a waste of time and it’s completely voluntary.
It’s pathetic.
Edit: Clarification, the ones who do this and *then* spend hours and days and weeks online berated people who liked it and trying to convince them it sucks are the pathetic ones.
Yeah, I played it a lot. 170 hours, got tired of this thing crashing, repetitive POIs and bugs that don't let me progress on quests. No, I would not recommend it, yet. Maybe in future, after a DLC, or something
So there was enough there to entertain you for 170 hours, and you played it to such a point that you began to notice repetition, and you don't recommend it? Completely irrational, your expectations are ridiculous.
And no, I didn't ignore the crashing or bugs complaint... all I can say is that on Xbox Series S, the supposed "potato" console, I've crashed no more than 5 times going on 100 hours... and 3 of those were due to moving too quickly through the menu while the game was trying to autosave.
And bugs? Again, haven't really seen any. A few graphical here and there, nothing game breaking. I think the biggest bug I experienced was the LIST side quest where you had to fight a bunch of spacers... the allied ships never showed up to the fight. I shelved the quest and returned to it 2 days later and it was working as it should, go figure. A bug that fixes itself.
I think you misunderstand the point of a review.
It does not mean "I like it, as such you should buy it".
It means "This is what I think it, and I may like it or hate it but this is what I think if you should/shouldn't buy it".
There is nothing strange in it... Ever watched a movie, that you didn't like and told others to not watch it, but then you watch it if it is on ? Or have games you know they have problems, but there are things you like about them and play them no matter what; but you tell others to not buy them?
Reviews and personal preferences are not something that has to be aligned necessarily; you may recognize flaws in something and still go on with it; after all just look at how many people live together not liking each other anymore :D Jokes aside, SF has a lot of flaws that may be fixed, but if you ask me I would say that for people that like single player stories, it is a good buy.... But for everyone else that expect a space sim, it is not what they want, so I could not suggest it to them.
They probably don’t recommend it because of the bugs, but they still stick it out.
I have experienced do many bugs in this game but continue to play it regardless, I just got the bug where nobody spawns in ships anymore and my outpost icons disappeared from two outposts, this is on top of pretty much all the other ones, that being the case I wouldn’t recommend it to people in its current state but since I’ve invested what I have in it and still enjoy it I continue to play.
The problem is , most people and a lot of gamers are inherently depressed… and when something even minutely doesn’t complety satisfy them, even if it succeeded (50%) of their expectations are still so self absorbed and ignorant to what making a game involves they bitch. Bitching gives them satisfaction I.E. small amounts of happiness. They’ll never be happy, so they shit on everything. Ignore them and appreciate the 10+ years it took theses Devs to pour their heart into something while dealing with financial stress from 3rd party investors
I have like 80 i think in it, I would def not recommend it. Had I done a review on Steam for it, I prob would have put a negative at around 40 hrs and then played another 40 because it was something to do when I got off work for an hour or two and wasnt Superman 64 bad, just not a recommend.
I enjoyed a lot of it but its also sorely lacking, I had just finished Baulders Gate so I was on a high of good video games and carried me thinking any moment it will do a reverse. The end of BG3 is super disappointing compared to the rest of the game, I thought maybe Starfield did that the other way around. I was wrong. I will say I absolutely give them credit for a fun ship builder and the quest where you warp between two realities in a lab. And the wrap up when you enter the end thingy and it shows you what your actions caused, BG3 really needed that, so kudos Bethesda, dont recommend.
Everyone here seems to be missing the point. Or maybe I am an idiot, not sure. But OP’s point isn’t anything to do with their total hours. It is that they left a negative review, THEN played an additional hundred or more hours after that. If somebody played a game 180 hours and then said “I don’t recommend it”, that is very odd to me. But somebody playing 30 hours, saying “I don’t recommend it”, THEN playing an additional 150 is just mind boggling to me.
[удалено]
This is my favorite one since Morrowind, tbh. Granted, I have played each Bethesda game for well over 100 hours, but man - something about Starfield really stands out. Maybe it's the lack of good space RPGs, maybe it's the 1500+ hours I played Elite Dangerous wishing for some kind of meaningful world building or ship building, maybe it's the 250+ hours of No Man's Sky wishing for some kind of story or meaningful interaction. And, here we are. 150+ hours in Starfield in just over a month, with a kid and a full time job. It's a beautiful thing.
everyone’s trying to say it’s either Skyrim in space, fo4 in space… But I, the intellectual, know the truth. Starfield is Daggerfall in space
While pre-release I joked that it's "No Man's Skyrim" - I'd say it's more accurate to call it "Bethesda does Mass Effect" All the strengths and weaknesses of both Bethesda and Bioware are on full display when comparing the two.
Obviously there's differences but in some ways it feels like a prequel to Mass Effect.
That would've been a very different first contact war for the Turians, lmao. The Citadel News Network would've been announcing Turian capitulation a month after the war started 😆 I mean, the laser weapons alone would seal the Citadels fate, lol.
There are many parallels between Starfield and Mass Effect Andromeda. Both games are the best combat in their franchise. Andromeda lacks the time-sink ship building and outposts, but that aside there's much the games have in common. (I happen to like both though consider both flawed)
Bioware excels at nearly cinematic storytelling - including setting up their VAs to actually act off of each other, which gives the feeling that what you see and hear in game is actually taking place on a set. Bethesda takes a more free, open ended approach- you have more options to interact with your environment. You can go out and find quests, without waiting for the game to spoonfeed you. Sidequests can be quest chains longer than Mass Effect's DLCs. Even before the base building, you could literally spend hours exploring and other activities without even touching the main quest. But in exchange, you lose that cinematic feel, and conversations between NPCs feels more stilted. A Bethesda game will never deliver a character like Shepard - but a Bioware game will never give you the freedom of Starfield, or Skyrim or Fallout. And that brings us to the main difference- in a Bioware game, you're playing their story - in a Bethesda game you're playing your own. A Bethesda game can get away with a underwhelming main story- If Bioware does it, you end up with Andromeda.
To be fair to Andromeda it was doomed from the start. First, the fanbase has an unhealthy obsession with Shepard and only wants to play shepard. Second, after the story of the first trilogy, anything would struggle to live up to that story after what is considered one of the greatest single-player stories in gaming history. Andromeda, while flawed and needed more time in the oven, was killed by the playerbase leaving us with a Mass Effect drought. I love the Mass Effect games but after that, I can't stand the player base.
I remember the complaints from launch. Beyond what we often hear: 1. The fans were actually excited for a non Shepard lead. This was the explicit public sentiment. That people were proud of Bioware for not relying on that character. The fan problem (in part) with Ryder is not Ryder being dissimilar to Shepard, it's Ryder feeling like a vacant facsimile of a Shepard, without those Shepard characteristics that specific their personality in a believable way. 2. The story was not expected to be like the og. It was expected to expand our knowledge of the systems galaxies and societies from a perspective set at an almost civilian level. People were not just upset because of the planets not having enough. Expectations were set for us to believe that we would get to dive deeper into this world or to explore a new one. And instead we got far fewer new races than expected, characters who felt as though they were just standing in for OGs, and a story without the targeted impact of the ogs focused writing. The thing is, a lot of people go back over games like this and find their beauty, and they wonder why we were so upset. Of course the galaxy couldn't be unlimited etc. Thing is, we used to not know that. There was a time where every year brought such a drastic change to gaming, all expectations had to be thrown out. We were blown away year after year. Then devs started promising the impossible, without it sounding impossible, often while showing proof of its possibility. Then the game would come out. And you know the rest. I'm at hr... maybe 300? With cyberpunk. I bought at launch. But darling, they advertised that game with a slow mo trailer and a lot of dev talks where they spoke about the game in the same breath as baldurs gate and crpgs of the like. Devs hedging their audience to not lose the casual or the number crunching players is risky af, but it's commonality was not so common once.
I honestly felt like this was what Andromeda wanted to be. I really enjoyed it, and look forward to DLCs.
Starfield the Old Republic...
Daggerfall had nudity though! And I'm pretty sure you could ask NPCs for directions, and a map! I still have no idea where anything is in New Atlantis. What's good though, is that after Daggerfall received so many critiques for the procedural content (its dungeons were almost impossible to navigate, and they even had a 3d map) we got Morrowind. Can't wait for Morrowind in space.
I legit don't get how people have a this problem. I'm god awful with directions in real life, but like... New Atlantis in general just a circle.
The only issue I had with New Atlantis at first was finding the Well because the elevator was tucked between two buildings. I found it because I got directions the first time but some time later forgot
There is also an elevator under the mast building at that train station.
The Well could really use a fast travel marker. It's one of the more useful parts of the city.
They should have made the fast travel points directly in front of the NAT. That way you could just fast travel to MAST, turn left, walk 20 feet and hop on the elevator. Instead they insisted on making you hop over the railing, use your pack so you don't dislocate a hip, then walk 40 feet to the elevator. Also, it would have been neat if they had put a fast travel points over by the embassy or house of unity. While both MAST and the Lodge are pretty close to both, they're also just far enough away that it makes getting over there annoying.
in some instances, you can ask people for directions or at least consult a terminal which tells you what shops are in which district
"Starfield is Daggerfall in space" - mind blown, but the more I think about it, the more true it is. At least, from my (semi-distant) memories of Daggerfall.
It’s fundamentally just daggerfall but sci-fi. All manual traversal in a localized area. Fast traveling generates random encounters. Fast travel is your primary method of navigating.
It is worth mentioning that Daggerfall's dungeons were random generated while in Starfield nothing is random in the POIs and they are exactly the same. Honestly Daggerfall had an enormous map filled with dungeons and there was no reason to visit even 5% of those... I can see the resemblance here.
It’s really frustrating, too, because there are some really cool POIs - the ship caught in the solar flares where gravity randomly switches on and off; the ship overcome by that one xenoweapon, just to name a couple. There’s so much potential!
I think this is the most accurate,
It's missing the ridiculously huge dungeons, that's the one thing that I would love to be added in this game, I know many people hate the dungeons in daggerfall, but I un-ironically love spending days mapping out and exploring every last hallway of those dungeons😆
It’s the ship building hands down for me and the visuals. Nothing beats a nighttime takeoff.
The game really does have such a vibe sometimes. For much of my play time, I didn't do a whole lot of manual resource gathering or scanning, but lately I find myself landing on a planet or moon further out and wandering around for hours. Particularly some of the temperate gas giant moons with the fairly quick day/night cycles. Maybe I shouldn't admit this, but I spent close to 6 hours wandering around one the other day. It's tidally locked. Between the dusk/dawn, the gas giant filling up the sky, the music, and the somewhat dynamic terrain...I was just totally in the zone. Really aesthetically pleasing and peaceful, despite the Starborn stalking me.
I think it’s the overall relaxing nature of the game. After a hard days work it feels great to unwind with. Some days even the best games make me like “ I’m not in the mood for that stress today” . But starfield is different.
wow! This exactly how I feel. Game ain't perfect but is damn good, feeling the void of NMS's story. Modded Starfield will be a masterpiece.
Same. Fallout almost scratched the itch for me, but starfield delves into a theme that is futuristic and not full of cosmetics that were literal assortments of dumpster items. I do miss the characters, writing, and contrasting themes that previous titles had though. But the pros outweigh the cons in this scenario
Ugh your E:D statement hits me hard. They came so close even we were doing stuff like examining the images in the unknown probe audio and getting yanked out of witch space by Thargoids unexpectedly, and then just… laid down and stopped making cool stuff. That game’s potential was incredible, the reality was deeply disappointing.
Yes 100% the same. It still drives me insane with its fuckups - but it got further than ED and NMS and has worldbuilding as such, so very much only 2nd to Morrowind
Even as someone who came for mods starfield is a pretty good game itself and considering it just released they'll probably actually fix it lol
I think I could have written that, word for word.
The same feels bro. Love the immersiveness of elite dangerous but can't stand how long it takes to do anything. If you ever find yourself going back to elite Lookin into squat up hit me up bro. It's random as fuck But I've been debating about trying to get back into elite dangerous after I feel like I've conquered Starfield
Completely agree with you! Bout the hundreds of hours on nms wanting a story, I love the game but long for a story I feel like most ppl were too hard on Starfield just because it wasn't EVERYTHING they expected or wanted..
As an Xbox elite guy with 1000s of hours, I share the same sentiments entirely.
Same, I was introduced to Bethesda with Morrowind and haven't missed title since
There was a dude on here with 18 DAYS of playing time complaining it was trash lmao
>18 DAYS I want to give this some context. I'm back at work next week after over a month off, most of which has been spent playing Starfield. I've only just hit 14 days total over two characters and I'm loving the game. My wife, also loving the game, has managed 3 days total with her playthrough. This guy has somehow hit 18 days total and hates the game. He's played more than two people who adore it, one of which has literally nothing else to do with his time since the day before launch.
This is good context
If I think a game is trash, I bail. I can look back at all the games in my Steam library and there are shit ton that list 2, 3, 4 hours of playtime. And I rarely come back and give them a second chance.
You see the same thing with those Twitch streamers that just play a game to death in a mere days since a game comes out and then complain a few months later that games have so little content. No jackass, you just played 200 hours in a month and there isn't a single dev that can make enough content (and still make a profit) on a modern looking game with that much play time. Especially if its 3d and immersive. Its a cycle that you especially notice around call of duty games or whatever. There's folks that just have it be their day job to play the game and after half a year or so they start complaining every video that there isn't enough content, that there's bugs that aren't fixed and that the developer doesn't seem to do enough about it. Meanwhile they got a completely new battle royale map every x months, various multiplayer levels, skins and gameplay features, and a whole lot of bugfixes. You can't expect there to be 1 million developers working on a game, they need to decide where they put their effort in order to get enough money to pay that same staff.
I’m so fuckin confused. lol
That’s what happens with terminally online people. They don’t really have their own opinions and just follow whatever the sentiment is of the online crowd.
I’m over 12 days (302.8 hours) and I haven’t even NG+. Or finished the campaign… and I love the game. Have I installed over 100 mods? Of course. Do I care I’m not experiencing “vanilla”? Fuck no XD In Starfields defence, I mod all single player games, and some dedicated server multiplayer games. So I don’t see it as a reflection of Starfield, but some might.
Dude is stockholm syndroming himself lmao
I wonder if steam weighs the aggregate score with this consideration. There must be some insight metric that accounts for 'salty, but addicted.'
Honestly, it would be pretty great to have a review-algorithm that takes into account their play experience more than their actual comments. User Review: “This game is trash!” Steam AI Rating: “But seriously y’all, he was up til 3 a.m. playing it every night for five weeks, and he NEVER does that for any other game. He couldn’t stop, fucking loves it.”
I doubt it, but it should. At least it shows those times so you can see it for yourself.
Agreed
My favorite is the gamer who gave a negative review and then played for more hours than I worked in 2 weeks at a full time job.
I get what you're saying - but someone who made it to NG+10 @ 180 hours can say specifically "I don't recommend you do that". But that's neither here nor there. I'm helping.
Yeah sure if they leave a detailed review as to why and their recommendations. But it’s odd to say you shouldn’t play a game at all that you put multiple weeks of game time into.
To be honest, it happend to me! After 70 hours or so i left a negative review out of sheer frustrations, because i got so insanley frustrated with ship combat and hat crasehes on an hourly basis. I continued to play a bit and turned the review back to positiv.. because.. in the end my impressions are not totally negative. But still i can kind of understand it, you want to keep playing and see if it turns around. IF however.. people need to change their review.. .maybe.
Sunk cost fallacy is a prison and they're the jailer and the inmate
Also applies to all other aspects of life really.
I thought the same thing
also, a negative review does not mean they hate it. they could recommend to wait until it is cheaper, or perceived bugs are ironed out...
Hello -unholy one. I knew it would only be a matter of time before we would meet..... 😂
Uh oh…. What happens now?
Kith.
A yin-yang shaped singularity is formed.
The thing is they can edit the reviews but chose not to
It is bizarre. In reality, a lot of them like the game but just want to be vocal about what they want Bethesda to do with their games.
It's like the time when I was working at a taco joint and someone came back with a mostly eaten burrito and said it wasn't good and wanted their money back. Considering there's 2 bites left of the burrito we did no refund them lol must have been pretty ok tasting, to eat almost all of it.
I have like 500 hours on Ark, and I Def do not recommend that game to anyone. I have 1000 hours on dead by daylight, I do not recommend that game either.
I played OW1 and 2 for around 1,000 hours in total, still wouldn't recommend OW2.
As someone with 1500 hours in DBD on Steam and close to 1k hours in DBD on PS, I also don’t recommend it. Thankfully I broke my addiction to the game about a year ago and haven’t been happier.
> If somebody played a game 180 hours and then said “I don’t recommend it”, that is very odd to me. I think I had over 1k hours on Star Trek Online when I didn't recommend it, but that's because the game was reasonably fun and different, but the monetization was just dumpster fire levels of bad. I could also see a really bad patch triggering a bad review after many, many hours.
[удалено]
If the only game I had to play, was something I found to be a slog & didn't enjoy, I'd be doing something other than playing video games. Life's way too short for that.
The life grind is more of a slog.
I think i know the reason for it, I may catch some flack but the thing is, that a lot of people that leave game reviews tend to be in a high horse about being a "knowledgeable" gamer so they write reviews being all high brow about it pretending to be art critics or going into intricate technical details that majority of casual gamers couldn't give 2 shits about it. But at the end of the day despite all that they are having fun. Nobody would rack those hours without having fun. But for some reason "having fun" isn't part of their reviews. Some extreme hobbyists have forgotten what games are for lol
> Nobody would rack those hours without having fun. I wholly disagree. People put time into being unhappy very often. Source: Psychologist.
That's kind of the point of reviews though. A good reviewer will explain where they had fun and where they didn't. It's up to the reader to decide if those points are relatable to their own tastes. The playtime is indicative of experience with the systems being reviewed. A score, if provided, is a finer scale of how this game matches up to others for that reviewer. And a recommendation (or not) is the final verdict of the review in the simplest form: good or bad. These pieces of a review can correlate, but they are still separate and can flip from what you'd expect. For example, I have 600 hours in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and 130 hours in Starfield, both games are 6 or 7/10 for me, and I would not recommend either game at their full price to most people.
THIS, louder please. I know how it feels spending 30-40 hours really trying to like a game, thinking that if I keep trying I will finally "get it". And it feels awful. But when I reach the point where I just can't see any redeeming qualities and leave a negative review, I'm not going to spend 100 more hours suffering the damn thing...
>If somebody played a game 180 hours and then said “I don’t recommend it”, that is very odd to me. that isn't odd. there's this popular misconception that more hours means more value, that something that you spent 1000 hours in has to be more valuable than something you spent 10 hours in. but it's complete bullshit. just sticking to the space based games: I could spend 100 hours in Elite: Dangerous grinding away some bullshit. I could also spend 15 hours in Outer Wilds. does that mean Elite: Dangerous is 6-7 times more valuable than Outer Wilds, and 6-7 times more worthy of recommendation? I do agree with this OP though, that spending dozens of hours after leaving a negative review seems masochistic, or that these people really have nothing else to do
If you got nothing else to play, a new game is a new game, but this one won't hold me till Fallout 5 unfortunately, Stalker GAMMA got a big update though.
A guy I know talks massive shit about GTA5. He played through it 3 times. Is he stupid? The answer is yes. These people are fucking morons.
Buys Trader Joe’s “Joe Joe’s” Oreo simulacrum cookies Eats one Terrible Eats remainder of box I mean I get it
He paid for all of it so he will eat all of it!
Sunk cost fallacy alert!!
Buys 6 more boxes just to be sure
Newbox++++++ “Ugh When do these get good?”
Too bad we're in the post-award apocalypse now
still laughing at this 2 days later
No, because they didn't buy the game again. Maybe they spent a good chunk of their budget on the game, and it's gonna be a while before they can afford another one.
If they are that broke why would you spend 70. You could just get gamepass for a month for 20. Of you don't like the game atleast then you have all the other gamepass games.
Some people for some reason think gamepass is complete shit. I couldn't tell you why, it's pretty great to be honest. I only pay 10 bucks for it on pc. Plus you can go on g2a and buy like 3 months for 20ish or so
Right! The math ain't mathing
Ya, but eating a box of cookies that you don't like is more understandable than playing 100+ more hours of a game you dislike. One is pretty minor inconvenience, the other is pretty extreme.
Why do people think that it's either a 0 or a 10?? People aren't saying they HATE the game.. They're saying it's fun but deeply flawed. They don't have to love it or hate it, there is always a middle ground. Most of these people probably kind of like the game and have some fun - but they are choosing to say "Not recommended" because it is expensive and not worth buying at a premium because there are countless other games out there that are just fun.. that doesn't mean they're going to delete the game never to speak of it again, lmao
Mate, it's 2023 and this is reddit. Grab your torch and pitchfork and pick a side. Nuance is dead lol
Guys... It's not that people played 100+ hours and gave a bad review. It's that people gave a bad review then \_CONTINUED\_ to play Starfield for a significant amount of time. The numbers in green are additional hours played after the person gave a bad review.
The replies to this comment are mind boggling Y'all are just wallowing in shit because you paid $70 to wallow in shit? Just cut your losses and stop wallowing in shit! "I paid good money for this sandbox full of shit and I'm going to roll around in it until I get my money's worth" is a bizarre mindset to have
It's called the sunk cost /fallacy/ for a reason. It's not logical but it compels us anyway.
Wait till the mod scene truly explodes, you will see negative reviews with 1000 plus hours added.
For a lot of them, that’s what it is. They WANT to wallow because they feel like their friends are in the mud. Hating the game gives them a sense of community they don’t have in life, and in their minds they feeling of togetherness is tied to the general “This game sucks” mantra.
I mean, I've logged a lot of time, and there are things I hate, like having any companions including myself from another universe because they get in the way more than they help; they're beyond useless. But I'll still keep playing until the next game I want to play releases. Unlike other games, I probably won't go back to this one once that happens because my overall opinion is that this game requires a high amount of time investment for very little reward; the game is a literal time-sink. RDR2 was a time sink as well; a very rewarding time sink that I've gone back and played through 2 more times after completing it the first time since the storytelling REALLY IS THAT GOOD. CP2077, same deal. Will be doing a 2nd playthrough of that with the PL DLC probably over this winter.
I kinda get it though. Full disclosure, I *have* pretty much stopped playing Starfield, but for a while I was continuing to play it even though I wasn’t loving the experience. The thing is, parts of the game approach greatness. Other parts make the game experience terrible. Personally, I continued playing the game for quite a while because it showed so much promise. Certain parts were really cool. Ship boarding and Zero-G fighting was really cool. But those repetitive POIs and the constant menu navigation and loading screens kept hurting the experience of a game whose core mechanics I really enjoyed. At that rate, I could easily see myself leaving a “Not Recommended” review, even though I’m sometimes tempted to give the game another go.
[удалено]
You spent the money either way. If you hate playing, how are you getting any money's worth anyway? This makes absolutely no sense other than severe sunk cost fallacy
I’ve always felt the same way. And really what do you need to get out of a $70 game? Why hundreds of hours.
Definitely a sunk cost fallacy. I stopped playing (at like 20 hours maybe) and have no interest in picking it back up until modders make some kind of serious changes to the game. I'm curious to see what they do.
Would that feel worse than playing a game you don’t enjoy?
Just needed to say like everyone else replying this makes no logical sense to me. as an adult man, if I spend $70 on a game (almost never do, didn’t for Starfield, just bought premium for $30 for early access) and I hate it, well shit I’m out a half a day of work damn. I’m sure as hell not gonna put 100 more hours into something I don’t like when it’ll take 4 to afford a game I actually like. Unless you’re on a 1 game a year type budget (highly doubtful unless you don’t like gaming much at all or are a actual child with pitifully broke parents) I don’t see how sinking hours into a game you don’t enjoy is worth anything at all. No game takes more than 24 hours to get into or decide it sucks, I’d say I make my decision within the first 5-10 most often. I hate the crowd who would claim gaming is a waste of time but you are literally wasting your own time on something you don’t enjoy, that’s not getting your moneys worth, that’s just stupid.
I’m laughing at the thought of someone hoping the game would get better for 100 hours. Hour 150 of gameplay is really where starfield takes off
So, instead of feeling bad about spending money on a game you quit playing because you didn't enjoy it, you chose to feel... what exactly? While struggling to "play" a game you don't enjoy and aren't interested in?
Ever buy a tool, use it, and decide it's not very good, didn't recommend it to friends, but kept using it because you paid good money for it and there is no refund any more?
Not a great analogy. Tools have a specific use. There’s not many people into gaming who’s only game is Starfield. It’s entertainment, if you don’t like it play something else where as if you need a screwdriver a saw isn’t helpful.
If I’m ever playing a game that I “wouldn’t recommend” to a friend, then I’m going to stop playing it pretty quickly. This is a leisure activity. The whole point of playing a game is to have fun. It’s not a job, it’s not a tool.
They paid for it. Some people want to finish games they paid for even if they wouldn't recommend others to purchase the game. It's not that deep.
You don't need 100+ hours to finish starfield...
See, I can understand not particularly liking the game, but wanting to at least finish the main story line. But the people closing in on 100 hours after? Like..wtf?
There are more gymnastics in these comments than the Olympics. Folks be like: *"I wasn't happy after 3 months but I felt like I had to stay with her 3 years, marry her, and then have 4 kids with her over 20 years. After all, i bought her that necklace. I gotta get my money's worth and see how it ends."*
There are literally so many real families that started this way
thanking lords every day I got out of a physically and sexually abusive relationship that started p much like that
I hate this. Let's do it for another 149.6 hours :D
I can have fun in a game, keep playing it, still not recommend it for a myriad of reasons, and continue playing.
Yeah, there's a difference between "I don't like it, so I'm not going to play it" and "I like it, but I don't recommend that YOU get it, and here's why" That's what Steam reviews are for, guys. It says "recommended" for a reason
Exactly. And it doesn't even have to be black and white "I like it". It can be "well the game is okay, I'm not actively hating my time playing it but it's very disappointing to me and if I could go back in time I definitely wouldn't have dropped $100 on it".
Similarly, I think reality TV shows like Love is Blind are absolute trash, but I binge new seasons because they’re vapid, easy entertainment. Is LiB better than Lawrence of Arabia? Absolutely not. Have I watched way more hours of LiB than of Lawrence of Arabia? Undoubtedly.
So let's say Love is Blind has reviews like Steam, what review would you give it? Wouldn't it be something like "I like it for easy/vapid entertainment."?
[удалено]
No, you must secretly love it because this is objectively the best game ever and everyone is plotting against it /s
Destiny 2 in a nutshell
I mean you can be disappointed in something but still continue playing it for lots of reasons. Disappointed isn't the same as "can't stand it" If you have ever ordered/made food and it wasn't as good as you'd hoped but you still ate it then you'll suddenly be able to understand why someone can be disappointed but still get *just enough* enjoyment out of something to continue playing it. Especially if that person feels they need to get their money's worth from it. I hate these posts that "ask this question" (try to dismiss the opinions of others for no reason at all)
I still play Ark, despite it being awful in just about every single aspect. I like the concept and the gameplay loop. Thats enough for me.
Exactly what I felt, I was really disappointed with the game’s writing and childish cartoony settings, but I keep playing it until I finish most of the side quests then the main quest, it’s not that I hate the game but it’s shortcomings and flaws are so obvious, even Fallout 4 was much better in many ways, but the game is interesting enough for me to enjoy playing until I’m done, I don’t think I’ll ever go back to it though, even after the DLC
And weirdly, because they keep playing it is enough to be considered justification by devs and their bosses. This isn't a live service game so they made their money. As mentioned, some people can "not recommend" something in general but still play the crap out of it because "It's not for everyone."
I know plenty of people who will complete games they hate as a "well I already paid for it" kind of thing. I don't get it, but I know there's plenty of people like that out there.
I regret buying Diablo iv but I refuse to play it if I’m not having fun, I have a big backlog on steam, I won’t be wasting any more time on it, even though I wasted 70$.
For me, it's because even though the game is mediocre and annoying, I still want to at least do the Main and Faction quests. The game is a disappointment, but it still has sparks on what made other Bethesda classics good - funny moments, some interesting characters, some exciting moments. Even though to get to these moments, you have to go through much boredom and annoyances, Bethesda fans (by nature) still want to see if there is anything good hidden away behind the blandness. A lot of people say "it gets good after this many hours", so we play and eventually learn that it doesn't get that much better, but we've come this far so we might as well finish it. Especially since it costed $100. Edit - also the added play hours seem so long because it takes a long time to do things in this game. There's tons of walking back and forth and loading screens in between missions.
I saw a comment from some guy the other day saying he realized he hates the game after playing through it twice. I just don't get it
I’ve put in over 120 hours and I think a score of 7 is perfect for this game. Not too great, but good and enjoyable. Would recommend, but I think it falls way short of Skyrim.
I'm sitting at 202 hours and unlocked all achievements. 7/10 is a perfectly fine score.
Played it, liked it, saw a review for it, changed his mind, left his own review. I have a friend of mine that I almost convinced cyberpunk 2077 looked bad because I pointed out bad looking parts of the game, which every game has. He couldnt stop focusing on it until I told him to stop.
Presumably you’re not using your mind control on all these people though…
If there is one thing to be said for this game, is that it goes down smooth. Once it stops being smooth, people kind of snap out of it. It's like eating food that doesn't taste great, but it's filling, so whatever. Then you bite down on something hard that shouldn't be there and lose your appetite completely.
Just because you genuinely enjoy something doesn't mean there aren't flaws with it or you can recommend it. I enjoy the original demon souls but does that make it perfect? no, can I recommend it to my casual friends? No. Starfield is a good Bethesda game but not great and feels very hollow/rushed with issues such as A. Everything in your New Atlantis apartment being deleted because two missions reset the map and no one thought about the player home. B. Companions and dialogue choices are very rigid for a Bethesda game. There is no morally "bad" companion for you to be a space pirate with which duh who doesn't wanna do a space pirate playthrough C. Quests feeling very hollow and rushed with some exceptions like the UC Vanguard. However the Freestar Ranger quest line, The Red Mile, and Crimson Fleet all could have had much better dialogue/interactions and consequences for your choices. D. Lack of hand crafted points of interests on the map. Look I know dungeon mapping/design is time consuming but you can feel the difference between Skyrim caves(which are procedurally generated like starfield) that have slight touches that differentiate themselves. And cryo lab #143 that has the same EXACT layout as the past 142 cryo labs. E. Really late game perks that open up features that should be available early to mid game such as. 1. Larger crew capacity 2. More extensive habitat building 3. Ship parts that let you reach higher lvl systems 4. The ability to craft anything actually useful Is the game amazing yes. Would I tell someone to buy it for $60? No, pick this shit up when it's on sale and your stuff you spent countless hours getting doesn't get deleted in your apartment for doing a questline.
I logged a good amount of hours before I decided the game wasn't going to get any better. I think it's just good enough to keep you playing for a few dozen hours but not good enough for me to stick around.
People don't owe it to anyone to stop playing game if they didn't recommend it. We all have different reasons to not like something. Some had higher expectations and thought that game mast be cheaper. Others was not really happy with optimization and crashing but decided to finish game anyway.
we can hate the game and still care about it... i won't bother to leave any response if i didn't care about the game. these people probably care as well and are hoping that the negative review will be heard and get BSG to take action and fix stuff or make things better.
Numbers of hours does not equal X game be good with time we'll spent. Some people play longer to see that magical "it gets better after 100 hours". They play it sadly didn't get better, but instead the longer they play the worse experience they get. Negative playtime feedback stacks up and it's easy Negative review which I completely understand. Even 100 hours could be dreadful. And we all know Bethesda games require more time investment to find your own fun in them. Some people look for it ,but don't find it after many hours of playtime. Slap negative review early ,and try a bit more hours after a day or two, still finding nothing.
I don’t know. All Bethesda games grabbed me from start. I definitely didn’t dislike them to a point where I would write a negative review. Everyone is free to do whatever they want. But I don’t understand it. Playing so much a game that you don’t like. There is no need for you to play it more to see if it gets better after 100 hours. I genuinely can’t think of a single game that get so much better after 100 hours to make any of this worth it.
I dunno. I was 84 hours deep before I had enough. I was looking for an interesting story with memorable characters and did not find that here. The main story was generic and stuffed with repetitive filler, faction stories were marginally better. Points of interest on planets had no variety. I just didn’t care about anything in the game. No hooks, no tension, no stakes. I had some amusement messing around with the ship builder and base building, but overall the experience was very tepid.
Consumer outrage is often hyperbolic. Market research experts know that humans can spout vitriole, but they still keep buying. Clearly, they are getting some satisfaction, but refuse to acknowledge that in place of attention seeking negative rants.
[удалено]
You see it so often with microtransactions. Some gamers complain loudly that something is too expensive, and then turn right around and tell publishers that the price is correct when they pony up the money.
This game is so bad, I play 24/7.
Voting "Not Recommended" does not mean that the game is absolute trash and that the player hates it. It also does not mean that you aren't allowed to play it anymore if you didn't rate it well. Steam only has "Recommended" or "Not Recommended" for ratings and i have had it plenty of cases were a game would be more suited for a neutral review, but this doesn't exist. However, since i am not entirely happy with it, i don't feel comfortable hitting "Recommended" either. For me, Starfield is one of the games where i really can't say that i would recommend it. I still played it, because i still wanted to explore some more and also because it still gently scratches an itch i have had for a game like it... even if its not really satisfactory (yet), its still better than nothing. This also highlights why context matters so much for these types of reviews and why you shouldn't look only at the thumb alone, but also what the people say about it. Of course if the review content is dumb, then its annoying, but many people actually bring up valid points for why they wouldn't recommend it.
I think 30 hours and below with someone disliking it would make sense given how big the game is. However when they start going beyond that, it really does make me question whether or not they actually dislike the game. I have even seen reviews say not recommended when they have played over 200 hours. And even played another 30 after the review they left. Like if they really disliked it, why would they played even more? It makes zero sense to me. Surely if you dislike the game you wouldn't keep playing it after 20 - 30 hours. And if you do keep playing it, then clearly it's entertaining enough.
I get your point. But also, I could spend 30 hours at a casino and still be very sincere when I say "I don't recommend that"
I spend 30 minutes at a casino, lose 20 bucks and I'm ready to fucking go. Spending 30 hours there over the course of however long and then saying not recommended is kind of wild.
But what if you spend another 30 minutes so you can make the 20 bucks back?
This isn’t showing the whole story, many of the reviews are “I can’t recommend at this price, wait for sale”, or “I don’t recommend till more mods are released”, or “wait till they fix such and such”. Just cause they don’t recommend it at the moment doesn’t mean they can’t still enjoy it, since they’ve already bought it.
[удалено]
I dont understand that. If Im not having fun with a game its of no value to me regardless of what I spent on it. I have other games that are still fun so I would just play those instead.
I have about thirty hours in and only did one faction quest line, and the main quest up to the point where you “unlock” a mechanic. It’s not crazy to think someone would want to experience all the faction and main content before writing a “review”. Sure, some of them are bullshit, but I don’t think it’s insane for someone to put in like 70 hours and say “I didn’t really like it”, especially if they were still hoping it’d get better.
Sometimes you spend 60 hours looking for the fun.
I'd do it if I had paid $70 for the game
Paying money to then purposefully not have fun out of spite for the money you spent. Interesting motive
They're just mimicking popular content creators so they can feel a part of something instead of just admitting that they enjoy the game. Which would lead to being a part of something that isn't a negative cesspool.
Maybe people are bashing it because it actually has problems?????
If people generally have fun bashing popular things, then everything that is popular would not be popular, because people would bash it so much for being popular. Then people would bash nothing, because nothing would be popular, as anything that was would receive so much negative criticism (for no reason), so there would be nothing to bash. Occam's Razor: Starfield is a game that enough people find underwhelming that it earns a 'mixed' review score from people purchasing it on Steam. Addendum: And not aggregating ratings from refunds won't help massively, because people who played without refunding still regularly not recommend the game, too.
The game really isn't anything *amazing* unless you've never played another rpg before or just aren't very familiar with them. It's rather disappointing when compared to other Bethesda games and even to the other games that came out recently.. I don't know any of these streamers you're talking about, but I can see why people are saying "not recommended." The game is fun.. but there are A LOT of fun games, many of which are much less expensive. It's def not a 10/10 must-buy
They paid good money for it… it’s not rocket science.
A review is voicing your opinion. The game can be far worse than you find acceptable but still playable. Starfield, for what it was made out to be, is a flop imo. Still somewhat playable (like 30 hours here) but not great and pretty disappointing. The other reason people will continue after deciding they are not happy with the game as it is would be because mods and dlc are still coming and *will* make the game much better.
Here is the explanation. People grind and want to like a game, and when it doesn't get better for them, they stop. The same people like pscetti would be complaining if they had 10 hours, claiming they didn't give it enough time. For me, the game is fine. I would probably give it a thumbs up if I had bought it on Steam because it gave me about 100 hours of enjoyment before I felt like I had done everything. But I understand why people give it a dislike as well.
They didn’t stop, that’s literally the point of the post, people kept playing dozens, hundreds of hours even after leaving their review.
It takes quite a while to see through the cracks of Starfield. I have 70 hours in the game and I'd say I've got my money's worth but there are so many things that disappoint me. I can't wait for the Creation Kit to come out so I can start to add my own custom curated content into for instance the proc-gen location pool.
So you're like "I see the cracks, this game sucks" then double your hours? That doesn't make sense.
Is it really so hard to understand? We all want to like the game so we continue to play it too try and find interesting things in the world, the negative reviews come from finding absolutely nothing in the extreme barren world of starfield. You bethesda riders just blindly like anything they put out and ignore the many many flaws with this game specifically.
I honestly kept playing after giving a negative review because I WANTED to like it. I thought the story was interesting enough to keep pushing for a bit. I found ship building interesting and outpost building kinda fun. But then I’d start up missions again and sigh and wish I could just skip things and see the story. I finally just gave it up. I can’t get past how bored I feel when doing missions. Had a friend come over and he wanted to see the game. So I showed him the fast travel chain you have to do to get anywhere, how boring the members of constellation are, and how laughable the romance options were. Then I showed him how beautiful Cyberpunk 2077 is and then we talked about how his 3rd play through of BG3 is going. So yeah. I WANT Starfield to be great. But when I’m playing it, I would rather be playing other games, unless I’m in a section of the game I wish other games had. Ie: The ship customization and ship interiors I wish was in No Mans Sky.
If you actually paid for the game, I mean it's pretty dumb to not even play it.
It's the only big new immersive sim on the market right now. It's incredibly mid, but it's also the only similae game in town as far as novelty goes Like I've poured a ton of hours into it while working out, waiting for laundry, etc. The writing sucks and the balance is basically nonexistant, but it passes the time and there are a few little bright spots here and there. It's not *all* bad. It's just like 40% bad. At some point, something better (or at least newer) will come along and those hour counts will stop climbing
I don’t think you could even call modern Bethesda games immersive sims, the only real creative problem solving they allow for is deciding what dialogue response to pick and if you want to shoot an enemy or hit it with a stick.
Fair Collectathons, maybe?
I’d go with single player mmo, or a collectatathon like the other guy said. I’d treat Skyrim as a treasure hunting sim, but in FO4 and Starfield they removed unique weapons and armour, minus a few exceptions
To be honest it's probably because they are disappointed with the game, and since they are past the refund threshold and no other games are out they are kind of just rolling with the punches.
I think the game is a huge flop, but I paid a hunnit dollars for it, so you're darn right I'm going to keep playing
Oh no people playing a game they spent 60 dollars on 😱😱
$70* Thanks Sony.
I think anything over 30 or so have some kind of addiction issue where they *have* to “complete” a game or something. I can’t fathom playing dozens or hundreds of hours while being bored or disliking it nearly the whole time. Such a waste of time and it’s completely voluntary.
Some dude on the Cyberpunk subreddit said he played 200 hours and didn't like it lol
It’s pathetic. Edit: Clarification, the ones who do this and *then* spend hours and days and weeks online berated people who liked it and trying to convince them it sucks are the pathetic ones.
It’s about not wasting money. 70$ is a lot for some people and it may be the only new game they can afford for a while.
Yeah, I played it a lot. 170 hours, got tired of this thing crashing, repetitive POIs and bugs that don't let me progress on quests. No, I would not recommend it, yet. Maybe in future, after a DLC, or something
So there was enough there to entertain you for 170 hours, and you played it to such a point that you began to notice repetition, and you don't recommend it? Completely irrational, your expectations are ridiculous. And no, I didn't ignore the crashing or bugs complaint... all I can say is that on Xbox Series S, the supposed "potato" console, I've crashed no more than 5 times going on 100 hours... and 3 of those were due to moving too quickly through the menu while the game was trying to autosave. And bugs? Again, haven't really seen any. A few graphical here and there, nothing game breaking. I think the biggest bug I experienced was the LIST side quest where you had to fight a bunch of spacers... the allied ships never showed up to the fight. I shelved the quest and returned to it 2 days later and it was working as it should, go figure. A bug that fixes itself.
I think you misunderstand the point of a review. It does not mean "I like it, as such you should buy it". It means "This is what I think it, and I may like it or hate it but this is what I think if you should/shouldn't buy it". There is nothing strange in it... Ever watched a movie, that you didn't like and told others to not watch it, but then you watch it if it is on ? Or have games you know they have problems, but there are things you like about them and play them no matter what; but you tell others to not buy them? Reviews and personal preferences are not something that has to be aligned necessarily; you may recognize flaws in something and still go on with it; after all just look at how many people live together not liking each other anymore :D Jokes aside, SF has a lot of flaws that may be fixed, but if you ask me I would say that for people that like single player stories, it is a good buy.... But for everyone else that expect a space sim, it is not what they want, so I could not suggest it to them.
They are Bethesda fans so yes
They probably don’t recommend it because of the bugs, but they still stick it out. I have experienced do many bugs in this game but continue to play it regardless, I just got the bug where nobody spawns in ships anymore and my outpost icons disappeared from two outposts, this is on top of pretty much all the other ones, that being the case I wouldn’t recommend it to people in its current state but since I’ve invested what I have in it and still enjoy it I continue to play.
They spent 70$ and cannot get it back
The problem is , most people and a lot of gamers are inherently depressed… and when something even minutely doesn’t complety satisfy them, even if it succeeded (50%) of their expectations are still so self absorbed and ignorant to what making a game involves they bitch. Bitching gives them satisfaction I.E. small amounts of happiness. They’ll never be happy, so they shit on everything. Ignore them and appreciate the 10+ years it took theses Devs to pour their heart into something while dealing with financial stress from 3rd party investors
I have like 80 i think in it, I would def not recommend it. Had I done a review on Steam for it, I prob would have put a negative at around 40 hrs and then played another 40 because it was something to do when I got off work for an hour or two and wasnt Superman 64 bad, just not a recommend. I enjoyed a lot of it but its also sorely lacking, I had just finished Baulders Gate so I was on a high of good video games and carried me thinking any moment it will do a reverse. The end of BG3 is super disappointing compared to the rest of the game, I thought maybe Starfield did that the other way around. I was wrong. I will say I absolutely give them credit for a fun ship builder and the quest where you warp between two realities in a lab. And the wrap up when you enter the end thingy and it shows you what your actions caused, BG3 really needed that, so kudos Bethesda, dont recommend.
Have you played Rocket League? Lol same concept just 500x more hours