Its a great game, if it was released in 2013. Now its just average. They have doubled and tripled down on the formula, chucked a coat of paint on the engine and called it a day. Whats astonishing is that they spent so long doing it. I've done the MSQ, one faction questline and half of another and I'd say thats at least 1/3, probably closer to 1/2 of the curated storyline content of the game. All of it was ok I guess, but nothing in it jumped out as particularly well written, let along consequential and meaningful. I'm struggling to see how it ate so many dev hours.
I think these days we have a much more mature gamer audience, and Starfield seems squarely targeted at teens. There just isn't the depth of more modern game storytelling. Some I blame on the engine (well alot tbh) but some is squarely on Bethesda for playing it so safe. Does not bode well for ESVI.
I’m struggling to see how it ate so many dev hours.
Lots of stuff got added: space combat, ship building, the new research system, the rank challenges stuff, new lockpicking, and I bet loads of stuff besides that I forgot. Adding all of that stuff to a new game from scratch would take a good chunk of time, but I can imagine patching it all in to an ancient game engine that’s probably barely hanging together honestly it’s surprising they got some of it working at all
an ancient game engine that’s probably barely hanging together
I think Bethesda is a company full of people at the terminus of their careers - they don't know how to make any other kind of game than "Bethesda RPG," they don't know how to use any other game engine, and they are unable to learn either of those skills. Many other game studios have learned to evolve and shift their resources and assets - Naughty Dog doesn't still use the Jak and Daxter engine, From Software went from making mecha games like Armored Core to defining an entire genre with Dark Souls. It seems like Bethesda doesn't have the capacity to change like other companies.
That’s actually a bad comparison. Elden Ring and AC6 use the same engine, which is at least a heavily modified Demon Souls engine. FromSoftware is much closer to Bethesda in how they reuse tech than you realize
I was referring to the Armored Core games that From developed starting with the original PlayStation in 1997. But to your point, it speaks to their flexibility in using the same engine to make games of two fairly different genres.
I wanted it to be a big Bethesda RPG in space, and I got exactly that and I’m happy. People seem to have convinced themselves the game was going to be all kinds of things it never ever hinted at and now they’re upset it isn’t.
No doubt. Enjoy your video games the way you want to enjoy them. I picked up RDR2 again recently, got to the point where you’re supposed to break Micah out of prison, and I’m just like, fuck that guy. I’m going hunting and playing dress-up.
It's a mechanically reasonably modern (it feels very comparable to Deus Ex or Cyberpunk gunplay/stealth wise, with better perk/level-up design) Bethesda RPG. You have to fly around more because it's set in space and most of space is empty, but there are still a lot of places to go and it's easy to get sucked down a rabbit hole.
My complaints are pretty mild. I'd like some kind of speeder for the empty "run a mile" bits, I miss the aimless wandering of terrestrial maps and kind of wish there had been some places set up to feel like that, and I occasionally see issues with texture loading. But it's the game the direct said it was going to be, and I'm personally very happy with it (though if it could get cleaned up enough to run a little better on my steam deck I wouldn't complain).
From what I’ve seen and heard, Starfield is on par with Fallout 3. I can’t imagine being upset about that. Fallout 3 is great. Seems like some people wanted it to be No Man’s Sky + Star Citizen + Cyberpunk and like… no, it’s a Bethesda game. You know what that means already. I’m looking forward to picking it up and playing it, as I’ve always enjoyed their games for the weird sandboxes that they are.
Exactly. I went in blind. No trailers, no interviews, no hype. All I knew was it was a Bethesda space game. It started off slow, but after about 12 hrs (half of which was me goofing off and gun running for money), I’m starting to really like the game.
Seeing a trashcan explode into a tesseract-can is pretty funny, albeit a bit concerning about what other props have multiple copies embedded in them. I do hope Bethesda seriously re-evaluates their stance and does some optimization and scrubbing. The game runs ok on my system, but my card should not be screaming as hard as it is.
"if you just take it for what it is without thinking what you wanted it to be"
Why would I do that for any video game? With that mindset, you could claim any game is good, because you aren't actually engaging with its content on the level that it deserves.
I had no expectations going in (wasn’t planning to play it) and came out having fun. I don’t know what expectations you or anyone else had, but maybe those expectations are what ruined the game. I don’t think anyone’s claiming the game is perfect (anyone who is probably is trolling), but it’s pretty dismissive of its strengths for people to say it’s unplayable (unless you legit can’t run it, which is fair). If all you focus on is what the game doesn’t do well, then you might as well only ever play perfect masterpieces because all other games will be a disappointment. If the price is a concern, it will probably go on sale eventually anyway, assuming you don’t find alternatives before then.
I do think there are a lot of flaws with the game, but those flaws have already been elaborated in great depth by others. Despite those flaws, game is still fun and has a lot of room for mods to come in and make it better.
Is it possible to block a domain without blocking the OP? I'm sure they're a nice person, but they post the dumbest rage bait articles, and I'm sick of seeing them in my feed.
I mean if you look at the post history, OP has posted a LOT of things, but also posted two mary sue articles with kind of inflammatory takes on BG3, and Starfield. So I would not say they specifically have been posting rage bait.
They are just a super poster, they post just tons of gaming articles that strike their fancy, which is cool it keeps this community fresh, but it’s not always good, just is what it is, I won’t complain really because it’s not like I’m much of a poster.
I think the ones that bother me more are the ones that are rage bait for a thing that the OP hasn't even experienced themselves. Maybe everyone else enjoys X and you find an article that summarizes your feeling on it, so you post that article and say how you share that position. That's all well and good. But posting an article that's angry about FFXVI's depiction of slavery, even though OP has no first-hand experience with the game to say if the article is full of shit or not; that bugs me. I don't know how many of the topics the OP has first-hand experience with, but I know they have none with FFXVI, and all of these articles are just designed to get people angry about something. Plenty of games have slavery in them without having to make their story about slavery being bad; we know slavery is bad. If OP has a problem with it after playing the game and that article sums up their thoughts, then it's okay to post that article. If OP is sincerely as pissed off about every one of these things that the articles they post are pissed off about, then maybe I should block them, because they'd have to be a miserable person. We also don't need 3 slightly updated posts about Baldur's Gate 3's split-screen not working on the Series S.
I post things that I think can get people talking and spark conversations along with things I think are interesting. I posted this, for example, because of the way it was talking about how gamers can get tribal and make it so you can’t seriously talk about a game when that happens because of how some folks lose their shit when you try.
It starts conversations because it's designed to get people angry. It's the kind of engagement-driving Twitter nonsense that the fediverse doesn't rely on. Try shooting from the heart with your own opinion in a self post rather than just posting the most outrageous thing someone said on the internet today.
Is it possible to block a domain without blocking the OP?
You mean, block the domain of the link? Maybe you could do that with a keyword filter in an app. Unfortunately it’s not a native Lemmy/kbin function (yet, AFAIK).
On Steam I have 150+ hours and in my achievements I see that only 0.7% of players have touched 100 planets.
So I don’t think that people are being honest and/or don’t really understand how big the game is.
This game is huge. I spent apx 40 hours just surveying systems. And I can for sure say that the prog gen is very well done. Very well especially when comparing to other space games and when specifically talking about POI integration. Every POI looks like it was built there, with minor glitches and imperfections people with less hours would not even notice. The POIs feel balanced especially when the environment is taken into account.
At 100 planets you really begin to understand the breadth of it. The planets I have been on have anywhere from 3-10+ POIs and you can “push” the invisible wall to prog gen more POIs which I understand breaks some immersion but I am fine with it. Some moons are devoid of anything, some have life, some have POIs, and some don’t. The planets typically have at least 3-5 resources and 3-5 flora and fauna. 6+ is common enough as well. While patterns may emerge between systems, it still feels pretty random and balanced.
And again, this game is massive. I haven’t even seen nearly all of the systems which I imagine will hold some easter eggs.
Lastly, this game is meant to be played slow. It’s an explorer game. You can’t rush or speed run this one. Sure some of the stories suck, yet plenty are good. Just like real life.
I can’t wait to see if someone does an “all systems surveyed” video. Because even if you have your surveyed maxxed you have to scan at the surface too. Unless it’s a gas/ice giant.
My experience is kinda the exact opposite, I hate how repetitive the planets are and stopped exploring them besides setting up resource collectors.
What I love about the game is the questing and ship building aspects, there is so much depth to what you can do with your ship that it’s kind of ridiculous that it’s such a small part of the game otherwise.
I have about 120 hours and I also haven’t touched 100 planets. I don’t see the point in it, when they are mostly empty with randomly generated content that by now I’ve seen every possible thing that can exist, I’d just be seeing more of the same; exploring the same handful of possible base configurations across hundreds of planets isn’t really exploring. None of that stuff is interesting, and the stories and dialogue aren’t very interesting either. It’s exactly what I expected, and I guess I just don’t want that anymore. I want them to actually improve the formula and gameplay, and stop making the same exact game with a different coat of paint.
is it impossible to have a balanced conversation about starfield in particular, or does the internet ad economy tend to exclude the middle of every conversation in favor of loud antagonism and engagement bait?
"An honest conversation about Starfield needs to come from judging the game for what it is. And the game itself is … fine, I guess? A recent Kotaku article articulates in more detail how Starfield isn’t “humanity’s greatest achievement,” but it’s an enjoyable game and that’s fine. The menu system is extremely clunky and the aforementioned encumbrance issue is still there—all systems that haven’t changed in decades. Whether it’s deliveries or the fate of the galaxy, nobody else seems to do anything but you, the player. Just because these are hallmarks of past Bethesda games doesn’t mean that they get a free pass.
And herein lies the problem. Because Starfield is so similar to Bethesda’s previous offerings (for better or worse), Bethesda “fans” are pushing back against critiques of the game as a critique of all Bethesda properties. Looking at Sterling’s video about encumbrance again, the online defense of the game’s issues boils down to fans saying, “I can’t tell you why. I just do.” This is indicative of the lack of thought that Bethesda actively encourages in their games."
Yeah, that article does a good job at summing up the issues here. It really shows that maybe we need to have a broader conversation about how most past Bethesda games are worse in retrospect, actually. Starfield is helping to exemplify and point out that.
Tia Nadiezja over in the comments there also has good points:
"Bethesda games get a pass on serious, game-breaking problems that would kill games from other companies. Skyrim still, a decade and more after its original release, two full remasters in, has more glitches and bugs than Mass Effect: Andromeda or Cyberpunk did at launch, and those bugs did serious damage to those games' reputation.
Throw in the horrific treatment of staff by Bethesda's management and the open transphobia they've displayed, and people should not be playing this bad game. Have some standards, folks!"
That second paragraph has nothing to do with the quality of the game Bethesda Studio made though, not that Bethesda Softworks/Zenimax don’t deserve criticism for the HR issue, but it’s not fair to put that on Todd and his team.
I feel that the problem right now is that Starfield can be both considered a Game of the Year contender as well as an absolute waste of money and time for different people, and they can both be completely correct based on their personal preferences.
Personally, I’ve already played all the Starfield (~45h) I’m likely to play for a long while. It turns out that the majority of the gameplay - random exploration, radiant questing, etc - are things that absolutely bore me, and the crafting/construction/research systems are far too rudimentary, pointless / siloed from the rest of the game, and clunky to keep me particularly interested either. So for me it’s a very mid game, something I’d at best recommend picking up at a significantly discounted sale a few years from now - when there’s enough mods to actually make it interesting.
On the other hand, some people I’ve spoken to turn out to absolutely love the radiant questing and proc-gen worlds, a few of them now having more than twice as much time as me in the game - and still loving every second they can spend in it.
The inventory system was acceptable 20 years ago when 1024x768 was a good resolution. Today it’s bad, and I don’t understand why some people can’t just admit that. It’s kinda telling that after an hour or so of play I started to look for mods to fix my pain points. Nearly 400k people are using the mod StarUI Inventory. I have an ultra wide monitor, and I have to configure my FoV in an ini file. It’s also an HDR monitor… I have to disable HDR on because it’s basically unplayable right now. Flashlight reflections on anything close to shiny are blinding.
The procedural generation doesn’t deserve the praise it’s getting. It’s no where near as complicated as people think. It’s not generating the terrain, it’s just picking from a set of giant pre-made tiles and dropping some rocks and trees on them. It’s not generating the buildings, just picking from a set of pre-made buildings. It’s not even filling the buildings procedurally… I had 2 quests in a row that used the same building. Identical building map, same robot you could reprogram near the front door. Same barricades, same small safe on a desk with the same 2 digikeys on a table just around the corner… There’s only so many cave maps too, but it does look like they block off some of the tunnels with rubble so it feels like more. I explored 2 caves in a row that had the same map, with the same safe up on a cliff you have to jump to.
It’s not ‘bad’, but it’s not as good as it should be. Once you start seeing it, you can’t un-see it and the vast amount of content shrinks. It makes me a little sad knowing how many people worked on this, and how long they worked on it, that we didn’t get more out of it.
Nearly 400k people are using the mod StarUI Inventory.
I love the overall experience, the vibe, the story, etc… but just like Skyrim the UI is trash. Bethesda sucks at UI, especially inventory UI. SkyUI was mandatory when I played Skyrim. I feel the same about Starfield. Same shit inventory mgmt. I still love the game. Hate the UI. I’m on the gamepass version and haven’t even looked to see if I can mod it yet (I’m assuming I can’t).
Eh to each their own. I very much prefer the inventory in a tabular format with all the useful details, up front, that I can sort by. And I’m very much a fan of the value/weight column.
I like it so far, planetary exploration and the ship are the biggest letdowns.
I get the feeling that it would be a much better game if they just focused on what they are known for being good at, interesting maps and immersive worlds.
Do you think that’s because a lot of the planets are procedurally generated? I’ve seen people saying that since they’re generated, not hand crafted, they feel really same-y after a while, and there’s never anything interesting to find to start you on a quest you could easily miss, like you could find in other Bethesda games by exploring.
A lot of the game world in Oblivion and pretty much all of it in Daggerfall were procedurally generated by Bethesda yet I personally consider them to be the best games that Bethesda has ever produced!
Imho its because the procedural underpinnings are so close to the surface. How are you supposed to stay immersed when you know roughly how many POI's there will be and that you will see the exact same POI on multiple planets, right down to object placement? They will all be within running distance of the ship etc etc.
Its not the first game to do it, NMS is pretty immersion breaking in this respect, but at least its somewhat masked by being able to cruise around the surface, use vehicles etc. But I think proc gen for POI's is a trap for devs. If they do go down that path there needs to be a deep well of content to stitch together so that things feel unique.
I suspect the use of AI in game design (not necessarily in runtime) will go a long way to improving this sort of thing. Its one reason I think the Creation Engine is a dead man walking so to speak and a really bad call for ESVI. I doubt they will be able to shoehorn in AI to the dev pipeline effectively.
How would you solve that paradox. You can always procedurally generate the encounters, buildings, dialogs to make it more interesting. Look at Minecraft or dwarf fortress. They have done a pretty good job in that sense I think
That's what I was going to suggest as well. Basically, the planets and whatever is on the could benefit from a greater degree of procedural generation, even if as trivial as variable room layouts, but a deeper system (variable objects, contents, colors, designs based on the module manufacturer like with ship habs, etc.) would greatly remedy the repetitiveness, as with the current system, you've basically seen all the POIs or the type once you've seen one of them.
Planet surface is nice, though, because I agree with Bethesda's idea of barren and deserted planets being much more prevalent than those that support any kind of life or even atmosphere. Elevation and scenery changes are also fine by me.
But still, POIs are oddly repetitive, even if somewhat numerous. They definitely should've gone for the more roguelike approach or something and use more proc gen with these.
Kind of, I don’t mind the surface being procedurally generated but the landmarks themselves are empty.
Finding a dungeon in Skyrim means a unique layout, rewards and maybe a quest. In Starfield landmarks can’t be unique because they need to populated too many planets but they are also empty, there is never anything worth grabbing or finding inside.
Interestingly, the original elder scrolls games had a lot of procedurally generated content, it was only Morrowind that was the first “handmade” world from what I recall. But it would have been much cooler if they could have added a few interesting little secrets or stories to each planet and just had fewer of them or something.
I feel ya, OP. I bought Cyberpunk 2077 at launch, played the hell out of it and loved every second of it. Then I tried to find honest discussion about it and it was threads full of nonstop bitching or substance-free fluff from the low sodium crowd. There wasn't a place to find balanced talk where people could share their experiences about the game while also being civil and open minded about things.
If you are just looking to create discussion, I guess this thread has been successful as it's gotten a lot of replies already.
I had the same experience with CP. 50 hours put in at launch and had a good time. Yet you’d think the game killed players dog the way the chatter online went.
Open world games can be played in a lot of different ways depending on your playestile you might care or not care about it’s limitations. So just because feature X is missing doesn’t mean it would matter to everyone or it’s automatically a bad game.
In those Reddit threads almost everyone seemed like they had second hand information or it was just a meme that was constantly repeated.
Basically just memeing to death how bad is was… it actually had valve like store policies, really good latency compared to other cloud options (even now) to the point it felt local even on a shooter, false information that you had to pay a subscription to play your purchased games, etc
There felt like a lot of people who really wanted CP to be GTAV and were extremely upset that it wasn't.
There was also a lot of angst from people who saw the words "open world" and expected it to mean some Second Life-esque escapist experience, rather than the actual meaning of open world, as in there is a big environment where you are free to roam around and do stuff in.
Misled expectations from the marketing hype absolutely played a key role in all of that furor, but at least for me, I tune out most of it since I like making my own opinions on things.
There's a TON more that could be said but those are the three standout points from my perspective.
Yes that was the loudest portion of the complaints for sure.
Marketing also hit the create overhype button one too many times. Maybe given the topic, genre and time of release it would have create overhype anyway, but its a moot point at this point.
It looks like they’ve made a LOT of fixes to some of the base mechanics, so hopefully that’ll make the game closer to what it was envisioned to be. It might make the game feel fresh for a replay.
Yeah. I started one a few weeks ago but I paused it when I heard that 2.0 is coming out. I'm gonna pick up the expansion and just play a new run all the way through, maybe watch Edgerunners again too.
Not really sure what response you’re looking for here. Perhaps the same one as going into any community and saying “I’m so tired of hearing about [major thing that happened recently related to the community].”
“God damn I’m so tired of hearing about the Super Bowl, it’s been a freaking week can y’all just get over it?”
Just to go on the other side, you're clearly a substantial poster of interesting content on the gaming Fediverse, even if it ends up as articles about the latest large games. You also participate in the comments sections with pretty level opinions, and it blows my mind that that person was calling this a "nothingburger" of a post even though they're obviously bookended by tons of engagement.
Yeah i’m with the other guy. On one hand lemmy need content, so talking about the lastest exciting thing makes sense, on the other hand there’s that dude whining about content they don’t like to see instead of keep scrolling.
Well so did I, but I also bought into whole ecosystem for this game (Series X). So I'm actually pretty disappointed in how its turned out. First it was the 30fps thing, got over that then saw the reviews and thought this could be great. Then I started playing and hit all the load screens. Thats when I realised I was not going to align with the 10/10 reviews lol. I personally have it somewhere between 6 and 7. But parts can be a 4 to me (immersion) and parts can be an 8 or even 9 (working through a 'dungeon' picking locks, sniping, setting up ambushes etc)
If you're struggling to find "substantial" conversations on topics you want to talk about, maybe you should be the one to initiate those conversations.
Come on man, I’ve seen you around a lot and I know you post a lot of good stuff, but to be fair, you’re not blameless here. I get that you’re not interested in a game and it’s frustrating to see lots of posts about it dominating your feed, but clearly the OP is interested and excited about it, and basically telling them to shut up about their interest just because it’s not what you want to hear about is a mean thing to do. It would be different if they posted spam links to their own blog every single day or something like that but they post all sorts of relevant news links to various communities so I think they just share stories they’re interested in, and that’s valuable to the community too! We all should be working together to build a nice friendly community to talk about what we enjoy and sometimes that means we have to tolerate others quirks and discussing things we don’t particularly care for.
There are nine reviews on metacritic from various outlets that score the game 100/100. I would love for every single one of those reviewers to look me in the eye and with a straight face, repeat the claim that Starfield is perfect and there is absolutely nothing in the game that could possibly be improved on. If you want to know who’s not conversing honestly, that’d be a good kicking-off point.
I have serious questions for anyone who gives a game, any game, a completely perfect score, especially one that is known to have some technical issues.
Then read the text of the review where that should be explained. Stop putting so much stock in scores. Most sites would do away with them if Meta/Open Critic hadn’t screwed up the system so they have to rely on clickthroughs. Eurogamer actually did for almost a decade but recently had to bring them back.
To me, a perfect score doesn’t (or shouldn’t) mean a game is literally perfect. It means “I recommend this game without reservation. Everyone with the slightest interest in the genre should play it.”
Granted, even by that standard a lot of these perfect scores are pretty questionable
And that’s why comparing different people’s ratings is so difficult. 10/10 can mean “absolutely perfect and impossible to ever improve upon”, it can mean “the best possible execution right now”, it can mean “the best expected result with no major flaws”, it can mean “I had a good time and would recommend this to anyone”, and so on. All of these definitions are valid.
Aggregate scores paper over those differences. That automatically makes them less accurate.
Also, the problem with "perfect" as your standard is that it doesn't exist. Everything is inherently tradeoffs. There are games with better gunplay than Starfield. There are games with better story telling. The games that do that are a lot smaller and more contained. As good as BG3 is at writing and presentation, even that's not perfect, and what they did do was only realistic because it's a CRPG and the story is the overwhelming majority of the development work. There are games that are bigger in terms of absolute size of the universe you can discover and land on, but they don't have the same depth of character development and combat options, the same quality or amount of hand crafted story content, etc.
You're always going to be able to point to games that do some specific element better than a given game, and the more ambitious a game is in providing a huge scope, the more things you'll be able to point to and say "X did this better" (because there are more elements to nitpick). Not every game is for everyone, but looking for failings is a bad way to explore or evaluate a game. It dramatically limits what you see.
Stop putting so much stock in scores. That score means those reviewers had a 10/10 experience by their subjective standards, if it doesn’t meet yours, thats fine, but it doesn’t mean the review is wrong. Read the damn text.
Well, they wouldn’t, because not all of the nine thought the game was perfect. A 100 on Metacritic only means the game placed in the top score for a given publication (4 out of 4 stars in WaPo’s case, for example).
In games criticism, a top score doesn’t always mean a perfect game. It can mean the game met or surpassed the current benchmark in its genre, or it simply was good enough to be in a top tier.
@Ashtear Exactly. The 100% rating is often misunderstood. It does not mean perfect game, plus every publication has their own standards. Therefore one 100% is not comparable to another 100%. And like in your example conversions from 4/4 to 100% (because it can only be 0%, 25%, 75% or 100%), is done so an overall Metacritic score can be calculated.
For the longest time I think Metacritic is a bad for the gaming industry, if they lean too much towards (in example bonuses for developers, if they reach a certain rating).
I don’t think that we need to continue to “think” it’s bad for the games industry. It IS bad for the industry. Period. Very famously, obsidian got less money and lost out on a bonus from the initial release of fallout NV because it didn’t hit 80 on metacritic. We need to stop pretending these scores are objective or reflect anything about user enjoyment of a game. Users maybe, but the critic score is worse than useless. It’s downright misinformation to aggregate critic scores.
Like the entire point of critics is to provide different perspectives on a game. Why would I want their average? The average of their opinion is not the average gamer opinion and it also isn’t the average of the individual readers opinion.
I need no further proof than go look up the last 5 games you played on metacritic and try to guess the critic and user score and get within 5 points each time.
Maximum score (4 stars, 5 stars, 10/10, 100%, whatever they’re calling it) not meaning the game is perfect is not at all a problem to me. There are games I absolutely love and would recommend to just about anyone and even then I don’t think they’re “perfect”.
The thing that bothers me most is how average scores specifically for games are basically never used, and below average scores are just a handful of the most broken things ever.
It’s so absurd that on metacritic for games, “average” goes from 50 to 74%. In movies it goes from 40 to 64. I don’t know for everyone else, but I don’t consider 7 out of 10 an “average” mark. And a game so broken it almost doesn’t run at all doesn’t deserve 5/10 (really, I’ve seen some).
Anyway, review scores are silly. Read the guys’ opinions, see why they like it and why they don’t. Someone’s absolute favorite masterpiece is someone else’s most unplayable shit.
It feels a lot like scores have been artificially inflated for a long time. Like you said, games that can barely run will get a 5, or a 4 at the lowest. It’s like half the possible scores have been lopped off, so there’s no real way to tell what a score actually means. A 7 should be a perfectly serviceable game, but it’s treated like you’ve called a game complete trash for anything below a 8.
Some publishers have been known to threaten publications that give “bad” (ie. even average) scores, mainly with not giving them preview copies anymore in the future.
Did you ask the same question when Witcher 3, Legend Of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, etc etc the same question?
It’s sort of dishonest when Starfield get this sort of treatment when metacritic score has been inflated for ages, no thanks to both gamer, journalist, and publisher.
Add comment