Starfield Review - This game is a disaster!

“Loading Screen Simulator”

The reviewer finds “Starfield” Bethesda Game Studios’ newest role-playing game, disappointing and not worth its high price. The graphics do not impress, character models seem odd, and its vast universe feels soulless and disjointed due to its dependence on perks and loading screens. The game’s structure based on “boxes” or instances rather than a seamlessly connected world makes immersion difficult. Stellar travel is done through map clicks rather than actual spaceship travel, diluting the gameplay experience. The combat system has enjoyable moments and the game offers extensive customization options, but the missions are lacklustre and the open world is not immersive. The game also heavily relies on perks for even basic actions like lock picking or targeting specific components on enemy ships. The reviewer believes the game should have been much better given its budget and will not revisit it until it’s heavily modded.

“Starfield” is the latest, highly anticipated release from Bethesda Game Studios, the makers of “Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim” and “Fallout 4”. The game has expansive world-building mechanics, featuring role-playing elements, character customization, and the promise of endless exploration among the stars. However, despite running smoothly on high-end hardware and a high degree of freedom, the graphics were a point of disappointment for the player, failing to show a significant improvement compared to Bethesda’s earlier titles.

A significant concern lies with the game’s progression system, which heavily relies on character perks. Unfortunately, many essential abilities and gameplay mechanics are locked behind perks, causing frustration to the player who was unable to progress through missions due to a lack of the required perks. This system forced the player to invest in perks they might not have been interested in to progress through the game which he describes as ‘padding’.

The world-building and game mechanics left the player feeling cold about the game, referring to it as ‘soulless’. The reviewer contrasts “Starfield” with its spiritual predecessors, such as “Skyrim”, “Oblivion”, or “Fallout”, where players could immerse themselves in vibrant and seamless game worlds. In contrast, “Starfield” consists of ‘instance boxes’, where players jump between tasks and quests, ruining immersion.

The Player criticized the game’s immersion-breaking mechanics, particularly the ‘instant’ travel between environments. Instead of allowing players to experience each journey by piloting vehicles or traveling by foot, the game relegates most journeys to instant travel resulting in an experience described as a ‘loading screen simulator’. The lack of immersion extends to NPC interactions, making characters feel more like storage lockers than individuals with personalities.

Despite these flaws, the game does have redeeming qualities. Some of the firefights were described as thrilling and enjoyable, coupled with a variety of guns and powers added to the enjoyment. The game also offers extensive customization options, achieving a wide range of individual expression and creativity.

However, the player was not impressed with the crafting and spaceship building aspects of gameplay due to the number of locked perks required to access them. The game, according to the player, felt less like an RPG and more like a first-person shooter. While the customization options were a plus, such options coupled with boring missions, and unengaging companions made the game feel tedious.

In the end, the Mac considers “Starfield” a disappointment. With an asking price of £85 or $60, they deemed the game not worth the money, labelling it a ‘loading screen simulator’ with subpar graphics, tedious mechanics, and lacklustre immersion. While it has some redeeming qualities such as gunfights and customization, he believes it falls short of Bethesda’s previous offerings and its competitors in the space RPG genre.

the-eradicator reacts

The Eradicator reviews a video in which a YouTube reviewer, code-named Worth A Buy, gives a negative review to the game Starfield, scoring it 4.5 out of 10. He takes issue with the reviewer’s critique, clarifying and countering several points, such as the game’s role-playing genre, the immersive environment, and the space combat system, arguing that the reviewer may have misunderstood the game’s essence due to misplaced expectations. He suggests that Starfield should score around 8 out of 10. Erad also shows concern for the reviewer’s subscribers, as he believes them to be misinformed by the reviewer’s misunderstanding of the game.

The speaker emphatically disagrees with the original negative review by "Worth A Buy," asserting that the reviewer was not informed and had unreasonable expectations. There’s a debate over the score given to Starfield by the reviewer, who scored it 4.5 out of 10. The speaker maintains this is an unfair score and is exasperated by the critique given to Starfield.

“Worth A Buy” argued the game is soulless and lacks the character of other games of similar genre. He criticized the role of the perk tree system, stating it restricts players unnecessarily. The speaker of this video strongly disagreed with these remarks, arguing that the reviewer showed lack of understanding of the game’s design. According to the speaker, the perk system is a core part of the role-playing experience, and it requires players to gradually develop their skills.

Some of the specifics that “Worth A Buy” reviewer found issue with, and which the speaker contends with, include fast travel, lock picking, quest progression, and the perceived lifelessness of in-game environments. “Worth A Buy” saw these factors as detracting from the game’s value and contributing to what he dubbed as “soulless” game mechanics; in contrast, the speaker argues that these are features that provide challenge and a sense of play progression.

A major point of contention is the use of fast travel within the game. “Worth A Buy” criticized the button-based fast traveling, claiming it detracts from immersion, while the speaker asserts that fast travel is purely a convenience and that players can choose to travel more traditionally if preferred.

“Worth A Buy” also criticized the game’s graphics and its look, claiming that they don’t meet the standard of next-generation graphics, and that there’s a somewhat odd appearance to the in-game characters. However, the speaker defends this by reminding viewers that the in-game setting is vast and furthermore, it is more about the gameplay, exploration and progression, and not about the graphics per se.

Finally, towards the end of his review, "Worth A Buy" takes issue with the many loading screens in the game, the lack of immersion, character stories, and the overall pricing of the game. The speaker from the video acknowledges some of these issues (like loading screens) but staunchly disagrees with most, particularly those related to immersion which, according to the speaker, is a highly subjective matter.

Summarily, the speaker argues that “Worth A Buy” did not approach Starfield with the correct mindset, thus leading to a skewed review. The speaker’s opinion is that Starfield is a role-playing game with its own merits and demerits, and strongly disagrees with the overly-negative review. The speaker is aiming to give it an eight out of ten in his own forthcoming review, considering that a few drawbacks do exist.