Did the hyped-up "Starfield" just crash and burn like that? - News - Offical News | Rustar

Back

Did the hyped-up "Starfield" just crash and burn like that? It's been nearly a week since the highly anticipated game "Starfield" from Bethesda was officially released. I wonder if any of you have had the opportunity to try it out. As a single-player gamer, you've probably heard about "Starfield" even if you aren't one yourself. The game has generated a lot of buzz lately. Since the announcement of "Starfield," it has garnered significant attention from players. Due to Bethesda's reputation in the gaming industry and the quality of their previous titles, many people had high hopes for "Starfield" and considered it a strong contender for the title of "Game of the Year." However, after the game's release, there was a sudden shift in perception. The game's reviews started to decline, with well-known review sites like IGN and GameSpot both giving it a score of 7 out of 10. While IGN's reputation has taken a hit recently, it's unusual for them to give a game such a low score, indicating that "Starfield" may indeed have some significant issues in their eyes. On another front, "Starfield" didn't fare much better on Metacritic, with an initial score of only 87, which pales in comparison to "The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild" with 96 and "The Elder Scrolls III" with 97. "Starfield" had originally positioned itself as a formidable rival to these games, but the reviews took a sharp turn, leading to widespread mockery and negative comments from players. At the time, some of Bethesda's fans tried to defend "Starfield's" underwhelming performance by stating that players who purchased the deluxe edition to access the game early didn't represent everyone's opinion. They argued that the real assessment would come after the game's official release on September 6. However, reality once again proved harsh, as the game's positive review rate on Steam was only 87%, aligning with the scores given by critics. As a result, "Starfield" became a subject of constant mockery and ridicule, with comparisons to Bethesda's previous hit "The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim" and the performance issues seen in "Cyberpunk 2077." This led to the creation of numerous memes and jokes about the game. So, is "Starfield" really as bad as some people claim? Let's objectively discuss Bethesda's controversial new game, starting with the positives. As is well known, Bethesda has excelled in storytelling and world-building in their previous titles, and "Starfield" continues this tradition. The game is filled with complex side storylines that sometimes overshadow the main plot, making the game world feel more rich and interconnected. The world of "Starfield" gains depth through the various side stories, with both the main and side quests influencing each other. Players set up "hooks" in the early stages, leading to chain reactions in the mid-to-late game. This level of immersion, where the entire storyline is woven together, is something most game developers cannot achieve. The game's ship-related content, empowered by the customization system, provides a high degree of playability. Players can control flight, speed, weaponry, and even allocate ship power in real-time to manage shields, gravity, and different weapons. The game offers a wide range of customizable components, allowing players to modify their ships for exaggerated effects, almost akin to building something resembling a "Gundam." These resources are mostly accessible in the early and mid-game, giving players ample freedom for ship modification. Furthermore, "Starfield" is known for its high degree of freedom in an open-world setting. Bethesda has a long history of allowing players to shape their narratives and decide the direction of their adventures, from equipment and skills to plot outcomes. Your every action has profound consequences on the game's direction. A genuine and fascinating sense of freedom in adventure, something everyone aspires to, is vividly experienced in "Starfield." Having highlighted the game's merits, it's time to discuss its downsides, which follow Bethesda's long-standing tradition. The character animations are extremely stiff, and weapon handling leaves much to be desired. On top of that, numerous bugs have turned off many players from the start. What's even more unbearable are the many loading screens and delays in the game. Even simple actions like entering and exiting elevators result in two separate black screens. It's hard to imagine this design in a 2023 open-world game. In a similar space-themed game, "No Man's Sky," which was released seven years ago, seamless transitions were possible. In contrast, "Starfield" requires loading screens just for opening doors, leaving players scratching their heads. Another significant drawback is the game's tutorial and lack of information. There's an absence of essential tutorials and information in the game's early stages, and players have to figure out many skills and convenience functions themselves in the mid-game. Furthermore, there isn't a detailed map for urban areas, so players have to rely on their memory to keep track of visited locations. It's quite unbelievable that the "four main cities emphasized by the game" on the star map don't even have distinct individual markings. Additionally, the character modeling of NPCs in "Starfield" is extremely strange, and both male and female characters have exceptionally unattractive designs. The facial expressions of NPCs have made many players uncomfortable. It's become so challenging to continue playing without mods. While character design has never been Bethesda's strong suit, the complete lack of basic "aesthetics" is quite disappointing. It's hard to believe that anyone with real-life experience of women could design characters with such unattractive appearances. Finally, there's the issue of the game's poor optimization. Even with a 30-series graphics card, the game struggles to maintain a stable 60 frames per second in most scenarios, let alone older hardware. Players are well aware that Bethesda's optimization problems are a long-standing issue, and clinging to the legacy "Creation" engine hasn't done "Starfield" any favors. What's more frustrating is that the game's director, Todd Howard, responded to the widespread optimization issues by saying, "You should upgrade your computer." It appears that the manufacturer's inaction is passing the cost onto players. In summary, "Starfield" is a game of mixed feelings. It doesn't reach the level of excellence achieved by top-tier titles like "The Elder Scrolls III" or "The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild," but it's not of such low quality either. Bethesda's solid RPG foundation is showcased effectively in "Starfield," but this robust performance also highlights the game's flaws. In the end, "Starfield" may have suffered due to the excessive hype generated by its official marketing and players' unrealistically high expectations. If you're a dedicated Bethesda fan or a patient gamer who doesn't mind minor imperfections, then "Starfield" is certainly a game that can offer good value for your money. However, if you're a casual gamer who has never played a Bethesda game before and find it challenging to tolerate poor optimization, it's advisable to wait for subsequent mods and improvements for a better gaming experience.

1

1

33

Best Comments

Leonardo Tobalina

Crazy jajaja

Reply

Upvote

Oct.5,2024

Add a comment

Selected Games

Download Rustar APP

Join Telegram Group