Starfield Shattered Space Fails To Impress With 'Mostly Negative' Steam Reviews

[Imouto]

So Microsoft has had its Redfall moment this year too.

Redfall Reviews

Redfall is rated 'Weak' after being reviewed by 144 critics, with an overall average score of 57. It's ranked in the bottom 12% of games and recommended by 13% of critics.

opencritic.com

Starfield: Shattered Space Reviews

Starfield: Shattered Space is rated 'Weak' after being reviewed by 48 critics, with an overall average score of 61. It's ranked in the bottom 19% of games and recommended by 40% of critics.

opencritic.com

 

[ecin96]

It's good/bad ratio of 1:2 for me. Played 300 hours and don't recommend it. Now ultra cautious of all future games they make. But if you buy any game on day one, expect pain.

 

[AGlezB]

Maybe its a space travel simulator?

With a loading screen between each step.

 

[Vayra86]

With a loading screen between each step.

Totally missed opportunity for them to just make it all hyperspace jumps and then just showing us a screen that matches that instead of 'Please wait, loading' ... Countless space games have gone before them showing how its done, too. Its really odd if you think of it; and it makes the overall verdict on the game's design even worse

It's good/bad ratio of 1:2 for me. Played 300 hours and don't recommend it. Now ultra cautious of all future games they make. But if you buy any game on day one, expect pain.

Pain is fine, bugs are fine, but if there's just nothing substantial on offer, that's terrible, whether you're in on day one or year two.

 

[Neo_Morpheus]

I kinda don't understand people as Cyperpunk 2077 is just as bad but that had a 'redemption' even though the game itself was bad to mid at best, with bad combat, stale gameplay, terrible storyline and all kind of issues.

So I really wonder how CD Projekt Red managed to spin it but Bethesda could not when both of those games are so alike(at how bad they are).

My theory?

Remember the crazy backlash just because it was sponsored by AMD?

Or the rumors that AMD was blocking the use of DLSS on the PC version?

Hell, Tim from Ngreedia Unboxed released 3 hit pieces against AMD just because of that rumor and of course, never apologized after the rumors were proven wrong.

On the other hand, Cyberpunk was a showcase of all Ngreedia anticonsumer tech and pusher of everyone's hyped feature called RT.

Anyways, it is what it is and Starfield might end up being considered a failure no matter if it is a good game or not.

 

[EatingDirt]

I kinda don't understand people as Cyperpunk 2077 is just as bad but that had a 'redemption' even though the game itself was bad to mid at best, with bad combat, stale gameplay, terrible storyline and all kind of issues.

So I really wonder how CD Projekt Red managed to spin it but Bethesda could not when both of those games are so alike(at how bad they are).

Is Cyberpunk 2077 'just as bad' though? CP2077 is, in every way, better than Starfield. CP2077 is no masterpiece, but I'd consider it, at this point, to be a good game. I'd be interested to hear what you think Starfield does better, because it's certainly not graphics, gameplay, storyline or combat.

I still haven't really done anything in Starfield. I hoped they would fix the issues and stability and I could start again. Maybe it's not the next Skyrim.

Anyways, it is what it is and Starfield might end up being considered a failure no matter if it is a good game or not.

Starfield is, from a game design standpoint, fundamentally flawed. Bethesda games are typically good games, made great by the modding community. Starfield at it's core is not a good game, it's mediocre if we're being generous. That, combined with the fundamentally flawed choice of engine for a space game (that requires loading screens for basically everything), means most of the foundational modding community for bethesda games abandoned it.

 

[Chrispy_]

Oh apparently I have the expansion for free, I thought the Premium Edition free Starfield offer was limited to 7900-class GPUs....

Played it a bit last night. It's as awful as everyone is saying; Bethesda is stuck trying to make a game for 2011 but all the people who know how to do that left the studio a decade ago. Honestly, it feels like they made Shattered Space at the same time as the base game, except that rather than sell the whole as one, they intentionally paywalled the Var'uun side of things off to artificially create fake DLC.

The absence of any House of Var'uun stuff in the base game feels like it was forcefully removed from the launch game like someone being knocked out by thugs and waking up to find a kidney missing. Now that we have that metaphorical kidney back, it's damaged - ie, it has all the failings of the base game at launch (bugs, T-posing, lifeless acting, no player agency, shitty monochrome filters over everything).

Is Cyberpunk 2077 'just as bad' though? CP2077 is, in every way, better than Starfield. CP2077 is no masterpiece, but I'd consider it, at this point, to be a good game. I'd be interested to hear what you think Starfield does better, because it's certainly not graphics, gameplay, storyline or combat.

CP2077 was rushed out the door well before it was ready, and honestly it wasn't until the 2.0 patch came along that the base game was what I'd call "finished", a good couple of years after the terrible launch.

Starfield was delayed by Microsoft for a year because the original 2022 launch date would have meant a catastrophically buggy and unfinished game, much like CP2077's Christmas 2020 launch fiasco. The fact it was in QC and refinement for a year and still launched an incomplete and buggy mess speaks volumes. By patch 1.3 CP2077 was objectively a good game.

I think the biggest scam of Starfield was this:

 

[persondb]

Is Cyberpunk 2077 'just as bad' though? CP2077 is, in every way, better than Starfield. CP2077 is no masterpiece, but I'd consider it, at this point, to be a good game. I'd be interested to hear what you think Starfield does better, because it's certainly not graphics, gameplay, storyline or combat.

I cannot say objectively which one is better or worse. I wasn't saying 'just as bad' as in pure quality, but the change in the reception.

For the actual game, I did not enjoy either of them. Starfield was just... boring, bland, it's just a bethesda game but with everything made worse.

In my personal opinion, CP77 is very bad though, design wise, it's not a good game. It's a looter shooter with very lite RPG mechanics. I did not play the entire game, nor did I play the 2.0 patch, but I do not think they improved the things that I care about.
I did not like the story that I experienced, as I said I did not play the entire game, I do remember the flashback and Jack death being very cheap pointless.

What I do have to give is that graphics wise that CP77 is very impressive even without RT.