Gaming

19960 readers

1 users here now

Sub for any gaming related content!

Rules:

1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Metallinatus@lemmy.ml

peternile@lemmy.ml

531

Bethesda says most of Starfield's 1000+ planets are dull on purpose because 'when the astronauts went to the moon, there was nothing there' but 'they certainly weren't bored' (www.pcgamer.com)

submitted 2 years ago by thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca to c/gaming@lemmy.ml

207 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Sure Todd, lol

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] lemming007@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I gave Starfield a fair chance, I played it for 20 hours, patiently waiting on why it deserved an "8.4" rating from critics. But it never delivered. The gameplay is a copy of Fallout 4, the user interface is a mess (they've gone backwards somehow) and the world is just so generic and uninspiring that I couldn't bear one more minute of it.

I can see why it's got a 5.5 from real players.

On a side note, the gaming reviews now mirror Rotten tomatoes. What the professional paid "critics" love, doesn't necessarily mean the players do, and vice versa. The real players always give a more fair rating.