Starfield PC Review: Exploring The Cosmic Highs and Lows - Game Crater

Jayden Hellyar writes, "Starfield is a game of highs and lows; for every enthralling and captivating moment, there is an opposing element lurking close by."

Read Full Story >>
4blender227d ago

The game has proven itself, it's a good game, giving 7 won't change the result! you did it for attention

randomvoice227d ago

LMAO look at the insecurities. Sorry to burst your bubble bud but the game is nowhere near the hype it was sold. 85 on metacritics and still going down as more reviews trickle it. So much for all the GOTY talk.

227d ago
Sunny12345227d ago

Proven to be what exactly ? Ign gave it a 7. It got 4,5s. The user meta is somewhere around 5. The critic meta is dropping. It's proven itself to be overhyped garbage.

227d ago
4blender227d ago

There is labor in the middle, it has been worked on a lot, the duration of the game is quite long! A few critics gave less points to attract attention, but a boring turn-based game like Baldurs Gate definitely does not deserve that many points, there are many like it, little effort was spent.

Poker games are also turn-based.

Tacoboto227d ago

"Nowhere near the hype"

I'm having amazing fun in the game. About 20 hours in the last 4 days. Glad I can enjoy a game while you guys are so bitter, going out of your way to project such negativity on something you'll never attempt to play yourself just because it's not on PlayStation.

As if the FUD over both 30fps and the 10-minute-walking-barrier didn't already demonstrate this, y'all's clinging to 7/10 reviews to push your own narrative is really highlighting just how significantly low some gamers on this site will go, especially when its metacritic is exactly in line with other PS exclusives. And we all know how useless the user meta score is.

It's absolutely pathetic. Games aren't for fun, they're for angry vitriolic bickering!

spss11227d ago (Edited 227d ago )

The amount of hate Starfield gets on here is ridiculous. And I say that as someone who primarily games on Playstation.

I got Starfield on Steam and absolutely love it. I've always wanted a proper space RPG. Freelancer is great but has no land combat. Mass Effect is great but has no space combat. Elite Dangerous is online only. NMS is good but too cartoony and lacks depth.

Is Starfield perfect? No. It could use more varied backgrounds for the space environments. Nebulas or something. But I'm very satisfied with what we got.

anast227d ago

"It's absolutely pathetic." This is vitriolic.

MrNinosan227d ago

I bought a Series X at release just for this one game.
I like it, but it has many flaws and a 7/10 is about right (in my opinion). I still have a great time, but so I did with Saints Row, Crackdown and Forspoken, another 3 games I'd give scores in the range of 6-7.

MrNinosan227d ago

Since when did you "primarily" played on Playstation.
In the 2,5 years you've been around here have you mainly mentioned your CyberPunk Xbox One and all the games you played on your One X or 2080Ti.

In fact, you only mentioned Playstation ones, and that was RDR2 deserving a 10/10 on PS4.

However, Statfield ain't getting more hate than praise.
Sony fanboys are downtalking it just like Xbox fanboys downtalk Final Fantasy XVI.

Xbox fanboys are praising Starfield like the GOTY (which it clearly ain't), while Sony fanboys is praising Final Fantasy or other games.

I loved FFXVI and I love Starfield as well, even thou the experience on my Series X ain't amazing.

But internet nowadays belong to all kind of trolls and fanboys. You just chose to see the negative side atm.

Crows90227d ago

No. Don't play dumb. If you're enjoying the game why you on here then?

Exactly. Everyone else can do the same without this bitterness nonsense.

spss11227d ago (Edited 227d ago )


Fair enough, I get why you think that looking at my comment history. I have a PS5, One X, and PC. I haven't commented much about Playstation because I don't have much to say. It's a great console with great exclusives. And it's easily the platform I play the most going back to PS2.

I probably comment more on Xbox because I view them as underdogs. And I hated how MS ruined my dashboard, in case you couldn't tell. I just have nothing to add regarding Playstation.

And yah, FFXVI was great. It's the reason I bought a PS5.

SixFrvgz227d ago

No need to pretend to enjoy the game to try and convince us.

Or are you trying to convince yourself... hmmm.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 227d ago
Crows90227d ago

Proven to be a average. But your comment on baldurs gate just reeks if fanboyism.

The 2 games are completely unrelated except release period. Of course those with the mental capacity to play a turn based RPG can see quite clearly the averageness of starfield.

raWfodog227d ago

“The game has proven itself, it's a good game, giving 7 won't change the result”

7/10 is considered ‘good’ on the ranking scale. Don’t be concerned with a number and just enjoy the game.

Ninver227d ago

Bot comment. I don't trust any profile without a picture.

phoenixwing227d ago

I don't have the time to waste inputting a image file for my account. I feel personally attacked by you lol

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 227d ago
4blender227d ago

2023 goty is Starfield (like Fallout 4),Totaly better than Zelda TOTK and Baldurs Gate 3

MrNinosan227d ago

I think FFXVI, BG3 and TotK will all get more awards than Starfield.
TotK will win because it's Nintendo and they have free pass regarding graphics, poor frame rate, bugs, accessibility. I liked TotK my first 10-15 hours, but after I realised it ain't much more than a dlc to BotW i got as bored as I did with BotW.

FFXVI and BG3 I believe will get the most Awards (4-5 each).

I don't see which award Starfield could win actually, maybe best new Franchise, but other than that, they don't beat the other games in anything really.

Crows90227d ago

Except 2 of those are actually critically acclaimed.

Soulsborne227d ago

RE4 REMAKE puts garfield to sleep, u wanna bring up thos years two CRITICALLY acclaimed titles BG3 and totk? Trending normie gamer detected.


Starfield Highlights a Major Problem With the AAA Game Industry

Video games -- particularly AAA video games -- have become too expensive to make. The intel from every fly on the wall in every investor's room is there is an increasing level of caution about spending hundreds of millions just to release a single video game. And you can't blame them. Many AAA game budgets mean that you can print hundreds of millions in revenue, and not even turn a profit. If you are an investor, quite frankly, there are many easier ways to make a buck. AAA games have always been expensive to make though, but when did we go from expensive, to too expensive? A decade ago, AAA games were still expensive to make, but fears of "sustainability" didn't keep every CEO up at night. Consumer expectations and demands no doubt play a role in this, but more and more games are also revealing obvious signs of resource mismanagement, evident by development teams and budgets spiraling out of control with sometimes nothing substantial to show for it.

Read Full Story >>
franwex2d ago

It’s a question that I’ve pondered myself too. How are these developers spending this much money? Also, like the article stated, I cannot tell where it’s even going. Perfect example was used with Starfield and Spiderman 2.

They claim they have to increase prices due to development costs exploding. Okay? Well, I’m finding myself spending less and less money on games than before due to the quality actually going down. With a few recent exceptions games are getting worse.

I thought these newer consoles and game engines are easier-therefore-cheaper to make games than previous ones. What has happened? Was it over hiring after the pandemic, like other tech companies?

MrBaskerville2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Costs quite a bit to maintain a team of 700+ employees. Which is what it takes to create something with state of the art fidelity and scope. Just imagine how many 3D artists you'd need to create the plethora of 3D objects in a AAA game. There's so much stuff and each asset takes time and effort.

That's atleast one of the things that didn't get easier. Also coding all the systems and creating all the character models with animations and everything. Animations alone is a huge thing because games are expected to be so detailed.

Back in the day a God of War type game was a 12 hour adventure with small levels, now it has to be this 40+ hours of stuff. Obviously it didn't have to be this way of AAA publishers hadn't convinced themselves that it's an arms race. Games probably didn't need to be this bloated and they probably didn't need to be cutting edge in fidelity.

franwex2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Starfield’s animation and character models look like they are from Oblivion, a game that came out about 20 years ago. I cannot tell the difference between Spider-Man 2 and the first one at first glance. It’s been a joke in some YouTube channels.

Seven hundred people for 1 game? Make 7 games with 100 people instead. I think recent games have proven that it’s okay to have AA games, such as Hell Divers 2.

I guess I’m a bit jaded with the industry and where things are headed. Solutions seem obvious and easy, but maybe they aren’t.

MrBaskerville2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

I'm not talking about Starfield.

And I'm not advocating for these behemoth productions. I think shorter development time and smaller teams would lead to better and more varied games. I want that, even if that means that we have to scale things down quite a bit.

Take something like The Last of Us 2. The amount of custom content is ridiculous if you break it down. It's no wonder they have huge teams of animators and modellers. And just to make things worse, each animated detail requires coding as well.

Just to add to animation work. It can take up to a week to make detailed walking animations. A lot of these tend to vary between character types. And then you need to do every other type of animation as well which is a task that scales quickly depending on how detailed the game is. And that's just a small aspect of AAA development. Each level might require several level designers who only do blockouts. Enviroment artists that setdress and lighting artists that work solely on lighting. Level needs scripting and testing. Each of these tasks takes a long ass time if the game is striving for realism.

Personally I prefer working on games where one level designer can do all aspects. But that's almost exclusively in indie and minor productions. It gets bloated fast.

Yui_Suzumiya2d ago

Then there's Doki Doki Literature Club which took one person to make along with a character designer and background designer and it's absolutely brilliant.

Cacabunga2d ago

Simply because they want you to believe it’s so expensive to develop a game that they must turn into other practices like releasing games unfinished, micro transactions and in the long run adopt the gaas model in all games..

thorstein2d ago

I think game budgets are falsely inflated for tax purposes.

Just look at Godzilla Minus One. It cost less that 15 million.

If they include CEO salary and bonuses on every game and the CEO takes a 20 million dollar bonus every year for the 4 years of dev time, that's 80 million the company can claim went to "making" the game.