Starfield (Xbox Series X) Review - Strange Space | Cultured Vultures

Bethesda's latest massive RPG, Starfield, has plenty of delights in the vast expanse of space, but it's not all sunshine and nebulas.

Read Full Story >>
Ristul224d ago

Wow, the true reviews are coming in after the Microsoft selected review codes to Xbox outlets have passed. How anyone could give this game a perfect score is beyond me.

Sonic1881224d ago (Edited 224d ago )

The last 4 or 5 missions in Starfield's MQL are some of the worst and hilarious in video game history. Blatant filler, time wasters, back tracking, computer log reading, bullet sponge filled garbage. At least it's "free" on gamepass. What a colossal letdown. Go play Baldur's Gate 3 and save yourself. I stand by what I said. The game is a 7. I decided to focus on the main mission because I'm using gamepass before I deactivate my subscription. I don't pay month to month any longer. Just not worth it until more first party games releases

andy85224d ago

@PrinceOfAnger why are you bringing up a 5 year old game? Days Gone got dropped points heavily on reviews because it was buggy. Imagine if that happened to Starfield?

Soileh224d ago

I bet Obscure hasn't even played the game. A lot of the big defenders I argue with haven't. Because the flaws are so obvious you KNOW after playing that the game is not a 10. Best example of this is Paradiso quest that begins in orbit, I won't spoil it, but if you've played it you'll realise how flawed the narrative, worldbuilding, and gameplay experience is.

Sonic1881224d ago Show
notachance224d ago

lol @obscure why is 7 full of sh*t, do you even read your own comment 🤣

with obvious flaws inside the game even 9 is stretching it, let alone a perfect mark.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 224d ago
PrinceOfAnger224d ago ShowReplies(1)
Hofstaderman224d ago

I guess the actual reviews are out and not cherry picked sites.

224d ago Replies(1)
Lightning77224d ago

So the good scores aren't the actual reviews? So what were they then? Are you saying the negative reviews are what the scores were suppose to be?

Cockney224d ago

I'm just spit-balling here but how does somewhere inbetween sound?

Soileh224d ago

I'm sure that XboxAddict's 10/10 review is perfectly indicative of the quality of the game /s.

potedude224d ago

I normally always play Bethesda games when they are released, but seeing as I don't have an Xbox and I won't be purchasing one to play this game, I guess Bethesda will miss out on my dosh. I'm just one person but I assume there's a few like me.

Profchaos224d ago (Edited 224d ago )

Seems player base is down 50 percent from f4 so your not alone

224d ago
224d ago
randomvoice224d ago

No more Xbox site dolling out 10/10 to prop up the metacritic scores anymore

crazyCoconuts224d ago

The thing that interests me is that there were more than just a few Xbox sites.
Is there legitimate standing to support an objective 10/10 from any review site?
Like, can a fan of Starfield name ONE thing that Starfield does exceptionally well that would cause a marginally reasonable reviewer to honestly believe this is a masterpiece?

Armaggedon224d ago

It surpasses most other games in how “Bethesda” it is. Their games are very unique, and most of the discourse over the game is due to whether people have an appreciation for some of the specific qualities that Bethesda games offer or not. For those who find value in some of these factors, Bethesda games will rank highly. For those who are looking more for the industry standard checkbox items that are expected in games, they will find the game to be trash. There games engage and capture attention in a distinct way.

crazyCoconuts224d ago

@armaggedon, and what about being "Bethesda" is so unique? Size of the worlds? Quality of the quests? Ability to change outcomes? I'm trying to decompose the qualities that would make this a 10/10.

PhillyDonJawn224d ago

What would make you give a game 10/10?

crazyCoconuts224d ago

@philly - near perfection in whatever category it was in. For a big RPG I'd say amazing graphics, locations, gameplay, story, and RPG mechanics. All of those phenomenal and we're looking at a 10. My categories would be different for a sports game, or a side scrolling indie platformer obviously...

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 224d ago
purple101223d ago

Yeh, I actually thought, mistakenly, than Xbox was going to have a better Xmas holiday line up than PlayStation.

I thought starfield and Forza was strong compared to songs 1. Burning shores dlc, 2. ff16. And 3. Spiderman 2.

On paper yes. In reality, perhaps no

Show all comments (28)

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 >>
franwex3d 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?

MrBaskerville3d ago (Edited 3d 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.

franwex3d ago (Edited 3d 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.

MrBaskerville3d ago (Edited 3d 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.

Cacabunga3d 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..

thorstein3d 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.

esherwood3d ago

Yep and clogged with a bunch of corporate bs that has nothing to do with making good video games. Like diversity coordinators gender specialists. Like most jobs you have 20-30% of the workforce doing 80% of the work