Starfield Review | Game Craves

Starfield is an open-world space exploration game where you join up with a group trying to find artifacts that hide a big secret. Here is our Starfield Review.

Read Full Story >>
Jin_Sakai224d ago

Seems the non cherry picked reviews are finally hitting.

Workshyskiver224d ago (Edited 224d ago )

Or no name websites know they'll get loads of clicks posting a 4 to 6 score...

RupeeHoarder224d ago (Edited 224d ago )

Or maybe some people just don't like it. Which is a very realistic possibility....this isn't a 12 hour action packed banger..... it's a 40 hour sludge. Not for everyone.

BehindTheRows224d ago

But the Xbox-centric sites get a pass for perfect scores, yes?

224d ago
Obscure_Observer224d ago

"Or no name websites know they'll get loads of clicks posting a 4 to 6 score..."

Exactly. Just sorry losers that were not granted with a review code.

Jin_Sakai224d ago

“Or no name websites know they'll get loads of clicks posting a 4 to 6 score...“

As I stated.

“Starfield Review Copies Have Been “Heavily Restricted” in Certain Regions“


pintar32224d ago

or no names are triggered because their favorite game didn't get a 10. Grow up.

Army_of_Darkness224d ago (Edited 224d ago )


No name or not, I visited their website to see their other reviews in order to compare their criticism and come to an observation as to whether or not they're reputable and it appears that they are because most of their other big name reviews are on point in my opinion. So I came to the conclusion that this review is not click bait but rather an honest review, meaning this game is just mediocre at best.

SixFrvgz223d ago

It's actually quite scary that you Midfield fangirls live in a world of delusion, where bad scores are only because of "hAtErS" or "cLiCkbAiT".

Lord only knows how else your guys' warped minds work.

neomahi223d ago

It's actually easier to side on the favorable side. Takes more guts (IGN who usually suck) to be honest and go against the grain

IamFrasierCrane223d ago

That doesn’t make sense. They’d get way more clicks if they posted at release. Perhaps they actually took time to review the game?

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 223d ago
mkis007224d ago

Im not one to give a game more credit than is due...but this reviewer seems to have given up too soon. The powers can make enemies way easier. Just one point, but valid.

GameCraves224d ago

I played for 40 hours and completed the whole story and all the faction missions and a bunch of sidequests. Wanted to quit 10 hours in but was really pushing myself to complete 😅

Fishy Fingers224d ago (Edited 224d ago )

That's fair and each to their own.

But self submitting your self written, self run "website" reviews, might as well be a N4G blog post/comment.

Eonjay224d ago (Edited 224d ago )

@Fishy Fingers

A huge number of the stories are submitted by the article writers. Our greatest contributor works for Tech Radar (previously Dual Schockers) and submits his own stories. How do you think he got number 1 contributor?

Fishy Fingers224d ago (Edited 224d ago )

Tech radar established in 2008 with 30 employees?

You can read why I think that's slightly different on www.fishyfingersgaming.com.

Mr_cheese224d ago (Edited 224d ago )

Come on Fishy.

Self submitting happens across the board. You're just choosing to focus on it since they took the time to engage in a conversation when realistically, you should focus on the points you made and those that were countered.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 224d ago
224d ago
224d ago
224d ago
Show all comments (27)

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.