The game sucks, and they can't fix it by just replying bad reviews... what a joke... they need to add vehicles, less loading screens and better role-play immersion, with interactions that make sense. Now it's too late to "fix it" after charging 70 euros for standard edition and calling it "next gen game".
this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
13 points (84.2% liked)
PC Gaming
8507 readers
650 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think I caught Oxhorn play the 2nd or 3rd day, and I was super unimpressed. I had high hopes for it, but knew who was developing it so had no interest in buying it new or anything, but wow. Maybe it just looks really nice while playing and crap while being streamed? Not a chance I'm buying it before it 75% off, or more
Not really worth it in my opinion. It’s just not an engaging game. I got a free copy, but played maybe 30 minutes before I got too bored.
I hope mods can make it more fun, but with so many loading screens... it's crazy... I don't even like the ship fights, it's boring!!
This comes up a lot with Bethesda games and I don't understand it in a lot of ways. You (maybe not you personally but someone) paid full AAA game price for this boring game and you didn't enjoy it. Why would mods bring you back to something you didn't enjoy when there are actually great games out there waiting to be played instead for far less money and don't require mods to make it bearable?
I enjoyed a lot with Skyrim, the mods made it even better, and I replayed the game with many mods which adds more skills and realism, smarter NPC... I will wait now for a Starfield sale to be less than 20 euros and if the mods fixed the boring shit then I will buy it, but like an India game, this can't be called AAA when it's worse than 10 years old games.
Sounds like in Bethesda's case it's a vain corporate attempt to manage the games reputation. Having a mixed rating definitely hurts their sales; it gives you pause before deciding to spend $90 on a game. You'd hope that the next step for them would be to retrospect on why people are finding the game meh, but that rarely seems to happen.
"Am I out of touch? No, it's the players who should enjoy landing on an empty planet."
If steam were owned by anyone other than Valve (not to say they're perfect), I'd be expecting reviews to soon go the same way that dislikes did on YouTube for similar nonsensical reasons.
This absolutely cannot backfire.
I understand the point this article is making but I still think there's a world of difference between the developers of small games like Gloomwood, Backpack Hero and Hydroneer replying to a negative review to explain they're working to fix the issues the player faced to fucking Bethesda replying to say "ackshually our constant loading screens are justified because our world is just too big 🤓☝️" and I say this as someone who likes Starfield
It's an interesting article and worth a read. I feel like a majority of it was about how different publishers view and handle responding to reviews rather than about Bethesda and Starfield
Just comparing the look and feel of Cyberpunk now to this game is wild. I can't understand how one of the biggest game studios churns out something like this.