Starfield

I'd agree with you, its a solid 7/10, if reviewed it after only playing the game for a couple hours.

but from the 10 hour mark and beyon, to where I am now, I'd say its a 5/10.

Theres just to many small things that make the game frustrating to hell once you get out of that initial starter window.

Like, Ship parts. You get great details on engines, shields, reactors, etc. But no detail on landing gear, which would be great to have when your error message is screaming at you for more landing gears, and you dont know how much each one supports, or what the difference is, and you have no numbers to tell you how many more you need... And Hab components. Just tell me what work benches each one has, at least, and if things like the infirmary are just cosmetic or provide some boon to having it.

And surveying planets. You know why exploring was fun in skyrim/fallout4? Cause you were going from point A to point B, and were discovering things on the way, and getting distracted. on Starfield, land in the middle of a map, and have to wander around hoping you can find enough to scan to complete the survey for the planet, or at least the biome, before fast traveling back to the ship. This can take hours, even with amp.. and amp's buff time is so little that if you plan on using it you have to stockpile a lot of it, and micromanage it.

Speaking of buffs like Amp.. theres no HUD display that I can find that indicates how much time you have left on your buffs. I barely use any buffs cause of this alone.

And speaking of the HUD.. Why are the things we get given tucked up in a corner where we cant see, at a time when our eyes are in the bottom middle reading text? I have no idea what I've gotten from quest rewards, because I never see the notification.

Also, the artificial delay and slowness built into the interface. Why? Theres mods that easily remove them.. but why are mods necessary? Why make the menu system artificially worse?

While individually, any one of these things (both the mentioned examples, and the unmentioned ones) could just be ignored with a sigh and moved on from, the fact that pretty much every system in the game missed its mark by an infuriatingly tiny step, that would take almost no effort to polish in to a gem, I cant help but just be utterly frustrated with the absolute potential the game had, thats left on the vine to wither, because they decided to stop right before getting things right on seemingly every. single. mechanic and interface.

And not to mention the bigger issues, like improperly handled DirectX calls that can cause bad performance and crashes, that was discoverd yesterday, or the fact that to much basic outpost shit is locked behind perks.

Yeah I might even go 8. A lot of the game is very high quality from the quests to the level design and details. Dogfighting is good, the rest of space stuff is meh. Ship designer is good overall.

I really wish they could have let us fly more freely, or at least give that illusion. There is also a lot more room for polish and quality of life improvements. Like let us walk through ships before we buy them, and maybe fly it in a simulator without spending money. That tech should be easily available. Ground vehicles would be a no-brainer, that could certainly lead to more gameplay opportunities.

I don't think OP made the point clear, but I agree with the spirit.

Fundamentally it is this:
Sense of scale
Meaningful content at every turn
CHOOSE ONE

Examples
Daggerfall - infinite scale, but quests, dungeons, meaningful content have to be specifically targeted or else be lost in the gigantic procedurally generated world.
Elite Dangerous - spending 20 minutes supercrusing across a binary star system really makes you feel the size, but also that's 20 minutes of not doing anything.
No Man's Sky - The universe is effectively infinite, and there is something useful almost everywhere! But (almost) none of it is handcrafted, so the random content gets stale in the scale.
Star Citizen - Basically no content, but absolutely unmatched as an immersive space experience, as it doesn't compromise on scale for QoL or filler content in the slightest. Worth noting that most people hate this.

Meanwhile Skyrim is impressive because the world is pretty big, but there's also something interesting to do every 5 steps. Starfield tries to maintain this while also tossing in some NMS-style randomized infinite content, but ends up suffering the same feeling of staleness once you spend any time exploring it.

I've honestly never seen this much of an unapologetic shameless dogshit take. To actually think, "no, it's the players who are wrong" in this situation takes some real delusion.

Like this is the most "mask off" fanboy post.

That's what happens when you've been using the same engine since 1997, and just slap a fresh coat of paint on it every few years instead of actually improving it like Unreal.

Hey look, elden ring doesn't have even 21:9 support, hdr was broken for a while at launch, and no fov setting

classic Bethesda experience

I messaged my friend a couple hours into the game and said “…I dunno dude. This feels like Fallout 4 but in space.” I’ve never finished an FO game, despite trying many times, because they just feel boring and overwhelming at the same time (for me anyway). I was late to the Skyrim party, first played it on Switch and loved it - loosely because the story drove me forward and kept me engaged.

Witcher 3 and CP2077 had me hooked the entire time. Even though they’re entirely different games, I also miss the little nuances in NMS - like actually flying into a planets atmosphere and landing, being able to zoom around the planet in my ship, engaging “warp.” All without a whole lot fewer loading screens or opening menus. To be fair, I got tired of NMS super quickly because resource mining and grinding aren’t my thing.

All that to say that I’m enjoying it though I’m not sure how long it’ll stick with me. It’ll hold me over until Phantom Liberty comes out.

that lacks polish

I’d say creation engine is showing its age more than it lacks polish. The game looks pretty good and I’ve encountered virtually no bugs so far. People’s faces are a bit off though, as many have pointed out.

The user interface at nearly every turn is bafflingly obtuse. On top of cool features like the option to go to your cockpit or board a ship, you get insanely weird decisions like no waypoint system? There is technically a waypoint option but it's definitely not a usable system.

Also what's with the galaxy map? Fuckin mass effect had this shit figured out 15 years ago. With a banging soundtrack for the menu lol

Also why the hell is there no tutorials for these crazy indepth systems and menus... like if they need to suck tell me how to bear it

It's crazy how much better the plot and setting are in that game despite the fact it has maybe a 1/10 of the content Starfield does.

I'm viewing this game as more of a modder's platform. It's really the whole reason I play BGS games. As such, it works perfectly the way it is. It's decent out of the box, but once the CK comes out and the mods start rolling in, it's going to be perfect.

My biggest complaint is still an RPG being consolified, meaning its menu’s are all shit because of controllers.

That's weird because I'm playing on console and the menus and UI are shit with a controller too.

I don't think the engine allows for such an open world. The engine is built around cells, and BGS shot itself in the foot by making a game in a setting that requires open-ness using an engine that only works with enclosed spaces.

I love that 0 is to heal but O is to repair my ship. I'm constantly just mashing both because I can't remember which is which when my shields are down and I'm trying to dodge a missile.

You can't fault them for not giving it a fair chance.

I played for about 25 hours before I gave up.

Those 25 hours were mostly me waiting for the moment when it would finally get better. The moment never arrived.

Not sure why you got down voted. You hit the nail on the head. I like elite but stopped playing after "mile wide and inch thick" syndrome became clear. I never got into star citizen because even though I got a ship it always gave me problems to run.

Slightly off topic rant: people talk about "space sims" like its an actual thing you can simulate (uhhhh we haven't invented that stuff yet sir) and it drives me crazy. I like flight sims but even when I know the real thing is more difficult and complex I know the dynamics have some relation to reality unlike a super magical warp drive thing.

I feel like you're straw manning the issues with the game. Sure some people are disappointed by the lack of depth in the setting. But there are PLENTY of other things to be not like: primarily in my book, the game should be called "Loading Screenfield" since you spend more time in loading screens than anywhere else.

There is a pretty big thread from a few days ago where people discuss the things that are underwhelming about the game. Overall, it's not a bad game, but not great either. Considering the number of actually great games it's competing with right now (looking at you BG3 and soon Cyberpunk Phantom Liberty), I think it looks even more meh in comparison.

I think the Steam rating seem pretty spot on.