By Claire Lewis on September 27, 2023 at 3:28PM PDT
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/starfield-is-bethesdas-lowest-rated-game-on-steam/1100-6518009/
Starfield--Bethesda's first new IP in a quarter of a century--has, for the most part, enjoyed a very successful launch. The game hasn't even been out for a month, but in that timeframe, it has managed to beat Skyrim's concurrent player count on Steam (with over 1 million concurrent players taking the game for a spin on launch day) and amass over 10 million players. That's no small feat, and at first glance, it may seem like everyone playing the game is having the time of their life. But Steam reviews tell a slightly different story, with Starfield scoring lower with Steam players than any previous Bethesda game--including Fallout 76, which faced an incredibly rocky launch.
Bethesda hasn't revealed how many copies of the game have been purchased rather than accessed via Game Pass, making it difficult to compare Starfield's launch to that of previous Bethesda titles. Still, Steam's metrics offer a pretty clear picture of the game's reception, especially since, unlike players making use of Game Pass, anyone playing Starfield on Steam had to shell out the cold, hard cash to buy it, and probably purchased Starfield with the hopes of truly enjoying it. Unfortunately, after taking a peek at the Steam reviews, it seems Starfield has fallen well below the mark for a significant number of players.
Here's how Starfield's Steam reviews compare to previous Bethesda titles:
- 2009's Fallout 3 reviews are 79.07% positive.
- 2011's wildly popular Skyrim is right behind New Vegas, with 93.88% of user reviews rating it positively.
- 2015's Fallout 4 earned a respectable 81.90% positive rating among players.
- 2020's Fallout 76 previously held the record for Bethesda's lowest-rated game, with 71.76% of Steam user reviews giving it a thumbs-up.
- 2023's highly anticipated Starfield is currently rated a fraction of a percentage lower than Fallout 76, with only 71.40% of player reviews speaking positively of the game.
Bethesda has garnered a bit of a reputation for releasing games with loads of bugs in them, and while Starfield certainly has a few, it's arguably the least-buggy title launched by Bethesda in recent memory, and the studio seems to be committed to patching these issues out as quickly as possible. So what gives?
There are a number of potential reasons behind the game's low score. Some players and internet personalities have been extremely vocal about their distaste for Bethesda's choice to let players select their own pronouns, which may have affected the game's rating to some extent. But rather than complaining that they're being bogged down with bugs, many players are complaining about awkwardly-stiff NPC facial animations, an extremely limited number of romanceable companions, and far too much procedurally generated content that sees immersion broken when players stumble across the same named NPC's corpse in the same exact spot inside the same exact cave on three different planets. Other complaints include the lack of any sort of codex or compendium to keep track of lore and learn more about the history of the game's factions, the absence of any ground-side mode of transport (like a rover or alien mount) to make planet exploration less onerous, and, perhaps worst of all, downright painful interstellar dogfights.
While Bethesda's latest release has certainly fallen short in the eyes of some players, there's no guarantee that this will remain the case. The studio has a habit of releasing large-scale games that later receive large-scale updates, often including new DLC, new in-game activities, and access to mods for console players. Bethesda clearly has big plans for Starfield, and its Steam user score may improve in the future as more content is added. For now, however, the game is trailing behind Cyberpunk 2077's concurrent player count on Steam, and 25% of players exploring the galaxy on Xbox have failed to even achieve liftoff. Ultimately, Starfield's fate will be decided by the actions of its developer, but for the moment, a good amount of Steam players seem to agree that the studio's choice to lean on procedural generation has resulted in a game that feels like it's a mile wide, but an inch deep.
Alright hear me out: If an unknown team who’s not sitting on Microsoft’s giant PR budget have had developed this game, no one would give a flying f*ck about it.
There are dozens of ambitious, great indie games at Starfield’s current caliber out there on Steam and Itch.io already, and they only can barely find an audience. PR changes everything.
I'm a space game junkie and if there are other games like Starfield out there I'd like to know about them. Closest one I can think of is Spacebourne 2, which is very ambitious and has more freedom in some ways, but is nowhere near as huge and detailed.
I'm also a space game junkie and I feel Starfield feels... off in that regard.
The aesthetics are spot on, the vistas gorgeous and the ships have a practicality to the designs I enjoy. The little details down to the food being styled after modern astronaut food is clever and the diversity of planets keeps things interesting.
But it doesn't really feel like a space game. It feels like a fantasy game with a sci-fi filter over it. I understand there can be a lot of overlap between the genres and I also struggle to articulate exactly what doesn't hit the mark for sci-fi vs fantasy, but there's something missing.
I think Starfield has a lot more human character than, say, Elite: Dangerous, but Elite hit the sci-fi feel better and, despite it being much older, creates more of that awe-inspiring space exploration feeling.
The biggest pain point there is the real lack of meaningful space interaction. Your ship, while being entirely personalizable, is largely useless. My play thrus saw a fight every 7-10 jumps, at best. Theres a lot of emulation of E:D and SC in power management but because of the flight dynamics, that entire sidebar is largely binary. Either you engage and win or you jump out. The flight dynamics are rough enough that theres no room in the conversation for being a skilled pilot. Then the interior loses a significant amount of meaning in auto-gen’d doors. you shouldnt be forced to put blank squares in just to get a layout that is traversable.
the veneer of a space game is there but it really lacks the extra thought into how a cornerstone mechanic should work and that causes the largest part of the downfall in my eyes.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. The ship is often a character, and an important one at that, in sci-fi. I think of EVE Online, Star Trek, Elite: Dangerous, etc.
The ship didn't feel like a very big deal in Starfield. I really enjoy personalizing mine, but it doesn't feel like it has a big impact on the gameplay.
It was always going to be Skyrim in space, and I think some people are fine/great with that.
No Man's Skyrim.
Nice!
I am, 60+hrs in and I'm thoroughly enjoying it
Yeah, I don't think that's inherently an issue, but there's some dichotomy in the marketing about that. Maybe that's a projection, though, I'll admit it.
I think Starfield aesthetic is somewhere between the desolation of Elite Dangerous and the cartoonish abundance of No Man's Sky. Elite Dangerous is probably a lot more realistic but Starfield has more to do and interesting places and storylines. I really wish we had the flight and travel model from Elite. I am impressed at the celestial mechanics of Starfield though.
More so the flight model imo. Not being able to use lateral thrusters without switching modes is really bad and just confusing for me. I don't even know why they did that, even on consoles / gamepads you should have the spare second thumbstick for that.
Better space travel would be nice but honestly it's something I didn't really expect from the game anyway so it isn't as big of a deal.
Yeah, that all sounds fairly right to me!
What do you find impressive about the celestial mechanics in Starfield? That's not something I picked up on in my play, and I'd enjoy learning a new lens to appreciate it through.
For games most similar to this? Outer Worlds. For games about space exploration, has actual good space flight: Outer Wilds (yeah they have similar names). For games about space exploration, resource gathering and space flight: No Man's Sky. For games about planet exploration, resource gathering, and building: Astroneer.
Also Elite Dangerous for space flight and combat. But I haven't played it.
Star Citizen, even with all its flaws, is a better space sim than Elite
How so? I've looked at it a few times, but it seems really expensive and unfinished at this point. I like Elite: Dangerous, but I think I've mostly exhausted its "amusement park" of activities and I'd be curious to try something new.
Space flight controls are more fluid, and you can walk around your ship, get out and board other ships/walk around planets. Just generally more immersive than ED.
Also, you can buy almost every ship in game. CIG sells ships instead of DLC, and they persist between wipes. You can just buy a starter ship for $35 and upgrade with in game money after you make some cash. There are a few ships that are unavailable to buy in game, CIG usually holds ships back for a while after they release them to buy with real money.
@TheAlbatross I’m not sure what more this game could possibly offer. You have a very specific idea of what a space game should be like - you should build it.
Naw, that kinda work ain't for me. I'm here to be entertained, not make entertainment. My skillset is very different from that required to make a game, but that doesn't inherently disqualify my opinions on how much I enjoy one piece of entertainment or not. Plus, it's all subjective.
I like Starfield well enough, I'm still playing it, but it doesn't quite scratch the itch other sci-fi games do.
For me this is one of those games where I'll probably pick it up a year or two from now when it has all the addons and it's like $20 and I imagine I'll probably have an okay time with it then.
If a no-name created Starfield, it would be panned and forgotten in a day. The AI is beyond trash, it trivializes combat. Story is beyond lame. Writing is boring and the facial animations are below-par. Combat is bare-bones, both on ground and in space. Exploration is copy-pasted. The loading screens are pathetically bad.
For a game about having your own space ship and exploring the galaxy, you really don't get to do much of that. It's just a bunch of set pieces with a skybox that says you're either on a planet or in space. Tons of indie games have done space better and Starfield should be compared to that regardless of who made it.
i disagree, if a no name created starfield itd be heralded as the best hidden gem in years maybe decades