My dad is a reviewer. He is in many reviewer Discords and friends with a lot of big reviewers. It's looking like unanimous critical acclaim. Middle to high 90s, minimum. It's gonna be Biblical.
I think 95, if not pushing 98. There has never been anything so ambitious and even with visible seams Bethesda games are always loved by the masses. All early feedback claims that bugs are virtually nonexistant. I feel good about it
I refuse to believe it, the company that never releases without bugs and shit the bed so hard and for so long with 76, releasing a game WITHOUT bugs?
fricking impossible, prove me wrong Todd I bet you won't
I don't think any release will match Cyberpunk's for awhile. Starfield isn't targeting last-gen consoles, they've given out codes to tons of reviewers, they've actually shown gameplay in the weeks before release, Saint Tyrone was capable of playing it on a console, etc.
So? Cyberpunk got good impressions before coming out. People who say that "starfield is bug free" are either lying or ignoring the same bugs that every other Bethesda game has.
my point being there's a low chance it's anywhere near as buggy as cyberpunk. that shit was a hilarious trainwreck if you were playing it on anything but a beefy pc.
And their last game was an equally large trainwreck to Cyberpunk, the only point worth debating over is have they learned their lesson and to what degree
10 months ago
Anonymous
Fallout 76 was 10 times worse.
76 was primarily Bethesda Austin's game, cope and seethe.
10 months ago
Anonymous
So? They used gamebryo, the same engine that starfield uses. The potential for bugs is exactly the same and the main team capabilities is just as low as every other release has shown.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>The potential for bugs is exactly the same
Ah yes, it's the engine that dictates if a game is buggy or not.
moron.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Fallout 76 was 10 times worse.
FO76 was a multiplayer mess made by their B-team studio. It's most realistic to compare it to FO4
10 months ago
Anonymous
76 was made by a side studio, not by the main BGS. They started working on Starfield right after FO4.
I have played all of the bethesda games on launch since morrowind (except 76) and never had much of a problem but Cyberpunk was fricking unplayable. There were parts where entire models would just be gone and times where the audio would just stop. Cyberpunk was one of the worst releases I can remember. Even worse then Fallout New Vegas and New Vegas was fricking horrific at launch.
>they've actually shown gameplay in the weeks before release
Heavily scripted and edited footage. They have not shown what the actual gameplay loops look like. 1000 planets and they could't have released a half hour video showing what it actually looks like to explore one of them in the game or what's there to do. They're literally afraid of showing the game to customers and shat their bricks after Tyrone exposed how much of a soulless turd it is. >peter hines: I've got 150 hours clocked in this game and I haven't even scratched the surface
Okay, why not show an hour of you playing it then if it's that huge, fricking prick? What are you so afraid of, mr. director of marketing at bethesda?
Nope, they got the same version. Try again. But even if that was true, what would stop bethesda from doing the same? They are known for lying and being overall pretty scummy.
The reviews and early game access will be released 5 days prior to the official game launch (Cyberpunk was on the same day). The leaked Cyberpunk gameplay one day prior was completely broken on astronomical levels, whereas the gameplay leaked by Tyrone is normal. As for the lies, most of them have already been debunked, and other devs lie to hype up their games as well; Larian devs talked about 17,000 endings and no one cares
Must be hard to be a Bethesda fan. You need to do so many mental gymnastics to defend them.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Where is the mental gymnastics? The opposite is happening; you received a response and couldn't refute it. There's no way the Starfield launch will be something on the level of Fallout 76 and Cyberpunk, as we'll see the game actually being played 5 days prior. >"For this review embargo period I'm not allowed to show my own gameplay footage, I can only use footage provided by CD Projekt Red.'"
I'm interested in Starfield but I genuinely think it'll score lower, more towards the Fallout 4 score. Normalgays just can't into sci-fi unless it has aliens in it. And I'm not trying to meme the "NO ALIENS TODD SUCKS" thing, I just think that will be a common criticism and the general audience won't like it as much because it won't be just like Mass Effect / Star Wars. Skyrim has had staying power because it's goyslop fantasy shit. Space is too niche and Starfield still won't be as popular.
TES6 will break the universe.
>All those snoy publications that are going to purposely review it low.
It deserves to be in the 90's, because of the snoy backlash, it will probably land up in the high 80's though.
>They will never give a Microsoft exclusive over a 90
Microsoft Flight Simulator. Several Forza games. Oblivion was a 360 exclusive at launch. So was ME1 and BioShock and several other critical gems.
Don't care. It's gonna be 10/10 for me. My only concern is how good/creative the modding scene will be and how long I have to wait for Starfields version of something like Requiem's balancing/overhaul
you're angry because you are unable to come to terms with the opinions of others. you're spamming the thread, throwing a tantrum over the fact we are placing numbers which do not fit the expectations of your hopes and dreams. that's pathetic, anon.
I hope it's great. I'm still not going to buy it on principle, but, I really do want it to be successful. I'm merely being realistic by drawing from what I know of Bethesda, and what I have seen and heard in relationship to the game itself.
There's no need to act so immature and insolent.
60/100... HOWEVER! >+10 pts for being a bethesda game >+10 pts for being woke and esg approved >+10 pts for being western AAAA flagship >-5 pts for Todd being a weird little chud
So the final score will be around 85, like most of their games. Starfield isn't going to be frontloaded like BG3. It's mediocrity will be on full display the second you start playing it.
Oh yeah, I forgot sn.o.ys are planning to review bomb it. Tbh, tendies will likely review bomb it even harder due to it not being on their tablet for toddlers and because they see it as the main competition for TOTK.
Because some publications are going in expecting to not like this game, I'm going to say roughly 86... Maybe 90 if we're lucky. Not gonna stop me from having fun though.
somewhere in the high to mid 80s
Even Journogays and moronic normalgays are expecting more now than 'slightly less pozzed/woke outer worlds'
Game will do good, but i'm fully expecting this board to be littered with 'OHNONONONO! BWAHAHAHA!' at anything less than a 96
which I don't think this game is going to be scoring that high
i still have a little faith in Todd, but I'm just cautious and trying to hedge my expectation to be more realistic with what has been shown
If these people are reviewer, 85-89
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/starfields-opening-is-a-lot-of-shades-of-literal-grey
>What I'm less forgiving of is a putting a grand orchestral sting and a quest called One Small Step in combination with your majestic reveal being entirely grey. The grey isn't even applied to any interesting shapes. It's a cargo bay, and some Fallout wasteland. Oh there are different shades: the landing pad is dark metal grey, the sky is a washed out yellow grey, the planet on the horizon is a kind of white grey. But it's an underwhelming play for the biggest game of the year, when it's first big moment compares unfavourably to the view out of my living room window. Bethesda has, with no exaggeration, some of the most talented artists in the entire world. Imagine what they could do if they were allowed to use a second colour.
> hate to say I told you so, and some of the screens give me hope that I'll be able to stuff the I told you so right back in my howling maw. Official screens suggest the game gets a mite more interesting as it goes on - I mean the one up top has brown and red, right? We've had a glimpse of a prosperous city with water features and even some trees (a sight we Earthlings cannot begin to imagine).
>I want it to get more interesting, but I fear that vast swathes of it will not. This is the mega-hyped game of 2023, so why hold back at the very start, and put your blandest foot forward?
He isn't entirely wrong. NASApunk seems like it will get old unless there really is some interesting mid-game enemy swap up from other humans and random monsters
It's going to be 83 tops with people b***hing about all the same thing they did with Fallout 4, grafix, ugly NPC's, lacking shootan mechanics, bugs. User score will be like 47.
either a 79 or a 97. no in-between
200 to 540
same score as fallout 4
Imbecile.
Imbecile.
t.
Buenos noches, Anon!
99
95
It's gonna be somewhere between Fallout 76 and Fallout 4.
If it's not at least 102, we riot
100% fun
98
95 minimum
98 best case scenario
My dad is a reviewer. He is in many reviewer Discords and friends with a lot of big reviewers. It's looking like unanimous critical acclaim. Middle to high 90s, minimum. It's gonna be Biblical.
Lower than Fallout New Vegas
Imbecile.
65 in perfect world but since it has exclusive and Bethesda bonus then it's predicted to be in the high 80s-low 90s
Imbecile.
In a perfect world delusional Snoy copes like these wouldn't exist
I think 95, if not pushing 98. There has never been anything so ambitious and even with visible seams Bethesda games are always loved by the masses. All early feedback claims that bugs are virtually nonexistant. I feel good about it
>All early feedback claims that bugs are virtually nonexistant.
That's insane. Middle to high 90s guaranteed then. For sure.
I refuse to believe it, the company that never releases without bugs and shit the bed so hard and for so long with 76, releasing a game WITHOUT bugs?
fricking impossible, prove me wrong Todd I bet you won't
All early feedback claims for Cyberpunk said the same. It is the same engine. It is going to have the same bugs that all other Bethesda games.
I don't think any release will match Cyberpunk's for awhile. Starfield isn't targeting last-gen consoles, they've given out codes to tons of reviewers, they've actually shown gameplay in the weeks before release, Saint Tyrone was capable of playing it on a console, etc.
So? Cyberpunk got good impressions before coming out. People who say that "starfield is bug free" are either lying or ignoring the same bugs that every other Bethesda game has.
my point being there's a low chance it's anywhere near as buggy as cyberpunk. that shit was a hilarious trainwreck if you were playing it on anything but a beefy pc.
And their last game was an equally large trainwreck to Cyberpunk, the only point worth debating over is have they learned their lesson and to what degree
76 was primarily Bethesda Austin's game, cope and seethe.
So? They used gamebryo, the same engine that starfield uses. The potential for bugs is exactly the same and the main team capabilities is just as low as every other release has shown.
>The potential for bugs is exactly the same
Ah yes, it's the engine that dictates if a game is buggy or not.
moron.
FO76 was a multiplayer mess made by their B-team studio. It's most realistic to compare it to FO4
76 was made by a side studio, not by the main BGS. They started working on Starfield right after FO4.
Fallout 76 was 10 times worse.
I have played all of the bethesda games on launch since morrowind (except 76) and never had much of a problem but Cyberpunk was fricking unplayable. There were parts where entire models would just be gone and times where the audio would just stop. Cyberpunk was one of the worst releases I can remember. Even worse then Fallout New Vegas and New Vegas was fricking horrific at launch.
>they've actually shown gameplay in the weeks before release
Heavily scripted and edited footage. They have not shown what the actual gameplay loops look like. 1000 planets and they could't have released a half hour video showing what it actually looks like to explore one of them in the game or what's there to do. They're literally afraid of showing the game to customers and shat their bricks after Tyrone exposed how much of a soulless turd it is.
>peter hines: I've got 150 hours clocked in this game and I haven't even scratched the surface
Okay, why not show an hour of you playing it then if it's that huge, fricking prick? What are you so afraid of, mr. director of marketing at bethesda?
>Heavily scripted and edited footage
lmao. we've seen a leak of the first 45 minutes. it works bro
Cyberpunk scored 90+
>All early feedback claims for Cyberpunk said the same
Wrong and reviewers got a different version + CD PROJEKT RED shills
Nope, they got the same version. Try again. But even if that was true, what would stop bethesda from doing the same? They are known for lying and being overall pretty scummy.
The reviews and early game access will be released 5 days prior to the official game launch (Cyberpunk was on the same day). The leaked Cyberpunk gameplay one day prior was completely broken on astronomical levels, whereas the gameplay leaked by Tyrone is normal. As for the lies, most of them have already been debunked, and other devs lie to hype up their games as well; Larian devs talked about 17,000 endings and no one cares
Everyone holds Bethesda to a higher standard because we know they could do better. Everyone just accepts that other devs will always be dogshit.
Must be hard to be a Bethesda fan. You need to do so many mental gymnastics to defend them.
Where is the mental gymnastics? The opposite is happening; you received a response and couldn't refute it. There's no way the Starfield launch will be something on the level of Fallout 76 and Cyberpunk, as we'll see the game actually being played 5 days prior.
>"For this review embargo period I'm not allowed to show my own gameplay footage, I can only use footage provided by CD Projekt Red.'"
its going to mog everything its not even funny
100
I'm interested in Starfield but I genuinely think it'll score lower, more towards the Fallout 4 score. Normalgays just can't into sci-fi unless it has aliens in it. And I'm not trying to meme the "NO ALIENS TODD SUCKS" thing, I just think that will be a common criticism and the general audience won't like it as much because it won't be just like Mass Effect / Star Wars. Skyrim has had staying power because it's goyslop fantasy shit. Space is too niche and Starfield still won't be as popular.
TES6 will break the universe.
84
Imbecile.
Why did you get flustered?
>All those snoy publications that are going to purposely review it low.
It deserves to be in the 90's, because of the snoy backlash, it will probably land up in the high 80's though.
How much Fallout 76 got? I would say that number. It is pretty much the same game.
>caring about journo and user scores
how naive are you?
Please post more Starfield edition Todd
91, probably deserves an 86.
94
last two digits of my GET
Sorry i meant these
Starfield 76
Nah. It will be in the 80s
They will never give a Microsoft exclusive over a 90
>They will never give a Microsoft exclusive over a 90
Microsoft Flight Simulator. Several Forza games. Oblivion was a 360 exclusive at launch. So was ME1 and BioShock and several other critical gems.
If it's under 90 when shit like Zelda and Cyberpunk gets over 90 then we need TJD.
TJD?
Total Journo minecraft.
Don't care. It's gonna be 10/10 for me. My only concern is how good/creative the modding scene will be and how long I have to wait for Starfields version of something like Requiem's balancing/overhaul
It'll be low 90s at the absolute best. They pay the Xbox exclusive (not on PlayStation) tax (-6) and you're already at a 94 out of the gate.
My money is on 93.
The first number does not matter, it has to be a 9. The second number does matter. The game will be judged on a scale of 0-10.
99.
>everyone give Starfield a perfect 10/10 except for one
>"It's the best game ever made for some, but I know it can do better. 89.9/100"
> ~Todd Howard
88 or 89
90 means its shit.
92 means its okay.
94 means its good.
96 means its great.
98 means its amazing.
It will never get 100.
89 means Bethesdrones on suicide watch and Zenimax withholds metacritic bonus
If its 89 it means the game is genuinely awful.
60, an improvement over fallout 76.
What are you doing until the orice drop, fellow cheapskates? I'm playing oblivion, fallout 3, and vegas.
review scores are inflating just like the US dollar
It will be filled with ChatGPT 10/10 reviews.
Fitting as the game is probably full of chatgpt quests.
97
Nah paput it would be between 83 and 87
Imbecile.
Overall, after a year or two, probably about 81-83. Even then I'm not buying it on principle.
Popularity does not equate to greatness.
moroncile.
you're angry because you are unable to come to terms with the opinions of others. you're spamming the thread, throwing a tantrum over the fact we are placing numbers which do not fit the expectations of your hopes and dreams. that's pathetic, anon.
I hope it's great. I'm still not going to buy it on principle, but, I really do want it to be successful. I'm merely being realistic by drawing from what I know of Bethesda, and what I have seen and heard in relationship to the game itself.
There's no need to act so immature and insolent.
85
between mid-bussin
60/100... HOWEVER!
>+10 pts for being a bethesda game
>+10 pts for being woke and esg approved
>+10 pts for being western AAAA flagship
>-5 pts for Todd being a weird little chud
So the final score will be around 85, like most of their games. Starfield isn't going to be frontloaded like BG3. It's mediocrity will be on full display the second you start playing it.
Spastic.
No Man's Sky Echoes update mogs the shit out of anything seen into into Starfallout 4.
as someone who is excited for starfield, i agree with this statement
It’s a shame nobody really cares about that game anymore.
Now that AC6 is confirmed a flop is there any stopping Todd? I'm scared bros this might just be the first 100/100 metacritic...
Bethesda games will finally climb from their abysmal score after 76 into a low 80 with this one.
critics 80s
users 50s
Oh yeah, I forgot sn.o.ys are planning to review bomb it. Tbh, tendies will likely review bomb it even harder due to it not being on their tablet for toddlers and because they see it as the main competition for TOTK.
are you ok?
what's the cheapest way to play starfield?
pirate > game pass > game pass + $30 early access payment
Because some publications are going in expecting to not like this game, I'm going to say roughly 86... Maybe 90 if we're lucky. Not gonna stop me from having fun though.
somewhere in the high to mid 80s
Even Journogays and moronic normalgays are expecting more now than 'slightly less pozzed/woke outer worlds'
Game will do good, but i'm fully expecting this board to be littered with 'OHNONONONO! BWAHAHAHA!' at anything less than a 96
which I don't think this game is going to be scoring that high
i still have a little faith in Todd, but I'm just cautious and trying to hedge my expectation to be more realistic with what has been shown
If these people are reviewer, 85-89
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/starfields-opening-is-a-lot-of-shades-of-literal-grey
>What I'm less forgiving of is a putting a grand orchestral sting and a quest called One Small Step in combination with your majestic reveal being entirely grey. The grey isn't even applied to any interesting shapes. It's a cargo bay, and some Fallout wasteland. Oh there are different shades: the landing pad is dark metal grey, the sky is a washed out yellow grey, the planet on the horizon is a kind of white grey. But it's an underwhelming play for the biggest game of the year, when it's first big moment compares unfavourably to the view out of my living room window. Bethesda has, with no exaggeration, some of the most talented artists in the entire world. Imagine what they could do if they were allowed to use a second colour.
> hate to say I told you so, and some of the screens give me hope that I'll be able to stuff the I told you so right back in my howling maw. Official screens suggest the game gets a mite more interesting as it goes on - I mean the one up top has brown and red, right? We've had a glimpse of a prosperous city with water features and even some trees (a sight we Earthlings cannot begin to imagine).
>I want it to get more interesting, but I fear that vast swathes of it will not. This is the mega-hyped game of 2023, so why hold back at the very start, and put your blandest foot forward?
He isn't entirely wrong. NASApunk seems like it will get old unless there really is some interesting mid-game enemy swap up from other humans and random monsters
>he
it's a femoid
opinion discarded.
women and men pretending to be women will never understand.
Even RL GTArs can its greatness.
I don't know what this man's smoking. Despite the reveal being a bleak green landscape, the best "Step out" moment for BGS games was still Fallout 3.
it's a woman not a man, that explains it
>game development prob started like 6 years ago made worse by 1 year of extended bug fixes
>face and animation tech from 10 years ago
Eh. Like to get a 90 you should prob have basics up to date.
98
Why is there so much shilling and advertising for this mediocre Fallout 4 clone?
My bet is around 80-90. Toddslop will not go above 90 after Fallout 4.
>Xbox trannies coping over everyone loving AC6 so they have to make a fricking Transfield Metascore thread as if anyone else gives a shit
kek
99 but it will drop to 74 in 3 months, like Fallout 4
It's going to be 83 tops with people b***hing about all the same thing they did with Fallout 4, grafix, ugly NPC's, lacking shootan mechanics, bugs. User score will be like 47.
after the no space travel news? probably 85-90
87-93. If it scores higher than skyrim ill eat my hat
89-93
It will be the first 100 of all time. User score will be 98.
it being 98 will be hilarious so that's what I'm hoping for, either that or it being 56