#I think another underlying theme of this article is that players are stupid?

[yusuke-of-valla]

I don't want to be too mean because there's nothing objectively wrong with this article but the vibe I got reading this was like "it sounds like these are two valid approaches to writing romances and any flaws with them aren't inherent to the design choice so much as they're limited by the devs imagination and writing skill?"

But also like it's interesting to hear people talk about it and it brings up some interesting games I want to check out now, so like? Whatever? Objectively fine article, it's just going to be bugging me for the rest of the day.

I will make fun of this quote though:

“The difference between a bisexual character versus a playersexual character really is a matter of context,” Gaider says. “By calling a character ‘playersexual,’ you’re sort of erasing the fact that they are bisexual, but, the part where having a term for that becomes useful is when you start to investigate, like, why is this character bisexual?”

I'm sorry do I need a three page essay explaining why I'm bisexual? Do I need to bring this up on my tinder date? Damn I've been doing this wrong.

#should I have a tag that's just talking about interesting articles #because this isn't like an industry bullshit thing it's more #the framing is sus #article recs #Kotaku #I think another underlying theme of this article is that players are stupid? #like the dragon age example where the guy doesn't bring up his relationship with another man if dating a female player #and players were like mad? apparently? because this supposedly only exists if you're in a m/m relationship? #and like no sorry the players are being dumb. that's world building #and characterization #also like people acting like you're love interest determines the characters sexuality #see tatsuya Suou is canonically bi but people think he's gay if you romance jun

[wookofwallst]

(Article) Starfield Steam reviews are sliding fast.

Well, it's been a month now since Starfield has released, and players have really let loose on the internet about how they feel. Good and bad reviews have popped up on Steam, Metacritic, and the Xbox store.

My main focus here is going to be on Steam for a few reasons . It's easier to sort by play time and alot easier to find other reviews rather than just "Xbox Exclusive Bad".

Underlying numbers kind of shows the 75%. Alot of people want to talk about review bombing but what about review lifting? Review inflation? Whatever you want to call it, the first day of reviews should probably be disqualified based merit. If you don't like that idea, then you're telling me more than 20 thousand people played the game enough to give a thoughtful review? I doubt it.

The reviews that I put in here will be from people who have put in over 100 hours. For a game this size and with how much there is to do I think that would be best.

After a pretty lengthy review and 170 hours played, one user said:

"I regret taking the time to bond with my companions, talking with every NPC, flying & running around scanning the planets, and lockpicking every door or chest I encountered. Overall, I regret completing the main story. I can't believe I'm saying this, but IGN was right about the 7/10."

It's hard to disagree with what he said. There was alot of hype in NG+, even the CEO of Xbox said "The game doesn't start until you beat the game" and what happens after? You get a new ship that can fast travel anywhere in the galaxy and all of the loot, weapons, and everything you had is all gone. The ship cannot be expanded upon, and you're given a new space suit.

149 hours played and multiple paragraphs. Another user said:

"The writing in this game is AWFUL. Image if you will, you are a new corpo grunt, your first day as an intern and boom you find out the CEO is selling company secrets. So you confront them, kill them and everyone loves you for it from this one piece of 'evidence' and gives you a promotion. This is Starfield in a nut shell."

"I have 1000+ hour in Fallout 4 for example. I will never hit that in Starfield. It's just not that interesting.

No vehicles

No atmospheric flight

No groundbreaking features

No taming

ZERO Aliens..."

It's hard for me to disagree with anything this reviewer said. I can even expand upon it. 90% of the "aliens" in this are gigantic insects with no intelligence at all. I understand that space might not have a lot of aliens in our neck of the woods, but this is a video game. Put some aliens in it! Outposts are stupid, copy pasted time wasters.

Final one 114 hours played. This is the full review:

I was expecting a game i could play for 100s or thousands of hours but after just 100 hours i can say i have beat the entire game and done everything. It is bland and nothing like the interesting games we were previously given... Biggest disappointment of 2023 worst rpg i have ever played... all bland procedural content that is the same on every planet. Their is no interesting characters or unique items to chase after. It is literally 6 quest lines and a main quest line that take a 100 hours to complete then their is nothing but small meaning less quest that are all similar with the same places and dialogue in different planets.

Bland, meaningless content that's procedurally generated. And that's the common theme. It's Kwibblekop AI bad, dull, and void of any emotion.

So yeah, looking at actual negative reviews of the game with valid criticism is reinforcing the score I gave it. 6.5.

Did you like Starfield? Do you think reviews that are posted should have a time limit? Do you believe in review inflation? Anything new you're playing? Let me know! Thanks for reading!

You can catch me live on Twitch every weekday from 8pm-12am. Link is below!