Starfield proves there is something very wrong with video game reviews

A reader is disturbed by the controversies around the launch of Starfield and what it means for the reliability of game reviews in general.

[Jin_Sakai]

Glad someone called out this BS practice by Microsoft and Bethesda.

“It’s very obvious that the reason they withheld the copies is to try to get the Metacritic review as high as possible before launch, and in fact the Xbox Series X/S score was somewhere around 87 at that point and is now down to 83 with the Eurogamer review and presumably set to go lower once Edge’s is out – and anyone else that was left out.“

[darthv72]

Seems this BS practice has been around a lot longer than MS and Bethesda.

[purple101]

Bethesda softworks started 1986
Metacritic started 2001.
So not literally no,

Care to expand on the viewpoint though?

[NotoriousWhiz]

^ Are you implying that there were no reviews before metacritic?

[r2oB]

@notoriouswhiz

I believe his argument is that Bethesda was around before the practice of manipulating metacritic review scores, which was the OPs comment. If you wanted to bring video game reviews into the argument, MS has been around before them. Video game journalism geared towards consumers didn’t start until the early 80’s, Microsoft was around before that. However, I agree with darth’s sentiment, although technically his wording is incorrect. This practice has been going on for years, but that fact doesn’t make it any less BS when a company does it today.

[Old McGroin]

@ purple101

He obviously meant the practice was around before what has just happened with MS, Bethesda and Starfield. He didn't word it well but...still not sure how you could possibly think he meant Metacritic number massaging was going on since before 1986??

[Godmars290]

Since the beginning of the industry sadly. Probably even before Nintendo Power.

[JackBNimble]

I agree with the statement that reviews are bullshit.
Reviewers only score a game on opinions alone, and have completely ignored what the word objective means.

We get subjective reviews not objective reviews, which could very easily be done and would probably be an instant money maker in this industry if any ( so called ) gaming journalists decided they had the balls to do it.

But all these journals are bought and paid for and are about as trustworthy as Unity.

[Reaper22_]

You know what else is BS? The hypocrisy that comes from gamers who only see it as a problem when Microsoft does it.

Reviews are just opinions. Why are you so emotional about a game that you obviously have no interest in? If the game was only 50 on metacritic would you be saying what you are? I don't think so. It's time you guys get over this Starfield thing. At the end of the day it's just another game. I'm glad the game is having some success. Why would any true gamer want any studio or Publisher to fail?

[anast]

"It's time you guys get over this Starfield thing."

We have found the new general of gaming. Standing by to take your orders sir.

[crazyCoconuts]

You're right that some people hating on Starfield is a thing.
But the point of the discussion around bad practices around how reviews are handled is also right - it's obviously a thing.

[Obscure_Observer]

"Why would any true gamer want any studio or Publisher to fail?"

Because in the minds of some people, only a gaming company is allowed to shine.

Fortunately, actual numbers show they´re minority and just bunch of sad losers.

[darthv72]

To be fair, it is the petty fanboys who want games/platforms/companies to fail. The gamers just play the games and enjoy themselves regardless of what anyone thinks.

[crazyCoconuts]

In terms of wanting a company to fail, there is nuance in everything. If Microsoft succeeding involves them buying up all the biggest publishers/game companies, then I want them to fail.

[ravens52]

U mean like Forspoken lmao. Ima say it every thread. Talk about hypocrisy.

[ChronoJoe]

I think they’d see it as an issue when anyone did it. But who else does? As far as I’m aware Nintendo and Sony don’t. When I used to write reviews they were always easier to get codes from than Microsoft. The only others I can think of were Japanese companies like Square, but I just found them harder to communicate with rather than actively blacklisting me. Activision we’re the easiest, even when writing for a small publication they used to send me everything, even when it wasn’t requested.

[Seraphim]

and there is the problem. Reviews are not just opinions. At least professional reviews. They need to be matter of fact based, on the games own merits, strengths and weaknesses. It also leads to bad reviews of otherwise good games. As does it to bad reviews simply because the reviewer does not like the genre of the game they are being paid to review. Professional reviews need to get back to matter of fact, not opinions, those are what user reviews are for; opinions. 2 cents

[neomahi]

Xbox are ones that generated the hype, they were in over their heads, it's not the peoples fault, they just listened to Xbox and what Xbox told them repeatedly and wouldn't shut up about, consumers just ended up being smarter and called their bluff. It's not the people, Xbox generated the hype

[Petebloodyonion]

So how come PC Metacritic didn't come down?
Let me guess they aren't truthful.

But surely the media never protest by giving a bad score to the game when they are not happy about a situation
like IGn 3/10 score for Prey and Gamespot 6/10 for HP Hogwart.

[anast]

"So how come PC Metacritic didn't come down?"

The PC has more modding options. The game needs to be modded drastically.

[crazyCoconuts]

User reviews in Metacritic are in the 6/10 range for both PC and Xbox.
Steam reviews (PC only) are in the low 70's.
It's a broad recognition that the game is just ok, which makes it more obvious when you come across the 10/10 reviews.
That and the vocal journalists that were not given review copies makes for an interesting case study of what's wrong with the system I guess

[Petebloodyonion]

@Anast
Didn't know that PC reviewers now included the notion that users will mod games when establishing if the product is good or not and more importantly when they have received early copies before mods are out.

@Crazy
I'm sure the same logic could apply to TLOU2 on PS4 with a 5.8 user score (that's after the removal of some negative reviews asked by Sony) vs. the 9.4 critics review right?
As for Steam, I'm pretty sure that 76% are positive reviews do not equal a low 70 and are higher compared to the true honest review of the main UK media outlet.

[OMNlPOTENT]

I’ve seen you in almost every starfield article I’ve clicked on, why are you so triggered by other people enjoying a video game?

[PhillyDonJawn]

Honestly doing that only shoot themselves in the foot. Cause now those reviewers will give it a lower rating out of spite. I know I would.

[Obscure_Observer]

"Honestly doing that only shoot themselves in the foot. Cause now those reviewers will give it a lower rating out of spite. I know I would."

That´s is nothing but a valid reason for you to never get a review code again from any publisher or studio which values professionalism.

It might be news for you, but Sony has a list of blacklisted sites or/and reviewers which will never get a review code from them.

A quick research will get you up to date.

[dumahim]

@Obscure_Observer

Are you saying blacklisting reviewers is the same as cherry picking who gets one early enough to get a review out on time, but still getting them a code?

[Obscure_Observer]

"Glad someone called out this BS practice by Microsoft and Bethesda."

It was a BETHESDA decision to give review codes! And I think they´re right!

Eurogamer´s 6/10 was nothing but expected, since they got jealous because Digital Foundry got a copy while they don´t.

There´s lots of reviews that come out later and still gave Starfield great scores.

So you´re in some conspiracy BS here.

[shinoff2183]

And there's alot that called the game on the issues it has.

[lelo2play]

The opinion that matters is our own opinion. For me Starfield is a great game, and it's my GOTY so far... yes I played Baldur's Gate 3, it's a great game but I prefer Starfield.

If you base your opinion on other people, you let them define if a game is good or not... then I feel sorry for you.

[shadowT]

8/10 is still a very good game

[Profchaos]

Sure is however if all the usual outlets got review copies over fan sites and streamers who gave ratings and had them contributed to the total would it have been a 8 still is the question.

There's a element of bias that needs to be discussed when Xbox fan sites start handing out perfect scores that's questionable also to low scores are questionable to.

[OMNlPOTENT]

You’re acting like PlayStation fan sites didn’t hand TLOU2 dozens of undeserved 10/10s lmao

[Storm23]

In your opinion. It is a 10/10 to me.

[Profchaos]

@storm good to hear you love it but that's not the point.

@ominpotent there is a difference windows central could have requested and received a review copy of tlou2 or PlayStation sites could request tears of the kingdom for review also if they wanted however Bethesda was cherry picking it's reviewers in this instance and even sending it to no name fans with basic stream setups who reviewed and I use the word loosely their game on YouTube.

The fact that PlayStation sites handed out 10/10s is trivial because they would have done it anyway same as Xbox sites it's the fact that independent sites that have no bias and review multiplatform games were dismissed from the review pool while biased streamers were allowed in is the problem

[alexkarkar]

Starfied is should have 2/10, thought. The problem is much bigger then this article leads to believe. Basically they force shit down your throat and say it is a delicacy. The gamers blindly believe them, they completely lost the capacity to think for themselves.

[Reaper22_]

Thank you. You just proved my point in my post above.

[OMNlPOTENT]

Had a stroke trying to read the first sentence of what you just tried to type.

[ChasterMies]

That’s the problem. So called “review sites” start at 5 and go up from there. 8/10 should be beyond good and into the realm of excellence. Review score inflation has been a problem for a long time but has become nakedly obvious with Starfield because of how Microsoft cherry picked sites that received early access to the game.

[Profchaos]

I recall it all started when IGN gave GTA IV a perfect 10 it definitely deserves that scote at the time it was far and above anything else at the time however there was sort of a me to response to that suddenly everyone expected the next highly anticipated game to also get a 10 and we got many articles explaining why and what a 10 means especially from IGN and this was back in the days of decimal points in their scores.

Sun of it all is we kind of need to abandon review scores and numbers and move back to a more traditional appraisal system based on a bad, alright, good and great review score as games will always mean different things to different people

[TheCaptainKuchiki]

Review embargos should disappear FOREVER first of all

[CBaoth]

exactly sink or swim time. Had 2-4 years of development time to produce a working game. Selectively handing out review codes to ensure an inflated score really gives a bad taste in people's mouths. Of course MS knows it has a little army to defend against valid criticisms. And yes I'd post the same goddamn message if this was BG3 and Larian or Insomniac with Spiderman we're talking about

[jwillj2k4]

25 years in this case

[Rdeal]

And if that happened they wouldn't give out review copies because don't have to, just be glad they do

[ChasterMies]

If review embargoes disappeared, publishers like Microsoft would just do more cherry picking with early access codes. If cherry picking early access codes disappeared, publishers like Microsoft would just flood Metacritic with reviewers for hire. My advice for the gaming community is to follow a group of review sites you trust, i.e. sites that don’t hand out 8/10 to every game.

[northpaws]

I think having embargoes is fine, otherwise any randomly site can rush out a fake review weeks before the launch date just to get clicks, but it shouldn't be a date that they can set as whenever, like maybe it should be always a week before the release by law.

That still wouldn't help if developers withheld copies though, meaning no proper reviews can be done ahead of time even if everyone is allowed to do so.

[dumahim]

Embargos are fine. Cherry picking who gets a code early and who gets one later isn't.

Going without an embargo just incentivizes people to push through a review as quickly as possible to get ahead of everyone else.

[Christopher]

The real problem is putting scores to reviews. People should read reviews more, especially those that take the time to cover the game in detail and don't just gloss over everything.

[ravens52]

👀...🤫

[alexkarkar]

Yes, but it's not only games. All mass media in wokeblmusnatoeurope are biased and corrupt. Take Starfield, they force shit down your throat and then say it's a delicacy. The masses in their turn have completely lost the capacity to think for themselves.

[FunAndGun]

Nobody is forced anything. That's what somebody who can't think for themselves would say.

[SeTTriP]

Society is ran and maintained by force so your thought process is fundamentally flawed if you think otherwise.

People in prower understand the power of influence and they capitalize on it.you can in fact think for yourself that part is true but if it's not within societal norms then you well be labeled by that Society as a villain to your detriment furthering the power of influence.

Do you think that elden ring would've sold as many copies then it has of the meta wasn't 96? I can guarantee you that it wouldn't have because aggregate sites holds influence of the vast majority of casual gamers.

Metacritic and sites of its kind was never meant for people like us (informed gamers) its meant by in lage for the casual consumer (a tool to influence).

Just look at the completion rate of elden out of 30mil players for example, or ask yourself why would they're be any kind of incentive to pay off reviewer or preferential treatment for favorable reviews if it meant nothing?

Thinking for yourself boil down to critical thinking knowing that things absolutely can be forced on you and navigating through it to preserve your own ideals in way where society can't label you a villain.

[RauLeCreuset]

Complains about wokeness; two sentences later, complains about people no longer having the capacity to think for themselves.

[Nineball2112]

"they force shit down your throat and then say it's a delicacy." You're repeated this multiple times now. What are you on about?

[MrDead]

Isn't there a space laser you should be chasing?

[OneLove]

I'm having fun with the game. If you like bethesda style rpg, then there is no reason why you wouldn't like this game. Fallout in space, except you're pretty much fast traveling everywhere, which is fine with me since it doesn't take away from the gameplay.

[OWCY]

Gamer reviews seem to be either 0/10 or 10/10. You see somepeole put things like 30fps so 0/10 . Nots not how reviews should go.

[anast]

There are a ton of issues with reviewers: 1) Most reviewers do not have the professional experience to actually critique something that is visual art, written text, and technology. Most reviewers can't even do one of these things, let alone all three. 2) There is no standard criteria or general theory, which of course goes back to the first issue. 3) Most reviewers just want to be liked and get free stuff. 4) Most game reviewers write for the "sales team", not gamers.

[Obscure_Observer]

"Most game reviewers write for the "sales team", not gamers."

This is Metacritic and OpenCritic´s fault.

They should create and enforce rules which values technical criteria above all like:

Graphics.
Performance.
Gameplay.
Sound.

THEN less technical factors like:

Fun Factor.
Story.
Ending.
Replay value.

Also, all reviewer´s gaming profile on said platform should be open to anyone to see. It would give reviewers credibility and transparency.

[babadivad]

I think TLoU 2 did that before Starfield.

[SeTTriP]

Here we go with tlou 2.tlou2 was a great Game with a decisive plot and political inserts.as a game few to this day can match it even the decisive bits of the game was buried under some fantastic and poignant story telling its even a technically marvel even to this day which is why it caused a divide amongst its player base.

If you was in it just for the gameplay then it's definitely a 9 or 10 but if you was in it for the story and nothing else that's where it gets subjective either you loved it hate it or somewhere in between.

[InUrFoxHole]

Tlou2 was not a great game story wise

[anast]

The transparent truth is that along with some mischievous trolls, neo-cons and closet neo-&azis blew that game up with downvotes.

[pezking]

Cringe

[-Foxtrot]

Totally, especially when the story was such a downgrade but people still want to call it a "Masterpiece" that's "better than the first". Yeah....no.

Ghost of Tsushima was nitpicked apart by journalists yet they arselicked TLOU, not to mention Ghost of Tsushima featured TWO revenge stories that were a lot better than what was told in Part II.

[Petebloodyonion]

I guess reviews from Metro are honest and there 0 bitterness especially when the website needs to publish fan theories articles.

1) Metro and Eurogamer mentioned that THE MAJORITY of UK media didn't receive a review code and only the ones with a US branch managed to get one.
https://metro.co.uk/2023/08...

2) "Bethesda hadn’t left these sites out because they thought they wouldn’t tell the truth but because they knew they would." And the rest of the world's websites aren't?
Since when did the UK become the only place where the truth will be told?

3) "It’s very obvious that the reason they withheld the copies is to try to get the Metacritic review as high as possible..."
And surely not due to the CMA situation or any other potential reason.

4) "Before launch, and in fact, the Xbox Series X/S score was somewhere around 87 at that point and is now down to 83 with the Eurogamer review" And the PC score is still 87 for the same exact game with late reviews too.
I guess they aren't truthful.

5) "When even IGN (and no insult to them) is giving the game 7/10 I think you need to have a word with yourself when you’re scoring it 10/10." And funny to note that a lot of these 10 comes from IGN-affiliated site like IGN France/ India,

So here's my 2 cents on the whole things
Bethesda simply made a statement to CMA and the UK gov in the same way any organization or union does when they want to put pressure.
Hurting the profit of some companies that will complain about it in the hope of changing an outcome.

[kindi_boy]

Metro proves there is something very wrong with video game reviews

[purple101]

@NotoriousWhiz

simply no, I'm merely suggesting, to Darth, that even If, the practice of witholding reviews, was around for a long time before Bethesda, (as a mentioned created 1986), they would not have any benefit, due to review aggregators such as metacritic only becoming popular, due to the mass adoption of online websites.

[anast]

good point

[DefenderOfDoom2]

What kind is crazy to me is that s lot of people rely on reviews to buy a game . There is some games that I will buy on day one because I really want to play it and I want to my own review. Publishers put out enough gameplay footage before game comes out ,where I can clearly see what the game involves and whether it is game I want to play.

[anast]

What's crazy to me is blindly buying a product. Since there are no demos, we have to rely on reviews. And since the review process is broken, we are left with a crowd that tells people that they must buy a broken product to have the right to complain about it, which of course is stupid.

[InUrFoxHole]

Anast how old are you? You can't have been possibly gaming for too long.

[Abear21]

Hype for day one! Devs want you to purchase at full price, just don’t people. Always wait for the dust to settle before buying a game. Reviews, especially day one reviews, are made in a bubble and obviously just one person’s opinion. I look across multiple reviews to find the common thread of the game’s strengths and flaws then make a decision on a price point. A game like Far Cry I wait until it’s $20. Street Fighter 6 I’m waiting until $30. A game like BG3 or Spidey 2 I’ll buy at $40. This is the way people—don’t trust review$, especially from big sites.

[anast]

This is reasonable, but most of us are digital junkies, which throws reason out of the window.

[shadowknight203]

Review scores have always been an issue. Why? Ask yourself this, have you ever played a game that had high meta score, but you found boring or flawed in such a way that you had wished you hadn't bought it. I know I have. It's all about opinion and taste, and while the days of renting videos games are over with now (basically), renting a game before buying the game was the best way to determine if it was worthy of purchase. Sure there's demo's available, but those are sadly released few and far between nowadays. It would be nice to include a 2 hour trial with every game released as part of an "online initiative" for consumer transparency.

[anast]

"It would be nice to include a 2 hour trial with every game."

This is the answer.

[Fonsecap]

Reviews are what they are, did anyone saw what happened with rotten tomatoes? So my advice is, read reviews from your trusty reviewers, the ones that like the same type of games that you like and give honest takes, I have a few that I watch every time a new game releases, but there is a problem with this method too, sometimes they disagree with one another ...lol

[Futureshark]

Now lets have a quick reality check.

For such a BIG game as Starfield - which potentially could make or break Xbox as a brand, it needed to be a hit.

As with any huge multi-billion company, MS employ huge marketing teams and strategists to ensure that this release is handled as carefully as possible to give it as good a launch as possible.

Now I don't know if MS/Bethesda withheld review codes from certain review websites that it deemed not as Xbox friendly as others, neither can I say if other incentives were offered to other smaller review sites that are usually ignored to help 'grease the wheels' to get as many 10/10's on launch day and then proudly show the suits upstairs the high Metacritic score.

Be aware, the marketing teams involved in these companies don't really care if you like or enjoy the game, however they will do as much as they can to influence your decision to purchase it - that is their job.

Please note, although this latest example is from MS with Starfield, by no means are they the only ones to do dirty tricks like this in or out of the gaming world, just take a look at any political campaign if you want another example in another field.

[darthv72]

Well... its certainly been a hit

[moomoo319]

once Cyberpunk got 9/10 at launch i lost all faith 😂

[Mulando]

cyberpunk was great at launch ... at least if you'd got the PC version or an PS5/XSX (x1x & ps4 pro did also work ok). Really a great game. The last-gen versions however ...
Yes it had some bugs, but I played through it on the day-one version.

[343_Guilty_Spark]

I’ve never seen so much crying and whining by grown men regarding a game in my life.

Starfield is a blast!!!

[Knightofelemia]

A game labelled as a space explorer with barriers that hinders exploration I would hide the reviews as well.

[343_Guilty_Spark]

Define exploration

[Ninver]

Freedom of travel to any point.

[Nineball2112]

There's so much exploration, it seems overwhelming to me at times.

[343_Guilty_Spark]

Literally too much to explore!

[aconnellan]

Subjective, but I haven’t run into one of these barriers yet and I’ve done plenty of exploration

[VivaChe]

Part of the problem, I think, is that Metacritic includes far too many sites in its pool to make up an overall score. Look at the list of sites that contributed to Starfield's Metacritic score -- there's a bunch of small hobby sites, whose reviewers are frankly just enthusiastic fans, often with little reviewing experience. I hate to be a snob, but ideally the Metacritic rating should only include very well established sites whose reviewers are veteran reviewers with a proven background of expertise in gaming and reviewing.

[SeTTriP]

@InUrFoxHole

Care to explain why it's not a great Game story wise?

I can say the sun isn't hot but without a reason it's nothing more then a pointless statement.

Just like any comment I've made in this thread people can disagree but can't refute what I'm saying which just leaves me to believe that critical thought isn't a tool that alot of people who visit this site have.

[343_Guilty_Spark]

It’s not on playstation

[Huey_My_D_Long]

I'll be honest with you, the time jumps were annoying and taking me out of the immersion, although i admit switchimg the protagonist was bold and nice but the ending did feel anticlimatic and left me not satisfied..
I totally see why some people would call it a 10/10, even if it'd an 8.5 just because the letdown in story compared to first one (not like much worse though).
I can't say the same about Starfield. I mean I can see how some are enjoying themselves and hey good for them, enjoy that game...but the idea that game is a 10 outta 10 is pretty ridiculous considering it's flaws. Yall can still love mid tier titles you know.

[Huey_My_D_Long]

People who were passed about the trans character missed out though
Lev was the best character in that game.
Spoiler.

I felt no guilt in killing that pregnant chick cause I 1. Hated that character she actually made me like Abby way quicker, calling her a monster when she lives In a group that shoots on site, just cause she didn't kill herself didn't mean blood wasn't on her hands...least Abby knew who and what she was And 2. Literally just slew through like 100 named people who might be new or expecting parents...so a few of the story points didn't hit as intended

[Huey_My_D_Long]

I know u weren't asking me, but there's my take

[ravens52]

It's people who haven't played it. Or bigots, that's how it always goes. It was Lev the trans that no one liked in the game, they had a problem with Joel dying, or didn't like how strong Abby was. No real criticism. Great story ,great gameplay. The time jumps were fine, tied everything together. Showing two different sides of the same story was cool. 🤷🏾

[Elda]

I'm 23 hrs in & the game is not bad. I have been doing nothing but side quests but I have been experiencing some really frustrating glitches in the game where I have to go back to a previous save or restart the game & the loading is a pain as well. The game is not a 9 or 10 but I will say so far it's between a 7 or 7.5 & that's not bad.

[ravens52]

Youre not an xbox fanboy so you can be objective. Thats the difference between your 7-7.5 and all those 10s and 9s.

[mjchitown]

you are apart of the problem metre uk. you taking points from hi-fi rush review score cause xbox didnt have a good 2022 of games released

[RhinoGamer88]

It does make you question the integrity of those early reviews that were 10/10. 7/10 at launch is totally fair...it will hit a 9/10 in three to four months.

[Johnh5223]

With how little western rpgs come out Im a big fan of the skyrim fallout formula used in starfield. I hate demon souls type games that get high reviews and are trash in my opinion gameplay and story wise they always feel like a ps2 game gameplay wise. I also cant stand top down rpgs like balders gate 3.Starfield Its an amazing game after the slow start 10 hrs in. Saying lies of p a souls type game better than starfield is a joke. I take reviews with a grain of salt .

[Mulando]

Those reviews really have to stop.
Back in the days of gaming magazines, not everybody reviewed a game. You always had different journalists who played their genres. Nowadays, it seems like everybody plays everything and also it seems thate the Nintendo generation has grown up and now hypes everything nintendo does (even if they already did it on the WiiU or if it isn't that great). I can also play TLOU, GoW or RE6 and tell you those games are not fun to play. I wouldn't lie because I just don't like those games. Even though I can see that these games are good, but I just don't like those so no fun for me.

Also the jimquesition review is so strange. A 40 ... seems more like he made it low so he get more clicks. Not every game studio needs to revolutionize games. They need to make good games, and starfield is a good game with some flaws. But well I also liked the vanilla version of No Mans Sky (not so much with the later patches), Gothic, Risen, .... It is just a game that I like for what it is.

[Binarycode]

After playing the game for a few more hours, I have dropped my score to a 6.

A.I is awful, Planets have textures but that's about it.

It's a shame a top-end company doesn't make a space game.

Naughty dog, Guerilla games, Insomniac and some other 3rd party teams.

As it is, this is buggy. good for lolz though.

[Ninver]

The industry as a whole is nothing more than a cesspool of shady practices. Lack of innovation and money hungry cooperations who nickle and dime gamers at any opportunity. What more can you honestly expect?

The medium will kill itself eventually.

[Good-Smurf]

Gaming reviews of these sites are getting dangerously close to Rotten Tomatoes level.
They're nothing more than paid ads.
I've never seen so many 100% fresh critic reviews in my life these past 2 years.
I think my gut feelings are more believable than these clowns simping for more early exclusive accesses free stuff.

[TheColbertinator]

Mixed reviews for Starfield came in and I did find myself agreeing with some of the points especially from IGN and Gamespot. I really enjoy Starfield and beat it already but some glaring issues came up during my playthrough and I feel like Bethesda could have handled those problems by launch.

I can see why the game got both high and average scores because Starfield has many great features of an addicting game.

[Aaroncls7]

As you get older you'll realize that reviews are actually useless and dumb.
Countless times I've put off a movie or game because I peeped some idiot's score somewhere.
Only to later realize later it was actually pretty good and enjoyable.
This happens even with close friends with similar and trusted opinions.

In short, take them with a grain of salt or better yet, ignore them.

[BlackDoomAx]

Companies getting money from publishers will 100 % make biased reviews. Only independent medias can make true ones.

[smashman98]

I mean Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom prove that. Hi-Fi Rush proved that. !0/10's and 5/5's are handed out 5-10 times a year per publication at this point. I blame both the reviewers and the readers.