Yes I know what you said, peanut. So either you’re an idiot who decided to drop their meaningless comment in or you’re not an idiot and you know very well that we are talking about the relative states at launch of Starfield, Cyberpunk and No Mans Sky. Just because you finished the game doesn’t mean the game was anywhere near finished, to the extent that it took a further two years of development for them to get it into reasonable shape.
That I finished the game was not evidence either way, it was to give perspective on my opinion. Cyberpunk definitely had its problems (NPC behavior, police, many people reported game-breaking bugs (which I didn’t encounter at all, btw.), unplayability on older consoles…). And finished/polished and so on are obviously matters of semantics. However - while you can disregard my opinion, look at the steam reviews of these three games. Cyberpunk was „mostly positive“ a month after release and „very positive“ within the same year. It took NMS 5 years to get to „mostly“, and it is still sitting there. I would be mildly surprised if Starfield ever gets there again. Pigeonholing these games is unfair.
We’re not talking about whether the game is “fun”, though, which is largely what people are complaining about. Cyberpunk was a fucken mess at launch and was missing plenty of promised features. In comparison Starfield is in significantly better shape performance and stability-wise, even if a lot of people are disappointed in it as a game.
Assuming this hate boner for Starfield dies down (once the next game comes along that the internet decides deserves its wrath) and assuming Bethesda stick to their promise of new content etc in 2024, I think we will indeed see it turn those reviews around.
Edit to add: I think Cyberpunk today is a much better game than Starfield today. If you only played it at launch you missed out on a LOT of improvements.
Yes I know what you said, peanut. So either you’re an idiot who decided to drop their meaningless comment in or you’re not an idiot and you know very well that we are talking about the relative states at launch of Starfield, Cyberpunk and No Mans Sky. Just because you finished the game doesn’t mean the game was anywhere near finished, to the extent that it took a further two years of development for them to get it into reasonable shape.
That I finished the game was not evidence either way, it was to give perspective on my opinion. Cyberpunk definitely had its problems (NPC behavior, police, many people reported game-breaking bugs (which I didn’t encounter at all, btw.), unplayability on older consoles…). And finished/polished and so on are obviously matters of semantics. However - while you can disregard my opinion, look at the steam reviews of these three games. Cyberpunk was „mostly positive“ a month after release and „very positive“ within the same year. It took NMS 5 years to get to „mostly“, and it is still sitting there. I would be mildly surprised if Starfield ever gets there again. Pigeonholing these games is unfair.
We’re not talking about whether the game is “fun”, though, which is largely what people are complaining about. Cyberpunk was a fucken mess at launch and was missing plenty of promised features. In comparison Starfield is in significantly better shape performance and stability-wise, even if a lot of people are disappointed in it as a game.
Assuming this hate boner for Starfield dies down (once the next game comes along that the internet decides deserves its wrath) and assuming Bethesda stick to their promise of new content etc in 2024, I think we will indeed see it turn those reviews around.
Edit to add: I think Cyberpunk today is a much better game than Starfield today. If you only played it at launch you missed out on a LOT of improvements.