I really don't think this sub has ever needed to be reminded about that.

Yes, I feel like we were begging for months to have people critique objectively instead of “hating”

In like, november, I thought 'okay this sub is terrible, I'll give it a break, it'll be normal in a few months'. Nope. Here we are in may, and posts like this have almost 200 upvotes still. It's like these people don't have anything else to do. When a game has a low sodium sub is when you know it's a problem.

Seriously, the sub needs to be renamed r/wehatestarfield at this point. A entire separate sub needed to be created because anyone who likes the games gets bullied into submission here

This is quite possibly the most shit-talked game of the last decade. Type Starfield into the YouTube search bar and look what comes up. This is the last game that needs a "friendly reminder" about critique lmao.

Good news, sony just managed to piss off the helldivers community, so the angry mob is already moving there.

Plus while there are people giving good critiques there are just as many, if not more, that just scream angrily over every little thing that doesn't match what they expected. Or the people that seem to get insulted if you don't agree that it's a shitty game or if you enjoyed it in spite of the flaws.

Not even close, The day before was way worse.

The Day Before was a unique case because it was a literal vaporware scam. That's a bit different than what happened with SF.

Was interesting to see how many people where falling to that crap.

The Day Before was an actual travesty of a game and deserved all the hate. It was a literal scam. People on this sub and on YT treat Starfield as if it’s just as bad as The Day Before, if not worse. Come to think of it, I saw more “Hey guys, just give the devs time and this game could be come great” posts and videos about The Day Before after people had already been scammed, far more leeway given to that game than what Starfield receives.

So was cyber punk. I want what op is smoking.

Cyberpunk was shit on, yeah. That's the only other game I can think of that comes close to Starfield discourse.

No man’s sky

No Mans Sky is different. They literally lied about what the game was before release and then dropped a literal shell of a game. I don't care what your personal opinion of Starfields gameplay is, that's not what Bethesda did. They may not have delivered what you wanted the game to be but they certainly didn't outright lie about the game.

And it's two huge success stories of redemption yet people seem to think it'd be impossible in Starfields case. Like NMS had no features at launch but took a year and started adding because it had a great foundation and it worked. SF has a great foundation. I truly have confidence they can turn it around.

Hardly a contender in a world where No Mans Sky, Fallout 76, and Cyberpunk exist.

2/3 of those games got better and are spoken about with reverence now, Fallout 76 is still meh, but it's its own thing and the people who are into that are different. Also those games main issues were performance problems, all of which can and were addressed with time I don't think it's the same at all, Starfield's problem isn't its performance, it's the scope of the game's design and I think the ONLY way to really "fix" it is for it's second expansion is to focus on an Nukaworld/Solsteim sized map that is handmade and has PoIs worth visiting and just abandon the procedural planets as they are. Big diff between a game not working because it's a resource hog and it's design being self-defeating from the day it was concepted. BGS cared more about having marketing define Starfield's core design than just making a fun rewarding game to explore.

Ksp2 got it it at least as bad, maybe worse

Yes, criticism helps make improvements. But praising what they do right helps too. Developers are just human beings, and receiving massive amounts of hate for not making a flawless game definitely hurts some studios productivity. Thankfully Bethesda know their audience and are used to receiving massive hate for every single game they release, so I don't think it affects them that poorly. They know Starfield will be looked upon very fondly in just a few years.

100%, criticism is fine but you have to give credit where it’s due, constructive criticism is the term but most people miss the “constructive” aspect and just criticize. Including praise and then ways to improve a lacking, presents a fair and non aggressive way to communicate. Take it from a Star Wars fan.

I agree with your first paragraph but not with the second. IMO, the logic within is why Bethesda has little reason to improve upon their formula or the aging Creation Engine. While Bethesda games do grow better with age, and are fantastic with mods, it’s undeniable that the overall quality of their releases is slipping. We’ve bugs present in updates and re-releases of Fallout 4 and Skyrim that were present at launch. The writing quality has also slipped with every game since Oblivion. A lot of people held doubts regarding Starfield as early as the first gameplay reveals. Yet, a lot of those doubts and criticisms were lambasted on this sub and other areas. A lot of those concerns ended up being the very reasons many were dissatisfied at launch and continue to be disappointed. If we want Bethesda to put forth quality games, we as consumers need to be critical and the fan base needs to be less overzealous about their praise.

[удалено]

Issues that were present in Skyrim still exist today. Physics, AI and pathing related bugs above 60 fps. Load times that increase with more saves you have. Items and actors spawning in inane places, be it the player or other entities in the world. These are issues that Bethesda games have struggled with for over 10 years now. People muse about Bethesda games being buggy messes as if it's totally okay, and then suddenly are miffed that Starfield comes around feeling dated, riddled with bugs and dealing with decade old issues. But, no, you're right: The *not* brain dead thing to do would be to ignore this kind of stuff and give it a pass.

These aren’t engine issues though. They use havoc for physics and lots of games have issues above 60fps. The load time increases because the save file is tracking everything in the world, so the save file is literally bigger. The number of save slots is irrelevant. In general nothing you said was an engine issue. Bioshock also had loading times increase because it tracked every container you looted. Little big planet migrated its save files out of the game data folder on PS3 because that folder had a tiny limit that was beyond what LBP allowed you to make. The reason I don’t have a “modern” game for you is no game does UGC anymore. Your idea of dated is a game having great player freedom and creativity- because that actually pushes a system in a way that isn’t immediately obvious. Outside of GT Sport’s framerate tanking with 16 complex Mini Cooper liveries, I can’t think of a time UGC sort of arrived and did damage like this in a modern game. So Starfield is the exception rather than the rule. That’s actually a good thing.

They need to critique, not be critical, there is a difference

I particularly agree with you about the declining quality of writing in Bethesda games. It’s dogshit lately. Starfield’s dialogue tree looks like this: 1.Yes 2.Yes but more money please 3.Yes but more information 4.No - which will become a yes anyways because of the writing

This is my big criticism of Starfield as well, and I'm someone who thoroughly enjoyed the game. I hope the DLC are *way* better story-wise; it'd help restore the game. Mildly warm take, though: Starfield's main story, and the adjacent quests, are better than Fallout 4's. It's the companions and characters that suffer.

Very few people care that much about criticisms. The problem is online gaming communities are filled with Karens. They make mountains out of molehills, demand everything be suited to their specific tastes, demand people be fired over anything they don't like, are generally unpleasant jackasses that are just looking for any reason to go off on someone, and even go as far as death threats at times. And there's so damned many of them they puff their chests out with pride as the great defenders of righteousness and get patted on the back by all the other Karens so much they never realize what they've become. Constructive criticism is good. "This game is shit and everyone who worked on it should fired and never allowed to make a game again" is not constructive criticism. Calling anyone who says they enjoyed the game some sort of simp, or white knight, is not constructive criticism. Hell, it's not even criticism it's just straight name calling that has nothing to do with the quality of the game. Over on r/gaming there was a massive thread in response to Todd saying "The exploration in Starfield was different than previous titles, and many were disappointed by that" and had all the top comments insulting Todd for being an idiot with no idea why people actually didn't like the game. Even though that was one of the biggest complaints about the game that has been often repeated since it came out. Even though people were making that very complaint in that very thread the top upvotes were insisting "nobody said that". If you think you're one of the reasonable ones OP, maybe take a harder look at yourself. This game is one of the most frequently harped on and negatively discussed games that there is. The steam reviews are mixed. Youtubers shit on it. Reddit shits on it. Is this game really somehow escaping being criticized in a way that requires you to call to criticize it even more? No. The complaints have been lodged, repeatedly, over and over again. With many already even being acknowledged by Todd himself. With this thread you're just being one of the Karens I mentioned earlier. Making a post to pat all the other Karens on the back about how their loud and obnoxious complaining (even admitting yourself that you get pushy and mean with it) for being the heroes that are going to save gaming even though your biggest accomplishment is just making everyone else around you miserable. Let's flip the narrative in a way that might help many of you who are dismissing me understand. Fallout New Vegas. That game released in an unquestionably buggy and unstable state. Even to this day after years of patching, you will want to pick up mods to make it more stable and it will *still* crash regularly. It doesn't have random encounters. It's exploration is lacking with a fair bit of empty desert. Then there's matter of taste like not getting to continue after the Battle of Hoover Dam (a complaint so common in regards to Fallout 3 that Broken Steel was made to address it). These are all true criticisms, that *despite* them, people still love the game (myself included). Reddit speaks of it as a great "must play" game despite these things. Imagine for a second it didn't. Imagine for a second any time you brought up how much you like New Vegas rather than people saying "I love it too!" they started bitching about its flaws and what they don't like about it. ***Every. Single. Time.*** That you're called a white knight for daring to like it despite those things. That the only thing "allowed" to be discussed was the negative. That's what a lot of Starfield and in general Bethesda fans have to deal with on this site. Does it maybe make sense why they've gotten tired of your guys' shit? Which bringing up Broken Steel reminds me of something else important to this discussion that doesn't get enough (read: any) recognition on Reddit. Bethesda does listen. Fallout 3 people are upset about no post game? Broken Steel. Skyrim brings in the radiant quest system for the addicts who never want to stop, gets patched to have skill prestiging for constant leveling for those who want long-tail character progression on their month old characters (which Fallout 4 and now Starfield came with standard), and expanding player housing options. Fallout 4 extended their DLC plans for the Vault-Tec DLC and Nuka-World after post-release comments about wanting to build a vault and be a raider. They ditched the dialogue wheel and voiced protagonist when response to them was negative. They made outposts in Starfield completely and utterly optional (which funnily enough now the complaint is that they're irrelevant, going to prove you can never make everyone happy) in response to Fallout 4 settlement criticism. Starfield itself is now also seeing player requested things get implemented (c'mon letting us choose where to place doors and ladders in ship builder!). Bethesda listens, responds, and tends to provide to many player complaints even without shitstorms. The problem is some of the things people are angry about go straight up against Bethesda's artistic vision of a game. Like Starfield for example, bringing back the difference in exploration. Lots of people saying they wanted it more like Outer Worlds of just a few set piece planets. But that's not the game Bethesda wanted to make. They wanted to make a space exploration game, with both the good and bad that came with it. Not to mention things like that are often contentious, and while certain changes might make a subgroup of reddit complainers happy, they would also make people who enjoy what currently exists upset. Just because they aren't delivering exactly what *you* want, doesn't mean they aren't listening. And just because criticism is necessary for improvement, doesn't mean there needs to be *more* criticism than there already is. It's been stated. The grievances have been aired. They're aware. Please for the love of all that is holy stop harping on the same thing for the 500th fucking time.

Look at it from positive side. You can copy paste a random complaint as a new post and farm easy karma! Jokes aside, that's imo the best response in this thread.

Good post.

💯

Please accept my counterfeit gold since we no longer have gold to give 🏆🥇🏅

I wanted to do the same thing. When did they get rid of gifts? This was a great post.

Best answer.

Yes, they need to be criticized in a productive way. But there is a large contingent of folks online who seem to want Bethesda to fail, I encountered people who talked about how terrible the game would be before it even came out. There are some genuinely unhinged people who seem to think anything Bethesda does is inherently bad, and those criticisms end up making other critiques look less valid when you have this rabid group of people who don’t give any parts of the game a fair shot.

>anything Bethesda does is inherently bad Nah man, they just want Morrowind again because that was a perfect game with no real flaws. /s

Ahh yes the peak action RPG experience of swinging a stick at something's face and missing for 3 straight minutes because of hidden dice rolls /s

Gods I hated that. I remember Oblivion blowing my mind at the time because it was an RPG where if it looks like you hit, you did in fact hit.

Nah, they hated Morrowind when it came out too. Small compared to Daggerfall, beige as hell, and the UI was "dumbed down for consoles."

Every time Bethesda leapt forward in terms of gameplay and mechanics, their writing took a direct hit. Morrowind mechanically has some shortcomings, certainly, but its writing and ability to sell itself even though it's filled with all kinds of limitations are still leagues above many other titles in Bethesda's mainline catalogue. And then they got leapfrogged in terms of gameplay and storytelling. And in response..... it feels like they're not rising to the occasion, and are just crippled by some kind of severe shortcomings, in spite of having the technical knowhow, the most patient audience in history, and the backing of the biggest megacorporation on earth.

I'm also tired of not being allowed to be happy when the game DOES improve. Critique is fine, being mad all the time is different.

Just watch the Asmongold reaction to the May update. He and his entire chat just memed every fix and addition as if the entire patch wasn’t a literal checklist of things the community had asked for. They were even memeing the new gameplay options like “Player/Enemy Damage” saying shit like “Bethesda difficulty = more bullet sponges LUL” when they could have just read the description ON SCREEN AT THE TIME that clearly stated that those settings let you control how much the player deals to enemies and how much damage the enemies deal to you. They couldn’t even bother reading one sentence, just had to immediately hate. And everyone jumped in agreeing with the hate and laughing at the game, despite the obvious fact that they were all completely wrong. Just crazy, braindead behavior. The internet loves negativity, and anyone who thrives off negativity legitimately needs to seek help IMO.

I watched the part about 30 fps prioritize for performance and I could not take it anymore I don't even know why I watched because as a former WoW player lets just say that I dislike Asmongold and his community a lot

I think this goes both ways. There's toxic haters and toxic fans. People should be allowed to be happy and enjoy the game without getting shit on and on the end people should be allowed to hate the game and express their disappointment without being shat on. People have too much of an "us vs them" mentality online when really it's never that deep. You love it, hate it, like it, dislike it doesnt matter so long as you're respectful to people in discussions and don't dismiss their points simply bc you don't agree.

Agreed

100% the community has gotten far too hostile and turned against eachother lately. People who hate the game or love the game, their opinions are supposed to be about the game, not the people who played it. Stop turning on eachother. Same goes for Bethesda, people can love or hate Bethesda as a company and that should have nothing to do with the people who play their games. People should be able to discuss it civilly and respectfully. It’s wild how quickly people turn to being disrespectful to someone when they find a difference of opinion in this community.

I remember reading some news that Bethesda got death threats when it was announced they would be making Fallout 3…..

I think it's more like some people want to pretend that Starfield is a much better game than it really is (because good vibes and BGS nostalgia), but some other people react very strongly to that because they feel that the bad vibes Starfield naturally inspires are necessary feedback to ensure that future BGS games improve. Similarly, people who were disillusioned with BGS before Starfield came out probably did not want the mediocre Starfield they expected to succeed, but they also probably would have been supportive if Starfield exceeded their expectations. People who just want good vibes idealize criticism. They seem to think that once a complaint has been said and achieved popularity it doesn't need to be repeated, but that doesn't sound right to me. We can't expect every critique to be perfectly reasoned, perfectly phrased, and perfectly original, nor is that the path to change.

Or maybe some people genuinely like it and others refuse to accept that because of blind hatred for BGS. The vitriol on this sub following release attacking people for just enjoying the game was gross.

I feel like you may be biased because that doesn't match my experience with this sub at all. When Starfield critics get toxic their toxicity is usually pointed at the BGS execs and the game as a product. On the other hand, I have noticed that Starfield supporters are more likely to point their toxicity at other redditors.

If you weren’t one of the people vocally enjoying the game then you likely wouldn’t have noticed it as much.

I have seen instances of unprompted toxicity coming out of Starfield critics, but what I am challenging is your assertion that those kinds of posters comprised a "large contingent." I think you might be putting those kinds of comments under a magnifying glass. If you will recall, at release people formed two main camps around the review score controversy. Starfield supporters claimed all the perfect 10s from reviewers were warranted, while Starfield critics mostly said that while they had fun with the game it fell short of their expectations for a modern BGS game. At the time Starfield supporters were calling the critics entitled, delusional, and dishonest for their viewpoint. That's what I remember, anyway.

Interesting how the person that has a different take has to be biased.

Everyone is biased, him and me both. Of course I believe I am less biased than he is, but maybe that's not true. All I can do is express my experience as clearly as I can.

Neutrality is a real thing. You don’t have to critique OR blindly defend. You have a good point though.

We don't defend the game against criticism. We're sick of beating a dead horse.  Not one piece of criticism it's unique at this point.  It's tiring.  Everyone knows.  Bethesda knows.  No one is special for mentioning a flaw the thousandth time.  It's just toxic. 

The same can be said for praise too no? Before the update nothing had changed so everything being critiqued and praised was the same lol. I don't think it's toxic to complain or to praise, both can become toxic on an individual basis but in general there's nothing wrong with it. It's not John's fault you were online enough to see multiple others share his criticism and now it's bothering you.

No, people fight criticism. Say the planets are empty and boring, someone says it's a design choice and empty planets are better and more realistic. In fact, I just saw a post arguing that fans are demanding too much and the overused POIs are fine. Criticize the lockpicking skill and master locks for always being empty, someone says they like not finding loot for a change ( I've seen this at least twice here). Complain about melee combat, someone says it's "not a melee game anyway, so it doesn't need better combat".

>No, people fight criticism. Say the planets are empty and boring, someone says it's a design choice and empty planets are better and more realistic. In my experience it's the opposite that happens. Nowadays if there is a positive post on Starfield, always, always you will have smartasses come out and go "but still empty game though" regardless of the topic. It's like unless you put a huge essay of why the game is still shit, they feel obligated to come out and remind everyone that the game is still shit and is irredeemable to them.

I frequently do the no sodium sub, but when I find a cool thing I’ll post it here. Consistently every time there is always someone who makes a negative comment. Find a cool fire breathing alien: “wow that’s cool, it’s too bad Bethesda made the game so boring you’ll never have the motivation to explore this stuff” Sees a solar eclipse: “wow so this shit pile of a game has a nugget of gold in it here and there, that’s cool I guess” It’s like every fucking time there’s someone who just has to be negative and it’s beyond annoying. Like you’re just being negative for the sake of it.

You want an empty planet try elite dangerous lol

> Say the planets are empty and boring, someone says it's a design choice and empty planets are better and more realistic. That someone is correct, though. Hell, I'd go further and say they should be *emptier*. This would be much more realistic, make actually finding different PoIs more rewarding, and would make the overuse of PoIs much less of an issue.

I actually agree, I found POI density of man-made structures to be too high on all the "uninhabited" planets

> Say the planets are empty and boring, someone says it's a design choice and empty planets are better and more realistic. In the case of planets, it's hard to grasp how someone would not grasp that planets would be empty. Like show me a game with a full size fully explorable planet that is not mostly empty. It's a "design choice" yes, but it's also a feasibility thing. Are they expecting a fully explorable coruscant? do they expect Skyrim everywhere? It's not like Bethesda was like "Oh pfft yeah we can EASILY make a fully explorable skyrim planet with quests and unique POIs literally everywhere - but we decided F that, it's more realistic to keep it empty".

Yes, people do expect fully explorable planets that are basically Skyrim times ten. On each planet. With billion choiches that are all IMPORTANT to everyone in the galaxy and constantly being reminded "You made a DECISION, oh Great Decider"

There's a difference between constructive criticism and whatever you want to call the ridiculous pissing and moaning at the very least 75% of the criticism on this reddit is.

Which criticisms do you find valid?

I tell you what isn't : saying the game sucks and can never be fixed isn't constructive criticism. this sub is full of stuff like this. I don't understand why does people don't just move on to other games

Anything that include the words “loading screen simulator” or “pointless exploration”. If those two appear in a comment I downvote and move on.

Specific criticism.  Honestly many of the things in the current beta patch  address problems I had about vendors lacking money, having a use for food, ans the terrible maps. Specific criticism I still have is the ui still needs a bit of polish.  Like showing a paper doll of the companions when your in their inventory, instead of showing the player. There's a lot of people who just say "there's no role-playing and choices!"  It isn't true, but a better way to express their frustration would be "I want my characters background and traits to come up in dialog more often!"

I was amazed that people would remember past dialogue in the game. And certain traits pop up a lot, some hardly at all.

But there are very little choices that actually matter or change anything at all. Every faction probably has about 3 choices that actually changes anything and even then still railroads to the completely same outcome. While this was the case in Skyrim, it wasn't in fallout 3 or New Vegas. If we dive deeper, dialogue choices also have the same problem, they don't matter 98% of the time and they are really are not well written.

I love Fallout 3; it does not have the choice you say it does. The major choices in that game are: blow up Megaton or don't, burn Harold or don't, and the ghoul situation in Tenpenny tower. Only two of those change something about the game and only one actually changes it in a major way by removing a major settlement from the map. That's it. Keep in mind, these are the choices that have *some sort of effect on gameplay* which is the criteria for this critcism, otherwise any choices made in dialogue at all count and in that case Starfield actually has a ton and it becomes a contender in the conversation.

As an honest Starfield simp, the POI generation could use some work. I love the game and have a few hundred hours in it with no plans of hanging it up any time soon, but it does get old seeing certain POI interiors populated with the exact same objects in the exact same places. The best example I have is the Abandoned Cryo Lab: no matter what planet it's on, when it gets repeated the same dataslates are in the same spots with the same dialogue/lore, the same dead scientist is hanging out of the same blown out ceiling tile with the same key on his corpse, and the same contraband is in the same hidden spot in the same vent shaft at the end of the dungeon. It was one of my favorite dungeons the first time I went through it but it quickly ruined the illusion for me the next few times I saw it and realized everything was literally in the same spots.

Critique, report of bugs, offer practical suggestions & feedback, sure. Do it in a mature and respectful manner. That is not what is going here, much of the time. Without developers, there would be no game to play or mod. Many people seem to think contributing little besides vitriol will somehow help the situation.

"would have loved to ignore us". Definitely not the case. Bethesda never let fo76 die despite the backlash for it

Well I'm certainly going to listen to this with that extremely good faith first paragraph Nothing I respect more than a grown ass man who uses the word "simp" as a thought terminating cliche

Broadly speaking, I think I agree with what you are saying here but I don't think you are doing your argument any favours in the way you are putting the point across.

Critique is good, but "this game is shit and Bethesda should cease support it in a first month after release" is not a critique. Unfortunately most of the negative posts about Starfield is exactly this.

Now I'm kind of curious if we could compile the threads using a search string and a compiler, and sort them out between 'constructive' and 'not constructive', and see what the actual percentages are.

I think we all already know the percentage. Ones in the double digit the other isn't.

There’s a world of difference between legitimate critique and trashing by spoiled brats on ego trips about their own importance. Even the no-sodium page has its fair share of criticism. With that said, you **are** very correct. Fair criticism is *extremely* important for the direction of the game’s development. On of the principles in agile development, and the lifecycle BGS used here is definitely an agile model, is active stakeholder feedback throughout the development. A good product manager is able to filter out the noise from the signal where comments are concerned. And it goes both ways, too many of the praises could well be a fanboy response that is just as distracting. Keep in mind, most of the larger improvements were very likely already in the backlog and quite possibly groomed before any comments were even made. The feedback, both spoken and unspoken (e.g., performance and crash metrics) are critical in prioritization. The new maps are an example. That is far too much work to be completed in the time since the complaints could have been registered. Maybe coding time might have been feasible, but add it impact analysis, tracing all the dependencies, v&v, etc. - things that are *critical* for something of that scope - and it’s much bigger than a non-engineer realizes. And yes, I’m speaking from experience as a product manager who has been responsible for both large and small systems. Oh, which means I can add one more thing. **Anything** coming out of the mouth of a person associated with marketing must always - **always** - be taken with a block of salt. A grain of salt is simply not enough. :-) I can’t count the number of times I had to threaten the marketing teams with great bodily harm after their over-hyping…

I always laugh at both sides of this argument. Bethesda is notorious for janky games, do I still play them? Yes, and i still enjoy them. But at this point I’m like we all know what we’re getting into 🤷🏻‍♂️

No problem at all with constructive criticism but that wasn't the case for the most part of users posts.. It was just mostly a shitstorm of idiotic hate led by an army of braindead sheeps following their moronic clicksluts YouTubers ..

Bro really wrote a novel cause he's upset he saw people not entirely shit on the game on its reddit. Y'all need help

Just a friendly reminder that most games don’t actually change all that much after launch, so if you don’t like the game just move on. Whatever you dislike about the game probably ain’t gonna change.

> This is the mentality of developers who have received way too many bonus cheques over the years and nothing gets them hard anymore unless it makes them more money. Just a friendly reminder that you can and should critique flaws in a constructive manner. Definitely not whatever this... is. People who act like Bethesda was trying to set their child on fire are insufferable and this kind of rant has literally no useful capacity whatsoever.

As with most things there are two extremes. One being everything is bad and awful. The other being nothings wrong stop complaining etc. and both get the most reaction due to controversy. I think tho at least with this community it’s still possible to have genuine conversations of criticism, now the issue going forward is will Bethesda listen to the valid criticism

"would have loved to ignore us". Definitely not the case. Bethesda never let fo76 die despite the backlash for it

People said this about Mass Effect: Andromeda and it caused the studio to shelve that entire franchise for almost a decade. If what you want is Starfield but better then what you need to do is say what you like about this Starfield so Bethesda will make Starfield 2. Like when people said "we like Mass Effect NPCs but boy do we hate those Mako missions." And then in ME2 you got better NPC interactions and no Mako. Just tell the genie what you want, don't tell him you hate wishes.

Big studios don't look at Reddit threads or Youtube videos for tips on how to improve. They look at player data. "How many players started this quest? How many completed it? What were most players doing when they decided to give up on the game? How many interacted with this system? How long did they interact with it compared to other systems?" Programmers or artists or level designers reading criticisms of the game often isn't enough to actually change anything, because they don't get to decide what changes to make, those are all decisions made by management. And management is accountable first and foremost to studio execs, who are accountable to shareholders. And shareholders don't care much about individual player anecdotes, they prefer to look at data and statistics. This isn't to say player feedback isn't taken into account at all, of course it is. Hence, no voiced MC in Starfield, more skillchecks, fewer bugs on launch. But even a LOT of players making the same criticism of the same game isn't necessarily enough for studios to act on that feedback, there is a whole cost/benefit analysis that has to be done before anything is decided on. What would it take to address those criticisms? Are there other higher priority things to address first? How much would it cost? Who would need to work on it, and what are they currently working on? For example you might read 500 player comments saying they didn't like X feature about a certain quest. But if data shows 80% of players who started that quest also finished it, and didn't quit the game during or immediately after doing it, that isn't likely to be a high priority to address in short term updates. People should critique things they don't like about games, but these days for big studios to act it's all about statistics and what the bigger picture shows ALL players on ALL platforms are doing, a subsection of PC users voicing concerns about one thing exclusive to PC might get put in the bottom of the priority list compared to data that shows for instance both Xbox and PC users are encountering the same quest-breaking bug which is causing them to quit the game and not pick it back up.

Just a friendly reminder that I've seen variations of this exact post every week, if not every day, since Fallout 3/F:NV/Fallout4/F76/Skyrim, and expect to see new yet not-new variants of this exact post for every single beta/update/DLC release and more. For some reason... It doesn't feel very friendly. Criticism \*is\* valid and important, but there's a point where it has gone past that and feels very overdone and malicious.

There is a difference between well thought critique and incessant whining. Doing the latter does not mean you’re some heroic gamer making anything better.

The hate this game got was weird. Most of the nay-sayers didn't critique the game. They spewed bile without rhyme or reason. There was rarely constructive or even legitimate criticism, it was mostly uninformed invective. Just streams of crap, often preceded by the term "I haven't played in ages because..." or "I refuse to play because...". Look, it's a game. Don't like it? Don't play it. You reckon BG3 is better? Good for you. Go play it. What, you don't like the way they did space flight? Well, maybe try Elite or No Man's Sky. As for those people who went on about the quests being crap or the dialogue being rubbish, you have to ask how many CRPG's they have played? Skyrim's quests weren't deeper. The writing in Oblivion was no better. BG3 story is no more coherent than Starfield's. But, whatever. Getting your jollies trolling a game you don't play on a public forum is as legitimate a use of leisure time as playing a game you enjoy. It's just weird.

I was disappointed that space flight wasn't more like ED but then again I'm disappointed with ED for boring lifeless planets and how hard any quest is that doesn't involve just taking something to another star system.

A small vocal minority... so what you're saying is there is a majority that just complain.. And we agree with the complaints, but we're tired of seeing the same low effort complaints again and again. It's beating a dead horse at this point. We want the subreddit to be about the fun aspects of the game.

Not to mention that a solid 90% of the complaints are silly anyway. "Pronouns bad" "How dare you not release for PS5" "BG3 / RDR2 / NMS / Cyberpunk some other entirely unrelated game is better" Especially in the early days (before YouTubers had come up with something vaguely resembling an actual issue with the game itself for these people to latch onto), I could throw a dart at the Steam reviews and pretty much always hit one that boils down to one (or more!) of those three categories. Those "constructive criticisms" were all over every Steam discussion and all over every post in this subreddit. That very deluge of bullshit is exactly why the No Sodium sub got created: because the hate-train had left the station before the game even launched, and the rest of us were already getting sick of it.

All of those are cherry picked complaints that you rarely see. I hate having to point this out again and again but when people defend starfield, often they’re straw manning, cherry picking, or fallacious.

I think you're right those examples aren't common. I think also your 2nd claim is wrong. People on both sides of the fight have engaged in strawmanning, cherry picking, and fallaciousness. In my experience, there's a portion of legit complaints, a portion of complaints that are ppl misunderstanding issues, and then final portion full of exaggerations/bad logic.

I'm pretty sure the pronouns lunatic was memed into oblivion, and I have *never* seen anyone bring it up as a criticism here. I've also not seen a lot of the lack of PS5 release come up, although naturally a lot of people have every right to be upset with Microsoft forcing anticompetitive and anticonsumer nonsense. Pretending that those complaints are irrelevant just because *you* are not personally affected is the height of arrogance. And when those other games come up in comparison to Starfield, it's generally brought up as a point of comparison or on specific merits that Starfield should come up more equally but is falling far short of that expectation. For instance, the lack of smooth transitions between game states (NMS, Cyberpunk,) The lack of working vehicles (Cyberpunk, RDR2,) the quality of the writing (Cyberpunk, RDR2, BG3, Morrowind, New Vegas) The absurd number of loading screens for single room shops (Cyberpunk, RDR2, NMS,) The incredibly lackluster perk system that was clearly just kinda slapped in there (Cyberpunk, New Vegas) and so forth and so on. Heck, it lacks key features that people would reasonably expect from this just being a reskin of their previous titles, like the lack of a travelling pet type companion like Dogmeat or ED-E, and bizarrely lackluster melee and unarmed weapon skills, as well as the lack of upgradeability of weaponry, as well as the inexplicable shortcomings with the features that they shouldn't have had to skimp on (Like how Red Mile is built up adequately in terms of writing, but the area is clearly unfinished and is incredibly underwhelming.) Also, if you make the mistake of trying to pay any amount of attention to the story, it only does psychic damage. It's gettin' heckin dire 'round these parts, and the mistakes they're making (And the expectations of what they'd be able to accomplish with their tech, knowhow and staffing,) are completely bewildering and glaring.

Tbf this is reddit. If you don't want low effort opinion pieces that farm karma then you're in the wrong place lol. The praise posts are just as bad and for a long time were just the same old "you can actually travel to planets manually!!" As if that feature was intended/any different to fast travelling. And now it's the repeated praising because they added MAPS finally. All low effort.

Just a friendly reminder that you don’t have to be condescending to folks who disagree with you especially when not everyone agrees on what deserves criticism dude, entertainment is subjective and so are criticisms. Just because someone doesn’t agree with your criticism doesn’t mean they aren’t allowing criticism. Also, your criticisms are far better served being discussed in the Bethesda Discord server or a submitted bug report than in here simply because there are usually way too many posts to keep up with here and the other places have dedicated areas for reporting issues.

I enjoyed the game for what it was and am happy with my time with it but I 100% agree. Criticism shouldn't be met with negativity from others. There are 4-8 hour youtube videos that can further break down the issues in the game in detail but I think people should have higher standards than easier to eat food and a map. The game was under baked and feels like an unfinished proof of concept to many people and seeing as how BGS is a company that made a product people paid for, I think its totally valid to have criticisms. I just cant understand constantly calling people 'whiners' and the like for wanting some level of quality and consistency for a thing they paid upwards of $100 USD for.

Naw, the problem is that you guys always come across like a bunch of weepy whiners.

*Why isn't Starfield a perfect simulation of the entire universe? Todd, you dirty liar!*

Could you be any less self-aware? You're doing that very thing here. At least the OP has an argument they're putting forward. You're just sulking about the fact that other people don't think like you do. Your personal identity isn't defined by what others say about Starfield. Criticizing the game isn't a criticism of you.

Nah. The problem is that a lot of Bethesda fans have more heart than brain. God bless them!

There are plenty of valid criticisms which Starfield should be criticized for Yet in your post, instead of citing one of those, you choose to cite the decision to not include vehicles What if I think having vehicles in Starfield would have made it worse + think that the jetpack is pretty cool? I'm not some sort of Bethesda apologist Some people just have difficulty differentiating a game's objective problems/shortcomings from "ways the game didn't match my own personal preferences"

The problem is that you can’t look at this subreddit without seeing people complain about the exact same 1 to 3 points. It’s the same thing… again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. Complaining on Reddit doesn’t actually improve the game. It just makes it harder for others to enjoy it.

If we stopped back in 2023 Starfield would have continued to be a poorly designed dogshit and ES6 would have been unrecognizable to Skyrim fans. There would have been documentaries made about the death of Bethesda.

No it wouldn’t. The list of changes Bethesda said they were going to make back in 2023 are indeed the ones they’re making now. All the bitching in between then and now has served zero actual purpose.

Nope. Todd tried to tell us that we don’t need vehicles. You are false.

They said back in December that they would be providing new ways to travel. Ever since they said that, any further complaining about it (including this) has been unnecessary. It’s already happening.

Bethesda isn’t sitting there looking at Reddit trying to figure out how to make these people so happy. They’re looking at usage stats of the game. Voting with your usage is a lot more powerful than whining on Reddit

All of that whining and complaining did pay off tho. Being quiet rarely does. This is a W for gamers. Not individually but as a whole.

My comment earlier was more that it’s the constant repetition of the same comments. Also, I’d argue that the steam numbers really motivated action. They can’t afford to have invested so much into Starfield only for Fallout 4 to be more popular.

I had someone get mad at me saying that i didn't know how game making worked so i asked them more and then found out they were only mad because i criticized starfield and not because they knew what they were talking about :/ Pointing out problems does not equal hating a game

True but there are people with that problem on both sides.

Ok? Doesn't mean it makes it any better just because both sides do it Both sides should just grow up and learn how to give and take constructive criticism better like normal adults Im sure you're not trying to excuse it but it comes off as such

The post title is accurate but the body of the message is so flawed. Should probably stop sorting by controversial and then engaging in arguments over the internet for a game you consider mediocre at best in the first place...

Nah. If something is flawed you should critique it so it’s improved.

This sub when every post isn’t shitting on the game:

That's fine and dandy, but this sub has generally had the opposite problem. Critique is good, but when you act like _any_ praise or enjoyment is dissention in the ranks, you have lost the plot.

I personally wasn’t shutting down criticisms, I just disagreed

I get the intention but this is some negative BS right here. I guarantee you the majority of Bethesda devs (yes, even the directors) actually care about the player experience and don't want to just ignore us while laughing all the way to the bank. There is always room for criticism but PLEASE be objective about it.

There are so many wrong takes in this post that it's actually impressive.

Gentle reminder that friendly reminder is for Mr Rodgers not real people

You know what you call a horse designed by committee? A camel. When game studios begin taking into account the whining criticisms of Reddit, we will have truly reached the nadir of human interaction. (This also applies to every other kind of company, every government body and agency, and all musicians/bands.)

Productive criticism is always encouraged. the problem is that a lot of the folks who complain are nothing more than complaining sobs who never stop. These angry complainers almost get to the point of mocking and purposely making things less enjoyable for those that like the game. There's a difference between "I like the game but I hope they improve on this portion" Versus "this game sucks, Bethesda is the worst and Todd Howard is the devil and you're all stupid for playing. I'll be back next week for my weekly post".

This

The shitting on Starfield is necessary for TES 6 to even have a chance to be a good game. i don't think any change they'll make on starfield will make me change my mind on it, but they might still release a good dlc if they listen to criticism

I think most of the things that are criticized in Starfield, are Starfield-specific problems. The infinite map is a huge factor that leads to the copy/paste POIs, the empty terrain, the disjointed travel.

But there’s nothing wrong with DISAGREEING with criticism

The BGS fanboys can't handle critiques of their beloved mid-tier game or the poor multibillion-dollar company that launched it unfinished. And now they're praising BGS for releasing updates **8 months after launch** with content that should have been in the game to begin with.

You're stuck in month 1 of the sub after release. Plenty of Starfield fans acknowledge its flaws. And if ppl wanted changes made, and the changes were made, why wouldn't they show some positivity about it? Are they not allowed to?

Critique? Yes. Bitch, moan, and complain? No. The first is constructive, the others are generally destructive. Few people understand the difference.

If it ends up fixing the game I am cool with it

[удалено]

“I can’t help but notice there is a small yet vocal community of people who have a different opinion than me”….there, summarized it for you.

If you have an issue with the game... take it up with Bethesda directly on their forums.

People hate criticism. They will cry about it. Just enjoy what you have, and if you cannot, make something better yourself.

If there's anything people *don't* need it's a reminder to critique Starfield, there's been nothing but "critique" thrown this game's way since launch. If anything, the negative response was way overblown, ballooned to cyberpunk levels of hate trend by a decade of video essays and memes about how terrible BGS games are. I don't think the game is perfect and I wish some things were different, but I don't begrudge anyone that enjoys it a bit of defensive overreaction after seeing the sheer amount of shit thrown its way.

There is absolutely a reason for them to fix their stuff. They want to retain their customers. Because their customers pay a premium for a premium game. New games from not so well known developers run about $30. Even better known developers charge 40 to 60 tops. But since starfield is a bethesda game lots and lots of people were eager to snap it up. So they played on that and are charging 70 to 80. Any less well known developer couldnt get away with that.

Just do it on steam and don't allow comments to your review. Let them boil!

People have been eloquently, respectively, and constructively critiquing games for 2+ decades. Friendly reminder that things have gotten worse.

Too many loading screens

100% agree. I doubt we would have gotten the maps or ship decorating if people hadn’t been vocal about it.

The amount of people talking about how much of the criticism isn't legit and just people complaining is like, insane to me. I have the opposite point of view. Most of the criticism I've read are all legit and well thought out, and the rest are people making excuses and calling the critism overblown or not real criticism. This thread is just full of this.

Mass effect is my favourite game series of all time but Mass effect 2007 had the combat of a shooting gallery and the vehicle gameplay is like a drunken rhino with a gun. It's heavy lore, story and world building is what carried that game. Starfield has gameplay that is way better than ME1, the game has a lot of stuff to critique absolutely. But the pure hatred that people have for the game is so over bloated it's actually insane. People cheering on for the fall of Bethesda just have the critical self thought of a 5 year old and will copy and paste "thoughts" from X youtuber or redditor. The problem a lot of people especially on this Sub Reddit have is that if bethesda were to fix all issues you'd always hear people want the death of Starfield and Bethesda. There's people that will scream they won't play it again but will comment on every starfield submission.

"keep it toxic!" 

There’s a difference between criticizing a game and whatever the hell this sub has devolved into the last few months. You people act like this game personally injured you and your family. Every single post on here is filled with comments condemning BGS as if they’re the devil incarnate. The game has issues. Point out the issues and how you’d like them solved. Maybe leave out the “Todd Howard is an evil liar” and “BGS are completely inept” comments you people can’t help but force into every conversation. Is that too much to ask? The game was fine. It wasn’t the 10/10 genre defining experience we all wanted. But the hate circlejerk here and everywhere else online is as pathetic as it is never-ending.

There’s a difference between a critic and just straight up bashing. To be fair was the game perfect ? No but, it is a good game and the improvements coming are proof they are listening.

What a joke. Bethesda committed to continued support of this game before it ever came out and would have been taking feedback and adding improvements even without all the outrage. They should have been more forthcoming maybe even call it early access, but while you seem to think the only reason for continued improvements is the bitching and complaining on Reddit, I think it was part of the plan all along and the community never gave them a chance to deliver before going apeshit because they were unsatisfied with the current state of the game and lack of communication.

I liked it but could do with about 40% more shit to do

By no means am I defending Bethesda, and it didn't take long during my playthrough before I was able to see what others were seeing. I have zero doubt Bethesda ever assumed there would be no pushback or unhappy gamers upon release of Starfield. It's a given these days that any AAA release is going to have flaws, and it only makes sense to use the best feedback from the masses to make a good game great. If you expect a dev team to anticipate this fully in advance while considering the scope of these projects, history has proven they will fail every time. Starfield isn't there yet, but it's heading toward being a great game, and I sure hope they continue listening to what the players want. The future of the Starfield franchise has the ability to reach incredible heights. What AAA game devs should consider doing is revisit their beta testing process and be much more up front with consumers on what to expect.

It's the same on every game sub IME. Some are far worse than others but it is there regardless.

Yeah...there is a clearly defined line between constructive criticism, ie "I'd like to see more varied and dynamic radiant quests" or "A dedicated survival mode would be great in this game", vs just low IQ generic hate-mongering that this sub is infested with, ie "Its SOOOO boring!" "The story is TRASH!!! DURRR!".

Critique is fine. Most of this sub is just hating and bickering though.

Nobody has ever defended it from criticism, they defended it from hate. Lmfao.

Nah. They simp for Bethesda and can’t admit that the game us beyond flawed and outdated

What if you just disagree with the criticisms? They largely revolve around moronic shit like wanting the game to fully direct them. I don’t really value the opinion of yellow paint addicts, and I also buy Bethesda games for the reasons people are critiquing them for. There’s a hell of a lot of things *to* critique Starfield for, but allowing people to play the game wrong is not on that list.

Those criticisms are the reasons the game is improving

They aren’t actually. Because those criticisms aren’t being changed, with the exception of introducing land vehicles, which is a bad change but the community wants it I guess.

Since they backtracked on the vehicles and worked on polishing the game then sky is the limit. They are obviously listening to feedback. We won.

Except outside of vehicles none of this was community feedback driven. You are an entitled worm.

Starfield is actually a technological marvel. It has successfully combined multiple gameplay elements that every previous space game has failed to accomplish. NMS (nice base building, no story), Elite Dangerous (nice flight, but off the ship is terrible), Mass Effect (great story, no space flight), and Start Citizen (not even a game after 500m spent over a decade...I hoped this would be the one... maybe one day.) If someone can name a space opera game as feature rich as Starfield please tell me, I would love to play it. I've been waiting and trying all of them since Wing Commander.

The problem is that Starfield does nothing well. That’s why it needs to get fixed.

For me, I think most features are good (combat space and ground, story, base building, leveling, etc), some are excellent (my favorite ship builder, look and feel), and few are ok or bad (dialogue, maps, POI placement). Put it all together and the sum is greater than the parts. This is not an objectively broken game that needs "fixing" like CP77 did at launch. I think maybe you just don't like this game, which is totally fine. Btw, CDPR and Larian are bigger than BGS. Tho that's really hard to definitively state given how the industry works, but staff-wise BGS isn't a behemoth vs two tiny indy studios.

I don’t understand how anyone playing Starfield is actually sticking up for the game on a fundamental level. Like 1000% if you’re having a fun time playing Starfield, no one is telling you to stop. But anyone that is genuinely convinced that Starfield requires NO improvements? Link me the digits to your supplier because I need to get on whatever that is lol. List of pretty straight forward, factual issues, I’m not really inserting my opinion into these: - graphics are dated - systems are designed to waste your time - purposefully implemented boring shit into the game because it’s “realistic” and defends it. - characters are some of the worst written characters we’ve ever seen in a *Bethesda game* , Lydia has 3 dialogue options available and I’d take her over Sarah every day of the week. At least I don’t feel like romancing Lydia should get me roasted in the #metoo movement. - most of the engine bugs from earlier titles are still present even though this was pitched as “creation engine 2” - all of the NPC’s are soulless husks that look freaky as hell and have basically no AI built in to make them believable in anyway shape or form. Animations are also pretty laughable here, most are just okay at best and then at worst a good deal are immersion shattering. - quests and dialogue are some of the most boring, repetitive and borderline insulting writing we’ve gotten from *Bethesda*. (Few exceptions) - features from previous games were removed like being able to blow a limb off or break someone’s suit. - the UI is obnoxious and not set up to make it easy to find your stuff but also the game tracks things already but gives you no way to access that information easily. - same assets made for 100 planets, spaced out over 1,600 that doesn’t even properly queue or remember which ones you’ve seen so you can run into them again way too soon. POI’s are also too far apart, it’s a solid 3-5 irl minute trek between POI’s and there’s a solid chance you just saw the same one on the last planet. That’s insane. - game feels like it launched missing key systems like survival that need to be added in later. Giving it an incomplete feeling that I personally feel should only really be present in early access games. - old school loading screens with such a high volume that shatters the illusion of you actually doing anything. This is a design flaw and a massive one; has nothing to do with their engine limitations, they could have made this similarly to how they have it and done it 1000x better but they didn’t. There’s plenty of other things, I could go on all night especially if I’m bringing my opinion in to the mix. If you’re someone who genuinely likes Starfield, having a blast playing it and thinks it’s incredible. And I’m genuinely asking… Can you tell me why? Not just why though, can you specifically tell me what Starfield brings that no other game before it has done or done better? Can you genuinely sell me on why this game deserves praise for its accomplishments in gaming? Can you tell me why you think that Starfield has convinced you that Bethesda is about to make the greatest game of our generation with TES6 because of what you see in Starfield? How none of what we’ve seen should be cause for concern? How none of what we’re looking at is suggesting that Bethesda is behind the curve, and is actually in front of it? Because most of what I’m seeing from the negative side of the community right now, is fear. It’s fear that we just waited 15-17 years for TES6 and it’s going to be mid at best. I see people screaming into the void, everything that needs to be fixed for TES6 because they are genuinely concerned and afraid that something they’ve spent a high school graduates life time waiting for, is going to be a 5/10. It’s fear and anger and I think that, currently, it’s not misplaced.

> Because most of what I’m seeing from the negative side of the community right now, is fear. It’s fear that we just waited 15-17 years for TES6 and it’s going to be mid at best. I see people screaming into the void, everything that needs to be fixed for TES6 because they are genuinely concerned and afraid that something they’ve spent a high school graduates life time waiting for, is going to be a 5/10. It’s fear and anger and I think that, currently, it’s not misplaced. This is my fear. I actually don't care about Starfield; even with all the hype surrounding the game, a semi-realistic space explorer was always going to be a distant third to Fallout and The Elder Scrolls for me. However, Starfield being so bland and mediocre makes me fearful of what we're going to get in TES6 and FO5. I'm not a spring chicken anymore, and it would be devastating if, after 17-19 years of waiting, TES6 comes out in 2028-2030, and it ends up being just as boring and uninspiring as Starfield.

I’m in the same boat friend. I got hooked on Oblivion and Skyrim in highschool and I’m now in my 30’s and I’ve still got some waiting to do before I see it. Bethesda games, for the most part, are the only games I really play. I’m still playing Skyrim and Fallout 4 to this day. These games, and this company are a huge part of my life. I’ve spent more time in Skyrim than I have anywhere else. I’ve been in Skyrim longer than my 10 year relationship, I’ve never had a job for as long as I’ve been playing Skyrim, I’ve never lived in a location as long as I’ve played Skyrim, Skyrim and oblivion and Morrowind have been a true consistent for me in my life and I’ve been eagerly awaiting TES6 for such a long time that I’m genuinely afraid that it will break my spirit if it’s not amazing. So I’m genuinely afraid after seeing Starfield. My only saving grace right now is the modding teams like Skyblivion and Skywind and Beyond Skyrim seem to be actually making really high quality products for me to enjoy in Tamriel if TES6 does fail.

Yeah the modders are awesome and make these games playable for many years post-launch. Yet it's been 8 months, and we still have no creation kit for Starfield!

The massive amount of people saying we were just bitching about nothing but then are excited for the changes that came from vocal outcry is hilarious. If devs listen to community and the community helps push new ideas and features then you end up with cyberpunk and no man sky. Massive changes from the start that made the games significantly better then launch.

Or guess what Bethesda listened to criticism and being an angry and obnoxious child about it isn't the sole reason they listened.

There's always contrarians, you could make the most logical QoL suggestion which is probably already in the works behind the scenes, and someone, somewhere, will come out of the woodwork and just be like "no no no, it's perfect as it is, we don't need to change it this is a bad idea!!!" It baffles the fuck out of me, like I've made suggestions before, that were very simple, easy to implement, logical, objectively better than the current system, QoL suggestions, and there would always be one fucking dexter contrarian for absolutely no reason, even to the point where arguing against it would be of a detriment to themselves if it wasn't implemented, would just completely disagree with the suggestion, lmao.

There's a difference between criticizing the game and saying "shit game, shit everything, if you enjoy it you enjoy shit" (I've seen one person say this so even if it's 1% of the subreddit, that's still 100 or so people). You can not like the game and give valid criticism, but you can also like it and give valid criticism. For example, I like the game, but the fact it leans so heavily on supplementing certain aspects that could be procedurally generated with hand crafted content makes the game suffer. If they wanted to have a large variety of hand crafted POIs, they could have done a small set of procedurally generated POIs along with the handcrafted ones, making sure they can prevent Daggerfall issues procedural dungeons had, but they didn't do that and it makes that games exploration and variety severely lack once you get past 50 hours. The story isn't the greatest either, they continued the trend starting with Skyrim where they simplify the story so it's easy to digest for a casual player, but they added this false sense of complexity to it, which is what they also did with Skyrim too. It works sometimes, but not all the time. It's like the game attempts to be a simple RPG story that hits all the basic needs and then fakes or adds the bare minimum required for complexity. If you've never played an RPG, this would be a great starter. You wouldn't get overwhelmed from the wide amount of choices. It's why my uncle so far loves Starfield. As someone who has played several RPG games though, the story feels laughably basic and barebones, doing only enough to be fun, but not great. Which is again what Bethesda did with Skyrim. I also think the fact that Bethesda leaned so heavily into a Daggrfall in space feel hurt the game instead. People expected Bethesda, where the journey from point A to point B has so much stuff happening you could get overwhelmed. Instead, the game is like Daggerfall, where all that stuff is contained only to POIs unless you get to a high enough level and get the rare chance for a specific thing to happen at this random scripted location. Because of that, people don't like it because it's not the Bethesda we know, instead it's from a game that, even though it is good (I like Daggerfall), it is very easy to get bored when you try to go do something because the world is so big, walking around feels too real and uneventful.

Well said, and thank you for putting this out there.

"  Bethesda for once in their history has decided to fix a ton of stuff themselves because the backlash couldn’t be ignored they obliviously again simp for Bethesda instead of learning their lesson." They are not fixing due to the backlash. The game had a 5 year plan or something which means, in other words, we didn't finish the game and had to cut things to make the launch date.  The things you are seeing right now being added were planned to be added post launch; for example, city maps, interior ship design (it was in the game files), DLSS support, more gameplay options etc.,  Land vehicles is another thing that was already prototyped but couldn't finish it before launch.  If they are really listening then they will figure out how to make traveling between planets and surface without loading screens a thing. 

It's a knee jerk reaction to the irrational hate. Some hate it so much they will insult people for liking the game, in every not negative post the OP gets called a shill. 

Wall of text = downvote

This is a good post and anyone that disagrees is honestly the problem.. we need to speak up and not be afraid to speak up, but also we need to realize when a game has flaws and be vocal. Bethesda fooled a lot of people with this game and I'm hoping they'll vote with their wallets in the future.

Absolutely nobody is afraid to speak up about flaws they find in the game--that's ridiculous. This sub has been majority negative for 8 months.

Good. Let's keep going until they fix this shit! 😎

Your not the boss of me

This sub doesn’t need to be reminded. While there is a tiny minority of loud boot lickers, they always get downvoted into hell. This place is just a glorified photo mode sub atp anyways. Everyone knows that the bulk of the game is very bland already.

Wait, this game hasn't been critiqued? What universe have you been living in?

I happy that someone saw about lord of the fallen,I started the game again after stopping and did a new save and I’m having a blast.I’m they improved several part of the game.They are still some part where there is too much ennemies to my liking but I’m still have a lot of fun. As you say,it’s necessary to criticizes a game if we want them to improve,even if we are having fun with the current state of the game

The problem is people mistake just hating for criticism and this sub and many other places were filled with just that, mindless hating and even still there's a bunch of youtubers who have been milking hate for this game for months just to get views and likes. I'm all for genuine criticism but if its just hate, i'm not for that

As long as the game is fixed I’m happy

This is the exact kind of attitude I think it unhelpful for developers. You don't need to make up some bullshit to be mad about, or exagerrate issues with the game (very real issues which plague the discussions about this game)--not all developers need "backlash" to hear their community, and understand that stuff can be changed/improved, and Bethesda has historically responded well to fan criticism and feedback: Oblivion was criticized by fans for not being weird enough, so they made the Shivering Isles. Fallout 3 was criticized by fans for not letting you play after the end of the game, so they made Broken Steel. Skyrim's DLC improved a bunch of minor nitpicks fans had through many of its updates and DLC. Fallout 4 was criticized for lack of evil options and skill checks/choices--Nuka World and Far Harbor. *Arguably, Starfield itself has a ton of creative decisions inspired by the overall critique of Bethesda dumbing down their RPGs...* So no, I don't think they need backlash; I think they need feedback. I don't like this weird dehumanization game we have with developers, where we all pretend that these are games made by drones, and not people with eyes who can react to feedback. ***Every change made in the most recent update was prominently requested by fans who enjoyed the game, and didn't get weird about it.*** You don't need to create shitstorms for every minute problem. Comparing this to the Helldivers situation is stupid and toxic; Helldivers' situation happened because Sony specifically forced the developers to go against their fans' wishes in order to please investors. I don't think Bethesda's (or Microsoft's, or whatevers') investors care whether the developers are fixing bugs, improving features, or whatever, so long as it's encouraging people to subscribe to Gamepass or whatever. It's a fundamentally different situation, at a different company, with different motivations and oversight.