this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2023
109 points (75.8% liked)
Games
32664 readers
1316 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It would seem so to me. When there’s a big disparity across the ratings - positive and negative are similar on metacritic with little in between - it raises a lot of red flags to me.
I dunno dude, I've heard a lot of people have legit complaints about the game, especially on PC.
For PC, game optimization is very inconsitent. When I'm in a smaller space like a dungeon or the Constellation Lodge, it's actually pretty great and runs smoothly. When I go into the city though, the framerate is terrible. The graphics also become significantly worse. So yeah, wouldn't be surprised if a lot of those negative reviews are from PC players having to deal with Bethesda jank again.
People also need to stop calling 40fps unplayable. They expect their 3050 to run every game at 120fps on Ultra.
Uh no. People are barely doing 30 fps in the lowest settings with this game
It's reasonable to expect high framerates in 2023. If people want the game to run smooth there's nothing wrong with that. Hell, doom eternal was a Bethesda game and it looked gorgeous and ran like butter, so we know they can pull it off.
Bethesda was the publisher of Doom Eternal and had nothing to do with the engine.
Fair point. But still, if the doom eternal engine puts theirs to shame so easily, maybe they should have done some more work on their engine.
A lot of people also seem to not know that you can't just spend 80% of your budget on a graphics card and buy whatever CPU you can afford with whatever is left.
I have a 3080 and the game runs noticeably worse in the cities than it does in small rooms. And that's with everything at low-medium and 75% rendering resolution which seems ridiculous. And the game doesn't even look that good.
I've heard the game is bottlenecked by the CPU. What do you have?
I have a ryzen 3900x. It's never been the bottleneck for me before. I can have 20 applications open while playing most games without a hiccup.
I have high standards, but still, there's no reason starfield should perform so much worse than other modern games.
Oh I know there are, I’m not saying otherwise.
Not sure if it's evidence of organized review bombing. but yeah, it seems like most people are just being as extreme as possible because they know it's a scale of averages.
Nah. There are good reasons to love and hate the game.
That seems like a standard reviewing to me. Now go look at The Last of Us Part 2, now that game is truly review bombed.
I dunno, TLoU2 definitely got it harder but there’s still that massive gap in middle range reviews (see image) that made me question it with Starfield.
It’s because it’s Metacritic, people only rate in 10s and 0s. Look at Baldurs Gate even. It’s 75/2/21 split.
Regardless, People diss on pro journal reviews, but user reviews are 100x worse, I have never relied on them except for Steam Reviews.