 GameCentral completes its review of Bethesda's new sci-fi epic and explores why Starfield fails to live up to its full potential. While it's not unheard of to be reviewing a game well after it first came out, it is unusual to be doing so after other outlets have already rendered their verdict. Thanks to Bethesda's refusal to send review copies to multiple UK websites, seemingly in an attempt to manipulate the Metacritic score prior to launch, we've been playing catch-up. We've avoided reading any reviews, but we have seen the general reaction, which is understandably mixed. That lack of agreement is not because Starfield's failures and accomplishments are particularly nuanced, it's more how willing you are to put up with its many foibles. What complicates Starfield's evaluation is its status as Microsoft's most import first party release in a generation, with many Xbox and Bethesda fans having convinced themselves of its excellence long before they had a chance to play it for themselves. In trying to look at the game objectively it's an experience that's hard to feel passionate about one way or another. Despite its many and obvious failings, it's not a disaster. Instead, it's main problem is that, at a conceptual level, it's not nearly different enough from Skyrim and Fallout to take full advantage of the outer space setting. It's trying to be two completely different games at once and, predictably, it fails to do either particularly well. We've already previewed Starfield, and started a review in progress, so between that and the game's general ubiquity at the moment, it feels as if it needs no introduction. And yet the central disappointment of the game is the huge gap between what people thought it was going to be, when all the slickly edited gameplay trailers were doing the rounds, and what it actually is. Starfield is, for better and worse, Skyrim in space. Or rather Fallout in space, since both gam){kind=link}
GameCentral completes its review of Bethesda’s new sci-fi epic and explores why Starfield fails to live up to its full potential.
While it’s not unheard of to be reviewing a game well after it first came out, it is unusual to be doing so after other outlets have already rendered their verdict. Thanks to Bethesda’s refusal to send review copies to multiple UK websites, seemingly in an attempt to manipulate the Metacritic score prior to launch, we’ve been playing catch-up. We’ve avoided reading any reviews, but we have seen the general reaction, which is understandably mixed.
That lack of agreement is not because Starfield’s failures and accomplishments are particularly nuanced, it’s more how willing you are to put up with its many foibles. What complicates Starfield’s evaluation is its status as Microsoft’s most import first party release in a generation, with many Xbox and Bethesda fans having convinced themselves of its excellence long before they had a chance to play it for themselves.
In trying to look at the game objectively it’s an experience that’s hard to feel passionate about one way or another. Despite its many and obvious failings, it’s not a disaster. Instead, it’s main problem is that, at a conceptual level, it’s not nearly different enough from Skyrim and Fallout to take full advantage of the outer space setting. It’s trying to be two completely different games at once and, predictably, it fails to do either particularly well.
We’ve already previewed Starfield, and started a review in progress, so between that and the game’s general ubiquity at the moment, it feels as if it needs no introduction. And yet the central disappointment of the game is the huge gap between what people thought it was going to be, when all the slickly edited gameplay trailers were doing the rounds, and what it actually is.