Press reviews of Starfield have given rise to unconstructive discussions focused on how high or low the rating is compared to expectations.
Yesterday finally arrived starfield reviews by the international press. A real “event” apparently, awaited as much as the actual launch of the game, among those who couldn’t wait to find out more about Bethesda’s latest effort and clarify any doubts or confirm certain expectations, and those who instead he wasn’t looking for any of this and got angry or rejoiced because the mathematical grade point average it’s 0.x points below that magical 90 which acts as a watershed between bad games to be avoided like the plague and absolute masterpieces worthy of the GOTY, respect and unconditional love to pass on to future generations.
Just take a tour of social networks, fan forums or even simply in the comments section below our Starfield review to get an idea of how many, rather than actually reading the opinions of those who have spent tens or hundreds of hours on the last Bethesda’s effort, they just bolted on Metacritic and Opencritic to discover the “metascore”, apparently the only real element to take into consideration. And if dissatisfied with the result, that feeling of indignation is triggered and the classic senseless confrontation hunt that demonstrates that, “well yes, the critics once again screwed up big time”.
Starfield has 0.x less game points Y? Rack! Does it have the same average as Final Fantasy 16? Unacceptable and clearly subsidized press by Sony! Does it have one point less than Sea of Stars? Blame the usual favoritism for independent productions! And we could go on and on if we wanted, after all the “enthusiasts” have offered us an avalanche of other examples.
But in short, is Starfield a great game, just a good game or an epochal masterpiece?
This whole situation frankly not even surprising that much as sadly it repeats cyclically whenever a game particularly awaited by the community comes out. Especially when it comes to an exclusive: in that case for keyboard ultras the negative / positive / different vote of expectations represents the perfect tool to mock the opposing faction and feel satisfied. Happy them, happy everyone, we would say.
After all, the number on Open Critic and Metacritic is indisputable and absolute. Woe to take into consideration the fact that the yardstick of critics it changes over time as does the gaming market, which expands, evolves and continuously sets new standards, often making comparisons with past titles completely useless. Or that comparing two different games, even of the same genre, doesn’t always make sense. Or, again, that a review can never really be entirely subjective and that the vote could also be conditioned by a yardstick that is based on values that are very different from those of the rest of the critics, see for example the English magazine EDGE which it always causes a sensation with its out-of-the-box assessments.
That said, far be it from us to snatch the calculator from your hands, but allow us to conclude like this: we can safely say that Starfield is an immense, multifaceted and overall excellent game, albeit not perfect. However, there are many elements to take into consideration that you may or may not appreciate based on your tastes and which could have a different weight for you in your overall judgment than that of the journalist on duty. It is therefore not worth spending those 10 minutes to read one or more reviews and understand the real reasons behind that little number at the bottom of the article before picking up torches and pitchforks or buying sight unseen and then regretting it later?
This is an editorial written by a member of the editorial staff and is not necessarily representative of the editorial line of Multiplayer.it.
#Starfield #insane #craze #review #numbers