Bethesda Has Started Responding To Negative User Reviews Of Starfield

This is sad, they did the same thing with Doom Eternal too. Responding isn't gonna make anyone change their review, be proud of what you made and let people think what they want.

Just forget about Starfield already and make a TES VI not like that. Just start making a great games again, please.

@DonaldMcRonald Pretty sure the social media PR person isn't actively working on game code and probably never has: totally separate department.

How about getting the game fixed it's a broken mess

@GamingFan4Lyf you forget that Todd Howard himself writes code, does the PR, replies to feedback on Steam, and brings the latte's for company meetings ...

@J_Mo_Money In fact, he's actually the only employee at the company.

The rest of the names in the credits are his other personalities and any videos with other people are just actors.

Thanks for the reality check!

🤣

Bethesda should prepare for a flood of negative comments and a lower rating.

@Xbox_Dashboard Because gamer’s are just that stupid.

They're comparing being on the actual moon ,to sitting in your living room moving a man about a vast empty space in a video game 😂😂😂

@themightyant The real problem was people doing nothing but that, because they thought it was going to be NMS 2 (bear in mind people hated that at launch too)

And to be fair, Bethesda didn’t do themselves any favours in their marketing and build to launch. But I can’t imagine they’d be that stupid to think they were infallible with what they were launching with. Either they were actually that naive or just couldn’t get it to where they wanted to be, in that area anyway.

I really like the game for the record. If they had hundreds of unique dungeons, instead of what feels like a dozen, it would make just one playthrough feel way better. Emphasis on playthrough, because I feel like some people just wanted it to be another endless survival-craft game.

And also, this is something that can be remedied both officially and unofficially, in the years to come. But gamers like to hold grudges…

Somebody never heard of the Streisand Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect for anyone who isn't aware).

I haven't had a chance to play Starfield yet/sink time into yet another giant RPG this year, but by doing this, Bethesda has brought it to my attention that this game's planets are boring and empty. Or at least that's what others think, which means it'll be top of mind when I start too.

Why on earth are they shining a bigger light on its criticisms? And their response just comes off as hyper-defensive. Not everyone will love your game. It's okay. You can't win 'em all. Move on.

If their justification of empty space is realism, I start to side with Gabe Newell: "...I have never thought to myself that realism is fun. I go play games to have fun." I actually do like certain aspects of Starfield, but as a whole I found it a tad underwhelming.

I’m not that far in the game considering the size of the game.
So have stopped for a while now and will join my adventures again later when certain things improve or hopefully a 60fps patch as well.

It’s the same with Redfall have just started up again after all the patches and the 60fps and really enjoying the game.

I love the game so negative reviews (and comments here) aren’t going to stop me from enjoying it.

@LX_FENIX Responses like that aren't intended to change the review that's left. It's more for the potential buyer that's reading through reviews benefit, and them trying to explain the negative review to try and stop any more being left for those reasons. I'm not sure it ever has the intended effect though.

I don't think they're helping themselves with stuff like this. That response in particular is a bit embarrassing. Hard to see any outcome where this kind of SM/PR engagement leads to improved good will, surely the opposite is more likely?

For me, the sense of scale Starfield was meant to evoke was completely undermined by the amount of loading screens and fast travelling that the player has to endure. I'm still grinding away on my first playthrough and I don't intend to do any new game + stuff.

The stories and narrative depth is brilliant, and it's worth playing for that alone imo. But mechanically speaking it feels like one of Bethesda's most unrefined games. Much of the criticism seems valid to me. I thoroughly enjoyed my first 60 hours, engaging with the missions and side quests. Once I got into idle exploration, I started to really lose interest.

Another aspect of course is that what's 'fun' for someone can be tedious/boring for another. Some may want to go to the moon knowing its a desolate empty space because its there whilst others would rather go on an Activity holiday to be 'entertained' the entire time...

Starfield, like Elder Scrolls or Fallout, are exactly the same - albeit on a 'smaller' single map. Areas of 'nothing', but may stumble on 'something'. The only difference is that this is on a much larger scale and 'some' of the exploration aspect is 'ruined' by constantly having to change planets. Much easier to explore/stumble on things in one map than be constantly jumping from planet to planet to planet...

Guess im going to have be leaving a review now

I feel bad for the people who didn’t like Starfield. It stinks to look forward to a game and then not have it be the experience you wanted.

I really loved Starfield, but I have been on the other side of this conversation with other games.

@themightyant look on the positive side.

All that walking means engagement and playtime is through the roof. Apparently it’s the new metric.

Wait! What? I thought the moon landings were faked? How do we know it's boring up there? 🤣

For TES6, I hope that BGS goes back to playing to their strengths in world building and exploration.

From Fallout 4 on, they began bolting on features, like settlement building and crafting, that do not contribute to the core experience that their games are known for. Starfield is an extension of that "more features" design philosophy.

They've shown they can backtrack on elements that do not land well, the voiced protag from Fallout 4 being an example. So I'm cautiously optimistic they'll learn from Starfield's mixed reception. The presumably smaller geographical scale of an Elder Scrolls title might also help in bringing back the BGS feel.

'Empty by design' is a good way to describe the whole experience TBH... everything is just so hollow and boring. But when it comes to that design concept, it only works when you have a few densely packed areas. But in Starfield, there's just nothing, even on the planets you'd expect to have heavy human habitation. If there were a few planets with massive habitation, a few with scattered settlements, & a bunch with absolutely nothing, that'd be fine. Instead, there's 4 'cities' barely bigger than a stadium, and a half dozen or less named settlements and space stations. Somehow that's all humanity's done, and we're supposed to believe they fought two massive, bloody wars unlike anything seen on Earth? Really?

Worts and everything I'm still glad that the game was an exclusive for Xbox and not PlayStation and I can play it because I don't own a PlayStation and it would of been crap for it to of been lost to them from my point of view I think the dlc Will be amazing for it aswell and will greatly improve the game

While I mostly enjoyed my playthrough, the NG+ absolutely killed it for me. I have no desire to redo all of the same stuff, they could have just added more actual story/mission content instead of empty planets. I've tried to boot it up a few times since finishing the game and just didn't find anything worthwhile to keep me going after the main story and factions were done.

If you have worked in any kind of product, ui/ux, development role then you know user feedback (in this case through post release reviews) is CRITICAL for the success of your product(success here meaning satisfaction not sales)

What Bethesda should be doing (maybe they are and just not revealing it) is taking the feedback that consistently shows up (loading screens, empty worlds, space travel) and putting those on top of the list of things to improve.

Eventually the vision of what you think users want, what users actually want and the product you develop start to align and you give people something they are happy with.

If 70/100 people think empty planets are boring, it doesn’t matter if you think they are wrong. Your users are telling you they are boring and they are not having fun.

If you are dismissive of your users the way Bethesda appears to be in these review comments, you are out of touch and come off as elitist and devalue the real experience of people playing your game.

If Bethesda wants to avoid this in the future they can start doing more extensive early access, gather the feedback DURING DEVELOPMENT and quickly ditch features people hate and deliver a FUN experience.

By the time the game is read for public release you have worked through these issues and can release something people really want.

@themightyant Could they add more varied procedural elements and handcrafted elements on certain planets? Maybe another city or network of settlements? Sure. Still, people jut chose not to think despite being told for a year what to expect. As soon as I heard, "Nasa Punk," and then "1000 planets" I knew the deal.

Starfield isn't a medieval fantasy game with one map. Nor it is Mass Effect with ancient and current non-human races. Remember the Mako levels? Well, it's a huge step up. 😄

@DonaldMcRonald Probably didn't take much more time than it took you to write your comment.

Bethesda looks weaker doing this.

When you need to explain the game, then there is a design problem.

Maybe, they just failed simulating universe vastness and sense of wonder and the final product feel tedious for some people. How hard is to accept that?

I never understood the barren rock complaint. It mimics actual conditions. Honestly aside from the artifacts there really isn’t any space magic nor should there be. Plus the radiant land marks give one plenty to shoot at and explore.

If users wanted star wars or star trek then one should play a game from those franchises. Or Mass Effect. Bethesda was pretty upfront with type the game they were building. But I also prefer the route they took so there is that. I’m glad they are standing by their design vision but they shouldn’t have to. Don’t like the game? Play something else.

I didn't even realize developers could reply to steam reviews. Then i was like why would a billion-dollar company waste their time doing this? We only see stuff like this from a small indie companies... My conclusion is that someone hacked their steam account and is doing this, or a disgruntled developer who is about to get layed off.

Death stranding fits into the empty world you’re on your own category and does it brilliantly, no mans sky to to a lesser extent, I can get on board barren planets to an extent, but I feel by the year SF was set there absolutely would have been more outposts and unique things going on. This isn’t the case with SF though, also the comment about the astronauts on the moon not being bored is pathetic, they where literally on the damn moon lol no one would be bored, little different sat on the couch moving pixels around an empty space, still I’m a sucker for Bethesda skyfall field template. That statement is just crazy though. Own it add the ability to break up the boredom or don’t.

The original Mass Effect did vastness better, and you can land on many barren planets, collect resources and find something random - in a vehicle.

In Starfield, even the populated planets are boring because of the NPCs. I can’t remember the name of a single one. They all looked hideous though.

@themightyant We disagree on that faceoff, then — the one thing the Mako sequences had over Starfield was the Mako itself. Sloppy going uphill, but it beats going about on foot. The planets were even more barren, and the few outposts paled in comparison to those in Starfield. Regardless, I accepted it for what it was and never felt the need to lament those sequences online.

I played Starfield for about 40 hours all told. I had a good time, but I'm fairly certain I'm not going back for a while. Bethesda made a huge mistake by going with the "1000 planets" thing. The game should have taken place across like...3 planets densely packed with things to do. They seemed to go with 1000 because it sounds like a big impressive number, but it made the game too thin. A mile wide but an inch deep as they say. I love Bethesda...but I got bored.

@Qwiff Well, of course ES6 will have a one map and a smaller scope. There will be all sorts of fantasy creatures and humanoids, along with towns, wilderness, and ruins to explore.

@DonaldMcRonald It's not an engineer or artist — no one essential to development is responding. That is a prepared response. The people engaging are just a few (OK, maybe several) steps up in life over the people posting.

@VokDaWiibSlayer You sound like a person who just wants everyone to blindly praise the thing you like. Steam reviews require you to own the game if you want those reviews to be treated with worth and Steam reviews funny enough are for people to you know review a thing they bought, its not a feature for you to suck off your favourite corp or dev its there to say what you think about the game. If someone doesn't like a game they full right to express on something that wants them to express their thoughts and opinion even if it makes people like you salty for some reason.

Also before you call me a hater i loved Starfield but unlike you i don't care if strangers say they don't like it on the internet.

@VokDaWiibSlayer Ironic that everything you say in that Comment applies to yourself. "Waah waah, people don't like the same game as me!" Okay, and? Grow up yourself and stop whining that people don't have your identical taste. Accept that people have different opinions and stop stomping your feet 'n screaming like a toddler.

Meh, BethSoft should just announce a multiplatform (PS5)version and sit back as the overwhelming positive reviews pour in.....jesting folks, jesting🤣.

I think Bethesda forgot they were making a video game.

What's the point of having all those barren planets?
It's just a waste of time.

Them comparing it to the actual real life event, of astronauts going to the moon, is just stupid.
They went to the moon, in real life.
Which must have been a mindblowing and epic experience, even though it' barren.
This is a videogame, you can never get that same feeling, as being on an actual moon.

What a bunch of idiots...

He shouldn't compare what a man feels when putting his feet on the moon with playing a video game. Some genres do give a more similar feeling, e.g., racing, but that comparison is one of the most ridiculous I've ever heard.

That answer in that screenshot is pointless. If you want to improve the game, do it, but don't challenge players and don't tell them what's boring and what's not because that's subjective. For the record, I think that Starfield deserves Game of the Year awards more than Tears of the Kingdom and Spider-Man 2 and that being an Xbox exclusive makes it more difficult for "professional" reviewers to like their game.

I liked starfield its a good game yeah its not a great game but its not rubbish either

Honestly I'm enjoying the game for what it is. Absolutely did not expect it to live up to any the hype (again yet another example to follow my 6 month rule and it's better for all involved).

Every gamer at this point should know not to trust a word that comes out that snake oil salesman Todd Howard's mouth. Why? Because "it just works".

People like different things. I built my outpost on a moon with no atmosphere, to me it makes my imagination run wild thinking about space travel. I loved looking up at the sun through the blackness of space, to me that was the opposite of boring. But it's obvious the setting did not hit hard for everyone. Plenty of rootin tootin mcshootin games out there or whatever you need to be entertained. One thing is for sure, the circlejerk around hating this game isn't going away and responding to the steam reviews isn't going to do them any good.

@themightyant I don't understand why you would worry yourself over ES VI. It is 4-5 years away and will be set on a single map in a fantasy world.

I never played more than an hour or so of Morrowind. The performance, even back then, sapped my desire to play. I do have a copy on Steam so I could always give it another chance.

@themightyant Well...I remain optimistic. 😄

No sense worrying about things beyond your control, years off, and unlikely to happen. Bethesda has a MS budget now. We know ES VI will be a medieval fantasy world map. No need to worry about exploration or things to see and encounter.

Now...will they revamp Creation Engine to 2.5 or 3.0? Probably. Will they tear it apart and try move to Unreal Engine 5? Well, I don't know how modular CE is. Could be they revamp/rebuild portions of CE like the loading system and animations. I don't know if full performance capture is feasible for these titles.

There is a whole lot of "we don't know." People take Bethesda's efforts (and those of slews of developers) for granted. There is also a tendency to look at games in other genres with the scope of a gas station bathroom proclaim that Bethesda games should look and behave like them. Can Bethesda games improve significantly in a number of areas? Sure. That has always been the case.