Starfield had a busy week (Picture: Bethesda) It was a busy week.
A reader is disturbed by the entire Bethesda review controversy last week, and worries about the fact that Starfield fans have fallen out of control.
I can’t imagine that Microsoft is right about Bethesda at the moment. This was supposed to be the week of games. It’s the most important first party launch since the Xbox 360 era, and all that is gone wrong. Starfield got a decent Metacritic score, but most sites were pretty sloppy, and it is clear that it isn’t a game of the year contender or a modern classic yet.
It still be great, the reviews are very mixed but it is not really Starfield interested in, as it is Bethesda’s actions and their fans’ actions. As you probably know, Bethesda refused to copy this game in advance to some websites and YouTube channels, but not all of them.
And a few sites known for their tough reviews, like Edge, Eurogamer, and GameCentral, but also other sites seemingly at random, including The Guardian and YouTube, which do not even do reviews. It was all very strange, and while it was probably all about setting the average level, the metacritic scores were very reasonable. If that was the goal, that was perfectly achieved.
Many fans at Bethesda/Xbox responded not with anger that a publisher tried to manipulate the press, and what should be a useful consumer guide, but that these sites should be treated poorly, because they had the audacity to say their mind during previous reviews.
In these fans’ minds, Bethesda was entirely justified to play favourites, and give copies to one site, but not to another one (they gave one to Digital Foundry, but prevented them from sharing it with Eurogamer, by example). They were angry about an Xbox game, for this was just punishment.
To me that is actually scary and disturbing. Well, it wasn’t because of that, of course, they’re Bethesda or Xbox fans. Sony fans would have done exactly the same thing if the situation had been reversed.
I am unaware of what’s worse, the blind loyalty or the constant change of their justifications, which meant the first detail to be revealed and the first report was published. They clearly believed that Starfield would be 10/10s across the board and when it was not the case suddenly IGN and GameSpot dont count but some no-name site they had never heard of before, that gave it 10/10, does.
Thinking such a thing is not healthy. A business whose goal is to earn money isn’t healthy but a business that doesn’t mean nothing to hate the press because they point to a hole in their bizarre fantasy about how good a game you have never played before is.
The first Starfield survey is in and there’s a lot of 7/10 score.
Our first evening with Starfield, the first of our first experiences with Bethesdas open galaxy adventure.
Starfield early access was failed for some players as game didn’t begin to come to a launch.
And worse is that after calculating the very concept of the reviews they’ll be the very first to complain when a game doesn’t work or isn’t what they expected, before they could have found that out, and saved themselves time and money, by reading a reliable review beforehand.
The success of Starfield could be guaranteed without reviews. Most fans had pre-ordered months ago, and everybody else will play it at no extra charge via GamePass. It literally doesn’t matter at all, and yet Bethesda and their fans have managed to transform what is generally a simple process into a minefield of toxic behaviour, conspiracy theories, and vindictiveness.
Angelcake was invented by a reader.
The readers’ features don’t necessarily represent Game Central or Metro’s views.
You may submit your own 500- to 600-word reader feature at any time, which will be published soon to the next appropriate weekend slot.
If you want to post inbox and read Readers if you don’t forget to send an email, just use our Stuff page here.
Watch our page for more stories like this.
Sign up to all the exclusive gaming content and the latest release before they’re seen on the site.