Microsoft might have a console-seller judging by the latest look at Starfield's gameplay

[Neatfeatguy]

You only played 10 hours of Skyrim?
Ha ha ha
While your overall play time falls behind someone that just started the game yesterday I can see how you got discouraged... you probably played on PS3?...that version was the worst.

No, not on PS3. I didn't even know the game was on consoles. The game was just dull. You know, you play a game that looks like it'll be fun and it just doesn't click with you

 

[Buzzkill]

Did you even read the EXTRA links?!

No, I stopped after the first source cited failed to make any of your previous points.

In any event, your additional citations only point to displeasure from gamers relating to its free multiplayer aspect of the game, not the game in its entirety. I can never understand how gamers complain about a free aspect of any published game (unless an unfair advantage is posed in "pay to win"). You don't have to pay for additional cosmetic enhancements, they only make you look pretty, they don't help you win in this particular game. The only version of Halo: Infinite that you actually have to pay for is the single player experience.

Still curious to know what aggregate (not individual) source you use to define "overwhelmingly negative feedback" and that Metacritic is a SHILL....

From a data science perspective, it seems that Metacritic is the best aggregate rating source to use. The below link is specifically referencing movies, but I see no reason it wouldn't apply to game reviews as well.

https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/w...tomatoes-metacritic-or-fandango-7d1010c6cf19/

Steam also lists ALL REVIEWS as Mostly Positive (141,694) and I was only previously referring to the console version of this game as this Techspot article was about a potential console seller for MS.

 

[Darth Shiv]

Hopefully it's nothing like Skyrim....a world I found dull, tedious and boring.

I put maybe 10 hours into Skyrim and grew bored of it. It was a slightly less crappy version of Oblivion which I beat in a couple hours because you didn't have to level to beat the game. Now that MS has the reigns, maybe it will be something better than what Bethesda could pull off.....?

Guess we wait and see.

10 hours? So you didn't see anything...

 

[Neatfeatguy]

10 hours? So you didn't see anything...

If you put 10 hours into a game and it's dull and lifeless for you, no sense in wasting more time.
I saw more in No Man's Sky vanilla release than I did in Skyrim.
Fallout 3 was better than Skyrim and Fallout 3 was pretty lack luster.
Gothic 3 was better than Skyrim and it paled in comparison to Gothic and Gothic 2....Gothic 3 was a nasty, buggy mess even.

If you enjoyed Skyrim and thought it was great, good for you, enjoy it. I didn't so I moved on. I'm just hoping this next entry in their IP isn't a dull, lackluster game.

 

[Last1Standing]

I can never understand how gamers complain about a free aspect of any published game

Yeah, that statement right there says all that I need to know about you. We are done here!

 

[Buzzkill]

Yeah, that statement right there says all that I need to know about you. We are done here!

Yes, one thing we can agree on, it is clear that we are done because you cannot back up your statement with any credible sources!

 

[scavengerspc]

No, not on PS3. I didn't even know the game was on consoles. The game was just dull. You know, you play a game that looks like it'll be fun and it just doesn't click with you

The thing about Skyrim is that by the time most games are ending, Skyrim is just about to rev things up. So what have you got to lose? Try it again and follow the story and do some side things and you won't be sorry. I, almost, promise.

 

[Snowy]

One of the main issues with all MMOs is that many gamers refuse to be handcuffed to an always-online ecosystem that's tied to a predatory monetization platform.

There's a huge difference between a one-time, hours of full-valued story-driven content, expansion pack(s) purchase compared to TODAY's microtransactions DLC.

Check out the Guild Wars 2. With hundreds of hours of PVE content and a well-made story that continues with each expansion, the whole story has a voice acting as everyone you talk to and as your character. Each zone is a part of a very big map where you can explore content, do achievements, find secret jumping puzzles, and do side stories (aka quests without taking them at all), fight world bosses with like 100 people at least (you don't need to make a party at all and you will have the same reward). It has the best mount system ever. Yours mounts not just +30% to movement skills. You have to earn them and unlock special abilities; they are unique and well made so they feel real. And more stuff out there. When you reach your 80 lvl (which is very fast) your equipment will be almost top and will never change with expansions. Btw there are a lot of classes and subclasses of your character... So if you want truly amazing PVE content check it out.

One-time payment, no subscription. The in-game store is for cosmetics. You can sell your gold to convert it to gems that the store uses and buy those cosmetics. But you still need to pay for upcoming expansions.

 

[Last1Standing]

Check out the Guild Wars 2. With hundreds of hours of PVE content and a well-made story that continues with each expansion, the whole story has a voice acting as everyone you talk to and as your character.

One-time payment, no subscription.

Hmm... Guild Wars 2, huh?

I'll try it now.

 

[Puiu]

It doesn't look good to me.

 

[Chrispatsix]

This is a game created by the biggest hack developers in gaming. This game will never work as advertised. They've never been able to build a game with one city and some how overnight they've morphed in to god the great creator? Doubtful. This is another Bethesda Train wreck waiting to happen.

 

[yannus]

Leather jackets... hum....

After seeing UE5 doesn't look that impressive. Also, it looks quite a bit like Star citizen, in some aspects better, in others worse. But generally feels the same.