It’s dumb because that’s a fringe argument that I hear people reference as absurd more than I’ve ever encountered it. In fact, I have yet to see one person make that justification. I’m just assuming that argument exist somewhere because so many people have complained about it.
Starfield is yet another example of gamers getting outraged over a perceived reception, no matter how large or small that group actually is. I’m sure there are people out there making really bad defenses of the game, but the people who are angry at those people are much louder and far more numerous. 
Most people who are playing and enjoying the game are probably perfectly capable of seeing and articulating some of the issues, but just because a game has issues doesn’t mean it’s “literally unplayable“ or whatever people like to say now. 
I don’t know I just find these back-and-forth so repetitive. Every single game release you see this. The answer is Starfield is a perfectly fine, flawed game, that different people will react to differently. Just like any piece of media.
I spent all morning dunking on the game’s issues and Bethesda’s design philosophy with some friends… But ultimately I’m having a ton of fun with the game, glad I broke my rules and purchased it early, and finding it basically fulfills the things I wish both outer worlds and no man’s sky had delivered on. It’s a good game, and it is exactly what it says it is (as far as I know. I haven’t paid a lick of attention to the ad hype): a Bethesda style open world rpg.
I don’t really want to like it over the small studio titles that it clearly builds on, but them’s the breaks. If you’re looking for a Bethesda style open world RPG set in a sci fi world, then this game will probably be fun for you, and if you think all Bethesda style games are garbage and can’t get past their very odd design choices, then why are you ranting about starfield since obviously it’s going to be that.
Lotta people just love to hate Bethesda. Including me really… but this ain’t it.
It’s dumb because that’s a fringe argument that I hear people reference as absurd more than I’ve ever encountered it. In fact, I have yet to see one person make that justification. I’m just assuming that argument exist somewhere because so many people have complained about it.
Starfield is yet another example of gamers getting outraged over a perceived reception, no matter how large or small that group actually is. I’m sure there are people out there making really bad defenses of the game, but the people who are angry at those people are much louder and far more numerous. 
Most people who are playing and enjoying the game are probably perfectly capable of seeing and articulating some of the issues, but just because a game has issues doesn’t mean it’s “literally unplayable“ or whatever people like to say now. 
I don’t know I just find these back-and-forth so repetitive. Every single game release you see this. The answer is Starfield is a perfectly fine, flawed game, that different people will react to differently. Just like any piece of media.
I spent all morning dunking on the game’s issues and Bethesda’s design philosophy with some friends… But ultimately I’m having a ton of fun with the game, glad I broke my rules and purchased it early, and finding it basically fulfills the things I wish both outer worlds and no man’s sky had delivered on. It’s a good game, and it is exactly what it says it is (as far as I know. I haven’t paid a lick of attention to the ad hype): a Bethesda style open world rpg.
I don’t really want to like it over the small studio titles that it clearly builds on, but them’s the breaks. If you’re looking for a Bethesda style open world RPG set in a sci fi world, then this game will probably be fun for you, and if you think all Bethesda style games are garbage and can’t get past their very odd design choices, then why are you ranting about starfield since obviously it’s going to be that.
Lotta people just love to hate Bethesda. Including me really… but this ain’t it.