awesomesauce73

The trailers sucked. Then I saw a Technoblade reference. I figured I'd give it a chance. I shouldn't have done that. The movie clearly rushed some cgi scenes, the writting was of low quality, and the acting was lack-luster at best. And there's no mention of why the child male lead had a lisp. If you want a safe movie to set your children in front of so you can have a break, this movie is perfect. If you want a movie that you can have your brain on while watching, look elsewhere. While I was leaving the movie, I said to myself that it was a solid 4/10. I looked online to see what everyone else thought; and lo and behold, every review I saw was spam, brown-nosing, copy-paste garbage. I'm impressed they put identical reviews with varying ratings to lull you into a false belief that real people wrote a review. I wasn't going to write a review, but I felt a genuine response was in order.

Starfield is a decent game. All of the negative reviews I read have a few moot points in common. 1. Loading screens. I've had almost no experience with loading screens. I'm on a series x @60fps in performance mode. I think that's the important part. Performance mode. 2. Game crashes. Again, performance mode. It's there for a reason. 3. Not like this other game I love. Because this game is it's own thing. It doesn't have to be like everything else. 4. It's not revolutionary. Yeah, it's a flop of expectations. Good thing your expectations are irrelevant. If a game gets over-hyped, and it under performs, people get moody. Doesn't make it a bad game. 5. MC is stupid and a mute. So they didn't voice the player. Big whoop. Fallout 3 and new vegas didn't have a voiced player. They were amazing games by the same company. As for being painfully naive, it was done intentionally for the player's sake as world building. Yes they dropped the ball for the immersion seekers, but it's not game breaking. Now there's two critiques that I agree with completely. 1. It's clunky. They needed to spend more time refining the game's core features and menus. 2. The gameplay is painfully slow to start. A lot of other games with this problem, hold your hand and make sure you understand everything before it lets you go. Starfield doesn't do that. It's not holding your hand, but gives you a glass ceiling that is way too low. It forces you to do what it wants while giving you the illusion of control. That said, it's a pretty fun game and it lives up to my expectations of bethesda. I'm actually surprised it's not buggier like their other works.