Starfield is here, and after dozens of hours floating in space our reviewer Chris Livingston liked it—but didn’t love it. “Starfield is Bethesda’s biggest RPG ever, and it shares even more DNA with Skyrim and Fallout 4 than I expected—but it ultimately falls far short of the greatness of both of those games,” he wrote in his 75% Starfield review.
As one of the most anticipated games of the year, there are unsurprisingly already tons of Starfield reviews online from other publications that have been playing the game for the last week. Although there are some notable exceptions: Bethesda didn’t provide early review code to UK-based publications Eurogamer, The Guardian, and our sister magazine Edge until shortly before or just after today’s embargo. That means there are still more reviews to come—but with 97 reviews already collected on OpenCritic, there’s already a wide spread of reactions, from “this could be one of the most ambitious games ever made” to “a mile wide, but an inch deep.”
Here’s what the critics are saying.
What the hell were you expecting then? Cuz I’m expecting pretty much what those were, but with a different theme. Possibly more dumbing down.
Professional reviews are trash and have been for years.
It’s ok to want evolution and progress away from the tired execution of various aspects of their games. That does not make them bad reviewers.
Wanting it is okay; expecting it from a company that has never really innovated anything and showed off enough of the game before to have not expected the lack of innovation is dumb.