They didn’t meant it “isn’t boring” in the sense that apparently the entire anti-Starfield bandwagoners have taken it. The quote they’re referring to is this:
“when the astronauts went to the moon, there was nothing there. They certainly weren’t bored”
The point being, whether you agree with them or not, whether you think they succeeded or not, is that the emptiness and scale is supposed to make you feel small in the vast ocean of space.
And an individual feeling butt hurt about negative reviews of the game they have worked on for many many years is hardly surprising. Unprofessional sure but again he wasn’t saying that people’s opinions were wrong, just that the armchair generals were out in force pretending they had any inkling as to what went on during the games development, how much effort went into certain aspects (eg the ever-popular “it isn’t optimized” claim by brainless dorks who just parrot what other brainless dorks have said).
The game is fine. It’s not their best but it is not their worst either. It launched in way way way better shape than FO4, ESO and FO76 at launch. It is playable by most people on PC and consoles, unlike Cyberpunk at launch, and actually has a relatively complete story and endgame, unlike No Mans Sky at launch.
I put in about 70 hours so far but moved on because there were so many other games I wanted to play. I will likely revisit it if they improve things in 2024.
Sure, I get the point about it wanting to make you feel small and what not. But it was still a dumb way to say it, PR speaking. Now all the headlines get to be “Bethesda says game isn’t boring”. That’s not a good way to steer the conversation about your recently released to mixed opinion game.
And Emilio’s reaction, regardless of it was surprising, justified, or whatever, is clearly him talking about the games reaction. So saying that people dont know why “it is why it is”, it reads like he’s trying to distance the conversation from “how it is”, which again makes for terrible headlines and also sounds suspiciously like he is conceding that the negativity has merit.
It’s cool you like it, you do you. But Bethesda’s PR game has been hot garbage.
I wouldn’t say I liked it but I certainly didn’t hate it. It was OK. I’m hopeful they’ll fix it.
The PR has been fine. The reaction from people online, and the click bait headlines some gaming news sites have used, speaks more to their desire to shit on Bethesda because …. Well I don’t know, but I’d say it’s partly because Bethesda deserves a bit of shit, and partly because Microsoft own them and a good percentage of vocal gamers have a massive hate boner for MS.
The fact that Cyberpunk is being compared to Starfield is utterly laughable. That game was in a league of its own at launch. It’s not even close.
They didn’t meant it “isn’t boring” in the sense that apparently the entire anti-Starfield bandwagoners have taken it. The quote they’re referring to is this:
“when the astronauts went to the moon, there was nothing there. They certainly weren’t bored”
The point being, whether you agree with them or not, whether you think they succeeded or not, is that the emptiness and scale is supposed to make you feel small in the vast ocean of space.
And an individual feeling butt hurt about negative reviews of the game they have worked on for many many years is hardly surprising. Unprofessional sure but again he wasn’t saying that people’s opinions were wrong, just that the armchair generals were out in force pretending they had any inkling as to what went on during the games development, how much effort went into certain aspects (eg the ever-popular “it isn’t optimized” claim by brainless dorks who just parrot what other brainless dorks have said).
The game is fine. It’s not their best but it is not their worst either. It launched in way way way better shape than FO4, ESO and FO76 at launch. It is playable by most people on PC and consoles, unlike Cyberpunk at launch, and actually has a relatively complete story and endgame, unlike No Mans Sky at launch.
I put in about 70 hours so far but moved on because there were so many other games I wanted to play. I will likely revisit it if they improve things in 2024.
Sure, I get the point about it wanting to make you feel small and what not. But it was still a dumb way to say it, PR speaking. Now all the headlines get to be “Bethesda says game isn’t boring”. That’s not a good way to steer the conversation about your recently released to mixed opinion game.
And Emilio’s reaction, regardless of it was surprising, justified, or whatever, is clearly him talking about the games reaction. So saying that people dont know why “it is why it is”, it reads like he’s trying to distance the conversation from “how it is”, which again makes for terrible headlines and also sounds suspiciously like he is conceding that the negativity has merit.
It’s cool you like it, you do you. But Bethesda’s PR game has been hot garbage.
I wouldn’t say I liked it but I certainly didn’t hate it. It was OK. I’m hopeful they’ll fix it.
The PR has been fine. The reaction from people online, and the click bait headlines some gaming news sites have used, speaks more to their desire to shit on Bethesda because …. Well I don’t know, but I’d say it’s partly because Bethesda deserves a bit of shit, and partly because Microsoft own them and a good percentage of vocal gamers have a massive hate boner for MS.
The fact that Cyberpunk is being compared to Starfield is utterly laughable. That game was in a league of its own at launch. It’s not even close.