Starfield review roundup: epically broad, yet frustratingly shallow?

pczone.co.uk:

Starfield is the most anticipated game launch in recent memory. After a seven-year development cycle, this oh-so-slow-baked RPG from Todd Howard and Bethesda gets roasted by the critics (apart from those in the UK) and the result? The taste is pleasant but less than thrilling, at least for some.

One day since the review embargo lifted, Starfield has a score of 87 on Metacritic, placing it well below Skyrim (94) but comparable to Fallout 4 (87 on PS4, 84 on PC).

The vast majority of the 50+ critics’ reviews are very positive. However, a handful of mixed reviews are from heavy hitters such as IGN, Gamespot and PCMag. It’s an odd mix of opinions.

IGN reviewer Dan Stapleton gave Starfield 7/10. One of his biggest criticisms is how long it takes for the game to get properly fun, with character limitations only solved by patiently unlocking abilities via the game’s skill trees.

Dan states in his review verdict: “It’s never a great sign when someone recommends a game on the grounds that it gets good after more than a dozen hours, but that’s very much the kind of game Starfield is, and I do recommend it. There are a lot of forces working against it, and the combination of disjointed space travel, nonexistent maps, aggravating inventory management, and a slow rollout of essential abilities very nearly did it in.”

To confuse matters further, PC ZONE veteran Brad Smith has been playing the game in early access and is thoroughly loving its opening hours.

In response to the IGN criticism of the game’s slow start, Brad said: “Within 20 minutes you’ve already got into a gunfight and flying…The quickest start of action of any Bethesda game I remember…complaints of a slow start seem a bit weird”.

GameInformer was a little kinder in its