Talk:Starfield (video game)

Requested move 9 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

---

• Starfield (video game) → Starfield
• Starfield → Starfield (disambiguation)

– Video game is currently the clear primary topic by pageviews and likely to stay that way into the future. The astronomy term just redirects to a glossary, cannot be primary, see WP:NOTDICT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, per long term significance. BilledMammal (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not a clear primary topic, pageviews notwithstanding.--Srleffler (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Currently, 80% of visitors to the dab page proceed to follow the link to the game [1]. – Uanfala (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  • A short-term surge in hits for an upcoming video game is not enough. In a year or two it will be under 50%. This is not a durable primary topic.--Srleffler (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm not arguing for anything, I was just presenting data. I don't know much about games, but from the little I do know I can venture the guess that once it comes out, this game is going to go above 90% and stay there for at least a decade. – Uanfala (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose we don't give preferred weight to contemporary items over long-term academic terms. --Masem (t) 17:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

  The astronomy term gets about 3 hits a day to the video game's 2000 hits a day, which is only likely to increase when it comes out. Long term can sometimes indicate significance, but it does not always mean commonly used, relevant or significant, as you seem to suggest in a broad stroke. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  Again, we don't give preferred status based on page views, because over time, the game will lose views while the term will likely remain consistent. --Masem (t) 12:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  The game is unlikely to drop anywhere near the amount of views the term has. Being a major AAA release and given the average lifespan of Bethesda's games, unless it is a tremendously unexpected flop it will continue to be the primary driver of views at least until 2032 if not longer. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Weak oppose since Starfield (astronomy) is still covered even if just a redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  A redirect to a literal dictionary definition, not even a section of an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Weak support. "Starfield (astronomy)" is just a redirect, which means it isn't even notable as a subject. Then again, recentism popularity might be a case for the game. 182.1.69.149 (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per WP:RECENTISM. It is possible that the video game will become the primary topic in the future, but I think it is too soon to tell if that would happen right now. OceanHok (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The existence of Starfield (astronomy), redirect or not, means this cannot possibly be primary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 17 July 2023

• Starfield (video game) → Starfield
• Starfield → Starfield (disambiguation)

After the E3 Showcase, and now that Starfield is getting lots of hype and coverage among the public, I think it is clear that this article is of primary significance, as compared to a redirect to a glossary. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now per previous RfC; it is probable that Starfield will dominate all measurable statistics for the next few decades, but per WP:CRYSTALBALL it is not our job to opine that yet. Long-term significance for the moment outweights possible shorter-term popularity; six months post-release should be a good time to see whether that popularity has turned into probable medium-term importance. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  It is way more popular already. It's been months. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  We are still well into the video game's pre-release era, where its marketing is highest and its audience the largest. This is a transitory period for any upcoming large video game release, most often leading to the video game not keeping its staying power in the public eye. It is far too soon to tell if the game's popularity will be lasting.

  Additionally, one needs only to point to the most similar example. Fallout, another series whose releases got much larger "hype and coverage" than Nuclear fallout (the auto-redirect from the term Fallout), did not maintain its public significance and "hype", nor academic significance, long enough to move Nuclear fallout from its primary spot.

  It really is just too soon to tell, and it is not likely enough to maintain its significance to justify the move. 184.188.64.240 (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Definitely far too recent to consider this possible move, and there's no way that the video game would have precedence over the scientific terminology. Masem (t) 00:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a redirect to a glossary. And the term has barely any significance in Astronomy. I'd agree if it was a dedicated page to a major scientific term, but that is far from the case here. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Do avoid WP:BLUDGEONing. IceWelder [✉] 19:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

How am I bludgeoning? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Per the essay linked: "It is not necessary or desirable to reply to every comment in a discussion. ... The more often you express the same ideas in a discussion, the less persuasive you become." In one edit, you replied to all comments, solely restating points already made in the introduction. It appeared to be an attempt to contradict those users' opinions but you did not counter their points on recentism in either case. IceWelder [✉] 15:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The first new "intellectual property" in 29 years

In the lede, it says

...and is the first new intellectual property developed by Bethesda in 29 years.

That's what the source says ("intellectual property"), and that's a common industry usage. However, in the strict sense of the meaning of IP, that's wrong, since Bethesda is creating new IP all the time. Something as simple as a tweet is intellectual property. Would it be better to have it link to media franchise, eg

,,,and is the first new intellectual property developed by Bethesda in 29 years.

or would that be a violation of WP:Easter Egg? I don't really know the solution, but I think it's misleading as it stands. Darkage7_[Talk] 16:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe you have a different reading of the concept of intellectual property; I can't fathom how anyone thinks a tweet is intellectual property. A media franchise suggests multiple, different types of media; Starfield isn't a franchise as of yet. Besides, it's clearly properly sourced that it is the first IP in so many years. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, and I fully understand what the source author means when they call it "intellectual property". It's video game industry jargon for a new media franchise, whether there will eventually only be one game, or fifty. The problem is that's not the common non-jargon meaning of the term, and we should clarify that somehow. To expand on the point I was trying to get at with the tweet thing, all copyrighted, trademarked, patented, and trade secrets are intellectual property. That's the actual definition of the term. To blindly quote that source without clarifying is essentially saying Bethesda has been taking a nap for 29 years and not producing new anything, which is clearly not the case. Darkage7_[Talk] 18:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

First of all - and just to clarify - a tweet is not intellectual property of Bethesda. Second, you're arguing on semantics. The interpretation of "IP" in the sentence "first new IP developed by Bethesda in 29 years" is not "game industry jargon", and nobody would interpret that as meaning they haven't produced anything in all that time. At worst it is "entertainment industry jargon". If we really would want to go with your definition of IP, than Starfield (and everything) is built up out of multiple IPs in and off its own. Every asset, every piece of dialog, every concept would be its own IP. That not how anyone would ever interpret "Intellectual Property", especially not in the given context.--YannickFran (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not disputing any of that. I know what it means, the average reader knows what it means, and it's a very widely used term. However, the Intellectual Property article has nothing to do with this intended meaning. Is the best solution to remove the link then? It's like talking about rubber bands and linking to Band (music). Darkage7_[Talk] 16:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Weird phrasing in #Controversies

In the controversies section, there is a blurb that says: Upon release, some players asked for a refund due to an option in the game's creation menu where the player can choose their pronouns... I ain't gonna change it, but as a trans woman (with pronouns, even!), something about that line seems too nice. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I had full intentions to fully say that it was primarily right-wing players and that they were having breakdowns live on camera, but I felt as if that would be too extreme to put in the article to remain "neutral."

I feel like to keep neutrality the way it is now is good enough, though I'm probably going to expand the controversies section anyway (there's two more to mention I believe), so I might see what I could do there while keeping it "neutral." NegativeMP1 07:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

There's neutrality and there's WP:WHITEWASH. Transphobic, gamergate-adjacent internet trolls filmed themselves having a meltdown over pronouns. That is literally what happened. If that's unencyclopedic, then the entire story is unencyclopedic and shouldn't even be mentioned. 46.97.170.235 (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Not relevant though. The current wording is factually correct. It's an encyclopedia, not an editorial opinion piece. 109.176.90.215 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

"Factually accurate" is the bare minimum. If you don't feel you can discuss a topic honestly without offending people, it's probably best to just not do it at all.

There's also an argument for writing what you call an "editorial opinion piece." It's easier to fix a statement like "right-wing trolls outraged over bisexual character" than a statement so delicate that it's not clear what's being communicated, like "some people objected to the game's pronoun usage."

That's not an attack of the person who wrote the section, I think they were doing the best they could with a touchy topic. I just don't think this kind of elevated sensitivity should become the standard. 2603:7081:1603:A300:2CC4:A198:82DB:C8BF (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I too believe that the elevated sensitivity should be the standard. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and the euphemistic writing serves only to muddy the waters around something that is a very much plain as day, black-and-white issue. I don't see why wikipedia needs to concern itself with the feelings of a bunch of overly sensitive manbabies, who even after 10 years couldn't move on with their lives. Either that, or simply don't give them any attention. 46.97.170.235 (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

But it isn't concerning itself with their feelings, you're just offending because it isn't concering itself with YOUR feelings either. It should go without saying that outpourings like "overly sensitive manbabies" don't belong in a wikipedia article. 109.176.90.215 (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

But some people DID object to the game's pronoun usage, and sought refunds as a result. It's entirely clear what is being communicated there and those are the facts. An opinion about what that action says about the character of the people in question is editorialising and not really relevant to the facts of the matter. The word "trolls" obviously shouldn't appear in any sort of balanced encyclopedia entry. 109.176.90.215 (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree that the current phrase is week; we just need to source it if we go further. I'd love to add sources for it, but the main Starfield news I've been following is related to its technical performance. If you've got a source, I'll help out where I can. —danhash (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I mostly agree. Not that it's too nice but that it lends too much significance to a triviality. I don't read articles like this to hear about "several streamers" (a weasel word, by the way), I read it to learn about the subject and its larger cultural significance. Wikipedia isn't a gossip column.

The controversy, if it's included at all, should be framed in such a way as to highlight its significance and specific relevance to this game. That someone on the internet doesn't like bisexuals or pronouns isn't notable. 2603:7081:1603:A300:2CC4:A198:82DB:C8BF (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

And since that is literally all there is to the "controversy", it's probably not even worth including it. When wikipedia finally decides that the "Fandom Menace" troll group is notable enough to warrant it's own article, maybe it can get mentioned on a long list of other fake controversies they stirred in the past decade, rather than having those take up space in the articles on the movies/shows/games/people they targetted. 46.97.170.235 (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I have decided to go ahead and remove the section unless the controversy rises up more. If more sources discuss it or if there's a decent amount of people wanting to keep it, I'll add it back, but as of right now I do agree with some of the points here. I do think there is some controversy out there on the technical performance or frame rate though, so if that's covered by reliable sources, that's completely fine to add. Edit: misinterpreted the conversation, thought there was a majority, reinstated the section NegativeMP1 16:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Mark Kern

Is this story even notable? Mark is a barely notable individual, who's only claim to fame is that he once upon a time worked on World of Warcraft, before being let go from Blizzard, and getting removed from Red 5 after nearly running the company into the ground. Besides that, he spends his time on Twitter, posting conspiracy theories and talking smack about video game developers who still have a job. Wikipedia shouldn't signal-boost every single outrage of the weeek he's peddling. 46.97.170.235 (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Removed, unless it gets covered by more sources, which I doubt for this in specific. Edit: misinterpreted the conversation, thought there was a majority, reinstated the section NegativeMP1 16:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected request

As of revision Special:Permalink/1175049052, the reception section states two different OpenCritic percentages: 91% in the lede, 90% in the {{Video game reviews}} table. As of today, when accessing the given citation, both of these numbers should be changed to 89% (Critics Recommend), and the citation date & access date be updated. See Special:Diff/1174166006 for a similar diff of intent. 84.250.15.152 (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

References

 Done Tollens (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2023

Metacritic score in "Reception" section is not updated for Starfield. The current one for Xbox Series (XSXS) is 83, not 85 (revised on September 14, 2023 - https://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-series-x/starfield). Soukyuu999 (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done by Kilus. Tollens (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Early Release Date

The Premium Edition for Starfield released on Aug. 31, while the regular release was Sep. 5. 50.108.69.189 (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Time zones get involved, but yes, we know. Sept 1 for early play, Sep 6 official release. -- ferret (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

SSD Required?

I have heard (but not been able to confirm right now) that this is the first game to require a solid-state drive. If so, this might be worth mentioning somewhere in the main article. Wiimeiser (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that's possible to *require*. Without a reliable source, it cannot be added. -- ferret (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

All XSX and PS5 games require being ran on internal, solid-state storage. I don't think there's any merit to your claim, unless you qualify it somehow. Darkage7_[Talk] 15:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Found a few news articles, though this might not be outright confirming it: https://attackofthefanboy.com/guides/heres-why-starfield-requires-an-ssd-on-pc/ https://au.pcmag.com/pc-games/100429/playing-starfield-on-pc-requires-an-ssd https://gamerant.com/why-does-starfield-require-ssd-on-pc-starfield-pc-hard-drive-requirements-guide/ Wiimeiser (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Steam store page does indeed make this claim. That said, I've never seen anything with an actual technical requirement that it run from an SSD. Of these three sources, PCMag is the most reliable, with gamerant being situational. Note both are simply reporting that the requirement is listed, and otherwise speculating on why. -- ferret (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Article has issue with framing

This article seems to be bias towards starfield and ignores any criticism outside of the niche extreme views like the pronouns, going so far as to imply that these sort of things are the only issues anyone had with the game.

To maintain integrity some rewording needs to happen. The game isn't universally loved and praised outside of right wing extreme views. 2407:7000:9DC6:4700:F513:CD66:8AC2:589E (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The reception section mentions criticisms aimed at specific elements of the game. If you feel there is something missing, why don't you add it yourself? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Or provide some reliable secondary sourcing at least. -- ferret (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I've been trying to add framing, the most I've been able to do is add the Steam reviews score. I mentioned a popular dislike on YouTube to offer a more represented personal view, however I understand why it was removed.

I also noted that it is the worst reviewed game on Steam developed by Bethesda Game Studios, which is TRUE. Why it keeps getting removed when I update the Steam reviews section is beyond me. It isn't biased or untrue, and it is entirely relevant to that particular section of the page: Steam reviews.

I was also thinking of adding a part about the lead writer having a tantrum on Twitter/X, however I fear I would write a smaller paragraph and just have it removed because the criticism isn't about "right-wing gamergate internet trolls" (as other wikiusers have complained about). SuperSalamander5434 (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem with your edits is that you're using WP:PRIMARY and WP:USERG sources, rather than reliable secondary sources. See WP:VG/S for a list of vetted reliable sources, as well as a list of unreliable ones. -- ferret (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

It says it was released to good reviews?

Most reviews of the game are pretty negative not positive, like it still has a bad rating on most platforms 2601:183:282:68B0:89AA:728B:1E67:1FB4 (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The reception section tells a different story. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You are mixing two different things.

"Released to good reviews" mean the reviews of the game at release were good. You can see the initial reviews in the section of this article and you can search for them in detail by yourself.

YOU are talking about the ratings on platforms like steam after many months which ARE very bad and it can be discussed if that information could be a new section in this article.

I personally think this is a case of review bombing, like many 0/10 user reviews, but WIKI isn´t about opinions. 195.30.176.147 (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This is almost definitely not a case of review bombing, in any way. You can filter steam reviews by playtime and filtering by reviews with 10+ hours of gameplay brings the total positive rating to 63%, but those with 100+ hours of playtime brings the average review score DOWN to 60% from 61% overall, which is still from 18,000 reviews. This is publicly available on steam, as well as timeline comparisons that show no spikes in negative reviews, with the ratio of reviews steadily trending more negative over time. Technotuna42 (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Steam reviews are WP:USERG and inherently unreliable for use on Wikipedia. -- ferret (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

If reliable sources do talk about the negative nature of Steam reviews, we can include that, but absent that, we can't consider them. Masem (t) 13:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep, just replying to the "Just go look at the publicly available..." part above. -- ferret (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Rename "Sales" to "Players"

I know games usually have a "Sales" section, but the one on this page doesn't mention sales of the game, only the number of players. 2600:1700:37A7:FC0F:C396:463:CF50:38EE (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

number of players is readonably proportional to number of sales in lieu of direct sale info. Masem (t) 13:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Relevancy of player drop

@Michaelg24: The relevance is in comparison to past Bethesda games and the lack of longevity for Starfield. Please don't remove reliably sourced secondary commentary like this. What's being reported is not simply that Starfield's player counts dropped, which is a given, but that it has dropped more rapidly and below that of past Bethesda games which offer a similar experience. Secondary sources explicitly are making such a comparison. -- ferret (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)