Talk:Creation Club

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Train simulator (disambiguation) (3 participants)
Preston Arsement (2 participants)
Jackpot World (1 participant)
Bejeweled Stars (5 participants)
Melee (game terminology) (5 participants)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (5 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (5 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (14 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Move to Bethesda Game Studios Creations

I propose that this page (Creation Club) is moved to Bethesda Game Studios Creations. MacFreek (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Zxcvbnm, I am surprised that you deleted my statement about mediocre quality and overpriced content. Jim Sterling says (at 10:35) "I mean if they wanted to prove the Creation Club was not about paying for mods and it was actually for 'mini-DLCs', where are the involving quest lines? Where are the new settlements? Where's the expansive content that demonstrates Bethesda's service is equal or superior to the free mods we could download on the Nexus?" The PC Gamer reference states "Is it worth the $15 I spent? I'm going to have to say no." Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would lean towards agreeing with Zxcvbnm. Neither said the content was mediocre, per say. PC Gamer suggests "overpriced" with their statement but we can word that more directly by simply stating it: "PC Gamer felt the content wasn't worth the price they paid." It's better to cover the individual criticisms/reviews like that anyways. -- ferret (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it was problematic due to the vague language "it was criticized as" and statement of those opinions as fact. If it directly quoted Jim Sterling then it would be not be as NPOV, but then you'd have to find other critics with more moderate POVs._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]