My Bethesda rant goes something like this: “they think the ideal video game is when you can treat everything like action figures, make anything happen in any combination just to see it happen, bash em together, pull them apart, make them kiss, make them join every team and do every thing, do whatever you want, and then fuck off because it never meant anything”.
Coming from a long time fan of Bethesda RPGs They have gotten way too comfortable relying on radiant quests and proc gen content. Those aren’t inherently bad, but the way they were implemented in Starfield was. What’s so fun about landing on a planet that appears the same as another a few light years away and seeing the same fucking cryogenics lab with the same layout, items, lore logs, and enemy placement? Chasing the same bounties for a paltry sum of credits (not that you’ll need them it’s easy to break the economy) or legendary loot that you’ll likely just sell (for credits you won’t use)? There are cool things like ship building that could be further fleshed out but so much of the game ended up undercooked and uninspired (space travel with your ship was a glorified screensaver in a game about space traversal for Christ’s sake).
Yes, the second I realized they were actually doing that with literally copy pasted areas and notes and characters it killed the game for me. I can be reasonable for a dungeon having the same layout but not written content and characters. It invalidates the entire experience.
I think if Starfield had come out 10 years ago it would have wowed people and been a classic. But now it just seems dated when you have other games doing RPG better (Cyberpunk 2077, Witcher 3, Baldurs Gate 3) and open world space better (No Mans Sky).
Starfield doesnt do RPG as good as those games, nor does it do open world space as well as No Mans Sky. I’ve heard it described as being as wide as an ocean but as deep as a puddle, and that doesnt seem far off to me.
I really hope Bethesda have paid attention and dont make the same kind of mistakes with Elder Scrolls VI. Big and empty is not the way to go.
Maybe it would have been better received 10 years ago but I don’t know about being beloved like the elder scrolls or fallout games. 10 years ago was Fallout 4 but even in Skyrim era, it’d be great graphics but without the wonderful whimsy
Starfield is too normal. Bethesda games excel when they take the weirdness of the world seriously. Starfield is too serious conceptually. Elder Scrolls, just the concept of everything being canon because of dragon breaks and other weird aedra/daedra/chim/godhead shenanigans lets writers write wild while it still fitting in as serious in universe
They’ve managed to do that well enough with Fallout even though it’s supposed to be alternate reality world. Still wacky even if not as lore interesting as TES
Starfield is too unimaginative of a sci-fi universe so far. It’s too normal and because of that, they can’t write whacky in a way that people buy into and love. So then they end up judging the game by its systems and mechanics and technical merit way more than they do elder scrolls games or fallout.
Also base/ship building is given too much focus for a single player game. These games aren’t pretty enough to be a single player game that gets beloved for base building like Animal Crossing
Great point. I agree that people would likely forgive all of the technical and environmental shortcomings(loading screens and bland environments) if the game had even a slightly interesting story. Anything worth experiencing at all. Unfortunately it fails all 3 of those fronts.
The places where it excels (1st person gameplay compared to other B* games, ship building, and graphics imo) are not enough to make it a game worth experiencing.
It honestly should have had another 2 years in the oven to make the lore and universe more interesting.
No way Bethesda wastes another 5-8 years on a sequel with the negative reception Starfield received.
Just based on Wikipedia, many commercial failure video games have a sequel made much later on, or have their IP used in a remake or reimagining. Psychonauts is the one I remember since I like the sequel.
The original psychonauts was a cult classic though that got great reviews.
Starfield is in the opposite boat, it doesnt seem to have been a commercial failure, but fan sentiment is really low with the starfield franchise to the point that the hype around a sequel would be nowhere near what it was for psychonauts 2… But this is all my assumption, difficult to find/trust empirical data on fan interest.
Silly example- why are there elevators and LOADING SCREENS in New Atlantis - if you have enough jetpack or just abuse TCL, you can walk around the entirety of New Atlantis, without a single loading screen.
But for some reason Bethesda decided it needed some loading screens for no good reason whatsoever.
Your take makes me mad. Not because you are wrong or anything, but because you are entirely right and I don’t want you to be lol! I wanted this game to be cool so badly.
I have almost 6500 hours in FO4, I played today.
I have maybe 300 hours in Starfield, can’t be arsed to look. Haven’t touched it in at least a year.
Bethesda knows how to make great games, but they chose not to. I don’t know why.
That’s my take.
Damn dude, I’m glad you got so much out of FO4 I did one playthrough when it released and tried to play it again this year, barely got into it.
That’s when Bethesda died for me, didn’t find Skyrims simplifications all that good either but it was still a fun game
Feels like Bethesdas modus operandi is to make a game that appeals to everyone and that’s unfortunately coming at the cost of its established fan base
My Bethesda rant goes something like this: “they think the ideal video game is when you can treat everything like action figures, make anything happen in any combination just to see it happen, bash em together, pull them apart, make them kiss, make them join every team and do every thing, do whatever you want, and then fuck off because it never meant anything”.
Coming from a long time fan of Bethesda RPGs They have gotten way too comfortable relying on radiant quests and proc gen content. Those aren’t inherently bad, but the way they were implemented in Starfield was. What’s so fun about landing on a planet that appears the same as another a few light years away and seeing the same fucking cryogenics lab with the same layout, items, lore logs, and enemy placement? Chasing the same bounties for a paltry sum of credits (not that you’ll need them it’s easy to break the economy) or legendary loot that you’ll likely just sell (for credits you won’t use)? There are cool things like ship building that could be further fleshed out but so much of the game ended up undercooked and uninspired (space travel with your ship was a glorified screensaver in a game about space traversal for Christ’s sake).
Yes, the second I realized they were actually doing that with literally copy pasted areas and notes and characters it killed the game for me. I can be reasonable for a dungeon having the same layout but not written content and characters. It invalidates the entire experience.
I think if Starfield had come out 10 years ago it would have wowed people and been a classic. But now it just seems dated when you have other games doing RPG better (Cyberpunk 2077, Witcher 3, Baldurs Gate 3) and open world space better (No Mans Sky).
Starfield doesnt do RPG as good as those games, nor does it do open world space as well as No Mans Sky. I’ve heard it described as being as wide as an ocean but as deep as a puddle, and that doesnt seem far off to me.
I really hope Bethesda have paid attention and dont make the same kind of mistakes with Elder Scrolls VI. Big and empty is not the way to go.
Maybe it would have been better received 10 years ago but I don’t know about being beloved like the elder scrolls or fallout games. 10 years ago was Fallout 4 but even in Skyrim era, it’d be great graphics but without the wonderful whimsy
Starfield is too normal. Bethesda games excel when they take the weirdness of the world seriously. Starfield is too serious conceptually. Elder Scrolls, just the concept of everything being canon because of dragon breaks and other weird aedra/daedra/chim/godhead shenanigans lets writers write wild while it still fitting in as serious in universe
They’ve managed to do that well enough with Fallout even though it’s supposed to be alternate reality world. Still wacky even if not as lore interesting as TES
Starfield is too unimaginative of a sci-fi universe so far. It’s too normal and because of that, they can’t write whacky in a way that people buy into and love. So then they end up judging the game by its systems and mechanics and technical merit way more than they do elder scrolls games or fallout.
Also base/ship building is given too much focus for a single player game. These games aren’t pretty enough to be a single player game that gets beloved for base building like Animal Crossing
Great point. I agree that people would likely forgive all of the technical and environmental shortcomings(loading screens and bland environments) if the game had even a slightly interesting story. Anything worth experiencing at all. Unfortunately it fails all 3 of those fronts.
The places where it excels (1st person gameplay compared to other B* games, ship building, and graphics imo) are not enough to make it a game worth experiencing.
It honestly should have had another 2 years in the oven to make the lore and universe more interesting. No way Bethesda wastes another 5-8 years on a sequel with the negative reception Starfield received.
I think they will make a Starfield 2 eventually. But most likely in closer to 15-20 years with a fresh set of developers.
Can you think of another commercial failure IP that ever got a sequel? I honestly want to know if this ever happens.
I have to look back and see if Red Dead Revolver was as disappointing as Starfield.
Just based on Wikipedia, many commercial failure video games have a sequel made much later on, or have their IP used in a remake or reimagining. Psychonauts is the one I remember since I like the sequel.
The original psychonauts was a cult classic though that got great reviews.
Starfield is in the opposite boat, it doesnt seem to have been a commercial failure, but fan sentiment is really low with the starfield franchise to the point that the hype around a sequel would be nowhere near what it was for psychonauts 2… But this is all my assumption, difficult to find/trust empirical data on fan interest.
I think that may play into Starfield 2’s favor. If properly advertised it could reignite the hype for the first game… if it delivered.
There is just so much potential… squandered.
Silly example- why are there elevators and LOADING SCREENS in New Atlantis - if you have enough jetpack or just abuse TCL, you can walk around the entirety of New Atlantis, without a single loading screen.
But for some reason Bethesda decided it needed some loading screens for no good reason whatsoever.
Your take makes me mad. Not because you are wrong or anything, but because you are entirely right and I don’t want you to be lol! I wanted this game to be cool so badly.