Starfield is Genuinely Terrible (4 months later)

What's your honest thoughts on Starfield? 👇

It's already been 4 months. Man time flies when you're not playing Starfield.

It’s simple: Bethesda chose to make a game where the whole gimmick is how big the game is. But in order to get their game engine to do that, they had to sacrifice a lot of the things that make Bethesda games amazing. It’s 100 light years wide and and inch deep.

Our engine lets us build really fast. - Todd Howard 8 years ago. In what universe?

Bro turn down that obnoxious beat

The funniest thing is that some of the loading screens aren't even actual loading screens. Like docking, opening airlocks, or sitting in your cockpit. They're just time wasters. Yes, some developer at Bethesda thought there weren't enough loading screens, so they added a few non-functional extras for good measure. I liked Starfield for about a month, but then picked up Cyberpunk on sale. What an eye-opening experience that was.

The honeymoon period wore off and now you're actually looking at the game for what it really is.

I knew I would hate the game as soon as I got to new Atlantis, the city was so hollow and boring, 98% of the NPC’s had the same 5 dialogue options or stared at you and then disappeared after walking away from them, I quit after 20 hours after I found the same exact outpost layout 3 times in a row with the same enemy’s and loot spots

I’m embarrassed to say that I payed 100$ to play early and was bored a week later by the release date 😂

the thing with cyberpunk is that the problem at launch was technical. it was an unplayable mess because it was buggy as hell, not because the game design was bad. once they started fixing the bugs, the game underneath came to the surface: great writing, great direction, great art, great characters, great missions, player agency, world design, level design, seamless open world... yes, they added better AI, overhauled some systems, but the game was really really good without those changes. Starfield has the opposite problem. It was less buggy than everyone expected it to be, but the game design lackluster from top to bottom. zero creativity, wasted opportunities at every corner, boring writing, boring characters, boring world design, boring art style, boring quests, no game direction, no player agency, and no purpose to anything. If Bethesda somehow managed to remove all loading screens from the game and improved the UI so you didn't need to spend half your playtime looking at menus... the game would still be the blandest, most insultingly mid game released since... i don't know, i guess since Ubisoft released anything. And all the defenders at the time dismissing all the criticism saying "you're acting like this is the worst game of all time and it isn't" all I want to say was: That's the problem! I would respect this game so much more if it took any chances. If it aimed for the stars (no pun intended) and completely fell flat in its face, I would've respected the effort. I'd say they tried something and it didn't work, better luck next time. I could have said it's ambitious. That's what No Man's Sky was. I still don't like the game but it's so much more respectable than Starfield, yes, even at launch.

Cyberpunk > Starfield

Over 100GB of load screen - deleted from my Xbox

Cyberpunk updated itself into a 9/10 title. With Starfield, it isn't apparent how that'd even be possible. To add insult to injury it's uglier at 30fps than a number of PS5/Series X titles are at 60fps.

red dead only had like 2 loading screens and it’s the sleep cycle/ day night or the transportation like carriages or trains, and even then they felt like cutscenes than load time 1:43

So essentially they spent the last half a decade plus and hundreds of millions of dollars for a marketing campaign for baldurs gate and cyerpunk. Amazing. Its been months and theyre still sitting their asses on modding tools which the game desperately needs

Mass Effect already showed people how to make a compelling space game back in 2007. You don't need or want big procedurally generated planets. You need witty banter, engaging combat, solid lore, and a believable and powerful threat to tackle. Starfield has none of these things. It's like they wanted to be a walking simulator or a more boring version of No Man's Sky. In No Man's Sky, at least you could fly around on the planet and land wherever you felt like. No Man's Sky was not a fun game, ever. Why they tried to emulate their game genre, in a worse way, is beyond me.

It's the Cybertruck of video games...heavily promoted and hyped up, fun to take for a spin the first few times...then suddenly the novelty wears off and all you can notice is the loading screens and shitty writing

The main reason I'm not interested in even picking it up is because of the random environments. If you want players to have different experiences, accomplish that by giving many possible paths, not one path that changes every time. It also completely removes the prospect of exploration too cause it's not a physical world you're discovering, just some amorphous quantum soup. Exploring a barren dustball SHOULD be fun cause it's SPACE, but they give you nothing to do in actual space, all the gameplay was shoved into cities. All the cities could just be parts of one planet and you'd get the same experience. The only reason I can imagine for them to add multiple populated planets is as an excuse for the loading screens.

This game has been one of the biggest disappointments of my life, i was so much looking forward to it, decided to ignore the signs, but day 1, i decided i was not wasting time on it

starfield fanbois be like: don't judge my garbage