Starfield’s reception is interesting, at the very least. As someone who’s generally right down the middle when it comes to BGS’s output, my expectations for the game weren’t particularly high. I try my best not to be overly cynical, so I guess my expectations would have been best characterized as “cautiously optimistic.” The space setting offers a lot of potential. With games like Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom showing how great games can be built (in part) off the back of engaging traversal mechanics, the shift to space and the technology that comes with it had the potential to solve one of my biggest issues with BGS RPGs: frequently boring, meandering traversal. On the other hand, while I’ve always thought BGS’s worldbuilding to be one of its strong points, I was doubtful that what BGS would come up with would rival Fallout or the Elder Scrolls: two of the best settings in the medium. And as for the rest of the game… I was expecting more or less a continuation of Fallout 4/76: with the focus being improving the “action” side of the action-RPG that is the modern Bethesda framework, along with expanding the crafting and settlement-building systems.
What we got with Starfield, for better and for worse, is not quite that. Interestingly, the game focuses on questing: in particular, its faction questlines. And you know what? The faction questlines are… pretty good. Easily a step above what was on offer in Skyrim or Fallout 4, and even beyond Oblivion, in my opinion. From a writing standpoint, each faction at the very least contributes nicely to the worldbuilding. Narratively the quality varies between factions, but they’re all at least competently structured and feature some interesting role-playing choices (which, again, vary in quality between factions, but I digress). Well, there is one exception to my commentary on the faction questlines: the main quest, which is a faction questline of sorts. It has its moments, especially towards the end, but if I’m keeping it a buck… I don’t really like Constellation. I think the narrative of “Starfield gets good after X hours” is actually kind of valid because “X hours” is probably when the social media-poster in question completed or veered away from the main quest to do the factions.
Starfield also makes some notable gameplay improvements over previous BGS titles. Compared to Fallout 4, the gunplay is improved, general gamefeel and responsiveness are improved, and the lockpicking/hacking minigame is changed to something actually mildly engaging (and thankfully not another re-use of the mind-numbing Fallout 3 minigames). Dialogue is also improved, as it no longer follows the same predictable structure of Fallout 4’s, there’s more frequent opportunities to roleplay, and the “persuasion” minigame is, well, better than Oblivion’s, at the very least.
All of that being said, there is a significant drawback to Starfield compared to its BGS predecessors: that is, diminished potential for player-driven exploration and emergent gameplay, which is largely a consequence of the “open world” typical of BGS games being broken up into various hubs, settlements, etc., strewn about Starfield’s many planets. Most planets in Starfield are not hand-crafted, but rather feature environments and quests that procedurally generate around wherever the player chooses to land their ship. So, for players (like myself) that don’t care for the procedurally generated content, the vast majority of planets in Starfield may as well not exist. And the consequences of taking what is likely a Skyrim/Fallout 4-sized map of hand-crafted content and splitting it between planets are mixed. On one hand, there is an abstract sense of scale that comes with that design decision. However, the sense of scale is greatly limited by the unfortunate fact that traversing space is something largely done by fast-travel rather than piloting a spaceship. The player’s ship is instead more of a basecamp that’s occasionally used in gameplay segments constrained to planetary orbits.
To be honest, though… I don’t really mind Starfield’s hand-crafted content being divided between its planets. And the reason I feel that way is because, in my opinion, exploration in BGS games is overrated. As I’ve already said, from a gameplay standpoint at least, traversal in BGS games is frequently boring. Additionally, a large number of locations in, for example, Skyrim are essentially vessels for that game’s randomly generated quests, meaning that a substantial portion of its map is filler that the player might walk up to so as to enable future fast travel, but likely not otherwise engage with. This ties into the topic of Skyrim/Fallout 4's quasi-MMO structure, where you're typically expected to first interact with factions to get quests, which then make dungeon crawling and other activities more meaningful (a huge design choice that, in my opinion, is suboptimal for a supposedly exploration-oriented experience). I won’t elaborate further on this as I’m reviewing Starfield, not Skyrim or Fallout 4, but I would wager that a majority of players in those games tend to just fast-travel between major settlements anyway: meaning that the impact of Starfield’s splitting of the map may be overstated by some critics.
However, I can see why some players who perhaps approach these games less procedurally than I do would be frustrated by Bethesda’s decision here. It’s undeniable that there is a certain appeal to just roaming around a more hand-crafted map and stumbling onto bits of gameplay. To be fair, Starfield’s hand-crafted locations do afford some of that experience, but that experience is less of a focus this time around, to the dismay of some. In fact, I think the backlash to this game is largely fueled by this kind of player, rather than the typical “New Vegas good, Fallout 3/4 bad” Bethesda hater.
To me, Starfield is more or less on par with BGS’s output from the previous decade. In fact, as contrarian as this probably sounds, I may very well like this game more than Skyrim or Fallout 4. Sure, there is a certain appeal that those games have that this one doesn’t, but Starfield is overall better in the ways that matter most to me. I’ve always felt that I would prefer Oblivion/Fallout 3 to Skyrim/Fallout 4 if the former games weren’t plagued by comparatively poor design decisions (among other things) and, well, Starfield is kind of like Oblivion if it was in space and also less bad. That’s a reductive comparison, apologies.
Oh yeah. Starfield has a jetpack. Do Skyrim or Fallout 4 have a jetpack? Well, Fallout 4 technically does if you count power armor. But whatever, Starfield has a jetpack and I’m writing this aside just to express how much I like jetpacks in video games. The one in Starfield does make traversal a little more interesting, particularly in the game’s combat arenas, so it is worth bringing up, I guess.
New Game + is... kind of cool. Definitely more in concept than in execution, however, but I enjoyed how it ties into the main story. There 's also an interesting ludonarrative angle to it, but I can't exactly explain that without delving into spoilers, and frankly it's kind of superficial anyway, so whatever.
Before I conclude, one final aside: while Starfield's setting is expectedly a downgrade from TES and Fallout, it's at least competent unlike that of, say, The Outer Worlds. Not super engrossing or anything, I just mildly enjoyed the worldbuild and general aesthetic. And Skyrim/Falllout 4 didn't come close to fully utilizing those settings' potential anyway, so perhaps the drawback of Starfield's setting is not as significant as it maybe should be in theory.
To some extent, I feel bad for Bethesda. I mean, they’re owned by Microsoft so they’ll always be fine financially, but Starfield in my opinion represents an honest response to criticism. People famously (and annoyingly) said that “Fallout 4 is a good game but a bad Fallout game” (most of whom, I'd wager, never actually played Fallout 1 or 2, but I digress), so BGS made an effort to improve role-playing and quest design. And they succeeded… somewhat. Good for me, I guess.
6/10.
What we got with Starfield, for better and for worse, is not quite that. Interestingly, the game focuses on questing: in particular, its faction questlines. And you know what? The faction questlines are… pretty good. Easily a step above what was on offer in Skyrim or Fallout 4, and even beyond Oblivion, in my opinion. From a writing standpoint, each faction at the very least contributes nicely to the worldbuilding. Narratively the quality varies between factions, but they’re all at least competently structured and feature some interesting role-playing choices (which, again, vary in quality between factions, but I digress). Well, there is one exception to my commentary on the faction questlines: the main quest, which is a faction questline of sorts. It has its moments, especially towards the end, but if I’m keeping it a buck… I don’t really like Constellation. I think the narrative of “Starfield gets good after X hours” is actually kind of valid because “X hours” is probably when the social media-poster in question completed or veered away from the main quest to do the factions.
Starfield also makes some notable gameplay improvements over previous BGS titles. Compared to Fallout 4, the gunplay is improved, general gamefeel and responsiveness are improved, and the lockpicking/hacking minigame is changed to something actually mildly engaging (and thankfully not another re-use of the mind-numbing Fallout 3 minigames). Dialogue is also improved, as it no longer follows the same predictable structure of Fallout 4’s, there’s more frequent opportunities to roleplay, and the “persuasion” minigame is, well, better than Oblivion’s, at the very least.
All of that being said, there is a significant drawback to Starfield compared to its BGS predecessors: that is, diminished potential for player-driven exploration and emergent gameplay, which is largely a consequence of the “open world” typical of BGS games being broken up into various hubs, settlements, etc., strewn about Starfield’s many planets. Most planets in Starfield are not hand-crafted, but rather feature environments and quests that procedurally generate around wherever the player chooses to land their ship. So, for players (like myself) that don’t care for the procedurally generated content, the vast majority of planets in Starfield may as well not exist. And the consequences of taking what is likely a Skyrim/Fallout 4-sized map of hand-crafted content and splitting it between planets are mixed. On one hand, there is an abstract sense of scale that comes with that design decision. However, the sense of scale is greatly limited by the unfortunate fact that traversing space is something largely done by fast-travel rather than piloting a spaceship. The player’s ship is instead more of a basecamp that’s occasionally used in gameplay segments constrained to planetary orbits.
To be honest, though… I don’t really mind Starfield’s hand-crafted content being divided between its planets. And the reason I feel that way is because, in my opinion, exploration in BGS games is overrated. As I’ve already said, from a gameplay standpoint at least, traversal in BGS games is frequently boring. Additionally, a large number of locations in, for example, Skyrim are essentially vessels for that game’s randomly generated quests, meaning that a substantial portion of its map is filler that the player might walk up to so as to enable future fast travel, but likely not otherwise engage with. This ties into the topic of Skyrim/Fallout 4's quasi-MMO structure, where you're typically expected to first interact with factions to get quests, which then make dungeon crawling and other activities more meaningful (a huge design choice that, in my opinion, is suboptimal for a supposedly exploration-oriented experience). I won’t elaborate further on this as I’m reviewing Starfield, not Skyrim or Fallout 4, but I would wager that a majority of players in those games tend to just fast-travel between major settlements anyway: meaning that the impact of Starfield’s splitting of the map may be overstated by some critics.
However, I can see why some players who perhaps approach these games less procedurally than I do would be frustrated by Bethesda’s decision here. It’s undeniable that there is a certain appeal to just roaming around a more hand-crafted map and stumbling onto bits of gameplay. To be fair, Starfield’s hand-crafted locations do afford some of that experience, but that experience is less of a focus this time around, to the dismay of some. In fact, I think the backlash to this game is largely fueled by this kind of player, rather than the typical “New Vegas good, Fallout 3/4 bad” Bethesda hater.
To me, Starfield is more or less on par with BGS’s output from the previous decade. In fact, as contrarian as this probably sounds, I may very well like this game more than Skyrim or Fallout 4. Sure, there is a certain appeal that those games have that this one doesn’t, but Starfield is overall better in the ways that matter most to me. I’ve always felt that I would prefer Oblivion/Fallout 3 to Skyrim/Fallout 4 if the former games weren’t plagued by comparatively poor design decisions (among other things) and, well, Starfield is kind of like Oblivion if it was in space and also less bad. That’s a reductive comparison, apologies.
Oh yeah. Starfield has a jetpack. Do Skyrim or Fallout 4 have a jetpack? Well, Fallout 4 technically does if you count power armor. But whatever, Starfield has a jetpack and I’m writing this aside just to express how much I like jetpacks in video games. The one in Starfield does make traversal a little more interesting, particularly in the game’s combat arenas, so it is worth bringing up, I guess.
New Game + is... kind of cool. Definitely more in concept than in execution, however, but I enjoyed how it ties into the main story. There 's also an interesting ludonarrative angle to it, but I can't exactly explain that without delving into spoilers, and frankly it's kind of superficial anyway, so whatever.
Before I conclude, one final aside: while Starfield's setting is expectedly a downgrade from TES and Fallout, it's at least competent unlike that of, say, The Outer Worlds. Not super engrossing or anything, I just mildly enjoyed the worldbuild and general aesthetic. And Skyrim/Falllout 4 didn't come close to fully utilizing those settings' potential anyway, so perhaps the drawback of Starfield's setting is not as significant as it maybe should be in theory.
To some extent, I feel bad for Bethesda. I mean, they’re owned by Microsoft so they’ll always be fine financially, but Starfield in my opinion represents an honest response to criticism. People famously (and annoyingly) said that “Fallout 4 is a good game but a bad Fallout game” (most of whom, I'd wager, never actually played Fallout 1 or 2, but I digress), so BGS made an effort to improve role-playing and quest design. And they succeeded… somewhat. Good for me, I guess.
6/10.