It's fine. Still in early access, so I'd imagine this will get a lot better with time, but for now, it's just your average open-world survival/crafting game. There's lots of potential for fun here, especially with the great building system and promising skill tree, but at the moment, the world feels overbearingly dull/repetitive. I didn't have a bad time, and the combat feels good, but I wouldn't recommend playing solo. Get a group of friends and have some fun together. But don't expect anything amazing (yet).

tl;dr: tons of potential here, just needs time

I loved this, though it probably isn't quite as good as its predecessor. It's very much just more of what we got in the previous game, but that is by no means a bad thing. Gameplay is definitely improved, but it's still mostly the same, same goes for most aspects of the game. The story here is fantastic, just as it was in the previous game. However, there are times when the flow of the story feels a bit off, and so I think that the previous God of War was simply more consistent and engaging overall than this one was.

It's good. It's also kinda lacking in many ways. I love a lot of the ideas at play in the game, but in the end, I felt like the planets and star systems were more of a gimmick than anything. You could probably just pull all the major locations from this game and dump them into a single map the same size as other Bethesda titles. Starfield is a better RPG than Fallout 4, but it's still nothing compared to Bethesda's RPGs that came before that. I'd also say it kinda fails in its attempt to encourage players to explore. Planets feel very empty and repetitive, and it feels like there's no reason to explore them other than to go to specific quest markers you already have. Other Bethesda titles didn't have this issue, and when playing games like Skyrim or Fallout 3, I always endeavoured to travel to every corner of the map, just to see what might be there. I felt no inclination to do anything of the sort during my time playing Starfield.

This probably sounds like an overly negative review considering that I'm recommending the game, but I did genuinely enjoy it as a whole, and I had a lot of fun with it. It just kinda saddens me to see Bethesda take this approach where they focus more on being a sort of action/adventure game first, and an RPG second, rather than truly focusing on RPG elements. This started with Fallout 4, and it's more of the same here again. A lot of the choices the player is presented with are more like illusions of choice rather than actual choices. I'd say that a majority (not all) of the choices you can make in this game end up leading you to the same end result, just maybe with a couple of different lines of dialogue. I don't like that I can sign up for the Crimson Fleet only to then go sign up for the Freestar Rangers and complete both quest lines at once. It makes player choice feel like it doesn't truly matter. No matter what I did, it seemed like I was always eligible to go join the opposing faction later and play through their stuff. I'd much rather I had to deal with the consequences of my choices, rather than it being some half-assed in between that lets me just do literally anything I want for the entire game, even if I made a contradicting choice earlier. I could rant about the perk system in relation to this as well, but I won't.

Overall, if you liked Fallout 4, you'll probably like Starfield. It's more of the same, but in space, and I'd argue it improves on Fallout 4 in almost every way. I'll probably return and play through it again in like 6 months after modders have had a while to do some crazy stuff. Who knows, maybe they'll turn it into a Star Wars game. That would be cool.