I played 300 hours of this game when it came out and stopped playing right before the final mission.
You can definitely tell it all went wrong when they decided to do thousands of procedural generated worlds instead of a tight dozen or so.
Another aspect where they went wrong was having the Constilation home base be on the capital planet instead of being your space ship. You know, like how it is on every sci-fi show from Firefly, to Star Trek, to The Expanse.
I’ve played so many Bethesda games that the tricks they used to make the engine and environments seem larger and more sophisticated stick out like a sore thumb.
All that is to say, there was absolutely a great game in Starfield somewhere.
It amazes me that people are talking about this garbage game in 2026. I got it for free a few years ago and couldn’t be arsed to actually play it once I realized how boring it was
Nononno, you don’t understand, with the new update it finally got even more boring and we have new expensive ships.
You bought a Bethesda game before a community patch was available.
They knew what they were doing.
That doesnt work this time because the modding community abandoned it quickly after launch due to them just not enjoying the game enough to work on it – I was expecting to do this one with VR but it remains unfinished
Still does because they should just continue to wait until it’s there before buying.
They saw the mess it was on PC and somehow thought it was going to be a good idea to buy it?..
So a normal Bethesda launch. Has no one told these “gamers” what they were buying?
on Playstation no less, notoriously shit at running bethesda games (see new vegas)
New Vegas wasn’t a Bethesda game, it was developed by Obsidian and only published by Bethesda. Sure, it runs on Fallout 3s game engine, but Fallout 3 is more stable on PS3 than New Vegas.
I hate Sony, but New Vegas getting cherry picked here for instability is laughable when New Vegas is widely known as perhaps the least stable game published by Bethesda.
Compared to New Vegas, Starfield is a vastly better and more stable game on a technical level. Sure the writing isnt better, but the mechanical parts of the game are. In my experience, I couldn’t play New Vegas for 10 consecutive minutes without the game crashing. Repeatedly. New Vegas crashed more than Cyberpunk 2077 ever did. Meanwhile Starfield only ever crashed once. And thats all on PC.
I feel like Bethesda had their moment in the sun with Skyrim and Fallout 3, but since those days they really haven’t made a big RPG that’s felt good.
And as I enter hour 120+ in Kingdom Come Deliverance 2, still happily playing DLC and side quests, I can’t imagine wanting to go back to play a Bethesda RPG. They’ve been lapped, in my opinion, at this point.
They’re still in an Xbox 360 mindset, in a world where Baldur’s Gate 3 and KCD2 exist.
Action gamers are spoiled for choice. RPG gamers are spoiled for choice. I just don’t see where Bethesda’s “here’s a wonky game engine and a big map” approach fits in that.
But Bethesda aren’t really being punished for it because tons of people are still buying it and might have no idea games like KCDII or even a fixed-up CP2077 exist.
Are they buying it though? Or are they just playing on Game Pass and cancelling again?
I think MS bought them for what they publish (id, Arkane, MachineGames, etc) rather than what they make. With MS taking over publishing duty, Bethesda Studios could be a lot closer to the chopping block than they think. It’s been a long time since Skyrim (close to 15 years at this point), and even big studios only get so many tries to get lighting in a bottle again.
The thing is you can do massive maps without having to use something custom. So they really have no excuse for continuing to stick with their massively out of date wonkfest of an engine
Even the “big map” thing is done better by other companies at this point.
There’s basically one loading screen in KCD2 (besides pure fast travel) and it’s between the two giant maps in the game. Otherwise, you can walk Henry’s silly ass from one end of the map to the other and go into any number of buildings and never see a loading screen.
And most games do this type of asset streaming now, so when Bethesda rolls up with a “open world” RPG with loading screens all over the place it’s like “what is this?”
But can I loot endless amounts of garbage and then force shopkeepers to buy all of it? Because that’s kinda why I play them
Yep.
Have you tried KCDII? Stuff to hoard/sell is everywhere, albeit a bit more realistically.
I mean, sure, you can put 1,000 sandwiches in one room and put a bucket over the shop keeper to fool them.
But after you do that once is it really that fun?
Yes
Yes
Maybe they need to upgrade their PS5
The game was trash on the PC, and they thought that downgrading it to a console was going to make it playable?
I recently tried playing it again, and I wouldn’t say it’s “trash”. Yes, they completely dropped the ball on the exploration part of their exploration game, but the meat and bones of a Bethesda RPG are still in there. It’s a good time for anyone bored of replaying Skyrim and/or Fallout if you get it on sale.
Also it runs perfectly on Linux
The thing that ruined it for me was the story just kinda falls apart and the society they made seems laughably small, like total universe has like 30,000 total people in it. Then you add in the loading into loading to watch a cutscene to cover a loading of the next area and the kinda bad ship combat. Eh the end result is not the worst game, but not a game that anyone should pay more then like $15 for.
This sad excuse of wasted dev keystrokes is not even comparable to skyrim and fallout, not adjusted for the time of release or even otherwise
This. Bethesda cheaped out on environmental storytelling and fleshed out characters (which is unfortunate since that’s their thing). But the systems they’ve built up in Creation Engine have gotten really good
No surprise there, Bethesda didn’t fix shit for any of the re-re-re-re-releases of Skyrim, why would anyone think they’d do that for Starfield?
didn’t fix shit for any of the re-re-re-re-releases of Skyrim
Skyrim Special Edition was built for x64 architecture (the original was on x32), is significantly more stable, and supports 4096+254 plugin files (vs 255 in the original). The modding scene has only gotten better frome the update. And let’s not forget the VR support.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. They didn’t change any of the gameplay because 1: the base game is still fun to play and 2: people already mod the hell out of it to fit what they want
USSEP is still around the last time I checked.
Porting a buggy game on a technically satisfactory level does not excuse porting the games with the bugs included.
UESP has existed since like 6 months after the original release of Skyrim and addresses hundreds if not thousands of bugs from minor to quest breaking.
Why go through the effort of a remaster if you can’t address basic gameplay bugs?
Except it wasn’t intended to be a remaster. They used Skyrim as a testbed to overhaul the Creation Engine to x64 to prepare it for Fallout 4, and by the end of it they effectively had a new, more stable version of Skyrim so they released it for free to everyone that already had the base game and DLC’s.
And this was mainly a project for the engine developers. All of the artists, level designers, etc. were focussed on Fallout 4 at the time.
EDIT: You also seem to be unaware that the USSEP is also notorious for taking artistic license with some of their “fixes”. Such as making the Warrior Stone apply to archery instead of the Thief Stone and changing the ores in Redbelly Mine from ebony to iron despite there being good lore reasons for them to be ebony
Its literally called a remastered in its own release materials. What strain of skooma are you huffing?
You dont need artists for bug fixes. You dont need level designers for bug fixes. You just need someone to care enough to get the work done. Todd doesnt care. Todd never cared.
I liked Starfield (I even 100%ed the achievements on Steam). I also loved No Man’s Sky long before the shift in pubic sentiment towards it, so maybe I’m just weird. But if you’re reading this and thinking “this guy wouldn’t know a good game if it shat a voxel-based turd onto his chest”, you’re WRONG. I also loved MindsEye. So there.
Omg me too! Wasn’t there a marketing term for person that tends to buy only failed products and based on them liking a product they could predict whether it would fail or not? Always thought I’m one of those. Mafia 3 - loved it, but hated mafia 2. Love AC 1,3 and syndicate but didn’t vibe with 2 or black flag. Loved Borderlands 1, hated all the sequels etc. Still, I feel the hate against starfield is way overblown and there’s too much polarization. A game can be either great or awful, with no more room for meh games.
A game can be either great or awful, with no more room for meh games.
I think it’s more just that expectations are much higher for a AAA studio like Bethesda. They built so much hype and asked for nearly $100 at launch for a game that didn’t live up. There’s plenty of meh games out there, they’re just priced accordingly. There’s also a ton of really great games out there priced way lower than what AAA studios are asking. I think it’s very fair to hold those studios to a standard that reflects the prices they’re charging.
“Harbinger of failure” is the term you’re looking for. Not sure it applies here, though; I think most of these games were commercially successful.
And because I can’t resist sticking my own opinion everywhere, I personally thought Starfield had a ton of potential and squandered it with some highly questionable design choices and poor execution. Some of that may be fixed now, but some of it is baked in. There’s genuinely a lot to like, but as a whole I thought it was really dragged down by some of those bad decisions.
I also liked AC1, though, and was a little disappointed with 2. The first one was imperfect but bold and new and interesting. The second got rid of most of what made the first one unique in an effort to appeal to broader audiences. I still liked it, but it wasn’t special.
Yeah, no amount of mods will fix some of Starfield’s faults, but it foes have some of that old bethesda coziness, so it’s not all bad.
Starfield’s main issue is that it isn’t fleshed out as much as the other Bethesda games. And there’s a lot of mods to do that for Elder Scrolls and Fallout. The issue is that it didn’t capture enough attention to get as much TLC from the mod community
Imagine spending money on Starfield instead of NMS, eeeesh…
What year is it? Didn’t we already do this?
Not even a proper release on PS5. Glitchy as hell and not complete on disk for physical. Embarrassing.
Genuine question, are literally any PS5 gamed actually physically on the disk fully?
Yes, most.
Lol why downvote I haven’t bought a console since x360 I’m literally just asking
Tbh, their reply sounds like they’re making it up. Physical releases have been pretty notorious for not having the full game on disk and/or requiring massive day-1 patches the past decade
If you’re unsure you can use a website such as “does it play” but yes. Majority of games are shipped fully on the disk and installable and playable offline.
See and that’s what I’ve heard a lot of for the past like decade, but I really wasn’t sure how true that is lol
It’s not even fully on the disk. Trash release.
Hahahahahhaahaha…
Bethesda. Bethesda never changes.
Foos Raa GLITCHED!
LOL imagine creating a game that runs like total ass on a powerful PC and then releasing it on Playstation…
