I had super high hopes for this game. I hope its not abandoned completely and we can retry for a starfield 2 in the future. It has a great concept.
this post was submitted on 10 May 2025
389 points (97.6% liked)
Games
38529 readers
1733 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here and here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Literally just No Man's Sky but worse.
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.
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).
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(13 replies)
I never played it, but believed the reviews that stated that there was basically no real metaplot, and there was a mini game involving floating through stars when you found an alien artifact that you couldn't skip after the first time.
Oh, and no real aliens.
WTF Bethesda?
load more comments
(5 replies)
That’s how projects go. But I bet it happens faster when enthusiasm for a game has the curve this title did.
People still care about Starfield in 2025? I thought everyone went back to Skyrim a year ago.
Yes. I enjoy the game. I wasn't expecting Star Wars, and therefore I was not disappointed. I got a Bethesda style take on Elite Dangerous or Star Citizen, without an always online multiplayer requirement or getting a game still in the alpha stages of development for the last 10 years.
While there are certain elements that I don't like, they are small issues that mods can easily fix. I cannot do that with Elite or Star Citizen. And unfortunately, this genre of games is incredibly tiny. Like, basically the only other option I haven't mentioned is EVE Online. No thanks.
load more comments
(8 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
I am a huge BGS and "game cinema" fan, and Starfield felt so... boring. Both the first bit I played before I dropped it, and YT videos to see what I was missing.
For lack of another explanation, its like all those fun side quests and nooks individual writers went crazy making lost their spark. Even ME Andromeda had more compelling bits.
So I can see modders shying away. Why put all that work into something one has no desire to replay, especially with the alternatives we have these days.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The problems with Starfield aren't so much the bugs as they are fundamental, often dated, design issues. Here's a sort of Let's Play from a podcast I follow with one guy who loves trying to bend sandbox simulations to the point of breaking and a gal who writes comedy. Around the 10m mark, you can start to see where this sandbox should have accounted for this kind of play. If you can't simultaneously do that while making a galaxy with 1000 planets, then you should probably scope down until you can. Starfield is not a terrible game, but Bethesda needs to evolve.
It's not that it's outdated, oblivion does this sort of thing. It's that starfield just isn't good, and the older titles are better
It can be both. It was impressive when Oblivion had 7 different interlocking systems but none of them were particularly good, but these days, I think we expect at least one or two of them to be significantly better.
The story is bad, the ship’s weapons selection is terrible, the outposts are almost useless, the temples are ridiculous, the powers are mostly unnecessary and soooo mmmaaannnyyy loading screens….
It's Skyrim with a coat of lead paint.
It's been clear for over a decade that the Creation Engine (let's be honest it's still Gamebryo) has run its course. It is not a viable option for a modern game anymore. It has architectural limitations that simply prevent a modern gaming experience.
There have been so many Creation Engine apologists since Oblivion trying to justify its continued existence through multiple new Fallout and Elder Scrolls games, always trying to say that it's fine. Starfield was the chance to prove that the limitations aren't actually architectural and that it could be used for a modern game. Clearly that's not the case. Taking just about any other modern open world RPG to directly compare, Starfield feels like crap in comparison. Hell, even the launch version of Cyberpunk felt better than Starfield does now.
load more comments
(6 replies)
"Starfield is my dream game."
-Todd Howard
"The game is perfect, upgrade your ghetto ass computer." -Todd Howard
load more comments
(5 replies)
one guy who loves trying to bend sandbox simulations to the point of breaking and a gal who writes comedy
Abby and Vinny from Giant Bomb Beastcast