Skyrim lead thinks Starfield “would be talked about like the second coming” if a new studio made it, but “expectations were so much higher” with Bethesda

Nah it wouldn’t.

I wanted it to be good, but I didn’t enjoy it.

Absolutely not. I love a lot about Starfield, especially the aesthetics and the way it connects the different factions into a full universe. Skyrim tells lot of stories side by side, but Starfield tells them interconnected, which is a huge step forward. Also, I love how every time I come to a new Space Station or Planet, it feels like the beginning of a new sci fi movie.

But the fact of the matter is that they fucked it up bigly with their procedurally generated content. It’s too much slog. Nobody wants to play that, it actively makes exploration vastly less interesting than in other games.

Starfield would be a hell of a game if they shrinked it down to a single star system full of handcrafted content. But the actual game is way too big for its own good.

If it came out before no mans sky and cyberpunk existed then perhaps, I’d argue that it launched in a better state than either of them, but not many people are interested in a jack of all trades master of none combination of the two. That’s the problem with making innovative games that have huge development times, you have no idea what the market will be like when you’re ready to launch. I think they should’ve made Starfield more of a AA sized side project game, kind of like Obsidian did with Pentiment.

I mean… yeah. People don’t expect much from Johnny Noname, but when Martin Scorcese puts out something they expect a little more quality.

No, starfield was the gaming equivalent of boiled chicken from a restaurant that used to make fried chicken.

Nope, wrong again, next!

It’s fine, but there are a ton of problems, and that’s not even related to the comparisons to Skyrim. Starfield is seen as mid by many because it didn’t give them what they wanted from it. Doesn’t matter if it was another studio or not it the same flaws were still a thing.
Starfield was the next Bethesda game and it was hyped up to be the next Skyrim, it just wasn’t on the level of Skyrim which is what people wanted to be, especially the Gaming News Sites and YouTube channels that really wanted content on Starfield to give them the clicks that the content of Skyrim did.

No it wouldn’t. It wasn’t a good game the design of the game was fundamentally flawed.

Letting another studio handle starfield 2.0 is probably the right move, it worked for cyberpunk

Uh…no…

I’d say “damn, that studio is one to keep an eye on. They tried a bunch of similar things to Bethesda, and almost stuck the landing on a couple of them. With a little more experience, they could be great.”

That compliment doesn’t really work when it’s directed at the studio that created the gameplay loop decades ago and somehow not only didn’t iterate on it, but made it worse this time.

I think it was actually just really boring

I would’ve preferred it been a trainwreck. At least there would’ve been something to talk about

Not even remotely true. If anything the reviews would be worse if it didn’t have the monoliths that are MS and Bethesda behind it, game has so many issues.

lol coping. I would have been like “man this has that Bethesda feel but just doesn’t hit like their games.”😂It’s not a bad game, but it’s not the second coming of Skyrim like the thought it’d be. And they are mad they can’t rebundle the game the next 20 years while they keep pushing off Fallout 5 and ES6.

If the powers were fun and worth using without doing the loop 2 dozen times, that might have helped.

Imagine the shouts in Skyrim gave you 0.02% faster attack speed for 4 seconds, or cast a version of fireball that did 1 damage. Nobody would have cared about shouts. People wouldn’t have tattoos of the damn dragon language.

Make your games fun if you want people to like them.