an honest 32 hours played review ★★★☆☆

[Æternum]

After dedicating a substantial 32 hours to exploring the vast universe of Starfield, I'm here to offer my thoughts on Bethesda's ambitious cosmic adventure. While the game shows tremendous promise, it also leaves room for improvement, with a unique take on load screens and some concerns about NPC models.

First, let's acknowledge the awe-inspiring beauty of Starfield's expansive universe. The attention to detail in crafting diverse planets and captivating space environments is undeniably praiseworthy. Navigating my spaceship through the boundless cosmos remains an exhilarating experience, and the ability to customize my ship adds a personal touch to the journey.

The narrative, although still unfolding at my 32-hour mark, holds considerable potential. The lore is engaging, and the characters hint at intriguing depths, beckoning me to delve further into the mysteries of the universe. Bethesda's storytelling prowess is evident, and I eagerly anticipate uncovering more of the overarching plot.

However, not all aspects of this cosmic voyage shine brightly. Technical issues, such as noticeable frame rate drops and distracting texture pop-ins, do break immersion and require attention from the developers. These hiccups, while not game-breaking, do detract from the overall experience.

Another aspect worth mentioning is the jarring appearance of NPC models. While the universe of Starfield is visually stunning, the character models, at times, fall short of the same level of detail. This disparity can create a disconnect between the player and the in-game inhabitants, impacting the overall sense of immersion.

It's essential to remember that Starfield is, foremost, an RPG in space rather than a space simulator. This distinction becomes apparent when considering the game's unique approach to load screens. The frequent transitions between points of interest (PoIs) might raise eyebrows initially, but they serve a practical purpose in keeping the RPG experience focused and engaging. They effectively prevent the tedium of extended space travel, ensuring swift progression and exploration within the context of a role-playing game

In conclusion, Starfield is an intriguing space adventure with a wealth of promise, albeit with some notable drawbacks. With 32 hours invested, I appreciate the grand scale and potential that the game offers. Nevertheless, technical issues persist and there is room for greater gameplay diversity. The NPC model quality can be jarring in contrast to the game's stunning universe. The unique approach to load screens, while initially surprising, ultimately enhances gameplay efficiency. With continued updates and refinements, Starfield could very well evolve into a must-play space exploration game, but it has a way to go before reaching its full potential.

[Mister Burkes]

People who try to defend this game by saying its a RPG in Space need to realize that the Mass Effect Trilogy is the only other AAA RPG in Space and is one of the all time greats, whereas Starfield is not.

[Maligner]

Originally posted by Mister Burkes:

People who try to defend this game by saying its a RPG in Space need to realize that the Mass Effect Trilogy is the only other AAA RPG in Space and is one of the all time greats, whereas Starfield is not.

That is your opinion. Never finished a mass effect game, I just don't get into them for different reasons. So far liking this one much better. Subjective.

[katzenkrimis]

Originally posted by ÆTERNUM:

An RPG in space.

It's not a role-playing game. It's an action/adventure.

Back to the drawing board.

I'll consider your review a rough draft.

[Mister Burkes]

Originally posted by Maligner:

Originally posted by Mister Burkes:

People who try to defend this game by saying its a RPG in Space need to realize that the Mass Effect Trilogy is the only other AAA RPG in Space and is one of the all time greats, whereas Starfield is not.

That is your opinion. Never finished a mass effect game, I just don't get into them for different reasons. So far liking this one much better. Subjective.

Not that subjective, considering EA has re-released the Trilogy a couple of times now similar to how Bethesda re-releases Skyrim, and EA will probably remake the Trilogy in the future.

[Maligner]

Originally posted by katzenkrimis:

Originally posted by ÆTERNUM:

An RPG in space.

It's not a role-playing game. It's an action/adventure.

Back to the drawing board.

I'll consider your review a rough draft.

Why isn't it an RPG? I'm asking rhetorically because you are wrong and I really don't understand what your fuss is. If you don't like the game, move on. The guy is trying to help and made a nice post and you're here being not so nice by spinning reality with your preference.

[Grim@FU_BARRACUDA]

"Navigating my spaceship through the boundless cosmos remains an exhilarating experience"

Um, all I hear over and over again on this forum is that this ^^ is a lie. Can someone please confirm that or am i wrong?

Of course I want to apologize if I'm wrong ;-)

[Maligner]

Originally posted by Truth@silenced :-/:

"Navigating my spaceship through the boundless cosmos remains an exhilarating experience"

Um, all I hear over and over again on this forum is that this ^^ is a lie. Can someone please confirm that or am i wrong?

Of course I want to apologize if I'm wrong ;-)

No it's not a lie. Navigation is just that. I'd say that people instead misunderstand navigating to mean precisely controlling, or flying. It's important to understand that all the games that the upset people use to compare the space flight also require things like warping, warp gates, etc. There are basically zero games that let you simply fly across the cosmos, because to do so would take days, months, years. There are instead made up ways to quickly traverse. These methods vary depending on the game. Different people prefer different methods. Even the most physically based space sim, Kerbal Space Program, uses time progression because actually flying the ship takes days, months, years and is boring. What is fun is NAVIGATING, which is setting course, watching the shortened journey and imaging you are somewhere that you really aren't.

[Grim@FU_BARRACUDA]

Originally posted by Maligner:

Originally posted by Truth@silenced :-/:

"Navigating my spaceship through the boundless cosmos remains an exhilarating experience"

Um, all I hear over and over again on this forum is that this ^^ is a lie. Can someone please confirm that or am i wrong?

Of course I want to apologize if I'm wrong ;-)

No it's not a lie. Navigation is just that. I'd say that people instead misunderstand navigating to mean precisely controlling, or flying. It's important to understand that all the games that the upset people use to compare the space flight also require things like warping, warp gates, etc. There are basically zero games that let you simply fly across the cosmos, because to do so would take days, months, years. There are instead made up ways to quickly traverse. These methods vary depending on the game. Different people prefer different methods. Even the most physically based space sim, Kerbal Space Program, uses time progression because actually flying the ship takes days, months, years and is boring. What is fun is NAVIGATING, which is setting course, watching the shortened journey and imaging you are somewhere that you really aren't.

I should have been more precise. Sorry, I'm talking about this "boundless cosmos" ;-)

[Maligner]

Originally posted by Truth@silenced :-/:

Originally posted by Maligner:

No it's not a lie. Navigation is just that. I'd say that people instead misunderstand navigating to mean precisely controlling, or flying. It's important to understand that all the games that the upset people use to compare the space flight also require things like warping, warp gates, etc. There are basically zero games that let you simply fly across the cosmos, because to do so would take days, months, years. There are instead made up ways to quickly traverse. These methods vary depending on the game. Different people prefer different methods. Even the most physically based space sim, Kerbal Space Program, uses time progression because actually flying the ship takes days, months, years and is boring. What is fun is NAVIGATING, which is setting course, watching the shortened journey and imaging you are somewhere that you really aren't.

I should have been more precise. Sorry, I'm talking about this "boundless cosmos" ;-)

Apparently, there's a video that someone made that they flew over several hours to another planet. So if that's accurate, you can in fact fly for hours to get from one place to another. Sounds large. I'm not sure what "boundless" has to do with it. I don't think there's a single game that is boundless. The biggest games, Elite Dangerous and EVE Online, have boundaries. So whether it's strictly true or not is meaningless. If anyone is making hay about whether it's boundless in Starfield, they're just looking for more reasons to complain.

[Aether_Fox]

Originally posted by katzenkrimis:

Originally posted by ÆTERNUM:

An RPG in space.

It's not a role-playing game. It's an action/adventure.

Back to the drawing board.

I'll consider your review a rough draft.

Might want to look at the actual tags on the game itself it says "RPG". You take a role as whatever you want to do and gain levels and items, i guess that isn't an RPG according to you.
Boy i love when smug people look like asshats.

[Mister Burkes]

Originally posted by Maligner:

Originally posted by Truth@silenced :-/:

"Navigating my spaceship through the boundless cosmos remains an exhilarating experience"

Um, all I hear over and over again on this forum is that this ^^ is a lie. Can someone please confirm that or am i wrong?

Of course I want to apologize if I'm wrong ;-)

No it's not a lie. Navigation is just that. I'd say that people instead misunderstand navigating to mean precisely controlling, or flying. It's important to understand that all the games that the upset people use to compare the space flight also require things like warping, warp gates, etc. There are basically zero games that let you simply fly across the cosmos, because to do so would take days, months, years. There are instead made up ways to quickly traverse. These methods vary depending on the game. Different people prefer different methods. Even the most physically based space sim, Kerbal Space Program, uses time progression because actually flying the ship takes days, months, years and is boring. What is fun is NAVIGATING, which is setting course, watching the shortened journey and imaging you are somewhere that you really aren't.

No, it's immersion breaking and lackluster compared to space games from 20+ years ago like Freelancer. Two examples below:

Freelancer: You have to enter space hyperlanes to travel between systems, but all the systems are interconnected, you watch in realtime as you move along the hyperlane and you can exit the hyperlane at anytime. Sometimes ships will be traveling alongside you in the hyperlane until they exit at their preferred destination.

Everspace 2: You can pull up nearby systems/planets/POIs similar to Starfield's UI, but once you start jumping, it's in real time, not a loading screen, new POIs can popup on your sensors while you're jumping, and again, you can exit out of it at anytime. It's quite common to be jumping towards a distant POI only to pickup new interesting POIs and you decide to take a detour.

Starfield: You can pull up nearby planets/systems on your UI, then you press X and you get a loading screen and then appear at that system.

[Sifer2]

Originally posted by Mister Burkes:

People who try to defend this game by saying its a RPG in Space need to realize that the Mass Effect Trilogy is the only other AAA RPG in Space and is one of the all time greats, whereas Starfield is not.

That's debatable actually. Mass Effect 1+2 were good. 3 was meh. 4 was terrible.

And the defense of Starfield being an RPG not a sim are legitimate. If you compare it to say Star Citizen or Elite dangerous they are entirely different types of games. Those other games do very impressively simulate space travel. In Starfield not only do you fast travel everywhere you don't even require ship fuel. It's just like Mass Effect in that sense.

[Grim@FU_BARRACUDA]

Originally posted by Maligner:

Originally posted by Truth@silenced :-/:

I should have been more precise. Sorry, I'm talking about this "boundless cosmos" ;-)

Apparently, there's a video that someone made that they flew over several hours to another planet. So if that's accurate, you can in fact fly for hours to get from one place to another. Sounds large. I'm not sure what "boundless" has to do with it. I don't think there's a single game that is boundless. The biggest games, Elite Dangerous and EVE Online, have boundaries. So whether it's strictly true or not is meaningless. If anyone is making hay about whether it's boundless in Starfield, they're just looking for more reasons to complain.

Well, that line implies something that might not be true. But I agree with you anyway, maybe I really just wanted to find something negative here ;-)

[VonFIDDE]

I really struggle with Starfield, it feels very dated. Skyrim and Fallout had more immersion, sure the game has better combat now but it's still average at best (Cyberpunk combat blows it away). Starfield do not excel at anything really and it's a big shame.

[Firmamento]

Originally posted by Mister Burkes:

People who try to defend this game by saying its a RPG in Space need to realize that the Mass Effect Trilogy is the only other AAA RPG in Space and is one of the all time greats, whereas Starfield is not.

Much rather play this than any Mass Effect game. I need more game than that, same boy thing good was some of the story stuff everything else a chore.