Starfield crosses 13 million players as Bethesda Game Studios confirms Shattered Space expansion is coming in 2024

I like Starfield. I always look forward to returning to that world. However, I've never seen so much negativity about a game on the Internet, and, yes, I do remember Cyberpunk 2077. This is worse for a game with far fewer bugs. YouTubers and most of the people doing write-ups now (2-3 months post launch) seem to view it as a failure, something I'm glad is inconsistent with the numbers reported here. I would say it's just PlayStation fans who have a grudge, and that might explain some of it, but not all of it.

The common theme among critics (and I agree that these are weak points):

1. What was annoying but acceptable as jankiness in Skyrim or Fallout is no longer acceptable in 2023, now in a world with games like Red Dead Redemption 2, Cyberpunk 2077, and Baldur's Gate 3. Specifically, loading screens, lack of motion capture for facial animation of major NPCs, and other things that just feel painfully dated.

2. What has always made Bethesda games fun was the wandering exploration and stumbling upon interesting quests. Because of the nature of required fast travel to get everywhere, this core strength of prior games has been destroyed.

I'm hopeful the upcoming updates address some or all of these concerns. Either way, personally I love the game. I don't disagree with the criticism. On the contrary, I strongly agree with the two points above. But I also really enjoy its positives. For example, I do appreciate how huge Starfield is. I like exploring the planets and try to get every planet I land on to 100% explored (that's an in-game thing meaning you've explored it enough to have discovered its special features, studied the various flora, fauna, and found all of its minable materials, which does not actually mean you've seen the entire planet -- that would be impossible). I didn't expect to, but I love the shipbuilder. I never cared much about building settlements in Fallout (and don't care much about outposts in Starfield), but I find I care about my ship. I also think the dialog is fine. It's Bethesda dialog, which means that every character you meet tells you their personality and motivations as soon as they meet you and then instantly trusts you enough to ask you for a personal favor. It's goofy, but, it's fine. But I love just how much there is. That's the core way they give you the story and background lore, and for me, those are hugely important, so more dialog usually means a better, more engaging story. Combat is good for an RPG, especially the new twists with the jetpack. And the hand-crafted locations are excellent, big enough to get lost in. I wish there were more because it's all so spread out, but there is a lot (Bethesda says more than in any prior game) and what's there is great.

GraniteStateColin said:

I like Starfield. I always look forward to returning to that world. However, I've never seen so much negativity about a game on the Internet, and, yes, I do remember Cyberpunk 2077. This is worse for a game with far fewer bugs. YouTubers and most of the people doing write-ups now (2-3 months post launch) seem to view it as a failure, something I'm glad is inconsistent with the numbers reported here. I would say it's just PlayStation fans who have a grudge, and that might explain some of it, but not all of it.

The common theme among critics (and I agree that these are weak points):

1. What was annoying but acceptable as jankiness in Skyrim or Fallout is no longer acceptable in 2023, now in a world with games like Red Dead Redemption 2, Cyberpunk 2077, and Baldur's Gate 3. Specifically, loading screens, lack of motion capture for facial animation of major NPCs, and other things that just feel painfully dated.

2. What has always made Bethesda games fun was the wandering exploration and stumbling upon interesting quests. Because of the nature of required fast travel to get everywhere, this core strength of prior games has been destroyed.

I'm hopeful the upcoming updates address some or all of these concerns. Either way, personally I love the game. I don't disagree with the criticism. On the contrary, I strongly agree with the two points above. But I also really enjoy its positives. For example, I do appreciate how huge Starfield is. I like exploring the planets and try to get every planet I land on to 100% explored (that's an in-game thing meaning you've explored it enough to have discovered its special features, studied the various flora, fauna, and found all of its minable materials, which does not actually mean you've seen the entire planet -- that would be impossible). I didn't expect to, but I love the shipbuilder. I never cared much about building settlements in Fallout (and don't care much about outposts in Starfield), but I find I care about my ship. I also think the dialog is fine. It's Bethesda dialog, which means that every character you meet tells you their personality and motivations as soon as they meet you and then instantly trusts you enough to ask you for a personal favor. It's goofy, but, it's fine. But I love just how much there is. That's the core way they give you the story and background lore, and for me, those are hugely important, so more dialog usually means a better, more engaging story. Combat is good for an RPG, especially the new twists with the jetpack. And the hand-crafted locations are excellent, big enough to get lost in. I wish there were more because it's all so spread out, but there is a lot (Bethesda says more than in any prior game) and what's there is great.

The answer is simpler: look to the sources of the bad reviews and bad mouthing and they were all violently opposed to MS buying Activision. Some are offended XBOX exists at all. Because "Microsoft is too big as is". (Some like METRO are pathological about it, openly hoping STARFIELD underperforms so "Microsoft shorts their pay". Look it up. As if they forgot BETHESDA *is* microsoft, not a contractor.) IGN has a similar history. They all are smarting that MS won that one.

Starfield is exactly what Starfield needed it to be: an open-ended "SKYRIM IN SPACE". And it is that because SKYRIM has sold 60 Million copies and is still selling 12 years after release. How stupid would a developer have to be to choose *not* to build a game the same way as SKYRIM?

STARFIELD is built along the same trio of exploration, discovery, and experimentation, but with a fourth mechanic of *expandability*. Their version of New Game+ turns the base game into a framework into which MODs and DLC expansions, both free and paid, can be plugged in. Those empty worlds? Room for new creatures, cultures, factions, gear, and quests.

Anybody familiar with mods on FALLOUT 4 and SKYRIM knows exactly hoe STARFIELD is going to evolve. And no amount of internet chatter about "Bethesda's approach is dated" is going to change a thing.

Because not only is STARFIELD the answer to Bethesda fans' expectations, it is *exactly* the answer to MICROSOFT's needs for Game Pass: a perennial time sink game players will come back to over and over, year after year. And along with them, new gamers wondering what it is that keeps that game alive and prospering year after year, long after the flavor of the week, the game of the year, whatever the gaming media is pushing this week,is long gone.

Sony is pinning for "eternal" service games?
MS has a bunch and STARFIELD is one.

Sit back and watch the user numbers grow, some paying direct, some paying via Game Pass. Either way, MS wins again and that infuriates the haters even more.

But unlike the Hulk, the angrier they get, the weaker their stories get.
Ignore them and move on.

They don't matter.

fjtorres5591 said:

The answer is simpler: look to the sources of the bad reviews and bad mouthing and they were all violently opposed to MS buying Activision. Some are offended XBOX exists at all. Because "Microsoft is too big as is". (Some like METRO are pathological about it, openly hoping STARFIELD underperforms so "Microsoft shorts their pay". Look it up. As if they forgot BETHESDA *is* microsoft, not a contractor.) IGN has a similar history. They all are smarting that MS won that one.

Starfield is exactly what Starfield needed it to be: an open-ended "SKYRIM IN SPACE". And it is that because SKYRIM has sold 60 Million copies and is still selling 12 years after release. How stupid would a developer have to be to choose *not* to build a game the same way as SKYRIM?

STARFIELD is built along the same trio of exploration, discovery, and experimentation, but with a fourth mechanic of *expandability*. Their version of New Game+ turns the base game into a framework into which MODs and DLC expansions, both free and paid, can be plugged in. Those empty worlds? Room for new creatures, cultures, factions, gear, and quests.

Anybody familiar with mods on FALLOUT 4 and SKYRIM knows exactly hoe STARFIELD is going to evolve. And no amount of internet chatter about "Bethesda's approach is dated" is going to change a thing.

Because not only is STARFIELD the answer to Bethesda fans' expectations, it is *exactly* the answer to MICROSOFT's needs for Game Pass: a perennial time sink game players will come back to over and over, year after year. And along with them, new gamers wondering what it is that keeps that game alive and prospering year after year, long after the flavor of the week, the game of the year, whatever the gaming media is pushing this week,is long gone.

Sony is pinning for "eternal" service games?
MS has a bunch and STARFIELD is one.

Sit back and watch the user numbers grow, some paying direct, some paying via Game Pass. Either way, MS wins again and that infuriates the haters even more.

But unlike the Hulk, the angrier they get, the weaker their stories get.
Ignore them and move on.

They don't matter.

@fjtorres5591 , I agree and love the game, but I also think there are some (don't know if it's a minority or the majority) who wanted to love it, tried, and just found the faults too painful. I don't share the perspective, but I do believe a notable number of real players feel that way.

Ideally, Bethesda can react to the criticism in a positive way and make changes that all of us see as improvements (including those who already enjoy the game). This is obviously what CDPR did: I loved Cyberpunk 2077 from the outset too (well, after the initial patch to fix the worst of the bugs like clipping and falling through the ground) -- it was a character and story-based game, and those facets were peerlessly great from launch -- but their subsequent improvements to win back the critics only made the game even better for all of us.

Some of the things Todo Howard said they did to make the game more fun sound like options they should have left in the game for harder difficulty levels, like fueling requirements to travel certain distances and the need for proper protections on certain planets.

For me, I just don't like how frequently I keep reaching the same factility I already cleared. That is very unlike Skyrim and Fallout and happens too often (once in a while, I would understand is unavoidable, but even then, they could reuse the building while still providing multiple different uses and starting positions by inhabitants -- maybe work on the logic to allow parts of that to be randomized). I also don't care for all the jumping and running across planets. Very goofy mechanic (for me). A surface buggy or improved jetpack would make that much more enjoyable and make exploring planet surfaces a lot more fun.