Is Starfield a Disappointment?
2023 has been a great year for video games. Earlier this month, Baldur’s Gate 3 released to universal acclaim, becoming one of the highest rated video games of all time according to Metacritic. BG3 added to many outstanding releases that have already occurred this year, from The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom, long-awaited action RPG Diablo IV, surprise indie hits such as Hi-Fi Rush and Dave the Diver, and even to high-quality remakes of Metroid Prime, Resident Evil IV, and Dead Space.
So it was with a substantial measure of excitement when I refreshed my YouTube feed this morning in the hopes of celebrating one of the year’s most anticipated releases - Bethesda Game Studio’s Starfield.
Instead, the mood was unexpectedly muted. The first reviews I encountered were from major games media outlets IGN and GameSpot. Both gave Starfield an underwhelming 7 out of 10, reflecting a “good” game but one that falls short of greatness. Numeric scores are often misleading, and a messy topic worthy of its own post, but the tone of both reviews was unmistakable disappointment. Starfield had been promised as a journey to the stars, but it was struggling to get off the launchpad.
Video games come, video games go. An obvious question emerges - why does this matter?
It’s an even more pressing question in light of the fact that the vast majority of the discourse around Starfield will be from gamers such as myself who haven’t even had the chance to play it yet. Dig a bit deeper, however, and the inquiry over Starfield reveals more about the nature of expectations than it does about the game itself. The question is not “Is Starfield a good game?”, but rather “Is Starfield a disappointment?”. The nuance lies in the phenomenon of video game hype, the collective standards of excellence (or lack thereof) we apply to the media we consume, and how we parse an evolving video game landscape.
“Starfield is content to play it safe and stick to what works rather than ambitiously attempt to pioneer a new paradigm.”
Setting the Scene
The Game
For the uninitiated, some context.
Starfield is a brand new game from Bethesda Game Studios (BGS), a developer famous for hits such as Oblivion, Skyrim, and Fallout. The emphasis here is on new, as Starfield represents the first original IP for the studio in 25 years.
BGS is famous for a particular type of game - the open-world role-playing game. Explore an exotic landscape, meet intriguing characters, develop a variety of skills, and get lost in a captivating narrative. This compelling formula, in part popularized by BGS, is responsible for some of the most beloved games of the past decade, from BGS’s own Skyrim to Nintendo’s Breath of the Wild to PlayStation’s Horizon Zero Dawn.
The game is also exclusively available on PC and Xbox platforms, the result of Microsoft’s acquisition of BGS (under the Zenimax umbrella) for $7.5 billion in March of 2021. This is more than a footnote. Starfield represents the first major chance at a return on investment for Microsoft’s video game acquisition strategy, and was marketed as such. The importance of this wrinkle will be drawn out further later on.
As for the game itself, critics generally agree that Starfield depends firmly on Bethesda’s tried and true formula - open-world exploration, interaction with NPCs through a combination of main- and side-quest adventures, base building, and a robust skill tree to augment your character - but offers too little in the realm of innovation. It’s a fun game that fans of the studio will no doubt enjoy, but it is not a leap forward for the industry; in other words, Starfield is content to play it safe and stick to what works rather than ambitiously attempt to pioneer a new paradigm.
The Reception
Despite the sense of let down intimated by the likes of IGN and GameSpot, it is worth emphasizing that Starfield is a good game according to the majority of critics so far! It currently sits at a score of 87 out of 100 on Metacritic, based on 55 reviews. Even with the tendency for scores to drop by a few points in the weeks after their release, that is a still a very good, arguably great score.
So why the feeling of disappointment?
Relative competition is partly to blame. Starfield has the unenviable task of releasing in the wake of BG3, a game that sits at 96 on Metacritic, near universally beloved for its creativity, deep narrative, and level of polish. The other major AAA title of the year, The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom, also received a 96 and similar praise for its novel systems and clever gameplay. Inevitably, a game as big as Starfield (both in ambition and marketing) was going to be compared to these two goliaths.
Bethesda is also a victim of its own success. Aforementioned titles such as Skyrim and Fallout 3 dominated the video game world when they were released, capturing the collective imagination through exciting new worlds, gameplay systems, and stories. These games were not flawless, notable for having quite a few bugs upon release, but were creative and ambitious in a way that pushed the industry forward. Starfield, as of yet, doesn’t appear to be in the same conversation.
I would argue, however, that the largest source of disappointment stemmed from the psychology of expectations. These expectations, both real and imagined, fair and unfair, are the way in which Starfield is presented and received by the general public.
“It sticks to the familiar, and even then, it doesn’t get that right.”
Expectations
Expectations for Starfield, or any video game for that matter, are multifaceted. They are fabricated from the best reviewed games of a genre, games which have raised the bar in story, mechanics, setting, or all of the above. Once great games establish a new standard, new games must adhere to these best practices or risk being seen as outdated.
Expectations are also inherently connected to a studio’s reputation, with proven studios getting the benefit of the doubt from otherwise skeptical consumers, and unproven studios facing substantial cynicism.
There are also external considerations. Bethesda and Microsoft marketed Starfield heavily, putting the game at the center of an ongoing “console war” between PlayStation and Xbox. On those terms, Starfield is to be judged against games of completely separate genres, such as The Last of Us. The idea is not that Starfield must be a game similar in substance, but in quality.
Hype
Expectations are a two-way street. Eager gamers such as myself have grandiose ambitions for the new releases we are most excited for, consuming any media we can get our hands on in the lead up to a big release. This expectation is fed, however, by game studios who run a carefully coordinated marketing campaign intended to generate as much excitement as possible. This risks putting developers “out over their skis”, over-promising an experience they can’t quite deliver on.
There is a fine line between setting and manipulating expectations. No example better illustrates this phenomenon than developer CD Projekt Red’s 2020 release of Cyberpunk 2077. That studio, capitalizing off its landmark success in The Witcher 3, built arguable the largest hype machine for a video game that has ever been seen. Though internally developers knew the game was far from complete, the marketing team disingenuously put forward numerous pre-release marketing videos, a strong social media campaign, and an infamous Keanu Reeves reveal at E3 2019, all of which set the stage for an eventual massive disappointment when the game was released.
Hype is not an inherently bad thing. Frankly it is quite fun to get excited for a new game release, in the same way the anticipation builds before a new football season, or when Apple reveals its next iPhone. There is an understanding that it is a product and that it is the company’s job to generate excitement. Ultimately, however, that excitement must be attached to reality.
When my own hype builds for a game, it is under the expectation that I will be shown something at once familiar and unexpected. This paradox may sound unfair, but it has anchored the very best games for decades. Take the aforementioned highest-rated games this year - Tears of the Kingdom and Baldur’s Gate 3. Both are follow-ups from the same studio, mechanically and stylistically similar to the games that came directly before them, Breath of the Wild and Divinity Original Sin 2, respectively.
Upon release, gamers knew what type of game they were getting, but they still expected to be surprised. They were rewarded. The worlds were familiar - with Zelda literally using an augmented map from the previous game - but the experiences were delightfully novel. New game play mechanics, new and deeper narratives, and genuinely surprising moments were plentiful. These games are memorable not because they necessarily subvert expectations, but because they went above and beyond the already high expectations that gamers had.
Excellence
It is here where we return to Starfield.
20 years of Bethesda games meant that expectations were pretty firmly established in the lead up to Starfield. An exciting open world to explore, novel gameplay systems to tinker with, an intriguing and unravelling plot, and memorable encounters with NPCs - these were table stakes.
What is surprising about Starfield in the early commentary I’ve listened to is not only that it fails to consistently achieve the aforementioned criteria, but that it is content to forego innovation in favor of sticking to its 20+ year-old formula. It sticks to the familiar, and even then, it doesn’t get that right.
Of course, don’t take my word for it. In addition to the IGN and GameSpot reviews, I relied on and appreciated the various perspectives put forward by the KindaFunny crew.
Bethesda games have always featured quantity over quality, and Starfield is no different. Exploration is one area where this is apparent, with approximately 1000 planets to explore. It is rather baffling, then, a full 7 years after the fallout of another famous video game hype implosion - No Man’s Sky - that Bethesda followed the same formula of using procedural generation to create barren planets with disappointingly little novelty between them. Once you’ve seen one mining station on a far out planet, you’ve kind of seem them all.
Even more shockingly, the saving grace of NMS was the space travel system, which allowed players to traverse around planets and into space in a seamless fashion, providing that genuine feeling of exploration. Such a feeling is, as best I can tell from reviewers, entirely absent from Starfield! Rather, interplanetary travel is nested in a series of menu screens. Exploration, central to open world games and Bethesda's own legacy, feels like an afterthought here.
Inventory management is another area where you will hear even devoted fans groan. This feels particularly unforgivable given how many other games have experimented with and successfully developed good inventory systems. The KindaFunny reviewers were miffed - why does a game that insists on asking you to collect numerous resources refuse to develop a high-quality inventory system? It feels antiquated because it is, and either laziness or incompetence prevented them from improving it.
From my perspective, excellence in video games requires a combination of two things:
Polishing standard features so that they are the best quality of version of what already exists (e.g. making gunplay feel satisfying, because shooters have been around for decades now)
ANDPushing forward new innovations that were unexpected (e.g. Tears of the Kingdom’s UltraHand ability)
It is this combination of polish and innovation that separates the good games from the excellent. In this context, Starfield feels retread and unambitious.
Is Starfield a Disappointment?
Ultimately, expectations are in the eye of the beholder. For many like myself, seeing “good” reviews for a game with the pedigree of Starfield is a disappointment - nothing short of excellence is acceptable. To many others, dogged fans of Bethesda-type games or those who just want a new open world to explore, the opportunity to play a new science fiction game is more than enough to spur genuine excitement.
This piece is not intended to take away from any of those fans enjoyment, nor to insist that Starfield is a bad game. I haven’t played it, and thus have no serious or respectable opinions on that front.
Rather, my inquiry was to point out that my expectations had led to disappointment when I finally heard the reviews. Since disappointment is so clearly a function of expectations, here were mine:
I wanted to Starfield to tell an original and captivating science fiction story, complete with interesting characters, vibrant worlds, and compelling twists. I'm thinking of games like Mass Effect and Bioshock. By almost all accounts from reviewers, Starfield did not meet this bar.
I wanted groundbreaking combat systems, both in shooting mechanics and ship combat. Bethesda has precedent with this, with their VATS system in Fallout 3. The commentary here seems to be a mixed bag; combat is fun but not necessarily novel.
I wanted meaningful exploration driven by compelling side quests, chance encounters, and organic discoveries. Again, the commentary here is mixed. Some of what I hoped for exists, but it exists alongside samey quests and planets, making the game feel like a rinse and repeat.
Mostly, I wanted to be surprised. Whether from a new gameplay mechanic, a story beat, or from somewhere I’m not creative enough to imagine. The one area I see consistently pointed to as "novel" is the New Game+ system, which is very hush hush at the moment. Even so, no reviewer I've seen has said this system is incredible enough on its own to salvage the the other failings.
I expected a groundbreaking, novel experience from a studio who had delivered on these expectations before. On these terms, Starfield is a disappointment for me.
More of the same does not make for a bad game. Quite the contrary, I am such a big fan of open world games and science fiction that I am still really excited to jump into Starfield next week! And I know that in such a sprawling game, there will be plenty of moments that deliver on the promise.
There was a parallel universe, however, where I stumped up the $30 to start playing Starfield tonight. In this world, Bethesda had pushed the video game industry forward by offering me something I couldn’t get anywhere else. In this parallel universe, Starfield isn’t flawless (no game is), but it delivers audacity and excellence. It is a game that refuses to rest on its laurels through its vision, its execution, and its creativity.
Such a parallel universe is far from a fantasy. Starfield’s biggest impact so far is to remind me that I still have yet to finish a truly innovative game - I guess I’ll be playing more Tears of the Kingdom tonight.
