Support NeoGAF

[DragonNCM]

8 years in development and supposedly a budget in excess of $200M, so why are we still seeing posts such as "Bethesda games never had good graphics." "Bethesda games never had great gunplay." or any of those archaic defenses?

If it were 2007 with Oblivion, I'd wholeheartedly agree with and back those statements but this is 2023 and Bethesda is one of the biggest 1st-party studios backed by one of the richest corporations in the world. Why are we still holding them to the same standards as we did back in 2007? RDR2 apparently spent around 8 years in development as well and came out 5 years ago on much weaker machines so why does it look better than Starfield?

Other studios have since massively caught up with Bethesda and they're no longer the undisputed masters of living and breathing open-world games (although I'd argue they're still among the best). Can we please hold them to the same standards we hold every big devs like CD Projekt Red, Rockstar, Naughty Dog, and all the rest? No passes for shitty graphics, terrible animations or subpar combat.

Yesterday, all day I was playing side quest from Vanguard faction. I played more then 5 hours real time gameplay.
That side quest I didn't finished because it is gigantic & evolving all the time with new plots, story telling, new options (depends what you chose).
Please OP tell me what other game in 2023 is doing better open world questing, game physics & graphic in a same time ?
Rockstar is maybe close but CD Projekt Red, Naughty Dog and all the rest are mare friction what Bethesda is doing with their engine. Yeah there will be more patches that will strengthen the gameplay & graphic but this is clearly best
new game from Bethesda till today.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

The combat in Starfield is surprisingly good. Maybe because id was in on the development, I dont know. But its rare when an RPG like this also has great gunplay. Ive found myself leaning into the combat and seeking out bases to clear more than following quests because its so damn fun. And great feeling.

I normally go all in on melee in BGS titles but the combat in Starfield is very different. First off, melee sucks. But also, the gunplay is surprisingly good. So I don’t mind using guns.

My only complaint is no gore like you have in Fallout.

 

[CGNoire]

Also what other game where you can leave something or dead body’s at that. Go to different planets and missions. They still be there

Thats a design decision not a technical achievment in 2023.

 

[Dice]

I think they have improved a lot, but not enough. Despite large strides, they are still very far behind in both the look of characters and animating them as well as cinematic direction. They also really need to polish up the way different lines of conversation work into a single cohesive person/relationship because most of your companions come off as complete nutters.

Their combat has also improved a lot in terms of mechanics, far better than RDR2/GTA5 for example, however their use of it is extremely minimal. Starfield doesn't even really have any big encounters/moments like Skyrim did. Everything is squarely within your comfortable domain even if all the NPCs act like it was nearly the end of the world.

As for graphics, they have massively improved and there are few things with so much attention to detail and quality of lighting and mood. Does RDR2 look better? Fuck no. With that I think you might be entirely caught on character models or something.

So yeah, I do definitely think it feels too old even though they've added a lot of improvements. It reminds me of UE3 games that put a bunch of fancy layers on top but underneath all the structure fo it is still so old and you can just feel it. Their attempt at blending RPG and Action has kind of failed at both. It worked for very personal stories like in Skyrim, but it just isn't playing out well for a large scope civilization story like this.

So it is kind of hard to figure where it fits. On the one hand, it falls way below the best RPGs in its RPG-ness, yet it i doing waaaay more than those RPGs which pretty much focus entirely on playing out a linear story. It falls way below the best action games in the action, but those that beat it are basically a series of corridors and they do almost nothing else. Comparing what it offers to top general open world games like those from Rockstar, Ubisoft or others like Dying Light 2 and such, I think it is pretty well in the middle of the pack.

So it's not something I would call extraordinary, it's trying to be too many things at once and ends up "pretty good" in most things. Is it the best at the particular blend and scope of all these things at once? Probably, yeah, actually. The issue is anything that stands out in my mind as truly great and exceeding this just tried doing less things better and they were very satisfying, so it makes me wonder if a developer should even be bothering to attempt so many things at once.

Like of example I think of Insomniac as a developer that is really brilliant at doing action games, even specifically really brilliant shooters with the Resistance series, but when it comes to their open world stuff like Sunset Overdrive and Spiderman I have been very underwhelmed. It seems just really hard to do it all in one game.

 

[mrmustard]

The hype around Starfield really broke some people. I love how some absolutely shit on it while they think certain equally or worse rated games are absolute masterpieces or underrated gems.

 

[Xenon]

You are right it's is 2023, There definitely should not be a defense force for this game. When you look at all the other big studios and what has happened to them, We need a parade committee to throw a celebration for the fact that one large company is still doing what they do best.

As far as all the other shit I don't really give a fuck. Sure, there are always issues at first. And it takes a while to get accustomed to each new game. But once I do it's magic baby!

So feel free to have your opinion But don't lecture me on why I should not have mine. In a way, I feel sorry for the people who are so hung up on all this stuff and cant enjoy a game unless it runs sixty frames per second at max settings and is cinematic.

On a final note, I would rather walk on empty planets with nothing to do for hours. Rather than post messages and threads on a message board about a game I don't like. Just seems like such a waste of energy and life. But that's just me.

 

[Heisenberg007]

not everything about this game is dated.

Not everything, of course. But there are plenty of things that are outdated in the game, e.g., loading screens, over-reliance on menu-based fast-travel, lack of seamless exploration, no vehicles for exploration, limited disconnected tiles, AI reactions, landing/taking off of planets, etc.

There are comparison videos between Starfield and Cyberpunk (a last-gen game). So I'll save myself the trouble of listings all those. If a last-gen game does something better than a next-gen game, it is a good sign in most cases that the next-gen game is dated.

the visuals are not dated.

Apart from lighting, which makes the indoor environments look good, the visuals are clearly dated. In the following photos, you can see low-poly texture and quality, poor environmental details, low-poly environment assets, inaccurate shadows, poor facial models of NPCs, etc.

the combat is not dated.

The combat is definitely dated. While it is significantly better than Bethesda's previous titles, there is nothing next-gen about it. It is a bullet-sponge, non-accurate combat system with no recoils and where bullets home-in artificially.

Ignore the hyperbole and meta-commentary in the following video, but look at the video when he talks about "no recoil" how the bullets sway artificially. How is this not dated?

Starfield's COMBAT is AWFUL🤢 #starfield #shorts #bethesda

Starfield's COMBAT is AWFUL🤢 #starfield #shorts #bethesda

www.youtube.com

they physics are straight up next gen.

https://x.com/BattleDogs_mxr/status/1703455287049359812?s=20

 

[Roberts]

The only game ever that gives you an aprox idea of what Roy Batty described in his immortal monologue:

“I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate.”

 

[PropellerEar]

I dont know what game you are playing but they have done a great job improving both the graphics and first person combat. Combat might not be on par with say Doom, but it is leagues ahead of what they had in fallout 3 and fallout 4. I personally miss VATS but realtime combat is not bad at all. Combat is punchy and fun. What exactly do you want from the combat?

And they have also updated the graphics engine. It is one of the best looking games out there. Inconsistent sure, but 90% of it is procedurally generated. Realtime time of day and the downgrade from as early as E3 2023 doesnt help. But aside from the somewhat dated bethesda quest design, i am not sure what is wrong with either the graphics or gunplay that deserves to be criticized, let alone defended. Maybe they shipped a shitty version on xbox. but its fine on PC.

Go ahead and knock them for dated quest design, robotic dialogue sequences, unmemorable side characters, ridiculous menu driven space travel, useless planet exploration, and just a very disjointed feeling world, but can we stop with the fucking hyperbole. not everything about this game is dated. the visuals are not dated. the combat is not dated. they physics are straight up next gen. the game CAN be fun when it gets out of its own way and lets you go on a long mission.


i get that its fun to hate the game right now, and i personally think its no more than a 7/10, but we are shitting on its graphics and gunplay now? the only strengths this game has. what are we even doing?

You are again demoted to SlimyWorm status.

 

[nani17]

How many hours of Starfield have you played, OP? Have you played it at all? Can you provide receipts?

A lot of this criticism seems to come from the bench.

 

[Heisenberg007]

It would be easier to forgive if it wasn't said that their next game is still on the same engine. Seems to me the people involved are just dead set on not having to start over and learn a new one before they retire (not sarcasm)

It is actually a very interesting conversation to have: should Bethesda continue with Creation Engine or shift to something else like Unreal Engine?

• Pros of Shifting:
  • Less jank
  • Better graphics
  • Fewer bugs
  • Better tech to use and create something fresh
  • They might make a game look and play AAA at par with other big AAA games.
• Cons of Shifting:
  • Most likely less modding support to fix their shortcomings
  • Unfamiliarity, which may mean longer delays
  • Bethesda may lose their identity
  • The new engine may not allow them to do things that CE does, which may compromise the sandbox RPG nature of their game - the very thing that's their USP.

It may very well be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for Bethesda moving forward.

 

[Dacvak]

I will honestly never understand the undying love for Bethesda games. They’re good, but they’re not that good. At least not to me.

Starfield is great so far, but it’s hardly amazing. I like it much more than Skyrim, which I find to be one of the most boring Bethesda games out there. (Granted I’ve never messed with any mods, which I assume is one of the biggest reasons people love that game.)

 

[Bernoulli]

But Starfield does have good gunplay, and does have good graphics?

 

[Damian black]

I will honestly never understand the undying love for Bethesda games. They’re good, but they’re not that good. At least not to me.

Starfield is great so far, but it’s hardly amazing. I like it much more than Skyrim, which I find to be one of the most boring Bethesda games out there. (Granted I’ve never messed with any mods, which I assume is one of the biggest reasons people love that game.)

For a lot of people bethesda games were the first open world rpgs they have ever played, so they will always like them no matter how mediocre and stagnant they are.

It is called the "just be first" phenomenon.

 

[mansoor1980]

 

[Roufianos]

Thing is, there was once a point in the industry where we accepted open world = janky mess. Look at how much worse GTA4's gunplay was than Max Payne's for example.

That's long since changed, with games like Horizon, RDR2 and Elden Ring, open world game can play and animate as good as linear ones.

Unfortunately Bethesda hasn't caught up. Starfield feels just as dated in 2023 as Fallout 4 did in 2015.

The loading screens are especially egregious, it's amazing how most open world games can load their entire map but Starfield has multiple loads within 10 steps at times.

It's almost becoming a Game Freak situation. I just hope now MS is involved with TES VI from the start, they'll give them some money to upgrade their awful tech.

 

[kurisu_1974]

Gunplay and graphics are great, I have a lot of issues with the game and some of its mechanisms and jank, but those ain't it.

 

[Flutta]

Huh? Id struggle to think of 10 games with better gunplay unless half of the list would be just call of duty. Hell the spaceship combat is better than Everspace 2 a game purely dedicated to that one thing.

Some of you Garfield defenders say anything at this point. You clearly haven’t played alot of FPS games if your struggle to think of 10 fps games with better gunplay.

What’s worse is you went and compared it to an indie game pretending that’s a big achivement or something. Pathetic to say the least.

 

[M1987]

It's a good game,but the AI is a joke,and the cutscenes are about 20 years out of date

 

[GymWolf]

20 years of modding dependence and shit gameplay did a number on many people unfortunately.

The game feels archaic in everything except scope and some part of the graphic.

Combat feels better than f4 (but worse at the same time because they removed the gore) and it is nowhere near any decent pure fps, again shit combat for 20 years can cause stockholm sindrome on some people so i understand their view, it's like people thinking that the new zelda has great combat...so cute.

(And i don't even fucking care about loading times ever 3 minutes or the infamous planet tile-gate, so what i said is beside that)

 

[balls of snow]

Loading is the byproduct of an ancient engine. Probably why they cant do seemless space travel like even Mass Effect andromeda could. It really is a fun killer.
But the shear content they packed in the game, thats why it took 8 years to make.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Huh? Id struggle to think of 10 games with better gunplay unless half of the list would be just call of duty.

There you go, mate, in no particular order.

1. Destiny 1 and 2
2. Titanfall 2
3. Apex Legends
4. Call of Duty Series
5. Trepang2
6. Cyberpunk 2077
7. FEAR
8. Doom
9. Escape from Tarkov
10. Hunt Showdown
11. Wolfenstein
12. The Order 1886
13. TLOU 2
14. Rage 2
15. Borderlands 3

Made a list of 15 so you can remove 5 games that you don't like and still end up with a list of 10.

 

[THE DUCK]

Nobody is perfect, op seems to imply everything is broken when in fact most things work and the scope of the game is very large, and for the most part, they delivered.

As far as a bit of clunkiness, I think your confusing thr "feel" of thier games as being flawed when in fact I think it's intentional, there's a certain pace they want. Personally I'd rather have a more "arcade" feel, but I'd bet I'm in the minority.

 

[Freeman76]

The game is superb, they dont need a defense

 

[simpatico]

OP it's almost like you're implying the rest of the industry has raised it's bar. I really don't see that.

 

[cireza]

Game is great and a lot fun, is there an issue with people enjoying a game ?

 

[Drizzlehell]

Every time I see someone complaining about Starfield it's from someone who obviously had unrealistic expectations about the game, like it was supposed to change the industry or something instead of being a Bethesda RPG in space (as it was clearly advertised this whole time). The complaints that literally nothing was improved over their previous games is utter lunacy, as the game is clearly superior to the studios' previous efforts in every way imaginable.

 

[The Cockatrice]

The game can look pretty at times due to its lighting and non-npc items/models. But the loadings and its menus ruin it. I also think people hate it because they keep doing garbage endless side quests instead of focusing on the main quests and faction quests which are quite nice. Im currently doing the vanguard one and did not expect some of the things you learn in regards to Starfield universe and it's probably an 8+ hour side quest. It is a very bloated game tho. Basically it's a huge hit or miss type of game, just like all their games. In that regard, Bethesda has not evolved one bit, they went the safe route, relying on modders. Is that a good thing? Nah. Is the game shit? Nah. So far, I'd give it a 7+ ish score.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

Did the guy who designed the core of the Creation engine die or something? I refuse to believe they couldn't scrap Creation and build a new one/heavily modify Unreal to get acceptable performance and seamless environmental transitions

And get shit performance/stuttering? No thanks. I’m done with the unreal engine.

 

[Morrie’s wig shop]

Not everything, of course. But there are plenty of things that are outdated in the game, e.g., loading screens, over-reliance on menu-based fast-travel, lack of seamless exploration, no vehicles for exploration, limited disconnected tiles, AI reactions, landing/taking off of planets, etc.

There are comparison videos between Starfield and Cyberpunk (a last-gen game). So I'll save myself the trouble of listings all those. If a last-gen game does something better than a next-gen game, it is a good sign in most cases that the next-gen game is dated.





Apart from lighting, which makes the indoor environments look good, the visuals are clearly dated. In the following photos, you can see low-poly texture and quality, poor environmental details, low-poly environment assets, inaccurate shadows, poor facial models of NPCs, etc.

The combat is definitely dated. While it is significantly better than Bethesda's previous titles, there is nothing next-gen about it. It is a bullet-sponge, non-accurate combat system with no recoils and where bullets home-in artificially.

Ignore the hyperbole and meta-commentary in the following video, but look at the video when he talks about "no recoil" how the bullets sway artificially. How is this not dated?

Starfield's COMBAT is AWFUL🤢 #starfield #shorts #bethesda

Starfield's COMBAT is AWFUL🤢 #starfield #shorts #bethesda

www.youtube.com

https://x.com/BattleDogs_mxr/status/1703455287049359812?s=20

Heisenbeeeeerg my boy, you are playing it then. You gotta come into the OP so we can exchange notes.

Post a pick of your build and what mission set are you on or you just knocking out side quests?

Unless…., you don’t have the game…. But why would anyone waste so much of their personal time on something they will never know how to play?
I mean, if this is the case maybe you can enlighten everyone why you shill so hard for free…….please, do tell…

 

[Mr Reasonable]

How many of these threads are we gonna have?

Presumably it continues until everyone is just pummelled into accepting that Starfield is a "trash game" that is impossible to enjoy every time it's mentioned.

War never changes.

 

[kikii]

I wouldn't trade Starfield's gameplay for RDR2's, that much is certain. Starfield is a damn fun game so that's goes a long way for me personally. That doesn't mean they got everything right. The crux of the issue is using the same old engine. They need to junk that thing. I've been saying that since the game came out. But ultimately there are some things I can (and have) defend Bethesda on with regards to Starfield. Others, not so much. This isn't an all or nothing issue.

while RDR2 gameplay is clunky and i hate that game but >>>

 

[T4keD0wN]

Tell me you don't play many FPS games without telling me you don't play many FPS games. How can you possibly say gunplay is good in Starfield? It's passable at best. The biggest issue I have with this game is it's barely passable in every respect. Mediocre through and through.

Some of you Garfield defenders say anything at this point. You clearly haven’t played alot of FPS games if your struggle to think of 10 fps games with better gunplay.

What i mean by gunplay is specifically the shooting, reloading, feedback, ragdolls and stuff like that, not combat or the gameplay as a whole.
I only have 274 shooters in my library which is far from everything. Its purely subjective anyway, maybe i have a bad taste. How did you know that ive downloaded the garfield launch screen mod?

What’s worse is you went and compared it to an indie game pretending that’s a big achivement or something. Pathetic to say the least.

That was not meant to be a knock, Everspace2 feels great to play, so much so that i have 36h in it, so i think its an achievement, ive supported the first one or maybe the second one i dont remember. Many indie games are better than aaa games in certain aspects and often its when it comes to gameplay.

There you go, mate, in no particular order.

1. Destiny 1 and 2
2. Titanfall 2
3. Apex Legends
4. Call of Duty Series
5. Trepang2
6. Cyberpunk 2077
7. FEAR
8. Doom
9. Escape from Tarkov
10. Hunt Showdown
11. Wolfenstein
12. The Order 1886
13. TLOU 2
14. Rage 2
15. Borderlands 3

Made a list of 15 so you can remove 5 games that you don't like and still end up with a list of 10.

I like your list (minus Trepang2)
Havent played many of these like Destiny 1, 1886, Tarkov, TLOU2 (seems much better than pt1 from the videos)
I liked it more than the entire Wolfenstein, Crysis, Battlefield (minus BF5 v1.0), Halo (minus infinite), Borderlands, Medal of Honors, Painkiller series which i think is a high bar. Gunplay feels better to me.

I dont think Starfields gunplay is as good as Darktide, Hunt, Unreal Tournament (3x), Doom (2x), Far Cry 5, Destiny2, Atomic Heart, Rage 2, Titanfall 2 and a many Call of Duties.
So you guys win, i had to scroll through my entire library to think of these luckily i can filter it, it was still way too much effort.

Theres definitely more games that i found to be better at being a shooter like Wolfenstein, Tribes, Returnal, Valve games, Quake 3, Stranglehold, Max Payne 2, Turbo Overkill, Severed Steel, Roboquest and Deadlink, but i was talking about gunplay only, i still subjectively think all of these have way worse gunplay than Starfield despite being better at being shooters.

-Bethesda Defense force signing off

 

[Agent_4Seven]

If many of your games basically unplayable and not providing the best user and QOL experience, after years and years of the same exact BS totaly unchanged, if you're relying heavily and solely on mods and modders to do that for you... Who the fuck are you to ask people to pay you money, while everyone else but you doing much better job and should be paid for it instead? I'm not talking about paid mods here, I'm talking about people who knows better and doing much better job with your games that you fuckin' did during 8 year dev cycle or whatever.

 

[Gudji]

Even on PC it's a mixed bag.

 

[Thirty7ven]

It’s mostly the Xbox defense.

 

[DavidGzz]

I don't get it, it's being torn apart everywhere. Wtf are you talking about? That's all I see all over youtube. Videos and memes everywhere. It's more like, let's stop the hyperbolic outrage just because they are huge and back by MS. That's the real issue. It's a fucking 86 on Open critic but people are acting like it's worse than Redfall because of the hate for large devs and especially MS. Admit it.

 

[RoboFu]

Most starfield threads and posts on this site are not made by the Xbox fans on this site.

 

[StueyDuck]

eh while i agree the game shouldn't be religiously defended because of fanboyism.

the game itself is fun, I would call it a good game.

however i will say being 30 hours in now it really is just feeling like Skyrim with a space theme. While this game has a pass (im not sure how much longer i will play the game since my interest is waning) I do think about ES6. if they just release the same game again but with a different skin then i am hard out for ES6. I don't think i can do this all again.

 

[Valkyria]

To all the defense force, this opinion it’s after 70 hours.

The game it’s OK, but it not as good as many are trying to push. I will call it a lost opportunity. Not only the engine it’s dated, the writing, the set pieces, the story development, everything it’s the same as it was in Fallout 3. Not a single improve except model improvements.

There are a lot of systems, but they are as deep as a puddle. Base building and ship building are not rewarded at all in their game. There is no point in doing it, just because you feel like it. So we are in No man sky territory but worst executed.

Then we have the promises about NASA punk. Yeah, my ass. If any of you believed the lies about being realistic and that it’s every planet it’s not “Disneyland” I’m sorry for you. This is fantasy but with worst execution than Mass effect.
And they want realism and from the 120 solar systems over half has at least one garden world, that it’s completely barren of course. Some have even 3 and no trace of human cities. The game doesn’t even follow the history of these universe. Where the hell it’s humanity? Obviously not in New Atlantis or Akila.
For me that promise of a grounded story and more realism in the way to explore space it’s what hurts the game the most.

There are so many quest that are resolved in a horrible way that I lost count. And after visiting all the system, the numbers of quest related to actual space exploration are less than half a dozen. This is not as promised a space RPG. This is a RPG that has its setting in space.
A 7/10 it’s more than a fine score. This game could have been sooo much more. But it’s dragged by all that I have written above.

 

[Madserb2023]

The defence is not illogical. Bethesda games have a uniqueness that some people love and are willing to put up with the limitations to keep it. Object permanence is one. 99% of games don't do it for obvious reasons. Many of the shortcomings of their games are a direct result of this. Bodies, objects don't disappear which is something you expect in games. I don't really think about it but when it's there, it's hard to let go. You can collect books around the world and build a library on Mars etc. Is it worth it.....don't know but it would be strange if they removed it to have better steaming now you don't need to track everything.

 

[artsi]

The most stupid defense is THIS:

Me: "I want an open world game that has vehicles, seamless gameplay and top tier graphics with reasonable performance."
Bethesda game enjoyooor: "Name ONE GAME where you can drop a toiler paper roll and IT WILL BE THERE IN 10 YEARS TIME"

I finished Starfield, I liked it - but I would have traded the item persistence to a dune buggy or seamless cities 100 times out of 100.

 

[Madserb2023]

The most stupid defense is THIS:

Me: "I want an open world game that has vehicles, seamless gameplay and top tier graphics with reasonable performance."
Bethesda game enjoyooor: "Name ONE GAME where you can drop a toiler paper roll and IT WILL BE THERE IN 10 YEARS TIME"

I finished Starfield, I liked it - but I would have traded the item persistence to a dune buggy or seamless cities 100 times out of 100.

I am not personally defending it.TOTK is a vastly better game and everything you do or make vanishes. I would prefer it if they dropped the feature. You can't have efficient streaming without deleting what came before otherwise you would need 100 gigs of ran. One of the reasons for all the loading. I am just referring to why a certain group accepts the jank.

 

[Buggy Loop]

while RDR2 gameplay is clunky and i hate that game but >>>

Not a single game out there comes close to euphoria physics engine of RDR2

But do peoples not fucking recall that they also whined like babies that everything is too weighty and slow like as if it’s based on a simulation?

You could literally make a comparison like the above video for every games, outside of the unique RDR 2. The closest thing are rockstar games with the previous euphoria iteration.

It’s dumb ammo to be using against Starfield, but I see it’s part of the ammo belt now.

 

[killatopak]

Pretty much.

There things that I’ve criticized on them since Oblivion and it’s baffling that it still exists now and the excuse is that it’s a Bethesda game.

How do I know this? I was one of them.

 

[Stuart360]

Thats actually true though imo, hense why the prople with 50, 60, 80, 100+ hours are the ones raving about the game the most.

You can argue that the game shouldnt be like that and the game should be great from the start, but that doesnt mean it isnt the case.

 

[Topher]

while RDR2 gameplay is clunky and i hate that game but >>>

No doubt. From a technical standpoint, Starfield is a mess and RDR 2 is a masterpiece. Funny video. Thanks.

 

[mansoor1980]

Thats actually true though imo, hense why the prople with 50, 60, 80, 100+ hours are the ones raving about the game the most.

You can argue that the game shouldnt be like that and the game should be great from the strat, but that doesnt mean it isnt the case.

my main complaint is the loading screens ,there is so many of them

 

[Stuart360]

my main complaint is the loading screens ,there is so many of them

For sure. Like i said in another thread, it has the same loading screens as all their games (enetering and exiting buildings, etc). But at least the loading screens are way shorter than their past games. The limitations of the engine are at play here 100%.

I expected all this because i knew we were getting a Bethesda RPG.

 

[Ginzeen]

Starfield is fun. Got 88 hours on it still got mad shit to do. Jammed packed with content