Starfield steam page for the DLC currently shows eight user review score of 41%, making this one of the worst Bethesda DLC's released of all time. This is so horribly, shockingly bad for Bethesda, because it shows as a gaming company, they are no longer capable of delivering a really good gaming experience as they had in the past. Some of the reviews sum up quite nicely what is wrong with this DLC....

Less content than any skyrim DLC. Less than The Fallout 4 story DLCs. Doesn't change of the complaints people had with the base game, writing is still at a 4th grade level.

Quick: If you are looking to buy my answer is no, you aren't missing much content. I was really hoping to enjoy this DLC. Took about 4 hours for the main story and maybe 2 more hours to 100% the achievements.

These two reviews I think really summed up what Starfield has become, $70 for an AAAA title that has extremely little buy-in from the community, horrifically low amount of replayability and can be breezed through easily. It's mind-boggling to see this

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Judging by how Starfield turned out, will missing either of those games (which are almost certainly going to be using the same incredibly outdated engine) be much of a loss?

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The engine isn't why Starfield sucks. Sure, the constant loading isn't great but it isn't the reason there's nothing fun or interesting to do. It's also a solvable issue, but they haven't made the investments they need in the engine.

Starfield is just soulless. The characters are boring, the stories aren't interesting and don't let the player choose fun options. The universe is static and nothing matters. There's just no reason to be involved in the world, so there's no reason to want to be in it.

They could fix this. I'd say the way they need to go to do so is to stop targeting literally every player. They need to figure out who they're making the game for and target them. I'm a big sci-fi fan, and I like older Bethesda games. I should have been an easy target for Starfield, but I hated it, not because of the engine but because the stories, characters, and universe weren't engaging. The engine is an easy target to complain about, but it isn't what's holding them back. Indie games can do more with worse engines.

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

The engine really isn't suited for the kind of game Starfield wants to be, so it really works against it. But you're right, even if it were a new shiny engine with the same writing and characters, it would still suck. Likewise, if it had the same creaky engine but actual good stories and characters the constant loading would be easier to overlook. It just has the worst of both worlds.

[–] EnderMB@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

For those of us that miss the lore and story/atmosphere of this games, absolutely.

Don't get me wrong, Starfield has made me truly worried about the next installment, and I truly believe that milking Skyrim has ultimately left Bethesda in a position where open world gaming just leapfrogged them. The likes of TOTK and Elden Ring have absolutely shattered what they can show to deliver in a supposedly improved generation.

All I can hope is that Bethesda really look at the feedback they received, and take the time to make the necessary changes to their engine. That alone might be enough to at least give a retro feel to the games. I'll still eagerly await them, but my hopes for them being GOTY are long gone.