Frustrated Starfield players say controversial low review scores are justified
BethesdaStarfield’s launch has been a divisive moment in the gaming community. A growing number of players are voicing their frustration, arguing that the game’s controversial low review scores are well-deserved due to its glaring shortcomings.
One Reddit user likened their Starfield experience to playing “Mass Effect 1 without good writing” in a post that has now received over 6,000 upvotes. The user praised the game’s aesthetics but criticized its lack of meaningful space exploration, clunky combat, and uninspiring writing.
Another Reddit post gaining traction expressed disappointment with the game’s segmented world, separated by loading screens, and its clunky user interface.
This user, six hours into the game, felt that the controversial IGN score of 7/10 was fair, a rating that had initially surprised many.
The community’s criticisms often revolve around a few key points. First, the game’s writing and emotional depth are frequently cited as lacking. Players find the quests and characters to be generic, lacking the compelling narratives that make for an immersive gaming experience.
“The biggest issue, the issue that really makes everything else hard to ignore, is that the writing/emotional depth isn’t there,” one player said. “Everything is about as generic as you can make it, from the Macguffin they thrust on you in the first ten minutes of the game, to the side quests where you’ll be tracking down an endless supply of data chits and generic bad guys.”
“Part of the issue is that the body animations are really bad. Everyone feels very static which is another problem that Bethesda seems to have not fixed from previous games.”
This comes at a time when expectations for RPGs are sky-high, thanks in part to the release of Baldur’s Gate 3 in August. Larian Studios’ decision to motion-capture every piece of dialogue in Baldur’s Gate 3 could explain why some players are feeling underwhelmed with the body animations in Starfield.
Second, despite being billed as a space exploration game, players feel that Starfield’s exploration mechanics are underwhelming. Players are confined to small pockets of space and barren planetary landscapes, with the actual act of space travel reduced to clicking buttons in a user interface.
“Bills itself as a space exploration game, but you don’t land or take off from planets… There’s a really cool spaceship-building game, but you’re building a spaceship that doesn’t let you go where you want or matter outside of a shooter mini-game,” the player wrote.
Third, the game’s combat mechanics are described as “serviceable” at best, with enemy AI making questionable decisions that break immersion.
The player stated, “Bethesda still hasn’t learned how to make compelling gunplay… The guns feel flat and the enemy AI is constantly making terrible [choices] like staring at me for five seconds before firing, running [in] random directions, etc. It feels like their technology hasn’t advanced since Fallout 4.”
Some of these community criticisms align with points made by professional reviewers. While some critics praised the game’s expansive universe and compelling story, players are finding themselves outraged over missing features, such as the lack of seamless space landings.
The Metacritic score for Starfield stands at 87 for Xbox Series X and 88 for PC, but it’s the lower scores that have caught the community’s eye. These more critical reviews often mention the same issues that players are discussing: a lack of depth in certain gameplay elements and a focus on breadth rather than quality.
In the end, the community’s frustrations seem to validate the lower end of the ratings spectrum. While Starfield offers an expansive universe with much to explore, it appears that for some, the journey may not be as fulfilling as they had hoped.
