Lovingood Review: Starfield Shoots for the Moon, Lands on Planet Meh in the So-So System

What started as a 7/10 experience for me dropped to 5/10 as Starfield grew into a tedious barrage of repetitive mission objectives, bland dialogue, and boring-to-look-at sceneries. What plummeted my rating downward ultimately was a severely uninspired narrative that ended with a large groan from myself that led me to switch to a game immediately after completion.

Join me as I explain why I found Starfield to be a disappointment, though I should acknowledge there are plenty of others online who will defend this game being one of the best they've ever played.

When you have a plot that focuses on humanity turning to the stars after Earth is no longer inhabitable, there's a lot one can do with that premise; however, it feels as though the team at Bethesda Softworks relied heavily on sci-fi tropes and hollow plot points.

You start the game as a space miner on assignment, and you come across this artifact that causes your character to see "images of space-time" as Game Director Todd Howard Describes it. If that sounds familiar, it's because that's one of the earliest parts of 2007's Mass Effect.

The game then turns into you navigating choices that eventually lead you to collect more pieces of what's known as the Armillary, which is significant to the game’s climax.

Players have the choice of joining factions with unique missions for you to complete, and whereas I started the UC Def mission line (think space military), I tapped out because I started getting bored, if I'm honest. However, I've read many people had fun with the Crimson Fleet faction missions.

Eventually, you meet the Starborn, who appear to be ethereal-like beings that just turn out to be humans traveling the multiverse. No aliens. No energy beings. Just humans are exploring the multiverse by transforming into a new 'self' via cosmic reincarnation. I wrote plenty of words just now, but I assure you: the 'reveal' of who the Starborn is-- including variants of people you interact with-- is lame.

By the end of the game, you can become a Starborn yourself to start your story again in a New Game+ for your character to make new choices. Todd Howard said this was a game people would be playing for a while, and I believe this is why. Unless the clunky gameplay receives a massive update, I don't see myself playing it again.

Nothing in the story made me turn my head or jump out of my seat. I didn’t even care about a single character in this story. With other titles, such as Mass Effect, I cared about the entire crews you’re paired with throughout the first trilogy. In Starfield, I made no effort to romance characters or get to know their backstories. Let me be clear, though, the game has a complete story but a bland one. Todd Howard once said he was "really, really happy with how the story turned out and where it goes," but I truly think it came at a time when the multiverse plot point has been used by many other stories (DC movies, the MCU, Everything Everywhere All at Once, Fiona & Cake, etc.)

One element of my ratings on games is how different the game feels concerning the gameplay experience compared to other titles. Though the gunplay in Starfield is fun, and it's certainly cool to see the ship you purchase and design, Starfield feels too close to Fallout in both combat and general aesthetic. The game doesn't feel new if that makes sense. For example, you can modify your weapon at crafting tables you see out in the world or at your own established settlement, however, the weapons--at least the ones I used--feel too similar to each other.

You also have powers in the game that allow you to do a variety of things, including shoot a plasma ball at an enemy, predict NPC dialogue, and detect other life forms, among other abilities, but in all honesty, I rarely used these abilities. Also, I felt it was lazy for the game simply to refer to them as your "power". That's nitpicky, but I mention this complaint because it speaks to the lack of creativity.

The HUD in the game seems like they used their Fallout version and just turned it white. Now, it's a little more different than that but my point is: it doesn’t appear they tried to make the HUD look different, thus adding to the whole "it's Fallout in Space" argument. I don't doubt the folks at Bethesda considered different layouts, but it's honestly pretty meh.

Starfield also took a page from the No Man's Sky playbook with its Star map and how you hop between systems. Granted, Starfield has significantly fewer planets to explore, but they don't feel to have No Man's Sky’s variety. Some planets have forests, mountains and creatures galore. At some point, though, it felt like I was going to the same place. Yes, No Man's Sky hit that point also, but that was after I visited hundreds of planets, not the couple dozen I had the attention for in Starfield.

While on the topic of star hopping, I must focus on space flight. People have told me it's unfair to compare Starfield to No Man's Sky, particularly its flight system, but I think it's fair game. Whereas No Man’s Sky allows you to go from space directly down to a planet, Starfield relies on a lot of cut scenes of your vessel blasting into space or fast travel blinking you to where you need to go, but it never feels immersive. Having to fast-travel 80% of the time became a bit of a drag when I was trying to feel like a space explorer.

Flight combat was simple enough but nothing special. You can invest points into piloting skills to increase your effectiveness during battle, but it wasn't exciting to me. Lock on the enemy, try to control your momentum as best as possible, shoot them down, repeat. Again, I got that from No Man's Sky, so nothing industry-changing here.

The flight controls felt cumbersome. I played with a keyboard and mouse, and whereas I typically have no issue with juggling multiple functions, I was confused about what button did what while flying after just being in a gunfight.

Perhaps that's just me, but I never have issues like that. It was also annoying when I’d forget whether to press or hold the E button and was forced to watch a slow animation of my character’s chair sliding back as I stood up. This happened on multiple annoying occasions.

As for investing your skill points, I didn't try to get to a level higher than 34 before beating the game. There's a section of your skill trees where you can invest in things that relate to base building and base management, but that aspect of the game didn't appeal to me. If this were a multiplayer game, I can understand the appeal of having a sophisticated base mechanic; however, there wasn't an incentive to have one. I did start one, but my interest waned as it felt pointless to have to establish the base and it doesn't affect the story.

Overall, Starfield feels like a game I played years ago, not this "ambitious" title Mr. Todd Howard made it to be.

People need to appreciate the effort a game-developing team puts into creating the world of their project and the Starfield team deserves it. If you've read my other reviews, you know I love a good photo mode, and I took hundreds of photos while walking around Starfield.

Yes, I said some of the environments got a little bland to look at after a while, but when they were good, they were good. Some planets had sunsets that made you want to jump right into the screen. Other planets had beautiful night skies that made you wish you could lie down in real life and look up. The boring dialogue and storyline didn't captivate me, but the environments did.

The way the developers put in little, tiny details like having desks filled with typical office materials and kitchens stocked with food, they did a great job in making the environments feel as though they were real. However, I think it should be noted that — according to PC Gamer — Bethesda hired modders to help add all the random junk to make places seem more legitimate (coffee mugs in kitchens, random stuff in lockets, etc.).

There were also many unique brand names on items and storefronts that certainly helped with establishing their goal of this being as real of a world as possible. However, some of the cities and places feel derivative. Granted, I know there's no full capitalization on the space aesthetic, but some of the places felt completely ripped from Mass Effect, such as the Neon nightclub in Starfield that looks like the copy-my-homework version of Mass Effect's Afterlife.

As for music, composer Inon Zur did a great job with the soundtrack, especially the symphonic parts. The main theme, “Into the Starfield” was among my most-played songs on Spotify for 2023. There are moments of combat where you feel the stakes because of the drum strikes. I would highly recommend the soundtrack for Starfield to be submitted in the Best Score for Video Game and Other Interactive Media category.

I don't think Starfield is completely without hope; however, for it to be something that's truly as exciting as it was touted to be, I think the game would need a massive rework. Some players have been itching for a survival mode.

Others — me included — have been asking for a map update because it is severely lacking regarding pointing you to where you should go (we traveled to space, but we've lost the ability to locate specific stores on maps?). I think Starfield has all the right qualities to be reworked into something else. What does that look like? A 1 – 4 co-op rework with more immersive traveling? Creating more memorable characters in the story? I'm unsure.

The game is big and has a lot of things for you to choose from doing; however, it seemed like there was no clear-cut path you could make for yourself, which yes, the game was meant to give you "freedom" but it felt almost like the developers didn't know what genre the game was to fall under. Is it a space simulator? Is it a defend-your-base game? Is it a sci-fi RPG shooter? It's a jack of all trades, but a master of none. It needs focus. The game is a lot, and not in a good way. Massively open doesn't necessarily translate into "good".

Should you buy Starfield? Sure, if it drops down to like $30. I in good faith can't recommend this game in its current state at anything above that value. Yes, I understand games cost money to make; however, your time is worth money as well, and I factor that into this.

I think it would be unfair to call Starfield a "bad" game because there are good parts to it as I mentioned above. However, seeing as this title came from such an established studio as Bethesda Softworks, I believe it should be held to a higher standard of quality. There's a reason Baldur's Gate 3 won Game of the Year at the Game Awards, and as I said in my review for that title, Larian Studios raised the bar to a different level that other devs--including Bethesda-- need to note.

Seeing as Starfield is Rated M, that should be a red flag for any parent. This title has heavy violence within it, but I didn't find it as gruesome as some other titles. There is drug use in the game and very strong language. If your child is 16, I'd say they're probably okay to play so long as you think they're mature enough to handle the themes I just mentioned.

Starfield photo gallery