Starfield designer says the sci-fi RPG is still a “great game”, but procedural generation stopped it from reaching the “calibre” of Fallout and Elder Scrolls

Gaming
1

Starfield designer says the sci-fi RPG is still a “great game”, but procedural generation stopped it from reaching the “calibre” of Fallout and Elder Scrolls.

Bethesda Game Studios Starfield has taken a lot of hit from gamers in the two years since it released. Coming after the release of Fallout 4 and after the still-beloved Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, it’s fair to say that the introduction of something brand-new from Bethesda came with a lot of expectations from fans.

To this day, Starfield has its fans, and it’s understandable why: just like how no fantasy RPG is quite like Skyrim, there is no sci-fi RPG quite like Starfield. However, a large portion of gamers have maligned the game for failing to meet the expectations that players had for a new Bethesda Game Studios product, and that’s also fair.

Speaking on an episode of the FRVR Podcast launching later this week (when I get around to it), former Starfield systems designer Bruce Nesmith—who left the project around a year before release—explained that Bethesda’s sci-fi RPG is still a “good game”, but it’s clear that the game didn’t latch on as well as other games from the beloved developer.

“I think it’s a good game,” Nesmith told us. “I don’t think it’s in the same calibre as the other two, you know, Fallout or Skyrim, or Elder Scrolls rather, but I think it’s a good game. I worked on it, I’m proud of the work I did. I’m proud of the work that the people I knew did on it. I think they made a great game.”

“When the planets start to feel very samey and you don’t start to feel the excitement on the planets, that’s to me where it falls apart."

Nesmith, who has since published multiple books such as Mischief Maker and the Glory Seeker series since his departure from the studio, explained that there are “expectations” when “the studio that gave you Skyrim and Fallout makes a space game” that simply weren’t met, and that’s impossible to deny.

“If the same game had been released by not Bethesda, it would have been received differently,” Nesmith said, explaining that the game still isn’t a failure despite the fact that it hasn’t latched on as well as prior Bethesda games. At the end of the day, it sold well, got an expansion, has a still-active modding community and has a decent daily play count for a single-player RPG.

As for why Starfield didn’t latch on as well as other games, Nesmith explained he “leans towards procedural generation” as the big problem instead of other complaints like the lack of real-time space travel.

The main mission Unearthed, a mission set in a specifically designed area, shows Starfield at its best, focusing on discovery, and it’s amazing. While the game may be unfocused, there are moments of brilliance.

“I’m an enormous space fan, I’m an amateur astronomer, I’m up on all that stuff, a lot of the work I did on Starfield was on the astronomical data,” he explained, “but space in inherently boring. It’s literally described as nothingness. So moving throughout that isn’t where the excitement is, in my opinion.

“But when the planets start to feel very samey and you don’t start to feel the excitement on the planets, that’s to me where it falls apart. I was also disappointed when, pretty much, the only serious enemy you fought were people… there’s lots of cool alien creatures, but they’re like the wolves in Skyrim. They’re just there, they don’t contribute, you don’t have the variety of serious opponents that are story generators.”

Starfield seems set for its second DLC as Bethesda also continues working on The Elder Scrolls 6.

As someone who has put well over 200 hours into Starfield, Bethesda’s sci-fi game is quite good, but it is a step down from what the studio is known for. Unfortunately, for many, the heavy use of procedural generation simply takes away from what Bethesda is known for: beautiful, hand-crafted environments that tell a story as well as their characters do.

There are parts of Starfield that do this spectacularly well, such as the main quest where you go back to the ravaged remains of Earth, but you have to hunt hard for them, and that’s where the game struggles. Maybe, if Starfield 2 ever happens, these problems will be addressed.

Thoughts?

2 Likes
2

Do you have a link to the source ?

1 Like
3

Oh lol wtf. I thought I posted it.

It’s added to the OP now.

2 Likes
4

I’m just going to say this, Skyrim is the 5th(if not counting side games) installment on a long running franchise.

Fallout originally was a flop, until Fallout 3 made it popular in the mainstream amd 4 caused it to explode.

Starfield is the first game and a brand new IP, that until CoD a year later, was the biggest driver for Xbox.

So, pretty much he either expected too much or he doesn’t know enough about how the game he worked on did. Or how it even works, considering random encounters still exist in game, more in space than on the ground.

Edit: Wanted to add, that we also encounter alien animals in space ships. That have either stowed away when it landed or are being poached. Which poachers become more of a thing if we chose to bring back the Aceles, over the bactiria in the UC questline.

5 Likes
5

Starfield needed more time in the oven. They have the time now to fill the game with content. First DLC was a step in the right direction. I hope there’s a lot more to come.

A Space exploration game is hard to make because you have to make it look like it’s interesting and fun to explore relying on procedural generation. And humans are extremly good at recognizing paterns in our environment, so we get bored easily if we think we have guessed the rules of how it all works.

Starfield is stuck with the tile system they have developed for planets, which I think is good, but you need an insane amount of different tiles to make it work. I think they need to use some modders work to help with that.

Anyway, we know they are cooking, as they said they are multiple times, so we’ll see. I think the game still has insane untapped potential.

2 Likes
6

If you continue to build, it will grow. If you stop, it will never grow. Starfield only has the name of the developers for hype. It has no foundation to rely on. FallOut 4 and Skyrim do. Cyberpunk took a while to become special and that one has the backing of a respected developer team. Starfield is fresh take and one that wants to grow as long as developers continue to build. It will stand on their legs.

2 Likes
7

Agreed, I really hope they keep making more expansions and definitely curious about the upcoming one that they teased. I have only played a hour or so of Everspace 2 but that game is solely flying and combat, you don’t get to exit the spacecraft but from what I’ve played the exploration is quite nice with cool, unique looking locations. I would welcome this with open arms for Starfield. We’ll see what they bring.

2 Likes
8

Yes, I explored an played more than most I think and Starfield just doesn’t have that pull factor the other games have. Once that pattern-recognition kicks in (which it does too soon) it’s just not interesting enough to continue or return to the game.

I really liked Starfield, for what is was, but unlike most of my favourite games in the genre I don’t really feel any urge to return and replay. Which is an anomaly for me. The Fallouts, TES, Mass Effect, The Witchers, Cyberpunk, Baldur’s Gate. Pillars of Eternity etc. etc. all have been or will be replayed many times.

2 Likes
9

Yeah, unfortunately it’s the same for me. When Todd said it was Skyrim in space in all the best ways I got hyped as hell, because I expected the handcrafted goodness Oblivion, Skyrim and Fallout 3 and 4 offered, lots of reasons to just explore and have fun. But Todd forgot to mention it lacked that.

He did say it had the most handcrafted content so far in a BGS game but I am guessing he meant the cities with that. But many fans have shared that critique, so I can’t imagine Todd isn’t aware of that by now and I hope the second expansion will reflect that. That being said, I haven’t played Shattered Space yet.

10

Yeah, I mean there’s a lot since it’s a big game but it is thinned out with a bazillion generated things which makes it feel less.

It was good, more focused and a “special” location to explore. It’s like another faction questline.

3 Likes
11

Yeah, I totally agree. If the game was built around handcrafted solar systems with actual rewards and that magical hand made touch like Skyrim or Fallout, Starfield would’ve easily been a 90+. The huge, empty, lifeless world is just boring. Hopefully Todd Howard learns from this procedural generation might’ve worked back in the ’90s, but with today’s tech like M.2 drives that load stuff in seconds, it just doesn’t make sense anymore.

I played 120hr when the game launched in 2023. Now im waiting for their next big update for 2nd walkthrough

2 Likes
12

Agreed. I have yet to finish it, but I also think they set some rules that don’t really encourage exploring that much like No real alien intelligence out there which in my opinion pushes the fantasy. I know there are mods.

13

I’m going to disagree with no sentient aliens not pushing the fantasy, as there are a lot of example of it in sci fi.

Edit: But I could be miscontruding your meaning.

14

I liked Starfield but didn’t love it.

One thing I did like was, however, the sense of emptiness and scale. That’s not popular with many but it felt good. In fact, I found too much clutter at times. Let me land on a totally barren planet, even if rarely. Make it feel alien.

Aliens are a short hand for people who look different. True desolation is far more alien.

4 Likes
15

If you get back into it, try a mod to make the POIs less frequent.

Although I do think that should just be a regular setting.

2 Likes
16

The ex desginer makes good points with a luck the sequel will address basic issues over loading screens and lack of land vehicle exploration (that be fixed in part) or real time travel in selected solar system

Enjoyed Starfield and the combat was a massive highlight and so well made

17

I remember Bethesda talking about Fallout 3 and how important just empty space on the map turned out to be. I think you are right though - for me I don’t need an open world to be filled with gameplay content to tick off so long as it still serves a purpose to the game and in Starfields case it does. Sometimes a planet is just a dead rock, and even knowing that it still makes the game feel so much more immersive knowing that as I explore a city or a place of interest - I CAN just jump across the fence and go run across the horizon. It’s not just a skybox or detailing behind an invisible wall. I think even if you completely ignore the open worlds in the game and just focus on the main content - it’s still better for having them.

Overall I think there is nothing wrong with the actual structure of the game - but Bethesda as a studio has their strengths and they have their weakness and unfortunately this was a game that didn’t really utilise their strengrhs and relied more heavily on where they are often weaker.

18

Imo it won’t be real time, as real time travelling to planets is a several hours long process.

As shown when Alanah Pierce did a whole video of travelling 7 hours straight to try and land on Pluto.

19

The sequel, oh man, when will that be? At the rate this is going with TES VI and then Fallout 5… we’ll all be old and grey.

20

There has been a leak about a cruise control style travel system being added to Starfield in the future.

Which again imo, shouldn’t be done in real time as it took Alanah Pierce 7 hours to get to Pluto. I don’t remember if it was from orbit, a nearby moon or another planet.