Starfield was supposed to be the next big thing in gaming, except, it wasn’t. While the game did well commercially and, for all intents and purposes, was a good game, public opinion has gone from bad to worse. The scrutiny has come to a point where Bethesda has took it upon itself to “save” the game, laughably comparing it to the moon landing, among other things.
With Starfield now enjoying mixed reception from users on Steam, Bethesda has embarked on an unorthodox mission: directly addressing and attempting to change the minds of players who have left negative reviews on Steam.
This isn’t just a numerical statistic; it represents a divided opinion. With over 80,000 user reviews, a significant part of the community has continued to express dissatisfaction with various aspects of Starfield and their calls have only grown larger. Now that the allure of Starfield being the next shiny thing has gone, the primary issues raised by the “few” at the time of its launch, which includes repetitive gameplay, the presence of loading breaks during not-so-fast travel, and the feeling of emptiness on many of the game’s planets, have taken center stage.
In response, several Bethesda developers, verified on the platform, have been engaging directly with the reviewers. The approach includes explaining the technical and design choices made in Starfield. In some cases, they’ve begun to offer suggestions on how to alter gameplay for a different experience. For instance, developers have addressed the loading times by highlighting the vast amount of data being processed to create a seamless experience, asserting that all of the brief interruptions don’t detract from the overall quality of the game. They have also encouraged players to experiment with different character builds, assuring them that this would significantly alter their gameplay experience.
Bethesda’s strategy here is unique if reeky of desperation. It marks a rare instance where a game and its developers are directly interacting with critiques on a public forum. This unusual approach, however, hasn’t been without its challenges. The responses from Bethesda’s team have varied in effectiveness, with players remaining unconvinced if miffed by the attempt. The developer’s attempt to justify the design choices, including the emptiness of some planets, has fallen flat. The intention to evoke a sense of awe and insignificance in the vastness of space, though artistically sound, has failed to resonate with the larger community.
Starfield, with its ambitious scope and scale, was bound to face problems in meeting the high expectations set by both Bethesda’s reputation and the game’s own marketing. The mixed reviews on Steam reflect a disconnect between what players expected and what the game ultimately delivered.
Furthermore, Bethesda’s decision to engage directly with negative reviews signals a shift in how game developers might handle criticism in the future. While this open dialogue can be beneficial in understanding player feedback, it also opens the door to potential conflicts and further public scrutiny.
Bethesda’s approach to addressing Starfield’s mixed reception on Steam is noteworthy, but not in a good way. We hope this doesn’t catch on. As Bethesda attempts to navigate the vast expanse that is the public’s opinion on Starfield, the internet will keep a close eye on how it steers this ship through gaming’s equivalent of an asteroid field.
Believe it or not, Starfield will be making an appearance at this year’s The Game Awards. It wasn’t part of the list of the nominees for Game of the Year but it did receive a nomination for the Best Roleplaying Game. It’s highly unlikely it will win against the much-crowded field. There’s some expectation that Bethesda will be at the event to reveal more details about Starfield’s upcoming DLC, Shattered Space.
