No clue where to even start with this review. This review is unrelated to performance issues that a lot of people have faced. Or any other internet influence that people usually operate on. I've decided to leave this review as someone who played pretty much all Bethesda games and who thinks that this game in the long run really shows how distilled their formula has become. The "looter shooter" aspect that Bethesda heavily relied on in FO4 doesn't work in Starfield because the most content-packed areas of Starfield are the big cities (Atlantis, Neon, etc), where combat often happens to be in the more meaningless parts of the game, - the explorable planets, which almost never reward player in any meaningful way. With that said, Bethesda did improve how they make towns with this game compared to 3 buildings and wooden shacks they like to usually make. What about the RPG part? While Starfield did learn its mistakes from FO4 and removed the dialogue wheel and voiced protagonist, replacing it with often an illusionary, but still quite fun speech check minigame of persuasion, most of your decisions never lead to any different outcomes, making each playthrough exactly the same. Or do they? Game is praised for its unique approach to New Game+ system where the main characters may face certain changes in the next cycle. But I think that said changes probably should not concern the player unless they are really attached to probably the most boring cast of characters which is Constellation. What about the main story? Surely sci-fi fans will immediately recognize the familiar to everyone concept of "the monolith" and how something like that can influence the world and its story, create questions and make everyone seek answers. But the only thing we ever get is how things happen, and the game does not try to entertain us with enough mystery to make us wonder why. I'm one of people who think that the kind of a story telling where "less is more" or "say dont show" can be cool, but they not only dont get to the 2nd base, they dont even play with your nipples, they just say "wait here I'll go take a shower" and then just jump out of the window, while you think to yourself for the next 2 hours - should you go knock on the shower room or should you just dip?
All in all, while fixing some of the issues introduced by Fallout 4, Starfield added way more issues on its own. 2 steps forward, 5 steps back.
If by a miracle, Bethesda would happen to come across this review or any similar review (which I kinda doubt), they need to know that there is a saving to their formula if they finally stop and try to figure out what makes their games good and what doesn't.
And from my point of view, it's not hard to figure it out.
1. There's a reason why people still talk and debate about the lore of Elder Scrolls. That's one of the pulls. Not story of Skyrim. Not main quest of Skyrim. But Lore that's been on everyone's lips since Morrowind. Think about that. What made it so memorable? Maybe the idea that there was a crazy cyborg-time traveller, or the Daedric shenanigans, the questions doubting the reality of all, obvious sexual undertones, crushing betrayals, mysteries of civilizations yet to be discovered? Don't play it too safe. Become brave again, Bethesda. Express yourself. Be crazy. Be wild. Be edgy again, at least somewhat.
I couldn't help but feel that everyone in Starfield was absurdly nice to the player, including any of the potential antagonists. And when I walked into the Neon Club and saw those silly dancers dressed like Teletubbies after games such as Cyberpunk 2077 and Baldurs Gate 3 showed what you can show in videogames, it was quite a bizarre scene to behold.
2. There's a reason why people play their games for years to come. It's not because Skyrim was so perfect. It's because people tried to fix and re-introduce both old and new concepts that Skyrim for example severely lacked. This however does not mean that Bethesda should solely rely on modders to fix their issues. Especially today, when the modding community does not operate solely on altruism and it's not a mere hobby it used to be back in the day that centers around improving a game (You can thank capitalism for that).
3. There's a reason why people call modern Bethesda games outdated. Not only on the technical level, but also on the level of "how" you play them and what the normal gameplay loop looks like. Because while trying to latch onto multiple things at once, a modern Bethesda game does not master a single of its aspects - crafting, building, rpg, exploration, this, that. Focus on some aspects and deepen them as much as you can while getting rid of some. I can vouch for the majority of your players when I say that the majority of them didn't give a rat's ass about building and crafting, and were expecting a more interesting aspects of rpg, exploration. At this point the combat is out of the question, as it has never been a strong side of their games.
4. People endlessly bring up New Vegas as an example of how a Bethesda RPG should be like. All of the reasons to why have been pointed out countless times by other people. It doesn't mean that you have to make exact same game, not at all. But it's an example of how a more advanced rpg system can work in a game that still follows the Bethesda formula at its core.
That probably concludes this review. As of now, it does not feel like Starfield has strength to stand on its legs as a future franchise to be able to compete with neither Fallout nor Skyrim, as it does not only not tell you anything interesting, but also throws you into the world barely different from ours and at the end merely winks at the player whispering that "anything goes", while showing nothing of substance.

No clue where to even start with this review. This review is unrelated to performance issues that a lot of people have faced. Or any other internet influence that people usually operate on. I've decided to leave this review as someone who played pretty much all Bethesda games and who thinks that this game in the long run really shows how distilled their formula has become. The "looter shooter" aspect that Bethesda heavily relied on in FO4 doesn't work in Starfield because the most content-packed areas of Starfield are the big cities (Atlantis, Neon, etc), where combat often happens to be in the more meaningless parts of the game, - the explorable planets, which almost never reward player in any meaningful way. With that said, Bethesda did improve how they make towns with this game compared to 3 buildings and wooden shacks they like to usually make. What about the RPG part? While Starfield did learn its mistakes from FO4 and removed the dialogue wheel and voiced protagonist, replacing it with often an illusionary, but still quite fun speech check minigame of persuasion, most of your decisions never lead to any different outcomes, making each playthrough exactly the same. Or do they? Game is praised for its unique approach to New Game+ system where the main characters may face certain changes in the next cycle. But I think that said changes probably should not concern the player unless they are really attached to probably the most boring cast of characters which is Constellation. What about the main story? Surely sci-fi fans will immediately recognize the familiar to everyone concept of "the monolith" and how something like that can influence the world and its story, create questions and make everyone seek answers. But the only thing we ever get is how things happen, and the game does not try to entertain us with enough mystery to make us wonder why. I'm one of people who think that the kind of a story telling where "less is more" or "say dont show" can be cool, but they not only dont get to the 2nd base, they dont even play with your nipples, they just say "wait here I'll go take a shower" and then just jump out of the window, while you think to yourself for the next 2 hours - should you go knock on the shower room or should you just dip? All in all, while fixing some of the issues introduced by Fallout 4, Starfield added way more issues on its own. 2 steps forward, 5 steps back. If by a miracle, Bethesda would happen to come across this review or any similar review (which I kinda doubt), they need to know that there is a saving to their formula if they finally stop and try to figure out what makes their games good and what doesn't. And from my point of view, it's not hard to figure it out. 1. There's a reason why people still talk and debate about the lore of Elder Scrolls. That's one of the pulls. Not story of Skyrim. Not main quest of Skyrim. But Lore that's been on everyone's lips since Morrowind. Think about that. What made it so memorable? Maybe the idea that there was a crazy cyborg-time traveller, or the Daedric shenanigans, the questions doubting the reality of all, obvious sexual undertones, crushing betrayals, mysteries of civilizations yet to be discovered? Don't play it too safe. Become brave again, Bethesda. Express yourself. Be crazy. Be wild. Be edgy again, at least somewhat. I couldn't help but feel that everyone in Starfield was absurdly nice to the player, including any of the potential antagonists. And when I walked into the Neon Club and saw those silly dancers dressed like Teletubbies after games such as Cyberpunk 2077 and Baldurs Gate 3 showed what you can show in videogames, it was quite a bizarre scene to behold. 2. There's a reason why people play their games for years to come. It's not because Skyrim was so perfect. It's because people tried to fix and re-introduce both old and new concepts that Skyrim for example severely lacked. This however does not mean that Bethesda should solely rely on modders to fix their issues. Especially today, when the modding community does not operate solely on altruism and it's not a mere hobby it used to be back in the day that centers around improving a game (You can thank capitalism for that). 3. There's a reason why people call modern Bethesda games outdated. Not only on the technical level, but also on the level of "how" you play them and what the normal gameplay loop looks like. Because while trying to latch onto multiple things at once, a modern Bethesda game does not master a single of its aspects - crafting, building, rpg, exploration, this, that. Focus on some aspects and deepen them as much as you can while getting rid of some. I can vouch for the majority of your players when I say that the majority of them didn't give a rat's ass about building and crafting, and were expecting a more interesting aspects of rpg, exploration. At this point the combat is out of the question, as it has never been a strong side of their games. 4. People endlessly bring up New Vegas as an example of how a Bethesda RPG should be like. All of the reasons to why have been pointed out countless times by other people. It doesn't mean that you have to make exact same game, not at all. But it's an example of how a more advanced rpg system can work in a game that still follows the Bethesda formula at its core. That probably concludes this review. As of now, it does not feel like Starfield has strength to stand on its legs as a future franchise to be able to compete with neither Fallout nor Skyrim, as it does not only not tell you anything interesting, but also throws you into the world barely different from ours and at the end merely winks at the player whispering that "anything goes", while showing nothing of substance.