Starfield will likely be a broken mess compared to Zelda: Tears Of The Kingdom

It’s interesting to see Bethesda fans arise again after years of inactivity and once again hype up a new Bethesda title as if it will be the best thing ever. They have done this every time since Skyrim.

Yet each time a Bethesda title releases, it’s always the same story. We get a game that is broken, mediocre at best and doesn’t fulfil half of the promises.

Remember Fallout 3’s promised 200 endings? It didn’t even have two. What about Skyrim’s promised ‘revolutionary’ quest dynamic AI, that in the end merely consisted of the same repetitive side quests featuring non-player characters that acted more stupid than those from 1998 released games such as Thief?

In the years following a Bethesda game’s release, the fans always admit the gameplay is average at best, that the writing and story is bad as usual, and that a lot of the assets across the game world are just copy and pasted – leading to a lot of repetitive exploration.

They then go on to to say that that doesn’t matter because mods make the game enjoyable. Do they really? And what’s the point wasting time modding a bad game to find it enjoyable when you could just play a game that is actually good?

Starfield will likely feature the same shortcomings of Skyrim, Fallout 4, and Fallout 76 and everything that is being promised can already be done in games that are actually playable on release.

We can make mechas in Starfield? Um, we can already do that in Zelda: Tears Of The Kingdom and it actually just does work.

Tears Of The Kingdom is already a revolutionary game and, like Zelda: Breath Of The Wild, it’s already being called game of the generation.

I can’t see Starfield competing with it. Bethesda games never deliver on the hype.

By reader John

The reader’s feature does not necessarily represent the views of GameCentral or Metro.