Starfield presented a fascinating dichotomy for many players: a journey into an expansive galaxy that simultaneously captivated and disappointed. For me, personally, it consumed well over a hundred hours with flashes of that signature Bethesda brilliance, yet ultimately fell short of the sky-high expectations set by titles like Fallout and The Elder Scrolls. Bethesda is renowned for crafting some of the greatest RPGs in history, but Starfield struggled to fully replicate that magic across its vast, procedurally generated galaxy. Now, a Bethesda veteran who worked on all three IPs offers his perspective, acknowledging it’s ‘a great game’ but ‘nowhere near the same caliber’ as its legendary predecessors.
Bruce Nesmith is a name that will resonate with many Bethesda enthusiasts. After a significant career designing Dungeons and Dragons tabletop games, he transitioned to quest design for numerous Elder Scrolls and Fallout projects, notably serving as the lead designer for Skyrim. Before his departure from Bethesda in 2021, prior to Starfield’s release, he contributed to the ambitious space game as a systems designer. His insights, therefore, come from a place of deep RPG development expertise.
“I think it’s a good game,” Nesmith stated in an interview. “I don’t think it’s in the same caliber 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.”
Mirroring the experience many players, including myself, shared, he conceded that Bethesda’s formidable past reputation placed immense “expectations” on Starfield that were incredibly challenging to fulfill. Nesmith further suggested that “if the same game had been released by ‘not Bethesda,’ it would have been received differently,” highlighting the unique scrutiny the studio faces.
Despite the allure of outer space and alien worlds serving as backdrops for countless iconic games, Starfield’s particular approach to a galactic RPG largely squandered that inherent potential. Nesmith points directly to its heavy reliance on procedural generation as the primary reason many players struggled to connect with it.
“I’m an enormous space fan,” he elaborated. “I’m an amateur astronomer, I’m up on all that stuff, [and] a lot of the work I did on Starfield was on the astronomical data. But space is inherently boring. It’s literally described as nothingness. So moving throughout that isn’t where the excitement is, in my opinion.”
Another surprising revelation from Nesmith was his disappointment with Starfield’s alien wildlife. While he acknowledged the presence of many “cool” creatures to encounter and battle, he described them more as “the wolves in Skyrim” rather than truly epic, challenging, or memorable adversaries. He also noted that “the only serious enemy you fought were people.”
Like Nesmith, I refuse to buy into the notion that Starfield is a ‘bad’ game. Moreover, with a second DLC on the horizon, the game still has ample opportunity to shift public perception. Nevertheless, it’s incredibly insightful to hear that the criticisms I and countless others harbored are shared by at least one of the core developers involved in its creation.
Should you decide to revisit Bethesda’s sprawling galaxy and wish to invigorate your experience, consider exploring various community-made Starfield mods. Alternatively, for those seeking engrossing narratives, delve into our curated list of the best story-driven games.
If Starfield consumed many hours of your time, I invite you to share your thoughts on what you loved and what you’d change about it in a gaming community discussion.