It is difficult to compare games like Elden Ring and Starfield or maybe Skyrim. Many people like "Souls games", for whatever reason. But judging all games by the extent they are demanding on finger wiggling and the ability to enjoy the die-and-repeat-hamster wheel-mechanic is not appropiate.
My issue with Bethesda titles isn’t difficulty (to have difficulty one needs a well designed systems first) but overall lack of design and compelling content. Let’s call it difference in taste. Bethesda clearly has its fan base. I am curious how Starfield will be received. I feel like wider public aligned with my opinion on their titles with Fallout76 - yes, it was exceptionally flawed, but frankly criticism that game got, was pretty much the same I would criticise their previous titles for. So I am curious to see if the spell was broken, or if a less outrageous release will satisfy the fan base.
I see Bethesda games as a base for self-structured gameplay, and mods. I ended the main story in Skyrim once (I think it was the end, not sure) and in Fallout 4 never ever, despite more than 2,000 hours of gameplay. Main stories are not Bethesda's strength in my opinion.
I tried most of the "Souls" games, they are great, especially for people positioned best on an assembly line. So Souls games have an amazing training effect for our economy, similar to raids in MMOs. I love it.
BTW, last weekend I watched a video on Youtube about the game "Spaceborne 2", a 1st/3rd person (kind of) RPG shooter/space combat SciFi game, a bit like No Man's Sky, Elite: Dangerous (which I all don't own and only know from videos) and ... the coming Starfield . It seems to be amazing. It's in Early Access on Steam, allegedly made more or less by just one person. I think I will buy it as my first SciFi game (it's just 20 dollars), and if only to support the developer.
