The Elder Scrolls 6 is facing a Starfield-shaped problem

It’s often discussed whether Grand Theft Auto VI will live up to fans’ expectations, but I’d argue that it’s The Elder Scrolls VI that should really be the topic of that conversation. You see, Rockstar Games hasn’t exactly let its fans down in recent memory. Grand Theft Auto V, GTA Online, and Red Dead Redemption 2 were all universally adored. In fact, the only real criticism aimed at Rockstar’s output in recent years concerns the studio’s decision to focus on GTA Online as opposed to supporting GTA V with single-player DLC. Bethesda, on the other hand, has been walking a rocky road for quite some time.

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim was a resounding success, that’s not up for debate, as was Fallout 4. You can’t exactly say the same for Fallout 76 though - although it’s a much better state now than it was upon release - and we certainly stray into controversial territory when we touch upon Starfield. You can see why it’s got far more of an uphill battle to face when it comes to winning fans over with the highly anticipated The Elder Scrolls VI, a game which many are expecting to dominate the RPG space for as long as its acclaimed predecessor Skyrim.

It’s Starfield that we need to look at if we’re to discuss how The Elder Scrolls VI might be received. Such discussion is all speculative, of course, as we really don’t know what The Elder Scrolls VI will end up like. I’ll also preface what I’m about to say by reminding, or informing you, that I happen to be a fan of Starfield. I rated the game a perhaps slightly controversial 10 out of 10 and while I stand by that original review, written within an isolated vacuum as all reviews are, I do understand some of the player gripes that have arisen post-release.

The Elder Scrolls VI’s original reveal trailer was unveiled in 2018.

I do think people forget that Starfield was critically rather well-received. It secured scores of 83 and 85 on Xbox and PC, respectively, over on Metacritic and I’m far from being the only reviewer to award the game a score of 10. In fact, there were quite a number of us - and yet, the game is often colloquially referred to as a “failure” or a “flop”. The original positive critical response tends to be forgotten, with social media quickly becoming flooded post-launch with those decreeing Starfield, in various forms of phrasing, to be a “bad game”.

That’s not to say that it doesn’t have its fans, because it most definitely does, but the noise that surrounded Starfield - and continues to do - is one that’s largely negative, a far cry from that original critical response. And I won’t listen to accusations of “critics are so out of touch with players”. We are literally everyday people who enjoy video games too. I am somewhat convinced that social media, particularly, in the last couple of years, has become a total cacophony of negativity. I miss the days when my feed, regardless of what site or app I’m on, simply showed me the content of those I follow. If a site is going to force a ‘suggested’ algorithm on me, at least let those suggestions be accurate. Twitter, in particular, seems dead set only on spreading hatred and vitriol, and I don’t think that’s helped video games. Whether it’s engagement farming or not, I don’t know, but it feels as if every major release is accompanied by viral tweets explaining why it’s bad, regardless of whether that is actually the case.

The problem is that such sensationalist posts dominate to the point where there is no real calm, measured conversation - and that’s exactly what happened with Starfield. There’s nothing wrong with people not liking Starfield, but a trip to social media won’t help you understand why that’s the case, so it’s something I’ve been pondering myself whilst also carrying out research in the friendlier corners of the internet. With that in mind, I’ve come to one conclusion that I’m hoping isn’t too controversial: perhaps Bethesda’s approach to game design simply doesn’t hold up anymore.

That’s a bold thing for me to say considering I awarded Starfield a 10, and that’s why this is a complicated discussion. You see, I viewed Starfield as a Bethesda title. It had the studio’s trademarks, including a sprawling open world, filled with interesting NPCs and random encounters that could send you marching off on the most thrilling quest you might never have found had you not partook in a particular action. That’s Bethesda to me and Starfield, if you give it a chance, nails that. But Bethesda is also, let’s be honest, a studio known for its jank. Starfield’s graphics underwhelmed and the NPCs remained stiff and lifeless, but that also felt very par for the course. I didn’t admire those aspects, particularly, but I also kind of forgot about them because, after all, this was a Bethesda game.

Credit / Bethesda

I’ve become convinced that perhaps I entered Starfield with a rather forgiving attitude because it was Bethesda, because if you’re to compare this title to other AAA open-world RPGs then, yes, there are some discrepancies. Should NPCs exhibit a complete and utter lack of visual emotion? Probably not. Should graphics and framerate be shoved aside in favour of map size? No, the modern RPG player is going to expect both because there are plenty of examples out there where that’s the case. Should points of interest be recycled so heavily? Again, probably not. That felt like a page out of Mass Effect’s book which was released in, checks notes, 2007.

I don’t want to venture into totally trash-talking Starfield because as I said, there’s some brilliant quest design and fun combat in this title that’s well worth giving a go. That being said, you perhaps see why some may think that Bethesda has some modernising to do. I get the impression the studio believed it was doing that in promising Starfield players access to 1,000 planets but procedurally-generated, repetitive points of interest aren’t really the be all and end all when other aspects of the game might be living in the past. A contained, but well designed singular map is perhaps a more surefire way to find success - although that’s just one piece of a larger puzzle, as that idea alone didn’t save Starfield’s expansion, Shattered Space.

When Starfield did release, it didn’t seem to deter people from placing big expectations on The Elder Scrolls VI, with many heralding it as the game that could “save” or “redeem” Bethesda and that always baffled me. As I said, Starfield is distinctly Bethesda. The Elder Scrolls VI, if the formula remains unchanged, will be Starfield in high-fantasy clothing, so to speak. All of this is to say that if Bethesda doesn’t want a repeat of Starfield - and by that, I mean the game’s player reception, because as I’ve established, the critical reception was nothing to sniff at - it needs to do something quite revolutionary. Yes, there’s a charming nostalgia in Bethesda’s jankiness but when you compare a Bethesda title to one by likes of CD Projekt RED, Rockstar Games, Naughty Dog, or Santa Monica Studio, to name just a few, you start to notice a couple of major discrepancies.

The Bethesda model worked in the 00s and 10s, but it’s not exactly holding up in the 20s, and that’s something the studio needs to recognise if The Elder Scrolls VI is to deliver. And change can happen whilst tradition is still honoured. The only issue is, I wonder if The Elder Scrolls VI is too deep into its development to be more than a Starfield reskin. Guns replaced with swords, space stations replaced with castles, planets replaced with outlying hamlets … Is that alone enough to win players over? I fear we may instead need to step out into bold new territory.