One feature is stopping Starfield from dominating other open-world games

Despite great pre-release enthusiasm and generally positive reviews, Star FieldThe reception was somewhat confusing. The game fell short of the universal acclaim Bethesda likely hoped for. While praised for its scope, ambition, and signature Bethesda charm, several key aspects have drawn criticism, significantly impacting its overall perception. It’s not hard to see the flaws, even as a fan. However, there is one major point of contention in particular that is holding the game back.

Although most games try to look perfect, Star Field doesn’t seem to have gotten the memo. Compared to other modern games, there are too many loading screens. The unfortunate part is that sometimes players are reminded of this outdated loading system every few minutes, if not several times every half hour. This constant interruption, which is especially jarring given the game’s supposed focus on space exploration, makes it feel far more outdated than any other flaw.

What’s stopping Starfield?

Loading screens is a problem

While Star Field has a vast universe and an impressive scope thanks to procedural generation, several factors prevent it from reaching its full potential. The most prominent issue is widespread and frequent loading screens. These interruptions break the immersionturning exploration into a series of teleports rather than a continuous journey. Entering buildings, boarding a ship, and even moving between rooms within a structure often triggers a loading screen, which goes against the expectations of a modern open-world game, especially one utilizing high-end hardware.

In games like No Man’s Sky and Star Citizenthe ship is a vehicle that appears to take players where they want to go. Star Field blocks travel behind loading screens. Consequently, the player’s ship appears mostly cosmetic, like a vessel for fast travel, rather than a tool for exploration and adventure. These technical limitations significantly hold back the promised sense of wonder and freedom.

There are also technical issues, the repetitive design of the missions and the lack of depth compared to other recently updated and released games such as Cyberpunk 2077 or Baldur’s Gate 3. While the volume of content is impressive, the quality varies considerably; some missions feel uninspired or overly simplistic. While functional, the character creation and dialogue systems don’t offer the same level of depth and player agency as other RPGs. Many players could let these issues pass if they didn’t have to wait minutes to get somewhere.

Why Starfield has so many loading screens

Bethesda’s engine has its limitations

Loading screens may seem like just a consequence of a huge, detailed game world, but it’s not that simple. Star Field has an abundance of loading screens because of Bethesda’s Creation Engine 2, which wasn’t designed for a completely open world of this scale with continuous exploration. It is segmented into distinct zoneseach requiring a loading screen to transition. These loading screens are shorter on a high-end PC, but that shouldn’t be a requirement today.

Despite using an earlier iteration of the Creation Engine Fallout 4 Effect and Skyrim It didn’t have as many loading screens. Both games have a greater focus on time spent outside or inside large areas, so loading locations didn’t appear as often. Star Field sections of space, planet, city and so on, then works like a bunch of different rooms to go to. It’s basically the same concept as other Bethesda games; players just need to go through it more often.

Unfortunately, Bethesda makes games in a way that requires this engine, so they reworked and improved it to Star Field. Not every game can run on Unreal Engine 5, and not every company wants to give royalties when they have an engine that works well. It would require a lot of work and money with no guarantee of success, so trust in the Creation Engine platform makes sense despite this frustrating limitation.

Starfield competition has an open, continuous universe

No Man’s Sky sets the standard

Star FieldThe game’s much-discussed loading screens highlight a key difference between its closest competitors in the open-world space exploration genre. For example, games like No Man’s Sky has a procedurally generated universe where players can transition between planets and systems with minimal disruption. This uniformity is a central element of No Man’s Sky experience, giving you a much better sense of exploration and discovery.

The lack of loading times contributes significantly to the feeling of vastness and freedom that defines the No Man’s Sky appeal. While No Man’s SkyThe universe is entirely procedurally generated, resulting in less detailed environments compared to Star Fieldhandmade elements, the trade-off provides more immersionwhich seems fair. The ability to continually fly from planet to planet, transitioning seamlessly through space and atmospheric entry, fosters a sense of non-stop adventure rarely matched by games with distinct loading zones.

Traveling to a boring planet is something both games struggle with. However, Star Field asks players to sit down, wait to get to the planet, and then wait to leave. No Man’s Sky allows players to fly to the planet and then leave again. This does Star Field they feel very outdated, which takes away from the overall experience, and even updates show how obvious the bugs are.

At this point the loading screens are outdated

Modern open-world games have minimized this problem

At this point in gaming’s evolution, the prevalence of loading screens, especially ones as frequent and jarring as those seen in Star Fieldseems unacceptable. Spider-Man 2 as the PS5 no longer needs loading screens during fast travel; compare this to a loading screen just to get on a ship Star Field. Technology exists to mitigate, if not completely eliminatethese disruptive interruptions in the game.

While some level of loading is understandable in extremely large and detailed open worlds, the large number and seemingly arbitrary placement of loading screens in many modern games, including Star Fieldindicate a design and optimization flaw, not a hardware limitation. The excuse of loading handcrafted content rather than procedural generation rings hollow when considering the graphical fidelity and scale achievable in other modern games without intrusive loading breaks, such as Star Citizen and No Man’s Sky.

Bethesda needs work freeing the game from this constant hassle. If the studio can overcome this pain point, some of the other flaws will start to feel less distracting. Although difficult in some areas, Star Field has enough content to keep players focused on the game. All these pauses and pauses in content give players a reason to think about why the game is bad, and without them, Star Field could show players how great this is. In fact, these constant pauses in the game are the biggest flaw holding the game back.