Neato

Now show me solar and wind spills. /s

Complaining about the rules is the only way we as players can effect the change for future editions. Developers listen to communities.

Yes you can homebrew your own solutions and rule changes. But if it was that easy to just create new complex systems, we wouldn't need to pay people to do it. Changing core rules can really bork a game's balance and have huge knock-on effects that aren't foreseen without significant play testing. It's also really hard to know what rules need to be changed and to what without being a game developer.

You can also switch systems. For something like D&D 5e <-> PF2e that's not a huge learning curve. But to other systems or from other systems? It can be a LOT of work on the GM and players part to completely reset their game, learn a new system, buy books, etc. For a lot of tables this might kill a game.

In the end, we should be telling the game's creators what rules are bad and if we can, how we'd like them changed. And we should complain, Loudly, if they ignore a community's feedback or make changes that seem worse. Players don't always know what's best in game design, but they can at the very least tell developers what they don't like. And they should.

This was the video that led me to Eddy Burback. He's an excellent youtuber.

I guess there's an argument that boring space exploration has an audience. I just didn't think that overlapped much with Bethesda's audience.

There's ways to make places feel barren, open, unexplored and still be interesting. I've played several games that had sections that were essentially "empty" but still hand designed to be interesting. We don't need 1000 planets, we need good content.

One of the primary reasons people like Bethesda games is that they give players a large world to explore that's jam-packed with interesting things to see a do. If Bethesda abandons that and admits that majority of the content they expect players to interact with is going to be boring, procedurally-generated, then why should people play Starfield?

Bethesda isn't known for deep, complex stories. Their best writing is traditionally their side content with main stories panned. Their combat is pretty basic, but functional. Their RP is pretty sad and NPCs could be a lot better, especially these days. So it seems Bethesda has given away their biggest plus: an interesting world to explore.

You are all saying that both games have boring, procedurally generated planets. Sounds like both games were designed with boring elements people don't want. Just because ED is more boring, doesn't mean Starfield is good.

You also already know the quality of the story and gameplay. Seems they didn't buck the trend this time.

Correction: they don't need to "join" the Empire. They mostly lived on worlds the Empire already annexed, controlled or owned. They are in the Empire. Luke worked as a farmer on an Empire world. Han was a criminal because of the Empire's laws. Leia was part of a former ruling base of the government the Empire became.

If that's what it takes to ship a game that doesn't have multitudes of game breaking bugs like they're known for, perhaps the company has bigger problems. Like still using an engine that is this bad.

They've already been paid. Bethesda doesn't have profit sharing.

Neither the USSR nor the CCP ever tried to be communist. They used that banner to gather supporters and then seized all control of the government in an authoritarian takeover. Communism doesn't have "dear leaders" or usually even parties. Places like the USSR used their control over capital and wages and property ownership to control their populace entirely. We've never really seen an actual communist country because all the major efforts were sabotaged by people who wanted to be dictators.