The lead designer of Cyberpunk 2077 has come to the defense of Starfield

Starfield is a great game, as most critics and gamers agree. Still, expectations were extremely high. And when expectations are at such a high level, there will always be groups of users who will be severely disappointed with the product delivered.

Inevitably, comparisons between Cyberpunk 2077 and Starfield, two epic games on the opposite bank, have been made, as the main story designer of Cyberpunk 2077 has pointed out. made the necessary improvements over two years, added missing links to the story and expanded it as well. Her return is now complete.

Criticisms of the game Starfield mainly focused on the Creation Engine 2 drive, on which the game is based. It is an updated version of the now rather outdated Creation Engine, which powered the game Skyrim, for example, a decade ago. The loudest critics expressed doubts about the performance of the new drive, which is said to be seen in the game in mediocre animations, numerous bugs and general gameplay limitations, such as the inability to land on planets without loading screens.

"After returning to Cyberpunk, I've become increasingly critical of Starfield, mainly due to the constant loading screens, terrible dialogue camera, and lackluster animations," tweeted Twitter user Synth Potato. "I really don't believe that Starfield could ever truly reach the level of quality of Cyberpunk 2077, it's a fundamental flaw of the Creation Engine."

The designer of Cyberpunk 2077 disagrees with the criticism. According to him, it is not about the limitations of the gaming drive, but all this is quite simply the result of the priorities of the developers.

"It's not a focus for them for a number of reasons, and the high degree of freedom for each player (in Starfield, op. a) is actually as important as the tools themselves," he tweeted. "In Starfield, it's almost impossible to stage the same scene, like Judy's scene on the roof with the main character of Cyberpunk 2077, because you can play that scene on hundreds of different planets at any time."

“They can do some similar scenes that are more elaborate, like the first encounter with the Constellation group. Starfield has a huge cast of characters and an incredible number of locations. It's hard to stage scenes as detailed as in Cyberpunk 2077 or The Witcher 3.” By comparison, he said that each major scene in Cyberpunk 2077 took years of time and effort. If someone tried to do that in a game with the scope of Starfield, "it would take forever to make the game."

"Instead, Bethesda is focusing its resources on providing maximum levels of player freedom, simply doing something else with their time - and that's cool," Mills wrote. "You can wish their scenes were more cinematic or whatever, and that's fair, but it takes its toll."

Mills said he didn't mean to belittle the genuine concerns of gamers, but simply to point out that “not every game can do everything. You can't make a game that has every feature executed at the same level as the best game in the field, and that has very little to do with the drive that's in use.”

Do you agree with the statement? Have you had a chance to play both games? In the end, we must distinguish that Starfield is a sandbox game, where the priority is the free choice of what the user wants to do in it. Freedom, however, understandably requires some sacrifices, such as fewer epic scenes. Cyberpunk 2077, on the other hand, is a more linear game with an emphasis on cinematics and a story full of intersections. Although it has a good level of freedom, it is far from being comparable to Starfield, Skyrim, Fallout and the like.

We can agree that both games are very good. Each eye has its own "painter".