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

Starfield is an excellent game, which most critics and gamers agree with. Nevertheless, expectations were extremely high. And when expectations are at such a high level, there will always be groups of users who are likely to be disappointed with the delivered product.

Inevitably, comparisons between Cyberpunk 2077 and Starfield, two epic games that are on the same opposite bank, have been made, as the main story designer of Cyberpunk 2077 has pointed out. in the last two years, she made the necessary improvements, added the missing parts 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 It is a refreshed version of the now rather outdated Creation Engine, which powered the game Skyrim, for example, a decade ago. The most vocal critics have 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 limitations in gameplay, such as the inability to land on planets without loading screens.

"After returning to Cyberpunk, I became 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 really 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's not about the limitations of the gaming drive, but all this is quite simply the result of the priorities of the developers.

“This is not in the center of attention for them from the majority. reasons, and the high degree of freedom of each player (in Starfield, op. a) is actually as important as the tools themselves,” he tweeted. "In Starfield, it's almost impossible to play 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 meeting with the Constellation group. Starfield has a huge cast of characters and an incredible number of locations. It is difficult to stage scenes as detailed as in Cyberpunk 2077 or The Witcher 3. By comparison, he said that each large scene in Cyberpunk 2077 required more. years of time and effort. If someone tried to do this in a game with the scope of Starfield, "we would make the game harder".

"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 might want their scenes to be more cinematic or whatever, and that's fair, but it takes its toll."

Mills said he's not dismissing the genuine concerns of gamers, but simply pointing out that “not every game can do everything. You can't make a game that has every feature implemented 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 understand that Starfield is a sandbox type 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 cinematography and a story full of crossovers. Although it has a good level of freedom, it is still far away. it can't compare to Starfield, Skyrim, Fallout and the like.

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