Starfield Is Already Way Too Big

thegamer.com:

Xbox has always been propped up by a handful of big titles. While it currently seems to be winning over hearts and minds with the breadth and depth of Game Pass, Xbox has always relied on its heavy-hitters (most famously Halo) in order to keep it in the game. PlayStation is Man City, except imagine City had history. Cash-rich, the best of the best in every department, with an ever rotating team of superstars. Conveniently, they're also blue. Xbox then is more like Liverpool, except imagine Liverpool didn't have so much history. Valiant challengers, becoming more than the sum of their parts, staying afloat with a lot of good offerings but only mounting a serious challenge when one of the few greats in their roster comes out to play. Inconveniently, they're green.

The buying of Bethesda (and then later, Activision Blizzard), changes that. Bethesda is the Darwin Núñez of this metaphor. A 'can't beat 'em, join 'em' splurge of cash to try to turn the tide once and for all. If you don't know sports, then thanks for sticking around but essentially Xbox buying Bethesda signalled not just a statement of intent, but also a huge change of tactics. In a way, it was admitting that PlayStation had consistently won the console battle, even if Xbox wasn't about to concede the console war. Starfield is the first fruit of this new tactic, and it looks exactly how I would expect Xbox's first show of strength to look: way too expensive, far too big, and incredibly generic in an attempt to appeal to the widest possible audience. It's exactly what people say they want in focus groups, online polls, and market analysis, but is it a game anybody actually wants to play?

Related: Everything Revealed At The Xbox & Bethesda Games Showcase

Of