One of the biggest issues that detractors point to when criticizing comparing it to other open-world titles like Cyberpunk 2077, which does a much better job of seamlessly integrating interior and exterior locations without the need for a loading screen every time one enters a new location.

Although a new mod aims to fix this issue for Starfield's coolest city of Neon, it only highlights a major problem with Starfield's gameplay and Bethesda games at large. Sadly, it's an issue that might not be fixable unless the company completely changes the platform it uses to develop its games.

Seamless City Interiors Removes Loading Screens

But Only In Neon Right Now

Seamless City Interiors is a mod created by PanConKeso on Nexus Mods that removes the loading screens in the city of Neon. Functionally, this mod changes the interior locations within the city to exterior ones, loading them without the need for the loading screen. Although players praise the mod itself, it points to a bigger question of why Bethesda hasn't done this themselves.

Although there aren't any s of the mod itself making the game stutter or lag, there have been a few complaints with other Neon-related mod conflicts. Because the mod is created for the PC version of the game, it's unclear if such a mod would work well on a console, specifically the comparatively weaker Xbox Series S.

I'm not a programmer by any means, but I think a big problem with Bethesda games generally is that they don't load items or objects as they come into the player's view, and everything gets bulk-loaded. With hundreds or even thousands of items in any one area, this requires a loading screen. I'm not sure if Creation Engine is limited in changing that, but I'd assume it would be an underlying foundation of how the engine works, considering every other Bethesda game I've ever played.

The Creation Engine Is Holding Bethesda Back

The Engine Feels Stale

Again, I'm not a developer, nor can I understand the intricacies of building such an immense world as Starfield, but I am a big Bethesda fan and have played numerous games at this point that utilize the Creation Engine. Although it's vastly improved since Fallout 4, there are still several "Bethesdaisms" that feel more annoying in Starfield than they did in that game or any title previously.

I'm sure a lot of people can agree with me that it feels like the storytelling and lack of meaningful choices or risks are actually killing its games.

As I did research for this piece, I discovered that the Creation Engine is actually the successor to another game engine called Gamebryo, which is built on C++ and was used to build games for consoles like the GameCube and PS3. Obviously, since then, Bethesda has done a lot to differentiate the two, but it still feels like it pales in comparison with other modern engines -- to the point where I'm scared for the new Elder Scrolls, as it'll likely continue the practice of loading screens setting each new scene rather than an immersive and seamless open world.

Gamebyro was used to build games like Fallout: New Vegas and Warhammer Online.

It's unclear how much of my frustration is derived from the Creation Engine itself or just bad storytelling and a lack of meaningful decisions, but the Cyberpunk experience is like night and day when held up against Starfield. That said, the seeming inability of the game to procedurally load new items in new areas without hitting the player with a loading screen seems outside of the ability of the engine, at least for now, for whatever reason.

It's Might Be Time For A Switch

Maybe We Can Improve Player-Choice, Too

When comparing Starfield and the Creation Engine 2.0 to other games, comparing it to CDPR's REDengine is probably the most apt. While I already heaped a ton of praise on Cyberpunk 2077, it's sadly the last game that will utilize the game engine, as CDPR is shifting to Unreal 5 (via GameRant). That said, both UE5 and REDengine, in my opinion, are superior game engines to what Bethesda has right now, as demonstrated by the amazing open worlds that both have created.

The excuse used by diehard Bethesda fans in the past has been that "Bethesda games are just different" and that updating or ditching the engine for something new would somehow be sacrilegious and ruin its games. Fast-forward to today, and I'm sure a lot of people can agree with me that it feels like it's the storytelling and lack of meaningful choices or risks that are actually killing its games, not the clunky Creation Engine — but the limitations of it certainly don't help the situation.

Since those discussions, Unreal has come a long way, launched UE5, and has now provided much more flexibility for developers to use it for both divergent storytelling and gameplay. While UE5 isn't the end-all-be-all, and I get the desire to keep the tech stack to a proprietary in-house system, even other engines used by specific developers blow Creation out of the water. Take, for instance, Larian's Divinity 4.0 engine for Baldur's Gate 3. While the game genres of both companies are vastly different, BG3 proved that a company could create a highly specific engine suited to the company's games and be highly successful.

I don't think that changing the Creation Engine will make Bethesda games good. For that, I think there will need to be a high level of innovation and risk-taking so they can get back into form during their height. This isn't a dig on the existing storytellers there, but everything has a scent of staleness and is overly formulaic. What used to be fresh and engaging now feels tired and old. Starfield is perhaps the best example of this, as it's arguably the company's most impressive creation from a technical standpoint, but it is also arguably one of their worst games.

Source: PanConKeso/Nexus Mods, GameRant