Mario Kart 8 Deluxe Tier List: Part 2

A couple of weeks ago, I put all 48 of Mario Kart 8 Deluxe’s racetracks into an internet-friendly tier list! But the Booster Course Pass has seen the launch of another 48 racetracks over the past couple of years, and now that the sixth and final wave has landed, it’s time to give each one a ranking!

The same rules apply as last time: racetracks will be given one of six rankings from F-tier at the bottom to S-tier at the top, and I’ll be basing their positions on criteria such as track layout, theming, music, and just how much fun I have with each one overall. Racetracks I hate or never choose to play will be at or near the bottom, and the ones I adore will be close to the top.

So what was the state of play when we ranked the first set of racetracks? I’m glad you asked!

  • F-tier: three racetracks,
  • D-tier: five racetracks,
  • C-tier: ten racetracks,
  • B-tier: twelve racetracks,
  • A-tier: twelve racetracks,
  • S-tier: six racetracks.

You can see the first tier list above, complete with all of the racetracks we ranked last time. If you want to check out the full list, including my comments on all of the above tracks, you can find it by clicking or tapping here.

I’ve enjoyed the Booster Course Pass on the whole. The decision to release racetracks in waves was fun, and gave me a reason to keep dipping back into Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. There have also been some wonderful inclusions from past games, as well as some wild new additions to the Mario Kart series. All in all, the Booster Course Pass has been good fun, and feels like good value for the asking price. When you consider you’re doubling the amount of racetracks from the base game, as well as getting a few new characters, the cost definitely seems reasonable to me!

Racetracks will be listed in the order in which they appear in the game, beginning with Wave 1 and ending with Wave 6. Each track will be given a tier ranking of either F, D, C, B, A, or S, and I’ll provide my reason(s) for my decision. Please keep in mind that not only is this just one person’s subjective take on the Booster Course Pass… but also that this is just for fun. If you hate all of my choices, that’s totally fine!

With all of that out of the way, let’s rank some racetracks!

Tour Paris Promenade (Golden Dash Cup)
Tier: A

Paris Promenade is a wonderful encapsulation of everything Paris wants to be, and in that sense it’s the exemplar of what Mario Kart Tour aimed to achieve with these city-themed tracks. Having visited Paris as a tourist (with a friend acting as a local guide) I have to say that the city itself is probably the worst I’ve ever had the misfortune to visit; it’s an absolute dump. But its idealised version makes for a fun racetrack, and hits all of the tourist hotspots that you’d expect, including the iconic Eiffel Tower and the Champs-Élysées.

I also absolutely love the accordion melody that accompanies the track; it feels wonderfully French!

3DS Toad Circuit (Golden Dash Cup)
Tier: B

Toad Circuit gets a lot of stick from people who say it’s “boring,” but I actually don’t mind it. It was a great first track to introduce new players to Mario Kart 7, and it’s been recreated in more or less its original form here. It was a solid track then, and it remains a solid track now. It’s a pretty basic layout set at a modern raceway – much like other tracks from other games with the “Circuit” name. But there’s nothing wrong with it at all, and I’m perfectly content to race through it.

Decent music, decent theming, and a decent layout come together to make a racetrack that’s… well, decent.

N64 Choco Mountain (Golden Dash Cup)
Tier: D

I felt that Choco Mountain stood out on the Nintendo 64… but this recreation feels decidedly mediocre. The all-brown colour palette manages to feel more akin to dirt than the titular chocolate, and I just don’t find much visual interest in the racetrack or its theming. There aren’t any really challenging points that are fun to master, and this is one of those racetracks where there isn’t one glaring flaw… but rather a lot of smaller things all come together to make it unappealing.

Nice bluegrassy music, though.

Wii Coconut Mall (Golden Dash Cup)
Tier: S

Coconut Mall is elevated to S-tier thanks in no small part to an absolutely amazing soundtrack! Honestly, the musical accompaniment to this racetrack is one of the best in the entire Mario Kart series, and I love the upbeat, fun energy that it brings. Coconut Mall is a fun setting in its own right, with a cartoony shopping centre to race through that’s something a bit different from other offerings in the game. There are plenty of twists, turns, and jumps – and the conversion of the final ramp into a glider section was a great way to update this track with newer Mario Kart mechanics.

There are so many positives here that Coconut Mall absolutely deserves its S-tier ranking!

Tour Tokyo Blur (Lucky Cat Cup)
Tier: C

There’s nothing particularly wrong with Tokyo Blur… but there’s not much about it that leaps out at me, either. I’m surprised, in a way, that Nintendo opted to go for Tokyo instead of Kyoto – the city where the company is headquartered. But maybe they’ll do that in Mario Kart 9 or Mario Kart Tour 2… who knows? Truth is that I’m waffling right now to fill some space because I really can’t think of much to say about a decidedly mediocre racetrack. It was nice to visit Tokyo and have a non-Western city included in the Booster Course Pass.

I just wish that Tokyo Blur had been a bit more… memorable.

DS Shroom Ridge (Lucky Cat Cup)
Tier: B

I like Shroom Ridge. It’s essentially a newer version of N64 Toad’s Turnpike; a racetrack with moving vehicles as obstacles, but with a somewhat more complicated layout. There are a few dips, sharp turns, and generally a bit more theming and scenery. Traffic poses a unique challenge, and darting in between different cars and vans manages to feel like good fun.

Races on Shroom Ridge can be chaotic – but the good kind of chaotic!

GBA Sky Garden (Lucky Cat Cup)
Tier: F

I don’t enjoy Sky Garden. Its “racing on clouds” schtick is dull, and the white-blue-and-tan colour palette isn’t the most exciting, either. The layout is pretty basic, and while we could say that’s to be expected for a racetrack that debuted in Super Circuit on the Game Boy Advance… look at what Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and the Booster Course Pass have done with several GBA and even SNES tracks. There was more that could’ve been done here – but even then, the bland theming would have let it down.

There’s a neat shortcut that can be fun to pull off online, though.

Ninja Hideaway (Lucky Cat Cup)
Tier: B

I should endeavour to play Ninja Hideaway more often, because it’s a racetrack with a unique Japanese-inspired theme that’s a lot of fun. It’s great when a racetrack offers branching paths that take more or less the same amount of time to traverse; it keeps things interesting and varied. Ninja Hideaway also has an easily-missed shortcut that involves breaking a wooden barrier, and an exciting glider section where landing on a higher or lower path is possible.

The theming carries this one a long way – but underneath all that, it’s still a great track to race through!

Tour New York Minute (Turnip Cup)
Tier: S

I adore New York Minute. The jazz soundtrack feels perfect for the “city that never sleeps,” and racing around Central Park and through the Rockefeller Center – where Nintendo’s official shop is situated – is an absolute blast. It’s been more than fifteen years since I last set foot in New York City, but several locations felt genuinely familiar to me, showing just how well the Booster Course Pass (and Mario Kart Tour) have recreated famous landmarks.

Could this be the best of the real-world city tracks? Read on to find out!

SNES Mario Circuit 3 (Turnip Cup)
Tier: S

Maybe it’s the nostalgia talking (again), but I absolutely love SNES Mario Circuit 3. As I said in the first part of this list when discussing SNES Donut Plains 3, everything I loved about Super Mario Kart is present here, and although the racetrack is flat and its theming is basic… the wave of nostalgia that washes over me every time I boot it up is more than enough to carry it into S-tier. I had so much fun with Super Mario Kart in the SNES days… to think I’m still racing through some of these tracks more than thirty years later is funny to say the least!

Definitely a blast from the past – but a solid racetrack in its own right, with a couple of fun shortcuts to pull off, too.

N64 Kalimari Desert (Turnip Cup)
Tier: S

Am I giving out S-tier rankings like they were E’s at a rave… or is the Turnip Cup just that good? Kalimari Desert is one of my favourite racetracks from the Nintendo 64, and the adaptations made to it for the Booster Course Pass take it to another level. I adore racing through the train tunnel, and that each lap takes a different path. I love that there are different routes to take, glider options, and a sneaky shortcut. And the musical accompaniment is just fantastic.

Kalimari Desert’s “American Southwest” theming felt wonderful on the Nintendo 64 – and if anything, it feels even better on the Switch!

DS Waluigi Pinball (Turnip Cup)
Tier: A

I’m not sure what Waluigi has to do with pinball… but there’s no denying that this is a great racetrack! I have fond memories of playing pinball – not at an arcade, but at a leisure centre. That pinball machine was a Star Trek: The Next Generation one, and it was an absolute blast! Everything you’d expect to see in a pinball machine is present in this racetrack, and dodging the giant rolling balls can be challenging! Waluigi Pinball is also the longest racetrack in the game, which is neat. Some tracks in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe can feel a tad short… looking at you, N64 Rainbow Road!

A great soundtrack, a fun and unique theme, challenging obstacles, and an exciting layout all come together to make Waluigi Pinball a great racetrack.

Tour Sydney Sprint (Propeller Cup)
Tier: B

Sydney Sprint takes racers through the Sydney Opera House and across Sydney Harbour Bridge. Those are basically the only two landmarks I know of in the city – the latter from seeing it lit up on New Year’s Eve – so from my point of view at least, it’s a racetrack that hits the major highlights of the city it’s recreating! I like the layout of the racetrack, with each lap feeling different from the last and the final lap actually going “backwards” from the direction the race started.

A solid city track.

GBA Snow Land (Propeller Cup)
Tier: B

I love snowy and wintery racetracks, and GBA Snow Land is a perfectly creditable addition to Mario Kart 8 Deluxe’s growing roster of those. The penguins add something a little different midway through, as the track veers off the road and onto a frozen lake. There’s a particularly complicated shortcut that really only works if you have a mushroom and you absolutely nail your drifting alignment… but pulling it off online, in the final lap, and jumping from being in tenth place to first in a matter of seconds? That’s pure racing bliss.

The wintery theming is doing a lot for Snow Land, but it’s a fun racetrack with a cool (get it?) shortcut.

Wii Mushroom Gorge (Propeller Cup)
Tier: A

Mushroom Gorge was great fun on the Wii, great fun on the 3DS, and it’s great fun again here on the Switch. The addition of an optional glider section makes the multi-mushroom jump section different, and perhaps a tad easier for players who find the bouncy mushrooms a bit tricky. I’m not wild about the musical soundtrack, but if that’s my only complaint about this well-laid-out racetrack… that’s not too bad!

A racetrack that’s an absolute blast – and that can lead to some fun and chaotic moments online!

Sky High Sundae (Propeller Cup)
Tier: F

Although it doesn’t officially have the “Tour” prefix, it’s worth pointing out that Sky High Sundae debuted on Mario Kart Tour shortly before it arrived in the Booster Course Pass. Food-themed racetracks are pretty “meh” for me, as I think I said last time, and Sky High Sundae really has nothing going for it. The music is uninteresting, the theming is dull, and the plain oval layout is pretty uninspired, too. Anti-grav does nothing to cover up Sky High Sundae’s flaws.

A racetrack that I almost always avoid.

Tour London Loop (Rock Cup)
Tier: A

I was born in London… and if you’d told me a few years ago that there’d be a Mario Kart track set in that city I don’t think I’d have believed it! London Loop hits most of the landmarks you’d expect: Tower Bridge, Big Ben, the Thames, Buckingham Palace, Marble Arch, and the London Eye being the ones that spring to mind. The soundtrack is fun, each of the three laps takes a different route, and there are many of the London/British staples that tourists and visitors love to see, like phone boxes and double-decker buses.

A fun track that captures the spirit of London.

GBA Boo Lake (Rock Cup)
Tier: D

I appreciate that Boo Lake features an actual lake in this reimagined version… but even a dash of underwater racing can’t salvage what is a pretty bland and uninteresting racetrack. There just isn’t all that much going on here: a fairly minimalist soundtrack, a plain boardwalk to race on, and only one pinch point that offers anything resembling a challenge.

Still, Boo Lake can be a bit of fun at Halloween!

3DS Alpine Pass/Rock Rock Mountain (Rock Cup)
Tier: B

On the 3DS, Alpine Pass (as we know it in the UK) felt like a racetrack that was there to showcase the all-new gliding system. As a result… maybe it wouldn’t be totally unfair to suggest that other parts of the racetrack were less of a priority. Still, there’s a fun soundtrack and some great theming, and I like that the glider sections come with the option to either rush back to the ground or keep sailing through the air. Both approaches feel like they have merit.

A lot of gliding… but most of it is fun!

Wii Maple Treeway (Rock Cup)
Tier: S

Maple Treeway is a beautiful autumnal racetrack that I’m so glad has returned. It looks stunning in 1080p HD on the Switch, and racing up and down a massive tree while the leaves are turning shades of red, orange, and gold… it’s just an incredible experience. The wigglers offer a bit of a challenge, there’s an interesting alternate route if you have a mushroom, and replacing the bouncing net with a short glider section mixes things up a bit.

Oh, and the music! The soundtrack to Maple Treeway is one of the best in the entire Mario Kart series without a doubt!

Tour Berlin Byways (Moon Cup)
Tier: B

Berlin Byways has one of the best musical accompaniments in the Booster Course Pass, and that really helps this city racetrack stand out. It’s been years since I’ve been to Berlin, but a couple of the racetrack’s tourist sites – the Brandenburg Gate and the Berlin Wall – felt familiar. I love the addition of Whomps in the Berlin Wall, too – that was a bit of fun, and a surprisingly bold move from Nintendo given that it might’ve seemed flippant and thus controversial.

All in all, a fun dash through the German capital.

DS Peach Gardens (Moon Cup)
Tier: B

Peach Gardens was always a decent racetrack in both its original form and when it was recreated on the Wii. It’s been shaken up this time around with its final lap now running most of the racetrack in reverse. This is a really fun inclusion, and really transforms Peach Gardens into something a bit more special. Racing through the gardens at Peach’s castle was always a neat idea, and although not much has changed visually from the racetrack’s original version on the DS, the titular garden looks better than ever.

Not many Mario Kart racetracks let you go backwards!

Merry Mountain (Moon Cup)
Tier: S

Although Merry Mountain is another racetrack that, if it was being honest, should come with the “Tour” prefix… I can’t really fault it! I love Christmas, and this racetrack’s “Christmas village” theme is beautiful. Part of why I love snowy and wintery racetracks is because of the association with the holiday season, so having an overtly Christmas-themed racetrack in the game for the first time is just fantastic. The music is great, the theming is fantastic, and there are a few fun twists and turns before the racetrack ends with a long, straight run to the finish line.

Merry Christmas! And no, it’s not too early to say that.

3DS Rainbow Road (Moon Cup)
Tier: A

This might be the best version of Rainbow Road in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – even though it isn’t my all-time favourite Rainbow Road! This racetrack was a blast on the 3DS, and its recreated version takes all the beauty and wonder of racing through outer space to a whole new level. I love the soundtrack, which brings back the N64 Rainbow Road theme as part of a new, longer musical track, and hopping from the titular rainbow road to planetary rings and the surface of the moon will always be loads of fun.

3DS Rainbow Road really nails that feeling of wonder and magic that the racetrack should have.

Tour Amsterdam Drift (Fruit Cup)
Tier: F

Amsterdam Drift fails at the only real task it had: it doesn’t feel like Amsterdam. The racetrack spends far too long underwater in empty, featureless concrete ditches with crystal-clear water that don’t resemble Amsterdam’s world-famous canals in any way. And the rest of the track isn’t much better, either. The musical accompaniment isn’t noteworthy – nor does it have any features reminiscent of the Netherlands or Amsterdam – and the city sections feel bland and uninteresting. The tulip garden was a nice touch – but can’t salvage this racetrack.

Amsterdam is a beautiful city, and it deserves better than this!

GBA Riverside Park (Fruit Cup)
Tier: B

Riverside Park is fun – if a tad short! Jumping through a waterfall will always feel great, and the walking piranha plants are a different take on a familiar obstacle. There are a couple of turns that are fun to drift around, and because Riverside Park isn’t too long, when racing online you’re usually never too far off the pace – making it easy to catch up if you fall behind.

A good example of how to upgrade a classic track without completely changing it into something new.

Wii DK’s Snowboard Cross/DK Summit (Fruit Cup)
Tier: A

I don’t like comparing racetracks from different games to one another… but I can’t help it here because comparisons with Mount Wario are inescapable! DK’s Snowboard Cross might’ve cracked its way into S-tier were it not for Mount Wario taking the same concept and doing it far better. DK’s Snowboard Cross was outstanding on the Wii – and has been recreated in more or less its original form here. But having seen Mario Kart 8′s take on the same idea… it doesn’t seem quite as impressive as it once did.

I love racing through the half-pipe near the finish line – and there’s no denying that this is still a great racetrack.

Yoshi’s Island (Fruit Cup)
Tier: D

Yoshi’s Island is one of only two racetracks to make its debut in the Booster Course Pass. And it’s a shame it’s so disappointing! The theming here is on point, and I will absolutely give credit to Nintendo for recreating the look and feel of Yoshi’s Island. But the racetrack’s layout is dull and it comes with a glaring flaw: that awful flying button that unlocks a slightly shorter elevated path near the end of the lap. There are times when the button is literally unreachable; it’s drifted too far such that it becomes completely impossible to hit it no matter what angle you take from the glider ramp.

That’s poor design, in my view, and drags Yoshi’s Island down a peg.

Tour Bangkok Rush (Boomerang Cup)
Tier: D

I’ve never been to Bangkok, so I’m hardly a good tour guide to the Thai capital. But even with that caveat, I cannot believe that one of the most interesting, important, and noteworthy features of Bangkok is a multi-storey car park. It’s mind-boggling to me that this was included in the racetrack given that there must’ve been other touristy sights worth racing past. Beyond that weird inclusion, though, Bangkok Rush doesn’t do anything to stand out from a growing roster of city tracks.

It’s great to get another city outside of Europe and North America, though.

DS Mario Circuit (Boomerang Cup)
Tier: C

I’m not convinced that Mario Kart 8 Deluxe needed yet another “Circuit” track. Nintendo has made a significant alteration to DS Mario Circuit, adding a forested section with a sleeping Wiggler that wasn’t part of the original version. The inclusion of a couple of tight turns that are relatively fun to drift around just before the finish line help drag DS Mario Circuit out of D-tier… but only just.

A racetrack that just feels… unnecessary.

GCN Waluigi Stadium (Boomerang Cup)
Tier: D

Waluigi Stadium was near the bottom of the list in both Double Dash and Wii, and this revised version doesn’t do enough to make it feel any better or more interesting. The generic “motorsport stadium” theme is bland, the halfpipe sections are functionally useless, and there just isn’t much going on to elevate Waluigi Stadium into being anything better than the sum of its parts. It was a disappointment in both of its earlier appearances, and it is again here.

Waaagh!

Tour Singapore Speedway (Boomerang Cup)
Tier: B

Singapore Speedway is a lot of fun. It feels almost futuristic in places; a reflection, no doubt, of the city-state’s renowned infrastructure and technological prowess. Being set after dark makes the city and its buildings pop, and racing through Chinatown is a change of scenery from the high-rises and neon-lit skyscrapers of the rest of the racetrack.

Maybe it isn’t the best city track… but it’s far from the worst!

Tour Athens Dash (Feather Cup)
Tier: D

Athens Dash is another like Amsterdam Drift where I just don’t feel like its theming has been handled well. Athens – modern Athens, that is – has more to offer than the ruins of Ancient Greece, yet this racetrack ignores all of that and sticks only to the ruins of the Parthenon and the rest of the Acropolis. Including at least one modern building or attraction should’ve been possible, even if the racetrack were to keep its focus on the ruins. Athens Dash leaves me conflicted, because as enjoyable as parts of it are, I feel like it’s missing the point. Some of the buildings in the background are incredibly low-poly, even for a Tour track.

There are also a couple of genuinely confusing points in the racetrack that aren’t well-signposted.

GCN Daisy Cruiser (Feather Cup)
Tier: B

Daisy Cruiser is just… nice. It’s a pleasant track to race around with a sweet musical accompaniment and a fun theme. This version of the racetrack hasn’t really been enhanced beyond where it was in Mario Kart 7 (when it was recreated for the first time), but there’s nothing wrong with that. The underwater section had already added a lot, and it’s hard to see where else to take Daisy Cruiser without losing some of what makes the racetrack as fun to play as it is.

I like the sliding tables in the dining room, those always win a chuckle!

Wii Moonview Highway (Feather Cup)
Tier: A

Yes! Moonview Highway is back! I’d been hoping to see this racetrack make a return, as I’ve long felt it was underappreciated on the Wii. One of the more difficult racetracks in the game thanks to a combination of road traffic and some tight turns, Moonview Highway is a blast. It hasn’t been changed too much from its original incarnation, which is great – but I do lament the loss of Mii characters staffing the toll booths!

A fun, challenging racetrack that I’m happy to play over and over again.

Squeaky Clean Sprint (Feather Cup)
Tier: A

I didn’t think I was going to like Squeaky Clean Sprint when it was first announced. It just seemed, from those clips, like a pretty generic and uninteresting racetrack… but I was so very wrong about that! Ribbon Road proved that shrinking down Mario and the gang for a race was a great concept, and Squeaky Clean Sprint makes such good use of its “toy-sized racers” idea. Racing down the plug hole of a bathtub – past accumulated grime and dirt – felt genuinely icky the first few times I did it, and there’s something about the bathroom setting that’s just comical and fun. The design of the track itself is great, too, with alternate routes opening up in the second and third laps.

A surprise, to be sure… but a welcome one!

Los Angeles Laps (Cherry Cup)
Tier: F

What’s the one landmark that comes to mind when you think about LA? The Hollywood sign! Not only does Los Angeles Laps not race past the most famous landmark on the entire American Pacific coast, but it doesn’t even appear on the hills in the background. Instead, Los Angeles Laps worms its way through the most bland and generic city, with only the brief beach section near the start feeling like anything vaguely inspired by LA or California. And what was going on with that diversion through an oil field?

A boring, generic racetrack that ignores the most iconic emblem of the city it’s meant to represent.

GBA Sunset Wilds (Cherry Cup)
Tier: C

Sunset Wilds came within a hair’s breadth of a B-tier ranking… but then Nintendo opted to rip out its most unique feature! One of the best tracks from Super Circuit – and, I’d venture, one of the best desert racetracks in the entire Mario Kart series – Sunset Wilds lived up to its name in both its original incarnation and when it returned in Mario Kart Tour. The sun would actually set – with the final lap of the race taking place after the sun had gone down. For some reason, this version removes that iconic feature.

The racetrack left behind is still enjoyable… but it’s missing a key element of what made the original so much fun.

Wii Koopa Cape (Cherry Cup)
Tier: B

Koopa Cape was a blast on the Wii, and this version is almost as good. I don’t like the changes made to the warp pipe section; removing the obstacles and rushing water changed things a bit too much. But despite that minor downgrade, Koopa Cape is still fun to race through, and the river section in particular can lead to some fast-paced and hectic fun.

A solid addition to the lineup, all things considered.

Tour Vancouver Velocity (Cherry Cup)
Tier: B

Vancouver Velocity has some cute autumn and winter theming that I appreciate, and racing through both a park and an ice rink adds a bit of visual diversity to what could’ve easily been yet another city track. The anti-gravity section shakes things up, too. There’s also a pleasant soundtrack along with a night time setting that, again, adds something a little different to help Vancouver Velocity stand out a little.

The ice skating Shy Guys are cute, and I love seeing the aurora in the sky.

Tour Rome Avanti (Acorn Cup)
Tier: C

There’s nothing especially wrong with Rome Avanti, and it balances its historical and modern sites far better than Athens Dash. But there’s not a lot about it that leaps out at me, either, and along with a fairly convoluted criss-crossing layout, I just don’t find it a ton of fun to drive. I like the Chain Chomps in the Colosseum, and again the night time look gives Rome Avanti something to help it keep its head above water. But I guess I just don’t see much else about it that’s all that special or memorable.

Still, the standard of driving is far higher than anything ever seen in the real Rome!

GCN DK Mountain (Acorn Cup)
Tier: B

DK Mountain is fun, and it comes with a great musical accompaniment! The cannon section can feel painfully long, but once that’s out of the way, the race down the mountain/volcano feels fast-paced and exciting. The angry face on the volcano looks better than ever in this version of the racetrack, too, which is fantastic, and the return of the dangerous bridge just before the finish line was a much-needed inclusion! There’s a lot to love here.

Oh, and this version retains the shortcut from Double Dash and Wii (that I’ve never been able to successfully pull off!)

Wii Daisy Circuit (Acorn Cup)
Tier: A

Daisy Circuit always felt like an underappreciated racetrack on the Wii, and I’m glad to see it make a return. It’s not got an especially complicated layout, but the inclusion of the original shortcut – now with an added glider ramp – does provide an option if you have a mushroom to use. I like the aesthetic and music of Daisy Circuit, and racing around a sweet little seaside town at sunset will always feel like a ton of fun.

Probably one of the best racetracks to have the “Circuit” name!

Piranha Plant Cove (Acorn Cup)
Tier: A

Piranha Plant Cove is another track that should come with the “Tour” prefix, but we can forgive it because of how much fun it is! The use of the word “Cove” conjures up images of pirates, and this racetrack’s underwater ruins theme kind of plays into that. I like the night time setting, and it’s fun to get a racetrack that’s almost entirely underwater – only the second in the game after Dolphin Shoals to really lean into the underwater racing idea.

A fun concept that has been executed well – and a racetrack that looks outstanding on the Switch.

Tour Madrid Drive (Spiny Cup)
Tier: B

The best part of Madrid Drive is also the shortest: driving through the football stadium! But this short section definitely elevates a racetrack that can feel, in parts, a bit samey in a game with so many other European city tracks from Tour. In a way, Madrid Drive drew the short straw by being the final city track in the game; it’s easy to feel bored of the concept by this point. But its art gallery is fun, the Wiggler in the city square is just plain random, and the aforementioned football stadium – complete with ball-kicking Goombas – gives the track a unique element to help it stand out.

Not the best city track, perhaps… but definitely not the worst!

3DS Rosalina’s Ice World (Spiny Cup)
Tier: A

I love icy and wintery racetracks, and Rosalina’s Ice World really leans into the magic and wonder that snow and ice can provide. Heavily inspired by Super Mario Galaxy, the racetrack has a lot of those magical, mystical elements that really compliment its ice road setting. It was great fun on the 3DS, and this recreation feels faithful to the original while bringing much more visual detail.

As the final icy track in the game, Rosalina’s Ice World delivered!

SNES Bowser Castle 3 (Spiny Cup)
Tier: B

I adore the way in which the original Bowser Castle music from Super Mario Kart has been adapted here. The heavy metal cover brings it in line with the music for Mario Kart 8′s Bowser’s Castle – which is great! Overall, though… I can’t help but feel that this version of SNES Bowser Castle 3 is a little too different from its original appearance. Heck, it’s basically a brand-new racetrack altogether. It’s a good track, don’t get me wrong… I guess it just doesn’t give me the same nostalgic vibes as other SNES racetracks have.

It’s great to get another Bowser’s Castle track in the game, though!

Wii Rainbow Road (Spiny Cup)
Tier: A

I feel a little sorry for Wii Rainbow Road, because it would have almost certainly made S-tier were it not for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe having so many other versions of this iconic racetrack. By the time I reached Wii Rainbow Road at the end of the Booster Course Pass, I couldn’t help but feel it was just a little too samey. That’s not its fault at all, and the way it’s been recreated here is still wonderful. But it gets a little lost amongst other versions of the racetrack – including the 3DS one discussed above.

A solid end to the Booster Course Pass, though.

So that’s it!

We’ve put all 96 Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and Booster Course Pass racetracks into our tier list. Let’s take a look at the final standings, shall we?

  • F-tier: seven racetracks,
  • D-tier: eleven racetracks,
  • C-tier: fourteen racetracks,
  • B-tier: twenty-eight racetracks,
  • A-tier: twenty-four racetracks,
  • S-tier: twelve racetracks.

Let me just add those up on my calculator… yep, that’s all ninety-six racetracks officially ranked! Check out how the tier list looks:

As I said at the beginning, all of this has just been the wholly subjective (and occasionally arbitrary) take of one person. I’m a huge fan of Mario Kart – and I have been since the very beginning. I think you can see that there are far more racetracks in the upper half of the list than the lower half, and even those racetracks that I don’t enjoy every aspect of can still be fun to race through from time to time.

This has been a fun experiment. I’ve never made a tier list before, but the format is surprisingly good fun. I can already think of a few more ideas for tier lists… so this might become an occasional part of the website going forward!

I hope you’ve enjoyed this look at the different Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and Booster Course Pass racetracks. I’ve certainly had fun racing through all of them – though I was clever this time and took my time instead of trying to rush through all of them in quick succession! Now that the final wave of the Booster Course Pass has landed, I think it’s an easy recommendation for any Mario Kart player. Doubling the number of racetracks in the game really does expand it and give it a boost – and with Mario Kart 9 potentially still a ways off, that’s a good thing in my book!

I have more than 200 unused screenshots of Dry Bones (my favourite Mario Kart driver, if you couldn’t tell) racing around practically all of the racetracks in the game, so maybe I’ll put together some kind of gallery of those in the days or weeks ahead. And be sure to stay tuned for more Mario Kart and Nintendo content here on the website in future! If we start to get news about a new Nintendo console, Mario Kart 9, or anything else in that vein, I’ll do my best to cover it and share my thoughts.

Until next time!

Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is out now for Nintendo Switch. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, the Booster Course Pass, and the Super Mario series are the copyright of Nintendo. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Ten Gaming “Hot Takes” (Part 1)

Today I thought we could have a bit of fun and talk about some of my more controversial gaming opinions! This is the first part of a two-part list, so be sure to stay tuned in the days ahead for five more gaming “hot takes.” There were too many to fit into a single piece this time around!

Although this is intended to be lighthearted and somewhat tongue-in-cheek, these are opinions that I genuinely hold; I’m not making things up for the sake of clickbait. I’ll always give the caveat that I’m a fan of video games and an advocate for gaming as a hobby… but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t things to criticise from time to time!

A Sega Mega Drive console.
Let’s share some controversial gaming opinions!

Gaming has changed a lot since I first picked up a joystick at a kids’ club in the ’80s, and I’ve seen the games industry and games themselves evolve dramatically! Most of those changes have been for the better… but perhaps not every last one.

As I always say when we talk about potentially controversial topics: these are my wholly subjective opinions! I’m not trying to claim that I’m right and that’s the end of the affair – on the contrary: I’m acutely aware that I’m in the minority here! I share these “hot takes” in the spirit of thought-provoking fun, and you are free to disagree wholeheartedly.

With all of that out of the way, let’s take a look at some “hot takes!”

“Hot Take” #1:
An open world isn’t the right choice for a lot of games.

A screenshot of Jedi: Survivor showing protagonist Cal Kestis outside of a saloon.
Jedi: Survivor is a recent game that employed an open world style.

Open worlds became a gaming trend sometime in the early 2010s, and too many publishers nowadays insist on forcing the formula onto titles that are entirely unsuited to it. Some open worlds are great… but I’d argue that relatively few manage to hit the golden combo of being both a well-constructed open world and one that suits the game in question. There have been some fantastic open worlds in which stories were told that didn’t fit, and some games that could’ve been wonderful that were undone by the fetishisation of the open world formula in some corporate boardrooms.

In many, many cases, having distinct levels or separate sections of a larger map just… works. It allows for the game’s narrative to create an often-necessary sense of physical distance in between locations – something that even the best open world maps are usually unable to manage. And for an awful lot of stories – even in games that we might consider to be masterpieces – that can be important to the immersion.

Ryo Hazuki, protagonist of Shenmue, encounters a man dressed as Santa Claus.
An early open world pioneer was Shenmue on the Dreamcast.

Take Red Dead Redemption II as an example. That game is one of the very best that I’ve ever played… but there were several points in its single-player story where the open world formula came close to being a problem. After escaping the town of Blackwater by the skin of their teeth in the game’s prologue, Arthur Morgan and the gang roam around in the mountains for a while, before eventually finding a new place to make camp… literally five minutes away from Blackwater. And this would happen again later in the game, when the gang would escape the town of Valentine only to settle at a new campsite just up the road.

The game’s narrative presented these locations as if they were far apart, but the open world of Red Dead Redemption II, for all of the content that it was filled with, didn’t always gel with that. It’s a scaled-down representation of part of the United States, and I get that. But narratively, it might’ve worked even better if the game’s main acts took place in separate, smaller open maps instead of merging them all into one larger open world.

Arthur Morgan, the protagonist of Red Dead Redemption II.
Red Dead Redemption II is a masterpiece.

Red Dead Redemption II is, without a doubt, one of the best games that I’ve ever played. So if the open world could be a problem there… well, you don’t need to think too hard to find examples of the open world formula tripping up worse and far less enjoyable titles! There’s absolutely nothing wrong with creating separate levels for a game – as has been done really since the beginning of narrative video games. Doing so often allows for more diversity in locations, environments, and terrain – and it’s something more titles need to consider taking advantage of.

I could probably count on my fingers the number of games that have genuinely made good use of an open world formula, and that have used that style of map properly. And when I think about modern games that I’ve really enjoyed such as The Last of Us, Jedi: Fallen Order, or the Mass Effect trilogy, they don’t use open worlds – and they’re much better for it.

“Hot Take” #2:
Every game should have a robust easy mode – it’s an accessibility feature.

The Skyrim options menu with difficulty settings highlighted.
Difficulty options in Skyrim.

I’m a big believer in making games accessible to as many players as possible. That can mean including accessibility features like colourblindness settings, disabling quick-time events, or ensuring that subtitles are available. But it also means that players need to be able to tone down the difficulty – yes, even in your precious Dark Souls!

I suffer from arthritis, including in my hands and fingers. I don’t have the ability to pull off complicated multi-button combos any more – if I ever possessed such an ability! And as with any skill or set of skills, gaming abilities vary from person to person; even someone who isn’t suffering from a health condition may simply not be blessed with the reflexes or hand-eye coordination necessary to progress through some of the industry’s more punishing titles. Not to mention that many folks don’t have the free time to dedicate to learning precise button combos or the intricate details of specific boss battles.

A promotional screenshot of Kingdom Come: Deliverance.
Kingdom Come: Deliverance was a title I found too difficult to play, despite wanting to enjoy it.

And that’s a real shame – because there are some outstanding games that everyone should be able to experience. Stories in some games are truly awe-inspiring, and can be better in some cases than films or television shows. For those stories to be denied to people with disabilities or people who may not have the time to repeat the same boss fight or level over and over again is just… sad.

I absolutely detest the expression “not every game is made for every player” when this debate rolls around. It’s absolutely true that people like different things, so if I’m not into online multiplayer shooters then I’m probably not going to enjoy the next Call of Duty title. But that doesn’t apply to difficulty, or to making a game that millions of potential players are locked out of because of a skill mismatch or health condition. That kind of gatekeeping is honestly just pathetic.

A toddler or young child playing a racing game.
Gaming should be accessible to as many people as possible.

I’d also add that the reverse is true here: certain games can be too easy for some players, and including the option to increase the difficulty in that case is likewise a good thing and something that developers should seek to include.

Difficulty settings have been a part of games going back decades, and they aren’t all that difficult to implement. At the very least, giving players the option to skip a level or boss battle after failing it multiple times should be achievable for every developer – and I can’t think of a good reason why a studio that cares about its audience wouldn’t want to implement something so incredibly basic. It doesn’t “hurt” the game to include an easy mode, nor does it damage the developers’ “artistic vision.” An easy mode only impacts players who choose to turn it on – and in a single-player game, why should anyone be judgemental about that?

“Hot Take” #3:
Artificial intelligence isn’t “coming soon,” it’s already here – and the games industry will have to adapt.

Still frame from the film Terminator (1984).
Are you ready for the “rise of the machines?”

One of the hottest topics of 2023 has been the arrival of easily-accessible generative AI software. It seems that anyone can now create an article like this one, a photorealistic image of just about anything, an audio recording of a celebrity… or even code for a video game. This technology has well and truly landed, and I don’t see any practical way to prohibit or ban it – so the games industry is going to have to adapt to that reality.

I can see a lot of potential positives to AI. Modding, for instance, can now get a lot more creative, and we’ve seen already mods featuring AI voices that are basically seamless and can add a lot to a character or story. For smaller developers and indie studios, too, AI has the potential to be a massively useful tool – doing things that a single developer or small team wouldn’t be able to achieve.

"Matrix code" from the 2021 film The Matrix: Resurrections.
AI is already here – and could prove incredibly useful to game developers.

But there are unquestionably massive downsides. The games industry has seen significant layoffs this year – despite most of the big corporations making record profits. Corporations in all kinds of industries are looking to replace as many real humans as possible with AI software… and for an all-digital product like a video game, the potential for divisions or even entire studios being shut down is firmly on the table.

The arrival of generative AI is going to shake things up, and because of the way it works, I can absolutely see there being less creativity in the games industry if too many big corporations go down that road. Because of the way these AI programmes work, they aren’t capable of truly creating – only reworking things that already exist and generating something with the same parameters. If major video games start using AI in a big way, you can say goodbye to innovation and creativity.

An example of AI-generated art.
An example of AI-generated art that was created (in less than ten seconds) from a prompt I entered.
Image Credit: Hotpot Art Generator

Whichever company cracks AI first is, in all likelihood, going to be rewarded – so there may even be a kind of “AI arms race” within the games industry, as some of the biggest corporations duke it out to be the first one to strike the right balance between AI and human-created content. What that might mean for games in the short-to-medium term… I can’t really say.

Generative AI is here to stay, though, and I don’t see a way around that. Some folks have suggested boycotting AI-heavy titles, but these consumer boycotts seldom succeed. If a new game that relied on AI during its creation ends up being fun to play, I daresay it’ll get played. Most players don’t follow the ins and outs of the industry, and may never even know the extent to which their favourite game was created using AI. I hope you’re ready for AI… because I’m not sure that I am!

“Hot Take” #4:
Sonic the Hedgehog doesn’t work in 3D.

Promotional screenshot from 2014's Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric.
3D Sonic.

We’re going franchise-specific for this one! I adored the first Sonic the Hedgehog games on the Sega Mega Drive. I didn’t have a Mega Drive at the time, but a friend of mine did and we played a lot of Sonic in the early ’90s! Along with Super Mario, Sonic was one of the characters who scaled the mountain and was at the absolute peak of gaming… for a time.

But Sonic’s sole gimmick meant that the character struggled to successfully make the transition from 2D side-scrolling games to fully 3D titles. Extreme speed is something that works well in a 2D title, but it’s hard to code and even harder to play in a 3D environment.

Cropped box art for the re-release of Sonic the Hedgehog.
Sonic’s “gotta go fast” gimmick works in 2D games… but not in 3D.

The most successful Sonic game this side of the millennium has been Sonic Mania… a 2017 title that was originally created by fans of the series before Sega got involved. Sonic Mania is an old-school 2D platformer in the style of the original Mega Drive games. It’s great fun, and a real return to form for Sega’s mascot after years of mediocrity.

Sonic’s fundamental problem begins with his sole superpower: speed. Extreme speed was something that felt wonderful in 2D… and not to mention incredibly innovative! But in 3D, it’s just so much more difficult to build worlds suited to moving so quickly – not to mention that it’s tricky for players to control a character moving at such speed.

Promotional screenshot for 2017's Sonic Mania.
Sonic Mania has been the most successful Sonic game in decades.

There have been 3D Sonic games that tried to innovate, but even the best of them feel like they’re missing something. I remember playing Sonic Adventure on the Dreamcast and barely having to push any buttons; in order to make Sonic work in 3D, much of the interactivity had to be stripped out. That made for a far less enjoyable gaming experience.

When Sonic shows up in other titles – such as alongside Mario for an arcadey sports game, or in Sega’s Mario Kart competitor – then the character can be made to work. But those games almost always rob Sonic of his one defining trait: his speed. I’ve never played a 3D Sonic game that felt anywhere near as good as those original 2D titles.

“Hot Take” #5:
Google Stadia was a good idea (in more ways than one).

Promo image featuring the Stadia control pad.
Promo image of the Stadia control pad (right) next to a laptop.

The history of video gaming is littered with failed consoles and devices; machines that didn’t quite make it for one reason or another. 2019’s Stadia – Google’s attempt to break into the games industry – has become the latest example, being fully shut down after only a couple of years. There were myriad problems with Stadia, and Google has a track record of not backing up its projects and investments nor giving them enough time to deliver. So in that sense its failure is understandable. But I think I’m out on a limb when I say that it’s disappointing – and potentially even bad for the games industry as a whole.

Stadia offered a relatively inexpensive way to get started with gaming by relying on streaming. Gone was the need for an expensive console or PC; players could jump in using only their existing screen and a Stadia controller. Lowering the cost of entry to gaming is a good thing, and we should be looking around for more ways to do that!

Promo screenshot of Stadia-exclusive title Gylt.
Gylt was one of the only Stadia-exclusive games.

Secondly, Stadia represented the first potential shake-up of a pretty stagnant industry in nigh-on twenty years. Since Microsoft entered the video game market and Sega dropped out, there have been three major hardware manufacturers and three main gaming platforms. Disrupting that status quo is, again, not a bad thing in theory. Stadia, with Google’s support and financial resources, seemed well-positioned to be the kind of disruptive force that often leads to positive change.

Stadia won’t be remembered – except as the answer to an obscure pub quiz question in a few years’ time, perhaps. But it had potential when it was announced, both in terms of the way it could have brought console-quality games to people who couldn’t necessarily pay for a current-generation machine up-front, and in the way Google could’ve disrupted the industry, leading to competition and innovation.

A Google Chromecast device.
Stadia was designed to be compatible with Google’s Chromecast devices – as well as other platforms.

I didn’t buy into Stadia on day one. As someone who has a gaming PC, I didn’t really feel it was necessary. And there were limitations to Stadia: a lack of exclusive games, no subscription option, and Google’s well-known history of prematurely shutting down underperforming products and services. All of these things put me off – and undoubtedly put off a lot of other folks, too.

But in a way, I regret the demise of Stadia. Its short, unsuccessful life will surely be a warning to any other company that might’ve considered launching a new console or a comparable streaming device, and if there’s one thing I think we can all agree on it’s this: the games industry needs a shake-up from time to time! Stadia couldn’t do it, unfortunately… but I hope that another device will.

So that’s it… for now!

Screenshot of Starfield.
Starfield (2023).

Stay tuned, because I have five more “hot takes” that I’m currently in the process of writing up.

As I said at the beginning, none of these things should be taken too seriously – this is just intended to be a bit of thought-provoking fun, at the end of the day.

There’s a lot to love about gaming as a hobby, and the quality of video games in general is way higher today than I could’ve imagined even just a few years ago. There are some incredible games out there; masterpieces in every sense of the word that have given me some of the best entertainment experiences I’ve ever had. And there are some games that I didn’t enjoy, too! I hope this look at a few of my “hot takes” hasn’t gotten anyone too upset!

All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective studio, developer, and/or publisher. Some images used above courtesy of IGDB and Unsplash. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

When are you “allowed” to decorate for Christmas?

I love Christmas! And I don’t think it’s too early to say so. In fact, it was when I was beginning to put up my modest array of Christmas decorations that I began to think about how silly this conversation is about “Christmas creep” and the expanding holiday season. I decided to write down how I feel about it if for no other reason than to get my thoughts in order!

Not everyone likes Christmas – and across the world, billions of people don’t celebrate. That’s totally okay with me, and I’d never tell anyone that they should feel the same way about any holiday or time of year as I do. I’m not especially interested in Valentine’s Day or Easter, for example, and I really don’t like my birthday – I tend not to share my date of birth with people nor celebrate in any way. But Christmas is 100% my jam; this is the holiday I care the most about, and the time of year that I’m always looking forward to and happily welcome back.

A festive street light.

As with so many things online, the “debate” around Christmas and when it’s okay to start celebrating started out pretty casually and light-heartedly. But some folks seem to have started to take it unnecessarily seriously, with some even suggesting that people who put up their Christmas decorations before they deem it appropriate are somehow committing a horrible moral sin or doing something unacceptable.

I’ll share my two cents on decorating and you can see whether we’re close to being on the same page. Here in the UK, we celebrate Bonfire Night on the 5th of November – something you might remember from the film adaptation of V for Vendetta, if for no other reason! Bonfire Night doesn’t bring with it any decorations, but there are fireworks and – naturally – bonfires. Bonfire Night is the last noteworthy holiday/event (in my life as an English atheist, at any rate) before Christmas – so I consider any time after Bonfire Night to be “fair game” for putting up my Christmas decorations.

Decorating for Christmas.

I like to decorate my home. It’s fun to have something to look at, both inside and out, and I take any opportunity I can get to put up a string of fairy lights, banners, streamers, or really any kind of decorative items. With my Halloween decorations coming down in early November, there’s a bit of a void… and I like to fill that void by getting started on my Christmas decorations.

Maybe we’re getting a little philosophical or even psychological… but I’m someone who doesn’t like conflict, and I like to “live and let live.” If someone disagrees with me, even on a topic I care greatly about, I’d rather move the conversation along than get into an argument. I’m also the kind of person who’d never tell anyone that they’re doing something wrong – not unless it was literally a life-or-death kind of situation! “You do you, friend” is something I’ll often say – even if I vehemently disagree!

All aboard the Christmas Express!

So with all of that in mind, I’d never want to tell someone that the way they’re decorating their own home is somehow wrong or inappropriate. Some people begin to prepare for Halloween months in advance because they love that holiday a lot more than I do – and that’s fine. I’ve dated people who wanted to go all-out for Valentine’s Day, and even though it’s really not my favourite holiday, I was happy to go along with it for their sake. I guess I don’t really understand why so many people feel the need to butt in and give their totally unsolicited and uninvited opinions on Christmas decorating.

I saw a web comic once, a few years ago now, that said something to the effect of “some people don’t get a lot of joy or pleasure in life… so why try to rob them of it when they do find it?” And that’s kind of how I feel about this silly “debate” around decorating for Christmas. Some of the trappings of Christmas – the snacks, the decorations, and the twinkling lights – give me a small amount of pleasure at this time of year. And if someone wants to decorate for Christmas in August… why should you or I care? Why should we tell them that they’re being silly or childish? It seems mean… it feels almost like bullying.

Lights and baubles on a Christmas tree.

On an individual level, making a one-off remark about it being “too early” might seem inoffensive enough. But we have to try to keep in mind that, especially when we’re communicating online, the chances are that these comments have been made and seen before… time after time after time. And although it may seem harmless… that kind of thing wears you down after a while.

Christmas isn’t always the most fun time of year. I have memories of someone close to me who passed away in between Christmas and New Year that always come to the surface, and I know I won’t be alone in that. Christmas can, for people like myself who live alone, also be a very lonely time of year. When you don’t have anyone close to share your life with, holidays like Christmas can really feel like they’re rubbing it in sometimes! And those feelings impact me, too.

Children decorating a Christmas tree.

But in a way, that’s why decorating is so important to me. It helps me to remind myself of Christmases gone by, and to seek pleasure in the small things. I’m not going to have a big family Christmas this year – most of my close family members are gone, and others live too far away to visit on or around the big day. But I can still find things to enjoy about Christmas time: Christmas music, festive snacks, and of course, my decorations.

I’ve said before in totally different contexts that we should all try to be careful with our words when we hop online – and this is another one of those times. It’s totally okay to not enjoy Christmas, not to celebrate Christmas, and even to get irritated and annoyed if you see people getting ready for the holidays “too soon.” But there’s no need to call out someone for seeking a bit of joy and pleasure at this time of year – and since none of us can really know what anyone else might be feeling or going through, doing so could really upset someone or push them over the edge.

On behalf of people who like to put up their Christmas decorations before December: we get it! Some people think it’s “too early” and it shouldn’t be done. But how I choose to decorate my home – and how I choose to live – really isn’t anyone else’s business, is it?

Happy decorating… and a nice, early Merry Christmas from me to you!

Some images used above courtesy of Unsplash. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Twelve Mario Kart racetracks that can stay in the dustbin

Yesterday, Nintendo announced which eight racetracks have made the cut and will be included in the final wave of the Booster Course Pass for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. And spoiler alert, but there are some incredibly fun ones! Returning to SNES Bowser Castle 3 – in its upgraded form – is perhaps the one I’m most excited about, but there were several others that look like an absolute blast.

But that got me thinking: which racetracks haven’t been included in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe or the Booster Course Pass? Nintendo has obviously been saving some real classics for Mario Kart 9, including some highly-requested fan-favourites. And with the Switch’s successor console potentially only a year or so away from launch… that seems absolutely fair enough! One of my only real concerns with the Booster Course Pass has been that Nintendo has used up a lot of good, solid racetracks – potentially leaving fewer to be remade next time around.

While there are some racetracks whose omissions from the Booster Course Pass will undoubtedly have upset fans, those aren’t the ones we’re going to look at today! Instead, we’re going to focus on a handful of racetracks from across the Mario Kart series that I’m perfectly happy to consign to the dustbin – permanently! These are racetracks that I didn’t enjoy either in their original games or when they returned as retro tracks in later games.

It goes without saying that all of this is the entirely subjective opinion of one person! If you love any or all of these racetracks, please don’t take it personally! We all like different things, and this list is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek fun. I’m a huge fan of Mario Kart, and the fact that I’ve found a handful of racetracks to dislike doesn’t change that.

Racetracks will be put into one of three “cups” (which have been given dustbin-appropriate names) just like they would be in any other Mario Kart game. And any racetrack that has appeared in a Mario Kart title is fair game. I’ve tried not to select too many tracks from the same entry in the series.

With all of that out of the way, let’s jump into the list!

Empty Baked Bean Tin Cup

Wario Stadium
Mario Kart 64

Wario Stadium’s unforgivable flaw is that it’s just… boring. There’s nothing interesting or exciting about the titular stadium or the dirt track set there, and while it has a decently twisty layout, all that manages to do is drag out the racetrack too much. There are a couple of turns that can be challenging to take, but even those aren’t anything to write home about. The musical accompaniment isn’t spectacular, either.

Probably Mario Kart 64′s least enjoyable offering.

Baby Park
Mario Kart: Double Dash

As you’ll know if you’ve already checked out my Mario Kart 8 Deluxe tier list, I detest Baby Park. The racetrack’s plain oval layout is bad enough, but what’s worse is how random it is. If you hit a run of bad luck you can end up in last place not because of any skill issue, but by sheer chance. That might keep things “interesting” in some online races… but it doesn’t feel like a lot of fun most of the time.

An admirable attempt to try something different… but one that did not succeed.

Desert Hills
Mario Kart DS

I’m not the biggest fan of desert racetracks. One or two per game might be okay, depending on what else they bring to the table apart from sand. But DS Desert Hills really only has sand. There just isn’t much else going on here that’s any different, and the racetrack has an incredibly bland colour palette that doesn’t offer much by way of visual interest either. Mario Kart can do better desert racetracks than DS Desert Hills – and it has done so on multiple occasions.

With that in mind, what place could there be for a racetrack like this one?

Sweet Sweet Canyon
Mario Kart 8
Mario Kart 8 Deluxe

I’m not wild about food-themed racetracks in Mario Kart, and nothing about Sweet Sweet Canyon jumps out at me as being especially fun or memorable. The bland colour palette drowns in tan, brown, and yellow tones, and the inclusion of an underwater section doesn’t seem like it adds much. There are no fun secret routes or shortcuts to learn, and Sweet Sweet Canyon tends to end up as a racetrack I skip every time I play Mario Kart 8 Deluxe.

Those massive donuts look delicious, though!

Dirty Nappy Cup

Toad’s Factory
Mario Kart Wii

There was speculation that Toad’s Factory might’ve been one of the racetracks to join the Booster Course Pass, but you know what? I’m glad that it didn’t! This is probably my least-favourite track from Mario Kart Wii, and one I’d seldom choose to play. The idea of a racetrack set at an operational factory is a fun one… and there were moments in Toad’s Factory that came close to living up to the promise. But there were also annoying pinch points, a pretty basic layout, and one of the worst pieces of music in Mario Kart Wii to drag it down.

I’m all but certain that Toad’s Factory will be back in the next Mario Kart, though!

Yoshi Desert
Mario Kart Super Circuit

Most of what I said above about DS Desert Hills also applies to GBA Yoshi Desert. Desert tracks too easily fall into the trap of being one-note and uninteresting, and while Yoshi Desert gets some credit for being one of the first desert racetracks in the Mario Kart series… even that’s not enough to save it. Also included in Super Circuit was the wonderful Sunset Wilds – a racetrack that took the desert theme in a completely different direction. Yoshi Desert is nothing in comparison!

Yoshi Desert returned in Tour, though… so maybe it’ll be back in a future Mario Kart game, too.

Koopa Beach 2
Super Mario Kart

I adore Super Mario Kart, and I’m not sure that it’s always fair to compare unenhanced SNES tracks with the best that modern Mario Kart has to offer. But that being said, Koopa Beach 2 is a pretty basic track even by Super Mario Kart standards, consisting of a fairly plain oval on a beach. There isn’t much else to say; at least Koopa Beach 1 had some moments of island-hopping to mix things up. This track just… doesn’t have a lot to offer.

Compared with other beach-themed racetracks, Koopa Beach 2 just comes up short.

Amsterdam Drift
Mario Kart Tour

I have a particular criticism of Amsterdam Drift: it doesn’t really feel like Amsterdam. The main reason for that is how much time is spent racing underwater. Now I know that Amsterdam’s canals are famous… but it just felt to me like too much of this racetrack was taken up with underwater racing in these deep ditches that had no points of interest within them. If the racetrack had been called “Canal Crunch” or something, and wasn’t meant to be a representation of Amsterdam, maybe that would’ve been okay.

But the racetrack fails at its one and only objective as far as I’m concerned.

Cigarette Butt Cup

Daisy Hills
Mario Kart 7

To be honest, it was a toss-up whether to include Daisy Hills or Mario Circuit from the 3DS… but Daisy Hills claims the “win” on this occasion. While there are some moments of visual interest and a soundtrack that’s at least okay, Daisy Hills is one of those easily-overlooked racetracks that just feels bland and generic. The brown dirt track, green grass, and blue sky combo has been seen on so many different racetracks with better layouts or more memorable musical accompaniments that it doesn’t feel interesting in the slightest here.

I’d almost forgotten that Daisy Hills existed.

Hyrule Circuit
The Legend of Zelda x Mario Kart 8 DLC
Mario Kart 8 Deluxe

You may disagree with this pick if you’re a big fan of The Legend of Zelda… but as someone who never played any of those games, I just don’t feel any connection to Hyrule Circuit. The nicest thing I can say about it is that it’s neat to race through a castle that isn’t filled with molten lava, but in every other way this track just feels bland and generic. I don’t think its gimmick of a hidden path that could be opened by hitting switches was particularly well-implemented, either.

Plenty of Zelda theming (I assume, anyway) but I just don’t care about that in the least.

Yoshi Falls
Mario Kart DS

Yoshi Falls is a plain oval with a few boost panels. Its brief waterfall sections are so short that they’re easily overlooked, and there just isn’t much else that’s exciting or even memorable about such a plain racetrack. The giant Yoshi egg gives it a small amount of visual interest, I guess, but even that’s not enough to salvage this one.

Yoshi has indeed fallen.

Rainbow Road
Super Mario Kart

SNES Rainbow Road is a great track, an all-time classic, and a nostalgic punch in the face for those of us who loved Super Mario Kart! So why on earth is it on this list? Simple: it’s been recreated in the last four Mario Kart titles (7, 8, 8 Deluxe, and Tour)… so it needs a break. Bringing it back again in Mario Kart 9 would be repetitive, and transforming the racetrack in the way some other retro tracks have been would take away from its unique charm.

Give SNES Rainbow Road the day off and bring back other racetracks instead!

So that’s it!

I hope your favourite wasn’t on the list… but if it was, sorry! Actually no, I’m not sorry… because this is just one person’s entirely subjective take, and we’re all entitled to our views on this wonderful kart racing series.

There’s only a few days left until the sixth and final wave of racetracks arrives for the Booster Course Pass… and with the development of new tracks for Tour seemingly coming to an end as well, does that mean production is shifting toward Mario Kart 9?! It’s been almost a decade since Mario Kart 8 debuted on the Wii U, so it’s about time for a new entry in the series! I hope that Nintendo doesn’t include the racetracks listed above in the next game… but if they’re present I daresay I’ll get over it! Not every track can be an absolute favourite, but I think every Mario Kart game so far has managed to have far more good ones than bad.

So I hope this was a bit of fun! Stay tuned, because the second part of my Mario Kart 8 Deluxe tier list is in the works! You can find the first part, in which I ranked all 48 racetracks from the base version of Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, by clicking or tapping here. And you can find my dedicated Mario Kart webpage by clicking or tapping here.

See you on the track!

Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is out now for Nintendo Switch. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, the Booster Course Pass, and the Super Mario series are the copyright of Nintendo. Images of GBA Yoshi Desert, SNES Koopa Beach 2, and 3DS Daisy Hills courtesy of the Super Mario Wiki. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Five Spooky Star Trek Episodes for Halloween

Spoiler Warning: Spoilers are present for each of the episodes on the list below.

Happy Halloween!

To celebrate the spookiest day of the year, I thought it could be a bit of fun to choose five Star Trek episodes that have a “horror” theme or vibe. The Star Trek franchise has dabbled in many genres across its fifty-seven-year history, and there are a handful of episodes that definitely have horror overtones. Though the Star Trek franchise is never quite on par with a dedicated horror film or TV show, there are still some decidedly creepy, spooky, or downright frightening stories – as well as scenes and sequences across many more episodes.

This time, I’ve pulled out five episodes that I think could make for entertaining Halloween viewing! The episodes come from five different shows across Star Trek’s history, and while they’re all very different, the overall trend here is one of horror. So if (like me) you’re a bit of a scaredy-cat… maybe you shouldn’t watch them!

Are you ready to cower in fear?

As always, a couple of caveats. This list is just for fun, and I share it in a light-hearted manner. I’m not saying that these episodes are somehow “objectively” the best horror-themed stories in the history of Star Trek – nor even that all of them are among the best that the franchise has to offer. This is all just the opinion of one Star Trek fan, shared in the spirit of Halloween.

I don’t have any other major rules or criteria for this list – other than the episodes had to be horror-themed, spooky, or frightening! I wouldn’t say any of them are the scariest things I’ve ever seen; this is still Star Trek, after all! But echoes of the horror genre are present throughout.

With all of that out of the way, let’s jump into the list!

Episode #1:
Empok Nor
Deep Space Nine Season 5

Approaching Empok Nor in a Runabout.

I adore DS9′s fifth season. It has so many incredibly strong episodes, and Empok Nor is definitely one of them. There’s a genuine fear factor to the presentation of Garak – a character who has already been established, by this point in the series’ run, as being mysterious and even dangerous. Seeing him go “rogue,” and using some of his skills from his time in the Obsidian Order against our Starfleet heroes is truly disturbing.

The interplay between Garak and O’Brien, conducted largely by communicator once the episode gets going, is also fantastic! It reminds me in more ways than one of the film Die Hard, but with a decidedly darker edge. The board game analogy that Garak repeatedly brings up also adds to the unsettling presentation of his character, showcasing his descent into “madness.”

Garak.

For a Star Trek episode, Empok Nor is also surprisingly violent, with the deaths of several redshirts (or the aftermaths, at least) being shown in graphic detail. There wasn’t much blood or viscera shown – this was pre-watershed television in the ’90s, after all – but when compared with what other Star Trek stories were doing around the same time, the death and mutilation shown in Empok Nor is positively graphic!

The episode manages to ramp up the tension and fear as it progresses, and uses the familiar Deep Space Nine sets and stages in a unique way. Changes in lighting coupled with a distinct lack of DS9′s regular background characters populating the station creates a truly creepy backdrop that heightens the episode’s frightening elements. It has wonderful performances from Andrew Robinson, Colm Meaney, and the late great Aron Eisenberg in particular. All in all, an outstanding start to our list!

Episode #2:
Terminal Provocations
Lower Decks Season 1

Creating an AI? What could possibly go wrong?

This episode, from Lower Decks’ first season, is on the list for one reason: Badgey! Badgey is a truly disturbing villain, and a reflection of contemporary fears of artificial intelligence gone wrong. An unsettling combination of Microsoft Office’s “Clippy” and renegade AI villains like the Terminator, Badgey really succeeds at unnerving me!

The other side of Terminal Provocations sees Boimler and Mariner team up with a friend of theirs to try to undo a mistake – a mistake that soon evolves into another monster to defeat. This computer-core monster is less frightening than Badgey, but it’s still worth noting that it has a couple of creepy moments of its own.

Here’s Badgey!

“Trapped on the holodeck” is a Star Trek trope going back to the introduction of the setting in The Next Generation, and there have been several episodes that have managed to evoke a sense of danger from that premise. But Terminal Provocations is arguably the first where this concept has been spun out to be something truly frightening, and the first to use the “broken holodeck” idea to lean into a horror story.

As Badgey pursues Rutherford and Tendi across a variety of environments, we get to see the villainous construct in several different – and increasingly dangerous – situations. The tension on this side of the story builds to a surprisingly emotional climax – one that seems to be in the vein of the likes of Frankenstein. Click or tap here to see my review of the episode, written shortly after its original broadcast in 2020.

Episode #3:
Starship Mine
The Next Generation Season 6

The Enterprise-D undergoing a baryon sweep.

Less out-and-out terrifying than creepy and unsettling, Starship Mine sees Picard trapped aboard a deserted Enterprise-D – while a gang of wannabe terrorists try to steal a dangerous explosive material. As above with Empok Nor, seeing the usually-populated ship abandoned and deluminated is enough to set the stage in a most unnerving way.

The baryon sweep which begins to slowly work its way through the Enterprise-D is a frightening concept, too, and the stakes involved are communicated well. By the time Picard is face-to-face with the deadly phenomenon, we’ve already seen first-hand what it can do to people, and we can see just how deadly it is. Knowing the layout of the Enterprise-D, with Ten-Forward being the forwardmost part of the ship, is a good bit of information to have, too, as it really hammers home that Picard and the villainous Kelsey have literally nowhere left to run.

Picard is trapped aboard the Enterprise-D.

Playing a game of cat-and-mouse with hostile terrorists aboard the Enterprise-D is surprisingly fun, and Starship Mine put Picard at the centre of the action – which is a narrative space he didn’t always get to occupy. Picard is a very different kind of captain than Kirk had been, so to see him in this kind of spy/action hero role is something different, too.

I also felt that Picard’s actions at the climax of the episode show a ruthlessness that we seldom get to see; a dark, cunning, and utterly cold presentation of the character that’s disturbing in its own right. Maybe Starship Mine isn’t the scariest episode in the franchise – but it’s unsettling in its own way.

Episode #4:
All Those Who Wander
Strange New Worlds Season 1

A gory scene…

Across a truly spectacular first season, Strange New Worlds dipped its toes in a variety of different genres. All Those Who Wander is the show’s take on horror – and it absolutely nailed it. All Those Who Wander might be the out-and-out scariest episode on this list – and perhaps even the most overtly frightening that the Star Trek franchise has ever attempted.

The DNA of films like Predator and Alien is present throughout, and All Those Who Wander takes a familiar setting, characters, and even an alien race that we thought we knew and catapults them into a desperate fight for survival against an adversary who feels every inch the predator.

La’an and the away team prepare to do battle.

Setting the story aboard a crashed starship on a desolate, icebound planet was a masterstroke, and the hallways of the USS Peregrine feel incredibly claustrophobic as the away team is quite literally being hunted by an apex predator. The Gorn feel like a perfect fit for this role, too, and both the episode and Strange New Worlds as a whole manage to expand our knowledge of the race without treading on the toes of established canon too much. Gorn eggs being parasitic was a particularly masterful stroke of writing – one that loaded the story of All Those Who Wander for a last-second detonation.

There have to be stakes in horror; as the audience, we need to feel that our characters are genuinely in danger, not safe from all turmoil and threats thanks to heavy plot armour. Part of that means that killing off major, named characters – not just nameless redshirts – has to be on the table. And throughout All Those Who Wander, our heroes genuinely seem to be in danger.

Episode #5:
The Haunting of Deck Twelve
Voyager Season 6

Who’s ready for a ghost story?

We’ve already talked about this episode here on the website – I covered it in-depth for Halloween a couple of years ago. But it’s such a unique and fun spooky story that I think it’s worth including on a list like this one! Click or tap here, by the way, if you’re interested in a more in-depth look at the episode and its spookiness.

What I love about The Haunting of Deck Twelve is its “ghost stories around the campfire” framework. Neelix, a character so often used as comic relief, makes for such an interesting narrator – and there’s a sense, as the episode progresses, that we can’t entirely rely on his recollection of the events. This just adds to the tension, for me, and makes the frame narrative work so incredibly well.

Neelix investigates…

Halloween is a holiday for the little ones, despite its horror theme and frightening elements. And The Haunting of Deck Twelve brings Voyager’s full complement of Borg kids into the story in a relatable and understandable way. The way the frame narrative and flashbacks come together is great, and the episode is stronger than it would have been without Neelix and the kids to set the stage.

There are several jumpscares in this episode, as the USS Voyager encounters a brand-new form of life and begins to suffer malfunctions. Seen through the eyes of the kids listening to Neelix’s tale, these moments are elevated. At points, it genuinely feels like we’re right there around the “campfire” with Neelix and the Borg children.

So that’s it!

Armus.

I hope this was a bit of fun. There are other examples of the Star Trek franchise trying out a scary or horror-inspired story, but these are five of my personal favourites. All are great episodes in their own right, too!

As I said a few weeks ago, I’ve been feeling kind of burned out on Star Trek. I’m still not sure that I’m in the right frame of mind to jump headfirst back into Star Trek and start writing reviews and such… and maybe that’s the scariest thing you’ll read this Halloween! Just kidding… but franchise fatigue and burnout are issues that the Star Trek franchise is currently dealing with.

Whatever you’re doing this year, whether you’re heading out to a party or preparing a selection of goodies for trick-or-treaters… I hope you have a fantastic Halloween! As for me… well, I’ve got the builders in. So I’ll be dealing with that! Happy Halloween!

Most Star Trek films and TV shows can be streamed on Paramount+ in countries and territories where the service is available, and can also be purchased on DVD and/or Blu-ray. The Star Trek franchise – including all TV series and episodes listed above – is the copyright of Paramount Global. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Forza Motorsport’s Biggest Problem…

This piece was going to be my first impressions of Forza Motorsport – the latest big racing simulation game developed by Turn 10 Studios for Xbox. But the longer I’ve sat with Forza Motorsport, the more the game feels overshadowed by one single problem, and this is getting in the way of what should be an exciting racing experience.

Forza Motorsport is a good game with a single glaring flaw. It has a great selection of cars, it’s visually stunning, it runs well on my PC, and it landed on Game Pass on launch day. Even though I’m not any kind of motoring enthusiast and I don’t know the first thing about how or what to tune to get two extra brake horsepower or more torque (what even is torque, by the way?) Forza’s cars feel like a ton of fun to drive. I’ll leave most of the tinkering to folks who know what they’re doing – but the fact that there’s such a huge array of tuning options is fantastic.

Forza has a problem…

But Forza Motorsport is lacking in one key department – and it’s one that feels like it should be an incredibly obvious thing for any racing game to get right. Forza Motorsport just doesn’t have enough racetracks.

At time of writing in October 2023, shortly after the game’s launch, there are a mere twenty racetracks. That’s compared with 32 racetracks in its (confusingly-named) predecessor, Forza Motorsport 7 from 2017. I can’t think of another recent racing game that launched with so few racetracks – not a serious racer, at any rate. Gran Turismo 7, which is Xbox and Forza’s big PlayStation 5 competitor, launched with almost twice as many tracks for players to race on.

There are plenty of cars, but not enough tracks to race them around.

When I owned a SNES console in the early 1990s, I had a game called Nigel Mansell’s World Championship. That game, which is now more than thirty years old, had sixteen racetracks – only four fewer than Forza Motorsport. Is that okay? Are players in 2023 willing to accept that the latest edition of one of the racing genre’s big beasts has only four more racetracks than a thirty-one-year-old SNES/Amiga game that hardly anyone remembers?

Let’s get the obvious out of the way: Turn 10 and Xbox Game Studios clearly plan to add more racetracks as paid-for DLC. The fact that the game launched on day one with purchasable car packs as add-ons says a lot about the state of monetisation in Forza Motorsport. But at least the base game came with a solid lineup of cars to choose from. The amount of racetracks, in comparison, feels incredibly lacklustre and downright stingy.

Nigel Mansell’s World Championship offered players a choice of sixteen racetracks in 1992.

For me, this lack of diversity in racing environments has crippled Forza Motorsport, cutting the game off at the knees and utterly annihilating any potential longevity it might’ve had. And I’m sure I won’t be the only one in that position. The game, in its current form, feels almost akin to a demo or beta version; an incomplete experience with promises of additional development to come at some nebulous future date. In a game that’s priced at £65/$70 – for the base version – I don’t consider that to be acceptable.

If Turn 10 wanted to add more racetracks but didn’t have time, why not delay the launch of Forza Motorsport? From Xbox’s point of view, the game isn’t essential at the present moment – sure, it’s great to get it out in time for Christmas, but with titles like Starfield doing big numbers and a relatively successful 2023 already under its belt, it’s not like the success or failure of Game Pass or the Series X was somehow riding on an early launch of Forza Motorsport. There was time to push things back if some racetracks weren’t ready.

Couldn’t Forza Motorsport have been delayed?

But I really don’t believe that’s the issue. It seems obvious to me that Turn 10 and Xbox are planning to release racetracks either as standalone pieces or in bundles – and charge players extra for them. That’s a pretty big disappointment considering how few tracks there are in the “standard edition” of the game. There are promises of free updates… but watch this space. I’d bet on at least some of these racetracks only being available to people willing to fork over some extra cash.

More and more games are going down this “live-service” route, and it’s disappointing. While Forza Motorsport runs well and seems to be free of major bugs and performance issues, it still feels like a game that doesn’t have enough content to justify its price tag… or, frankly, its early release. There’s a lot here that could be great… but when there aren’t many racetracks to sink your teeth into, the game feels like it gets old pretty fast.

A lack of racetracks is disappointing in a racing game!

I’d rather have seen 300 cars and 30 tracks instead of 500 cars and 20 tracks. Maybe that’s just me, but that would’ve been my preference if there were limited development resources. Or, alternatively, I’d have delayed Forza Motorsport until more racetracks were fully-developed and ready to be included as part of the base game.

I will caveat all of this by saying that I’m not a “car guy” or really any kind of racing sim expert. And if the general consensus from players is that they’d rather have more cars to toy with and that the number of racetracks and the diversity of racing environments don’t matter so much… then fair enough! This is all just one player’s subjective take, after all.

But I confess that I feel disappointed in Forza Motorsport as things stand. The game just doesn’t have as much to offer as I feel it should – and that seriously cuts into the enjoyment for me. I’ve put down the control pad for now… and I’m honestly not sure if I’ll bother to pick it back up.

Forza Motorsport is out now for PC and Xbox Series S/X. The game is also available as part of a Game Pass subscription. Forza Motorsport is the copyright of Turn 10 Studios, Xbox Game Studios, and Microsoft. Some promotional images courtesy of IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Mario Kart 8 Deluxe Tier List: Part 1

As promised, I’m going to put all of the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe racetracks into an internet-friendly tier list! In this first part, we’re going to look at all 48 of the racetracks that come with the base version of Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Next time, when I’ve had a chance to fully play through all of the Booster Course Pass additions, I’ll put those 48 racetracks into a tier list as well – so stay tuned for that around the holidays or in the new year.

So… what’s a tier list? Well, I’m glad you asked!

Rather than ranking every racetrack from 1-48 – which would be pretty difficult, especially with tracks in the middle – each track is going to be given a rating. There are six possible ratings based on the “tier list” formula that you may have seen elsewhere online.

F-tier racetracks will be at the bottom; these are the worst or least-enjoyable tracks that I’d almost never choose. Next is D-tier: a step up from the worst of the worst, but still racetracks I either generally dislike or hate a particular aspect of. C-tier racetracks are right in the middle and have no major flaws… but relatively few impressive elements. B-tier is a step up from average; these are racetracks that are fun, but not quite perfect. A-tier is where we start to see the best that Mario Kart 8 Deluxe has to offer! And finally, S-tier racetracks are the absolute cream of the crop.

Why is “S” the uppermost tier? Why not A or A-star? Truth is… I have absolutely no idea. But that’s how other people have made their tier lists, so I’m sticking with the same basic formula and nomenclature. I guess I could Google it… but there’s no time for that now. We’ve got racetracks to rank!

It goes without saying that this tier list is the wholly subjective opinion of one person! I have my own criteria for determining what I like and what I dislike… and if you disagree or hate all of my rankings, that’s okay! There’s plenty of room for differences of opinion, and I’m in no way trying to say that this is the “objective,” definitive way that everyone should rate the racetracks in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. This is just my opinion, and I share it in the spirit of light-hearted fun.

I’ll be going through the racetracks in the order in which they appear in the game and assigning each one a tier. With all of that out of the way, let’s get started!

Mario Kart Stadium (Mushroom Cup)
Tier: B

Mario Kart Stadium is a great introduction to the game. It’s not an especially complex racetrack – but it shouldn’t be, as it’s the first one that players will try out. The theming is fine, being set at a modern speedway at night, and Mario Kart Stadium introduces players to gliding and anti-gravity. The anti-grav section is pretty basic, but again, this is the first track in the game.

All in all, a solid start.

Water Park (Mushroom Cup)
Tier: C

Water Park is a racetrack I’ll occasionally choose. I like the theme park vibe that it gives off; it reminds me somewhat of the likes of Disneyland or Sea World. But nothing about Water Park screams “Mario Kart” to me. There isn’t much to firmly place the racetrack – which is only the second in the game – in the Mushroom Kingdom or the Mario franchise, and if I had to sum it up in one word it would be “generic.”

The very definition of a C-tier racetrack, I suppose!

Sweet Sweet Canyon (Mushroom Cup)
Tier: D

Another racetrack that just feels incredibly generic, Sweet Sweet Canyon is one I’d rarely choose to play. It has a very uninteresting colour palette, with lots of yellow, brown, and tan tones that all sort of blend into one, and a musical score that isn’t particularly memorable. The food theme is just kind of “meh” for me, and I know that Mario Kart can do better. It’s not the worst track in the game or anything… just not a particularly fun one.

And that’s coming from a fatso who loves sweets and doughnuts!

Thwomp Ruins (Mushroom Cup)
Tier: B

Thwomp Ruins has some fun theming, being set in an ancient temple that feels like something you might expect to see in the Tomb Raider series! The titular Thwomps are present at several key points along the racetrack, providing an extra challenge, and there are a couple of alternate paths to race along, as well as anti-gravity and underwater sections. There’s also a couple of excellent shortcuts if you have a mushroom (and the skill to use it right!)

This is definitely one to choose if you want a frantic race online!

Mario Circuit (Flower Cup)
Tier: C

There are several great racetracks where anti-gravity feels crazy and exciting… but Mario Circuit isn’t one of them. It’s only if you look into the background and see upside down or sideways trees and other detritus that you’ll even realise you’re racing in anti-gravity… and I just think that’s not great. Mario Circuit isn’t bad; it has a great soundtrack and I’ll always appreciate seeing Peach’s castle.

The layout just feels uninspired, and while there are long anti-gravity sections, they don’t feel all that special.

Toad Harbour (Flower Cup)
Tier: S

In 2013, I was lucky enough to play a preview build of Mario Kart 8 at a press event – and Toad Harbour was the racetrack I got to try out. It was the ideal track for such a demo, as it’s damn near perfect! Taking inspiration from both New York City and San Fransisco, this harbourside racetrack is incredible. Its theming is on point, it has a great soundtrack, and the addition of trolleybuses as moving obstacles keeps each lap feeling different and fun.

Definitely one of the best that Mario Kart 8 Deluxe has to offer – and no, I’m not just saying that because I got to play it before anyone else!

Twisted Mansion (Flower Cup)
Tier: B

Twisted Mansion is hands-down the best ghost-themed racetrack in the Mario Kart series to date. It brings together the ghostly Boos – mainstays of the Mario franchise – with elements from the Luigi’s Mansion games, and its haunted house aesthetic sticks the landing. The layout of the track itself is perhaps Twisted Mansion’s weakest element, because aside from the anti-grav section near the start, it doesn’t feel especially innovative. There’s a neat shortcut and an underwater-into-glider section… but other than that, the theming and music are doing most of the heavy lifting here.

Still, that’s more than enough to make Twisted Mansion a fun racetrack!

Shy Guy Falls (Flower Cup)
Tier: C

I love the idea of Shy Guy Falls way more than the execution. This is another track where Mario Kart 8′s signature anti-gravity mechanic just feels lacklustre. I never really manage to get the sense of racing up and down a waterfall; the racetrack’s waterfall sections feel like driving through a river. There’s nothing in the distance or surrounding the waterfall to really evoke the wonder of this setting – not until the very last second. The rest of the theming also feels pretty bland, but I’ll give Shy Guy Falls points for being decently pretty to look at.

There’s a tricky shortcut toward the end that’s a pain to learn… but it can be fun to pull off when racing online or with friends!

Sunshine Airport (Star Cup)
Tier: A

Sunshine Airport is a blast. There are so many little details in the theming that tie this racetrack into other parts of the world of Super Mario, including destinations on the departures and arrivals boards in the airport lobby. Racing along an active runway with a plane coming right at you is also an incredibly tense and exciting moment. I love the way that the track twists and turns, offering multiple paths around an aircraft or across its wings.

Sunshine Airport also has a great musical accompaniment!

Dolphin Shoals (Star Cup)
Tier: B

A racetrack that’s almost entirely underwater could’ve come across as being a bit too gimmicky, but Dolphin Shoals pulls it off well enough. I like tropical beach racetracks, and the crystal clear waters of Dolphin Shoals definitely play into that. The titular dolphins are only present for a brief moment, which is a bit of a shame – but the return of the giant eel from Super Mario 64 as an actual part of the racetrack was a masterstroke!

I’ll definitely give Dolphin Shoals extra points for being something a bit different.

Electrodrome (Star Cup)
Tier: S

Electrodrome is amazing. It’s one of the few tracks where two alternate anti-gravity routes are close enough that you can see other racers – and seeing people racing upside down (from your perspective, at least) is an absolute blast. The music here is fantastic, and the nightclub/discotheque theme is absolutely unique. This is the kind of racetrack that could only work in Mario Kart!

Oh, and the dancing piranha plants bopping in time to the beat? Adorable.

Mount Wario (Star Cup)
Tier: S

Two S-tiers in a row? Wow, the Star Cup is really doing some incredible things! I love snowy, wintery racetracks – when done well – and Mount Wario represents a fun twist on the standard snowy circuit that has been present throughout the Mario Kart series. Racing down a mountain (after jumping out of a plane) is a ton of fun, and the slalom skiing section toward the end is one of the most exciting in the game. There are so many twists and turns and changes in the scenery as you descend the mountain.

Mount Wario is one of the best snowy tracks in the entire Mario Kart series without a doubt.

Cloudtop Cruise (Special Cup)
Tier: D

Cloudtop Cruise has a long cannon section that I’m not wild about, a lot of plain white clouds at the beginning and end, and… not much else. The music isn’t great, the theming isn’t anything special, its one shortcut is a little too easy to pull off, and because the cannon takes such a long time it leaves you incredibly vulnerable to shells and other items.

This just isn’t a racetrack I’m all that bothered about, and I almost never choose to play it.

Bone Dry Dunes (Special Cup)
Tier: C

Argh, this is painful! I adore Dry Bones (if you haven’t figured that out by now), so to rank his first-ever track so low isn’t where I’d have wanted to be. But to tell the truth, I’m being generous giving this one a C-tier ranking, and it’s only Dry Bones’ presence that carries an otherwise bland and uninteresting desert racetrack over the line. I don’t care for the music, the track layout is pretty boring, and there are a couple of pinch points where I always seem to run off the track or into a fence.

There were so many ways to create a Dry Bones-themed racetrack… why go for such a boring desert?

Bowser’s Castle (Special Cup)
Tier: A

Mario Kart 64′s version of Bowser’s Castle is probably the best of the bunch, but this version of the iconic Mario Kart racetrack has to be a close second. There’s everything you’d expect to find in King Koopa’s castle – lava, giant statues, and even lasers! The heavy metal soundtrack is the perfect accompaniment to this difficult racetrack, too. There are plenty of obstacles to dodge, from lava plumes and fireballs to punching statues and rolling rocks, making this one of the most challenging racetracks in the game.

Definitely not the first racetrack to show to a beginner – but a ton of fun nonetheless!

Rainbow Road (Special Cup)
Tier: C

I don’t hate this version of Rainbow Road, but when I compare it to other absolutely iconic racetracks bearing the name… I find it comes up short. The space station idea could’ve worked well for another track with a different name, but I feel it gets in the way here and detracts from the whimsical magic of Rainbow Road. The music isn’t quite up to par with other versions of the racetrack, either.

The twisting anti-gravity paths (with no guard rails) do pose a challenge, though – and I can appreciate that, at least.

Wii Moo Moo Meadows (Shell Cup)
Tier: A

Moo Moo Meadows has always been a fun, relatively gentle racetrack – as was its predecessor, Moo Moo Farm. I like the American setting of this cattle farm; it reminds me of several farms that I saw while living in the United States. The soundtrack is just pitch-perfect for that kind of locale, too, and the overall theming carries Moo Moo Meadows a long way!

The cows on the farm are too cute! Extra points for adorableness!

GBA Mario Circuit (Shell Cup)
Tier: C

GBA Mario Circuit, in this modified form, feels like a less-exciting version of Mario Kart Stadium. The layout of both racetracks is similar, even down to the anti-gravity section with a tight turn. I will give points for adapting a fairly plain racetrack in a novel way, and for finding a way to shoehorn anti-grav racing into a retro track that never had it in its original form. But as with most tracks with the “Circuit” monicker, GBA Mario Circuit is nothing special.

I don’t hate it, but it’s not one I’m going to choose very often.

DS Cheep Cheep Beach (Shell Cup)
Tier: A

The tropical beach theme carries Cheep Cheep Beach a long way – but I like the adaptations made for underwater racing in this version of the racetrack, too. The tropical musical accompaniment is great, the sunshine, sand, and clear waters are beautiful in 1080p HD, and there are a couple of places where different routes open up. There’s a lot to love here!

Cheep Cheep Beach is definitely one of the better retro courses.

N64 Toad’s Turnpike (Shell Cup)
Tier: B

I detested this racetrack on the Nintendo 64, but the updated version has definitely improved things. Maybe I’m misremembering, but I feel that the N64 version was a lot less forgiving, with either more road traffic or less space in between the vehicles causing more frequent collisions – and after spinning out in Mario Kart 64, it took longer to get going again than it does in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Updating this racetrack has been good, then – but the anti-gravity path is utterly useless, and the occasional glider moments don’t really add much, either.

Still, a solid reworking of one of my least-favourite racetracks from Mario Kart 64.

GCN Dry Dry Desert (Banana Cup)
Tier: D

A boring desert track without much going for it… Dry Dry Desert scrapes its way above the dreaded F-tier because it has a brief underwater section themed around an oasis that breaks up the otherwise drudging monotony of this bland, uninteresting racetrack. Were there really no better options from Mario Kart Double Dash to recreate?

Aside from the oasis section – which you’ll race through in a matter of seconds – it’s hard to find another redeeming feature in this one.

SNES Donut Plains 3 (Banana Cup)
Tier: S

Maybe it’s the nostalgia talking, but I adore Donut Plains 3. The track has had less done to it than something like GBA Mario Circuit, but the subtle new additions really elevate it and make it something special. Underwater racing is now present, and I love how one of the bridges has fallen into the lake. The music hits all of the nostalgic notes for me, as someone who played and loved Super Mario Kart in the ’90s, and although it’s a relatively short and flat racetrack… I can’t fault it.

Donut Plains 3 brings back incredibly fond memories.

N64 Royal Raceway (Banana Cup)
Tier: A

If we were ranking the original versions of these racetracks, Royal Raceway would be in the S-tier without a doubt. But this updated version took away one of its most iconic and defining elements: the off-road area in front of Peach’s castle. This part of the racetrack was a little “Easter Egg,” allowing players to stop racing for a moment and enjoy driving in front of the iconic setting of Super Mario 64. Stripping it out feels unforgivable… but I still love Royal Raceway in spite of this shameful omission!

Great music, a fun, twisty layout that’s perfect for drifting, and another nostalgic punch definitely justify Royal Raceway’s A-tier ranking.

3DS DK Jungle (Banana Cup)
Tier: B

DK Jungle is a lot of fun. I love the Donkey Kong Country theme, as the first entry in that series is one of my all-time favourites from the SNES era, and this racetrack adapts it well. Or rather, it adapts the newer Donkey Kong Country Returns! The jungle feels dense and almost claustrophobic, and the banana temple is weird but totally on theme. The soundtrack is another absolute bopper, too!

The only thing I’d have added is some kind of DK-themed coin to replace the standard coins.

DS Wario Stadium (Leaf Cup)
Tier: F

I’m just flat-out not interested in anything Wario Stadium brings to the table. I don’t care for the music, the layout, or the generic “motorsport stadium” theming, and as a result it’s got to be one of my least-used racetracks. As a dirt track in a crowded stadium with jumps, at a couple of points I get almost a Motorcross Madness vibe from Wario Stadium… but even that can’t salvage what is a generally unenjoyable track.

Not sure what else to add, really.

GCN Sherbet Land (Leaf Cup)
Tier: C

Although I’m a big fan of snowy and wintery racetracks in general, GCN Sherbet Land feels decidedly average. I like the ice-skating Shy Guys, and I appreciate the addition of an underwater section in this adaptation. But nothing else about Sherbet Land really jumps out at me, and compared to other winter tracks, it comes up short. It’s not atrocious, and if I’m in the mood I’ll definitely play through it along with its wintery cousins. But most of the time, this is one I tend to skip over to get to more enjoyable racetracks.

The winter theme is definitely doing a lot of work to keep Sherbet Land out of D-tier status!

3DS Melody Motorway/Music Park (Leaf Cup)
Tier: A

Melody Motorway (as we know it in the UK) is fantastic. I love that driving across the various instruments actually changes the racetrack’s musical accompaniment – and hitting a “wrong” note leads to an off-key note being played! This feature alone adds a lot to Melody Motorway – but the racetrack also has a fun optional glider section, the ability to perform tricks in time with the beat, and a twisty layout that keeps things interesting.

Melody Motorway did for the 3DS what Electrodrome did for Mario Kart 8 – and this updated version is pitch-perfect!

N64 Yoshi Valley (Leaf Cup)
Tier: C

Yoshi Valley was a blast on the Nintendo 64. You couldn’t tell at a glance whether you were in first place or fifth, and the whole racetrack had a uniquely chaotic energy as a result. However, upon returning to Yoshi Valley… I think it’s one of those tracks where the concept is let down somewhat by the execution. A multitude of winding, maze-like paths that frequently cross over and intersect one another is a really fun idea, but the way it’s implemented in Yoshi Valley means there’s one “optimal” path and a bunch of others that you’d be almost silly to choose.

I do like the big Yoshi egg, though, and this is another one that hits me with the nostalgic feels.

DS Tick-Tock Clock (Lightning Cup)
Tier: B

I tend to overlook Tick-Tock Clock, but it’s undeniably a fun racetrack. The name and design harken back to the level of the same name in Super Mario 64, but the racetrack puts its own spin on the “clock mechanism” idea. The use of rotating platforms is neat, and the changing clock hands that can provide a shortcut is a clever concept, too. And once again, there’s some great music to bring it all together.

A fun racetrack… and one I should endeavour to use more often!

3DS Piranha Plant Pipeway/Piranha Plant Slide (Lightning Cup)
Tier: A

Piranha Plant Pipeway feels like a creative and fun take on the warp pipes that have been featured in every Mario game going all the way back to the ’80s. The underground sections of the racetrack really nail the feel of some of those early Super Mario Bros. underground levels, and there’s a fun underwater section to boot. It’s not the easiest racetrack to get the hang of, and there are several points where it’s easy to topple off the track or oversteer. But the challenge is part of what makes it great!

Who knew going down a warp pipe could be so much fun?

Wii Grumble Volcano (Lightning Cup)
Tier: D

Grumble Volcano’s gimmick of having pieces of the track fall away is interesting – and one I’d like to see reproduced on a better racetrack! I’m just not sold on the theming here, and the colour palette of the track doesn’t help it stand out. We’ve already got lava in racetracks like Bowser’s Castle… and even on the Wii, I didn’t really see what Grumble Volcano had to offer beyond its gimmick.

Not a racetrack I choose very often.

N64 Rainbow Road (Lightning Cup)
Tier: B

I’m so conflicted about this one. Rainbow Road – as it appeared on the Nintendo 64 – is one of my all-time favourite Mario Kart racetracks… but this version feels much less enjoyable than it ought to be. I think the key to the success of that original version was its relative simplicity: the neon characters in the background, the occasional Chain Chomps on the road… and that was all. Mario Kart 8 filled in too much of the background, created an entire city underneath the racetrack, turned the neon signs into bursts of fireworks, and added a flying train. But the real unforgivable mistake was making it last for only a single lap! In its original form, maybe Rainbow Road was slightly too long. But this one-lap version is too short.

Cracking music, though!

GCN Yoshi Circuit (Egg Cup)
Tier: B

Here’s an embarrassing admission: it took me way too long to realise that Yoshi Circuit is in the shape of Yoshi’s sprite! That layout provides for some surprisingly tight turns and fun twists, which elevate a racetrack that’s visually quite plain into something a bit more special. I love pulling off the waterfall shortcut – even though I’m not good enough to nail it every time – and when racing online, this is another track that can become quite frenzied.

This racetrack was a pleasant surprise when I bought the DLC for the original version of Mario Kart 8.

Excitebike Arena (Egg Cup)
Tier: A

A plain oval sounds like it should be boring as all hell to race around, but Excitebike Arena’s unique randomisation aspect really keeps it feeling fresh and fun every single time. Obstacles and ramps are randomly placed on the track, and there are more than 200 possible variations depending on where they end up. I also like the callback to Excitebike, a game I remember playing on a friend’s Nintendo console in the late ’80s or early ’90s. Excitebike was a fun game for its time… and it’s nice to see that Nintendo hasn’t forgotten some of these old classics!

The randomisation definitely lifts this track up… but the theming is great, too.

Dragon Driftway (Egg Cup)
Tier: C

I don’t hate Dragon Driftway… but I just can’t think of anything about it that’s in any way noteworthy other than its vaguely Chinese aesthetic. The dragon-themed track is fun enough, I suppose, but unless you’re driving slowly enough to admire the scenery that’s not really good enough to take Dragon Driftway into a higher tier. There are a couple of decent turns and good use of anti-gravity, but again… none of that really stands out to me all that much.

A fairly forgettable racetrack, but one where the theming helps it keep its head above water.

Mute City (Egg Cup)
Tier: S

I was a huge fan of F-Zero on the SNES (along with its sequel, F-Zero X, on the Nintendo 64), and it’s a colossal disappointment that Nintendo continues to sit on the series and do nothing with it! But I suppose an F-Zero Mario Kart track is a nice addition. Mute City is a blast, and as a racetrack it really manages to nail the F-Zero feel. The speed, the boost panels, and the futuristic cityscape all bring back wonderful memories of a series of old-school racers that Nintendo has all but forgotten.

The F-Zero sound effects were a nice touch, too!

Wii Wario’s Gold Mine (Triforce Cup)
Tier: C

Wario’s Gold Mine was decent on the Wii, but changing the minecarts from obstacles into moving boost panels really nerfed a significant portion of the racetrack. The overall mine theme isn’t spectacular, either, but I will give credit for the rollercoaster-like dip at the beginning and a fun piece of music. These two elements carry Wario’s Gold Mine a long way!

When I downloaded Mario Kart 8′s DLC on the Wii U, this wasn’t one of the tracks I was most excited to see.

SNES Rainbow Road (Triforce Cup)
Tier: B

SNES Rainbow Road is a classic, don’t get me wrong. And it makes sense to add it to the Mario Kart game that’s been around for the longest amount of time. But at the same time… SNES Rainbow Road had already been recreated several times, including in Mario Kart 7. This version doesn’t do much that 7′s hadn’t already, and I’d rather have seen SNES racetracks like Bowser Castle or Vanilla Lake brought back for the first time than play Rainbow Road again.

All that being said, it’s a challenging racetrack that looks great on the Switch – and it’s another one that brings back those nostalgic SNES memories!

Ice Ice Outpost (Triforce Cup)
Tier: B

I wasn’t sold on Ice Ice Outpost at first. It didn’t feel particularly special the first few times I tried it out, but it’s a racetrack that’s definitely grown on me since the DLC for Mario Kart 8 landed. I like that the iceberg/glacier theme takes the typical wintery track to a slightly different place, and while understated, Ice Ice Outpost’s musical accompaniment is solid.

The dual path design – complete with easily-missed shortcuts – is also something a bit different.

Hyrule Circuit (Triforce Cup)
Tier: D

Having never played any of the Zelda games, I have no connection to the land of Hyrule nor any frame of reference for the inclusions made in Hyrule Circuit. And it’s for that reason that this racetrack doesn’t do much for me. It’s neat to race through a castle that isn’t filled with molten lava for once… but that’s really all that Hyrule Circuit has to offer. For fans of Zelda, I can absolutely see this being a B- or even A-tier track, though. I liked the idea of hitting switches to unlock a hidden path… but the execution was poor and this feels too difficult to achieve consistently. Or maybe I’m just bad at video games!

All things considered, this racetrack just isn’t for me… and I’m okay with that.

GCN Baby Park (Crossing Cup)
Tier: F

This absolute abomination should be nowhere near Mario Kart! Okay, maybe that was too harsh. But Baby Park might be my least-favourite racetrack in the entire game. It’s boring as all hell, consisting of a single, short, unembellished oval. If this was Nascar, maybe that would be okay! Races on Baby Park also feel horribly unbalanced, as it’s too easy to hit a run of bad luck (or good luck, conversely), meaning that races end up feeling less about skill and more about random chance.

If this gets picked online, I might actually disconnect from the lobby rather than play through it!

GBA Cheese Land (Crossing Cup)
Tier: F

Oof, the Crossing Cup is off to a rough start. Cheese Land on the Game Boy Advance had a lot more personality than this bland, uninspired desert track. The titular cheese is all but absent, replaced by the most generic-looking sandy dirt that not only fails to live up to the racetrack’s name, but also feels incredibly boring and too similar to other desert tracks.

I appreciate the attempt to add anti-gravity, but that doesn’t do anything to salvage this thoroughly disappointing racetrack.

Wild Woods (Crossing Cup)
Tier: A

Wild Woods is a surprisingly fun addition to Mario Kart 8 – and the first step toward saving the reputation of the Crossing Cup! Its theming reminds me of books like The Faraway Tree, and the whole racetrack gives off a kind of “enchanted forest” vibe that’s really gentle and sweet. This stands in contrast to a very fast-paced racetrack with a rushing water section, lots of anti-gravity, and some tricky corners!

Races on Wild Woods can take unexpected turns, and the pacing of the racetrack overall feels fantastic.

Animal Crossing (Crossing Cup)
Tier: S

I’m a huge fan of the Animal Crossing series, and this racetrack is absolutely incredible. I love the “four seasons” idea, and the autumn and winter variants in particular are beautiful. Animal Crossing includes practically all of the major buildings, characters, and locales from New Leaf (the game upon which it was based), and racing through this wonderful setting feels absolutely amazing. The music is also inspired by the soundtrack to New Leaf – and has different variants for the four seasons.

Until Merry Mountain was released as part of the Booster Course Pass, Animal Crossing was the only track with any Christmas theming!

3DS Koopa City/Neo Bowser City (Bell Cup)
Tier: A

When I first played Mario Kart 7, I found Koopa City to be too difficult. I’m not sure if that’s been toned down very much in this revision or whether I’ve just gotten a little better at it, but in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe I’ve definitely come to appreciate the racetrack a lot more. I no longer quiver in fear when I see it pop up! The environment is a ton of fun, and something completely different from other Bowser-themed racetracks. In fact, Koopa City feels closer, in some respects, to an F-Zero racetrack than it does to Mario Kart. And yes, I mean that as a compliment!

A rain-soaked futuristic city with some sharp turns makes for a fun and challenging racetrack.

GBA Ribbon Road (Bell Cup)
Tier: B

Ribbon Road reminds me of a Dreamcast game called Toy Racer that I had a bit of fun with around the turn of the millennium. Shrinking down the racers and placing them in a bedroom surrounded by toys is a really fun idea, and I think Ribbon Road executes it quite well. If you pay attention to the background, there are a lot of references to other Mario and Nintendo games, which is fun, and reimagining some of the typical enemies and obstacles to be toys was neat.

Oh, and the rippling section of the track is a ton of fun to land tricks on!

Super Bell Subway (Bell Cup)
Tier: A

I like trains, so Super Bell Subway’s theme definitely sits right with me! I also love the subtle additions of things like graffiti to the titular subway, as it implies that graffiti and vandalism are a thing in the Mushroom Kingdom! There’s a fun shortcut to pull off if you have a mushroom, the moving trains take up a lot of real estate on the racetrack to pose a unique challenge, and there’s a great soundtrack to boot.

All in all, a solid addition to the lineup.

Big Blue (Bell Cup)
Tier: A

Rounding out this first set of racetracks is Big Blue, the second track based on F-Zero. And it’s another fun one! I like the rushing water section, the boost panels, and the incredibly fast-paced final third of the racetrack. Seeing jets (or spacecraft?) performing acrobatic feats in the background is a ton of fun, and Big Blue also manages to really recapture the F-Zero feel.

A fun and exciting way to wrap up the first 48 Mario Kart 8 Deluxe racetracks!

So that’s it… for now!

When I’ve had time to play through the final wave of Booster Course Pass racetracks – which aren’t out yet, but will be released before Christmas – I’ll put together the second part of this tier list. So we’re really only at the halfway point! I feel pretty confident about many of the Booster Course Pass tracks that have been released so far, but there are a few I’d like to spend a bit more time with before settling on an “official” ranking.

Speaking of rankings, let’s take a look at the tier list as things stand after the first 48 racetracks!

Here’s the breakdown:

  • F-tier: three racetracks,
  • D-tier: five racetracks,
  • C-tier: ten racetracks,
  • B-tier: twelve racetracks,
  • A-tier: twelve racetracks,
  • S-tier: six racetracks.

After going back to Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and replaying all 48 of these racetracks to capture screenshots for this piece, my poor arthritic thumbs need a break! I haven’t played Mario Kart quite so intensively for some time, and I’m definitely feeling the effects.

So I hope this was a bit of fun. I have a bunch of extra screenshots of Dry Bones racing around almost all of these racetracks, so I might put together a gallery of those sometime in the new year. And please don’t forget to come back after the final wave of the Booster Course Pass lands to see the second part of this list!

Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is out now for Nintendo Switch. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, the Booster Course Pass, and the Super Mario series are the copyright of Nintendo. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

YouTube vs. Ad-Blockers

Using an ad-blocker when heading online feels simultaneously like a cheat code and also something that’s absolutely essential nowadays. Ad-blocking browser extensions don’t simply prevent you from seeing ads, they also stop companies from tracking at least part of your online activity, including searches and clicks. Although it’s not something that gets discussed often, I’d go so far as to say that an ad-blocker is a pretty essential piece of software for anyone who wants to get a bit of extra privacy and who doesn’t want to see their data shared online. Obviously an ad-blocker on its own isn’t the only thing one needs to remain private and un-tracked online… but it’s a good, easy first step.

At the same time, though, ad-blockers fundamentally challenge the way in which a significant portion of the internet operates. The only way many websites can afford to remain online is because they’re funded by advertising revenue, and using ad-blocking extensions undermines that funding model. I have no sympathy for big corporations (as you’ll know if you’re a regular around here), but small businesses and community projects that rely on ad revenue aren’t things I’d want to see vanish from the internet.

Advertising is a major source of revenue for websites and apps.

YouTube has recently kicked off an attempt to crack down on ad-blockers, and it’s this effort that I wanted to talk about today – as well as talk about ads online and ad-blocking in a more general sense.

As YouTube’s position as the dominant video platform has been seriously challenged over the past three or four years, I can understand Google’s approach to ads and ad-blockers – or at least, I can recognise that there’s a perverse kind of logic to the corporation’s approach, even if I fundamentally disagree with much of what it’s doing. YouTube has been losing out to TikTok in particular, as well as other video sharing apps and websites, and that partially explains Google’s insistence on both serving up more and more ads to users and cracking down on ad-blocking.

If you use an ad-blocker, you might’ve seen this recently.

But Google is failing to learn not one but two vital lessons from the early days of the internet! The first is the “Streisand Effect.” By talking about ad-blocking, Google and YouTube are drawing attention to the existence of ad-blockers… and there are tangible, noticeable effects as a result. I don’t put much stock in Reddit as a bellwether of online discourse, but it’s at least noteworthy that the sub-Reddits for several well-known ad-blockers have seen massive increases in comments and subscribers since the YouTube crackdown began.

In short, Google and YouTube may be falling victim to the “law of unintended consequences!” By making a fuss about ad-blockers and trying to push ad-block users to ditch a useful piece of software, all they’ve managed to do is draw attention to the existence of ad-blocking software… causing more users, not fewer, to begin blocking ads on YouTube and other Google services.

The original “Streisand Effect” photograph.
Image Credit: Copyright (C) 2002 Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records Project, http://www.californiacoastline.org

The second lesson Google and YouTube seem to have missed is that of Napster’s demise. In the early 2000s, Napster was one of the first big file-sharing websites. People began sharing music online, and the recording industry tried to sue anyone and everyone involved. Napster was shut down after only a couple of years… but that wasn’t the end of file-sharing. Other applications immediately picked up where Napster had left off, and file-sharing is still available online to this day.

Even if YouTube were to manage to successfully disable or shut down all of the most prominent ad-blocking extensions and applications, more will arise to take their place. And even now, there’s a raging battle between Google’s army of coders and those who volunteer or work for ad-blocking applications. As soon as Google updates its code, ad-blockers find a way around it. There’s no end in sight and no obvious way for Google to strike a killer blow.

Logo for uBlock Origin – a popular ad-blocking extension.

There will always be people who want to get something for nothing, and who want to enjoy YouTube without ever seeing a single ad. That’s inevitable. But the rise in ad-blocking isn’t the fault of “greedy” consumers… it’s YouTube’s own fault.

Ads on YouTube used to be inoffensive enough. They’d show up once per five or six videos, there’d only be a single ad, and most ads were only a few seconds long. YouTube also allowed for many ads to be skipped after five seconds – and this combination seemed to be working well enough. It’s never fun to be served up an ad, but it wasn’t obtrusive and didn’t get in the way of the YouTube experience for most people.

An example of a skippable ad on YouTube.

But YouTube wasn’t content with that… despite raking in literally billions of dollars in ad revenue. Parent company Google began inserting more ads, longer ads, mid-video ads, and unskippable ads… all of which made the user experience noticeably worse. The delicate equilibrium between advertising and content became unbalanced, so is it any wonder people started looking for ways to skip or avoid the ads? YouTube brought this upon itself!

This is the first time in almost four years of writing on the website that I’ve so much as mentioned ad-blocking. By trying to crack down on ad-blockers, all YouTube has managed to do is draw attention to their existence, and call out its own piss-poor advertising situation. It’s the classic case of trying to squeeze users too hard: all YouTube will do is drive more and more people away from its platform and into the arms of gleeful competitors like TikTok.

TikTok has emerged as a major competitor to YouTube in recent years.

If ads on YouTube would go back to the way they were a few years ago, maybe the corporation would be able to convince more people to switch off the ad-blockers. But Google is trying to force users to sign up for YouTube Premium – a new subscription service that’s surprisingly expensive. This is a case of “invent a problem, sell a solution.” Google makes the ad situation on YouTube worse and worse, then offers to let folks pay to skip the ads. Ad-blockers are an existential threat to that business model.

If Google believes that it can win this fight… I think it’s wrong and it’s underestimating the resourcefulness of folks online. There may be small victories along the way – Google may shut down one ad-blocking extension, for example, ban ad-blocking on Chrome, or manage to re-code YouTube to temporarily prevent ad-blockers. But there’s a whole lot of determination on the other side, and as we’ve already seen so far in this fight, it’s never more than a few minutes before workarounds are discovered for whatever updates are rolled out to YouTube. Even if Google managed to score a big win and prevented all ad-blocking on YouTube… it won’t be long before cunning volunteers find a way around it.

There are a lot of people who are working to update ad-blockers and keep them functioning.

YouTube is not the juggernaut it once was. TikTok’s rise has seriously challenged its status as the leading video-sharing platform, especially among younger folks, and TikTok’s advertising situation seems to be a lot better and more user-friendly. I don’t use TikTok all that much, but having tried it out recently, I find ads on that platform far less annoying and far more tolerable.

At this point, doing anything to turn off users or push them away feels like a catastrophically bad decision for YouTube that could blow up in its face. The history of the internet is littered with once-massive websites and companies that failed to keep up with changing user attitudes… so there’s no guarantee that YouTube will just be able to coast on its current and past success and simply win by default. That didn’t work for MySpace.

Remember MySpace?

The internet and social media are constantly in a state of flux. It may seem that YouTube is in a dominant position right now – but the brief history of the web tells us that no website, app, or social media platform is unassailable. Doing anything to upset the apple cart while in that first-place position… it just isn’t a good idea. If YouTube was losing money hand over fist, unable to afford to keep the lights on, maybe this crackdown on ad-blocking would be more understandable. But we’re talking about a multi-billion dollar website backed up by one of the biggest tech companies on the planet.

YouTube’s own anti-consumer practices, coupled with the rise of TikTok and other platforms, have pushed people away at the precise moment that Google wants to rope them into long-term paid subscriptions. That’s unfortunate and puts YouTube in an awkward position, but I don’t think this is the right way to react. As Barbara Streisand found out when she tried to force a small photographer to take a picture of her house off the internet, calling attention to something only leads to more people becoming aware of it. YouTube and Google are drawing more attention to ad-blockers… and the result is articles like this one. I’ve literally never mentioned ad-blocking in almost four years of writing here on the website… not until Google and YouTube made it into an issue.

Google and YouTube seem determined to make ad-blocking into an issue.

At the end of the day, this is a fight YouTube won’t be able to win. They may score some successes along the way, and Google may even succeed at temporarily preventing ad-blockers on their platform. But it won’t be long before another ad-blocker pops up with a workaround. Look at what happened with Napster, LimeWire, and The Pirate Bay. Or look at how game developers and publishers are locked in a continual battle with pirates. No sooner has an anti-piracy tool been created than people are figuring out how to crack it and work around it. Spending a lot of money on these endeavours is ultimately fruitless – and it’s better for Google and YouTube to realise it now.

There’s also a very real legal question for Google and YouTube: are they even allowed to use software that detects ad-blockers? Scanning a user’s browser, extensions, or computer without permission is illegal in many jurisdictions, so these ad-blocker-blockers may not even be lawful. It would take someone with better legal knowledge than I to litigate that, though!

YouTube and Google may have fallen afoul of privacy laws.

So that’s the situation. YouTube is trying to push back against the small minority of its PC users who use ad-blocking software… but all that’s happened so far is a rise in the use of ad-blockers and more attention being drawn to ad-blocking. Volunteers working for popular ad-blocking extensions are easily able to shut down YouTube’s best efforts right now… and good for them.

I’d encourage anyone who wants to get a small bit of extra security and privacy online to seriously consider installing one of the available ad-blocking browser add-ons. You can manually “white-list” certain websites and apps, like YouTube, if you want to and if it feels important to you to contribute to smaller businesses and content creators.

As for YouTube’s prospects… I’m not so sure. The way people – especially younger people – consume media is changing, and YouTube’s status as the dominant video-sharing platform is already under threat. Maybe this clampdown on ad-blocking will succeed and will bring in a bit more loose change in the short-term, but beyond that? The future of online video platforms looks a lot more like TikTok and a lot less like YouTube.

Some images used above courtesy of Unsplash and Pixabay. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Eight Ideas for the Next Mario Kart

With the Booster Course Pass dumping new racetracks, characters, and content onto Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, it’s been a while since we looked ahead to what might come next for Nintendo’s flagship racing series. Although it seems pretty clear that the opportunity for Nintendo to launch a brand-new Mario Kart game on the Switch has come and gone, a new Nintendo console might be right around the corner. That can only mean one thing: Mario Kart 9 is on the way!

Okay, maybe I’m getting a little too excited. But with Mario Kart 8 Deluxe being the Switch’s top-selling game, and the Booster Course Pass giving it a bit of a refresh, I’m absolutely convinced that Nintendo will want to get a new title in the series onto the Switch’s successor console as quickly as possible – perhaps in time for the new machine’s first holiday season. If, as has been rumoured, a new Nintendo console might launch next year… we could be a mere twelve months away from Mario Kart 9!

A screenshot from Mario Kart DS.
Can you spot the mistake in this beta version of Mario Kart DS?

Or not. But either way, today we’re celebrating my dedicated Mario Kart webpage going live by considering five ideas that I think could make for neat inclusions in the next Mario Kart game – or in any game after that, if Nintendo doesn’t see fit to include them this time! If you missed the Mario Kart page, you can find it using the drop-down menu above… or just click or tap here to head there directly! All of my Mario Kart content will be available there – including my tier lists of all the racetracks in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, which is something I’m currently working on! So check back for that at some point soon.

Before we go any further, I’ll give my usual caveat: I have no “insider information.” I’m not claiming that Nintendo is planning to include anything we’re going to discuss today in Mario Kart 9 – and I don’t even know for certain that Mario Kart 9 even exists or is in development! Also, everything we’re going to consider today is the entirely subjective opinion of one person – so if you hate all of my ideas or I don’t include something that seems obvious to you, that’s okay! We’re all entitled to our opinions on this wonderful racing series.

With all of that out of the way, let’s take a look at my ideas!

Idea #1:
A first-person mode.

A screenshot of Mario Kart 7's first-person perspective.
First-person racing in Mario Kart 7.

The first and only time that the Mario Kart series has offered a first-person view came in Mario Kart 7. In that game, it was possible to see the race from a first-person perspective – but only when also using the 3DS’ gyroscope to steer. It was a bit of a gimmick on the 3DS, and I didn’t use it extensively – but there’s something about racing in first-person that’s just fun.

I’d love to see Mario Kart 9 bring this back, using the more powerful hardware of Nintendo’s next console to allow us to get up close and personal with some great-looking karts and bikes. It would be a blast to be able to race in first-person mode using a standard control pad, without having to be tied to a gyroscope or motion controls, too.

A screenshot of Forza Motorsport (2023).
First-person racing in Forza Motorsport.

A first-person perspective is something offered by many racing games on other platforms, and is something most driving and racing titles have done for a long time. The Mario Kart series has long stood apart from racers that take themselves more seriously… but that doesn’t mean Nintendo can’t take inspiration from other titles in the racing space!

Racing in first-person puts you in the middle of the action, and it would also be a great excuse for Nintendo to design different steering wheels, handlebars, and kart interiors. There’s a lot of fun to be had here – and I hope Nintendo’s sole experience with a first-person mode in Mario Kart 7 won’t shoot down this idea.

Idea #2:
A logo maker (like in Mario Kart DS).

Recreating the website’s logo in Mario Kart DS!

Mario Kart DS allowed players to draw their own custom logos using a pretty basic in-game logo maker. Making a personal icon instead of using the generic ones made for each character adds a bit of customisation and personality to the game – and that’s always something fun to see!

Again, with more powerful hardware on the way, there’s the potential to expand this feature far beyond the capabilities of the Nintendo DS. Players could even get the option to give karts and bikes custom liveries – something seen in games like Forza Horizon 5, for example. But even if that’s not practical, making custom logos and taking them online would be a ton of fun.

The logo as it appears on a standard kart.

There’s obviously the potential for abuse here, unfortunately. And as we’ve seen in the past, some players will draw rude, offensive, or just plain silly things. But as we’ve seen with custom designs in the Animal Crossing series, for instance, it’s possible to give players these options in a way that’s safe and appropriate for sensitive eyes. Nintendo wouldn’t need to have a whole team of content monitors checking everyone’s logos… just make sure that it’s easy to report anyone with an inappropriate logo so they can be sanctioned.

I’m a big fan of customisation in games – even though I have the imagination of a sleep-deprived pigeon and the artistic skills to match. This could be a whole mini-game in itself… and I’d love to see some of the wonderful and creative ideas that other racers come up with!

Idea #3:
Identical stats for every racer and vehicle.

Let’s rebalance Mario Kart!

This is a subject I’ve covered already – and you can find that article by clicking or tapping here. But to summarise: Mario Kart is unbalanced. What that has meant is that there’s one “ideal” combination of driver + kart that, in many races, everyone online is using. It’s not a lot of fun to race online against eleven Waluigis all riding the same Wiggler kart!

Recent tweaks to Mario Kart 8 Deluxe haven’t actually helped this issue – they’ve just shifted the ideal combo to another character and another kart. So my proposal is simple: dump the stats and make every racer and vehicle behave the same way. This would completely negate the problem and open up the next Mario Kart game to allow players to choose who they want to race with and how they want to race.

Complicated stats in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe.

I find it disheartening, sometimes, to join an online race only to see almost everyone has picked the same kart and driver. Part of the fun of Mario Kart is mixing it up and trying out different combos. With such cosmetic variety, it seems a shame that, in order to remain competitive online or in time trials, there’s really only one (or at the most two) options that are viable.

Mario Kart isn’t a racing simulation, so things like tinkering with stats to get more horsepower… it just seems unnecessary. It would simplify Mario Kart in one way, but it would also open it up and diversify it in another.

Idea #4:
Racetracks with different variants.

The Booster Course Pass version of Kalimari Desert has different routes for each lap.

Mario Kart Tour introduced racetracks with different layouts and variants – and I think this is something that could be carried into the next main Mario Kart title. In the Booster Course Pass, several racetracks have different layouts for each lap, which is neat – but I’m thinking of racetracks with completely different layouts that could either be chosen or selected at random.

This could be a relatively easy way to add variety to the next game’s roster of tracks without having to create wholly new tracks with new assets. One variant of a track could be a simple loop, but a second could add additional twists and turns, for example. Both variants could use the same background, textures, and even some parts of the racetrack – like the start/finish line – as well as music. But there’d be something different for players to get stuck into each time.

It would be nice to get some varied tracks in the next game.

Mario Kart 8 launched in 2014 – and it looks set to reach its tenth anniversary before a brand-new mainline Mario Kart game will be ready. If Nintendo hopes to keep Mario Kart 9 around for even half as long, finding ways to keep the game varied and interesting to players will be essential. If the game came with 32 racetracks, but some of those had two, three, or even four different variants, that would go some way to accomplishing that objective.

I expect that the next Mario Kart title will be a kind of live-service experience, with Nintendo making changes and updates on the fly. Some of these updates could add new racetrack variants, which is something Nintendo has already done in Tour. That would be a possibility, too.

Idea #5:
Character costumes and outfits!

Mario in swimwear from Mario Kart Tour.

It would be great if every character could have different costumes to choose from. In Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, for example, there are different colours for Yoshi – but I’d love to extend this to every character in the game. And not just different colours, either, but costumes and hats that transform the look of our favourite drivers.

This could also be a way to simplify the roster. Mario variants (like Metal Mario or Tanooki Mario) could be merged into one, with those outfits being available to players who choose Mario. That doesn’t have to happen, but it could open up the driver list to new and exciting characters!

Princess Peach in a blue dress in The Super Mario Bros. Movie.

For other characters, different colour variants, costumes, and hats could all be included. I think Tour has done something like this, so clearly it’s something Nintendo has already been toying with. I think there’s a ton of potential to really mix it up – and it would be great fun to see what outfits people would choose when racing online!

At the end of the day, this is another point about customisation and personalisation. Without having to create entirely new character models, Nintendo could add a whole lot of variety to Mario Kart 9 and allow us to really get a tailored, personal experience from the game.

Idea #6:
Designs from The Super Mario Bros. Movie.

Kart racing in The Super Mario Bros. Movie.

After spending a lot of money on it, I’m surprised that Nintendo has made no effort so far to cash in on the wild success of The Super Mario Bros. Movie. There’s a ton of potential in bringing elements from the film into the next Mario and Mario Kart games… and the sooner the better!

The Super Mario Bros. Movie included a kart-racing sequence, and it was one of the most exciting and entertaining in the entire film! The sequence included several designs based on vehicles from the Mario Kart series – but also some brand-new designs, too. It would be great to see even one of these make its way to the next Mario Kart game.

The main characters.

There were also characters from the movie who could be included. Mario’s parents, for instance, or the penguin king from the opening act. Even including some of these designs as alternate costumes for characters like Luigi, Peach, and Donkey Kong would be a great way to connect with the success of the film.

Creating a racetrack – or better yet, four racetracks in the “Movie Cup” – would also be a fantastic idea. New tracks could draw on the film’s locations in both the real world and the Mushroom Kingdom, taking advantage of the new designs and adaptations that were created. Obviously a game will never be able to completely recreate the art style of a big-budget animated picture… but it could certainly take those designs as a starting point.

Idea #7:
Crossover characters from other franchises and properties.

Detective Pikachu!

“More characters” is always going to be a request when we’re talking about a new Mario Kart game – but that’s not really what I’m suggesting here! I think it’s a given that Mario Kart 9 will have an expanded driver roster, bringing in old favourites like Diddy Kong and newcomers to the Mario universe like Cappy.

Instead, what I’m hoping to see are licensed characters from other games and franchises. We’ve already seen Link from the Zelda games, characters from Splatoon, and Isabelle from Animal Crossing… but Nintendo can do better than that, surely!

Mario and Sonic.

Although it seemed unfathomable in the ’90s, when Sega and Nintendo were fierce competitors, we’ve seen Mario and Sonic the Hedgehog team up on several occasions over the past few years. Sonic is absolutely the kind of character I’m thinking of – but it needn’t stop there! Characters from games that have been popular on the Switch, like Minecraft or Fall Guys, could be great inclusions, too.

If Nintendo could strike deals with some of the gaming world’s big studios and publishers, there’s almost no limit to the character possibilities for the next Mario Kart game. Even just within the Nintendo extended family, though, there are literally dozens if not hundreds of possibilities.

Idea #8:
More real-world vehicles.

Mario with a Mercedes GLA.

Mario Kart 8 launched in 2014 with a surprising merchandising tie-in: Mercedes! Three Mercedes cars were reimagined as karts in Mario Kart 8, and have been retained in the Switch version, too. Although it was definitely a bit of a surprise to see the likes of Dry Bones and Wario driving scaled-down versions of real-life cars… it was a ton of fun, too!

I don’t pretend to be an expert on merchandising and product placement, so I have no idea how easy or difficult it might be for Nintendo to license real-world vehicles. But the success of the Mercedes tie-in surely makes it something worth considering!

A Koenigsegg CC850.

Car manufacturers are clearly open to this idea – otherwise why would they license their vehicles for games like Forza Motorsport? I’m not saying that Nintendo could necessarily get the likes of Lamborghini or Koenigsegg to sign on… but then again, why not? Scaled-down supercars could be an absolute blast… and maybe there could be something like a Tesla or other electric vehicle, too.

The possibilities are limitless, really – there could be classic cars, modern racing cars, and more. If we really branch out, we could look at monster trucks, lorries… even trains!

So that’s it!

Box art for Mario Kart 64.

We’ve considered eight possibilities for the next Mario Kart game. I’d love to see everything we’ve discussed above when the next game launches… but I’m not sure how likely all of these things are! Still, it was a bit of fun to speculate and fantasise about what Mario Kart 9 might look like.

So I hope this has been an interesting look ahead. As I said at the beginning, I have no “insider information,” and it’s likely that none of the things we’ve been talking about today will make it into any future Mario Kart game. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t fun to consider what the next Mario Kart game might look like! With the series being a mainstay of Nintendo consoles, and a new console potentially launching in the next eighteen months… we might be closer to a new Mario Kart game than it seems!

Remember to check out my dedicated Mario Kart webpage for more speculation and discussion. You can find it by clicking or tapping here.

Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is out now for Nintendo Switch. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, the Booster Course Pass, and the Super Mario series are the copyright of Nintendo. Some images used above courtesy of the Super Mario Wiki. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Miniseries Review: The Fall of the House of Usher

Spoiler Warning: Minor spoilers are present for The Fall of the House of Usher.

Over the weekend I binge-watched Netflix’s The Fall of the House of Usher. The miniseries is based loosely on the works of American author and poet Edgar Allan Poe, and it seemed like an appropriate watch for the spookiest month of the year. Although I’m by no means a horror aficionado, I enjoyed what this new adaptation had to offer.

Edgar Allan Poe may be well-known in the United States, but he isn’t an author that I’m especially familiar with. Poe’s works aren’t on the curriculum in British schools – or at least they weren’t in the ’80s and ’90s when I was at school. The first time I became aware of anything to do with Poe, in fact, was when an adaptation of his poem The Raven made it into The Simpsons episode Treehouse of Horror! So I’m by no means an expert on the source material for The Fall of the House of Usher.

The R&B singer Usher.
No, not that Usher…

The first thing to say is that The Fall of the House of Usher is not a straight adaptation of the short story of the same name. Rather, the series is an amalgamation of several of Poe’s poems and stories, bringing different works and characters together. The miniseries also abandons the 19th Century for a modern-day setting, and incorporates modern plot points and themes along with those lifted from Poe’s work.

I’m in two minds about this kind of “not-an-adaptation.” On the one hand, as The Fall of the House of Usher proves, taking a story or body of work as the basis for something new can lead to a perfectly enjoyable and entertaining story. On the other hand, though, taking such liberties with the source material basically makes The Fall of the House of Usher its own distinct story – so why did it need to use Poe’s name and characters? It’s a strange thing, in a way – this is a story that could, under the right circumstances, have stood on its own two feet. At its core, The Fall of the House of Usher is kind of like Succession meets Final Destination – a slasher movie in which the family members of a wealthy businessman are picked off one by one.

Mary McDonnell as Madeline Usher in The Fall of the House of Usher (2023).
Mary McDonnell as Madeline Usher.

Despite its modern setting taking The Fall of the House of Usher far away from Poe’s original works, I did feel a distinctly Poe-like atmosphere throughout the miniseries. Poe is renowned for creating tension, and the way in which the miniseries built towards its characters’ grisly deaths definitely hit the right notes in that regard. The downside of that is that these deaths – and even the manner in which they would happen – was telegraphed ahead of time, robbing the climax of each episode of at least some of its drama and fear factor.

The Fall of the House of Usher had a compelling main character in Roderick Usher, and Bruce Greenwood’s performance is to be commended, as is that of Zach Gilford, who played the character in flashback sequences. The Usher twins both made for entertaining characters, in fact; villains whose schemes were slowly revealed over the course of the story. The same can’t be said for all of the other characters, however, including several of the Usher children.

Bruce Greenwood as Roderick Usher in The Fall of the House of Usher (2023).
Bruce Greenwood put in a great performance as Roderick Usher.

Part of the theme of the miniseries was to show how wealth, extravagance, and privilege lead to a twisted and self-centred worldview. But with six Usher descendants to create, each of which seemed to embody a different aspect of priviliged debauchery, there wasn’t a lot of time for subtlety in all of these characters. Several of them felt pretty flat and one-dimensional, present to serve a narrative function rather than to be interesting and well-rounded characters in their own right. The characters who were snuffed out in the first couple of episodes in particular fell victim to this, in part because there really wasn’t much time to build up any sense of personality before they had to be killed off.

At the heart of the story was the idea of a “deal with the devil,” an ancient morality tale that has become a trope of the fantasy and horror genres in modern times. This part of the story was one I found a little confusing, though – and it’s quite possible that I’m just not getting it or that I missed something. But, without getting too deep into spoiler territory, by the time the main characters have made their Faustian bargain, they had already committed to going down a dark path.

Carla Gugino, Willa Fitzgerald, and Zach Gilford in The Fall of the House of Usher (2023).
Madeline and Roderick made a “deal with the devil.”

Verna, the entity responsible for cutting the deal and coming to collect over the course of the story, spoke multiple times about an “alternate” life that the twins and their families might’ve led. But it seems to me that by the time she got to them and made her deal, they’d already betrayed a friend, committed a crime, and taken too many steps down a dark path to possibly turn back. Her bargain may have shielded them from consequences – but did it alter their paths so much?

You’ll have to see what you think after watching The Fall of the House of Usher, but for me, that point certainly left me feeling confused as the credits rolled on the final episode!

Carla Gugino as Verna in The Fall of the House of Usher (2023).
What did you think of Verna’s offer?

In terms of production values, The Fall of the House of Usher is on par with what you’d expect from a flagship streaming project in 2023. There were a handful of moments across the miniseries’ eight episodes where I felt either CGI or practical effects weren’t quite reaching the level I’d want to see, but they were few and far between. By and large, it was a good-looking series.

There were some digital and practical effects for gory moments and deaths that looked genuinely agonising, and with these moments tending to be the climactic points of each episode, it was important for The Fall of the House of Usher to get them right. I don’t think it’s unfair to compare the brutality of some of the deaths to a film like Final Destination, and several of them had a kind of twisted theme of poetic “justice,” as Verna used a character’s own traits, skills, or sins against them.

A character wrapped in bandages in a hospital bed from The Fall of the House of Usher (2023).
Brace yourself for some gruesome and gory moments!

I was surprised to see Mark Hamill outside of the Star Wars franchise – but he did a great job as the shadowy and dangerous lawyer Arthur Pym. Along with the twins and Verna, who was played by actress Carla Gugino, Pym was perhaps the character who felt most lifelike. Many stories – real and fictional – incorporate someone like Pym, and Hamill did a great job at breathing life into someone so fearsome and shady.

As the United States continues to wrangle with an epidemic of opioid addiction, I think we’re going to see more works of fiction that aim to have something to say about the subject. For my money, this aspect of The Fall of the House of Usher wasn’t its strongest suit. It could feel, at points, that the Usher family’s unethical pharmaceutical company and its responsibility for addictive opiate medication was a mere backdrop for other events to play out in front of. Given the severity of the issue, and its lack of prominence in the news in general, this wasn’t great.

Mary McDonnell, Bruce Greenwood, and Mark Hamill in The Fall of the House of Usher (2023).
The miniseries didn’t always seem to know what to do with its pharmaceutical story.

I didn’t feel that The Fall of the House of Usher had a point to make about opioid addiction that hasn’t already been made. People who have followed the story know that certain drug companies are absolutely responsible – and are continuing to get away with it. The miniseries brings this up, thinking itself to have made a profound statement… but doesn’t really go anywhere with it except to kill off the characters it deems most responsible. There’s something satisfying about that in a kind of anti-billionaire way, but it’s surface-level storytelling without a lot of depth.

Although Poe’s poetry was present throughout the miniseries – and was well-recited and incorporated into the story – there were a couple of places where characters spoke lines written by (or heavily adapted from) Poe’s original work. These moments stuck out to me, and I felt the lines in question were just a bit clunky. The poetic language of the 19th Century clashes with the modern American vernacular used for the majority of the script, so these handful of lines felt out-of-place.

A restored 1849 daguerrotype of Edgar Allan Poe.
Restored daguerreotype of author and poet Edgar Allan Poe, c. 1849.

I’m someone who’s not a big fan of horror – and of jumpscares in particular. Jumpscares always manage to get me, even when I know they’re coming, and I’ve never enjoyed that feeling. The Fall of the House of Usher has several prominent jumpscares – but they were few enough in number across the eight episodes that I didn’t feel they got in the way of my enjoyment. The slower buildup of tension and the dramatic turns in the story were more my style, and I had a good time with that side of the miniseries.

For a fan of horror who’s seeking something fast-paced and with a lot of adrenaline rushes, maybe The Fall of the House of Usher would feel a little too slow. That’s definitely not my take – but I can absolutely see it being a fair point of criticism for someone whose tastes are different from my own.

Samantha Sloyan in The Fall of the House of Usher (2023).
Samantha Sloyan as Tamerlane “Tammy” Usher.

So let’s wrap things up!

The Fall of the House of Usher was an entertaining horror-drama well-suited to this time of year. In an era of franchises and spin-offs, I’m glad that Netflix was able to be convinced to put money into a one-and-done miniseries instead of trying to pad things out and push for a second season. For me, the pacing of the miniseries as a whole was spot-on, and trying to stretch it out too much would’ve been to its detriment.

There was a wonderful musical score backing up solid visual effects and some fine acting performances from both familiar faces and newcomers. And at its core, The Fall of the House of Usher was atmospheric, capturing the essence of Edgar Allan Poe’s work – even as it stepped away from its source material to carve its own path. It perhaps wasn’t as clever as it aimed to be, particularly with its core messages about decadence, billionaires, and the pharmaceutical industry – but not every TV show has to come with a morality play and a message. I enjoyed The Fall of the House of Usher for what it was, and I’m happy to recommend it to anyone looking for something a little bit supernatural and spooky as Halloween draws near.

The Fall of the House of Usher is available to stream now on Netflix. The Fall of the House of Usher is the copyright of Intrepid Pictures and/or Netflix, and the works of Edgar Allan Poe are now in the public domain. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Memories of Halloween

Autumn is my favourite time of year. I love the sense of slowly-building anticipation as the holiday season approaches, and October is really the first part of an extended holiday season that will run all the way through to New Year. As I was erecting my modest array of Halloween decorations (and window shopping for more on Amazon), it got me thinking about Halloween celebrations in years gone by.

I’ve always felt that it’s a bit of a shame that Halloween is when it is. Here in the UK, we have Bonfire Night on the 5th of November – known to some of you, no doubt, thanks to the film adaptation of V for Vendetta! Because Halloween and Bonfire Night are so close together, one often eclipses the other, and I just think that’s a little sad. In recent years I’ve felt that Bonfire Night is rather living in Halloween’s shadow, and that Halloween is the more popular event – especially for the little ones. If there was just a couple of weeks between them instead of a mere five days, spreading things out a little, that would be better. But I suppose we can’t just reschedule an historical event to suit modern times!

Memories of Bonfire Night and Halloween are intertwined…

When I was a kid, the “Americanised” version of Halloween was just beginning to establish itself here in the UK. I don’t think I ever went trick-or-treating, but I can remember several Halloween discos and events that were organised by a kids’ club that I attended in those days. It was great fun – and a chance for me to indulge in some of the sweets and treats that my strict parents didn’t allow in the house.

As an aside, I have to confess that I’m a tad confused about the timing of modern Halloween’s arrival in the UK. My parents, who both grew up in London in the late ’40s and ’50s, seem to have competing recollections of the holiday. I know there’s always been some kind of traditional event around that time of year, but as to when modern events like costume parties and trick-or-treat made it to the UK, I really can’t be sure.

A preschool class celebrates Halloween in the United States, c. 1939.

My father insisted that Halloween only became “a thing” when my sister and I were growing up in the ’80s and ’90s, and claimed never to have done anything to celebrate it before then. But my mother can distinctly remember my grandfather painstakingly carving a jack-o-lantern for her out of a turnip when she was five or six years old. In the post-war period, we didn’t have crops like pumpkins here in the UK – or at least not in large quantities. I’ve always wondered what a turnip jack-o-lantern might’ve looked like!

So even within my own family there are two competing ideas about when Halloween started to take off over here! But speaking for myself, Halloween as a holiday has existed in more or less its present form since I was a small child. I can’t remember a year without some kind of Halloween celebration, in fact. And I really do have fond memories of Halloween as a child – some of which, I fear, have rather blended in with other autumnal memories!

Let’s talk about Halloween!

One of my earliest memories is actually of Bonfire Night. I can remember being perhaps three or four years old, sitting on a hay bale in a field, watching the fire. It’s one of those strangely vivid memories where I can recall the precise texture of the straw underneath me, feel the cold wind blowing through, and even taste the spongey gingerbread cake that I was holding in my hand. I associate all of those things with this time of year, and that memory is an especially cherished one. There was laughter from other kids ringing in my ears, the smell of diesel fuel that someone had used as a fire starter, and the faces of friendly neighbours and locals who are, sadly, long gone now.

Despite its themes of horror, ghosts, monsters, and the like, Halloween has always felt to me like a kids’ holiday. Getting dressed up and eating sweets are definitely things that the little ones appreciate! But those incredibly positive memories of Halloween parties as a kid is definitely part of why I feel that way. I can’t remember all of my Halloween costumes, but I distinctly remember one plastic skeleton mask that I must’ve had when I was seven or eight years old. That thing was made of the most horrible, brittle plastic – and the edges of the mask were sharp enough to cut through diamond! But wearing the mask and going to a Halloween disco at the local kids’ club was great fun, and seeing everyone else’s masks and costumes was part of that.

Kids in their Halloween costumes.

Another big part of Halloween for me is the food. I know what you’re thinking: surprise surprise, the fat person wants to talk about food! But it’s true: Halloween doesn’t seem like a big food holiday in the same way as Christmas or Thanksgiving, but for me the food is no less important. Those early childhood memories of Halloween all include different foods – especially sweet treats. My parents didn’t allow my sister and I to have many sweet things at home, and what they could afford was usually only the cheapest value range versions. At the kids’ club I mentioned I’d always have a few pennies (literally, just a few) to spend on penny sweets, and I took full advantage as often as I could! But at Halloween, I remember there being a buffet of snack foods that, to my young eyes, must’ve looked like an absolute feast of all the things I would never get at home!

What I remember most, though, and what I love so much about Halloween food, is how the theme of the holiday carries through. Everything is made to look or feel like something else – sausages decorated to look like bloody fingers, marshmallows with little eyes and teeth so they resemble skulls, and even bottles of pop dyed vibrant shades of green, blue, black, and other unnatural colours to look like poison or witches’ potions! Food could also be incorporated into games and challenges, like the traditional game of apple-bobbing that we used to play. There are some phenomenally creative ideas out there to make even the simplest snack fit with the Halloween theme. And I’m absolutely in love with all of them!

Look at these adorable Halloween cupcakes!

This might’ve been Halloween 1997 or 1998 – I genuinely can’t remember which. But as a teenager I came up with what remains to this day my best-ever Halloween costume. I got a mask at a party shop in a big shopping centre of newly-elected Prime Minister Tony Blair, and with an ill-fitting suit borrowed from my uncle, dressed up as the PM for a Halloween party that a friend of mine was hosting! That was great fun, and as we were all older by then, alcohol was definitely part of the equation! I can remember my friend racing around, desperately trying to give people coffee to sober them up.

Looking back now, with Blair being such a universally despised figure (at least among folks of my generation), making a costume of him seems fitting in a bitter sort of way! After all, isn’t the theme of many Halloween stories that the real monsters are us humans? I can’t think of many figures from the past thirty years more monstrous than Blair the War Criminal. I can’t believe that I voted for him at my first ever general election!

I think we’ve drifted off-topic somehow.

Turns out this poster was right after all…

Ah yes, Halloween! That’s what we were talking about.

On another occasion a couple of years later, I was taking part in an exchange programme while at university. I got to spend my first Halloween in the United States, seeing first-hand how the Americans really go all-out for the event. I was shocked when I went to the local shopping mall and saw a dedicated Halloween store selling all kinds of costumes, decorations, and more… in August! Apparently these pop-up Halloween stores are an annual thing, and they begin to appear in late summer to get ready for the spooky season. I’d never seen anything like it – and in the days before social media and YouTube, seeing an all-American Halloween in person was truly something special.

The university I was visiting had several big Halloween parties and events, and I even had my first encounter with trick-or-treaters that year! Several groups of students visited the off-campus house that I was renting, and a group of younger kids did, too. By the end of the night I’d ran out of treats to hand out! Ever since, I’ve made sure to keep my pantry well-stocked ahead of Halloween.

A Halloween party.

Also in the United States I had the pleasure of spending time at Disney World in the run-up to Halloween. I was able to take a break and visit Disney with a friend, and we got to see all of the decorations and special events that the Disney folks put on for the celebration. It was great fun, and I have a particularly fond memory of riding the Haunted Mansion attraction after dark, surrounded by all of the Halloween theming at the park.

Any Halloween fan should try – time and finances permitting – to visit one of the Disney parks for Halloween. I know the parks are stupidly expensive these days, but if you’re going anyway, picking a time of year like Halloween – when there’s something extra going on – is well worth it. I think there was some kind of after-hours Halloween event that I attended that year, too… but I’m not sure if they still do that in this post-lockdown era.

If you ever have the opportunity to visit one of the Disney parks around Halloween, I thoroughly recommend it!

These days, Halloween tends to be a quieter affair! My days of discos and parties are long gone, and after digging the decorations out of storage and making sure I’m well-stocked in the event of a trick-or-treater incursion, I tend to spend Halloween itself with a lightly spooky film or TV special. As a kind of homage to those earlier Halloween nights, I’ll often prepare a modest buffet of finger food and snacks, too. It might not be the same as a big party – but it suits me just fine!

I hope you’ve enjoyed this stumble down memory lane. I don’t have another creative outlet, and I thought writing up some of my memories and nostalgic recollections of Halloweens gone by would be a bit of fun. Hopefully it was interesting, at any rate.

Horror and jump-scares aren’t usually “my thing,” and my Halloween tastes tend to veer more towards the kid-friendly than the outright terrifying. But that’s the nice thing about Halloween, in a way: it can be whatever you want to make of it. If you want to go all out, rent the scariest film ever made, and watch it with the lights out – go for it! But if, like me, you’d rather curl up with some snacks and something a bit less frightening, that option is open too. I love Halloween.

Some photos used above courtesy of Unsplash. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Starfield: Further Thoughts

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Starfield’s main quest, including its ending.

I have to confess that I haven’t played a lot more of Starfield since I last shared my thoughts on the game, its flaws, and how Bethesda might want to respond to some of the biggest points of criticism. But as I’ve sat with the game in the month since it released, I’ve found a few more things to say that I didn’t get to mention in either of my two big post-launch pieces about Starfield. It’s these points that we’re going to talk about today – and if you ignored the spoiler warning above, please know that we’re going to discuss the ending of the main quest and Starfield’s New Game Plus mode.

I feel that Skyrim’s unprecedented success changed something at Bethesda. The company ceased viewing its games as individual stories to be created, completed, and published, and instead began seeing all of its projects as ongoing, long-running experiences. Because Skyrim remained popular for years after its release, Bethesda seems to have internalised that and expected it to become the “new normal,” deliberately taking steps to build all future games with that goal in mind. We saw that most obviously with Fallout 76, but I’d argue very strongly that it happened with Starfield as well.

Starfield has landed…

In a recent interview with Insomniac Games (creators of Marvel’s Spider-Man, among other successful projects), Bethesda executive producer Todd Howard said that Starfield was “a good base of a game to build upon,” referencing the company’s plans for future DLC and additional development for years to come. This isn’t the first time we’ve heard of talk of years-long plans for Starfield. In fact, it seems that building a kind of single-player live-service title was one of Bethesda’s main objectives when developing the game.

My question is this: was Starfield screwed over by this idea?

Find me a recent game that billed itself as having a “ten-year plan” or a “five-year roadmap” that actually went the distance. Whether we’re talking about the likes of Anthem, Marvel’s Avengers, or Halo Infinite, many titles have come along promising something like this – only to fail to deliver. Games that genuinely last a decade or more are seldom planned that way; titles like Fortnite, Grand Theft Auto V, or Skyrim are lightning in a bottle. These one-off games succeed for almost unquantifiable reasons – and a massive amount of luck. Corporate planning to replicate that kind of once-in-a-generation level of success has almost never worked. Massive developers like Rockstar have faltered, and even some of the biggest brands and properties on the planet, like Marvel, have been unable to make a “five-year experience” work.

Anthem’s “roadmap” of content that was supposed to be added to the game.

And I can’t help but feel echoes of the likes of Anthem in Starfield. Parts of the game feel barebones and incomplete, as if waiting for future “content drops” and updates to round things out. There are plenty of missions and quests to get stuck into in Starfield, for example, but where are the cosmetics and skins? Why are there so few weapon styles, outfits, skins, and the like? I said when I wrote up my first impressions of Starfield that I was pleased to see the game wasn’t being excessively monetised… but looking at the lack of cosmetic variety and skins, it seems pretty clear that Bethesda plans to add these as paid-for DLC.

The corporation is no stranger to this. In fact, I’d argue that Bethesda is actually one of the guiltiest parties in the entire games industry when it comes to microtransactions – especially in the single-player space. Oblivion’s infamous horse armour DLC in 2006 was one of the most notorious examples of bad value cosmetic DLC in a single-player game, and one of the first to attract mainstream attention. Other companies saw Bethesda essentially getting away with it, and a truly unfortunate trend accelerated.

Oblivion’s horse armour DLC was released in 2006.

At time of writing in October 2023, the only skins available in the game come from expensive pre-order or premium editions of Starfield. That’s already a red flag, in my opinion, and it seems all but certain that future skins will also only be available as paid add-ons.

Starfield could look very different in six months or a year from now, with in-game purchases that could easily push the cost of the complete game closer to £200. Remember that in order to get the currently available skins, and pre-order Shattered Space, players are already having to fork over £100 to Bethesda for Starfield’s premium edition, so £200 when additional skins and cosmetics have been released doesn’t even seem like a stretch. By the time Bethesda finally stops working on Starfield altogether in the years ahead, the full price of the game plus all of its DLC and additional content could run to far more than that.

Skins are currently available as pre-order and special edition bonuses only.

So I’m rescinding my “doesn’t feel excessively monetised” statement from my earlier piece. Starfield feels like a game that’s being primed for additional monetisation – and rumours of paid mods have not escaped my notice, either. Paid mods will have to be the subject of a longer piece one day – but suffice to say for now that I’m not a supporter of them in any way, shape, or form.

Bethesda took a risk by turning Starfield into a single-player live-service title, and while I will say that the “base” version of the game still has a lot on offer – for people who are still interested in Bethesda games and the way they design their quests – I’m not sure it was the right decision. Building a good game with fun gameplay and an engaging story should have been priority number one – but it feels like both of these things took a back seat. Planning for a decade’s worth of add-ons and extra content became Bethesda’s main ambition. I’m not convinced all of these planned pieces of DLC will see the light of day.

This is where skins will appear – when Bethesda is ready to begin selling them.

When I really dig down, Starfield’s biggest issue for me personally isn’t actually that its gameplay feels outdated and uninspired. It’s that the game’s story just didn’t grab me and the worldbuilding was so bland and uninteresting that I didn’t care to spend any more time in it. The world of Starfield feels small, flat, and boring – and when the gameplay backing it up was lacklustre too, I couldn’t find a way to make progress. I’m someone who’ll happily play through some absolutely bog-standard gameplay if I’m enjoying a story or getting lost in a fictional world, but with Starfield offering neither an entertaining story nor an engaging world… sticking with the game lost its appeal.

I looked up spoilers online to see what happens further along Starfield’s main quest. I was bored to tears playing it, but if it picked up later on I thought I might be able to push through to get to the promised moment where the game would finally “get good.” But what I read actually surprised me – and I ended up feeling glad that I didn’t waste any more hours of my life playing through the story.

One of the artefacts at the heart of the game’s story.

What is one of the most basic pillars of storytelling? Any narrative needs a beginning, a middle, and an end. If a story revolves around a big mystery, solving that mystery is absolutely key to making it feel complete. Starfield’s writers chose to ignore this absolutely fundamental rule of narrative construction, and the result is that the game’s main story seems like it comes to a deeply unsatisfying “end.”

Starfield began by setting up a mystery: what is this artefact? What does it do? And who made it? Then the game introduces us to a team of people dedicated to figuring it all out. There are major structural weaknesses on this side of the story – like what anyone involved in Constellation actually does or has been doing for the past thirty years prior to the player character showing up – but that’s somewhat beside the point. After a series of glorified fetch quests that see us chasing different artefacts across the galaxy, Starfield introduces two antagonists and magical powers that we can learn… but then the story ends without explaining anything about what the artefacts were or who created them.

Starfield’s main story has a deeply unsatisfying ending – and the journey to get there isn’t much fun either.

Failing to solve the key mystery at the heart of the narrative, and refusing to even answer the most basic of questions about that mystery, ignores one of the fundamental tenets of storytelling. It makes the whole story – which then begins again in a weird kind of cyclical manner – feel incomplete and frustrating.

It seems to me that this aspect of the game – starting over by “travelling to an alternate reality” – is nothing more than a narrative gimmick to allow Bethesda to put a New Game Plus mode into Starfield.

And why would Bethesda want to add such a feature? None of the company’s previous titles included New Game Plus, after all. Oh, that’s right: because Starfield was built to be a “ten-year experience” rather than a complete game, and New Game Plus feels like an easy way to keep players engaged for longer.

I couldn’t even get through the game once

So we come full-circle, and I think we can reasonably make the case that Starfield has been harmed in more ways than one by Bethesda’s insistence on planning for the long-term at the expense of the short-term. Maybe Shattered Space, or some additional piece of DLC in the future, will resolve Starfield’s big mystery. And maybe, if that happens, the main story of the game will feel complete and worth experiencing. But if the best possible spin I can put on Starfield is that it’s an incomplete experience that needs additional content to actually feel like its story has a proper ending… that’s not great. It makes it feel no different from dozens of other incomplete live-service games.

I usually avoid live-service titles, and I do so for one basic reason: I don’t like to play an incomplete game. If a film or season of TV ends on a cliffhanger, with promises of a resolution to come next time, that’s one thing. But Starfield isn’t a film or a TV show, it’s a single-player game that shouldn’t depend on future DLC or updates to actually complete its main story.

Ready for boarding?

The longer I’ve sat with Starfield, the further the game has slipped down in my estimation. There are unfavourable comparisons with other recent releases that can’t be avoided, but at its core we’re stuck with a game that feels fundamentally incomplete. As Todd Howard himself admitted, Bethesda made a “base experience” that they intend to build on over the next few years – and that they also expect modders to help with. That might’ve been okay were it not for the outdated and buggy gameplay combined with an uninteresting and bland setting.

So like with other live-service titles, maybe Starfield will be worth revisiting after those promised updates, content drops, and DLC packs have been created. Maybe the “ultra deluxe anniversary edition” will be worth playing in 2030 – so if I live that long, maybe I’ll check it out. But I’ve been wasting my time on a game that, for all of its lofty promises, just isn’t what I’d been expecting. As I said last time: part of that is on me for internalising too much of the hype and excitement that built up in the months before Starfield’s launch. But a lot of the blame lies with Bethesda for creating an uninspiring setting, a bland, incomplete story, and for building a game that feels a decade out of date.

You cannot go that way.

Forget about Starfield becoming a “ten-year experience.” Bethesda needed to catch up on at least ten years worth of improvements and changes in game design and development. Those are the ten years that Bethesda should have been focused on. The company should have been looking at what comparable games in the open-world, action-adventure, and role-playing spaces have been doing since Skyrim launched and worked to incorporate some of those elements into Starfield. Instead, Bethesda took the Skyrim formula, cut out content to introduce later by way of paid DLC and add-ons, and planned for a decade’s worth of content for a game that already feels at least ten years out of date.

I wanted to love Starfield. The game’s overall aesthetic and many of its creative choices looked to create exactly the kind of sci-fi setting that appeals most to me. Blending real-world design elements with some of the sci-fi properties that I remember fondly from years past should have been exactly what I was looking for. I was worried that I was too harsh on Starfield and that I’d been treating the game unfairly or unkindly… but the longer I’ve sat with it the more I’ve seen its “ten-year plan” laid bare. I don’t care for live-services, for incomplete experiences, or for badly-written stories with cheap endings. I think I’m done with Starfield for now – though I will give the caveat that the game could be worth picking up again once its planned add-ons have been released.

Starfield is out now for PC and Xbox Series S & X consoles. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. Some promo images and screenshots used above courtesy of Bethesda. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Xbox Game Pass: The DLC Problem

If you’re a regular reader, you might know that I’m an Xbox Game Pass subscriber. I play on PC, not on an Xbox console, but Microsoft’s “Netflix of games” has felt like a good value proposition to me over the past couple of years. I’ve been able to play several big games without having to buy them outright, and in addition Game Pass has introduced me to several titles that I’d never have thought to try for myself. Even though I’m not someone who plays video games every day, I still feel that I get good value for money from Game Pass.

You know there’s a “but” coming, though.

But Game Pass has a problem, and it’s one that might prove tricky to unstick. Although the service includes a good range of titles across different genres, and many brand-new ones join the Game Pass lineup on release day, a lot of these games are incomplete. To use a games industry euphemism: these versions are the “base game” – without any DLC being included.

Game Pass includes a lot of games – but many are incomplete.

There are exceptions to this, such as “game of the year” bundles of titles like Skyrim and Fallout 3 that come packaged with their DLC – but these games, when they exist, tend to be older titles, not brand-new ones. And in the case of Skyrim, while the Game Pass version does include DLC, it’s not the most recent “anniversary edition” that comes with additional content and visual improvements. Figuring out which version of a game is which and what add-ons and DLC come with which one can feel like navigating a maze at times!

This recently came up for me with two games: Starfield and Age of Empires II. I was a huge Age of Empires II fan around the turn of the millennium, and I’ve been thrilled with the Definitive Edition remake that was released a couple of years ago. When developers Forgotten Empires and Xbox Game Studios announced that there was going to be a new piece of DLC for Age of Empires II – one that would bring the original civilisations from the first Age of Empires into the new game – I thought it was something worth checking out.

Promo banner for the Return of Rome DLC.

But on Game Pass, the Return of Rome DLC isn’t included along with Age of Empires II. The only way to play it is to buy it – for the not-so-low price of £10. Even with a Game Pass subscription, it would cost a whopping £80 to buy the Age of Empires Collection – a bundle that includes all four games plus their various DLC packs. If I’m paying a subscription fee every month to access this service and these first-party games, that seems ridiculous and excessive.

Starfield, too, has irked me when it comes to DLC on Game Pass. Bethesda’s space-RPG launched on Game Pass not on “day one,” as was promised, but five days later – with those first five days gated off behind a paywall. Five days of so-called “early” access was only available to players who forked over an additional £35 – and I don’t think that should be acceptable. Too many companies have started charging extra to play their games as soon as they become available, using shady manipulative tricks to convince folks to cough up even more money. But paid “early” access will have to be the subject of a longer article in future.

The only way to get access to Starfield’s “story expansion” on Game Pass is to pay extra.

Also included in Starfield’s expensive £35 add-on on Game Pass was the first piece of planned DLC: Shattered Space. This DLC pack isn’t out yet and most likely won’t arrive until sometime next year, but even for Game Pass subscribers, the only way to get it will be to pay up. Shattered Space is described as a “story expansion” for Starfield; a piece of DLC that will add to the story present in the “base” version of the game. I’m beginning to get tired of this – being charged extra on top of a subscription.

The basic problem is this: we all know that most games in 2023 aren’t complete experiences. With a few exceptions, like Baldur’s Gate 3, most games nowadays are deliberately constructed to be incomplete, and to require DLC and “content packs” to make up for these inbuilt, deliberate deficiencies. When Game Pass only allows players access to the “base game,” what that really means is that it’s a service made up entirely of incomplete experiences.

Baldur’s Gate 3 feels like a rare gem in 2023: a game that’s actually complete without expensive add-ons.

Baldur’s Gate 3 is a great game, and I firmly believe it would still be lauded and held in high esteem even if the games industry wasn’t plagued with these problems. But one factor among many in its success, and one of the reasons why it’s being celebrated by players, is that it’s so rare nowadays to see a fully-complete game that doesn’t require expensive DLC or that doesn’t come bundled with an in-game shop and microtransactions. In a broken, greedy, money-grubbing marketplace, games like that stand out.

Incomplete games have become normalised, and that’s been the case for at least a decade. In 2012, Mass Effect 3 was released – and the “base game” had a whole chunk carved out that was sold as day-one DLC: From Ashes. This content, which was developed alongside the “base game” and perfectly integrated into it, was sold separately by EA for an additional fee. Although it remains a particularly egregious example of this phenomenon, it’s far from the only one. Day-one DLC and cut content are everywhere nowadays.

Mass Effect 3 was a pioneer of cutting out content to sell as DLC.

So if it’s increasingly rare that a “base game” can be considered anywhere close to a complete, well-rounded experience, what does that say about a service like Game Pass? To me, Game Pass feels increasingly like those demo discs that used to come stuck to the front of magazines or in cereal boxes in the ’90s. There’s some great stuff there – but if you want to play more than just the “base” version, you’d better be prepared to fork over some additional cash. Maybe £10 for Age of Empires II DLC seems reasonable to you, but £35 for Starfield DLC that might not be released for another twelve months feels like highway robbery.

Microsoft wants Game Pass to be “the Netflix of games,” and to transform the way players engage with playing games on its platforms. So let’s take the Netflix analogy as a starting point and consider this question: does Netflix charge extra for additional content?

Microsoft wants to make Game Pass the “Netflix of video games.”

Can you imagine logging into Netflix, excited to watch the second season of your favourite show, only to be told that you need to pay an additional fee? For many games, DLC is the equivalent of “Season 2,” continuing the story, rounding out the experience, and even patching out issues with the game in some cases. No video streaming service could get away with only making Season 1 of a TV series or the first film in a trilogy available to watch, with the rest only accessible for an extra fee. That would be ridiculous.

Having said that, I hope I haven’t given the penny-pinchers at Netflix any ideas!

But you see my point, right? It wouldn’t be possible for a video streaming service to only include some films and episodes in its “base version” and expect to get away with charging extra fees to watch the rest. Customers wouldn’t stand for that – so why does Microsoft think it can get away with doing that on Game Pass?

Imagine if Netflix tried to get away with charging extra to watch the second or third season of a series.

I suppose we should make a distinction between different kinds of DLC, in the interest of fairness. Single-use items in online games, in-game currencies, and maybe even some cosmetic items are the kind of things that could still be charged for separately. I’m not suggesting that Game Pass players should get infinite amounts of these things, especially in competitive online multiplayer games.

But for titles like Starfield with its single-player DLC, and even for Age of Empires II with its new story campaign and factions, I really do believe that these should be included in the cost of Game Pass. What are we paying Microsoft for if all we’re getting are incomplete experiences; games that will become less and less complete over time? The price of Game Pass should go toward the cost of developing DLC for these titles, especially since it’s taken as a monthly charge. There’s no better definition of a “recurring revenue stream” than that.

This is all about money, at the end of the day.

So this was a bit of a rant, but it’s something I’ve been meaning to bring up for some time now. While I don’t think it’s fair to ask for every single title to include all purchasable items as part of Game Pass, I absolutely believe that single-player titles and big expansion packs should be covered. The “base game” hasn’t felt like a full or complete experience for a long time, so when Game Pass only offers that, it feels less like a subscription service and more like an expensive demo disc.

At the very least, I’d like to see Microsoft’s first-party releases bring their major expansion packs and DLC to Game Pass. If I were to fantasize, I’d say that cosmetic items in single-player games, small content packs like cars in racing games or new guns in shooters should also be included as well.

This is something Microsoft will have to deal with sooner or later, because players aren’t going to be pleased if they have to keep forking over additional fees on top of their Game Pass subscription. If I have to pay £35 to get Starfield’s unreleased DLC, why even bother subscribing at that point? I might as well buy the “base game” right now and wait for the DLC to go on sale.

The Game Pass subscription service is available now for players on PC and Xbox game consoles. All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective developer, publisher, and/or studio. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

I feel burned out on Star Trek…

If you’re a regular reader, you might’ve noticed that my reviews for Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Season 2 came to an abrupt halt this summer. Truth be told, I haven’t even finished watching the season – a season of television that I was pretty excited for earlier in the year. That’s not because Strange New Worlds was in any way bad or unenjoyable; Season 1 was fantastic and the first half of Season 2 definitely had some fun and interesting stories in the mix. But honestly… I just feel burned out on the franchise as a whole right now.

When Star Trek was on the air in the 1990s and early 2000s, we’d regularly get two episodes a week here in the UK for much of the year. When brand-new episodes weren’t airing, there’d often be re-runs of older ones in the same timeslot. I missed a few episodes when they were new in the ’90s and early 2000s – but not that many. And I re-watched a bunch of episodes on VHS before later buying the entire Star Trek franchise on DVD. I don’t recall feeling burned out on Star Trek in the way I do now, even though there were several shows and films running for basically an entire decade.

A Radio Times listing for Star Trek: The Next Generation in 1996.

It was only in 2001, when Enterprise premiered, that I took a step back. And that wasn’t burnout as such – I just wasn’t particularly interested in Enterprise’s premise and 22nd Century setting. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: I was wrong about that! Enterprise is a great show and a welcome addition to the Star Trek franchise, something I wish I’d realised at the time. But again, even as I stepped away from what was Star Trek’s newest incarnation, I still considered myself a fan. In the mid-2000s I must’ve watched my Star Trek DVDs dozens of times.

So why can’t I muster up the enthusiasm or effort to watch the rest of Strange New Worlds right now? Or even start Lower Decks’ fourth season?

It’s not that I don’t think I’d enjoy them. With the possible exception of Strange New Worlds’ musical episode (as I’m not a big fan of non-animated musicals) I’m sure I’d enjoy at least some of what’s on offer. But whenever I think about sitting down to watch the next episode… I just feel like I’ve lost interest.

Subspace Rhapsody is a musical episode.

I run a Star Trek fansite. Sure, I talk about other topics, but the Star Trek franchise accounts for around two-thirds of the articles, reviews, and columns that I’ve written here over the past few years. “Trek” is literally in the website’s name! I’m no hater of “nu-Trek,” either, and even though I haven’t been wild about every storytelling decision in Picard or Discovery, for example, I still consider myself a fan and supporter of those shows. When I’ve been critical of Star Trek – and of the corporation that owns and manages it, Paramount Global – that criticism is intended to be constructive and comes from a place of love.

So why do I find myself so uninterested in Star Trek right now?

I’ve been wrestling with this question for months. At first I thought I could write it off as simply being distracted. I played through video games like Star Wars Jedi: Survivor and Baldur’s Gate 3, and I was eagerly awaiting Starfield. I watched a couple of other shows, like Silo on Apple TV+, and films like The Last Voyage of the Demeter. But I wasn’t avoiding Star Trek because I was too busy. That might’ve felt like a convenient excuse in the moment, but it isn’t the real answer.

Have you read my review of Baldur’s Gate 3 yet?

The simple truth is that I feel burned out on Star Trek. The franchise’s return to the small screen has snowballed over the past couple of years, going from a single show to five shows – all of which have been on the air in the past eighteen months or so with very few breaks. That should be great, and it should feel like a return to form for a franchise that aired The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager alongside one another for much of the ’90s. But somehow… it doesn’t.

I warned about the dangers of “franchise fatigue” and burnout just after New Year when I took a look at Star Trek’s highs and lows of 2022. I said then that running five different shows might just be too much to keep up with – and I meant it. I could feel the early stages of burnout beginning even last year, and that’s partly why I stopped reviewing episodes of Lower Decks and ended up taking a break from writing anything here on the website at all.

Mining the Mind’s Mines was the last Lower Decks episode that I reviewed.

A lot has changed since Star Trek’s ’90s heyday. To fit in with modern trends, most stories are serialised and seasons now run to ten episodes instead of twenty-two or more. The franchise’s shows all occupy different time periods instead of sticking to a single, unified setting. And the five different shows that have been on the air of late are all dabbling in very different genres and styles. Where it felt relatively smooth and easy to hop from an episode of The Next Generation to Deep Space Nine or from DS9 to Voyager, it’s less easy to jump from Lower Decks to Picard or Discovery to Prodigy. Perhaps that’s part of it.

But there’s another factor here: me. When I was enjoying those early episodes of The Next Generation in 1991, I was a kid. Star Trek was a big deal for me as a lonely, awkward adolescent trying to navigate school and social life in the ’90s… but maybe I overestimated how big of a deal it still is for me thirty years later. I’ve changed since then, too… so I can’t place all of the blame on Star Trek.

The Royale, from Season 2 of The Next Generation, is the earliest Star Trek episode that I can remember watching.

I’ve spoken before about building this website, and how I hoped to create for myself a space where I could talk about the subjects that interest me at my own pace. I wanted a little piece of the internet where I could write without fear of word limits, and without being reduced to a mere comment on someone else’s work. Moreover, I wanted the freedom to talk about what interests me – whether that’s Star Trek or some other film, game, or series. Or even topics unrelated to entertainment.

But as the website has developed, I found myself writing Star Trek theories, Star Trek episode reviews, and much more about the franchise. As several of those pieces seemed to pick up a lot of interest and attention, being clicked on tens of thousands of times in some cases, I felt a kind of pressure to keep up. Last year, I said I felt I’d been writing reviews of Lower Decks less out of enjoyment than a sense of obligation… and this summer I started to feel the same way about Strange New Worlds. While I still enjoy the process of writing here on the website, I felt trapped in a sense by having made a commitment to review all of these episodes within a couple of days of their broadcast.

Spock in Strange New Worlds Season 2.

So perhaps, somewhat ironically given my intentions, writing here on the website has become another factor. If I sit down to watch the next episode of Strange New Worlds I’ll feel guilty if I don’t take notes for my review, capture still frames to use, and write something that runs to at least a couple of thousand words – if not more. So is the burnout I feel less to do with Star Trek and more to do with writing?

That doesn’t seem right, either; this isn’t a case of writer’s block. I recently reviewed Baldur’s Gate 3 – a title that I adored and would recommend to any fan of role-playing games. And I’ve talked a lot about Starfield over the past couple of months, too… so when I find a subject that interests me and where I feel I have something to say I can still get the words to flow. But for Star Trek? The interest has faded, at least temporarily.

I’ve found a lot to say about Starfield over the past couple of months.

And it probably is temporary. I’ve taken breaks from Star Trek before; there might’ve been a year or more where I didn’t watch a single episode or film in the 2000s and/or the 2010s. I’ve never been someone who can settle on just one “thing;” I tend to dabble in different hobbies and experiences – or in this case, entertainment properties. Sometimes I’ll be fixated on one thing for a time before moving on and leaving it behind entirely.

But that’s always been the case, and even when I found myself taking breaks from Star Trek unintentionally, I wouldn’t have described myself as feeling burned out. So we still haven’t zeroed in on what’s changed.

Even though I wasn’t wild about Enterprise during its original run, I didn’t feel the same kind of burnout as I do today.

With Star Trek feeling like its on decidedly shaky ground amidst strikes, the “streaming wars,” and Paramount’s failing leadership, I feel a strong sense of obligation to support the franchise. I don’t want to see Star Trek disappear again – and in the current media landscape, who knows when or even if another revival would be possible if that were to happen? But at the same time, there’s no fun or enjoyment in writing out of obligation. I might as well go back to my old job working in marketing; writing meaningless, uninspired fluff to meet arbitrary deadlines.

Perhaps the answer is a combination of factors, as is often the case. Paramount has hit the accelerator too hard and Star Trek has become oversaturated. Franchise fatigue has begun to set in, and hopefully the lesson the corporation will learn before it’s too late is that it needs to slow down and refocus. At the same time, I’ve changed over the years, and Star Trek no longer occupies the same place in my life as it did during my adolescence. Having this website as a project has been great for me – but it’s also created made-up obligations that are teaming up with my anxiety. Retreating from Star Trek is the way my brain has responded to that sense of being overwhelmed, and once I “missed” a deadline or two, re-starting feels all the more difficult.

The Enterprise-D at DS9.

Although this has been a rather introspective look at things, I’m absolutely certain that I won’t be the only one feeling a sense of burnout. Trying to create a broad and varied franchise is an admirable goal, and pitching different shows at different audiences and demographics is, in theory, not a bad idea. But Paramount’s execution of this has been poor, and the corporation needs to wake up to a simple reality: there are limits to how far a single franchise can be pushed. Star Trek can’t bear the weight of carrying Paramount Plus on its own, and audiences have their limits.

But it would be remiss to ignore my personal circumstances, as this sense of burnout isn’t entirely the fault of franchise fatigue and oversaturation. I have to find a way to rediscover my passion for Star Trek – but I also have to acknowledge that I’m not a kid or a teenager any more, and that my relationship with the franchise has evolved over the years. Even as Paramount tries desperately to play the nostalgia card, what existed back then can never truly be recreated.

I’ll get back to watching and reviewing Star Trek sooner or later. Just don’t ask me when, because I honestly couldn’t tell you right now.

The Star Trek franchise – including all properties discussed above – is the copyright of Paramount Global. Most Star Trek films and shows can be streamed on Paramount Plus in countries and territories where the platform is available. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Five spooky films to spook you out in Spooktober!

Spoiler Warning: There are minor spoilers ahead for the titles on this list.

Happy Spooktober!

To celebrate the arrival of the spookiest, scariest, most terrifying month of the year, I thought it could be fun to pick out five films from the horror genre to take a look at!

When I was a kid, the nerdy friendship groups that I moved in seemed to see horror films as a kind of rite of passage – and being able to boast about having seen a particularly frightening one would score you major bragging rights! In those days we were limited to what was on sale on Betamax and VHS, as well as the meagre horror selection at the local video rental place. How times change, eh?

I’ll have to talk more about this on another occasion, but I have some very pleasant memories of Halloween as a youngster. When I was growing up in the ’80s and ’90s, the “Americanised” version of Halloween was just starting to take root here in the UK, and a local kids’ club that I attended threw a kind of Halloween-themed disco at that time of year. I remember it being great fun, getting dressed up in a silly costume and wearing a mask made either of horrible sharp plastic that would scratch your face when it cracked or a paper one that would tear and get soggy! I’m sure I’m over-romanticising those memories, but even as someone who isn’t a big fan of horror and scary things, Halloween has always had a positive association for me.

The kind of Halloween discos I remember as a kid had snacks like this!

So yes, you read that right: I’m not the world’s biggest fan of horror. In fact, at any other time of year I’d almost never choose a horror title for movie night at home! I scare easily, and jump-scares in particular almost always manage to get me – even when I know they’re coming! I’ve heard folks talk about the adrenaline rush that horror films give them being a major factor in why they like them, but that’s just not my jam! I’m more of a “cowering behind the sofa with my eyes shut” type of horror viewer!

That being said, I’ve watched a lot of horror films over the years, and there have been some great ones. Even if I wouldn’t necessarily watch them eleven months out of the year… well, it’s Spooktober!

So let’s jump into the list and take a look at the films I’ve chosen this year.

Film #1:
Dog Soldiers (2002)

A British cult classic!

I have fond memories of watching Dog Soldiers with a friend who was absolutely obsessed with the film! He bought it on video as soon as it was available and insisted I watch it right away. While I wasn’t as taken with it as he was, I found its premise interesting and its execution surprisingly solid. The film follows a squad of British soldiers who come under attack by werewolves!

Of all the classic monsters that made their way from folklore to popular culture, werewolves feel under-represented! Compared with vampires, zombies, witches, or even mummies, there are relatively few films in which werewolves are the main focus, and perhaps that’s part of why Dog Soldiers stands out; it’s something a little different in a genre that often returns to the same places.

There are some moments of absolutely gut-wrenching gore that hold up well, but on returning to the film twenty years later, I’m not so sure that all of the practical special effects – particularly those used for the werewolves themselves – have stood the test of time.

Film #2:
Jaws (1975)

On the hunt for a monster…

Jaws is an absolute classic; a groundbreaking work of cinema that should be on everyone’s must-see list! It’s also a masterclass in how to build tension, with the monstrous shark being scarcely glimpsed for much of the film’s two-hour runtime. Jaws is also a surprisingly relatable human story – of people who ignore warnings and prioritise money and politicking over safety. Some things never change, eh?

Jaws also did a lot to unfairly demonise sharks, the great white in particular. Sharks are nowhere near as deadly as the film suggests, and many species actually need our protection to keep them safe from over-fishing and habitat destruction. One of Jaws’ most unfortunate legacies is the way in which many people came to fear and hate sharks.

I’ve heard some younger folks call Jaws “tame,” and I guess it might be by today’s standards. But it’s a transformative, groundbreaking film – and one I firmly believe everyone should watch at least once!

Film #3:
1408 (2007)

Something’s not right at this hotel…

Based on a Stephen King story, 1408 is about a haunted hotel room. It’s a bit of a twist on the typical “haunted house” concept, but where 1408 really shines is in the characterisation of its protagonist. Actor John Cusack really gives a great performance here, bringing the character to life in a relatable and understandable way.

I didn’t realise this until doing a bit of research, but 1408 actually has several different endings – so if you have the film on DVD or Blu-ray you might be able to have a completely different experience of its final act. Deleted scenes aren’t uncommon, of course, but 1408 actually has very different endings depending on whether you watch the director’s cut or the original theatrical version. As a rule of thumb: always go for the director’s cut of any film!

For me, 1408 hits the kind of supernatural horror that I find most frightening – but it does it remarkably well.

Film #4:
Phineas and Ferb: Night of the Living Pharmacists (2014)

They’re horrible!

There’s got to be room for one kid-friendly entry on any Halloween list, and this time I’m picking the Phineas and Ferb special episode Night of the Living Pharmacists. The extended episode is a fun, gentle parody of zombie films like Night of the Living Dead, and even features legendary director George A. Romero in a cameo role.

I love Phineas and Ferb, and the show has several other Halloween-themed episodes that are well worth checking out. Night of the Living Pharmacists is silly in places – but that’s part of the fun. The story shakes up the typical formula of the show by pairing up the titular kids with antagonist Dr Doofenshmirtz as one of his experiments gets out of control.

Halloween is, at the end of the day, a holiday for the little ones. Night of the Living Pharmacists is spooky and atmospheric – perfect for any Halloween party or sleepover!

Film #5:
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

An iconic portrayal.

This adaptation of Thomas Harris’ novel has become a modern classic. There are relatively few out-and-out “scary” moments in The Silence of the Lambs, as the film doesn’t rely on jump-scares and the like. But there’s a real sense of horror in the air as junior FBI agent Clarice Starling races against time to catch a serial killer.

The Silence of the Lambs features Anthony Hopkins’ iconic portrayal of Dr Hannibal Lecter, one of the most infamous villains in modern cinematic history. Lecter is so cold, calculated, and ruthless that he has a totally unique fear factor; he’s a single human being, not a demon or monster, and yet he’s capable of such gratuitous acts of violence. Hiding under a polite facade, pulling the strings, Dr Lecter has rightly become one of the big screen’s most terrifying serial killers.

Though The Silence of the Lambs is arguably as much thriller as horror, I still think it’s worth including here.

So that’s it!

Looks like fun…

We’ve picked out five spooky films to start Spooktober and the spooky season with a bang! I hope this has been a bit of fun at least, and maybe that you’ve got some inspiration for what to watch as Halloween gets closer.

Although I’m much more a fan of Christmas than Halloween, I unapologetically love this time of year. Autumn is almost certainly my favourite season, and as Halloween approaches I love seeing the wonderful and creative decorations, crafts, and costumes that people make to celebrate the spooky season! Some people really go all-out to make Halloween a massive celebration, and even though I’m not the biggest fan of horror or of being frightened, I’m absolutely there for the holiday!

There may be more spookiness to come before the 31st, so stay tuned here on Trekking with Dennis. If you dare…

All titles listed above are the copyright of their respective studio, broadcaster, distributor, and/or corporation. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Thoughts on Streaming Schedules

Back in 2021, I watched and generally enjoyed Amazon Prime Video’s The Wheel of Time adaptation. I’d read the first couple of books in the series, and although it was a long time ago and I couldn’t remember many of the details of the story, I was still interested to see what a studio with Amazon’s means could bring to the fantasy realm. In the aftermath of the success of Game of Thrones, many studios were scrounging around for fantasy properties to adapt! I was pleased with the result in 2021.

The Wheel of Time has just returned to our screens after a break of almost two years – and it’s this scheduling that I want to talk a bit about today. The Wheel of Time’s first season ran to a scant eight episodes, which isn’t out of the norm for streaming shows these days, but is still a lot shorter than a typical television show from years gone by. But a short run of episodes combined with a very long break in between seasons has meant that I’ve basically forgotten all of what happened last time – and I almost missed The Wheel of Time’s return entirely. It was only when I saw an advertising banner splashed across Amazon’s homepage that I even remembered the series existed.

Promo poster for The Wheel of Time Season 2.

This is far from an isolated example. Amazon’s Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power also ran for eight episodes in its first season – and also looks set to take a break of at least eighteen months before its second season will be ready. The same is true of shows like The Witcher and Stranger Things on Netflix or Paramount+’s Halo adaptation. These long breaks, when combined with short seasons, are actually doing a lot of harm to these shows – and I’m surprised that none of the big streaming companies have caught on yet.

The pandemic was a major disruptive force across the entertainment industry, shutting down or prolonging many productions. And I get that – I really do. The knock-on effects of that disruption are still being felt, and while that partially explains some of these long breaks, that’s not the whole story. Made-for-streaming shows like The Wheel of Time just aren’t interested in deadlines and schedules any more, and I think that’s to their detriment.

Still waiting on that second season of Halo

Most viewers of any series are not hard-core fans. The vast majority of a show’s audience are casual viewers, folks who tune in while the show is running but don’t spend too much time thinking about it after the credits have rolled on the season finale. Those people basically pay for a production and determine whether or not it will be a success, so keeping them engaged is vitally important. It’s great when a show can be “made for the fans,” but the reality is that most viewers will never be in that hard-core category.

When a series disappears for almost two years, the way The Wheel of Time did, it makes it so much harder to retain the kind of casual audience that it relies on. I would generally consider myself to be someone who likes fantasy, and I ranked The Wheel of Time as being one of my favourite shows of 2021… but even I’m struggling to remember who’s who and what happened last time. It’s just been so long, and I’ve had other things to watch since. Sure, my ageing, addled brain isn’t as switched-on as some people’s might be… but that’s beside the point!

Who’s this again?

With shorter seasons of ten, eight, or even six episodes becoming increasingly common, it’s more important than ever for shows to not wait too long in between seasons. It’s also worthwhile, in my opinion, for streaming platforms to release shows at roughly the same time of year – at least the same season. There’s no need for rigid schedules on a streaming platform in the way there used to be on broadcast television, but if people get used to watching a particular show in the spring or the autumn, sticking with that for future seasons makes a lot of sense to me.

This must sound like a very long-winded way of saying “oops, I forgot that The Wheel of Time was a thing!” But this phenomenon goes beyond one single series or even one single streaming platform. There are perfectly understandable reasons for productions to be disrupted – whether we’re talking about the pandemic, the recent writers’ and actors’ strikes, or something else – and I’m not trying to single out Amazon or The Wheel of Time unfairly. I just really feel that these long breaks are to the detriment of practically every series and make it much harder to retain viewers.

SAG-AFTRA and WGA members on strike in 2023.

One of the benefits of the “streaming wars” over the past few years has been a glut of high-quality, big-budget entertainment on the small screen. Now I’ll be the first to tell you that not all of these shows were enjoyable, but some have been outstanding. With advancements in technology meeting a corporate need to drive and retain subscribers, the past few years have seen some of the best-looking television shows ever made. And that’s fantastic.

But when these shows disappear for years at a time – after only running to a handful of episodes – it becomes increasingly difficult to keep up. There’s a lot of choice of what to watch right now, even in genres that used to be considered small niches like fantasy. Studios like Amazon have to do better at keeping production and post-production schedules tight so that these kinds of long breaks can be avoided, especially if they only want to produce eight episodes in a season.

The Wheel of Time is produced by Amazon Studios.

So The Wheel of Time is back – and it’s already been renewed for a third season, so I guess we shouldn’t worry about the series being abandoned! But I hope Season 3 will be able to premiere in 2024, not 2025 or 2026. I’m only just beginning to figure out who’s who and what’s what all over again, and the last thing I need is for the series to disappear for nigh-on two years again!

As the streaming wars continue to rage, the studios that manage to get a grip on this situation will do well. Rigid schedules may no longer be necessary, and the flexibility that streaming allows for is, I would argue, a net positive for television production overall. But scheduling still matters, and taking two years to produce a single eight-episode season feels excessive. Worse than that, I fear it will prove harmful to any show’s prospects. Streaming services don’t only need to be concerned with signing up new subscribers, they need to worry about retaining current subscribers – and making sure that the shows people are watching don’t vanish for long periods of time is going to be part of that.

This was a bit of a whine; I’m sorry about that! And The Wheel of Time isn’t the only offender, it just happened to be the best recent example of this phenomenon. I do enjoy the series… I just hope I won’t have to wait so long for the next season. Time’s marching on, after all!

The Wheel of Time is available to stream now on Amazon Prime Video. Season 1 is also available for purchase on DVD/Blu-ray. The Wheel of Time is the copyright of Amazon Studios and Amazon Prime Video. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Questions that Mass Effect 4 will almost certainly need to answer

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for the Mass Effect trilogy (including Legendary Edition).

It’s been a while since we last talked about the next entry in the Mass Effect series, but to celebrate my dedicated Mass Effect webpage finally going live here on the website, I thought it could be interesting to consider a handful of big questions that the team at BioWare will need to answer before a new story can be written. If you missed it, I now have a brand-new webpage dedicated to the Mass Effect series, and you can find all of my Mass Effect commentary, theories, and articles there. You can find this page by using the drop-down menu at the top of every page or post here on the website – or you can click or tap here to head there directly!

There hasn’t been much by way of news about the next Mass Effect game for a couple of years. BioWare released a brief CGI teaser all the way back in December 2020 confirming that the game is in pre-production, but since then, updates have been few and far between. BioWare provided a brief update in November 2022, saying that pre-production is “proceeding very well,” which sounded positive. In August 2023, however, BioWare announced that there were going to be job losses at the company. With production currently focused on Dragon Age: Dreadwolf, and with these cuts taking place, the next Mass Effect game is unlikely to see the light of day before 2026 or 2027 at the earliest.

Commander Shepard in the Normandy’s cockpit.

But that doesn’t mean there aren’t things to talk about! We may not see the game I’m tentatively calling Mass Effect 4 for a long time, but the studio will have already taken a number of big decisions about the game, its setting, its characters, and its key storylines. Today, I’m giving my two cents on what some of those decisions may be – and there are some absolutely massive ones that have serious implications for the state of the Mass Effect galaxy.

As I’ve said before, there are questions about the Mass Effect galaxy that BioWare simply can’t ignore forever. Maybe a single game with a focused story could sidestep one or two of these questions, but if Mass Effect is to survive long-term with new games (and perhaps even a TV series) being produced… sooner or later answers will have to come. What that means is that some of the biggest decisions open to players in the original Mass Effect trilogy will need to be given a canon outcome, one that Mass Effect 4 can build upon. To players who were adamantly opposed to playing the game a certain way, that could lead to hurt feelings and disappointment – but I see no way around it. Some of these points are too big, and the implications too diverse, for a new story to be written that could take so many different outcomes into account.

Bypassing a locked door in Mass Effect 3.

Some Commander Shepards died at the end of Mass Effect 2. That game’s suicide mission could, under the right (or should that be wrong?) circumstances lead to Shepard’s death, and that meant that players had to either restart from an earlier save or start a new campaign in order to play Mass Effect 3. The third entry in the trilogy was able to take into account a lot of decisions from earlier games – but Shepard’s death was a bridge too far.

I bring this up because the Mass Effect series has taken big decisions like this in the past. Mass Effect 3 couldn’t happen without Shepard being alive, meaning players whose characters died at the end of Mass Effect 2 didn’t get to see their decisions carried forward. The same will have to happen in Mass Effect 4 – albeit on a grander scale.

So let’s try to look ahead to Mass Effect 4, and – assuming the game will be the sequel we’re all hoping for – pick out some of the biggest questions that will need to be answered.

Question #1:
What colour were the explosions?

An exploding Mass Relay.

This is a deliberately facetious way of asking the biggest question that any sequel to Mass Effect 3 cannot ignore: which ending was chosen? It simply isn’t going to be possible for the game to try to account for all three possibilities; the differences between them are too vast for a single story to encompass wildly divergent states of the galaxy. So one ending will have to be declared “official” – and if I had to place a bet, I’d say that the “destroy” ending is going to be the one that’s picked.

All of the endings of Mass Effect 3 have points in their favour from a narrative standpoint, but “destroy” was the one that Shepard had been working towards across the entire trilogy. Not only that, but it’s the only ending in which it’s even remotely possible – based on what we saw on screen – that Shepard could have survived. “Destroy” is, according to stats about Mass Effect: Legendary Edition that were released by BioWare, also the most popular choice that players made. So there are a lot of points in favour of making “destroy” the canonical ending to Mass Effect 3.

The damaged Citadel in orbit of Earth.

The state of the galaxy is going to be profoundly altered by whichever ending to Mass Effect 3 was chosen, and I just don’t see how a new game could possibly take that diversity and variety into account. Mass Effect 4 would essentially need to be three games in one in order to accomplish that – and that just doesn’t seem likely. If Mass Effect 4 is to continue the series, perhaps laying the groundwork for a new trilogy or series of games, that divergence will only grow over the course of its story. So there has to be a single starting point chosen – even if that means disappointing some players who were particularly attached to one of the other ending variants.

I felt that Mass Effect 3′s final chapter was trying to present “synthesis” as the better option. That was the one that was hardest to unlock, and in the epilogue, EDI seems to suggest that “synthesis” led to a kind of technological paradise, with the galaxy’s races living in harmony… but I always took umbrage with that idea. Not only was it literally the goal of the Reapers as stated by the AI that controls them, it was a completely different outcome to what Shepard had been fighting for. It was also not Shepard’s place to inflict such a radical change on the entire galaxy without anyone’s consent – and without even listening to a single other opinion on the matter! But more than that, “synthesis” doesn’t seem like it would lead to an interesting or relatable narrative. With human characters merged with AI, and with everyone living in a utopia… how could we as the audience get invested in the people or the world?

Question #2:
Did Shepard side with the Geth or the Quarians – or find a route to make peace?

Tali, Shepard, and Legion in Mass Effect 2.

The Geth-Quarian conflict was one of the most interesting in Mass Effect, and the way in which it came to a head in the final chapter was incredible. It was disappointing, however, that after the mission to Rannoch, the Geth and Quarians weren’t really mentioned much, and that all of the hard work involved in getting one or both of them to join the war effort was relegated to a couple of JPEG images in the war assets menu! But enough about the rushed end to Mass Effect 3!

There are galactic repercussions that will reverberate from the Geth-Quarian conflict, and how it was resolved will have a huge impact on the state of the galaxy in Mass Effect 4. If Shepard chose to side with the Geth, then chose the “destroy” ending… both races could be extinct. Or if Shepard found the pathway to peace and then chose either “synthesis” or “control,” both races could still be around and working together. Whichever outcome it is, whether the Geth, Quarians, or both are present in the galaxy is going to be a big deal.

Quarians in the Mass Effect 3 epilogue.

Here’s my pet theory: one way or another, BioWare will include both the Geth and Quarians in Mass Effect 4 – even if that means ignoring one of the consequences of the “destroy” ending. Depending on how much time may have passed in-universe, the new game could claim that the Quarians rebuilt the Geth after they were destroyed – or perhaps the Catalyst either lied about the Crucible destroying all synthetic life or simply got it wrong.

I think that given the popularity of both the Quarians and Geth – thanks in large part to their squadmate representatives, Tali and Legion – BioWare won’t want to throw either away. If we stick to a literal interpretation of the Catalyst’s warning in Mass Effect 3 and assume that “destroy” will be chosen as the canon ending, then perhaps the Geth will be absent. But I wouldn’t bet on that, and I think a technobabble explanation for their survival or resurrection is plausible and could be made to fit.

Question #3:
Did Shepard survive?

Does this moment represent Shepard’s survival?

This is the big one! While not as galaxy-altering as the way in which the Crucible was used or the literal survival of entire races… from a character point of view, Commander Shepard is the player’s avatar in the Mass Effect world. If there’s even a slim chance that they might’ve survived, at the very least we should find out!

I can’t decide right now whether Mass Effect 4 will go down the route of making Shepard the player character once again. After the disappointment of Andromeda, there will surely be a temptation to “stick with what works” in the Mass Effect universe – and Shepard is clearly a big part of that. That being said, I think there’s absolutely scope to create a new player character and to expand Mass Effect beyond Shepard and the crew of the Normandy. If the franchise is to continue long-term, that will have to happen sooner or later.

A male Commander Shepard aboard the Normandy.

But regardless, news of Shepard’s fate should reach us at some point during the game – even if it’s only to confirm that they died centuries earlier. One thing that a lot of folks found frustrating about Andromeda was that the outcome of the Reaper War was left entirely unresolved, and I don’t think that the next Mass Effect game could get away with repeating that mistake.

After everything Shepard went through to defeat the Reapers, they have definitely earned their retirement! But if the galaxy is in danger once more – and surely, somehow, it will be – they could be the person that has to step up once again and lead a new fight.

Question #4:
What became of the Rachni?

The Rachni in one possible epilogue scene.

Depending on choices made in both Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 3, it’s possible that the Rachni may have survived. The Rachni were an insectoid race that threatened to overwhelm the galaxy centuries before the events of the games – and were believed to be extinct. Shepard was given the option to save the last known Rachni queen on two occasions – and the presence or absence of the Rachni could have wider implications for the state of the galaxy.

If the Rachni queen was saved, Rachni workers join up with Admiral Hackett’s fleet and contribute to the Crucible project. Given the scale of the Crucible, I don’t think the Rachni’s survival could be hidden in the aftermath of the war, so any hope for a return to hiding away on an obscure planet seems to be out of the question.

The last surviving Rachni queen.

But not everyone would be thrilled about the Rachni’s return. The Krogan still view the Rachni as a kind of ancient ancestral enemy, and there may be Krogan and Asari who still remember the aftermath of the Rachni Wars. Even if the Rachni’s contribution to the success of the Crucible was public knowledge, there are many in the galaxy who would be wary – and some who might view them as a threat. Could an attack on the Rachni be the first sign of the Reaper War alliances breaking down?

Alternatively, it’s possible that the Rachni were never saved by Shepard and thus went extinct with the defeat of the Reapers. This would preclude their presence in the story as either a friend or foe – unless they could be revived, once again, by technobabble!

Question #5:
Did the Leviathans join the war effort?

The Leviathans were eventually tracked to their base.

Another pet theory of mine is that the Leviathans – who were originally DLC for Mass Effect 3 – will return as the “big bad” in a new story, seeking to reclaim a galaxy that they view as “theirs.” You can read more on that by clicking or tapping here, by the way. But for our purposes today, the question is whether they joined the war at all – or whether they were able to remain hidden.

Following the Leviathan story to its conclusion is not an essential part of Mass Effect 3, but it’s one that has far-reaching implications. The discovery of the Leviathans explains the origin of the Reapers, but it also introduces us to a very alien race – one that ruled the galaxy and enthralled other races aeons ago. Despite their defeat at the hands of the Reapers and the passage of tens of millions of years, the Leviathans seem to have lost none of their arrogant sense of superiority – so how they could possibly be integrated into a multi-racial galaxy is an open question.

Commander Shepard inspecting a Leviathan cave painting.

Regardless of whether they end up as the new game’s villains, though, I don’t think Mass Effect 4 could just ignore the Leviathans. Their numbers may be small, but with the Reaper threat gone it’s not inconceivable that the Leviathans would want to expand, leaving behind their watery planet. The consequences of this for the rest of the galaxy could be extreme – or not! But either way, the Leviathans will be a presence.

Players will want to know what happened after the Reaper War – and realistically Mass Effect 4 will have to at least pay lip service to all of the races and factions that were involved, telling us what became of them… or where they were last spotted. The Leviathans also have a lot to answer for, in a way, as the original creators of the Reapers!

Question #6:
Which of Shepard’s companions survived?

Concept art featuring Shepard’s crew from Mass Effect 2.

Across the Mass Effect trilogy, Shepard teamed up with nineteen main crewmates – and there were also a handful of others who served in that role on a temporary basis. Even if Mass Effect 4 doesn’t feature all of them, it would still be nice to get news of their fates. During the final battle of the Reaper War, it’s possible that not all of them would have survived, and Shepard had the opportunity to say goodbye to many of them before the final act of Mass Effect 3 got underway.

As of right now, we can safely assume that Liara survived! She was shown in the CGI teaser for Mass Effect 4 back in 2020, so it seems all but certain that she’ll make an appearance – somehow – in the new game. That doesn’t mean she’ll be a squadmate or playable character, but she could play a significant role. She could even be a kind of narrator for the game.

Liara as glimpsed in the 2020 teaser trailer.

Characters who were aboard the Normandy at the end of Mass Effect 3 seem to survive the end of the game – or at least most of them do, depending on the choices players made and how strong their war assets were going into the final clash. We can safely assume that the likes of Joker, Garrus, and Javik survived the immediate aftermath of the war, at least.

But that still leaves us with most of the folks from Mass Effect 2 – characters like Miranda, Samara, and Jack. All of them could have died before the endgame, but assuming they were alive going into the final fight… we don’t know what happened to them. If Mass Effect 4 is set many years later, discovering their fates could be spread across the game, and players could learn what happened to them without necessarily having them all make an appearance.

Question #7:
Was the Genophage cured?

A vision of Tuchanka if the Genophage cure was sabotaged.

Commander Shepard has the opportunity in Mass Effect 3 to cure the Genophage – or sabotage the cure. The Genophage was an artificial sterility plague that had been inflicted upon the Krogan by the Turians and Salarians, and there will be galactic-scale consequences depending on Shepard’s actions here.

One day we’ll have to talk about this storyline in more detail – because I find it one of the most interesting and morally dubious storylines in the entire Mass Effect trilogy! But for today, suffice to say that curing the Genophage, or refusing to cure it, will have major ramifications for the whole galaxy.

Happy Krogan families – if the Genophage was cured.

If the Genophage was cured, there will be a lot more Krogan around – but they should be friendly, right? I mean, Shepard cured the Krogan people, and if Wrex and Eve survived to lead the Krogan, that knowledge will be passed down and celebrated. But there are some potential issues here! Even Wrex seemed to suggest that Krogan expansion was on the agenda – and centuries ago, Krogan expansionism led to war.

On the other hand, if the Genophage cure was sabotaged, the remaining Krogan will likely feel betrayed and could launch a new rebellion. At the very least, Krogan will be hostile and unfriendly if the Genophage wasn’t cured. Having spent a lot of time with Krogan characters across the trilogy, I think it would be hard to pull off turning them into villains next time around, even if there’s a narrative pathway that makes sense in-universe. But a story could be crafted in which, no matter what decision Shepard made, the cure was ultimately sabotaged and doomed to failure.

Question #8:
Who gets to be on the Council?

The Council in Mass Effect 1.

More broadly, we can even ask whether there’s a Council at all in the aftermath of the Reaper War – but somehow, I suspect there will be. In the Mass Effect trilogy, humanity’s rapid ascent from newly-encountered species to full Council membership was a contentious issue with some of the other races, and after everything that happened with the Reapers, a shake-up of the galactic order could be on the agenda.

From our own history, we can point to how World War II led to the creation of the United Nations, and how the pre-war order was transformed in the aftermath of the conflict. Something similar could happen in the Mass Effect galaxy, with races like the Krogan, Quarians, Batarians, or even the Rachni and Geth all being potential members of a broader, more diverse and democratic Council.

A Vorcha, Salarian, and Volus served on the Council… in the movie Blasto!

If several races were invited to join, those who were snubbed might feel particularly stung! And others, like the Leviathans, for example, may not wish to join a power-sharing arrangement – they might prefer to seek conquest and total power for themselves. But there are many who’d happily join the Council.

The pre-war order of the Salarians, Turians, and Asari being the dominant forces in galactic politics could be at an end – but will they be okay with that? Will the Salarians genuinely listen to Krogan input, and will the Asari really be willing to see the Quarians as equals? Will there be arguments about how to direct the resources necessary to rebuild? There could be a lot of points of tension!

So that’s it!

Shepard, Javik, and Tali.

We’ve looked at a few questions that the next Mass Effect game – or a future sequel to Mass Effect 3 if that game turns out to be something different – will have to address. Some of these points could be bigger and more important than others depending on what kind of story the new game aims to tell, but sooner or later there are big questions about the state of the galaxy that will have to be tackled.

Andromeda tried to sidestep these questions and do its own thing – which was probably not a bad idea in 2017, coming so soon after the trilogy had wrapped up. But there were other problems with Andromeda that meant the game didn’t stick the landing – and when it was already feeling like an overblown side-quest, some fans were left disappointed when it didn’t address any of the big questions facing the Mass Effect galaxy.

Take cover!

There’s an opportunity for the next game in the series to not only answer some of these big questions, but to use the answers to set the stage for a brand-new adventure. Taking what happened with the Leviathans, for example, and expanding on that story to create a new villain is one possibility that I think is worth keeping an eye on!

So I hope this has been a bit of fun, or at least interesting. There are definitely other story points that a new game could address that I didn’t include here; it’s by no means an exhaustive list. And we may return to some of these questions and ideas in the future to talk more about them or give them a longer write-up. I had fun thinking about where the next Mass Effect game could go, at any rate!

Earlier this summer I replayed the Mass Effect trilogy, and that was part of what prompted me to create a proper webpage for the franchise here on the website. Although I don’t talk about Mass Effect all the time, it’s a series I’ve enjoyed and I am certainly looking forward to seeing what comes next.

Don’t forget to swing by my new Mass Effect webpage. You can find it by clicking or tapping here.

The next Mass Effect game is in early development and most likely won’t be released for several years. Mass Effect: Legendary Edition is out now for PC, PlayStation 4, PlayStation 5, Xbox One, and Xbox Series S/X. The Mass Effect series – including all properties mentioned above – is the copyright of BioWare and Electronic Arts. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Star Wars Jedi: Survivor – A Review

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order and Star Wars Jedi: Survivor. Minor spoilers may also be present for parts of the Star Wars franchise.

It’s been a while since I shared my first impressions of Jedi: Survivor here on the website. I’ve since returned to the game, despite its performance issues, and beaten the main story, so I’m now in a position where I can put metaphorical pen to paper and share my full thoughts with you. Sorry that it took so long!

For some context, I adored Jedi: Fallen Order. I documented my first playthrough of that game here on the website back in 2020, and I was thrilled to see Lucasfilm and Electronic Arts recognising the strength of feeling in the Star Wars fan community for a linear single-player game. Jedi: Fallen Order had a high budget, but it proved definitively – as if any such proof were really needed – that single-player games can still be profitable, and that players still long for those kinds of experiences. Moreover, at a time when both The Rise of Skywalker and The Mandalorian had been disappointing, Jedi: Fallen Order came along and showed me that I hadn’t entirely fallen out of love with Star Wars.

I definitely felt optimistic about Jedi: Survivor.

I was genuinely thrilled at the prospect of a sequel to one of my favourite Star Wars games of all-time, and to see what would come next for Cal Kestis and the crew of the Stinger Mantis – and that was how I felt in the weeks leading up to the launch of Jedi: Survivor. If things went well, I believed that it might’ve been in contention for my “game of the year” award come December.

But things did not go well.

The Jedi: Survivor story is an all-too-familiar one: Electronic Arts forced the game to be released too early, despite knowing that there were serious technical issues. The game is a “release now, fix later” title, replete with bugs, performance issues, and other such problems. Although these issues afflicted the game and harmed players’ enjoyment across all platforms, as is often the case it seems that the PC version of the game was in the worst shape. Unfortunately, as I don’t own a PlayStation 5 or Xbox Series console, PC was where I played Jedi: Survivor.

One of many bugs that I encountered. Nightsister Merrin crouching in an out-of-bounds area.

I actually thought I’d been smart. Having read the reviews of the game when it launched and having seen performance reports from players and professional critics, I shelved my plans to buy Jedi: Survivor. I waited a couple of months and kept my eye on the game as patches were rolled out, and mistakenly believed that six patches later, things would have improved. Spurred on by having inadvertently come across a couple of story spoilers, I picked up the game at the end of June.

Unfortunately, however, the performance issues hadn’t been fixed – and in spite of another patch having been rolled out since then, those issues are still present on PC at time of writing. I described Jedi: Survivor as a “release now, fix later” game… but the fix still hasn’t been made, and the game remains in a poor state even five months after its troubled launch. In fact, having returned to the game to grab a few screenshots, I felt that its performance was worse in September than it had been in June and July.

A levitating Stormtrooper.

The blame for this lies with Electronic Arts, and the company has transformed what should have been a guaranteed hit into a game surrounded by controversy thanks to pathetically poor decision-making at the highest levels. Developers Respawn Entertainment were placed in an impossible position, and while I have no doubt that talented, passionate folks did their absolute best to get Jedi: Survivor as ready for launch as possible, they were screwed over by EA. It’s a tale as old as time in the games industry: a greedy publisher shits all over the hard work of talented developers, then seeks to blame them for the game’s poor condition and lower-than-expected sales.

My first few hours with Jedi: Survivor were spent messing about with settings rather than actually playing the game. Every time I thought I’d improved things, the stuttering and frame-drops would inevitably return – and they were far from the only problems. I encountered dozens of bugs across my playthrough, with Cal and other characters getting stuck in the environment or clipping through solid objects, as well as items not rendering properly or even disappearing. These issues didn’t just affect gameplay, but were also prevalent during cut-scenes – something I hadn’t seen in a supposedly “complete” game in a very long time.

And I have no doubt that Jedi: Survivor’s performance problems have tainted my view of the game as a whole.

Clipping through and getting stuck in the environment was a recurring problem throughout Jedi: Survivor.

When I sit down to play a game like Jedi: Survivor, it’s because I want to be immersed in a story. I want the game to transport me to a galaxy far, far away, and lose myself for a few hours in the life of a Jedi Knight on the run from the Empire. The occasional bug or glitch would be tolerable, but when a game is in such shockingly poor shape, dogged by performance issues, stuttering, broken animations, and bugs galore… it rips the immersion away. I struggled to really get into Jedi: Survivor and its story, and even its better moments were spoiled or diminished by the unacceptable state that it was released in.

But that’s enough about bugs for now, because there are other issues with the game that we need to talk about.

I have two major gripes with Jedi: Survivor aside from the bugs. One is mechanical; a choice that was made in terms of the way the game was designed and its levels were crafted. And the second is with parts of the story itself, as well as with the way in which certain new and returning characters were handled. We’ll look at each of these points in turn.

Optimising game files and compiling shaders appears to make fuck all difference.

Firstly, an open world (or semi-open world) did not suit Jedi: Survivor. The game’s story was hamstrung by this decision, and crafting a couple of open stages that actually felt condensed and small really damaged that sense of immersion that I was talking about. On the main planet of Koboh, the village of Rambler’s Reach was a few dozen metres away from the base of a massive gang of pirate-raiders and also a few dozen metres away from two Imperial outposts. Hardly the out-of-sight hiding place that it was presented as in-game.

One day we’ll have to talk more about the open-world trend, and how it simply isn’t the right choice for every game. Jedi: Survivor, to me, stands as perhaps one of the best recent examples of that. The design of both Koboh and Jedha was hampered by this attempt to move in an open-world direction, and the game would have benefitted from tighter, more curated levels, as well as areas of the map that had more distance between them. By all means, have raiders and Imperials on Koboh if that’s necessary for the story – but why not have Cal travel to the other side of the planet in a cut-scene before encountering them? The design of those parts of the map could have been similar, but breaking them off from the Rambler’s Reach hub would have improved the game from a narrative and immersion standpoint.

The saloon in Rambler’s Reach.

I also felt that the move to broader, more expansive levels should have been accompanied by more cosmetic items and loot. It became frustrating to explore a whole area, climbing onto hidden ledges, wading through rivers, and so on only to find… absolutely fuck all. There are more cosmetics in Jedi: Survivor than there were in Jedi: Fallen Order – and that’s great. I had fun customising Cal and unlocking some of these options. But this was something that felt unbalanced.

I’d explore a whole section of the map, kill dozens of enemies, and find nothing. No in-game currency, no cosmetics, no chest with an item… just nothing at all. And to me, that reinforces what we were talking about with Jedi: Survivor’s open-world style: it just doesn’t fit the game. It didn’t fit the story and it didn’t fit the amount of content that had been created, either. A good game strikes a balance, making exploration feel fun and worthwhile. There were moments of that in Jedi: Survivor, but they were too few and far between.

Battling battle droids.

Jedi: Survivor bills itself as a “souls-like” game; i.e. a “difficult-for-the-sake-of-it” title. But to its credit, the game offers an easier mode to play on – something I took full advantage of. However, even on the easiest difficulty there were some particularly finicky and challenging moments. While I found the game’s combat to be okay, there were some moments where Jedi: Survivor required frame-perfect button presses that I found near-impossible. Because I suffer from arthritis that affects my hands and fingers, some rapid button combos are nigh-on impossible for me to perform. At several points in the game, I was almost entirely locked out from progressing because I couldn’t complete a particularly intensive button combo.

On one occasion it took me almost forty tries to navigate just a single section of the map on Jedha – a particularly convoluted wall-run, jump, and swing combination that my hands and fingers just couldn’t manage. The game offered no help with these things, no accessibility options, and no way to skip ahead to bypass these moments. This is poor, and while I will give Jedi: Survivor some well-earned praise for offering a story mode, more accessibility features need to be present, and developers need to be aware that easier combat isn’t the only thing that players are looking for. Many games offer the option to skip ahead if players can’t make it past a certain puzzle or area of the map; these things are not that difficult to implement.

Cal on Jedha.

Stories are incredibly subjective. What works for you might not work for me, and vice versa, so everything I’m going to say about Jedi: Survivor’s narrative choices have to be taken in that way. Nothing about this is “objective” at all!

Where I’d felt gripped by Jedi: Fallen Order’s story, Jedi: Survivor came up short. Cal felt listless, rushing from place to place at the behest of the plot but not in a particularly understandable way, and there were moments of sheer randomness in the story – particularly at the beginning – that really detracted from the adventure.

A customised Cal.

In Jedi: Fallen Order, Cal was being hunted by the Imperial Inquisition after he used his Force powers, but was rescued by Cere. She already had a mission of her own: to open the holocron. Cal slotted into that story perfectly, and at every stage it felt like it unfolded naturally as Cal visited different worlds to unlock the holocron’s mysteries.

Jedi: Survivor begins with Cal falling into a hole that leads to a random cave – entirely by accident. It just so happened that Greez built his Cantina on top of some ancient Jedi ruins, and Cal stumbled into those ruins completely by mistake. That mistake kicked off a convoluted plot about a planet lost in an impenetrable nebula, a fallen Jedi who’d been sealed in a bacta tank for hundreds of years, and an Imperial spy who was so obvious that he might as well have had the words “secret bad guy” tattooed across his forehead.

Yup.

I admit that the performance issues and bugs in Jedi: Survivor made it harder to fully get into the story, as did the open-world mechanics described above. And those two things have undoubtedly impacted the way I view certain character decisions and the game’s narrative path. But even keeping that in mind, and doing my best to separate my thoughts about the state of the game and its design choices from its narrative… I still find it to be a weaker and less engaging story than its predecessor.

Any Star Wars story set during the reign of the Empire has a tightrope to walk – and for me, Jedi: Survivor created narrative issues for itself as a result of a couple of key decisions. Bringing back Master Eno Cordova for what was, unfortunately, an underwhelming and unimpressive role seriously challenges the idea of Cal as the game’s protagonist and leading figure in any kind of Jedi restoration. Cere had appointed herself as a kind of librarian or preserver of Jedi knowledge, but Cordova – a Jedi Master, lest we forget – should have been in a strong position to play a leading role in the preservation and restoration of the Jedi Order.

Master Cordova’s role was unimpressive.

Instead, Cordova’s role was a disappointment. He hand-waved away Cal’s destruction of the holocron that he’d gone to such extreme lengths to protect in the first game, then just stood around doing fuck all. He didn’t help, he didn’t offer guidance, he didn’t do… well, anything. And then he died remarkably easily at the climax of the game’s “twist” – a twist so thoroughly telegraphed that it might as well have been lit up in neon. Ever since the “no, I am your father” moment back in 1980, Star Wars has been obsessed with putting these kinds of twists into its stories. As I said once, recapturing that magic moment isn’t gonna happen, and Jedi: Survivor was made worse by trying to pull off something like this – and doing it so unsuccessfully.

When the dust settled, I also felt that Bode’s reason for his betrayal of Cal was paper-thin and didn’t make a lot of sense. Did Bode really plan to take his child to an uninhabited, uncharted planet and stay there – completely alone? What were they gonna eat? Without access to technology, what were they gonna do? Sure, they’d be “safe” from the Empire, and Bode would be wiped off the Empire’s list, but there doesn’t seem to have been any real planning on his part for the long-term.

Bode didn’t make for a particularly compelling villain.

In a “linear, story-driven” game – tags that Jedi: Survivor’s publishers love to draw attention to – the story is more important, in many ways, than the gameplay. Jedi: Survivor’s third-person exploration, parkour, and lightsaber combat could be fantastic… but if they’re let down by a poor story or one that feels convoluted, there’s no salvaging the game. And while I wouldn’t say anything in Jedi: Survivor was as bad, narratively speaking, as something like The Rise of Skywalker… that’s an incredibly low bar.

There were some genuinely tense, thrilling, or otherwise fun moments scattered throughout the story, as well as callbacks to the first game and references to other parts of the Star Wars franchise that I appreciated. So it wasn’t a total narrative collapse or anything like that; Cal’s story, while built on weak foundations, was still worth following to its conclusion. Even though I saw Bode’s betrayal coming from a mile away, Cal’s raw emotional reaction to it definitely hit the notes it was aiming for. While Master Cordova’s death felt like a waste, Cere’s demise at the hands of Darth Vader not only took her story full-circle after the events of Jedi: Fallen Order, but it was a heartbreaking moment that was handled well.

Cere was hunted down by Darth Vader.

The weakest part of the story of Jedi: Fallen Order was one that I hoped its sequel might address. The Haxion Brood storyline – in which Greez and Cal were pursued by a gaggle of unimpressive bounty hunters – was left unresolved by the time the credits rolled on the first game, and I had hoped to see a resolution in Jedi: Survivor. There was a bounty hunter side-story in the game, with several different bounty hunters to defeat that served as kind of mini-bosses. The ending of this questline was neat, but here’s my gripe: it didn’t resolve the Haxion Brood storyline!

As of the end of the game, Cal and Greez are still wanted by the bounty hunters, and the faction’s leader, who we met in the first game and who seemed like the kind of arrogant dick that it would be so satisfying to kill, wasn’t even mentioned this time. Again, this storyline just feels half-baked, and I had hoped that Respawn might’ve taken that feedback on board after the way the bounty hunter story just fizzled out in the first game.

Bounty hunter Caij Vanda offered what amounted to side-missions.

I liked that there were more cosmetic options in Jedi: Survivor, and I had fun playing with Cal’s appearance, BD-1’s appearance, and Cal’s lightsaber. I wasn’t wild about the way these cosmetics were unlocked, however, as I felt the game was particularly stingy with its currencies and lootable containers. That being said, I was able to unlock most of the items that I had my eye on, and by the time I was halfway through the campaign (or thereabouts) I’d got Cal, BD-1, and Cal’s weapons looking the way I wanted them to.

The expansion of lightsaber styles from Jedi: Fallen Order was nice – but these felt a little restrictive. I loved the way the crossguard lightsaber looked, but the incredibly slow and cumbersome fighting style that accompanied it basically rendered it non-viable for me. It would have been nice if there were options to mix and match fighting stances with cosmetics – in my case allowing Cal to use a crossguard lightsaber in a different way, but this could also open up double-bladed and dual-wielding stances to other styles of play.

Cal with a crossguard lightsaber.

Jedi: Survivor retains the Dark Souls-inspired “checkpoint” save system, instead of allowing players to freely save. This is a particularly irritating trend that many “souls-like” games (or should that be “souls-wannabes?”) implement, and it just feels annoying and outdated in 2023. Having to re-do chunks of a level because of the lack of a proper save system is just silly, it doesn’t increase the difficulty nor add anything to a game, and with Jedi: Survivor’s meditation spots not exactly being ubiquitous, I felt this choice got in the way of the fun.

One thing I did appreciate was that Cal’s Force powers carried over from Jedi: Fallen Order. Given the way in which that game weaved Cal’s connection to the Force into its narrative, it would have felt strange if he’d begun the sequel having to re-learn those same skills, and I will give credit to the writers for keeping Cal’s growth going instead of going for the typical video game sequel “reset” of his powers.

Customising BD-1.

I expected better from Jedi: Survivor, at the end of the day. The follow-up to one of my favourite games of the last few years was a title that I genuinely expected to compete for the coveted “game of the year” title come December, but instead it’s going to go down as one of the biggest disappointments of 2023 for me personally. The unacceptably poor state that Jedi: Survivor was in at launch – and remains in more than five months later – is a big part of that. But even if those performance issues and bugs had been kept to a minimum, the game itself feels like a poor relation to its illustrious predecessor.

Narratively, Jedi: Survivor built a weak, convoluted, and random story that split up the first game’s crew and saw Cal team up with an incredibly obvious turncoat. And mechanically, the game was forced into an open-world mould that simply didn’t suit it. It was hard enough to get invested in the story because of the poor shape that the game was in, but every time I got close, either the bland open-world formula would trip it up or I’d find myself annoyed by a story that was so much weaker than that of the first game.

Improperly rendered low-res textures.

So that was my experience with Jedi: Survivor. It’s hard to recommend it right now, given the performance issues and bugs that remain present. Electronic Arts and Respawn Entertainment have massively slowed the rollout of patches and fixes since the game launched, and I fear that Jedi: Survivor is being quietly abandoned and may never reach the level of basic playability and mechanical competence that should have been present at launch. This is already a huge disappointment and should be enough to put off all but the most ardent Star Wars fans.

Your mileage may vary when it comes to the game’s story, though, and my take is clearly not shared by all players. I’ve seen plenty of comments hailing the story as one of the best that the Star Wars franchise has to offer, and while that’s certainly not my opinion, it’s worth keeping in mind that these things are subjective. As I said earlier, I have no doubt that my overall impressions of Jedi: Survivor have been coloured by its bugs and performance issues.

I have no plans to return to Jedi: Survivor right now, and having stepped back into the game to capture a few screenshots for this piece, I’ll probably be uninstalling it. If a huge patch is released, or the game receives significant DLC that could add to its story, I might consider going around again. But unfortunately I must report that Jedi: Survivor was not the fun and engaging Star Wars adventure that I wanted it to be.

Star Wars Jedi: Survivor is out now for PC, PlayStation 5, and Xbox Series S/X. Jedi: Survivor is the copyright of Electronic Arts, Lucasfilm Games, and Respawn Entertainment. The Star Wars franchise is the copyright of Lucasfilm and The Walt Disney Company. Some promo artwork and images used above courtesy of IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Where does Bethesda go from here?

Spoiler Warning: Minor spoilers are present for some early missions in Starfield.

A strange feeling hit me yesterday. I’d taken a break from Starfield for a few days after writing up my first impressions of the game, but I booted it up again to give it another shot at getting me immersed in its sci-fi world. This was, after all, a game I’d been excited to play and had been looking forward to. But while I was playing Starfield and feeling underwhelmed by some of its basic quests and unimpressive exploration… I realised that I’d rather be playing Baldur’s Gate 3. I was planning out character ideas in my head, thinking about how to approach some early-game quests and encounters that I was unprepared for the first time around, and I even found myself more interested in writing about that game than I was in actually playing Starfield.

This got me thinking about Bethesda, and in particular the way in which the company’s game design and creation feels… well, stagnant. Starfield, while an impressive technical achievement in many ways, also feels like a game whose core mechanics and systems haven’t really improved or moved on in more than two decades – and while that’s clearly sitting right with a lot of Bethesda fans and giving them a ton of enjoyment, it feels disappointing to me.

An empty captain’s chair.

Starfield is a Bethesda game. It’s “Skyrim in space.” And those two expressions simultaneously encompass everything Starfield fans love about the game… and everything that critics dislike about it. For the first time since I played Morrowind more than twenty years ago, I find myself wrangling with a difficult question: do I actually like Bethesda games? Or to be more accurate: are Bethesda games still enjoyable twenty years later when the formula, designs, and core gameplay mechanics haven’t really changed?

See, Starfield isn’t just “Skyrim in space.” It’s also “Oblivion in space,” “Fallout 3 in space,” and even “Morrowind in space.” Although more than twenty years have passed since we were first sitting down to play Morrowind, not a lot has changed in terms of the way a Bethesda game feels. And that’s a double-edged sword, because that familiarity is clearly something that fans adore. That style of gameplay has its audience – and it’s a big one. How else do we explain Skyrim still being popular almost twelve years later?

Morrowind was released on PC and Xbox in 2002.

But that familiarity is, at least for me, the beginning of Starfield’s undoing. The structure of a Bethesda game – with an optional main quest and plenty of side-missions to get stuck into – felt incredibly innovative in 2002, but doesn’t any more. And when many of those quests are incredibly basic, offering little if any choice of how to approach them, again it feels like Bethesda’s game design has become stagnant. Quests in Starfield operate in functionally the same way as quests did in Morrowind – and every other mainline Bethesda game since. You have two basic variants: go to place, press button to collect/interact with item, the end. Or: go to place full of enemies, kill enemies, the end.

During an early-game mission in Starfield, I found myself at a facility teeming with nameless “spacers.” This base felt no different from the dozen or so other bases I’d cleared out earlier in my playthrough, and even though it was a named quest location, it felt incredibly samey in terms of its design and its loot. Stealth was an option – but not an especially good one, as taking down one enemy would alert all the others in the vicinity. There were no real puzzles to solve, aside from picking a couple of locks, and after exploring the entire place, listening to a couple of audio logs, and talking to one NPC, I’d claimed my prize and was blasting off to the next place.

Fighting pirates in Starfield.

As I explored the facility that I was infiltrating (alright, attacking) I kept encountering interesting-looking items that I just couldn’t interact with at all. Computers that couldn’t be powered on. Gauges and switches that couldn’t be spun or flicked. Buttons that couldn’t be pressed. There was no environmental storytelling nor any way to use the environment to my advantage. I couldn’t, for example, hack into the base’s computers and set turrets to target the spacers. I couldn’t vent toxic gas into a room to knock them out. There wasn’t an alternate route to the clearly-marked destination that I could have used to sneak past the guards. In short: it was a Bethesda quest from a Bethesda game.

And I remember this exact criticism from the Morrowind days. “You’ll come across a fishing rod that you can’t use to fish,” said one reviewer at the time, using that example as a way to call out the superficial world that Morrowind offered. Because I got so hooked in by the story, the characters, the lore, and the world-building… I always felt such criticisms were silly. The world was rich and deep in story terms, even if mechanically and in terms of gameplay it wasn’t. That was good enough for me in 2002 – but it doesn’t feel good enough any more in 2023.

This computer setup (which is duplicated in many bases and locations across Starfield’s galaxy) is set dressing. It can’t be touched or interacted with in any way.

A lot of folks are playing and loving Starfield. A friend of mine, who was even more hyped for the game than I was, seems to be having a whale of a time – and I’m genuinely thrilled for them and for everyone else who’s enjoying it. But I feel like I’m watching a New Year’s Eve party through the window while standing on the cold street outside; everyone else is having fun, but I’m not.

I keep waiting for Starfield to “click.” I keep waiting for that moment where I’ll think “oh, I get it now,” and the fun can actually begin. But almost twenty-five hours in, it hasn’t. There are whole games that are shorter than that, games that get going from the very first moment and tell a wonderful story in a relatively short span of time. My pick for 2021’s game of the year was Kena: Bridge of Spirits, an indie title that was visually beautiful, emotional, and a ton of fun to play. But my playthrough of that game lasted barely twelve hours, and in that time I explored the game world, fell in love with its characters, and dragged it out as much as possible because I just didn’t want the experience to end.

Kena: Bridge of Spirits was 2021’s game of the year.

I’ve heard other critics and commentators say that Starfield doesn’t “get good” until around the six-hour mark, the twelve-hour mark, or even beyond that. But… if it takes that long for the game to get going, I don’t really consider that to be a selling-point. It’s often true that a game gets more interesting to play as the campaign goes on; your character levels up and gains more skills and abilities, giving you more options in some cases. But the basic gameplay still has to be balanced and enjoyable during those first few hours! That’s crucial to player retention. If the reason I’m not enjoying Starfield after twenty-five hours and bringing my character up to level 18 is because the game “doesn’t get good” until later… well, how much longer am I going to have to wait to have a good time?

I don’t really think that’s the issue, though. Levelling up my character and doing those basic looting and fetching activities just don’t hold the appeal they once did. The real reason for that, I fear, is that game design has moved beyond what Bethesda and its Creation Engine are capable of.

Standing on a random planet with a spaceship landing to my left and an enemy base to my right.

The world of Starfield feels regressive and, to me, more akin to Morrowind than Fallout 4 or Skyrim. Shops never close, even when it’s the middle of the night, and their NPC proprietors stand or sit behind their counters 24/7. When I aim the first-person camera down to the ground, I can’t see my character’s feet or body; I’m just a floating camera orb. Enemies and NPCs don’t feel reactive – you can run away from them and they’ll just forget you existed two minutes later, even if you’ve murdered all their companions and shot them in the face.

And the bugs. Oh god, the bugs. Starfield probably is Bethesda’s “least-buggy release ever,” as has been repeatedly claimed. But “least-buggy” doesn’t mean “there are zero bugs,” and claiming to be the least-buggy Bethesda game is like claiming to be the sewer with the fewest turds. I’ve seen dozens of bugs across my playthrough, including enemies able to shoot through doors and walls, NPCs clipping through solid objects, characters levitating, and items disappearing through the environment or floating away. There’s one particularly annoying bug where I’ll be piloting my spaceship but every crew member on board will repeatedly spout the same handful of lines of dialogue – as if the game thinks I just walked up to them.

Just one of many bugs I’ve encountered. Not game-breaking, but certainly immersion-breaking.

Every time Starfield has a chance at getting me to feel a crumb of immersion in its sci-fi future, something comes along that rips it away again. Maybe it’s walking into a cabin on my ship to see one of my crew members clipping through a box. Maybe it’s realising that a shopkeeper doesn’t have a life outside of the few seconds I spend in his always-open shop. Maybe it’s landing on a supposedly “unexplored” planet or moon only to find two spacer bases, a mining outpost, and another spaceship landing right next to me. But I can’t go more than a few minutes without something in Starfield reminding me that I’m playing a video game – and a video game that feels years out of date.

After taking part in yet another quest that didn’t seem to be any different from any of the others I’ve tried, I kind of felt myself hit the wall. Should I keep pressing on, following one uninspiring story after another in an empty world that I couldn’t give a shit about? Should I keep trying to pretend that these last-gen, waxy-skinned Madame Tussauds rejects are “people,” even as their dead eyes and ridiculous faces break what little immersion I can find? Should I keep waiting for Starfield to “get good?”

A pair of NPCs.

Setting my own feelings aside, I wonder what lessons can be learned from Starfield from Bethesda’s point of view. As the company begins to develop new entries in The Elder Scrolls and Fallout series, as well as potential DLC for Starfield, what should the key takeaways be? As I asked at the beginning: where does Bethesda go from here?

Despite how I feel – and how you may feel, too, if you happen to agree with me – Starfield has been well-received by Bethesda fans. The game had six million players shortly after launch, making it the biggest Bethesda release ever. And it’s racked up decent reviews on platforms like Steam and Metacritic, with the positive reviews outweighing the negative ones from both professional critics and players alike. There’s a market for this kind of game, then… so Bethesda doesn’t need to change anything. Right?

Starfield’s ratings on Metacritic as of mid-September 2023.

I look at Starfield – and by extension, Bethesda games in general – the same way I’ve looked at Nintendo games since the mid-2000s. Nintendo threw in the towel and gave up on trying to compete with PlayStation and Xbox on power and graphics, focusing instead on carving out its own niche. Nintendo games rarely if ever compete with other studios in terms of things like visuals or scale, and yet it’s found success with 2D games, retro games, kids’ games, smaller and more simplistic games, and so on. The company has gone from strength to strength with the Wii and the Switch – with a bit of a blip during the short-lived Wii U era!

Bethesda may just be going down a similar path. Instead of trying to keep up with open-world developers like Rockstar or role-playing studios like Larian, Bethesda is sticking to what’s worked in the past. Instead of developing new technologies and innovating, the company is doubling- and tripling-down on its existing technology, knowing that its fanbase will forgive a degree of bugginess and jankiness. Instead of learning from what other companies have done with tech like procedural generation, Bethesda is content to muddle through and do things its own way.

Shops in Starfield never close, and shopkeepers never leave their posts.

And who am I to say that’s a bad thing? I don’t like every Nintendo game that comes out, but their heavy-hitters are still worth turning up for. Whether it’s Animal Crossing: New Horizons, Super Mario Odyssey, or Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Nintendo knows what its fans want and serves them just enough of it to keep them coming back. Are those games innovative masterpieces that push boundaries and drive gaming forward? No… but do they need to be?

Did Starfield need to be?

I bought into too much of the excitement for Starfield and internalised too much of the hype. That one’s on me, and after playing games for more than thirty years I should’ve known better than to place any new release on such a pedestal. But there’s also a lesson here for Bethesda – one that the company should have learned already from similar experiences in the past! Over-hyping a game and being frightened of telling players “no” can lead to excessively high expectations and ultimately disappointment. That’s part of the Starfield problem. The Starfield showcase earlier this year was great, but what came after it should have shut down speculation, explained clearly the boundaries that would be present, and done more to lower sky-high expectations. Over-selling a game might lead to a temporary boost in sales, but it’s almost never worth it in the long-run.

Bethesda executive producer Todd Howard.

Beyond just marketing, though, there are questions for Bethesda in terms of the fundamentals of development and game design. Does the company have both the ability and the desire to keep up with its competitors? If so… why didn’t we see that in Starfield?

Procedural generation has been able to create massive, expansive worlds for a long time. So why are Starfield’s planets restricted to tiny, non-contiguous landing zones? Minecraft generated massive worlds with varied biomes more than a decade ago, and No Man’s Sky took procedural generation to space all the way back in 2016. The same for spaceflight: why can’t I fly my ship from one planet to the next in the same solar system?

My customised spaceship.

Look at open-world games like Grand Theft Auto V – which is now a decade old. That game’s linear missions at least offered some variety in terms of the way they played. Why does every quest in Starfield feel functionally the same? Where’s the diversity of items to at least make the looting side of the game feel worthwhile?

When I explore a city in Starfield that’s supposedly the capital of humanity’s extrasolar colonies, why does it feel so lifeless and empty? For all its problems – and my god were there problemsCyberpunk 2077 at least managed to create the feel of a bustling city, replete with skyscrapers, traffic, and countless individual NPCs.

New Atlantis – the biggest city ever made for a Bethesda game – feels small and empty.

These are just some of the areas where Starfield feels deficient. And my question isn’t “how will Bethesda fix them?” but rather… does Bethesda even consider these things problems that need to be fixed? Or is the company content to take this formula and repeat it yet again in its next title? If so, will that be good enough for Bethesda fans when The Elder Scrolls VI rolls around in 2028? Or when Fallout 5 graces our screens in the 2030s?

The answer is a solid “maybe.”

So where does Bethesda go from here? The way I see it, there are two paths open to the company. One sees it continuing to double-down on its existing technology and design philosophy, becoming “the Nintendo of role-playing games,” where graphical fidelity, quest design, characters, and more are all a couple of generations behind. Abandoning innovation in this way will probably lead to The Elder Scrolls VI being referred to as “Starfield in a fantasy setting,” whenever that game is ready!

Another bug that I encountered during my playthrough.

Alternatively, Bethesda could recognise the deficiencies in its technologies and processes, look around at what other games in the action/adventure, open-world, and role-playing spaces have been doing over the past few years, and try to catch up. Realistically this almost certainly means dumping the Creation Engine in order to create or license something more powerful that can really stand up to the rigours of modern game development.

After trying to give Starfield a fair shot but finding it came up short, I know what I’d rather see. But given Starfield’s critical and commercial success, perhaps I’m in the minority here. It seems that millions of players are absolutely fine with playing “just another Bethesda game” in a different setting, and if that’s the case in 2023, who’s to say it will change by the time the next Bethesda title is ready? Like Nintendo, the company clearly has a dedicated fanbase who are willing to overlook and even embrace its flaws. I thought I was one of those fans… but Starfield has shown me that I’m not.

Starfield is out now for PC and Xbox Series S & X consoles. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. Some promo images and screenshots used above courtesy of Bethesda. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Baldur’s Gate 3: Narrative and Role-Playing Thoughts

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Baldur’s Gate 3 – including its ending.

This piece is a follow-up to my spoiler-free review of Baldur’s Gate 3. If you haven’t read that, it provides a bit of background to some of the things we’re going to talk about here, and also goes into detail about some of the mechanics of Baldur’s Gate 3 and what I enjoyed about it from a gameplay perspective. It should also go without saying that we’re going to talk about some specific story points today, including the ending of the game and several character questlines. If you haven’t completed the game and don’t want to see spoilers, this is your opportunity to nope out!

Baldur’s Gate 3 had a strong story that roped me in almost from the first moment. It also told a story with plenty of variety, with companion questlines that went in interesting and unexpected directions, and side-quests that were just as engaging and impactful as the main quest. I adore the experience that I had, and I can’t wait to jump in for a second run and try to do some things differently – so everything we’re going to discuss today has to be seen through that lens. So to repeat: I thoroughly enjoyed the story of Baldur’s Gate 3!

You know there has to be a “but” coming after that, though… right?

Box art of Baldur’s Gate 3.

But I have some notes! Firstly, Baldur’s Gate 3 makes no apologies for being a dense story, and for really throwing players in the deep end from the very first moment. The wall of content that you experience upon booting up the game for the first time – in which I’m including the intro cinematic, the opening level, and the character creator – throws a lot at you all at once. For someone who didn’t play the original Baldur’s Gate and who’s unfamiliar with Dungeons and Dragons… it can be a lot to take in.

I made a lot of mistakes during my first few hours with Baldur’s Gate 3, and the game doesn’t hold players’ hands. For some folks, that’s a huge positive! But for me, I have mixed feelings. I’m no stranger to this phenomenon – I cut my teeth playing games in the late ’80s and early ’90s, when games didn’t have more than a manual in the box to help you out. But there’s a reason why most modern games offer more by way of tutorials and do more to ease players into the story! Baldur’s Gate 3 begins by throwing up a metaphorical brick wall that has no obvious way around or over it – and it’s up to you as a player to either muddle through or hop online to find a strategy guide.

Creating a custom character.

My unfamiliarity with Dungeons and Dragons was a hurdle – one that I have no doubt impacted my experience with the game. It’s to the writers’ credit, more so than anything else, that I continued to play the game and kept coming back to it when I ran into something I didn’t understand or a problem I wasn’t sure how to solve. Although the story has huge stakes, particularly as it gets into its second and third acts and talk turns to the “Dead Three” and their chosen, at its core in those early moments it’s a story of survival. One person – the player character – is infected by a parasite and has to find a cure. That’s the driving force, and that’s what leads you to your allies and companions, and sets the stage for this story.

That character-centred story, with high personal stakes, is what roped me in during those crucial first moments. Even as I had no clue what mind-flayers, githyanki, or nautiloids were, there was a sense of urgency and a basic, innate survival instinct at the heart of the story that begged me to keep going. The writing to bring this to life and to get me instantly invested in this vast, dense world when I had no real frame of reference is truly world-class – there’s no other way to describe it. When people say that video games can be just as engaging, entertaining, and emotional as books or films, it’s stories like Baldur’s Gate 3 that they can point to!

The adventure begins…

Despite what you may have heard, Baldur’s Gate 3 does not have “17,000 endings.” There are a few basic ending options, which can be modified depending on player choice – and random dice rolls throughout the game. If a companion died, for example, or was never recruited, they don’t show up at the end. Likewise for allies – if an ally was never recruited, they aren’t available in the endgame. This adds variety, and means that it’s worth making multiple runs through the game to see different things and experience some of these different ending options. But I feel that the “17,000” claim is rather overstating what’s actually on offer. Don’t get me wrong: there’s far more variety and more ending options than in something like Mass Effect 3! But just not perhaps as much variety as has been claimed.

The ending I experienced during my first playthrough felt like the “best” possibility based on the way I’d played the game and which characters I had on my side. But other players might find that other options or pathways could have led to an even better outcome, which is absolutely part of the fun!

One of the citizens of Baldur’s Gate takes down a mind-flayer.

One thing that I liked about Baldur’s Gate 3 was the feeling of “impossible” choices. There are multiple points at which the road forks and you have to choose between one ally and another – betraying one in order to side with someone else. I kind of “cheesed” part of this by placing a companion on the back burner and largely ignoring her, allowing me to more easily side with one ally over another when doing so threatened to tread on the toes of her storyline. But it wasn’t the easiest thing to do – showing, I think, just how much the story had grabbed me and how much I’d come to care about these characters. I never like upsetting an NPC in a video game, but the friends and allies I’d made in Baldur’s Gate 3 felt like real people, so the idea of going against their wishes or even betraying them… I couldn’t do it!

Obviously Baldur’s Gate 3 is a sequel – so I expected some callbacks to earlier games. But I was surprised at how heavily Baldur’s Gate 3 seemed to lean on those two older titles, especially as the second and third acts of the game rolled around. I’m not familiar with those stories having never played the games, but there was enough exposition dumped to make it clear that some characters and storylines were basically direct continuations of the events of those games. That’s a creative decision, and one that fans of Baldur’s Gate 1 and 2 will surely have appreciated. For me, I could have done without that, and at a few points this sequel-itis felt quite in-your-face.

The character of Vicona DeVir is one of several who return from earlier games.

Let’s talk a bit about companions. There are ten potential companions in Baldur’s Gate 3 – two of whom appear to be mutually-exclusive, meaning you have to choose one over the other for a maximum of nine potential companions per playthrough. There are also hirelings who can be purchased to round out the party if you feel you’re missing a particular class or skill – but these characters are less interactive, have few if any unique dialogue options, and I personally felt didn’t serve a lot of purpose. You’re limited to four characters in your party at any one time – your main character plus three others – and hirelings count toward that limit. So unless there’s a problem with your main companions, the need for hirelings feels quite diminished.

In terms of variety, replayability, and player choice, I felt that the game offered a lot of pathways to bringing your party together – but many of these pathways led to the same end point. You could choose in what order to recruit party members – even if, at the time of my first playthrough, I wasn’t aware that I was doing so(!) – but for the most part, even if you deliberately shun a character that the game deems to be important, one way or another they’ll find their way back to you. In my case, the character of Wyll literally showed up at my camp toward the end of Act 1.

Wyll confronted Karlach at my campsite.

I’d seen Wyll briefly during one of the first fights in the game, but after that encounter I lost track of him and didn’t recruit him. I could’ve gone through the entire game not even realising I’d missed a prospective companion, but Wyll later showed up at my camp to confront Karlach – before being talked into joining the party. It kind of felt like this interaction was less organic and natural than others, and that Wyll was almost forced upon me, with Baldur’s Gate 3′s developers insisting that I take him along for the journey.

I’m not upset about the outcome – Wyll’s story was one of the most interesting in the game in more ways than one, and having him in the party led to some incredible moments in all three of the game’s main acts. But this is very much a case of the ends justifying the means, with a rare misstep in the way the game’s narrative came close to breaking the fourth wall leading to better and more engaging story beats later on.

Wyll proved to be a great companion character across the rest of the game.

I recently saw a spoiler-y video online, unfortunately, which confirms that the same thing also happens with the companion character Shadowheart. Players have to go a bit more out of their way to avoid Shadowheart, actively pushing her away and insisting she doesn’t join the party, but even if this path is chosen, Shadowheart makes her way back to the party partway through Act 1. And from what I saw in the video – which, admittedly, was not the entire storyline or sequence – it also felt like a very forceful way that the game pushed her into the party.

I’m not sure how true this is of all the other companions, but the main “tadpoled” characters of Astarion, Karlach, and Gale could well fall into this category too, showing up uninvited even if rebuffed by the player. And having played and enjoyed all of their arcs across the game, I think it’s not unfair to say that players would be missing out if they chose not to engage with these characters at least once. But in a game that sells itself in part on the fact that it offers players endless choices, the way some of these characters are basically forced into the party leads to a strange kind of disconnect between the game’s ambition on that front and the way it actually plays.

If ignored or rebuffed earlier in the game, Shadowheart shows up at the goblins’ camp in Act 1.

Some elements of Baldur’s Gate 3′s role-playing felt a little constrained by the mechanics of the game. To give one example from my own playthrough: I wanted my character to wield a flail – you know, the medieval weapon that’s basically a spiky ball attached to a chain. There wasn’t any real reason for this other than that I thought it looked neat on my character, a drow druid. But through my entire playthrough, I didn’t encounter any decent flails for my character to use.

There were swords aplenty, as well as axes, bows, and even staffs and clubs. But if I’d chosen to equip my character with a flail – after specifically choosing to make them proficient with that weapon type – I would have sacrificed a lot. Not only were there no unique or enchanted flails, offering additional bonuses like fire or ice damage, but the only ones I came across were pretty weak. They were easily outmatched by even the most basic swords and rapiers, leaving me with little choice but to equip a weapon I wasn’t wild about just to get the best stats. That’s part of gaming, in a way, but I would have liked to have seen more options on the weapon front. Baldur’s Gate 3 has plenty of weapon types on the surface, and uses that as part of its “play the game however you want” selling-point. But if some of these weapons are basically non-viable, especially later in the game when coming up against higher-level enemies, it kind of renders the whole thing redundant.

A flail.

That’s a specific complaint because I couldn’t find a flail that was as good (or almost as good) as many of the swords and other weapons that I encountered. But I will give the game credit for offering a variety of unique weapons, and for making it so that most characters can experiment with different ranged and melee weapon types. My druid, for example, was able to gain proficiencies with swords and crossbows at a relatively early point in the campaign, and it completely transformed them from a pure spellcaster into a much more well-rounded character who had multiple options when engaged in combat.

I didn’t choose to re-spec my character during my playthrough, nor change my class. I just didn’t feel that was necessary – but again, it’s nice that the game offers that option. I could absolutely see a scenario in which changing class would be worthwhile, and actually for a druid – which was my class – perhaps that’s even more relevant! Of the ten companions you can recruit, two are druids – so I can see a situation in which some players might want to change class to avoid having too many of the same character types in their party.

Talking to Withers at camp allows you to change your class, if desired.

Let’s talk about romance, because I feel this was one area where Baldur’s Gate 3 strayed from being a deeply engaging story into one that was very – for want of a better term – “video-gamey.” The basic problem is this: no matter who you are, what choices you made, what your background is, or what actions you take… everyone falls in love with you. That includes members of your party as well as important allies – and it just felt too easy to go down these romantic paths. It got to a point where I felt I had to basically avoid interacting with some characters after accidentally ending up in a romantic entanglement, and I just felt that this side of the story was clumsily handled.

It’s great that Baldur’s Gate 3 offers so many romantic options, don’t get me wrong, and that there are options for players to be gay, bi, straight, and so on. But it’s also a bit odd that every character so easily falls for the player – even if they take actions that they claim to disapprove of, or even after the player is already in a committed relationship with another NPC. I also find it a little odd that every NPC is able to be romanced regardless of whether the player character is male, female, or non-binary. Is everyone in Faerûn pansexual? Doing what games like Mass Effect do and restricting some romantic encounters by gender wouldn’t be a bad thing necessarily – if it was right for the character in question.

Some companions fall in love with the player character a little too easily!

Jumping ahead to the end of the game, while I had a fantastic time with the story and the way it brought together different characters that I’d encountered across my many hours of playtime, there are a couple of things to say.

Firstly, the fact that so many characters can be present as allies in the endgame is fantastic – and I absolutely love this kind of “everyone pitching in to save the day” story. It felt great, it was emotional, and I was genuinely surprised to see some characters turning up to offer their aid as Baldur’s Gate was besieged by the mind-flayers!

But – and you knew there was another “but” coming – the way this happens completely reframes many of these character encounters earlier in the game. Instead of helping little Arabella because it’s the right thing to do or because it feels like something your character would do, on a repeat playthrough you’re going to be acutely aware that saving her has a positive outcome in the endgame. Likewise the owlbear cub, Councillor Florrick, or Inspector Valeria. There are at least a dozen characters who can play a role here – and that knowledge completely changes how I’d approach their encounters and quests on a second playthrough.

Saving Arabella in Act 1 (and helping her again in Acts 2 and 3) has positive repercussions as the climactic battle rages.

This is kind of a trend you’ll see with Baldur’s Gate 3: while there are, in theory, many options for how to progress through the game, and the game is very adaptable if an NPC or even party member is killed, there are clearly some choices that lead to better outcomes, especially as the story reaches its climax. If you killed a bunch of NPCs, failed to save others, or just straight-up ignored whole questlines – which is easy to do, as some encounters have quite specific requirements – you’ll have fewer allies for the final fight against the Elder Brain, potentially giving you a tougher fight or a less-enjoyable time.

If your desire is to play as an “evil” character, I think this would affect you the most. Baldur’s Gate 3 tries to offset some of this, to its credit, by giving the “evil” options some positive endgame outcomes and alliances – such as if you betray Nightsong and turn her over to Lorroakan. But even then, I think you’re going to be left with fewer allies for the final fight. Maybe that’s okay – and narratively, if it makes sense for your character and your play style, that’s fine. But it may mean that, in terms of the mechanics of how the game works, you’ll end up having a worse or harder time.

Choosing to help the strange ox – which I did for no other reason than it seemed like a bit of silly fun – ended up making a difference.

Sticking with the ending of the game, after a beautiful coming-together of friends and allies – which, in spite of the criticisms above, felt amazing on that first playthrough – and the climactic battle against the Elder Brain, things just sort of… ended. There was a brief epilogue showing some of the surviving party members, but they soon went their separate ways. Depending on choices you may have made, the macguffin at the heart of the story – the Crown of Karsus – may be lost in the sea off the coast of Baldur’s Gate. And depending on promises you may have made to certain characters… it feels like the story didn’t actually end at that point, in spite of the credits rolling!

For me, I’d chosen to pledge the Crown of Karsus to Gale, who in turn planned to return it to the goddess Mystra. As my character and Gale stared wistfully out to sea, I couldn’t help but feel that another chapter of the story was yet to be told. Maybe that will be Baldur’s Gate 4… but I’m not so sure of that!

Gale at the end of the game. His story didn’t feel complete.

The same feeling hit me with Wyll and Karlach. Karlach’s questline involved getting her infernal mechanical heart back into working order, but she learned toward the end of that story that the only long-term solution that could save her life involved returning to Avernus. Karlach seemed ready to die – and everything I’ve read about this quest says that there’s no “happy ending” for her, unfortunately. That’s a creative choice that I respect, and being with Karlach as she went out on her terms was a fitting, if bittersweet, end to her story.

At the last second, though, Wyll intervened and promised to stay with her in Avernus, saving her life but condemning both of them to one of the nine hells. This moment could have worked better if more time had been dedicated to it; it felt rushed, and because it was such a twist on what the game seemed to have been building up to with Karlach, I don’t think it worked as well as it could have. We also didn’t get to see Wyll and Karlach depart – the sequence just came to an abrupt end.

Karlach’s story seemed to come to an abrupt end.

Although my character got a moment during the epilogue with their romantic partner, other characters were either only seen briefly or were notable by their absence. The Emperor (who I chose to save instead of freeing Orpheus) very quickly shuffled off-screen, as did Lae’zel and Shadowheart. Jaheira, Minsc, and Halsin didn’t have much to say during the epilogue, despite being party members and surviving the fight. Other allies who fought alongside me during the climactic battle were entirely absent.

I get that making an overly-long epilogue could be offputting for some people, but this is the end point of what was, for me, a story that had lasted more than eighty-five hours over the span of an entire month, so getting a few extra minutes to see what happened to some of my companions and friends would have felt great. Even just a picture and a block of text explaining where they went next would have been something; it didn’t need to be a fully-animated and voiced sequence if that was prohibitively expensive.

Halsin at the end of the game.

I mentioned earlier that I chose to play as a drow (dark elf) druid during my playthrough, and based on that I have a few thoughts about how well races, backgrounds, and classes are implemented in the game. During my spoiler-free review I mentioned this, so forgive me for repeating myself! But I didn’t feel that there were very many places in the game where being either a drow or a druid actually made much difference in terms of role-playing and conversations. And backgrounds were all but forgotten; I had to go back and check which one I even picked, because I don’t think it ever came up.

Obviously classes matter in Baldur’s Gate 3 – they matter a great deal, as they impact what kind of spells you can cast, what weapons you’re able to proficiently wield, how easy things like picking locks or sneaking will be, and some even give you advantages in conversations or when trying to persuade NPCs. All of that has a profound impact on the way Baldur’s Gate 3 plays – and one of the reasons why I’m so keen to start a second run through the game is to pick a different class and try things differently.

Perhaps I should play as a halfling monk next time?

But in terms of the game world and characters therein, I didn’t feel that my choices (at the character creation stage) made much of a difference. A few characters remarked on my being a drow when I first met them, but immediately moved on and it was never mentioned again. I think I saw about half a dozen drow conversation prompts during my playthrough, most of which related to darkness, seeing in the dark, or visiting the underdark (which I now know is where drows live!) And half a dozen lines of unique dialogue isn’t bad per se… but in a playthrough that lasted eighty-five hours, it’s not like I felt that being a drow was affecting every conversation or having a big impact on how most people saw my character.

The same was true of being a druid. A handful of lines of dialogue about nature or the natural world were available, and especially toward the beginning of the game in the druids’ grove I felt optimistic that my choice was going to have a bigger impact on the way my character engaged with NPCs. But as the game wore on, it became clear that the grove was a bit of an outlier, and that the number of these unique dialogue options were few and far between.

One of the druids near the beginning of the game.

There was no point at which I felt, as a druid, a unique pathway opened up for me to engage with a character, resolve a situation, or perhaps even start a quest that other classes wouldn’t have access to. Baldur’s Gate 3 seems to go out of its way to make sure that all races and classes have access to all of the quests and missions – which is a double-edged sword, really. On the positive side, it means that everyone can enjoy what’s on offer, but on the negative side… it kind of detracts from that wonderful character creation process, and leaves some of those choices feeling less important or just flat-out unimportant.

This is a bad example, as the missions in question were piss-poor and incredibly basic, but it’s the only one that springs to mind right now so it’ll have to do! But in Cyberpunk 2077, each of the three life paths (i.e. backgrounds) that were on offer led to a unique prologue and one unique in-game mission. Although in Cyberpunk these missions were lacklustre, at least there was an attempt to add to the role-playing experience by throwing a bone to players, making those early choices feel a bit more special and impactful. It also goes without saying that unique missions for each class or background add to any game’s replayability.

The choice of background doesn’t seem to matter.

Even if class-locked quests were off the table, it would still have been nice to see unique ways to progress through different parts of the game that were only available to certain classes or character types. To draw on another example, in the Omega DLC for Mass Effect 3, players who chose the “engineer” class get a class-exclusive opportunity that really impacts the mission and that makes perfect narrative sense. I didn’t see any of this in Baldur’s Gate 3. Maybe other classes or backgrounds have moments like this – but drow druids don’t, at least not from what I saw.

Every single combat encounter is going to be different depending on both the player’s class and the combination of classes of party members – be they the in-game companions or other people if playing co-operatively. And that’s great – it means that there’s a real strategic element to the game when it comes to deciding who to bring along and how to approach different moments. Getting a good combination of ranged, melee, and magical characters is a good starting point – but some encounters may need more heavy hitters, a healer, or a stealthy character, just to give three basic examples.

A combat encounter.

And that variety is a huge part of the fun. The different challenges posed by Baldur’s Gate 3′s huge variety of enemies makes practically every encounter feel unique. Even when facing off against the same basic enemy faction – goblins, for instance – there can still be this variety. A single boss goblin feels very different from a small group, and the strategies for defeating the small group are completely different from those needed to defeat a whole horde! I loved this aspect of the game, as it wasn’t possible to just pick a favourite party and stick with it the whole time; Baldur’s Gate 3 goes out of its way to encourage party-swapping and companion variety.

Exploration also feels like it has some of this variety. Having a character who’s adept at lockpicking in the party is a good rule of thumb, but characters who are perceptive or who have other bonuses also come in handy!

Some characters have an easier time than others when it comes to lockpicking, among other activities.

I just felt that, again, the way I created my custom character didn’t offer as much of that outside of combat. As either a drow or a druid, I didn’t find any unique ways to complete quests, any unique character encounters, or really any conversations or questlines that felt like they were really taking my character’s unique attributes into account. By the time I’d got stuck into the game and buffed up my character’s martial skills, giving me a mix of magic and weapon abilities, I felt that I had different ways to approach many encounters – but none of that felt like it was truly unique to who my character was.

There were also a few parts of the game that I felt were either not well-integrated or easy to overlook. For example, I didn’t create a single potion during my entire run. I didn’t even know potion-making was an option until I was well into Act 1, and I found that I was easily able to acquire enough health potions out in the wild such that making my own just never seemed like something I needed to do.

I didn’t actually do any alchemy.

Perhaps it’s more to do with the way I played the game, but I felt that potions and scrolls were less useful than spells and weapons – and I only used a handful across my run. Maybe there are things I missed out on because of that, and when I jump back in for a second playthrough I’d love to take more advantage of alchemy and scrolls. I’ll have to see whether and to what extent that makes a difference! But in my first run, I felt that neither were essential and both were easily overlooked.

While I feel you’d almost have to go out of your way to get into potion-making in Baldur’s Gate 3, and I feel the feature would benefit from an in-game introduction and tutorial, I like that it’s an option for players who want to role-play that kind of magical character. Potions are a big deal in fantasy settings, and it would feel like something’s missing if potion-making wasn’t present at all. I just feel it could be made more prominent in the game as things stand.

An armoured owlbear, ready for battle!

There’s one specific quest that I want to single out for criticism, and I’m picking on it not because I didn’t enjoy it – I think it’s one of the best and most interesting in the entire game – but because of how weirdly finicky it was to play, and how it had some very exacting requirements. For someone just playing the game, as I was, without a guide, it feels too easy to accidentally encounter this quest and then have it pretty significantly and negatively impact much of Act 3. I’m talking about the quest that involves rescuing the hostages from the Iron Throne – an underwater prison.

I first stumbled upon this quest by picking a lock in the city of Baldur’s Gate, then exploring what seemed to be a random warehouse. In the depths of the warehouse was a submarine that could ferry my party to this prison – but starting this quest before talking to other characters, including Gortash, Orin, one of the gnomes at the Steel Watch facility, and Wyll’s devil patron Mizora causes problems. Doing this in the “wrong” order leads to the quest having a much worse outcome, with Wyll’s father dead and the gnome rebellion at the Steel Watch not triggering properly. For a game that prides itself on letting players loose to freely explore, and on offering multiple branching paths… the way in which this particular quest was handled didn’t feel great, and it sticks up as an outlier. Despite that, when I managed to play it the “right” way, it ended up being one of my favourites in the game. It’s just a shame that it’s so exacting in its requirements, and that there aren’t any real ways around that.

This quest was very convoluted if you wanted to do it properly.

So I think we’d better wrap things up!

As I said last time, Baldur’s Gate 3 is the best game I’ve played so far this year. I adored the time I spent in Faerûn – my first ever venture into this particular fantasy realm – and I’m already chomping at the bit to start a second run through the game! I’m trying to restrain myself, as I feel jumping back in so soon after beating the game for the first time would diminish the experience, and I want to get as much out of my next go around as possible. But I daren’t wait too long, and I suspect I’ll give in and start that second playthrough before Christmas.

Though there were a few places where things could’ve been improved, and some quests that felt very particular with their requirements, overall I had a wonderful time with Baldur’s Gate 3. From the very first moment I felt gripped by what was simultaneously a small-scale, personal story and one that had world-ending repercussions. That’s in spite of having essentially zero background knowledge about the world of Dungeons and Dragons. The writing and gameplay were both outstanding, and kept me coming back for more.

Withers addressing the Dead Three.

I hope this has been interesting. There are bound to be many different perspectives on Baldur’s Gate 3, as it’s a game that encourages players to take different paths through its story. I already know that I haven’t seen all that the game has to offer – including an entire area of the map, many NPCs, one companion character, and I have no doubt multiple questlines, too. Now that I know what to expect, I’ll make a few changes to the way I play next time in order to check off some of those missing experiences! But I’ll try to save a few for another run, too.

Although I’ve found a few things to pick on in terms of Baldur’s Gate 3′s narrative and role-playing, none of those things prevented me from thoroughly enjoying a game that’s sure to be, for many folks, the game of the year. Baldur’s Gate 3 came out of nowhere this year – it hadn’t been on my radar at all. Both in terms of story and gameplay, I was stunned. I had an amazing time, and I can’t wait to go around again.

Baldur’s Gate 3 is out now for PC and PlayStation 5, and will be released on Xbox Series consoles in 2024. Baldur’s Gate 3 is the copyright of Larian Studios, and is based on Dungeons and Dragons which is owned by Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro. Some screenshots and promo art used above courtesy of Larian Studios and/or IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Starfield: First Impressions

Spoiler Warning: While there are no major story spoilers for Starfield, minor spoilers for the main quest and a handful of side-quests are present.

I promised that I’d share my first impressions of Starfield as soon as possible, and with the game finally launching for us plebs who didn’t fork over £100 to get “early” access, I’ve belatedly had the chance to jump in and try it for myself. I’m basing my impressions of the game on approximately twenty hours of playtime, in which I’ve started but not completed the main quest, created a character, worked on my spaceship, undertaken a handful of side-missions and fetch quests, and landed on about twenty different planets. There’s no way I can reasonably “review” a game as large and long as Starfield without beating a single questline, so I’m calling this piece my “first impressions” of the game.

Starfield’s showcase earlier this summer was fantastic, and the game rocketed up the list to become my most-anticipated launch of the year. The idea of playing an open-galaxy adventure with all of the fantastic writing and quest design of a Bethesda game combined with spaceflight, spaceship building, and exploration, and set in a new fictional universe with designs that drew inspiration from NASA… it all seemed too good to be true. A friend of mine suggested to me a couple of months ago that Starfield “might be the best game that either of us will ever play.” Try as I might to avoid the hype, there’s no denying how excited I was for Starfield.

Promo poster for Starfield.

Hype can be detrimental to any game if not properly handled, something I commented on shortly before the release of 2020’s Cyberpunk 2077. I said then that games publishers and their marketing teams need to do a better job at reining in speculation, and that there are ways to let players down gently, redirecting the conversation, if necessary, away from features that won’t be part of a game. The hype train for Starfield definitely got unwieldy, and I fear that Bethesda ended up over-promising.

Let’s get the headline out of the way right now: Starfield is undeniably a good game… but it doesn’t always make good on some of its loftier promises and ambitions. It brings a lot to the table, but several of its key features and systems feel barebones and underdone, especially when compared to other titles in a similar space, meaning that there’s not a lot to offer in terms of longer-term play or replayability. Thus far, the game’s main story has failed to grab me following what I felt was a pretty rushed beginning, and customisation options for both the player character and their spaceship aren’t at the level I was hoping for. There are also some notable bugs that slipped through, in spite of promises that Starfield would be Bethesda’s “least-buggy release ever,” and graphics that feel outdated in some areas.

The city of New Atlantis.

That being said, Starfield gets a lot right. The game’s art style and overall aesthetic is exactly what I was looking for, drawing on real-world space agencies like NASA and retro sci-fi properties from the ’70s and ’80s that I grew up with. There’s some genuinely enjoyable gunplay – a first for a Bethesda title. Voice acting is solid across the board. And while I don’t feel that the game has really managed to suck me in – at least, not yet – it still manages to evoke at least some of those feelings of being a space captain in a sci-fi world that it was aiming for.

I think the best thing to do at this point is to break this article into segments. Each segment will tackle one aspect of Starfield’s gameplay, and then we’ll bring it all together at the end for a conclusion. I’ll try to avoid major plot spoilers – though I’m yet to complete the main quest or any faction questline, so there shouldn’t be anything massive in the mix.

Exploration:

Landing on a planet’s surface.

Exploring in Starfield is not what I expected it would be. After landing on the surface of a planet, you’re restricted to a “landing zone” that takes about ten to twelve minutes to reach the boundary of while traversing on foot. No, despite what you may have heard, a landing zone is not “the same size as Skyrim!” For the most part, I don’t think the size of a landing zone is a particular problem, and I’d wager that most players – though by no means all – won’t bother to trek as far as the invisible wall. But that in itself is saying something – because there’s not a lot to do in a lot of these places, and much of what is on offer gets repetitive very quickly.

As an aside about invisible walls: this could have been handled better. An in-game explanation could have been found, allowing Starfield to technobabble its way to an excuse for why it isn’t possible to roam too far from where your ship landed. Something about “needing to stay in communications range,” or words to that effect, for example. Instead, the first time you hit an invisible wall it’s pretty jarring – you’re simply told that “you cannot go that way,” much like you were as far back as Oblivion.

This looks familiar.

In the roughly twenty hours I’ve spent with Starfield, I’ve encountered absolutely identical locations and buildings on different planets on multiple occasions. Within each “abandoned mine,” enemies spawn in the same place, much of the loot is identical, and the layout of the structure is the same. These so-called “points of interest” on the surface of planets are copied-and-pasted from one to the next, and I’m already bored of that after just a few hours.

Imagine if you visited three identical dungeons in Skyrim, and knew that the fourth one would also have the same enemies in the same places and the same basic loot to grab. You’d start to lose interest pretty quickly, right? Maybe I’ve been particularly unlucky, and maybe there are many more of these randomised locations that I’m yet to encounter. I hope so, but even if that’s the case, the fact that these structures – and everything within – can be repeated at all isn’t exactly a good look.

This was one of my big fears about Starfield from the moment Bethesda began talking of planets being made up of “tiles,” and I’m disappointed to see it come to pass.

Discovering another “deserted biotics lab” soon feels repetitive.

One of the early main quest missions is even set at one of these copy-and-paste locations. That actually shocked me when I realised it, because I’d already explored not one but two identical “abandoned mines” on other planets prior to playing this main quest mission. I would have expected at the very least to see locations connected to main quests and faction quests being wholly unique, and again this feels like a disappointment.

One of the things that appealed to me about Starfield was the idea of being able to go “where no man has gone before,” and setting foot on an uncharted world for the first time. But I can’t do that – at least not from what I’ve seen so far. Every single landing zone I’ve touched down at has at least two of these copy-and-paste structures, and no matter how many times I take off again and pick a different spot… they’re always there. Also, every single time I land on a planet, another ship lands a few metres away from mine moments later. There’s no opportunity to feel like a bona fide explorer – the first person to set foot in this strange alien landscape. No matter where you go, someone else has beaten you to it.

A structure on a random planet.

Feeling like I’m at the forefront of this mission of exploration like a Starfleet officer was one of the things I was most keen to experience in Starfield, and the way that the game has handled this hasn’t been great. I literally tried landing at more than fifteen different sites on a single planet, just trying to find one that didn’t have any pre-built structures or spaceship landing sites. But alas.

That’s not to say that there’d be much point in landing at such a site. Starfield is incredibly stingy with its planetary resources, with only a handful of minerals to collect that are scattered across a wide area. With most resources not being worth many credits, any kind of mining or resource-gathering is pretty much out of the question as an in-game career. It’s easier and more efficient to kill random enemies and loot their bases rather than trying to mine or collect minerals and resources.

Mining iron doesn’t yield much profit.

Much was made at the showcase about gravity, and how different planets will have different levels of gravity. As far as I can see, gravity in Starfield affects one thing: how high you can jump. How fast you can walk or run seems entirely unaffected by gravity, as are shooting and carrying capacity. I haven’t encountered any zero-G sections of gameplay yet, though, so those could spice things up a bit.

Different planets can have different environmental hazards: radiation, heat, and even things like scalding rain or toxic gases. For the most part, the spacesuit and helmet that I’ve had equipped for the bulk of my playthrough thus far seem to be adequate, though my character picked up a couple of environmental injuries early on. I’m not sure if there’s more to this, but I’ve landed on frozen icy planets and even the surface of Venus using the same equipment and I’ve really not noticed a difference.

The map.

Having a usable map has become an essential feature in any game with large levels – but Starfield bucks this trend. The available map is good enough on the surface of random planets, but utterly useless for navigating cities and settlements.

The map highlights points of interest, and it’s possible to fast travel to any that have been discovered. But god forbid you try to find a particular shop or building in New Atlantis! The map doesn’t have that level of detail for some inexplicable reason.

Spaceflight:

A custom spaceship takes to the skies!

This ought to be nice and short: there isn’t any. There’s functionally no spaceflight in this game whatsoever. Remember being told “if you can see it, you can go there?” Well, you don’t get to actually fly your ship to your destination. You can’t take off from wherever you landed and manually fly to the moon or to the next planet over. No. The only way to travel from one location to the next is to fast-travel from either the map or mission menu.

I fully expected that travelling from one solar system to another would work this way. Who wants to sit around for ages flying through interstellar space, right? But within a single system – and especially to fly from a planet to its moon or from a space station to the planet it’s orbiting – I genuinely expected that I’d be able to take my customised spaceship and actually, y’know… fly it.

Flying near a planet doesn’t mean you can fly to a planet.

Instead, Starfield drops you and your ship in a little pocket of space, a little bubble. You can fly around within that bubble, talk to any nearby ships, dock with space stations, and the like. But you can’t do anything else, and you’re trapped within that bubble until you open the map menu and select another destination. There’s no option to fly from one planet or moon to a neighbouring one, which is just a disappointment.

What’s the point of building a custom spaceship if you can’t actually get to pilot it for any significant length of time? Sure, there are some combat encounters in space that are tense, and it’s a bit of fun the first few times you get scanned for contraband, hail a friendly ship, or dock with someone. But there’s not a lot of longevity in most of those activities, and the decision to basically offer no actual spaceflight in a space game… it’s an odd one to say the least!

The view from the cockpit.

Some missions operate the same way. After choosing an assignment from a “mission board” located near a spaceport, you’ll be tasked with some relatively mundane job in exchange for credits. One that I chose involved delivering a shipment of jewellery from one planet to another. But to call these “missions” is massively overstating it!

After selecting the task I wanted from the mission board, the quest was available in the menu. But I didn’t have to go anywhere to collect the cargo; it magically appeared on my ship instantaneously. All I had to do was board my ship, select the destination planet from the map screen, and away I went. I mistakenly assumed that I’d have to talk to someone or at the very least interact with a screen in order to transfer the cargo and complete the assignment – but no! The mission was automatically marked as complete the very second my ship touched down. I didn’t even need to get out of my seat, and the entire thing took less than a minute from choosing the task to marking it as complete and receiving my reward. Hardly an interactive experience – and while such tasks may be useful for making a bunch of credits in short order, it wasn’t fun and it wasn’t immersive.

The view from the cockpit.

Maybe this is more of a personal taste thing, but I really dislike the way Starfield presents its heads-up display while piloting a spaceship. I found the HUD to be incredibly cumbersome, especially in first-person mode, and it got in the way of the immersion of being a space captain or space pilot. Displaying these little transparent boxes on top of in-game computer screens and monitors really detracts from the piloting experience.

Even in third-person mode, the HUD is still obtrusive and takes up a lot of real estate on the screen. I’d have loved to see Starfield make actual use of those screens and displays in the cockpit, as that would make for a much more engaging and interactive experience. Offering players a choice, at least, with a simplified HUD or smaller HUD as options would have been nice, too.

Graphics:

Parts of Starfield can look decent.

If Starfield had been released on the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One, I’d have said it looked great. And some of its backdrops and vistas look pretty. Seeing a planet from space or seeing a landscape stretching off into the distance are genuinely great moments, and they’re rendered well. But when you start looking at things up close, a lot of Starfield’s next-gen trappings fall away.

The main area of complaint here is the characters’ faces. Eyes are dead and faces flip-flop from being totally blank and expressionless to having almost comically exaggerated movements, then back again. Every character, regardless of race or age, looks to be about twenty-five years old, with smooth skin and perfect teeth. Practically all characters are the same height, and most are the same build, too.

Starfield vs. Baldur’s Gate 3.

The image above is one I believe offers a fair comparison. On the left we have the character of Sam Coe from Starfield, and on the right, Gale from Baldur’s Gate 3 – wearing a similar hat to make comparing them easier and fairer! I picked these two characters because they have a similar look, and are both major NPCs and companion characters in their respective games. You can tell at a glance which looks better and more lifelike, and that’s without even seeing them moving or being animated. In short, Bethesda has fallen a long way behind when it comes to faces – and this comparison proves it.

“But graphics don’t matter!” goes the frequently-heard retort. And I agree to an extent – many games deliberately employ art direction that isn’t intended to be realistic, going down a “retro” route of pixels and polygons or choosing a cartoony aesthetic, just to give two examples. But Starfield is trying to be realistic – and at least in terms of faces and character models, it misses the mark by a country mile. Games in the same role-playing space by other developers look so much better than Starfield, which is, at best, a polished and shinier version of Fallout 4.

Story:

Sarah Morgan, head of the Constellation organisation.

Thus far, I don’t feel particularly engaged with either Starfield’s main story or the world that the game is trying to build. In true Bethesda style, the player character is some kind of “chosen one,” able to see visions when interacting with mysterious artefacts. But the game’s opening act felt pretty rushed, with my nameless miner picking up an artefact and then being whisked away by Constellation mere minutes later. I get that Bethesda needs to make this section of the game as curtailed as possible so it doesn’t drag too much on repeat playthroughs, but I couldn’t shake the feeling that there wasn’t much explanation provided for why my character was essentially given a free spaceship and shoved off into the cosmos.

The artefacts themselves are pretty bland to look at, and the visions, while certainly mysterious, don’t really offer much else. I don’t feel compelled to keep pushing to figure out what the artefacts are or where they’ve come from, and while a decent ending or a good explanation could certainly reframe this aspect of the game’s story and make it more interesting, that hasn’t happened for me yet.

One of the artefacts that are at the core of the main story.

In terms of storytelling, the side-missions I’ve played so far didn’t feel especially interactive or player-led. On one occasion I stumbled upon a farmstead that was under attack by spacers, and as the mission unfolded I had to recruit other local families to join in the defence of their system from these raiders. But at every stage, the mission felt like it was being organised and led by the very people I was supposedly helping. They discovered the locations I needed to attack, they planned the mission, and it was at their direction that I did, well, everything. I didn’t even have the basic choice to try to do the mission through stealth; a full-frontal attack was literally the only option.

What this meant, when the dust settled and the questline was complete, is that I didn’t really feel like I’d done anything different. Attacking this group of spacers, killing them, and looting their base scarcely felt any different from attacking, killing, and looting random bases on other worlds, and I felt that my character really didn’t engage much with the quest-giver beyond listening to his plan and following orders. As the questline wrapped up and the quest-giver showered my character with praise for defeating the spacers… the whole thing just felt rather hollow.

Scale:

New Atlantis, the bustling metropolis at the heart of the United Colonies.

Before Starfield launched, I wrote a piece here on the website about my concerns surrounding the sense of scale that a game like this needs to have. I zeroed in on two factors: the amount of content relative to the size of the map, and the way other games manage to convey the feeling that players are taking part in a story that only scratches the surface of a much larger world, one that exists beyond the confines of the playable area.

Parts of Starfield feel… small. Exploring New Atlantis – supposedly the biggest city that Bethesda has ever created – feels akin to walking around a small town, not the capital city of a futuristic humanity. There’s no sense of scale, no ambience, and the city doesn’t feel believable. Parts of it are literally deserted, and the handful of people who are milling around are more often than not nameless “citizens” with nothing to say.

A citizen. He’s busy at the moment.

The aforementioned lack of spaceflight also cuts into this sense of scale. Because Starfield allows you to hop from one planet to the next by opening a menu, there’s no feeling that you’ve actually travelled, or that the destination you’ve reached is far away from the spaceport that you departed from. What should be a vast, open galaxy feels small as a result.

Doubling-down on this feeling are the copy-and-paste locations present on planet surfaces outside of the main settlements. I truly can’t believe how many repeat locations I’ve encountered in such a short span of time, and this is again something that really drags Starfield down.

Customisation Part 1:
Character Creation:

The character creation screen.

The character creator in Starfield has left me with mixed feelings. Firstly, there seems to be a pretty big difference between the way your character looks when initially creating them and how they actually appear during gameplay. Maybe this is due to lighting or other effects, but I felt my character looked noticeably worse after exiting the character creator. And having spent ages working on them… that didn’t feel great.

There are some great options within the character creator to represent different body types – but this isn’t as extensive as it could be. You can choose whether to be thin, muscular, or fat, for example, or any combination of those three things, but not your character’s height. There are plenty of options for various skin types, including things like vitiligo, freckles, and wrinkles, but very few hair and facial hair options. When it comes to reflecting diverse hair types… that’s poor.

There aren’t a lot of hairstyles, facial hair styles, or eye colours.

Eye colour is likewise very limited. Baldur’s Gate 3, which was released last month, and even 2020’s Cyberpunk 2077 offer far richer and more detailed character creators, and I think it’s a shame that Bethesda hasn’t really made much progress here since Fallout 4. And speaking of Fallout 4: several of the hairstyles seem to be lifted directly from that game, retaining their ’50s-inspired look that doesn’t particularly suit Starfield’s retro-sci-fi future.

As a quick comparison, Cyberpunk 2077 has 35 hair colours and more than 50 hairstyles to Starfield’s 23 hair colours and 40 hairstyles – an absolutely massive difference considering it’s almost three years old and was released on last-generation hardware. And Baldur’s Gate 3 has well over 100 colours and more than 85 styles to choose from, showing what a modern game is really capable of in that department.

Baldur’s Gate 3 has far more hairstyle, hair colour, and eye colour options.

What’s the point in Starfield offering 100 ways to reshape your nose or cheekbones – things that are barely perceptible in-game – while only offering a handful of eye colours and hairstyles? These things go a long way to making a character feel personalised and unique, and when there are so few options, within a matter of minutes you’re likely to be running into NPCs who share some part of your character’s appearance or who look alike. Given the aforementioned issues with the way the game renders faces, the fact that many NPCs look similar to one another is verging on immersion-breaking.

The Starfield showcase really played up the various backgrounds and traits that are available during character creation. And to the game’s credit, these traits and backgrounds are varied and interesting. However, I would say that in my twenty hours with the game, the only place where my character’s background has even been mentioned so far was in the intro/tutorial sequence right at the beginning. Now, there are likely to be more opportunities for random lines of dialogue to appear, but so far I haven’t seen very many.

Backgrounds don’t seem to have much of an impact on gameplay.

I picked the “Raised Enlightened” trait, one of three potential religious affiliations. Partly I did so because in-game text promised access to a chest in New Atlantis, of which there seems to be one for each religion, and I figured that the chest may contain items that could prove useful in the early game. This chest was a complete nothing-burger, offering a handful of health packs and four “books” – which are a couple of pages long at most.

Another trait I chose was “UC Native,” meaning that my character was born in the United Colonies, one of two major factions in the game. While this has some bonuses when completing missions, it doesn’t really come with a lot of perks. For instance, I was told early on that I’m not actually a “citizen” of the United Colonies – presumably so I can have access to the same questline to become a citizen as players who didn’t choose this option. But then… what was the point of choosing this trait? It doesn’t seem to have affected my character in a meaningful way.

Customisation Part 2:
Spaceships:

An example of a customised spaceship.

Spaceship building was one of the parts of Starfield that I was most excited about. I’ve loved the idea of creating my very own spaceship ever since I played the likes of Star Trek: Starship Creator in the late ’90s, and being able to not only build my own ship, but pilot it, take it into combat, and get out of my chair and freely walk around the interior are all aspects that held huge appeal.

The ship creator is fun – but it requires a significant investment of credits to get started with, and is a bit more finicky than I’d hoped to see. Some components are incompatible with one another, there are limitations on where some parts can be placed and what they can connect to, and the way weapons have to be manually “assigned” is cumbersome and annoying.

Assigning weapons to a spaceship.

That being said, building my own ship is about as much fun as I realistically expected to have. It isn’t perfect, and in an ideal world there’s a lot I’d add (and a few things I’d remove) to make the experience even more enjoyable. But there are plenty of colour options, and the fact that ships can be assembled in a range of configurations is great. I’d like to see more components and modules – but I don’t think I’ve seen or unlocked all that the game has to offer, so it’s conceivable that I’ll come across more options as I progress.

As I said a few times before Starfield launched, if spaceship interiors could be customised, Bethesda would have said so. While I was still crossing my fingers, this didn’t feel like a realistic prospect as the game edged closer to launch. Even though I’d resigned myself to this reality… it’s still disappointing, especially considering that Starfield does allow for interior designing and decorating in outposts and houses. Would it have really been much more complicated to add this already-present feature to spaceships, too?

Spaceship interiors can’t be repainted or customised.

My spaceship doesn’t feel like “mine.” There’s a half-eaten sandwich on a table that my character didn’t bite. There are notes on the whiteboard in my “captain’s cabin” that I didn’t write (and have no idea what they mean). Although my spaceship is a fetching shade of pink on the outside, the walls inside are a generic white colour. I can’t even repaint hatches and doors, nor choose the colour of the furniture.

While it is possible to drop items aboard the ship and have them remain where they fall, this particular mechanic has literally not been improved since Morrowind. It’s not possible to precisely position items, meaning I can’t even set the table for dinner with a knife and fork. For me, these things are all part of the immersion – and when they aren’t present, my ship just feels bland and generic, and not personal at all.

I hope you weren’t planning on giving your ship a long name!

A spaceship can be renamed at will, which is great, but names are limited to a scant fourteen characters. “Enterprise-D” fits, but “Millennium Falcon” doesn’t. I’ve no idea why Bethesda has been so stingy with the character limit here, as it cuts off a good deal of ship naming possibilities.

And while we’re on the subject of names: remember Todd Howard telling you that Vasco, the robot companion, could say your name and the name of your ship? Well, that hasn’t happened for me yet, despite taking Vasco all over the galaxy and having him accompany me on a number of missions. Not sure if there’s some hidden requirement to unlock this, but if there is, I haven’t found it yet. I didn’t give my character some kind of horribly obscure name, and I was looking forward to hearing this robotic voice say it; it’s another addition to the immersion. Considering what’s possible with text-to-speech nowadays, there’s no reason why Vasco should be limited to a handful of pre-recorded names.

Customisation Part 3:
Outfits and Loot:

Six spacesuits available to purchase from a vendor.

I miss the days when you could mix and match outfits. Clothing in Starfield comes by way of whole costumes, with no option to change shoes, pants, shirts, and the like. There are hats that can be equipped individually, but that’s it. I find this to not only be disappointing, as it seriously cuts into the customisation and role-playing aspect of the game, but also a pretty big regressive step.

As far back as Morrowind, Bethesda games let you choose individual pieces of clothing. Shoes, trousers, tops, and even individual pieces of armour were all separate and could be mixed and matched at will. Even though that game is more than twenty years old, it seems like it had more customisation options when it comes to apparel.

Some defeated enemies don’t drop much loot.

In addition, Starfield doesn’t appear to have a huge array of clothing options to choose from. I think I’ve seen a couple of dozen different outfits, maybe, across my playthrough so far – including from several different vendors. And while looting outposts and enemies, I keep picking up the same ones over and over again. At one point I literally had 20 of the same spacesuit.

And this is true of other items, too. Even if you’re lucky enough to come across a building or base that you haven’t seen before – i.e. one that may not be a total copy-and-paste job – the items in it are remarkably samey. You’ll soon be able to identify which items are valuable and which to leave behind… because there really aren’t that many different ones.

A helmet, a couple of lootable items, and a few items that can’t be picked up.

Looting a base can be a frustrating experience at points. Some items that look like they should be collectable aren’t, they’re just part of the scenery and can’t be picked up or interacted with in any way. And the items that can be collected soon feel repetitive. Sure, these items are, to some extent, a means to an end. You’re looting the base or scavenging in order to sell the items for credits to spend on things like ship upgrades or building a base.

But it begins to harm the sense of immersion to constantly be picking up the same handful of items over and over again at different places across the galaxy.

Combat:

Firing a laser rifle.

Combat in Starfield is solid. First-person combat with both guns and melee weapons is probably on par with similar titles in the action-RPG space like Cyberpunk 2077 – though with admittedly fewer options and less variety. But for Bethesda, this is a massive improvement! We’re not reaching the levels of a dedicated FPS like Doom Eternal, and enemies can feel a bit over-armoured and bullet-spongey. But considering how mediocre gunplay was in Fallout 76 (or Bethesda’s other Fallout games when you take VATS out of the equation) I must say I’m impressed.

I had some genuinely fun and tense moments fighting pirates and spacers, and gunplay felt fast-paced and exciting. Different weapon types behave differently and can apply different effects to a target, and there are some “rare” or “legendary” weapons that I’ve come across that have additional bonuses. I think crafting and modifying weapons is also an option here. The only drawback, at least in the first few hours of the game, is that there isn’t all that much variety. I might’ve come across a dozen different guns in total – but when you break that down into lasers, rifles, pistols, and shotguns… well, that’s literally three of each. I hope there’s more that I haven’t discovered yet.

Battling a spacer.

Space combat is likewise fun, though perhaps I’d call it the lesser of Starfield’s two ways to fight. Where gunplay on the ground felt a bit more strategic, with a need to take cover, aim, and generally plan how to win a fight, space battles seem to mostly consist of mashing the buttons over and over again. There is targetted aiming, which is how you can try to disable an enemy ship for boarding, but this is inexplicably locked behind a skill point and can’t be accessed right off the bat.

That being said, I’ve had some exciting space combat encounters in my time with Starfield so far. On one occasion I was overwhelmed by a force of spacers and had to grav-jump to safety, and waiting for my grav-drive to power up with my shields down and enemy ships raining a hail of missiles down on me was a genuinely tense and thrilling moment.

Polish and Bugs:

An enemy clipping (and firing their weapon) through a locked door.

Before the game was released, there was a particularly audacious claim by Matt Booty, head of Xbox Game Studios, that Starfield would have “the fewest bugs of any Bethesda game ever shipped,” and I said at the time that he would absolutely be held to account for that! I haven’t encountered any game-breaking bugs, unfinishable missions, or hard crashes while playing Starfield, and unlike many PC games over the last couple of years, the game seems to run well out of the gate. The frame-rate feels decent, there hasn’t been any stuttering, screen-tearing, or frame-drops, and overall the performance feels solid.

I have noticed that my GPU – an Nvidia RTX 3070 Ti – seems to run hotter than usual and with its fans spinning faster than usual while playing Starfield, but I wouldn’t call that a cause for concern at this stage – and it’s something that could be patched or perhaps modded somewhere down the line to improve things.

Pretty sure you’re supposed to sit on a chair…

However, some bugs have slipped through the cracks, despite Starfield’s long and exhaustive QA process. And many of these bugs feel like your typical Bethesda/Creation Engine fare: characters clipping through walls or doors, being able to shoot through doors, levitating, or making random movements. At one point a character I was in conversation with was facing the wrong way. Characters and items will occasionally “slide” as if on a polished or icy surface.

None of the bugs I encountered stopped me from completing a quest – though a handful of times an item or piece of loot would float away, leaving me unable to retrieve it. The bugs feel akin to those found in other Bethesda titles at launch, which some people claim to find endearing. I don’t – and given the promises attached to Starfield on the bug front, it’s disappointing to have seen so many bugs and glitches within just a few hours of playtime.

Conclusion:

Starfield has landed…

Starfield isn’t as much fun as I’d hoped it would be. It’s a game that brings together systems and mechanics that have been done before – and done better – in other titles, some of which are several years old. What it does offer is all of those things in one package, in the framework of a Bethesda RPG. If Bethesda and Xbox had done a better job of setting expectations, and had been more willing to say “no” and shut down wild speculation when it started to get out of hand, perhaps some of that disappointment could have been avoided.

That being said, Starfield isn’t a bad game by any means. I fully intend to spend more time with it, and it’s not inconceivable that my opinion will shift if the story picks up and I begin to find more items to loot and things to do. I just don’t feel especially engaged with Starfield right now, and the story hasn’t grabbed me in the way I’d have hoped. If it had, perhaps things like limited landing zones or spaceflight consisting more of fast travel menus than anything else wouldn’t feel like such a let-down.

Notes and drawings aboard a custom spaceship.

If there’s one takeaway I have from Starfield it’s this: the Creation Engine has got to go. It’s clearly no longer up to scratch, and practically every element of Starfield that I’ve singled out for criticism today is being held back by outdated software. Let Starfield be the final game to use this piece of kit, and when Bethesda shifts its focus to The Elder Scrolls VI, let’s hope that they finally retire this engine in favour of creating or licensing something more modern, and something that can really stand up to the rigours of modern game development.

Look at what other games in the RPG and action/adventure spaces are doing, and in so many ways, Starfield is being let down by its reliance on the Creation Engine. From character creation and procedural generation to graphics and bugs, the Creation Engine is showing its age and its flaws – and it’s got to go. Obviously Starfield has been made and released now, and we’ll have to deal with it as it is. But in future, Bethesda would be well-served by ending its reliance on this outdated technology.

You cannot go that way.

But that’s really a question for another time! Starfield is good but not great, a game with ambitious scope that brings together a lot of different gameplay ideas – but doesn’t always make them work as well as they do elsewhere. Want more exciting space combat? Pick up Star Wars Squadrons or Elite Dangerous. Want a better, more in-depth RPG? Try Baldur’s Gate 3. Outpost building in a sci-fi setting? Something like Frostpunk or Subnautica might be up your alley. Looking for a first-person adventure? Cyberpunk 2077 or even The Outer Worlds are no less enjoyable.

This is both Starfield’s selling-point and its biggest flaw: it brings together so many different concepts that it can’t possibly deliver a suitably in-depth experience with any of them. The role-playing side of the game is let down by incredibly basic quest design that’s akin to making a few clicks on a menu. Spaceflight is let down by… not actually being able to fly anywhere in space. Shipbuilding is let down by a lack of customisation options. Exploration is let down by incredibly repetitive environments and loot as well as the feeling that you’re never the first person to go somewhere. And so on. If you find something you like in Starfield, chances are it won’t last all that long before you see how shallow it is, and how little longevity or replayability it has to offer.

Touching down on the surface of a planet.

I will give Starfield credit, at least in its launch version at time of writing, for not being excessively-monetised. I feel that the “premium edition” was over-sold, and that paying £35 for five days of early access was poor, but within the game itself there aren’t any microtransactions, lootboxes, premium currencies, paid mods, or any of the other AAA trappings that too many titles include these days. Maybe that’s a low bar, but it’s one Starfield happily clears. I sincerely hope that such nonsense won’t be added later on.

Starfield is a game I’d recommend, at least to some folks. If you have Game Pass it’s a no-brainer – you might as well give it a shot to see how you get on with it. And if you’ve played and enjoyed any Bethesda game in the past, chances are you’ll find something to like in Starfield, too, as the game feels very similar; the DNA of titles like Morrowind is clearly noticeable. I don’t think the “premium edition” is worth £100, though!

On the surface of a planet, ready for exploration.

Bethesda certainly over-promised with Starfield, and lessons need to be learned on the marketing side of things to ensure the company does a better job at reining in out-of-control hype. But part of the problem lies with me – I internalised too much of the hype and excitement, and feel let down because Starfield is “just” another Bethesda open-world role-playing adventure and not the once-in-a-lifetime genre-buster that I’d hoped for. Part of that is on me, and while I have some critical thoughts about Starfield and the way it implements some of its systems and mechanics, at its core I think it’s still a decent game.

I will continue playing in the days and weeks ahead – though perhaps not every day nor with unshakable enthusiasm! If I find that I have more to say after beating the main quest or unlocking more of the game, I’ll be sure to write up my thoughts and impressions later in the year. For now, I hope this has been informative if you’re considering picking up Starfield for yourself, or at least an interesting perspective to consider. For the record, I don’t hate Starfield. I just feel a bit let down that it wasn’t all it was cracked up to be.

Starfield is out now for PC and Xbox Series S & X consoles. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. Some promo images and screenshots used above courtesy of Bethesda. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Baldur’s Gate 3 and the return of “save-scumming!”

Spoiler Warning: Minor spoilers may be present for Baldur’s Gate 3.

As Baldur’s Gate 3 has taken the gaming world by storm, an age-old monster has awoken from its slumber. No, not the mind-flayers – I’m talking about the practice of “save-scumming!” There have been more than enough hot takes on the subject over the past couple of months… but hey, what’s the harm in one more?

Save-scumming, if you’re unfamiliar with the term, is the practice of creating a save just before an important dice roll or event, then re-loading the save to try again if something doesn’t go to plan. Though ubiquitous across gaming, save-scumming was controversial in the ’90s with games like Fallout and of course the original Baldur’s Gate.

The original Baldur’s Gate was where many folks first heard about “save-scumming.”

For as long as games have existed, gamers have looked for ways to cheat and get around the system. Before save files were commonplace, writing down passcodes to unlock levels was one way of doing it, and of course cheat codes have been a part of the gaming landscape for decades. But save-scumming seems to hit a sore spot for some fans of role-playing games like Baldur’s Gate 3, and the success of the game has reinvigorated the debate in 2023.

I’m a big advocate of accessibility in gaming, and I include in that category cheat codes, god modes, save-scumming, and everything else. If someone wants to play a game but finds it too difficult to the point of being frustrating or offputting, why shouldn’t they find a way to make it easier and get some enjoyment out of the game? Maybe you like to play games for the challenge and to “git gud,” but not everyone does. Difficulty and accessibility will have to be the topic of a future article, though, because we’re dangerously close to veering off-topic!

What’s your take on save-scumming, Lae’zel?

I support save-scumming in single-player and co-op games, and in my own playthrough of Baldur’s Gate 3, I did it. So not only do I not care if you do it, I think it’s weird if you care that I do it!

In a single-player game, save-scumming doesn’t impact anyone except the person playing the game. If I choose to re-load an earlier save and try again, that’s nobody’s business but mine. You can shout at me till you’re blue in the face that it “goes against the spirit of Dungeons and Dragons!” and maybe you’re right about that. But I couldn’t give less of a shit if I tried.

A party of save-scummers.

And you know what? Practically everyone criticising save-scumming in Baldur’s Gate 3 is a hypocrite. Are you telling me you’ve never loaded a save game after dying? Not even in titles like Dark Souls or Elden Ring? If you choose to start a new game from the beginning every single time you die in a game or get a bad outcome… well, good for you, I guess. That’s certainly one way to play. But practically everyone loads their most recent save after dying against a hard boss or accidentally choosing the wrong dialogue option. That’s why games let you save your progress!

Baldur’s Gate 3 is an especially odd case for the anti-save-scumming crowd to pick on because I’d argue very strongly that the game goes out of its way to encourage the practice. How many other games can you think of that let you freely save during cut-scenes, dialogue, lockpicking, or even in the middle of a combat encounter? Baldur’s Gate 3 does – it even lets you create a save file right on the dice roll screen. Why would the developers do that if not because they know that many players want to play that way?

You can literally save on this screen for quick and easy re-loading.

A game as long as Baldur’s Gate 3 isn’t one you can just pick up and play every day. It takes hours upon hours to progress through a single campaign – my own playthrough took more than 85 hours from beginning to end. And it’s a wonderful experience packed with unique encounters, well-written characters, and so much more. If my favourite companion is killed, or if I miss an important dice roll that means I can’t start a particular quest or get a valuable piece of loot… why should I have to progress through the rest of the game having a worse and less enjoyable experience? Why would I intentionally make the game less fun for myself just to preserve the nonexistent “integrity” of the digital dice? It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me!

That being said, if you’re adamantly opposed to ever save-scumming, or if you’re playing with friends who don’t approve… well, you do you, friend. It’s none of my business how you choose to play a single-player or co-op multiplayer game that I have absolutely no role in, so I would never say to anyone that they “have to” engage in save-scumming. Part of me respects someone who intentionally plays the game that way, knowing that they may well end up with a worse outcome and less-enjoyable experience.

Cheers!

At the end of the day, we’re talking about playing games for different reasons and from different points of view. I play games because I like the enjoyment, the story, and the adventure. I like to feel in control of the experience I’m having, and part of that means going back a step if I didn’t get the outcome I was hoping for. But if someone else plays games for the challenge, or enjoys the randomness and unpredictability that dice rolls bring, that’s totally fine! Just because it’s not how I choose to play doesn’t mean it’s bad, weird, stupid, or “objectively” worse.

Gaming is supposed to be fun, and there are different ways to approach it. My idea of fun may not be the same as yours – and I’m okay with that. I’ll defend save-scumming because, for me, it’s something that improves my experience of games like Baldur’s Gate 3. I think it’s silly to judge the way someone else chooses to play a single-player or co-op title, and there’s certainly a degree of snobbishness or even arrogance from some critics of save-scumming as they seem to look down their noses at people who play the game “the wrong way.” That’s a bit sad, to be honest, because how I choose to enjoy Baldur’s Gate 3 has no impact whatsoever on anyone else.

So save-scum all the way to Faerûn and back, friends! Or don’t, if you don’t want to. But if you only have time for one playthrough and you miss out on an interesting character, an exciting questline, or even just a fun piece of loot… I hope it’s worth it!

Baldur’s Gate 3 is out now for PC and PlayStation 5, and will be released on Xbox Series consoles in 2024. Baldur’s Gate 3 is the copyright of Larian Studios, and is based on Dungeons and Dragons which is owned by Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro. Some screenshots and promo art used above courtesy of Larian Studios and/or IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Baldur’s Gate 3: Spoiler-free review

Here’s an unanswerable question to kick things off: does a critic or reviewer need to play through the entire game before publishing their review? The reason I ask is that Baldur’s Gate 3 is a massive game, and a lot of reviews that were published on release day or shortly after state up-front that they’re based on an incomplete experience.

That could be the topic of an entire article one day – and perhaps it should be! But for now, suffice to say that the reason my review is being published a month after Baldur’s Gate 3 launched on PC is because I took the time to complete the main campaign. As a result, I have a few things to say that I feel some early reviews glossed over or didn’t make mention of. The middle and latter parts of the game are a little different – and in some ways may feel slightly less polished than its opening act.

Promo screenshot of Baldur’s Gate 3.

But let’s take a step back! I recently completed a single playthrough of Baldur’s Gate 3 – and there’s a case to be made that even a playthrough that lasted more than 85 hours and took in as much exploration and as many side-quests as possible still isn’t thorough. I definitely haven’t seen or experienced everything the game has to offer! That’s a great thing, in my opinion, as any game that offers that kind of replayability is fantastic.

As things stand right now, in early September, Baldur’s Gate 3 is the best game I’ve played this year – and there’s no competition. This game hadn’t even been on my radar until a few weeks ago, so from my perspective it basically came out of nowhere! As someone who’s been playing games for well over three decades, getting that kind of experience is an increasingly rare phenomenon. I’m in love with Baldur’s Gate 3, and even at its most frustrating or difficult moments, I found myself inexorably drawn to the game. Finishing the story and seeing the credits roll was bittersweet! Coming to the end of such an amazing adventure left me feeling simultaneously thrilled at what I’d experienced and devastated that I couldn’t experience more of it!

A trio of adventurers in silly hats!

In the ’90s, I missed out on the original Baldur’s Gate games. I wasn’t into Dungeons and Dragons, and I felt that turn-based CRPGs were less exciting and less fun than “Doom clones” (as we used to call first-person shooters), action-adventures, and even real-time strategy games like Command and Conquer or Age of Empires. So while I was dimly aware of Baldur’s Gate and its sequel, they were never titles that I felt any interest in trying for myself at the time.

I came to Baldur’s Gate 3 with basically no expectations. Sure, there had been some good reviews, and developer Larian Studios had received praise for Divinity: Original Sin and its sequel, but I really didn’t know what I was getting into. I don’t know the first thing about Dungeons and Dragons or its lore, and having never played the original Baldur’s Gate I was completely unfamiliar with the world I was about to experience.

The original Baldur’s Gate looked like this…

Baldur’s Gate 3 catapulted me right into the story! The game’s introduction was dense and heavy, with a huge array of options in the character creator and an explosive opening chapter to the story to contend with. For someone brand-new to this world, it was a lot to take in all at once. I felt overwhelmed more than once in those first moments – and that feeling came back multiple times during the first few hours. Baldur’s Gate 3 didn’t hold my hand – and while it may feel much more accessible than CRPGs did in the ’90s, players coming to the game having played modern action/RPGs like Cyberpunk 2077 or Skyrim might find the sheer density and wall of content to be offputting.

That’s not to say that Baldur’s Gate 3 is “too hard,” not by any means. Some combat encounters are challenging, and at higher difficulty levels you’re in for a tough fight! But figuring out how to effectively use the right combination of spells and weapons, as well as how to solve puzzles and complete quests was, for me at least, all part of the fun. There were some frustrating moments where I felt I’d come up against an impossible challenge – but I soon found that I could usually figure out where I was going wrong and, at the second or perhaps third time of asking, make progress.

A combat encounter.

Baldur’s Gate 3 has been praised for its polish – and rightly so, for the most part. But I would be remiss not to mention that I encountered a few bugs and glitches during my playthrough, as well as some dodgy enemy and ally AI that could be frustrating. Although most of these were occasional or one-off issues, here are the ones that spring to mind:

  • Being able to pick up “null items” that didn’t exist,
  • Enemies repeatedly trying to open locked doors over and over,
  • Subtitles not showing during dialogue,
  • Characters getting stuck or being unable to navigate an open doorway,
  • Parts of a character’s skin/costume going missing,
  • Enemies and allies both charging head-first into fire or other environmental hazards,
  • Characters seeming to “freeze” and take no actions in combat when it was their turn,
  • The camera pointing in the wrong direction (or at nothing at all) during cut-scenes,
  • A quest marker that pointed to the wrong place on the map,
  • A mission-critical character in the latter part of the game who was randomly dead during a quest.

While I didn’t encounter any hard crashes – not a single one in over eighty-five hours of playing – nor any bugged or broken quests, I’m treating Baldur’s Gate 3 a bit more harshly on the bug front than I otherwise would, and that’s for one primary reason: this is a game that spent more than three years in early access. There was ample time to polish the experience and to take on board feedback from players. Some of these bugs occurred during the first part of the game, which is the part that was available to play during early access, so I really don’t give Larian a lot of leeway here when it comes to bugs.

Are bugs inevitable in games? Sure. Is Baldur’s Gate 3 one of the least-buggy titles so far this year? Absolutely… but that’s a low bar. Given how long the game has been in development, and especially given how long it spent in early access, the fact that basic things like subtitles or character models could be problematic isn’t great. While there are some mitigating circumstances – such as the game’s launch being pushed forward by over a month – I still think more could have been done to mitigate these issues.

This isn’t an item you’re supposed to be able to collect!

While we’re on this subject, let’s talk a little more about AI. Some of the characters in the game – and I’m including allies, companions, enemies, and occasionally the player character in this – could behave absolutely stupidly on occasion. Pathfinding when in turn-based mode could be particularly poor, and this is significant because character movement is strictly limited in combat and turn-based mode. Taking an unnecessarily long or winding route to a spot on the map or an objective can be the difference between being able to do something that turn or having to wait. Perhaps some of this could be explained by “user error” – but not all of it!

Then there were occasions where characters would damage their own allies, either by firing a weapon or casting a spell that impacted everyone around them. If I, as the player, chose to do something like that because I weighed that the benefits outweighed the cost, that’s my decision. But for the AI to make a move that crippled or killed some of its own characters… it just didn’t make a lot of sense to me, not when there were clearly other options available.

Promo screenshot featuring a combat encounter.

There were also a few let-downs when it came to the choices I made, and this is something that I definitely felt more of as the game progressed. Despite an impressive character creator offering backgrounds, races, classes, and more… I didn’t really feel that much beyond the class actually mattered. The way other characters in the world reacted to my character generally didn’t take my character’s race or background into account, and class primarily affected combat and stealth encounters. Considering the game’s lofty promises… only seeing a few lines of unique dialogue across eighty-five hours wasn’t as impressive as it could’ve been.

I chose to play as a dark elf/drow druid. And there were a few places where, as a druid, I got a line or two about nature… but the conversation would immediately return to other matters. As a drow, I didn’t feel that the way anyone in the world reacted to me was any different or would have been any different if I’d chosen to play as a human or a halfling. More could have been made of this, in my opinion, to really make these custom characters feel unique and part of the world.

I chose to play as a drow druid.

The same was true of character relationships. Without giving too much away, none of them felt particularly reactive – either to the character I chose to play as or to my actions. Occasionally a pop-up would display informing me that so-and-so “approved” or “disapproved” of a certain action or dialogue choice. But at no point did any of this approval or disapproval matter. You might get a different line of dialogue when next interacting with them, but after that they’d again go right back to the way they were.

We’ll have to get into more detail about some of these decisions later – I’ll be writing a second part of this review in the days ahead in which I’ll talk more about specific character moments and story beats and get into spoiler territory. But for now, I think I’ve made my point about the lack of reaction from some of the characters and the overall generic feel to the player-created custom character. Maybe choosing to play as one of the pre-made characters would negate this feeling, but for me – and I’d wager, for a lot of other folks too – part of the fun of a role-playing game is creating a character, either to represent ourselves or as an opportunity to become someone completely different.

An example of a custom character.

But I don’t want you to get the wrong idea. Baldur’s Gate 3 is a truly compelling game that sucked me in and kept me in suspense practically the entire time. No sooner had I finished one complex mission than another would present itself, and the incredible thing was just how natural and organic the whole adventure and story felt. Exploring an area away from where the main quest seemed to be leading would see me encounter an interesting character who would have an entire hour-long mission of their own to send me on. Or diving into a dungeon would lead to uncovering a secret item that would have a massive impact on one of the characters in the group, again kicking off a quest or even a whole line of quests. Baldur’s Gate 3 certainly found a way to make exploring its beautifully-crafted world feel rewarding.

Levels and regions in Baldur’s Gate 3 feel balanced – not too big and not too small. There are just the right amount of items and loot to make exploring feel worthwhile without being unnecessarily time-consuming. And there’s a beautiful diversity of environments – from dark, rat-infested dungeons to beautiful beaches and hills. Unlike some open-world games, which can feel too big, directionless, or bland, everything about the world of Baldur’s Gate 3 was fantastic; a masterclass in level design.

The map screen.

How many games have you played where enemy types would soon feel repetitive and boring? I can practically guarantee you that won’t be the case in Baldur’s Gate 3! The sheer diversity of enemy types was fantastic, with practically every combat encounter offering something different. There are many named enemies and mini-bosses to go along with the bigger, badder bosses, too – and again, each of these feels unique and different from one another. There are factions that oppose you along your quest – but even when fighting the same group, the sheer array of characters, and the differing combinations in which enemy groups can be deployed, really worked to make each fight feel different from the last.

This diversity extends to friendly and neutral NPCs, too. There are so many different characters to meet, and practically all of them feel like they have a place in the fantasy world of Faerûn. Even background characters, like nameless villagers or soldiers, still manage to feel like they have a role to play – and perhaps a story all their own that we just didn’t see. These characters go a long way to building up a world that feels lived-in and real – and one in which the player character’s decisions do genuinely matter.

One of the game’s many non-player characters.

There’s also a decent amount of variety in terms of loot and items. Maybe this says more about the way I play these games – your mileage may vary – but I found I’d amassed a huge collection of everything from random junk to potions and scrolls by the time the campaign was into its final stretch. The ability to send items to camp instantaneously instead of having to sell them or leave them behind when over-encumbered is a life-saver – and a feature more games should take advantage of!

There are a couple of downsides here, though. Inventory management isn’t great, and when storing items in a chest at camp there’s no way to sort by category, meaning it can be a pain to find a specific item. Secondly, while there’s a huge number of individual items to find in the game, there wasn’t such a broad variety of cosmetic items to choose from, particularly in the armour department. Being able to recolour items with dye certainly helped, but a bit more cosmetic variety wouldn’t go amiss in a game like this – and I’d happily sacrifice a dozen or more of the random pieces of junk to get even one or two additional pairs of boots or suits of armour.

Inventory management could be easier sometimes.

I chose to play Baldur’s Gate 3 using a control pad, not mouse and keyboard. That’s my preferred way to play, and I found the game’s “radial menus” to be a little cumbersome, but ultimately perfectly usable. The fact that combat is turn-based means you aren’t having to panic trying to hit buttons in short order, and there’s time to open each menu and find exactly the right spell, attack, or action that you need!

When the game launches on PlayStation 5 later this week, I would imagine the controls will be similar. Controller support on PC was good, and everything from moving and exploring the world to those turn-based actions worked well. I doubt PlayStation players, or PC players like myself using a control pad, will have any major issues.

An early-game vista.

Let’s briefly talk about dice and randomness! Many events in Baldur’s Gate 3, from conversations to lockpicking and exploration to combat, rely on rolls of the digital dice. Some of these rolls are obvious and interactive – others are passive and happen in the background, though you’ll be informed of the outcome. A lot of games use “random number generation” to determine the outcome of all manner of things, but it’s obvious and even in-your-face in Baldur’s Gate 3. You can, of course “save-scum” to get around this – Baldur’s Gate 3 practically encourages save-scumming by implementing a free save system that allows you to save while in combat, right before a dice roll, and basically at any point.

Save-scumming will have to be the subject of an article of its own one day, but suffice to say I support the practice. It’s your game, and you should play it the way you want! If you get a once-in-a-single-playthrough encounter, with a positive or negative outcome literally hanging on the roll of a dice… why not go back and redo it if you want to get the “right” outcome? There were relatively few points where I felt I absolutely needed to get a specific outcome, and the game is incredibly adaptable in that regard. But it also definitely allows for easy re-dos thanks to the aforementioned free save system – and some generous in-game dice modifiers and boosters!

Get used to rolling dice!

I picked up Baldur’s Gate 3 almost on a whim – I was looking for something to play while waiting for Starfield. I really didn’t know what to expect beyond a game that had been picking up some positive buzz, but I’m absolutely blown away by how much fun I had. It’s been an amazing ride, and in a way the fact that it was so unexpected only adds to that! Baldur’s Gate 3 hadn’t been on my radar at all in 2023, but it’s now a serious candidate for my “game of the year.” Check back in December, by the way, to see if it makes the cut!

I think I’ve said all I can without getting into the story too deeply. But I do have some thoughts on the details of the plot, so I hope you’ll join me in the days ahead for that. Or just swing by after you’ve beaten the game! Going in blind, as I did, is definitely recommended the first time around! The experience was much more enjoyable for me as I toddled and blundered my way through those opening hours of the game!

I don’t like to put a number score or a star rating on games when I review them. Check Metacritic if you want to get a mark out of ten! But if you want to know if I recommend Baldur’s Gate 3, the answer is an emphatic “yes.” This is the best game I’ve played in 2023 so far, and it’s not even close. There are some deep and complex systems that may seem offputting, and it’s a long game that requires a significant time commitment to make it all the way through. But even with those caveats – or rather, because of those selling-points – I can’t recommend it highly enough! You don’t need to be a Dungeons and Dragons player and you don’t need to have played a lot of CRPGs to get stuck into this game and have a fun time.

Baldur’s Gate 3 is out now for PC, will be released on PlayStation 5 on the 6th of September, and will be released on Xbox Series consoles in 2024. Baldur’s Gate 3 is the copyright of Larian Studios, and is based on Dungeons and Dragons which is owned by Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro. Some screenshots and promo art used above courtesy of Larian Studios and/or IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

No one’s “entitled” to pre-release review access. Right?

It probably won’t shock you to learn that I wasn’t given a pre-release review copy of Starfield by Bethesda. Unlike some of the bigger Star Trek fan sites, I’ve also never been given pre-broadcast access to any episode or film by Paramount Global. I wonder why? But just because I like to style myself as “an independent media critic,” I have no entitlement to that access. Would it be nice? Sure! I’d appreciate it, I’d do my best to make good use of it, and I’d try to create a review or preview that my audience would find informative and useful. But I have no expectation of access – I’m one person running a tiny website on a small corner of the internet (and I don’t always review things in a timely manner), so who am I to demand access to any game, film, or television show?

Some outlets, however, seem to have an air of entitlement to pre-release access. When that presumed access is not granted, and review copies aren’t sent out, they proceed to get upset and write rather passive-aggressive articles and social media posts.

Some reviewers whine and sulk when they don’t get what they feel entitled to.

If you’ve been following the latest updates about Starfield, you’ll know which publication I’m referring to – but this article isn’t really about one game or one publication. The discussion around Eurogamer, Bethesda, and Starfield is just an opportunity to look at this interesting topic – and the answer isn’t as black-or-white as some folks seem to think.

To get this out of the way up-front: I used to know one of the editors at Eurogamer. We haven’t spoken in over a decade now, but we were on friendly terms once upon a time. It shouldn’t be relevant to the discussion, but because Eurogamer’s rather sour and sulky article prompted this piece, I thought it was important to let you know that I once had that friendship.

An excerpt from Eurogamer’s piece that prompted this article.

Onwards, then, to the minefield that is early access for critics and reviewers!

On the one hand, it’s entirely within a company’s purview to decide which publications are granted early access. Early access is not a right, it’s a privilege that a company chooses to bestow – and they can choose whether to share their content with massive publications like the New York Times, small-time YouTube channels with a few hundred followers, or anyone in between. They’re even welcome to send a review copy to Trekking with Dennis!

If a company doesn’t feel a publication’s review is worth their time, that’s up to them. They don’t have to share their content, whether we’re talking about films, games or television shows. And some publications, having gotten used to privileged access that the rest of us plebs don’t get, seem to have developed an attitude of entitlement. What makes a Eurogamer review “better” or more useful than a review published elsewhere? Absolutely fucking nothing. As the internet and social media have democratised media criticism, the importance of big publications – be they legacy media like newspapers or websites like Eurogamer that were once considered upstarts – is decreasing by the hour.

Remember when websites like Eurogamer were the young upstarts, challenging the “media establishment?”

But that’s obviously not all there is to say.

While a company isn’t obligated, either legally or ethically speaking, to provide pre-release access to critics, journalists, and publications… why wouldn’t they? If a company has confidence in its product, surely they’d want to ensure it received as many positive reviews as possible across as broad an array of publications as possible; doing so should mean that as many consumers as possible would see the positive buzz. Trying to conceal any product from reviewers is a bad look, and doing so makes it feel like the company lacks confidence in their game, film, or series.

Trying to prevent critics and reviewers from accessing a piece of media prior to release has been a fairly common scheme across the world of entertainment, and it’s usually meant only one thing: the work in question is not going to be held in high esteem. If a company feels that its product is going to receive negative reviews, ensuring as few people as possible see that feedback before making a purchase decision has a kind of unethical logic to it. In cases such as these, denying any kind of pre-release access is a way for companies to shield their product from criticism long enough to inflate sales numbers or viewing figures. It’s shady, it’s immoral, and it shouldn’t happen… but it happens all the time.

Corporations are going to look after their interests… by whatever means necessary.

To be honest, I don’t mind one bit when I see a smug publication or critic knocked down a rung or two by being denied pre-release access. As I said, there are some publications, websites, and social media “influencers” who have become arrogant, assuming that their relatively small audience means they’re entitled to receive things early, and that their review should be the gold standard. In a bloody-minded sort of way, it’s satisfying to see someone’s ego punctured as they realise they’re not entitled to any kind of special treatment.

But that’s a raw emotional response to the situation – one that I guess all of us should try to rise above! I haven’t, as you can tell, but maybe you can do better than me in that regard! Trying to reframe things and think less emotionally and more rationally, though, leads us back to the same conclusion: trying to shield a product from criticism, regardless of who the critic may be and whether or not they “deserve” to be taken down a peg, feels shady and even unethical. When a company knowingly and wilfully makes that decision, they’re making the assumption that the potential bad PR from shunning a publication or critic is worth the hit – presumably because they’ve pre-judged that their product will be torn to shreds in any review.

Denying pre-release review access can be a way for a corporation/publisher to shield a broken game from criticism until it’s too late.
Pictured: Star Wars Jedi: Survivor (2023)

This is one of those cases where it feels like corporations are skirting the spirit of the rules and getting away with it on a technicality. Yes, technically no games publisher, broadcaster, or film studio is obligated to submit their work to critics and reviewers prior to release. There’s no legal requirement and no way to force them to comply. And in an age of democratised criticism online and on social media, there’s an unanswerable question about where the “cut-off point” should be. Who counts as a “critic” when any old idiot can set up a website or a social media account devoted to talking about media? If companies were obligated to send out pre-release copies to everyone in that category… well, there’d be no one left!

But at the same time, deliberately denying access to certain critics and reviewers feels wrong, and hand-picking who is “allowed” to review something and who isn’t… that raises some pretty big ethical questions. Any company that has confidence in its product should be willing to subject it to review, and to ensure that reviews are available prior to release. The only way to make that happen is to provide critics with access and give them enough time to work.

Reviewers and critics need time to work.

In the case of video games, and especially large open-world video games, this realistically means that critics and reviewers need access several weeks ahead of time. A critic can watch a film in a couple of hours and make enough notes from two or three viewings to piece something together – but a video game can take a hundred hours or more just to play through once. If critics are to have any chance of publishing a review before launch day, that early access is essential.

There are too many instances of “big” publications in the video games realm working closely with publishers. And in recent years I’ve found that reviews from smaller outlets and individuals – as well as the general consensus from review aggregators like Metacritic – are far more valuable than anything churned out by a big publication. The relationships these publications develop with certain companies and publishers renders too many reviews impotent and unhelpful.

Metacritic’s page for Gran Turismo 7.

So this is a huge topic, one that we’ve really only scratched the surface of today. And while I absolutely come down on the side that says “companies need to provide more pre-release review access,” I won’t lie: there’s a part of me that loves to see big publications and arrogant, cocky “influencers” taken down a peg. No single publication or reviewer is that important, at the end of the day!

But as someone who dips their toes in the world of online media criticism, I think it’s important to talk about these issues as openly and honestly as possible. I’d rather see a hundred reviews and decide for myself which ones are worth my time instead of seeing ten curated reviews that a company or publisher hand-picked. If pre-release review access is only given to selected publications and critics, it raises a very important question: why were they chosen ahead of everyone else? What did the company hope to gain by choosing those critics and ignoring others? The answer, I fear, is simple: positive, glowing reviews.

This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Review-bomb Starfield by all means… but only if it deserves it!

The console wars have taken yet another toxic turn in recent weeks, after the Starfield showcase started getting fans hyped up. Xbox and PC players are eagerly awaiting Starfield’s launch… but not everyone is happy about that. A handful of loud PlayStation fanatics have promised to review-bomb the game regardless of how good it may turn out to be, as they appear to feel a mix of helpless frustration at not being able to play Starfield and pent-up anger for which the internet, Twitter, and the world of video games are the easiest available outlet.

I’m on record as defending review-bombing – at least in some cases. If a game is bad, broken, buggy, or overly-monetised, it deserves to be called out and criticised, and review-bombing on platforms like Steam and Metacritic are valid ways for players to register their disapproval. Review-bombing doesn’t need to stop at the mechanical level, either. If players hate a game’s narrative choices, feel that the company behind it has misbehaved or mis-sold the game, detest that developers were put under too much pressure and “crunched,” or even want to register their disgust at corporations like Ubisoft and Activision – both of which have been embroiled in scandals involving toxic behaviour and abuse – then review-bombing is again an acceptable outlet.

I think we can all agree that Diablo Immortal deserved its user score…

There may be some PlayStation fans who want to register their disapproval at Starfield being unavailable on their platform of choice, and this is something that feels like a fair or at least understandable point of criticism. Although I would caveat that statement by saying that I pointed out that this would happen as soon as Microsoft’s acquisition of Bethesda was announced – and before many people had been able to get their hands on a current-gen PlayStation 5 or Xbox Series console!

Although console exclusivity has been a part of the gaming landscape for as long as there has been a gaming landscape, it’s never exactly fun to feel like you’ve been locked out of what seems to be a great experience that other players are having. In the Morrowind days, circa 2002-03, I had a friend who’d regularly come over on the weekends or after work to play the game, because he had a PS2 and I had an Xbox. Yes, even in those days, Bethesda and Microsoft had an exclusivity arrangement!

I had a friend in the Morrowind days who’d spend hours at my place playing the game on my Xbox console!

As excited as I am to play Starfield, I’m not just going to blindly declare it to be “game of the year” before I’ve had a look at it for myself! In fact, if you check out some of my other pieces about Starfield here on the website, you’ll note that I’ve said time and again that I consider the game to be firmly in the “wait for the reviews” column thanks to Bethesda’s reputation, the poor launch of games like Fallout 76 and Redfall, and the overall unfinished state of too many games in 2023. So while I’m happy to defend Starfield in cases such as this, I’m also going to share my honest opinions on the game when it launches – and if it’s full of microtransactions or bugs, I’ll be scathing about that in my first impressions and review of the game.

But on the flip side, I don’t see why someone would be so anti-Starfield – a game that won’t even be released for another couple of weeks – that they’re already planning their review-bombing campaign. If the game is broken and unplayable, excessively-monetised, or just unenjoyable to play, then by all means – go for it. Leave a bad review, encourage others to join in, and chances are if you swing by Trekking with Dennis you’ll see the game get a bad write-up from me as well. But why pre-judge Starfield before it’s even out? Is PlayStation that important? Do some people actually take the console wars seriously?

Have some folks tied their entire identities to this piece of shiny white plastic?

Humans are, by nature, a tribal lot. You see it in sport, in politics, in regionalism and nationalism… so I guess it shouldn’t be a huge shock that gaming, too, has come with its own dividing lines. But it just feels so petty, so stupid, and so small to be tying one’s identity so strongly to a gaming brand that attacking a game on another platform for no good reason is in any way part of the conversation. Thankfully we’re dealing with a small number of people, but even so. It would be better if no one thought or behaved this way!

Growing up in the UK in the ’80s and ’90s, I saw a lot of football hooliganism. English teams were even banned from European competition for several years, in part due to hooliganism, and it was something that I just didn’t understand. I was a football fan as a kid, sure, but the idea of getting into a fight or even just disliking someone else simply because of a sports team that they support… I couldn’t wrap my head around it. And when it comes to today’s console war, I see echoes of that kind of tribalism all over again.

Hooliganism at football matches was common when I was younger.
Pictured: A fire caused by hooligans at Odsal Stadium, September 1986.

I’m not naïve enough to believe that I’ll change anyone’s mind by writing this piece. The handful of aggressive PlayStation fanatics who plan to review-bomb the game are unlikely to be dissuaded in that endeavour by a plea to their better nature nor an appeal to their common sense. Those ships, I fear, have long since sailed. But I want to register my disappointment – and above all my disbelief that this kind of toxic behaviour and militant console wars fanaticism still persists in 2023.

While there are Xbox, Nintendo, PC, and mobile players who are, I’m sure, just as angry and as aggressive when attacking other platforms, I want to draw a comparison. PlayStation has done phenomenally well in recent years with exclusive titles. Ghost of Tsushima, The Last Of Us, God of War, and Horizon Forbidden West all spring to mind, and PlayStation fans are about to receive another highly-rated game that won’t be available on Xbox for a while: Baldur’s Gate 3.

Baldur’s Gate 3 will be released on PlayStation 5 the same week as Starfield is on Xbox and PC.

I have thoroughly enjoyed my time with Baldur’s Gate 3 thus far, and I highly recommend the game to all PlayStation players when it arrives in a couple of weeks’ time. Stay tuned for a review, by the way! But here’s something for PlayStation fans to chew on as they make their sockpuppet accounts and prepare to review-bomb Starfield: there’s no comparable campaign from Xbox fans to target Baldur’s Gate 3. There were no review-bombing campaigns from crying Xbox fans targeting any of the PlayStation exclusives we were just discussing… and while there may have been a few wayward negative reviews or social media comments, by and large this isn’t something that Xbox or PC players have done to PlayStation games.

Although I don’t own a PlayStation 5, it makes me happy to see great games on that platform. Part of me hopes that the likes of Ghost of Tsushima will make it to PC one day, and I’d even consider buying a PS5 if the right game came along and I had the financial means. But above all, good games are good for gaming, no matter what platform they launch on. As someone who supports gaming as a hobby, and who believes that games can be just as good – better, in some cases – than films or television shows, I support good games wherever they appear. Yes, even mobile games!

Good games are good for all players – they raise standards across the industry, push boundaries, and innovate.

In a perfect world, all games would be available on all platforms. And I get that it must hurt to see a popular game that looks great and is getting people hyped up… and know you won’t be able to play it. I’ve been there – we all have. But some PlayStation fans – a small minority, thankfully – seem to have developed an attitude of entitlement born of being spoiled in recent years. There have been relatively few Xbox exclusives for a full decade now, going back to the launch of the Xbox One in 2013 – and even fewer that were any good! PlayStation players, in contrast, have enjoyed a number of fantastic exclusive titles… and that has unfortunately led a handful of fans to begin acting like spoiled toddlers when they see anyone else having a good time or being the centre of attention.

If Starfield sucks, or if it’s a microtransaction hell-hole, I’ll be saying so in my review. But if it’s great, good, or even if it’s just okay… why bother picking on it and singling it out for a review-bombing campaign? I just don’t see the point, the attraction, or what anyone would gain by doing so.

It’s my hope that platforms like Metacritic will be aware of what’s going on, and will step in, if necessary, to hide or even delete reviews that are clearly not about Starfield itself. Such things have happened in the past, so the review-bombers could find that this whole thing is a massive waste of time in the end! Perhaps that would be the least bad outcome.

Starfield will be released on the 6th of September 2023 for PC and Xbox Series S/X consoles. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. Some promo images and screenshots used above courtesy of Bethesda. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Thoughts on the Linus Tech Tips/LMG situation

I don’t usually “do drama,” especially not when that drama involves YouTubers and “influencers,” but the monumental shitstorm engulfing Linus Tech Tips has been all over my social media feeds this week and I feel compelled to add my two cents.

If you’ve missed the news somehow, popular tech-entertainment channel Linus Tech Tips – and its parent company, Linus Media Group – has been embroiled in controversy. What started with a video from another tech review channel, Gamers Nexus, has ballooned into accusations of ethical issues with LMG’s reviews, conflicts of interest, mistreatment of a small company and their prototype product, and even reports from at least one former employee of a work environment so toxic that she resulted to self-harm before being forced out.

You may have seen this video among your YouTube recommendations this week.
Image: Gamers Nexus

For some background, I’ve been a long-time viewer of Linus Tech Tips. I’ve been a nerd since, well, forever, and when I first started really getting into YouTube, visiting the platform more regularly and doing more than just looking up occasional how-to videos, Linus Tech Tips was one of the first channels that I subscribed to and would regularly tune in to watch. The hosts – Linus included – usually do a good job at making tech and computing topics accessible to the layperson, and while some of the humour isn’t my cup of tea and veers into being cringeworthy for its own sake, more often than not I’d find myself cracking a smile.

When I decided I was going to build my own PC for the first time, Linus Tech Tips was one of the main resources I consulted. I purchased at least one component for my PC – a CPU cooler, which we’ll discuss in more detail in a moment – entirely because it was highly recommended by Linus. I felt the channel and its hosts were trustworthy – and as someone who doesn’t have a ton of knowledge about tech, components, and the like, I don’t really have the ability of an organisation like Gamers Nexus when it comes to fact-checking the content that Linus Media Group has been putting out.

The Noctua NH-D15 as seen in a recent LTT video.

We’ve talked before about ethics among reviewers, and I’ve made clear that I don’t believe there can ever be such a thing as a “paid review.” There are reviews, in which a reviewer shares their thoughts and opinions on a product as best they can, and there are advertisements. Anything paid for is an ad, regardless of the terminology used, and Linus Media Group has, in the past, come close to skirting that line in my opinion. Taking paid sponsorships or selling ad space in a video is one thing, but dedicating an entire video to selling (sorry, “showcasing”) a product on a channel that also does supposedly-independent reviews… that kind of thing has felt uncomfortable for a long time, and is certainly absolutely useless from a consumer standpoint.

But at least those videos are flagged up as such, and even if I just skimmed a title or clicked without really paying attention, it’s usually obvious within a minute or two that a product “showcase” is, in fact, little more than an overly-long advertisement.

What’s been surprising to learn, at least for me, over the past week or so, is the extent to which LMG has become tied up with multiple big tech companies – companies whose products they subsequently review, and whose competitors products they also review.

An example of one of LTT’s sponsored “showcase” videos.

There is, as others have pointed out, a clear conflict of interest here. If Linus Tech Tips didn’t pretend to offer “reviews,” but rather stuck to product showcases, entertainment videos, and the kind of general mucking about that viewers have come to expect… I guess that would be okay. The deals between LMG and big companies like Intel and Noctua should still be stated up-front and not hidden, but at least there’d be less of an ethical minefield.

But Linus and co. seem to want to have it all.

In a small way, this has actually affected me. The PC cooler I mentioned, the one recommended so highly by Linus on his various channels, is manufactured by Noctua – a company that LMG has a financial relationship with. Now, I will state up-front that I’m not disappointed by the cooler’s performance in the PC that I built, but it’s made me stop to think. Would I have purchased that model, or even a model by that company, were it not for the strong recommendation from a tech influencer that I felt I could trust? And was Linus’ glowing praise for the Noctua cooler influenced in some way by his company’s financial ties to its manufacturer?

The Noctua cooler that I purchased was featured in a Linus Tech Tips video earlier this year.

To be clear (and because Linus himself has been quick to accuse critics of “libel” in the past) I’m not suggesting that Linus, LTT, or LMG deliberately misled me, nor that they fraudulently or dishonestly recommended me a product. I’m responsible for my own purchasing decisions, and it’s on me to seek out multiple reviews and do my own due diligence before making a financial commitment. But what I am saying is that, when there’s any semblance of a conflict of interest or any reason for a reviewer to look more kindly on a product… that’s a serious problem.

Here on my website, I mostly review films, games, television shows, and episodes of Star Trek. But if I were approached by, say, Paramount Global, and entered into a financial arrangement with that company, there’d be some degree of pressure – real, implied, or just purely imaginary – to keep that relationship going and to, for want of a better term, placate Paramount by glossing over the negatives and accentuating the positives in any future “review.” My reviews of Paramount’s films and TV shows would become suspect as a result – and even if I wasn’t making a conscious choice to look upon their content more positively, there’s a strong chance it would happen anyway.

“Shut up and take my money!” said multiple companies to Linus Media Group…

This is, for me, the crux of the Linus Tech Tips problem, and it’s one that LMG may find very difficult to overcome. Sure, the fact that some of their reviews were badly done or incompetently handled is a bad look – but that’s something that can be corrected, over time, with better quality control, enhanced video production procedures, and the like. And other tech channels, like Gamers Nexus, will be watching and will be ready to jump in and hold Linus’ feet to the fire if those kinds of mistakes and slip-ups happen again.

But the issue of trust is a much trickier and more nebulous one to resolve. Trust has been strained to breaking-point between Linus Tech Tips and many folks in its audience, and revelations of close partnerships and financial ties to big tech companies isn’t something that can be hand-waved away nor fixed in short order by internal changes at LMG. This is something that cuts to the very core of Linus Tech Tips’ content: can viewers trust what Linus and his co-hosts are saying about, well, anything?

Linus in a recent apology/explanation video.

No review is ever “entirely objective,” because that’s not how reviews work. There’s always a certain amount of one’s own thoughts, impressions, and biases present, even in reviews that promote stats and data above all else. So I don’t want to come across as asking for the impossible, because I know from my own experience that there simply isn’t such a thing as an “objective” review.

What makes a review valuable is the trust audiences have with the reviewer. I like to think that folks who come to Trekking with Dennis to read my film reviews or Star Trek episode reviews trust me to share my honest thoughts on what I’m seeing or playing, and trust that I have enough basic knowledge of the subject matter at hand to write something that’s at least worth their while. I also state in many of my pieces all over the website that I have no “insider information” or special access, and that I’m sharing my thoughts as openly as I can. That’s not to say I’m in any way free from bias, but I am independent. I don’t have financial ties to any of the companies whose films, games, or TV shows I review.

I like to think that my audience can trust my reviews of shows like Star Trek.

Linus Tech Tips can’t make that claim – and whether the hosts are “reviewing” a product from a company they work with or a product from one of that company’s competitors… there’s a very real danger of unconscious bias seeping into their content, making their reviews functionally worthless to consumers. If viewers are tuning in to watch Linus goof about, that’s fine and I guess no real harm was done. But for someone in the position I was in last year, looking for genuine product recommendations… there’s a pretty massive red flag being waved.

Linus Media Group can and should take on board the feedback provided by Gamers Nexus and their community. Slowing down their output, prioritising quality over quantity, and being willing to go back and edit videos or even re-film whole segments if mistakes were made are all pretty easy fixes; low-hanging fruit that should see significant improvements to the quality and accuracy of their videos going forward. For a company of LMG’s size and financial means, if making those kinds of commitments means either reducing their output or hiring additional staff, that won’t be an issue. The company is, quite remarkably for a YouTube outfit, worth tens of millions of dollars, in case you didn’t know.

Terren Tong, Chief Executive Officer at Linus Media Group.

But those changes are surface-level at best. The real issue of trust, and whether viewers can have faith in a review published by a company with such significant investments all over the tech space… that’s a whole different matter. And there’s no easy fix here – LMG has to decide what kind of company it wants to be and what kind of content it intends to create. If they’re going to stick to geeking out and mucking around, doing little more than playing with some of the fancy pieces of kit that they spend vast sums of money on, then I think they’ll be okay. But if they want to play at being reviewers and journalists, offering honest advice to consumers… the changes required to win back that kind of trust are much greater, and the will to make them simply may not be present.

How Linus Media Group responds to these criticisms in the days ahead will be telling, and I think it’s not unfair to say that Linus’ initial reaction to Gamers Nexus was poor – so catastrophically poor, in fact, that it fuelled the fire and made the situation noticeably worse. For me, this isn’t an issue of a simple inaccuracy, a mistake, waiting too long to correct a misstatement, or even that LMG is clearly running too hot and with the wrong priorities. My biggest takeaway from this whole sorry saga is that, at its core, LMG is too heavily involved with too many of the companies in the tech space whose products it purports to review. Whether intentional or not, those relationships are going to lead to bias, to conflicts of interest, and to making a review from LTT worthless.

An example of a graph produced for a Linus Tech Tips product review.

It goes without saying that a company should treat its employees with dignity and respect at a bare minimum, and I don’t want to ignore nor make light of the very serious accusations levelled at LMG by at least one former member of staff. Those accusations are, at time of writing, being looked into, and if they prove even close to true… LMG is going to be in for another huge wave of trouble to say the least. We’ve all had the misfortune of working for a toxic manager or boss at one time or another, and I extend my sympathies to the ex-employee in question.

Linus’ on-screen persona seems a million miles away from the accusations of sexism, ableism, and toxicity that have been levelled at managers within LMG… but if those accusations are borne out, quite frankly it could be a far worse situation for the company. Other famous YouTubers have been “cancelled” for comparably toxic behaviour, so no one, no matter how big of a fish they may be in their small pond, should consider themselves to be immune from consequences. These allegations from a former employee could prove far worse than anything Gamers Nexus presented and any of the trust issues I’ve been discussing above.

What comes next for Linus Tech Tips?

So that’s about all I have to say, really. This is a disappointing situation, but one that, if I’m being honest, I should’ve seen coming. There have been so many “showcases” and sponsored segments in LTT videos over the years that of course the company must have those deep relationships and financial entanglements. It’s on me that I didn’t really put two and two together until now.

Going forward, I’m not sure what I plan to do. Linus Tech Tips has given me a lot of enjoyment over the last few years, and even if there are conflicts of interest and financial arrangements that now make me question the usefulness of LTT’s reviews on a practical level, some of the channel’s other content – the videos focused more on entertainment and fun – may still be worth watching. However, I will be keeping my ear to the ground to see what comes of the investigation into the complaints raised by at least one ex-employee of LMG. If the accusations levied at LMG are even close to true, then I think I’ll be unsubscribing. There’s no place for such awful treatment of a fellow human being, no matter how “big” and untouchable you think you are.

This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Starfield: A Question of Scale

Spoiler Warning: Minor spoilers may be present for Starfield.

Today we’re continuing our look ahead to Starfield! Bethesda’s upcoming open-galaxy sci-fi role-playing game is my most-anticipated game right now… but that doesn’t mean I don’t have questions and concerns. We’ve taken a look at several already, but today I want to zero in on one very specific question that I have about Starfield: will the game truly be able to create the sense of scale that it’s clearly aiming for?

We can break down this question into a couple of big pieces. Firstly, we have the size of the game’s open galaxy – or rather, the amount of actual content relative to the size of the map. Will there be enough characters to interact with, enough settlements to visit, and enough of a world to get stuck into in a map that contains 1,000 explorable planets?

Is there a danger that Starfield might feel too… empty?

Secondly, we have the open nature of the game world itself. Although not strictly a true “open world” in the sense that Starfield’s “open galaxy” will be split up into star systems and planets, a hallmark of Bethesda titles going all the way back to the 1990s is that every square inch of the map is accessible and can be explored. In a game that takes place in a single province of a larger world, there’s still a sense of scale – that the world of Morrowind, Skyrim or Fallout exists beyond the confines of the game map. Starfield won’t have that – it can’t have it by design. That could be an issue, and it’s where my concern begins.

Take, for example, a game like Mass Effect 2 or Jedi: Fallen Order. Or in the open-world sphere, take a game like Red Dead Redemption II or The Witcher 3. All of these games manage to convey a sense of scale – of deep, persistent worlds that continue to exist beyond the confines of their playable maps, populated by, in some cases, literally trillions of individual people. One of the reasons that these games feel so much fun to play, and their stories so engaging, is precisely because as players, we know we’re only scratching the surface.

The story of Red Dead Redemption II feels like it takes place in one small corner of a vast world.

Even older Bethesda games managed to nail this feeling. Playing Morrowind, we knew that there was a whole continent beyond the confines of Vvardenfell, and in Fallout 4 it was clear that the Commonwealth was only one small patch of a much larger wasteland. These areas still felt lived-in, but part of the reason for that is because we knew that there were people and settlements beyond our reach, making the game world feel real.

By design, Starfield can’t have that. Opening up the entirety of the Settled Systems to players, including the capital cities of both major colonial factions, means that the idea of an expansive, populated world beyond the borders of the game’s map can’t exist. And that absolutely could be okay, but if Starfield’s open galaxy has a population comparable to that of a small town… I fear that an important part of the immersion will be lost before the game can even get going.

New Atlantis – the capital city of the United Colonies.

Every game has a limited number of non-player characters – it’s unavoidable. Even massive online games or expansive open-world titles have, at the very most, a few hundred or perhaps a thousand NPCs to engage with. But in most cases – and especially in games that succeed at creating that sense of expansiveness and immersion – there’s always the sensation that, despite the limited number of people available in the game, there are untold numbers of others just beyond the invisible wall dividing the game’s map from the rest of its world.

In Mass Effect 3, for example, it’s possible to walk across parts of the Citadel and really feel the scale of the massive space station. Sure, there are only a few dozen people to engage with, some of whom only have a single line of dialogue, but a combination of the game’s lore, art design, sound effects, narrative, and more all come together to make you feel that there’s so much more just out of sight.

The Silversun Strip on the Citadel in Mass Effect 3.

For me, the experience of playing a game that takes place in a small part of a much larger world is something I hadn’t really considered before Starfield. It was only when I began to truly consider the implications of an open-galaxy map with 1,000 planets to explore that I really zeroed in on one of the absolutely essential ways that so many games create that sense of immersion and scale.

And it’s not something exclusive to gaming by any means. Watch an episode or two of Star Trek, and you’ll soon get the sense that there’s far, far more going on in the galaxy beyond the adventures of a few officers aboard a single starship! Star Wars, too, has a densely-populated galaxy filled with alien races, criminal gangs, and so much more. As I’ve argued more than once, it seems positively criminal that Disney and Lucasfilm have insisted on revisiting the same handful of characters time and again when the setting is so vast and potentially interesting!

Cal Kestis in Jedi: Survivor.

As Starfield opens up its entire map to players, will there be enough content – and especially enough content relative to the size of the map – to really nail that sense of scale? If we can interact with everyone in the entirety of the Settled Systems… how long will it take before we realise that there isn’t anything more to this world? Enough to sustain a playthrough of the game, I hope… but is that enough?

Bethesda has recorded more dialogue for Starfield than it did for Skyrim and Fallout 4 combined. There could easily be well over 2,000 NPCs in the game, some of whom will have in-depth conversations with the player character. On the one hand, that’s a lot of chatter! But on the other, in a fully open map that supposedly depicts humanity’s expansion to colonies beyond the stars… 2,000 people seems like a minuscule number. It’s barely the population of a small town. When you add into the mix that these characters are going to be spread across four major settlements, space stations, spaceships, and perhaps small settlements and other locations too… I’m just worried that the sense of scale that a game like Starfield relies on will be lost.

Akila City in the Freestar Collective.

Despite its difficult launch and gameplay issues, Cyberpunk 2077 is a game that manages to really succeed at conveying a sense of scale. From almost the first moment, players are aware that they’re only one person in a vast world; a dense cityscape populated by thousands of people. Although it isn’t possible to travel far beyond the confines of the city, there’s still that sense that the world beyond Night City is vast – and that within the city itself, there are people going about their lives blissfully unaware of the protagonist’s story.

Sometimes, being “the chosen one” can also get in the way of this sense of scale. If the fate of the entire galaxy hinges on the player character and the actions they take, it’s much harder in a role-playing game to see oneself as just one character among many in a vast world. Bethesda does love its “chosen one” archetypes, though, so I wouldn’t be shocked to see it appear in Starfield in some form. If so, I hope it’s handled carefully – and perhaps buried deeply in the main quest, so players who don’t want to go down that road will have the opportunity to avoid it altogether!

Making the player character “the chosen one” (as in games like Morrowind) could add to the sense of Starfield being small in scale.

What makes a fictional world feel lived-in and real? I would argue very strongly that one very important factor is the notion that there’s more to that world than I as a player (or a reader, viewer, etc.) can see. No matter how large Starfield may be, no matter how expansive its map is, no matter how much of it I could take in in a single playthrough, and no matter whether the game has 2,000 or 10,000 NPCs to interact with, there’s a very real danger that it will feel limited, and dare I say even small. The idea that the story we’re taking part in is only one small part of the world of Starfield won’t exist, it can’t exist by design. The notion that there’s more, that Starfield is bigger than the available map and characters, cannot exist.

I hope that there will be so much to get stuck into that that sense won’t be overwhelming, and that Bethesda’s world-building will be better than ever to such an extent that I don’t notice. But part of the appeal of a game like Starfield is that I as a player am going to be whisked away to another world, a world in which I can get lost in the role-playing experience. Part of that, though I could never put it into words nor even really conceptualise it before thinking about Starfield, is because the worlds I’ve sought out feel bigger than the stories told in them. I’m not sure how Starfield can recreate that feeling based on what we know of the game – and there’s a genuine danger, I fear, that trying to pretend half the known galaxy is populated by a few thousand people is going to feel catastrophically unbalanced.

We’re pondering a big question about Starfield

I said a couple of weeks ago that, if the “United Colonies” turns out to be a mere two cities, and if the Freestar Collective is likewise a “collective” consisting of just a couple of settlements, something will feel amiss. And this is what I meant by that. The concept of an expansive world that exists beyond the confines of a single story or the playable area of a game’s map is something that, based on everything we know at this stage, Bethesda has deliberately chosen not to create. It almost feels like we’re heading into uncharted territory – the game will be large, sure, but can it possibly be large enough to overcome that deficit? Will the number of settlements, the number of characters, the number of factions, and the overall amount of content relative to the size of the game world feel so unbalanced and out of whack that it will detract from the experience? If so… will those things prove fatal to the Starfield experience?

Thus far, my biggest concerns about Starfield have been on the practical side. Will the game be released in a polished state? Will it be overburdened with microtransactions? Will Xbox and Bethesda consider a last-second delay if further bug fixes and tweaks are needed? But this question of scale… it’s probably my single biggest gameplay concern right now. And this isn’t just a fear of a repeat of Fallout 76′s “big empty world,” a game map that had no NPCs to interact with and precious little to do. It’s deeper than that – it cuts to the very sense of immersion and believability that should be present in Starfield’s galaxy.

The crew of the Frontier.

Games like Red Dead Redemption II, Cyberpunk 2077, or the Mass Effect trilogy succeed, in part, because they get me to believe that a bigger world exists beyond the confines of the game map. And in a more general sense, whether we’re talking about novels, films, television shows, or video games, getting an audience not only to believe that a world exists but to care about it and feel a sense of investment in it is a key part of the pathway to suspension of disbelief and to enjoyment. Starfield may well succeed at creating an interesting, engaging world that I care about and want to see more of – but if that world feels like it’s limited to only the characters and locales present in the game, part of the immersion could be lost.

Conversely, this is set to be the biggest world that Bethesda has ever created, populated by more NPCs than in any single-player game that the studio has ever built. So perhaps the idea here is that players will be so overwhelmed with content – be that quests, factions, points of interest, or characters to chat with – that the game world will feel full to the point of being overstuffed. That could go some way to negating the fact that, well, we’ll be able to explore the entirety of the settled systems, visit every colony, land on every settled planet, and meet every single human who exists at that moment in Starfield’s future.

I really hope it won’t be an issue. I hope I’ll look back on this article in a month’s time and think how silly it was to be worried! But as the buildup to Starfield’s launch continues, it’s definitely something that’s weighing on my mind.

Starfield will be released on the 6th of September 2023 for PC and Xbox Series S/X consoles. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. Some promo images and screenshots used above courtesy of Bethesda. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Baldur’s Gate 3 has set a high bar… Starfield, take note!

Spoiler Warning: Minor spoilers may be present for Baldur’s Gate 3 and Starfield.

I’ll get into this in more detail in my review of Baldur’s Gate 3 – which is currently a work in progress – but I came to Larian’s Dungeons and Dragons CRPG with basically no expectations at all. The game wasn’t one that had been on my radar, I don’t know the first thing about Dungeons and Dragons, and the primary reason I picked it up is because it happened to be well-timed, releasing just as the hype train for Starfield has been building. I was looking for a new game to play, and Baldur’s Gate 3 reared its head, backed up by plenty of positive reviews. It felt like the right game at the right time – but little more than a way to kill some time while waiting for the real prize: Starfield.

Suffice to say, I undervalued Baldur’s Gate 3 in a pretty big way! The game is fantastic, as you’ve no doubt heard from other reviewers, and although I can’t call it “perfect,” it’s certainly the best game I’ve played in 2023 so far. It will absolutely rival Starfield for the coveted “Trekking with Dennis Award” come December, and if Starfield should falter… well, maybe it’ll even pip it to the post and scoop the prize. I wouldn’t have expected that even just a couple of weeks ago.

A promo screenshot of Baldur’s Gate 3.

There are two things that Baldur’s Gate 3 has done well that Bethesda needs to consider when it comes to Starfield. The first is microtransactions. There aren’t any in Baldur’s Gate 3, and that’s in spite of comparable titles like Diablo IV positively drowning in them. As I’ve noted more than once, we haven’t yet had confirmation from Bethesda that Starfield will be free from microtransactions, season passes, lootboxes, premium currencies, and other shit-smeared trappings of the modern video games industry.

Secondly, while I have encountered a few glitches and bugs in my thirty-plus hours with Baldur’s Gate 3, the game is complete and pretty polished. The main quest is complete, side missions and character quests are all unique and interesting, and the state of the game overall is pretty darn good. The main mechanics and systems it employs, from magic and spellcasting to combat and exploration, all work well, and there are plenty of choices that genuinely have an impact on the game world.

A relatively minor visual bug that I encountered in Baldur’s Gate 3.

Bethesda has acquired a reputation over the years, and it’s well-deserved. Major Bethesda releases, from Oblivion to Fallout 76, have all arrived with bugs and glitches to varying degrees. Bethesda’s publishing arm is also responsible for the likes of Redfall, a title ridiculed for its broken state earlier this year. While Baldur’s Gate 3 isn’t entirely bug-free, it’s on a completely different scale from any of Bethesda’s launches.

The microtransaction issue is already one that I’ve been sceptical about when it comes to Starfield. Well before the game has even launched, Bethesda has already been touting the first piece of story DLC, an expensive £25 add-on. Expansion packs are no bad thing, don’t get me wrong, but it’s disappointing to see Bethesda leaning into add-ons and DLC so early in Starfield’s life. In contrast, Baldur’s Gate 3 may not have any DLC at all, with Larian potentially moving on to their next project instead, regarding the game and its story as complete.

Diablo IV has an awful and aggressive in-game monetisation scheme. Let’s hope Starfield follows the Baldur’s Gate 3 model…

The games are very different from one another. Baldur’s Gate 3 is a CRPG – a throwback, in many ways, to a style of game that has fallen out of fashion over the past twenty years or so. It employs turn-based combat, a third-person or isometric camera, and a game world broken up into several large regions (or levels) to accompany its three-act narrative.

Starfield, in contrast, is very much an action-RPG or even an RPG/shooter, with real-time combat inspired by the likes of id Software’s recent Doom and Doom Eternal titles. Although a third-person view is available, Bethesda has stated that the game is intended to primarily be played from a first-person perspective, and the game’s “open galaxy” map, while broken up into star systems and planets, isn’t split into sections or levels in the way that the map is in Baldur’s Gate 3. Starfield is also a sci-fi title to Baldur’s Gate 3′s fantasy setting.

Starfield will be a different kind of game – but with comparable features.

But there are plenty of similarities, too. Both games are role-playing experiences, both have skills to unlock, character progression, and both aim to tell expansive single-player stories complete with engaging characters, main and secondary quests to follow, and more. Though the comparison is not a direct one between two games with identical styles… it’s close enough that many Baldur’s Gate 3 players may be intending to play Starfield. In fact, Larian Studios deliberately moved up the release date of Baldur’s Gate 3 by more than a month to avoid a clash with Starfield.

So when I say that Baldur’s Gate 3 has set a high bar, I mean it. Coming just a few weeks apart, comparisons between the two games will be inevitable – and if Starfield should suffer a bumpy launch for any reason, those comparisons may not be favourable. Baldur’s Gate 3 will also be launching on PlayStation 5 the same week as Starfield arrives on PC and Xbox, so there’ll be a flood of new players joining the party. PlayStation fans may feel less bad at missing out on Starfield if Baldur’s Gate 3 is being heralded as the “better” title.

Baldur’s Gate 3 promo screenshot featuring a dragonborn warrior.

But we mustn’t get too far ahead of ourselves! It’s perfectly reasonable to suggest that players can enjoy one or both games on their own merit, without needing to “pick a side” or say which one is somehow “objectively better.” I want Starfield to be a fun experience – at least as much fun as Baldur’s Gate 3 has been for me over the past couple of weeks. But I recognise that, with the games releasing so close to one another, my impressions of Starfield – particularly insofar as how complete and polished it feels – will be coloured by my experience of Baldur’s Gate 3.

So… here’s the difficult part. In 2022, I praised Xbox and Bethesda for delaying Starfield. If the game needed more attention, more work, and more time to squash bugs and polish the experience, then a delay was unquestionably the right call. With a scant two weeks to go before Starfield’s pre-order exclusive early release, and with reviewers and publications eagerly awaiting their review copies… well, this is basically the last possible opportunity to delay the game. If Starfield should release with a level of bugs and glitches comparable in any way to the likes of Redfall or Fallout 76, not only will we lament this missed opportunity, but we’ll have those comparisons with Baldur’s Gate 3 to chew on.

Starfield was originally targeting a November 2022 release.

Whether you’ve played and enjoyed Baldur’s Gate 3 or not, and regardless of whether it’s “your thing” or not, it’s undeniable that the game has raised the stakes for Starfield, and has set a high bar indeed for other single-player role-playing games to strive for. I hope Starfield can hit it. Heck, I hope Starfield smashes through it and sets a new, even higher bar! It’s rare to get a title as fun and as consumer-friendly as Baldur’s Gate 3, so to get two in a row would be beyond fantastic. You know what they say: you wait ages for something and then two come along at once!

Where I see the biggest potential comparison is with one of my biggest concerns about Starfield: monetisation. We’re so close to Starfield’s launch, and yet Bethesda and Xbox have still failed to clarify what kind of monetisation we can expect to see in the game. Unless the answer is “none at all,” as Larian repeatedly assured players in the run-up to the launch of Baldur’s Gate 3, that will already be a disappointment. Should that monetisation extend beyond large-scale expansion packs to include things like premium currencies or lootboxes… that could spell disaster.

Bethesda and Xbox have yet to comment on microtransactions in Starfield.

What Larian has done with Baldur’s Gate 3 is something that other AAA studios should strive for. Of course it’s true that not every game can be as expansive and feature-rich as Baldur’s Gate 3… but every game should be able to take inspiration from it in different areas. Single-player games shouldn’t need in-game monetisation to turn a profit. AAA studios should be launching complete games, not broken, “release now, fix later” messes, nor games with incomplete stories and promises of “roadmaps” to more content. Larian has also shown a willingness to listen to feedback from players through an extensive early access period, and while I’m generally sceptical about big studios using early access, and of long early access periods in general, in this case it seems to have worked as intended for once.

The fact is that Baldur’s Gate 3 isn’t anything new, nor even particularly innovative. In many ways it’s actually a throwback to an older style of game that was prominent in the 1990s and early 2000s. As that kind of gameplay has fallen by the wayside in the push to open worlds, always-online experiences, and microtransactions… it feels different in 2023.

But that’s just a really sad commentary on the sorry state of the video games industry. A consumer-friendly game, one that doesn’t chase every trend going nor try to extort its players for extra cash, finds itself becoming headline news.

The titular city of Baldur’s Gate.

When I looked ahead to the games I was most interested to play in 2023, titles like Star Wars Jedi: Survivor, Lord of the Rings: Gollum, Redfall, Forspoken, and of course Starfield were all contenders. After several of those proved to be disappointing or underwhelming, it’s been a genuinely cathartic experience to pick up a new game and just… really enjoy playing it. That Baldur’s Gate 3 wasn’t on my radar and was thus an unexpected surprise just adds to that.

There has been chatter online and on social media about Baldur’s Gate 3 being a unique project that shouldn’t become the “industry standard” that players expect to see going forward. And there’s an element of truth to that: most games won’t be old-school CRPGs with hundreds of hours of content. But in terms of adopting consumer-friendly practices, abandoning trends when they don’t fit with the story a game is telling, and focusing on delivering a quality product… those are things that players can and should expect. Some of us never stopped asking the video games industry and its biggest corporations to deliver those things. Maybe the success of Baldur’s Gate 3 – coupled with some spectacular failures over the past few years – will finally be the catalyst that makes these corporations sit up and listen.

And as for Starfield… the bar has been well and truly raised. I can only hope that Xbox and Bethesda have done enough to reach it.

Baldur’s Gate 3 is out now for PC, will be released on PlayStation 5 on the 6th of September, and will be released on Xbox Series consoles in 2024. Starfield will be released on PC and Xbox Series consoles on the 6th of September. Baldur’s Gate 3 is the copyright of Larian Studios, and is based on Dungeons and Dragons which is owned by Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Softworks, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Episode Review – Season 2, Episode 5: Charades

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Strange New Worlds Seasons 1 and 2. Spoilers are also present for the following Star Trek productions: The Original Series, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Enterprise and Discovery.

Charades was an episode of two halves. One of these halves worked well, and the other… well, let’s just say that the other was not to my taste. It was undeniably a Star Trek episode to its very core, bringing to the fore concepts that the franchise has used going all the way back to The Original Series. We also got an interesting exploration of a previously unseen aspect of Vulcan culture, character development for both Spock and Nurse Chapel, and some comedic moments that stuck the landing.

On the other hand, Charades relied far too heavily on the kind of “cringe humour” that defined sitcoms like Friends, with parts of the “Spock must pretend to be Vulcan” storyline evoking the same kind of feelings as watching Robin Williams’ character try to be in two places at once in Mrs Doubtfire. That kind of situational humour really isn’t my cup of tea… and while I can tolerate it in small doses and for a one-off story, it means that Charades is unlikely to be an episode I’ll choose to revisit very often in future.

I watched most of the episode with this kind of expression on my face…

It was a treat to welcome back Mia Kirshner as Spock’s mother, Amanda. Kirshner reprised her role from Seasons 1 and 2 of Discovery, where she was seen alongside both Spock and Michael Burnham. Burnham wasn’t mentioned on this occasion, which I suppose is an interesting omission given that the story called back to Spock’s childhood and had a focus on the divide between humans and Vulcans. But Amanda’s presence was more than enough to carry this storyline – and I found it to be the most interesting and certainly the most impactful part of Charades.

It was hinted at, even as far back as The Original Series, that being a human married to a Vulcan could be difficult. Enterprise greatly expanded our knowledge of human-Vulcan relations, and showed how Vulcans could take an almost sneering view of a species they regarded as not as sophisticated or developed. Through Amanda’s story in Charades, we get to see how that manifests on an individual level, and how Vulcans can discriminate against humans – or even show revulsion and hate.

Charades was an unexpectedly strong episode for Spock’s mother, Amanda.

This ended up being a particularly powerful storyline. Amanda, as Spock came to realise, had to endure a great deal of hardship as a human living on Vulcan. Even as Vulcans came to accept him as one of their own, Amanda remains a perpetual outsider, constantly subject to being talked down to, shunned, disregarded, and treated differently because of who she is. The cool intellectual and logical nature of Vulcans means that this discrimination manifests differently – but it’s there nevertheless, and we come out of Charades with a much stronger appreciation for Amanda and her strengths after having seen what she continues to experience.

This idea that Vulcans’ aloofness and intellectual prowess can easily slide into a sense of superiority is nothing new in Star Trek; it was front-and-centre in depictions of the Vulcans in Enterprise in particular. But this very personal, individual exploration of that – and the impact it can have on non-Vulcans who have to endure it – is something different and interesting. Strange New Worlds has found a new way to build upon the lore of Star Trek, expanding our understanding of one of the franchise’s most iconic races – and their flaws.

Through T’Pring’s mother we saw some of the flaws that Vulcans can fall victim to.

Star Trek has done the “character transformed” idea in multiple ways on multiple occasions, from Jadzia Dax’s friends embodying her Trill symbiont’s past hosts in Deep Space Nine through B’Elanna Torres being split into human and Klingon personalities in Voyager. So in that sense, Charades’ “Spock gets turned into a human” premise isn’t entirely original. But for a character who’s been struggling with his human and Vulcan sides, it was an interesting move.

However, I’d argue that Season 1’s The Serene Squall had already done much of the heavy lifting on Spock and his internal conflict. That episode reframed the idea as a kind of analogy for gender identity, and made a great deal of progress for Spock in terms of his character arc in this series – an arc that has to take him from the more emotional presentation seen in Discovery and get him much closer to the way he was in The Original Series. We also got Spock Amok in Season 1, which focused on Spock’s relationship with T’Pring and the stresses that his role in Starfleet and his half-human side was taking. On its own merit what Charades did in that regard was interesting – but given that The Serene Squall was a mere eight episodes ago… its impact is, I would argue, lessened.

Spock and T’Pring.

And I think that speaks to a broader concern about Strange New Worlds as a whole: its focus on legacy characters and their characterisations. Out of fifteen episodes that have been broadcast so far, we’ve had two that focused primarily on Spock and his relationship with T’Pring, and two more in which Spock and Nurse Chapel’s relationship was a major plot point. Season 2 has also spent a disproportionate amount of time so far on legacy characters, with Una, Nurse Chapel, Dr M’Benga, Spock, Captain Kirk, Uhura and latterly Captain Pike all getting moments in the spotlight. This is starting to come at the expense of other characters.

Pelia, the Enterprise’s new chief engineer, was mentioned by name in Charades but hasn’t been seen on screen for a couple of episodes now. And while La’an and Ortegas both had lines of dialogue this week, they were swept along by a narrative current outside of their control. I’m all for learning more about Spock’s background, don’t get me wrong. As a Trekkie, and as someone who’s firmly invested in this world, I like the idea. But Strange New Worlds has a limited amount of time at its disposal; the show runs ten-episode seasons, and after this, only one more season is guaranteed to be produced. As fascinating as it is to spend time with Spock, given that this episode’s core story felt more than a little derivative of what we got in two episodes of Season 1, its main story is one that could have been reduced – if not skipped outright – in favour of stories focusing on some of the show’s new characters.

La’an had a minor role this week.

Charades’ style of “cringe humour,” something often seen in American sitcoms, really isn’t my thing. I found a few moments in the episode damn near painful to watch, particularly when jokes and gags were made at Spock’s expense. That is, however, purely a matter of personal taste, and as far as I can see, the episode’s sense of humour stuck the landing and achieved what it was aiming for… even if it isn’t something I personally enjoyed. There were absolutely some laugh-out-loud moments, moments where I had to pause Charades for fear of missing what would come next as I was laughing so hard. The premise of the episode is inherently silly: Spock being transformed into a human right before an important dinner with his fiancée. And as one of Strange New Worlds’ more lighthearted offerings, that side of the story worked as intended.

There is a slightly uncomfortable edge to some of this humour, though – and while I have no doubt that this was unintentional on the part of the writers and producers, it’s still worth acknowledging. Going all the way back to The Original Series, the character of Spock has stood apart from his crewmates. Though mental health, autism, and neurodivergence were never stated explicitly in Star Trek, Spock has, for the longest time, been someone that folks who are autistic or neurodivergent have related to. Charades stripped away part of this presentation, and did so largely for comedic purposes. That wasn’t always the most comfortable thing to watch, especially with the aforementioned “cringe” aspect to the episode’s humour. I don’t think we need to zero in on this, nor spend too long criticising Charades here, but it’s absolutely worth acknowledging this aspect of the story.

Charades seemed to poke more than its share of fun at Spock.

Conversely, and to be fair to Charades, it showed us a different side to Spock – but one that was equally rooted in many of the same neurodivergent aspects of his character. The episode’s script compared Spock’s handling of emotions to that of an adolescent, but if we continue our analogy for Spock being autistic or an “outsider” to the world of human emotion, what we see is someone experiencing these emotions in their strongest, most raw form. Just as many neurodivergent folks struggle to understand emotion, others feel them intensely, and this intensity was something new for Spock – but something no less interesting to see.

Again, the way this was played was largely for comedic effect, as Spock’s over-exaggeration of some of his feelings and emotions was part of this “cringe humour” thing that Charades had going on. But if we can look past that, I think there’s a case to be made that we saw a different side to Spock, one that flipped his logic and cool, usually emotionless presentation on its head – but it was a presentation of Spock that was no less relevant or relatable than it has been in the past.

We got a very different presentation of Spock this week.

There was a comment made before the season aired by one of the show’s executive producers (a comment I’ve now lost so I can’t find to quote from directly) that said something along the lines of “Strange New Worlds will push the boundaries of canon.” That alarmed me somewhat, because the series has to fit into a long-established world, and sometimes what producers and writers call “pushing the boundaries” can actually mean “ignoring and/or erasing.” And I think in Charades’ development of Nurse Chapel’s relationship with Spock, we get to see an example of this pushing of the boundaries.

The Original Series implied on several occasions that Chapel had feelings for – or at least a crush on – Spock. But it never went beyond that; the two characters, when they interacted, maintained a level of professionalism and perhaps friendship… but never anything more. There was no hint at a background of having once been lovers or ex-partners, and while nothing in The Original Series should explicitly rule out the kind of relationship that we see the two seemingly ready to embark upon in Charades, it’s certainly something that takes these two long-established characters and pushes them in a new direction.

What will become of the relationship between Spock and Chapel?

In the context of Strange New Worlds itself, this relationship works well. Pairing up Spock and Nurse Chapel succeeded in Season 1, and their relationship has only deepened since then. In a way, we could argue that this adds to our understanding of the characters and where they were in The Original Series – and as they interacted so infrequently in Star Trek’s first incarnation, it’s perfectly fine to bring them together in this way. It’s also not the only change made to either character from their original appearances.

That being said, putting Spock and Nurse Chapel into this kind of romantic (or at least physical) relationship is something that works best when taking Strange New Worlds in isolation. As new characters on a new show, they absolutely have the potential to do this. But for both characters, Strange New Worlds is a prequel, and it’s unclear how this relationship will work for either of them – nor how it will move either character closer to their TOS presentation.

Spock and Chapel share a kiss.

In terms of visual effects, Charades excelled. The mysterious anomaly on the surface of the moon was interesting, and its pale blue hue made it look different from other similar anomalies seen elsewhere in Star Trek. Within the anomaly itself, where Uhura, Ortegas, and Chapel ended up, I felt the “interdimensional space” set was perhaps a little small, but nevertheless succeeded at feeling sufficiently otherworldly. When compared to similar VFX sets, especially the Trill memory world from Discovery’s third season, there’s no contest, and it’s great to see that Paramount has massively improved its animation work.

There might’ve been a little of Season 1’s Children of the Comet in the set design used for the Kerkhovian interdimensional realm, but for most viewers I daresay that would pass unnoticed. Overall, it was an excellent and suitably “alien” space, both in terms of its appearance as an anomaly in space and when the away team arrived there in person.

The shuttle and the anomaly – a great CGI creation.

With a return to Vulcan and a focus on Spock’s family, there was the potential to bring back Sarek as well as Amanda. James Frain played the role of Sarek remarkably well in Discovery, and it would have been interesting to have seen more of the Spock-Sarek feud that was alluded to in The Original Series. Spock made the barest of references to their estrangement in Charades, but there might’ve been scope to do more had the episode retained a tighter focus on Vulcan and Spock’s family.

While T’Pring’s mother certainly leaned into the Enterprise style of aloof and arrogant Vulcans, I wasn’t really sure what to make of her father. T’Pring’s father seemed to be the archetypal “henpecked” husband, doing little more than agreeing with her and backing up her opinions. This kind of stock character has very little personality, and while it was intended to be lighthearted, I’m not sure how well it works in-universe when we think about how Vulcans tend to act. Is his behaviour logical?

T’Pring’s father.

Despite the inherent silliness of Spock’s sci-fi ailment, I was impressed by Nurse Chapel’s dedication to her patient. This side of the story took on a much more serious tone, and if we set aside the relationship drama angle for a moment, we got to see a great example of two dedicated medical professionals working against the clock to help a sick patient. Star Trek can do medical drama well, and while this wasn’t the main focus of Charades, it’s still a good example of how well medical stories can work in the franchise.

For Nurse Chapel we also got to see a bit more of her professional life – the “archaeological medicine” fellowship that she hoped to work with. This was interesting, as it seems to harken back to something we learned about Chapel in The Original Series: her engagement to a Federation archaeologist. The episode What Are Little Girls Made Of? introduced this relationship, and it’ll be interesting to see what – if anything – comes of it in Strange New Worlds, especially given Chapel’s newfound relationship with Spock. Will she break things off with Spock to pursue another partner? If so, what impact will that have on Spock? Maybe we’ll find out later this season… or in Season 3!

Nurse Chapel and Dr M’Benga in sickbay.

So I think I’ve said all I can about Charades for now. Its use of cringe humour means it ranks quite low on my list of Strange New Worlds episodes… but that isn’t to say it was out-and-out “bad.” It did its own thing and did it well, at least as far as I can tell. That style of humour simply isn’t to my taste, and it’s for that reason more than any other that I found it to be a less enjoyable experience than other episodes that the series has offered.

It took me a while to get around to this review, and I’m still getting caught up on Strange New Worlds after a longer-than-expected break. Thanks for bearing with me, and I promise to get around to full reviews of the remaining episodes of the season in due course!

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Seasons 1-2 are available to stream now on Paramount Plus in countries and territories where the service is available. The Star Trek franchise – including Strange New Worlds – is the copyright of Paramount Global. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

I have serious concerns about Discovery’s finale

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Star Trek: Discovery Seasons 1-4.

As you may know by now, the upcoming fifth season of Star Trek: Discovery, which is due to be broadcast early next year, is going to be the show’s final outing. Paramount broke this news back in March – and true to form, did so in a poor way and with shockingly bad timing, though I suppose that’s somewhat beside the point. Discovery hasn’t always been everyone’s favourite Star Trek show, and I get that. But I think the one thing that Trekkies and viewers should be able to agree on is this: Discovery’s fans deserve to see a decent and conclusive ending.

Whatever you may have thought of the show, its characters, and its storylines, a creditable final season capped off with a solid ending could reframe how we view the show, and could even bring in some new fans. And every show, especially serialised ones like Discovery, should see their main character arcs and narrative threads tied up by the time the curtain falls for the last time.

Season 5 will be Discovery’s last.

When news of Discovery’s cancellation broke, I wrote the following here on the website:

“It’s my hope that Discovery’s writers will have known the end was coming well enough in advance to have planned out a conclusive ending for the series and its characters […] If this recently-announced news had been known to the producers and creative team, hopefully they will have been able to put together an ending worthy of the show and its great cast of characters.”

When a creative team knows that their production is coming to an end, they can find ways to wrap up storylines and pay off character development, bringing things to a conclusive end for at least some of the characters in the show. That’s what I hoped would happen for Discovery.

Captain Burnham exploring a ruin in the Season 5 trailer.

But unfortunately, we’ve recently learned that a conclusive end to Discovery was never written. In fact, it sounds like the show’s finale was a rushed affair comprised of last-second rewrites and pick-up shots – because in true Paramount style, the corporation has no idea what it’s doing with the flagship series for one of its biggest brands.

Star Trek legend Jonathan Frakes directed the first half of Discovery’s fifth season finale – the episode that will now serve as the series finale. And he recently had this to say about it:

“When we did it [filmed the Season 5 finale] we didn’t know it was the end. And then Olatunde Osunsanmi had to go back up and do two or three days of new stuff to actually make the finale the finale.”

Jonathan Frakes with Saru actor Doug Jones during production on Season 3.

I don’t want to cast aspersions on the work of Olatunde Osunsanmi, who has directed some fantastic Discovery episodes – including Season 4’s Coming Home, which I regard as the high-water mark of the entire series. But Frakes’ comments sound incredibly ominous, and I have a bad feeling about Discovery’s finale right now.

In what Frakes recalls as being “two or three days,” additional work was done on the finale to wrap things up. Considering that a normal episode takes far longer than that to produce… I just don’t see how enough can have been done, even with a good director and a team who were ready to go. That’s on top of the emotional toll that would have been taken on the cast and crew as they learned – apparently at the last moment – that the series was to be cancelled.

Mary Wiseman as Tilly in the Season 5 trailer.

Although Starfleet Academy may serve as a spin-off of sorts, continuing Discovery’s 32nd Century setting for another season or two, I doubt we’ll get much more of a follow-up. Discovery isn’t The Next Generation – there won’t be a fan campaign to bring it back, nor is there likely to be a Picard-style resurrection in a few years’ time. This is it for Discovery, and as a series with such a strong serialised focus, that means a definitive and conclusive ending is necessary. It just isn’t possible to write something like that on short notice, let alone film it in a couple of days.

After working on a series for five seasons across more than seven years, the cast and crew had to have known that there were almost certainly fewer days ahead than there were behind. But even so, the manner of Discovery’s cancellation feels all the more brutal in light of Frakes’ comments, and I really feel for everyone involved in the production. Apparently Season 5’s original ending would have at least left the door open for a potential sixth season, and with filming having been completed, that was then ripped away from the cast and crew at the last possible moment. Not for the first time, we’re talking about a lack of professionalism, management, and just basic decency at the upper echelons of Paramount.

Tom Ryan, CEO of streaming at Paramount Global.

Paramount Plus is failing. Discovery’s cancellation is one consequence of that, Prodigy’s equally abrupt end is another, and there are other examples we can point to beyond the Star Trek franchise. As Paramount’s executives continue to flop around, unable to get to grips with a streaming market that they have no clue about – and continue not to understand – desperate decisions like these will keep being taken. With writers’ and actors’ strikes on top of that, the future of Star Trek beyond 2024 feels very uncertain indeed.

If there was any evidence of a coherent plan behind the cancellations of Discovery and Prodigy, maybe it wouldn’t feel that way. Slowing down the Star Trek franchise, refocusing on fewer productions that might all share a single timeline, and prioritising quality over quantity are all good things – and if that’s what Paramount was doing, I’d actually be supportive of it.

But that’s just not what’s happening.

The USS Discovery in Season 4.

The seemingly chaotic way in which Discovery was cancelled, after its entire fifth season had been written and filmed, speaks to that. There’s no plan here, no direction. Paramount saw the losses mounting for its streaming platform and has hit the panic button. There may well be serious narrative consequences for Discovery as a result.

No one expected Discovery to last forever, and after several cancellation scares and rumours in years past, as well as being an expensive series to produce that arguably never quite managed to make good on that initial investment… the writing has arguably been on the wall. But as a fan of Star Trek, and as someone who has supported Discovery as best I can across its run, I want to see the show get a decent ending. Whether or not you think Discovery as a series deserves that… surely you can agree that its fans and supporters do.

Sonequa Martin-Green during production on Season 5.

Perhaps it shouldn’t come as a surprise, given the chaotic and haphazard way in which the overall Star Trek franchise is being handled, that its flagship series was cancelled without a plan and without an ending written. Paramount is incompetent at every level, so nothing about this situation shocks or surprises me any more. But that doesn’t make it any less disappointing – or any less worrying.

Seasons 3 and 4 both had their issues. Pacing, structure, overused tropes, forced drama, and boring relationship nonsense all dragged down what could have been stronger and more interesting stories. But there was also a sense that Discovery was rediscovering some of that Star Trek magic, and especially in the fourth season finale, things seemed to be improving. I wouldn’t have chosen to cancel Discovery if I were in charge.

Coming Home set the stage for what should be a great fifth season.

But if there was a threat of cancellation in the air – and after more than seven years in production, with five seasons having been created in that time, it’s inevitable that those conversations would have been happening behind the scenes – then a timeframe for that decision needed to be in place. If cancellation were a realistic outcome, a story with a definitive ending needed to be written – not one that had to be rewritten at the last moment.

There’s a very real danger, I fear, that Discovery’s finale will be a disappointment. Moreover, depending on when these additional scenes and sequences may have been filmed, there’s also the prospect that they’ll be incredibly obvious and that it’ll be painfully clear which scenes were part of the original version of the episode and which were the last-second pick-up shots.

Kovich and Burnham in the Season 5 trailer.

With Star Trek’s future so uncertain, and the survival of Paramount Plus hanging in the balance, the last thing we need is a disappointing, underwhelming, or incomplete Discovery finale. A poorly-received final episode could end up seriously detracting from the show’s very real successes, as well as harming the prospects of both of its upcoming spin-off projects: Section 31 and Starfleet Academy. Paramount needs to get this right – and realistically, that meant planning for the end from the ground up. Season 5 as a whole needed to be written with the show’s end in mind, and it wasn’t. It couldn’t be – because once again, Paramount dropped the ball.

After Coming Home had been such a fantastic end point for Season 4, and with the promise of Discovery finally dropping its “the whole galaxy is in danger and only Burnham can save it!” premise, I felt that Season 5 had a solid foundation to build upon. When the show’s cancellation was announced it was a disappointing blow – but one that, under the right circumstances, could have worked. Now that we know Season 5 wasn’t intended to be the show’s final season, and that last-second rewrites and pick-up shots were needed, I really am concerned that the show’s ending won’t be as conclusive, as definitive, or as enjoyable as it ought to be.

Star Trek: Discovery Seasons 1-4 are available to stream now on Paramount+ in countries and territories where the platform is available, and are also available on Blu-ray. Season 5 will stream on Paramount+ in early 2024. The Star Trek franchise – including Discovery and all other properties mentioned above – is the copyright of Paramount Global. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Episode Review – Season 2, Episode 4: Among the Lotus Eaters

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Seasons 1-2. Spoilers are also present for the following Star Trek productions: The Original Series and Enterprise.

I’m a bit late getting to Among the Lotus Eaters, so I apologise for that! I’m a couple of weeks behind with Strange New Worlds, and I hope to catch up over the next few days.

This episode brought several really interesting concepts to bear, gave Captain Pike his first proper outing of the season, and allowed us to spend more time with Lieutenant Ortegas than in any other story thus far. It took us back to a mission referenced in The Menagerie and The Cage all the way back in The Original Series, but put an unexpected spin on it. And all in all, I had a good time with Among the Lotus Eaters.

Let’s return to Rigel VII…

If I were to make one criticism of the episode it would be that it was perhaps a little overambitious – not in terms of its singular main story, nor even in its B-plot with Captain Pike’s romance, but rather in terms of the number of characters it tried to include. There wasn’t quite enough time to flesh out everyone’s experience with the memory-loss radiation, and I felt that Among the Lotus Eaters – somewhat ironically, given the storyline – seemed to jump quite quickly from one point to another, almost as if there were missing scenes or sequences that could have explained things a little more and provided the story with better pacing.

We missed out on seeing, for example, how the crew of the Enterprise regained their memories and returned to normal, how Dr M’Benga held off the Kalar warriors and went back for La’an, how Spock reacted to losing his memories, and how Dr M’Benga re-learned his medical skills. Unlike the deliberate time-skips – which were well-executed in the episode – these “missing” moments could have added something extra to the story, and if Among the Lotus Eaters had used fewer characters, or used the ones it included sparingly, more could have been made of some of these impactful moments.

La’an and Dr M’Benga near the end of the episode.

For the past three weeks I’d been commenting on how odd it has felt to see Strange New Worlds proceeding with so little input from Captain Pike – and I stand by that, even as I enjoyed what each of those episodes brought to the table. So it was fantastic to see Pike back in action this time, even though he spent much of the episode without his memories.

Captain Pike isn’t just the heart of Strange New Worlds, he’s the reason why the series came to exist in the first place. The incredibly positive reaction that fans had to Anson Mount’s portrayal in Discovery’s second season led to the series being commissioned, and Mount has been a joy to watch in every episode of the series so far. He put in a complex performance this week with some unusual material, and Pike’s connection with Captain Batel managed to keep things grounded and understandable, even as sci-fi shenanigans about radiation-induced memory loss and a rogue forgotten yeoman played out around him.

This episode was Captain Pike’s first real outing of the season so far.

This episode is the first since Enterprise’s second season episode The Communicator that really took a look at the idea of cultural contamination and its impact on Starfleet’s mission of exploration. The two stories play out very differently, and combined they make a great example of how Star Trek can take the same basic premise but have it play out completely differently each time. But as fans, and as people who are invested in this fictional setting, learning more about how Starfleet operates – and in this case, how the organisation behaves when things go wrong – is fascinating. We caught a glimpse of something we don’t always get to see in Star Trek: the aftermath of one of these “away mission gone wrong” setups that the franchise has used fairly regularly.

Speaking as we were of storylines that could’ve been fleshed out a little more, I think a flashback to the events of the original mission wouldn’t have gone amiss in Among the Lotus Eaters. Nor would a flashback depicting Zac’s rise to power on Rigel VII – or at least part of it. Zac himself, despite being the episode’s nominal villain, feels pretty flat and one-dimensional, and some additional explanation could’ve elevated him somewhat.

Zac was an interesting idea for a villain… let down by sub-par execution.

In fact, a better presentation of Zac could have nudged a fairly black-and-white story into a greyer area. If you think about it, what was Zac to do, stranded on a hostile planet with no hope of communication or rescue? Finding a way to preserve his memories – by using the ore that protected them – was about the only thing he could do, and using the resources at his disposal – i.e. his Starfleet kit – makes a degree of sense. There was a pathway here to tell a story with a villain who, if not sympathetic because of the extreme actions he took, was at least understandable, or the predicament in which he found himself could have been presented in that way.

Because we didn’t spend much time with Zac, I didn’t really get any strong feelings about him either way. I wasn’t desperate to see him beaten in the way I can be for some villains, but I also didn’t feel much by way of sympathy for his plight, either. He felt less a fully-rounded character than a plot device; an obstacle for Pike and the others to overcome just as they had to overcome their memory loss.

Zac defeated.

Captain Pike stated up-front that the cultural contamination of Rigel VII was on him – and he’s right, because as captain, the buck stops with him. He also noted that it was a chaotic mission that necessitated a rapid escape. But even so, I can’t be the only one who thinks that Pike and the away team managed to leave a lot of Starfleet junk behind, can I? I mean, Zac had at least half a dozen phaser rifles, an entire crate of Starfleet supplies, a tricorder, a medical kit, and more. Leaving behind a rogue phaser or communicator is one thing… but an entire crate full of stuff? Not to mention a crewman, too. That’s some sloppy away team work right there!

And I know: that’s a nitpick. It was necessary for the story to have all of those things in place. But c’mon… we should expect higher standards from the Captain of the Enterprise! If Rigel VII wasn’t afflicted with that memory-erasing radiation, leaving behind an entire crate full of Federation goodies could have completely altered the destiny of the planet. As it is, Starfleet may just get away with this blatant failure. But it’s not exactly a great look!

A lost communicator is one thing… but an entire crate?!

I’ve been racking my brain, thinking about The Cage and The Menagerie, but I don’t believe that anything in Among the Lotus Eaters contradicts or overwrites what we saw in those episodes. Strange New Worlds has managed to thread the needle: expanding our knowledge and updating a classic story but without treading on its toes. That’s something the series has consistently managed to get right, and I’m pleased to see the trend continue here.

Rigel VII is a planet that has been name-dropped in Star Trek on multiple occasions, often in throwaway lines or even in the background of episodes, but that we only really saw in that first-season episode way back when. It was actually quite nice to take a deeper dive into the mysterious planet, learning more about its inhabitants. Seeing a softer side to the Kalar was interesting, too, as the only Kalar we’d seen before were violent warriors.

The surface of Rigel VII.

Among the Lotus Eaters takes more than its fair share of leaps in logic and contrivances with its central memory loss concept. What knowledge is retained and how after “the forgetting” seems to jump around at the behest of the plot, with the Kalar seeming to hold onto things like the basic operation of their tools in a way that Starfleet personnel didn’t. A central idea on Rigel VII was the totem – mentioned repeatedly but barely so much as glimpsed on screen. The Kalar seemingly retained enough knowledge to look at the totem and decipher its pictograms, understanding from that where they were and what was expected of them. But aboard the Enterprise, Spock and the crew seemed to lose a lot more of their memories and knowledge.

Connecting retained memories to strong emotions was an interesting idea – and one that has some basis in fact, or at least can in some cases. But again, the way this came across on screen seemed inconsistent at best. While everyone aboard the Enterprise wandered around the halls aimlessly, only Lieutenant Ortegas seemed to have a strong enough emotional connection to her work to be able to break through. Are we to assume, then, that Nurse Chapel in sickbay, Pelia in engineering, and everyone else in every department aboard the ship couldn’t do the same? It’s a bit of a leap.

Nurse Chapel and other officers wandering the hallways of the USS Enterprise.

On the planet’s surface, the same was true of Pike and the away team. Pike seemed to retain a lot more of his personality than the crew of the Enterprise, and even compared to the Kalar and the other members of the away team, he managed to hang onto more of himself. If the story had stronger foundations, with an explanation for these discrepancies in the radiation-induced memory loss that was perhaps more easily followed, I think this would’ve worked better.

I think that Among the Lotus Eaters wanted to include something about proximity; that the Enterprise crew were more severely affected because the ship moved closer to the radiation-emitting asteroids. And indeed the epilogue states this as fact in voiceover form. But it wasn’t readily apparent on screen in the moment just what was going on, nor why Pike was able to push through the memory loss to a far greater extent. And that explanation still falls short when it comes to Ortegas and her ability to pilot the ship with finesse, fire the phasers, and generally drag everyone out of the difficult situation they were in.

Pike and Ortegas were able to push through their memory loss to a far greater extent than everyone else.

If we take Among the Lotus Eaters’ memory loss idea as being a metaphor for conditions like dementia or Alzheimer’s disease, we can see Strange New Worlds doing what Star Trek has always done: taking a sci-fi lens to examine a real-world situation. I’m no expert, but I think many of us know or knew a close relative who suffered, to a degree, with a condition like this, and there are definitely areas where this episode seemed to be at least acknowledging the comparison.

Some dementia patients, for example, remember how to perform tasks through “muscle memory,” which isn’t a million miles away from how Ortegas knew how to fly the Enterprise. Seeing the Enterprise crew silently and absently shuffling through the ship’s corridors also brought back memories of visiting an elderly relative in a care facility some years ago, and seeing patients there behaving in a simliar way.

Ortegas remembered how to pilot the Enterprise.

When Star Trek looks at real-world ailments through its sci-fi lens, one thing I’ve always found inspirational is the idea that one day, through advancements in science and technology, life-limiting or even fatal conditions that impact people today can and will be cured. Geordi’s blindness is a great example, and his line in The Next Generation to a Romulan officer that the 24th Century Federation sees value in everyone is something I’ve long felt embodied this aspect of the franchise.

With that in mind, if we stretch our dementia metaphor to its logical end point… I don’t really see what point, if any, Strange New Worlds intended to make. Its sci-fi ailment came with an equally sci-fi resolution, and while one of the Kalar expressed gratitude for regaining his memories and seemed to come to understand their value… that was quite a rapid turnaround for a single secondary character, and wasn’t really enough on its own to be a payoff to a story like this. Maybe I’ve overthought this aspect of Among the Lotus Eaters based on a couple of scenes that felt close to some of my personal experiences.

Nurse Chapel.

Spock’s role this week, while relatively small, was nonetheless an interesting one. Spock’s journey in Strange New Worlds isn’t about recreating exactly the character we’re familiar with from The Original Series, but exploring who he was before that and how he came to become that individual. Seeing Spock make a mistake, taking the Enterprise to the asteroid field on the assumption that it would provide cover, feels like something that could have been a big step for him.

We’ll have to see if this moment is called back to in future episodes, because based on Among the Lotus Eaters alone, I don’t think we really gained a lot of insight into Spock. We saw in a strictly factual sense that Spock can make a mistake, or that his assumptions can be wrong, and I can see how we might extrapolate from that and say that it’s one reason why Spock is so hesitant to make guesses or assumptions as he gets older. But none of that was explicitly stated on screen, and I’d like to see a bit more of that when these kinds of stories arise for Spock.

This could be an interesting foundation for a Spock story.

So here’s a question: was the Kalar palace on Rigel VII supposed to be the exact same one as Pike and co. visited years earlier? Strange New Worlds has updated and, for want of a better term, retconned a number of designs and aesthetic elements across both seasons so far, and when you combine that with the fact that Zac may have made changes in order to better shield the palace and its occupants… I think we can make the case for this castle being the same one that had been seen in The Menagerie and The Cage.

The design was neat in some ways, though I would say – not for the first time in Star Trek – that the castle’s interior and exterior didn’t quite gel. I’d have liked to have seen more of the palace’s exterior design reflected in the set used for its interior – or vice versa. The exterior sets were all created with the help of Paramount’s AR wall, and parts of the snowy, windswept landscape felt quite similar to Season 1’s Valeo Beta V – the planet seen in All Those Who Wander. Neither of these things were bad per se, but it’s the first time in the show so far where I felt that set design was perhaps letting the story down somewhat.

I didn’t feel that the palace interior and exterior matched.

So let’s start to wrap things up!

Among the Lotus Eaters brought together two genuinely interesting concepts: the memory loss radiation and revisiting the only other mission and planet that we saw in The Menagerie and The Cage. Talos IV, remember, had been seen a couple of years ago during Discovery’s second season. Strange New Worlds has now exhausted “classic Pike” storylines, if we can use that definition here.

The memory loss idea was imperfect in its execution, with contrivances involving the extent of characters’ amnesia, the way in which it manifested, and how they were able to push through using emotion or connections to the world around them. Some more explanation – even if it had been little more than technobabble – could have limited the damage here, and built a stronger foundation for this idea.

Captain Pike.

As a metaphor for conditions like dementia, I’m not sure how well Among the Lotus Eaters’ memory loss storyline worked. There was a visual presentation of the Enterprise’s crew that felt uncomfortably real, and the real-world ideas of emotion and “muscle memory” being able to cut through have a basis in fact. But I’m not sure what – if anything – this story wanted to say. It was wrapped up neatly by the end of the episode, with the implication being that Pike’s decision to remove the meteorite would bring a permanent end to the Kalar’s “forgetting.”

On the other hand, the character moments in Among the Lotus Eaters – particularly with Pike and Ortegas – were strong. Pike’s internal dilemma about his burgeoning relationship with Captain Batel was believable, complex, and cute, and the way Pike reached out to Una for guidance went a long way to cementing their relationship as captain and first officer, too. Pike being able to break through his memory loss by focusing on his strong feelings for Batel and the gift she’d given him not only provided a (somewhat convenient) route for the story to take, but also told us a lot about Pike himself.

Fire phasers!

All things considered, I had a good time this week. Among the Lotus Eaters probably isn’t Strange New Worlds’ strongest episode, but it’s a Star Trek story through-and-through. It had an interesting mystery, a sci-fi/fantasy storyline that verged on the mystical, some exciting moments of action, and a villain who, while not as well-developed as I’d have liked, was strong enough to keep things entertaining.

I haven’t watched Charades yet, but I hope to take a look at that episode in the next day or two, and to get back on track with this season’s episode reviews. Thanks for bearing with me!

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Seasons 1-2 are available to stream now on Paramount Plus in countries and territories where the service is available. The Star Trek franchise – including Strange New Worlds – is the copyright of Paramount Global. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Ten more Starfield questions

Spoiler Warning: There are no major story spoilers for Starfield, but there may be spoilers for the game and its features and systems. This article also uses screenshots and promotional images.

Well it turns out that my last post about Starfield wasn’t enough, and that there are still more questions about the game! Starfield is my most-anticipated game right now, and along with my excitement for Bethesda’s upcoming open-galaxy sci-fi role-playing shooter, I have some concerns and some general questions about the game and how it will work. A few days ago I posed ten questions about Starfield – so click or tap here to check out those questions if you haven’t already – but I’ve already come up with ten more!

What I’m trying to do with these questions is not say “here’s a feature that I think must be part of the game,” because I don’t want to make the mistake of getting over-hyped nor building up an inaccurate picture of Starfield. Instead, what I want to do is fill in some of the gaps in our knowledge of the game, because there are things that Bethesda hasn’t clarified. There are features that seemed to be hinted at by the Starfield showcase that haven’t been confirmed, there are questions raised by statements Bethesda and Xbox made, and then there are systems and mechanics that have been included in past Bethesda or Xbox titles that may make their way to Starfield – we just don’t know yet! That’s my mindset when I pose these questions, anyway. As I said when I wrote up my Starfield “wishlist,” I have high hopes that the game will be fun regardless of whether or not it does everything that I think I want from it at this early stage!

A handgun.

I have a couple of caveats that I always give when I put together a list like this one. The first is that I have no “insider information,” nor any connection with Bethesda, Xbox, or Microsoft. I’m not claiming that anything we’re going to talk about will, won’t, or must be part of Starfield – this is a list put together by someone who’s interested in the game, based on the showcase, interviews, and other marketing material. Secondly, all of this is the subjective opinion of one person – so if you hate all of my questions and ideas, that’s totally okay!

Finally, as I said last time, I haven’t seen every single interview that Starfield’s developers and producers have given. Nor have I read every single press release, comment, or social media post – so it’s possible that I’ve missed something, or that one of the questions on this list will have already been answered. My ageing brain may not have retained everything, too!

With all of that out of the way, then, let’s jump into my list of questions!

Question #1:
Is the main quest fully complete?
Or: will DLC be required to complete the main story?

Starfield’s premium edition includes access to the first piece of planned DLC.

As you can see from the image above, pre-ordering the “premium edition” of Starfield grants players access to the first piece of planned DLC. I’ve already expressed my scepticism about this; it seems far too early to be considering DLC when the game isn’t even out. But the subtitle of this piece of DLC is what I’m curious about today, because Shattered Space is described as the “first story expansion” for Starfield.

This raises the unpleasant spectre of an incomplete game; a “release now, fix later” title with promises of a “roadmap” to more content. This is the model often adopted by “live service” games, and it seldom works as intended. I’m all for an expansion pack, don’t get me wrong, but the way this one has been advertised has me at least a little worried.

How’s that roadmap working out for you, Anthem?

Bethesda has two points in its favour here, as I see it. The first is that, despite a very poor launch, the company has continued to support Fallout 76 with updates and expansions. Even if Starfield is released to poor critical reception, that gives me hope that support for the game will continue, and that at the very least that first planned expansion will still arrive. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, Bethesda’s single-player titles have been well-supported by expansion packs. Morrowind got massive expansions in Tribunal and Bloodmoon, and as much as we like to mock Oblivion’s horse armour DLC, that game also received the major Shivering Isles expansion pack. So the company has a solid track record here.

That being said, I’m still a little concerned about Starfield’s story potentially not being complete at launch. Given that the base game is already priced at £60 or $70, it would be nigh-on exploitative to force players to pay an additional fee of at least £25 or $30 to buy the next chapter of the story. Even more so considering that Shattered Space has been in development alongside the base game.

Question #2:
Is Starfield capped at 30fps on PC?
Or: is it possible to push Starfield to 60fps and beyond on higher-end PCs?

A fancy-pants gaming PC.
(No, it’s not mine!)

Although it wasn’t discussed at the showcase, Starfield’s director Todd Howard subsequently confirmed in an interview that the game will be capped at 30 frames-per-second on Xbox Series S and X consoles, with the less-powerful machine also running the game at 1440p resolution. In the same interview, Howard seemed to indicate that the game can run at 60fps on PC, at least in Bethesda’s internal tests.

But what hasn’t been made clear is whether that will be an option for players on PC. Many modern PC games have frame-rate options as standard, and offer features like Vsync, where the game will match a monitor’s refresh rate. I recently upgraded to an RTX 3070 Ti – a fairly powerful GPU. I’d expect to hit at least 60fps in most titles – or at least in games that are well-optimised and have proper PC ports!

Todd Howard, Starfield’s director.

Thats being said, I’m not a stickler for frame-rate in the way some folks are. I’m not even sure I could tell much of a difference between frame-rates in a lot of cases. But 60fps isn’t even the gold standard, it’s a fairly low bar that most PC games in 2023 should be able to clear. If Starfield is so massive and so detailed that its console version needs to be frame-capped, then I guess that makes sense. But many folks have PCs with specs that far exceed the Xbox Series X.

If this isn’t an official feature, don’t despair. I wouldn’t be shocked at all to see a mod pop up in the days after Starfield’s launch that uncaps the game’s frame rate!

Question #3:
What impact (if any) do different levels of gravity have on exploration and combat?

Firing a weapon in zero-G.

At the showcase we saw a zero-G section of gameplay featured prominently. Whether this is a recurring feature, or whether zero-G sections are part of scripted missions only wasn’t clear – but it was still something cool to see. We also saw that planets could have different levels of gravity, which makes sense!

But what wasn’t entirely clear from the gameplay that was shown off is what impact – if any – this will have. If I land on a high-gravity planet, for instance, does that mean I move slower, or can carry fewer items? On a low-gravity world can I jump tens of metres into the air without a jetpack? And what about firing a weapon – do projectiles have less range in high gravity than in low?

Will exploring in low gravity differ from exploring in high gravity?

I’m not banking on any of those things being true, because it seems like it would be complicated and time-consuming to create features like that. But at the same time, it would be neat if gravity was a consideration. There are so many different ways in which this could manifest, potentially impacting everything from combat to resource-gathering.

Although I’m not necessarily expecting a massive and deep gravity levels system, what I will say is this: if a planet designated as a high-gravity world and a planet designated as a low-gravity world are functionally the same, with gravity not seeming to have much of an impact on exploration or gameplay, it will raise the question of why it was even mentioned or included!

Question #4:
Will DLC eventually come to Game Pass?

Game Pass is building up quite the library of titles!

As noted above, there’s already DLC planned for Starfield. But it doesn’t seem like that DLC will come to Game Pass – at least, not at first. The base game is available on Game Pass, but it’s also possible to pre-order the premium edition of Starfield, complete with the DLC. This kind of feels like a rough deal for Game Pass players – especially if the first piece of DLC won’t be ready for months or even years.

To be fair to Starfield, other games work a similar way. DLC for the likes of Age of Empires II is also something that has to be bought separately – but that doesn’t really excuse it. This is something Microsoft will have to figure out as Game Pass continues to grow, and while some optional content and DLC might still be okay to sell separately, things like Shattered Space might not be – especially if it’s vital to complete the main quest.

Game Pass players get access to one of the pre-order bonuses.

With Skyrim, the current Game Pass version includes the game’s major expansion packs. So I wonder if, at some point in the future, Starfield will be updated in a similar way. Microsoft is raking in the money from Game Pass every single month, and I’m sure that Starfield’s launch will bring an influx of new subscribers to the platform. But when Shattered Space is ready, some of those folks will be disappointed to learn that they have to pay an additional charge on top of their Game Pass subscription.

The subscription model is still new in the gaming realm, and there are questions like this that need to be sorted out! But if Game Pass is to achieve Microsoft’s aim of being “the Netflix of video games,” then it can’t get away with continuing to charge for add-ons and expansion packs, surely. Netflix doesn’t do that; you don’t get access to the first season of The Witcher then have to pay an additional fee to watch Season 2. So I’d love to see Shattered Space and any further DLC expansion packs come to Game Pass on day one.

Question #5:
How important is crafting?
And: can weapons and items break?

A weapon in the inventory menu.

I’m biased here: I detest weapon and item durability in practically every game. Very few titles manage to get this feature right, and more often than not it just turns into a frustrating experience. Weapons breaking partway through combat and items needing to be replaced every ten minutes may seem “realistic” in some ways… but it’s not exactly fun.

There are better ways to deal with weapons and items, such as cosmetic wear and tear, upgrades, or simply offering an abundance of choice. Rather than forcing players to a workbench or crafting station to keep re-creating or repairing tools, it’s far better – in my opinion, of course – to figure out other ways to make gameplay interesting.

This may be an in-game crafting station.

This also speaks to a potentially much larger point: what kind of role will there be for crafting in Starfield? We know that there can be a crafting station aboard a player’s spaceship, but how often will we be required to use it? What kind of items will we need to craft or upgrade? And crucially: how necessary will crafting be?

Bethesda role-playing games have always offered customisation options, even for things like weapons. Swords could be enchanted in Morrowind, for instance, and guns could be upgraded in Fallout 4. The latter also introduced settlement building, with resources needing to be collected. I feel there’s scope for a detailed and in-depth crafting system in Starfield, but I also think it’s something that may be optional for players who want a more action-forward experience.

Question #6:
Can we give names to outposts and planets?

“Jemison Outpost 1” doesn’t feel like the most inspired name…

I’m fairly sure that re-naming spaceships is possible in Starfield; it certainly seems that way based on footage from the showcase. And of course the player character’s name can be freely chosen. But what about outposts and planets? We saw at the showcase several locations that were simply called “civilian outpost” or “industrial outpost,” so I’m not sure whether or not this will be possible.

It would be nice to be able to give a name to an outpost, though! Instead of making my home at the rather clinical and official-sounding “mining outpost,” it would be neat if I could give it a more personal name that reflects my character, their style, or even simply geographic features present at the base.

The moon Tau Ceti VIII-b.

While I have some hope for outpost names being possible, I’m far less convinced that re-naming planets will be part of Starfield. But again, I’d quite like this to be included in the game. Obviously we won’t be re-naming Mars or Jemison, nor any of the other named worlds that already have settlements. But if I stumble upon an uninhabited rock called something like Kepler-295 B, and decide to build the first-ever human outpost on its surface, I’d like to be able to give that world a more personal name!

Maybe this seems like something minor, and it is in a way. But these kinds of personal touches can go a long way to making the role-playing experience feel immersive; coming home to Fort Dennis on the planet Dentopia would be a lot more fun than returning to Outpost #7 on Kepler-259 B.

Question #7:
How do factions work?
Or: does joining one faction permanently cut off another?

The Freestar Collective is one of the main factions in Starfield.

In past Bethesda games, choosing to associate with one faction over another could permanently cut off that second faction, making it impossible to complete every available quest in a single playthrough. The example that leaps to mind are Morrowind’s Great Houses: joining one would mean the other two would be permanently unavailable.

This adds a lot of replay value to a game, especially if those factions have well-developed characters and long, detailed questlines of their own. Indeed, one of the appeals of a Bethesda role-playing game is that some of these factions and their missions can be at least as in-depth as the main quest and just as worthwhile to play.

Joining one Great House in Morrowind would permanently close off the other two in that playthrough.

We’ve seen at least a hint at something similar in Starfield via the traits menu in the character creator. Choosing to have a United Colonies background means that players can’t also choose to have a Freestar Collective background, and there are three religious affiliations which are also mutually exclusive. Whether and to what extent those traits will impact gameplay is still not known, but it’s interesting, at any rate.

Starfield will contain joinable factions in addition to the Constellation organisation, and it seems logical to assume that being a member of the Freestar Rangers might permanently cut off membership in the United Colonies’ space force. That’s just one example. If these factions are as deep and well-developed as we’d hope they would be in a Bethesda game, this feature would add a ton of replayability to Starfield.

Question #8:
Are there invisible walls?
Or: are landing zones limited in size?

Will we see a message like this in Starfield?

This kind of ties into a point that I raised last time: how much of the surface of an individual planet can be explored? There was mention at the showcase and in subsequent interviews about selecting a “landing zone” on a planet’s surface – with players seemingly given a completely free choice of where to land. But do those zones have limits, or is it truly going to be possible to circumnavigate a planet on foot?

If there are limits to landing zones, I hope that invisible walls won’t be the way it’s handled. Something like that would absolutely break the immersion, even if landing zones are massive in size. A game that encourages exploration will surely push players to roam far away from their spaceships.

A spaceship on the surface of a planet.

I’m not really sure how Starfield should deal with this. The best-case scenario is that exploration is completely unlimited, and players who want to will be able to go on long-distance expeditions far away from where they landed. Look at games like Minecraft, for example, and how some players will go on huge treks across vast swathes of the procedurally-generated map.

That being said, there are ways in sci-fi to generate a technobabble explanation or reason for just about anything! If it were explained at an early stage that, for example, communicators had a limited range, then maybe that could be an excuse for why roaming too far beyond where a spaceship landed isn’t possible. I think running into a random invisible wall with no explanation won’t cut it, but some kind of “turn back” message, perhaps with multiple warnings preceding it, could work.

Question #9:
Are gas giants among the promised 1,000 explorable planets?
Or: what role will gas giants play in Starfield?

This appears to be a moon orbiting a gas giant.

Plenty of images and clips of Starfield prominently feature gas giants – massive planets like Saturn and Jupiter that are mostly comprised of hydrogen, helium, and other gaseous material. Because of the nature of gas giants, there isn’t a “surface” to speak of that can be visited; gas giants are comprised of various layers of gases and liquids, with the “boundaries” between different densities often being very gradual.

So it doesn’t seem likely that we’ll be able to land on gas giants – but can we fly near them? Can we fly into their cloudy atmospheres at all? What about gathering resources? In real life, gas giants are known to harbour vast quantities of helium – and helium-3 is confirmed to be the material used for spaceship fuel in Starfield. So gas giants could conceivably have resources to collect… somehow.

Jupiter and its moon Io, as photographed by NASA’s Cassini probe.

But how would this work? You can’t build an outpost on a gas giant like you would on the surface of a planet, and unless spaceships can be outfitted with equipment to harvest resources – something we also haven’t seen – then I’m just not sure how we’d go about extracting anything from a gas giant in the game.

Finally, Starfield’s marketing has promised 1,000 planets to explore. In real life, the majority of planets that have been discovered so far are gas giants or ice giants; will that be true of the majority of Starfield’s 1,000 planets, too? If so, it could cut down the number of planets we can actually land on by a considerable margin.

Question #10:
Are there procedurally-generated quests and missions?

Will some NPCs be randomly generated or dish out random quests?

We know that Starfield will use procedural generation for some of its planets and environments. There’s still a degree of confusion over how exactly this will function, but today I’m asking a different question! Are all of Starfield’s missions and quests hand-crafted? Or will there be procedurally-generated quests and missions?

Some games have random encounters and/or missions with set parameters but where the specific details are procedurally-generated. This could include, for example, a quest involving killing a monster – but where the quest-giver is a procedurally-generated NPC, the monster type is chosen at random, and so on.

Discovering a hand-crafted location in a random place!

Another example would be the patented “nemesis” system used in Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor and its sequel. Random NPCs in the enemy army would be promoted, depending on the actions of the player, and defeating these levelled-up enemies was an integral part of both titles. I’m not expecting anything like this in Starfield, it’s just an example of how this kind of randomness can work!

So will Starfield have anything comparable? Or have all of the game’s missions and quests been constructed by human developers from the ground up? The way Bethesda has talked about the game seems to suggest that at least some quests may take place in randomly-assigned locations.

So that’s it!

Is that a crashed spaceship?

I managed to find another ten questions that I’d love Bethesda and Xbox to answer before Starfield’s release.

As I’ve said before, the point here is not to pre-emptively criticise the game, nor to deliberately seek out things to pick on. Instead, I’m concerned that Bethesda and Microsoft ought to do more to rein in speculation when it gets out-of-hand. If a feature isn’t going to be included in the game, or won’t behave in the way players are expecting, it’s infinitely better to say so now, months before release. The alternative is that the hype train ends up going down the wrong track – before ultimately derailing when players finally get their hands on Starfield.

A good marketing team knows how to say “no” in a way that isn’t offputting, and how to redirect the conversation in a positive direction. If the interiors of spaceships can’t be customised, for example, then tell us and be up-front about that – but also shine a light on outpost building or the variety of costumes and cosmetic options elsewhere in the game. That’s just one example. But covering things up or saying “pass” when asked a basic question about an in-game system or feature that would in no way be a spoiler… well, it isn’t always a good look.

Dogfighting in space!

There are reasons why Starfield should sit in the “wait for the reviews” category. But at the same time, it’s absolutely my most-anticipated game and I can feel the hype train leaving the station. I really can’t wait to get my hands on Starfield, and even if the game doesn’t do absolutely everything that I think I want it to right now, I still think we’re in for a fun time.

There are quests in practically all of Bethesda’s older games that I still haven’t played – or even started! These games tend to be overstuffed with things to do, such that even years later I still haven’t seen or done it all. But I greatly enjoyed all of them in different ways, and the chance to take to the stars in a sci-fi role-playing game like this… it has the potential to be incredible. I haven’t felt this much excitement for a new game since Bethesda’s own Morrowind more than two decades ago!

Starfield will be released on the 6th of September 2023 for PC and Xbox Series S/X consoles. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. Some promo images and screenshots used above courtesy of Bethesda. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Episode Review – Season 2, Episode 3: Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Seasons 1-2. Spoilers are also present for the following Star Trek productions: Picard Season 2, Enterprise, Voyager, and Deep Space Nine.

Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow was an interesting episode – and one of the better time travel stories in modern Star Trek. Its central pairing of La’an and an alternate timeline Kirk was interesting, and one that accomplished the objective of putting them together but without treading on the toes of established canon; Kirk’s legendary conflict with the original Khan Noonien Singh is something that modern Star Trek needs to preserve at all costs!

There were a few contrivances in the episode, though, and both the opening act and Kirk’s willingness to erase his own timeline seemed to be quite rushed. That’s despite Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow being the longest episode of the season so far!

Stranded in the past…

I’ve commented on this twice already this season, but here we go again: where oh where is Captain Pike?! Was Anson Mount unavailable for part of the season’s production? In the first episode, Pike was present only briefly before taking off on a mission of his own. Last week, the opening act saw Pike recruit Una’s lawyer – but he was then sidelined and didn’t have much to say. And this week, Pike got one line in a very short sequence right at the end of the episode. Is Paramount paying Anson Mount by the line these days? What’s going on?!

I say that jokingly – but Strange New Worlds was “the Captain Pike show” when we were campaigning to make it happen. You have to admit that it’s odd, at the very least, for Pike to have been so thoroughly absent in the first part of this season. Basically one-third of Season 2 has now progressed with very little input from the Enterprise’s captain. In past iterations of Star Trek there were always spotlight episodes for individuals and stories in which some characters were more prominent than others… but these came in longer seasons, and it was still relatively uncommon to go three episodes in a row with the captain having so little to do. In modern Star Trek it’s unprecedented; can you imagine if Discovery had run three episodes with so little screen time for Burnham? I just find the whole thing rather perplexing – even though I’ve enjoyed each of these three episodes.

Captain Pike was once again notable by his absence from the story.

Let’s talk about a specific story criticism. Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow saw La’an make wild assumptions and leaps that had no basis in fact or logic. Given that she’s been thrust into a completely new and unfamiliar situation, her assumption that she must have been sent to a specific timeline to team up with Kirk, or to a specific moment in the past for a reason, or that the device she was given wouldn’t “unlock” until she’d completed her mission… all of these things and more needed more time to play out.

As much as I dislike Picard’s second season, the episode Penance is actually a reasonably good example of this “fish-out-of-water” idea. In that story, Picard and several of his crewmates find themselves in an alternate timeline, separated from one another and with no idea of what’s going on. It takes them basically an entire episode just to piece together what’s happened and get back together; it’s not something that can or should be rushed in the way that Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow tried to do.

La’an and Kirk made some wild leaps in logic.

We know that La’an is capable and self-reliant, but her completely baseless assumptions – though validated in a way by the resolution of the story – undermine her characterisation and significantly weaken the episode. Because of the time constraint, it was necessary for La’an to quickly assess the situation she found herself in and come up with a plan – but there may have been ways to cut some other scenes and sequences down, giving this incredibly important setup more time to play out.

This is also true, to an extent, of other parts of the episode. After seeing the bombing and chasing after stolen parts, La’an and Kirk seemed to pretty quickly figure out – again, via baseless assumption – what they had been sent to the past to do. Although Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow found time to slow down in between these rushed moments, the main plot of the episode seemed to leap from point to point incredibly quickly, leaving very little time to digest what was going on. I wanted to shout at La’an and Kirk to slow down and give me a moment to catch my breath!

Racing through the streets of Toronto…

While we’re picking holes in the story, I’ll say this: time travel can be exceptionally difficult to get right in any fictional setting. It’s all too easy to write oneself into a corner, relying on paradoxes, tropes, and “you can’t tell anyone this ever happened” in order to get out of it. The end of Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow raises such a point: if the Department of Temporal Investigations knew what was going on and were able to observe La’an and Kirk, why didn’t they intervene?

La’an is a 23rd Century security officer, and Kirk was a starship captain from a dystopian timeline that shouldn’t exist. They are categorically not the best-qualified people to stop a Romulan super-spy from the future… not without help or guidance, at any rate. If the episode had ended without the official from Temporal Investigations showing up, I guess we could have written it off as the first agent turning to La’an out of desperation. But knowing that this organisation had been watching her all along… it kind of smacks of Enterprise’s Temporal Agent Daniels teaming up with the 22nd Century’s Captain Archer. Surely these organisations have their own staff!

Doesn’t the Department of Temporal Investigations have its own staff?!

That being said, Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow might just be my favourite Star Trek time travel story – or at least my favourite one for a long while! Time travel to the modern day is difficult to get right, and practically every Star Trek episode that’s taken this approach has also taken its crew to the sunlit coast of southern California. This happened in Voyager, in Picard, and even in The Voyage Home. By taking the simple step of visiting Toronto (where the series is filmed) Strange New Worlds was already doing something different. I appreciated that.

I was worried that, coming only a year after Picard Season 2 had spent eight-and-a-half episodes wandering in the 21st Century, Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow might just turn me off before it even got started. Luckily that wasn’t the case, and we got a good mix of lighthearted moments. Kirk and La’an having to figure out how to dress and how to act in an unfamiliar environment stood in contrast to the heavier storyline involving time-travelling terrorists and a plot to stop the Federation from ever being created.

There were lighter moments to balance out a heavy story.

This last point – preventing the Federation from coming into existence – was a fascinating one that I would have loved to explore in more detail. Because it was only revealed at the climax of the plot that the Federation’s existence hinged upon disaster, genocide, and the reign of terror that Khan brought to Earth, there wasn’t an awful lot of time to get into the real implications of this – and of the decision that La’an was forced to make.

But this is such an interesting idea! I even wondered if Picard’s aforementioned second season might’ve been going for a similar setup, because the idea of having to consciously choose to permit something so horrific is a real moral quandary. In that moment, La’an was face-to-face with one of Earth’s most brutal dictators. She could have chosen to kill him, sparing Earth the torment that she knows is 100% guaranteed to happen. But she didn’t – she couldn’t. Not because she wanted it to happen, but because she knew that without those horrors, the future would be radically and almost unimaginably altered.

La’an confronted her family legacy.

The fact that La’an has a personal family tie here makes it an even more complex idea. La’an has spent her life living in the shadow of an infamous, hated ancestor – and she was given an opportunity to prevent any of that from ever happening. The themes at play here, expressed through La’an’s decision and the impossible choice that befell her, are incredibly deep, and Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tommorow almost feels like an episode posing a challenge to its viewers: what would you have done in her place?

This storyline also updates that of Khan and his augments, changing parts of Star Trek’s internal timeline. The Romulan super-spy seemed to imply that the actions of a variety of time-traveling factions may be to blame for Khan’s rise to power taking place decades later than it was supposed to – and that’s something we’ll have to digest or figure out later if it ever returns as a major plot point!

Young Khan.

For now, suffice to say that I’m not a canon “purist,” and I like the idea of Star Trek refreshing and updating itself. That being said, I don’t necessarily feel that the specific timing of Khan’s rise to power is some kind of gaping plot hole that needs to be plugged, even as Star Trek continues to tell modern-day time-travel stories that, in theory, contradict or overwrite parts of the franchise’s prior history. Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow could have proceeded just fine without this somewhat ambiguous line.

This was, perhaps, Strange New Worlds throwing a bone to long-term fans: people like you and I who remember Spock’s line in Space Seed confirming that Khan’s ship left Earth in the late 1990s. Is that a discrepancy? Sure, of course it is. But does it matter? Should all future Star Trek projects avoid modern-day time-travel because the franchise’s fictional history tells us that the late 20th and early 21st Centuries are radically different from how they actually turned out to be? Personally I don’t think so – though canon purists may disagree!

The crew of the Enterprise will meet Khan again…

At first, I was concerned that I wouldn’t be sold on Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow’s Kirk-La’an relationship. But as the story progressed, this turned out to be one of the episode’s strongest elements. The slow buildup to their shared kiss stood in contrast to other story beats that felt rushed or blitzed through too quickly, and by the time Kirk was dying in La’an’s arms, the love story that the episode had constructed truly hit home and formed a much stronger emotional core to the story than I’d been expecting.

Paul Wesley has earned my respect for not only taking on the role of Captain Kirk – a role that is fraught with criticism and that is watched hawkishly by fans – but for putting his own spin on it. Wesley’s Kirk isn’t an attempt to mimic William Shatner’s portrayal – nor Chris Pine’s, come to that. Paul Wesley has made the role his own, showing off his own range, his own emotions, and his own comedic timing. It’s not a carbon copy – any more than Ethan Peck’s Spock is a carbon copy of Leonard Nimoy’s. But I’m impressed with what he’s done with the character – and this alternate version in particular gave the actor a fair amount of leeway.

Paul Wesley as Captain Kirk.

Does La’an’s contact with Pelia form a paradox? I guess we could argue that it does! If Pelia was inspired to become an engineer by La’an in the past, then investigating her possessions was the reason why La’an was alone in the corridor when she crossed over to the alternate timeline, then… wait, my head hurts.

Pelia’s role in the episode was fun, paradoxes aside. It was neat to see Kirk and La’an tracking her down in the past, and the resolution to this side of the story both gives a bit of background to Pelia that we didn’t have before while also being a lighter moment as it became clear that she wasn’t an engineer and would be of no help whatsoever in creating a tracking device. Again, the resolution to this point felt rather contrived and rushed, but the scenes between La’an, Kirk, and Pelia were more than strong enough to carry the story through.

Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow was interesting for the character of Pelia.

Although it was obvious that there would be no “happily ever after” for La’an and Kirk, the way in which the latter was killed was still pretty brutal by Star Trek standards. The episode did a reasonable job at setting up the idea that La’an and Kirk had hope that he might’ve been able to transport back to the prime timeline, but it still felt like a sure thing that that wouldn’t be able to happen, no matter how much they wanted to believe it.

As mentioned, though, the let-down on this side of the story was the rapid, blink-and-you’ll-miss-it turnaround in Kirk. The episode wanted to say something like this: after seeing Earth for the first time with his own eyes, learning of his brother’s survival, and hearing La’an’s tales of a United Federation of Planets and a peaceful, prosperous humanity, Kirk was willing to sacrifice his timeline in order to bring hers into being. Self-sacrifice is a well-established Kirk trait, so that tracks.

Kirk was killed.

But there just wasn’t enough time for this to play out effectively, and it makes the story substantially weaker than it could’ve been. In order to fit in everything else that Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow wanted – the visit to Pelia, the relationship buildup, the car chase, La’an’s run-in with Khan, etc. – this side of things took a back seat. And while other story points worked well, I’m having a hard time with this supposedly grizzled, battle-hardened version of Kirk being so willing to wipe everyone he’s ever known from existence.

This is something that could have been made more of, particularly in terms of a conflict between La’an and Kirk. Two characters from two alternate realities find themselves at the “fork in the road,” where one path leads to one timeline and the other path to a very different one. There was potential in the idea of them arguing over which way to go, because from Kirk’s perspective at least, don’t his people have as much of a right to exist as La’an’s? The episode just didn’t spend much time on what could have been a really interesting idea – and the result of that is that Kirk’s turnaround feels incredibly abrupt.

We could’ve spent longer on this idea.

The episode’s epilogue contained a truly heartbreaking scene. La’an was confronted with the reality that the prime timeline version of Kirk had no idea who she was, and no recollection of the time she’d shared with his alternate counterpart. All credit must go to Christina Chong for a deeply emotional and raw performance; I genuinely felt La’an’s emptiness, loneliness, and heartbreak as she broke down and cried.

The end of Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow feels bleak in more ways than one. La’an had to commit to her ancestor’s genocidal reign, but also lost the sole human connection that we’d ever seen her make. La’an has friendly relationships with her shipmates, but Kirk was something different – someone who seemed to understand her and who didn’t feel encumbered by the weight of her past. La’an caught a glimpse of what that could be like – but it was brutally ripped away from her.

La’an’s heartbreak was a sad end to the episode.

So a bit of a contradictory one this week! Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow is one of Star Trek’s best modern-day time-travel stories. It was fun and lighthearted in places, dense and heavy in others, and it connected back to The Original Series in clever and unexpected ways. But it was let down by trying to cram in one too many storylines, with the result being that several key moments and elements of characterisation were missing, lessening the impact as the story wore on.

I had a good time this week, all things considered. Pairing up Kirk with La’an was a risk, but because this version of Kirk came from an alternate reality, I think we can say it’s a risk that paid off. It was a great episode for La’an’s characterisation, bringing her face-to-face with the monster from her past, but also taking her on an emotional rollercoaster and showing off a side of her that we haven’t always gotten to see.

There’s only one question left to ask: will Captain Pike finally get a role to play next time?!

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Seasons 1-2 are available to stream now on Paramount Plus in countries and territories where the service is available. The Star Trek franchise – including Strange New Worlds – is the copyright of Paramount Global. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Starfield: Ten Questions

Spoiler Warning: Although there are no major story spoilers, minor spoilers may be present for Starfield and its in-game systems. This article also uses screenshots and images from the showcase and trailers.

The Starfield showcase has told us a lot about the upcoming sci-fi role-playing game and what we can expect from it. Bethesda has followed this up by putting out game director Todd Howard to participate in a number of interviews, including one in which he was strangely asked about fishing. But there are still some question-marks hanging over Starfield, at least from my perspective.

I’m not in a position to interview anyone or put these questions to Bethesda and Xbox directly. So instead I thought it could be fun to write them out here – as well as share my thoughts on what the answer may be, and what I’d want the answer to be! As I said when I wrote my Starfield wishlist, I have high hopes that the game will be enjoyable to play regardless of whether or not it does everything that I think I want right now. It’s also possible that updates and DLC will add certain features and mechanics in the months and years after the game launches – so if something seems to be “missing” that a lot of players would like to see, don’t bet against Bethesda adding it somewhere down the line.

Piloting a spaceship.

As always, I have a couple of caveats! Firstly, I have no “insider information,” and I’m not trying to claim that anything we’re going to talk about today definitely will or won’t be part of Starfield. These are questions I have about the game based on pre-release footage, the showcase, and interviews I’ve seen with Bethesda and Xbox folks. Secondly, all of this is the subjective opinion of one person; if you hate all of my questions or if I don’t ask something that seems blindingly obvious to you, that’s okay! There should be enough room in the gaming community and the Starfield fandom for different perspectives and points of view.

Finally, I haven’t seen every interview, nor read every single comment by Bethesda and Microsoft. It’s possible that I’ve missed something, or that something I’m uncertain about has been clarified already. My ageing brain may not have retained everything, too!

With all of that out of the way, let’s jump into my list of questions!

Question #1:
Do planets rotate?
Or: do planets have a day-night cycle?

An astronaut and a star.

We’ve seen some clips that seem to take place in the full light of day, and others that take place in darkness. So it’s obvious that night and day plays a role in Starfield, at least to an extent. But what I haven’t been able to gauge so far is whether there are day-night cycles on every planet – and if there are, would every planet behave the same way?

Past Bethesda games have had day-night cycles, with different monsters appearing at night, for example. In some games, sleeping is only permitted between certain hours, and some quests might even be time-specific in some cases. But if we’re heading out into space, planetary rotation can mean a lot more than just whether the sun is in the sky or not!

A solar system.

Some planets that lack atmospheres have extremes of temperature depending on whether they’re facing their star or not. Mercury, for instance, varies wildly between -170°C at “night” to over 400°C during its “daytime.” If we’re exploring planets comparable to Mercury in Starfield, when and where we land could determine what kind of environmental protection we’d need, for example.

The Starfield showcase seemed to suggest that planetary temperature was one factor that could affect the player character, with the HUD keeping track of temperature. But whether that changes, or whether each planet or landing site has a fixed, unchanging temperature is unclear. I’d love to know whether planets rotate, whether there are varying day-night cycles for the main cities and locations, and whether or to what extent these things could impact exploration.

Question #2:
Is the entire surface of a planet explorable?

A close-up view of a planet.

If I disembark from my spaceship and head in one direction in a straight line, will I be able to keep walking, walking, and walking all the way around the circumference of a procedurally-generated planet? If I stay in that straight line without deviating, will I eventually walk all the way back to my spaceship?

There was a lot of talk at the showcase about “if you can see it, you can go there,” with a moon in the sky of a planet being pointed out. But there was also talk of players choosing a “landing zone” on each planet or moon that we’ll visit – and the implication of that could be that each “zone” has limits.

A spaceship blasts off.

I’m not sure how many people would want to walk all the way around a planet. Exploring the entire surface of even the smallest planet or moon in the solar system would be an arduous task… but gamers love to take on challenges! Walking hundreds or thousands of miles to fully circumnavigate a planet might be something that some folks will want to do.

Regardless, if there are limits to how far players can explore, or how much of the surface of a planetary body is explorable at one time, those limits will have to be handled carefully. Invisible walls might not cut it here… and could certainly impact the sense of immersion. But at the same time, it’s hard to see how this could be avoided, even given the game’s size and ambitious scope.

Question #3:
Will there be microtransactions, an in-game shop, purchasable currencies, and the like?

The game is launching with pre-order bonus items.

If the answer to this question is anything but a solid, definitive “no” then I will be deeply concerned and very disappointed. Already we’ve seen that not all Starfields are created equal: there are pre-order bonus outfits and deluxe edition-exclusive outfits already. Pre-order bonuses are nothing new, of course, but I’d still rather that every Starfield player could have access to all in-game cosmetic items.

But the existence of these in-game skins has me worried. Are Bethesda and Microsoft planning an in-game microtransaction marketplace? If so, will there be some kind of “premium currency” to go along with it? Some titles can feel downright exploitative with their in-app purchases, with cosmetic items in Diablo IV retailing for £20/$25 in some cases.

In-game currency packs in Fall Guys.

In some ways, we can blame Bethesda for being one of the pioneers of monetisation in single-player games. Oblivion’s horse armour DLC became infamous in 2006 as an exemplar of this kind of cheap cash-grab – and Bethesda has even tried to monetise mods with its “Creation Club” in Skyrim and Fallout 4.

In free-to-play games, in-game purchases can be fine – though they must still be reasonably priced and not unfair. But in a single-player, fully-priced title like Starfield, in-game purchases will be hard to justify – if not outright impossible. Bethesda needs to be honest about this, too – and not send out one version of the game to reviewers, then sneakily add in an in-app storefront after launch. We’ve seen similar things happen with other games. It’s a concern at this point that no one at Microsoft or Bethesda has ruled out in-game monetisation.

Question #4:
Will custom backgrounds be available?
(A background with a customisable name and a free choice of skills.)

An example of one of the backgrounds.

The Starfield showcase showed off about sixteen different potential character backgrounds, with a handful of sci-fi staples like “bounty hunter” being joined by less common ones such as “chef!” These look like fun – but their inclusion raises a question: can we make our own custom background?

In Morrowind and Oblivion, it was possible to create a custom class. If players didn’t want to pick one of the pre-made options it was possible to become… well, anything. These custom classes also came with a free choice of starting skills. The pre-made backgrounds in Starfield each seem to come with three starter skills, so that raises the question of whether custom backgrounds exist, and if they do, whether it would be possible to have a free choice of skills to include.

Creating a custom class in Morrowind.

At the showcase, it was clear that the choice of background could lead to some unique dialogue options and possibly even unique quests within Starfield. If that’s the case, Bethesda may not want players creating their own custom backgrounds. But it was a lot of fun in Morrowind and Oblivion to become a “dark knight” or “chocolatier,” and to choose which skills to give a boost to at the beginning of the game. This might not be something everyone wants to try – and I think in my first playthrough I’ll probably pick one of the pre-made options to see how much unique content is on offer. But it could be a ton of fun!

This is something that feels like it could be relatively easy to mod, and I wouldn’t be shocked to see a “custom background” mod created fairly soon after the game’s launch if it isn’t an official feature.

Question #5:
How abundant will resources be?

This cargo ship looks like it could carry a lot of resources.

We know that there will be resources to collect in Starfield, with some of these being able to be sold for cash and others perhaps being used to craft items or even in the construction of outposts and bases. But how abundant will these resources be? If you think about it, every single item ever used in the entire history of humankind has come from a single planet. All the lead, all the iron, all the uranium we’ve ever used across all of human history came from Earth. With that in mind, it might feel strange to visit a planet and find, say, 40kg of iron, half a brick of lead… and nothing else.

One of my concerns with Starfield is that a deliberate policy of forced scarcity might be used to push players to keep exploring and to keep visiting new planets and locations – or even to pay real-world money to “skip the grind.” Depending on what resources are needed for crafting, and how necessary in-game crafting will be to Starfield, this could become frustrating.

Firing a mining laser.

Not all planets and moons will have every available resource – nor should they. But there has to be a balance found that makes collecting resources feel fun and not like a chore. I would also hope that resources will be purchasable, at least in limited quantities. If I need, for example, 100kg of iron to craft something and I only have 98kg, there are going to be times where I’d rather spend a few credits than have to hop in my spaceship and seek out a planet to collect a paltry amount of a single resource!

So again, this is about balance. Exploring has to feel natural, resource collecting and crafting have to feel fun. If I want to become a miner or if I want to use resources to generate the majority of my income, that’s a different story. But for basic gameplay, it’s imperative that Starfield strikes the right balance between scarcity and abundance.

Question #6:
Can spaceship interiors be customised?

Exterior spaceship customisation is part of the game.

At the showcase, a Bethesda developer was prominently shown dropping a pilfered sandwich onto a pile aboard her ship. So we can infer from that that it’s possible to place individual items aboard a spaceship and have them remain there. But is that as far as we can go when it comes to personalising the inside of our flying homes?

I’d like to think it would be possible to do things like change colours, for instance. Changing the colours of the floors, walls, consoles, or furniture would be a step in the right direction, and would go some way to making a spaceship feel personal. There’s a danger, I fear, that no matter how great a ship might look on the outside, the inside might end up feeling like little more than a collection of snapped-together pieces.

Is this a bridge or a large cockpit module?

I’d love to think that we’d have choices over things like furniture. Do we want to pick this style of chair or that one? Do we want to put extra seats in the living area? How about a bigger kitchen? These are the kinds of decisions that I’d love to be making about my spaceship!

Bethesda has suggested that outposts may have a degree of customisation, with furniture and the like able to be positioned. Again, we don’t know how much customisation is available, how many items are available, and to what extent it will be possible to rearrange a room – but that sounds positive, at least. Even though I’d have expected to have heard something about this by now if it was possible for spaceships, I’m still crossing my fingers.

Question #7:
Do tiles and points of interest repeat?

Discovering a new location.

At the showcase, Bethesda developers talked about how procedurally-generated planets will work. Todd Howard confirmed that there are hand-crafted “points of interest” to visit, and these will be randomly allocated to planets through this procedural generation system. While we don’t know how many of these pre-made locations there might be, if you think about how many individual tombs, ruins, and settlements there were in a game like Morrowind, it seems fair to think that there could be at least 100 – and possibly a lot more than that.

But here’s an interesting question: if Starfield’s procedural generation allocates these at random, does that mean we could encounter the same location twice? Will two “abandoned mine” locations be identical on different planets – or different parts of the same planet, come to that? And what about the tiles that make up a planet’s surface? Will they repeat, too?

How much of a planet’s surface will be made up of repeated tiles?

If a player visits a dozen or more planets in the same category – say frozen, icy worlds like Pluto – will we eventually see the same hills, the same mountains, the same lakes, and so on? After all, there can only be a fixed number of pre-made “puzzle pieces” for each type of planet or each biome, surely. There could be hundreds and hundreds of each – but in a game that encourages long-term play, it doesn’t seem impossible that we’d eventually run out of these tiles. What happens then?

If there are hundreds, thousands, or even more of these tiles and locales, the chances of encountering two identical ones in quick succession are going to be slim. But it could be immersion-breaking to land on a planet and encounter the exact same mountain or ruin as we’d already seen and explored somewhere else.

Question #8:
Are there civilian outposts, colonies, and small settlements beyond the main cities?

A spaceship at a spaceport in the Freestar Collective.

One thing that makes Bethesda’s worlds feel lived-in are the smaller towns and off-the-beaten-track settlements. Look at places like Hla Oad in Morrowind or Breakheart Banks in Fallout 4. These are small settlements with no connection to the main quests of their respective games. The player has no reason to visit them except for exploration and “to see what’s there.”

Starfield needs places like this, in my opinion. It’s great that New Atlantis will be Bethesda’s biggest-ever city, or that Neon will feel like a cyberpunk dystopia – but if there aren’t smaller places to randomly encounter in between those few big locations, Starfield’s galaxy will feel small. The population relative to the size of the map will feel unbalanced.

New Atlantis, capital of the United Colonies.

In other Bethesda games – and other open-world games by other developers, too – smaller settlements can have quests of their own. They often have unique NPCs, shops, taverns, and more. Some may be connected to a faction questline, too. So there should still be things to do in at least some of these smaller settlements!

It will feel strange, I fear, if the so-called “United Colonies” only has two cities under its banner, or if the Freestar Collective is a “collective” of no more than two settlements on two planets. Partly this is for that sense of immersion, to ensure that Starfield’s galaxy truly feels like a living, breathing, perpetual world that will exist whether or not the player character is part of it. But also it’s a question of balancing the game, and ensuring that its open world doesn’t feel too empty outside of a handful of cities.

Question #9:
Is it possible to build more than one outpost on a single planet?
And: is it possible to build an outpost on Earth?

Constructing an outpost.

Todd Howard has suggested that it may not be possible to build an outpost on every single one of Starfield’s planets – and that makes sense. Building an outpost right next to a major city might not be a good idea, for instance. Or planets owned by certain factions could be off-limits. But with Earth confirmed to be present in the game – and perhaps in a devastated or otherwise uninhabited state – I can’t be the only one who’s considering building an outpost there… can I?

If it’s truly possible to pick any location on a planet to land and construct an outpost, maybe some folks will want to find their home town and build an Earth outpost! I think that could be fun – even though it seems silly, in a way, to build on Earth in a game all about exploring space!

Is this structure the St. Louis Gateway Arch on Earth, as some have suggested?
Insert: The St. Louis Gateway Arch as it appears today.

Then there’s the idea of building multiple outposts on a single planet. If I come across a great planet with abundant resources, I might want to set up a mining camp there to generate resources and/or income. But would I want to build my dream home on top of a busy mine? Probably not!

So it would be neat if it would be possible to build different outposts on a single planet, perhaps with different functions for each one. An automated mining outpost could be chugging away in the background while my house is hundreds of miles away. That’s just one example – but there could be other reasons for wanting to do this, such as different resources being present in different locations.

Question #10:
Has Bethesda over-promised?
Or: is Starfield being over-hyped?

Todd Howard, Bethesda Game Studios executive producer and Starfield’s director.

Too much hype can be toxic to any game, especially if players are allowed to build up an inaccurate picture of what the game could be before it’s launched. This happened in different ways to games like No Man’s Sky and Cyberpunk 2077, as players came to believe that they were going to get a once-in-a-lifetime, genre-busting experience. Sound familiar?

A good marketing campaign knows how to set appropriate limits and how to say “no” in a way that isn’t offputting. So far, I don’t think we’ve seen enough of this from Bethesda and Xbox, and there’s a danger that some players are getting the wrong idea about the scope of Starfield or about what may be possible in the game. This is something that has to be addressed as quickly as possible!

Phil Spencer and Matt Booty of Xbox Game Studios.

It’s totally understandable that Microsoft and Bethesda want to paint Starfield in the best possible light, showing the game at its best and making the most of key features. But that kind of positive approach has to be both truthful and balanced; it mustn’t oversell in-game systems nor promise features that won’t be present. It’s also important to quash speculation if it gets out-of-hand.

There are going to be limits to Starfield. There will be places that we can’t go, things we can’t do when building spaceships and outposts, and limits to both exploration and customisation. It’s also distinctly possible that the game will launch with some bugs and glitches, or even missing features that may be promised to be coming as part of an update. At the end of the day, Starfield is still a video game – one that is naturally limited by the technology available to its developers.

So that’s it.

An unknown character.

Those are ten questions that I have about Starfield.

As I’ve said on other occasions, I’m trying to rein in the excitement and hype that I have for this game! There are solid reasons to put Starfield in the “wait for the reviews” category – such as Bethesda’s reputation, the shocking state of many recent PC releases, the Fallout 76 mess, and more. And I will be checking out reviews before I commit to Starfield in September – especially if the game appears to be poorly-optimised or not running well on PC. I don’t need another Jedi: Survivor debacle!

I’d love to see Bethesda address all of these questions head-on, and to provide answers before Starfield is released. I’ve done my part on my small corner of the internet – but it will be up to bigger publications who have the access and the opportunity to hold Bethesda and Xbox leaders to account.

The Freestar Collective.

Some of the questions that have been asked of Bethesda and Microsoft have been missed opportunities, in my opinion. The question about fishing leaps to mind as the stupidest example of a nonsense question, but there have been plenty of others. If I were able, these ten questions would be the ones I’d pose to the senior folks at Bethesda and Xbox.

So that’s all for today! I know we’ve talked about Starfield a lot on the website over the past couple of weeks – but that’s because it’s my most-anticipated game at the moment. And every time I think I’ve said enough, something else comes to mind, or I read another article or watch another interview! There may be even more to say in the days and weeks ahead… so stay tuned! When Starfield is released I’ll also do my best to share my first impressions of the game, as well as talk about some of its systems and features.

Until next time!

Starfield will be released on the 6th of September 2023 for PC and Xbox Series S/X consoles. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. Some promo images and screenshots used above courtesy of Bethesda. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

We’re halfway through 2023!

Spoiler Warning: Minor spoilers may be present for some of the titles on this list.

It’s the last day of June, and by my reckoning that makes it the halfway point of the year! As we bid farewell to the first half of 2023, it’s a good excuse to take a look ahead to some of the entertainment experiences that we’ll hopefully enjoy between now and Christmas! Is it too early to think about Christmas yet?

The first half of 2023 has been blighted by buggy games and crappy PC ports, but there have been some fun experiences along the way, too. When the year’s over I’ll be sure to pick out some of the highlights in my annual “end-of-year awards,” so check back for that if you want to see me handing out some imaginary trophies and statuettes! But for now, I promised you a look ahead!

I’ve picked five films, five television shows, and five games that I’m looking forward to in the second half of 2023. Maybe I’ll inspire you to find something to watch or play – or maybe you’ll hate all of my suggestions! Either way, I hope it will be a bit of fun to take a brief look ahead.

Film #1:
Ladybug and Cat Noir: The Movie
3rd August

If you aren’t familiar with Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug and Cat Noir… what have you been doing? The kids’ show is a blast, and has a lot to offer to an older audience, too, as superheroes Ladybug and Cat Noir battle to save the city of Paris! Miraculous is making its first appearance on the big screen this summer with a film adaptation that might just take the series back to its roots. I’m looking forward to seeing what the bigger budget of a cinematic adaptation could do for what is already a well-written and entertaining story.

Film #2:
Red One
November/December 2023

Red One is an action-adventure film set at Christmas – and features a star-studded cast. JK Simmons takes on the role of Santa Claus, with Dwayne Johnson, Chris Evans, and Lucy Liu also headlining. Details of the story are thin on the ground, but Amazon Studios apparently intends for Red One to be the first part of an expanded cinematic franchise. Christmas films can become classics – but they can also be naff, overly-sentimental fluff. I’m hoping for some excitement and entertainment from Red One.

Film #3:
The Last Voyage of the Demeter
11th August

Based on a single chapter of the original Dracula novel, The Last Voyage of the Demeter will focus on the crew of a doomed ship who are being stalked by the infamous vampire. The horror film could be a fun one to watch around Halloween! Horror usually isn’t my cup of tea, but a combination of the nautical setting and the connection to a classic work of literature has piqued my curiosity. As the horror genre swarms with zombies, ghosts, demons, and monsters, vampire flicks are relatively few and far between – which is another point in the film’s favour.

Film #4:
Wish
24th November

Wish looks fantastic! The film has been created especially for Disney’s centenary, and aims to be a celebration of everything the studio stands for. Focusing on the magical star that many characters have made their wishes upon, the film looks set to be another modern-day Disney classic. The animation style used for Wish is a blend of hand-drawn and digital, and the film will star Academy Award-winner Ariana DeBose. The trailer looked fantastic, with an amazing song to boot, and I can’t wait to see Wish for myself!

Film #5:
Rebel Moon
23rd December

There’s always room for more sci-fi, and Rebel Moon could be the kind of epic that spawns a brand-new franchise! Though I haven’t always been impressed with director Zack Snyder’s films, Rebel Moon seems to have a lot of potential. The film will star Star Trek Beyond’s Sofia Boutella, and looks to pitch a group of heroes against a corrupt imperial government. One to watch, for sure!

Video Game #1:
Star Trek Infinite
TBC 2023

Although I’m still not entirely sure what Star Trek Infinite will be like to play, the game is bringing the Star Trek franchise back to the strategy genre on PC (and Mac) for the first time in a long time – and I’m definitely on board with that idea! Publisher Paradox Interactive has a good reputation, and Star Trek Infinite is being constructed atop a streamlined version of the popular sci-fi strategy title Stellaris. There’s potential here, and I shall be checking out the game when it’s ready.

Video Game #2:
Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty
26th September

Although I’ve argued that we need to be careful about Phantom Liberty given what happened when Cyberpunk 2077 was released, I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t at least curious about the expansion pack. Described as a “spy thriller,” Phantom Liberty will add a new storyline to Cyberpunk 2077, a new area of the map, and also promises to connect with the base game’s main story, too. There will also be new weapons, new vehicles, and several new characters to engage with. Definitely one to put in the “wait for the reviews” category… but if it launches in good condition, Phantom Liberty could be a blast.

Video Game #3:
Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora
7th December

Frontiers of Pandora is an open-world action game set in the world of Avatar. It will tell a story independent of the main Avatar films, focusing on a Na’vi character who was trained by humans. This premise sounds genuinely interesting, and could elevate Frontiers of Pandora to something a bit more interesting than just a typical tie-in game. Gameplay was recently shown off as part of Ubisoft’s summer presentation, and the game looks to be in good shape.

Video Game #4:
Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – Booster Course Pass Waves 5 & 6
Summer/Holiday 2023

Last week’s Nintendo Direct broadcast showed off two new characters and one new racetrack that will be coming in Wave 5 of the Booster Course Pass this summer. After that there’s only one more wave to come – which will probably be toward the end of the year. The Booster Course Pass has reignited my interest in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, and having new racetracks to jump into has given the game a shot in the arm. I’m hoping that Nintendo will put a lot of effort into the final two additions to the game.

Video Game #5:
Starfield
6th September

Given Bethesda’s reputation and the appalling condition of Fallout 76 in 2018, Starfield is another game that must remain in the “wait for the reviews” column! But if you’re a regular reader here on the website, you’ll know it’s my most-anticipated game right now. I cannot wait to get stuck into this open-galaxy sci-fi role-playing game, customising my character, my spaceship, and my colony, and getting lost in the world that Bethesda has created. I’m just crossing my fingers and hoping that Starfield will launch in a polished state – and that it can live up to the sky-high expectations that Bethesda and Microsoft have set.

Television Series #1:
Futurama
24th July

Futurama is coming back… again! Although the series came to a pretty definitive end in 2013 – following two cancellations and resurrections – Disney and Hulu have opted to bring it back once more. I’m on board with that idea – and I’ll be curious to see what a revived Futurama can bring to the table in 2023. The show was great fun in its earlier iterations, with an intriguing blend of sci-fi wackiness and topical humour, and I have high hopes for more of the same when Fry and the Planet Express crew return.

Television Series #2:
The American Buffalo
16th October

This two-part miniseries by Ken Burns will tell the remarkable tale of the near-extinction and resurrection of the American bison, looking at the history of hunting, what the species meant to native peoples, and how it was saved from extinction in the 20th Century. Ken Burns is one of the world’s leading documentary filmmakers, and I’ve long enjoyed his work.

Television Series #3:
Star Wars: Skeleton Crew
Late 2023

The premise of Skeleton Crew is giving me Star Trek: Prodigy vibes, as a group of youngsters will find themselves lost in a galaxy far, far away. Jude Law is taking on the lead role of a Jedi, and may serve as a kind of mentor to the group. Story details are still thin on the ground, but there’s enough to think that Skeleton Crew might be something a bit different from a franchise that has struggled to break away from its illustrious past. The series may also connect in some way with The Mandalorian, as it’s set in the same time period.

Television Series #4:
Good Omens Season 2
28th July

Although it’s been a while since the first season of this adaptation of Neil Gaiman’s story, Season 2 is finally upon us! David Tennant and Michael Sheen are returning as the demon Crowley and the angel Aziraphale respectively, and the continuation looks set to be a ton of fun. After Crowley and Aziraphale managed to prevent the end of the world last time around… what will they get up to this time?

Television Series #5:
Foundation Season 2
14th July

The first season of Foundation was outstanding, successfully adapting a very dense work of hard sci-fi in an understandable way. I’m very interested to see what Season 2 might have to offer, and how it might bring together some of the different story threads that the series has in play. Apple has done a great job so far, but Foundation has room to grow. Its complex premise and large cast of characters doesn’t make it the easiest show to follow, but it’s absolutely worth sticking with Foundation.

So that’s it!

We’ve taken a look at a handful of films, video games, and television shows that I hope will be enjoyable between now and the end of the year. In late December I’ll be dishing out some of my annual end-of-year awards to the best of the best, so check back then to see which of the entertainment experiences above made the cut!

What am I most excited about right now? It’s hard to pick just one thing, but I’m very curious to see if Starfield truly lives up to the high expectations that have been set. I’m also really looking forward to Futurama’s return, as well as seeing if Rebel Moon will be “the next big thing” in sci-fi!

I’ll be here throughout the summer, reviewing episodes of Strange New Worlds, sharing my thoughts on new and upcoming projects, and much more! I don’t promise reviews of everything listed above, but I’ll try to share my thoughts and impressions on at least some of these titles. I hope the first half of 2023 has gone well for you, and that you’re looking forward to some fun and exciting entertainment experiences as we pass the halfway point of the year.

All properties discussed above are the copyright of their respective owner(s). Some images used above courtesy of IGDB and IMDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

My Starfield wishlist

Spoiler Warning: Although there are no major story spoilers for Starfield, spoilers are still present for the game and some of its systems.

Yes, we’re talking Starfield again! Bethesda’s upcoming open-galaxy sci-fi role-playing game is absolutely my most-anticipated game right now, and there’s a lot to look forward to. There are also a few points of concern! I’ve covered both here on the website already, but today I thought it could be fun to put together a “wishlist.” We’re going to talk about some of my biggest concerns for Starfield as well as some possible inclusions that haven’t been announced. We’re also going to look at some of the game’s announced features and mechanics and consider how I’d like them to be used.

The major caveat I always give when putting together a wishlist is this: I have no “insider information.” I’m not trying to claim that anything listed below *is* going to be part of Starfield – no matter how much I might want it to be! I’m crossing my fingers and hoping that the game Bethesda has developed will be plenty of fun to play regardless of whether my “wishes” end up being granted!

A custom spaceship.

And as always, all of this is the wholly subjective opinion of one person. If I miss something that seems obvious to you, or if you disagree with all of my ideas, that’s totally okay! There’s enough room in the gaming community and the Starfield fandom for differences of opinion and respectful disagreement.

Now that that’s out of the way, there are a few points from the recent Starfield presentation that were left unclear, with features I’d like to see included in the game that weren’t announced or discussed in detail. There are also some concerns about the game – from its marketing and hype bubble to Bethesda’s reputation. Let’s jump into the list and look at each of my wishes in turn.

Wish #1:
No microtransactions and especially no paid mods.

Starfield will launch with pre-order bonuses.

I was alarmed to see that the special edition of Starfield comes with a handful of character costumes that aren’t going to be part of the main game. Pre-order bonuses are nothing new, of course… but I fear that this is just the canary in the coal mine; a harbinger of some potentially aggressive in-game monetisation.

In a free-to-play game, I’m much more forgiving when it comes to microtransactions. They mustn’t be exploitative, of course, and prices still need to be measured and reasonable, but a game that doesn’t charge its players anything up-front has to make its money back somehow. Starfield will be a fully-priced game, retailing for £60 here in the UK or $70 in the United States, and that means microtransactions are absolutely unacceptable.

An in-game shop in Diablo IV.

I was astonished by the scale of Diablo IV’s in-game marketplace. That game has online features, but it can be a wholly single-player experience – and it’s charging players £20/$25 in some cases for character skins and other cosmetic items. To me, that’s so far beyond the pale that it almost feels laughable.

Bethesda is one of the pioneers of this kind of nonsense, too, with Oblivion’s notorious horse armour DLC in 2006 paving the way for this kind of in-game monetisation in single-player titles. Bethesda has also tried to monetise mods, with multiple attempts to get the “Creation Club” off the ground in both Skyrim and Fallout 4. Paid mods could (and should) be the subject of an entire article one day – but for now, suffice to say it’s something I want to be kept as far away from Starfield as possible.

Wish #2:
Customisable spaceship interiors.

A bed – I hope there will be options to customise it!

Bethesda showed off spaceship customisation extensively at the showcase – and the feature looks amazing. But what wasn’t shown was to what extent the interior of spaceships can be modified and customised… or if that’s even going to be possible at all. Part of me thinks that, if it were possible to make any sort of modification to a vessel’s interior, Bethesda would have shown it off and talked about it. So I suspect this particular wish may not be granted.

We saw a Bethesda developer depositing a large number of sandwiches that she’d pilfered onto a table aboard her ship – so it’s obviously possible to place some in-game items aboard a spaceship and have them remain there. But whether that extends to things like furniture is unclear.

Customising a spaceship’s exterior has been shown off…

At the very least, I’d like to see basic options for things like colours being included. If I want a hot pink spaceship for my gay-as-hell pirate – and if you know me, you know that’s exactly what I want – then it would feel a bit disappointing if the inside of that ship was just a boring white or grey colour.

As far back as Morrowind it was fun to put items on shelves and tables, to decorate a home or cave and make it feel a bit more personalised. If Starfield only gives us pre-made pieces to snap together, with no possibility for further customisation, part of the role-playing experience will be lost. We know that the interior of outposts on planets can be customised – at least to an extent – so I hope spaceships can be too. If not, this should be a priority for the game’s first free update!

Wish #3:
A polished, bug-free launch – or a delay if that won’t be possible.

A visual bug in Fallout 76.

In 2022, I praised the decision to delay Starfield. If the game wasn’t going to be ready for prime-time in November of last year, a delay was the only thing Microsoft and Bethesda could have done. But Starfield’s hype bubble has inflated massively since the showcase, and with a release date at the beginning of September seemingly set in stone, there’s going to be a lot of pressure to launch the game whether it’s ready or not.

This year alone we’ve seen far too many bug-riddled, broken, unfinished games pushed out too early by greedy publishers. Microsoft and Bethesda are not immune from this, either, with Redfall being an absolute abomination only a few weeks ago. Given the state of other Bethesda titles when they were released – Fallout 76 most notably – there are reasons to be concerned. Starfield is, for me, a game firmly in the “wait for the reviews” column.

A broken character model in Redfall.

Xbox Game Studios head Matt Booty was recently quoted as saying that Starfield would have “the fewest bugs of any Bethesda game ever shipped” if it were released today… and that’s a bold claim that he will be held accountable for. It’s easy for any developer worth their salt to put together a “vertical slice” of gameplay that runs well and is polished, and even the worst and most incomplete, broken games can look decent in their own marketing material. All that we’ve seen of Starfield so far has been promotional bumf released by Bethesda, so until the game is actually in the hands of real players, we can’t be sure of its condition.

There is a lot riding on Starfield for Bethesda; the company is looking to recover its reputation after Fallout 76. But there’s a lot riding on the game’s success for Xbox and Microsoft, too. If Starfield goes the way of Anthem or even Cyberpunk 2077, the situation may not be salvageable… and that could lead to serious long-term problems for Bethesda and its parent company. If Starfield isn’t good enough by September, then for god’s sake delay it!

Wish #4:
Small towns and settlements to visit beyond the main cities.

The city of New Atlantis.

At time of writing we know of four major settlements in Starfield: Akila City in the Freestar Collective, the pleasure city of Neon, New Atlantis in the United Colonies, and Cydonia on Mars. We also caught a glimpse of a space station that looked quite large, as well as a location called “Red Mile” that we don’t know much about yet. But that’s all.

In Skyrim there were nine cities, five smaller towns, and a number of settlements and farmsteads scattered across the map. Fallout 4 likewise had several larger and smaller towns, and even Morrowind had a number of smaller places to visit outside of the main settlements. I hope that some of Starfield’s planets will have colonies or small towns to encounter, especially if they aren’t tied to the main quest. I hope that both the United Colonies and the Freestar Collective will have other settlements outside of their capital cities. And I hope that these locations will be visually interesting and fun to visit!

The town of Pelagiad from Morrowind is an example of the kind of place I’m thinking of.

This really speaks to a bigger concern that I have about Starfield – namely that the game’s massive open-galaxy map could feel incredibly empty. Without these smaller settlements and the people that live there, Starfield risks feeling very under-populated. If the galaxy only contains four cities and a couple of thousand people… the population relative to the size of the map will be completely out-of-balance.

Bethesda has shown off a handful of locations, like an abandoned mine populated by hostile NPCs, but I’m looking for settlements akin to Morrowind’s Pelagiad or Fallout 3′s Grayditch – small towns with a few characters to encounter that go a long way to making their respective worlds feel lived-in and complete.

Wish #5:
Heads-up display options.

The HUD during spaceflight.

One visual choice that I wasn’t wild about came during some of the first-person spaceflight sections shown off in the Starfield showcase. A well-designed cockpit could be seen, complete with buttons, screens, and readouts… but clumsily slapped on top of that was the game’s HUD in transparent boxes.

For me, this detracted from the way those spaceflight sections looked. I’d love to be able to move things like power management to those screens directly, and to see my character pushing buttons that correspond with the actions I’m taking. Failing that, I hope there’s at least an option to minimise or hide the HUD so it doesn’t get in the way.

Transferring energy between systems.

This is less of an issue on the ground, at least from what we saw at the showcase. And a good heads-up display is important; the HUD contains vital information like the amount of ammo you have left, the state of your health, a mini-map, and more. But during those spaceflight sections in particular, I felt that the HUD was clunky and got in the way.

The best-case scenario would be to move the HUD options directly to one or two of the screens in the cockpit. That would be fantastic to see! But at the very least if there could be options to hide this during first-person spaceflight, that would go a long way to helping with that sense of immersion that Starfield is going for.

Wish #6:
Difficulty and accessibility options.

Difficulty options in Skyrim.

Say it with me, folks: difficulty options are an accessibility feature! Many modern games offer things like large text, colour-blindness settings, motion sickness settings, and more. One of the best games I’ve played in terms of the sheer number of accessibility features was Control, but other titles like Grounded have been pioneers, with options to dial back the fear factor in some of its bugs and arachnids.

Accessibility extends to difficulty, too, and while I certainly hope that Starfield will pose a challenge for folks who need or want that, I hope there will be options to dial back the difficulty to allow those of us who don’t want to die every six seconds to have an enjoyable time! There’s hope in that regard: Skyrim and Fallout 4 both had decent difficulty options. The addition of a “hard-core” mode with permadeath could be fun for some players, too… but it definitely won’t be something I choose to activate!

I hope I won’t be seeing this very often!

A role-playing game needs to be adaptable, allowing players with different ability levels to participate. Bethesda has usually made an effort, at least, to get this right – but modern games allow for many more options in that regard. It should be possible to dial down the difficulty of combat, for instance, while maintaining a higher difficulty level for something like lockpicking or puzzle-solving.

There’s been a trend in some modern games, pioneered by the likes of the Dark Souls series, toward a punishing level of difficulty. That’s fine for some players – but it would deny Starfield to millions more, myself included. There are games I’ve genuinely wanted to play that were denied to me because they were totally inaccessible – I hope Starfield won’t be among them.

Wish #7:
Pets!

An alien life-form!

It’s already been confirmed that we won’t be able to “mount” any of the wild animals we encounter in Starfield. That’s fine by me, as mounts and vehicles weren’t things I was expecting. But it would be really sweet and cute if we could get pets for our spaceships and outposts!

These could either be purchasable from in-game vendors, perhaps with Earth animals like cats or dogs being available. Or, as an alternative, tamed alien animals that we encounter out in the game’s open world. We’ve already seen that players can choose an ability to pacify aggressive animals – it’s not much of a leap from that to having a tamed, domesticated pet!

Commander Shepard with their fish tank in Mass Effect 3.

If this isn’t something included in the base game, it’s absolutely something that Bethesda should consider for an update or even as a standalone piece of DLC. Other games have done this: from Commander Shepard’s hamster and fish tank in Mass Effect 2 through to horses in Red Dead Redemption II and the mini-games required to properly care for them. It’s possible to pet cats and dogs in games like Ghostwire Tokyo, and Bethesda’s own Fallout 4 gave players a pet dog to accompany them!

This is pure fantasy, of course, as it’s a feature that hasn’t been announced or even teased. But the ability to acquire a pet would add a lot to the pure role-playing immersion of a game like Starfield.

Wish #8:
Make those traits and backgrounds matter.

The traits menu in the character creator.

The Starfield showcase highlighted both character backgrounds and optional traits – all of which seem like they have the potential to really shake up the way Starfield plays. Some traits add wholly new characters or change the way different factions will react to the player character, and that’s great… I just hope that it matters in a meaningful way.

In Cyberpunk 2077, the much-vaunted “life paths” that a player could choose ultimately had very little impact on gameplay. Outside of a short prologue, which was different for each, there was one solitary quest – and a short one at that – midway through the game, and a couple of places where different dialogue options could appear. That was it. There really wasn’t much to Cyberpunk’s life paths, certainly not enough to add much by way of replayability.

One of the available backgrounds.

Starfield needs to get this right. If I can choose to be a chef who frequently goes home to visit their parents, then playing the game with those options needs to feel substantially different from choosing to be a gangster with a bounty on their head. If these things will only have a superficial impact on gameplay, then they won’t really matter – and that will damage the sense of immersion and make starting a second save file feel less than worthwhile.

If these traits and backgrounds in their various combinations don’t matter as much as Bethesda’s marketing has suggested, then they may as well be scrapped and Starfield could have a Skyrim-style class system instead. It’s hard to see how all of the fifteen or more different backgrounds could each be given their own unique questlines and extensive dialogue options… but an effort has to be made!

Wish #9:
A reason to explore – and to keep exploring.

A star system.

Recent interviews by Starfield’s director Todd Howard have confirmed that approximately 10% of the game’s 1,000 planets will have life on them. That leaves 900+ planets being lifeless, but with resources to collect and possibly a handful of ruins or abandoned outposts to discover.

Starfield needs to ensure that players have a reason to explore these worlds. Forced scarcity of resources won’t cut it – and could easily become frustrating. If the game’s Constellation organisation is focused on exploration, then there has to be a reason why they’re pushing the player to explore these planets. Seeking out ancient artefacts could be part of that – but again, there will be a lot of planets that don’t have any. What reason will players have to visit these worlds?

What reason do I have to visit these planets?

I think it’s possible that DLC will add new locations, crashed spaceships, ruined colonies, and much more to some of these empty planets… assuming that Bethesda will be in a position to continue to support Starfield post-release. That’s a longer-term solution, though, and doesn’t really get away from the immediate problem of what could be a map that’s simply too large for the amount of content that will be contained in it.

This is one of my biggest worries, to be honest. I have no doubt that Bethesda will have created some wonderful characters, some fun quests, and some engaging storylines… but will that content be too thinly spread? Or will most of it be concentrated in a handful of big cities and populated planets? Fallout 76 felt big and empty; an open-world with nothing to do and no reason to explore it beyond admiring the scenery. I hope that Starfield hasn’t fallen into the same trap.

Wish #10:
Exciting and enjoyable combat.

An example of melee combat from the showcase.

I’ve usually enjoyed combat encounters in The Elder Scrolls games, particularly melee combat with swords, axes, spears, and the like. But Bethesda’s Fallout duology hasn’t always gotten its gunplay right. In Bethesda’s single-player Fallout titles, the VATS system paused the game to allow for targeting, and that went a long way to covering up what was pretty mediocre shooting and gunplay.

When VATS couldn’t be implemented in Fallout 76 – because of the game’s multiplayer nature – Bethesda’s sub-par shooting was laid bare. What we’ve seen of Starfield’s gunplay looks impressive so far, but again that comes with the caveat that everything we’ve been shown is carefully-edited marketing material that may not ultimately prove to be representative of the finished game.

Firing a pistol/handgun in Starfield.

Todd Howard confirmed that Bethesda has worked with fellow ZeniMax studio id Software on elements of Starfield, and the famed developer of the Doom series – including the recent highly-praised titles Doom and Doom Eternal – would definitely have a lot to offer. Some of Starfield’s shooting looked to draw inspiration from those recent Doom games.

At the end of the day, all we really need is for shooting to be competent. It won’t be the main focus of Starfield for the most part, but when combat encounters arise, they need to be basically fun to play and not frustrating! In a role-playing game with different playstyles and options, different kinds of weapons need to behave differently from one another, too.

So that’s it!

Using a mining laser.

Those are ten of my Starfield wishes!

In an ideal world, the game would do everything I want! But even if none of the things we’ve talked about today come to pass, I’m still hoping for a fun and enjoyable game. Maybe Starfield won’t be the best game of all-time… but as long as it has some of that Bethesda magic, and some decent systems and mechanics that don’t get in the way, I daresay it’ll be good enough to keep my attention and focus for a time this autumn.

I really am trying not to get too carried away. It’s hard, though, because I don’t think I’ve been this excited about a game since Bethesda’s own Morrowind more than twenty years ago. If you asked me to describe my idea of an “ideal game,” many of the things I’d choose to include have already been confirmed to be part of Starfield.

One of the available companions.

In a broader sense, Starfield feels like the game I’ve been waiting decades to play, ever since I first played games like Star Trek: Starship Creator, Star Fox on the Super Nintendo, and first-person shooters like the original Doom, System Shock, and Elite Force. I’m trying not to place too high a bar on Starfield… but I can’t deny how excited I am!

Every time I think I’ve ran out of things to say about Starfield, I find at least one more thing to comment on! So I hope you’ll stay tuned here on the website, because I may have something else to say about the game before too long. When Starfield is released, I’ll also do my best to share my first impressions and my thoughts about the game and its various systems and gameplay mechanics, so definitely check back for all of that later in the year.

Until then, I hope this wishlist was a bit of fun!

Starfield will be released on the 6th of September 2023 for PC and Xbox Series S/X consoles. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. Some promo images and screenshots used above courtesy of Bethesda. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Star Wars Jedi: Survivor – First Impressions

Spoiler Warning: There are minor spoilers ahead for the first couple of levels of Jedi: Survivor. Spoilers are also present for Jedi: Fallen Order.

I have made a mistake.

With Jedi: Survivor having been released two months ago, and with six major patches rolling out for the PC version of the game in that time, I made the ignorant assumption that the game would have been fixed by now – or at least substantially improved. Having held off on purchasing the game when it was first released given its broken, unfinished state – and even worse PC port – I had hoped that some extra development time and post-release patches would have fixed things up.

Despite trying my best to avoid spoilers for the game, I’d come across a couple of seemingly pretty big ones over the past couple of months, and I wanted to play Jedi: Survivor without encountering any more. I was also keen to fill the void while I wait for Starfield – all of which are factors that led me to purchase Jedi: Survivor.

Cal Kestis – with his trademark moustache and pink lightsaber, of course.

On PC, the game is in a poor state even two months and six patches later. My PC far exceeds the game’s recommended system requirements, and should be capable of running Jedi: Survivor with detailed graphics and ray-tracing enabled without any issues. For comparison, I can run demanding titles like Red Dead Redemption II and Cyberpunk 2077 at their highest resolution, with ray-tracing enabled, and easily get a smooth 60 frames-per-second.

Jedi: Survivor runs poorly. Most of the time, walking around and exploring a level isn’t an issue. But as soon as combat begins, or even when Cal has to perform an acrobatic move like a double-jump or running along a wall, there are noticeable frame drops and stuttering issues. With some levels requiring fairly specific button-presses to navigate areas, inconvenient frame drops can mean the difference between successfully completing a section and having to replay it. This got old fast.

Cal stuck in the environment due to a glitch.

And this is in spite of turning down all of the in-game settings. I tried Jedi: Survivor in 4K at first, then 1440p, then finally 1080p. I tried the “high” preset, before dropping down to medium, and then again turning some settings – like shadows and the draw distance – all the way down to low. I refuse to drop the settings any further; playing the game in 720p with all settings on low would make it look no better than an Xbox 360 title, and what’s the point?

Some of these frame-drops occur during cut-scenes, which is something I haven’t encountered in a game in a long time. Although this kind of problem is annoying during gameplay, at least it’s understandable to an extent… but for cut-scenes to be similarly afflicted is actually quite shocking. It speaks to how unready Jedi: Survivor was when it was forced into a premature launch.

This “optimisation” takes place every time the game is started.

The frame-rate and stuttering issues are indicative of a game that is poorly-optimised. Despite Jedi: Survivor taking its sweet time to “optimise files” every time it boots, there’s no indication that this does anything at all. The game simply isn’t running well on PC. This isn’t an issue on my end, either – take a look at tech breakdowns from people far more skilled than I am and who have significantly more powerful computers. Similar issues are also impacting performance on PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X – though I don’t have those consoles so I can’t speak to that for myself.

Jedi: Survivor has some visually interesting locations, but the experience of these – and the sense of immersion that I was hoping to find – has been ruined; soiled by just how janky and unfinished the game still is. When it works, these sights are definitely something to see, but the sad fact is that the game doesn’t work far too often.

Some of Jedi: Survivor’s levels should look great.

I’m now considering abandoning Jedi: Survivor, despite only being a couple of hours into the game. If future patches come along that will genuinely address the performance problems that are plaguing the game on PC, it will be worth revisiting or restarting. But at the moment, I find that I’m spending almost as much time battling poor performance as I am battling enemies – and that just isn’t a lot of fun. Jedi: Survivor isn’t the only game this year to arrive in an unfinished state, especially on PC, but it’s so disappointing to see that this godawful “release now, fix later” approach has really put a downer on what should have been an exciting and fun experience.

But there’s more to say. In the time I’ve spent with the game so far, I have a couple of thoughts to share on the narrative and gameplay. This all comes with the major caveat that I’m only at the beginning of the main story, and that my thoughts may very well shift depending on how things go later on. How a story begins isn’t nearly as important as the journey it takes us on, after all!

Concept art for Jedi: Survivor.

That being said, the first couple of hours of Jedi: Survivor haven’t exactly blown me away narratively. I’ll avoid as many major spoilers as I can, but there will be some minor spoilers ahead – so if you ignored my spoiler warning at the beginning, this is your last chance to nope out!

When we’re reintroduced to Cal, he’s working with a new crew, with the friends he met in the first game having gone their separate ways. I’m not averse to that idea, as several years have passed since the events of Jedi: Fallen Order. Unfortunately, however, the members of Cal’s crew that we’re introduced to just feel incredibly one-dimensional and bland. Their dialogue was laden with clichés – something clearly designed to convey Cal’s friendliness with them all – but it all ended up falling flat. I couldn’t find a way to care about any of these people when they were in danger – because the game didn’t succeed at getting me invested in them or their fates.

Some of the game’s new characters felt bland and uninteresting.

Contrast this with Prauf, Cal’s scrapper friend from the opening act of the first game. Prauf felt like he had personality, and I genuinely felt his connection with Cal from almost the first moment he appeared on screen. When Prauf was killed, Cal’s reaction was genuinely heartbreaking because the game had successfully set up their relationship.

I’m also a little concerned that Jedi: Survivor is going to retread parts of Jedi: Fallen Order by seeing Cal seek out the same people that he met last time. Reuniting a crew that had been together the last time we saw them is a risk; it’s something that could feel underwhelming in the extreme. Though there are new characters to get to know, part of the appeal of a sequel is to catch up with all of the characters we met last time – and I’m concerned that the way Jedi: Survivor plans to handle this will feel repetitive and just less interesting as a result.

Promo screenshot featuring Cal and Merrin.

In Jedi: Fallen Order, Cal was guided to a succession of specific locations on his quest. He had to visit the tombs of Zeffo, the forested world of Kashyyyk, the scorched desert of Dathomir, and the frozen wasteland of Ilum – but he went to each of these locations with a goal in mind. The first part of Jedi: Survivor sees Cal seemingly by accident fall into a cave – and from that random cave discover a hidden Jedi artefact. It just feels a little too convenient.

Out of all the places in the galaxy that Cal could have ended up, he finds himself on just the right part of just the right planet – and not because he was guided there by Cere or by Master Cordova’s holocron, but by sheer random chance. Star Wars fans may say “that’s the Force!” and pedants will say “it’s just a story!” but to me, neither of those excuses feel especially strong. Last time, Cal had a purpose, and was guided on his quest to particular locations. This time, things feel a lot more random.

Jedi: Fallen Order’s story seemed to take Cal on a more natural journey – rather than a random, incredibly convenient one.

Mechanically, Jedi: Survivor has a couple of issues, too. Larger levels can be more confusing, and the in-game holo-map still isn’t particularly user-friendly. In just the first couple of stages I found myself getting lost, and partly that’s because the way to go wasn’t well-signposted. Areas that looked accessible weren’t, areas that were supposed to be reachable looked blocked off or too far away, and while I don’t want a Skyrim-style waypoint on my screen the entire time… there’s got to be a way to make some of these pathways more visible, surely.

Jedi: Survivor is leaning into more of an open-world style, at least with one of the planets Cal has visited so far… and that can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, larger and more expansive levels are a welcome change from linear paths, but on the other, some open worlds can get in the way of story progression. There are also more hiding places for items and chests… and it can be frustrating, sometimes, to explore a whole chunk of a level, climbing on every ledge and jumping into every cave only to find nothing at all.

Battling battle droids.

I like the expanded customisation options for Cal – and I’ve already found a suitably silly moustache for him to plaster on his face. I wish more customisation options were unlocked at the start, though; the available cosmetics felt pretty threadbare at first. I love a game with good customisation options, though, and Jedi: Survivor appears to have a bunch of fun cosmetics to play about with.

The game is larger than Jedi: Fallen Order was – with more characters, more skills, more quests, and more cosmetic variety. All of those things are positive, and so far I don’t feel overwhelmed or like the game is too large. Some open-world games can feel like they dropped you in the middle of a mass of stories and quests with little to no direction; at least in its first couple of hours, Jedi: Survivor manages to avoid that sensation.

A closer look at Cal’s moustache.

I want to progress further with this game. I adored Jedi: Fallen Order and I was really excited about its sequel, reuniting with Cal and the Stinger Mantis, and having another adventure in a galaxy far, far away. Although there are a couple of story complaints that I’ve found so far, by far the worst issue with Jedi: Survivor is that it just doesn’t play very well. The game probably needs at least two or three more significant patches and updates to knock it into shape – and when the most recent patch took over a month to be rolled out, that could mean Jedi: Survivor will have to go back on the shelf for a while.

Electronic Arts fucked up what should have been a guaranteed success by doing what they’ve done too many times before: forcing the release of an unfinished game too early. Had Jedi: Survivor been delayed to, say, September or October, to allow Respawn more time to actually finish working on it, we could be talking about one of the best games of the year – and one of the best Star Wars games in a long time.

Instead, Jedi: Survivor will always have an asterisk; a little caveat next to it. No matter what happens to the game in the months ahead – and I sincerely hope that more patches and fixes are coming – it will always be tainted by the poor shape it was in when it launched. That didn’t have to happen… and I wish I’d taken my own advice and waited a little longer before purchasing it.

Star Wars Jedi: Survivor is out now for PC, PlayStation 5, and Xbox Series S/X. Jedi: Survivor is the copyright of Electronic Arts, Lucasfilm Games, and Respawn Entertainment. The Star Wars franchise is the copyright of Lucasfilm and The Walt Disney Company. Some promo artwork and images used above courtesy of IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Episode Review – Season 2, Episode 2: Ad Astra Per Aspera

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Seasons 1-2. Spoilers are also present for the following Star Trek productions: The Original Series, Deep Space Nine, and Picard.

This review touches on the subjects of transphobia and anti-trans legislation and may be uncomfortable for some readers.

Ad Astra Per Aspera was a great episode that shows Star Trek at its best. It took a sci-fi story about alien races and genetic engineering and used that to shine a light on some very real issues out here in the real world, becoming a classic Star Trek “morality play” in the process. But it did so with subtlety, and without allowing the analogy to overwhelm or subdue the character-driven story at its core. That balance can be difficult to get right sometimes, but Ad Astra Per Aspera nailed it.

For fans like myself, however, who’ve followed Star Trek over the course of decades… Ad Astra Per Aspera runs into one very specific story issue that’s entirely the result of Strange New Worlds being a prequel. This issue doesn’t ruin the episode, but it does detract a little from the powerful message it intended to convey, and leaves the ending feeling bittersweet.

But we’ll get into all of that in a moment.

Una in a Starfleet prison cell.

First of all, before we dive deeply into the analogy at the core of Ad Astra Per Aspera, let’s take a look at a few of the other points of interest in the episode. For the second week in a row – and now for two episodes of what is only a ten-episode season – Captain Pike was once again sidelined. Though Pike had more to do this week than last week, and was physically present for a number of scenes and sequences, his role was relatively minor – as epitomised by Captain Batel telling him that he needed to stay on the sidelines and keep his mouth shut.

As I said last week, this again felt like an odd choice for what we once called “the Captain Pike show.” I’m sure Pike will have more than one centre-stage moment in the episodes that lie ahead, but for Season 2 to have kicked off with not one but two episodes that played out without much input from the Enterprise’s captain is a strange creative choice. Although Captain Batel told Pike that he needed to keep out of the court-martial for both Una’s sake and his own, it would have been just as easy to write a script in which Pike’s input at Una’s trial – perhaps even acting as an advocate for her defence – would have been of vital importance. I don’t hate or even particularly dislike that these two episodes focused on other characters, but it’s noteworthy, at least, that Season 2 started this way.

Captain Pike played a minor role for the second episode in a row.

There was also no mention whatsoever of the events of last week. Again, this is something we could see in a future episode, but Spock’s disobeying of orders, the theft of the Enterprise, and everything that transpired with Dr M’Benga, Nurse Chapel, La’an, and the Klingons… none of it came up. I would have expected Pike to comment, at least, on Spock’s actions – perhaps indicating his approval in such a way that could have set the stage for the events of The Menagerie.

I said last week that I felt it was odd that La’an’s story ended without a definitive resolution. The end of the episode saw her seemingly contemplating a return to Starfleet, but The Broken Circle ended without clarifying further. La’an has rejoined Starfleet, and seemingly regained her posting aboard the Enterprise – but all of this appears to have taken place off-screen. An extra minute or two last week could have cleared that up, and it would have been nice if La’an’s return to duty had been marked in some way by her colleagues and crewmates.

La’an is back in Starfleet.

La’an was one of the more interesting characters this week, and her arc of coming to terms with potentially getting Una in trouble – and her palpable sense of relief when it turned out she wasn’t to blame – was an interesting B-plot that connected with the main thrust of the episode. I wondered if La’an might’ve been the one responsible for “outing” Una, and while I’m glad it wasn’t something she did maliciously, it made for an interesting and engaging secondary storyline as La’an and Uhura looked into what might’ve happened.

Lieutenant Ortegas is the one main character who still hasn’t had a turn in the spotlight. I hope we get to see more from her in Season 2, and while her scenes with Dr M’Benga and Spock this week added a rare moment of light-heartedness to what was an otherwise heavy episode, I’m still hoping to spend more time with the Enterprise’s helm officer.

Lieutenant Ortegas.

The scene in the mess hall with M’Benga and Ortegas was a fun one, though, and I love how the series continues to find new and different ways to make Spock and the Vulcans unintentionally funny. Seeing Spock apologising for his “outburst,” when all we saw was him and the prosecuting officer sitting calmly and quietly was a blast – drawing on what we know of Vulcans and subverting our expectations in the best way possible!

Admiral April continues to confound me. His presentation in Season 1 was that of a decorated, well-respected, and upstanding Starfleet officer. But last week we saw him keeping secrets, potentially scheming with others at Starfleet in a way that could lead to war. And this week, the trend of turning April into somewhat of a “badmiral” seemed to continue. When challenged about Una’s case, April said repeatedly that he would have denied her application to Starfleet Academy simply because of her genetically-enhanced background, positioning him firmly as someone who would uphold the law and the status quo at any cost.

Admiral April may be going down a dark path…

I’m not wild about this direction for Admiral April, and I hope that there will be more to his characterisation this season. We didn’t see any more war scheming this week – which is good. But it’s the second episode in a row that didn’t present him in an especially positive light.

As I said last week, the redress of Discovery’s Federation HQ set wasn’t spectacular. The redress was incredibly obvious, and as Federation HQ has been seen in probably fifteen or more episodes of Discovery beginning with Season 3, it was a poor choice to recycle it here. More could have been done to disguise the repurposed set – such as removing the circular “fence” that took up a large part of the middle of the room. In Discovery, this area is supposed to be open, looking down on other levels. In a courtroom, that just seems silly. The room was also too large for the number of people in it, with a huge gap between the judges’ bench and the prosecution and defence desks. The circular shape also felt clunky and awkward. Better options were available – including the set used for the mess hall, for instance.

The set was a redress of Discovery’s Federation HQ.

Star Trek can do courtroom drama exceptionally well, and Ad Astra Per Aspera will take its place alongside episodes like Court-Martial, The Drumhead, and Rules of Engagement as one of the best. The scenes that took place both in court and outside of it were tense and dramatic, and until Una’s advocate sprung her legal trap it wasn’t at all obvious how the proceedings were going to go. There seemed to be a genuine threat to Una, with the evidence against her being rock-solid, and this was maintained all the way until the final moments of the episode.

The danger with this kind of outcome is that the ending can feel a bit too convenient… and there was a sense of that here. Una’s advocate managed to find a relatively obscure piece of Federation law – obscure enough, anyway, to be unknown to both prosecuting officers – and thus Una escaped punishment on a last-second technicality. That wasn’t unsatisfying by any means, and the writers of Ad Astra Per Aspera did well to connect it back to Una’s own statements. But it’s definitely a trope of the courtroom drama genre.

Neera Ketoul, Una’s advocate, found a technicality to resolve the case in her favour.

One part of Ad Astra Per Aspera that I felt was just a little underdeveloped was the conflict between Una and her advocate: the Illyrian Neera Ketoul. At a couple of points this felt like little more than forced tension; an unnecessary addition to the episode that didn’t really add anything nor elevate the main storyline. We could have seen more of Ketoul in an extended flashback sequence, for example, or learned what transpired between her and Una either at the beginning of the episode or during Pike’s conversation with Una last week. Something like this would have added a bit more to this otherwise pretty bland dispute.

That aside, however, I loved what Ad Astra Per Aspera did with Neera Ketoul – and with the Illyrians in a broader sense. Unlike someone like Atticus Finch – the small-town lawyer in To Kill A Mockingbird – Ketoul’s entire practice is based on advocating for civil rights, particularly for the Illyrians. She embodies many of the same traits as someone like Atticus Finch, but comes from a much stronger starting point. It’s obvious from her first moment in court why Captain Pike believed she would be Una’s best hope!

Neera Ketoul in her office.

So let’s talk about the analogy at the core of Ad Astra Per Aspera. Such things are subjective in nature, and I’m sure that there are other interpretations of the episode. What I’m going to share is my own take, my own thoughts and feelings on the messaging here, and how well I feel it worked in the context of the story.

I viewed Ad Astra Per Aspera’s main story as being an analogy for trans and gender non-conforming people, our rights, and the multitude of legislation that has been and is continuing to be passed in various jurisdictions around the world. When Una spoke of the “privilege of passing,” and how Illyrians who could “pass” for human could conceal their true selves, that was when the analogy really hit. There are definitely other interpretations – but I think this is what the writers were going for. At any rate, that’s what I took away from the episode.

Ad Astra Per Aspera had a powerful message at its core.

Una’s speech about her childhood, about having to hide her true self while listening to vile abuse dished out by others, is something that really hit home for me. I’ve spoken about this before, but when I was younger, being trans or gender non-conforming was something that would lead to ridicule and mockery at best – and abuse and even physical harm at worst. The way Una described the treatment of Illyrians is something that felt uncomfortable – because it’s something that I think a lot of us have seen firsthand.

Here in the UK, as well as in the United States and elsewhere, there are currently some very vicious anti-transgender movements, some of which have scored some pretty big legislative victories. The prominence of some anti-trans figures has also led to the issue being discussed and debated in public far more often, with the result being a pushback against trans people, the rolling back or blocking of trans rights, and even hate campaigns directed at well-known trans individuals.

Una’s trial and her backstory can be seen as an analogy.

Compare that to Una’s description of her early life and there are a lot of parallels. Una describes a typical “moral panic,” one that targetted the Illyrians. Out here in the real world, a similar panic is being whipped up against trans people, non-binary people, and the wider LGBT+ community.

This is Star Trek doing what it’s always done: telling a sci-fi story with a real-world comparison, using its fantastical setting to shine a light on and even reframe issues out here impacting real people in the real world. It’s hard to watch Ad Astra Per Aspera and not sympathise with Una, with the inherent unfairness of the position she’s been placed in, and with the traumatic experiences she had to endure. At the same time, Una is presented as more than simply a victim: she’s someone with ambitions and aspirations, and despite everything that was done to her under Federation law and Starfleet’s code of justice, she still aspired to join the organisation and embody its values.

Una is back aboard the Enterprise!

This is one of the main messages of Ad Astra Per Aspera: that society may not always live up to its own ideals and promises, but those ideals and promises are still worth striving for and fighting for. The notion that “all people are equal” is under attack in some quarters, and the rights of minority groups – not only the LGBT+ community, but ethnic minorities, indigenous peoples, religious minorities, and more – aren’t always guaranteed in an era of populism and government by soundbite. But even when those rights are infringed, the principle that upholds them – and the guiding philosophy behind them – is something worth fighting for.

In terms of the actual narrative side of this analogy, I felt it was brought to screen exceptionally well. Rebecca Romijn put in a truly outstanding performance when Una was taking the stand to speak in her own defence, running the gamut of emotions from trauma, fear, and despair through to the hope and optimism that Una saw in Starfleet. It was gripping to watch; a powerful performance.

This was a really powerful performance by Rebecca Romijn.

Guest star Yetide Badaki was excellent, too, and although I wasn’t wild about the interpersonal conflict angle that the episode forced on her character, she played the role of the seasoned advocate exceptionally well. Seeing Ketoul cross-examining Admiral April, talking around points of law, and finally figuring out how to win the case – these were all exceptional sequences, performed beautifully.

However, as I indicated at the beginning of this review, there is a bittersweet feeling to how things ended – and this is perhaps the biggest example so far of Strange New Worlds as a whole running into what I’ve termed “the prequel problem.” For a casual audience watching the episode, and for new fans too, the episode ended in a positive, uplifting way. Although the laws prohibiting genetic engineering were still in place, an exception had been found for Una – and there was hope, perhaps, that Starfleet and the Federation might re-examine some of their laws and attitudes in light of her case and her exceptional performance in Starfleet.

The end of the episode feels bittersweet.

But for Trekkies who recall Deep Space Nine in particular, we know that isn’t the case. In the Deep Space Nine Season 5 episode Dr Bashir, I Presume, these anti-genetic modification laws were shown to be in place, and still enforced by Starfleet. Dr Bashir’s father would be imprisoned for his role in genetically augmenting his son, and whatever prejudice Ad Astra Per Aspera told us may underlie those laws is something that neither Starfleet nor the wider Federation ever addressed following this episode.

I’d also add into the mix Picard’s ban on synthetic life-forms. A reactionary position taken after the attack on Mars saw the Federation ban any synthetic life-form and prohibit research into synthetic life. Some in the Federation would even adopt attitudes toward synths that seemed positively xenophobic. Whatever lessons could have been learned from Una’s case clearly were never heeded – leading to problems in the 24th and early 25th Centuries… almost 150 years later.

Unfortunately, Starfleet’s treatment of genetically-engineered people did not improve…

I can’t lie: this detracts from the powerful message that the episode aimed to tell. Taken on its own merit, Ad Astra Per Aspera is uplifting, leaving a sense of hope that things can and will get better. But if we extend its metaphor to Deep Space Nine and Picard… well, it’s clear that, at least in the Federation, things don’t get any better.

And I know: this is an issue for the relatively small number of Trekkies who care about a single Deep Space Nine episode. If we set that aside, the analogy works as intended. But any prequel has to consider what comes next within the confines of its fictional universe, and at the very least the knowledge of the Federation’s continued crackdown on genetic engineering puts a downer on the episode’s otherwise uplifting conclusion. Now, there are ways around it if we want to craft some head-canon: we could argue, for example, that the Federation did become much more accepting of genetic engineering and of Illyrians, and its ban only extended to humans by the late 24th Century. Nothing in Deep Space Nine would rule that out. In fact, that might be my personal head-canon going forward!

Pike and Una embrace.

Strange New Worlds has, for me at least, done a good job so far at telling new and engaging stories that expand our understanding of the Star Trek universe rather than overwriting or grating against anything we’d seen on screen in past iterations of the franchise. Nothing we saw this week in any way “challenges” or “violates” Star Trek’s canon or internal consistency – but it feels like Ad Astra Per Aspera kind of hit a wall at the end, unable to go further.

The ideal ending to a story such as this would have been to see the Federation as a whole rolling back its most extreme laws, allowing Illyrians and other genetically-enhanced people to live openly and without fear. To continue its powerful analogy for the plight of trans and gender non-conforming folks, this would be the outcome we’d hope to see here in the real world! But the episode was, to an extent, constrained by canon. Prequels can run into this kind of issue, and I guess I have to say that Ad Astra Per Aspera navigated a difficult situation about as well as it could. But that doesn’t leave the end of the episode feeling any better.

The panel of judges at Una’s court-martial.

So I think that’s all I have to say for now. Ad Astra Per Aspera was a great episode for pride month… and a really good episode in general. Its central message was clever, and it did what Star Trek has done since its inception more than fifty-five years ago: used a sci-fi setting to examine real-world issues. But analogy alone is not enough to make a strong story – and in some cases an overbearing metaphor can actually diminish a story. So where Ad Astra Per Aspera truly succeeded was its engrossing courtroom drama, its smaller character moments with other members of the crew, and in setting up a threat to one of our favourite characters that felt real and, at times, inescapable.

Ad Astra Per Aspera will stand alongside other great courtroom drama episodes in the Star Trek franchise, and nets another massive win for Strange New Worlds. The bittersweet nature of its ending is perhaps the first major occurrence of the series running into “the prequel problem,” and for some Trekkies, such as myself, that unfortunately does detract from its otherwise powerful story – if only a little.

All in all, though, I had a good time this week. And speaking as someone who is non-binary, I found some of Ad Astra Per Aspera’s themes timely, relatable, and even emotional.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Seasons 1-2 are available to stream now on Paramount Plus in countries and territories where the service is available. The Star Trek franchise – including Strange New Worlds – is the copyright of Paramount Global. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Paramount’s idiotic leadership is to blame for Prodigy’s failure

If you haven’t already heard the news, then I’m sorry to report that Star Trek: Prodigy has been cancelled. The second season of the animated series is almost complete, but won’t be shown on Paramount Plus. If Paramount can’t line up another network to broadcast it – and on past form, they may not try very hard – then it’s not outside the realm of possibility that we won’t see it at all. Let’s talk about Prodigy and the absolutely pathetic decision-making at Paramount that led us here.

I’ve been ringing alarm bells about Prodigy’s prospects since before the show even aired a single episode. There were several big hurdles that got in the way of Prodigy, and all of them are entirely Paramount’s fault. The first was the choice of platform: Paramount Plus simply isn’t a streaming service with a lot of content made for kids. As such, it isn’t a platform that many kids or young people would have had access to, limiting Prodigy’s potential audience long before the show was even broadcast.

Promo poster featuring the main characters.

Considering that Prodigy is a co-production between CBS and kids’ broadcaster Nickelodeon – both of which are wholly owned by Paramount – this never made any sense to me. Nickelodeon was the perfect home for Prodigy, and the series could have joined a decent lineup of shows aimed at a younger audience. It wasn’t until almost a year after Prodigy premiered that the series debuted on Nickelodeon. Paramount Plus simply isn’t a big enough streaming service, nor one with much appeal to a younger audience, meaning the choice of platform was a weight around Prodigy’s neck from day one.

Then we have some absolutely appalling scheduling. Prodigy debuted in October 2021 with a feature-length premiere. But after that, only three more episodes would be broadcast before the show took a seven-week break. There wasn’t enough time for Prodigy to gain traction with its audience – and especially with a younger audience – before it simply disappeared. Paramount has fucked up the scheduling of Star Trek in general, but Prodigy’s messy launch is perhaps the corporation’s single most egregious scheduling mistake.

Paramount Global CEO Bob Bakish, one of the morons most responsible for the state of the corporation.

After its hiatus, Prodigy again only premiered five new episodes before taking an extended break – this time from February 2022 all the way to October. If any kids were still watching at that point… well, they were unlikely to stick around for eight months while the show disappeared. The second half of Season 1 ran from October through to December 2022, and was the only time where Prodigy actually got a decent run of episodes.

By the time the show returned from its extended break, though, it seemed pretty obvious that the only people watching were hard-core Trekkies and a few of their kids.

The crew of the Protostar in Season 1.

Prodigy was cut off from an international audience from the start, with no effort made to broadcast the show outside of the United States. Even in the few places where Paramount Plus existed, episodes of Prodigy weren’t always shown. In Australia, for instance, paying subscribers to Paramount Plus didn’t get to watch Prodigy in full at the same time as American subscribers.

In the rest of the world, including here in the UK, things were even bleaker. Despite the Nickelodeon channel existing in some form in more than 100 countries and territories around the world, Paramount stupidly stuck to its “America First” fetish, only showing Prodigy on Paramount Plus in the United States and ignoring all messages and requests from fans.

Trump would be proud.

This approach will never work. In the 2020s, the internet and social media are one massive worldwide audience. Cutting off more than 90% of the world from a new television show is a catastrophic decision. It means that the hype bubble collapses, there are far fewer conversations on social media, hashtags don’t trend, posts don’t get likes, advertisements don’t get noticed – and then no one turns up to watch. This impacts the show in the United States – and it’s what happened with Prodigy.

Because Prodigy was on an obscure second-rate streaming platform, one that had no reputation with audiences as being a platform for kids’ shows and children’s content, because it was cut off from a worldwide audience and got precious little attention and chatter online, and because it was scheduled in such an appalling, idiotic manner, there was never any hope for the series. The only surprise here is that Paramount dragged it out this long.

Prodigy was a Paramount Plus exclusive.

The lack of toys and tie-in merchandise was just another nail in Prodigy’s coffin. The way kids – especially younger kids – engage with any property is through imaginative play. Star Trek toys would have kept Prodigy alive in the minds of its young fans in between episodes – and during the aforementioned breaks in the schedule. Furthermore, seeing toys being played with by friends or even just on shelves at the local toy shop would have inspired at least some kids to seek out Prodigy and give it a try for themselves.

I’ve shared this story before, but one of my earliest Star Trek memories isn’t an episode or a film, it’s a toy phaser. When I was perhaps as young as seven or eight, I remember seeing my uncle – who boasted an impressive collection of nerdy merch – showing me a phaser pistol from Star Trek. Before I’d even watched a single episode, I remember being intrigued by the phaser pistol and having fun pushing its button, watching it light up and make a noise.

A handful of Prodigy toys were belatedly launched in 2023.

Prodigy must be the only kids’ show in the world in 2023 to have had no tie-in products associated with it for the entirety of its first season. The lack of merchandise didn’t just prevent kids who were already fans of the show from having something to play with, it actively harmed Prodigy’s prospects and is another factor in its failure.

The truth is that Paramount didn’t give Prodigy a fair chance. Despite having so many opportunities to make this show a success, Paramount’s leadership has once again demonstrated that it isn’t fit for purpose. 20th Century thinking is trying – and desperately failing – to lead the corporation into the 21st Century, but the media landscape has shifted so much that these people don’t know what they’re doing. Prodigy’s cancellation follows Discovery’s a few months ago – and despite promises of new content, things don’t look good for either the Star Trek franchise or Paramount Plus.

Tom Ryan, President and CEO of streaming for Paramount Global.

Prodigy had the potential to open up Star Trek to a new, younger audience. The only way the franchise can survive long-term is to bring new, younger fans on board. If Star Trek remains the nostalgic preserve of people like me, it won’t survive – and it won’t deserve to. It’s bitterly disappointing that the series didn’t achieve that objective… but it’s even more disappointing that its failure is entirely the fault of pathetic decision-making by Paramount leadership.

It’s imperative that Paramount learns the right lessons from this clusterfuck. It would be easy to say “let’s never make another kids’ show,” but that would be absolutely the wrong way to react. Prodigy didn’t fail because it was aimed at kids – it failed because Paramount had no idea what to do with it. Scheduling, the choice of platform, the lack of toys, failure to make use of existing child-friendly channels, the lack of an international broadcast… all of these factors contributed. And the blame for all of them lies at the door of Paramount’s board and executives.

It’s Paramount’s fault that Prodigy ended up here.

There were story issues in Prodigy, too, which may have been a factor. The show leaned heavily on the legacy of Voyager – and not just because of the inclusion of Captain Janeway. Prodigy’s story was, in many ways, a Voyager sequel, and it introduced characters and story threads that may have been too complicated or convoluted for a young audience who were unfamiliar with older iterations of Star Trek. That’s a creative decision, and one that I enjoyed – but I’ve been a Trekkie for more than thirty years. I watched Voyager when it aired, I bought the whole series on DVD, and I’ve watched most episodes more times than I can count.

Maybe, in retrospect, we’ll have to call into question the decision to have Prodigy rely on Voyager to such an extent. Maybe it would have been better to allow the show more freedom and to have it stand on its own two feet. Might that have harmed Prodigy with some Trekkies? I suppose so… but it could have opened it up to a new audience, and wasn’t that supposed to be the point?

Was it a mistake to rely on Voyager to such an extent?

At the end of the day, though, this is Paramount’s fault – there’s no two ways about it. Decisions taken by executives at the top cut off Prodigy from the very audience it was supposed to attract, and the show simply never found a foothold outside of existing Trekkies and a few of their kids. With no international audience, with episodes shown in short, random batches on an obscure streaming platform, and with no toys or merchandise… there was no hope for Prodigy.

A Star Trek kids’ show was a brilliant idea. And Prodigy had some wonderful voice acting, stellar animation work, and some engaging, emotional storytelling. But it was sabotaged so thoroughly by the idiots at Paramount that one would be forgiven for thinking their actions were deliberate. Surely no group of executives with dreams of running a media corporation could be so utterly, irredeemably stupid… right? But that’s the reality of working with Paramount, I guess.

The abandoned wreck of the Protostar feels like a fitting image for this occasion.

Paramount needs a good clear-out. Failed leaders need to be ousted and the corporation’s attitude adjusted. Priorities need to be re-examined, and the long-term future of streaming needs to be urgently addressed. Paramount Plus is losing money by the boatload – and that seems unlikely to change in the short-term. Will it survive the decade? Will it last until Star Trek’s 60th anniversary in 2026? Will it still be here at Christmas?

Make no mistake, Prodigy won’t be the only casualty here. Unless and until Paramount can get its act together, these failures will continue to happen. With two of Star Trek’s five shows being cancelled within months of each other, and with Paramount Plus continuing to flop around like a dying fish, fears for the franchise’s longer-term prospects – and the prospects of shows like Strange New Worlds, which is currently paused due to an ongoing writers’ strike – only grow. I wish I had confidence in Paramount’s leadership to steady the ship and sort things out.

The Star Trek franchise – including all properties discussed above – is the copyright of Paramount Global. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

I wonder why Nintendo didn’t think of this…

Spoiler Warning: Minor spoilers are present for The Super Mario Bros. Movie.

Because I was anticipating news about the next wave of Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – Booster Course Pass racetracks, I found myself tuning in to yesterday’s Nintendo Direct broadcast. From my point of view, the games shown off by and large aren’t “my thing,” with a lot of attention on the likes of Pokémon, Pikmin 4, and an update for Splatoon 3. But there was news of an upcoming Mario game thrown in there, too… and I’m blown away by how utterly ridiculous some of Nintendo’s decision-making continues to be.

Nintendo never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity, and this one is possibly the biggest open goal that the company has missed in years. Right now, Nintendo should be seeking every opportunity to cash in on the wild success of The Super Mario Bros. Movie, a film which has already become the highest-grossing non-Disney animated film of all time – surpassing the likes of Frozen, Minions, and every film in the Toy Story series.

Nintendo has missed a golden opportunity to capitalise on the success of The Super Mario Bros. Movie.

But instead, the company announced Super Mario Bros. Wonder – a game that has nothing to do with the film, doesn’t make any attempt to use a similar art style, and introduces new game mechanics and power-ups that the film didn’t include. Nintendo has had years to prepare for the release of The Super Mario Bros. Movie, and while I wouldn’t say I was expecting an old-school tie-in game or straight adaptation, I certainly did expect Nintendo to take advantage of the film’s success. There was scope to release a new game that loosely followed the plot of the film, or that at least used familiar settings and a comparable visual style. It’s a profoundly odd decision to follow up the success of The Super Mario Bros. Movie with what looks to be a bog-standard 2D Mario game that has nothing in common with the film.

Likewise for the Booster Course Pass. In The Super Mario Bros. Movie, a karting sequence was one of the best and most action-packed moments, bringing a lot of fun to the table. The film also re-introduced some classic Nintendo characters in supporting roles, like Cranky Kong, as well as a kingdom of Penguins who were conquered by Bowser. Any of these characters would have been welcome additions to Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – cashing in on the film’s success while it’s still fresh in the minds of audiences.

Promotional screenshot of Super Mario Bros. Wonder.

But instead, Nintendo opted to bring back characters from Mario Kart Double-Dash and Mario Kart 7. That’s not a bad thing per se, but again it’s a wasted opportunity for the company to take advantage of the success of their big feature film. The Booster Course Pass section of the Nintendo Direct broadcast was pretty lacklustre anyway, with only one new track shown off and no release date mentioned beyond a vague promise of “summer 2023.”

At least the character of Kamek, who played a supporting role in The Super Mario Bros. Movie, was included! There’s an interesting fact about Kamek that you may not be aware of: the character was originally supposed to be playable in Mario Kart 64, even appearing in promo material and in a demo build of the game. Kamek was subbed out for Donkey Kong at the last moment, shortly before release.

Finally, a quarter of a century after being cut from Mario Kart 64, Kamek is joining a mainline Mario Kart title!

To get back on topic, I think that Nintendo has missed a golden opportunity to capitalise on the success of The Super Mario Bros. Movie, which received critical acclaim and has been riding high at the box office. While the detailed CGI used for the film would be impossible to fully recreate on the Nintendo Switch, the same art style could certainly be used, and a game that includes locations and characters from the film seems like a really obvious idea that the company appears not to have even considered.

Super Mario Bros. Wonder doesn’t look great, in my view. It looks gimmicky in the way other modern Nintendo 2D games have been, and I doubt very much if the likes of “Elephant-Man Mario” are going to be incorporated into the long-running series in a big way in future. I love a good 2D platformer, don’t get me wrong, as it was exactly this kind of game where I first cut my teeth as a young player. But what we saw at the Nintendo Direct just looked… unspectacular.

Mario the elephant-man.

Maybe I’m wrong, and maybe Super Mario Bros. Wonder will be the shot in the arm that 2D Mario games have been needing. Maybe this game will be the Nintendo Switch’s swansong and will eclipse the Zelda games, Mario Odyssey, and Animal Crossing: New Horizons. I’ve been wrong about these things before, and while Wonder isn’t on my “must-buy” list right now, I’ll certainly check out reviews and see what players and critics have to say when it’s released later this year.

I’m surprised, though, that Nintendo has made no attempt to leverage the success of The Super Mario Bros. Movie. The company has a reputation for abandoning even the most successful projects, and for ignoring requests from fans. So I guess we shouldn’t be all that shocked! I wonder how much more money the company would be making if it listened, if it provided more ongoing support for its own successful games, and if it found ways to better capitalise on its own successes. But hey, that’s Nintendo’s problem!

Super Mario Bros. Wonder will be released for Nintendo Switch in October 2023. Wave 5 of the Booster Course Pass for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe will be released in “Summer 2023” for Nintendo Switch. All titles discussed above are the copyright of Nintendo. Some screenshots/promo art courtesy of IGDB and/or Nintendo. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Starfield: the things I’m most excited about

Spoiler Warning: Although there are no major story spoilers for Starfield, minor spoilers may be present. This article also uses screenshots and promotional artwork of the game.

A few days ago I shared my thoughts on the recent Starfield showcase, which was a standalone presentation that followed Xbox’s summer event. I’m beyond excited for the game’s release, as this kind of open-galaxy, retro-sci-fi adventure almost feels like it was tailor-made for me! Today, as a follow-up to that article, I want to go into a bit more detail about a few of the things that I’m most excited about in Starfield.

This article also serves as the counterpoint to a piece that I wrote a couple of days ago in which I went into detail about some of my worries and concerns about Starfield. These points of concern haven’t wiped away the excitement – but the excitement and hype that I feel for this game is, to an extent anyway, balanced out by some fears that I have. If you want to read about my points of concern, you can find that article by clicking or tapping here.

The player character looks on as a ship blasts off.

First of all, let’s talk about Starfield’s aesthetic, its visual style, and some of the design choices that we’ve seen so far. This retro-futuristic style has been described by Bethesda as “NASA-punk;” a blend of classic NASA-inspired designs with elements of the dystopian cyberpunk genre. I absolutely adore this choice, and some of the NASA-inspired spacesuits, spaceship interiors, and other pieces of technology look fantastic. Visual styles are very much subject to personal taste – but for someone who was inspired by NASA’s space shuttle missions as a young kid in the ’80s, and who read as many books about spaceships and astronauts as I could find, these designs couldn’t be more perfect.

The “NASA-punk” designs feel like a natural evolution of some of NASA’s recent and contemporary designs. The robotic companion Vasco, for example, is clearly inspired by the likes of the Curiosity and Perseverance Mars rovers. The interior of the Frontier spaceship, particularly its cockpit and airlock, feels very close in design to the space shuttle, the International Space Station, and contemporary rockets like SpaceX’s Dragon II.

A first-person view of a spaceship’s cockpit.

Starfield’s designs also incorporate elements from other sci-fi settings. There are elements of “NASA-punk” that remind me of the likes of Firefly, Farscape, and even the Star Trek and Star Wars franchises. There’s also a Disney feel to some of these designs – and if you’ve been to Disney World and ridden rides like Spaceship Earth or Space Mountain, perhaps you’ll pick up on some of that, as I did. Although Starfield is brand-new, some of these visual and aesthetic choices feel quite nostalgic in that sense!

Starfield is standing on its own two feet with this “NASA-punk” style, though. There are influences and inspirations from both the real world and other sci-fi properties, but Bethesda has blended them together and put its own distinctive stamp on them.

Walking on the surface of a planet or moon.

But there’s more to Starfield than one visual style. Beyond the Constellation organisation and the United Colonies we saw the Freestar Collective and the city of Neon, both of which appear to have their own distinct styles of dress and architecture. For me, this harkens back to the likes of Morrowind, where different parts of the game’s world were populated by a diverse array of factions and races, each of which had their own styles. This was still present to a degree in Oblivion, but was much less obvious in the likes of Skyrim and Bethesda’s Fallout duology.

The Freestar Collective looks to have a distinct western inspiration, with cowboy hats and even an old-fashioned pistol duel being shown during the Starfield showcase. This could lead to some incredibly fun moments on the “frontier” of space, and I’m just in love with the “rough and ready cowboy” look of some of these characters and locales. Again, this is something that reminds me of my childhood, of playing “cowboys” with a toy six-shooter and dressing up in Davy Crockett’s coonskin cap! Yes, I really did own a replica coonskin cap as a kid.

The Freestar Collective is giving me wild west vibes!

The city of Neon feels like a ton of fun, too. A kind of “space Vegas,” where anything goes and all forms of pleasure are available – for a price, of course! Neon reminded me of places like Mass Effect’s Omega, Star Trek: Picard’s Freecloud, and other such “outside the rule of law” settlements that are a common enough trope in sci-fi stories. Its unique origin as a former fishing platform-turned-drug haven helps it to stand out, though.

Beyond the major settlements that we’ve seen there are bound to be smaller places to visit, either colonies on planets or spaceships and stations out in space. We caught a brief glimpse of a couple of these in the showcase, and I’m absolutely eager to see more! Bethesda’s past games have often had multiple settlements to visit, so I’m sure there will be several hitherto-unseen places to go.

Vasco the robot.

One feature I cannot wait to get stuck into is spaceship customisation. The idea of being able to create and customise my very own spaceship already sounded like something special – but knowing that I can also recruit a crew and then head out into a Bethesda-created open galaxy… it’s beyond exciting, and again this feels like a feature that was created from the ground up with me and my tastes in mind!

There are multiple methods for… shall we say, “acquiring” a spaceship, too. It sounds like the player character will get access to their own spaceship fairly early on in the game – and this ship can then be modified at will. But there are other options: purchasing a spaceship is possible, but so is stealing one! I don’t know whether it will be possible to land on a random planet or go to a spaceport and simply fly away in someone else’s ship – but after defeating an opponent in ship-to-ship combat, it’s possible to board their vessel, kill the crew, and claim it.

Dogfighting in space.

I’m absolutely in love with the idea of becoming a space pirate! And even if piracy isn’t going to be the focus of a playthrough, I can definitely see how hijacking and then selling a spaceship (or at least parts of a spaceship) could be an incredibly lucrative way of making a ton of money in-game. High-risk, sure… but with a potentially massive payday at the end!

In the showcase, Bethesda employees had designed some wonderfully creative spaceships of their own. And this was an easily-missed feature that Bethesda didn’t draw attention to, but it seems almost certain that it’s possible to re-name spaceships, too. I’m already thinking of names for my own vessel! I wonder if “Enterprise-D” is taken…

A customised ship that looks like it could carry a lot of cargo!

Within days of Starfield’s release we’re sure to see the community’s most creative players sharing their designs. Some will opt to recreate the likes of Firefly’s Serenity, the Millennium Falcon from Star Wars, or any of the hero ships from the Star Trek franchise. There are bound to be some incredibly wacky designs in the mix, too. I love the way that Bethesda described this; spaceship design will err on the side of fun, not of realism. What that means in practise should be that players can get really creative without having to worry about the likes of aerodynamics or mass.

There will be limitations to this spaceship creator, and I’m trying not to go overboard with my hype! We haven’t seen, for example, the extent to which interiors of ships can be customised, and whether things like colours can be changed, furniture can be repositioned, and so on. I hope there will be at least some of that, so that we can truly make our spaceships feel like ours instead of like a collection of pre-made pieces.

One possible cockpit style.

But what I love about the spaceship creator is that the interior is fully-explorable. If you place a cargo hold next to a crew cabin, you can visit them – and the design of the ship will be reflected in-game. If you chose to make a really large ship, for example, with a long corridor connecting different rooms, you can actually walk down that corridor and see each of those rooms in the places you put them. In first-person or third-person!

When I was playing Star Trek: Starship Creator in the late 1990s, I’d have loved nothing more than to explore my weird Federation ship in first-person! This spaceship customisation feature is absolutely something that could be a fun game all by itself – and if it lives up to the hype and meets the expectations that Bethesda has set, I can see myself spending hours and hours customising every last detail of my spaceship before I actually get any questing done!

You can give your ship a paint job, too.

But maybe we should say “spaceships,” plural! Because in the showcase, Bethesda confirmed that it’s possible for players to have their very own fleet. We saw that at least nine ships can be owned at any one time, and all of them can be fully-customised. Only one ship can be the “home” ship, but I imagine which ship is the primary one is something that can be changed at will.

The showcase appeared to show a range of different spaceship parts, with different manufacturers having different styles and designs to choose from. We didn’t get a particularly long or in-depth look at all of these options, but we saw enough to at least know that there’s a decent range of potential pieces. The number of possible combinations of parts must be positively astronomical! It will almost certainly be possible to create spaceships with a huge range of believable and fantastical designs, and to fit very different aesthetic styles.

Another custom spaceship.

And we haven’t even talked about functionality yet! Some spaceships that were shown off at the showcase were small, designed perhaps for combat. Others were far larger, with massive cargo holds that can presumably carry a lot of resources – or smuggled goods. It’s possible to add or upgrade every component – such as engines, shields, and weapons. And these things are sure to have a noticeable impact on gameplay, with larger, heavier ships controlling differently from smaller, lighter craft.

I will be tinkering with all of these – adding different kinds of weapons in different combinations is something I’m particularly keen to experiment with. There were three types of spaceship weapon highlighted during the showcase: ballistic, laser, and missile. Again, what the limitations may be on how many weapons a single spaceship can have weren’t mentioned, but it looks like there will be appropriate options for different sizes of vessels.

Customising a spaceship’s weapons.

Sticking with weapons, one area of gameplay that looked great in the Starfield showcase was first-person shooting. Past Bethesda titles – the Fallout games most notably – haven’t always excelled in this area. In Fallout, the VATS system (which paused gameplay to allow for targeting) covered up at least some of those games’ sub-par gunplay, but that won’t be the case in Starfield. Some rumours and reports had suggested that Doom developer (and fellow ZeniMax studio) id Software had been brought on board to help out.

Todd Howard, in a post-showcase interview, confirmed that Bethesda had worked with id Software, but seemed to suggest that they’d been helping more on the technical side with things like lighting and graphical fidelity. Either way, the influence of recent titles like Doom and Doom Eternal looked to be present in Starfield – at least looking in from the outside. It isn’t always possible to get a fair impression of something like gunplay from compressed video footage on YouTube, but from what we could see, gunplay in Starfield looks to be a vast improvement over past Bethesda titles.

An example of a pistol/handgun.

That’s good news, because shooting and blasting your way across space is going to be a big part of the game! Whether you’re wrangling with pirates, getting into a shootout with western-inspired outlaws, or being pursued by aggressive fauna on an unexplored planet, guns are sure to come in handy! What we’ve seen of Starfield’s gunplay looked good – solid, I’d say. It’s probably never going to rise to the level of something you’d see in the likes of a Halo or Call of Duty game, because it’s only one part of a much broader experience. But solid, enjoyable gunplay is a must – and the signs are positive in that regard.

I was also pleased to see that Bethesda hasn’t abandoned the idea of melee weapons in Starfield. Bethesda’s melee combat has usually been pretty solid, at least by role-playing game standards, and it’s a hallmark of their games going all the way back to the first Elder Scrolls titles in the 1990s. Even though melee combat is sure to play a smaller role in Starfield – as the game promises lasers, electro-magnetic weapons, and a range of different guns – it’s not something I’d want to miss out on as it feels like it’s a core part of the Bethesda role-playing experience.

Swordfighting on Pluto? Yes please!

One criticism that I made of 2020’s Cyberpunk 2077 was that the player character’s backstory ultimately mattered very little in-game. Developer CD Projekt Red made a big deal in pre-release marketing material of the three different “life paths” available to players, but these amounted to little more than a short prologue and a single event midway through the game that we might generously call a “mission.” That was a disappointment and hampered Cyberpunk’s replayability.

In Starfield, there appear to be multiple character backgrounds, from action game staples like “bounty hunter” to less common ones like “chef!” The extent to which these will have an impact on gameplay, and the amount of content that may have been created for each possible background isn’t clear, but even if there are just a couple of missions and a few places where different dialogue options are available, it’ll still be fun – and better than Cyberpunk 2077.

One of the character traits will make you an introvert… just like me!

Then there are “traits” – of which players can choose up to three. These are additional pieces of character creation that can be mixed and matched, with each giving an advantage and prospective disadvantage, too. Some look certain to unlock dialogue options and will have an impact on the way the player will engage with different factions and groups, and some even unlock entire characters. Again, this feels like something that has a tangible impact on gameplay, and could be a lot of fun to experiment with.

Past Bethesda titles offered players the opportunity to create a custom character class – rather than just being able to pick from staples like mage or warrior. Starfield’s complex system of backgrounds, traits, and skills looks like it could be something very similar, allowing players to either customise their character in detail or to go with a standard build suited to the likes of combat or stealth. I’m very much someone who likes to tinker and customise, and in my first playthrough in particular I expect I’ll spend ages agonising over which background to pick, then which traits to select, and so on!

There are a lot of things to tinker with!

Starfield also looks like it will offer a fair amount of diversity in its character creator. There were different skin tones, naturally, but also different hair types and hair styles, as well as tattoos, and Bethesda noted in the Starfield showcase that they worked with people from a range of different ethnic groups to ensure that there are a range of characters both as NPCs and as options for the character creator. That’s fantastic! Being able to represent oneself in a game like this is important – and I know a lot of folks like to spend a long time in the character creator recreating their own appearance.

There were also options for body type – including larger bodies that can sometimes be excluded in games like this. That’s also great! Most of the options in the character creator looked like they could be applied to any character – a male-bodied character could use a feminine walk style, for example. I didn’t see makeup options, but there were things like piercings, jewellery, scars, and the like. The player character isn’t fully-voiced, as far as I’m aware, so again I think there are options here for making a male, a female, a trans character, or even someone non-binary. I’m non-binary myself, so I appreciate feeling included!

Body type and walk style options in the character creator.

Starfield has officially been delayed twice: from an initial November 2022 release to a nebulous “the first half of 2023,” and then again to September. Given Bethesda’s reputation for buggy games, and the difficult launch of Fallout 76 in particular, I absolutely see that as a positive thing. There’s a lot riding on Starfield for both Bethesda and Xbox, with the game being Bethesda’s first exclusive title since the Microsoft takeover. Getting it right – and ensuring the game is truly ready for launch – is incredibly important, and in an industry that seems all too happy to adopt a “release now, fix later” approach, I think it’s worth complimenting the approach that Microsoft and Bethesda claim to be taking.

In a recent interview, Xbox Game Studios head Matt Booty suggested that the reports he’d been receiving about Starfield were looking great – even making the audacious claim that the game would “already have the fewest bugs of any Bethesda game ever shipped” if it was released today. All of this is marketing speak, of course, but given the serious risk to the reputation of both Xbox and Bethesda if it turns out to be untrue… I think it’s positive, at least. Microsoft clearly recognises the issues that have been present, and on the surface at least it seems that they’ve given Bethesda more time to get Starfield ready. We’ll have to judge that for ourselves when the game arrives – and Starfield is, for me anyway, still in the “wait for the reviews” column – but these are positive noises nevertheless.

Xbox Game Studios head Matt Booty (centre) was interviewed about Starfield shortly after the showcase.

Characters are the heart of any good story, and Bethesda has created some fantastic and memorable characters for their games over the years. Off the top of my head I could pick out Fallout 3′s Three Dog, Yagrum Bagarn from Morrowind, and Alduin the dragon from Skyrim – and there are many, many more. After the disappointment of Fallout 76 with its empty world devoid of characters, it was wonderful to see so many different NPCs in the Starfield showcase.

The three major cities that we know of in Starfield look set to be large, dense, and full of people to engage with. And the diverse environments and factions should make many of these people feel unique. We’ve barely scratched the surface here, and there are bound to be hundreds or perhaps even thousands of individual characters to meet in Starfield.

Who’s this fella, and what might his story be?

One thing we know for certain is that Starfield is Bethesda’s biggest-ever game. And that includes recorded lines of dialogue: Starfield will have more than double the amount of dialogue that was recorded for Fallout 4. That game had approximately 700 NPCs, but also had a fully-voiced protagonist, something Starfield appears not to have. With so much dialogue having been recorded for the game, there’s bound to be a huge number of people to meet and engage with.

Some of these people can be recruited, joining the crew of your spaceship, being assigned to another spaceship, or being assigned to an outpost. Bethesda didn’t confirm how many recruitable NPCs there are in Starfield, but one thing I absolutely love is the idea of encountering some of these people at spaceports or just out in the wild. Bringing them on board, figuring out what skills and talents they have… it all adds to the immersion and the sense of truly being the captain of a spaceship in this open galaxy.

A potential companion and the skills they offer.

More than two decades ago, Morrowind was the game that I was looking forward to. I was incredibly hyped up for what was my first real open-world role-playing game. I’ve said a couple of times already that I don’t think any game since then has grabbed my attention in quite the same way, nor generated such a high level of interest and excitement – not until Starfield, that is. Ever since I first played Morrowind, I’ve ranked that game as one of my absolute favourite titles of all-time, and if Starfield is as good as Bethesda and Microsoft are promising, I can see it potentially joining Morrowind on that list.

Are there worries and points of concern? Absolutely. As I said, I wrote up all of my biggest fears for Starfield in an article here on the website just the other day. But at the same time, I still feel that sense of hope. This game, if it lives up to the hype, has the potential to be incredible. A friend of mine recently suggested to me that Starfield might end up being “the best video game that either of us will ever play,” and that assessment is hard to challenge. This game feels tailor-made for me.

So we’ve talked about some of the things I’m most excited about when it comes to Starfield! Stay tuned, because if we get any big updates about the game – or if I find that I have more to say – I’ll be sure to write about it here on the website. And when the game launches in September, I’ll do my best to share my first impressions and more!

Starfield will be released on the 6th of September 2023 for PC and Xbox Series S/X consoles. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. Some promo images and screenshots used above courtesy of Bethesda and IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

I still don’t know what Star Trek Infinite is supposed to be…

I genuinely don’t understand what Star Trek Infinite is. Am I stupid? Have I missed some key piece of marketing material? Or could it be that Paramount and publisher Paradox Interactive haven’t actually done a good job at communicating what this unexpected game is going to be?

I’ve been a huge advocate of the Star Trek franchise when it comes to video games. In the ’90s and 2000s, when Star Trek video game adaptations were at their peak, I bought practically every title on the market. Some of my favourite games of all-time are from the Star Trek franchise, including relatively obscure titles that didn’t sell very well!

Box art/promo art for Star Trek Infinite.

I’m also a fan of Paradox Interactive – though some of their games can feel overly-monetised, with vast arrays of DLC that can be incredibly pricey. Paradox Interactive has created such titles as Europa Universalis IV and Hearts of Iron IV, and has a reputation for being the undisputed master of the grand strategy, economy-management genre.

Combining Paradox’s in-depth gameplay with the Star Trek franchise should be something special, and I am genuinely looking forward to what the game might have in store. But I feel that its announcement was poor, and that the game hasn’t been marketed especially well thus far. That could be an issue for Infinite, so I’ll try to explain what I mean in this article… as well as share my thoughts on what Infinite might be.

A Cardassian fleet and space station.

Of the three Star Trek video games released so far this decade, I want to say that Infinite would be the one I’m most interested in. I adore a good strategy game, and strategy is a genre that the Star Trek franchise hasn’t touched since the days of Star Trek Armada and Armada II around the turn of the millennium. Those games were a blast; I have very fond memories of LAN parties with Armada II in particular! A return to the strategy space is incredibly welcome, then!

But Star Trek Infinite has had a very strange announcement. Initially announced at Summer Game Fest, a brief CGI teaser promised that more information would follow on “Captain Picard Day” – i.e. the 16th of June, which was only a few days later. That already didn’t make a lot of sense to me; why not simply show the real trailer at Summer Game Fest? Surely more eyes would be on Star Trek Infinite at that moment than would be on it at a random date that isn’t actually celebrated by Paramount. No other Star Trek events were planned for the 16th of June… so what was the point of this weird double announcement?

A promo screenshot that appears to show the main map.

Then there was the second trailer itself, which I dutifully tuned in for a few days ago. Actually, calling it a “trailer” is being unnecessarily generous to Paradox, because we saw barely any gameplay and didn’t get much of a feel for the game itself. It was a poor trailer, one that neither generated much excitement nor showed off a significant amount of gameplay. We caught a glimpse of the game’s four playable factions: the Federation, Klingons, Romulans, and Cardassians… but that’s about it.

Hopping over to Paradox’s website, there is a bit more information about the game. We know that Infinite will be a grand strategy game, presumably in the Paradox mould, taking the game Stellaris and its mechanics and systems as a starting point. I confess that I’m not familiar with Stellaris, but it’s a Paradox grand strategy title that seems to have a good reputation among players. A solid start, then!

Star Trek Infinite is supposedly built atop the bones of Paradox’s grand strategy game Stellaris.

The game promises to put players in charge of one of the four competing factions – so presumably there will be more to the game than fleets and space battles, with some amount of economy management, perhaps planetary and space station management, and other related things, too. Although Infinite claims to have “streamlined” some elements of Stellaris, it still promises to be an in-depth and complex strategy experience.

But there’s still a lot we don’t know. How will fleet battles work, for instance? The first teaser trailer prominently featured the Borg – yet they aren’t listed as a playable faction. The game looks to be set in The Next Generation era, but again I couldn’t find any specific details about this beyond what was implied in artwork and screenshots.

A Federation fleet and Borg vessel as seen in the first teaser trailer.

I’m absolutely on board with the idea of Infinite as a Paradox grand strategy game set in the Star Trek universe. If that’s what it is! But the game’s announcement was poor, with two trailers on different days that didn’t really show off much in the way of gameplay, nor succeed at really communicating what kind of title this is going to be. It’s only because of my familiarity with some of Paradox’s other titles that I even have a vague idea of what I’m going to be in for with this new game.

The Star Trek franchise has long struggled in the video game space, despite Star Trek and gaming being a perfect match on paper. A game like Infinite has the potential to reach out beyond the current Star Trek fandom to fans of these kinds of grand strategy games – potentially bringing a few newbies into the fan community. That’s a great idea… but I fear that Infinite’s lacklustre announcement and marketing is going to get in the way of that.

The four playable factions.

I shouldn’t have to waste time digging through websites and reading marketing doublespeak to understand what a new game is going to be at its most basic level. I’m thrilled that Paramount is being more open with licensing Star Trek games, and a deal with a successful developer like Paradox Interactive feels like it could be a real coup. Taking the skeleton of another successful space-based strategy title and bolting Star Trek onto it is also a clever concept, one that I hope bears fruit.

But again, the way the game has been teased, announced, and marketed has been poor. And even after doing some digging and reading official announcements and press releases, I confess that I’m still not entirely sure what Star Trek Infinite is going to be like to play. The strategy genre is massive, broad, and varied – and there are many different styles of gameplay even within the grand strategy sub-genre.

A promotional screenshot that appears to show a Klingon starbase and starship.

Still, I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed for a fun, enjoyable, and perhaps even in-depth experience with Star Trek Infinite when it’s ready. No release date has been announced, though the game is tentatively on the schedule for 2023. That may change, of course, but for now it seems as if we might get to play Infinite before Christmas. If so, I hope there will be a better and more elaborate marketing push in the weeks leading up to release.

I don’t like to be negative here on the website, especially not about a brand-new game that I haven’t gotten to play for myself. But I’m deeply unimpressed with the way in which Star Trek Infinite has been announced, and the difficulty in figuring out just what kind of gameplay experience this is going to be. I’m positively thrilled at the idea of a Star Trek grand strategy game, and the franchise’s long overdue return to the strategy genre. And I will do my best to cover Infinite here on the website if we get a significant update, or to share my thoughts on the title after its release. But for now, sadly, a lacklustre announcement and a lack of clarity have taken at least some of the shine off Star Trek Infinite.

Star Trek Infinite has no solid release date, but will be coming to PC and Mac sometime in 2023. Star Trek Infinite is the copyright of Paramount Global, Paradox Interactive, and Nimble Giant Entertainment. The Star Trek franchise is the copyright of Paramount Global. Some screenshots and other promotional material used above courtesy of Paradox Interactive. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Starfield: my biggest concerns

Spoiler Warning: Although there are no major story spoilers for Starfield, minor spoilers may be present. This article also uses screenshots and promotional artwork of the game.

I touched on this subject when I gave my thoughts on the recent Starfield showcase, but I wanted to expand on some of my concerns about Bethesda’s upcoming sci-fi role-playing game. For context, Starfield is absolutely my most-anticipated game right now, and it’s one I’m very excited about! The hype train has definitely left the station, and I’m going to be riding it until September!

But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t concerns to be addressed. Some of these are things we can’t know or won’t get to see until Starfield is released, but others are things that Bethesda can – and really ought to – begin to address right away, before things get out of hand. We saw with Cyberpunk 2077 how dangerous an ever-growing hype bubble can be, and it doesn’t serve any game if players are allowed free rein to speculate and build up an inaccurate and even impossible picture of what it could be.

An unknown character seen in the recent Starfield showcase.

That’s perhaps my single greatest concern: that Bethesda and Microsoft aren’t doing enough to step in when speculation gets wild. I’ve seen commentators and critics propose entirely unannounced features that are almost certainly not going to be included in Starfield, dedicating entire forum threads or YouTube videos to discussing them. Theorising can be fun, but there’s a line somewhere that falls in between speculating about what might be present and convincing oneself (and others) that an exciting-sounding feature is certain to be included.

This is where a good marketing department is essential! There are ways to let players down gently, or to redirect the conversation to other areas of the game, without deflating the hype bubble or crushing players’ expectations. It’s infinitely better to do so at this stage, months before the game is launched, rather than attempting to clean up ambiguous statements and explain the lack of features fans felt certain they’d get to see after a rocky release.

Todd Howard, executive producer at Bethesda and director of Starfield.

In different ways, this is basically what tripped up Cyberpunk 2077 and No Man’s Sky. Both games were subject to intense criticism and even hate upon release, and while Cyberpunk 2077 in particular suffered from being in an incomplete state, both games had been over-sold. In both cases, marketing departments seemed incapable of saying “no,” promising players a genre-busting, once-in-a-lifetime experience that no game could ever hope to live up to. When it turned out that No Man’s Sky was pretty barebones and barren, and that Cyberpunk 2077 was so unfinished that many folks found it to be unplayable, the dejection that players felt as they fell back to Earth was unparalleled. They’d been promised something special, but all they found when the dust had settled was a sense of crushing disappointment.

Starfield is absolutely in danger of doing this. There are going to be limitations within the game: limited NPC numbers, limited character traits and skills to choose from, limits to customisation for spaceships and the player character, limits on exploration, and limits to the role-playing experience. It’s essential that Bethesda and Microsoft use the next few months wisely, setting appropriate expectations and not allowing players to build up an image of Starfield in their heads that the game could never live up to.

Spaceship customisation is sure to have its limits.

Let’s talk about the size of Starfield itself. With 1,000 explorable planets being promised, I can’t be the only one who thinks that Bethesda might’ve made the game too big… can I? Don’t get me wrong, it’s essential that Starfield’s galaxy feels expansive, and if exploration, mining, and resource collection are going to be key parts of gameplay, it’s important to ensure there’s enough space to do all of those things. But 1,000 planets seems like a lot – arguably too many for any one player to even visit, let alone explore thoroughly in a single playthrough.

With the way Starfield’s procedural generation has been described, there’s a risk that players will miss things, too. If some characters, locations, and even missions are randomly assigned to planets, there’s only a one-in-one-thousand chance of finding a particular mission on a particular world. That potentially means that Starfield will be awkward to replay, or that it will be difficult for players to try out a mission that they’ve seen or to share something exciting with their friends.

A close-up scan of a planet.

In Fallout 4 or Skyrim, every single player could go to the same point on the map and encounter the same NPC or start the same quest. But that won’t be possible in Starfield – which is fun in some ways, but could become frustrating. If players find a fun quest or a useful item on one playthrough, locating it again on another save file could be like trying to find a needle in a haystack. That can be fun in some cases… but it will definitely be frustrating in others.

Some of the planets shown off in the Starfield showcase also looked pretty flat and barren. One of the key marketing lines is “if you can see it you can go there,” with words to that effect being used in reference to a moon in orbit of a planet. But here’s the thing: if that moon or planet has nothing of note except, perhaps, for some crafting resources to collect… going there won’t actually be a lot of fun.

Some of these planets look lifeless and barren.

For all the talk of Starfield having 1,000 planets, only a handful of those – perhaps a dozen at most – are going to have a significant amount of content. Whether we’re talking about small settlements, villains’ lairs, shipwrecks to scavenge, random character encounters, ruins, or other hallmarks of exploration in a Bethesda game… there’s only going to be so many of those. My fear here is that 1,000 planets might spread this content too thin, leaving swathes of the galaxy feeling empty.

There was also talk of planets consisting of “puzzle pieces” – i.e. hand-made pieces of content stitched together at random. That seems to solve one problem, but might it create another? Unless Bethesda has created enough of these puzzle pieces to make each planet totally unique, at some point is there not a danger that they’ll have to be recycled? It would be immersion-breaking to land on a planet and see the exact same mountain or ruin as we’d just been exploring somewhere else.

The map, focusing on a single solar system.

I don’t think that Bethesda has done enough to allay some of these concerns about the scale of the map and the amount of content it may contain. One of the criticisms of No Man’s Sky when that game launched was that its planets felt empty – and outside of some of the main settlements and story locations, I’m just not sure how Bethesda will get around this.

Starfield will be Bethesda’s biggest game to date, with some reports suggesting it may have twice as much recorded dialogue as Fallout 4. Fallout 4 had close to 700 non-player characters, but even if we generously assume that Starfield might have as many as 2,000, that still spreads them out very thinly. Even more so if we assume that the three major settlements we know of will congregate a lot of NPCs in one place.

Sarah Morgan, one of the game’s important non-player characters.

Complaining that a space game is “too big” seems silly – and I freely admit that. But my concern is less to do with the size of the map itself and more with the amount of content relative to the size of the map. One of my main complaints about Fallout 76 was that its open world felt utterly lifeless due to the complete lack of non-player characters to engage with… and outside of settlements and space stations, I just fear that parts of Starfield’s galaxy could fall into the same trap.

The game is going to clock in at a whopping 125GB – at least on PC. That sounds huge, but when you compare it to other modern games, it actually isn’t. Star Wars Jedi: Survivor is comparable in size, for example, as is Red Dead Redemption II. Now don’t get me wrong, I adore Red Dead Redemption II’s open world – but is its patch of the wild west in the 19th Century a fair comparison with Starfield’s 1,000 planets? Again, my concern is really the amount of enjoyable content relative to the size of the map.

Starfield’s system requirements.
Image Credit: Steam/ZeniMax

Let’s hop over to the character creator now. This might seem like a nitpick, and as facial hair is something I seldom use on custom characters, it isn’t something that will affect my own playthrough. But the facial hair in Starfield’s character creator… well, it just looks a bit shit, doesn’t it? I’m not the only one who thinks so, surely. In fact, I’d go so far as to call facial hair the worst-looking part of Starfield that we’ve been shown so far, and on some character models it seriously detracted from the way they looked, dropping the realism down several notches.

Hair and hairstyles looked pretty good, with a variety of hair types and styles that should allow players to create a diverse array of characters. That’s fabulous – but it raises the question of why facial hair is struggling to hit that same level of quality. This is something past Bethesda games have struggled with, too – Oblivion most notably, but also Skyrim and the Fallouts to a lesser extent.

Facial hair does not look great in Starfield.

I fear that facial hair may be the first outward sign of another of my big worries: Starfield’s game engine. Bethesda has insisted on using their proprietary Creation Engine 2 for Starfield – but the underlying technology here is more than twenty years old. The core technology of Creation Engine 2 is Morrowind’s Gamebryo, a piece of kit that Bethesda has literally been using since the late ’90s when that game first entered development. Changes and additions have been made, but this technology has its limits. The facial hair problem, which is a hallmark of prior Bethesda titles, could be the canary in the coal mine here.

There are advantages to working with a familiar toolkit. If Starfield had been built on, say, Unreal Engine 4 or 5, it would have required a completely different development cycle, with a different team who were familiar with how that technology worked. I’m not saying that would have been better, and I’m not arguing in favour of any one of the well-known game engines that other modern titles use. There are drawbacks and disadvantages to working with practically all of them.

Starfield’s game engine uses the same core technology that Bethesda has relied on since Morrowind.

But what I am saying is that Bethesda’s technology is at best untested on a title this massive. Some of the in-game features and mechanics promised for Starfield, such as spaceflight and ship-to-ship combat, have never been done before in any form of Gamebryo or the Creation Engine. That’s one concern.

Then there are things that have been done before – but haven’t always been done particularly well. I noted in my piece on the Starfield showcase how impressed I was with the gunplay. Partly that’s because gunplay in Bethesda’s Fallout duology was pretty poor without those games’ signature VATS system covering for it. An update to the engine should allow for significant improvements in that area, but again this is something that’s untested, and something like shooting can be difficult to judge from compressed YouTube video footage – especially carefully-edited marketing bumf. Any developer worth their salt can make even the most lacklustre game look fast-paced, fluid, and exciting in their own marketing material.

Gunplay looked great in the showcase.

Bethesda has earned itself a reputation among players for releasing games bedevilled by glitches and bugs. The company wouldn’t be the first to release a broken, buggy game in 2023 – but that’s no excuse! I’ve already said that Starfield is a game that I’ll be waiting to see reviews and tech breakdowns of before I commit myself, and that’s because Bethesda has done so much to warrant such a cautious approach.

Look back to trailers and marketing material shown off for Cyberpunk 2077 in 2020. Or Redfall earlier this year. It’s easy for a clever publisher to compile footage – even in-game footage – that looks great, and to show off a “vision” for how the game could look under the right circumstances. Trailers, teasers, and gameplay reveals often turn out to be inaccurate, and the version of a game that arrives on launch day – or during a pre-order exclusive access window – can be a million miles away from how it was promised or presented. Bethesda has done this too, with Fallout 4 and especially Fallout 76 receiving well-deserved criticism for bugs and glitches when they were released.

Fallout 76 at launch had, uh, a few issues…

There’s a specific story concern that I have – one that hadn’t even entered my mind until someone commented on it somewhere online. I can’t remember where I first saw this idea or theory posited, so I apologise to its original creator for that! But several people have suggested that Starfield could be some kind of sequel to the Fallout series – noting in particular that Earth looks barren, devastated, and uninhabitable in teases we’ve been shown… not unlike Fallout’s nuclear wasteland.

To be clear, there’s no indication whatsoever that this will be the case. Bethesda hasn’t denied it outright, but they haven’t actually commented on it at all as far as I can tell.

For my money, this would be an atrocious idea. Even if this was a secret that was kept, with the player character not finding out until well into the main story… it just wouldn’t work. It would make Starfield feel diminished, living in the shadow of another game – and it just isn’t necessary. Starfield can and should stand on its own two feet, doing its own thing, and not needing to be constrained by other games in a different fictional universe.

This is one rumour I hope proves to be false.

After Starfield is launched, a lot of attention will be paid to how well the game sells. But as I’ve said before, in an era where Game Pass has tens of millions of paid subscribers, sales numbers no longer tell the full story. I fully expect the PlayStation fanboys to jump all over Starfield – as they are already for any point of criticism they can find – and if the game seems to be selling fewer copies than other Bethesda games or than comparable PlayStation 5 games, you can bet they’ll take that and run with it. There’s sure to be content proclaiming Starfield a “failure” no matter what happens!

But it isn’t fair to judge Starfield – nor any Microsoft or Xbox game – purely on sales numbers any more. Game Pass is a game changer; it’s quite literally changing the way many of us play games. The way players on Xbox and PC engage with Bethesda titles and other Microsoft-owned games and studios is changing rapidly, with more and more subscribers joining Game Pass every day. Starfield’s release is sure to see a spike in Game Pass numbers, too – because it makes a lot of sense from a player’s perspective! I’ll be playing Starfield on Game Pass, and several people I know will be doing the same thing. Each Game Pass player represents a sale not made – so look to Microsoft and Bethesda for player numbers rather than raw sales data.

Starfield is a big deal for Game Pass.

Speaking of sales and money, another area of concern is that Starfield seems to be quite aggressively chasing some recent cash-grabbing trends that have blighted the modern games industry. It was a given that Starfield would have a collector’s edition and a special edition at launch – such things are so commonplace nowadays that they don’t even raise an eyebrow. But I admit that I was a little surprised at how steep the price was and what kind of content was on offer.

Firstly, for an additional £25 – on top of Starfield’s £60 (US$70) price tag – players get a couple of skins, a digital soundtrack, an “art book,” which will be a collection of JPEG images of the game’s concept art, and access to the first piece of planned DLC. We’ll get to DLC in a moment, but there’s one more thing that pre-ordering this expensive special edition gets players: five days of early access to the game.

Starfield has a special edition – because of course it does.

Let’s look at this another way: Starfield’s release date isn’t the 6th of September, it’s the 1st of September – but only for players who splurge some extra cash. The rest of us plebs will have to wait five days, close to a week, in order to play the game. I find these kinds of paid access periods to be a particularly revolting way of monetising a game, and I’m disappointed that Microsoft and Bethesda would stoop so low in order to manipulate players into pre-ordering Starfield.

Then we have these character costumes. I hope I’m wrong about this, but I fear these paid outfits are a harbinger of some aggressive in-game monetisation. This might be something that’s already present in Starfield, or it might be something Bethesda plans to implement after the game’s release – but either way, it doesn’t bode well. A fully-priced game shouldn’t be selling costumes like it’s some free-to-play MMO, but the games industry has been getting away with more and more of this kind of aggressive in-game thievery. And Bethesda is one of the pioneers of this nonsense, with Oblivion’s infamous “horse armour” DLC.

Yup.

If I’m paying £60 – or £85 – for a game, I should expect to be able to equip my character with all of the costumes that the game has to offer. This isn’t Roblox or Fortnite; free-to-play titles that use in-game purchases and subscriptions to turn a profit. For the money Bethesda and Microsoft are demanding, it’s positively disgusting to think that some character outfits – and possibly other pieces of content too – have been cut out to be sold separately.

I mentioned the first expansion pack there, too, and this is another thing that’s ringing alarm bells. Starfield is still almost three months away from release – this is not the time to be talking publicly about expansion packs and DLC. It worries me that attention and development resources may be diverted away from what should be Bethesda’s top priority: getting the game ready for launch. DLC is great – and if Starfield is as amazing an experience as we’re all hoping for, I’ll definitely be picking up every major expansion pack that gets released! But now is not the moment to be advertising it.

Let’s get the game launched before we talk about DLC.

I do have one final point of concern before we wrap things up. Since the Starfield showcase was broadcast, hype for the game has gone way up. Players like myself who had been on the fence about Starfield or who were tentatively looking forward to it have now well and truly boarded the hype train – and that brings with it a degree of expectation. Microsoft and Bethesda have promised a release date of the 6th of September (or the 1st for people who pay up). There’s now more pressure than ever to meet that deadline.

That means two things. First of all, crunch. Having once worked in the games industry, I’ve seen crunch first-hand, and I know the toll it can take on developers and everyone working at a games company. Crunch is something that should be avoided at all costs – but rigid deadlines make it far more likely.

It’s on Bethesda (and Microsoft) to avoid a difficult crunch period.

Secondly, Microsoft and Bethesda are now far less likely to delay Starfield. The game has already been delayed twice officially – or four times unofficially, if you believe certain reports. If Starfield isn’t ready in time for September, there’s going to be a lot of pressure for the game to be pushed out anyway – and that could be disastrous. Look at Cyberpunk 2077, a game which, despite pulling off an admirable recovery, will be forever tainted in the minds of players by an atrocious launch. Likewise No Man’s Sky. And for every game like those that manage to recover, there are dozens of titles like Anthem, Babylon’s Fall, or 2013’s Star Trek that never do. Bethesda has some experience in this field, both with Fallout 76 and as the publisher responsible for this year’s Redfall.

I praised Starfield last year for being delayed. I stand by what I said then: it’s never fun when a game I’m excited for gets delayed, but more and more players have the maturity to understand that it can be necessary. Practically everyone would rather play a good game a few months later than a bad, broken, or unfinished game a few months earlier. But with so much hype building up and a release date seemingly set in stone, a further delay at this stage might be something that Microsoft and Bethesda are unwilling to consider. I hope that, if Starfield needs a few more weeks or even a few more months, that they will ultimately be willing to take that tough decision.

A spaceship!

So I think that’s all I have to say for now. I know it’s a lot – and if you feel like I just took a big stinking dump all over your excitement for Starfield, well… sorry!

Despite everything we’ve discussed today, I’m still incredibly excited for Starfield. I’m trying to restrain myself and not get overly hyped up – and that’s partly why I decided to put metaphorical pen to paper and write out all of my concerns and issues with the game. But the truth is that in spite of some worries and fears, I’m still really looking forward to this game. In fact, I can’t think of any other title since Bethesda’s own Morrowind more than two decades ago that I’ve been this excited to play for myself.

I’m keeping my fingers crossed, and I truly hope that all of the points I’ve raised today will turn out to be misplaced fears. In three months’ time, feel free to come back and have a good laugh at my expense if Starfield really does live up to our expectations! I know that’s what I’ll do… if I’m not too busy playing Starfield, of course.

Starfield will be released on the 6th of September 2023 for PC and Xbox Series S/X consoles. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. Some promo images and screenshots used above courtesy of Bethesda and IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Strange New Worlds Season 2 Theory: Where’s Pike Going?

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Seasons 1 and 2. Spoilers are also present for the following Star Trek productions: The Original Series, Discovery, The Next Generation, and Enterprise.

Strange New Worlds Season 2 is off to a good start! The show returned to our screens this week with The Broken Circle – but the episode was noteworthy for the disappearance of one Captain Christopher Pike. As I said in my review of the episode, for the season to begin without him was a particularly bold move for what we once called “the Captain Pike show!”

Captain Pike set off on a journey of his own to help Una Chin-Riley – a.k.a. Number One. Una was arrested at the very end of Season 1, with her Illyrian heritage and genetically-modified background having somehow been exposed to Starfleet. As we know from earlier iterations of the franchise, genetic engineering is banned in the Federation, and lying on one’s Starfleet application – especially about race or species – can be grounds for expulsion.

Una is in a spot of bother…

But how does Pike plan to help Una? And for our purposes today: where might he be headed? It’s possible we’ll learn more about this before the episode airs – if photos are released that show Pike on a particular planet, for instance. But at time of writing all we know is that Pike has departed for destinations unknown – somewhere away from Earth on “the far side of the quadrant,” at least three days’ travel by shuttlecraft. He’s seeking out a mysterious, unnamed, female ally. And you’d better believe that I have a few ideas about where Pike could be going!

As always, some important caveats! First of all, I have no “insider information,” and I’m not trying to pretend that anything discussed below can, will, or must be part of Strange New Worlds. This is theory-crafting and speculation from a fan, and nothing more. Secondly, this is the entirely subjective opinion of one person, so if you hate all of my ideas, or if I don’t include your pet theory, that’s okay! There’s plenty of room in the Star Trek fan community for different ideas and points of view.

Now that that’s out of the way, let’s jump into the list.

Destination #1:
Talos IV

Two Talosians as seen in Discovery.

Could Pike be about to violate Starfleet’s General Order 7 by returning to Talos IV? Discovery’s second season gave us an updated look at Talos and the Talosians, and it’s possible that Pike may seek out their help and advice in order to save Una. The Talosians are incredibly powerful – hence the regulation banning all contact with their world – and may be able to use their illusory powers to aid Una, to convince the panel at her court-martial to rule in her favour, or even to help her escape. Talos IV could even become a shelter or home for Una.

Pike has a connection with the Talosians following the events of The Cage and Discovery’s second season, and he’s uniquely-placed to work with the Talosians. It could even be possible that Una will be forced out of Starfleet and will seek a new home on Talos IV, potentially being there to welcome Pike after his accident. Such a storyline could pave the way for Una’s departure from the show – and for Spock to step up and assume the role of First Officer.

Destination #2:
Vulcan

An older T’Pol from an alternate timeline.

Who could Pike be looking for on Vulcan? Who might be able to help Una get around Starfleet rules and regulations? How about an aged T’Pol, the first Vulcan to work alongside humans in space? I really love the idea of Strange New Worlds bringing an Enterprise character into one of its stories, and as a long-lived Vulcan T’Pol has always stood out as the most logical choice. This could be a fun way to tie together two parts of the Star Trek franchise.

It would be a blast to learn more about T’Pol’s life after the events of Enterprise and the founding of the Federation. Did she continue her scientific work? Perhaps she took on a different role as a kind of ambassador. She could be held in high esteem as a respected elder statesperson, and her intervention on Una’s behalf could be the deciding factor in Una being able to remain in Starfleet. T’Pol also has experience with the Illyrians.

Destination #3:
Vulcan (again)

A shuttlecraft touches down on Vulcan.

Season 1 reintroduced T’Pring, Spock’s betrothed. T’Pring worked with Vulcans whose emotions led them to commit criminal acts, and part of her role involved chasing down escapees and fugitives. As someone with experience in a somewhat relevant field, perhaps T’Pring might have some insight into Una’s case that Captain Pike believes could be useful.

This would be a different way to bring T’Pring back into the story. Rather than working closely with Spock, she could be assigned to Una’s case, working with her and Captain Pike. She and Captain Pike know one another at least a little, so it’s at least possible that he might value her judgement and believe that she could be of assistance.

Destination #4:
Rigel VII

Rigel VII (or an illusion of it) as it appeared in The Cage.

We caught glimpses in one of the Strange New Worlds Season 2 trailers of a planet that looked suspiciously like Rigel VII. It’s primarily for that reason that I’m including it on this list! But it’s possible that Pike may have met someone on Rigel VII who he believes is capable of helping Una – maybe a human settler or colonist rather than one of the planet’s aggressive Kalar warriors!

We don’t know a great deal about Rigel VII, nor what Pike was doing there prior to the events of The Cage. But with a return to the world potentially on the cards this season, it would be a mistake to rule it out at this stage.

Destination #5:
Starbase 11

Starbase 11.

There’s someone at Starbase 11 who could potentially fit the bill for being someone capable of defending Una: Areel Shaw. In The Original Series first season episode Court Martial, Shaw was the prosecutor who handled Kirk’s case. As a woman, and someone involved in Starfleet’s legal division, Shaw could be the person Pike is looking for.

This could also be the way Kirk is introduced. We know Kirk will appear this season, and we know from The Original Series that Kirk and Shaw were romantically involved a few years prior to the events of Court Martial. Perhaps Kirk will prove instrumental in setting up Pike’s meeting with Shaw – or will contribute, somehow, to Una’s defence.

Destination #6:
Illyria (or the Illyrian homeworld)

A 22nd Century Illyrian starship.

Una’s status as an Illyrian is what landed her in trouble in the first place. The Federation’s ban on genetic engineering also indirectly caused an entire colony of Illyrians to be wiped out, as the colonists wanted to purge themselves of their genetic engineering in order to apply for Federation membership. How will the Illyrians view this rather bigoted perception of their culture? Could an Illyrian be the key to Una’s defence?

I like the idea of Pike visiting Una’s homeworld and potentially meeting members of her family. We could learn why Una sought to join Starfleet and pose as a human instead of going into space on an Illyrian vessel, perhaps. Or there could be consequences for Captain Archer’s actions in Enterprise. And such a story could be an interesting analogy for how we view and interact with different cultures with different values out here in the real world.

Destination #7:
The USS Cayuga

Alright, that’s not the USS Cayuga – but it’s the same class of starship!

The USS Cayuga is under the command of Captain Batel – the person who arrested Una. At the beginning of Season 1, she and Captain Pike appeared to be in a relationship of some kind, though she was soon ordered away to the Neutral Zone to begin her mission. Although Captain Batel was the one who ordered Una’s arrest, she did so reluctantly while following orders, and may be sympathetic to her cause.

It’s possible that Captain Pike will visit the USS Cayuga to enlist Captain Batel’s support for Una’s defence. We don’t know a lot about Captain Batel – perhaps she was once a lawyer or legal expert before being given her own command. It would be fun, in some ways, if the person responsible for Una’s arrest could also prove key to her defence!

Destination #8:
Somewhere entirely new!

Where could it be?

I find myself saying this often on theory lists like these, but modern Star Trek has often wanted to chart its own path instead of relying on what came before. Whether we’re talking about characters, ships, storylines, or destinations as in this case, “something brand-new” is always a very likely contender!

Although we’ve had a bit of fun speculating about Pike’s possible destination, the truth is that it wasn’t something that The Broken Circle really set up as being a huge mystery. He could have mentioned the name of the person he wants to visit, or said his destination out loud – but it wasn’t strictly necessary for the story of the episode, and The Broken Circle didn’t really linger over this point for very long at all. In short, what I’m saying is that all of this theory-crafting and speculation could amount to nothing!

So that’s it!

Captain Pike.

We’ve looked at a few possible destinations for Captain Pike, and considered a few people he might be intending to seek out.

If I had to pick a favourite – a fantasy, really – I’d pick T’Pol. I just love the idea of bringing someone from Enterprise into Strange New Worlds, giving someone from that show an epilogue and catching up with them and their life years after we last saw them. Is it the most likely possibility? Well, no. And there are several reasons why. But as a pure fantasy idea, I think it could be brilliant.

Which option is the most likely is an awkward question on theory lists like these! But I guess I’d say that Captain Pike going to a brand-new location, or at least seeking out someone we’ve never met before, feels like the most likely course of action.

Details of Una’s case on a padd.

Regardless, I hope this was a bit of fun. It’s possible that a teaser or photos from the upcoming episode may reveal what’s going on with Captain Pike before we see it – but it’s also possible that this minor mystery will be kept under wraps until Thursday. I guess we’ll find out! Given that Pike is the captain of the Enterprise and Strange New Worlds’ main character, his absence this week was notable, and the fact that his destination was left unexplained prompted this bit of theory-crafting.

As a final note: I always like to end these theory posts by saying that I do this just for fun. I enjoy writing, I enjoy Star Trek, and spending more time in this world is an escape and an enjoyable distraction for me. But for some folks, fan theories can become frustrating or unenjoyable, especially if they get very attached to a plausible-sounding theory that ultimately doesn’t pan out. I have no “insider information” and I’m not trying to claim that anything suggested above can, will, or must be part of Strange New Worlds Season 2. I fully expect the season to go in wildly unpredictable directions!

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Seasons 1-2 are available to stream now on Paramount Plus in countries and territories where the service is available. The Star Trek franchise – including Strange New Worlds – is the copyright of Paramount Global. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Episode Review – Season 2, Episode 1: The Broken Circle

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Seasons 1 and 2. Spoilers are also present for Star Trek Into Darkness, Star Trek: Discovery, and Star Trek: Picard.

Welcome to the first of my Strange New Worlds episode reviews! Unfortunately, some truly idiotic decisions at Paramount blocked off Season 1 and prevented fans in most of the world from being able to (lawfully) watch it at the time it was broadcast, so for that reason I elected not to write individual episode reviews here on the website. But because Season 2 is more widely available, I intend to cover the series from this point forward. Individual Season 1 episode reviews/re-watches may also appear from time to time.

Strange New Worlds’ first season was probably the best thing I watched in all of 2022. The show was a wonderfully welcome return to an older, more episodic style of storytelling that I think is a perfect and natural fit for the Star Trek franchise. As I said in my spoiler-free review of the season, there really weren’t any episodes that I felt didn’t hit the mark last time around. Season 2 has a lot to live up to, then!

The Enterprise departs Starbase 1.

And on balance, I have to say that The Broken Circle was a decent continuation of the series. It arguably wasn’t as strong as the final two episodes of Season 1, which were both phenomenal, and I have some specific criticisms that we’ll get to. But in terms of entertainment value, I can tell you that I was gripped the entire time! The Broken Circle was an action-packed episode that started the season with a bang.

There are a couple of points of concern that were raised that kind of fall outside of the story told in this week’s episode, and I want to look at that before we get into the rest of the review. Where Strange New Worlds succeeded last time was in its blend of episodic storytelling with some character arcs and storylines that ran across multiple episodes. This modernised the format, allowing for the likes of Dr M’Benga’s story with his daughter or Captain Pike’s struggles with his impending accident to not be forgotten, but the focus was still very much on distinct and individual stories week-to-week.

Spock seems upset…

In contrast, The Broken Circle feels very much like “Part 1” of a larger, much more serialised story. Captain Pike took off on a mission to help Una, who’s on trial. Pike’s destination, who he plans to visit, and Una’s trial were all stories that were started briefly but then paused. La’an’s status as an ex-Starfleet officer was also set up, but left unresolved by the time the credits rolled. And most significantly, as the episode was drawing to a close we saw Admiral April and another senior Starfleet officer looking at a report of a possible Gorn incursion – something that is clearly setting up a story thread that the next episode or episodes will follow.

I’m not wild about this new direction, and it feels that Strange New Worlds has taken some big steps down a path much closer to serialisation. When the show’s semi-episodic format had been working so well, this change simply isn’t one that I’d have made – and while I’m not averse at all to the idea of character arcs, two-part stories, or even cliffhanger endings… the season premiere seemed to bring a lot of those serialised elements into play all at once, leading to it feeling like the first part of an ongoing story rather than a classic Star Trek episode that could be enjoyed as a purely standalone affair. That the episode leaned heavily on characters and storylines that had been set up in Season 1 only added to this feeling.

Is this the beginning of a season-long serialised story?

There will be time in the weeks ahead, though, to assess how far down this serialised path Strange New Worlds may venture in its second season. For now, we still have a lot to get stuck into from this week’s outing – and I have to say that it was a blast to welcome back the Klingons.

I wasn’t sure to what extent Strange New Worlds would make reference to Discovery’s Klingon War storyline, but this week’s story connected back to it in a very clever way. Nothing in Discovery was truly “required reading” to make sense of events in The Broken Circle, but for fans who recall Discovery’s first season, the connections were there. The story stood on its own two feet without relying too heavily on Discovery, and could be enjoyed by fans and newcomers alike as a result.

I liked what this episode did with the Klingons.

The Klingons in The Broken Circle were much closer, both visually and in terms of their actions and temperament, to how they appeared in much of Star Trek prior to the Kelvin timeline films. For fans who weren’t wild about those more recent depictions, that’s got to be seen as a positive thing! For me, I think there’s room enough in Star Trek for a more diverse and varied look at a familiar race like the Klingons – but I can’t deny that it felt incredibly fun to see them laughing and drinking bloodwine.

The idea of rogue humans and Klingons on a shared world seeking to re-start hostilities for profit was also a genuinely interesting idea, one that the episode did well to explore. Star Trek doesn’t always give us a look at the denizens of the galaxy outside of Starfleet or the main factions – but in a galaxy so vast, there are bound to be settlements like this one, populated by people who’d do anything to make themselves rich. This felt like a glimpse at that world – and it was genuinely interesting.

Cajitar IV is the kind of place Star Trek doesn’t always show us.

Building an entire starship underground felt like a bit of a stretch in some ways (and if this gang had the resources to do that, did they really need to start a war to make more money?) but it was a neat idea nevertheless. It was also a creative way to recycle some of the sets built for the Enterprise, and to get away with a very minimal redress! These sets, which were supposed to be part of the gang’s newly-minted ship, were integrated well into the story. Not every Star Trek episode in recent times has made good use of redressed sets, but on this occasion we can say that it worked well in context.

It was also neat to see a different kind of starship design, one that seemed to use a Crossfield-class saucer section but on a much smaller star-drive and with different nacelles. The Crossfield-class – famous, of course, for being the USS Discovery’s class – was even name-checked in the episode itself, which was neat. In some ways this design felt like an old-school “kit-bash;” a name used for starships that were often created out of spare parts or leftovers in the days when physical models were still used. Some well-known Star Trek ship designs started out life as kit-bashes!

I liked the “kit-bashed” design of the rogue ship.

On the negative side, I felt that Admiral April’s “request denied” was a rather paper-thin setup to the main storyline. We’ve seen in many Star Trek episodes how by-the-book admirals could be little more than bumps in the road, getting in the way of what our heroes needed to do. And this felt very much like that. April had a reason, namely that the Klingons would interpret any incursion to the shared world as an act of aggression, but didn’t seem at all willing to consider other ideas or alternative proposals – even though La’an’s message, as communicated by Spock, suggested that the situation was dire and that the Federation was in danger.

This was disappointing, and there were other ways to get the story to this shared planet without presenting April as a “badmiral” who was getting in the way. In fact, this entire section of the episode didn’t really get any kind of narrative payoff, with Spock’s decision to steal the Enterprise not seeming to give him much trouble, and with April dishing out what amounted to no formal consequences. It ended up feeling a bit artificial; some forced drama to up the stakes.

Spock and Admiral April.

While we’re talking about Admiral April, I’m not thrilled with where his story seems to be going. If there is to be some kind of Gorn conflict that could be interesting, but why present April as someone who has something to hide? It makes sense that any organisation would share information carefully, but the end of The Broken Circle seemed to be saying that April and one of his co-conspirators at Starfleet Command were deliberately concealing information and not sharing it with their crews in the field.

Perhaps this is something that will be resolved or paid off in a future episode – and I’m keeping my fingers crossed for that! I don’t want to see someone like April – who seemed like a decent, upstanding officer last time around – in any kind of negative light. Discovery has done great things in its third and fourth seasons with Admiral Vance, bringing a wonderful character to screen as head of Starfleet. I’d very much rather see April go down that route instead of becoming a typical “badmiral.”

I wasn’t wild about the way April was presented here.

It was a very bold choice for the premiere episode of Season 2 to sideline Captain Pike. Every Star Trek season has episodes in which some characters are in focus and others are not, but Pike is not only central to Strange New Worlds – without him, and without Anson Mount’s incredible portrayal, the show wouldn’t have come to exist at all. So while the decision to send him off on his own little mission made perfect sense in-universe, it was a brave narrative decision by the writers and producers. And arguably a strange one, too.

Strange New Worlds is, for many folks, “the Captain Pike show.” Pike was present in all ten of the first season’s stories, and as the captain of the ship is a key part of the series. His absence gave Spock a turn in the captain’s chair for the first time – which was great to see, don’t get me wrong – but I can’t help feel that there must’ve been a way to include Pike in a larger way. Maybe I’d have chosen to restructure the season to place Pike’s solo adventure first, and then this episode second – just as one example.

I have a theory in the pipeline about who Pike may be going to visit – so stay tuned for that before the next episode airs!

Doing “the Captain Pike show” without Pike?!

Season 1 spent a fair amount of time with Spock, and looked at his inner conflict between his human and Vulcan sides. The Broken Circle threw Spock into a brand-new situation for him… and he didn’t necessarily react the way I’d have expected. This version of the character, perhaps inspired more by his adopted sister and their adventures in Discovery’s second season, seemed much quicker to break the rules when faced with opposition from Starfleet. If we hop over to the Kelvin timeline for a moment, in that reality, Spock told the unvarnished truth about Kirk in a written report and ended up getting him demoted. In The Original Series we could see Spock as a stickler for rules and protocol, too, often butting heads with Dr McCoy and others as a result. I don’t want to say he acted “out-of-character” here, because we are dealing with a younger Spock, a Spock who is still finding himself and finding his feet. But it’s certainly interesting to see how he behaved very differently from the man we might remember.

The theme of Spock’s conflicted nature and how he “isn’t like other Vulcans” came to the fore in The Broken Circle in more ways than one – and was arguably part of the episode’s resolution. Spock’s interaction with the Klingon captain was fun, and I enjoyed seeing him drinking bloodwine and finding an unorthodox route to peace.

Spock negotiated successfully with the Klingons.

This final part of the episode didn’t feel especially strong, however. The climax of the story arrived slowly, and The Broken Circle did a good job at building up its Klingon-human shadowy conspiracy. But the resolution to this conflict seemed to be rushed through, with both the Klingon commander standing down at the drop of a hat and Admiral April back at Starfleet HQ agreeing very quickly to overlook Spock’s actions.

This is something that I’d have liked to have seen a few more minutes dedicated to. We could have drawn out the standoff over the planet, with Spock and the Klingon commander talking around one another with the threat of war hanging over their heads. Seeing Spock handle this situation was great – but it didn’t last very long. And Admiral April gave Spock a pass for desertion, theft of the flagship, violating a peace treaty, and a dozen or more other crimes. Again, this was something that needed more time – especially as the payoff to April’s earlier intransigence.

A Klingon D-7 battlecruiser.

A character like La’an can fall into the trap of stereotyping, or can feel left out as writers don’t always know what to do with a security officer who doesn’t seem to have much by way of a softer side. So it was fantastic to see The Broken Circle really giving her something to do, and doing it in a way that felt natural for her. We saw her past experiences with the Gorn come to the fore in Season 1, and The Broken Circle built on that foundation, taking La’an away from Starfleet for a cause close to her heart.

Seeing her with Oriana really humanised La’an, showing that she can care for others and has more to offer than just her skills with a phaser. The only disappointing thing, as mentioned, was that The Broken Circle didn’t wrap up La’an’s leave from Starfleet one way or another. This is something that may come back into play if a more serialised story is unfolding, and there are sure to be plenty of ways an ex-Starfleet officer could be of use on “the outside,” but in terms of her character arc this week, the lack of a conclusive ending makes it feel like there was something missing from La’an’s story.

Oriana and La’an.

Where La’an’s story built on what had been set up last year, the stories of Dr M’Benga and Nurse Chapel sort of felt like they came out of nowhere. Of course we know about the Klingon War; that was discussed in the episode itself. But even in the recap at the beginning of The Broken Circle, it was noted that the Enterprise and her crew didn’t take part in the conflict. If that’s the case, it obviously means that Chapel and M’Benga came aboard later and did take part – but that was a little confusing and not particularly well-established.

I didn’t re-watch all of Season 1 prior to sitting down to watch The Broken Circle, so my ageing memory may be missing a trick, but I don’t recall either Dr M’Benga or Nurse Chapel discussing the war last season. I don’t think it necessarily matters in a big way, but it was undeniably something that I felt came out of the blue. It certainly succeeded at ramping up the tension as the pair were caught by the Klingons and trapped aboard the fake Starfleet vessel, but it wasn’t a point that felt particularly strong in terms of its setup. If I’m wrong, and if their prior service in the Klingon War was mentioned last year, then I’ll be happy to rescind this point of criticism!

Nurse Chapel and Dr M’Benga.

Being ejected into space is usually a death sentence in Star Trek – and in sci-fi in general! In Picard’s recent third season, a character was killed in precisely this way. So it was odd, in a way, to see Dr M’Benga and Nurse Chapel survive such a harrowing experience. I’m glad they did, of course, and the buildup to their being blown out into space was a tense and deeply emotional sequence. But it does feel a tad inconsistent with what we’ve seen in past Star Trek stories – and rather like the two were given some particularly heavy plot armour.

That being said, it was great to see Dr M’Benga and Nurse Chapel paired up for an adventure that took them outside of sickbay. They work incredibly well together and made a fun pair, and I hope we get to see more of them. It would be fun to explore their history, too – did they serve together during the Klingon War, as The Broken Circle seemed to imply? If so, what was that like? Are they still friends, or have their wartime experiences changed them and driven them apart? And the strange drug that Dr M’Benga keeps in his medical case… what is it? I wonder if it might be some kind of Section 31 invention.

Chapel and M’Benga were blasted out into space!

When we were first introduced to Commander Pelia, I confess I wasn’t particularly blown away. She’s replacing a character in Hemmer who I felt was hard done by in Season 1, and was someone I’d have liked to have had the opportunity to spend more time with. There was a uniqueness to Hemmer, not only as a blind character or as the first Aenar to be a major character on Star Trek, but as an avowed pacifist. We’ll have to deal with Hemmer’s wasted potential in more detail in a standalone piece one day, because there’s a lot more to say!

But suffice to say that I was impressed by Pelia’s chaotic energy, and the revelation that she’s a member of a previously-unseen species – one that is especially long-lived and that has lived amongst humans for a long time. Her connection with Spock’s family is also an interesting angle that The Broken Circle set up that I hope will be further explored in future stories.

Commander Pelia is a brand-new character for Season 2.

Pelia’s scenes on the bridge with Spock (and others) were cute, and I liked the way that she was dancing around what was going on without just coming out and saying it. And it was a fun subversion that this older, higher-ranking character who sussed out the truth didn’t immediately turn Spock in, but actually wanted to come along for the ride. That was fun, clever, and a somewhat unique way to introduce this new character.

Pelia has an almost child-like charm, despite being such a long-lived character, and I’m now especially curious to see her in an engineering setting. We only got the barest of glimpses of her in main engineering this week, but I’m sure she’ll have a lot to offer. It’s premature to be thinking about adding too many more characters, but the idea that Pelia might’ve been a mentor of sorts to Montgomery Scott is a fascinating one that I wonder whether the series might explore in future. Perhaps that’s an idea for Season 3, 4, or even 5!

Spock and Pelia have a connection already.

So I think that’s all there is to say for now. The Broken Circle was a solid start to Season 2 – albeit one that wasn’t quite at the level of the episodes that immediately preceded it. There were some contrivances in the story that left some moments feeling rather flimsy or too short, but overall I had fun with Spock and the crew of the Enterprise as they went off on an unsanctioned mission.

I’m curious to see whether some of the storylines set up or teased this week will turn Season 2 into a fully-fledged serialised affair, or whether they’ll be revisited in some other way. My hope is that Strange New Worlds can find a way to course-correct and return to the semi-episodic style that it employed so perfectly last time around. But I guess we’ll have to wait and see!

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Seasons 1-2 are available to stream now on Paramount Plus in countries and territories where the service is available. The Star Trek franchise – including Strange New Worlds – is the copyright of Paramount Global. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Ten games to play while you wait for Starfield

Spoiler Warning: There may be minor spoilers ahead for some of the titles on this list.

Are you as excited for Starfield as I am? Bethesda’s upcoming sci-fi role-playing game had been on my radar, of course, but the recent showcase has absolutely got me hyped up! Although I’m trying to restrain myself and not get overexcited, especially with Bethesda’s track record and 2023 having already seen some truly awful game launches, I just can’t help myself! I want to play the game now now NOW!

So what’s a wannabe Starfield-er to do? With three months to wait until the game’s launch – assuming it won’t be delayed again – what should we play? Today I thought it could be a bit of fun to pick ten games that might scratch part of that Starfield itch!

I can’t wait to build and pilot my very own spaceship!

I’ve picked games for this list that are either in the sci-fi realm, the space-sim or space-adventure genre, the role-playing genre, or that have expansive open worlds. Those are the key traits that Starfield has, so it seems logical to look for games that exist in a similar space – even if they won’t be on the same scale!

As always, a few caveats. Hype can be a dangerous thing, and as I said in my recent look at Starfield, it’s a game that has firmly earned its place in the “wait for the reviews” category! I shan’t be pre-ordering it, and while I’d never want to tell anyone else what to do, I think it’s sensible in most cases to avoid pre-ordering games in order to see what state they’re in when they arrive. Such is the nature of the video games industry in 2023!

Ship customisation in Starfield. I cannot wait to get stuck into this!

Everything we’re going to talk about today is the subjective opinion of one person. If you don’t care about Starfield, if you hate all of the games on this list, or if I don’t include a title that seems blindingly obvious to you… that’s okay! There are myriad opinions on Starfield and video games in general, and all I’m trying to do is offer my personal suggestions for games to play while we wait.

I have no “insider information,” and I’m basing my list on information that has been publicly revealed about Starfield.

With all of that out of the way, let’s get started!

Game #1:
X4: Foundations

Promo screenshot featuring a spaceship.

I have to confess that I’m not terribly familiar with either X4: Foundations or the X series as a whole. But looking in from the outside, X4: Foundations seems to have many of the space-based elements that players might be looking for in Starfield. It’s possible to become the captain of a ship, to trade with a variety of factions, and to participate in combat, piracy, and more. There are dozens of ships to control with different specialities, from small mining craft to large freighters.

X4: Foundations is the kind of game that looks quite complex, but could be a blast to really get stuck into. The X series has a dedicated community, and X4: Foundations has received four DLC expansions since its initial 2018 release, with more supposedly in the pipeline.

Game #2:
The Outer Worlds

Box art for The Outer Worlds.

The Outer Worlds is smaller in scale than Starfield will be, but it brings many of the same elements to the table. Players have their own ship, can recruit companions for their quest, and can create a custom character. The game’s developers Obsidian once worked alongside Bethesda to develop Fallout: New Vegas, and some commentators hailed The Outer Worlds as Obsidian’s “spiritual successor” to that game.

Though The Outer Worlds is much more linear than Starfield aims to be, it’s still a ton of fun. Gunplay and combat are exciting, there’s an engaging main storyline, and some memorable characters to meet and interact with. A sequel is also in the works – but with Obsidian currently working on Avowed, it might not be coming any time soon!

Game #3:
The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind

The city of Vivec in Morrowind.

If you have a PC and can play with mods, Morrowind can almost feel like a brand-new experience even more than twenty years on from its release. It’s a fantastic role-playing game, one that actually has a lot more to do than either of its sequels. There are some fantastically diverse locations to visit across its open world, a multitude of factions to join, and more side-quests than you can shake a stick at!

I played and adored Morrowind when it was first released in 2002, but to this day there are still quests I haven’t completed and skills I’ve yet to master – that’s how overstuffed with content this game is! Whether you want to be a sneaky assassin, a powerful wizard, a brawling brute, or anyone else you can imagine, you can do it in Morrowind’s fantasy world.

Game #4:
Fallout 4

Promo art for Fallout 4.

Fallout 4 may not be Bethesda’s best-ever game, but it’s plenty of fun for what it is! Many of the in-game mechanics and systems that Starfield will employ are present in some form in Fallout 4, such as settlement-building. The game has an engaging main questline, and its post-apocalyptic setting has a unique Americana charm thanks to its ’50s inspiration.

There are several pieces of DLC for Fallout 4, too, two of which are major expansions that add new areas to the game world. For PC players there are also a ton of mods to get stuck into – including some absolutely massive ones that completely change the game and add new features. For my money, Fallout 3 is probably superior… but Fallout 4 is still fun to get stuck into.

Game #5:
No Man’s Sky

Starships, a space station, and a suspiciously red sky!

I’ve seen a lot of commentators and analysts comparing Starfield with No Man’s Sky, and there are some superficial similarities. Both are space-adventures, both use procedural generation to create planets, and both have exploration, mining, resource collecting, and crafting elements. No Man’s Sky is a different kind of game, though, with a focus on exploration rather than factions, questing, and storylines.

This may be a bit of a “hot take,” but I felt that No Man’s Sky was decent when it launched. It wasn’t buggy or broken in the way some titles are, and the problem really was that expectations weren’t appropriately managed due to some poor marketing decisions. There’s definitely an element of dishonesty in the way the game was sold, too. But to the credit of Hello Games, No Man’s Sky has received a lot of ongoing support and free updates – and it’s now much closer to that original vision.

Game #6:
Cyberpunk 2077

A combat encounter in Cyberpunk 2077.

Another game that suffered a rough launch was Cyberpunk 2077. Though I’d absolutely argue that its core gameplay is nothing special, Cyberpunk 2077 has a visually beautiful open world set in a sprawling dystopian city, and an engaging main story to follow. Non-player characters can be fantastic, brought to life with some great voice acting and motion-capture, and there’s fun to be had here.

By the time I got around to fully playing through Cyberpunk 2077, most of the worst bugs and glitches had been patched out. The game is in a much more stable and playable state today than it was when it launched, and it’s well worth a second look for anyone who hasn’t picked it up since then. An expansion pack, titled Phantom Liberty, is due for release the same month as Starfield.

Game #7:
Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order
(and Jedi: Survivor if it ever gets fixed)

Cal Kestis takes on the Empire.

I cannot in good conscience recommend Jedi: Survivor right now. At least on PC the game is in poor shape, with serious performance issues even on higher-end machines, and one questline that’s so utterly broken that it literally cannot even be played at time of writing. EA has been slow to respond to these issues, too. Once Jedi: Survivor is eventually fixed, however, I daresay I’ll get stuck into it! I just hope that the fix comes before September!

In the meantime, though, Jedi: Fallen Order is an exciting adventure game. Set in a galaxy far, far away, players get to take on the role of Cal Kestis, a former Jedi padawan, and join the crew of the Stinger Mantis on an adventure that spans several planets. It’s a great game with an incredibly fun story.

Game #8:
The Mass Effect trilogy

Garrus!

The Mass Effect games are a blast – though the first entry in the series is beginning to show its age gameplay-wise. If only there’d been some kind of remaster that could have addressed those concerns… oh well! The original Mass Effect trilogy tells a phenomenal and engaging sci-fi story, and if you haven’t experienced it for yourself – or if it’s been a while since you last played – it’s definitely a great way to get ready for Starfield.

Some commentators have noted what they perceived to be similarities with Mass Effect in some parts of Starfield’s design. I confess that I don’t really see that, at least not in terms of the game’s visual style. But as another role-playing game in the sci-fi space, it’s not hard to see how Mass Effect may have been an influence on Bethesda.

Game #9:
Star Trek Online

Promo art featuring Seven of Nine and Michael Burnham.

Oh, how I wish I could find a way to enjoy Star Trek Online! As a huge Star Trek fan, I really wanted to like this game and I gave it my best shot… but I just can’t get on with massively-multiplayer games for the most part. But if you can, or if the MMO scene is your jam, Star Trek Online could be worth a look. It has plenty of story missions to play, starships to buy and customise, and crew members that can be recruited. Quests can take place both in space and on the ground – and so can combat.

Bethesda once held the license to make Star Trek games, and I can’t help but feel that in another world we might be about to play Starfield Trek… or Star Trekfield! At the very least, I think it wouldn’t be totally unfair to say that there’s been some kind of Star Trek influence on Starfield, particularly with the exploration-focused Constellation organisation.

Game #10:
Red Dead Redemption II

The great train robbery…

Bethesda executive producer (and Starfield’s director) Todd Howard compared Starfield to Red Dead Redemption II in a recent interview, suggesting that the depth of the game’s open world is comparable to Rockstar’s wild west masterpiece. If that’s even close to being true, we’re in for a whale of a time – because Red Dead Redemption II is one of the best games I’ve ever played.

Red Dead Redemption II has an incredible open world, packed with characters and locations that truly succeed at capturing the look and feel of the United States at the end of the 19th Century. It has some fun customisation, too, with weapons and outfits befitting the time period. The game’s story also packs an emotional punch!

So that’s it!

Swordfights on Pluto will have to wait…

I hope I’ve given you some ideas or inspiration for games to play over the next three months while we wait for Starfield with bated breath!

As I said at the beginning, this is a title that has rocketed up my list of most-anticipated games… and try as I might to slam on the brakes, the hype train has already left the station! Bethesda has a reputation for rough launches, and we’ve seen some recent disappointments from Xbox, too. There are reasons for scepticism – and I will certainly be checking out reviews and technical breakdowns before I commit to Starfield in September.

Firing a laser in Starfield.

I’d also like to take this opportunity to once again encourage Bethesda and Microsoft to consider delaying the game if it needs more time in the oven. Sure, it will be disappointing in some ways if Starfield can’t be ready for September… but I’d rather play it six months later in a better state than struggle to enjoy it because it was released prematurely.

So there really isn’t much more to say! I’m really excited to play Starfield, and I’ve been considering my options for games to play in the meantime while I wait. Though I included one title each from Bethesda’s Fallout and Elder Scrolls series, I tried to avoid making this list too lop-sided and too heavily-dominated by one company and one genre.

I had fun, anyway, and if even one person comes away from this list thinking to themselves “oh, I’d never have thought of that!” or “yeah, that seems like a good game to try,” then I’ll have done my job!

All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective developer, studio, and/or publisher. Starfield will be released on the 6th of September 2023 for PC and Xbox Series S/X consoles. Some screenshots used above courtesy of Bethesda and/or IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Thoughts on the Starfield showcase

Spoiler Warning: Although there are no major spoilers for Starfield’s main story, minor spoilers may be present – and this article includes screenshots and images of the game.

As part of Xbox’s big summer event – or rather, as a standalone addendum to it – Bethesda recently showed off the first proper deep dive into its upcoming role-playing shooter Starfield. The game is due for release in September, barring any further delays, and today I wanted to share my thoughts on how Starfield looks to be shaping up!

It’s been a while since we last took a look at Starfield here on the website. In fact, it’s been over a year since I last commented on the game at length – a piece that was prompted by news that it had been delayed. A single teaser trailer had been released since that announcement, but this showcase offers a much deeper and more expansive look at the game.

The game’s director and Bethesda executive producer Todd Howard spoke at the Starfield showcase.

I would be lying if I said I wasn’t excited for Starfield – even more so knowing that it will come to Game Pass on day one. The game that Bethesda showed off and talked about looks fantastic, with a multitude of complex systems and mechanics to get stuck into, and an engaging retro-sci-fi story that I can’t wait to follow.

But at the same time, hype isn’t always a positive thing – and I’ve already seen players and commentators starting to speculate about unannounced features in the game, potentially setting themselves up for disappointment. I’m trying to restrain myself from doing the exact same thing; building up an image in my head of the “perfect” role-playing game that Starfield – and indeed no game – could ever possibly live up to.

Concept art for Starfield.

Bethesda’s games are fantastic. Morrowind in particular will be a permanent fixture on my “favourite games of all-time” list, and I’ve also enjoyed Bethesda’s other modern titles like Skyrim and their Fallout duology. But the company has a reputation, and mistakes have been made over the past few years that are absolutely worth bearing in mind before the Starfield hype train accelerates too much.

Fallout 76 was, for me at least, utterly unplayable. Forget the bugs, the glitches, and the crappy marketing – it was a role-playing game with no characters in it. To Bethesda’s credit they’ve been continuing to work on Fallout 76, but it was a mistake to launch the game in such an unfinished state. Fallout 4 also had its issues – particularly with bland and repetitive side-quests and open-world busywork. And we’d be remiss not to mention the fact that Bethesda’s publishing arm is responsible for such recent abominations as Redfall.

Fallout 76 was a big, empty game that had a very difficult launch.

Even Bethesda’s better titles have a reputation for being buggy at launch – and with Starfield being the company’s biggest release to date, the potential for bugs and glitches to sneak through quality control is off the charts! The game has been delayed from an initial November 2022 release, first to “the first half of 2023,” and then again to September. Delays are almost always good news – but there can be pressure to meet a deadline, especially one that’s been pushed back more than once.

I’d absolutely encourage Bethesda, Microsoft, and anyone who’ll listen to consider delaying Starfield again if the game needs it. The gameplay we got to see in the showcase looked smooth, fun, and bug-free – but any developer worth their salt can create a “vertical slice” of gameplay for a presentation like this. Until the game is actually in the hands of independent reviewers, analysts, and of course players, we won’t be able to say with certainty that it’s in a good enough state.

A mining laser as seen in the Starfield showcase.

There are other concerns I have, too. Bethesda has insisted on re-using their creaking, ageing game engine for Starfield. Creation Engine 2 is a modified, updated version of Bethesda’s old Creation Engine, itself a modified version of Gamebryo. In some form, Bethesda has been using this same technology since the Morrowind days, and I fear that we’ve already seen some of the limitations of Creation Engine 2 in the showcase itself. Look, for example, at the low-quality facial hair and beards present on some characters – this is a hallmark of Gamebryo/Creation Engine, as we’ve seen similar shortcomings in other Bethesda titles.

The Creation Engine was originally designed for role-playing games – not space combat or colony-building, two elements of Starfield that have been teased. Fallout 4′s settlement-building was good – but it had its limitations and could be clunky to work with, especially for new players. Spaceflight and ship-to-ship combat are entirely new for Bethesda in this context, and again there’s a concern about how well Starfield’s underlying technology can deal with that.

It’s an open question as to how well the Creation Engine can handle all of these new gameplay mechanics.

Then there’s the idea of procedurally-generated planets. Procedural generation will allow Starfield to be far larger than any hand-crafted game could ever be… but it has its limits. No Man’s Sky is the title many folks will call to mind when thinking of procedural generation in a space-adventure title, and while that game has pulled off an amazing recovery following a rocky launch… it’s not exactly a comparison that Bethesda would be thrilled to see.

There were a few moments in the showcase where I felt that player characters were gazing out over pretty barren, uninteresting landscapes and vistas. For all the proclamations of “if you can see it, you can go there,” if “there” is an empty wasteland, a barren patch of dirt, or a procedurally-generated mountain with nothing at all to see or do… then I’m sure I won’t be alone in saying I don’t think I’ll bother!

A beautifully-rendered but barren-looking planet.

This is perhaps another case of expectations being raised that can’t be met. Starfield may indeed have 1,000 planets to visit – but only a handful are going to be worth visiting, with solid missions, story content, non-player characters, and hand-crafted locales to explore. Maybe I’m wrong, and maybe Bethesda has found a way to take procedural generation to another level. I hope so! But I’m not convinced of that yet.

I was also not thrilled to see two things as the showcase drew to a close: a timed early-access release for players who pay an extra £25/$30, and talk of a “story expansion” already. Bethesda has created some wonderful expansions and pieces of DLC in the past for all of its games… but it’s premature to be talking about that at this juncture. Let’s worry about getting the game released first!

Starfield has a “digital premium edition” with extra content and early access.

There were also some pre-order exclusive costumes and outfits, and I sincerely hope that won’t be a trend that Starfield aggressively pursues. We’ve seen too many single-player, fully-priced games trying to sell microtransactions and cosmetic items via an in-game marketplace, and to me that kind of thing crosses a line. In a free-to-play title, sure. Go for it. But let’s not have that nonsense in Starfield.

So those are my negative takeaways from the showcase, and I wanted to get them out of the way up front! There are concerns about Starfield, and as excited as I am for the game, it’s another one that has firmly earned its place in the “wait for the reviews” column!

But there’s a lot more to say about Starfield, and I have some very positive impressions and takeaways from the showcase that I’d like to share now.

Concept art of a neon marketplace.

First of all, this game is giving me a “Star Trek-meets-Disney World-meets-old-school sci-fi” vibe! The positivity of Star Trek’s exploration-focused future seemed to be present, and as a massive Trekkie I’m all there for that! Bethesda once had the license to make Star Trek games, and I can’t help but feel that in another world we might be looking at Starfield Trek… or should that be Star Trekfield? Maybe one day Paramount will license a game like that! A fan can dream, eh?

If you’ve ever been to Disney World and ridden the likes of Spaceship Earth or visited Tomorrowland, maybe you’ll also pick up on the same feeling that I did. Perhaps it’s because of the aesthetic, perhaps it was the talk of humanity expanding into the stars, but something in the showcase absolutely harkened back to those Disney experiences for me – and I absolutely mean that as a positive thing.

Paging Mr Morrow…

Finally we have Starfield’s deliberately retro look and feel. Described by Bethesda as “NASA-punk,” this visual style takes NASA’s technology as a starting point and looks to a future inspired by those machines and devices – and their aesthetic – in much the same way as the Fallout games take the early ’50s as inspiration. I adore this look, and while there’s more to Starfield’s galaxy than just one visual style, it seems to fit perfectly with the game’s theme of exploration.

Each faction, locale, and/or area of the galaxy looks to have its own distinct aesthetic, too, which is fantastic. In Morrowind, and to an extent in Oblivion as well, different regions of the map and factions were distinct from one another with radically different styles of dress and architecture. This was far less visible in Skyrim, and while there were distinctive looks in Bethesda’s Fallout games too, by and large those titles had their own post-apocalyptic thing going on that tamped down at least some of the potential for creativity and diversity in terms of style. Starfield doesn’t have that – and it was fantastic to see different cities, different factions, and different characters with pretty diverse styles that complimented or clashed with the “NASA-punk” look of the main character and spaceship.

Starfield has a visual style that Bethesda calls “NASA-punk.”

Let’s talk a bit more about spaceships – because this is one area where I’m beyond excited. With the caveat above about the game’s engine being relatively untested in this area, the idea of building, customising, living aboard, and finding a crew for my very own starship is something I literally cannot wait to get stuck into. Starfield is making my knickers moist with anticipation; this is something I’ve been looking for in a game of this type for a long time.

I adore customisation options in practically any game, and there have been some fun games with base-building elements. Going way back, there are even games like Star Trek: Starship Creator, which, while limited by the technology of the time, were an absolute blast to get stuck into. But being able to build and customise a ship, recruit a crew, and then take that ship on untold adventures in a Bethesda sandbox… I can hardly think of anything more appealing in any video game that has ever been announced in the history of ever!

Spaceship!

At first it seemed as if this feature might be akin to Fallout 4′s settlement-building in the sense that it would feel tacked-on, and like a part of gameplay that could be sidelined or even ignored. And I suppose some players will choose to do the bare minimum when it comes to spaceship customisation, putting their focus into the story or into side-missions. But from what we saw in the showcase – and again, with the caveat that all of this is heavily-edited marketing bumf – it looks like the player’s ship is going to be an integral part of the game. Maintaining it, upgrading it, and finding a good crew will all have tangible effects on gameplay – making space battles easier to win and potentially even unlocking new areas of the galaxy and new planets to explore.

It seems as though there will be a choice of crewmates; this isn’t a Mass Effect situation where there are only handful of characters who could join the squad. Bethesda games have had companions in the past, but I usually found them to be quite limited in what they could do. If each member of the crew brings skills with them when they join up, that completely reframes the entire concept of companions – and makes it way more interesting. That at least some of these people can be found randomly out in the wild is even more enticing!

Ship customisation looks amazing.

My excitement about building my own starship extends to the colony/base-building feature, too. Again, this looks like a ton of fun, and provided that there are enough customisation options – and that things like colours can be changed inside as well as out – it will be an absolute blast to get stuck into. Being able to set up a base on a random planet or moon… again, I feel like this is as close as I’m ever going to get to living out my Star Trek/Disney/retro-sci-fi fantasy!

The game’s character customiser looked good – but as I said above, facial hair seems not to be as well-done in Starfield as we’ve seen it in other modern titles. That’s unlikely to affect my own custom character, but it’s worth noting regardless. I don’t think the character creator will quite match the likes of Cyberpunk 2077, which probably has the best on the market right now, but it should be a solid next-gen improvement over even Fallout 4, which had been Bethesda’s best to date. As long as I have a decent range of options to pick from, I daresay I’ll be satisfied!

The character creator. Note the low-quality facial hair.

Starfield will have two different kinds of combat: ship-to-ship in space and first/third-person on the ground. It can be difficult to tell from compressed video how well these will work, but the signs from the showcase were positive – at least as far as I can tell. Some of Starfield’s combat looked positively Doom-like – thanks, no doubt, to support from Doom developer (and fellow ZeniMax studio) id Software. Gunplay looked fast-paced and fluid, and I even caught a glimpse of some melee weapons in the mix, too.

Combat – and especially firearm combat – had been a bit of a concern. In the Fallout series, the VATS system, which essentially paused gameplay to allow for targeting, went a long way to covering up some decidedly average or even sub-par gunplay. This came to the fore with Fallout 76, which as an online multiplayer title couldn’t implement VATS in the same way. Gunplay in Starfield looks a million miles away from the lacklustre shooting seen in Fallout 76, which is fantastic.

Melee weapons are present in Starfield.

Ship-to-ship space combat reminded me of Everspace 2 and even No Man’s Sky in the way it appeared at the showcase. That’s a compliment – as both games are easy to get to grips with! For players who want to focus less on spaceship battles and more on piloting and exploration, or who see going to space as merely a way to travel to the next destination, ensuring that these combat sequences don’t feel awkward and annoying is a must. I can think of a fair few titles where these kinds of sequences could feel like they got in the way – and I hope Starfield won’t be one of them!

Having gone to all of the trouble of customising and stocking up my ship, it’ll be a treat to see it zooming around in space! If the ship-to-ship combat is as fun and fluid as the first-person shooting looks set to be, then I think this aspect of the game will be fantastic, too. Again, diversity and player choice are on full display here: piracy is an option, raiding other ships. Trading and even smuggling are available, too. And of course, exploration! It sounds like there will be a ton of different ways to use these ships – and yes, that’s ships plural, as it was confirmed that players can acquire more than one vessel.

A spaceship in orbit of a planet.

After the disappointment of Fallout 76′s big, empty world, it was phenomenal to see so many non-player characters milling around. Several of the locales shown off in the showcase look like big, bustling cities, filled to the brim with people. Smaller settlements also seemed to be populated, and as mentioned above, some of these characters can be recruited to join the crew. I don’t know how many potential crewmates there are, but it was implied to be a decent number.

Characters are at the heart of any story, and Bethesda has created some incredibly fun and memorable characters over the years. I’m genuinely looking forward to seeing what they’ve done in the sci-fi space, and all the different kinds of people we might meet. We’ve already seen some of the members of the Constellation organisation – but in a galaxy filled with corporations, pirates, colonists, independent worlds, and so on… there should be a lot of people to meet!

Sarah Morgan is one of the members of the Constellation organisation.

Starfield’s main storyline is still under wraps, but we got a few tidbits of information at the showcase. The Constellation organisation appears to be in decline, and the player character had a unique connection with an artefact of unknown origin – possibly created by ancient aliens. This idea seems like something that has the potential to be fun and engaging! But as with other Bethesda games, the main quest is sure to be only a small part of what Starfield has to offer.

I first played Morrowind more than twenty years ago, shortly after it was released here in the UK. In that time I’ve returned to the game on multiple occasions – but I still to this day haven’t seen everything or beaten every side-quest. That’s the kind of scope we’re talking about here, and with Starfield promising to be Bethesda’s biggest game ever, there are bound to be factions to join, side-missions to complete, and entire quest lines that are of comparable length to the game’s main story. For many folks – myself included – this is the appeal of Bethesda titles, and thus is the true appeal of Starfield.

Who’s this and what’s his story?

All of the usual Bethesda skills and perks looked to be present in Starfield – along with plenty of new ones, too. Character customisation goes way beyond appearance, and from what we saw in the showcase, players are going to be able to really decide what kind of person they want to be in this sci-fi world – and what kind of gameplay they want to have! I noted options that build up stealth, physical attributes, weapons, engineering, piloting, charisma, and more. And as in any RPG, choosing one set of skills or perks will mean others aren’t available – making Starfield a game with huge replayability potential.

I like tinkering with stats in a good role-playing game, and I hope that Starfield’s skills and perks will be both fun to use and will have a meaningful impact on the game. Some games rightly attract criticism for skills and stats having little functional effect on gameplay – though Bethesda has usually managed to get this right. There were some interesting and unique-sounding skills and perks in the mix, too, including some that seemed to unlock potential characters, dialogue options, and story elements.

Part of the skills menu.

So we’ll have to wrap things up, because this is already running long!

I’m trying hard to suppress as much of my hype and excitement for Starfield as possible. Not only are there concerns about the game engine, Bethesda’s reputation for bugs and glitches, pre-order and monetisation shenanigans, and other things on the technical side, but there’s a very real danger that Bethesda is overplaying its hand. Starfield is being pitched as a kind of genre-busting, once-in-a-lifetime experience… and many players may find themselves falling back to Earth with a thud if the game can’t live up to those impossible expectations.

There are going to be limits to customisation, procedurally-generated locations that may be barren, bland, and less exciting than we’d hoped for, and constraints on what’s possible in terms of both gameplay and story. Both Bethesda and Xbox have track records of poor launches, with Fallout 76 being an unparalleled disaster in 2018, and Redfall being a total mess earlier this year. So there are solid reasons to place Starfield in the “wait for the reviews” category!

Concept art of an outpost or spaceship.

But at the same time, I can’t help myself. A friend of mine recently suggested that Starfield might just be “the best video game that either of us will ever play,” and I can’t argue with their assessment. If Starfield lives up to the hype and the expectations that Microsoft and Bethesda are setting, then it almost certainly will be one of my favourite gaming experiences of the last few years – if not of all-time. I’ve been waiting for a game like this; one that promises to be multiple games with multiple gameplay mechanics all rolled into one.

The showcase did its job, in my view. It succeeded at getting me incredibly excited for Starfield, a title that was already close to the top of my most-anticipated games list. Part of me is saying “please delay it if it needs it!” But another huge part of me wants nothing more than to get my hands on Starfield right now! I don’t think I’ve been this excited about an upcoming game since Morrowind.

Starfield will be released on the 6th of September 2023 for PC and Xbox Series S/X consoles. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. Some promo images and screenshots used above courtesy of Bethesda and IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Maybe we should calm down about Phantom Liberty…

Spoiler Warning: Minor spoilers are present for Cyberpunk 2077.

Although the game was blighted by an appalling launch and received plenty of thoroughly-deserved criticism – including from yours trulyCyberpunk 2077 managed to pull off a somewhat decent recovery. The bugs and glitches have largely been fixed, and at time of writing, the game is in a playable state. Finally.

In fact, development on Cyberpunk 2077 has been going so well that CD Projekt Red is now ready to show off the game’s first major expansion: Phantom Liberty. The DLC will add a new area of the map, a new questline, new characters, and more. Fans of the game are already getting excited, and pre-orders for Phantom Liberty are now available. On Steam, the expansion has quickly become one of the platform’s top sellers – and that’s probably going to be the case on other platforms and storefronts, too.

But let’s cool our jets, shall we?

Motorbike versus mech.

Pre-ordering practically any game isn’t a good idea, especially if it’s a digital download with absolutely no danger of scarcity. The tactics corporations have resorted to in order to encourage pre-orders – like exclusive in-game content or even early access – are pretty shady, too. Pre-ordering made sense back when games were sold on cartridges or discs in brick-and-mortar shops on the high street, but it doesn’t any more.

And let’s not forget which game Phantom Liberty is an add-on for. Cyberpunk 2077 was broken to the point of being unplayable at launch, especially on last-gen consoles, and it took a long time for developers CD Projekt Red to get it running properly. Or, to put it another way: they released the game before they’d actually finished making it, and it took months of additional development time to actually do the job that should have been done before the game’s catastrophic launch in December 2020.

A mission in the base game.

I’m disappointed to see that Phantom Liberty is beginning to attract the same level of hype as Cyberpunk 2077 did. Have players learned nothing from what happened? Perhaps we’re all just gluttons for punishment, because if Phantom Liberty starts racking up pre-orders… then I don’t even know what to say. Players will deserve any and all future broken-at-launch, “release now, fix later” games.

I don’t hate Cyberpunk 2077. By the time I got around to playing it in full, the majority of its most egregious bugs and glitches had been fixed, and while the gameplay itself was nothing to write home about – and was actually outdated in more ways than one – it was a visually attractive title, its open world was densely-packed and fun to explore, and it had a solid, engaging story that I was happy to follow to its conclusion. While I wouldn’t ever rate it in my “top games of all-time,” it was decent. An above-average title for sure.

And if you want to know more about my own hands-on experience with Cyberpunk 2077, you can read my thoughts on the game by clicking or tapping here.

Johnny Silverhand looks out over Night City.

Additionally, when CD Projekt suffered a cyber attack in 2021, I even defended the company, saying that the hack it had fallen victim to was nothing to celebrate. So I hope you understand that I’m not approaching this topic as some kind of dyed-in-the-wool “hater” of either Cyberpunk 2077 or the corporation that developed and published it.

Instead, I’m trying to be the voice of reason! Outside of a very small number of cases, pre-ordering just isn’t a good idea any more. And when looking at the absolute abomination that was Cyberpunk 2077 when it launched, how anyone could think pre-ordering Phantom Liberty is a good idea is beyond me. If there was ever a release that warranted a “wait for the reviews” approach, it’s this one.

A marketplace.

I absolutely want Phantom Liberty to be good. The trailer was genuinely interesting, and while a “save the President” story isn’t exactly original, I’d be up for a return to the dystopian world that Cyberpunk 2077 built. Expanding the game’s map is a neat idea, too, and the trailer even seemed to tease some kind of tie-in with the main story. All of these things seem like they have potential.

But I won’t be pre-ordering Phantom Liberty. I won’t be picking it up on release day, either. Instead, I’m going to take the “wait and see” approach that CD Projekt Red has done so much to earn. If reviews look promising, and if the game launches in a bug-free state, I’ll absolutely consider picking it up this autumn. For £25 here in the UK (and I assume $30 or so in the US), it feels like a good buy – and one I can almost certainly find room for in my budget.

New characters Alex and Reed.

But that’s only if Phantom Liberty arrives without the problems that plagued Cyberpunk 2077. I’d hope that CD Projekt Red would have learned the lessons of that disaster – especially as it saw the company’s share price take a big hit. But companies are manipulative, and CD Projekt Red has a track record of lying and dishonesty that must be taken into account. The expansion was recently shown off at Summer Game Fest – but its trailer was carefully edited, and journalists and influencers who got their hands on the game only got to spend about an hour with it… and were only allowed to show off pre-made footage that CD Projekt Red gave them.

None of these points need to be problems on their own. But in the context of Cyberpunk 2077′s launch, I confess a degree of scepticism. I hope it’s entirely unwarranted – truly, I do. I want Phantom Liberty to be fun, exciting… and fully-playable. But I also wanted that of the base game, and the truth is that it took well over a year before it was in that position.

Before Cyberpunk 2077 had even released, I warned here on the website about the dangers of hype. I said then that I was certain that excitement for the game was out-of-control, and that CD Projekt Red’s marketing was failing to handle the situation appropriately. As we gear up for Phantom Liberty, let’s try not to repeat those mistakes.

Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty will be released on PC, PlayStation 5, and Xbox Series consoles in September, and the base game is out now. Cyberpunk 2077 is the copyright of CD Projekt Red. Some promotional screenshots and artwork courtesy of CD Projekt and/or IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Season 2 – the trailers

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Season 1 and the trailers and teasers for Season 2. Spoilers are also present for Star Trek: Discovery.

There are only a few days left until Strange New Worlds Season 2 arrives, and as the show’s marketing push ramps up we’ve been treated to two major trailers and a handful of additional clips. Today I thought it could be fun to take a look at what’s been revealed about the season so far, and share my thoughts on how Strange New Worlds looks to be shaping up.

On balance, Strange New Worlds Season 1 was probably my favourite television series of 2022. It was, in my view anyway, the best that modern Star Trek has had to offer, ditching the serialised approach taken by most projects since 2017 in favour of a return to a style of storytelling that felt much closer to the franchise’s roots. Its stellar cast was backed up by some fantastic writing, a beautiful score, elaborate sets that both harkened back to The Original Series while taking advantage of cutting-edge technology like the AR wall, and a combination of CGI and animation work with some incredible practical effects and puppets. It was fantastic across the board – with not a single one out of the first season’s ten episodes that I’d consider to be sub-par.

No pressure… but Season 2 has a lot to live up to!

Season 2 is almost here!

First of all, I can’t tell you how glad I am that the new season is arriving in June and didn’t follow last year’s dismal scheduling display. In 2022, Discovery, Picard, and Strange New Worlds all overlapped one another thanks to some truly moronic decisions at Paramount – scheduling decisions that contributed to Strange New Worlds’ first season not being available here in the UK. I will give credit where it’s due and note that in 2023, Paramount is doing a much better job with scheduling Star Trek. There’s been a decent break since Picard’s finale, and breaks like that are good and healthy for any franchise.

But enough about all of that! We’ve already caught a glimpse of Number One on trial – something that was set up right at the very end of Season 1 when she was taken into custody by Starfleet security personnel. Star Trek can do courtroom drama exceptionally well, and while it feels like a safe bet that Una won’t be unceremoniously kicked out of Starfleet… how we get to that point and what role Pike and the others might play feels like it has the potential to be high-stakes entertainment at its very best.

Una on trial.

As an aside, I was a little disappointed to note in this sequence that the redress of Discovery’s Federation HQ set felt nakedly obvious. There are a handful of examples in modern Star Trek where this has happened – the Ba’ul prison cell in Discovery Season 2 being one example that leaps to mind – but as Paramount has pumped more money into the franchise and Star Trek has continued to expand, it’s something I’d hoped to see less of.

In Discovery’s first couple of seasons, this same sound stage was used to depict the USS Shenzou and Georgiou’s Section 31 vessel, so the same set can be used in different ways. Here, though, the redress doesn’t feel quite as extensive, and I see too many elements from the 32nd Century’s Federation HQ present in the court-martial set. Here’s hoping that the story itself will be too tense and dramatic to make its setting much of an issue!

Fire phasers!

When Discovery premiered in 2017, the redesign of the Klingons became something of a sore spot in parts of the fan community. The Strange New Worlds trailer prominently shows off Klingons in their much more familiar style – closer to their post-Motion Picture appearance than anything we’ve seen since Enterprise went off the air (or since Worf appeared in Picard’s third season). I daresay that’ll make some folks happy!

The Klingons are fantastic, and an absolutely iconic part of the Star Trek franchise. Discovery’s first two seasons prominently featured Klingon characters and storylines, and Klingon characters have also cropped up in Lower Decks, but this will be the first time in several years that we’ll get at least one Klingon-focused live-action episode.

A Klingon.

I’ll be particularly interested to see whether and to what extent Strange New Worlds will reference Discovery’s Klingon War storyline. This new season takes place in between Discovery and The Original Series, an era in which the Federation and Klingons should be maintaining a kind of uneasy peace. Spock certainly appeared to be on good terms with the Klingons in the clips we saw; will they know he’s the brother of the human who started the war? Will the war even be mentioned at all, or will Strange New Worlds simply step over this relatively recent addition to canon? Lieutenant Ortegas mentioned something about “the war” in one of the clips, so it’s possible it will at least be made reference to.

The Klingons need to be handled with care. When you think about how many appearances Klingons have made across the history of Star Trek, and the extent to which we’ve gotten to know about Klingon culture and history, making too many changes – especially in a time period so close to The Original Series – could be offputting. However, what we can see seems, if anything, to be a step closer to familiar canon and a move away from at least the aesthetic presentation of the Klingons that Discovery and the Kelvin films employed. That could be a positive thing… or it could be something neutral! I’ve never really had much of an issue with the Klingon redesign – and I liked some of what I perceived to be an “Ancient Egyptian” influence in some of Discovery’s Klingon designs.

Spock drinking bloodwine with the Klingons.

It looks like the Gorn are also coming back! The Gorn played a role in two of Season 1’s most action-packed episodes, and overall I like what Strange New Worlds has done with this relatively unknown Star Trek faction. Giving the Gorn more of a Xenomorph-inspired horror vibe has taken the series in a completely different direction, and any story with the Gorn is sure to be tense, dramatic, and exciting!

Several clips seemed to show Captain Pike (and others) getting into combat – and I could be wrong, but it looked like they were fighting the same kind of warriors that we saw in The Cage. If so, that could mean that a return to Rigel VII is on the agenda – though why, exactly, is still unclear. It could just be a coincidence, but the way it looked certainly felt familiar.

Captain Pike on an away mission.

There were several romantic moments glimpsed particularly in the second trailer. Pike and Una shared a kiss, as did Spock and Nurse Chapel. My first thought on seeing those clips was that we could be in for an episode inspired by The Naked Time and The Naked Now, with some kind of technobabble explanation for lowered inhibitions or misbehaviour among members of the crew. I could be wrong about that – it’s just a guess!

Pike and Una would make an interesting couple – but there’d be an element of tragedy with Pike’s future once again set in stone. We don’t know what became of Una after the events of Strange New Worlds, but it seems unlikely that she’d follow him to Talos. A doomed romance could be on the cards, perhaps, or one that deals with themes comparable to The Next Generation Season 6 episode Lessons – a story in which Captain Picard had to wrangle with the idea of becoming romantically involved with someone under his command.

Pike and Una sharing a kiss.

Spock, though, is a character who needs to be handled delicately. We know a great deal about Spock’s life, including his romantic entanglements – and lack thereof. Spock’s also a character who’s been messed with a lot, with retcons and additions complicating one of the Star Trek franchise’s most beloved and iconic characters. There’s room to make additions, don’t get me wrong, but internal consistency is important – and if we’re to buy into the idea of this Spock being the same man as we see in The Original Series, the films, The Next Generation, and into the Kelvin timeline… he needs to be handled with care.

As an aside, Spock is a character who has often been discussed in an asexual or ace-adjacent context. As someone who is asexual, I’ve always found something relatable in Spock’s presentation. Though he would have romantic attachments, and he would go through a biological mating cycle, outside of a mere handful of few episodes Spock can feel like a very relatable character for people on the asexual spectrum. Season 1 already introduced us to Spock’s betrothed, T’Pring, and adding an ongoing relationship – or even a one-night stand – with Nurse Chapel into the mix would risk detracting from an important character. Again, Spock needs to be handled with care, and there are a couple of points of concern that the trailers raised in that regard.

Spock in the captain’s chair.

Another potential pair who need to be handled carefully is La’an and James T. Kirk! Although Paul Wesley put in a thoroughly fantastic performance as Kirk at the end of Season 1, this came in a sequence set in The Original Series era, years after the events of Strange New Worlds. I confess a degree of scepticism when I saw Kirk on the transporter pad, and while he can be integrated into the series in a way that perfectly fits with everything we know about him and his background… I’m just not sure it’s something I’d have done.

That being said, there are some incredibly enticing possibilities that come along with Kirk’s inclusion. We’ve never seen how Kirk and Spock met in the prime timeline, for example, and whether this will be their first meeting or whether they’ll be catching up after being buddies at the Academy, it could be fascinating to learn more about how they came to become such close friends. There’s also the potential to see a younger Kirk working with Pike and Number One, with the building blocks of his own leadership skills being formed and honed. Again, this feels like something worth seeing.

James T. Kirk.

But as with Spock, there are pitfalls. Kirk never mentioned serving with Pike, nor did he seem especially close to the Enterprise’s former captain during the events of The Menagerie – which should rule out any kind of close bond or mentor relationship between the two men. More significantly, though, is Kirk’s run-in with La’an – something that Una seemed to pick up on.

Kirk’s encounter with Khan – the original Khan – is legendary. The Wrath of Khan is one of the best films ever made, with even non-Trekkies rating it very highly. There’s limited room for manoeuvre here, and bringing Kirk into close contact with another member of the Khan family years before his run-in with the man himself is something that has the potential to undermine or detract from that wonderful story. A friendly meeting could be fine… but pairing these two up for a long period of time would almost certainly cross a line.

La’an seems fascinated with Kirk…

Well, all that’s left is to talk about that crossover!

When the Lower Decks crossover was announced, I felt it was a really fun idea. And from what we’ve seen of it in the trailers, Boimler and Mariner’s visit to the Enterprise looks absolutely fantastic. The details of the story – including how and why Mariner and Boimler might end up on the Enterprise – are still under wraps, but it looks like they’ll get to meet both Pike and Spock… something that Boimler in particular will clearly adore.

The Lower Decks uniforms look great in live-action, and it’s amazing how closely actors Tawny Newsome and Jack Quaid resemble their characters. I was already feeling excitement at the prospect of Star Trek’s first major crossover of the current era – but having caught a glimpse of it, now I can’t wait!

Mariner and Boimler will appear in live-action for the first time.

So Strange New Worlds is almost upon us! Season 1 was fantastic, although it was sadly tainted by Paramount’s indefensible decision to only broadcast it in the United States at first. But Season 2 looks set to continue this fun, retro Star Trek series. There were plenty of smaller clips or images seen in the trailers that both harken back to Star Trek’s past and look to be telling brand-new stories, and above all, I’m excited to see a continuation of Strange New Worlds’ episodic style of storytelling.

When the series lands next week I’ll do my best to keep up with weekly episode reviews. I wasn’t able to do that for Season 1 with the series “officially” unavailable to me – but beginning with Season 2 I hope you’ll join me for my thoughts and my take on each of the season’s ten episodes.

I hope this was a fun look ahead!

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Season 2 will be broadcast on Paramount+ in countries and territories where the service is available. Season 1 is available to stream now. The Star Trek franchise – including Strange New Worlds and all other properties discussed above – is the copyright of Paramount Global. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

The weirdly contradictory nature of Star Trek: Picard

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for all three seasons of Star Trek: Picard – including the series finale and post-credits scene.

For a series that only ran to thirty episodes across three seasons, Star Trek: Picard spent a lot of time overwriting itself! Across all three seasons of the show there were these weirdly contradictory moments where new storylines would appear from nowhere, completely changing what came before. One or two of these instances might pass by relatively unnoticed, or could feel like little more than nitpicks. But for a relatively short series to have so many… it speaks to something bigger, I feel.

I hope in future we’ll get a Chaos on the Bridge-type of documentary or exploration of what went on behind-the-scenes on Star Trek: Picard, because to say that production was “difficult” feels like an understatement. There were clearly major problems on the production side of the series, and I don’t just mean its pandemic-enforced delays. The evidence for this is the contradictory nature of the series itself, and how at the very least there was clearly no overall plan for how the story should be structured. Consistency is an important element of any good story – and Picard absolutely fails on that measure.

Seasons 2-3 showrunner Terry Matalas with Sir Patrick Stewart and the rest of the cast of The Next Generation.

I have a longer piece in the pipeline about Picard’s abandoned and unfinished storylines, but today I thought it could be interesting to take a short look at ten storylines that ended up being overwritten by some pretty sloppy, messy writing that failed to build on the foundations that had been laid in earlier episodes and seasons.

As always, a few caveats. If you loved all of these stories and felt they were perfectly-executed, or if you hated the original setup and feel that it was right and fitting to overwrite or ignore it, that’s okay! We all have different opinions about what makes for a good Star Trek story, and I’m not trying to claim that I’m somehow objectively right and that’s the end of the affair. In several cases, I’d actually agree that the overwrite or retcon was better than what had been previously established. This is all just the opinion of one old Trekkie, and as I always say, there ought to be room in the Star Trek fan community for polite discussion and disagreement! Although I have my issues with Picard, particularly when it comes to the show’s second season, by and large I’m a fan not a hater.

So with all of that out of the way, let’s take a look at some of Picard’s weirdly contradictory storylines.

Contradictory story #1:
Seven of Nine is a captain! Oh wait, no she isn’t…

Seven in the captain’s chair at the end of Season 2.

At the end of Season 2, Seven of Nine was breveted into Starfleet by Picard as Captain of the Stargazer. This story point was already a bit… odd. Firstly, it raises the question of why, if offering a brevet position to someone outside of Starfleet is so simple, Admiral Janeway didn’t do that for Seven years ago. It also seemed unnecessary, as with Picard on the bridge, the Stargazer already had a senior officer present who could give orders.

But this already flimsy setup ended up being overwritten by the very next episode – when Seven was bumped down to the rank of commander and found herself serving as first officer of the Titan. There are a lot of contradictions in Picard, but this one feels even more peculiar because it’s something that literally changes from one episode to the next – episodes that, in spite of being one season apart, were produced and filmed at the same time.

Contradictory story #2:
Data’s dead. Deader than dead. Lol jk, he’s alive again!

Data awaits his final shutdown.

One of the few redeeming features of the two-part Season 1 finale was the laying to rest of Data, and giving him the emotional send-off that Nemesis didn’t have time to do justice to. It went a long way to making up for other deficiencies in the rushed and muddled end to Season 1, and the sequences with Picard and Data in the “digital afterlife” were powerful and deeply emotional.

But despite Data being as dead as it’s possible to be in Star Trek, with both his physical body and the surviving part of his consciousness having been destroyed and shut down respectively, Season 3 resurrected Data. We’ll have to go into this storyline in more detail in the future, because there’s a lot more to say. But for me, Data’s resurrection never really found a narrative justification, and it felt like the showrunner and writers wanted desperately to reunite the cast of The Next Generation – at any cost.

Contradictory story #3:
Welcome aboard the Stargazer! Wait, I mean the Titan…

The USS Titan.

In Season 2, the ship that Picard and co. didn’t spend enough time aboard was the USS Stargazer. In Season 3, they jumped over to the Titan – even though the sets were all the same (with a few minor tweaks here and there). I don’t really understand why this happened. What was the point of setting Season 3 aboard a nominally different starship? The exact same setup could have brought Riker and Picard to the Stargazer as it did to the Titan.

If the two ships had significant aesthetic differences, maybe it would be okay. And compared with some of the other points on this list, I admit it’s relatively minor. But it still feels odd to introduce the new Stargazer, build CGI models for it, and only use it in one-and-a-bit episodes.

Contradictory story #4:
Q’s dying… oh wait, no he isn’t.

Q at the end of Season 3.

I know what you’re thinking: Q already explained his “return” by telling Jack Crusher not to think about time in a linear fashion. While that’s a perfectly rational in-universe explanation for Q’s return at the end of Season 3, it doesn’t get around the fact that Q, whose death was such a vital part of the entire plot of Season 2, is a profoundly odd choice of character to use for that one epilogue scene.

Picard’s writers pinned the convoluted and disappointing story of Season 2 on Q, and Q’s entire motivation was his imminent death. To undo that – even if there’s a technical explanation for it – only a few episodes later feels wrong. It undermines the already-weak story of Season 2 and makes me wonder what the point of it all was.

Contradictory story #5:
The Borg are back! The Borg are back! The Borg are back!

A Borg Cube.

However you look at it, and whatever nitpicky excuses there may be about who are and aren’t the “real” Borg, there’s no getting away from the fact that across its three seasons, Picard re-introduced the Borg three times. All three of the stories rely, either in whole or in part, on the Borg, and while Picard himself has a connection with the Borg after the events of The Best of Both Worlds and First Contact… there’s a whole galaxy out there filled with alien races that the show’s writers and producers could have used.

While Season 3’s Dominion/changeling rug-pull is probably the worst example of this, it really speaks to a broader problem with the show’s production. Picard’s writers, especially in Season 3, were unwilling to abide by what the show had already set up. The Borg are great fun, don’t get me wrong, but by the time we got to yet another Borg story in Season 3, I was feeling burned out.

Contradictory story #6:
The mysterious anomaly has set up a fascinating story! Let’s never mention it again.

Led by the Borg, a Federation fleet stops the anomaly.

The story of Season 2 was bookended by a mysterious anomaly that the Jurati-led Borg faction believed could be an attack against the Alpha Quadrant. Once the anomaly had been stopped, the Jurati-Queen promised to take her Borg faction and stand watch over the anomaly as a “guardian at the gates.” Her Borg faction were even granted provisional membership in the Federation as they did so.

This story felt like it had huge potential. Who could have been powerful enough to create a weapon on that scale? How would Picard and his friends be able to defeat them? What would it be like to see a Federation-Borg alliance? But alas, this storyline was dumped, orphaned, and never mentioned again. Was no explanation ever written? Why end Season 2 on this cliffhanger if it was never going to be resolved?

Contradictory story #7:
Soji’s a massively important character… let’s dump her.

Promo photo of Isa Briones as Soji.

Soji played a huge role in Season 1, serving as both the reason for Picard’s mission and later as someone who needed to be talked down from making a mistake. We spent a lot of time with her in the show’s first season, watching as she was manipulated by Narek, as she learned the truth of her own origin and who her people were, and as she came to work with and respect Picard.

It was disappointing that Soji was essentially forgotten after the end of Season 1, with a barebones cameo appearance and nothing more. Isa Briones got to play a minor role in Season 2 as the daughter of antagonist Adam Soong, but this storyline was samey and boring. As a new, young character – and a synthetic life-form – Soji had huge potential. It’s such a shame that a role couldn’t be written for her after Season 1.

Contradictory story #8:
Picard has a new relationship with Laris! No wait, Laris has fucked off and now he has a kid with Dr Crusher.

Laris and Picard at the end of Season 2.

The entire story of Season 2 – its raison d’être, at least according to Q – was that Picard was alone, prevented by his childhood trauma from being able to find love. At the end of the season, after ten episodes of shenanigans in the 21st Century, Picard finally returned to his vineyard – and to Laris. The two seemed ready to embark upon a new relationship together.

But nope! Laris made a small cameo appearance at the beginning of Season 3, and was never mentioned again. Picard’s story in Season 3 focused on his past relationship with Dr Crusher, a relationship that led to him having a son he’d never met. The season’s epilogue even showed Picard and Dr Crusher jointly escorting their son to his first Starfleet assignment – with Laris nowhere to be found. As I said above: Season 2 was already a weak, flimsy story. Undermining its ending like this was a poor decision.

Contradictory story #9:
Elnor’s dead. Oh wait, he’s back! No… he’s gone again.

Elnor at the end of Season 2.

Although I wasn’t thrilled to see Elnor killed off in the first half of Season 2, as time went on, it seemed to be working. Raffi’s story of coming to terms with loss and grief was one of Season 2’s stronger elements, and while I would’ve still said I was disappointed in Elnor’s wasted potential, at least his loss had mattered. Until it was all undone with seconds to spare.

If Elnor had a major role to play in Season 3 – and there was absolutely space for him – then I could at least have understood this reversal. But after Elnor was resurrected, he got one very brief scene in which he looked confused on a viewscreen, and another in which his dislike of a beverage made him the butt of a joke. After that, Elnor disappeared from Picard never to be seen or mentioned again. What was the point? Why undo a powerful story for the sake of an overdone sight gag?

Contradictory story #10:
Riker and Troi are happy and settled on Nepenthe. Just kidding, they hate it there.

Picard approaches Riker’s outdoor kitchen.

Nepenthe might be my favourite episode of Season 1. It slowed things down, stepped away from some of the drama, and reintroduced us to Riker and Troi – now happily married and living peacefully outside of Starfleet. In spite of the loss of their son, Riker and Troi seemed settled on Nepenthe with their daughter in a home that was important to their son and their family. It was a surprise, to say the least, when Season 3 tried to undo all of that.

In the episode Surrender, Riker and Troi were reunited as captives aboard Vadic’s ship. And while imprisoned, they both spoke about how they hated the “creaky old cabin” that had been their home. The end of the season implied that one or both of them may be back in Starfleet, and all the emotional storytelling present in Nepenthe was taken away.

So that’s it!

Dr Jurati on stage in Season 2.

Although there were some interesting stories – and some complete ones – overall, it’s not unfair to call Star Trek: Picard a contradictory series, one that either intentionally or unintentionally overwrote or ignored key characters and storylines. We’ll talk about some of these in more detail on another occasion, but for now I think we’ve covered the basics.

Picard was clearly a troubled production, one that jumped from one writing and production team to another, and that’s part of why the series as a whole feels so contradictory. I think I could overlook one or two of these things – and I might even support the decision to drop a character or change a storyline that wasn’t working or that failed to resonate with audiences. But for a series that ran to a mere thirty episodes across three seasons… we shouldn’t be able to pull out ten large contradictions like this.

Stay tuned, because I have a lot more to say about Picard even though the series has concluded! A longer retrospective is in the pipeline, and I’ll also be taking a look at abandoned and unfinished storylines, too.

Star Trek: Picard Seasons 1-3 are available to stream now on Paramount+ in the United States and other countries and territories where the service is available, and on Amazon Prime Video in the UK and around the world. The Star Trek franchise – including Picard and all other properties discussed above – is the copyright of Paramount Global. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Ten of my gaming pet peeves

A couple of years ago, I put together two lists of things I really dislike about modern video games – but somehow I’ve managed to find even more! Although there’s lots to enjoy when it comes to the hobby of gaming, there are still plenty of annoyances and dislikes that can detract from even the most pleasant of gaming experiences. So today, I thought it could be a bit of fun to take a look at ten of them!

Several of these points could (and perhaps one day will) be full articles or essays all on their own. Big corporations in the video games industry all too often try to get away with egregiously wrong and even malicious business practices – and we should all do our best to call out misbehaviour. While today’s list is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, there are major issues with the way big corporations in the gaming realm behave… as indeed there are with billion-dollar corporations in every other industry, too.

Gaming is great fun… but it has its annoyances!

That being said, this is supposed to be a bit of fun. And as always, I like to caveat any piece like this by saying that everything we’re going to be talking about is nothing more than one person’s subjective take on the topic! If you disagree with everything I have to say, if you like, enjoy, or don’t care about these issues, or if I miss something that seems like an obvious inclusion to you, please just keep in mind that all of this is just the opinion of one single person! There’s always room for differences of opinion; as gamers we all have different preferences and tolerance levels.

If you’d like to check out my earlier lists of gaming annoyances, you can find the first one by clicking or tapping here, and the follow-up by clicking or tapping here. In some ways, this list is “part three,” so if you like what you see, you might also enjoy those older lists as well!

With all of that out of the way, let’s jump into the list – which is in no particular order.

Number 1:
Motion blur and film grain.

Film grain and motion blur options in Ghostwire Tokyo.

Whenever I boot up a new game, I jump straight into the options menu and disable both motion blur and film grain – settings that are almost always inexplicably enabled by default. Film grain is nothing more than a crappy Snapchat filter; something twelve-year-olds love to play with to make their photos look “retro.” It adds nothing to a game and actively detracts from the graphical fidelity of modern titles.

Motion blur is in the same category. Why would anyone want this motion sickness-inducing setting enabled? It smears and smudges even the best-looking titles for basically no reason at all. Maybe on particularly underpowered systems these settings might hide some graphical jankiness, but on new consoles and even moderately good PCs, they’re unnecessary. They make games look significantly worse – and I can’t understand why anyone would choose to play a title with them enabled.

Number 2:
In-game currencies that have deliberately awkward exchange rates.

Show-Bucks bundles in Fall Guys.

In-game currencies are already pretty shady; a psychological manipulation to trick players into spending more real money. But what’s far worse is when in-game currencies are deliberately awkward with their exchange rates. For example, if most items on the storefront cost 200 in-game dollars, but I can only buy in-game dollars in bundles of 250 or 500. If I buy 250 in-game dollars I’ll have a few left over that I can’t spend, and if I buy 500 then I’ll have spent more than I need to.

This is something publishers do deliberately. They know that if you have 50 in-game dollars left over there’ll be a temptation to buy even more to make up the difference, and they know players will be forced to over-spend on currencies that they have no need for. Some of these verge on being scams – but all of them are annoying.

Number 3:
Fully-priced games with microtransactions.

The in-game shop in Diablo IV.

If a game is free – like Fortnite or Fall Guys – then microtransactions feel a lot more reasonable. Offering a game for free to fund it through in-game purchases is a viable business model, and while it needs to be monitored to make sure the in-game prices aren’t unreasonable, it can be an acceptable way for a game to make money. But if a game costs me £65 up-front, there’s no way it should include microtransactions.

We need to differentiate expansion packs from microtransactions, because DLC that massively expands a game and adds new missions and the like is usually acceptable. But if I’ve paid full price for a game, I shouldn’t find an in-game shop offering me new costumes, weapon upgrades, and things like that. Some titles absolutely take the piss with this, too, even including microtransactions in single-player campaigns, or having so many individual items for sale that the true cost of the game – including purchasing all in-game items – can run into four or even five figures.

Number 4:
Patches as big as (or bigger than) the actual game.

No patch should ever need to be this large.

This one kills me because of my slow internet! And it’s come to the fore recently as a number of big releases have been buggy and broken at launch. Jedi: Survivor, for example, has had patches that were as big as the game’s original 120GB download size – meaning a single patch would take me more than a day to download. Surely it must be possible to patch or fix individual files without requiring players to download the entire game all over again – in some cases more than once.

I’m not a developer or technical expert, and I concede that I don’t know enough about this topic on a technical level to be able to say with certainty that it’s something that should never happen. But as a player, I know how damnably annoying it is to press “play” only to be told I need to wait hours and hours for a massive, unwieldy patch. Especially if that patch, when fully downloaded, doesn’t appear to have actually done anything!

Number 5:
Broken PC ports.

This is supposed to be Joel from The Last Of Us Part 1.

As I said when I took a longer look at this topic, I had hoped that broken PC ports were becoming a thing of the past. Not so, however! A number of recent releases – including massive AAA titles – have landed on PC in broken or even outright unplayable states, plagued by issues that are not present on PlayStation or Xbox.

PC is a massive platform, one that shouldn’t be neglected in this way. At the very least, publishers should have the decency to delay a PC port if it’s clearly lagging behind the console versions – but given the resources that many of the games industry’s biggest corporations have at their disposal, I don’t see why we should accept even that. Develop your game properly and don’t try to launch it before it’s ready! I’m not willing to pay for the “privilege” of doing the job of a QA tester.

Number 6:
Recent price hikes.

It must be some kind of visual metaphor…

Inflation and a cost-of-living crisis are really punching all of us in the face right now – so the last thing we need are price hikes from massive corporations. Sony really pissed me off last year when they bragged to their investors about record profits before turning around literally a matter of weeks later and announcing that the price of PlayStation 5 consoles was going to go up. This is unprecedented, as the cost of consoles usually falls as a console generation progresses.

But Sony is far from the only culprit. Nintendo, Xbox, Activision Blizzard, TakeTwo, Electronic Arts and practically every major corporation in the games industry have jacked up their prices over the last few years, raising the basic price of a new game – and that’s before we look at DLC, special editions, and the like. These companies are making record-breaking profits, and yet they use the excuse of “inflation” to rip us off even more. Profiteering wankers.

Number 7:
The “release now, fix later” business model is still here.

The player character falling through the map in Star Wars Jedi: Survivor.

I had hoped that some recent catastrophic game launches would have been the death knell for the “release now, fix later” business model – but alas. Cyberpunk 2077 failed so hard that it got pulled from sale and tanked the share price of CD Projekt Red… but even so, this appalling way of making and launching games has persisted. Just in the first half of 2023 we’ve had titles like Hogwarts Legacy, Redfall, Jedi: Survivor, Forspoken, and The Lord of the Rings: Gollum that arrived broken, buggy, and unplayable.

With every disaster that causes trouble for a corporation, I cross my fingers and hope that lessons will be learned. But it seems as if the “release now, fix later” approach is here to stay. Or at least it will be as long as players keep putting up with it – and even defending it in some cases.

Number 8:
Day-one DLC/paywalled day-one content.

An example of a “digital deluxe edition” and its paywalled content.

It irks me no end when content that was clearly developed at the same time as the “base version” of a game is paywalled off and sold separately for an additional fee. The most egregious example of this that comes to mind is Mass Effect 3′s From Ashes DLC, which was launched alongside the game. This DLC included a character and missions that were completely integrated into the game – yet had been carved out to be sold separately.

This practice continues, unfortunately, and many modern titles release with content paywalled off, even if that content was developed right along with the rest of the game. Sometimes these things are designed to be sold as part of a “special edition,” but that doesn’t excuse it either. Even if all we’re talking about are character skins and cosmetic content, it still feels like those things should be included in the price – especially in single-player titles. Some of this content can be massively overpriced, too, with packs of two or three character skins often retailing for £10 or more.

Number 9:
Platform-exclusive content and missions.

Spider-Man was a PlayStation-only character in Marvel’s Avengers.

Some titles are released with content locked to a single platform. Hogwarts Legacy and Marvel’s Avengers are two examples that come to mind – and in both cases, missions and characters that should have been part of the main game were unavailable to players on PC and Xbox thanks to deals with Sony. While I can understand the incentive to do this… it’s a pretty shit way of making money for a publisher, and a pretty scummy way for a platform to try to attract sales.

Again, this leaves games incomplete, and players who’ve paid full price end up getting a worse experience or an experience with less to do depending on their platform of choice. That’s unfair – and it’s something that shouldn’t be happening.

Number 10:
Pre-orders.

Cartman from South Park said it best:
“You know what you get for pre-ordering a game? A big dick in your mouth.”

Pre-ordering made sense – when games were sold in brick-and-mortar shops on cartridges or discs. You wanted to guarantee your copy of the latest big release, and one way to make sure you’d get the game before it sold out was to pre-order it. But that doesn’t apply any more; not only are more and more games being sold digitally, but even if you’re a console player who wants to get a game on disc, there isn’t the same danger of scarcity that there once was.

With so many games being released broken – or else failing to live up to expectations – pre-ordering in 2023 is nothing short of stupidity, and any player who still does it is an idiot. It actively harms the industry and other players by letting corporations get away with more misbehaviour and nonsense. If we could all be patient and wait a day or two for reviews, fewer games would be able to be launched in unplayable states. Games companies bank on a significant number of players pre-ordering and not cancelling or refunding if things go wrong. It’s free money for them – and utterly unnecessary in an age of digital downloads.

So that’s it!

A PlayStation 5 console.

We’ve gone through ten of my pet peeves when it comes to gaming. I hope this was a bit of fun – and not something to get too upset over!

The gaming landscape has changed massively since I first started playing. Among the earliest titles I can remember trying my hand at is the Commodore 64 title International Soccer, and the first home console I was able to get was a Super Nintendo. Gaming has grown massively since those days, and the kinds of games that can be created with modern technology, game engines, and artificial intelligence can be truly breathtaking.

But it isn’t all good, and we’ve talked about a few things today that I find irritating or annoying. The continued push from publishers to release games too early and promise patches and fixes is particularly disappointing, and too many publishers and corporations take their greed to unnecessary extremes. But that’s the way the games industry is… and as cathartic as it was to get it off my chest, I don’t see those things disappearing any time soon!

All titles mentioned above are the copyright of their respective developer, studio, and/or publisher. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

The Harry Potter TV series won’t succeed. Here’s why.

This article touches on the sensitive subject of transphobia and may be uncomfortable for some readers.

Forgive me the indulgence, but before we get started I really have to claim a victory! In the second half of the 2010s, with the Fantastic Beasts films faltering and Harry Potter’s audience ageing out of the fandom and drifting away, I began to feel it was a sure thing that the stories would be rebooted for a Game of Thrones-inspired big-budget television series. I said so here on the website all the way back in 2019 – so I get to say “I called it!” in response to the announcement of a Harry Potter TV series.

Only a few months ago, in the run-up to the underwhelming Hogwarts Legacy (a game that seems to have dropped off the face of the earth) I also said that I hoped I would never again be compelled to comment on Harry Potter, as I feel I can no longer support the series or its creator. But the announcement of a re-telling of the stories on HBO Max was an opportunity not only to take a victory lap for my correct prediction, but also to consider why it actually feels like a pretty terrible idea – and a bad business decision.

A replica of the Hogwarts Express.

For the most part, this isn’t going to go the way you think. The release of Hogwarts Legacy proved pretty conclusively that a significant portion of the Harry Potter fanbase doesn’t give a shit about transphobia and will cling to their nostalgia and still support the franchise. So this won’t be me claiming that Rowling’s descent down a far-right slope is going to be the deciding factor in why audiences won’t show up for the new show. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Ironically, those two factors – nostalgia and “anti-woke” politics – have already set the stage for the TV series’ undoing. The very things that Rowling and HBO are banking on are going to be the reasons why Harry Potter will fail in this new iteration. And don’t get me wrong… I’m thrilled about that. This show deserves to fail. It’s just bitterly ironic that it will fail in this particular way.

Harry Potter author JK Rowling.

So let’s take a step back. It’s been a few short years since the final Harry Potter film was released, and when we’re talking about reboots, that means one thing: it’s too soon to do this. The Harry Potter films that were released from the 2000s to the early 2010s are, for those still inclined to support the franchise, still perfectly watchable, with decent visual effects, acting performances, and everything else. Rebooting the series now won’t actually add anything of substance.

The series will be live-action, just like the films, and if it has a snowball’s chance in hell of successfully plucking the right nostalgic chords for long-term fans, it will have to re-use a very similar aesthetic. Many elements created for the films – like the sets used for Hogwarts castle, for example – have become inseparable from Harry Potter. Trying to shake things up, even just a little, won’t work and will be offputting for fans.

Concept art for the game Hogwarts Legacy showing the titular Hogwarts castle.

Harry Potter is also a growing, connected franchise. Theme park attractions, video games, and more all rely heavily on the designs created for the films back in the early 2000s. The television series will be forced to recycle these designs, stifling any chance at creativity that its team might’ve had.

But if a new television show will have to retain the look, feel, sound, etc. of the films… how can it differentiate itself? And if it can’t do that, what’s the point? How can this project convince either long-term fans or newcomers to show up for what will be a very similar re-telling of a story that was only told a few short years ago? That’s the first hurdle for the series to overcome – and it’s already a massive one.

Behind the scenes during production of the first Harry Potter film.
Image Credit: IMDB

This speaks to a broader question: who, exactly, is this series being made for? From my admittedly limited engagement with the hard-core Potter fandom, I can’t think of anyone who’s been advocating for a project like this or asking for it to be created. Harry Potter fans, by and large, have been content with the books, films, video games, theme park attraction, and other spin-off media. There just isn’t any kind of grassroots movement asking Rowling, Warner Bros., or HBO to reboot it at this point in time.

So if the show isn’t being made “for the fans,” who are the folks that Warner Bros. and HBO hope will show up? The series isn’t being marketed at children, in spite of the source material, so it doesn’t seem as if this is being planned as a typical kids’ show or child-friendly adaptation. If anything, it feels like it’s being pitched at an adult audience; younger members of Gen X and millennials who remember the original films and the Harry Potter craze of the early 2000s. People who will be in their 20s, 30s, and 40s.

A crowd of Harry Potter fans at a convention.
Image Credit: 9News via YouTube

Already, this new Harry Potter TV series feels incredibly cynical and calculated. As the “streaming wars” continue to rage, corporations are desperately scrounging around for intellectual properties to turn into “the next Game of Thrones” and give a boost to their failing, unprofitable platforms. The decision to reboot Harry Potter can absolutely be seen through that lens – a cheap, creatively bankrupt decision taken by business executives who are out of their depth.

But there’s more to it than that. As JK Rowling has seen her reputation collapse, this is her latest scheme to try to recapture some of the magic and attention that she hasn’t seen in over a decade. It’s an attempt by Rowling – a cynical, sociopathic attempt – to whitewash her image after the toxicity of the last few years. Rowling will undoubtedly try to shoehorn in gay characters, LGB themes, and more black and ethnic minority characters into the story to attempt to rehabilitate her reputation and the reputation of Harry Potter – as well as to deliberately and maliciously conceal the fact that none of those characters or themes were ever present in the original work.

Richard Harris as Dumbledore in a promotional photo.

But that’s the second hurdle that will trip up the Harry Potter series. As Rowling has progressed with her transphobia, she’s found herself attracting more and more support from the “anti-woke” brigade – a loose affiliation of far-right internet trolls, paleoconservative reactionaries, and religious nutters. These people have become Rowling’s biggest fans in recent years – but how do you think they’re going to react when they see an openly gay Professor Dumbledore or the race-bending of a major character like Hermione Granger?

If you said “they’ll hate it and whine about it,” you get a sticker! Because that’s exactly what’s going to happen. Rowling has lost much of the progressive audience that once turned up for Harry Potter in droves, and this audience has been slowly but surely replaced by the “anti-wokers.” In the run-up to the release of Hogwarts Legacy, I saw many of these people promising to buy the game for no other reason than to support Rowling and her transphobic positions. They are going to detest what they will decry as the unnecessary insertion of “woke” into the Harry Potter television series.

How well do you think a recast Hermione Granger will land with JK Rowling’s new “anti-woke” fans?
Image Credit: Harry Potter and the Cursed Child

So if this show fails on the nostalgic front and will also fail to connect with Rowling’s new “anti-woke” audience, who’s left? Sure, some die-hard Potter fans will turn up, as they will for anything that has the franchise’s label slapped on it. But are there enough of those people any more, in 2023, for a series with a sky-high budget to bank on?

There’s a casual television audience, people who tune in to see shows that are on the major networks if they’ve gotten a significant marketing push. But HBO Max isn’t a big network – it’s very much a second-tier streaming platform, and one with limited name recognition outside of the United States. So how are people who don’t even know what HBO Max is going to be persuaded to tune in?

Voldemort.

HBO Max doesn’t even exist here in the UK – the Harry Potter series’ native land. At least some of the cast will be British, and if the show is to recycle sets and filming locations, at least some scenes and sequences will be shot here. But how are British fans of Harry Potter meant to tune in? It’s one thing for fans to decide whether they want to watch the show or not – but it’s quite another for a big-budget production to be broadcast exclusively on a platform that isn’t available in 99% of the world.

I’ve talked about this before with the Star Trek franchise, when parent company Paramount likewise made the truly awful decision to broadcast some of its shows in the United States and nowhere else. Taking this “America First” approach harms a series immeasurably – and it harms it in the United States, too. The internet is one massive, worldwide audience – and if the vast majority of that audience is cut off and unable to join in with the hype for a show, the conversation dies down. Hashtags don’t trend, posts get fewer likes, ads don’t get seen, and the bubble deflates.

The Harry Potter series will stream on HBO Max.

It remains to be seen how Warner Bros. and HBO will resolve that particular situation – but it won’t be easy. There are no plans to launch HBO Max here in the UK, for example, and fans won’t stand for being cut off from their favourite franchise… assuming they still consider Harry Potter to be among their favourites.

It’s worth looking at the reception of other big-budget television productions to see what may lie in store for the new Harry Potter series. The main example that springs to mind is Amazon Prime’s The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power. Despite getting solid critical reviews – including from yours truly, I should say – The Rings of Power hasn’t hit the highs that Amazon was surely hoping to see.

The negative response to The Rings of Power in some quarters feels like a bellwether for this kind of reboot or reimagining.

By some estimates, only about a third of viewers who watched the premiere episode of The Rings of Power made it to the end of Season 1, which is an absolutely huge drop-off for a series of this type. There was a lot of attention given to that show for years before its first season arrived – and the Harry Potter series will be in a similar boat.

Both The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter were huge fantasy properties in the 2000s thanks to their cinematic adaptations – and both are now being rebooted in a completely different entertainment landscape. Many of the criticisms of The Rings of Power at least made mention of things like the race or body type of certain actors, and other criticisms from hard-core fans focused on their nostalgic feelings for the earlier adaptations and a sense that there was “no need” to revisit them. These points will also apply to the Harry Potter series.

JK Rowling with Rupert Grint, Daniel Radcliffe, and Emma Watson circa 2001.
Image Credit: IMDB

If I were an actor, director, or other entertainment industry professional, I wouldn’t touch Harry Potter with a barge pole. The fact that JK Rowling is a transphobe is almost incidental to that at this point; it feels like a catastrophic career move from which many folks will struggle to recover. At best, the new adaptation will be received well by die-hard Potter fanatics… but only with the caveat that “the films were better.” At worst, it’ll be cancelled before it gets anywhere near its purported tenth season, and its legacy of failure will taint all who jumped aboard.

Harry Potter had its moment in the 2000s, but as we’ve seen from the failure of attempted sequels and revivals, the public at large has lost interest in the “Wizarding World.” The Fantastic Beasts films failed to recapture the magic for Warner Bros., and while Hogwarts Legacy sold pretty well, it was an overhyped, pretty average game that didn’t make a lasting impression on the video games industry as a whole.

Diagon Alley is looking empty…

The toxicity that has swirled around JK Rowling and Harry Potter in recent years isn’t dying down or going away, meaning any Harry Potter project that goes ahead right now will be controversial. Controversy can be a selling point – to an extent – as an audience will sometimes turn up for no other reason than to see what’s causing all the fuss and bother. But will that be enough to overcome the massive hurdles in the path of this new Harry Potter series? I doubt it.

There’s no pathway to success for a television show like this right now. On its best day, the new Harry Potter series will still be overshadowed by the films, but on its worst it’ll be hounded by “anti-woke” whiners, overly nostalgic Potter fanatics, and bloody-minded folks who love to see big corporations and franchises fail. And, of course, it’ll be completely ignored by people like me who don’t want to see Harry Potter succeed as long as Rowling continues to spew her bile.

I doubt that anyone involved in the entertainment industry reads what I write here on the website, but just in case: take my advice and stay as far away from this ticking time bomb as possible. It won’t end well.

The Harry Potter television series may premiere on HBO Max in the next few years. Or not, if we’re lucky. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

The real tragedy of The Lord of the Rings: Gollum

The Lord of the Rings: Gollum has become the latest game in 2023 to be launched in a buggy, broken state. Some outlets have gone so far as to call it “the worst game of the year,” and in a year where titles like Hogwarts Legacy, Jedi: Survivor, Redfall, and The Last Of Us Part 1 have been sharted out in unfinished states by major publishers, there’s a lot of competition for that title!

I want to try to treat The Lord of the Rings: Gollum as fairly as possible. Developer and publisher Daedalic Entertainment isn’t one of the games industry’s biggest corporations, with relatively few titles having been developed across its fifteen-year history – and even fewer that I’d heard of. A company with around 100 employees made Gollum, whereas corporations like Activision Blizzard or Microsoft have far more resources at their disposal when it comes to game development.

A promotional screenshot of the game.

As much as I detest the “release now, fix later” business model that too many games corporations have adopted over the past couple of console generations, smaller studios working on passion projects have always been in somewhat of a different category. I’m far more willing to be sympathetic to an independent game developer than I am to one of the industry’s major publishers, simply because the realities of game development and working to a deadline or with a limited budget can go some way to explaining why a game may be released in a worse-than-expected state.

With Gollum having already suffered several lengthy delays, and with Daedalic Entertainment being a relatively small studio, I could forgive a degree of jankiness. That being said, I could forgive quite a bit more jankiness if Gollum had been more appropriately-priced, say around the £30 mark instead of greedily pushing for £50. And of course, a “special edition” will set you back an extra £10.

Gollum in an out-of-bounds area.

Some adverts and marketing material for Gollum have tried to paint the game as the kind of expansive adventure title that you’d get from a major publisher, and combined with the high price, I fear that unrealistic expectations were set. Even if the game had been released in a fully-complete, bug-free state, I daresay a lot of folks would still have found Gollum’s core gameplay and story to be underwhelming.

To me, there are two lessons from Gollum that the games industry – and smaller studios in particular – need to pay attention to. The first, of course, is that the accursed “release now, fix later” business model never works. No matter how good your game could have been, if you try to launch it before it’s ready, you’re going to have a bad time! The second lesson is that games need to be targeted, marketed, and priced appropriately. Gollum isn’t a AAA action-adventure that could go toe-to-toe with the likes of Shadow of Mordor or the earlier Lord of the Rings movie tie-in games. So why present it as that kind of experience? Marketing the game like that was only ever going to lead to disappointment.

Gollum was never meant to be comparable to the likes of Shadow of Mordor.

I don’t know what may have transpired behind the scenes at Daedalic Entertainment that led to Gollum’s disappointing release. I don’t think it’s an unfair assumption, though, that the game had a difficult and troubled development – perhaps with a degree of “feature creep” as the original vision for a small-scale title comparable to Daedalic’s past offerings may have been expanded. Either way, delays clearly added to the game’s cost, and eventually Daedalic decided that they couldn’t wait any longer and needed to push the game out. The result was Gollum’s troubled launch.

On a personal note, The Lord of the Rings: Gollum is one of the titles I’d been looking forward to in 2023. Not simply because a return to the world of Middle-earth is always welcome in the gaming realm, but because it seemed like something genuinely different. A game in which the protagonist is an anti-hero or even a contemptible villain was already enough to pique my curiosity, but there was also the kind of gameplay that Gollum seemed to be promising: puzzle-heavy, stealthy, and with a degree of platforming.

Gollum can get stuck in the environment due to a bug.

For me, the real tragedy of Gollum’s release isn’t just that a game I was looking forward to was pushed out too early in a broken, unfinished state. It isn’t even that Gollum is unlikely to ever be completely fixed and brought up to the level that it should be able to reach. No, the real tragedy of this whole situation is that it will almost certainly dissuade other developers – and especially other publishers – from taking risks like this in future.

However you look at it, the decision to create a stealth-puzzle-platformer based on a character like Gollum was a huge risk. This is the kind of game that just doesn’t get made any more, with the games industry retreating to the safest, most overtrodden ground for the most part. Fewer studios are willing to take on risky projects like Gollum, with publishers doubling-down on well-known franchises, popular genres, and looking for any kind of online experience that can generate “recurring revenue streams.”

Making a game like this was already a risk.

With the undeniable failure of Gollum – a failure that seems impossible to overcome, even if Daedalic continues to work on the game for years to come like Hello Games has done with No Man’s Sky – there’s a real danger that the lesson the games industry as a whole will take from this mess will be to continue its retreat from any project that falls outside of the mainstream. Gollum was always going to be a game with limited appeal; a niche product at best. It was also a game that felt innovative in both its premise and the kind of gameplay that it offered – and I truly fear that fewer games that meet those kinds of descriptors will be greenlit in future.

The games industry is already dominated by a handful of genres, most of which haven’t offered much by way of genuine innovation in years. Corporations are quick to chase the next “big” trend, with a focus on whatever looks likely to rake in the largest amount of cash possible. What was appealing about a game like Gollum, at least to me, was that it was a title that didn’t seem to care about those things; it knew what it wanted to be, what kind of gameplay it wanted to employ and what kind of story it aimed to tell, and wasn’t about chasing trends. The games industry needs more of that – because that’s where innovation almost always comes from.

Gollum with a baby bird in a promotional screenshot.

Even on a good day, Gollum was never going to be a genre-busting epic. If it had launched in a better state, I daresay I’d have had fun with it for the twelve or so hours that it would’ve lasted, then I’d have put it down and moved on. But the games industry needs these kind of experiences. It needs the diversity that smaller games bring. And it needs at least some of those titles to exist outside of the self-published, independent space. Gollum could have been precisely the kind of “double-A” release that used to exist in between the big franchises and the small independent titles. Once upon a time, there were a fair few games in that category.

My fear is that the spectacular failure of Gollum, which has been one of the main gaming news headlines over the past week or so, will have a chilling effect that will extend far beyond Daedalic Entertainment. Projects that aim to create a game that might be a bit more of a niche product, outside of the mainstream and perhaps not in one of the biggest genres, will become suspect. Smaller-scale games in that “double-A” space will be less likely to be backed. And innovative, potentially-interesting stories and ideas will be passed over in favour of projects that feel “safer” to publishers.

I hope that I’m wrong, and that smaller studios won’t be impacted by Gollum’s very public failure. But I really do fear for the repercussions that this debacle could have on an industry that needs titles like Gollum. Not every game is going to be Call of Duty or Fortnite, and especially for players who long for single-player experiences, games like Gollum that offer something a little different will continue to appeal. Let’s just hope that this broken, borderline-unplayable mess doesn’t ruin that for everyone else.

The Lord of the Rings: Gollum is out now for PC, PlayStation 5, and Xbox Series S/X. The Lord of the Rings: Gollum is the copyright of Daedalic Entertainment. The Lord of the Rings and Middle-earth are the copyright of the Tolkien Estate. Some images and promotional art used above are courtesy of Daedalic Entertainment. Images of bugs and glitches via Digital Foundry on YouTube. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Film review: The Super Mario Bros. Movie

The first part of this review is free from major spoilers. The end of the spoiler-free section is clearly marked.

Let’s-a go!

It’s time to review The Super Mario Bros. Movie, which has finally made its way to on-demand streaming after wrapping up its exclusive theatrical run. And straight away I can tell you this: I had an absolute blast with Mario, Peach, Luigi, and the rest of the Nintendo gang! The Super Mario Bros. Movie is definitely one of the best non-Disney animated films that I’ve seen in a long time, and it absolutely has to be a contender for the title of best animated picture of the year.

The film puts a twist on the typical story of the Super Mario series, but brings all of the familiar faces that fans of Nintendo’s games would expect. There are so many references, callbacks, and cameos that it’s impossible to count, and speaking as someone who’s followed Nintendo’s games for more than thirty years, I appreciated every single one of them!

I’ve followed Mario for quite some time…

But this isn’t just fan service that only the hardest of hardcore Nintendo lovers can enjoy. The film is accessible to newcomers, too, with a pretty barebones, easy-to-follow story that doesn’t get bogged down. In fact, the story progresses from chapter to chapter with a real light-footedness, with no scene or sequence lingering too long. For kids, and especially for a generation raised on short-form videos and TikToks, I suspect the timing and pacing of the film will be pitch-perfect!

For me… well, I could’ve entertained a story that was at least slightly denser, one that didn’t hop so readily from point to point. There were some moments that felt unearned, perhaps, as Mario seemed to very easily and readily accept his fate in the Mushroom Kingdom, and friendships that appeared to form very quickly. But this is a film for kids – and with a story with such strength and heart, picking on any of these things feels gratuitous and unnecessary.

Mario and Luigi.

The Super Mario Bros. Movie accomplished the difficult task of taking elements from the games and making them into something truly worthy of a place on the big screen. The music of the Mario series was reimagined in a style I can only describe as “epic,” with the familiar tunes from the video game series transformed into an heroic score. Visually, the film leaned heavily into the aesthetic of the games – but used its budget to make Mario, Peach, and the Mushroom Kingdom look better than ever.

There had been some criticism of the decision to cast Chris Pratt as Mario, but I felt he did a perfectly creditable job in the role. Mario has never needed to be voiced this extensively before, so bringing in an experienced actor – while not necessarily everyone’s first choice – was the right call. The rest of the voice cast likewise put in excellent performances, and their characters came to life as a result.

Mario was voiced by Chris Pratt – pictured here at the film’s premiere.
Image Credit: IMDB

There were a couple of sequences in the first few minutes of the film that I felt might be too scary for very young children – and it’s worth being aware of this if you have very young kids or children who are especially sensitive. These sequences didn’t linger for very long nor have much of an impact on the story overall, but I suspect they may have gone a little too far for at least some children in the audience.

Overall, The Super Mario Bros. Movie is an absolute blast, and one I highly recommend. If you don’t mind spoilers for the admittedly rather formulaic and predictable story, stick around, because we’re going to talk about a few story details up next.

This is the end of the spoiler-free portion of the review! Expect spoilers for The Super Mario Bros. Movie from here on out!

Up first, let’s talk about how The Super Mario Bros. Movie puts a twist on the typical “save the princess” trope. Peach is presented as someone familiar with the world of the Mushroom Kingdom, and thus she has the upper hand over Mario, the newcomer. Through a pretty quick montage, Mario is the one who has to learn the ropes; Peach already knows how the power-ups work and how battles in this universe are fought.

But that means Mario needs someone to save; a reason to set out on this adventure and face off against Bowser. Luigi, who’s the easily-frightened younger brother, is perfect for this role. Mario sets out on a quest not to save a random princess – but to save his brother. It’s a perfectly-executed twist on what is a pretty tired and outdated formula, and it works perfectly.

Princess Peach is so much more than just a damsel in distress this time!

The karting sequence was perhaps my favourite in the entire film! I’ve been a Mario fan for years, sure, but Mario Kart is definitely one of my all-time favourite series. The way it was incorporated into the film was hilarious, and it was a surprisingly tense sequence as Bowser’s troops dropped in uninvited. Many of the items from the Mario Kart games were present – banana skins, shells, bullet bills, and even the dreaded blue shell! It was a fantastic sequence, and Rainbow Road has never looked better or more beautiful!

Although the designs of many of the vehicles were based on the Mario Kart games, there’s potential for a future Mario Kart release to take advantage of some of the new designs created for the film. In fact, the time to cash in on that is now, so Nintendo really ought to consider updating Mario Kart 8 Deluxe with things like Toad’s off-road kart and the Koopas’ combat vehicles. It would even be possible to include one or two of the prominently-featured characters from the film as new characters for the game.

The kart sequence was fantastic!

The world of the Mushroom Kingdom was brought to life through some excellent animation work, and Illumination is to be commended. The cartoony aesthetic of the Mario games was familiar on the big screen – but it looked better than ever. Peach’s castle, first seen in the iconic Super Mario 64, looked fantastic, and the bright, happily-lit Mushroom Kingdom stood in stark contrast to the “dark lands” and Bowser’s castle.

It’s also fair to say that these classic Nintendo characters have literally never looked better, too! There was previously-unseen detail not only in the main characters, but in every minor background character, too. Whether we were looking at Dry Bones, Shy Guys, Toads, Koopa Troopas, Kongs, or anyone else, the animation was fabulous and consistent. There wasn’t a single moment where I felt that the animation work was sub-par or out-of-place.

It’s Dry Bones!

To return to the film’s story, one thing I admired was a willingness on the part of Nintendo – a company that hasn’t always shown itself to have a sense of humour about its properties – to recognise the inherent silliness in Bowser’s scheme. Bowser wanted to force Peach to marry him, yet the specifics of how he possibly expected that to work had never been elaborated upon until now. Of course it makes sense that Peach would reject him – and the way in which this was played, with a nod and wink to the audience, was great.

I don’t think it had ever been canonically established where Mario and Luigi hailed from, nor how Peach and the others came to exist in the Mushroom Kingdom. So The Super Mario Bros. Movie had free rein to decide on its characters’ origin stories. Now, I could be wrong about this, as I’m no expert on the minutiae of Nintendo lore, but I’ve always assumed that Mario was Italian – not Italian-American. The decision to give him an Italian-American origin, and in the New York borough of Brooklyn, no less, feels like an oblique homage to 1993’s Super Mario Bros. – the live-action film that did so much to dissuade Nintendo from ever again taking its brands and franchises to the cinema!

The main characters at the end of the film.

So let’s wrap things up. Who is this film for? While I’d say that Nintendo fans and players will absolutely get more out of The Super Mario Bros. Movie than those unfamiliar with its source material, the easy-to-follow story and fairly basic characters should make it accessible to almost anyone – including the youngest kids. There’s a lot to enjoy here!

That being said, there are a handful of faults that keep The Super Mario Bros. Movie from being the greatest kids’ film I’ve ever seen. Some of its plot points – like the friendship between Mario and Toad, or Peach’s plan to defeat Bowser – were raced past incredibly quickly in a film that didn’t spend more than a couple of minutes on any scene or sequence. I could have happily spent a bit longer watching some of these things play out.

All in all, though, The Super Mario Bros. Movie is one of the better animated releases of recent years. It was a treat to see Mario and the gang taking part in a new kind of adventure, and while I have to hold up my hands and say that 1993’s Super Mario Bros. is one of those “so bad it’s good” films that I consider somewhat of a guilty pleasure, this new animated outing surpasses it in practically every way. If you’re looking for a fun way to spend an hour-and-a-half, and especially if you’ve spent some time with Nintendo and Mario already, it’s very easy to recommend The Super Mario Bros. Movie.

The Super Mario Bros. Movie is available to stream now and will be released on DVD and Blu-ray later in the year. The Super Mario Bros. Movie is the copyright of Nintendo and Illumination. This review contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Rebalancing Mario Kart

If you’ve spent a reasonable amount of time playing Mario Kart 8 Deluxe online, chances are you’ve been in races where practically everyone uses the same combination of driver and kart. Usually this ends up being Waluigi – Luigi’s “evil twin” – for reasons that will become clear in a moment. I’d been wanting to talk about this phenomenon for a while, but the recent release of Wave 4 of the Booster Course Pass brought some changes to the game that make it even more timely.

In short, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is unbalanced. The way the game is set up means that each driver and each kart component have their own individual stats, and when there are differences between these elements, that almost always means that there’s one golden combination that ends up being, by as close to objective standards as possible, “the best.” There’s a reason why more than 90% of Mario Kart 8 Deluxe world records all use the same character and build!

Prior to Wave 4, many time trial world records used this combination of Waluigi, roller tyres, Biddybuggy/Buggybud, and paper glider.

Nintendo has made an incredibly late attempt to rebalance this, with Wave 4 of the Booster Course Pass giving a bit of a boost to other characters and kart components, but the only real result of that will be that the best possible combination will change – possibly from Waluigi to Rosalina, in this case. In a few weeks’ time, online races will be full of Rosalinas instead of Waluigis… until the next time Nintendo tries to rework things.

For most players, I guess that this doesn’t really matter. At my low level, online multiplayer lobbies are still pretty varied, and in single-player mode I can just pick whatever combo I like the look of or feel like trying out. But I think the balancing issue in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe speaks to a bigger issue with the game, and while I would absolutely argue that trying to fix it now, almost a full decade after the original release of Mario Kart 8, is far too late and honestly just plain dumb, there are definitely lessons for Nintendo to learn as the franchise moves forward.

Pink Gold peach and Paris Promenade on a promo image for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe.

It’s disappointing that there hasn’t been a Mario Kart 9, and that the next entry in this long-running series is now almost certain not to be released until Nintendo launches a new console. I held out hope for a while that a new game might’ve launched last year to coincide with the 30th anniversary of Super Mario Kart – but alas, it didn’t happen! As we look ahead, though, I have no doubt that Nintendo would want to create a new game for their new console – and with the Switch’s 6th birthday fast approaching, that could be within a year or two!

So when we think about Mario Kart 9, there are definitely lessons to learn from Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. The first is that racing online has become a huge part of the experience for many folks – even casual players like myself. Online gaming has grown a lot since the Wii U’s release back in 2012, and for many players it’s a core part of the Mario Kart experience now. A new game has to be created with that in mind – even though I hope it will retain robust single-player and local multiplayer modes, too!

It’s hard to believe that Mario Kart 8 is almost a decade old and was first released on the Wii U!

But most importantly for what we’re talking about today, I think that the idea of individual character and kart stats has got to go. This isn’t a “hard-core” racing simulation – it’s a casual, fun game with a brightly-coloured cartoon aesthetic aimed at players of all ages. We don’t need stats to tinker with like we might in a game of Forza Motorsport or Project CARS; Mario Kart simply isn’t that type of racer.

The fact that most players online and practically every time-trialler end up picking the exact same racer and kart every time kind of detracts from the experience. It makes races feel less unique and less… well, fun. Although characters having weight classes has been a part of Mario Kart going all the way back to its first title more than 30 years ago, if having these stats means that some characters just aren’t viable choices… maybe it’s better to scrap them altogether.

Mario Kart doesn’t need complex stats calculations. This isn’t Forza Motorsport!

In short, if every character and every kart behaved the same way, the differences between them would be purely cosmetic, and players would have a lot more fun picking the character they liked best or the kart they thought looked the most fun instead of being forced to choose from a very narrow range of options. I mean, if you don’t like Waluigi, it can’t be all that enjoyable to feel like you have no choice but to pick him every time you race online. Can it?

Even if Nintendo completely shakes up the way stats work for each kart and character, if differences remain there will always end up being better and worse options; it’s unavoidable. If the goal here is to give players more choices, and to make the character and kart options matter, then really the only way to achieve that is to drop the stats idea altogether and have every character behave the same way.

A trio of Mario Kart Tour characters – some of whom may be added to Mario Kart 8 Deluxe one day!

I don’t think that this would make races any less entertaining. Far from it, I think it would open up higher-level competitions to look completely different, and the same for time trials and world records, too. Sure, it might not “make sense” that a huge kart with monster truck wheels driven by a tall, husky character would be just as fast as a sleek racecar piloted by a tiny driver… but this is Mario Kart. You’ve got sentient tortoises and literal babies racing against ghosts and a plumber’s evil twin across tracks made from clouds or mushroom-trampolines. We’re way, way past “realism!”

So that’s my proposal in a nutshell: dump the stats. Obviously this can’t happen in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – nor should it, as that would completely change a long-running game and probably invalidate a bunch of world records that people worked hard to achieve. But when it comes to Mario Kart 9, I think it would be a great way to rebalance the game and to bring diversity back to racers and karts. If such a move were combined with a great variety of racetracks that offered a range of obstacles and shortcuts, as well as plenty of items for players to blast each other with in competitive races, there’d still be lots of ways to have fun.

Racing around one of the newly-added DLC racetracks.

At the end of the day, when practically everyone online ends up picking the same racer and kart combo anyway, at least doing things the way I’ve suggested would mean people could pick the cosmetic/aesthetic options that they liked best instead of being forced to use a particular character whether they like them or not. For online racing, and especially at higher levels, it seems like a good idea to me, anyway!

As to the changes Nintendo introduced in the Booster Course Pass… I’m on the fence. I can understand the intention behind making this kind of change, as it’s basically a scaled-back version of my own proposal. But in an established game that’s been out in some form for almost a decade… these kinds of changes can upset players, and I can understand that. It’s better to work on this while the game is still in development, and that’s why I’ve suggested that Nintendo should look at how this issue arose. Tackling the root cause – stats – will mean it should be able to be avoided by the time the next game in the series is ready!

Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is out now for Nintendo Switch. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, the Booster Course Pass, and the Super Mario series are the copyright of Nintendo. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.