So when talking about Starfield, I feel it's important to understand where Bethesda was coming from when they made the world of the game. After all this was suppose to be an original new IP, so the bar was set very high. What we actually got in my opinion failed to capture the imagination and create realistic/believable future.
First let's talk about Battlestar Galactica. The hit Sci-fi television series of the 2000s which has garnered a huge fanbase and is often considered one of the best series ever made. To me when I hear how decisions were made in Starfield with a focus on staying on a more "realistic design" and having no aliens, just humans. It sounds like Battlestra Galactica. And the similarities don't stop there.
I bring this up because I know people have mentioned the more obvious points that's Starfield took from *cough* Mass Effect *cough*, but in terms of world it bares a resemblance of a mix of Starship Troopers, meets both old and new Battlestar Galactica.
For the most part the United Colonies is essentially the United Colonies of Kobol. Except in Starfield instead of tieing it to an interesting new religion that the player can explore and understand how this world develop under their religion... instead it's just United Colonies. Just a very boring sterile comparison of what actually feels like a working breathing military force in Galatica. The UC is boring and lacks personality since we never really interact with anybody.
Another thing that is different is the architecture and fashion, basically culture. Or rather the lack of. Starfield has a huge lack of expression, no outfits are slightly sexy or attractive, uni-sex clothing, heck not even really dresses are in this future. Believe it or not Bethesda not everyone likes to look the same, so they strive to look unique and have some sense of style.
This game has everyone wearing the same boring outfits with lack of any personality. And speaking of a lack of personality, let's look at the Freestar Collective.
This is a photo of Battlestar Galactica from the 1970s. Look familiar? Well if you guess "Hey that's the Freestar Rangers" you'd be correct. So instead of looking to do something completely new, Bethesda just looked at both versions of Battlestar Galactica and said "I want both"? Evidently, yes. While on a surface level I think it's actually a neat idea to take both versions and see if you can make it work in the same universe, Bethesda did a real poor job bending the styles together.
This issue being that both styles are radically different from each other and don't feel like a natural evolution of the same species. The Freestar Rangers feel like they beyong in a Fallout game, or even Outer Worlds, but it just clashes with the UC and feels way to specific.
Now I'd be willing to forgive the weird leap in logic, if the Freestar Rangers was this idealistic military with badass conventional attractive men and cool vakyrie type conventionally attractive women. This would at least give them a flash token and a fun little 1960s-70s feel of Sci-fi. Instead I just feel nothing.
Look it's cool they took inspiration from Battlestar Galactica, after all it is one of my top five favorite Sci-fi series of all time, but I just don't think they captured the emotional impact they wanted. What made Battlestar Galactica really work, was the complexity of morally grey characters, the state of humanity in a war. It's military war drama, and instead of having that be the main focus. Bethesda just says it happend off screen.
Imagine how cool it would be if the main story of Starfield wasn't the Unity or any of this Starborn things. I stead it was a war drama as the Settle Systems is in the middle of a bloody war. The three major factions fight over control, and you the player gets to experience all of them, and near the end of the game you get a choice in determining Galactic politics. Now that would be Game of the Year worthy
