I fucking bought it, imagine my despair

I have a feeling Bethesda's executives ordered the development team to make it as un-controversial as possible. "I don't give a damn if the game is terrible. You will lose your jobs if you compromise this merger."

True, but developers from id Software helped Bethesda specifically for Starfield's gunplay, which is actually fun this time around compared to Fallout 4.

How so? They're fun, and the guns, while silly, are fun to shoot.

Do you mean they're historically inaccurate?

Or do we just have incompatible views of fun (i.e. it's subjective)?

The only Bethesda game I can think of with shitty gun play is Skyrim, because then we're talking about archery. And then, it's shitty because the way arrows work is, they are spawned at the player's feet, elevated to the bow, and then fired relatively accurately in an arc. The problem is, the ground is not completely flat, which is why if you're firing uphill, or there's a ridge at your feet, you fire into the ground despite very obviously clearing it.

And the only problem I have with guns in Bethesda games applies to just about any game with machine guns: bullets become far less deadly when you can shoot a lot of them in a short amount of time than when you can only fire one at a time. This is categorically false: every bullet from a machine gun is just as deadly as that same bullet would have been, had it been fired from a single-shot weapon. They just make machine guns do less damage per hit to balance the gun, so it's not overly powerful, and that is stupid. Sometimes they at least make these guns cheaper to shoot, so they're balanced to cost as well as damage, but in a world where the minimum cost of one bullet (or arrow) is one {CURRENCY} (bottle cap, Septim, whatever), they aren't nearly cheap enough to justify the damage reduction.

But, maybe next time instead of saying "no you're wrong," give us some context. It's fine to have a differing opinion if you can back it up with some examples.

Eh, Starfield feels the same as any other regular modern shooter, so like COD. It doesn't feel like Doom, of course, but that's it's own thing.

Yeah, no amount of mods will fix some of Starfield's faults, but it foes have some of that old bethesda coziness, so it's not all bad.

Lol why downvote I haven't bought a console since x360 I'm literally just asking

But can I loot endless amounts of garbage and then force shopkeepers to buy all of it? Because that's kinda why I play them

Are they buying it though? Or are they just playing on Game Pass and cancelling again?

I think MS bought them for what they publish (id, Arkane, MachineGames, etc) rather than what they make. With MS taking over publishing duty, Bethesda Studios could be a lot closer to the chopping block than they think. It's been a long time since Skyrim (close to 15 years at this point), and even big studios only get so many tries to get lighting in a bottle again.

Except it wasn't intended to be a remaster. They used Skyrim as a testbed to overhaul the Creation Engine to x64 to prepare it for Fallout 4, and by the end of it they effectively had a new, more stable version of Skyrim so they released it for free to everyone that already had the base game and DLC's.

And this was mainly a project for the engine developers. All of the artists, level designers, etc. were focussed on Fallout 4 at the time.

EDIT: You also seem to be unaware that the USSEP is also notorious for taking artistic license with some of their "fixes". Such as making the Warrior Stone apply to archery instead of the Thief Stone and changing the ores in Redbelly Mine from ebony to iron despite there being good lore reasons for them to be ebony