In this video we take an editorial look at Starfield and consider ways in which the game might be improved without undertaking radical and expensive changes, like altering the game engine or reworking voiced dialog. This is only a thought experiment, done for fun. Don't take it too seriously.
Additional Note: When considering analysis like this, I think it's important to understand the editorial lens that one must wear. The point of editorially analyzing a work is to find a way to make that work better, not change it.
As an example, if someone makes a film about vampires, and another person's first editorial thought is to change the vampires to werewolves (because they like werewolves more) then that's not really constructive, because it doesn't help make the vampire concept better.
Likewise, I'm not looking for ways to change Starfield into something it's not. I'm only looking at ways to make Starfield a better version of itself. It could be argued that it has the bones of a better game in it. But what I'm curious about is what it would take to actually make that better game happen.
Luke Stephens: "I asked Game Devs how to fix Starfield"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab9wRFz4CbI
Luke Stephens: "Modders Say Starfield Can't Be Fixed"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7kCFkFi0Cc