You know that Simpsons episode where Homer accidentally crossbreeds tomatoes with cigarettes? That is what Starfield is. Starfield is Tomacco. And to borrow the words of the great Ralph Wiggum, Starfield - like Tomacco - "tastes like Grandma". That is to say that once you bite through the sci-fi exterior, the unmistakable taste of its predecessors Fallout 3 and Skyrim, come to the fore.

The taste isnt a wholly unpleasant one. There are worse things a computer game can be than 'Fallout in Space' or 'No Mans Skyrim'. Its just..... very familiar. Bethesda have trotted out largely the same exact - and highly successful - formula, put on a wafer thin lick of paint and called it a day. Innovation is nowhere to be seen here - indeed I am not sure which is worse; that in 2023 Bethesda are unable to let me enter a shop without a loading screen, or that in 2330 (the in-game year) apparently nobody has invented maps or ground transport vehicles.

Almost every major mechanic or system in the game has glaring issues. The companions are samey and bland - in my playthrough of trying to be a smuggler/pirate there is not a single one of the major companions who doesnt drastically disapprove of everything I do. The quest design is very stale - hack this terminal, persuade this person, clear this point of interest. The wave after wave of loading screens - seriously, dont play this game without an SSD.

Despite all of the above, the game is enjoyable, and I will be continuing my adventure after I post this review. And yet I cannot in good conscience recommend a £60 game that brings so little new to the table.

In truth, I struggle to find much positive to say about Starfield that I couldnt have said about any other Bethesda game, and yet I was torn on whether to recommend it or not. The fact is that - much like Tomacco - it has a certain addictive quality that keeps you coming back for more. I now understand how there are "Do not recommend" Steam reviews with 1000's of hours clocked.