No

There’s a fundamental difference between a game that was designed with love and passion and too much exuberant ambition, so it released full of terrible game balance issues, catastrophic bugs and lacking content, and a game that was designed with such an utter lack of ambition and milestone-chasing-box-ticking that it is just an empty, hollow, soulless cliche of bland samey slop.

Bugs and balance and game mechanics can easily be improved and fixed to the point that criticisms are completely forgotten, and that’s what happened with Cyberpunk. Content takes a lot of time but is easy and seamless to add if the foundation is there and the fundamental bones of the story are strong enough to hold them up. But it has to have those bones from the beginning. Complete story-bone-replacement-surgery is not going to be survivable for the patient.

A forgettable story is forgivable if the game mechanics eventually make up for it, because you can easily start from the position that you don’t care about the story. But that’s not going to happen here, and the story can’t really realistically redeem itself after the fact. An unforgettably insipid story is not forgivable when the game mechanics are as bland and tedious as Starfield, and I don’t think there’s any scenario where those mechanics suddenly become good enough to redeem the story and setting in this case. Bethesda has never had any decent track record at making compelling mechanics the star of their games (although Fus-ro-dah! gets a honorable mention it was not really a core game mechanic as much as it was so accidentally fun that it became a meme) and it’s no surprise that most of their games live and die by the quality of their stories and quests alone, but that’s the problem, it’s the story that’s let the game down here and Bethesda can’t save it with mechanical changes. Nobody was expecting outstanding mechanics here, although we might’ve hoped for them. But it absolutely needed a good story to survive. Instead, Starfield really had no obvious interest in picking either lane, and there’s really very little redeemable about it.

No Man’s Sky might be a better analogy for where Starfield needs to go, but I think it falls into the first category of having a forgettable story where the game mechanics make up for it. You can start playing NMS without having any interest in the story at all, it’s a sandbox, the story is ignorable by design. To follow in its path, Starfield would need not just years of dedicated effort, but also to effectively throw their whole storyline under the bus, sideline it where it belongs, and focus on improving both the game engine and the more compelling procedural, economic and gunplay aspects of the gameplay, which is not their strong suit and I frankly just can’t imagine it ever happening, and if they do it’s not even really going to be the same game anymore. It’s like being behind at halftime in the superbowl, and in order for your star quarterback to get his confidence back, he needs to win at chess first. Like not only were you not doing particularly well at the part you’re supposed to be good at and you’re already trying to come from behind, you’re now adding something you’re not even good at into the recipe for success, you’re certainly welcome to try and I’ll wish you luck but it’s probably not going to go well for you.

Yes.

On PC.

Via the mod community.

…at some point

They would basically have to rewrite the entire game and I don’t think that’s ever gonna happen.

Loading Screens: The Game
Loading Screens 2: Slideshow FPS

It was an interesting concept for a game, but poor execution and horrid performance have ruined it.

Look at that pointy, 45 degree cliff. I swear they are everywhere in traditional sci-fi.