I spent the better part of the end of 2023 playingStarfield. Now, I’m spending the better part of 2024’s final stretch playingSTALKER 2. Though the two games are extremely dissimilar from one another, certain aspects of them do rhyme, and I feel this is well worth discussing.
I’ve got a long, storied, and complicated history when it comes to long-form sandbox and survival games. Notably, none of them actually deliver exactly the sort of thing I want to experience in one such title. I’ve discussed certain aspects of this self-imposed problem inmy priorDestiny 2andStarfieldarticle, where I compared the two in a way that I bet you wouldn’t see coming.
Now, let me state in no uncertain terms that I thinkSTALKER 2is genuinely better thanStarfieldin some very fundamental ways. It’s got heaps of problems, to be sure, butthere’s grit and a soul present in this gamethat you’ll be hard-pressed to find inStarfield. At the same time,Starfielddoes some things a tad better thanSTALKER 2does, and mashing the two together really would be the ideal scenario, if we could pull that off.
This article isn’t interested in discussing which is the better game, however. Instead, I’d like to check which is the superior survival experience, taking mods and other player-made content into consideration.
How are Starfield and STALKER 2 alike?
If we reduce both of these games to their absolute basics, they are both about exploring dangerous and anomalous areas with guns in tow. They are both absolutely massive open-world sandbox titles with a heavy emphasis on status management and a deliberate slant toward violence for conflict resolution. Is that just a nice way of saying you get to kill stuff a lot? Yes, yes, it is.
These games invite their players to explore to their heart’s content. It’s an opportunity to jump straight into some of the most hostile yet beautiful places there ever were. Sheer exploration for the sake of exploration isn’t something many games pull off, but these two do (and you can add No Man’s Sky to the mix, for that matter), and that’s definitely worth celebrating.
Both of these games also have a number of true survival mechanics in place that facilitate a more interesting moment-to-moment gameplay loop. Whereas a more straightforward shooter might just let you go from A to B willy-nilly, bothSTALKER 2andStarfieldadd layers of resource, stat, and inventory management to the loop. The player then needs to weigh these tidbits and decide for themselves the how, the why, and the where of their progression. It’s neat, though it’s not for everyone.
This, however, is where the similarities end.
ComparingStarfieldandSTALKER 2should be quite easy on paper. The games are extremely similar to one another, as outlined above, but they really couldn’t be any further apart when you actually play them.
Starfieldis effectively the exact opposite ofSTALKER 2. It is a safe, curated, and deeply inoffensive experience that will accommodate the player in every way possible. Only rarely does a quest’s outcome lock you out of a particular reward, and you’ll almost always be capable of brute-forcing your way through a difficult encounter.STALKER 2, on the other hand, is bloody punishing. It’s the kind of game that’s perfectly content with letting you not experience something just because you can’t figure out how to, say, access a particular area. Heck, NPCs can up and die in the middle of a quest, making it impossible to progress or earn a reward.
The differences go beyond the gameplay loop, mind.Starfieldis the puddle-deep ocean toSTALKER 2‘s lake-deep lake. Due to the fact that virtually all ofStarfieldis procedurally generated, it’s hard to shake off the feeling that nothing about it matters. On the other hand,STALKER 2‘s brimming with hidden easter eggs, valuable hand-placed loot, and just a bunch of interesting locations to explore.
The end result is thatSTALKER 2‘s Zone ends up feeling larger and more substantial thanStarfield‘s literal galaxy of planets. How’s that for a weird end result?
How do Starfield and STALKER 2 deliver such different survival fantasies?
I do genuinely enjoyStarfieldfor what it is and believe it’s a reasonably compelling game as far as Bethesda RPGs go. Embracing these games also means embracing the fact that they’re often very juvenile in how they handle in-game conflict and narrative. This has always been a thing with Bethesda’s first-party titles, but nowhere is it more apparent than in Starfield. Specifically, this is because whereas The Elder Scrolls and Fallout come with a whole suite of old-school lore and written materials (i.e., in-game books and such),Starfieldhas been effectively scrubbed clean of these things.
What you get in the end is an extremely safe kind of FPS/RPG sandbox. Suspension of disbelief is crucial here because almost every situation you find yourself in feels more like a vague, gamified representation of it rather than something that should be given as-is. I’m not about to veer off into an extensive critique of whatStarfieldis here, but Bethesda had to choose very early on to sanitize and make the game as safe as it ended up being.
This is important to understand because it’s also the key difference betweenStarfieldandSTALKER 2. Playing the latter, I couldn’t shake off the feeling that it often succeeds at doing what Bethesda might’ve been trying to achieve with its latest flagship. Crucially,Starfieldisn’t necessarily trying to deliver a different survival fantasy thanSTALKER 2does. Both of these games are hybrid FPS/RPG titles that lean towards different aspects of the niche (no,STALKER 2isn’t a tactical shooter). It’s just that one of them pulls this job off remarkably well despite its many other problems.
To be clear, though,STALKER 2is a far cry from being a perfect game. It does handle exploration, combat, and interaction much better thanStarfieldif we’re being honest, and that’s the kicker.
Once again, I feel it necessary to point out that I do enjoyStarfieldfor what it is. One has to admit, however, that enjoyingStarfieldnecessitates keeping in mind the caveat that it’s a very safe and surface-level game. Even mods can’t do anything about story problems, stilted characters, and a severe lack of hand-produced content. Mods fine-tune existing gameplay systems and loops, yes, but that only gets you so far. The sheer believability of these games’ respective open worlds is the bit that cannot be easily changed, andStarfieldfails in this respect.
That really is the crux of my comparison: believability.Starfieldfails at delivering a believable and genuinely immersive game world, andSTALKER 2succeeds at this job phenomenally well.
It’s not the graphics, really. It’s not even the physics of the games’ respective engines. The narrative and the characters are somewhat irrelevant when it comes to this, as problems found in these aspects ofStarfieldwould’ve been a way smaller deal had the game been truly believable.
Starfieldis a genuinely excellent game from a technical point of view, and there’s really nothing stopping it from being (almost) every bit as immersive asSTALKER 2. Instead, it was Bethesda’s game design choices that shapedStarfieldinto what it ended up being. And that, I feel, is what makes it a less compelling option, even if you’re into space-bound sci-fi experiences.
Which is the better survival/exploration experience?
The Zone is, oddly enough, a far more delightful and alien place than anything you’ll find inStarfield‘s entire galaxy. It’s a hostile place, to be sure, but it’s not necessarily malicious. STALKER’s lore delves deep into pseudo-scientific theories of the yesteryear for its world-building (i.e., the concept of the Noosphere) and stays true to it every step of the way. The Zone is entirely believable, even with its abject rejection of physics as we understand it.
Starfield, on the other hand, gives its players hundreds of planets to explore and fool around in. None of them are even half as atmospheric and interesting as a simple trudge through the Kordon. Of course, The Zone is an anomaly unto itself, butSTALKER 2‘s interesting design language and curated locations are a joy to explore, even when there’s literally nothing going on with them. It’s made me realize just how much of anoomphis missing from Bethesda’s latest and greatest.
In the end, it’s a really simple equation:STALKER 2immerses you into its world from the get-go, while inStarfield, you have to suspend your disbelief to stay immersed. If exploration and the sense of being in an alien and inhospitable yet astonishingly beautiful place is what you’re looking for, I’d go for the game you don’t have to fight against every step of the way actively.
I’m still going to enjoyStarfieldfor what it is because there definitely is much to enjoy here. Yet, at the same time,STALKER 2gives me a taste of what it could’ve been.
