While I don't expect any game to become a "master of all things" like Star Citizen supposedly attempts to be, I'm also opposed to artificial constraints.
"It's an RPG, so of course it doesn't have an economy or 6DoF flight or [insert thing forbidden in an RPG]" just doesn't cut it with me. This isn't a knock against Starfield, but rather this "Two dimensional thinking" that puts artificial limits on games based on proclaimed (self or external) category labels. Going faster than light may be impossible IRL, but programming an RPG that has a rudimentary economy (or a trading game with role play aspects) is not only possible, it should be relatively trivial, at least compared to other programming challenges a game like Starfield (or Elite for that matter) overcomes.
I can certainly understand, and even agree with, this sentiment. But I can also understand, and agree with, the desire of developers to not overcomplicate their games with mechanics from other genres. There’s a
reason the proverbial “everything” game remains perpetually out of reach for gamers:
unnecessary features frequently lead to
undesirable results.
For example, I once played an RPG where the devs decided they wanted a
realistic economy. The
instant I realized I could make more money trading between towns than adventuring, I stopped going on adventures, and started trading instead. Eventually, after a long and dull grind, I was able to max out my equipment, and the proceeded to curb-stop the
entire RPG quest line.
I was a kid at the time, and thought I was being quite clever. These days, I'd just shake my head at the devs adding such an
obvious exploit, and ignored it in favor of having fun and challenging adventure.
There’s a phase legendary developer Ralph Koster used to describe this kind of thinking among many gamers: “
Water finds a crack.” It doesn't matter how dull an action is, or how long it takes, if it's the less risky option than doing it straight,
some players will do it... and then complain about the developers "forcing" them to do it that way. It's why games like Elite Dangerous have a reputation for being a "dull grind," despite the fact that grinding is
completely optional and also rather inefficient: the game allows you to do it, and
some players will do so.
That's the reason why I expected Starfield to have an "RPG economy," specifically a "
Karl Marx Hates Your Guts" type economy rather than a "
Adam Smith Hates Your Guts" one. It's not because I thought the devs were lazy or incompetent. It's because I knew the game designers at Bethesda were competent, knew better than to include trading economy in an RPG, and since it was an open world game, they preferred the former over the latter. It would've been nice to trade between the stars, due to it being an RPG, but I wasn't
expecting it.