A Grain of Salt or a Pile of Salt?

There has been a lot of buzz recently around one of the few new and upcoming games that I'm actually feeling excited about--Bethesda's space RPG Starfield.  Unfortunately not all the buzz seems to be of the positive type and I've read a few things that make me feel a bit skeptical.  As someone who just recently finished one of many playthroughs of a Bethesda classic (Fallout 4), I have some thoughts about what I'd like to see (and not see) in my potential future Starfield adventure.  Let's start with the not-so-great news first.

Starfield: everything we know is the main source I read for a nice, comprehensive list of details that have come out from the recent XBOX showcase and other info released from Bethesda.

Skeptical Feelins':

1.) There will be 1,000 planets to explore.  Sure, that sounds great, but to me I sort of internally cringe.  I've gotten to the point any more where it's a bit of a turn off when games brag about how big they are.  In my experience, size usually just means recycling locations and using them as filler (and filler that's usually completely pointless and unsatisfactory--I'm looking right at you Assassin's Creed).  I would much rather have a smaller number of truly engaging places (maybe with chaining storylines/missions) than a giant, empty, repetitive cycle of people to stab or shoot or generic military bases to pillage.  One article also mentioned that many of these planets had a fairly generic, grey, rocky look that sounds pretty bland.

An image of one of the 1,000 planets.  The rocks are pretty and all, but let's
hope that the other 999 are more interesting than this one.

2.) Of course these 1,000 planets will use procedural generation.  This has me worried that they will possibly try to re-birth one of the most annoying features of Fallout 4--the never ending litany of faction-oriented side quests that pick a random place on the map and ask you to go there and do a thing.  I always reach a point were I intentionally try to avoid turning in those missions because I don't want to get saddled with another one.  Please, for the love of gaming, do not make this a feature in Starfield.

3.) It's first-person and your playable character is of the silent, dialogue selecting type.  When I first read this I was a bit floored--is it 1996 or something?  Not that the story and/or dialogue are usually the best parts of Bethesda games, but really?  I suppose that it works in Skyrim (which is apparently still somehow managing to stay on top of many best seller lists), but it just feels a bit old fashioned and like they're missing an opportunity to find a great VA to headline 

Sounds Cool:

1.) Character creation is apparently much more detailed than it has been in other Bethesda games.  This is good news for gamers who love to tool around and create unique, beautiful characters.  Me, I am lame and usually go with the default.  Apparently there's also quite a list of unique traits that you can pick for your character.

2.) You get your own spaceship that can be customized.  I'm hoping that this system is more robust than what I picture in my head (namely a few interchangeable choices that don't offer much uniqueness).

3.) Space outposts!  My favorite part of Fallout 4 is the ability to build unique settlements and then watch them develop.  I'm hoping that they improve upon the settlement building system (it would be cool to be able to build special buildings that offer perks for a settlement--one thing it does mention is the ability to hire specialists to work in your settlements).

The real question we have to ask ourselves at this early-ish stage is whether we should take much of this pre-release info with a grain of salt.  As we all know too well, the hype train is strong and sometimes you just need to take a step back and not fall for the sparklies that the devs like to flash in front of us.  Starfield isn't coming out this year, so we've got awhile to wait.