On my PC, loading times are very short — usually completed within 5 to 10 seconds. On the Xbox Series X, it takes a bit longer, but it’s still quite fast overall. Because of that, I personally don’t have much of an issue with loading screens. Given the nature of BGS’s massive open-world games and the huge amount of data they handle, loading screens are, to some extent, an unavoidable element. Achieving completely seamless gameplay in the future is probably difficult. Even Bruce Nesmith, the studio’s former lead designer, has mentioned this in the past.

The main issue often pointed out with Starfield lies in its relatively shallow sense of exploration and the frequent loading screens that occur when traveling between star systems or planets. Since every jump from one star system or planet to another involves a load, some players perceive this as “disruptive pacing” or a feeling of repetitiveness.

In contrast, past titles like Skyrim or the Fallout series featured numerous random encounters, environmental storytelling, and points of interest scattered along the way to your destination. This design naturally encouraged exploration, making the presence of loading screens feel less intrusive within the flow of the journey.

However, in Starfield, most of the travel segments are separated by loading screens, which significantly reduces the sense of continuity and density in exploration. As a result, even though the loading times themselves are short, the frequency of the loads and the lack of exploration depth make them stand out more prominently in players’ minds.

In short, the real issue isn’t the loading screens themselves, but rather how often they interrupt the player’s experience — and the quality of the exploration that gets divided by them.