Starfield is better than 2001: A Space Odyssey

Both 2001 and Starfield are epic sci-fi artworks that aim to pose deep philosophical themes to the viewer. However, I would argue that Starfield is the superior work of art. Now it would be easy to win this argument by simply pointing at interactivity. 2001 is a passive experience while Starfield immerses the player in the experience by allowing them to make decisions and partake in the story. However, there are plenty of other reasons why it would be wise to favor Starfield over 2001.

Starfield has the superior narrative. 2001's narrative is minimalistic, leaving much for the viewer to interpret. This gives the movie a lot of mystery, but it also makes it frustrating to make sense of. In contrast, Starfield poses heavy questions about the nature of time and reality, yet it doesn't leave the player guessing regarding what it is trying to say. It's message is bold, direct, and easily accessible. For this reason, I would argue that Todd Howard is a better storyteller than Stanley Kubrick.

We also have to consider the scope of the two projects. 2001 is limited to small environments and while the special effects are impressive, they are also dated. In contrast, Starfield gives players an entire universe to explore, giving a true sense of depth to the cosmos. It feels alive and boundless.

Lastly, consider the intelligence of the two projects. At its core 2001 has very basic themes and it says very little about humanity and our future. Many have been dazzled by the visuals and fail to see that the story doesn't say much that is profound. Starfield is a different beast altogether. It poses a though provoking dilemma and it presents reality in mind-bending ways that are philosophically engaging. If you want to be cerebrally engaged, Starfield is the superior artwork.

In short, I believe that Starfield has dethroned 2001 as the ultimate work of sci-fi, and Todd Howard and the rest of Bethesda should be very proud of themselves.