True, but developers from id Software helped Bethesda specifically for Starfield's gunplay, which is actually fun this time around compared to Fallout 4.

How so? They're fun, and the guns, while silly, are fun to shoot.

Do you mean they're historically inaccurate?

Or do we just have incompatible views of fun (i.e. it's subjective)?

The only Bethesda game I can think of with shitty gun play is Skyrim, because then we're talking about archery. And then, it's shitty because the way arrows work is, they are spawned at the player's feet, elevated to the bow, and then fired relatively accurately in an arc. The problem is, the ground is not completely flat, which is why if you're firing uphill, or there's a ridge at your feet, you fire into the ground despite very obviously clearing it.

And the only problem I have with guns in Bethesda games applies to just about any game with machine guns: bullets become far less deadly when you can shoot a lot of them in a short amount of time than when you can only fire one at a time. This is categorically false: every bullet from a machine gun is just as deadly as that same bullet would have been, had it been fired from a single-shot weapon. They just make machine guns do less damage per hit to balance the gun, so it's not overly powerful, and that is stupid. Sometimes they at least make these guns cheaper to shoot, so they're balanced to cost as well as damage, but in a world where the minimum cost of one bullet (or arrow) is one {CURRENCY} (bottle cap, Septim, whatever), they aren't nearly cheap enough to justify the damage reduction.

But, maybe next time instead of saying "no you're wrong," give us some context. It's fine to have a differing opinion if you can back it up with some examples.