I categorically disagree, and Bethesda's own games before Starfield show this.
As you go further back they have more complex stories, and Morrowind is of course the king here. But despite having a complex story a gamer can still follow the basic beats and perform as required. They can fail to understand the intricacies of the plot and themes, but they will still get to enjoy the gameplay and simpler structure overall that they can get.
Even on Fallout 4 which has perhaps the weakest Bethesda story-line (3 is pretty bad sure but it had a fun points, with 4 they had no excuse to still be fumbling the Fallout IP especially after Obsidian did New Vegas showing the potential of Bethesda gameplay on Fallout setting) before Starfield it at least allowed you to have some interaction with the world. A player still had some memorable moments, the different factions felt actually different even though it was dogshit. You could still wander off and find cool side quests and small things.
Starfield has none of that. They made it even more bland, even weaker, and left such a weak hook that a player not only has no reason to pay attention but will in fact enjoy the game less if they try to.
A complex story can still be appreciated even if you do not understand all the point, but a simple story has to rely fully on its simple premise and if it fails on that there is no recourse and all falls apart.
Maybe I didn't explain it well enough in my post, but the point that I was trying to make was that, within the confines of traditional story telling, Bethesda has never done that well. They excel at making Fantasy schlock that allows the player to exist in/create their own fantasy within a fictional world.
Outside of Morrowind, how exactly are the stories deeper? Hell, even Morrowind wasn't that deep outside the world building. Sure, you had the tribunal, but outside of the vague secondary plot beats you get in the base game, there's not really anything to go off of.
Arena barely has a developed setting and/or characters. The plot is just a "save the princess trope" with the emperor.
Outside of the bare minimum of fantasy political intrigue, the main cast of Daggerfall only care about the death of Lysandus because of the appeal of "power". There are the different leaders that you can ally yourself with, but it boils down to who you turn quests in to.
In Oblivion, Martin Septim believes the player for... reasons. The same goes for Jauffre. The counts aren't real people, they're just caricatures of fantasy rulers. Uriel Septim is essentially just there for character creation. There isn't anything deeper about it outside of "We have to stop the demons".
In regards to the plot in relation to gameplay, in the games they can all be ignored. Daggerfall will give you a generous time limit to start the main quest, but after the first two quests it doesn't matter. Morrowind is designed in a way where the plot isn't relevant to the player until 2/3rds of the way through it. In Oblivion you're not even the main character.
What all of those plots do however, is allow the player to be a part of the world in a way that fits the traditional hero archetype. They're simple "rags to riches" stories that allows the player to be as invested as they want.
That's why I don't completely disagree with the "Paper Airplane" analogy Emil Made. The problem is, Emil believes he shouldn't even try. In reality, the goal should be to make a world where that works within the confines of a fantasy sandbox.
Daggerfall lets you completely skip/ignore the main story and still engage in the rest of it's sandbox. Morrowind makes it a point to let the player know they may or may not be the nerevarine, there were other possible incarnates, you aren't guaranteed to be the one. Oblivion, you are NOT a chosen one of any kind, even within the Shivering Isles.
So when I say I don't think Emil is technically wrong, it's because I don't think people want a deep story for Bethesda games, they want something interesting and engaging. Something they can immerse themselves in,
if they want. People want to be able to immerse themselves in the worlds Bethesda builds, not necessarily be a part of it if that makes sense,
I won't argue about the Fallout franchise however, because even till this day I don't think Bethesda understands it outside of "The Post apocalypse is a fun setting" ( in which case, Fallout 1, 2, and NV aren't even post apocalyptic, hence why Bethesda doesn't get it).
Starfield, on the other hand, does not have an interesting or engaging world. It doesn't give the player the opportunity to be who they want, and doesn't provide enough of a coherent sandbox to ignore the plot. The issue is exacerbated by the fact the the sandbox is an incoherent mess.
