Support NeoGAF

[Topher]

That's actually pretty cool that the explosion cuts him off. I think in most games the conversation would have played out.

 

[DeepEnigma]

The peformance on consoles is mostly stable,

On PC peformance sucks sadly.

Just run it in 900p with FRS

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Little annoying nick pick. The camera going back and forth between NPCs talking to each other is jarring. Especially when they're looking at me while doing it

 

[ulantan]

Why? It's the same game if it's a studio of 5 or a studio of 500. Same exact game, different scores? That's not a very logical way to analyze/criticize a product.

Because the smaller would have reached beyond thier precevied scope. They achieved something not achievable by many with the same limitations. Vs the larger which would be achievable by everyone given the same infinite budget. If hire local regular guy to build me a house on a 200 dollar budget and he actually makes something liveable I'm impressed. If I then hire a famous architecture firm and pay them millions and the build the same house wtf lol

 

[Cashon]

I don't follow. A studio of 5 is not going to make the same game as a studio of 500.

If you rate games based on extraneous factors such as studio size then, hypothetically, if you had both a 5-person studio and a 500-person studio make the same exact game, regardless of time taken to do so (a team of 5 could absolutely recreate a game made by a team of 500, given enough time), you would give those identical games different scores. It isn't a logical way of rating and therefore defeats the purpose of a rating at all.

A rating scale exists as a means of having a standard to rate against. If you give Game A bad marks for Flaw X, then Game B should have those same bad marks if it contains Flaw X. Who made it shouldn't matter.

 

[feynoob]

and i thing most reviewrs for Starfield just turned a blind eye cause Bethesda is a behemoth, a small developer like Hello games ( No Man Sky ) that made a game that in my opnion is way more much more ambitious in terms of space exploration, has ( nowadays ) a good space combat, co-op and most of the features promissed, got a lot more criticism on Reviews for the bug mess and lack of features promissed on launch that Bethesda Starfild got it.

Don't compare a sim to an RPG game.

 

[Thyuda]

If you rate games based on extraneous factors such as studio size then, hypothetically, if you had both a 5-person studio and a 500-person studio make the same exact game, regardless of time taken to do so (a team of 5 could absolutely recreate a game made by a team of 500, given enough time), you would give those identical games different scores. It isn't a logical way of rating and therefore defeats the purpose of a rating at all.

A rating scale exists as a means of having a standard to rate against. If you give Game A bad marks for Flaw X, then Game B should have those same bad marks if it contains Flaw X. Who made it shouldn't matter.

I've no idea what you're talking about anymore.

And no, a team of 5 people could never achieve the same as a team of 500, not even with enough time, what an absurd statement, even as a thought experiment.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

If you rate games based on extraneous factors such as studio size then, hypothetically, if you had both a 5-person studio and a 500-person studio make the same exact game, regardless of time taken to do so (a team of 5 could absolutely recreate a game made by a team of 500, given enough time), you would give those identical games different scores. It isn't a logical way of rating and therefore defeats the purpose of a rating at all.

A rating scale exists as a means of having a standard to rate against. If you give Game A bad marks for Flaw X, then Game B should have those same bad marks if it contains Flaw X. Who made it shouldn't matter.

In theory. In actuality no, because your size and budget is going to dictate your direction and design which is the case between Outer Worlds and Starfield

Obsidian knew they couldn't achieve what Starfield (failed) to set out to do, so they didn't and it's better for it

 

[DeepEnigma]

Don't compare a sim to an RPG game.

Bethesda should not have advertised it as such.

 

[Topher]

If you rate games based on extraneous factors such as studio size then, hypothetically, if you had both a 5-person studio and a 500-person studio make the same exact game, regardless of time taken to do so (a team of 5 could absolutely recreate a game made by a team of 500, given enough time), you would give those identical games different scores. It isn't a logical way of rating and therefore defeats the purpose of a rating at all.

A rating scale exists as a means of having a standard to rate against. If you give Game A bad marks for Flaw X, then Game B should have those same bad marks if it contains Flaw X. Who made it shouldn't matter.

AAA games have higher expectations than small indie developers. That has always been the case. A team of 5 is never going to make Starfield. Period. Sorry, but your entire premise is way off reality.

 

[whyman]

After 11 hours, I realise that I was wrong. This is a great game, takes an hour or two to get going but it’s amazing. Many reviewers seems to have not played very far. The exploration is crazy. Great game, great writing and great loading screens.

 

[Cashon]

Because the smaller would have reached beyond thier precevied scope. They achieved something not achievable by many with the same limitations. Vs the larger which would be achievable by everyone given the same infinite budget. If hire local regular guy to build me a house on a 200 dollar budget and he actually makes something liveable I'm impressed. If I then hire a famous architecture firm and pay them millions and the build the same house wtf lol

As the person paying, yeah... You're getting the same results despite giving different amounts of money. That's inconsistent and you should be upset.

However, let's say you had that house built for someone else. The recipient of the house gets the same house either way. It doesn't matter of you spent $200 or millions, the recipient gets the same house and will view it as such. It's consistent for them.

Critics of games don't have any investment in the development of the game. They get the same end product regardless of how it's made. They should criticize the end product as a recipient, not as a financial investor.

 

[RAIDEN1]

Wait.. no alien races? Only humans?

No alien races, apart from some bugs you might encounter when visiting planets as if they came from Starship Troopers, there is no interaction with alien races...

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Every single RPG since Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 has failed to top it. Mass Effect Andromeda, Outer Wilds, Cyberpunk, FF15, FF16, FF7, all pale in comparison to Bethesda games and Witcher 3. Then you have open world games like Horizon, Ass creed, and other sony first party games that simply dont have the role playing elements that make these RPGs so different and unique.

I disagree, and I don’t play these games just to “role play” or for the RPG aspects

They need good mechanics, good story, Interesting and believable NPCs… many of the games you rattled off are all better in this regard, some massively so

And the reviews have all claimed the RPG elements in this game are pretty superficial.

 

[Cashon]

I've no idea what you're talking about anymore.

And no, a team of 5 people could never achieve the same as a team of 500, not even with enough time, what an absurd statement, even as a thought experiment.

Okay... Help me out then.

Can you explain to me, logically, why a game with the same pros and same cons would not be scored the same (whether higher or lower)? Just that: same pros, same cons; different scores.

 

[Topher]

Don't compare a sim to an RPG game.

They are both space games and those elements of the games can be compared. No, you shouldn't compare the RPG aspects of Starfield to NMS. But ships, space travel, space exploration, etc? Yes, absolutely.

 

[Lokaum D+]

Don't compare a sim to an RPG game.

im not, i m comparing aspects that these two games have or should have in common.

- space flight and combat.
- space exploration.
- planetary exploration.

my point was that NMS got a lot more shit for not delivering on promissed features then Bethesda Starfield and at the end of the day NMS do all of these way better then Starfield does.

 

[feynoob]

Bethesda should not have advertised it as such.

Blame hype people.
Xbox people has been hyping it as space exploration and flying shit.
The showcase showed all of space exploration. Even the landing was animation. Same with take away. There was a menu that showed you landing spot.
The fact that they didn't show flying to a planet should have told people.

But as always, hype makes not think very well.

 

[Thyuda]

Okay... Help me out then.

Can you explain to me, logically, why a game with the same pros and same cons would not be scored the same (whether higher or lower)? Just that: same pros, same cons; different scores.

No, because there's no logic with you man, nothing what I say could convince you, so I just don't bother. Besides that, I already did, you can reread my previous comments for that.

 

[feynoob]

They are both space games and those elements of the games can be compared. No, you shouldn't compare the RPG aspects of Starfield to NMS. But ships, space travel, space exploration, etc? Yes, absolutely.

That is not how it works.
Starfield doesn't have land vehicle. So space ship is pointless other than flying in space.

 

[ulantan]

As the person paying, yeah... You're getting the same results despite giving different amounts of money. That's inconsistent and you should be upset.

However, let's say you had that house built for someone else. The recipient of the house gets the same house either way. It doesn't matter of you spent $200 or millions, the recipient gets the same house and will view it as such. It's consistent for them.

Critics of games don't have any investment in the development of the game. They get the same end product regardless of how it's made. They should criticize the end product as a recipient, not as a financial investor.

But thats the thing though I have higher expectations from the renowned architect this is not the product they should have made. And in Bethesdas case they have built the same house over and over and over again. To the point where it has the same broken sink in the bathroom that the other ones have. There is an expectation they would create something more than what we got. they had more time, peopl, and resources. It's a good game but for what was put into it people expected something more, and that's a fair criticism.

 

[Hudo]

You are still exploring space and exploring the planets/moons. You are just choosing a destination in the computer and the ship is taking you there. The exploration is there, just not the manual flight.

That's the way sci-fi always does it since some kind of ultra fast locomotion is used (warp drives in Star-Trek or the space folding in Starfield).

So it's true, then. That sounds disappointing, tbh. But once in a planet's orbit, you can manually land, right? Or is this also done via a menu?

Is it also true that you cannot leave a chunk on a planet but rather you have to return to your ship, take off, and land again (where you want the next chunk to be)?

 

[Topher]

That is not how it works.
Starfield doesn't have land vehicle. So space ship is pointless other than flying in space.

I didn't say anything about land vehicles. I said the space aspect of Starfield and NMS can be compared. Yes, that's exactly how it works.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Blame hype people.
Xbox people has been hyping it as space exploration and flying shit.
The showcase showed all of space exploration. Even the landing was animation. Same with take away. There was a menu that showed you landing spot.
The fact that they didn't show flying to a planet should have told people.

But as always, hype makes not think very well.

Yes, I blame them too. Bethesda set those expectations, however. Calling it a space exploration sim themselves and once again, allowing people to run wild, even Hines saying you can explore an entire planet on twitter where people then used that as proof you can run completely around it like NMS or other games last gen.

It was marketed as primarily a space exploration game.

Edit: Also this:

 

[Die Namek Ability]

Okay... Help me out then.

Can you explain to me, logically, why a game with the same pros and same cons would not be scored the same (whether higher or lower)? Just that: same pros, same cons; different scores.

Because reviewers are human beings with the ability to apply logic, common sense and context towards thier opinions.

Edit: For example, say instead of FF16 Square released the same a game that looked like ff7.

FF7 looked great for 1997 but by todays standards it dosen't hold up.

If it release today it would not receive the same score as it did back in the day. Same game but different scores, now why is that?

Easy they were limited by the resources they had back in the day.

Much like a smaller team is limited in thier resources. With that context there technical inferior games are still able to score as high as the AAA ones.

 

[skit_data]

 

[Stuart360]

I dont know what people mean by 'no exploration'. Exploring is almost all i have done in my 19 hours so far. In fact i literally just hopped off from spending 2 hours on a random planet exploring numerous bases, and resource gathering. I even had a pirate ship come down and land near me hunting me for some reason.

Honestly some of you make me feel like i'm commiting a crime for liking this game.

 

[SlimySnake]

If this video doesnt talk about how massive the downgrade has been and how the textures and level of detail settings on PC are effectively on par with the series s, i am going to riot.

The fact that series s has effectively held back both the series x and pc versions should be the main story here.

 

[feynoob]

Yes, I blame them too. Bethesda set those expectations, however. Calling it a space exploration sim themselves and once again, allowing people to run wild, even Hines saying you can explore and entire planet.

You are exploring planets, which is space. So Todd is right. You are going from planet to a planet.
But I agree calling it a sim is wrong. That is on him.

I didn't say anything about land vehicles. I said the space aspect of Starfield and NMS can be compared. Yes, that's exactly how it works.

NMS space is a sim. While space in starfield is rpg.
2 different world as their approach is different.
And yes, landing plays big aspect in both games.
Starfield not having landing vehicles means limited exploration areas as you need more space for landing vehicles. Those boundaries in starfield doesn't allow true exploration.

But one thing we can say is that Bethesda approach for space exploration is wrong. You don't need clicks and fast travel. That is the key part where they fucked up badly and made space exploration suck badly. It's just an illusion to make you feel like you are exploring it.

 

[DaGwaphics]

So it's true, then. That sounds disappointing, tbh. But once in a planet's orbit, you can manually land, right? Or is this also done via a menu?

Is it also true that you cannot leave a chunk on a planet but rather you have to return to your ship, take off, and land again (where you want the next chunk to be)?

I haven't played the game yet myself, but in the Alanah video there she explains how the chunks that load when you visit a moon/planet are large enough that it takes you 15 minutes to walk from the center of the square (your ship) to an edge. Something that few people would ever do to begin with (because like in real life there isn't a lot of variety on these surfaces to begin with). It's basically a hypothetical issue that doesn't effect the real gameplay of the game. If you want to view more of the place you can, just get in your ship and land again.

As far as the landing and takeoff goes, these are supposed to be ships from the future and rockets today are already almost completely autonomous with human eyes there for reactionary adjustments only. Instead of hitting a button and turning a knob you apparently use a menu to trigger this. There is no free flight in space at all really, you are just falling in a circle (ellipses really) with the only difference being how big the circle is and what you are orbiting and/or if you are falling to the surface (getting gravity captured). This game might be a little too realistic for the "space" game you are looking for.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

You are exploring planets, which is space. So Todd is right. You are going from planet to a planet.
But I agree calling it a sim is wrong. That is on him.

NMS space is a sim. While space in starfield is rpg.
2 different world as their approach is different.
And yes, landing plays big aspect in both games.
Starfield not having landing vehicles means limited exploration areas as you need more space for landing vehicles. Those boundaries in starfield doesn't allow true exploration.

But one thing we can say is that Bethesda approach for space exploration is wrong. You don't need clicks and fast travel. That is the key part where they fucked up badly and made space exploration suck badly. It's just an illusion to make you feel like you are exploring it.

NMS is not a space sim lol

 

[Topher]

I dont know what people mean by 'no exploration'. Exploring is almost all i have done in my 19 hours so far. In fact i literally just hopped off from spending 2 hours on a random planet exploring numerous bases, and resource gathering. I even had a pirate ship come down and land near me hunting me for some reason.

Honestly some of you make me feel like i'm commiting a crime for liking this game.

People mean space exploration. Well.....that's what I mean anyway. I think that has been the primary gripe.

You are exploring planets, which is space. So Todd is right. You are going from planet to a planet.
But I agree calling it a sim is wrong. That is on him.

NMS space is a sim. While space in starfield is rpg.
2 different world as their approach is different.
And yes, landing plays big aspect in both games.
Starfield not having landing vehicles means limited exploration areas as you need more space for landing vehicles. Those boundaries in starfield doesn't allow true exploration.

But one thing we can say is that Bethesda approach for space exploration is wrong. You don't need clicks and fast travel. That is the key part where they fucked up badly and made space exploration suck badly. It's just an illusion to make you feel like you are exploring it.

NMS is not a space sim. I'll leave it at that.

 

[mansoor1980]

no mention of downgrade
pretty good video by DF . they were fair i reckon

 

[Hudo]

I haven't played the game yet myself, but in the Alanah video there she explains how the chunks that load when you visit a moon/planet are large enough that it takes you 15 minutes to walk from the center of the square (your ship) to an edge. Something that few people would ever do to begin with (because like in real life there isn't a lot of variety on these surfaces to begin with). It's basically a hypothetical issue that doesn't effect the real gameplay of the game. If you want to view more of the place you can, just get in your ship and land again.

As far as the landing and takeoff goes, these are supposed to be ships from the future and rockets today are already almost completely autonomous with human eyes there for reactionary adjustments only. Instead of hitting a button and turning a knob you apparently use a menu to trigger this. There is no free flight in space at all really, you are just falling in a circle with the only difference being how big the circle is and what you are orbiting and/or if you are falling to the surface (getting gravity captured). This game might be a little too realistic for the "space" game you are looking for.

Then I guess that I took their marketing the wrong way. After that Starfield Direct, I thought that you could freely explore space and that exploration on planets was seemless. Then I guess the game is not for me, sounds like these things would annoy me really quickly. Thanks for your info.

 

[Deanington]

So its facts that you can land anywhere on a planet. Its been proven that you can fly through space for hours and see the planets become distant and others get closer. It just takes a long time. So basically the gripe is loading screens?

 

[Hugare]

Seeing Dan Stapleton reciting his review history reminds me he gave Duke Nukem Forever an 8. I'm all for opinions being subjective but if you're going to be a professional critic you're going to have some standards, in no way is Starfield a worse game than DNF, a complete mess of a meme game stuck in development hell for over a decade.

This is why aggregate scores are a good thing, some reviews have taste the exact opposite of yours,

I would rate Superbad a 10/10 and Aliens a 9/10

Does that mean that Superbad is factually better than Aliens? No. Just that I enjoyed Superbad more for what it was trying to achieve than Aliens.

Is Duke Nuken Forever an open world game set in space with focus on exploration? No. So it's apples and oranges.

Movies/games reviews are subjective. Read the review, understand what the reviewer complained about and see if you would feel the same.

Stop comparing scores for different games

 

[Fabieter]

Every single RPG since Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 has failed to top it. Mass Effect Andromeda, Outer Wilds, Cyberpunk, FF15, FF16, FF7, all pale in comparison to Bethesda games and Witcher 3. Then you have open world games like Horizon, Ass creed, and other sony first party games that simply dont have the role playing elements that make these RPGs so different and unique.

Only top down CRPGs like Divinity Sin and Baldurs Gate 3 come close but they are turn based and not really comparable to AAA games we all play. JRPGs like FF have essentially turned into action adventure games. Bioware has gone MIA. Cyberpunk was practically an action adventure game and Obsidian's outer worlds was not even in the same league.

I have no idea what game we are using to judge the quest design and mission structure. TLOU2? GOW? linear action games? Should I trash TLOU2 for not having branching dialogue and RPG elements?

Bg3 is as aaa as it gets. I finished it already and I can safety say it was my best rpg experience I've ever had including all Bethesda games.

It has 12 different classes which are all interesting in their own way. Most of the people I know including myself played sneak archer and nothing else in Skyrim. The rest of the gameplay was pretty dull.

 

[Kenneth Haight]

The fact that series s has effectively held back both the series x and pc versions should be the main story here.

Great little machine TM

 

[Heisenberg007]

So it's true, then. That sounds disappointing, tbh. But once in a planet's orbit, you can manually land, right? Or is this also done via a menu?

Is it also true that you cannot leave a chunk on a planet but rather you have to return to your ship, take off, and land again (where you want the next chunk to be)?

1. There is no manual landing or taking off in the game.

2. There is no “planet‘s orbit” in the game.

3. I don’t know the answer of your other question.

 

[geary]

im not, i m comparing aspects that these two games have or should have in common.

- space flight and combat.
- space exploration.
- planetary exploration.

my point was that NMS got a lot more shit for not delivering on promissed features then Bethesda Starfield and at the end of the day NMS do all of these way better then Starfield does.

Yes, please...tell me how you compare combat between Cod, Starfield, Cyberpunk and Deep Rock Galactic, because all of them have guns...
Same compare, Witcher 3, Devil May Cry, FF16, GOW and Zelda combat because you have melee weapons.
And since we are here, Forza Horizon, GT6 and Far Cry 6 because you have cars and driving in them.

 

[Hudo]

1. There is no manual landing or taking off in the game.

2. There is no “planet‘s orbit” in the game.

3. I don’t know the answer of your other question.

Ok, thank you for your answers.

 

[Tsaki]

Eurogamer got away cheaply. I think they'll give it three stars out of five, but since the first day of battle continued on the IGN and Gamespot fronts, fans probably don't have the strength to fight with them. I'm eagerly waiting for their review, while waiting for my peasentpass access.

If they give it 3 stars they will get a lot of hate for it. Eurogamer (like IGN and Gamespot) probably has higher weight in their score than your average reviewer, so the average will definitely take a hit.

 

[Lokaum D+]

Yes, please...tell me how you compare combat between Cod, Starfield, Cyberpunk and Deep Rock Galactic, because all of them have guns...
Same compare, Witcher 3, Devil May Cry, FF16, GOW and Zelda combat because you have melee weapons.
And since we are here, Forza Horizon, GT6 and Far Cry 6 because you have cars and driving in them.

Sometimes i think you guys are really stupid, not internet stupid, but real life stupid.

Starfield is one of a kind, all of its features are unique and never seen before and thats why we cant compare to any other game, a really 11/10 game, happy ?

 

[Topher]

Yes, please...tell me how you compare combat between Cod, Starfield, Cyberpunk and Deep Rock Galactic, because all of them have guns...
Same compare, Witcher 3, Devil May Cry, FF16, GOW and Zelda combat because you have melee weapons.
And since we are here, Forza Horizon, GT6 and Far Cry 6 because you have cars and driving in them.

If COD is better than Cyberpunk in gun combat there is nothing wrong with stating that. Same if NMS is better than Starfield in space travel.

 

[Zuzu]

12 years of progress

 

[geary]

If COD is better than Cyberpunk in gun combat there is nothing wrong with stating that. Same if NMS is better than Starfield in space travel.

This is like comparing apples with pears and say that the apples are greener and is nothing wrong with stating that.

 

[DeepEnigma]

This is like comparing apples with pears and say that the apples are greener and is nothing wrong with stating that.

 

[geary]

We are missing Heisenberg and I got the quartet of the gaming police here

 

[Alebrije]

My five cents, with 12.5 hours of playtime I think it's fair to give some impressions. Might be a bit of a rant because I have a lot of feelings right now.

The more I play this the more its fundamentally flawed structure becomes apparent. It is both overwhelming and deeply unsatisfying. There are just so many mindbogglingly weird or straight up bad design decisions there's a chance this game will go down the MGSV route of incredible potential completely squandered by baffling design.

This game is the anti-immersive sim.

Some things that are just insane to me:

- There is no exploration. No adventure, no sense of wonder. You go in a menu, you press a button and you fast travel via a loading screen. Flying around in space is unrewarding and useless. You don't descend on a planet, you cannot fly around on a planet. Or otherwise move around on a planet. The tile based procedurally generated areas are terrible. I landed on the moon facing Earth because I wanted to see the sights and it just rendered some random area. Earth wasn't even in view. There was a mission where I had to save a dude from a crashed ship. I was on another planet in another system, I went into the menu, selected his location, clicked to go there, I got a loading screen and it literally spawned me right next to the guy with my ship 500 meters away. No travel cinematic, no landing sequence, it instantly warped me to a completely different system next to the objective. Just dreadfully bland design.
- The game knows there is no exploration or adventure because it tries to remove travel every way it can. You can fast-travel 500 meters from your ship and be in a completely different system one loading screen later. There's no feeling of being a part of the universe, everything feels extremely videogame-y. You can literally fast-travel to the front door of the Lodge from another system.
- New Atlantis' techno utopia seems impressive at first but after the initial "ooh" and "aah" wears off it is an incredibly badly designed area. It is immense, cumbersome to navigate (no map, lmao. How do you have this huge hub area and no map), has zero redeeming qualities other than nice vistas and on a meta level has terrible technical performance with framerates going from 50 to 20.
- The dialogue system is terrible and feels like I'm playing Skyrim, only not in a good way. The way the camera is positioned, the hard cuts to people talking, the bizarre way companions look straight at you even when talking to someone else. It's a system from two generations ago with almost zero improvements. When you're in space and another ship hails you, it zooms in on the ship as if the ship is talking, lmao. Would it really kill you to add a screen to the cockpit where you see someone else talking to you? This game was in development for like 8 years, for fucks sake. Where's the immersion? I just don't understand how this happens.
- Literally every mission is a fetch quest. You go somewhere, flip a switch or shoot the place up, get some info or talk to someone to get a new location, rinse and repeat. Aggressively mediocre game design.
- The way it dunks sidequests on you is hilarious. Literally every quest in New Atlantis is some random asshole walking up to me saying "hey man I heard this lady from the bar say some dumb shit but I don't care, you know how it is" and then you get a prompt to go talk to the lady. I mean, what? I just landed on this planet, I don't know any of you. What the fuck are you talking about? Every time it's "random npc conveniently says something about a situation completely unrelated to you or anything that's happening" -> "go check out this situation". Again, archaic design.

The "NASA-punk" aesthetics are amazing. The style of the game is incredibly well done. It feels futuristic yet contemporary. The music is good but forgettable. The voice acting is solid, albeit a bit over the top at times. Combat is decent.

There are a lot of mechanics in place that give an illusion of depth, but there really isn't any. You fast-travel from location to location, one destination to another. The travel in between is completely removed.

It feels like I'm playing a game that should've been released 8 years ago. This doesn't feel good, man. Imagine playing Skyrim and your only option was to fast travel from objective to objective. If you remove the journey, how much of the game is actually left, truly?

The travel system is looks like a copy of Outer Worlds..in fact a lot of stuff looks taken from OW ( weapons)

But after all we can not deny Starfield looks and plays like a Bethesda RPG , ifnyou like the formula you will like the game , just forgett the exploration stuff and barrent planets and you get a nice game...

Bethesda and Microsoft hyped the game as something special , and honestly if people keep beliving Todd's procedural lies is their fault being disapointed now.

 

[TonyK]

Even if I have Gamepass I purchased the Premium upgrade because the curiosity was too much for me.

The first 2 hours are incredibly disappointing. I can't believe the excuse they used to give you a ship. That simply stupid decision that a stranger gift you a space ship, and you, a miner, know how to pilot it, it broke the immersion for me.

Thankfully, after a couple of hours more I feel now totally immersed in the exploration and I can't wait to return to the game.