this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
116 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
30238 readers
121 users here now
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That was the same for me, but reverse. I tried to play No Man's Sky to get hyped for Starfield, but they're just such different games doing different things and one doesn't appeal to me as much as the other.
What I find funny is so many people saying “starfield is so open but there’s nothing to do.” But for some reason, no man’s sky has “so much to do.” Every planet is basically completely barren or has one of the same four types of points of interest as every other planet
Don’t get me wrong, I really enjoyed no man’s sky and starfield does have surprisingly barren places, but to say NMS has “more to do” is patently absurd.
Comparing them generally just reveals people’s preferences/loyalties as opposed to anything useful about either game.
Starfield has made me very disappointed with the planet designs in NMS, unfortunately. Like, a lot of it boils down to "This planet has purple dirt, but this other planet over here has blue dirt and is cold!" and they're always one biome only. In Starfield, one planet can have several different biomes realistically spread out (like snow/ice region on the polar caps, etc.), and it also has a bigger pool of structures to pull from. I last played No Man's Sky a year or so ago, and it always felt like there were only a handful of structures that could generate on a planet.