Now that the dust has settled, why did No Man's Sky win?
>>683770531Starfield has shitty stories and shitty characters and shitty dialogue. NMS was as barebones as possible, allowing them to do whatever they wanted.
>>683770531Because Hello Games learned from their mistakes unlike Bethesda which has been making the same mistakes and making them worse since Skyrim
>>683770531NMS: Complete foundation, incomplete house, later complete houseStarfield: Crumbling foundation built on swampland, pretty exterior, delapidated interior
they're both terrible gamesspace exploration will never take off as a genre because "exploring" a procedural generation algorithm is not fun
>>683770531No Man's Sky is a solid 7/10 game now.It is fairly impressive what they managed to do with random generation and there is a lot of content in there.But1. It has the worst flying mechanics out of any starship game. It is baffling. Especially since every other game has done it better.2. Galaxy map is pretty much unusable. Just teleport around lol.3. Storage. Holy shit imagine a crafting game where you get your first storage chest 10 hours in.4. UI in general. I get it you have to make it work on consoles but holy fuck.So I guess it will actually be good in 5+ years.
starfields main gameplay loop is literally running on foot for 800 to 1000 meters to the next poi it's literally an unfinished game. maybe when they add land vehicles it might be playable and "fixable" but it's still inferior to the seamless nature of nms even if all they did for nms is shitty survival sim crafting crap for updates
>>683770531>Now that the dust has settled, why did No Man's Sky win?
