• DreamButt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not even really an rpg with how few skills/abilities there were to select from. And how little the environment changes to allow you to solve problems differently

        • EmotionalSupportLancet [undecided]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not really? I feel like that was a lot closer to new Vegas. That felt like a continuation of obsidian whereas starfield very much feels like a continuation of the trends between Skyrim and FO4 within bethesdas game design. If that makes sense.

          • MartinXYZ@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Thank you for elaborating. I honestly didn’t notice the “4” in the first comment and thought it just said “Fallout in space”, so that’s where my comment came from.

        • 小莱卡@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Outer worlds is closer to “fallout in space” than starfield is.

          Starfield is fallout without the fun stuff, which is dissapointing tbh.

    • Ser Salty@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The NMS like gameplay is like a tiny part of it. It’s a story heavy RPG first and foremost. Sure, you can do a lot of NMS style stuff, like gathering resources and scanning wildlife on a thousand planets, but that’s really not why you should get the game. You should get it if you want a massive space RPG in the style of Bethesda. And yes, this time Bethesda actually made a proper RPG.