Yuna SakashiroArtieWell, the "problem" is that Starfield is a good game or at least not worse than Skyrim, Fallout 4 and such. It's not absolutely perfect, as people are pointing to its flaws as on the videos posted earlier, but many of these flaws simply do not matter (like why it should bother me some other game has better ripples/effects on the grenade tossed into the water). But I agree that comparisons of Elite and Starfield have not much point - very different games, although they share some common points. Same way as none of these games can be compared to No Man's Sky.
Bethesda's trademark used to be handcrafted maps with a thousand points of interest on them. Starfield is a thousand generated maps with a single point of interest on each. Because you can't land the ship yourself, the game drops it half a kilometer away from the POI. You have to walk/run/jump to the POI, because there's no rover. If you go in the opposite direction, there'll be nothing until you hit invisible walls. That's what Bethesda now considers "exploration." Most of the POIs are generic, repetitive and forgettable, just like Odyssey settlements. We often complained about this aspect of ED, so why are we praising it now in a Bethesda game?
This makes me roll my eyes so much. None of that is an issue, at all.