Couldnt agree more. They will be different games to eachother but everytime i hear or read that Star Field is like No Man Sky i have to facepalm. 

As you stated that Star Field is a ARPG which speaks more volume than watching a video of NMS and SF comparison.

I have played a crap ton of NMS and SF really does not even come close to giving me the feel that its going to be even close to that game. Yeah they may share some similar concepts but then again so does just about every space sim out there, some more than others just like every FPS. The concepts of the 2 games are completely different so I highly doubt the experience will be remotely the same. Just the whole perks for your character, ship building is on another level but we will see when this game gets closure to release and see more info.

After watching the show, Starfield felt like a mix of 3 different games to me.

No Mans Sky + Star Citizen + Destiny.

Seems more like No Mans Sky, with some Star Citizen and some Destiny.

The intro immediately reminded me a bit of Destiny, but after seeing it all I'd say there's less Destiny in there than the other two games.

Looks ok right now, but need to see a lot more before I could get hyped about it. It was definitely better than the Halo Infinite early showing.

Starfield has various elements that many other space exploration games have, I really don't see how only NMS becomes the sole comparison.

We've got Starbound, which featured space exploration, mining for resources, building outposts, hiring ppl to do jobs for you and doing jobs for, quests, etc.

Elite Dangerous: Space exploration, mining, quests/missions etc.

Space Engineers: Mining, making your own ship, creating outposts of your own, etc.

NMS at it's core is purely exploration, cataloguing and tiny fights with pirate NPC's. The game largely doesn't want you doing "illegal/bad" acts, or it sends the space robot cops on your ass 90% of the time, meaning the game in general just wants you to go around and mine/build bases and scan shit, and to this day, that still remains as one of the core pillars of NMS, and I still see folks on Steam forums still asking years later: "when is the game going to have proper combat?"...

A game like Starbound, from 2013 has more combat, more enemy NPC's to fight and a story than NMS does, because NMS is still preoccupied with procedurally generated worlds and telling it's players to scan shit 99% of the time, which is the complete opposite of combat, story and questing.

Folks are only making some comparisons to NMS due to, well, scanning and mining shit and flying through space, but that's honestly a narrow view of Starfield, and giving far, far too much credit to NMS, when other space games and RPG's have had similar mechanics like that before NMS even showed up. It honestly comes off like the kids who go "isn't that the dude from Fornite?", without knowing where the character originated from, because they thought Fortnite was *the* original game, when it's really just doing what others have done before and acts like a shell to host other characters and existing ideas (like building/crafting, which isn't new at all, and neither is adding characters from other games).

I don't know why people are even arguing about this but there really is only one meaningful answer.

Past Bethesda games, except in space.

That is the most accurate comparison, period. You only need watch the video to see Fallout 4 and Skyrim with a splash of previous Elder Scrolls/Fallout RPG conventions. It's literally the Bethesda formula plus alien worlds and starships. That is the only thing you need to consider when deciding if you want to play this game or not.

Because there is a need to defend Starfield from the preposterous comparison to NMS =p

What this guy is doimg its actually a disservice. I feel its an insult to want to compare starfield to a scam. 

Except Star Citizen is not a scam.

Don't get me wrong; as a backer, I'm very unhappy about how long this is taking. But I'm still playing it every time there is a new patch and really like it. Star Citizen is shapping up to be amazing; only issue: it takes for ever because the scope of the game is just way too big; instead of going with an iterative release. But the game is real and already in a very playable form. Only missing part for now is Squadron 42 (the single player experience) where we have no idea when this will actually come out.

Don't call something a scam when you are clearly not knowing what you are talking about and just basing your "oppinion" on whatever you read/half understand about the game or even its state.

Star Citizen release schedule/development is : Disapointing maybe... But this is far from a being a scam and the money created jobs, is 100% used by the studio to develop the game. etc.

OP: I don't think you can compare this game to either Star Citizen or No Man Sky. Genres are just too differents. One is an RPG, one is a survival/exploration game and the last one if a space flight simulator (even if you spend time on foot, that's the focus of the game). And all 3 are/will be good at the end.

From my perspective... Some of the geometry is jarring, with low-quality, poor texture work thrown on top... I can forgive that though.
The 30fps framerate is also a poor showing... But I can forgive that too.
But what I can't get past is the 15fps particle effects that just look jarring when the ship lands, maybe I am just getting old and want everything to be seamless?

As for the comparisons to NMS and Star Citizen... I have no issue with either of those, enjoyed various aspects from both titles, even if they did have their flaws, both have improved in leaps and bounds over the years.

Facts.

Its really sad people jump to conclusions on something they know nothing about. I was also a backer for SC who played the demo years ago. Its real, just not official. 

To use "its a scam" to move the goalpost of the comparison is facepalmable.

Hoping the delay will address the smoke effects and also when characters get too far away i notice the FPS drops on animations.