Sea of thieves is different because it has had 6 years of updates and new content

This honest conference is a funny video about starfield and Todd made using AI, it's done really well!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YMg4ehhCgU

Because SoT was bare bones with nothing to do when it first released? It's a much much better game now, of course it'll review better.... has nothing to do with being multiplatform. 

And you don't think if Starfield released on PS5 it will have future updates and more content?

Don't you think it's a little odd that Sea of Thieves evolved into a much better game and never got re-reviewed on XB/PC yet gets reviewed again when it goes to PS? No Man Sky got reviewed again after releasing so much content. Maybe it's just a coincidence but the industry is not consistence with its standards for games. Which questions need to be asked, why with some and not others. 

Yes, it will be reviewed better because of the new content and fixes but most of the same criticisms will still apply

It should review better, that's expected but I believe the games issues like not being able to fly directly to planets like you can do in No Man Sky suddenly people won't care about anymore. Things people jumped on about with its original release. Will wait and see.

Because by now, people know you cant.
There isn't the shock factor anymore, or the feeling of being lied to by Todd howard.
Thats why such a thing wont be a issue.

Its not because its only on pc and xbox.
While if it was on playstation, it would review better..... thats just silly.

Actually, I think you can fly from planet to planet in Starfield. Only because Bethesda was so committed to their realistic setting, it takes like forever. I think Alanah Pearce proved the point by letting the game open for like five hours or so.

... Actually it is seven hours, I looked it up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3cHBEWN3xI

Apparently the planets are also moving on their orbit, which is annoying for manual flight. This is the reason No Man's Sky removed that feature (and got backlash back then, because their Todd Howard variant said planets would be moving). Also No Man's Sky has a Faster Than Light drive, which makes it possible, while they also designed the systems smaller than actual solar system. Again NMS is more fantasy in the service of playability, while Starfield kinda commits to a lot of realism.

Did you watch the video?

She flew to the planet, and its a "flat" sprite.... she flew throught it, when she reached it.
She couldnt land on it, or interact with it in any way.

No man's sky, you can go from outer space, into the atmosphere, and down on the surface of a planet.

"Also No Man's Sky has a Faster Than Light drive, which makes it possible"

The otherside of the coin, is that not allowing for Faster than light drive..... is a artifical "cage" to keep players from exploreing to far out.
Hence, planets are just empty sprite moveing around. As shown by Alanah Pearce's 7 hour flying trip towards pluto.

"while they also designed the systems smaller than actual solar system. Again NMS is more fantasy in the service of playability, while Starfield kinda commits to a lot of realism."

I doubt that very much.
Ive seen videos of people playing NMS that seem really impressive in terms of scope..... the fact that its procedurally generated allows for that, not that one is more fantansy and the other is going for realism.  And again, thats fine, if Starfeild was full of odd little detail rich area's you could find ect... but its not.
Its empty, and alot of whats there on each planet seems copy and pasted.