To be fair, the realistic space combat video game genre really doesn't exist, that I've seen.
You can get pretty hard-realistic combat aircraft sims. Not many, but they exist.
But in space combat games, you're always playing something roughly like Star Wars. Which is cool and all, but just not what actual space combat would likely look like.
googles for one of the pages talking about the issues
Thanks. I specifically meant to ask about this in this thread and forgot.
I liked the music in New Vegas a lot, liked Fallout 4. Fallout 76 was a disappointment music-wise -- I'm not a fan of country, and didn't think that the DJing was good, left the radio off. Was really hoping that the Starfield music would be good.
If you liked Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, have you tried the Wasteland series? It's what Fallout 1 was modeled on, and that series kept going.
It's not Fallout, but it's the closest I have found to "more Fallout 1 and Fallout 2".
That being said, I thought that the Fallout jump to 3D would not work well, and I think I was very much wrong there -- the series did a pretty good job jumping the gap.
feels like Fallout
If you like the desert American Southwest "New Old West" theme in Fallout 1 and 2 and New Vegas, the Wasteland series does that.
However, the graphics are getting kinda long in the tooth.
And it is significantly less-stable. I've definitely fallen out of the map a number of times, too.
And without hitting a wiki, you can lock yourself out of a lot of things that aren't obvious. Choices matter, but often in not-immediately-apparent ways.
Well, Outer Worlds is already almost literally “Fallout 3, in space”.
Outer Worlds really did not scratch my Fallout itch.
Yeah, superficially it's similar in a number of ways, but:
For all practical purposes, the game is fairly linear. The world is open, but you have little reason to go back.
The Fallout perk system introduces a lot of interesting mechanics, is an important part of the game. The Outer Worlds perk system was almost entirely flat bonuses to one thing or another. Didn't change much how one would play the game.
I rarely found myself stumbling into new and interesting situations just walking around the world.
The weapons weren't all that interesting or customizable. That includes the uniques, other than the science weapons.
One thing I did want in Fallout 4 that I don't believe it presently does is dynamic generation of polygons in curves.
The game has environments with kinda curvy surfaces, but aside from the dynamic level of detail models, the engine can't go throw spare horsepower at generating more polygons to make smoother curves. I think that that's a good match with long-lived PC games, because people playing it years later on more-powerful hardware can burn their extra cycles on making things pretty.
It's not vital or anything, just think that if there's one game where it'd be neat, it'd be Bethesda-type games.
I'm not going to wait two years -- though I'm opposed to preordering -- but there are other benefits too. Two years down the line:
A bunch of bugs are patched. Even if Starfield is relatively free of bugs, there will be some.
The wikis for the game have been written up. Some obsessive person will have sat down and figured out the quirks of game mechanics and documented them. Understanding stuff like the relative merits of armor-piercing, bleeding, and so forth in Fallout 4 was complicated.
Starfield's expansion packs will be out.
Mods will be out, and there will probably be some pretty "must have" ones.
You'll have more hardware oomph to throw at the game, make it smoother/higher res.