I think the reason Outer worlds looks better is the use of color and contrast. Starfield looks so bland and monotone that it does not invite you in at all to explore.
sometime it is the reverse, in interior outer worls feel too saturated, and i prefer the green plant color on starfield. still they both have good and bad point to each one
hablas de monotonia cuando en the outer world s en todos los planetas son los mismos enemigos, armas, armaduras, vegetacion, estructuras etc y ademas de planetas donde los recorres muy rapido dejando de lado al poco de llegar
The story and setting in Outer Worlds totally kick Starfield's ass imho. Graphics aren't necessarily "better", but the environments are for sure prettier and world design is much more detailed and creative...also, it's funny as heck with great writing and characters...unlike Starfield.
I think Starfield could have been a much better game than it is if Bethesda, instead of thousands of generated planets and unnecessary mechanics, had made it much smaller in scale, but focused more on the story, characters and the world.
Not sure about that, maybe its just because i tried to find similar locations for comparison as in Starfield there are many different cities and planets. The one mostly used in video is Akila city which is decorated in kind of an old-fashioned style, close to The Outer Worlds' one
The Outer Worlds is a real RPG game, like it or not , that's what it is... Starfield must have been made to launder dirty money, i don't have other explanations for such garbage.
It's strange that they chose these two games to compare, especially since it's graphics only. Outer Worlds is more stylized and colorful while Starfield aims for a more photorealistic look. It would've made more sense to compare Starfield to Star Citizen graphicswise. Unless the OP wants to showcase beauty in different art styles.
Starfield clearly has better graphics. And higher resolution textures. Looks sharper too. However it looks like shit in comparison because OW has a style, while starfield looks super sterile and generic. Style is memorable, generic is forgettable. And the worst thing about it is that OW was never really hyped. It was always like a fallout clone of sorts. And I played it and it was a solid game. Starfield was probably one of the most hyped games ever besides cyber punk. And it didn't bring anything new or remotely compelling. All the limitations that OW has, a next generation version of the same game in starfield did not address whatsoever. I remember wanting to be able to use the ship in OW and have the ability to visit a couple of planets. But that wasn't possible. Starfield for example didn't make a seamless experience, like no loading screens, to use the ssd. It still feels like a ps3 game at it's core. But they added a bunch of side stuff that has no content. Empty maps. Which I didn't want at all. Do like a solid 10 planets, and that is more than enough. Just make them packed with content. Make the option where you can drive to those planets and that's it. It's about hitting that perfect balance. But they suck so much at it that they simply cannot do it. They don't know what fun is. These stupid devs. It's like that movie where Tom Hanks is a kid that gets a body of an adult. And then goes to a toy company and pitches them these great ideas for toys. Because he's a kid and knows what kids want. And we need something like that with these devs and games. Like they have a skill of making games, yet they're original and creative like an ass. They are able to make these large simulated environments, but they cannot make anything fun to do in those environments. It's just shooting, and possibly offering real life board games inside these simulated environments.
the outer worlds post processing is awful, i had to turn off all the chromatic aberration etc. starfield's post processing isnt much better but at least it isn't as jarring and headache inducing. the gun texture quality alone in this video shows how poor the outer worlds looks.
These are really cool comparision shots, you lined them up pretty well. Obviously Starfield just launched and Bethesda will add content and improve the game over time, I think once the dust settles and people can look at the game with a neutral lens, that's when we will truly understand the reception. The real comparision would be Outer Worlds 2, assuming that's coming out in 2025 and not 2027
Fam I mean no disrespect, but you think they'll add to Starfield? They've been re-releasing Skryim time and time again for 12 years on the same engine and haven't added an ounce of cut content. I'm sorry to say but this is as good as Starfield is going to get.
@jibbanibba2000 I've been playing games for 15+ years and specifically pc gaming for 8. It's very easy to focus on the few "subpar" launches and conflate that to the entire year when, in reality, there are thousands of great releases every year that are conveniently forgotten about
@@seriousbacon3676 thousands of these will never top proper AAA games we had back in the day From Assasins Creed to Fallout 3, its all gone Each year was filled with such hits till it somehow stopped in 2015 or a bit later 2023 was actually big, but anything before that? Like what was the game? Cyberpunk 77? Its been 3 years by now.
@jibbanibba2000 take off the nostalgia blinders for one. It's normal to think your classics are the best, but in reality, it's not always true. 2016 we had Persona 5, 2017 had BoTW, 2018 had God of War, 2019 was Sekiro and Ace Combat 7, 2020 was FF7 Remake, 2021 had Resi Village (admittadly a slower year for triple A), and 2022 was Elden Ring and GoW Ragnarok. That's only AAA releases, there's been *plenty* of indie titles that put a lot of old classics to shame. Shit, we even have the non-english part of gaming, where the highest rated visual novel of all time released in 2018.
![The Outer Worlds - Не Fallout от Боярского ! [Обзор]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/c6A0XMY76Oo/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Outer Worlds - Не Fallout от Боярского ! [Обзор]](/img/tr.png)
I think the reason Outer worlds looks better is the use of color and contrast. Starfield looks so bland and monotone that it does not invite you in at all to explore.
sometime it is the reverse, in interior outer worls feel too saturated, and i prefer the green plant color on starfield. still they both have good and bad point to each one
hablas de monotonia cuando en the outer world s en todos los planetas son los mismos enemigos, armas, armaduras, vegetacion, estructuras etc y ademas de planetas donde los recorres muy rapido dejando de lado al poco de llegar
The story and setting in Outer Worlds totally kick Starfield's ass imho. Graphics aren't necessarily "better", but the environments are for sure prettier and world design is much more detailed and creative...also, it's funny as heck with great writing and characters...unlike Starfield.
I think Starfield could have been a much better game than it is if Bethesda, instead of thousands of generated planets and unnecessary mechanics, had made it much smaller in scale, but focused more on the story, characters and the world.
it is better because it is from obsidian.
This is like looking at postcards from The Bahamas on a sunny day vs London on a rainy day.
The outer worlds is a very underrated game i just like that you can kill 99% of the people in the game
I'm convinced they stole some of the Outer Worlds set design especially the bars.
Not sure about that, maybe its just because i tried to find similar locations for comparison as in Starfield there are many different cities and planets. The one mostly used in video is Akila city which is decorated in kind of an old-fashioned style, close to The Outer Worlds' one
They stole the main quest to and added it as a side mission
The Outer Worlds is a real RPG game, like it or not , that's what it is...
Starfield must have been made to launder dirty money, i don't have other explanations for such garbage.
Idk, both are good, just different
Obsidian showed up Bethesda once again...
One is a sci fi rpg game and the other is starfield.
The outer worlds was made on Unreal engine 4. Starfield was made on Creation Engine 2. There is a strong difference in time and game engines.
It's strange that they chose these two games to compare, especially since it's graphics only. Outer Worlds is more stylized and colorful while Starfield aims for a more photorealistic look. It would've made more sense to compare Starfield to Star Citizen graphicswise. Unless the OP wants to showcase beauty in different art styles.
Yeah, they are pretty different in terms of visuals but quite close in terms of genre and setting, so that was the main reason for comparison
😮 remember the outer worlds team is the fallout New Vegas team so who's ever left in Bethesda is basically nobody
Cartoonish art style vs real approach art style. I love both.
Starfield clearly has better graphics. And higher resolution textures. Looks sharper too. However it looks like shit in comparison because OW has a style, while starfield looks super sterile and generic. Style is memorable, generic is forgettable.
And the worst thing about it is that OW was never really hyped. It was always like a fallout clone of sorts. And I played it and it was a solid game.
Starfield was probably one of the most hyped games ever besides cyber punk. And it didn't bring anything new or remotely compelling. All the limitations that OW has, a next generation version of the same game in starfield did not address whatsoever.
I remember wanting to be able to use the ship in OW and have the ability to visit a couple of planets. But that wasn't possible. Starfield for example didn't make a seamless experience, like no loading screens, to use the ssd. It still feels like a ps3 game at it's core. But they added a bunch of side stuff that has no content. Empty maps. Which I didn't want at all. Do like a solid 10 planets, and that is more than enough. Just make them packed with content. Make the option where you can drive to those planets and that's it. It's about hitting that perfect balance. But they suck so much at it that they simply cannot do it.
They don't know what fun is. These stupid devs. It's like that movie where Tom Hanks is a kid that gets a body of an adult. And then goes to a toy company and pitches them these great ideas for toys. Because he's a kid and knows what kids want. And we need something like that with these devs and games. Like they have a skill of making games, yet they're original and creative like an ass. They are able to make these large simulated environments, but they cannot make anything fun to do in those environments. It's just shooting, and possibly offering real life board games inside these simulated environments.
the outer worlds post processing is awful, i had to turn off all the chromatic aberration etc. starfield's post processing isnt much better but at least it isn't as jarring and headache inducing. the gun texture quality alone in this video shows how poor the outer worlds looks.
These are really cool comparision shots, you lined them up pretty well. Obviously Starfield just launched and Bethesda will add content and improve the game over time, I think once the dust settles and people can look at the game with a neutral lens, that's when we will truly understand the reception. The real comparision would be Outer Worlds 2, assuming that's coming out in 2025 and not 2027
You mean Modders will fix it and ad new Content
Fam I mean no disrespect, but you think they'll add to Starfield? They've been re-releasing Skryim time and time again for 12 years on the same engine and haven't added an ounce of cut content. I'm sorry to say but this is as good as Starfield is going to get.
Fam I mean no disrespect, but it's kind of sad people expect AND accept unfinished products from AAA devs.
@@theodoresherman5707 Not only that, they didn't try to rerelease older Titels as Remaster like Daggerfall, Morrowind or Oblivion.
Or Bethesda can make a not boring bland game?
I thought people hated The Outer Worlds.
Never seen anyone hate Outer Worlds but majority hates Starfield instead
yea the outer worlds looks better but its still boring as fuck even the gunplay is 15 years old
Amazing some people.. MOST people think Outerworlds looks better ??!! People are sick.
How come gaming sucks so much we are left to compare visuals of mediocre games
Such a shortsighted twitter take. Gaming is doing fantastic, anyone who actually enjoys the hobby says as much
@@seriousbacon3676 easy to say so when you has not been there 10 years ago and lack common sense to compare things
@jibbanibba2000 I've been playing games for 15+ years and specifically pc gaming for 8. It's very easy to focus on the few "subpar" launches and conflate that to the entire year when, in reality, there are thousands of great releases every year that are conveniently forgotten about
@@seriousbacon3676 thousands of these will never top proper AAA games we had back in the day
From Assasins Creed to Fallout 3, its all gone
Each year was filled with such hits till it somehow stopped in 2015 or a bit later
2023 was actually big, but anything before that? Like what was the game? Cyberpunk 77? Its been 3 years by now.
@jibbanibba2000 take off the nostalgia blinders for one. It's normal to think your classics are the best, but in reality, it's not always true.
2016 we had Persona 5, 2017 had BoTW, 2018 had God of War, 2019 was Sekiro and Ace Combat 7, 2020 was FF7 Remake, 2021 had Resi Village (admittadly a slower year for triple A), and 2022 was Elden Ring and GoW Ragnarok. That's only AAA releases, there's been *plenty* of indie titles that put a lot of old classics to shame. Shit, we even have the non-english part of gaming, where the highest rated visual novel of all time released in 2018.