Because games are an interactive medium, in an action game, you're basically responding to visual information on screen, making a judgment, and responding to it by performing input.

The more frames that happen per second, the more information you're able to receive in the same amount of time, which is why frames are most important in driving games, fighting games, or twitch shooters. Things happen very fast in those games, so having less frames a second puts you at a small, but very real disadvantage.

The visual info on screen also represents your inputs since you control it. In an action game, higher FPS means you see your character responding to your inputs more quickly, which feels perceptibly better.

You can get used to 30 FPS just fine, but certain, mostly action, games are simply better with higher FPS, whether you're the kind of person who cares or plays competitively or not. Believe it or not even going from 60 to 120 is still a noticeable change.

Tons of third party controllers for any system clone existing buttons, which is nice when the official controllers don't have that. Something interesting about doing this on a switch is that because each joy con is its own independent controller you can only map each joy con to an input from the same joy con, for example, the left wouldn't be able to map to face buttons, and the right wouldn't be able to map to the d pad.

I use a Steam Controller on PC and really enjoy being able to map anything to it which helps being able to play games how I want. Cloning buttons is great for the whole "retain joystick movement while hitting a face button", but without being able to directly map different game controls to it it's just a copy of an existing function you already have.

I would love for grip buttons to be normalized and allow for more controls in games, it's pretty much the last part of my hands that aren't doing anything on a modern controller layout.

I've only ever heard players saying they love the shit out of it and haven't seen anyone saying they ended up disliking it or growing bored. I'd like to know people's generally play hours, though, too

The actual act of doing it gets old, but I do like the fact that you can't fast travel out of a situation in ED, it means if you go on a deep space expedition to make discovery money you are gonna be in DEEP SPACE, and you better be fucking prepared with a ship spec'd specifically for it because you do not want to turn around and give up because you couldn't fuel scoop or make a jump.

You definitely get a feeling of being a very small person in the galaxy with lots of things going on far away that you'll never see, and having limited fuel and constant frameshift jumps allows for more mechanics and complexity like fuel scooping or being interdicted.

Starfield lets you go wherever at a moment's notice which makes the galaxy feel very small comparatively and lacks stakes for exploration and jump range (along with the infinite fuel), reducing the need to have specialized ships. It also allows you to miss out on some random events that only happen when a ship in orbit with you hails you on comms. You miss those experiences if you fast travel past them all, which is echoed in other Bethesda titles with their own random encounters during travel that can be missed due to fast travel.

That being said, it's a Bethesda fantasy version of space, you want to do fun space opera things and having hardcore travel might clash with that, I can understand why it wasn't implemented that way. For example, no one mentions this, but I fucking LOVE bethesda's save system of saving the exact state of everything in the universe in that exact moment. Im a filthy save scummer and I love it. I like being able to save scum difficult space battles, and I don't think you can do that in most other hardcore space games, but I'm so grateful that I can here.

I mean, there are parts of the game's major criticisms that are understandable and do impact the game experience in a way. The worst one for me is the lack of a local map. I've gotten lost in cities or complexly laid out buildings a number of times already, which is, suffice to say, not enjoyable and nigh on unforgivably clumsy to experience repeatedly.

I'll forgive, or even enjoy, say, Dark Souls for the same thing because it's not as complicatedly laid out and the world is smaller and much more visually distinct in its areas to make it up on the back end, along with the entire design ethos being very hands off in terms of delivering info to the player, which sets a standard compared to Starfield's polished to a sheen experience, which suddenly becomes less so in other spots, creating a negative contrast.

Others, like the lack of seamless planet to space transitions were never advertised, and though having them certainly increases immersion, visual spectacle, and thus perceived enjoyment and value of a game, is not really important in the grand scheme unless you wrongly expected it. I don't have enough time to worry about a planet transition, I'm thinking about what I'm gonna do there and what I'm gonna do next within the gameplay itself. With this sort of criticism, the game would be undoubtedly better with such a feature if it wouldn't have delayed development too significantly to implement, which no one can really say for sure.

Then there are criticisms like the fact that planets are limited in scale and you can't fly your ship close to the ground on the surface, which is just wildly beyond the scope of what Bethesda would be able to deliver and still say it's the same game. That would've been so complex it would've sacrificed other features undoubtedly, and shows more about a given player's desire for "Starfield 2: We Added all That Space Sim Stuff People Wanted that we couldn't before because we'd end up like Star Citizen" than it really does about Starfield's successes or failures in the features it explicitly attempted to deliver.

The article suggests it's strictly for smartphone apps. Could just be vague wording on the part of the article, but I struggle to understand how this would be as feasible for console or PC releases.

The issue would be believing anything not explicitly said or shown in a pre release showcase. You don't expect anything not extremely, extremely obvious or you just let yourself down and then blame the studio for underdelivering.

A bunch of that is of course the fault of marketing itself, but this goes for almost anything marketed ever, beyond video games.

That's the fallacy of trying to understand criminal acts. For the most part, if someone were as smart, logical, and thoughtful as you are when you imagine the best way to commit murder, the kind of person to actually try and commit the murder would not be as smart, logical, or thoughtful to have gotten into that situation in the first place.

There are exceptions, of course, but it's enough of a possibility that it's probably better to take them seriously than not.

Edit: typed all that, scrolled down, some other dude already said it

Finally, we can officially say this is the best Mario Kart.

It seems reactionary, they probably waited to see what the biggest fuss would be, then responded by saying that's now a priority. And if someone actually suggested them posting publicly about those issues before it was a snafu I'm sure any PR department would look at you like you had two heads and say "what are you, a fucking idiot? Don't admit defeat publicly before the consumer base brings it up first"

It's totally normal, and might be unavoidable. It seems like you're uploading your art not just to show your creative output, but to feel validation. You want to know that your art is good and well-liked, and that people enjoy that art just as much as they enjoy any other art online.

You could try to do something like only post your art to a website that you use as a portfolio where the numbers dont exist and you're not really competing with others on the same platform for visibility. That may not work if it's truly about validation, as you couldn't just put that away without needing to transplant the validation somewhere else in your life.

Your best option might be to try and more thoroughly engage with whatever community you already have in an effort to make the engagement that you already have feel enough. Maybe something like drawing requests of dumb ideas people have, just for fun, to get them commenting and have you draw something that's just for the viewers and not for a higher level of art and engagement.

Hey, dude, don't drag the obbys into this... I admit it, I like a good obby