ok, I'm not defending the 30fps cap, and I'm on record shitting on Bethesda for it... but that's a bad comparison. Horizon has basically no gameplay systems that aren't lifted from mid generation Xbox 360 games by Ubisoft.
it's an extremely simple game compared to even old Bethesda games like Skyrim.
Not necessarily true because every game is different and does stuff differently. For example, one can argue that Horizon has flying mounts, which require faster calculations and is something that Starfield doesn't do. Similarly, one can argue that Horizon has giant machines with destructable components that you can collect, use, and craft. The machine's attacks are also updated in real time based on the components you have taken off. That's a lot of processing. Starfield doesn't have that.
But to be clear, these are all stupid arguments.
Because as I said, no two games are similar. And one cannot argue that a game is less special than others. That's why I won't say that Starfield is a simple/less special game compared to Horizon, and vice versa.
The reason I posted this is because of the obvious fanboy-ish hypocrisy. The guy was criticizing why Sony even showed the Horizon gameplay footage in 30 FPS and why 30 FPS is so last-gen that it needed to be in the bin. And 30 FPS latency is so bad that it's not worth the time.
It wasn't Sony's "creative choice" to show the game at 30 FPS.
But now the arguments and narrative are completely shifted because it's a company that's his favorite.