Bethesda says most of Starfield's 1000+ planets are dull on purpose because 'when the astronauts went to the moon, there was nothing there' but 'they certainly weren't bored'
Bethesda says most of Starfield's 1000+ planets are dull on purpose because 'when the astronauts went to the moon, there was nothing there' but 'they certainly weren't bored'
Exploring is supposed to be a reward in itself.
Sure Todd, lol
You're viewing a single thread.
Disclaimer: My comment is a reaction to the stuff Todd and his minions said in the article, not necessarily about the game itself. I haven't played Starfield yet. I just find the statements really weak and want to express why I see it that way.
Yeaaahh that's nice for maybe a couple of hours, but then it starts to get boring. That's not how you keep players engaged, although there are of course those who don't find that boring at all.
We're not astronauts, we're not there. Astronauts had the thrill of the voyage through space, stepping on the moon and feeling with ones own body how it is to walk on the moon's dust in low gravity. Also astronauts had and have a shitload of scientific equipment and experiments to carry out, i.e., a purpose beyond the mere jolly walking.
If they were just there for walking and that for days, weeks, months, they would get bored pretty fast as well.
Take a look at No Man's Sky. Similar problem. The procedural generation algorithm made planets look familiar after you've seen a couple. There is nothing new. Exploration became unrewarded. But Hello Games has massively improved on that over the years and produced a game where you can sink dozens of hours without getting bored so easily.
I have played Starfield.
The planets being mostly empty is fine. In fact, I think they're too full if anything. You're not meant to travel on the planet's surface for long. You explore a bit if you think you want to build an outpost there, but otherwise you just move on. Most of the "content" is in pre-built areas. Enemy encounters almost always take place in hand crafted facilities, and usually it'll be for some kind of quest so you land right near it.
The outpost system is where the procedural planets come in. You need to explore some to find the right spot to build with the resources you want. The content there is the building, not the planet. The landscape will effect it some, but mostly it's whatever you make of it.
That said, the outpost system fucking sucks right now. You have to send resources between outposts with "links", which take goods into a container and store them in linked containers. All solid goods go in one type, and the same for liquid, gas, and manufactured. I have all of my resources trickling into a main base, so I have all resources available there. This has caused my storage to back up and there's no way to filter out items you don't want. Then no resources can come in so you have to go to your storage and clear whatever is clogging it. There's also no way to delete items as far as I'm aware, so you just dump the excess resources on the ground where they'll remain forever. It's really stupid. This is my storage solution for now.
All the crates flow into the next one, so it's functionally one massive storage container, but with 15 seperate inventories I have to go through to get anything out. There's also no stairs object you can build, or anything like it, so I stacked cabinets into a sort of access staircase. It's really bad, but it's what works for now.
Just a tip if you start playing and build a main base, build it on a low gravity planet so you don't have as much of a problem if you stack stuff like this.
How the fuck did Beth have stairs in FO4/76 but forgot to add them in a game set hundreds of years in the future? What the seventy-dollar fuck?
That's the future Telvanni want!
At least if the Telvanni got their way I'd be able to levitate up to my crates! (I just realized, I may TCL to use the crates because there isn't a good alternative built into the game systems.)
Yeah, outposts seemed to me to be the thing that Starfield was designed and marketed around, but it's so jank. So many basic things missing and so many quality of life failures. It's like they didn't even test it themselves first.
Does it eventually give you a purpose or guide you to making an outpost, I haven't felt much of a need yet.
There's one part in the story that you need to build a thing in a shop or an outpost, but it doesn't require you to really build an outpost. I did it so I can have any supplies for upgrading things without too much effort. I think that was a mistake, but now I'm too invested. Lol.
I hope not, i came for the RPG, if i wanted to play worse version of minecraft i would just go play minecraft.
[accidentally attracting Satisfactory fans intensifies]
That reminds me of how annoyed I get with Satisfactory as well...
As a Factorio player, this could all be handled so much better in both games, but Starfield is particularly bad. It's like they never even tried building outposts before launch. So many basic functions are missing.
I gotta be honest this looks like Minecraft construction but even in Minecraft there are ways to sort out and destroy unwanted items
This sounds like factorio without the biters
Yeah, and without any way to actually manage the resources. I want to like it, but I see so many issues that should be easy to solve that they just didn't. Sure, it'll be fixed with mods and maybe DLC, but that shouldn't be required for basic UX.
Another one of my big gripes with outposts is that there is no way to view your existing outposts. There's not a list, and definitely no way to view what an outpost is producing. Hell, you can't even view what an outpost is producing when you're there. It'll tell you the total quantity produced of everything combined, but not of what. It's bad.
No Man's Sky still has the same problem it began with, although the landscapes are vastly improved. It doesn't matter what planet it is, there's nothing to distinguish it from the last planet other than what species owns the system, the flavor of hazard present, and the overall color.
No Man's Sky honestly has not enough planets with just dead barren empty planets. At least in Starfield, there's some magic in seeing actual fauna. You don't get that feeling in No Man's Sky because you've seen fauna and flora on the last 30 planets you've been to. You need those empty planets to make the planets with life actually feel special.
No Man’s Sky still has the same problem it began with, although the landscapes are vastly improved. It doesn’t matter what planet it is, there’s nothing to distinguish it from the last planet other than what species owns the system, the flavor of hazard present, and the overall color.
Regarding the variety and interesting features of the bare planets, I tend to agree. My point was rather that there is more to do now and the fun with - even familiar planets - lasts longer.
No Man’s Sky honestly has not enough planets with just dead barren empty planets.
This is not correct. The amount of more dead planets immensely depends on - spoiler alert -
spoiler
the galaxy you're in. NMS has different galaxies with different distributions for lush or dead planets. This also has some effects on the difficulty.
I don't want to have to beat the game in order to finally enjoy it.
You don't need to. There are different possibilities for switching galaxies. The simplest ones would be to use portals which is accessible very early in the game.
Okay, but from my understanding, in order to change galaxies, I have to find a portal, figure however to use the portal, and then switch galaxies.
For someone whose put in a few hours into the game multiple times as the game has been steadily updated, I didn't know about portals or even that switching galaxies was even a thing. So telling me I'm incorrect because it's NG+ COULD have fixed it for me is pretty disingenuous. How am I suppose to know that after going through 6 more galaxies that I can get what I wanted from the start?
Okay, but from my understanding, in order to change galaxies, I have to find a portal, figure however to use the portal, and then switch galaxies.
As soon as you can use the space anomaly (which happens very early) you already have a possibility. But apart from that, sure, it still takes a bit of effort and is not an option available when starting the game. The latter would be a nice idea though.
I didn't know about portals or even that switching galaxies was even a thing. [...] How am I suppose to know that after going through 6 more galaxies that I can get what I wanted from the start?
By using an internet search engine of your choice.
https://nomanssky.fandom.com/wiki/Galaxy_Centre#Travelling_to_other_galaxies
But I get what you mean as this is not clearly communicated right from the beginning in the game and something to be discovered. So your best chance to know this, besides doing the story missions, is to talk to other players or by curiously clicking on some suitable links in the NMS wiki.
I've played Starfield and it's fantastic. There's so much story. The world-bulding is different because there's literally 1000+ worlds and they're mostly uninhabited. I'm not sure what else you would expect. There are some huge, in-depth cities and some beautiful landscapes. But there's also empty deserts and plains, just like we see everywhere in space.
I expected to be able to fly my ship considering I am able to customize it
If you want the astronaut experience, play Kerbal Space Program 🚀
tell this to elite dangerous players
Yeah, the first thing I did when getting to the core was to generate an ancestral galaxy so that there would be more dead worlds. Didn't like having every place overrun with life.