Starfield

2870 readers

1 users here now

Welcome to the Starfield community on Lemmy.zip!

Follow instance rules (no spam, keep it civil and respectful, be constructive, tag NSFW)

Helpful links:

Spoiler policy:

No spoilers in titles; if you want to share images with spoilers, preferably post the image in the body of the post. If you do make an image post, mark it NSFW.
Add [Spoilers] to your title if there will be untagged spoilers in the post.
Game mechanics and general discoveries (ship parts, weapons, etc) don't need a spoiler tag.
Details about questlines and other story related content are spoilers. Use your best judgement!

Post & comment spoiler syntax:

&lt;spoiler here>

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

101

Rating down at 77% (store.steampowered.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

143 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I must say it is not the best RPG out there, but I feel like it would have earned more. I personally have a lot of fun playing.

While it was not a Cyberpunk-grade overhype, I think it must still have been overhyped. Because if you see it as Skyrim with better graphics, it is pretty much what you'd expect.

Some of the common criticism seems to be intrinsic to the sci-fi genre. In Skyrim, you walk 100 meters and then you find some cave or camp or something that a game designer has placed there manually with some story or meaning behind it. And as a player, you notice that, because most locations in Skyrim feel somehow unique. Even though for example the dungeons have rooms that repeat a lot. Having a designer place them manually with some thought gives them something unique.

In interstellar sci-fi, a dense world like this is simply impossible. Planets are extremely large so filling them manually with content is simply not possible. And using procedural generation makes things feel meaningless. Players notice that fast. So instead, Starfield opted for having a few manually constructed locations that are placed randomly on planets, unfortunately with a lot of repetition. But that is a sound compromise, given the constraints of today's game development technology. The dense worlds that we are used to from other genres simply don't scale up to planetary scale, and as players, we have to get used to that.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They chose to make real systems and have huge planets, it doesn't matter if there's 10, 100, 1000 planets if they are all barren and empty.

Barren and empty worlds have their place in such game. If nothing more, you need contrast between lush worlds and empty rocks/iceballs to make the former stand out. I think I can call myself an Elite vet at this point with 3000 hours in, and all the landable worlds, of which there are literally more than a trillion, are barren. They still offer gorgeous views and are essential for creating the appropriate artificial lonelyness of virtual space exploration. Also, geology spotting, jetpack mountaineering and base jumping can be a fun activity during long expeditions.

Also, barren worlds will be the playgrounds for modders. Skyrim had a problem that squeezing in modded larger playerhomes and settlements was often really hard task and created tons of incompatibilites. Basically no such concerns in Starfield.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Even the less barren ones you walk 900m to a cave, just to find like 2 corpses in there. Barren worlds are useful for the reason you mentioned, but they didn't need 1000 planets that they clearly struggled to do anything with.