• NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s really hard to fill a space game with content. It’s not that surprising that a lot of the world’s are empty. This is an issue for all space games, not just Bethesda.

    • William@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      I agree! Which is partly why so many people were surprised and excited that Bethesda took this challenge on. They failed at it.

    • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Which is why smarter devs either keep all the action in space, or limit it to specific places in specific planets. Besides, do we really need to land on literal hellscape planets like Mercury or Venus?

      • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t think the devs are making the decisions in AAA games like that. They’re pretty much always just doing what they’re told to do.

        • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          By devs I meant developer studios in general, not the actual coders.

          Emil Pagliarulo and Todd Howard are pretty much the two “they say it, you do it” voices in Bethesda and, as far it’s been shown, Microsoft was very hands off with how BGS handled Starfield.

          In this specific case, it really looks like it was a case of terrible design decision from high up, either Todd or Emil, to “let the player land on every solid rock” and have half of them have human buildings

          As a comparison, Elite Dangerous, which is not AAA, but as close to mainstream as a space game gets, is a game about space activities, including exploration, and it took ~6 years to release a DLC that added planetary landing, and that was super limited, too.