132
Some of Starfield’s planets are meant to be empty by design - but that’s not boring, Bethesda insists (www.rockpapershotgun.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/starfield@lemmy.zip
129 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 3 years ago (5 children)

Yea that’s my main problem so far, I don’t understand how NMS and space engineers both allow seamless travel from space to atmosphere but this major studio game forces me to open up the map and select land. Hopefully a mod fixes it because this is pretty atrocious for $70

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    It's an engine limitation. The Engine that Bethesda holds onto with an iron fist is what hampers their games.

    However, the opposite side of the coin is, that it makes them super easy to modify, so people can make their own additions. Because Starfield is using the same engine as Skyrim and Fallout 4.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago*

    I haven't played NMS, but watched a lot of videos regarding simulating planets, atmosphere (and transitioning to-from space) around the time it was hyped, and assumed that's what NMS is doing. Which is (maybe? I haven't played) why you can walk around the whole planet, and take off and turn around and see that same planet from space without loading, etc.

    NMS as I understand it is a simulation first, sandbox second.

    Starfield sounds like Spacerim if anything, with instanced planets that are separate from space. At ground level, planets are just flat planes and you only explore a small, generated chunk at one loaded instance. It's not actually a spherical planet when on the ground.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent