127
Starfield's planets aren't all interesting, but they're not all "supposed to be Disney World" (www.vg247.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/gaming@beehaw.org
89 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

You'll probably find that a lot of planets in Starfield are pretty boring, but Bethesda says that's kind of the point.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 3 years ago (2 children)

It's a space exploration game with thousands of planet, they can depict planet being a barren rock and can be fun.

Personally i don't think all games are good, arguing with people parroting that is a waste of time. Personally Witcher 3 is mediocre, but i'm allowing people to love it and see it as 10/10. Game is personal taste, if you don't like that sort of thing then it isn't for you, no such thing as "all game is good".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    can depict planet being a barren rock and can be fun.

    And that will be good then. My point was, that games should sacrifice realism in favour of fun and criticism of "yeah it's boring, but it's realistic" is fundamentally wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    I think in Starfield case it's less of sacrifice fun for realism and more of having these realism for a reason. From the review alone, the location is boring, and that's by design, because you can either ignore it or interact with it, like gather resource or build a base. There's thousands of planet, it's not realistic to all be handcrafted and interesting, because what's interesting for the first 10 times will get boring when you do it 50 times.

    There's a reason why they design it that way, and i think it's rather fair for this sort of game.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent