182
Starfield Desperately Needs More Unique Locations
(www.thegamer.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
182 points (94.2% liked)
Games
16497 readers
510 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Not that incorrect. Sure, it'll select from 15 different plants, 8 different creatures, and a handful of ground textures, but they're functionally the same unless you're building an outpost. There's really not anything I can do on one planet I can't do on another.
What I mean is that you're correct, but only in terms of randomly generated planets that don't have unique quest content or locations on them, which does exist, so not "every single planet is the exact same with minor cosmetic differences". Even the generated planets differ in mineral content and such.
I'm all for calling out Starfield where it deserves it, and variety of generated planets is one such place, but try not to be too over exaggerated and hyperbolic, there's enough to genuinely criticize that we don't need to do that.
Kinda odd youre kibitzing over completely deserved criticism because you can kind of nitpick about mineral deposits.
It's more that the difference between unique quest locations and city planets is being swept under the rug in order to just dunk harder on the game. It dunks hard enough on itself, I fundamentally dislike such blatant, hyperbolic misinformation, so I'm gonna be the change I wanna see in the world and call it out. Shit, the OP of the comment even admitted it was incorrect, just "not that" incorrect.
By city planets, you mean cities?
Obviously the cities arent procedural. But thats not something to hail and praise, thats just normal. Its no more swept under the rug than "at least the guns shoot bullets at the enemies, and eventually it makes them die" is being swept under.
I'm just glad it's been acknowledged now, so that people who aren't us that can say "obviously" know that there's more to it and it's not "every single planet is exactly the same".
Every single planet is the exact same.
The cities arent planets, as advertised for planetary exploration. Theyre cities. Preset prebuilt themed hubs meant for main quest check boxes and 2-5 side quests, with merchants.
When people say skyrim is filled with shit to do and explore, they dont mean "wowie zowie, those cities sure were designed by hand!" They mean that when they walk from the city to the quest waypoint, they bump into 50 different things to fuck around and do, and each is different and unique enough that it felt like you had 50 different things to do. And thats with the free criticism that skyrims dungeons were mildly samey and formulaic.
There isnt more to it. A technicality of the hub regions being on a planetary body doesnt change that the planets are all the same procedurally shuffled boxes.