Gaming

629 readers

13 users here now

Sub for any gaming related content!

Rules:

1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Metallinatus@lemmy.ml

peternile@lemmy.ml

350

Bethesda says most of Starfield's 1000+ planets are dull on purpose because 'when the astronauts went to the moon, there was nothing there' but 'they certainly weren't bored' (www.pcgamer.com)

submitted 2 years ago by thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca to c/gaming@lemmy.ml

77 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Sure Todd, lol

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

[–] Joker 3 points 2 years ago

We have a culture of edgy hot takes so I think that’s where a lot of this is coming from. Space is huge and it’s expected that a lot of it is empty and boring. Filling things out with randomly generated planets is awesome as long as the main story ones get some TLC. They did that.

The game has some rough edges like terrible inventory management and clunky menus, but there are so many good parts that I think it won’t be much of an issue. I expect they will smooth some of it out with patches.

Overall, the game reminds me of Mass Effect. That first game was janky as hell, but the world building and characters were so good that it didn’t matter. I’m impressed with Starfield so far. It looks like they nailed the most important parts.