"1000+ planets are dull on purpose"
No, they're dull because no human team could make 1000 planets worth of interesting content in a single game development cycle.
this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
9 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
19967 readers
35 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
Chris Roberts : Hold my beer, for another 50 years.
They could at least make the random PoI's interesting if there was some..randomness to them.
Like, I walk into a PoI, I already know where the chests are, the locked doors, are, where the stupid fucking corpse in the shower is, etc etc. cause I've ran through this PoI 20 times.
I dont know why at least the locations of chests and locked doors cant be randomized. Make things at least marginally interesting, instead of cookie cuttered to extreme.
You can, but randomizing chests+locked doors is kinda complicated, and the more "interesting" your generations the harder it is to code and the more dev time it takes. And for a AAA game release you can't really do that.
Key+Lock randomization is something that has been solved, and has been used most notably in procedurally generated zeldalikes. But that's still niche indie territory, and not used for major game releases.
Hasn't this game been in development for like 5 years? And they built it on an existing engine that they have tons of experience with. You could have said "they were limited on how much they could randomize POIs because of the old engine" and I would have believed you because that sounds way more plausible than "it's hard to code, so AAA games can't do it". Like what?
The issue with procedural generation is the game has to be built for it from the ground up and in a modular way. AAAs try to make themselves appealing by using novel new high quality assets that aren't modular.
I haven't played starfield so idk what they ended up doing, but from the sound of it they have pre-made assets/areas that they then place onto pre-generated worlds in a randomized way.
To make one of these "areas" procedural in itself, they'd then have to code a whole system for that. With AAA/3D the hard part is making modular environments without it looking repetitive or ugly.
My point isn't so much that it can't be done in a AAA game. But rather that it's risky to do (not all players like it), and you have to structure your development around it. Lots can go wrong, there's stuff you gotta sacrifice to make it work, etc.
If starfield is on the old bethesda engine then that's even more of a reason. You can't just plug and play an entire procedural generation thing in there without some fairly large overhauls or just gluing on an unrelated system.
In practice, bethesda probably took the lazy route: using their existing engine without major changes, then just making new assets for it, throwing stuff about a bit randomly, and calling it a day.
That's the thing about procedural generation is: it's a lot of effort and sucks up a huge part of the game's development and comes at some pretty strict costs (repetitive looking environments/gameplay, reduced novelty, larger programming dev time to make it work). It can be done, but for a cost-cutting AAA studio they're not gonna bother.
Exploring is supposed to be a reward in itself
Oh yes, exploring 6 levels of nested menus is incredibly rewarding
I have no clue what people are talking about? I have beaten it twice and surveyed an entire solar system and there was plenty. You can fly around to any point in most planets and moons and have stuff generate at each landing, within hiking distance.
I feel like the game is so big and good, the haters are just hating and being stupidly immature about it.
Everything in the game is "within hiking distance" because that's how the game generates planets. You don't just "land on a planet". You go through several hidden loading screens and arrive in a 1km x 1km square of planet.
Disclaimer: My comment is a reaction to the stuff Todd and his minions said in the article, not necessarily about the game itself. I haven't played Starfield yet. I just find the statements really weak and want to express why I see it that way.
Yeaaahh that's nice for maybe a couple of hours, but then it starts to get boring. That's not how you keep players engaged, although there are of course those who don't find that boring at all.
We're not astronauts, we're not there. Astronauts had the thrill of the voyage through space, stepping on the moon and feeling with ones own body how it is to walk on the moon's dust in low gravity. Also astronauts had and have a shitload of scientific equipment and experiments to carry out, i.e., a purpose beyond the mere jolly walking.
If they were just there for walking and that for days, weeks, months, they would get bored pretty fast as well.
Take a look at No Man's Sky. Similar problem. The procedural generation algorithm made planets look familiar after you've seen a couple. There is nothing new. Exploration became unrewarded. But Hello Games has massively improved on that over the years and produced a game where you can sink dozens of hours without getting bored so easily.
I have played Starfield.
The planets being mostly empty is fine. In fact, I think they're too full if anything. You're not meant to travel on the planet's surface for long. You explore a bit if you think you want to build an outpost there, but otherwise you just move on. Most of the "content" is in pre-built areas. Enemy encounters almost always take place in hand crafted facilities, and usually it'll be for some kind of quest so you land right near it.
The outpost system is where the procedural planets come in. You need to explore some to find the right spot to build with the resources you want. The content there is the building, not the planet. The landscape will effect it some, but mostly it's whatever you make of it.
That said, the outpost system fucking sucks right now. You have to send resources between outposts with "links", which take goods into a container and store them in linked containers. All solid goods go in one type, and the same for liquid, gas, and manufactured. I have all of my resources trickling into a main base, so I have all resources available there. This has caused my storage to back up and there's no way to filter out items you don't want. Then no resources can come in so you have to go to your storage and clear whatever is clogging it. There's also no way to delete items as far as I'm aware, so you just dump the excess resources on the ground where they'll remain forever. It's really stupid. This is my storage solution for now.
All the crates flow into the next one, so it's functionally one massive storage container, but with 15 seperate inventories I have to go through to get anything out. There's also no stairs object you can build, or anything like it, so I stacked cabinets into a sort of access staircase. It's really bad, but it's what works for now.
Just a tip if you start playing and build a main base, build it on a low gravity planet so you don't have as much of a problem if you stack stuff like this.
Does it eventually give you a purpose or guide you to making an outpost, I haven't felt much of a need yet.
I hope not, i came for the RPG, if i wanted to play worse version of minecraft i would just go play minecraft.
I still haven't found a completely empty planet, there is always outposts, abandoned mines or caves with space pirates or other factions. Every time I walk to a point there is like 3 more points you can just explore endlessly
This particular point really annoys me, I'd love to have somewhere that actually feels remote, where I don't have four more copies of the same mining and science outposts in visual range. No matter how large humanity has become it just doesn't make any sense that you can't find a single ~15km square without anything man made on it.
The best remote places I've found so far has been in some quest-specific areas, but even then there's usually a facility somewhere within a kilometer of the quest location.
Todd forgets this is a game and not real life where you have to train and study for 30 years to go to the moon. He forgot that the main intricacy is the stories you can make for the player.
Like assassins creed has big cities. Which feel dead, not enjoyable.
In RL most of the "excitement" in space comes from not wanting to fuck up and die. Games don't have that, Todd.
Some do, but they make it their main draw. The reason Kerbal Space Program is fun, is fun because you can fuck up and die in a million different ways, and not doing so is chalenging and succes is rewarding while failure is hilarious(ly frustrating).
Not fucking up and dying in Starfield means pressing the Use Healthpack frequently enough.
Imagine a realistic KSP with AAA graphics, like replicating historic missions and planned ones, etc.
I really don't understand all the negative comments. It feels like a very fun game and I can't wait to play it again.