I've been getting inundated with Starfield related articles and posts on my socials, so I thought I would share one that made me go "hmmm." And not necessarily in a good way. According to this article, "only about 10% of planets will have life on them." This raises so many questions and isn't necessarily a bad thing (although my first reaction was to be a bit boggled).
One of those empty Mass Effect planets. |
If we're being realistic (I mean, as realistic as one can be when they're playing a space role-playing game that will undoubtedly feature a shocking array of penis-shaped ships and weapons thanks to the customizable nature of both), most planets in space would be barren and devoid of life. So, points for realism! Buuuut, from a gameplay perspective...umm, what exactly are players going to be doing on the 900 planets that don't have life? I'm vaguely hoping for something Mass Effect-like, where even if a planet is empty, there might be a bandit hideout to raid, artifacts to find, or resources to mine. Or something exploration related. I just hope they didn't decide to chock their game full of lame, empty planets so they could brag about those 1,000 planets...because it does sort of sound like that at points.
No Man's Sky tried to do the whole "infinite planets" deal and semi-succeeded at it. At least landing on those planets is somewhat interesting--there are always weird new critters, plants, and minerals to discover. I'm just not sure people are going to be into that fun "magnificent desolation" feeling that Mr. Howard seems to think will be so alluring. I think they're going to need more to keep them landing on all those desolate planets--like some smokin' hot loot.
So, again, I'm giving the side-eye to Starfield. I really do hope it turns out to be a modern RPG-masterpiece, but right now I'm gonna give it the ol' squinty look and totally distrust the hype. Beware the hype, folks!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.