295
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 30 Dec 2023
295 points (98.0% liked)
Games
32602 readers
953 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Starfields world gen is realistic. Empty plants with empty caves dotted with mining facilities.... Yeah.. That's actually probably what space is going to look like lol. It's not something youd want in a video game though.
There is a particular thing that really irks me with starfield.
I enjoy it. I've spent 200+ hours in it.
But the planets/moons arent indicative of the range of things we might expect. Mountains, valleys, or planets with active tectonics, or oceans. etc. That little bit of added features on a few planets would he enough.
Take Earth for example. I feel like I should at least be able to visit landmarks like the grand canyon, Mount everest, or the Mariana trench (given what happened to Earth's atmosphere).