61
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 02 May 2024
61 points (89.6% liked)
PC Gaming
8568 readers
498 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Which is why smarter devs either keep all the action in space, or limit it to specific places in specific planets. Besides, do we really need to land on literal hellscape planets like Mercury or Venus?
I don't think the devs are making the decisions in AAA games like that. They're pretty much always just doing what they're told to do.
By devs I meant developer studios in general, not the actual coders.
Emil Pagliarulo and Todd Howard are pretty much the two "they say it, you do it" voices in Bethesda and, as far it's been shown, Microsoft was very hands off with how BGS handled Starfield.
In this specific case, it really looks like it was a case of terrible design decision from high up, either Todd or Emil, to "let the player land on every solid rock" and have half of them have human buildings
As a comparison, Elite Dangerous, which is not AAA, but as close to mainstream as a space game gets, is a game about space activities, including exploration, and it took ~6 years to release a DLC that added planetary landing, and that was super limited, too.