I think the big issue with a personal preference of realism vs. Fantasy is that Starfield has no commitment to realism in its execution (I say this with 12 hours played before I gave up). It is very much made to cater to lowest common denominator in other space travel things. The ship movement is very primitive and simplified. Travelling to new solar systems, landing on a planet, etc. Is done through fast travelling on the map to connect the different cells. It does not feel immersive in the slightest to me, and I have really enjoyed the “realism” of games like Elite Dangerous in the past.
Most damning is the lack of environmental planet differences. The only affect of a planets negative traits is suit protection reduction. There is no life support, your oxygen is just a stamina system. There is no vehicles. You are just running across barren, boring, procedural planets with none of the pomp and circumstance of games that have done effective space exploration.
Maybe in 2 years of mods you might have a more realistic experience out of starfield.
Any Bethesda game is essentially a mod vehicle with an RPG tacked on anyway. I think it’s entirely on brand that they didn’t go all in on hard sci fi for vanilla. I don’t think that’s incompatible with having a lot of planets that are mostly barren filler; I’m never going to explore 1000 detailed planets, and rescuing someone from a crash on a barren moon or finding a smuggler base on a frozen rock helps to keep the more interesting places feeling cool. There are still more interesting planets than I’m likely to ever get through.
I can’t remember much of how Starfield was marketed but I remember the “1000 planets” thing being parroted a lot. Was the fact that these planets were going to be realistically portrayed and mostly empty wastelands something that was made clear during marketing?
They said that about 10% of planets would have life, and that one of the things they wanted to portray was an IRL astronaut’s quote of being in space as “magnificent desolation.”
deleted by creator
I think the big issue with a personal preference of realism vs. Fantasy is that Starfield has no commitment to realism in its execution (I say this with 12 hours played before I gave up). It is very much made to cater to lowest common denominator in other space travel things. The ship movement is very primitive and simplified. Travelling to new solar systems, landing on a planet, etc. Is done through fast travelling on the map to connect the different cells. It does not feel immersive in the slightest to me, and I have really enjoyed the “realism” of games like Elite Dangerous in the past.
Most damning is the lack of environmental planet differences. The only affect of a planets negative traits is suit protection reduction. There is no life support, your oxygen is just a stamina system. There is no vehicles. You are just running across barren, boring, procedural planets with none of the pomp and circumstance of games that have done effective space exploration.
Maybe in 2 years of mods you might have a more realistic experience out of starfield.
Any Bethesda game is essentially a mod vehicle with an RPG tacked on anyway. I think it’s entirely on brand that they didn’t go all in on hard sci fi for vanilla. I don’t think that’s incompatible with having a lot of planets that are mostly barren filler; I’m never going to explore 1000 detailed planets, and rescuing someone from a crash on a barren moon or finding a smuggler base on a frozen rock helps to keep the more interesting places feeling cool. There are still more interesting planets than I’m likely to ever get through.
deleted by creator
They said that about 10% of planets would have life, and that one of the things they wanted to portray was an IRL astronaut’s quote of being in space as “magnificent desolation.”
https://www.pcgamer.com/about-10-of-starfields-1000-planets-have-life-on-them-as-the-game-tries-to-capture-the-magnificent-desolation-of-space-says-todd-howard/