• I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    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?

    • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.