Comment

Comment on Some of Starfield’s planets are meant to be empty by design - but that’s not boring, Bethesda insists

Yea that’s my main problem so far, I don’t understand how NMS and space engineers both allow seamless travel from space to atmosphere but this major studio game forces me to open up the map and select land. Hopefully a mod fixes it because this is pretty atrocious for $70

source

Sort:hotnew top

Skiptrace@lemmy.one ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
It’s an engine limitation. The Engine that Bethesda holds onto with an iron fist is what hampers their games.

However, the opposite side of the coin is, that it makes them super easy to modify, so people can make their own additions. Because Starfield is using the same engine as Skyrim and Fallout 4.

source
- ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I don’t know if a better, modded flight system would be possible really. That looks like something so ingrained into the foundation of Starfield it would have had to be changed during production
  
  source
- c0c0c0@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  This is why I cut them slack. I’d rather have the clunky mechanics than lose the vibrant modding platform.
  
  source
Dax87@forum.stellarcastle.net ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I haven’t played NMS, but watched a lot of videos regarding simulating planets, atmosphere (and transitioning to-from space) around the time it was hyped, and assumed that’s what NMS is doing. Which is (maybe? I haven’t played) why you can walk around the whole planet, and take off and turn around and see that same planet from space without loading, etc.

NMS as I understand it is a simulation first, sandbox second.

Starfield sounds like Spacerim if anything.

source
nico@lepoulsdumonde.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
@JJROKCZ @NOT_RICK @starfield this will never be modded
source