1y ago

Bethesda says most of Starfield's 1000+ planets are dull on purpose because 'when the astronauts went to the moon, there was nothing there' but 'they certainly weren't bored'

www.pcgamer.com Bethesda says most of Starfield's 1000+ planets are dull on purpose because 'when the astronauts went to the moon, there was nothing there' but 'they certainly weren't bored'

Exploring is supposed to be a reward in itself.

Bethesda says most of Starfield's 1000+ planets are dull on purpose because 'when the astronauts went to the moon, there was nothing there' but 'they certainly weren't bored'

Sure Todd, lol

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

253 comments

Games aren't real life??!
- No shit? That was the point
  Astronauts aren't bored in space because they're busy trying not to die. games don't kill you when you fuck up or something goes wrong
  
  Yes, they do, just not for real. Why would you expect it to kill you for real? What an absurd standard. You're supposed to be scared for your character's life, not your own. They're the one in space, not you...
  Have you ever played games before?
  
  You do know this threat is about some dev saying the first guys on the moon weren't bored although there's basically just sand and rocks to be found? And that because of this it's fine most planets in a game are baren and uninteresting?
  The Bethesda guy compared the game to RL. I am just pointing out why this makes no sense.
  
  And what you said was incorrect.
  In RL most of the "excitement" in space comes from not wanting to fuck up and die. Games don't have that, Todd.
  So many games are all about the struggle to not fuck up and die, and they are plenty tense even though they don't affect your real body. Ever played Subnautica? I'm not actually underwater but I'm scared of drowning.
  I don't know why the fact that a game can't actually kill you doesn't mean it can't try to introduce tension.
  Yeah, planets being barren is shit and realism is a shit excuse for it, but it's kinda irrelevant to your "games don't have dying" point, which would apply even if planets were designed better
  
  Dude... You're even agreeing with me without realizing it. My point is, because a game can't create tension by threatening you with real death, it needs to be interesting in some way.
  
  Again with this bizarre obsession with games killing people... did you just finish watching Stay Alive?
  No, that is not the reason games need to be interesting. No ove ever wanted games to kill people, dude.
  
  It's a reason why the astronauts weren't bored on the moon. The fear of death. Games don't have that and that is one of the reasons games need to be interesting and can't be dull like the moon. I'll just rephrase the same thing over and over for you. I do see some things may appear challenging to understand for some.
  Read the title of the article and you may be able to piece things together: Bethesda says most of Starfield's 1000+ planets are dull on purpose because 'when the astronauts went to the moon, there was nothing there' but 'they certainly weren't bored'
  
  Games have fear of death the same way films and books do.
  It's fiction.
  It's not real.
  We are already aware of this.
  Idk why this needs to be explained to you.
  
  Exactly! Now go tell Todd that his game isn't real and therefor his example "astronauts on the moon weren't bored although the moon is dull" doesn't make any sense.
  It's like you're getting there without actually ever getting there.
  
  Of course it makes sense. That's just how games work. You're pretending you're in space, and even though you aren't actually running our of oxygen, your character is. You feel tension for your character.
  Y'know playing COD doesn't mean you're actually at war, right?

253 comments