IS

no man's sky, a game that came out half a decade a go from an indie studio could do it. and this AAA game resulting from a large studio acquisition that will come out in the next few years can't? fucking lol

>This goofy children's game is more advanced than Bethesda's magnum opus
Yikes

Does no man sky have random encounters?
Plus you can use this method for questing to load the location on an ad hoc basis.

If it was a simistic space exploeation game it would make sense. It isn't .

Does starfield have random encounters? Why would random encounters be something that would prevent planetary landing?

if it had seamless landing/leaving the planet, then that would imply being able to freely fly across the planet's surface
the problem is that the planets arent actually one big world, they're small sections you are allowed to visit. you won't be able to land in one section and then just walk across the entire planet to get to the other section, you'll be confined to that sector alone

Wait what? The planets' surfaces aren't surfaces? What the fuck?

what, you thought they'd make a game where you could actually freely explore 1000 life sized planets in their entirety?
we're talking bethesda here. it's going to be a major disappointment like always

It wouldn't.
Hitting X to land to trigger it just makes more sense than placing enough spawn points on the surface of a thousand planets.
Unless you think that is a better use of manhours.

just have random encounters spawn in somewhere near the player. Planetary landing isn't gonna stop that. Hell you could have a cool sequence where pirates try to attack you as you attempt to land on a planet. Planetary landing and being able to land anywhere would make it way more interesting than having some zone load in and 1/10 zones be some random encounter.

Were you really looking forward to landing on a planet and walking around the circumference of the planet back to where you started?
A journey that depending on the size if the planet could take years.
Knowing that this may not be the case you are now disappointed?

You don't have to walk around the entire planet, just knowing that you can is cool enough. Just look at every other space game out there that does this - NMS, Star citizen, Elite dangerous, etc. What you'd likely do is fly to a specific location on the planet and explore around, fly around, etc.

So placing upwards of 100000 spawn points per planet for 1000 planets us a good use of time for the dev team?
Time to stop playing amateur game dev.

The spawn points could be a part of the procedural generation process

No, you go down to the planets via ladders.

Waste of manhours.
A question.
How much time do you expect each player player, on average, to spend on each planet?

>Generic
>Generic
>Generic
>Boring
>Boring
>Boring
This is all I can think when I saw the trailer and gameplay. This shit looks like FO4 but in space but without all the things that make the FO ip unique and recognizable. Starfield on the other hand looks like generic Hollywood sci-fi like Interstellar or The Martian. The combat looks so incredibly dull and boring just generic shooting but with a jet pack. Fucking dime and dozen gameplay. I was hoping that Starfield was gonna be a space opera like setting with space magic and alien empires etc. Not this boring "realistic" shit. They didn't even bother to put in cybernetics/cyberpunk shit to spice up combat.

Attached: 1655084525343.jpg (1024x410, 78.27K)

Which actually I'm sure they already are given that I'm expecting when you land on a part of the planet, it's all procedurally generated.

I love how hard you are trying to rationalize the game being last gen when this is all technology that already exists in modern space games. Star Citizen was able to do it without worrying about how long they expect people to be on a planet, why can't Starfield?

cause star citizen and no mans sky has it

I wouldnt say its seamless, it doesnt take a smooth brain to realise the lightspeed animations are just disguised loading screens.

What game?

Cybernetics are in the game, you see them mentioned in the traits

No, obviously not.

Nothing, it fell deep into devhell. It was going to be BG&E2/the prequel, but it long since fell apart.

Why obviously not?

TICK TOCK CHRIS ROBERTS

I appreciate them respecting my time. If you want to spend the next decade walking around Jupiter I hope you find a game that lets you.

Beyond good and evil

Because they showed in the gameplay trailer that you have to choose from a menu where to land on the planet. They said you can land anywhere, but you have to pick a spot based off a rotating planet map. So it means you can't seamlessly land on a planet. But on the upside, it does mean that the entire planet is "explorable".

You make it seem like it's more interesting to pick a random location on a planet to spawn into and hope that you get a particular encounter that you're looking for rather than finding it yourself. Where's the exploration in that?

Starfield is actually a game not just a proof of concept demo.

why the fuck would you want that? no really, why the fuck would you dumb niggers need to land your ship from outerspace. its fucking boring

>But on the upside, it does mean that the entire planet is "explorable".
Not necessarily. It could just be that you pick a point to land and the game generates a zone around that landing zone for you to explore, and picking another landing point generates another random zone, so you might not actually be "exploring" a continuous planet surface, but just sampling random generated zones with the same biome.

This game was too ambitious for its own good. Definitely wasn't possible last gen, not even really possible this gen. And once Ancel left, it lost all chance of coming out.
They should have just made a faithful sequel to BG&E, a charming action-adventure title. I get that BG&E was originally a lot grander and BG&E2 was supposed to be Ancel's "true vision", but it was never going to work out.

We get it, you hate space games.

>star citizen
huh? is it already out and I missed it somehow?

But Star Citizen demos actually work, you can play them, the only reason they're not finishing the game is because they fell into the gravy train and get millions from easily scammed retards by selling them ships and have no reason to actually finish it.

The gameplay aspect you consider unrealistic has already been done, that hill has been conquered, they just kept adding more unnecessary shit instead of just fleshing it out with content, but the game actually works. Why couldn't Bethesda conquer that hill before fleshing out Starfield's content?