With thousands of planets to explore, Starfield, Bethesda Game Studios’ ambitious new RPG, wants to simulate the vast, eerie emptiness of space. For the most part, it’s successful. But, now that it’s out, a growing number of players seem to be torn over the game’s realism when it comes to planetary exploration.
Bethesda’s managing director Ashley Cheng and game director Todd Howard spoke candidly in a recent interview about the deliberately barren design of many in-game planets. The point, Cheng noted, was to make players feel small, emulating astronauts’ wonder when they set foot on barren celestial bodies like the moon.
This approach, although philosophically interesting, is a bit of a double-edged sword for players. In Bethesda’s previous games, such as Skyrim and Fallout, exploration was rewarded with a sense of awe and wonder. However, in Starfield, the ordinary, sparsely populated planets often lack points of interest beyond resources and outposts, leaving players asking the question, “Why would I bother exploring the universe?” This stark difference in gameplay dynamics has left even enthusiastic fans feeling that Starfield’s exploration isn’t as rewarding as it could be.
Cheng and Howard are well aware of the dichotomy. “When the astronauts went to the moon, there was nothing there. They certainly weren’t bored,” Cheng argued, suggesting that the joy in Starfield comes from the sheer act of discovery, even if what’s discovered is essentially “nothing.” Howard echoed this, emphasizing Bethesda decision to replicate the feeling of being a space explorer. Yet, there’s a world of difference between being an astronaut making history and the casual gamer who’s exploring their tenth empty planet in a row.
Moreover, there’s an issue of thematic inconsistency. Despite the emptiness, all planets have structures, detracting from the supposed realism. Hopefully, future patches might address these aforementioned thematic inconsistencies. It’s not like Bethesda didn’t try. Starfield has barren planets with nothing but natural formations, not unlike what’s in remote places in our own planet, Earth. These locations are often found at extremes in their proximity to the stars.
In a sense, there’s already a reward in Starfield for the more persistent explorer – it’s just that they’re too far and few in between.
Another potential flaw against Starfield’s “realism” is the lack of technical challenges associated with space travel within the game. Astronauts definitely weren’t bored because of the tremendous technical challenges they face and having the weight of the entire human race on their shoulders. In a nutshell, they were too focused on other more important stuff to be bored. On the other hand, Starfield’s space travel is nowhere near as challenging nor engaging.
Starfield’s fast travel options further diminish the sense of risk and wonder associated with venturing into the unknown. This lack of difficulty not only fails to capture the deadly nature of space but also makes the game’s travel mechanics feel closer to a road trip than a NASA mission.
Despite the criticisms, Starfield’s barren planets serve the game’s narrative well. The story thrives on themes of mystery and exploration into the unknown, and in that sense, the emptiness isn’t a bug – it’s a feature. From this perspective, the game captures a different, more existential aspect of space travel: the loneliness and insignificance one might feel in the vast, cosmic expanse.
But whether these thematic choices will ultimately satisfy gamers hungry for discovery and excitement remains unclear, especially given the sizable time investment required to fully experience the scope of the game.
As more players venture into Starfield’s universe following its official launch on September 6 on the Xbox Series S/X and PC, one thing is certain: its portrayal of space as a grand yet desolate frontier will continue to be a topic of heated discussion.
