Starfield, Bethesda Game Studios’ highly anticipated open-galaxy space RPG, promised a universe filled with thousands of detailed and explorable planets. However, as the game launched, it’s clear that there’s been some sort of disconnect between what certain audiences understood of the size of each planet and what Bethesda was trying to achieve.
Make no mistake, each planet in Starfield is massive. The only problem is that the ambiguous marketing and wording is setting false expectations among quick believers.
The good news is that they’re not necessarily a dealbreaker unless you’re expecting Starfield to be more like Star Citizen and/or No Man’s Sky and not its pseudo-predecessors, The Elder Scrolls and Fallout.
The introduction of planets in Starfield led many to draw comparisons to ambitious space sims like Star Citizen or even No Man’s Sky. Given the game’s AAA production value, the anticipations were naturally geared towards vast, physically simulated planets with an expansive sense of scale and immersion. Some even expected the game to offer a contiguous procedurally generated terrain where you could land your ship and just start exploring. The reality, however, is much more modest.
In Starfield, players select a landing spot and are then confined to a square-shaped terrain, roughly a kilometer or two wide, generated based on the planet’s overall biome data. What’s more, these patches of landscape, described as tiles, are not interconnected. Say you land on one tile and then decide to relocate to a neighboring tile; you’ll find that the new landscape doesn’t continue seamlessly from where you left off. It’s generated as a separate entity. This impacts the feeling of an explorable, cohesive world and limits your ability to see landmarks in the distance and then land there to investigate.
Given these limitations, the game feels closer to Mass Effect 2, where planetary explorations were based on individual, unconnected locations. But it’s not all doom and gloom. Despite these limitations, Starfield still offers a wide array of activities within these relatively limited areas. You can still do everything from scanning flora and fauna to gathering resources as well as explore abandoned outposts and even engage in Bethesda’s hallmark storytelling. In essence, it’s the RPG elements that come to the forefront, rather than the space sim aspects many had hoped for.
Expectations often run astray with AAA titles like Starfield, and part of the issue can indeed be traced back to the way the game was marketed. While there were mentions of tiles in interviews, the implications were never fully elaborated, leaving a lot for the audience to assume. This isn’t an unfamiliar strategy for Bethesda. They’re known for making the sort of carefully crafted statements that never directly misinform but do allow room for interpretation – a space where the imagination can fill in the blanks, sometimes too generously.
So, when players take their first steps on a planetary body in Starfield on September 6, their journey will be a lesson in managing expectations. Bethesda RPG loyalists, who were looking forward to Skyrim or Fallout in space, might find the limitations perfectly within reason. For them, the game delivers what it promised: a familiar Bethesda experience that’s transported to an extraterrestrial setting. But those expecting an expansive space sim on the scale of Star Citizen may feel the universe just got a little smaller.
Then again, if you dig deeper into how Bethesda marketed Starfield, the award-winning development team never did sell it as a space simulator – it’s an RPG first and it’s set in space.
The argument isn’t really about whether Starfield’s planetary exploration system is good or bad, but about how player expectations can paint perceptions of a game. Yes, the size and scope of Starfield’s planets may disappoint those who envisioned traversing an entire celestial body, but they may still offer enough depth and detail to make each landing a unique exploration experience. It’s all a matter of what you were looking for in the first place.
The interstellar debate also shows the risks and challenges tied to innovation in AAA titles. While crowdfunded ventures like Star Citizen aim to redefine what’s possible in video game worlds – even at the risk of not making business sense – established studios have to strike a balance between ambition and feasibility. It’s also a matter of resource allocation; while Microsoft might have deep pockets, it’s unlikely to grant Bethesda a blank check to challenge the innovation seen in games like, again, Star Citizen.
Ultimately, Starfield’s approach to planetary exploration doesn’t reinvent the wheel, but it’s within reason. Plus, you can fast travel to-and-fro as well.
Speaking of Starfield, Todd Howard recently thanked everyone behind the scenes as well as the fans for their support for Starfield. Finally, Microsoft continues to put emphasis on how important Starfield is to the future of the Xbox and the Game Pass.
