This sentiment is familiar among both players and critics alike. This was further stoked when a former developer revealed last month that Starfield would have featured only a significantly smaller number of systems and planets, but Todd Howard overrode the team.
However, as the criticisms leveled towards what is otherwise seen as Bethesda’s most successful launch to date, the clamor that Starfield should’ve been smaller than what it is now becomes even stronger. One player recently took to Reddit to explain his stance on the matter.
In their post, user CodePandorumxGod said that Bethesda could’ve gained more had they gone easy on the procedural generation and developed a smaller yet hand-crafted set of content for Starfield.
For instance, they could’ve focused - at least at the beginning - on a single system full of planets with customized content. In their opinion, this approach could’ve minimized loading screens and fast travel, resulting in a more immersive experience for the player.
Many Redditors agreed with CodePandorumxGod’s sentiments, although some defended the game design, especially the planets.
Alluding to Todd Howard’s statements that some planets are intended to be barren, user __sonder__ pointed out that planets need to be at a specific distance from their star to be inhabitable. Thus, this is why many planets with content are spread out like they are in Starfield.
Following the same rule, reducing Starfield’s scale to just 20 systems would also reduce the number of planets with teeming life further than they already are.
Hopefully, Starfield will bounce back with the release of the promised updates or even the Shattered Space DLC. One Redditor even theorized that Shattered Space will add a fully handcrafted Va’Ruunkai as a central location for the additional content.
- READ MORE - Andreja Beats Mary Jane in Console ‘Bum’ Wars
For more articles like this, take a look at our Starfield Community page.