Todd Howard had sold us all on the hook of “Hundreds of star systems, thousands of planets” while promoting the much-awaited Starfield several months ago. Who wouldn’t love the opportunity to pretend to be a big-time space explorer and conquer those systems?
Just two months after its release, however, Starfield players are finding more cause to think that Howard should have lowered the number of planets as suggested by a former developer instead of inserting thousands of procedurally-generated landscapes.
Howard would learn a lot if he took his time to read this Reddit thread by user csch1992.
The user opened his thread by stating that Starfield would’ve increased exponentially in quality and immersion had there been more cities than planets. He especially noted the lack of underground bases and towns, referencing another Bethesda franchise, Fallout.
The first comment discussed how there are so few settlements compared to the vastness of the game’s galaxy, considering that Earth’s population had left in droves to escape the consequences of a decimated atmosphere.
While some users agreed, others also pointed out that the people who left Earth did not do so in significant numbers because not everyone could afford the expenses.
Other users also bemoaned the lack of a clear lore, which they say is only available at the museum. However, some participants said that you don’t need to have the lore handed out to you when playing the game - you go out to look for it, justifying the exploration part of Starfield.
You could also think that the huge number of planets in Starfield could be an opportunity for improvements in the future, as Todd Howard has specifically stated that the game is meant to be played for the long term.
We've yet to see what changes the future “Shattered Space” DLC could bring into the table when it launches - and we don’t know when that is.
For all things Starfield, stick with us at Starfield portal.