Planetary exploration has been the subject of much debate among Starfield fans in the lead-up to the game’s launch and early access period this Friday. Most want to be able to explore the entirety of all 1,000 planets, walking in a straight line around their circumferences, but some would prefer it if that weren’t the case.
Star Citizen and No Man’s Sky players have joined the debate to offer a counterpoint to those wanting to explore thousands of miles of space rock. They say that they’re done with the monotony or endlessly repeating landscapes and would prefer smaller explorable locations on each planet.
Related: Starfield: Release Date, Preorders & Gameplay Trailers
No Man’s Sky and Star Citizen Fans Are Tired of Planetary Exploration and Want Something Different for Starfield
A recent post on the Starfield Subreddit from a Star Citizen player has warned fans against hoping for complete planetary exploration in the game. In their experience, flying across worlds with nothing but the same landscape for miles and miles isn’t as enjoyable as it might sound on paper.
No Man’s Sky players have also joined in with the hundreds of comments, explaining how lovely it is to be able to fly and land anywhere, but in reality, they’d prefer small locations with lots to do. “I’ve played Elite Dangerous and NMS – like you say, being able to land absolutely anywhere with no loading screens is really cool, but I’d much prefer the depth of having actually explorable structures and reasonable numbers of enemies, if it means giving up the “land anywhere” stuff. I never walked all the way around a planet in NMS anyway.”
Rumors abound about how open the planets in Starfield are for exploration, especially since Bethesda’s Pete Hines told fans they could explore a whole planet earlier this month. However, the game will also give players a system that tells them if a planet is barren to help avoid pointless exploration.
Star Citizen and No Man’s Sky are fantastic examples of games that allow players to explore every inch of a planet fully. The heart of the matter seems to be that if a planet’s surface is as packed with activities for players as any other Bethesda game’s map, then it would be incredible.
However, 1,000 planets with missions, quests, and locations every mile or so is a tall ask for any developer. This post points out the pitfalls that other games have fallen into when it comes to complete freedom in space exploration, and an alternative with much smaller hubs definitely comes across as the more attractive option. “Then you realize it’s pointless without content. Going over endless, mostly unchanging terrain soon turns monotonous. I get it might be nice to have the option, but for me, it’s definitely not a deal breaker.”
