Gaming

20057 readers

31 users here now

Sub for any gaming related content!

Rules:

1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Metallinatus@lemmy.ml

peternile@lemmy.ml

576

Bethesda says most of Starfield's 1000+ planets are dull on purpose because 'when the astronauts went to the moon, there was nothing there' but 'they certainly weren't bored' (www.pcgamer.com)

submitted 1 year ago by thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca to c/gaming@lemmy.ml

250 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Sure Todd, lol

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Zacryon@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No Man’s Sky still has the same problem it began with, although the landscapes are vastly improved. It doesn’t matter what planet it is, there’s nothing to distinguish it from the last planet other than what species owns the system, the flavor of hazard present, and the overall color.

Regarding the variety and interesting features of the bare planets, I tend to agree. My point was rather that there is more to do now and the fun with - even familiar planets - lasts longer.

No Man’s Sky honestly has not enough planets with just dead barren empty planets.

This is not correct. The amount of more dead planets immensely depends on - spoiler alert -

spoiler

the galaxy you're in. NMS has different galaxies with different distributions for lush or dead planets. This also has some effects on the difficulty.

[–] Chailles@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't want to have to beat the game in order to finally enjoy it.

[–] Zacryon@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You don't need to. There are different possibilities for switching galaxies. The simplest ones would be to use portals which is accessible very early in the game.

[–] Chailles@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay, but from my understanding, in order to change galaxies, I have to find a portal, figure however to use the portal, and then switch galaxies.

For someone whose put in a few hours into the game multiple times as the game has been steadily updated, I didn't know about portals or even that switching galaxies was even a thing. So telling me I'm incorrect because it's NG+ COULD have fixed it for me is pretty disingenuous. How am I suppose to know that after going through 6 more galaxies that I can get what I wanted from the start?

[–] Zacryon@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Okay, but from my understanding, in order to change galaxies, I have to find a portal, figure however to use the portal, and then switch galaxies.

As soon as you can use the space anomaly (which happens very early) you already have a possibility. But apart from that, sure, it still takes a bit of effort and is not an option available when starting the game. The latter would be a nice idea though.

I didn't know about portals or even that switching galaxies was even a thing. [...] How am I suppose to know that after going through 6 more galaxies that I can get what I wanted from the start?

By using an internet search engine of your choice.

https://nomanssky.fandom.com/wiki/Galaxy_Centre#Travelling_to_other_galaxies

But I get what you mean as this is not clearly communicated right from the beginning in the game and something to be discovered. So your best chance to know this, besides doing the story missions, is to talk to other players or by curiously clicking on some suitable links in the NMS wiki.