Starfield designer says procedural generation stopped it from reaching the “calibre” of Fallout and Elder Scrolls

Maybe the game was too large and ambitious in scope and they just failed to deliver?
I feel you, it was overly ambitious. Todd should have never mentioned the "1000 planets" nonsense. They should have maybe went the Mass Effect route when exploring planets, but allowing you to manually pilot your ship to those planets, without trying to be realistic on how long it would actually take to reach that planet, if that makes sense?

Maybe 1 or at most 2 explorable planets(or moons) in a system and narrow the scope of systems

They did get some stuff right though, the ship customization was neat, and the dog fighting was an interesting twist compared to their other games.
 
Yes the procedural generation.....

......and the repeating Points of Interest.....

.......and the constant loading and fast travelling.......

.......and the dull quest design......

........and the wooden facial animations.......

........and the lacklustre story.......




Did i miss anything ?
whats-with-go-go-dancer-in-silly-costumes-v0-148kcr1q9kib1.png
 
Last edited:
It became so obvious once it launched how outdated the game was. All space games that launched before or after did something better in one way of the other. It's true that if it was any other studio, the reception would be different. As in nobody would even attempt to play.

Thinking back now, that was actually the first blunder that made people question if game pass was actually worth it.
 
It became so obvious once it launched how outdated the game was. All space games that launched before or after did something better in one way of the other. It's true that if it was any other studio, the reception would be different. As in nobody would even attempt to play.

Thinking back now, that was actually the first blunder that made people question if game pass was actually worth it.

Remember they crunched the numbers and thought they would sacrifice like 10 million PS5 sales but it was worth it. But like a few weeks after release, PS5 people were like "nah Im good". Then they started porting games to PS5 a few months later.

Shartfield killed GP the way Halo Infinite killed Xbox consoles.
 
The issues raised in the article highlight a persistent challenge with procedural generation. As players spend more time in the game, the copy-paste nature of assets and locations becomes increasingly apparent. Eventually, the illusion breaks and what should feel like a vast, handcrafted universe instead reveals itself as a series of templated environments filling empty space.
To truly elevate the experience, future development needs to shift toward making each planet feel like a bespoke, curated destination complete with unique set pieces and intentional design. But realistically, no single developer has the time or resources to build the tools, assets, and scalable systems required to achieve that level of detail across a universe the size of Starfield.
We can look to other studios for how they're approaching this problem. I applaud the ambition of companies like Cloud Imperium Games (developer of Star Citizen), which are actively investing in procedural generation tools and asset pipelines designed to avoid this pitfall. That said, it's a long road and it may take another decade of feeding the system with enough modular content and intelligent tooling before content creation becomes truly turnkey.
 
Again starfield should not be compared to es nor fallout as starfield has heavy sim elements that will filter casual gamers out.

I just wanted to be a space assassin now I have to do research to progress due to weight & weather requirements.
 
If they still think the whole reason why its disappointing is only on the shoulders of procedural planets then I fear for Elder scrolls 6.
 
Again starfield should not be compared to es nor fallout as starfield has heavy sim elements that will filter casual gamers out.

I just wanted to be a space assassin now I have to do research to progress due to weight & weather requirements.

Fallout 4's survival and settlement mechanics are far deeper than Starfield's, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
 
Fallout 4's survival and settlement mechanics are far deeper than Starfield's, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
I'm saying I simply wanted to do missions kill, find loot and explore but I need to do research find stuff and figure out how to upgrade to haul more loot. This is not a game to enjoy for regular act/adv fans. Also I never cared for f04 setters crap which allowed me to spend 80hrs in its world. Just reached Bos the last time I played fo4.
 
No man's Sky reaches 20-25k CCU peaks daily (x7 more than Starfield) despite having fractally more procedural content.
Starfield is just doing it wrong.

Also, looks like Sean just teased a new update and user engagement for NMS is about to jump up to 100k'ish, again.
 
Procedural generation is a means to an end. It's a tool and only a poor workman blames his tools.

The main problem as I see it would be the studio managers who did not see it as important to go back and manually author all that procedurally generated content with actual meaningful gameplay.

Blaming procedural generation is like a spoiled toddler blaming his spoon for why he didn't enjoy his breakfast, instead of realising it was because he used the spoon to throw that shit everywhere around the room except for his mouth (yeah, I have toddlers).
 
Pfffft. How it designed was a problem aswell. Bethesda still developing RPG's like Skyrim. A 14 year old game.

Need to ditch their shitty engine and get with the times.
 
Procedural generation is one thing ,but they had like 3 enemy outpost layout in 1000 planets , WITH THE SAME ENEMY PLACEMENT IN EVERY ONE OF THEM .
 
It has nothing to do with expectations. It has to do with lack of interest and soul this game presents.
It was you guys who defended the so called procedural saying "well, not every planet should be a explorable because in real life blablabla". Not mention its other gazillion factors like terrible story, outdated engime, etc.
This game its the definition of lack of motivation and interest. You just made the game because someone told you to.
 
Last edited:
I'm saying I simply wanted to do missions kill, find loot and explore but I need to do research find stuff and figure out how to upgrade to haul more loot. This is not a game to enjoy for regular act/adv fans. Also I never cared for f04 setters crap which allowed me to spend 80hrs in its world. Just reached Bos the last time I played fo4.

Ah, okay, I get it. Yeah, I honestly don't understand how Starfield's crafting systems ended up worse than those in Fallout 4 or even 76. The introduction of research was a bad design choice in my opinion, since it just adds another layer of grind to an already unnecessarily grindy progression system that forces you to craft a certain number of items just to unlock the next perk level.

Fallout 4 is best experienced on Survival difficulty, where settlements actually play a big role in your success. You kill, loot, and build. If someone enjoys that kind of gameplay loop, it can be an amazing experience.
 
That's what happens when you listen to the loud minority that claimed the Mako sections in Mass Effect was good.
True story: I played through most of ME1 before I realized YOU COULD ZOOM the Mako's cannon. I'm shooting all these enemies, squinting and trying to see these distant enemies. Gotta say -- did okay with that.
 
Top Bottom