In RL most of the "excitement" in space comes from not wanting to fuck up and die. Games don't have that, Todd.
Some do, but they make it their main draw. The reason Kerbal Space Program is fun, is fun because you can fuck up and die in a million different ways, and not doing so is chalenging and succes is rewarding while failure is hilarious(ly frustrating).
Not fucking up and dying in Starfield means pressing the Use Healthpack frequently enough.
for now, the gameplay-enrichment mods are well on their way
Imagine a realistic KSP with AAA graphics, like replicating historic missions and planned ones, etc.
You just described the KSP RP-1 modpack with high graphics and volumetric clouds mod
Then you have games that do space travel so well that I'm beyond scared shitless in them, like Outer Wilds. So many games have already managed to convey some of these feelings.
Perfect example. Handful of planets, each rich with hand-crafted purpose, space travel is big enough to feel epic, but small enough to not want to skip.
It nails the feeling of exploring a vast area of space, not by being realistic (it is not, by a long shot), but by just making certain experiences feel right.
...yes, they do. Soooo many fucking games have that. There's a whole genre of games built around it. They're called survival games. A relevant example would be No Man's Sky.
I am kinda certain no game has dying. I haven't died in any yet. Although I remember a piece of The Onion of a suicide feature of a car seat. Maybe someone should build a gaming chair with this feature to improve the immersion.
...what? I can't tell if you're trolling. Death is basically the most common failure state of any game.
IRL the stakes are a little higher, don't you think?
Games aren't real life??!
No shit? That was the point
Astronauts aren't bored in space because they're busy trying not to die. games don't kill you when you fuck up or something goes wrong
Yes, they do, just not for real. Why would you expect it to kill you for real? What an absurd standard. You're supposed to be scared for your character's life, not your own. They're the one in space, not you...
Have you ever played games before?
You do know this threat is about some dev saying the first guys on the moon weren't bored although there's basically just sand and rocks to be found? And that because of this it's fine most planets in a game are baren and uninteresting?
The Bethesda guy compared the game to RL. I am just pointing out why this makes no sense.
And what you said was incorrect.
In RL most of the "excitement" in space comes from not wanting to fuck up and die. Games don't have that, Todd.
So many games are all about the struggle to not fuck up and die, and they are plenty tense even though they don't affect your real body. Ever played Subnautica? I'm not actually underwater but I'm scared of drowning.
I don't know why the fact that a game can't actually kill you doesn't mean it can't try to introduce tension.
Yeah, planets being barren is shit and realism is a shit excuse for it, but it's kinda irrelevant to your "games don't have dying" point, which would apply even if planets were designed better
Dude... You're even agreeing with me without realizing it. My point is, because a game can't create tension by threatening you with real death, it needs to be interesting in some way.
Again with this bizarre obsession with games killing people... did you just finish watching Stay Alive?
No, that is not the reason games need to be interesting. No ove ever wanted games to kill people, dude.
It's a reason why the astronauts weren't bored on the moon. The fear of death. Games don't have that and that is one of the reasons games need to be interesting and can't be dull like the moon. I'll just rephrase the same thing over and over for you. I do see some things may appear challenging to understand for some.
Read the title of the article and you may be able to piece things together: 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'
In RL most of the "excitement" in space comes from not wanting to fuck up and die. Games don't have that, Todd.
Some do, but they make it their main draw. The reason Kerbal Space Program is fun, is fun because you can fuck up and die in a million different ways, and not doing so is chalenging and succes is rewarding while failure is hilarious(ly frustrating).
Not fucking up and dying in Starfield means pressing the Use Healthpack frequently enough.
for now, the gameplay-enrichment mods are well on their way
Imagine a realistic KSP with AAA graphics, like replicating historic missions and planned ones, etc.
You just described the KSP RP-1 modpack with high graphics and volumetric clouds mod
Then you have games that do space travel so well that I'm beyond scared shitless in them, like Outer Wilds. So many games have already managed to convey some of these feelings.
Perfect example. Handful of planets, each rich with hand-crafted purpose, space travel is big enough to feel epic, but small enough to not want to skip.
It nails the feeling of exploring a vast area of space, not by being realistic (it is not, by a long shot), but by just making certain experiences feel right.
...yes, they do. Soooo many fucking games have that. There's a whole genre of games built around it. They're called survival games. A relevant example would be No Man's Sky.
I am kinda certain no game has dying. I haven't died in any yet. Although I remember a piece of The Onion of a suicide feature of a car seat. Maybe someone should build a gaming chair with this feature to improve the immersion.
...what? I can't tell if you're trolling. Death is basically the most common failure state of any game.
IRL the stakes are a little higher, don't you think?
Games aren't real life??!
No shit? That was the point
Astronauts aren't bored in space because they're busy trying not to die. games don't kill you when you fuck up or something goes wrong
Yes, they do, just not for real. Why would you expect it to kill you for real? What an absurd standard. You're supposed to be scared for your character's life, not your own. They're the one in space, not you...
Have you ever played games before?
You do know this threat is about some dev saying the first guys on the moon weren't bored although there's basically just sand and rocks to be found? And that because of this it's fine most planets in a game are baren and uninteresting?
The Bethesda guy compared the game to RL. I am just pointing out why this makes no sense.
And what you said was incorrect.
So many games are all about the struggle to not fuck up and die, and they are plenty tense even though they don't affect your real body. Ever played Subnautica? I'm not actually underwater but I'm scared of drowning.
I don't know why the fact that a game can't actually kill you doesn't mean it can't try to introduce tension.
Yeah, planets being barren is shit and realism is a shit excuse for it, but it's kinda irrelevant to your "games don't have dying" point, which would apply even if planets were designed better
Dude... You're even agreeing with me without realizing it. My point is, because a game can't create tension by threatening you with real death, it needs to be interesting in some way.
Again with this bizarre obsession with games killing people... did you just finish watching Stay Alive?
No, that is not the reason games need to be interesting. No ove ever wanted games to kill people, dude.
It's a reason why the astronauts weren't bored on the moon. The fear of death. Games don't have that and that is one of the reasons games need to be interesting and can't be dull like the moon. I'll just rephrase the same thing over and over for you. I do see some things may appear challenging to understand for some.
Read the title of the article and you may be able to piece things together: 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'