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'
Games have fear of death the same way films and books do.
It's fiction.
It's not real.
We are already aware of this.
Idk why this needs to be explained to you.
Exactly! Now go tell Todd that his game isn't real and therefor his example "astronauts on the moon weren't bored although the moon is dull" doesn't make any sense.
It's like you're getting there without actually ever getting there.
Of course it makes sense. That's just how games work. You're pretending you're in space, and even though you aren't actually running our of oxygen, your character is. You feel tension for your character.
Y'know playing COD doesn't mean you're actually at war, right?
And that's why CoD hasn't you going on patrol missions for hours and digging trenches or guard duty. A realistic war game would be boring as fuck.
You know CoD isn't realistic at all, right?
I think you missed the point, lol. Obviously COD isn't a remotely realistic portrayal of war. You haven't understood a thing if you seriously thought I was saying that.
But we weren't discussing realism of mechanics, rather, realism of environment. And the environments are pretty true to life.
It's the mechanics that make a game fun. Not necessarily the environments. Though they of course help. Fun mechanics are what a game is about.
Such as... survival mechanics!!
You mean like a game needs to offer more than dull enviroments to be not boring although the astronauts on the moon didn't seem to be bored on the dull moon?
Are you gonna now pretend that survival mechanics were your idea all along lol?
You're funny, kinda. Sad funny. Maybe it's just hard for you to remember a few lines back or something.
I don't know why I am arguing with some random internet trollish child. I'll need to work on that and ignore more.
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'
Games have fear of death the same way films and books do.
It's fiction.
It's not real.
We are already aware of this.
Idk why this needs to be explained to you.
Exactly! Now go tell Todd that his game isn't real and therefor his example "astronauts on the moon weren't bored although the moon is dull" doesn't make any sense.
It's like you're getting there without actually ever getting there.
Of course it makes sense. That's just how games work. You're pretending you're in space, and even though you aren't actually running our of oxygen, your character is. You feel tension for your character.
Y'know playing COD doesn't mean you're actually at war, right?
And that's why CoD hasn't you going on patrol missions for hours and digging trenches or guard duty. A realistic war game would be boring as fuck.
You know CoD isn't realistic at all, right?
I think you missed the point, lol. Obviously COD isn't a remotely realistic portrayal of war. You haven't understood a thing if you seriously thought I was saying that.
But we weren't discussing realism of mechanics, rather, realism of environment. And the environments are pretty true to life.
It's the mechanics that make a game fun. Not necessarily the environments. Though they of course help. Fun mechanics are what a game is about.
Such as... survival mechanics!!
You mean like a game needs to offer more than dull enviroments to be not boring although the astronauts on the moon didn't seem to be bored on the dull moon?
Are you gonna now pretend that survival mechanics were your idea all along lol?
You're funny, kinda. Sad funny. Maybe it's just hard for you to remember a few lines back or something.
I don't know why I am arguing with some random internet trollish child. I'll need to work on that and ignore more.