Summary
The immense size ofStarfieldhas been a contentious topic since launch, as Bruce Nesmith recently revealed that the game’s original scope was much smaller, with less reliance on procedural generation. To be a Bethesda sandbox is to carry certain expectations, as fans have gotten used to the addictive nature of exploring content-rich, handcrafted environments such as Skyrim inThe Elder Scrolls 5or the Commonwealth inFallout 4. By comparison, many felt theprocedurally generated worlds ofStarfieldlacked the charm of its predecessors, even if the combat and overall gameplay were a step above.
As it stands, the common belief among players is thatexploration inStarfieldcould use some changes. The scope of the Settled Systems is undoubtedly huge, but the procedural generation of its planets ultimately plays against the biggest strengths of a Bethesda title, and the layouts aren’t varied enough to compensate. On the flip side, major quest hubs such as Akila City still exude that Bethesda charm, almost offering a glimpse into a different type ofStarfieldthan the one players got at launch.
For Bruce Nesmith, the former lead designer ofSkyrim, this vision ofStarfieldwas very much real for a brief moment in development. In a recent interview with MinnMax, Nesmith said that there was a lot of discussion about scope duringStarfield’s development. Before the team decided to dive into procedural generation,Starfieldwas restricted to around two dozen star systems at most. However, the allure of widening the scope ultimately proved too irresistible, and soStarfieldturned to procedurally generated planets at the expense of having a few tradeoffs.
Nesmith went on to state that Todd Howard pulled the concept of having one hundred systems out of thin air, but as development progressed under the new procedural approach, the number not only became feasible, but all the core activity inStarfieldwas still concentrated in those two dozen systems anyway. Bruce Nesmith theorized that Bethesda likely had to make some difficult choices to make the game’s scope work, taking into account features such asStarfield’s ship builder, fully aware that players would complain about the aspects ofStarfield’s exploration that didn’t quite come through in the final product.
As thedevelopment of the nextElder Scrollstitlekicks fully into gear, Bethesda faces an interesting predicament. The reception to procedurally generated content inStarfieldhas been less than stellar, which may prompt the developers to lean once again into handcrafted landscapes. However, the technology developed forStarfieldcould still prove to be useful, and Bethesda should nonetheless be commended for taking a risk – even if Nesmith’s original vision may have potentially produced a more enjoyable game in hindsight.
Starfieldis available on PC and Xbox Series X/S.
