Starfield dev says some of the space RPG's "planets are empty by design - but that's not boring"

gamesradar.com:

Starfield's procedurally generated planets and galaxy-sized landmasses have generated endless chatter in the dark void known as the internet. But one Bethesda developer has defended the game's planets, calling some of them "empty by design" in response to a negative user review.

Steam user Soso calls the game a "major step back not just from the general gaming industry, the RPG genre, but Bethesda themselves." After 93 hours spent in the space epic, Soso criticizes the quests, combat, and the "extremely empty" planets - of which there are over 1,000. 

Verified developer Bethesda_FalcoYamaoka jumped into the discussion to defend the mammoth planet-hopper. "Some of Starfield's planets are meant to be empty by design - but that's not boring," the developer says (cheers, Destructoid). FalcoYamaoka continues to say that wandering through the alien landscapes is supposed to evoke feelings of "smallness." The intention is to "make you feel overwhelmed" at the vastness of space. 

The developer also lays out some advice on how to maximize your experience in Starfield, which includes building outposts early and playing around with ship-building. But one of the user review's big criticisms was aimed at enemy level scaling and the repetition accompanying evermore powerful critters.

"If you are looking to feel 'OP,' we recommend looking at completing the quests that grant you special powers," the developer responds. "If you don't feel unstoppable then, we are not sure you will feel like that in any game."

The user review and subsequent counterpoints are fascinating to me, mostly because they highlight how a developer's intention can sometimes get muddled on its way to players. In a sense, both arguments are correct. Starfield's