Starfield doesn't do seamless planetary landings like No Man's Sky, but Todd Howard doesn't think players will care

pcgamer.com:

Planetary landing sequences are cool to watch(opens in new tab), but in the context of a videogame, the thrill tends to wear off after you've done it a half-dozen times or so. Because really, there's not a hell of a lot actually going on while it happens: You just strap in, hold on, and hope for the best. Because of that, Todd Howard told IGN(opens in new tab) that while Starfield(opens in new tab) will give players an awful lot of freedom, it will not let them fly seamlessly from orbit to surface.

«We decided early in the project that the on-surface is one reality, and then when you’re in space it’s another reality,» Howard said.

«If you try to really spend a lot of time engineering the in-between, like that segue, you’re just spending a lot of time [on something] that’s really just not that important to the player. So let’s make sure it’s awesome when you’re on the surface and awesome when you’re in space, and those realities look and play as good as they can be.»

There are games that make seamless planetary landings work, like No Man's Sky, Elite: Dangerous, and Star Citizen, but they're sims. The most memorable sci-fi RPG of the past couple of decades, on the other hand—Mass Effect—does not: You're either on the Normandy or on the ground, while the time in between is represented by a quick cinematic. Different genres, different priorities, and Howard said that the focus for Starfield is roleplaying rather than simulating.

A planetary landing in No Man's Sky.

Bethesda revealed during last week's Xbox/Bethesda showcase that Starfield will have 100 star systems with 1,000 planets to explore, which quickly sparked a range of reactions: Some people worried that all those planets will be repetitive and boring, others are