Would A Smaller Starfield Have Been A Better Game?

screenrant.com:

is a massive game, touting over 100 different star systems and 1,000 planets in its enormous scope. Sadly, since the game launched, many have complained that while expansive, the Settled Systems in feel empty, making its thousand planets far less appealing and impressive. Recently, however, it's been revealed by an ex-Bethesda employee that early in the game's development, conversations took place that may have resulted in a completely different game.

Related: How Big Starfield's Map Is & Is It The Biggest Open-World Game Ever

Specifically, could have had far fewer systems and planets, but as a result, each planet would have much more content-filled, vibrant worlds. This revelation is an interesting concept that leaves some wondering whether a smaller universe may have resulted in a superior title.

In a MinnMax interview, ex-Bethesda employee and lead designer of, Bruce Nesmith, claimed that at one point early in the game's development, conversations about 's massive scope were at the center of conversations. Nesmith says, "" Later, he would lightly criticize Todd Howard by claiming that the 100 solar systems in was a number ""

Though there's a ton to do within the procedurally generated spaces of the universe, many detractors of the title have claimed that the game feels vacant and empty, even with the 1,000 planets in the Settled Systems. Part of this is due to the game's procedural generation and the nature of planets within space generally, as the vast majority can't sustain living organisms. Or, at least, that's the reasoning that Bethesda has given as to why some of the procedurally generated elements of certain planets feel barren and lifeless.

Related: Starfield Guides (Tips, Ships, Weapons, & More)

That being