Will We Be Able To Walk Around A Planet?

[Mowglia]

Some say yes. Some say no. What do you think?

Also, if you land in a place you've been before, will it be the same as it was before?

[rumax]

there are points of interest on the planet, by clicking on which you watch a video of your ship landing on the planet and the "level rooms" that have always been in the betehda engine are loaded. There is no whole seamless world of the whole planet here. You can't go around the planet at the equator.

[S☯wn-Lﺤuꁅhtǝr]

Originally posted by Mowglia:

Some say yes. Some say no. What do you think?

Also, if you land in a place you've been before, will it be the same as it was before?

NOh YOU STAND & RhOTATE ..

Land ship and spin person

Pretty country.

[Bee🐝]

Originally posted by rumax:

there are points of interest on the planet, by clicking on which you watch a video of your ship landing on the planet and the "level rooms" that have always been in the betehda engine are loaded. There is no whole seamless world of the whole planet here. You can't go around the planet at the equator.

Todd said they looked at just creating set sections and decided that's exactly what they didn't want though.

It's in the video I posted above.

Edit: The Direct at no point directly identifies how the generation work, how big a planet is or how far a player can walk. It basically demostates how fast travel basically works in all Bethesda games - not how navigation on the planet works.

[A. Silvermane]

Originally posted by Mowglia:

It's not a question of wanting to walk around a planet, it's a question of immersion which to a large extent depends on the consistency of the world.

This isn't outer wilds where planets are less then 1km in circumference, if you could actually walk around a planet then it would be immersion breaking because its not realistic due to the distances you'd need to travel. People don't care about immersion, they are simply complaining because they've a nit they want to pick because they are looking for excuses to on Bethesda.

Originally posted by Mowglia:

Being able to walk around a planet basically proves that things are where we think they are, instead of being fed some pretty random visuals that don't mean anything with regard to what is where.

Those things are still there even if you can't, again people don't care they are looking for any straw they can grasp

Originally posted by Mowglia:

It's the idea that if you see a mountain in the distance then you could go there and climb it if you wanted to, as opposed to it not really existing at all.

And you can still climb those mountain, you just aren't expected to walk there because that isn't realistic on planetary scales.

Originally posted by Mowglia:

It is significantly more preferable to be able to walk to somewhere (anywhere) that you can see, rather than having to take off in the ship, and risk never finding the place again (which may be exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, depending on the size of planets).

Its not when the walking time is measured in DAYS. Again we aren't talking Skyrim scales we are talking PLANETARY scales meaning that mountain you see in the distance could be hundreds of kilometers away

Originally posted by Mowglia:

It doesn't exist outside of computer code.

True of every game ever.

Originally posted by Mowglia:

In order for humans to immerse themselves in such an illusion, and create and maintain what writers call the "suspension of disbelief", the environment needs to be as consistent as possible to make this as easy as possible.

And yet you are hell bent on breaking that consistency by allowing the player to transverse INFINITE DISTANCES regardless of the fact THERE IS AN OXYGEN GAUGE

Originally posted by Mowglia:

]It's the reason why it can be so jarring to see a Starbucks coffee cup on the table in an episode of Game of Thrones, for example. Because suddenly your suspension of disbelief is destroyed and you're snapped back into reality as you think "Wtf is THAT doing there?"

No. You are the one placing the cup there yourself then complaining about it afterwards. You are the one of the people looking for Nits to pick only YOU ARE CREATING THOSE NITS

Originally posted by Mowglia:

Basically it's all to do with immersion and the suspension of disbelief, and having a persistent and consistent environment is integral to that.

You don't care aobut immersion or suspenion of disbelief, if you did you'd realize how stupid it is to expect an Astronaut to walk 10,000kms on a single tank of air without going back to their ship to moving it along the route. You are looking for Nits and you think you've found one only to other people such as myself its not one because its more realistic, and dare I say it immersive that you can only travel as far as your tank of air allows you to, after that you got to go back to your ship to fill your tank and move further along your route. Hell No mans Sky doens't even do that, you need to go back to your ship at some point, you can't walk around the planet. Elite Dangerous, you can't travel very far your ship without dying, its also impossible to walk around the planet. Star Citizen, can't do it there either. So why are you insistant that Starfield alone be capable of it? Because you want that nit.

[Mowglia]

Originally posted by Ayato Silvermane:

Originally posted by Mowglia:

It's not a question of wanting to walk around a planet, it's a question of immersion which to a large extent depends on the consistency of the world.

This isn't outer wilds where planets are less then 1km in circumference, if you could actually walk around a planet then it would be immersion breaking because its not realistic due to the distances you'd need to travel. People don't care about immersion, they are simply complaining because they've a nit they want to pick because they are looking for excuses to :repoop: on Bethesda.

Originally posted by Mowglia:

Being able to walk around a planet basically proves that things are where we think they are, instead of being fed some pretty random visuals that don't mean anything with regard to what is where.

Those things are still there even if you can't, again people don't care they are looking for any straw they can grasp

Originally posted by Mowglia:

It's the idea that if you see a mountain in the distance then you could go there and climb it if you wanted to, as opposed to it not really existing at all.

And you can still climb those mountain, you just aren't expected to walk there because that isn't realistic on planetary scales.

Originally posted by Mowglia:

It is significantly more preferable to be able to walk to somewhere (anywhere) that you can see, rather than having to take off in the ship, and risk never finding the place again (which may be exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, depending on the size of planets).

Its not when the walking time is measured in DAYS. Again we aren't talking Skyrim scales we are talking PLANETARY scales meaning that mountain you see in the distance could be hundreds of kilometers away

Originally posted by Mowglia:

It doesn't exist outside of computer code.

True of every game ever.

Originally posted by Mowglia:

In order for humans to immerse themselves in such an illusion, and create and maintain what writers call the "suspension of disbelief", the environment needs to be as consistent as possible to make this as easy as possible.

And yet you are hell bent on breaking that consistency by allowing the player to transverse INFINITE DISTANCES regardless of the fact THERE IS AN OXYGEN GAUGE

Originally posted by Mowglia:

]It's the reason why it can be so jarring to see a Starbucks coffee cup on the table in an episode of Game of Thrones, for example. Because suddenly your suspension of disbelief is destroyed and you're snapped back into reality as you think "Wtf is THAT doing there?"

No. You are the one placing the cup there yourself then complaining about it afterwards. You are the one of the people looking for Nits to pick only YOU ARE CREATING THOSE NITS

Originally posted by Mowglia:

Basically it's all to do with immersion and the suspension of disbelief, and having a persistent and consistent environment is integral to that.

You don't care aobut immersion or suspenion of disbelief, if you did you'd realize how stupid it is to expect an Astronaut to walk 10,000kms on a single tank of air without going back to their ship to moving it along the route. You are looking for Nits and you think you've found one only to other people such as myself its not one because its more realistic, and dare I say it immersive that you can only travel as far as your tank of air allows you to, after that you got to go back to your ship to fill your tank and move further along your route. Hell No mans Sky doens't even do that, you need to go back to your ship at some point, you can't walk around the planet. Elite Dangerous, you can't travel very far your ship without dying, its also impossible to walk around the planet. Star Citizen, can't do it there either. So why are you insistant that Starfield alone be capable of it? Because you want that nit.

Speechless...

Well, I guess I could manage a "lol" :)

[-={LG}=-]

Originally posted by Mowglia:

It's the reason why it can be so jarring to see a Starbucks coffee cup on the table in an episode of Game of Thrones, for example. Because suddenly your suspension of disbelief is destroyed and you're snapped back into reality as you think "Wtf is THAT doing there? ...
Well, I guess I could manage a "lol" :)"

Looks like you got yourself a devoted fan :P

Or when a woman is wielding some greatsword that only 10% of men could actually wield. My buddies and I used to make chainmail from these stainless rings they use on fishing lures ... we worked at a spring company and there was always a ton of waste from setting up the machines.

We'd do "reality checks" at the Renaissance Festival for tips, so people could see what it's really like to wear full chain and wield a greatsword. Not many men can do it, and few can actually raise the sword to the proper fighting stance.

The whole woman in chainmail swinging a greatsword just makes me laugh, and destroys all possible immersion. It's impossible to maintain the necessary suspension of disbelief. I'm surprised to see someone else who understands cinema these days.

[S☯wn-Lﺤuꁅhtǝr]

Originally posted by Ayato Silvermane:

Originally posted by Mowglia:

It's not a question of wanting to walk around a planet, it's a question of immersion which to a large extent depends on the consistency of the world.

This isn't outer wilds where planets are less then 1km in circumference, if you could actually walk around a planet then it would be immersion breaking because its not realistic due to the distances you'd need to travel. People don't care about immersion, they are simply complaining because they've a nit they want to pick because they are looking for excuses to on Bethesda.

Originally posted by Mowglia:

Being able to walk around a planet basically proves that things are where we think they are, instead of being fed some pretty random visuals that don't mean anything with regard to what is where.

Those things are still there even if you can't, again people don't care they are looking for any straw they can grasp

Originally posted by Mowglia:

It's the idea that if you see a mountain in the distance then you could go there and climb it if you wanted to, as opposed to it not really existing at all.

And you can still climb those mountain, you just aren't expected to walk there because that isn't realistic on planetary scales.

Originally posted by Mowglia:

It is significantly more preferable to be able to walk to somewhere (anywhere) that you can see, rather than having to take off in the ship, and risk never finding the place again (which may be exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, depending on the size of planets).

Its not when the walking time is measured in DAYS. Again we aren't talking Skyrim scales we are talking PLANETARY scales meaning that mountain you see in the distance could be hundreds of kilometers away

Originally posted by Mowglia:

It doesn't exist outside of computer code.

True of every game ever.

Originally posted by Mowglia:

In order for humans to immerse themselves in such an illusion, and create and maintain what writers call the "suspension of disbelief", the environment needs to be as consistent as possible to make this as easy as possible.

And yet you are hell bent on breaking that consistency by allowing the player to transverse INFINITE DISTANCES regardless of the fact THERE IS AN OXYGEN GAUGE

Originally posted by Mowglia:

]It's the reason why it can be so jarring to see a Starbucks coffee cup on the table in an episode of Game of Thrones, for example. Because suddenly your suspension of disbelief is destroyed and you're snapped back into reality as you think "Wtf is THAT doing there?"

No. You are the one placing the cup there yourself then complaining about it afterwards. You are the one of the people looking for Nits to pick only YOU ARE CREATING THOSE NITS

Originally posted by Mowglia:

Basically it's all to do with immersion and the suspension of disbelief, and having a persistent and consistent environment is integral to that.

You don't care aobut immersion or suspenion of disbelief, if you did you'd realize how stupid it is to expect an Astronaut to walk 10,000kms on a single tank of air without going back to their ship to moving it along the route. You are looking for Nits and you think you've found one only to other people such as myself its not one because its more realistic, and dare I say it immersive that you can only travel as far as your tank of air allows you to, after that you got to go back to your ship to fill your tank and move further along your route. Hell No mans Sky doens't even do that, you need to go back to your ship at some point, you can't walk around the planet. Elite Dangerous, you can't travel very far your ship without dying, its also impossible to walk around the planet. Star Citizen, can't do it there either. So why are you insistant that Starfield alone be capable of it? Because you want that nit.

A nit is the unit of measurement that describes how bright a television, smartphone, computer monitor, laptop screen, or another type of display is. The higher the number of nits, the brighter the display.

Ultimately, Starfield is an illusion, just like all other fiction.

uh yes

Back in the day people would laugh if a coke container was left on set of a film area ..

Now days people RRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE


Smh

[Dave Johnson]

Originally posted by Mowglia:

Some say yes. Some say no. What do you think?

Also, if you land in a place you've been before, will it be the same as it was before?

Todd said "You can land *anywhere on the planet*", so that much is probably true.
We have yet to see if there's any limitations on life-support outside of your ship or anything outside of "invisible walls" limiting you, though.

[A. Silvermane]

Originally posted by Mowglia:

Speechless...

Well, I guess I could manage a "lol" :)

As expected you have no counter argument. I accept your concession :)

[japp_02]

Originally posted by Bee🐝:

Edit: The Direct at no point directly identifies how the generation work, how big a planet is or how far a player can walk. It basically demostates how fast travel basically works in all Bethesda games - not how navigation on the planet works.

In the Direct there is a neat demonstration of how you chose a planet location from within the navigation console, it shows that you can select a point at random on the globe and then a cutscene will make you land. (You will have to search for the time frame, sorry). From this we can draw some educated guesses, not much but enough to elaborate what I did in my previous posts. It's very unlikely that the entire planet is rendered when you land, and that's the best possible (negative) response for this thread in absence of other infos.

[Bee🐝]

Originally posted by japp_02:

Originally posted by Bee🐝:

Edit: The Direct at no point directly identifies how the generation work, how big a planet is or how far a player can walk. It basically demostates how fast travel basically works in all Bethesda games - not how navigation on the planet works.

In the Direct there is a neat demonstration of how you chose a planet location from within the navigation console, it shows that you can select a point at random on the globe and then a cutscene will make you land. (You will have to search for the time frame, sorry). From this we can draw some educated guesses, not much but enough to elaborate what I did in my previous posts. It's very unlikely that the entire planet is rendered when you land, and that's the best possible (negative) response for this thread in absence of other infos.

And that's just how quick/fast travel has always worked - just now it's a globe and not a flat map - that's what it's showing. It indicates nothing about movement on the actual planet.

We're not talking about "rendering" as you land - not even Todd - they don't have to simulate the whole globe. We're talking about generation and when that happens. They'll most likely load/spawn in the next set of tiles/cells/chucks as players move through the world. Mowglia made a good point about pre-generation.

Also, they don't have to load in all of the planets at once or none of it. They can pull the next tiles/cells/chucks as needed when the player gets within a certain distance from the next set. The older games keep track of a lot of things but it doesn't "simulate" the world visually constantly - beyond the player's sight is just numbers.

And if you think about it, they need to pre-generate tiles/chucks/cells because the radial quests require all POI to have a set spot before the player lands - otherwise, the player would have no idea where to go. Same way radial quest work in other games.

[-={LG}=-]

Originally posted by Ayato Silvermane:

As expected you have no counter argument. I accept your concession :)

If you want a counterargument, it would be better to choose a more compact style of argumentation. The whole "sling four hundred things at the wall" style doesn't resonate to most people...

[Mowglia]

Originally posted by Ayato Silvermane:

Originally posted by Mowglia:

Speechless...

Well, I guess I could manage a "lol" :)

As expected you have no counter argument. I accept your concession :)

Yeah, I concede. Willingly. A quick parse of your...post...yielded 26 errors and 1 good point. Your post was so horrifically wrong it would take me several hours to deconstruct it, and that's several hours I'll never get back. And, for what? It's not like you'd understand the answers, given you've clearly learned nothing from this thread thus far.

So I'm just gonna rubber stamp that post, pronounce it scientifically accurate, and save myself several constructive hours of life.

God help us all.

[S☯wn-Lﺤuꁅhtǝr]

Originally posted by Mowglia:

Originally posted by Ayato Silvermane:

As expected you have no counter argument. I accept your concession :)

Yeah, I concede. Willingly. A quick parse of your...post...yielded 26 errors and 1 good point. Your post was so horrifically wrong it would take me several hours to deconstruct it, and that's several hours I'll never get back. And, for what? It's not like you'd understand the answers, given you've clearly learned nothing from this thread thus far.

So I'm just gonna rubber stamp that post, pronounce it scientifically accurate, and save myself several constructive hours of life.

God help us all.

thank you, that saves us so much time.
have a nice day!

[Mowglia]

Originally posted by kbranst:

Originally posted by Mowglia:

It's the reason why it can be so jarring to see a Starbucks coffee cup on the table in an episode of Game of Thrones, for example. Because suddenly your suspension of disbelief is destroyed and you're snapped back into reality as you think "Wtf is THAT doing there? ...
Well, I guess I could manage a "lol" :)"

Looks like you got yourself a devoted fan :P

Or when a woman is wielding some greatsword that only 10% of men could actually wield. My buddies and I used to make chainmail from these stainless rings they use on fishing lures ... we worked at a spring company and there was always a ton of waste from setting up the machines.

We'd do "reality checks" at the Renaissance Festival for tips, so people could see what it's really like to wear full chain and wield a greatsword. Not many men can do it, and few can actually raise the sword to the proper fighting stance.

The whole woman in chainmail swinging a greatsword just makes me laugh, and destroys all possible immersion. It's impossible to maintain the necessary suspension of disbelief. I'm surprised to see someone else who understands cinema these days.

Ah, the voice of reason; I was beginning to think I just woke up on the film set of Idiocracy and missed the memo.

It's odd, because although that dude is clearly not a fan, while reading that post the Adoring Fan went through my mind a couple of times. Is this how he operates? Drop so much wrongness on you that it's just easier to take him along than try to process it? Well I guess we're gonna find out in 2 months :D

I know exactly what you mean about the reality checks. There's a certain type of "medieval gamer enthusiast" out there that insists half-swording was a common thing. This is where you grab your sword at the wrong end and attempt to pummel the opponent with it. You can't tell them otherwise; it's like they were actually there and saw it all go down. It does beg the question: "Why wouldn't they just use maces then, which are presumably effective vs armoured and unarmoured opponents?" but to even ask such a thing is heresy.

To be fair I think about this kind of thing far more than most, as my job is to write fiction, and I spend a huge amount of time thinking about immersion, consistency, and the suspension of disbelief. Everything I do has to take this into account. Nonetheless, I believe most people are tuned into it on some level, although they might not necessarily be able to frame it in the same way we can.