repatomonor wrote: ↑Mon, 29. Apr 19, 22:39
In my opinion if planets would be used as glorified space stations only (without any fancy features like in today's space sims), players would feel deceived. If planets were to be implemented in this series, they had to be implemented just right.
I agree with this. And it's difficult to get right in this type of game. Examples of failure are:
ED: as I understand it with Horizons when they brought in landing on planets it was like "Ooh! Aah!" for a couple of landings for players and then it was "OK, so what now?" then it was like "Been There, done that, got the T-shirt /yawn".
ME: same thing really. Driving the rover around collecting stuff on a planet was fun the first time. By the tenth, not so much. More like "Oh no, not again"
It's all about content and narrative. Making convincing planets to land on and explore would be colossally expensive to do and unless they were packed with interesting quests and situations that are consistently and meaningfully varied and fresh they would quickly become boring. Narrative in X games is proceduraly generated in the most part - the story is mainly about you, how you grow your business and assemble you fleets etc. Therefore it would be very difficult for planets to be anything other than glorified space stations serving exactly the same purpose as space stations do now.
Which basically means a colossally expensive feature that deliveres close to zero additional gameplay value. Something Chris Roberts might have thought about before he spent $200m of other people's money on his uber-detailed environments without considering that the three main things that make (most) people want to get out of bed in the morning and play your game are narrative, narrative and narrative.