Starfield Players Scoff Size of Supposed Galactic Capitals
Because if the planets are practically empty then at least their capitals should be brimming, right? Bethesda is of a different opinion.
Starfield can without hesitation be considered as a highly minimalist game. Despite the immense size of the galaxy we can explore, the majority of planets remain - according to the alleged intentions of the developers - deserted. Therefore, it's hard to encounter more developed locations in areas where the plot doesn't lead us.
Exploration provides the opportunity to visit major cities - at least in theory. Reality shows that all the capitals and metropolises from Starfield aren't real "cites."
Numbers speak for themselves
User sxp2h1gh came to an interesting observation. As he explains on Reddit, all cities in Starfield are actually small villages.
I played through Starfield once and enjoyed it, not a hater. But what bothered me from the beginning was the incredibly miniscule scale of all the settlements.
- sxp2h1gh
According to the author of the post, all of Bethesda's game metropolises are essentially well-equipped rural areas, at least according to the official definition. A settlement is formally considered a village when the population density falls below one thousand inhabitants, as stated in the referenced Wikipedia article.
New Atlanta and Akila City are primarily mentioned, and when the camera is at the right distance, they really don't resemble great capitals as the depicted world presents them. At best, they might be small towns with just a few hundred residents. The entire scenario could serve as a solid plot background if only a small fraction of people were able to leave Earth before its destruction.
Problem lies in visualization
According to commentators, the size of cities in Starfield isn't necessarily a bad thing. The real problem is the way they were presented. A characteristic feature of this game is the vastness of the world presented, which Bethesda was unable (or didn't want) to fill - as a result - we received empty and sterile maps on which it's impossible not to feel like a speck of dust.
Skyrim, Cyrodiil, Morrowind are believable nations because there are just enough settlements in those games to make them feel lived-in. The different Fallout wastelands also feel believable because the number and placement of the settlements make sense (...). None of the planets in Starfield are believable, least of all the inhabited ones. For example, the entire planet of Akila has nothing on it except Akila City and some farms. New Atlantis, the capital of the United Colonies, is surrounded by untamed wilderness, which doesn't make sense.
- TJ_McWeaksauce
Comparing Starfield to Mass Effect is inevitable. Despite being 17 years old, the first installment of the trilogy featured locations with perfect proportions, making the map seem suitably large even though it didn't fully capture the potential of each place.
The citadels on Mass Effect feels huge. One of my favorite cities. But you really only can explore whatâ??s probably 2% of the entire structure (...). To make a city feel huge while restricting you to only the functional areas.
- SayNoToRepubs
The same goes for NPCs. Commentators mention, for instance, Red Dead Redemption 2 by Rockstar, where every character encountered on the way has their own objectives and routines. The residents of New Atlantis are more like decorations for the environment rather than the actual population of the city, making it harder to achieve deeper immersion.
