Not enough caves.
People “this game is so unrealistic, there’s no way these biomes would be this close and distinct”
Also people “flying through space for weeks to visit a baren rock is so bullshit and biting”
Meanwhile, in Star Wars:
“This is Snow World. It’s all snow there. That is Wet World. The whole planet is wet. Over there is Sand World. Nothing but sand everywhere.”
Behold Coruscant! The entire planet … is a city!
Behold Umate
Coruscant’s tallest mountain and the only place where the planet’s surface is still visible.
That’s some trivia I did not previously know, thank umate
You should watch Andor. It’s an actual good star wars show. Probably because it is mostly an original story in the star wars universe.
I did not expect an absolutely savage takedown of capitalism in the middle of my Rogue One prequel. 10/10, would unionize my workplace.
Absolutely loved Andor, the tension was so thick.
I mean, that is just a sci-fi concept. Ecumenopolis.
Yes, and I love them for it. ^^
You’re lucky if the game has reasonable climate progression like this. Most games the frozen zone is right next to forest zone which is right next to the volcano zone.
Wouldn’t it be kind of boring if it was just like the great plains for 40 miles with maybe a singular river on the far side?
I mean, yeah, but this is like showing a picture of the alphabet and saying “this is spot on for so many books.”
Just Cause 4 is the embodiment of this lol
Layout is like 1 for 1 almost with Super Mario World
OP is in trouble!
Wait, no tributaries? Unplayable!
I don’t understand why the post is supposed to be funny or critical
It’s funny that a desire for biome diversity has led in a small way to a kind of sameyness. Not so much a criticism as an amusing little irony.
If a game is supposed to take after earth then ofc its gonna look like earth. I don’t really see the point here. The last couple open world game I have played are cyberpunk and satisfactory so I definitely don’t see the point here.
Satisfactory is a fairly good example of it (and also a game I am obsessed with). Games differentiate areas with biomes often, but the position of biomes often follows no climate logic. Having a rainforest and high desert and boreal forest, each maybe 1km x 1km within a 5x5 km area, with stark borders between them would be utterly bizarre on earth. Satisfactory does it’s part to hide this by having such a maze like layout, broken up by the steep karst landscape, with no clear line of sight across the whole map most of the time, but a lot of games just let that be something we suspend our disbelief for in order to have more variety in the game. Satisfactory also can do some hand waving of it through the implication that it’s some sort of alien garden world as well, and might be ecologically influenced by an entity which may be pursuing variety (that said I haven’t gathered all the mercer spheres, that’s just the vibe I get fairly early in the game). The bizarreness is reduced by not having a taiga or frozen desert in that same 5km x 5km region, something some games will include so they can have a snowy place as well.
That is something I am completely happy with. I certainly can’t think of a better way to implement the biomes and variety with the restrictions of game development and scope in mind.
But my main point was that the games doesn’t feel similar just because they all have biomes, not exactly on the feasibility which can’t really be put together logically within a small limited map. There always a balance between logic, practicality and entertainment value.
I think it is funny because, in reality, these different features would not appear in the world right next to one another. This map is a dramatization of geological features with no variation or nuance that naturally occurs. But for video games, it is easier to differentiate areas with these clear geological differences so the player can be like, “Oh yes, the island town.” Or “it’s close to the mountain” It’s just an acknowlegdment if how so many video games have done the same strange thing in order to streamline gameplay.
It’s critical because world invention is not inventive or imaginary. It’s always only a gross misrepresentation of the northern hemisphere on Earth.
Palworld lol
Eh, except so many double-down (or triple) on the swamps and caves while omitting more interesting settings like glaciers, oases, rainforests, and river deltas.
Lol in Witcher 3.
I never completed that one but had explored most of the mainland. I really need to go back and go through it all again. I loved the small details throughout the world. The wilderness and countryside was so well done, with little shrines along the roads here and there and so many lived-in places throughout. I spent 75% of my playtime with Roach set to a slow trot just so I could really absorb the world and feel like I was making a journey on those old roads. There’s something so profoundly Witcher about quietly riding dark paths at night and stopping to hear a monster in the woods. You climb off Roach and draw your silver sword, then make your way into that decrepit forest to deal with whatever is going on out there.
Witcher 3 was one of the few games I 100% and didnt use fast travel… the journey was half the game.
It kept things interesting! If not realistic, it was always beautiful.
Zelda did that in the 80s
Pillars of Eternity Deadfire :D
