Unfortunately you can’t do that on Sagittarius A*. Would be cool to have someone fly into it and watch a video from the inside and see the player on the outside slowly shifting to red.
It makes sense in-universe. The Frame Shift Drive is hampered by sources of gravity which is seen when you get mass locked by larger ships or space stations, and why you can move faster the farther out you get from the sun. Trying to fly directly into a black hole overloads the FSD and so it throws you out of supercruise far enough away that your thrusters can’t get you there.
At least this is the way it works when approaching stars, I’m pretty sure black holes behave the same way.
That would be great! It starts off with a computer voice, warning you about high gravity damage and increasing pressure. The klaxon siren start going off, the hull begins to groan, maybe some pressure leaks. All the while you are trying to fight the ship for control, while plummeting towards a fiery death.
Turn it a Mini game! if you win you get to escape with a little damage. If you don’t…
Don’t be so choosy with your fiction! If I want to have an AK-47 in Baldur’s Gate, I should be able to! In fact, if i want an AK-47 in Madden, I should be able to!
I learned a while ago to stop caring what most idiots on the internet think about games. There is always a mix of circlejerking, rage-baiting, and sour grapes muddying the waters.
Much of the gaming-adjacent internet are teenagers. It will always feel cool to be against [popular thing]™ when you’re still figuring out what your identity is as an individual.
This is not an attack on your statement, as you’re definitely right. But I just want to add this:
Some people are (understandably) complaining about the severely limited character creator in Baldur’s Gate 3, and comparing it to even middle-range ones in other modern RPGs; but many other people are attacking us as if we are trolls and we hate games, and those people are getting a lot of support. Baldur’s Gate 3 is fantastic, but the character creator sucks. We’re allowed to have nuanced opinions, right?
Dude, it’s been like this for almost 30 years. Only difference between now and then is that everybody now has an easy way to stand on a soapbox to a large audience.
Starfield claims that “there are over 1000 planets to explore”. If Gas Giants are included in that count despite being window dressing, then people have a right to be mad .
In general the attitude towards people complaining about video games is super toxic. Publishers will often release games that are either hopelessly buggy, lacking several key features that were promised, or monetized to an extent that the game is essentially unplayable without spending a significant amount of money.
Yet for some reason people love to shit on gamers for getting mad over this blatantly anti consumer behavior.
I feel like there are more important things though. Like sure, maybe the marketing number is exaggerated, but are any of the planets even interesting? Is the game fun? Is it polished? Did the development involve abuse and overwork? Like seriously, who gives a shit if there are 100 planets or 1000, you’re never going to explore all of them anyway.
There was that shift in gaming when assasins creed came out. Maps had to be big and bigger. The bigger the better. I was one of the poeople always on the lookout for bigfer maps. But honestly, most of them are just shit and boring, so what's the point? The whole trend simmered down a lot, but now Bethesda is trying to cash in on it again and it kinda seems to work. There is absolutely no way it's interesting to "discover" these planets. As far as i understand it you can only fly to a POI and then walk around there. And then cutscene fly your way to the next point. Seems boring as hell and a colossal waste of money. They could've made 5 great planets to explore, do people know how big a planet is?
to be honest i’d rather have fewer planets with more to do than a 1000 planets with less details and less to do but thats only my oppinion and we’ll see how the game is when it comes out. i for my part have 0 hype for it because then i can enjoy it and not be disappointed
Because I’m also trying to stay off the hype train, do you happen to know how going planet to planet works? I really wasn’t a huge fan of how it worked in Outer Worlds. One thing I like about the morrowind/fallout/skyrim sandboxes is being able to just pick a direction and stumble about. No Man’s sky is a whole conversation (about a bad game, that heroically became an OK if flawed game) but I really liked how you got in your ship and just… left.
i have only seen one trailer for starfield so i don’t know anything about the game. i’m gonna watch how the launch plays out and decide if i wanna get it at launch or wait until modders fixed the game. i want to be surprised when i first play it :)
Yeah. I far preferred the carefully designed planets of Mass Effect (at least those that weren’t boring Mako planets of ME1) over the more limited procedurally generated planets of No Man’s Sky (which lacked support for stuff like cities).
There will always be a lot of instinctive retaliation from people who criticize even the slightest aspect of something they love. Some people just can’t think in nuance, I guess.
Admittedly, a gas giant could be a very interesting setting to explore, given enough artistic liberties. But let’s see if they can get the normal planet exploration first.
As professor Farnsworth said when asked how many atmospheres the Planet Express ship could withstand: “Well, it’s a spaceship, so I’d say anywhere between zero and one”.
I’ve seen some SciFi media with floating cities on planets with thick atmospheres, such as gas giants or Venus. It’s a neat concept imo that I’d like to see more.
Indeed. If I’m recalling correctly there was one somewhat obscure little film a while back that had something like that. It was called something like Empire Fights Back or something, can’t quite recall. Not sure if anyone has seen that one or not.
The problem with that really is that on a gas giant the physics are a nightmare- gravity is unlivable, by the point in the atmosphere you get to dense-enough fluid to float anything, it’s extremely hot and turbulent. If you dropped a modern submarine into Jupiter’s atmosphere, by the time it got there it would be molten and well beyond its crush pressure.
On Earth, the pressure/density point (in water) that will float a boat occurs at a low enough pressure and temperature to be survivable by life as we know it- but on Jupiter when you’ve got to the point that it’s dense enough to float anything, it’s also hotter than the surface of the sun.
Cloud City on Bespin is a super-cool concept but realistically nothing like that can work on a gas giant unless your sci-fi universe also provides magic antigravity to keep the gravity-well from crushing you lifeless.
Maybe if it were a civilization of creatures with exoskeletons, low height, and a low surface area to volume ratio (think fleas, ticks)? Probably still not. It’s just completely unfeasible for humanoids.
Isn’t this the moron idiot that stole copies of Starfield and posted the leaked content on his personal social media or was that a different moron idiot?
Cloud City was on Bespin, which was literally a gas giant. It is supposed to be science fiction. Now I won’t be able to fulfill my dream of setting up my own penal colony within the confines of a gas giant :(
Anyway, this is either just childish or trolling, but if we want to talk about who’s confidently incorrect, it can go either way.
Would have been funny to let players “try” to land on a gas giant, just before dying from the enormous magnetic field/wind strength/pressure. A hard lesson in astrophysics right?
Add comment