So here I am, a humble gamer in 2026, watching this whole Star Wars Outlaws versus Starfield drama unfold like a space opera with better graphics. Everyone's been buzzing about Outlaws being the first true open-world Star Wars game, but let's be real—some fans have been treating it with more skepticism than a Wookiee at a barbershop. Yet, from what developer Massive Entertainment has shown, this scruffy-looking nerf herder of a game might actually succeed where others, cough Starfield cough, stumbled. And the secret weapon? Not having planets the size of my existential dread.

why-star-wars-outlaws-smaller-planets-might-be-the-real-winner-against-starfield-s-empty-giants-image-0

Now, I know what you're thinking—comparing Star Wars Outlaws and Starfield is like comparing a lightsaber to a laser screwdriver. They're different beasts! One's a smuggler's tale, the other's a Bethesda RPG where you can probably spend 50 hours just decorating your spaceship with stolen coffee mugs. But they've been thrown into the same ring because, well, space exploration is their jam. The key difference? Outlaws promises seamless travel from ground to space, while Starfield... oh boy, let's just say its loading screens have more screen time than some side characters. It's like trying to enjoy a holofilm with someone constantly pausing it to explain the plot—immersion? What's that?

The Quantity vs. Quality Conundrum: When Bigger Isn't Better

Bethesda marketed Starfield as this colossal experience with nearly 1,700 planets to explore. Sounds impressive, right? But as No Man's Sky taught us (after a few years of updates, bless its heart), quality trumps quantity every time. Starfield's planets are mathematically fascinating—each is about 5% the size of a real planet, which still translates to a vast, vast playground. In theory, that should mean epic adventures worthy of a trilogy. In practice?

Here's the tea: most of those planets feel emptier than a Sarlacc pit after lunchtime. Players found themselves traversing "seas of negative space" between tiny outposts, with the journey often as exciting as watching paint dry in zero gravity. The planets' massive surface area ends up feeling wasted, because you can just zip from point A to point B in your ship, and even those points of interest sometimes have all the charm of a malfunctioning protocol droid.

  • Starfield's Approach: Hundreds of giant planets → Often empty and repetitive.

  • The Result: Exploration can feel like a chore, with rewards that don't always match the effort.

Outlaws' Clever Gambit: Smaller, Denser, and Hopefully More Fun

Enter Star Wars Outlaws, making promises about its open world but, plot twist, they're not as grandiose as we thought. Instead of hundreds of overwhelming planets, it's focusing on just a few, each roughly the size of two or three Assassin's Creed Odyssey zones combined. You can cross one in about five minutes on a speeder—basically the time it takes me to decide which Star Wars meme to post next.

This is where the magic (or, you know, clever design) happens. Even if Outlaws' planets end up having the same density of content as Starfield's (which, let's hope not), their smaller scale means they won't feel as empty. It's the video game equivalent of serving a perfectly portioned meal versus a banquet table where half the dishes are just decorative fruit. One leaves you satisfied; the other leaves you wondering why you bothered.

Feature Starfield (2023) Star Wars Outlaws (2024/2025)
Number of Planets ~1,700 A handful (exact number TBA)
Planet Size ~5% of a real planet's surface 2-3 AC Odyssey zones combined
Travel Time Across Planet Can be lengthy ~5 minutes via speeder
Seamless Travel No (loading screens between zones) Yes (ground to space)
Perceived Density Often feels empty due to vast size Likely feels denser due to compact design

Why This Might Be the Way (The Gaming Way, That Is)

Look, I'm not saying Star Wars Outlaws will automatically be better than Starfield—game development is trickier than navigating an asteroid field blindfolded. But its approach shows a focus on curated experiences over sheer scale. In 2026, with our attention spans shorter than a Porg's temper, that might be exactly what we need.

Plus, no loading screens! That alone is a win for immersion. Imagine blasting off from Tatooine into a dogfight with TIE Fighters without a single interruption—now that's how you make a player feel like they're living in a galaxy far, far away. Starfield's loading breaks, while understandable from a technical standpoint, often yanked me out of the experience faster than a hyperdrive malfunction.

The Verdict from a Cynical (But Hopeful) Player

Will Star Wars Outlaws' smaller planets benefit the overall game? Only time will tell, my friend. But if it fails, at least it won't be because it overpromised on scale. There's a certain charm in knowing your playground has boundaries—it encourages developers to fill every nook and cranny with something interesting, be it a hidden bounty, a quirky NPC, or a scenic vista that actually makes you stop and go, "Wow."

So, as we gear up for Outlaws' eventual release (and replay Starfield for the umpteenth time), I'm cautiously optimistic. In a world where bigger often means blander, sometimes taking a step back to focus on density and detail is the boldest move of all. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a date with my speeder—five minutes to cross a planet sounds like my kind of adventure. 🚀✨