Do you think Starbound Is bigger Than Minecraft?

Im talking about the size of the planets combined compared to minecraft

I heard minecraft is larger than the earth but starbound also has a couple of sectors filled with however many planets inside with varying sizes

So what do you think?

If anyone could do some maths or link a page with the answer that would be good aswell

 

My gut feeling is that it isn't, but I've not done any calculations or anything.

Of course, the Starbound universe is a lot flatter than Minecraft's world

 

Starbound is bigger it already has more bosses items and shit then minecraft does.

The world in Minecraft is big but not infinite.

 

Nah, don't you remember the Far Lands? Things used to get weird when you got to big numbers in the coordinate system. Now the world is fixed at 30,000,000x 30,000,000x255 blocks.

 

It's hard to compare to the two, since one is 3D and the other is 2D. Minecraft worlds are near infinite and a single world can be several gigs in size. I know of a youtuber who has been walking in a straight line for 313 episodes (each episode is around 30 minutes long) trying to get to the far lands (a glitch that happens with the terrain generation after you go out so far) and he's still going. http://www.youtube.com/user/kurtjmac

 

Well I mean the farlands might be a thing, but the game keeps going, theoretically, the world just meets the geometric apocalypse.

 

No

No They do end but like i said its much bigger than earth by a bit

I dont get the term nearly infinite how can somthing be nearly somthing that never ends or it it just a phrase for when it feels infinite

 

Starbound in reality is planned to have quadrillions of planets and some of the current biggest take between 40-10 to run completely from one side to another so I think Starbound has a bigger "total" size

 

Total planet size put together in Starbound would be bigger than Minecraft. Minecrafts size compared to every individual planet beats out easy.

 

More items and stuff doesn't matter all that much if most of them arn't very important or useful. Also, comparing such things isn't what the discussion is about.

Tho starbounds worlds are only 2D, meaning they are alot smaller in comparison. Minecrafts worlds also have the feeling of actually being big, starbounds worlds... not so much. Like in Terraria the worlds in starbound doesn't leave much of an impresion, to be honest.

 

Starbound is bigger. Starbound has more planets than the number of blocks required to get to the farlands in Minecraft

 

You can't compare 2D with 3D.
Space Engine simulates 10 trillion galaxies, each with every star system, planet, asteroid, comet...etc at 1:1 scale.

Minecraft world size, contrary to what you might believe, isn't infinite. Were you to fill in every space with blocks, its length, and width, would be around the same as the diameter of an average ice giant planet, such as Uranus, and it's thickness would be 255 meters.

Now, count how many stars, how many planets...just how many celestial bodies there are in Space Engine's 10 trillion galaxies.

Are there that many in Starbound?
And keep in maind that Space Engine and Minecraft are 3D, while Starbound is 2D.

If you're to judge a game by the size of its world, then Space Engine would make your head explode from the sheer awesomeness.

 

considering both are realistically infinite in terms of world size, this thread is an exercise in futility.

 

World size, no.

Reason? Minecraft is rendered on the fly. The further you go, the more chunks are rendered and saved. Also, the further you go, apparently the larger the world the larger the number for the saved word so there is an offset of some kind and things start to become glitchy and the terrain gets all weird. Notch once discussed this on his Tumblr blog, way way back before Jeb got hold of MC and ruined it by adding too much of everything but not enough actual blocks.

With Starbound, I've been on a world where I went in one direction for quite a while and I'm 99% sure that the world just connects one side to the other... as if actually going AROUND a planet - if you get what I mean (similar to how you go around from one side of the map to the other on Civilisation 5 - for those of you who have played it). The reason I say this is because I went in one direction for a while and I came across prisons, plants and villages that I'm pretty sure I'd seen before. As I continued I saw what appeared to be land mass and torches that I'd walked over and placed. I could be wrong, but I figured that is how it worked because that is how it appeared.

The word did seem small, but I suppose one could argue, since seperate worlds are different and there is a different biome in each world, then there is a lot of land and content to explore. But for a single, rendered world, Minecraft would be the biggest by far... but let us also take into account that Minecraft is a explorable 3D environment, whilst Starbound isn't.

Starbound however, is awesome. MC is not.

 

I don't really see much of a meaningful point in a comparison of which games world is bigger. If anything I would say the important thing in this is how varied the world is, as that's the thing that makes you want to explore the big world out there. Starbound seems to be aiming to do that with the various random generation it provides, and that by the looks of it will only continue to get vaster.

 

The worlds are warped. This is known.

 

The worlds in starbound do indeed loop, wich isn't a new thing when it comes to gaming
Let's not forget that all planets that players currently arn't on are static (pretty much in pausmode), and being in 2D the randomization is alot weaker, meaning that more of the planets will look the same.
And really, one planet in SB is really the same as one world in MC, considering they're both using specific seeds for every world. Maybe if the entire universe in SB was dependent on one seed we could compare that way, but as it works now, we can't really.
Also SB > MC = opinion

 

The worlds are warped. This is known.

 

In terms of number of blocks I suspect Minecraft will be bigger by far compared with all blocks in all Starbound planets. 3D is exponentially larger than 2D.

Terrain generation is infinite, but at a certain point the blocks become impossible to interact with due to floating number errors. The hard limit of possible saved chunks (due to 32-bit math) gives 1.2089258e * 10^24, or about 1.2 septillion (1200000000000000000000000) blocks. Starbound can't possibly match that; world seeds only go up to 99,999,999, and 99.9% of the seeds are empty, and the average planet probably only has tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of blocks in width. If a 64-bit version of Minecraft existed, then lol.

tl;dr Minecraft probably dwarfs all of Starbound's planets put together.

 

This is what the minecraft wiki say about how big the worlds are in minecraft.

"While the map is infinite, the number of blocks the player may walk on is limited. The map, counting air as a block, and not counting blocks beyond and at where block physics fail (32,000,000 from the center) from top to bottom, and all in between, is essentially always 2.62144 × 1017 blocks big. The last point a person may still play normally, which in layman terms the very edge of the map is X/Z: 30,000,000. There is also a height limit of 255."