I kind of think it does apply to modern graphics and game design in the same way. A fast paced action shooter still needs moments where you catch your breath, it's never just an endless constant flood of enemies. A visually beautiful game still has bits that aren't particularly interesting or you'd get an overdose of visual information and wouldn't be able to identify what was important.

Similarly, starfield has a lot of small barren moons that don't have a lot of resources. They are boring compared to the green worlds (there are tons of these too though, which every repeat of this thread has glossed over), but they still have stuff going for them. I spent my evening last night exploring a smuggler base that I randomly fell into while looking for a place to put an aluminum mine on a barren moon. The night before it was a (very cool) mission on an abandoned mining platform.

However, in the process of going to and from these sites, I definitely felt like I was travelling across a barren, dusty moon. That helped the feel. Both those quests had storylines that were inherently tied to the fact that the setting was a barren, dusty moon, rather than a teeming, thriving planet.

Bottom line, I think this one over-shared article says nothing of importance. If you go to one of these 'boring' moons there's lots to do, just not 'explore and identify the planetary life' kind of stuff. you can tell at a glance which planets are more likely to have settlements and things from space, and there's more of them than any one person can explore, so it really doesn't matter that there are also a bunch that aren't like that.