Todd Howard: “You may need to upgrade your PC for this game”
To be fair I don’t think the focus of Bethesda games has ever been on graphics
Instead they just fucked performance for no reason?
I would imagine the performance hit comes more from the simulation complexity, afaik Bethesda games tend to simulate everything all the time so the bigger the worlds get the more power is required
Starfield is just a mess. I think Todd assumed he could ride the Skyrim goodwill into the sunset with his subsequent games because he’s consistently failed to deliver since then. I love the jank of a good Bethesda game because at its heart you have a true rpg that lets you roam and complete quests how you see fit. Starfield removed the roaming and the exploration and left some very mediocre storytelling and quests in its wake. Without that magic you’re just left with increasingly awful jank that can’t be ignored.
Thank god for Xbox game pass, I was only out about 15 dollars and was able to try the game without committing 70 dollars.
Starfield removed the roaming and the exploration and left some very mediocre storytelling and quests in its wake.
There are some great sidequests in Starfield. I started the game by just playing side quests and completely ignoring the main ones and it was awesome. I loved the Ryujin questline because I had a sneak-build and it was nice to just not be seen and wreak havoc. The one about the 200 year old starship and the AI ship were also pretty good.
But then I did the Sarah romance questline which was written like a fanfiction by a twelve year old…and continued doing the main quests which were just like Skyrim in space. Starborn…Dragonborn…ugh.
The first 40 hours were a solid 8/10 for me. Once I started doing the main quests, it dropped to 3/10. And the loading screens are just annoying after a while.
I disagree that Starfield doesn’t let you explore like the other Bethesda games, it’s more like if you took the map of FO4, took 10% of each section and spread it across 10+ different planets. All of the content is still there…it’s just disconnected and feels barren because if you turn away from the pretty sections they made, there’s nothing around it. I don’t mind the storytelling, but the most of the quests are rough. If these quests were in any other game, the game would be considered generic and forgotten in a week. Also, the space combat is junk. I don’t know what good space combat looks like, but this isn’t it. It’s not rewarding, and I dread any time I encounter it.
Elex is one of the most un-fun games I’ve ever played. Sure, it looked nice. But that doesn’t help with weak gameplay and bad writing.
Funny. I feel the exact same about starfield
You guys should see some of the water physics modders put in Skyrim. They’ve even got some crazy rainstorms.
Can confirm i have so many mods for skyrim lol it looks better then starfield in some ways
It really starts to hurt physically when you start comparing starfield to cdpr games like witcher 3 or Cyberpunk…
They don’t even have DLSS support, the modders had to fix it. Added to that, the terrible inventory system which modders also had to fix…a ton of loading screens between small sections because the engine can’t handle more…constantly running out of oxygen and the stupid grind for unlocking more skills…
I had my fun with Starfield, but it’s an average game, not more.
Haven’t played Starfield yet, but comparing a small handrcafted world to a huge procedural generated world is like comparing a single screenshot from a movie to a single realistic painting. It doesn’t mean that Starfield is good, just that it’s not a fair comparison.
Not all of Starfield is randomly generated. This specific example is from one of the main big cities that are definitely hand built. The random stuff is mostly deserts and outposts like what players can build. So even according to your standards, this is a correct and legitimate comparison.
There’s no excuse for not improving the water system since they released Skyrim. With that budget, it should’ve been doable. I mean, look at that. It looks like sewage.
I wouldn’t think that the city on the planet where the screenshot was made (and I don’t remember the name) was procedurally generated
Take a look at the water graphics in Remnant 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeY63Sf1lnQ
I think I recognize that UE plugin
I’m enjoying Starfield, but it isn’t perfect by any means. I have to ask though, is the bottom screenshot from an area that is meant to be normally seen by the player? Because if it isn’t, they should be toning down the graphics as part of optimizing performance. I guess it’s not really a valid point either though, because Starfield’s performance is terrible.
You’re correct, you normally are walking around up on top of and past the top of that waterfall. You’re allowed to go down there, but there’s nothing to find or see.
The performance has markedly improved for me after the first patch, I now only dip below 60 FPS in cities on an RTX 3060, could still be better, though, as that’s with most settings on low.
So with a 3060 on low settings you’re not even getting a locked 60? That’s unacceptable.
I’m getting a locked 60 everywhere except the three city planets and only in areas there where combat doesn’t happen, so it’s not impeding my gameplay, but it is noticeable. And I do have some settings above low, just the major ones like shadows and such are on low.
But my other main gaming platform is the Switch, so I’m quite accepting of low or unstable framerates, or even games that don’t look their best. I can personally accept it since there aren’t any other games that combine the genres this one does, but it’s… not good.
But my other main gaming platform is the Switch, so I’m quite accepting of low or unstable framerates
Which is fine, it’s okay to be accepting of lower frame rates when they’re acceptable. Like, if you had a 2060 or maybe a 2070 then fair enough. But you have a 3060 and aren’t even getting a locked 60 across the board when at low settings. A 30 series card shouldn’t be struggling so much when at low settings, period.
It’s one thing to physically be okay with lower frame rates, and another to overlook an unoptimized game. I can live with lower frame rates too, but this is still unacceptable.
Personally with Bethesda, I’m more upset about Fallout 4. I like that game more than Starfield, but even though it’s older, it runs worse in the city with all the debris, shadows, and NPCs in a dense location. And I fight things there.
Or Oblivion, where even to this day I can’t fully get rid of the stuttering when loading world chunks, because the damn game bottlenecks itself.
I think it is unacceptable. I love those other games much more for what they did at the time, and with what they offered to me, I found the technical issues acceptable to get that niche fix. With Starfield, I still like it to an extent, but this’ll be the last time I trust off the bat that Bethesda will back up their flaws with a worthy enough overall package.
Yes, it’s an area in Atlantis that you visit as part of the romance questline with Sarah. Bethesda hasn’t changed a lot in the water system since Skyrim and I believe it’s laughable in 2023 for a game that costs 99$.
So you’re saying its an area that isn’t meant to be normally seen. Some players may see it once in a play through, and only if they romance Sarah. That’s the exact definition of not normally seen.
That’s the exact definition of not normally seen.
No it’s not. You visit this area during a mission and you can visit it every time you land on Atlantis, which is the main hub city of the game.
Added to that, the whole point of Sarah bringing you here is to look at how beautiful this place is, which is ridiculous when you look at it. :D
A completely optional mission, in a completely optional romance line, that you only see once should you choose that one romance quest out of the options. Normally seen in a game is something like the New Atlantis Spaceport, which every player sees multiple times in a playthrough.
Though I do agree, I did that romance, and was certainly underwhelmed by the waterfall.
This is not a great argument unless you are very deep into pretending a game company can do no wrong.
There are lots of ways this is silly to claim is fine, it’s ridiculous to act like this is expected or acceptable and not just amateurish lack of polish.
But it’s okay, you can still enjoy the game. It’s okay to enjoy things which have flaws.
Did I say it was acceptable? No, I said it was underwhelming.
What I’m arguing is it is not a normally viewed part of the game, because the vast majority of players will never see it.
Can someone explain what’s going on? I’m not sure I follow.
A six year old game for 1% of the nominal cost looks better
