I can attest that my comment was made in isolation. I intentionally didn’t look at conversations or reviews and wanted a fresh experience all to myself. So I’m not parroting or trying to push some negative narrative.
Now that I’ve slept on it, I’m going to dive back in with my expectations reduced, and I’m hoping I’ll have lots of fun with it.
I think your comment is totally fair, you actually tried the game and came to the opinion. I’m more so confused on the zero gameplay but I know it sucks comments.
I agree and it sucks. At least on Reddit you could generally avoid pointlessly negative people, whereas here it feels like that’s the majority of comments. I hope it changes into actual conversations at some point
Reddit has toxic positivity with regards to Starfield. I find the comments I’ve read here so far to be a much more measured take. Basically that it’s a good game but it has a few minor issues that make it not live up to what was advertised.
More so this. The things I saw people saying they were gonna do once they got the game despite nothing of the sort being implied to be in the game were out of control. I’ve played the dog shit out of Skyrim and Fallout 4 and have yet to be let down by Starfield because I knew what to expect. And yes, I watched all of the ads and read the interviews, same as most, and never once felt lied to.
What I’m learning is that I’m really glad that I told myself I wouldn’t be buying it until it was on sale post-launch to see if it was even worth the sale price
I waited until I could see video of people actually playing the game. I like how it looks. I decided to just purchase the base game, so I haven’t played it yet but I’m okay with waiting va few days. Also I got my Steam key $5 off on Newegg so paid $65. I’ll wait to buy all of the DLC in a bundle sometime down the road and it will give the game new life for another playthrough.
It’s pretty good. I’m not super into fantasy so I think I prefer the story so far over TES. I do like a sideish plot I’m in to join a faction and potentially betray another faction.
I am running on a 3080 with no real hiccups. I get 40-80fps. It’s higher indoors and on the blower side in cities. This is on Ultra with resolution scaling at 77% at 4K, which is slightly above the Ultra preset.
There are loading screens when you take off and land or enter certain areas. They’re annoying, but usually just 1-2 seconds. I do wish they optimized this more.
Combat is decent. It’s not the best shooter in history but it generally works okay. Space combat is again just okay. Kind of simplistic relative to something like Elite Dangerous or Star Citizen. Actually, after admittedly only a couple space battles, I actually think even No Mans Sky has better space combat. Don’t take this as gospel though.
To be fair, the realistic space combat video game genre really doesn't exist, that I've seen.
You can get pretty hard-realistic combat aircraft sims. Not many, but they exist.
But in space combat games, you're always playing something roughly like Star Wars. Which is cool and all, but just not what actual space combat would likely look like.
googles for one of the pages talking about the issues
Real life naval warfare is generally slow and boring, but by using a variety of tricks, like time compression and only having the player involved in actual combat, many games have made that palatable.
I beg to differ. It’s the most beautiful of the Bethesda games by far, very immersive without having to have the main character have dialogue (fallout 4). Tons of items, crafting, research, outposts, ships. This game is huge. Absolutely love it.
I’ve played oblivion, skyrim and fallout 3 and 4. While it’s similar engine of game, this game blew it out of the park.
So far I’m a few hours in and I’ve been having a great time. My hardware is closer to the minimum requirements, so I’ve had some issues with my resolution throttling back to keep framerate up in the busiest areas. So far, no significant bugs experienced, assuming the aforementioned texture resolution fuzzing was intentional.
I will say I’ve found all the complaints about loading screens to be a little silly. Again, I’m closer to the minimum hardware level on PC but most loading screens I encounter have been around 3-5 seconds, and they’re generally made up for with other conveniences like the ability, when planetside, to fast travel not just directly to your ship, but Into the pilot’s seat, so I’m spending a lot less time loading than I would have just walking through doors.
All in all so far it feels like exactly what I was expecting.
specifically to the loading screens point, I guess it’s about expectations. Since this is such a huge game advertised as exploration-based people might find too many loading screens immersion-breaking.
I saw some comment in this thread that on the Deck, someone had to set their Proton version for Starfield to Proton Experimental -- newer than the current stable release version -- and then it worked. Might try that on other Linux distros too.
IIRC it's in the Properties->Compatibility dialog for a given game.
Many entries on ProtonDB saying "switch to Experimental". Looks like the current GloriousEggroll Proton build also works, but if you've never set that up, easier to just do Proton Experimental.
Damn dude I thought my 4770 was old. Until a few months ago I had a grx770 until I cracked and found a deal on a 6800XT. So now I know what it’s like to be heavily CPU-bottlenecked .
Well… Confirmed what I had feared. They heavily rely on dynamic resolution and DLSS/FSR instead of real optimization. Meet most of the recommended specs, except the GPU. I’ve got a 1660 Super and even on low settings @1080p, the game runs anywhere between 25 and 60 fps. And it’s like… Backwards from what I would expect. Indoor areas are the slower areas, while outdoors is nice and snappy. But it looks blurry as fuck with the resolution scale at anything other than 100%, and even ultra settings do not put it that high.
That said, it is still playable without having to mod in lower textures and reducing clutter. Which is more than I can say about Fallout 4 at release, and I had the exact recommended specs for that one back then.
First game since I built this machine to run this poorly with settings this low. Even Baldur’s Gate 3, which looks way better, runs so much better at Ultra settings than Starfield does at the minimum.
Other than that, the setting feels pretty bland, which is not what I expected considering the passionate way they talked at lengths about it. It’s all very generic and very obviously just trying to make every fun sci-fi trope they like stick. I am not playing for the story or the writing, but the world building is usually one of their best features… This one is pretty lackluster with the world building, and so far has not really drawn me in.
I mean… Yes, but I would have expected it to not run at all. It runs playable. Which is crazy for it not only being an unsupported GPU, but also a BGS game. It wasn’t meant as a bash, other than it probably could have been supported if they didn’t use DLSS/FSR as a crutch. It was praise for the stability actually being fucking solid for once.
Complaints about the looks still stand (don’t need to have high fps to see the world looking nice in a still frame lol). At its best, it looks 5 years old. I’ve seen better recently, so it’s kind of disappointing.
I like it. Still has some classic glitches, enemies jumping high into the air after you kill them, grabbing weapons out of a locked container because part of the gun was sticking was sticking out, you know, Bethesda things.
I found that it looks really blurry if I don’t have it on Ultra settings, that’s my only real complaint.
You might want to check the FSR scaling if the screen looks blurry below ultra. Basically the graphics preset also changes the resolution scaling IIRC with Ultra with the highest percentage.
Also even on low, with fsr up, I’m pulling a whopping 30 fps max with my 1070. My 3060 is dead and I just went ahead and upgraded ahead of the warranty check.
But I had to turn motion blur and film grain back on to make the game even marginally playable. It’s like a new record for how unoptimized it is. Seems specific to nvidia cards.
Turn on FSR but keep the resolution scale at 100% if you don’t want it doing any upscaling. This looks a lot sharper to me than native resolution with no FSR.
I wonder if this is because the TAA implementation lacks a sharpening pass.
I played 4 hours last night and I really am enjoying the game. There are a few issues but I think they things that could be improved via patches. For the most part it’s QOL things. I fixed the no ultra wide support with a hex editor but by far my biggest gripe is movement speeds. Walking is way too slow. Jogging is a little slow but not available if using kb&m. Run and sprint feel OK (sprint is maybe too fast). Using kb&m feels really bad. You go from very slow walking to a full run which ruins the immersion for me. Using controller is better but I prefer kb&m for combat. Even with controller though, the difference between walk, jog, run and sprint feels weird as they don’t blend together. I would switch between kb&m and controller but there’s not a separate setting for inverting Y for controller vs. Kb&m, which for me is a problem as I invert y on controller so switching between the two requires a change of that setting as well. For now I’m sticking with kb&m and just putting up with the fact that I feel like I’m running around like a crazy person all the time. Oh, and the fact that walk is slower for your character than it is for NPC’s is so annoying. Allowing that to happen should exclude you being able to make video games! Whoever is responsible for that needs to do better.
I’m having a great time, but I also love FO4 and No Man’s Sky. The toe-dip I’ve done into colony building shows that they put real thought into Astroneer-like automated manufacturing stuff, which is my crack, and something I missed in NMS and FO4. It’s also clear from the first city that they know how depressing FO4 is, and wanted to add more variety.
Story and characters are a cut above any other Bethesda game so far, but that’s not saying much. My wife is replaying BG3 next to me, and it makes Starfield’s writing look amateurish by comparison. It’s not the core of the game though, so eh.
Downsides so far have been that the minor planets/moons don’t have much to do, and that inventory management is annoying with how much crafting components weigh.
Ship combat is… Fine. It’s not as intricate as Elite: Dangerous or SW:Squadrons (for sim gamers, weapons are all on REALLY forgiving gimbals, which makes precision unnecessary), but not actively bad like NMS VR. I think it’s a good compromise, because not everyone wants to deal with a realistic sim in what is essentially a minigame.
It’s also complex, which is good, but adds some awkwardness to the beginning.
I think they made the right call too. It’s better for almost everyone. A lot of flight sim types are also techies, so I bet the mods will bias that way.
I’ve been playing Bethesda games vanilla for my first playthrough since Oblivion. By the time I finished my first run, usually a healthy modding scene had already developed.
However, the graphics are getting kinda long in the tooth.
And it is significantly less-stable. I've definitely fallen out of the map a number of times, too.
And without hitting a wiki, you can lock yourself out of a lot of things that aren't obvious. Choices matter, but often in not-immediately-apparent ways.
If you liked Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, have you tried the Wasteland series? It's what Fallout 1 was modeled on, and that series kept going.
It's not Fallout, but it's the closest I have found to "more Fallout 1 and Fallout 2".
That being said, I thought that the Fallout jump to 3D would not work well, and I think I was very much wrong there -- the series did a pretty good job jumping the gap.
feels like Fallout
If you like the desert American Southwest "New Old West" theme in Fallout 1 and 2 and New Vegas, the Wasteland series does that.
Oh yeah! I was all-in on the Wasteland 2 Kickstarter and bagged the CE of Wasteland 3. Those do scratch the itch a bit, but Fallout's universe is so much more interesting and weird. Wasteland is a lot more straight-laced, comparatively.
I'm fine with the visual presentation of Bethesda's Fallout games, but I hate the gameplay. Fallout was the ultimate exercise in player agency and consequences... so many different ways to approach situations with so many possible outcomes. It's not just shooting things. While New Vegas flirts with those principles, BG3 is the first game in 20 years to REALLY recapture that magic for me. That's the kind of game I want more of, and that's the kind of game I want Fallout to be.
cdn.cloudflare.steamstatic.com
Ważne