Remember when Sean Murray said prior to NMS launch that it was part of their vision for you to be alone in a vast uncharted universe with nowhere to call a home? That was code for, “we don’t have multiplayer or basebuilding, and there’s not really anything interesting enough for you to stay there long term”.
Give Starfield a few years, they’ll figure out what to do with those planets.
people really need to put the nostalgia googles down…back in the days nobody played Crysis with full details and a steady framerate.
You were in 1024x768 and turned everything down just to play the game with barely 30fps and you know what, it was still dope as fuck. So yeah guys get used to lower your settings or to upgrade your rig and if you don’t want to do that get a xbox
Crysis was built by a company specialising in building a high fidelity engine. It was, by all accounts, meant primarily as a tech demo. This is absolutely not the case with Starfield - first, the game doesn’t look nearly good enough for that compared to Crysis, and second it’s built on an engine that simply can’t do a lot of the advanced stuff.
The game could be playable on max settings on many modern computers if it was optimised properly. It isn’t.
sure mister gamedev, please continue to tell more on how an engine you clearly worked on, should run…
I dont say that Starfield is a well optimised game and performance will get better with upcoming patches. But I also don’t think it’s an unoptimized mess, I think it is running reasonable and people really should start review their rig, because modern games will need modern components
Oh and also other games did not run that well like you maybe remember ;)
sure mister gamedev, please continue to tell more on how an engine you clearly worked on, should run…
I can easily compare between what different game companies do. Why are you acting like I need to be a developer on a game to criticise that game?
I dont say that Starfield is a well optimised game and performance will get better with upcoming patches.
Todd could have said so. He didn’t. Why?
But I also don’t think it’s an unoptimized mess, I think it is running reasonable and people really should start review their rig, because modern games will need modern components
I never stated this. I simply said: comparing Starfield and Crysis is deliberately disingenuous, because Crysis was fundamentally meant to break boundaries, which Starfield doesn’t do.
Oh and also other games did not run that well like you maybe remember ;)
Okay, what’s the argument here? Do you think I say for those games “well, you’re not Bethesda, so I’m fine with you not running well”?
does it look it look good compared to other AAA games? no
well I beg to differ on that, but it’s quiete a subjective topic right ;)
does it run fast? no ergo. the engine is crap.
Again very subjective, very dependend on your hardware and also a pretty dumb conclusion, since an engine has more qualities then to run “fast”.
I already mentioned in this thread, the games runs quite well for me and I would call fps in the range from 80 to 124 quite fast for a Bethesda Open World Game. So what do we do now with our subjective oppinions 🤔
well you can put your “not in my computer” opinion in your ass. widespread benchmarks by established gaming journalists show good computers struggling.
I don’t know why they keep using that piece of shit engine, Microsoft should order them to format every PC and start again with UE5, the engine that it’s actually next gen
You don’t have to be a game dev to see that games that came out before Starfield look and perform better. If you bought the game and you enjoy it, that’s all fine and I won’t make fun of you for it, but let’s not defend what is an obvious point of incompetence on Bethesda’s side.
And buddy, I’ve been playing Bethesda Games since Daggerfall and believe me, Starfield is a fucking polished diamond compared to their old good games and compared to their latest shitshows like fallout 4 and fallout 76…
You’re comparing Bethesda games to Bethesda games, which we all know are buggy messes. Starfield falls short of my expectations for what a polished diamond looks like.
okay not-buddy 😂 I think we are also pretty much done here, since I dont see any point in discussing this any further with you. So byeeee and have a pleasent day not playing Starfield I guess.
There will always be that game that pushes the boundaries between current gen and next gen. Sometimes even more. Crysis is the perfect example of the past. Starfiels seems to do a decent job right now even if it’s probably not even close to what Crysis did. When people spend a lot of money we feel entitlement, thats only natural. No one did anything wrong. So no need to point a finger anywhere.
You seem to have missed the part where I wrote that Starfield is probably not even close to pushing the boundaries in the same way that Crysis did. So I can’t do much explaining in detail about that it is.
But it didnt tho, it looks shit and hogs more resources compared to other games like cyberpunk which is probably a better example for next gen graphics
It’s system by system, I have the same cpu and do fairly well, admittedly with it boosting to 4.5ghz. My wife has the same cpu and it struggles on her machine. It feels like the game just wasn’t tested well.
After all this time I don’t think I ever heard anything about how Crysis plays or what’s the story and such. People only talk about how hard it was to run and how fancy these graphics were. Doesn’t make it sound all that great.
Story is meh but lots of people will say how the open ended nature of Crysis was fun and a pity that it was removed for a more linear CoD style in Crysis 2
While there’s a current DLSS thread, am I the only one who actually likes the aesthetics of DLSS, regardless of FPS? It adds a softness to the whole image that reduces eye strain for me and make the game more cinematic almost.
The recent versions are much better. But it also depends on the engine. I haven’t played Cyberpunk2077 since release, but there the trailing shadows of moving people and cars were very visible. Hopefully these issues are a thing of the past.
Is anyone else done with Nintendo? I bought the switch when it first came out after buying every other dang console for years and it just snapped in me finally that many of their flagship games are the same lifeless thing every time and not even as close to fun as their predecessors that I can still play today. Mario party was such a fucking let down for me. The only game I was able to get into so far was smash bros and it didn’t last too long. Tried that animal crossing game during pandemic but it was so bad you were just a manipulated slave to animals getting you to put chairs in your house…it was Soo boring. I tried Zelda too but man I didn’t enjoy weapons constantly breaking. I think the last straw for me was the new Pokemon games and how bad they ran. I came to the conclusion what’s the point of buying this thing when I just have way more fun on PC for way cheaper price for games overall? Can’t even play with anyone on Nintendo anyways without paying for access to their servers while also having to have Internet. Even if you get a ballin PC overtime the game library is way more extensive and less expensive for the most part with sales and steam key sites. Nintendo never budges on pricing for anything.
Mario Odyssey was the best Mario game I’ve every played, so not all bad. I just borrowed a Switch to play it though. Nobody is forcing you to pay the Nintendo tax!
I’ve played the switch more hours than I think any previous console. For all its flaws the switch is home to so many quality Nintendo experiences at this point that if someone finds that this is the generation that they’ve tired of Nintendo then it’s possible they simply don’t like Nintendo style games anymore.
Mario Party indeed was a pile of shit. But there are so many incredible games.
To give an impression of what it’s been like for me:
I had a quest where I needed Iron. I found a random planet that had it, and picked a spot in the middle of the scan readouts. Arrive, looks like a barren rock - but that’s fine because I only wanted rocks. However, I see something in the distance, and check it out. On the way, I find a wandering trader taking her alien dog for a walk, and sell some stuff weighing me down. I find a cave, where a colonist is hiding out with a respiratory infection - and am able to help them get out as a little mini-quest, though the infection spreads to me.
I come past a little mining installation, where I find a bounty hunter that tells me of a bounty nearby she’s offering to split with me. We do so, fighting a base full of raiders to get to their captain, and I finally decide to leave.
The key here is, I don’t think any of those quests are amazing - they’re likely very dynamically generated. But they’re also not fun to “seek them out” - just to come across them in some other mission, like trying to make an outpost or mining for stuff.
I mean, I can’t even argue against that. Some people find some forms of work fulfilling, and even switch to games because their own jobs don’t actually give them that feeling of fulfillment.
Monster Hunter is a prime example of a game that sets such elongated goals that it’s regarded as a “grind-heavy” game - but its players like the grind. Heck, the entire space simulator genre often involves quite a lot of “Space Truck Simulator” gameplay, where you’re just engineering good ways to ferry cargo around.
Which is not to say that’s what Starfield aims for. From what I’ve played, it’s closer to Sea of Thieves, having adventurous interruptions - where you start a boring, routine mission to bring Sugar from one merchant post to another, but then get ambushed by a skeleton ship, then a giant shark, then find a map to a buried treasure nearby.
Half the reason I play Elite is space trucking. I’m only raising my empire rank to get the largest ship… in order to space truck better. The Fed Corvette I plan to make a combat vessel, but the Cutter will be my space truck.
I found that flow of the game works a little bit better if you just don’t fast travel at all. I played a lot of Elite and it gave me a little bit of Elite vibes when I just walk to my ship, go thru inside it and sit down. Then I take off “manually” using the button and jump to the target system by manually targeting it and press the jump button.
What Bethesda can do better is to just mask the loading with a flight animation, for example when you’re taking off from a planet the loading should be replaced by an animation where you’re going out of the atmosphere. And when you’re jumping between star systems, the loading should be replaced by something similar to Elite when we’re jumping through the witch space.
All in all, my experience with Starfield has been fine. I loved the weird stuff happening when you’re just fucking around. Although the main quest has taken a step back with their sense of urgency, compare it to previous Bethesda games, where there’s a big stake going on that pushes you to at least complete the main quest once. In Starfield there’s no such sense of urgency.
It seems like Bethesda is leaning heavy on their sandbox side, just letting people go around and do stuff.
With optimized settings from the HUB YouTube channel, my FPS never went below 60.
Exactly this. It was only two generations ago when idTech was an open world engine, id can and have made it to do whatever they want and to suggest that despite Bethesda money (let alone MICROSOFT money) id couldn’t make a better engine with similar development workflows as Creation is just dishonest to suggest.
It’s a shame idTech is no longer released publicly. It would’ve been amazing to see what people could do with the beast of an engine that powered DOOM Eternal, especially modders.
I assume you’re talking about Rage, which had an open world map, but no where near the level of simulation systems as a Bethesda game. In fact I remember back at the time most of us saying the map was pointless as it was just a way to travel between levels with nothing to do in it.
There are no “levels of simulation systems” in Starfield. NPCs don’t even have schedules in this game, they literally just stand around in the same spot 24/7.
“keeping track of lots of variables” doesn’t cost CPU time though, since nothing that isn’t on the same map as you is ever relevant for anything. Their engine just fucking sucks.
Keeping track of variables doesn’t use CPU time? Ok man. I’m all for hating on Bethesda’s shitty engine but that’s just not true. At the very least it does track what NPCs are doing off screen which is how they end up at your ship when you tell them to go there. They will actually walk to your ship if you don’t get there first.
On the other hand it’s basically guaranteed that Bethesda spent zero effort optimizing that. I bet it’s the same code they ran for Skyrim.
ID tech is nowhere near flexible enough for something like Starfield or even Skyrim. It’s partially the reason why it’s so efficient. It simply isn’t fit for the task.
And the Bethesda developers are intimately familiar with Creation Engine, achieving the same level of productivity with something new will take a long time. Switching the engine is not an easy thing.
Not to say that Creation Engine isn’t a cumbersome mess. It has pretty awful performance, stability and is full of bugs, but on the other hand it’s extremely flexible which has allowed its games to have massive mod communities.
If Bethesda can’t take the time to do it then who can? People act like they’re some small time developer but they’re not. They simply refuse to expand their dev team to do things like a redesign.
Creation engine is not going to hold up well for another 6 years, there’s no way their cell loading system will be considered acceptable by the time ES6 comes out. The amount of loading screens in Starfield is insane for a modern game. This company needs new talent badly.
You realise custom engines are built for specific game types right? iD Tech is great for creating high fedelity FPS games with linear levels and little environment interactivity. That’s not what Bethesda make though.
They could do everything they usually do but better if they used Unreal. They don’t need a custom engine. They just need an engine that isn’t over 2 decades old with a bunch of shit taped to it to make it look modern. Not to mention, ID already did make a custom built engine that handles much of what Bethesda RPGs do when they made RAGE. They could have used that, with the only issue being learning it. Not sure what their turnover rate is like… maybe they’re just too used to GameBryo/Creation to be able to switch now. It might take too long to learn anything new. Plus it would have to be able to have a toolset. If they didn’t release those easy to use modding tools, there could be rioting in the streets.
As far as I know, Bethesda are unusual in modern Devs in that they have a small team for the size of game they make, but they have strong retention of staff so have huge amounts of institutional knowledge about how they do things. Shifting to a new engine would basically mean starting from scratch on a company level. Unlike Ubisoft or Activison, they can’t just throw several thousend Devs at a game to brute force the development either.
But that’s their biggest problem. There’s no reason for them to have a small unchanging team. It’s very very obvious that they never get an influx of new ideas. Starfield feels like it was made in 2016 and the optimization effort is comically bad. The writing is still mostly boring, campy and naive like it was written by a 15 year old Mormon. The facial animations are incrementally better than fallout but still noticeably worse than much older games like Witcher 3. I could go on.
It’s not a bad game at all but it could’ve been so much better if Bethesda execs weren’t greedy cheapasses and the dev team was open to changing their process.
This why Bethesda needs to be criticized instead of constantly getting fellated by fanboys. ES6 will be an outdated mess because Bethesda never sees any feedback except over the top praise for half-assing their games.
Fanboys downvote you but you are right, even if I love the fallout franchise, the same gameplay loop, the same engines, potato faces in 2023, outdated animations… etc, right now I would prefer Microsoft to force obsidian to take care of the next fallout, and ban Todd Howard for ever putting one foot in the dev took, even in the building. He can go fuck himself and his shit engine.
I know they don’t want to switch, but it would be worth it to make the swap to something like unreal, even if it takes a few years of customization to get the open world stuff right. Creation Engine just feels so old.
Wait, what? I have to buy a PC about every 10 to 15 years and it does’t cost me “thousands”. Last year, I bought one for about $700 and I can run every game at maximum settings with no issues.
Just wait for components to be on sale (it happens often) and you’ll have a good pc for a very good price.
Actually its quite the opposite usualy and games on conosles run well while on pc they can be a buggy mess. Granted on pc they will/can look better but the optimization is mostly done for console players.
Just stop chasing trends and play everything on a 5-10 year delay. Or better yet, just play indie. I save so much
money and my backlog is so long I don't even have time to play all of it.
I've just installed STALKER: Anomaly, a total conversion mod for STALKER: Call of Chernobyl. If you've never played the STALKER series before it is one of my favourite games of all time.
Operation Harsh Doorstop and Ravenfield are fun fps to casually dick around. I like them for their growing Steamworkshop mod scene, especially with Ravenfield.
Return of the Obra Dinn and Disco Elysium are two games on my backlog that saddens me every time I see it because I'd love to finish them but I just couldn't find the time.
Project Zomboid and Deep Rock Galayctic are fun times with people.
I was gifted Frostpunk and Outer Wilds. I haven't got around to playing it yet but my brother loved it.
It’s funny, Steam Deck is so much weaker than the typical gaming PC and will definitely not outperform an ~RX 6700XT at the same quality level but Steam Deck resolution vs at 1440p. Worse, Steam Deck shares 16 GB of RAM between CPU and GPU, so this guy is gonna have an even smaller list of games they can play on a docked Steam Deck vs a PC.
Also, Steam Deck can’t be (read: processing power) upgraded, and doesn’t have 3D-VCache, that’s not good for CPU bound games. And then you might also be defaulting to Steam OS, which doesn’t have full compatibility with Windows games, and have a complicated compatability file structure, which could complicate modding and 3rd party utilities.
So yeah, Steam Deck as a complete desktop replacement has more issues than you might expect. And the worst part is, absent docking portable HDDs, everything is an SSD, so welcome to the SSD $/GB world. TF cards have even worse $/GB.
It’s comfortable - play on your couch, bed sofa or wherever.
Portable - battery-powered handheld gaming device. Play anywhere.
Powerful - it’s not Android-based device, it’s fully featured computer that is capable of running even the latest games at 30fps (but as you said - it’s not always the case).
It’s cheap - you can have a gaming “PC” for 500$/€
Linux feature - instant sleep & resume mid-game. Perfect if “free time” isn’t your second name.
Device feature - no closed OS. Which means mods and no jailbreaking or any other unnecesarry workarounds required to fully use the hardware.
As someone who has gaming PC (nvidia 2080Ti, ryzen 9 3900x, 32gb ram, FHD 280Hz monitor) as well as gaming laptop (nvidia 3080m, intel i7 something, 32gb of ram, 2K 240Hz display) and Xbox series X with LG C1 TV - I am still spending most of my time on Steam Deck. Why? Convenience.
#1 you’re also restricted to whatever plays nice with the steam input system, and custom inputs are generally more tedious to use than a mouse and keyboard.
#2 that’s the entire point of the Steam Deck.
#3 isn’t the hallmarks of something “powerful”, I’m surprised that you would consider 30 fps acceptable given that you know what 240 fps is like.
#4 it’s not cheap. It’s just at the right proce for the hardware. The only reason why it doesn’t feel worse is because it’s running at 1280x800p. The display is literally from the discard pile with its terrible colours.
#5 Windows could do the same if Valve tried hard enough. Suspend/Resume isn’t that special and I’ve manually invoked it on desktop for all kinds of things before. >Task Manager.
#6 that’s because Steam is doing the legwork to make things work for you. See what they did with Elden Ring’s stuttering problem. I challenge you otherwise to access the game directories of any game running through proton. There’s a whole emulated filestructure that you have to understand before modding the game on Steam Deck.
Power user stuff is outside the scope of gaming for most people.
HG just kept duct taping more crap to the game without adding any depth or integrating their crap together. It’s still an incredibly shallow game where you’ve seen all that there’s worth seeing on the first day of playing.
You know someone is gonna make a mod that generates random and unique bases from hab complex assets.
And thats exactly why Bethesda doesnt put the effort in. cause they make the game, then the modders make it good for free… Or it used to be that, now they want to charge for mods and take a cut of the profits for shit they didnt make.
At a scale of 1k planets you're going to have to rely on reused assets and procedural generation. At which point people not into procedural generation say that it's "repetitive". Especially if you only gen once for everyone and not each run lol.
AI generation of assets and code will theoretically eventually resolve this, but that's quite a ways off. They're not even usable for such with human assistance yet. And if you have ai generating the content, it's not really a human team making that stuff lol.
They could at least make the random PoI’s interesting if there was some…randomness to them.
Like, I walk into a PoI, I already know where the chests are, the locked doors, are, where the stupid fucking corpse in the shower is, etc etc. cause I’ve ran through this PoI 20 times.
I dont know why at least the locations of chests and locked doors cant be randomized. Make things at least marginally interesting, instead of cookie cuttered to extreme.
You can, but randomizing chests+locked doors is kinda complicated, and the more "interesting" your generations the harder it is to code and the more dev time it takes. And for a AAA game release you can't really do that.
Key+Lock randomization is something that has been solved, and has been used most notably in procedurally generated zeldalikes. But that's still niche indie territory, and not used for major game releases.
Hasn’t this game been in development for like 5 years? And they built it on an existing engine that they have tons of experience with. You could have said “they were limited on how much they could randomize POIs because of the old engine” and I would have believed you because that sounds way more plausible than “it’s hard to code, so AAA games can’t do it”. Like what?
The issue with procedural generation is the game has to be built for it from the ground up and in a modular way. AAAs try to make themselves appealing by using novel new high quality assets that aren't modular.
I haven't played starfield so idk what they ended up doing, but from the sound of it they have pre-made assets/areas that they then place onto pre-generated worlds in a randomized way.
To make one of these "areas" procedural in itself, they'd then have to code a whole system for that. With AAA/3D the hard part is making modular environments without it looking repetitive or ugly.
My point isn't so much that it can't be done in a AAA game. But rather that it's risky to do (not all players like it), and you have to structure your development around it. Lots can go wrong, there's stuff you gotta sacrifice to make it work, etc.
If starfield is on the old bethesda engine then that's even more of a reason. You can't just plug and play an entire procedural generation thing in there without some fairly large overhauls or just gluing on an unrelated system.
In practice, bethesda probably took the lazy route: using their existing engine without major changes, then just making new assets for it, throwing stuff about a bit randomly, and calling it a day.
That's the thing about procedural generation is: it's a lot of effort and sucks up a huge part of the game's development and comes at some pretty strict costs (repetitive looking environments/gameplay, reduced novelty, larger programming dev time to make it work). It can be done, but for a cost-cutting AAA studio they're not gonna bother.
They already have once though. Many of Morrowind’s dungeons were procedurally generated in development then edited a bit after, that was the same engine. Same with Daggerfall altho that was a diff engine.
Very different game but Amnesia: the Bunker has plenty of procedural generation as well.
It’s not at all impossible for one of the largest game development studios to have some procedurally generated, essentially dungeon content. Doing a bit more than the exact same place copied and pasted would be a huge undertaking yes, but if they wanted to they could have. There are plenty of 3D rogue-likes out now as well. Returnal is AAA and haa procedurally generated levels, far more complicated than neccesary for Bethesda to do in order to populate planets in their game about planet exploration.
I didn't say it's impossible. Just that it's harder, takes deliberate effort, etc. For AAA games they don't bother with that kind of thing because it's larger expense and larger risk.
I was never asking for fully procedurally generated dungeons.
I just said randomize chest locations and door locks. It cant be that hard for a company that has been using the same game engine for almost 22 years to implement a node system to roll a spawn chance for a chest, or a door to be locked or not (with a higher chance of node spawns behind locked doors).
Hell, they could have even gone the lazy way and just copy and pasted the PoI a few times and manually changed the cosmetics/appearances.
With space and prefab buildings, they have the ultimate excuse for why every dungeon is identical (at least until you get into the underground caves…), but not every one of them should have the same dead body inthe same location in the same shower, the same succulent on the same shelf. move the body to a different location! Have a chance for a cluster of books to spawn instead of the succulent! Its a prefabricated hab structure, but that doesnt mean they come with such strict instructions as “Only succulent A on this shelf”
yes. I haven't played the game so idk the details of what's up. but at 1k+ planet-sized spaces it's hard to have a team go over that by hand. Planets are large. But I have no doubt that bethesda team was probably super lazy as well.
I've got an 8086K and 3080, running on a 4K screen - with Ultra settings and FSR of 80% I'm getting 35-40fps, which honestly doesn't feel too bad. It's noticable sometimes but it's a lot smoother than the numbers suggest.
Because my CPU is a little long in the tooth, I've gone probably a bit hard on the visuals, but my framerate didn't improve much by lowering it. The engine itself has never really liked going past 60fps, so I don't know why people expected to be able to run 100+ frames at 4k or something.
Easy 1440p60 on ultra everything with no scaling on my 3090. Frequently up in the 80-90 FPS range. This game runs fine. It’s not a “teetering mess” as you say.
Completed some testing on my end, using intels PresentMon and sitting at 35fps average in New Atlantis my GPU busy is pegged at about 99% of the frame time, so nothing really.
I do get a bit of a CPU limitation when it's raining, but nothing significant, dropped to about 30fps.
Trying at 1440p with the same settings as the 3090 above got me around 50fps, 1440p is almost half the pixels of 80% of 4k as well, so that's not helping my GPU much!
I’d really not expect the performance difference between a 3090 and a 3080 to be that large, and the only difference I can think of in our systems is the CPU. (5800X3D vs 8086k)
New Atlantis is a smooth 60+ fps with every setting maxed out at 1440p.
Considering that CPU is less powerful than what’s in the Xbox Series S, which does 1080p30, I’m not at all surprised they’re getting a similar frame rate.
If this was a “teetering mess” you would have heard it in the Gamers Nexus benchmarks. Steve says nothing to this end, and the game benches predictably across the spectrum of hardware tested.
I think there wil be patches and some updates to NVIDIAs shitty driver that will fix things in the future :) Otherweise yeah maybe get an AMD GPU next time, don’t fall for the NVIDIA Marketing. Using Radeons since the 9800 pro Bundle with Half Life 2 and never had any issues with them or their drivers.
Hopefully. I’ve always been more of an AMD/ATI fan, but for this laptop the deal worked out to be better with an Nvidia card. But next time I’m not settling for it. AMD CPU and GPU is the way to go. Especially because I’m trying to daily on Linux now and the driver side is much much nicer with AMD.
You had me in the first sentence, and then I realized it was sarcasm. 🤪 I’m running a similar rig, but it’s primarily for rendering work, etc., so for juuust a second there, I wondered if it was falling behind. 😅🤓
I still haven’t found a completely empty planet, there is always outposts, abandoned mines or caves with space pirates or other factions. Every time I walk to a point there is like 3 more points you can just explore endlessly
No! That’s impossible! I was told by people who played less than an hour if at all that you simply can’t walk or fly anywhere and MUST fast travel everywhere.
That's false as moving away from your ship a certain distance (I think 6 or 7 km), it'll literally tell you you've reached the boundary of the area and you need to land somewhere else to get a new stretch of land.
Yeah but that’s a long walk, I usually do about three or four locations and I’m over encumbered, maybe once my ship is upgraded and can store more junk I can stay on planet longer
This particular point really annoys me, I’d love to have somewhere that actually feels remote, where I don’t have four more copies of the same mining and science outposts in visual range. No matter how large humanity has become it just doesn’t make any sense that you can’t find a single ~15km square without anything man made on it.
The best remote places I’ve found so far has been in some quest-specific areas, but even then there’s usually a facility somewhere within a kilometer of the quest location.
Runs great on my 5000 series AMD CPU and 3000 series Nvidia GPU, those came out 2 years ago now, and that’s averaging about 50fps on a 4k monitor.
If that isn’t optimized, idk what is. Yes, I had high end stuff from 2 years ago, but now it’s solid middle range.
People are so damn entitled. There used to be a time in PC gaming where if you were more than a year out of date you’d have to scale it down to windows 640x480. If you want “ultra” settings you need an “ultra” PC, which means flipping out parts every few years. Otherwise be content with High settings at 1080p, a very valid option
I’m not saying it’s not an expensive hobby, it is. PC gaming on ultra is an incredibly expensive hobby. But that’s the price of the hobby. Saying that a game isn’t optimized because it doesn’t run ultra settings on hardware that came out 4+ years ago is nothing new, and to me it’s a weird thing to demand. If you want ultra, you pay for ultra prices. If you don’t want to/can’t, that’s 100% acceptable, but then just be content to play on High settings, maybe 1080p.
If PC gaming is too expensive in general that’s why consoles exist. You get a pretty great experience on a piece of hardware that’s only a few hundred dollars.
4090 is definitely nuts, but with inflation the 4080 is right about on par. As usual team red very close in comparison for a much lower cost. You don’t have to constantly run the highest of the high level to get those sweet graphics, but it’s about personal taste. Personally it’s not for me paying the 40% more for a 10% jump in graphics, but every 2-3 generations is when I usually step back and reanalyze. Tbh usually it’s a game like starfield that makes me think if I should get a new one. Runs great for now though, probably have at least 1 hopefully 2 more generations before I upgrade again
4090 is definitely nuts, but with inflation the 4080 is right about on par.
On par with the competing product? Sure. On par with inflation? Not by a long shot. GPU prices tripled a couple years back. Inflation accounted for only a small fraction of that. They have come down somewhat since then, but nowhere close to where they should be even with inflation.
As usual team red very close in comparison
Indeed. Both brands being overpriced doesn’t make them any less overpriced. Cryptocurrency and scalping may be mostly gone now, but corporate greed persists.
That’s not Todd Howard’s fault, but when he makes a snarky comment expecting everyone to cough up that kind of money to play his game, it’s more than a little tone deaf.
I’ll admit didn’t know the 4000 was that high, but yeah 1200 for the midrange card is too much. If it stays like this I may switch back to team Red. I do believe costs are probably higher, (I remember buying my first board with an AGP slot), the ones now are… a bit more complicated and complex to make, but the jump from 800 in 2020 to 1200 in 2023 is too much.
Adjusted for inflation in the US, the 1080 ti cost only $876 in today’s money when it came out. The 4080 launched at $1231 in today’s money. You are simply incorrect
The dude digs a hole and then grabs a bigger shovel
Some people just really love a company and will do anything to excuse their shortcomings
Starfield is poorly optimized and that’s really all there is to it. I’m sure in a few weeks modders will (once again) fix some obvious issues. Bethesda has no incentive to do the work themselves when the community will do it for free
Okay I’ll admit I didn’t know that’s how much the 4080 was, last time I checked was the 3000 series and yeah, that’s a lot. (I thought it started around 8-900) I stick to my points though, if you want ultra gaming, it’s going to cost an arm and a leg. My main point is still shouldn’t expect older hardware to get ultra settings, and that’s okay. You can play a game on medium settings and still have a blast.
I don’t know if you noticed, but everything became more expensive in the last year. Food, housing, etc, it’s called inflation and PC parts aren’t immune.
For only 300 more I have a mortgage on a 2000sq foot home in a large American city….
I have a 6900xt because I got a promotion recently and wanted to treat myself to get off the r9-300 series finally but it wasn’t 1600, I think I paid 1100
I’m running it on a Ryzen 1600 AF and a 1070. NOT Ti. 1440 at 66% resolution. Mix of mostly low some medium. 100% GPU and 45% CPU usage. 30 fps solid in cities. I won’t complain at all. I’m just happy it runs at all solidly under minimum spec.
Doom eternal also came out 3.5 years ago now, and your card is nearly 5 years old. That’s the performance I would expect from a card that is that old playing a brand new game that was meant to be a stretch.
I’m sorry, but this is how PC gaming works. Brand new cards are really only awesome for about a year, then good for a few years after that, then you start getting some new releases that make you think it’s about time. I’ve had the 3000 series, the 1000 series, before that I was an ATI guy with some sapphire, and before that the ATI 5000 series. It’s just how it goes in PC gaming, this is nothing new
I mean, there isn’t one thing you can point to and say “ah ha that’s causing all teh lag”, things just take up more space, more compute power, more memory as it grows. As hardware capabilities grow software will find a way to utilize it. But if you want a few things
Textures are larger, where 4k was just getting rolling in 2017 (pre RDR2 after all), to accomodate 4K textures had to be scaled up (and remember width and height, so that’s 4x the memory and 4x the space on drive)
Engines have generally grown to be more high fidelity including more particles, more fog, (not in Starfield but Raytracing, which is younger than 2017), etc. All of these higher fidelity items require more computer power. Things like anti-aliasing for example, they’re always something like 8x, but that’s 8x the resolution, which the resolutions have only gone up, again rising with time.
I don’t know what do you want? Like a list of everything that’s happened from then? Entire engines have come and gone in that time. Engines we used back then we’re on at least a new version compared to then, Starfield included. I mean I don’t understand what you’re asking, because to me it comes off as “Yeah well Unreal 5 has the same settings as 4 to me, so it’s basically the same”
Textures are larger, where 4k was just getting rolling in 2017 (pre RDR2 after all), to accomodate 4K textures had to be scaled up (and remember width and height, so that’s 4x the memory and 4x the space on drive)
Texture resolution has not considerably effected performance since the 90s.
Changing graphics settings in this game barely effects performance anyway.
Things like anti-aliasing for example, they’re always something like 8x, but that’s 8x the resolution, which the resolutions have only gone up, again rising with time.
Wtf are you talking about, nobody uses SSAA these days. TAA has basically no performance penalty and FSR has a performance improvement when used.
If you’re going to try and argue this point at least understand what’s going on.
The game is not doing anything that other games haven’t achieved in a more performant way. They have created a teetering mess of a game that barely runs.
Texture resolution has not considerably effected performance since the 90s.
If this were true there wouldn’t be low resolution textures at lower settings, high resolutions take up exponentially more space, memory, and time to compute. I’m definitely not going to be re-learning what I know about games from Edgelord here.
Texture resolution has not considerably effected performance since the 90s.
lol. try to play a game with 4K textures in 4K on a NVIDIA graphics card with not enough vram and you see how it will affect your performance 😅
I wouldn’t say that Starfield is optimized as hell, but I think it runs reasonably and many people will fall flat on their asses in the next months because they will realize that their beloved “high end rig” is mostly dated as fuck.
To run games on newer engines (like UE5) with acceptable framerates and details you need a combination of modern components and not just a “beefy” gpu…
So yeah get used to low framerates if you still have components from like 4 years ago
Changing graphics settings in this game barely effects performance anyway.
I don’t know and I don’t care what is wrong with your system but the amd driver tells me I’m averaging at 87fps with high details on a 5800X and a radeon 6900, a system that is now two years old and I think this is just fine for 1440p.
So yeah the game is not unoptimized, sure could use a few patches and performance will get better (remember it’s a fucking bethesda game for christ’s sake…) but for many people the truth will be to upgrade their rig or play on xbox
People are entitled because they don’t want to spend thousands of dollars on components only for them to be outdated within a fraction of the lifecycle of a console?
How about all the people that have the minimum or recommended specs and still can’t run the game without constant stuttering? I meet the recommended specs and I’m playing on low everything with upscaling turned on and my game turns into a laggy mess and runs at 15fps if I have the gall to use the pause menu in a populated area. I shouldn’t have to save and reload the game just to get it to run smoothly.
Bethesda either lied about the minimum/recommended requirements or they lied about optimization. Let’s not forget about their history of janky PC releases, dating back to Oblivion, which was 6 games and 17 versions of Skyrim ago.
and no one is saying they have to, that’s my point that keeps getting overlooked. If someone wants to play sick 4k 120fps that’s awesome, but you’re going to pay a premium for that. If people are upset because they can’t play ultra settings on hardware that came out 5 years ago, to me that’s snobby behavior. The choice is either pay up for top of the line hardware, or be happy with medium settings and maybe you go back in a few years and play it on ultra.
If the game doesn’t play at all on lower hardware (like Cyberpunk did on release), then that is not fair and needs to be addressed. The game plain did not work for lower end hardware, and that’s not fair at all, it wasn’t about how well it played, it’s that it didn’t play.
Idk what to tell you mate, I’m on a 3080, 1440p, and I’m getting average 60fps on 1440p My settings are all ultra except for a couple, FSR on at 75% resolution scale. To me, that’s optimized, I don’t even expect 60fps on an RPG. Cyberpunk I’ve never had higher than 50.
Consoles don’t even last their whole life time anymore, both machines required pro models to keep up with performance last gen and rumours have it Sony are gearing up for one this gen too.
I mean, yeah but also by what metric. There’s a thousand things that can affect performance and not just what we see. We know Starfield has a massive drive footprint, so most everything is probably high end textures, shaders, etc. Then the world sizes themselves are large. I don’t know, how do you directly compare two games that look alike? Red Dead 2 still looks amazing, but at 5 years old it’s already starting to show it’s age, but it also had a fixed map size, but it got away with a few things, etc etc etc every game is going to have differences.
My ultimate point is that you can’t expect to get ultra settings on a brand new game unless you’re actively keeping up on hardware. There’s no rules saying that you have to play on 4K ultra settings, and people getting upset about that are nuts to me. It’s a brand new game, my original comment was me saying that I’m surprised it runs as good as it does on the last generation hardware.
I played Borderlands 1 on my old ATI card back in 2009 in windowed mode, at 800x600, on Low settings. My card was a few years old and that’s the best I could do, but I loved it. The expectation that a brand new game has to work flawlessly on older hardware is a new phenomenon to me, it’s definitely not how we got started in PC gaming.
I have a PC with 5800X, 3080 Ti, and 64 GB DDR4-3600. I play at 1440p with 80% render scale, Medium-High settings (mostly Medium) and it’s barely above 60 FPS outdoors. It runs like shit.
I’m curious, I have a 3080 as well and I’m getting ultra across the board and I average 60fps, maybe a setting or two is at high, also 1440p. Installed on an SSD, right? Render scale for me is 75%, only other thing I can think of is I overclocked my ram? But I don’t think that’d account for that huge of a jump
Oh, well then I’d readjust expectations. Doom and fast paced shooters usually go up that high because they have quick fast-paced combat, but RPGs focus on fidelity over framerate. Hell, Skyrim at launch only offered 30fps, Cyberpunk I mentioned I never got above 45. 60 in an RPG is really a good time, don’t let the number on the screen dictate your experience. Comparing a fast shooter and an RPG like this is apples and oranges
I’m honestly shocked a game like this can run at 60fps. <45 and I start to get annoyed in RPGs. I’d expect if you wanted framerates that high you may be needing to window it at 1080 and lowering the settings further.
Nah 60 is not good enough for me. I’m fine if it’s a mobile game or handheld. I have no problems getting 90 FPS minimum in A Plague Tale: Requiem and Cyberpunk 2077.
In Starfield, not even 720p with lowest settings will help because the game is very heavily dependent on CPU. Looking at HW Unboxed benchmarks, the 5800X only managed to do 57 FPS average. You need a 7800X3D or a 13600K to get 90 FPS average.
As long as you know you’re definitely not in the key demographic then, for RPGs 60fps is pretty much the standard. Fine if you want more, but the game was not built as an FPS, it was built as an RPG. Those are the people I’m annoyed with, the ones who are complaining at Bethesda for not building an RPG to run like how you describe on hardware that’s several years out of date already, that’s just not possible
Bullshit, there’s no “standard” FPS for a certain genre. Also the 3080 Ti is a $1200 last gen GPU and the 5800X is a $450 last gen CPU. It’s ridiculous that they can’t even push 100+ FPS at the lowest settings. The CPU overhead in this game is insane. I used to target 120 FPS minimum for all games I play, hence the high-end build, but now even 90 FPS is too much? lmao
How about people with a Ryzen 5 5600 and RTX 3060 that wants to play at 60 FPS? Keep in mind that we’re not talking about 120 FPS, just measly 60 FPS and those parts are barely 2 years old.
Why do people use entitled like it is a bad thing? Why wouldn’t consumers be entitled as opposed to spending money as though it is an act of charity? Pretty weird how mindset of gamers over the years has shifted in a way where the fact that they are consumers has been forgotten.
I say entitled because gamers should just be happy, be happy with the hardware you have even if it can’t put out 4k, turn off the FPS counter, play the game. If you’re enjoying it, who cares if it occasionally dips down to 55? The entitlement comes from expecting game makers to produce games that run flawlessly at ultra settings on hardware that’s several years old. If you want that luxury, you have to spend a shitload of money on the top of the line gear, otherwise just be happy with your rig.
Products are just products designed to get money out of people. I don’t have an appreciation like its some sports team for them. It comes down to simply if it is worth spending money on or not. Being entitled is a good thing, since it encourages less consumerist behavior with how lot of people can use less frivolous spending in their lives.
You can try to spin it as a negative, but I find this hail corporation approach to consumerism very odd. Wanting more value for the money is a good standard to have.
I’m actually agreeing with you, people should be happy to play the games on their older hardware even if it can’t pull down the ultra specs. We don’t need to always be buying the latest generation of GPUs, it’s okay to play on medium specs. We don’t have to have the top of the line latest card/processor/drive, we can enjoy ours for years, even if it means newer games don’t play on ultra. If you have the funds to buy new ones every generation, more power to you, but I buy my cards to last 8-10 years. The flipside is just expect that the games won’t run on ultra.
People should expect more optimization for the games they look into and better price for performance offerings for hardware. Approach of just pushing what is acceptable further into the category of the premium tier leads to worse consumer offerings over the long run. What is considered acceptable hardware has gotten more and more out of reach each generation while disposable income has not kept up.
Complacency and constantly falling scale of what is acceptable is what leads to worse standards. Bad prices and optimization should not get passes. PR management of be happy with hardware or performance is not the job of consumers aside from those who are being paid to run those type of campaigns.
Hmm .i dont know if you ever noticed but there usualy is a very little diffrence between ultra and high/very high but a lot of diffrence in performance. Ultra settings were always designed to sweat the pc and i assume its similar with starfield . And there is also advent of the 4k which put this ridicolous standard even higer( which especialy on pc makes very little sense unless you play on it like on a console from your couch ). In fact the fact that old graphics card are still faring so well is an anomaly rather than the standard.
That’s the thing - I’d say this game is pretty well optimized. People have unrealistic expectations of what their hardware can do. That’s a better way of putting it than “entitled”.
None of the 3D Bethesda games played this well at release. I speak from first hand experience building PCs since 1999 and playing Oblivion, FO3, NV, Skyrim, and FO4 at release. Playing those games on years old hardware required lower than native resolutions and medium settings - exactly what you see in Starfield currently.
PC gamers enjoyed a bit of a respite from constantly needing to upgrade during the PS4/Xbone era. Those machines were fairly low end even at launch and with them being the primary development formats for most games, it was easy to optimize PC ports even on old hardware.
Then the new consoles came out that were a genuine jump in tech again as consoles used to be, and now PCs need to be upgraded to keep up and people that got used to the last decade on PC are upset they can’t rock hardware for multiple years anymore.
Runs great on my 5000 series AMD CPU and 3000 series Nvidia GPU
Just specifying the series doesn’t really say much. Based on that and the release year you could be running a 5600X and RTX3060 or you could be running a 5950X and RTX3090. There’s something like a ~2.5x performance gap between those.
pcgamer.com
Aktywne