TL;DR They included battle passes to a game you already have to pay for monthly. People didn’t like it. They went the classic corporate route of empty phrases while including a subtle poke at the people who now boycott it, which made them like it even less (seriously, did this ever de-escalate things?).
I’ve been enjoying Starfield - but the empty planets suck, especially without vehicles. The scanning thing is boring and dumb, worse than trying to get 100% on a NMS world. It’s a shame that fast travel disconnects you from the space feel of the game, but it makes the rest of the game playable. I like the game overall, but they have definitely dropped the ball on space travel. In theory it’d be cool to come across different “dungeons” etc, as in Skyrim when wandering around, but doesn’t happen in Starfield because you’re generally not going to happen upon them. It’s not interesting to drop down to random planets.
Yeah started finding some neat stuff as I go further out. It’s not that it’s not there, it’s just that you don’t tend to stumble upon it. Like I’ll go to a planet do a mission open up and scan and see some POI like 1200m away. Now do I really want to tedious run over empty nothingness to see if it’s like a space hut or another pirate base etc? I definitely check out nearby POI especially if they are on the way to where i need to go. (Still having fun in the game though and I guess later having options to at least poke around in new places will be fun and i’m curious if the critters are fixed or procedural, like will there be variants all over or just the same few species)
The Deck’s AMD Van Gogh APU can’t be had in any other device and is substantially different to any other chip AMD produces.
Is it really that different? I thought it was basically Zen 2 CPU cores and RDNA 2 GPU cores. It’s not an off-the-shelf SOC, but it’s also not that custom. So this seems a little hyperbolic to me. I’d say it’s pretty similar to the XBox Series S SOC (and Series X and PS5), which uses the same cores, just a different amount of each.
I also think it’s kind of interesting that they’re jumping to a VR Headset. If it’s a standalone, it’s probably not “low power.” If it’s not standalone, I think they’ll have issues transferring data fast enough to be practical. So my money is on some kind of accessory, like maybe a Steam Link 2 or a controller. Those are low power, wireless, and seem to fit the bill a bit better.
Then again, maybe it is a VR headset. But I really don’t see them competing at the low end on VR.
Maybe they really lost their ladder. Why Todd would know where it is beats me, tho. Or maybe Todd is one of those people you lend stuff to and will never give it back.
Just a wireless adapter for the index would be nice, though it would have been nicer 3 years ago. The cable makes the barrier of getting it out of the box pretty high for me personally. Still definitely don’t want the mobile level graphics of a fully standalone headset though.
Since negative opinions travel fast, I’m just gonna say my GPU is actually below the minimum requirements, though admittedly I upgraded CPU last year. The game’s minimum is a GTX 1070 TI, I just have a regular GTX 1070.
In my case, it’s doing a LOT of dynamic resolution and object blurring nonsense to get the game to run smoothly, but it does run smoothly. I get to see the character faces during conversations, I can see what I’m doing, there’s no hitching, etc. New Atlantis looks ugly, but that might change if I get a new GPU.
Bethesda’s RPGs have always been shallow in the choice you have with dialogue and altering the story, but deep with the detail, world-building, and mechanics of gameplay. Arena is almost no different in the gameplay loop as Starfield. They went through various phases of how to use rules and complexity of certain systems, but have since settled in a formula established first by Morrowind and refined with Oblivion and further with Skyrim.
They are not about the story. The story is just kinda there to drive some motivation and give context to your own thing. They excel at immersing you in the world and allowing you to just play however you want without restrictions (such as being a god in everything without having to start over and build specific characters to do specific things). They have a pretty good track record of doing good environmental story telling and adding in all those little stories in notes and terminals that aren’t even tied to quests.
But when it comes to stories and dialogue? They had ONE game that was a masterpiece, Morrowind, and the rest have ranged from absolute shit to pretty good. And not one of them, not even Morrowind, actually have the same kind of choice and sweeping changes affected through dialogue get in a story-focused RPG like Baldur’s Gate. Bethesda will likely never have a game as well written as Morrowind again, because that isn’t what they are about.
They are very much about the action over the words. Despite the jank as fuck AI, the combat is still fun somehow (and imagine how much more fun it could be if the AI didn’t suck!), it’s incredibly easy to lose yourself in the world because of how detailed it is, and there are plenty of shenanigans to pull once you begin to dive in and see how everything works. Like, I can’t wait to completely fill one of the huge craters near my base with watermelons and then dive in.
This is it. Forget all the tracked on nonsense. The base building, the character management, production chains all that nonsense…
If you focus on the combat/looter aspect of the game, that part is actually pretty good. A world apart from the janky combat of Fallout, it actually feels pretty visceral.
They may not explode like in Fallout, but there is a new fun spectacle in town: Shooting out backpacks on low gravity environments and launching your enemies off world.
And this is why I didn’t buy Starfield. I loved Morrowind and was disappointed with Skyrim, and I think it’s because I prefer a tighter, more linear story and don’t like “messing around” as much. I watched a gameplay video, and the things that player got excited about (all the side content) really didn’t grab my attention, and the story itself seemed a bit flat.
I probably would’ve loved it as a kid, but that’s not what I’m looking for these days.
So for me, BG3 is the better game. But younger me would’ve preferred Starfield. They’re both great games, just for very different audiences. And I could totally see someone having exactly the opposite opinion as me, which just shows how great both are.
With my experiences playing the game with an unsupported GPU and getting a solid 60 fps still as long as no NPCs are in the vicinity, I don’t think it’s the GPU side of things that needs optimization. It’s whatever uses the CPU.
It could be optimized better for intel. They have had that issue in the past.
Though… I limit my voltage to keep it from shooting up to 95c from their latest firmware updates (AMD cpus push themselves to the thermal limit intentionally), I kinda wonder if that is having an effect. It’s never been a problem before, however.
Damn this is a pathetic response. He could’ve said “We’ve tried our best to make it as polished as possible before launch, and are working towards further optimising it to give you the best experience, wherever you play”. Even if they did jackshit, it would not come out as condescending and snarky. Maybe he wasn’t prepared for a tough question on the spot right at the beginning of the interview, but it does show how he thinks about his games. In his mind, the game running at all on PC is optimised enough.
I am not saying he’s bad for not making Creation Engine super optimised engine on this planet, I’m saying he’s bad for not acknowledging it is currently most demanding engine despite looking merely half as good as Cyberpunk 2077 or idk Arkham Knight.
They’re clearly building their games in an extremely inefficient way. Starfield does not have anything going on in it that other games with much lower requirements also have done.
You see evidence of this in their previous games. One of the major performance issues with Fallout 4 for example, was that instead of building their cities in performant ways, they literally plonked every building as an individual asset into the world which thrashed the CPU for no reason. Modders just had to merge them all into one model to significantly improve performance. Their games are full of things like this and Starfield will be no different.
Unless I’m completely mistaken here, modders didn’t combine the buildings together, that’s how they are by default. Mods, however, sometimes needed to break said system which resulted in massively degraded performance.
Nah the Boston performance was terrible in vanilla. The precombination fixes made huge performance improvements. There were issues with mods breaking precombined meshes but that was a separate issue.
Why would he? Todd hates everyone who plays his games and cares only about separating money from pockets. Fallout 76 made that quite clear to everyone.
If he gave a standard appeasing PR statement without following it up at all, that would somehow be preferable? This may be snarky, but at least you know what to expect.
In comparison to BG3, the dialogue and stories are incredibly bland in Starfield.
If you don’t compare it to BG3 though, then the dialogue and stories are still incredibly bland.
I swear every Bethesda game does this. For example, when you get three dialogue options, they all say basically the same thing, and they all set up the player to be dunked on by the NPCs response…
Or the only options are:
“wow! Incredible! I love kittens, good on ya kid!”
At least the stories were pretty good for the most part. Starfield’s story and lore are just so generic and boring, and the dialogue ranges from corny to just flatout awful. Even compared to previous Bethesda games, the story elements in Starfield are a yawn fest that feel like they were written by history majors and not people who love science fiction.
pcgamer.com
Aktywne