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.
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who are complaining at Bethesda for not building an RPG to run like how you describe on hardware that’s several years out of date already, that’s just not possible
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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”
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