121
Starfield is a “bizarrely worse experience” on Nvidia and Intel, says Digital Foundry
(www.theverge.com)
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
121 points (91.2% liked)
Starfield
2850 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to the Starfield community on Lemmy.zip!
- Follow instance rules (no spam, keep it civil and respectful, be constructive, tag NSFW)
Helpful links:
Spoiler policy:
- No spoilers in titles; if you want to share images with spoilers, preferably post the image in the body of the post. If you do make an image post, mark it NSFW.
- Add
[Spoilers]to your title if there will be untagged spoilers in the post. - Game mechanics and general discoveries (ship parts, weapons, etc) don't need a spoiler tag.
- Details about questlines and other story related content are spoilers. Use your best judgement!
Post & comment spoiler syntax:
<spoiler here>
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Did you account for the fact that Nintendo was developing for massively underpowered handheld hardware? And not significantly more powerful Xbox Series consoles? And actually made their games to fit the strengths and limitations of their target hardware?
You would have a point...if Starfield ran with decent performance on even the Xbox Series X. You know, the target platform?
It does run well, at 30fps like they specified, I'm not sure what performance issues being reported youre looking at
Most the original comments were about bugginess, which is just bad programming, hence the lack of polish
Most of the comments were most certainly not about bugginess lol
...the fact that it has to run at 30fps on powerful hardware despite having nothing to show for it?
To put it another way, how the fuck is it not targeting 60 on the Series X? I could understand it for the Series S, but there is little to no fidelity improvements on show like they said there'd be.
Have you literally not seen the game? It is quite pretty at higher settings
Is it prettier than, say, Cyberpunk? Witcher 3? Forza Horizon 5? Last I checked, those are open world games and run at 60fps on XSX.
It is definitely prettier then Witcher 3 lmfao, Cyberpunk is probably prettier however it also ran like shit for everyone and was infamously bad at launch lmfao.
Idk about Forza, haven't seen it in a while
I dunno dude, the next gen patch for Witcher 3 is absolutely gorgeous. Maybe there's less opportunity for the game to show off reflections but damn it look pretty. Kinda hard to compare though as they are going for totally different graphical styles.
I'll give you that Cyberpunk was an absolute mess at launch. It made typical Bethesda jank look muuuuuch preferable by comparison. Perhaps it would be more fair to wait for Bethesda to release a few patches before comparing?
I can show some of my in game screenshots from Starfield if you'd like, I just want people to actually try the game for themselves for a few hours instead of buying into internet rage bandwagon.
It's a great game with tons of quests and things to do with minimal game breaking bugs to worry about.
https://youtu.be/dapJH8y6JxI?si=yEuUzHxHxUzOzZNM this review pretty much sums up my thoughts too, but I'm definitely a Bethesda enjoyer, some people aren't.
I do have one friend who could never really get into Skyrim/Fallout but he took the plunge into Starfield and has far exceeded my playtime already and loving it, for what it's worth.
Digital Foundry built a PC using the Series X CPU and a similar level GPU and couldn't get a stable 60 across the whole game.
Well...no shit?
The XSX isn't running full fat Windows in the background for one thing, which adds overhead, for another XSX games can be optimised for the hardware at a level that isn't feasible for equivalent generic PC hardware.
Despite that, the XSX still can't run it at 60, how was generic PC hardware going to fare any better?