412
submitted 5 months ago by Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow to c/games

You heard him 4090 users, upgrade to a more powerful GPU.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 101 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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.

[-] Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow 50 points 5 months ago

It's not even about graphics alone.

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 27 points 5 months ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 76 points 5 months ago

The missing part is that the user with a 4090 complaining had a CPU from 2017 🥴

[-] NOT_RICK 44 points 5 months ago

What’s a CPU bottleneck? I have the magic gpu

[-] capt_wolf 30 points 5 months ago

Yeah, I'm not buying that either. I'm on a 2014 i7 and a 3060 playing on ultra. My sole issue was not running on an SSD which I resolved yesterday. That kid is clearly playing on a potato and lying.

[-] NewNewAccount 9 points 5 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago

Considering that this thing runs great on a Series S (which is CPU-heavy, but with a weak graphics card) that makes so much more sense.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] hal_5700X 41 points 5 months ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCGD9dT12C0

Get a new game engine, Todd. Bethesda owns id Software. id Tech is right where.

[-] Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow 12 points 5 months ago

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.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] AgentGrimstone 35 points 5 months ago

Do you guys not have better PCs?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MuhammadJesusGaySex 34 points 5 months ago

I have a 3080 ti, and a 12700k, and 32 gigs of ddr5, and a 2 terabyte ssd. It runs great for me. I don’t understand the problem. /s

[-] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

So, this system runs it fine? Good to know. I was worried that my computer would not be able to run it smoothly, but now no worries at all.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Aux 33 points 5 months ago

I don't know what your problem is, guys. When Skyrim was released, NVIDIA had GT 5xx series. Skyrim barely run at 40 FPS on Ultra on 1080p on a GT 560. Today, according to Gamers Nexus, Starfield runs at 60 FPS average on GTX 4060.

So, Starfield is better optimised than Skyrim was. Go buy a new GPU.

[-] dangblingus 33 points 5 months ago

Yeah, we optimized. We didn't do it well, but it happened!

[-] hairinmybellybutt 25 points 5 months ago

I'm a game developer and I'm ashamed by this.

When chip production will halt because of the climate, you will see programmers optimizing their code again.

Jeez I hope this economy crashes.

[-] avater 22 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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

[-] FooBarrington 49 points 5 months ago

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.

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] GeneralEmergency 9 points 5 months ago

complains about others wearing nostalgia goggles

calls Cysis dope

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Lemminary 21 points 5 months ago

"We optimized it for the very high end of computers. The issue is your wallet."Kek mf'ing w

[-] Chailles 21 points 5 months ago

Honestly, what do you expect someone to say when asked a question like that? There's no answer there.

[-] anonono 18 points 5 months ago

“we have worked a lot on PC performance. wanted to reach performance parity with consoles for release on similar hardware and we achieved that, However, our teams will continue working on improvements and integrating technologies like fsr and dlss in the future. “

[-] emax_gomax 17 points 5 months ago

Umm.. honesty. Games used to run on the bleeding edge of performance. Not Bethesda games but just games in general. Now the release half broken blatant cash grabs and think no ones gonna call them out for it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] rambaroo 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Seriously? Just say that we're always trying to optimize our games and we'll continue working on it. It's such an easy question to tackle. I refuse to believe you can't see that. People just think Bethesda is above criticism for some inane reason.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago

First game to just have constant crashes on my seven year old RX480, which is great since otherwise the game runs completely fine. Support doesn't seem to want my crash reports either, I guess in Todds world, I should just throw the thing in the trash for a game that does literally nothing special in the tech department.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago

Their idea of optimization in console was to cap the frame rate to 30, even on the Series X. So you can wonder what that means for PC

[-] Katana314 14 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] reddig33 13 points 5 months ago

If there’s an Xbox One version, then there’s really no excuse for it not to load on a PC with similar or better cpu/memory/graphics specs.

[-] rDrDr 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It's perfectly optimized. I'm getting a rock solid 30fps. /s

Seriously though, I think it's fine. Especially indoors and in space, it performs well and looks incredible. New Atlantis is kinda ugly and janky though.

[-] marx2k 12 points 5 months ago

Damn, glad I didn't buy it on day 1. Got baldurs gate instead and am enjoying that

[-] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago

lol, no they didn't. They didn't even test adequately, more than a few GPUs that meet the requirements didn't work when early access launched.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
412 points (95.0% liked)

Games

28655 readers
186 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS