this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
119 points (91.0% liked)

Starfield

2861 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to the Starfield community on Lemmy.zip!

Helpful links:

Spoiler policy:

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
[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's not even a close comparison, Nintendo games look like ass because they have a max resolution of 1600x900 and 30fps, add in the texture resolution of things in game as well and it's obvious why PC games often run "worse" also... They have one console they release on instead of the literally millions of possible different PC configurations

Just a dumb comparison to any PC games

[–] 520@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It’s not even a close comparison, Nintendo games look like ass because they have a max resolution of 1600x900 and 30fps, add in the texture resolution of things in game as well and it’s obvious why PC games often run “worse” also…

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?

They have one console they release on instead of the literally millions of possible different PC configurations.

You would have a point...if Starfield ran with decent performance on even the Xbox Series X. You know, the target platform?

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It does run well, at 30fps like they specified, I'm not sure what performance issues being reported youre looking at

[–] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Most the original comments were about bugginess, which is just bad programming, hence the lack of polish

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

Most of the comments were most certainly not about bugginess lol

[–] 520@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

...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.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Have you literally not seen the game? It is quite pretty at higher settings

[–] 520@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] 520@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just gotta say, TotK looks amazing at 1440p/60FPS

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Starfield looks amazing at 4k/60 fps

And https://mynintendonews.com/2023/05/11/digital-foundry-examines-tech-aspects-of-zelda-tears-of-the-kingdom/

Tears of the Kingdom literally can't run at 60fps btw, it doesn't even hold steady to 30 fps according to the above lmao

[–] SwampYankee@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, TOTK had a lot of slowdowns in my playthrough. They're really pushing the Switch's limits.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Which is strange, seeing how it is their most recent console.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

How so? The switch is 6 years old and was underpowered when it launched.

It makes sense they'd be pushing right up against their own set limits at this point.