Todd Howard: “You may need to upgrade your PC for this game”
Haven’t played Starfield yet, but comparing a small handrcafted world to a huge procedural generated world is like comparing a single screenshot from a movie to a single realistic painting. It doesn’t mean that Starfield is good, just that it’s not a fair comparison.
On the other hand, using procedural generation should free up a bunch of dev time that you could than be using to make sure the models that the generation uses are quality.
Now comparing individual features, elex looks better, while starfield should be better looking. Since they used procedural generation and should have used that time saved crafting hand crafted worlds making their base models better.
It’s more than an apt comparison, if you look at what they want you to compare.
On the other hand, using procedural generation should free up a bunch of dev
time that you could than be using to make sure the models that the generation uses are quality.FTFY
Hence the “should”, most places just use it as cost cutting and don’t polish other parts unfortunately.
This is a city. The one you go to frequently for the main questline. It’s a whole other level of fucked if you’re procedurally generating the core locations in your game without ‘handcrafting’ over it. Looking like this is inexcusable and it still crippling my computer is an insult.
Not all of Starfield is randomly generated. This specific example is from one of the main big cities that are definitely hand built. The random stuff is mostly deserts and outposts like what players can build. So even according to your standards, this is a correct and legitimate comparison.
There’s no excuse for not improving the water system since they released Skyrim. With that budget, it should’ve been doable. I mean, look at that. It looks like sewage.
maybe it’s supposed to be sewage
Minecraft with shaders running on my mediocre PC looks 11x better than on starfield. i don’t care though since i don’t spend time around much water. friggin love the game so far
I wouldn’t think that the city on the planet where the screenshot was made (and I don’t remember the name) was procedurally generated
Starfield is just a mess. I think Todd assumed he could ride the Skyrim goodwill into the sunset with his subsequent games because he’s consistently failed to deliver since then. I love the jank of a good Bethesda game because at its heart you have a true rpg that lets you roam and complete quests how you see fit. Starfield removed the roaming and the exploration and left some very mediocre storytelling and quests in its wake. Without that magic you’re just left with increasingly awful jank that can’t be ignored.
Thank god for Xbox game pass, I was only out about 15 dollars and was able to try the game without committing 70 dollars.
I disagree that Starfield doesn’t let you explore like the other Bethesda games, it’s more like if you took the map of FO4, took 10% of each section and spread it across 10+ different planets. All of the content is still there…it’s just disconnected and feels barren because if you turn away from the pretty sections they made, there’s nothing around it. I don’t mind the storytelling, but the most of the quests are rough. If these quests were in any other game, the game would be considered generic and forgotten in a week. Also, the space combat is junk. I don’t know what good space combat looks like, but this isn’t it. It’s not rewarding, and I dread any time I encounter it.
I love the ship building aspect, but then I never truly get to use it. Feels like a waste. Also when you finally find a planet with life and do a survey, all of the buildings you go into on the way are buildings you’ve already seen and cleared. Enemies in the same spots. Items in the same spots. I love exploring in games and here its like… okay I guess ill just mine the same three rocks while I run 800m to a location that never seems to pay off. Sure would be nice if I could fly my dope ship over the horizon instead
Starfield removed the roaming and the exploration and left some very mediocre storytelling and quests in its wake.
There are some great sidequests in Starfield. I started the game by just playing side quests and completely ignoring the main ones and it was awesome. I loved the Ryujin questline because I had a sneak-build and it was nice to just not be seen and wreak havoc. The one about the 200 year old starship and the AI ship were also pretty good.
But then I did the Sarah romance questline which was written like a fanfiction by a twelve year old…and continued doing the main quests which were just like Skyrim in space. Starborn…Dragonborn…ugh.
The first 40 hours were a solid 8/10 for me. Once I started doing the main quests, it dropped to 3/10. And the loading screens are just annoying after a while.
Thank god for Xbox game pass,
Same. I’d have been very disappointed if I paid full price, at £7.99 I don’t feel hard done by. It’s a decent game but Bethesda should be capable of so much better considering the time & money spent on the game.
If this follows the cycle of No Man’s Sky and Cyberpunk, it’s a matter of time before we see the first YouTube videos titled ‘Starfield is good now??’
It almost seems like releasing unfinished games is the way AAA developers crowdfund. Sure, the people who preorder get burned, but then there’s a second wave of sales waiting when the game ‘gets good’.
Drop the price of the original, but let it coincide with the release of an ‘expansion’ to offset the difference and you can sell the game again to the people who held out.
Meanwhile YouTubers rake in views, first on the wave of rage and later on that redemption arc, because people do want games to be good after all.
NMS at least has an excuse if not actually being an AAA game. IIRC, the team that was working on the game was pretty small
I suppose that’s true. Maybe the common factor is just it being a very highly anticipated game. But I don’t think that not being AAA constitutes an excuse for making false promises to people who already bought a game.
You guys should see some of the water physics modders put in Skyrim. They’ve even got some crazy rainstorms.
Can confirm i have so many mods for skyrim lol it looks better then starfield in some ways
This is the most disingenuous comparison I’ve ever seen lol. You basically took a picture of a babbling Brook at noon and a waterfall at night and are somehow confused why they don’t look the same.
First of all, your still shot is purposefully omitting the movement of the waterfall, the fact that it actually behaves and moves like a spray of liquid and gas particles, you know, like an actual waterfall, rather than just a moving block with a shader texture applied to it.
You also took this picture at dusk, when the plaza is draped in shadow and there is no sunlight directly bouncing off. If you’d even been to a waterfall this tall in such conditions in real life, you’d know they actually look more like this - like a non-descript spray of gas - than the Elex screenshot.
If you were to take a picture of the water in the day time, you know, when there is sunlight to bounce off the water particles, it would look absolutely beautiful. Which is also why nobody goes to waterfalls at night expecting a goddamn vista.
This game isn’t perfect but one thing it is, is absolutely beautiful (with the exception of some well documented and unimportant NPCs). And calling Elex a better looking game than Starfield is the dumbest take I’ve heard yet.
The shot wasn’t done at night, it was made during the day. You can clearly see sunlight in the image that shines onto the structure on the left.
First of all, your still shot is purposefully omitting the movement of the waterfall
That’s called a screenshot. How am I supposed to capture the movement of a texture in a still image? It also doesn’t make a whole lot of difference. The waterfall still looks like sewage even when it moves. Contrary to your claims, a real waterfall does not look like this, even at night or in the shadows. Why would the water be dark gray? It builds up foam when it falls down, so it’s white. There are numerous pictures out there on the web of waterfalls in shadows and they all look white. Just an example.
Your whole post reads like you somehow need to defend this game at all cost. I had a lot of fun with Starfield, but the technical issues are glaringly obvious. And there is no shame in admitting that. Especially, since this is just meant to be a meme for shits and giggles. ;)
This game isn’t perfect but one thing it is, is absolutely beautiful
I’m sorry, but that is not true at all. There are beautiful areas, like the Neon planet, for example. But there are also a lot of barren planets with barely any materials or assets on them and these look really, really bad.
I just fired up the game again and landed on a random planet in my area (Al-Battani 1-C):
It’s just the same type of rock everywhere and the same type of hill everywhere. To me, this just looks boring and visually uninteresting.
Compared to that, the Neon world looks great:
Neon is probably what you had in mind. But you cannot say that the game is “absolutely beautiful” with these extreme jumps in visual quality. And this meme is an example for an area on the main hub world that looks bad, so even those aren’t always well-made either.
The shot wasn’t done at night
I said it was made at dusk, at a point where the sunlight is clearly not hitting the waterfall. Don’t even try to engage if you’re going to purposefully ignore context to try to “win”.
I notice you also ignored the fact that these pictures are taken in completely different lighting conditions. Probably because you know its disingenuous.
Yeah man, that’s called a screenshot. How am I supposed to capture the movement of a texture in a still image?
There are things called GIFs. Not sure if you’ve heard of them.
Also maybe don’t pass off a screenshot as a true representation of a game’s graphical fedelity if you know that a still image is omitting important elements of said fidelity.
Your whole post reads like you somehow need to defend this game at all cost.
Oh here we go, your brain is starting to shove me into the “paid shill” camp because I disagree with you. Fun fun.
I have no problem with fair criticism. In no way is this a perfect game and it’s not for everyone and there’s plenty Beth needs to improve. But when I see shit like this, you’re damn right I’m going to call it out for what it is.
Let’s throw this back on you. This defensive response seems to imply that you absolutely need to shit on a game other people like with out of context and unfair comparisons without any reprisal at all - for shits and giggles.
Well fuck you, bro. Tearing down something for laughs is garden variety toxicity. And if you can’t take the criticism, then don’t start it in the first place.
EDIT
You apparently edited your post with a picture of a barren moon as evidence that the game is ugly.
Yeah…it’s a barren moon with no life, one biome, and presumably 2 resources, at night, what the fuck do you expect? Light and shadow are both important elements of beautiful landacapes. The absences of light and shadow makes things look dull and featureless, both in real life and in video games. Notice your comparison Elex screenshot has a lot of light in it.
That said, I have gorgeous pictures on barren moons of say, the milky way unrestrained by an atmosphere, or Jupiter rising over the horizon of Io, or a sunrise catching the rings of a nearby planet.
And no, I’m not talking about Neon. Try going to a planet with a variety of biomes other than “craters” that actually has life on it.
Seriously man, why are you trying so hard?
I said it was made at dusk
You didn’t, this is what you wrote:
You basically took a picture of a babbling Brook at noon and a waterfall at night
I didn’t specifically took the screenshots at a point in time where the ingame graphics look the worst. I just went on a mission with my companion Sarah just like usual and took this screenshot in the process. Because when I looked at the scene I thought: “Goddammit, that is just the worst graphics I’ve seen in a long time, I have to take a picture here” :D
Oh here we go, your brain is starting to shove me into the “paid shill” camp because I disagree with you.
I paid a hundred bucks for the Premium edition of the game and as I stated in numerous comments, I actually enjoyed playing the side content, I just didn’t like the main missions and the skill grind. How can I shove you into a camp that I’m a member of, myself?
I have no problem with fair criticism.
You clearly do, because you’re snapping right now. I don’t even know why you take this meme so seriously.
Well fuck you, bro.
That was uncalled for. I made the effort to prove my point, I even fired up the game again although I’m already finished with it and took screenshots for people that don’t own the game to see what I mean. And now you’re just insulting me. I think it’s time for me to back out of this discussion, because I’m not the one that’s making it toxic.
You didn’t, this is what you wrote:
Uh huh, and I also said this:
You also took this picture at dusk, when the plaza is draped in shadow and there is no sunlight directly bouncing off. If you’d even been to a waterfall this tall in such conditions in real life, you’d know they actually look more like this
…Which you’re conveniently ignoring because you’d rather argue on semantics and ignore relevant context rather than address the content of my response.
I didn’t specifically took the screenshots at a point in time where the ingame graphics look the worst. I just went on a mission with my companion Sarah just like usual and took this screenshot in the process. Because when I looked at the scene I thought: “Goddammit, that is just the worst graphics I’ve seen in a long time, I have to take a picture here” :D
Wrong. You saw this highly specific situation, thought it looked ugly, took a screenshot, then fired up Elex to find a shot that looks better - with different context and lighting conditions - and then crafted a single image to compare these very different shots of very different games with the explicit purpose of shifting on a game because you have a beef with it.
…for laughs?
I paid a hundred bucks for the Premium edition of the game and as I stated in numerous comments, I actually enjoyed playing the side content, I just didn’t like the main missions and the skill grind.
Okay, good for you? All this explains is why you have a beef with the game. But from my point of you, if you got enjoyment out of it, great.
You clearly do, because you’re snapping right now. I don’t even know why you take this meme so seriously.
Uh huh. Here’s the context of this thread:
- Nobody:
- You: Starfield is so ugly that even Elex looks better. Look at this highly specific comparison.
- Me: No it’s not and here’s why your comparison is wrong.
- You: Rawr you can’t handle criticism! Why won’t you let me meme?
Who’s snapping at who? I provided you reasons for why your comparison is wrong - which you have not addressed. You didn’t have to respond to me. But you did. And here we are.
I made the effort to prove my point, I even fired up the game again although I’m already finished with it and took screenshots for people that don’t own the game to see what I mean.
No you didn’t. You fired up the game and found another highly specific example - an unpopulated spot of a barren moon with 2 resources at night, because you refuse to address my reasons becausr the only meat for your arguement is to create more disingenuous comparisons.
…for laughs?
God forbid someone comes to a meme community for laughs. 😆
People can make jokes about games they actually like, you know. Maybe you should get out, take a breath of fresh air, calm down in the process and accept the fact that you’re on Memes@lemmy.ml and this whole discussion is totally pointless.
Or just write another essay the length of Macbeth because someone posted a gray waterfall on the internet. It’s totally healthy and not ridiculous at all…you could also just drop another F-bomb to prove your point, that was really great discussion culture.
God forbid someone comes to a meme community for laughs. 😆
Its more sad than anything that you thought your jpeg was funny.
drop another F-bomb
Cry about it a little more buddy. I’m loving it.
People can make jokes about games they actually like, you know. Maybe you should get out, take a breath of fresh air, calm down in the process and accept the fact that you’re on Memes@lemmy.ml and this whole discussion is totally pointless.
Lol k buddy. I’m responding in between gardening breaks - but sure - whatever helps you justify disengaging.
Well fuck you, bro.
Uh huh
buddy
I’m loving it.
Eat a handful of dirt
So you said two different things at two different points and are angry someone confused the two?
Yeah you’re right, he’s probably just a complete moron with the reading comprehension of a 5 year old. That’s totally the answer.
Cringe
Take your pills
Lol responding to critical thinking with non-sequitor insults. Classic basement dweller behavior.
I guess you’d know!
Starfield plays like shit, looks like shit (by today’s standards) and the quests are shit. Neon is a lazy world that only ends up becoming one giant hallway with a few shops. Everywhere else feels lifeless and boring. Starfield was a flop, and while Elex isn’t the best game out there, the fact that it can in fact in some situations stand toe to toe with Starfield on graphical fidelity is just an absolute disgrace. I was on a desert planet in Starfrield in the main story (can’t remember the name) at night, on a balcony running on GeForce Now with an RTX 2080 and getting less than 24FPS, that’s absolutely pathetic, game is just bad.
I have to agree wholeheartedly
Mm the tears of the PC master race taste so good. Keep em coming.
LOL you think I’m a PCMR neckbeard? My PC is old, it’s running a Vega56, not even in the last two generations of graphics cards, I’m fine with 30FPS when it makes sense but I’m talking sub-25FPS with shit frame times that make it feel like a damn slideshow. I prefer consoles, FFS I run a steam deck docked to my TV more than I use my gaming PC. Why do you think I use GeForce Now? So I can play games on high settings and not deal with settings that make my games look like they’re running on an N64. You keep calling me a member of PCMR if you want but I’m not ever here riding Bethesda dick for a shitty game.
LOL you think I’m a PCMR neckbeard?
- My PC is old, it’s running a Vega56, not even in the last two generations of graphics cards
- I’m fine with 30FPS when it makes sense but I’m talking sub-25FPS with shit frame times
- FFS I run a steam deck docked to my TV more than I use my gaming PC
- Why do you think I use GeForce Now? So I can play games on high settings and not deal with settings that make my games look like they’re running on an N64
Yes.
riding Bethesda dick for a shitty game.
Dude, I wish. That dick is big and luscious. But I’m good for a while after this comment. So delicious.
Got one even better: Kingdom Come: Deliverance vs Starfield
Now that’s just unfair. :) It’s shocking how well KCD holds up, it looks so beautiful!
You know, kingdom come deliverance devs actually gave a damn
if you keep spending your money on an inferior product, nothing will change
Can someone explain what’s going on? I’m not sure I follow.
Seems to be comparing the waterfalls.
I heard we shouldn’t be chasing those
Yeah, I’m sticking to the rivers and the lakes that I’m used to, thank you very much!
A six year old game for 1% of the nominal cost looks better
I see. I was confused because they’re both ugly screenshots. It’s not like the top image is Batman Arkham Knight or something.
I was confused at first as well, but they are both comparing waterfalls. The problem is that the waterfall in the bottom picture is so ugly (just a bunch of grey) that at first I didn’t even recognize it as such.
I was confused because they’re both ugly screenshots.
Something must be wrong with your eyes then. Elex looks really solid for a small-budget game that’s six years old.
To be fair I don’t think the focus of Bethesda games has ever been on graphics
Instead they just fucked performance for no reason?
I would imagine the performance hit comes more from the simulation complexity, afaik Bethesda games tend to simulate everything all the time so the bigger the worlds get the more power is required
Elex is one of the most un-fun games I’ve ever played. Sure, it looked nice. But that doesn’t help with weak gameplay and bad writing.
Funny. I feel the exact same about starfield
I haven’t played Starfield - Bethesda open-world games are generally not my thing. Throw procgen into the mix and I’m out.
the second screen from a design point of view is way more interesting and isn’t just using stock wireframes
At first I was like, it’s fine. Then I realised we were comparing the flowing water. I didn’t even notice that the second image is of flowing water too…
I needed you to even see the water.
It really starts to hurt physically when you start comparing starfield to cdpr games like witcher 3 or Cyberpunk…
They don’t even have DLSS support, the modders had to fix it. Added to that, the terrible inventory system which modders also had to fix…a ton of loading screens between small sections because the engine can’t handle more…constantly running out of oxygen and the stupid grind for unlocking more skills…
I had my fun with Starfield, but it’s an average game, not more.
I’m enjoying Starfield, but it isn’t perfect by any means. I have to ask though, is the bottom screenshot from an area that is meant to be normally seen by the player? Because if it isn’t, they should be toning down the graphics as part of optimizing performance. I guess it’s not really a valid point either though, because Starfield’s performance is terrible.
You’re correct, you normally are walking around up on top of and past the top of that waterfall. You’re allowed to go down there, but there’s nothing to find or see.
The performance has markedly improved for me after the first patch, I now only dip below 60 FPS in cities on an RTX 3060, could still be better, though, as that’s with most settings on low.
So with a 3060 on low settings you’re not even getting a locked 60? That’s unacceptable.
I’m getting a locked 60 everywhere except the three city planets and only in areas there where combat doesn’t happen, so it’s not impeding my gameplay, but it is noticeable. And I do have some settings above low, just the major ones like shadows and such are on low.
But my other main gaming platform is the Switch, so I’m quite accepting of low or unstable framerates, or even games that don’t look their best. I can personally accept it since there aren’t any other games that combine the genres this one does, but it’s… not good.
But my other main gaming platform is the Switch, so I’m quite accepting of low or unstable framerates
Which is fine, it’s okay to be accepting of lower frame rates when they’re acceptable. Like, if you had a 2060 or maybe a 2070 then fair enough. But you have a 3060 and aren’t even getting a locked 60 across the board when at low settings. A 30 series card shouldn’t be struggling so much when at low settings, period.
It’s one thing to physically be okay with lower frame rates, and another to overlook an unoptimized game. I can live with lower frame rates too, but this is still unacceptable.
Personally with Bethesda, I’m more upset about Fallout 4. I like that game more than Starfield, but even though it’s older, it runs worse in the city with all the debris, shadows, and NPCs in a dense location. And I fight things there.
Or Oblivion, where even to this day I can’t fully get rid of the stuttering when loading world chunks, because the damn game bottlenecks itself.
I think it is unacceptable. I love those other games much more for what they did at the time, and with what they offered to me, I found the technical issues acceptable to get that niche fix. With Starfield, I still like it to an extent, but this’ll be the last time I trust off the bat that Bethesda will back up their flaws with a worthy enough overall package.
I totally understand that, Fallout 4 was actually my last time trusting Bethesda on release.
It took me a whole week of mucking about and bugtesting just to get the game to run without crashing every couple of minutes. It’s bizarre to me how attached some people seem to be to the idea that the game is up to the standard we expected (not saying you are, but just look at some of the comments that have been downvoted)
Well in my case it is up to the standard, because it’s run perfectly fine for me. I installed it, and have been running it on high graphics with no crashes, and only minor positioning bugs.
So you and I have had very different experiences with the game.
The nature of PCs I guess. I ran it on an i9 12900k, 2070s GPU, 48gb ram, m2 SSD, xbox gamepass and had no end of troubles. Even once I got it running, a majority of quests (inc main quests) were bugged to the point I had to use console commands to get past the bugs.
I’m by far not the only one. People were crashing on console! That’s insane. We now pay to be bugtesters.
Yeah, I have a Ryzen 5600X, 32 GB Ram, Radeon 5700 XT, installed on an SSD, and gamepass as well. I’ve had no issues, other than a single spinning spaceship, and my follower getting stuck on a doorframe temporarily.
Crazy the variety of experiences.
And crashing on consoles I just expect now, devs are making games way too demanding for base level consoles.
Do you notice the difference between our systems? Yours is AMD cpu / AMD gpu, mine is intel cpu / nvidia gpu. We know AMD worked with BGS to some extent to make sure Starfield was well-optimised for their gear. I had a bit of a paranoid moment during my struggles to get it running that BGS had deliberately not optimised the game for non-AMD components and this info does not assuage my paranoia haha.
Yes, it’s an area in Atlantis that you visit as part of the romance questline with Sarah. Bethesda hasn’t changed a lot in the water system since Skyrim and I believe it’s laughable in 2023 for a game that costs 99$.
99 buckaroos? Are we playing the same game?
Premium Edition is 99$ on Steam, yes.
So you’re saying its an area that isn’t meant to be normally seen. Some players may see it once in a play through, and only if they romance Sarah. That’s the exact definition of not normally seen.
That’s the exact definition of not normally seen.
No it’s not. You visit this area during a mission and you can visit it every time you land on Atlantis, which is the main hub city of the game.
Added to that, the whole point of Sarah bringing you here is to look at how beautiful this place is, which is ridiculous when you look at it. :D
A completely optional mission, in a completely optional romance line, that you only see once should you choose that one romance quest out of the options. Normally seen in a game is something like the New Atlantis Spaceport, which every player sees multiple times in a playthrough.
Though I do agree, I did that romance, and was certainly underwhelmed by the waterfall.
Are you seriously excusing shit waterfall mechanics/graphics game wide because this one particular view is only forced on you once in a certain situation?
That’s a new take lmfao.
Some people are really pissed because I posted a shitty meme, it really is ridiculous. But I guess when you spend up to a hundred bucks on a 6/10 RPG that was hyped-up like crazy you need to vent all of this frustration somewhere…
The memes not shitty, people just ignore stuff for whatever justifications they can come up. If you can view it once, why should it be a different quality than something you see 100x? It’s a bloody water effect, there should be zero difference.
Change the what item it is and it shouldn’t change anything either.
Don’t put words in my mouth. And I spent $0 on it, gamepass for the win. I still enjoy the game, even with it’s shitty waterfall.
No, I’m just correcting the poster who says it’s a normally viewed part of the game. Are you unable to read or understand simple context?
Your comment says far more than that, and you would be incorrect correcting them regardless.
This is not a great argument unless you are very deep into pretending a game company can do no wrong.
There are lots of ways this is silly to claim is fine, it’s ridiculous to act like this is expected or acceptable and not just amateurish lack of polish.
But it’s okay, you can still enjoy the game. It’s okay to enjoy things which have flaws.
Did I say it was acceptable? No, I said it was underwhelming.
What I’m arguing is it is not a normally viewed part of the game, because the vast majority of players will never see it.
Take a look at the water graphics in Remnant 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeY63Sf1lnQ
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=OeY63Sf1lnQ
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I think I recognize that UE plugin
Finally spotted one in the wild! Starts at 14:19 if the link doesn’t properly work.
I get what he’s saying but I didn’t post this to shit on the game (because I actually enjoyed it). This is a fun meme community and some die-hard fans are taking this waaay too seriously.
He’s also saying “Starfield can’t have the same amount of microdetail everywhere” because of it’s scope and that is certainly true…but water looks really bad throughout the whole game. I wouldn’t call that “micro” ;) Bethesda clearly didn’t put enough resources into this or maybe they had problems implementing better water into the game engine.
I think the problem is that you’ve made a very compelling argument. It’s not a meme. I have zero experience with either if these games and I’m convinced Starfield won’t be interesting to play for years.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Finally spotted one in the wild!
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
