this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
359 points (84.5% liked)

Memes

45894 readers
1190 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Todd Howard: "You may need to upgrade your PC for this game"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So with a 3060 on low settings you’re not even getting a locked 60? That’s unacceptable.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I totally understand that, Fallout 4 was actually my last time trusting Bethesda on release.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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$.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

99 buckaroos? Are we playing the same game?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Premium Edition is 99$ on Steam, yes.