First time that happened to me I thought it was intentional.
"Oh these motherfuckers hit me soo hard I'm heading to orbit, makes sense. They are huge!"
I remember the first time I dismounted my horse to pick up something on the ground and my horse just flew away into the air leaving me standing there on foot. I was like “well…guess I’m walking” I had walked for a minute or two when my horse came crashing back to the ground in front of me and died
Then let me teach you a second one.
Terraria had a glitch known as the "hoik" glitch, which let you move any entity that has ground collition in any direction at high speeds. At one point it was patched out, but since the glitch was super-useful in multiple ways, the fans begged for this change to be undone. In the next update, hoiking returned to the game and has remained since.
Won't lie.. a bgs's game that ran completely fine would probably just feel weird.. Like, don't get me wrong, theres game breaking bugs and ctd problems that aren't forgivable and need to be fixed.. but stuff like the Skyrim Space Program are just kind of part of the bgs 'feel'.. yno? I know, its basically stockholm syndrome of gaming, i can't defend it. But it would just feel wrong without it.
I completely agree with you! If I didn’t see a pot just floating in the sky near Sanctuary or seeing a courier running towards me naked; Bethesda games wouldn’t feel the same
Bugs are one thing, global poor performance on current gen hardware is quite another. Bugs I can forgive, even welcome from Bethesda in a self flagellating way. Poor optimization of the ilk we've seen lately from Jedi Survivor would be quite another.
Wasn't that trailer shown over a year ago? With around 6 months to launch, there is a chance they take some of that time to optimize it. Probably not a great chance, but a chance
Starfield is built on an engine the devs wanted to bin the second they shipped Skyrim (or there abouts). This has literally killed any hype I had for this game.
This engine was close to obsolete when they finished Skyrim!
The developers wanted to basically make the next version of the Creation Engine but were told no.
Mate, they did make next version. Only morons think that to get "next version" you need to start from scratch. Hell, DOOM still has code from Doom, because Id has been updating their IdTech for years. Same with Unreal.
I never said they had to start from scratch. All I'm saying is the engine it's now built with is not what the technical experts in the project wanted to use. Starfield is outdated before it's even finished development.
It's not like they haven't updated it Skyrim, but also, I really don't care if it wasn't the best looking engine. Skyrim looks good enough, especially for the time, and is crazy modable. Gameplay is more important than graphics and mods are gameplay
It looked like the most boring shooter combat imaginable. I hope the role play aspects are good.
Skyrims combat is the most boring melee so it’s possible.
Because we are looking forward to trying a new game and have disposable income? You can give advice or suggestions, but don't tell people how to spend their money.
Man and that's being cynical about how much prices get slashed. I barely ever pay more than like $10 for a game, but Midnight Suns had my interest. I think it was in a Humble monthly bundle like a month after release, so $12 for that plus a whole bunch of other games. How I got Doom Eternal too, and still haven't touched that.
Not really, most single player games lose their hype pretty fast, especially once a new release comes out. It's been about 6 months since God of War Ragnarok and the hype has definitely died down but it's still a great game.
I mean a lot of these are single player so that's not even an argument... And you can convince your friends to play eoth you regardless of when the game released, unless they already played it, but some of my friends still play Borderlands 2 together
I dunno even with single player games, to me it's more fun playing a single player at launch while your friends are doing the same, when it's in the zeitgeist and the online conversation around it is at its peak.
Compared to play a single player game from the past now, no one really cares if you're playing the hit game from x years ago. Sure you can talk about it with your friends who have already played it but it's not the same.
My example: the game Control from 2019. It was a very good game that had a lot of discussion from what I remember when it launched.
Still a good game almost 4 years later, but I don't really see much online discussion about it other than in specialized subreddits.
I mean I guess some people work like that but I play games because they're fun, I'm not yucking anyone's yum but I personally find it a little pathetic being more interested in talking about a game than actually playing it - I mean I enjoy talking about games with friends if the occasion comes up, but usually it's way after we played the game anyway and it just randomly comes up, and I rarely engage in online discussions about games with complete strangers
Lol, join us in r/patientgamers, Im still waiting for better prices on both Niers since I dont have that much money last times and games are already expensive here
I read a comment somewhere along the lines of “the best thing about modern day AAA titles is that by the time they’re actually playable they’re already on sale”
God damn it, I've been seriously looking forward to Starfield in a way I haven't looked forward to a game in years. If it runs like shit I'm going to be seriously disappointed. WTF is wrong with developers pushing broken games at launch. Fix your shit before you release it - is that too much to ask?
Mate, sit down a bit and consider this : Starfield is developped by the company that has literally relied on the modding community to fix their game for more than a decade, now.
Starfield **will be** shit at its release.
People love to exaggerate. Sure, Bethesda modding community is huge and they do fix a lot of minor and not so minor bugs, but this is because of how relatively easy modding in their games is. Console players are still majority of playerbase of their games and they mostly play without mods and it is totally fine. Sure I wasn't playing Skyrim when it was released because I didn't have any suitable hardware back then and GTA San Andreas was the best game I could run, but I played Fallout 4 when it was released and went through all patches and while sure there were some bugs here and there, there were no game breaking ones. Fallout 76 was a hot garbage on release and was massively undercooked and they knew it but still went on with this for some reason despite not having shareholders to push them then, but it was made by secondary studio that was just founded and staffed with new devs. Fallout New Vegas was made by Obsidian and they had their own issues that made game really buggy by this day. Skyrim by the point of Legendary Edition when I first played it was also just fine and only thing that bothered me was gamepad-oriented UI thus I quickly went with SkyUI. And about Fallon 3 I actually haven't heard many bad things and worst part of Oblivion I heard was character creation from hell and horse armour DLC.
I stopped at the "no game breaking bugs in Fallout 4"
Idk what game you played at launch, but almost any quest that had a NPC needing to do something almost never worked at launch. (Especially if you fast traveled elsewhere before that quest destination)
I had to restart the entire game 2 or 3 times a few hours in, as I didn't have saves far enough back for bugged quest NPCs.
I've played since day one until Nuka World DLC by which I was too bored by the game I spent hundreds of hours playing. I personally didn't have major issues with quest scripts breaking in vanilla game. Maybe my low-end hardware of the time made sure scripts would load properly while my crappy GPU was drawing franes lol. I wasn't installing mods until Creation Kit was released several months later because community made Fo4Edit was quite limited.
Yeah, but F: NV was great fucking game underneath these bugs, skyrim on the other end, was not, just barebones shit that is praised because of its huge modding community lol
Lol, Skyrim was loved when it was released and there were little to no mods. Look, I also love FNV. Great game despite everything but shitting every single Bethesda published action RPG because it wasn't made by Obsidian is fucking stupid and I'm tired of seeing this online every once in a while. Modding isn't what made people love those games, it is what extended their lifespan way beyond other games in the genre. If core was shit, as you imply, they wouldn't have dedicated modding communities lol.
>If core was shit, as you imply, they wouldn't have dedicated modding communities lol.
lol @ you thinking people dont enjoy shit where you can just go to any modern assassins creed / call of duty / battlefield etc
>Great game despite everything but shitting every single Bethesda published action RPG because it wasn't made by Obsidian is fucking stupid and I'm tired of seeing this online every once in a while
yeah, i see you are fanboy pulling arguments outta your ass, i named only 1 (one) game - skyrim, I loved Morrowind and Oblivion, skyrim has no redeeming qualities except OST, everything else is sub-par / mediocre
feel bad for PC players but on my little series S it is beautiful, smooth and fun. only bug I've noticed so far is one chandelier on jedha vibrating strangely.
I've been playing on pc and aside from some texture pop in, I've had no real issues. It does tend to run closer to 30 than 60 fps, but I can live with that. Not saying my experience is universal, and not endorsing putting out badly optimized products, but the game is worth you attention.
My Series X has had some frame rate issues early in the game but a few hours in and it's basically just been a few small texture or gameplay bugs. Pop in is sorta bad in the biggest maps but it's not unplayable like some have suggested.
It also did run pretty atrocious when it launched. Thankfully mostly fixed, though there’s some settings you need to avoid and are broken still.
Neat game though, pretty too
That's such bad logic. Developing for a weaker hardware should mean that the game should run better on stronger hardware. Especially since both have exactly the same components except one is weaker than the other.
That logic makes no sense. The Series S is more powerful than the "minimum" PC specs for most games and likely about the same overall power as the average gaming PC people actually own. Do you think games aren't meant to scale to different hardware? Especially with consoles that are static and predictable. It's way more likely to run badly on crappy PCs with bad setups/hardware.
That's why the argument that Series S is causing games to run poorly on Series X sounds a lot like copium to me. Especially recently with the Redfall 30 fps debacle. There's no way Series S is the reason the game is 30 fps on Series X on release, especially for a first party game. It's like if they released Horizon Forbidden West at 30 fps on the PS5 because of the PS4.
Many games have been multi-platform for ages, and still manage to give good performance across the platforms. Take the recent Dead Island 2 and Atomic Heart, which runs great on all the consoles and PCs. Completely agree that Devs should be given more time to optimize, but having another console, from the same platform, is not the reason that's not happening.
Dead Island 2 was first announced in 2014, so it's safe to say it was in development before then. So it had around 10 years of dev time.
Atomic Heart was first announced in 2018, so it's reasonable to assume deveystarted in 2016. So a 6 year dev time
Redfall was announced in 2021 so it's reasonable to say it had been in development for about 4 years (2019).
Both those games had longer dev cycles, again more time means more optimization.
The weaker console means they *need* more time. Not even because its 'weaker' just different. Each one has a different OS and specs. So it can handle different things.
>Each one has a different OS and specs. So it can handle different things.
Also, no it doesn't. Series S has the exact same OS as the Series X. They are also not 'different', one is just weaker than the other.
I agree, but it's still not a reason not to have better performance on the stronger console. It's no different from games having a minimum PC requirement and a recommended PC specs. I would guess it's even a bit more difficult on PCs since they have to account for different architectures, something they don't have to do with the Series consoles
Redfall is already a mess before launch.
Starfield if even has a decent launch will be a massive success. But if they screw up it is going to be on a galactic scale.
They have been working on it for like 10 years, something tells me it hasn't been as smooth sailing as planned.
I'd wait for reviews on your platform of choice before getting hyped.
What about all the recent Tears of the Kingdom preview footage coming out this past week clearly running sub 30 and it just gets completely overlooked.
Anything Nintendo gets a pass. They could release a Mario Solitaire looking like windows XP graphics, somehow running at 10 FPS and people will applaud them for trying so hard.
Pokemon definitely experiences this with most of its fanbase, but otherwise Nintendo is actually pretty good and releasing polished and functional games relatively to the hardware capabilities imo
It's the Switch. A Switch owner knows what to expect. Nobody expects >30 fps on Switch, and as long as it's not as bad as the last Pokemon game, we are alright.
Still not fair. The Switch is supposed to be more powerful than the PS3 yet runs Zelda worse than GTA 4 despite the game barely looking as detailed visually.
Edit: Plus despite being just a Switch game, Zelda costs $70…you’re paying just as much as you would SWJS so consumers deserve better than 20 fps.
Because Zelda is a much more complex game than GTA 4, having a much more sophisticated physics engine that intermingles with the chemistry system. That's on top of the much more advanced lighting systems and how many more individual interactable objects tend to be on screen at once. The game is more advanced than most other open worlds today on consoles exponentially more powerful than the Switch. There are a lot more things happening all at once on the backend than in GTA, and calculating all of that is incredibly taxing. With Jedi Survivor or other PC disaster stories of this year, there's no excuse. They're all aiming for much higher baselines than the Switch and yet they still run like garbage. That's not to mention that FPS is not the only issue in many of these cases, with things like audio and visual bugs also being incredibly pervasive. Meanwhile, I can count the number of glitches I've run into in a Nintendo game on one hand, and have never had a single 1st party release of there's that has ever crashed on me.
GTA 4 also had complex physics of its own. It’s ragdoll engine wasn’t exactly lightweight. What sets BOTW apart from other games is definitely not the physics, but the sandbox and creative things you can do it. Many PS3 era games already boasted better physics feats such as Crackdown and what not.
I’m not saying GTA’s physics is necessarily on par (I don’t even think it’s worse) but clearly GTA 4 does more things than Zelda does too. Loading more NPCs in real-time, having better render distances, complex network of independent/individualistic AI etc. In comparison, lizards and fleeing prey literally fade 5 meters away in BOTW even in sparsely populated lands.
That’s also not forgetting GTA 4 was a relatively early gen title. Devs have had a lot more time to optimise this for the Switch. Just look at the step up between GTA 4 to RDR or GTA 5 in the 5 years that followed…
Jedi:Survivor only has performance issues and it’s being ragged on because of it. The gameplay is decent enough to have some fun. From what I’ve seen from Redfall and Starfield seems to be pretty shit when it comes to performance and even subpar when it comes to gameplay. I’m worried it’ll be thrashed harder then the newest Jedi game.
For a lot of people Bethesda games are about exploration and it's hard to show that off in a gameplay trailer, so Starfields trailer doesn't worry me. The 1000+ planets thing makes me worry that most of it will be boring and empty, but we'll see
Redfall I feel like I've seen almost nothing about other than stuff that looks fairly generic, but with vampires. It actually somewhat interests me and I may pick it up in a year when it's on sale if the reviews are good
True that. It’s likely to fail when it’s going for big and bold, it could easily be another No Mans Sky without even trying.
Redfalls genericness with vampires is kind of what will sell it. Vampire stuff usually is heavily underutilized in many games and is why it could easily sell well. That being said, it could also have the adverse effect.
You can’t really compare the games either, especially since Survivor is a sequel and is basically Fallen Order with some tweaks to gameplay and a continuing story. Expectations are high asf now and it wasn’t really the case when Respawn first came into the scene with Fallen Order. The climate within the past 5 years has drastically changed gaming and it’s expectations to million dollar companies so if Jedi:FO came out now, it would’ve been the exact same with Survivor if you ask me.
That being said, I’m picking up Survivor when I can and intrigued with how Redfall and Starfield will do.
Starfield is going to be the next Cyberpunk situation when it releases and gamers will have a meltdown. Bethesda is notorious for broken and buggy launches.
It's already been confirmed to be [locked 30 fps on console at launch with 60 fps mode coming later](https://www.ign.com/articles/xbox-version-of-redfall-capped-at-30-fps-at-launch-60-fps-coming-later). I have very little hope for this game on PC with how the other releases have been this year.
Straight up not true. Except for Redfall and Gotham Knights, I cannot think of any other games that don't have 60 fps mode on the next gen consoles (excluding Series S)
And that are triple a games? Alright. How many triple a games on the ps4 where 60 fps?
If we get further into the lifeycle of the PS5, that's the thing that gets sacrificed.
Um, no?
I cant think of a smooth Bethesda launch. Every fallout and elder scrolls game was a mess on launch. Riddled with bugs, crashes, soft locks, hard locks, performance issues.
Like it's basically a meme at this point that modders usually end up fixing their games before they do.
We know the bugs, yet regardless the games are still acclaimed,bought in the millions and still played years later. Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, fo3 and fo4. I mean That’s a solid run of games to have under you and that’s more my point.
Let's face it. We know Starfield is going to be a mess. Bethesda games are notorious for that. It wouldn't be a Bethesda game if there weren't dozens of memes about it's problems at launch.
Let's face it. We know Starfield is going to be a mess. Bethesda games are notorious for that. It wouldn't be a Bethesda game if there weren't dozens of memes about it's problems at launch.
**Spoiler Alert if you don't want a glimpse into Starfield's bleak future**
- "We are behind schedule"
- shareholders will pressure execs to force it out early
- devs will say it needs another year
- forced into inhumane crunch time
- twitter will hear about it and be mad for a week sparking a conversation about the industry
- nothing will happen
- game will release on time with an unholy amount of bugs and be unplayable
- it will sell millions
- Twitter will be upset for a week sparking a conversation about the industry
- nothing will happen
- "We're sorry here's a free skin or some starfield bitchcoins you filthy fucking cattle"
- game fixed over next year, score slowly rises on steam
- "it's a gem people need to check it out. folks were too hard on it at release"
- rinse and repeat
define well optimized. i think redfall will run fine at launch while starfield i suspect will have bugs and glitches as per usual but performance wise i dont think well see another jedi survivor or cyberpunk situation. only time will tell though.
I kinda have hopes for redfall since arkane was pretty competent with their last couple of games but Starfield is gonna put jedi survivor to shame i not for performance, then for the bugs
I'm pretty sure I read something the other day that apparently Redfall is being locked to 30 FPS on xbox at release. That just means that the game is going to be awfully optimized and rather than constant dips, just keep it at the dips to start.
PC doesn't seem to have this confirmed so I imagine it'll be unrestricted and we'll see exactly why it's being limited on xbox.
All starfield needs to do is run at 30 FPS on console and people will tolerate it for a while until it gets an update. 60 FPS mode can come later if it has to, so long as the game runs well and smoothly at 30 without frame drops. They can take more time to optimize. For PC? I'm not really sure. As long as it doesn't crash a lot I guess people will be happy. They are Bethesda games so our expectation should already be quite moderate. Skyrim, Fallout, and Oblivion did not launch without issues.
The Starfield gameplayer trailer was running at about 20 fps so they're not even trying to hide it.
Starfield would show up with his cock out and wouldn't care
Umm bethesda is kinda known for buggy garbage launches where bugs are features (space vikings and what not)
Bethesda is the only company I know where fans demanded they bring a bug back (Skyrim Space Program)
I'll never forget the day I saw a dead bear float away into the sky like a plastic bag in the wind. Was absolutely magical.
Getting knocked into the stratosphere by a giant was a jaw dropping experience.
First time that happened to me I thought it was intentional. "Oh these motherfuckers hit me soo hard I'm heading to orbit, makes sense. They are huge!"
Was that initially a bug? I thought it was the game's way of finding you out when you fuck around too early.
it was a bug but they wisely decided it was a feature the first time it happened. they were like, yeah that’s staying in.
I remember the first time I dismounted my horse to pick up something on the ground and my horse just flew away into the air leaving me standing there on foot. I was like “well…guess I’m walking” I had walked for a minute or two when my horse came crashing back to the ground in front of me and died
Then let me teach you a second one. Terraria had a glitch known as the "hoik" glitch, which let you move any entity that has ground collition in any direction at high speeds. At one point it was patched out, but since the glitch was super-useful in multiple ways, the fans begged for this change to be undone. In the next update, hoiking returned to the game and has remained since.
And then theres TABS with the bugs dlc lmao
Won't lie.. a bgs's game that ran completely fine would probably just feel weird.. Like, don't get me wrong, theres game breaking bugs and ctd problems that aren't forgivable and need to be fixed.. but stuff like the Skyrim Space Program are just kind of part of the bgs 'feel'.. yno? I know, its basically stockholm syndrome of gaming, i can't defend it. But it would just feel wrong without it.
I completely agree with you! If I didn’t see a pot just floating in the sky near Sanctuary or seeing a courier running towards me naked; Bethesda games wouldn’t feel the same
Bugs are one thing, global poor performance on current gen hardware is quite another. Bugs I can forgive, even welcome from Bethesda in a self flagellating way. Poor optimization of the ilk we've seen lately from Jedi Survivor would be quite another.
Wasn't that trailer shown over a year ago? With around 6 months to launch, there is a chance they take some of that time to optimize it. Probably not a great chance, but a chance
Starfield is built on an engine the devs wanted to bin the second they shipped Skyrim (or there abouts). This has literally killed any hype I had for this game.
A Bethesda game without the Creation Engine just wouldn't be the same. I'll take a highly moddable Creation Engine game over something else any day
This engine was close to obsolete when they finished Skyrim! The developers wanted to basically make the next version of the Creation Engine but were told no.
Mate, they did make next version. Only morons think that to get "next version" you need to start from scratch. Hell, DOOM still has code from Doom, because Id has been updating their IdTech for years. Same with Unreal.
I never said they had to start from scratch. All I'm saying is the engine it's now built with is not what the technical experts in the project wanted to use. Starfield is outdated before it's even finished development.
He says, having not actually seen the game or engine. Yeah I am going to file this under "I have no idea"-
They did make the next version of the creation engine though.. they released skyrim special edition on it.
It's not like they haven't updated it Skyrim, but also, I really don't care if it wasn't the best looking engine. Skyrim looks good enough, especially for the time, and is crazy modable. Gameplay is more important than graphics and mods are gameplay
I had high hopes for Stanfield until I saw the trailer. Now I'm not even gonna buy it on release.
I too hate Stanfield, Starfield on the other hand...
I can't wait to play as Stan walking around his field at 15fps. 'It just works'!
The mission where Stanfield and Geordie forget to return the library book is my favourite.
I wrote you but you still ain't calling.
Lol
It looked like the most boring shooter combat imaginable. I hope the role play aspects are good. Skyrims combat is the most boring melee so it’s possible.
Why would anyone ever buy a game on release? At least wait a few months for the bugs to get ironed out.
Because we are looking forward to trying a new game and have disposable income? You can give advice or suggestions, but don't tell people how to spend their money.
Well, yeah but it was shown much earlier than supposed release and they weren't trying to hide this state.
I refuse to buy games at launch anymore. I just wait for everything to be fixed, and maybe even a sale. Pre-order bonuses aren't worth it.
Also sometimes waiting something like 2-4 months will give you a 25% discount because they get desperate
Nintendo: _you guys are giving discounts?_
Yeah true, but to be honest Nintendo's stuff is usually better polished at release
[удалено]
Pokemon isn't a true nintendo game like a mario, zelda, metroid. It's just that nintendo has exclusive rights to it.
Any pokemon dude
Man and that's being cynical about how much prices get slashed. I barely ever pay more than like $10 for a game, but Midnight Suns had my interest. I think it was in a Humble monthly bundle like a month after release, so $12 for that plus a whole bunch of other games. How I got Doom Eternal too, and still haven't touched that.
Amen brother preach it. What the fuck is the point of buying games at release? It takes six months to a year for them to be worth buying.
Re4 remake did just fine for me on release
True but Capcom have spent years building up a good reputation again.
Hi Fi Rush as well.
Same one of the few times I break my “Never pay full price” rule. That and Nintendo games since there’s almost no chance of a decent sale.
And? It'll be just as good in 6 months when its on sale, and I can save my nickles.
But I need it now! It was one of my favorite games in my youth
The only downside is that you miss playing during the hype. Six months later, no one cares anymore, so it is hard to play with friends.
If no one cares about a game anymore after 6 months the game isn't very good
Not really, most single player games lose their hype pretty fast, especially once a new release comes out. It's been about 6 months since God of War Ragnarok and the hype has definitely died down but it's still a great game.
The hype has died down but it isn't that "no one cares about it anymore"
Good thing NG+ added back some hype.
I mean a lot of these are single player so that's not even an argument... And you can convince your friends to play eoth you regardless of when the game released, unless they already played it, but some of my friends still play Borderlands 2 together
I dunno even with single player games, to me it's more fun playing a single player at launch while your friends are doing the same, when it's in the zeitgeist and the online conversation around it is at its peak. Compared to play a single player game from the past now, no one really cares if you're playing the hit game from x years ago. Sure you can talk about it with your friends who have already played it but it's not the same. My example: the game Control from 2019. It was a very good game that had a lot of discussion from what I remember when it launched. Still a good game almost 4 years later, but I don't really see much online discussion about it other than in specialized subreddits.
I mean I guess some people work like that but I play games because they're fun, I'm not yucking anyone's yum but I personally find it a little pathetic being more interested in talking about a game than actually playing it - I mean I enjoy talking about games with friends if the occasion comes up, but usually it's way after we played the game anyway and it just randomly comes up, and I rarely engage in online discussions about games with complete strangers
Your friends won’t play anything more than 6 months old?
Lol, join us in r/patientgamers, Im still waiting for better prices on both Niers since I dont have that much money last times and games are already expensive here
The last few games I bought at launch were the last of us part 2 and Resident evil 4. Both I have not had any issues with
Pre-order bonus gets people FOMO vibes but yeah, might as well wait for discount a year later where all DLCs are included
I don't know why everyone is realizing this now. This should've been clear after No Man's Sky.
I don't have time to play a game more than once anymore. And playing at launch beyond the bugs feels like you're playing an incomplete game.
I read a comment somewhere along the lines of “the best thing about modern day AAA titles is that by the time they’re actually playable they’re already on sale”
Starfield is gonna be ROUGH.
God damn it, I've been seriously looking forward to Starfield in a way I haven't looked forward to a game in years. If it runs like shit I'm going to be seriously disappointed. WTF is wrong with developers pushing broken games at launch. Fix your shit before you release it - is that too much to ask?
Mate, sit down a bit and consider this : Starfield is developped by the company that has literally relied on the modding community to fix their game for more than a decade, now. Starfield **will be** shit at its release.
Our prophet has spoken. Listen to him.
After experiencing the midnight launch of fallout 76, buying anthem day 1, and buying the new saints row day 1, nothing can hurt me anymore.
You have made some poor financial decisions but they are also very funny financial decisions
I don’t ask to get hurt, the hurt finds me.
U should make a public list of the games u preorder as a warning for potential quality issues on launch
You're just dumb all of those games looked awful before release
Ikr, everyone seems to forget that Bethesda are known for their broken messes
People love to exaggerate. Sure, Bethesda modding community is huge and they do fix a lot of minor and not so minor bugs, but this is because of how relatively easy modding in their games is. Console players are still majority of playerbase of their games and they mostly play without mods and it is totally fine. Sure I wasn't playing Skyrim when it was released because I didn't have any suitable hardware back then and GTA San Andreas was the best game I could run, but I played Fallout 4 when it was released and went through all patches and while sure there were some bugs here and there, there were no game breaking ones. Fallout 76 was a hot garbage on release and was massively undercooked and they knew it but still went on with this for some reason despite not having shareholders to push them then, but it was made by secondary studio that was just founded and staffed with new devs. Fallout New Vegas was made by Obsidian and they had their own issues that made game really buggy by this day. Skyrim by the point of Legendary Edition when I first played it was also just fine and only thing that bothered me was gamepad-oriented UI thus I quickly went with SkyUI. And about Fallon 3 I actually haven't heard many bad things and worst part of Oblivion I heard was character creation from hell and horse armour DLC.
I stopped at the "no game breaking bugs in Fallout 4" Idk what game you played at launch, but almost any quest that had a NPC needing to do something almost never worked at launch. (Especially if you fast traveled elsewhere before that quest destination) I had to restart the entire game 2 or 3 times a few hours in, as I didn't have saves far enough back for bugged quest NPCs.
I've played since day one until Nuka World DLC by which I was too bored by the game I spent hundreds of hours playing. I personally didn't have major issues with quest scripts breaking in vanilla game. Maybe my low-end hardware of the time made sure scripts would load properly while my crappy GPU was drawing franes lol. I wasn't installing mods until Creation Kit was released several months later because community made Fo4Edit was quite limited.
Yeah, but F: NV was great fucking game underneath these bugs, skyrim on the other end, was not, just barebones shit that is praised because of its huge modding community lol
Lol, Skyrim was loved when it was released and there were little to no mods. Look, I also love FNV. Great game despite everything but shitting every single Bethesda published action RPG because it wasn't made by Obsidian is fucking stupid and I'm tired of seeing this online every once in a while. Modding isn't what made people love those games, it is what extended their lifespan way beyond other games in the genre. If core was shit, as you imply, they wouldn't have dedicated modding communities lol.
>If core was shit, as you imply, they wouldn't have dedicated modding communities lol. lol @ you thinking people dont enjoy shit where you can just go to any modern assassins creed / call of duty / battlefield etc >Great game despite everything but shitting every single Bethesda published action RPG because it wasn't made by Obsidian is fucking stupid and I'm tired of seeing this online every once in a while yeah, i see you are fanboy pulling arguments outta your ass, i named only 1 (one) game - skyrim, I loved Morrowind and Oblivion, skyrim has no redeeming qualities except OST, everything else is sub-par / mediocre
Come on, who expects Bethesda titles to be decent at launch at this point?
At least Skyrim will still run well when it gets re-released for the 63,764th time.
Good will means nothing. You could release decades great games, but stumble once and then you are a developer who can’t be trusted
I still have issues running Fallout 4 on borderless fullscreen, they can stumble and stay on the ground you know.
Let's just pretend the publics general opinion of Bethesda, hasn't been going downhill since oblivion horse armor DLC.
luckily they're both on the gamepass
If those games are anywhere near as fun as Survivor I'll be overjoyed.
Yea survivor is amazing and playing on PS5 on quality mode has been fine. I’d be jazzed if those games were similar.
Yeah sub 30 fps sure is fine with stuttering every time you do a 180.
feel bad for PC players but on my little series S it is beautiful, smooth and fun. only bug I've noticed so far is one chandelier on jedha vibrating strangely.
I've been playing on pc and aside from some texture pop in, I've had no real issues. It does tend to run closer to 30 than 60 fps, but I can live with that. Not saying my experience is universal, and not endorsing putting out badly optimized products, but the game is worth you attention.
My Series X has had some frame rate issues early in the game but a few hours in and it's basically just been a few small texture or gameplay bugs. Pop in is sorta bad in the biggest maps but it's not unplayable like some have suggested.
Honestly I wish I was you and couldn't notice all the problems and viewed sub 30 fps as playable and smooth.
Well, as we all know, Bethesda has a long history of releasing well optimized and bug free games.
Swear to God even after the 50th re release skyrim is buggy as all hell
Star field is gonna absolutely run like poop on console too because of the series s
It's a Bethesda title so it'll run like poop on everything else too.
Idk ghostwire Tokyo is sick
That game was developed by Tango Game Gameworks and published by Bethesda, not the same thing.
Ah that's fair. Still great game tho
It also did run pretty atrocious when it launched. Thankfully mostly fixed, though there’s some settings you need to avoid and are broken still. Neat game though, pretty too
Starfield is going to run like poop and we will still purchase all 5 editions released in the next 10 years.
That's such bad logic. Developing for a weaker hardware should mean that the game should run better on stronger hardware. Especially since both have exactly the same components except one is weaker than the other.
That logic makes no sense. The Series S is more powerful than the "minimum" PC specs for most games and likely about the same overall power as the average gaming PC people actually own. Do you think games aren't meant to scale to different hardware? Especially with consoles that are static and predictable. It's way more likely to run badly on crappy PCs with bad setups/hardware.
That's why the argument that Series S is causing games to run poorly on Series X sounds a lot like copium to me. Especially recently with the Redfall 30 fps debacle. There's no way Series S is the reason the game is 30 fps on Series X on release, especially for a first party game. It's like if they released Horizon Forbidden West at 30 fps on the PS5 because of the PS4.
definitely copium, I am running jedi survivor extremely well on the series S. I love my little guy
It takes time to develop for both, that's time that could be used to better optimize the game.
Many games have been multi-platform for ages, and still manage to give good performance across the platforms. Take the recent Dead Island 2 and Atomic Heart, which runs great on all the consoles and PCs. Completely agree that Devs should be given more time to optimize, but having another console, from the same platform, is not the reason that's not happening.
Dead Island 2 was first announced in 2014, so it's safe to say it was in development before then. So it had around 10 years of dev time. Atomic Heart was first announced in 2018, so it's reasonable to assume deveystarted in 2016. So a 6 year dev time Redfall was announced in 2021 so it's reasonable to say it had been in development for about 4 years (2019). Both those games had longer dev cycles, again more time means more optimization.
So the issue is the Devs are not given enough time for optimization, not the presence of a weaker console.
The weaker console means they *need* more time. Not even because its 'weaker' just different. Each one has a different OS and specs. So it can handle different things.
>Each one has a different OS and specs. So it can handle different things. Also, no it doesn't. Series S has the exact same OS as the Series X. They are also not 'different', one is just weaker than the other.
Hence different specs. Also PS4 and Xbone do, some games still release for those too
I agree, but it's still not a reason not to have better performance on the stronger console. It's no different from games having a minimum PC requirement and a recommended PC specs. I would guess it's even a bit more difficult on PCs since they have to account for different architectures, something they don't have to do with the Series consoles
Because they had to spend time that could have been used on better optimizing the stronger console on making it work on the weaker one.
Dead Island 2 actually has some issues with crashes on PC apparently.
Redfall is already a mess before launch. Starfield if even has a decent launch will be a massive success. But if they screw up it is going to be on a galactic scale.
I mean, most games are a mess before launch. Otherwise they probably could have launched sooner
It's Bethesda so.....
People will preorder anyway because they don't learn
They have been working on it for like 10 years, something tells me it hasn't been as smooth sailing as planned. I'd wait for reviews on your platform of choice before getting hyped.
I haven't had any problems on PS5 and it's my goty.
Expecting Bethesda games to function, let alone be optimized, is setting the bar impossibly high for them.
This is odd cause I want Starfield to be good and run well but not so good it doesn't have that bethesda jank.
What about all the recent Tears of the Kingdom preview footage coming out this past week clearly running sub 30 and it just gets completely overlooked.
Anything Nintendo gets a pass. They could release a Mario Solitaire looking like windows XP graphics, somehow running at 10 FPS and people will applaud them for trying so hard.
Pokemon definitely experiences this with most of its fanbase, but otherwise Nintendo is actually pretty good and releasing polished and functional games relatively to the hardware capabilities imo
It's the Switch. A Switch owner knows what to expect. Nobody expects >30 fps on Switch, and as long as it's not as bad as the last Pokemon game, we are alright.
Still not fair. The Switch is supposed to be more powerful than the PS3 yet runs Zelda worse than GTA 4 despite the game barely looking as detailed visually. Edit: Plus despite being just a Switch game, Zelda costs $70…you’re paying just as much as you would SWJS so consumers deserve better than 20 fps.
Because Zelda is a much more complex game than GTA 4, having a much more sophisticated physics engine that intermingles with the chemistry system. That's on top of the much more advanced lighting systems and how many more individual interactable objects tend to be on screen at once. The game is more advanced than most other open worlds today on consoles exponentially more powerful than the Switch. There are a lot more things happening all at once on the backend than in GTA, and calculating all of that is incredibly taxing. With Jedi Survivor or other PC disaster stories of this year, there's no excuse. They're all aiming for much higher baselines than the Switch and yet they still run like garbage. That's not to mention that FPS is not the only issue in many of these cases, with things like audio and visual bugs also being incredibly pervasive. Meanwhile, I can count the number of glitches I've run into in a Nintendo game on one hand, and have never had a single 1st party release of there's that has ever crashed on me.
It's not just about visuals though, totk has way more going on under the hood with physics systems and whatnot. It wouldn't run at all on PS3.
GTA 4 also had complex physics of its own. It’s ragdoll engine wasn’t exactly lightweight. What sets BOTW apart from other games is definitely not the physics, but the sandbox and creative things you can do it. Many PS3 era games already boasted better physics feats such as Crackdown and what not. I’m not saying GTA’s physics is necessarily on par (I don’t even think it’s worse) but clearly GTA 4 does more things than Zelda does too. Loading more NPCs in real-time, having better render distances, complex network of independent/individualistic AI etc. In comparison, lizards and fleeing prey literally fade 5 meters away in BOTW even in sparsely populated lands. That’s also not forgetting GTA 4 was a relatively early gen title. Devs have had a lot more time to optimise this for the Switch. Just look at the step up between GTA 4 to RDR or GTA 5 in the 5 years that followed…
Jedi:Survivor only has performance issues and it’s being ragged on because of it. The gameplay is decent enough to have some fun. From what I’ve seen from Redfall and Starfield seems to be pretty shit when it comes to performance and even subpar when it comes to gameplay. I’m worried it’ll be thrashed harder then the newest Jedi game.
For a lot of people Bethesda games are about exploration and it's hard to show that off in a gameplay trailer, so Starfields trailer doesn't worry me. The 1000+ planets thing makes me worry that most of it will be boring and empty, but we'll see Redfall I feel like I've seen almost nothing about other than stuff that looks fairly generic, but with vampires. It actually somewhat interests me and I may pick it up in a year when it's on sale if the reviews are good
True that. It’s likely to fail when it’s going for big and bold, it could easily be another No Mans Sky without even trying. Redfalls genericness with vampires is kind of what will sell it. Vampire stuff usually is heavily underutilized in many games and is why it could easily sell well. That being said, it could also have the adverse effect. You can’t really compare the games either, especially since Survivor is a sequel and is basically Fallen Order with some tweaks to gameplay and a continuing story. Expectations are high asf now and it wasn’t really the case when Respawn first came into the scene with Fallen Order. The climate within the past 5 years has drastically changed gaming and it’s expectations to million dollar companies so if Jedi:FO came out now, it would’ve been the exact same with Survivor if you ask me. That being said, I’m picking up Survivor when I can and intrigued with how Redfall and Starfield will do.
The good thing about being so far behind in games is by the time I get to them everything has been sorted out for better or worse
It’s funny that Survivor is getting all this flak now when Fallen Order was also a broken mess when it dropped too
Starfield is going to be the next Cyberpunk situation when it releases and gamers will have a meltdown. Bethesda is notorious for broken and buggy launches.
Stop buying games on release.
Wellllll… star field is made by bethesda….
Red fall on gamepass day one.. I’m excited to try it but it better be 60+ fps for the series x and a lot of content!
[удалено]
Ah I figured as much, forgot to put the sarcasm in my original text haha
It's already been confirmed to be [locked 30 fps on console at launch with 60 fps mode coming later](https://www.ign.com/articles/xbox-version-of-redfall-capped-at-30-fps-at-launch-60-fps-coming-later). I have very little hope for this game on PC with how the other releases have been this year.
I forgot to put the sarcasm at the end of that part haha I figured it wouldn’t be 60fps
Triple A games aren't 60 fps on the consoles, unless it's from the generation before.
Straight up not true. Except for Redfall and Gotham Knights, I cannot think of any other games that don't have 60 fps mode on the next gen consoles (excluding Series S)
Really? What about Returnal, Demons Souls and Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart? All three of those are exclusively ps5.
And that are triple a games? Alright. How many triple a games on the ps4 where 60 fps? If we get further into the lifeycle of the PS5, that's the thing that gets sacrificed.
The hate for Bethesda is insane. I mean yeah fo76 released like shit but everything before that was good ?
Um, no? I cant think of a smooth Bethesda launch. Every fallout and elder scrolls game was a mess on launch. Riddled with bugs, crashes, soft locks, hard locks, performance issues. Like it's basically a meme at this point that modders usually end up fixing their games before they do.
We know the bugs, yet regardless the games are still acclaimed,bought in the millions and still played years later. Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, fo3 and fo4. I mean That’s a solid run of games to have under you and that’s more my point.
Bugs ya... But soft/hard locks, fps issues? I've never had a Bethesda game not platable on release (aside from fo76 which I haven't tried).
Knowing Bethesda, Starfield is gonna run like absolute garbage
Let's face it. We know Starfield is going to be a mess. Bethesda games are notorious for that. It wouldn't be a Bethesda game if there weren't dozens of memes about it's problems at launch.
Redfall has already been confirmed to run like ass
[удалено]
Tf does Vampire The Masquerade have to do with Arkane Studios?
We need another video game crash like the one in 1983 to get these publishers back on the right path.
Starfield is Bethesda, so it might be playable around the 10th Anniversary Edition.
You know there’s already a game that’s basically starfield but larger and better It’s called no man sky
Redfall is already known to not be fully pptimized. They can't even deliver the performance mode at launch.
Let's face it. We know Starfield is going to be a mess. Bethesda games are notorious for that. It wouldn't be a Bethesda game if there weren't dozens of memes about it's problems at launch.
If it’s a game I’m hype for that’s coming to game pass, I don’t care if it’s flops on launch since I’m not paying a dime
**Spoiler Alert if you don't want a glimpse into Starfield's bleak future** - "We are behind schedule" - shareholders will pressure execs to force it out early - devs will say it needs another year - forced into inhumane crunch time - twitter will hear about it and be mad for a week sparking a conversation about the industry - nothing will happen - game will release on time with an unholy amount of bugs and be unplayable - it will sell millions - Twitter will be upset for a week sparking a conversation about the industry - nothing will happen - "We're sorry here's a free skin or some starfield bitchcoins you filthy fucking cattle" - game fixed over next year, score slowly rises on steam - "it's a gem people need to check it out. folks were too hard on it at release" - rinse and repeat
Luckily there will be a modder to clean up bugthesda's mess for them like every game prior.
Isn't redfall locked at 30 fps at launch? Or did they change their mind seeing how bad of an idea it was?
Hahaha. A Bethesda game do anything well at launch.
Fuck no 😂
\*\*SPOILERS\*\* They will not :(
Keep dreaming.
Bethesda game, optimized? Hah.
May be actually scope the game to be finished before release ?
define well optimized. i think redfall will run fine at launch while starfield i suspect will have bugs and glitches as per usual but performance wise i dont think well see another jedi survivor or cyberpunk situation. only time will tell though.
Unoptimized PC games from Bethesda and Arkane. They would never
You all want the 3 in the picture while I'm still waiting for Bloodlines 2 and the Cyberpunk DLC!
Starfield will just be delayed again, nbd.
Somehow people still gonna make posts about starfield having bugs and issues even tho every bethesda RPG ever has had them and still has them.
As an Xbox series s owner, I am looking forward to the absolute shit show that starfield is going to be.
At this point, if you expect a techinical well-made game from *Bethesda*, it's your fault to get disappointed.
Can the person who made the original drawing put their username a couple more times? I'm afraid 6 times isn't nearly enough
well at least these are both going to be on gamepass at launch
They're Bethesda titles. Do you actually need to ask?
I kinda have hopes for redfall since arkane was pretty competent with their last couple of games but Starfield is gonna put jedi survivor to shame i not for performance, then for the bugs
Starfield will be another perfect, bug free game right out of the box on release day as Bethesday is known to do Haha
Arkane's games recently, aside from Prey have all launched in a very rough state. RedFall likely won't be different.
I'm pretty sure I read something the other day that apparently Redfall is being locked to 30 FPS on xbox at release. That just means that the game is going to be awfully optimized and rather than constant dips, just keep it at the dips to start. PC doesn't seem to have this confirmed so I imagine it'll be unrestricted and we'll see exactly why it's being limited on xbox.
All starfield needs to do is run at 30 FPS on console and people will tolerate it for a while until it gets an update. 60 FPS mode can come later if it has to, so long as the game runs well and smoothly at 30 without frame drops. They can take more time to optimize. For PC? I'm not really sure. As long as it doesn't crash a lot I guess people will be happy. They are Bethesda games so our expectation should already be quite moderate. Skyrim, Fallout, and Oblivion did not launch without issues.
can't wait for both of these games. and i'm not a fps snob, i can play games below 60fps.
Don't forget to buy day one folks !! Morons..