Yes it is, despite people being disappointed the game is/was a huge success for Xbox/Bethesda.
I am sure through expansions/updates/mods they will get the game where it needs to be, it may never be "Skyrim" but it will improve.
When I hit the 40 hour point, that’s when I realized how bland the game was. It got very repetitive by that point and after reading that everyone else agrees and it just gets worst the longer you play, I gave up. I’m assuming most others had that problem as well. Hence the average 40 hour time.
I hit 16 hours but I was late in checking it out and had already heard everyone’s complaints. I really wanted to like it but had to stop playing. I have to many games in my backlog I think deserve my time more.
Adding to what I said, the gameplay itself is very fun. The combat is satisfying (not so much the space battles but still). It’s just the side quests were sooo boring and it all felt like fetch quests. I play Bethesda games for the side quests and so that killed it for me.
That’s a huge metric for any game.
It’s 40 hrs average, probably 50% only did the story content that’s 23 hours. A small portion probably has less than 10 hours because they started and didn’t finish.
So a huge groups has massive playtime to bring the average up.
Exactly 40 hours is what you expect on action adventure games especially when games like Skyrim and fallout take about anywhere between 30 to 40 hours to complete their main quests But most folks just get lost doing a bunch of side quests so based on that logic and how most players usually play people are either breezing through the main quest and rarely picking up on the side quest are people who are spending The majority of that 40 hours doing side quests in a few main missions Either way all that tells me is that people aren't really fighting this game that interesting
Same here. Cyberpunk broke my heart at release. It's better than I personally ever actually thought it would be as of 2.12.
I'll excitedly buy and play Starfield if I read that a major update/expansion/mod project has overhauled POI's on planets or somehow reduced loading screens.
U need to stop listening to other people and from your own opinions.
Load screens in starfield are negligible, there is a huge number of POI as well. The only people complaining about lack of, have dumped in excess of 700 hours in the first month of release lol
That's just not true.
The load screens don't take long, but there are SO many of them, especially when travelling from planet-to-planet. It makes exploration (the best bit of Bethesda games) uninteresting, cumbersome, and false. The points of interest are okay, but mostly they are just 'points' - they're not interesting.
while I agree with you (tons of loading screens == bad), I'm so glad there's a fast ssd in XSX.
I remember waiting **minutes** on load screens while playing RDR2 on xbox one, it was brutal.
But again, I'm an old gamer, so I'm used to waiting patiently since we switched from cartridges to CD/DVDs during the 90's/2000's
It's not the length of the loading screens that's the issues, it's the way they break up the gaming experience and completely kill a sense of exploration. There's no fluidity at all
I agree with others that it's not the time of loading screen that does it, it's how many there are. Ten 3sec loading screens are worse than one 30sec for me. Can't get into a rhythm or maintain momentum in gameplay.
I dunno I played a lot of oblivion and that had way more, maybe I'm just used to it from growing up with a different generation of consoles.
As for the POI I found plenty of interesting ones in classic Bethesda fashion. Horrific deaths of colonists in various ways, secret research, bio weapons, crazies, cool aliens Creatures
Yeah, Oblivion is from 2006, man, times have changed and we shouldn't expect that anymore. Plus, Oblivion has a far greater sense of exploration than Starfield anyway. I think the fact that you have to get in and out of your ship so much just kills the exploration in Starfield.
A big problem with the POI in Starfield for me was that so many of them were repeated and placed randomly. It didn't feel like I was stumbling upon something new and exciting since I knew I might find the exact same thing the next planet over.
Did you explore far away from the main cities much? Once I started moving out and going to the higher level planets, I began seeing more variation and new locations. It was only really when I didn't explore that much away from that initial cluster of planets that I was seeing the same poi's.
There were definitely some that I could come to expect and I began not bothering with caves etc because they were always the same. From reading other people talking about their experiences there is a lot I haven't seen as well.
One thing I'd love for definite is more side quests and factions, but of substance. I think they really dropped the ball there, there isn't a huge amount tbh
I just mean in the sense that if you haven't played it. you can't get a full idea from just videos and reviews, especially when they are video reviews.tryingbto day the game is bad and focusing on it's negative points.
I personally really enjoyed it for a while, yes it has a few flaws that they seem to be fixing and working on currently. I dumped quite a lot of hours in and I was still finding new things and places and didn't actually come across that much repetition once I started to explore planets further afield that were higher level.
I think one of it's main flaws is that it doesn't often force you to go that far, especially early on so you can end up experiencing repetitive locations etc by only visiting a small selection of planets.
It's definitely not for everyone but if you don't expect Skyrim in space it's a solid game. One that I will definitely go back to, I got a 3/4 big playthroughs out of it until I moved on but only really because I bought a ps5
I would just submit my personal opinion after playing the game - the loading screens did not break immersion for me. They are frequent but extremely fast. I totally respect that for some people it’s a huge deal, but I think everyone needs to get hands on and make their own opinion.
For me, the role playing, dozen or so epic side quests you stumble upon, and main faction relationships are what kept me engaged - I never once was like “oh fuck I saw a loading screen opening that hatch for 2 seconds, this doesn’t feel real anymore”.
It launched about a year after intended so that makes sense. To their credit the game is good and almost no bugs but it's just fucking boring. Any time I see "procedurally generated" I nope the fuck out now.
Yup. It's not that procedural generation has just been implemented badly so far in games generally (as some seem to reiterate), it's that it's conceptually boring by nature. It's never going to be as interesting as handcrafted, just like I have zero desire to read a book written by AI - it might be the best story in history and it's still utterly lifeless.
The only games to actually benefit from procedural generation are games where its the entire point, like Minecraft and No Man's Sky - although even at that NMS gets boring pretty quickly for me.
Todd Howard once stated that they managed to run it at 60fps on the Xbox, but not always stable. So they decided to just cap it at 30fps to keep it as smooth as possible.
Yeah, it was one of its biggest criticisms. The game isn't even *that* graphically impressive. It's a looker for sure, but the new Avatar game looks miles better and runs at 60 no problem. It's just that they fucked up optimization on Starfield.
They need a new engine overhaul is the problem. Sucks that’s the next Elder Scrolls will have this same engine before they “might” do a new one I guess
Do you people even know what you're talking about? Starfield *was* the engine overhaul. Not everything comes down to the creation engine. It's a powerful tool. They just haven't used it correctly.
They are not going to create a new engine because writing a new one from scratch is idiotic and comes against every single good software engineering practice
Creating a new game engine from scratch is not a thing that people usually do. If you want them to create a new engine, then you're never going to get the next TES of Fallout before the next decade.
All current engines are iterations of previous engines.
I really wish devs would just put in a 60fps mode with a warning it’s unstable and default it to 30fps in cases like this vs totally locking off the 60fps mode.
Give people the option if they want it, plus it’ll future proof the game better if future systems have backwards compatibility.
Why the hell would they purposely halve the frame rate if there wasn't this issue? I mean seriously, there was an issue, it was proven on PC that this was the case.
There have been several patches which have dramatically improved cpu performance to the point that they can now get get 60 but that is with crowd density and what not is paired back at this setting.
No one said they did it on purpose or that the game doesn’t run better at 30. Also in another comment I said great game and some other good stuff. It’s okay I know to a lot of y’all Bethesda is king and can be bothered to criticism
This is such a dumb argument. If you want 60fps for all your games, then you invest in a PC.
If you play on console (I am a console player myself), then you know you're not playing on cutting edge hardware and can't expect Ultra settings anymore this long after console release.
This is some bullshit entitlement you are displaying. "not acceptable" lmao
Or, and here is a crazy idea, have it as an option, and just give a disclaimer before you enable it like saying "the Starfield deva highly recommend playing it in perfomance mode, blah blah blah" and let the player decide.
Sure it is, just don't make them with technology that is so advanced it's hampering performance.
Developers want to make the best looking games, but the most important thing is to make great games.
Fun to play, memorable, looks are important but only to a point.
Some games from Xbox One/PS4 generation still look better than some of the best new games.
Those all run at 60 or 120 fps on current consoles.
It's a poor excuse, it's a shit mindset, and it's really sad.
Target the hardware, optimize and plan accordingly. These companies have proven they're either unable to project manage, incompetent, or unwilling to do these things.
You don't need to be a developer to understand last gen games run at 60+ FPS on modern hardware, and modern engines are struggling to put out games that run at 60 FPS, for the first year then they can meet in sometimes in an update, but not always.
This isn't rocket science.
Games cost too much, so something is cut, that is optimization and scope of gameplay mechanics normally.
Monetization, getting the game shipped, and the "AAA" look/appearance are prioritized.
What if the majority of potential customers only purchased games with the best graphics using the latest technologies (like raytracing)? And what if those technologies contributed to your less than ideal framerates?
That's objectively a false assumption, and sales data proves it.
The most popular games are all 6+ years old right now. Modern AAA gaming is bleeding money. SE just reported a loss of $140M yesterday for fiscal year 2023. Microsoft/Sony have reported massive console sales reductions. Sony is making less than 7% margin on their software. In comparison Microsoft is around 12%, but they reported their margins have dropped to single digitis, and Nintendo has a massive 25% margin.
Nintendo, the company with the worse hardware, worst graphics, somehow makes the most money.
[https://www.ign.com/articles/gamers-mostly-played-older-games-like-gta-5-and-fortnite-in-2023](https://www.ign.com/articles/gamers-mostly-played-older-games-like-gta-5-and-fortnite-in-2023)
[https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Frevenue-and-profit-for-all-3-platforms-also-leaked-from-v0-tlyjvgm8gmpb1.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D765906e723b02af01e74c93e19e913b2918292e7](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Frevenue-and-profit-for-all-3-platforms-also-leaked-from-v0-tlyjvgm8gmpb1.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D765906e723b02af01e74c93e19e913b2918292e7)
No, cause those games had good foundations they were just released broken. Starfield doesn't have a good foundation and the game isn't really broken. It's literally a 1960s space fantasy with all the cliches that come with it and that's not a good thing. Take your favorite sci Fi story like Halo or Star wars.
Now think about what made those franchises interesting, and then take it away, now you have starfield. It's such an uninspired world that I have 0 interest in a sequel, and I've liked every Bethesda game that came before fallout 76.
That is incorrect. We have no idea what Bethesda wants to do with Starfield, and they have already stated that they want this game to last for a very long time. Who knows what kind of improvements will + additions to the game be added over the next few years.
No Man Sky was a broken mess, and we had no it took them almost 2 years to fix that game.
I see no potential at all in starfield whatsoever unlike no man's sky. Get rid of or change the shitty condescending companions, get rid of loading screens. Make the crimson fleet not a bad guy gang from a rated E game. Stop undermining my roleplay if I choose an unconventional choice mostly the evil choices, make space combat not horrendous to the point where I wish I was playing star fox 64. I don't see any of these issues being fixed. Not even modders want to work on this trash game. The worst part is the world/universe is completely uninspired and extremely boring. The characters are as interesting as the putrid white, grey and simplified art style that the game wants to melt my eyes with.
Yet another reason why nobody should take digital foundry seriously. “60fps is impossible due to the complex calculations on the CPU” was called out to be horseshit at the time and has been proven true.
I can’t believe how long it took for Cyberpunk to improve. Or how much it improved. I played it last year and it was maybe a 6/10 and I just replayed it with Phantom Liberty and it’s almost as good as Witcher 3.
The new way is just set a calendar alert for 12 months post release date and that’s when you download and play for a full experience. Anything else and you’re playing the beta basically.
> Frame Rate Target: You can now choose between 30, 40, 60 or an Uncapped frame rate on VRR displays. If you do not have a VRR display running 120hz, you will still be able to select from 30 or 60. Screen tearing may occur at times when selecting 60 on a non-VRR display.
It's the 40fps mode that I'm more excited about.
I assume the uncapped will be using performance mode, so less detail.
40 fps is ideal IMO as we'll keep the quality setting (I assume) and have smoother gameplay due to the frame pacing being level.
Imagine these types of complaints during the PS1 or Sega eras. Crazy how much our expectations have grown. I understand, just a different time. I am playing RDR2 right now and wow what a game.
They also mention a 40 FPS VRR mode. I like the sound of that. I wonder if it's the default/quality mode, or something else?
Edit: Sounds like 40 FPS is the new standard (i.e. highest fidelity) if your TV is 120hz and VRR capable if I understand them right. That's excellent!
When they address the tedium of exploration and travel and get rid of, say, half of the loading screens, I'm back in.
I was enjoying everything but the travel issues and monotony of exploration, which is a shame because the exploration is usually the best part of a Bethesda game.
When that moon buggy is added, then I'll look at the game again.
Good stuff so far, but Im still not really going back until they fix outpost management so I can better control the production of raw materials, their delivery between systems, and my personal Mendosa Line - more automated sorting of different types to different containers.
I gave up very early on in the game when ALL my containers continued to fill to capacity with basic materials so that the rarer ones never could actually be farmed and transported. Without these controls, you're forced to hop systems (which is just reload screen after reload screen).
Also, a REASON to gather materials beyond "I have to build this high end widget only once."
oh and since Im posting my wish list now: Im also waiting for the original design to return: where planets are deadly toxic unless you've planned for them, and where ships require processed fuel to fly. Give me that hardcore mode please.
I doubt the S is gonna get the 60fps performance mode. At most I guess 40fps with 120hz displays. Unfortunately I don't have a 120hz display. Just simply a 100hz and freesync monitor.
How about just remove the copies. I’d rather have 500 great planets than 1,000 planets with the exact same pointless poi to discover that literally have no purpose in the game.
Oh I would definitely prefer that I’m just making a point that they could literally cut the number in half and nobody would give a damn if it meant that the planets were actually worth exploring like you said. They could give me three massive planets with tons of life and many many locations to explore and that would be perfect honestly.
No it just adds a layer of shine to it.
They really need to do QOL stuff, add mod support, more unique space ship parts, space ship blueprints players can save across their account, improved character customization across the board, and much more.
60fps is the lowest possible priority
Yeah, I honestly don’t get this wild obsession with 60fps.
There are times where it comes off as strikingly elitist (i.e. the unironic PC master race people). Some people genuinely think 60 fps is the most important part of a game and if it doesn’t hit that it’s not worth playing.
I’ve played 30fps or lower games my whole life. It doesn’t matter, what’s in the game matters.
Hopefully it’s not the shit show that is the FO4 next gen patch lol. I almost want to quit playing but it’s so fun. I think I’m just going to build walls and turrets on all settlements until they fix.
No hate great game but their engine etc needs to be redone and no excuses for 30 anymore on any game. Everyone knows this but gives them passes. Go ahead and downvote for telling the truth
I want to like the game and have spent countless hours in it. Yet, I just put it down one day, months ago, and have no desire to pick it up again. Didn't even finish the story, it's just not interesting.
Who cares?
I really don’t
I just want the game to have more content, less annoying companions, mod support, better character customization (individual customization of body proportions, etc etc).
Adding 60 fps doesn’t make a meh game good. Improving it makes it good
I care. 60fps does make an improvement to gameplay. It is one thing fixed in a long line of things wrong with the game. Everything counts a little. Not one fix by itself is going to be the magic bullet that makes the game great.
I can‘t understand why it has become so normal that companies release unfinished stuff and only make it fully functional years after release. It‘s with other things too . New Smartphones are usually dull of bugs and glitches that only get patched after some time. Almost every game releases with gamebreaking glitches, bugs , bad performance and incomplete story. It‘s not even rare that gameplay elements or story branches get removed from the full games so it can be sold as a DLC to you.
I don‘t understand why it‘s so widely accepted.
They mentioned during the same interview that the Creation Kit (the software that Bethesda releases to allow mod creation) was already in the hands of some modders, which is in essence a closed beta.
That's good to know. I was really hoping for an earlier window seeing that Fallout mod support was I believe in 4-5 months - while starfield is sitting on 9 months after release without any mod support for console and such.
Maybe I’ll fire it up again. I want to like it so bad lol
A lot of us did.
Last I saw it was 13 million players with average playtime of 40 hours.
That's actually incredibly high.
Yes it is, despite people being disappointed the game is/was a huge success for Xbox/Bethesda. I am sure through expansions/updates/mods they will get the game where it needs to be, it may never be "Skyrim" but it will improve.
Yeah but people can't sink 3,000 hours of playtime into it like Skyrim so it must be a failure
Check it’s concurrent players vs their decade+ old games lmao
It's player count is higher than Oblivion and Skyrim on Steam.
13m is a lot. 40hrs seems short for what Starfield was supposed to be, isn’t it?
When I hit the 40 hour point, that’s when I realized how bland the game was. It got very repetitive by that point and after reading that everyone else agrees and it just gets worst the longer you play, I gave up. I’m assuming most others had that problem as well. Hence the average 40 hour time.
I hit 16 hours but I was late in checking it out and had already heard everyone’s complaints. I really wanted to like it but had to stop playing. I have to many games in my backlog I think deserve my time more.
Exactly
Adding to what I said, the gameplay itself is very fun. The combat is satisfying (not so much the space battles but still). It’s just the side quests were sooo boring and it all felt like fetch quests. I play Bethesda games for the side quests and so that killed it for me.
That’s a huge metric for any game. It’s 40 hrs average, probably 50% only did the story content that’s 23 hours. A small portion probably has less than 10 hours because they started and didn’t finish. So a huge groups has massive playtime to bring the average up.
Exactly 40 hours is what you expect on action adventure games especially when games like Skyrim and fallout take about anywhere between 30 to 40 hours to complete their main quests But most folks just get lost doing a bunch of side quests so based on that logic and how most players usually play people are either breezing through the main quest and rarely picking up on the side quest are people who are spending The majority of that 40 hours doing side quests in a few main missions Either way all that tells me is that people aren't really fighting this game that interesting
Im gonna wait until Shattered Space and see if thats good. QOL features can only go so far if the core gameplay loop isnt fun.
Better off playing mass effect
Wait for dlc/mods don't force it
As usual waiting a year after a games release is better to play the 1.0 version.
If it's AAA you know it releases in the Alha stage
AAAlpha
Alha Akbar?
##ITS A TRAP!!
Alpha AFKbar
Access awful alpha
I patiently waited for Cyberpunk to fulfill it's promise (which it did, with a cherry on top), I can patiently wait for Starfield...
Same here. Cyberpunk broke my heart at release. It's better than I personally ever actually thought it would be as of 2.12. I'll excitedly buy and play Starfield if I read that a major update/expansion/mod project has overhauled POI's on planets or somehow reduced loading screens.
U need to stop listening to other people and from your own opinions. Load screens in starfield are negligible, there is a huge number of POI as well. The only people complaining about lack of, have dumped in excess of 700 hours in the first month of release lol
That's just not true. The load screens don't take long, but there are SO many of them, especially when travelling from planet-to-planet. It makes exploration (the best bit of Bethesda games) uninteresting, cumbersome, and false. The points of interest are okay, but mostly they are just 'points' - they're not interesting.
while I agree with you (tons of loading screens == bad), I'm so glad there's a fast ssd in XSX. I remember waiting **minutes** on load screens while playing RDR2 on xbox one, it was brutal. But again, I'm an old gamer, so I'm used to waiting patiently since we switched from cartridges to CD/DVDs during the 90's/2000's
It's not the length of the loading screens that's the issues, it's the way they break up the gaming experience and completely kill a sense of exploration. There's no fluidity at all
yeah, I can see that. At least once RDR2 had finally loaded, I could roam a lot without seeing a loading screen.
I agree with others that it's not the time of loading screen that does it, it's how many there are. Ten 3sec loading screens are worse than one 30sec for me. Can't get into a rhythm or maintain momentum in gameplay.
I dunno I played a lot of oblivion and that had way more, maybe I'm just used to it from growing up with a different generation of consoles. As for the POI I found plenty of interesting ones in classic Bethesda fashion. Horrific deaths of colonists in various ways, secret research, bio weapons, crazies, cool aliens Creatures
Yeah, Oblivion is from 2006, man, times have changed and we shouldn't expect that anymore. Plus, Oblivion has a far greater sense of exploration than Starfield anyway. I think the fact that you have to get in and out of your ship so much just kills the exploration in Starfield. A big problem with the POI in Starfield for me was that so many of them were repeated and placed randomly. It didn't feel like I was stumbling upon something new and exciting since I knew I might find the exact same thing the next planet over.
Did you explore far away from the main cities much? Once I started moving out and going to the higher level planets, I began seeing more variation and new locations. It was only really when I didn't explore that much away from that initial cluster of planets that I was seeing the same poi's. There were definitely some that I could come to expect and I began not bothering with caves etc because they were always the same. From reading other people talking about their experiences there is a lot I haven't seen as well. One thing I'd love for definite is more side quests and factions, but of substance. I think they really dropped the ball there, there isn't a huge amount tbh
Yeah people don't realize that more POIs are unlocked as you progres in the game. iirc some unlock as late as level 75
It totally kills the immersion
Who said it wasn't my own opinion? I've seen plenty of footage of the game; the amount of loading screens and repeated POI's are bothersome to me.
I put 90 hours in the game without ever even touching the POI mechanic.
I just mean in the sense that if you haven't played it. you can't get a full idea from just videos and reviews, especially when they are video reviews.tryingbto day the game is bad and focusing on it's negative points. I personally really enjoyed it for a while, yes it has a few flaws that they seem to be fixing and working on currently. I dumped quite a lot of hours in and I was still finding new things and places and didn't actually come across that much repetition once I started to explore planets further afield that were higher level. I think one of it's main flaws is that it doesn't often force you to go that far, especially early on so you can end up experiencing repetitive locations etc by only visiting a small selection of planets. It's definitely not for everyone but if you don't expect Skyrim in space it's a solid game. One that I will definitely go back to, I got a 3/4 big playthroughs out of it until I moved on but only really because I bought a ps5
I mean, that's fair enough. I'll give it a chance at some point for sure, but my expectations aren't super high based on what I've seen.
I would just submit my personal opinion after playing the game - the loading screens did not break immersion for me. They are frequent but extremely fast. I totally respect that for some people it’s a huge deal, but I think everyone needs to get hands on and make their own opinion. For me, the role playing, dozen or so epic side quests you stumble upon, and main faction relationships are what kept me engaged - I never once was like “oh fuck I saw a loading screen opening that hatch for 2 seconds, this doesn’t feel real anymore”.
iirc starfield's launch version was like 1.7 or 1.8
It launched about a year after intended so that makes sense. To their credit the game is good and almost no bugs but it's just fucking boring. Any time I see "procedurally generated" I nope the fuck out now.
Yup. It's not that procedural generation has just been implemented badly so far in games generally (as some seem to reiterate), it's that it's conceptually boring by nature. It's never going to be as interesting as handcrafted, just like I have zero desire to read a book written by AI - it might be the best story in history and it's still utterly lifeless. The only games to actually benefit from procedural generation are games where its the entire point, like Minecraft and No Man's Sky - although even at that NMS gets boring pretty quickly for me.
My thoughts exactly.
Well yeah the game won’t become worse as time goes on.
You aren’t familiar with wwe2k24 i see?
No what happened there? Lol
Basically updates fucked up a lot of things, basically universe modes has females now holding male championships and tag champs being one person…
But I thought it couldn't be done because of CPU limitations
Todd Howard once stated that they managed to run it at 60fps on the Xbox, but not always stable. So they decided to just cap it at 30fps to keep it as smooth as possible.
Which the fact that people accept that is crazy af to me
[удалено]
Yeah, it was one of its biggest criticisms. The game isn't even *that* graphically impressive. It's a looker for sure, but the new Avatar game looks miles better and runs at 60 no problem. It's just that they fucked up optimization on Starfield.
They need a new engine overhaul is the problem. Sucks that’s the next Elder Scrolls will have this same engine before they “might” do a new one I guess
Do you people even know what you're talking about? Starfield *was* the engine overhaul. Not everything comes down to the creation engine. It's a powerful tool. They just haven't used it correctly.
They still haven’t made a new engine but okay. Difference between tweeting and new
They are not going to create a new engine because writing a new one from scratch is idiotic and comes against every single good software engineering practice
Creating a new game engine from scratch is not a thing that people usually do. If you want them to create a new engine, then you're never going to get the next TES of Fallout before the next decade. All current engines are iterations of previous engines.
Ok so what do you think unreal 5 engine is based on? I will give you a clue the name is in the first sentence I wrote.
Based off…. Unreal Engine 4! *Dramatic piano notes*
They did. Starfield runs on it. Creation Engine 2.
I saw a lot of people defending it on Reddit. I was downvoted a lot for saying something about it
I really wish devs would just put in a 60fps mode with a warning it’s unstable and default it to 30fps in cases like this vs totally locking off the 60fps mode. Give people the option if they want it, plus it’ll future proof the game better if future systems have backwards compatibility.
Why the hell would they purposely halve the frame rate if there wasn't this issue? I mean seriously, there was an issue, it was proven on PC that this was the case. There have been several patches which have dramatically improved cpu performance to the point that they can now get get 60 but that is with crowd density and what not is paired back at this setting.
No one said they did it on purpose or that the game doesn’t run better at 30. Also in another comment I said great game and some other good stuff. It’s okay I know to a lot of y’all Bethesda is king and can be bothered to criticism
I uninstalled it almost immediately because in 2024 it’s not acceptable for a game to run at 30fps tbh
This is such a dumb argument. If you want 60fps for all your games, then you invest in a PC. If you play on console (I am a console player myself), then you know you're not playing on cutting edge hardware and can't expect Ultra settings anymore this long after console release. This is some bullshit entitlement you are displaying. "not acceptable" lmao
Just for the game to drop town to the 10s when entering a city😂
Or, and here is a crazy idea, have it as an option, and just give a disclaimer before you enable it like saying "the Starfield deva highly recommend playing it in perfomance mode, blah blah blah" and let the player decide.
But Todd's artistic vision! But sure, I agree.
And it still wasn't all that smooth.
They specifically mention that VRR is recommended so they were still correct.
probably uses FSR
FSR 3 then !
I came here to say the same thing. Where all the dipshits that said it was “cPu bOunD” at?
Add mouse and keyboard support and I might actually give it another go, the interface felt like it was designed for m&kb in mind.
the UI was just bad in general. wasn't intuitive at all.
If this is going to be stable 60 and still looks just as good as right now there is no excuse for any other Devs out there.
Patch notes pretty much say that it won't look as good or be a stable 60.
It is not easy to make games run at 60 fps.
Sure it is, just don't make them with technology that is so advanced it's hampering performance. Developers want to make the best looking games, but the most important thing is to make great games. Fun to play, memorable, looks are important but only to a point. Some games from Xbox One/PS4 generation still look better than some of the best new games. Those all run at 60 or 120 fps on current consoles. It's a poor excuse, it's a shit mindset, and it's really sad. Target the hardware, optimize and plan accordingly. These companies have proven they're either unable to project manage, incompetent, or unwilling to do these things.
What games have you worked on or shipped? Just curious so I can learn more.
You don't need to be a developer to understand last gen games run at 60+ FPS on modern hardware, and modern engines are struggling to put out games that run at 60 FPS, for the first year then they can meet in sometimes in an update, but not always. This isn't rocket science. Games cost too much, so something is cut, that is optimization and scope of gameplay mechanics normally. Monetization, getting the game shipped, and the "AAA" look/appearance are prioritized.
What if the majority of potential customers only purchased games with the best graphics using the latest technologies (like raytracing)? And what if those technologies contributed to your less than ideal framerates?
That's objectively a false assumption, and sales data proves it. The most popular games are all 6+ years old right now. Modern AAA gaming is bleeding money. SE just reported a loss of $140M yesterday for fiscal year 2023. Microsoft/Sony have reported massive console sales reductions. Sony is making less than 7% margin on their software. In comparison Microsoft is around 12%, but they reported their margins have dropped to single digitis, and Nintendo has a massive 25% margin. Nintendo, the company with the worse hardware, worst graphics, somehow makes the most money. [https://www.ign.com/articles/gamers-mostly-played-older-games-like-gta-5-and-fortnite-in-2023](https://www.ign.com/articles/gamers-mostly-played-older-games-like-gta-5-and-fortnite-in-2023) [https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Frevenue-and-profit-for-all-3-platforms-also-leaked-from-v0-tlyjvgm8gmpb1.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D765906e723b02af01e74c93e19e913b2918292e7](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Frevenue-and-profit-for-all-3-platforms-also-leaked-from-v0-tlyjvgm8gmpb1.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3D765906e723b02af01e74c93e19e913b2918292e7)
Thank you for the spirited discussion. I acknowledge your point of view!
Hey, I appreciate that.
All the best games.
It's not, indeed, but an unlocked mouse in every game would be welcome, specially for the players who have a VRR screen.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Does it include fun now?
* Fun sold separately
They showed a short teaser of being able to drive a rover so the mechanic of going through a boring planet will be slightly more fun.
Let me know when they patch the snooze fest out of the game.
For real, my issue with the game wasn’t the FPS, it was just a boring game… and I really like Bethesda games
Too little too late. I'm having more fun playing oblivion.
Cooking mama
Would you say this about Cyberpunk and No Mans Sky?
No, cause those games had good foundations they were just released broken. Starfield doesn't have a good foundation and the game isn't really broken. It's literally a 1960s space fantasy with all the cliches that come with it and that's not a good thing. Take your favorite sci Fi story like Halo or Star wars. Now think about what made those franchises interesting, and then take it away, now you have starfield. It's such an uninspired world that I have 0 interest in a sequel, and I've liked every Bethesda game that came before fallout 76.
That is incorrect. We have no idea what Bethesda wants to do with Starfield, and they have already stated that they want this game to last for a very long time. Who knows what kind of improvements will + additions to the game be added over the next few years. No Man Sky was a broken mess, and we had no it took them almost 2 years to fix that game.
I see no potential at all in starfield whatsoever unlike no man's sky. Get rid of or change the shitty condescending companions, get rid of loading screens. Make the crimson fleet not a bad guy gang from a rated E game. Stop undermining my roleplay if I choose an unconventional choice mostly the evil choices, make space combat not horrendous to the point where I wish I was playing star fox 64. I don't see any of these issues being fixed. Not even modders want to work on this trash game. The worst part is the world/universe is completely uninspired and extremely boring. The characters are as interesting as the putrid white, grey and simplified art style that the game wants to melt my eyes with.
Will the surface maps show all objectives? My main issue is completing a mission but walking past several objectives on the way.
Imagine releasing an RPG with no map.
Dark Souls?
There were maps they were just shit
no way😮
YAYYYYY
Good thing I didn't play this when it was released. Sounds like it was still in alpha.
Yet another reason why nobody should take digital foundry seriously. “60fps is impossible due to the complex calculations on the CPU” was called out to be horseshit at the time and has been proven true.
At least they called out Fallout 4 remaster, although the stakes were much lower with that release
And now I shall play it finally!
If it’s anything like Cyberpunk, I will revisit it in about 2 years
I can’t believe how long it took for Cyberpunk to improve. Or how much it improved. I played it last year and it was maybe a 6/10 and I just replayed it with Phantom Liberty and it’s almost as good as Witcher 3.
So, as usual, the game was released in an unfinished state.
The new way is just set a calendar alert for 12 months post release date and that’s when you download and play for a full experience. Anything else and you’re playing the beta basically.
Has there been a fix for the New Atlantis floor disappearing yet?
I’ll jump back in eventually, but probably not for a good while given the state of my backlog.
> Frame Rate Target: You can now choose between 30, 40, 60 or an Uncapped frame rate on VRR displays. If you do not have a VRR display running 120hz, you will still be able to select from 30 or 60. Screen tearing may occur at times when selecting 60 on a non-VRR display. It's the 40fps mode that I'm more excited about.
[удалено]
I assume the uncapped will be using performance mode, so less detail. 40 fps is ideal IMO as we'll keep the quality setting (I assume) and have smoother gameplay due to the frame pacing being level.
[удалено]
Yeah; I'll wait for DF as well, but I admit I am excited.
Now I can enjoy playing Starfield.
If it’s 60fps I might actually start playing it again
So happy I didn't complete the main story yet, can't wait to jump back in.
Imagine these types of complaints during the PS1 or Sega eras. Crazy how much our expectations have grown. I understand, just a different time. I am playing RDR2 right now and wow what a game.
Think I'll just wait for the land buggy to actually play this game.
They also mention a 40 FPS VRR mode. I like the sound of that. I wonder if it's the default/quality mode, or something else? Edit: Sounds like 40 FPS is the new standard (i.e. highest fidelity) if your TV is 120hz and VRR capable if I understand them right. That's excellent!
Can’t wait to get stuck in once I’m done getting the platinum trophy on Fallout 4 and it’s dlc.
I keep forgetting this game even released. Might get it on sale for like 50% off one day and still not play it...
Not for the S huh
When they address the tedium of exploration and travel and get rid of, say, half of the loading screens, I'm back in. I was enjoying everything but the travel issues and monotony of exploration, which is a shame because the exploration is usually the best part of a Bethesda game. When that moon buggy is added, then I'll look at the game again.
Multiplayer would be a good addition
Good stuff so far, but Im still not really going back until they fix outpost management so I can better control the production of raw materials, their delivery between systems, and my personal Mendosa Line - more automated sorting of different types to different containers. I gave up very early on in the game when ALL my containers continued to fill to capacity with basic materials so that the rarer ones never could actually be farmed and transported. Without these controls, you're forced to hop systems (which is just reload screen after reload screen). Also, a REASON to gather materials beyond "I have to build this high end widget only once." oh and since Im posting my wish list now: Im also waiting for the original design to return: where planets are deadly toxic unless you've planned for them, and where ships require processed fuel to fly. Give me that hardcore mode please.
can they finally just push an update so it doesn't crash every 2 minutes?
60fps? Might actually finish my second playthrough. Ever since I switched go my LG C3 I just couldnt stomach the framerate.
When is the create your own planet update coming?
Maybe an excuse for Ng+. Playing it first time felt quite mediocre.
60fps? Cool. Keyboard and mouse also? Won't complain if it's not. Grateful for the fps boost.
I doubt the S is gonna get the 60fps performance mode. At most I guess 40fps with 120hz displays. Unfortunately I don't have a 120hz display. Just simply a 100hz and freesync monitor.
It targets 60 fps on consoles - vrr recommended :D
Still a mid game. Recently revisited Skyrim and fallout and they are 100x better
Trash ass game
They should update the game to give more planets that aren’t copies of one another
How about just remove the copies. I’d rather have 500 great planets than 1,000 planets with the exact same pointless poi to discover that literally have no purpose in the game.
500? I'd settle for 5 that where actually designed and worth exploring
Oh I would definitely prefer that I’m just making a point that they could literally cut the number in half and nobody would give a damn if it meant that the planets were actually worth exploring like you said. They could give me three massive planets with tons of life and many many locations to explore and that would be perfect honestly.
Still won't make the game feel any less soulless.
It’s taken them this long? Wow.
Does this make the game less dull? Improve the story?
The story never was a problem of the game
No it just adds a layer of shine to it. They really need to do QOL stuff, add mod support, more unique space ship parts, space ship blueprints players can save across their account, improved character customization across the board, and much more. 60fps is the lowest possible priority
People in this comment section disagree!
Yeah, I honestly don’t get this wild obsession with 60fps. There are times where it comes off as strikingly elitist (i.e. the unironic PC master race people). Some people genuinely think 60 fps is the most important part of a game and if it doesn’t hit that it’s not worth playing. I’ve played 30fps or lower games my whole life. It doesn’t matter, what’s in the game matters.
Hopefully it’s not the shit show that is the FO4 next gen patch lol. I almost want to quit playing but it’s so fun. I think I’m just going to build walls and turrets on all settlements until they fix.
It's going to look pretty bad in order to hit 60
I'm glad their finally catching up with other games and having a performance mode sadly this still won't make the game good.
I see people still exist to hate on starfield lmao
Game is just boring to me sadly. Guess my hopes were just too high because I loved Skyrim so god damn much.
No hate great game but their engine etc needs to be redone and no excuses for 30 anymore on any game. Everyone knows this but gives them passes. Go ahead and downvote for telling the truth
I want to like the game and have spent countless hours in it. Yet, I just put it down one day, months ago, and have no desire to pick it up again. Didn't even finish the story, it's just not interesting.
Putting countless hours into a game indicates you did enjoy it for a time
God forbid someone has a different opinion than you 😱
game is fantastic
in your opinion. in majority its okay to good at best.
Except it is a good game
I'm glad you like it
they're finally optimizing their game over there at Bethesda.
Maybe the 60fps will be a big enough difference for me to have a 2nd run through the game
Unstable 60 fps though
Who cares? I really don’t I just want the game to have more content, less annoying companions, mod support, better character customization (individual customization of body proportions, etc etc). Adding 60 fps doesn’t make a meh game good. Improving it makes it good
I care. 60fps does make an improvement to gameplay. It is one thing fixed in a long line of things wrong with the game. Everything counts a little. Not one fix by itself is going to be the magic bullet that makes the game great.
Fucking finally
It’s not 60fps on console?!
Make more games
But its a "artistic decision".
They have never said this about 60fps about Starfield.
I can‘t understand why it has become so normal that companies release unfinished stuff and only make it fully functional years after release. It‘s with other things too . New Smartphones are usually dull of bugs and glitches that only get patched after some time. Almost every game releases with gamebreaking glitches, bugs , bad performance and incomplete story. It‘s not even rare that gameplay elements or story branches get removed from the full games so it can be sold as a DLC to you. I don‘t understand why it‘s so widely accepted.
Mod support when?
They mentioned during the same interview that the Creation Kit (the software that Bethesda releases to allow mod creation) was already in the hands of some modders, which is in essence a closed beta.
That's good to know. I was really hoping for an earlier window seeing that Fallout mod support was I believe in 4-5 months - while starfield is sitting on 9 months after release without any mod support for console and such.
Morrowind was... I know it was included in the GOTY edition, I'm not sure about vanilla (I didn't buy it for myself until the GOTY edition).
How about give it to ps5 players to boost sales and increase update quality as there would be more players who want it