Starfield

It's funny but while watching the video I kept thinking "This is No Man's Sky with "realistic" graphics".
 
Last edited:
Tired Tyres
It's funny but while watching the video I kept thinking "This is No Man's Sky with "realistic" graphics".
Click to expand...
It has that feel to it.

I like what I've seen without being blown away by any of it. I think the quality of the story telling and interaction with hte world and NPC's will determine if this has long legs or not for me.
 
4k..., why not give option to play lower res at 60fps, as most games do now.
Maybe it's not ready, or they want on par gameplay between series s and x, but that make having an x pointless almost.

Gonna wait long to see how all pans out, possible ps5, update to 60fps, lower priced series xb, etc.
 
Last edited:
Whoever it was that first coined "No Man's Skyrim" got it about right by the looks of it. Not saying that's a bad thing, just the feel I'm getting. There's a lot here that looks really good, though speaking as someone who doesn't really care about the combat aspect there appears to be more of that I personally would like, at least the on-foot variety.

The biggest thing though is that voice in the back of my head going "but.... it's Bethesda. Remember Fallout 76...."

I'll almost certainly get it, but as with NMS (which I am now a huge fan of, well over 1000hrs in that game and still counting!) I'll wait and let them sort out the inevitable bugs before I dive in.
 
I think locked 30 fps is a sound decision for this game considering how big it is. I would be quite upset if Forza was locked at 30 on the other hand.
 
Dave A
It has that feel to it.

I like what I've seen without being blown away by any of it. I think the quality of the story telling and interaction with hte world and NPC's will determine if this has long legs or not for me.
Click to expand...
For me, it lives or dies on how well the radiant quests are done. That's what kept me going back to Skyrim long after I'd done story mode. I've also put loads of hours into No Mans Sky, which I preordered, so I've played it all through its development.
 
Jtheripper
4k..., why not give option to play lower res at 60fps, as most games do now.
Maybe it's not ready, or they want on par gameplay between series s and x, but that make having an x pointless almost.

Gonna wait long to see how all pans out, possible ps5, update to 60fps, lower priced series xb, etc.
Click to expand...
Digital Foundry said it would likely not even get 60fps at 720p. Its a cpu bottleneck probably rather than gpu.
 
This has Fable/Cyperpunk-esque hype train meets catastrophic disappointment written all over it. But if they get it right, what is it that they've really made? A 20-year Skyrim? How the hell is Bethesda going to make money on this? How are normal people going to have the time to do all of these things? lol
 
Omnis
This has Fable/Cyperpunk-esque hype train meets catastrophic disappointment written all over it. But if they get it right, what is it that they've really made? A 20-year Skyrim? How the hell is Bethesda going to make money on this? How are normal people going to have the time to do all of these things? lol
Click to expand...
That brings back memories of Morrowind where initially I spent so much time stealing peoples' pots, then in the end I got tired and never finished the game.
 
VR-SORN
Digital Foundry said it would likely not even get 60fps at 720p. Its a cpu bottleneck probably rather than gpu.
Click to expand...
Yeah, i had a vague idea of how the style of game it is is harder to optimize for cpu especially, etc.
It's a more complex game to optimize for sure.
But i don't totally buy it, and DF reasoning for it.
DF love pretty static graphics , we have to handle playing them.
What's the use of all these details if it gets all blurry as soon as you move.

Im sure it's possible still, if it runs 30fps at 1440p on series s, which has much less and slower memory, for the cpu to manage, etc.

Im no expert but cpus are many times better than previous gen supposedly.
Most planets in this game are procedural and low detail.
But maybe cause its procedural its cpu bound more, i dont know.
Also global illumination im sure adds up to the heft of the computations.
Just give a lower setting..

If not, maybe ill wait to play it in bc mode on a xsx2 or ps6.😋

Edit: its a tinkering rpg yeah, but it's also mainly a 1st person fps style, with jump jet and aiming at many enemies etc.
Its a mess at 30fps vs 60.

Unless it uses vats like in f4 and you use it most of the time.
 
Last edited:
Jtheripper
Most planets in this game are procedural and low detail.
But maybe cause its procedural its cpu bound more, i dont know.
Click to expand...
That's not what they said in the Bethesda video. They said the bulk of each planet is generated procedurally and they load in mission specific content depending on where you are on the planet. That's where the CPU comes in , and why just dropping the res might not automatically free up the bottleneck.

Also you don't have to play it as an FPS, although people who do might be SOL.
 
Last edited:
LM7325
I think locked 30 fps is a sound decision for this game considering how big it is. I would be quite upset if Forza was locked at 30 on the other hand.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t go back to 30 fps, no matter what game it is. This would be a deal breaker if I was on Xbox.
 
That's understandable, usually frame rate never really bothers me unless it drops to a crawl. 60 fps would definitely be better, especially if we get some close quarters high speed ship combat. I still think its going to set my console on fire, definitely giving it plenty of ventilation room just in case.
 
UKMikey
Click to expand...

This looks really impressive I have to say. I'm actually excited about this, because it seems they have put a huge amount of effort into it. Seems like there is just an incredibly amount of stuff to do.
Although I'm not sure what "less bugs than Skyrim" means. 986 instead of 1000? :D Already looking forward to the unofficial patch.

Regarding 30 vs 60 fps: A lot will depend on the smoothness of the action and how the built-in motion blur will look. Either way I'm glad I'm on PC and will (most likely) get at least 60 fps at 1080p.
 
Whitestar
Regarding 30 vs 60 fps: A lot will depend on the smoothness of the action and how the built-in motion blur will look. Either way I'm glad I'm on PC and will (most likely) get at least 60 fps at 1080p.
Click to expand...
I'm hoping for a situation similar to Forza Horizon 1's rock solid 30 frames with motion blur. At the time we didn't notice it much and found it an acceptable compromise on the hardware of the time (X360). If it's janky at 30 though all bets are probably off.
 
I read that 900 of the 1000 planets have no life at all.
I dont know but sounds a little boring, you can only gather resources with no challenge at all i guess.
And no surface vehicle, probably just regular size levels then per planet.

Plus the fact that you cant really land yourself and it's a cut scene, which means you land at the same spot or have a few choices maybe at best.

Sounds disappointing, with the 30fps as well.
It be my type of game if was all more dynamic, open and alive.
We'll see i guess.

Edit: Howard says you explore a little around your landing spot and move on to another planet etc...
 
Last edited:
UKMikey
I'm hoping for a situation similar to Forza Horizon 1's rock solid 30 frames with motion blur. At the time we didn't notice it much and found it an acceptable compromise on the hardware of the time (X360). If it's janky at 30 though all bets are probably off.
Click to expand...
Yeah a solid 30fps with good motion blur in an RPG game is acceptable for me - it actually lends it a more cinematic quality. Some of those shooty gameplay moments are not gonna be that enjoyable at 30fps but that's mostly fine with me, I'm more of a stealth / distance player in Bethesda games.
 
Last edited:
Jtheripper
I read that 900 of the 1000 planets have no life at all.
I dont know but sounds a little boring, you can only gather resources with no challenge at all i guess.
And no surface vehicle, probably just regular size levels then per planet.

Plus the fact that you cant really land yourself and it's a cut scene, which means you land at the same spot or have a few choices maybe at best.

Sounds disappointing, with the 30fps as well.
It be my type of game if was all more dynamic, open and alive.
We'll see i guess.

Edit: Howard says you explore a little around your landing spot and move on to another planet etc...
Click to expand...
I think if NMS hadn't ever existed, the premise of Starfield, even at this late stage where we know so much more about it, would be much more intriguing. But as it stands, we've been spoiled by the complete openess of No Mans Sky's openworld(s).
 
Jtheripper
I read that 900 of the 1000 planets have no life at all.
I dont know but sounds a little boring, you can only gather resources with no challenge at all i guess.
And no surface vehicle, probably just regular size levels then per planet.
Click to expand...
Yes, around 10% of the planets have life on them, but this is to make it feel more immersive and special when you find a planet with life. I get where they're coming from with that. As for gathering resources with no challenge, I would imagine that the barren planets won't have valuable resources and if they do, whose to say there won't be atmospheric challenges to overcome? We'll have to wait and see.
Jtheripper
Plus the fact that you cant really land yourself and it's a cut scene, which means you land at the same spot or have a few choices maybe at best.
Click to expand...
My understanding is you choose where you want to land, then you land in that location on the planet and can explore the whole planet if you want. I'd have liked ground vehicles, but maybe they'll come in an update or via mods.
Jtheripper
Sounds disappointing, with the 30fps as well.
It be my type of game if was all more dynamic, open and alive.
We'll see i guess.

Edit: Howard says you explore a little around your landing spot and move on to another planet etc...
Click to expand...
So far I like the sound of Starfield, but I've not had a proper "wow" moment with anything I've seen yet. Hopefully it all comes together into a fantastic experience.
 
Last edited:
TheCracker
I think if NMS hadn't ever existed, the premise of Starfield, even at this late stage where we know so much more about it, would be much more intriguing. But as it stands, we've been spoiled by the complete openess of No Mans Sky's openworld(s).
Click to expand...
It sounds like I need to check into NMS. Or should I wait to not spoil Starfield.
 
ROAD_DOGG33J
It sounds like I need to check into NMS. Or should I wait to not spoil Starfield.
Click to expand...
NMS is too good a game these days for you to go without it if it pushes your buttons. Having said that, those of us with NMS saw Starfield as NMS with realistic graphics straight away. That being said, I'm still looking forward to Starfield.
 
NMS is one the best games you can buy imho, the game is loaded with content that has been free over the years. And the freedom it gives you is unmatched too.

I’m looking forward to Starfield, but I feel like it will leave me disappointed after playing NMS.
 
Last edited:
I'm seeing this pop up on Latest Posts and I keep reading it as "Seinfeld."

That is all.
 
Evidently it's cool to crap all over everything these days, especially if it's on the wrong platform. Starfield is a popular topic of crap-flinging, with no shortage of people jumping at any excuse to complain about it. One of the weakest arguments is about 30 FPS, as if that actually makes a world of difference. I like 60 FPS, depending on what I'm playing. If I'm playing a fast racing game I want that smooth 60 FPS. If I'm walking around shooting at people, I don't need 60. With some racing games I've even prioritized resolution over framerate because 60 FPS just wasn't that big of a deal to me. I don't honestly give a Dollar General sack of farts about the 30 FPS. It's also popular to crap on Bethesda, but their games remain some of my favorite to date. "I hate open worlds" is another cool, trendy gripe, but most of my favorite games are open-world. I loved Assassin's Creed: Valhalla, and in fact it was the only Assassin's Creed game that was able to keep me interested for more than an hour or two.

I can't wait for Starfield. Maybe it will turn out underwhelming, but I'll find out when it gets here. I'm not shrugging it off based on doom and gloom from people grasping at straws for things to nitpick about it.
 
ROAD_DOGG33J
It sounds like I need to check into NMS. Or should I wait to not spoil Starfield.
Click to expand...
They are different enough, or I imagine they will be, to justify getting both. If you like the Bethesda OW games, with the levelling paths and the dialogue and graphics etc, then I bet Starfield will feel comfortingly familiar. As expansive as NMS is, it’s also a touch cold. I’m a good few updates behind on it so this may have changed, but there’s no real story to keep you interested in pursuing, and interactions with NPCs, mostly in the form of trading posts, are boring and repetitive. It’s not story-led like most of the great open word games, it’s a proper sandbox game where you decide what you want the game to be. It’s probably in a lot of ways closer to Mindcraft or Cities:Skylines then it is Skyrim or RDR.

NMS is usually so cheap on PS Store and all the added content is totally free, so if you have any interest in the concept of it, it would be daft not to give it a go.
 
Apparently, when asked about black holes, Todd Howard neglected to answer. Which was a bit intriguing. There is speculation that it may be a part of the story.
Anyway, I hope there will be some areas or planets that are kind of off limits – as in possible to visit but extremely dangerous – at a low skill/exp level. That will make the world a bit more exiting and give us something to look forward to.
 
Whitestar
Apparently, when asked about black holes, Todd Howard neglected to answer. Which was a bit intriguing. There is speculation that it may be a part of the story.
Anyway, I hope there will be some areas or planets that are kind of off limits – as in possible to visit but extremely dangerous – at a low skill/exp level. That will make the world a bit more exiting and give us something to look forward to.
Click to expand...
I'm of the thought that player explorable areas of planets will be small. Lack of transport on planet indicates that.
 
I’ve been consuming every leak possible over the last few days and, on top of what we a
ready know from Direct, it’s shaping up one hell of a game. I can definitely see myself losing hundreds of hours in it. The 40 minute “bubble“ thing is a nothingburger IMO. The only thing that I see personally that is a little bit immersion breaking is the loading screens stitching together things, but my favourite game Prey had tons of those (on top of long loading times) and I still love it, so if that’s the worst part about the game, I’ll be very happy. Thursday can’t come soon enough.
 

Latest Posts

Back