Starfield - Bethesda Softworks - Release Date - Sep 6th 2023

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

I’m old so I barely notice any 30fps vs 60fps difference. I wish exclusives didn’t exist, I doubt I’ll be able to justify a console purchase for one game when I don’t game a ton anymore.

 

[The Mars Volchenkov]

I’m actually mad I can’t play this now. The release date right before the NHL season starts hurts.

Watched the direct in 4K last night. I’m going to sink so many hours into this game.

 

[93LEAFS]

I think the development was too far along on the old engine to change to Unreal Engine 5? Star Trek Online on consoles is still using the same 13 year old engine which makes all the ground things look really crap, like crap even for Xbox 360 era, but because all the space battles look good and it's still getting new content every year, people are still playing. Based on what I saw in the Starfield Direct, this game has so many elements that don't rely on a fast frame rate, like everything re: ship, weapons, equipment etc. that if the frame rate on PC and Series X remains somewhat stable, people won't mind that it's 30 FPS.

Bethesda isn't changing from the Creation engine since they basically rely on the modding community to fix their games and have for decades.

I'm curious to see the PC specs on this if they can't get it running at 1080p/60 on a Series X.

 

[aleshemsky83]

I think the development was too far along on the old engine to change to Unreal Engine 5? Star Trek Online on consoles is still using the same 13 year old engine which makes all the ground things look really crap, like crap even for Xbox 360 era, but because all the space battles look good and it's still getting new content every year, people are still playing. Based on what I saw in the Starfield Direct, this game has so many elements that don't rely on a fast frame rate, like everything re: ship, weapons, equipment etc. that if the frame rate on PC and Series X remains somewhat stable, people won't mind that it's 30 FPS.

Yes, I agree. And the main edge that this engine has over every other engine that a lot of people forget is its a peristent world. Nothing disappears. If you drop an item on the ground in the middle of nowhere it will be there after 100 hours of gameplay. Of course, this is probably why the games are so heavy on performance too.

JFC you guys bitch about FPS all the time on this sub. The game looks like a lot of fun just mellow out. You’re not getting 60FPS this gen. There’s too much going on. Whine whine whine whine whine whine whine

I think itll be goty or runner up to tears of the kingdom. I can definitely play 30 fps games, in fact ive played games in 30 fps that had 60 fps options. Guardians of the Galaxy and FF7 Remake I prefer the 30 fps mode.

 

[Jussi]

Bethesda isn't changing from the Creation engine since they basically rely on the modding community to fix their games and have for decades.

I'm curious to see the PC specs on this if they can't get it running at 1080p/60 on a Series X.

? It's running at 30 FPS on 4K.

 

[Mikeaveli]

The game is most likely CPU limited, that's why they can't just lower the resolution to get 60 FPS on consoles. From the recommended specs we can see that you need a pretty good CPU to run the game, this is a higher requirement than even The Last of Us Part 1 which is a very CPU limited game.

 

[93LEAFS]

? It's running at 30 FPS on 4K.

Generally, as a game's resolution downscales you can increase the frames per second. So, while I know it runs at 4k/30, there is no 1080p/60 option. It's probably not native 4k on Series X either, likely 4K checkerboard that has been upscaled using FSR. Any game that is capable of running native 4k on a Series X should be able to achieve 1080p/60 on the same hardware. Generally, a games performance mode is 1080p/60fps

Either way, the required PC specs are out. Recommended is a rx 6800xt or RTX 2080, with a 3600x or10700k. Minimums are rx 5700 or 1070ti with a 2600x or 6800k. It does say SSD required, which is unlikely to be an issue for many PC users who have the hardware required to run the game.

 

[93LEAFS]

The game is most likely CPU limited, that's why they can't just lower the resolution to get 60 FPS on consoles. From the recommended specs we can see that you need a pretty good CPU to run the game, this is a higher requirement than even The Last of Us Part 1 which is a very CPU limited game.

Makes sense. Surprised to see that it recommends an AMD GPU from a generation ago, but an Nvidia one that is from 2 gens ago (same applies to minimum). Usually with recommendations you see something like 3080/6800 or 2080/5800, etc, so it doesn't seem to be VRAM related. Curious to see how my machine will run it (3080ti/13600k), hoping for a stable 60fps/1440p.

 

[RandV]

Hmm, I have an AMD 5 2600 and a NVidia 1050 Ti, I wonder if that would let me play. Can't recall if I have the stock cooler on the AMD or if I bought something better to make up the difference.

 

[Super Cake]

JFC you guys bitch about FPS all the time on this sub. The game looks like a lot of fun just mellow out. You’re not getting 60FPS this gen. There’s too much going on. Whine whine whine whine whine whine whine

I honestly never really pay attention to graphics when playing games. All I care about is if it is fun to play.

 

[x Tame Impala]

I honestly never really pay attention to graphics when playing games. All I care about is if it is fun to play.

I've 60 hours into Tears of the Kingdom right now and it's a 720p shell of the technical abilities the SX and PS5 are. Makes little difference to me too.

It's annoying watching that cool showcase and the first thing you see is posters upset over FPS.

 

[Osprey]

JFC you guys bitch about FPS all the time on this sub. The game looks like a lot of fun just mellow out. You’re not getting 60FPS this gen. There’s too much going on. Whine whine whine whine whine whine whine

We're simply discussing how well the game will run. You're the one cursing and admitting to being annoyed. It seems like it's you who needs to mellow out, respectfully.

Also, most of us discussing framerate are PC gamers, and we can almost always get at least 60fps, either by not doing anything, by lowering graphics settings or by upgrading our hardware. It's always relevant for us to discuss, regardless of the game.

 

[Jussi]

We're simply discussing how well the game will run. You're cursing and getting "annoyed," as you just admitted. It seems like you're the one who needs to mellow out, respectfully.

Also, most of us discussing framerate are PC gamers, and we can almost always get 60fps, either by not doing anything, by upgrading hardware or by lowering graphics settings. So, it's a very relevant discussion for us.

This isn't the Prospects board.

 

[x Tame Impala]

We're simply discussing how well the game will run. You're the one cursing and admitting to being annoyed. It seems like it's you who needs to mellow out, respectfully.

Also, most of us discussing framerate are PC gamers, and we can almost always get at least 60fps, either by not doing anything, by lowering graphics settings or by upgrading our hardware. It's always relevant for us to discuss, regardless of the game.

This game has a chance to be very very memorable for the gaming world and after seeing everything it has to offer all you do is complain about 60FPS. Most people don’t care. It’s an annoying PC gaming convo and you guys will most likely never be satisfied considering It’s clear that major releases are going to prioritize console hardware over optimizing for gaming PCs.

 

[The Mars Volchenkov]

Well it shot to the top of Steams sale charts, so the deep dive convinced some people.

 

[RandV]

I honestly never really pay attention to graphics when playing games. All I care about is if it is fun to play.

I'm the same, but from personal experience with something like a Bethesda game there's more to it than that. On my old under powered PC playing Skyrim I would be fine just lowering graphic settings, but at minimum requirements (if that) after all the mods I would add thins would start getting glitchy mid game.

 

[Mikeaveli]

I saw some side by side screenshots comparing what was shown during the Starfield Direct to the build from last year and it looks like the graphics have improved quite a bit (and id Software supposedly gave BGS a hand with that). Aside from the NPCs the game looks beautiful, especially for something of this scope. Xbox really made the right decision delaying this game, hopefully it comes out in a reasonable state.

The only hang ups I really have aside from the NPCs are the skill system which I think I can get over given the huge amount of skills and the combat which I think looked better in the direct than last year's showing.

The scope of the game, improved base building, ship customization, improved dialogue system, silent protagonist, space combat, character backgrounds and traits, etc. all have me very excited for the game. Hopefully the RPG elements come as advertised but even if not, Fallout 4 in space with everything turned up to 11 sounds like a very fun game to me.

This game has a chance to be very very memorable for the gaming world and after seeing everything it has to offer all you do is complain about 60FPS. Most people don’t care. It’s an annoying PC gaming convo and you guys will most likely never be satisfied considering It’s clear that major releases are going to prioritize console hardware over optimizing for gaming PCs.

That is an interesting thing to say in this thread considering BGS has a history of being a PC first developer and putting out subpar console ports. Starfield does seem like one of those once in a generation type experiences, and that's all the more reason to want this game to run as well as it possibly can.

 

[RandV]

I saw some side by side screenshots comparing what was shown during the Starfield Direct to the build from last year and it looks like the graphics have improved quite a bit (and id Software supposedly gave BGS a hand with that). Aside from the NPCs the game looks beautiful, especially for something of this scope. Xbox really made the right decision delaying this game, hopefully it comes out in a reasonable state.

The only hang ups I really have aside from the NPCs are the skill system which I think I can get over given the huge amount of skills and the combat which I think looked better in the direct than last year's showing.

The scope of the game, improved base building, ship customization, improved dialogue system, silent protagonist, space combat, character backgrounds and traits, etc. all have me very excited for the game. Hopefully the RPG elements come as advertised but even if not, Fallout 4 in space with everything turned up to 11 sounds like a very fun game to me.

That is an interesting thing to say in this thread considering BGS has a history of being a PC first developer and putting out subpar console ports. Starfield does seem like one of those once in a generation type experiences, and that's all the more reason to want this game to run as well as it possibly can.

Yeah this. I find FPS whining silly too, but if you're playing a Bethesda game on console rather than PC you can still have a good time but you're not getting the best experience. These games are complete once the modding community has had time to get to work on them and you can customize & expand your experience.

 

[Osprey]

This game has a chance to be very very memorable for the gaming world and after seeing everything it has to offer all you do is complain about 60FPS. Most people don’t care. It’s an annoying PC gaming convo and you guys will most likely never be satisfied considering It’s clear that major releases are going to prioritize console hardware over optimizing for gaming PCs.

The only real complaining that I'm seeing is from you over how annoying it is to listen to concerns that don't matter to you. The rest of us are just speculating about and expressing a little concern over how well the game will run at launch. That's partly because it looks as good as it does and partly because too many recent games have been "memorable" for the wrong reasons. It's especially been a problem on PC because some developers haven't been bothering to optimize their games for PC until after launch. Your reaction seems to be that, because you aren't affected by that, the people who are should learn to live with it and stop annoying you with their concerns. If it's none of your concern, then it should be easy to ignore it and not let it bother you.

 

[Seedtype]

I find the dismissal of FPS fascinating since I figure you would want a consistent smooth experience in a game that is going for action and immersion.

 

[Osprey]

I find the dismissal of FPS fascinating since I figure you would want a consistent smooth experience in a game that is going for action and immersion.

That's why competitive gamers want framerates as high as possible, like 300 and even higher. The higher the framerate, the higher the accuracy, the lower the input lag and the better the experience. Of course, there are diminishing returns. I don't know about competitive gamers, who may be more sensitive to it than me, but anything over 100fps feels about the same to me. I can feel the difference under it, though. 60fps feels a little sluggish, and if that's the average, then that usually means occasional dips into the 40s, which are more unpleasant. Once you get used to a higher framerate, it's hard to go back, at least for PC gamers. We tend to sit close to our monitors and use mice, so the apparent smoothness and lag are likely more noticeable than for people playing 6 feet from a TV with a controller. Maybe framerate isn't that important for many console gamers, but it is for many PC gamers, who will routinely pay the same price as a console (if not more) to upgrade their framerate from 40 to 60 or from 60 to 90. That's why we appreciate games being well optimized.

 

[Seedtype]

Yeah I don't know about that 300FPS stuff, but as a VR user I do appreciate maintaining the 90FPS that my headset requires.

 

[PeteWorrell]

Competitive gamers also lower their quality settings to have an easier time hitting those high frame rates. No one cares about graphic fidelity when they play Fortnite.

That is different for something like a single player game where you care much more about being immersed so people tend to pick better graphics and textures over FPS.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

It looks cool. Not a single chance I am even thinking about pre ordering it. I do not trust it to not be an absolutely buggy mess at launch.

 

[flyersnorth]

That's why competitive gamers want framerates as high as possible, like 300 and even higher. The higher the framerate, the higher the accuracy, the lower the input lag and the better the experience. Of course, there are diminishing returns. I don't know about competitive gamers, who may be more sensitive to it than me, but anything over 100fps feels about the same to me. I can feel the difference under it, though. 60fps feels a little sluggish, and if that's the average, then that usually means occasional dips into the 40s, which are more unpleasant. Once you get used to a higher framerate, it's hard to go back, at least for PC gamers. We tend to sit close to our monitors and use mice, so the apparent smoothness and lag are likely more noticeable than for people playing 6 feet from a TV with a controller. Maybe framerate isn't that important for many console gamers, but it is for many PC gamers, who will routinely pay the same price as a console (if not more) to upgrade their framerate from 40 to 60 or from 60 to 90. That's why we appreciate games being well optimized.

It's how I feel about spatial audio now. I can't go back to flat stereo mixes. Seems so quaint in comparison.