Not on console. I played on my Series X first and then on my high end gaming PC, there is a lot more going on than a framerate cut on console. It does not look great at all. It looks worse on my 4K TV than playing in 1440p on my monitor. Of course PC will always be superior but its a pretty big difference. It's like console is low settings and 30fps is obviously the kick in the guts. Gunplay is 'acceptable'
Are they PC Screenshots?Bethesda has their niche, just like any other top tier developer. They have an identity, and those that are interested in Bethesda games have an expectation that aligns with that identity.
- We don't expect FROM games to have cutting edge graphics or to run particular well, and we're okay with that
- We don't expect Capcom games to have particularly good voice acting or writing, and in fact we love Capcom games because of their cheesiness and hamfistedness
- We don't expect Persona games to push the bar on a technical level, and we've come to accept that all games in the series look like they could run on a generation or two generation old hardware
- We don't expect Rockstar games to control particularly responsively, as their strengths are in creating living, breathing, cinematic worlds and characters with an insane attention to detail
Yet when a Bethesda game that has generally great reviews and is beloved by most who have played it comes out, suddenly we have to hold them to some mythical standard?
And frankly the game frequently looks absolutely fucking amazing:
I feel like I'm playing a different game going by some of the shit that's been posted here.
As someone who lifts more than 70 pound weights.. You are correct lol
You can disagree about gunplay, that is subjective but my comparison between PC and XSX is 100% factual, not opinion.
It sure looks like it, because it looks like that on my PC but not on my Series X.
The graphics can look fantastic at times. Like when I landed on the first planet with the pirate, it looked very good. But then I landed on New Atlantis and...
Also, the graphics don't really bother me. They're serviceable enough. What irks me is the post still talking like this was 2007 Bethesda. Posts such as these (not shitting on the posters btw).
Like, really? Because Bethesda has never had great graphics, we shouldn't expect them in 2023 with a $200M+ budget and Microsoft backing them with 8 years of development time? Come on.
I dont know what game you are playing but they have done a great job improving both the graphics and first person combat. Combat might not be on par with say Doom, but it is leagues ahead of what they had in fallout 3 and fallout 4. I personally miss VATS but realtime combat is not bad at all. Combat is punchy and fun. What exactly do you want from the combat?
And they have also updated the graphics engine. It is one of the best looking games out there. Inconsistent sure, but 90% of it is procedurally generated. Realtime time of day and the downgrade from as early as E3 2023 doesnt help. But aside from the somewhat dated bethesda quest design, i am not sure what is wrong with either the graphics or gunplay that deserves to be criticized, let alone defended. Maybe they shipped a shitty version on xbox. but its fine on PC.
Go ahead and knock them for dated quest design, robotic dialogue sequences, unmemorable side characters, ridiculous menu driven space travel, useless planet exploration, and just a very disjointed feeling world, but can we stop with the fucking hyperbole. not everything about this game is dated. the visuals are not dated. the combat is not dated. they physics are straight up next gen. the game CAN be fun when it gets out of its own way and lets you go on a long mission.
i get that its fun to hate the game right now, and i personally think its more than a 7/10, but we are shitting on its graphics and gunplay now? the only strengths this game has. what are we even doing?
Tell me you don't play many FPS games without telling me you don't play many FPS games. How can you possibly say gunplay is good in Starfield? It's passable at best. The biggest issue I have with this game is it's barely passable in every respect. Mediocre through and through.
Half-ass releases made by billion dollar companies who expect players to finish their game for them shouldn't exist anymore.
... what? I've literally not seen either of these two things posted in the 453 threads we've had about Starfield. That's likely because Starfield has pretty terrific graphics, albeit with inconsistencies mostly due to the exterior lighting. It actually utilises some pretty advanced visual features, such as its real-time indirect lighting system and even its staggered real-time cube map system, and often looks absolutely incredible. Its geometry-heavy interiors are constantly impressive - some of the best texture work we've seen in next-gen games, in fact. And there have been precisely two prior Bethesda games that even have guns. Fallout 3 had terrible gunplay, but it was offset via VATS. Fallout 4 had decent gunplay, also offset via VATS. Starfield has legitimately solid gunplay.
You're posting as if a diligent contingent of NeoGAF posters aren't posting in every thread about how bad Starfield is, how outdated it is, how boring it is, how badly it sold, how poorly it reviewed, and how the people liking it are lying and are actually just paid Xbox shills. No one is doing the bolded. Why are you pretending that everyone is enamoured with Starfield and you're somehow the voice of reason? If anything, the narrative your furthering needs a slight correction in the other direction: can we please stop pretending a simulation-heavy open world RPG should be better in every one of its numerous facets than games that specialise in only one of its aspects are. Demanding that Starfield is the best-looking game ever, a better shooter than shooters, a better loot game than looters, a better space combat game than space combat games, etc., etc., etc., is a little silly.
So, if they're still among the best, what is the "Bethesda defence" non-sense you're trying to peddle? Are they, or aren't they?
Some of the PC gamers here have applied a community-made 'quick fix' for the game's HDR settings, that also unfortunately rips out some of the game's color grading and lighting effects. To see what I mean, look at multiple posts of this thread for proof:
Nah, starfield has better physics. Bethesda just arent ingenious video game designers like Nintendo devs and used almost none of these physics aside from applying it during some gravity powers.
![L*][*N*K](/data/avatars/m/842/842515.jpg?1696510303){kind=avatar}
And we should treat you as a fanboy...
Good god. What ship is this? I must have it.
You’re acting like a pretty good game is the worst thing ever.
Gaiff is good people. He’s no fanboy.
Yes this is all true Bethesda might not be perfect buuuuuuut I arm the spirit of gaming and they still makes games I love
What mods are you using? Your black levels are great!Bethesda has their niche, just like any other top tier developer. They have an identity, and those that are interested in Bethesda games have an expectation that aligns with that identity.
- We don't expect FROM games to have cutting edge graphics or to run particular well, and we're okay with that
- We don't expect Capcom games to have particularly good voice acting or writing, and in fact we love Capcom games because of their cheesiness and hamfistedness
- We don't expect Persona games to push the bar on a technical level, and we've come to accept that all games in the series look like they could run on a generation or two generation old hardware
- We don't expect Rockstar games to control particularly responsively, as their strengths are in creating living, breathing, cinematic worlds and characters with an insane attention to detail
Yet when a Bethesda game that has generally great reviews and is beloved by most who have played it comes out, suddenly we have to hold them to some mythical standard?
And frankly the game frequently looks absolutely fucking amazing:
I feel like I'm playing a different game going by some of the shit that's been posted here.
Fanboys: *create a gazillion threads to hype up people for Starfield*
I like you.
that is not an example of "better physics", that is an example of a big amount of physics simulations, that is more a hardware merit actually, in the video the character in starfield when falls only have basic collision and IK on feet and knees, no matter how many bricks that react physically correctly you can throw in a scene, the character doesn't react with the physics of one of them and that is why it looks bad compared to the other games, they could make the character move like one of those bricks reacting with slopes when falls or make extra animation to slide, maybe they didnt want that but in third person it looks worse or way more simple than RDR2 or Zelda TotKNah, starfield has better physics. Bethesda just arent ingenious video game designers like Nintendo devs and used almost none of these physics aside from applying it during some gravity powers.
