-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Which was the more technically impressive game, Starfield or Tears of the Kingdom?
- Thread starter LakeOf9
- Start date
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
I rest my case.
GymWolf
Gold Member
Because people act like they do both.
IFireflyl
Gold Member
I dunno. I thought the game being able to overheat PS5s was impressive.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Dacvak
No one shall be brought before our LORD David Bowie without the true and secret knowledge of the Photoshop. For in that time, so shall He appear.
Is this a joke thread? TotK has arguably one of the best physics simulator in any game ever, and it runs on an ancient 75-year-old SoC. It’s absolute black magic.
GymWolf
Gold Member
But...you kinda were sometimes
Tokt doesn't really do anything completely new:
Other games had materials and elements reacting with each other
The fuse system is half bolts and nuts and half just cause 4
The ultrahand is garry mod or i heard people saying minecraft, never played that vomit inducing thing
But it gel all those things with success.
To bad for the shitty hardware and framerate that gets progressively worse the more you go forward.
Last edited:
Bonfires Down
Member
When they make a game that doesn’t have constant loading screen despite having SSDs as standard then we can talk.
Mister Wolf
Member
Control is still my physics top dog.
Last edited:
vaibhavpisal
Member
Am at beginning of Starfield and find it to be very impressive. I haven't played TOTK but have seen videos and that also looks highly impressive.
2008
2008
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Spiderman 2 you fucking losers
GymWolf
Gold Member
Last edited:
GymWolf
Gold Member
We are talking about nextgen physics, not which one looks more crossgen.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Spiderman is very physical
GymWolf
Gold Member
Only if you like being smeared with white, sticky webs...
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Thick Thighs Save Lives
NeoGAF's Physical Games Advocate Extraordinaire
Last edited:
Pedro Motta
Member
LOL, you always show this GIF with Havoc physics from 2004 and say it's next gen and better tech than ToTKStarfield has better tech, but the devs just dont have the creativity to make use of it. They do a fairly decent job with some anti gravity sequences, but the full potential of its amazing physics system is not utilized like the geniuses over at Nintendo did.
Just imagine what Nintendo devs couldve done with this instead of slaving away using PS3 era hardware in 2023.
Aion002
Member
Starfield is cool, but plays like a 360 game with the appearance of a current gen.
While ToTK looks like a last gen game, but plays like a next gen game.
So yeah... Both are impressive on their own way....
Like, while playing Starfield, every time there's combat, I am like: this sucks, this plays worse than many first person shooters on the original Xbox, that's impressive.
And when playing Zelda, I am like: Nintendo is genius for making this on the Switch. I am impressed.
While ToTK looks like a last gen game, but plays like a next gen game.
So yeah... Both are impressive on their own way....
Like, while playing Starfield, every time there's combat, I am like: this sucks, this plays worse than many first person shooters on the original Xbox, that's impressive.
And when playing Zelda, I am like: Nintendo is genius for making this on the Switch. I am impressed.
MirageMew2
Member
The inverse of the statement, i.e. what ToTK accomplishes on Switch, is far more impressive and consistent. Not to mention all in-engine objects actually compliment the gameplay and don’t require some save editor mod to experience.
Dick Jones
Gold Member
If you are legitimately comparing the technical ability of a game running on a handheld from 2017 [or likely earlier] tech versus a game released on a significantly more powerful console released in 2020, then you already know the answer.
eNT1TY
Member
They both can do crazy shit with physics, difference is that TOTK is built around it and only has really impressive physics with very select few items in very specific situational occurrences where as in Starfield it just happens to casually have top notch physics on almost any item that isn't a static environmental object.
fart town usa
Member
Xenoblade Chronicles X on the WiiU is more (technically) impressive than Starfield.
Last edited:
Chuck Berry
Gold Member
What is up with you, polls and ridiculous fucking comparisons?
Hey guys whats more impressive? Super Sprint or Blazing Dragons?
Last edited:
charles8771
Member
"Limitations breed creativity" - - That what i heardBut...you kinda were sometimes
Tokt doesn't really do anything completely new:
Other games had materials and elements reacting with each other
The fuse system is half bolts and nuts and half just cause 4
The ultrahand is garry mod or i heard people saying minecraft, never played that vomit inducing thing
But it gel all those things with success.
To bad for the shitty hardware and framerate that gets progressively worse the more you go forward.
The thing is that BOTW was developed for Wii U in mind, then ported to Switch
As the Wii U CPU was weaker than X360, it ended dropping to 20fps in towns
There is hardly any difference between BOTW and TOTK at all.
Cyberpunkd
Member
How can you claim with a straight face a game developed on a 20-year old engine is technically impressive? It’s junk tech-wise.
Romulus
Member
It's hard to be impressed with the new Zelda games when it's a 20-30fps and low resolution. Totk is better than botw here.
Not to mention, its cell shaded which saves resources considerably and most of the vistas are just empty plains. So that's not impressive at all.
Playing Botw at 1440p 60fps actually impressed me more but that wasn't on console.
Starfield is kinda of a joke overall. Big empty randomly generated vistas with bad physics. Some of the cities look great though.
I will say the game itself hooked me far more than the switch Zeldas ever did. Some of characters and side missions are damn immersive.
Not to mention, its cell shaded which saves resources considerably and most of the vistas are just empty plains. So that's not impressive at all.
Playing Botw at 1440p 60fps actually impressed me more but that wasn't on console.
Starfield is kinda of a joke overall. Big empty randomly generated vistas with bad physics. Some of the cities look great though.
I will say the game itself hooked me far more than the switch Zeldas ever did. Some of characters and side missions are damn immersive.
charles8771
Member
GymWolf
Gold Member
Ultrahand, fuse and ascend are pretty big news that let you manipulate the physics and enlarge the whole sandbox gameplay to a whole other level.
Other devs don't even think about putting something like ascend in their games because it would break everything.
This just show how massively betatested zelda was.
Does tokt has enhanced destruction or better IA or other impressive physics features over botw? not really, but what they added in terms of gameplay make the already present physics much more on the front center of the gameplay.
Last edited:
semiconscious
Member
not gonna say. i will say, tho, that they tied as games offering most 'extra shit to do than i had no interest whatsoever in doing'...
To me Ascend is actually the most technically impressive thing, because you can actually do it almost anywhere. You can build your own ascend ceiling and it'll work. It's an amazing gameplay and technical device.
alucard0712_rus
Member
Between those two defenetely TOTK, but TOTK was developed around physics, while Starfield is more story-driven advanture.
GymWolf
Gold Member
Yeah, ascend is low key the most potentially game breaking ability.
And i think the only ability that is not present in other games like ultrahand and fuse.
Last edited:
R6Rider
Gold Member
Starfield isn't even more impressive than AC Rogue on the PS3. In that game you could load once into a huge region, hop on your boat, have battles, go to a new island or village, hop off your boat anywhere, explore, and then climb back onto your boat with no loading. Starfield you have loading screens into small buildings. You even have a loading screen to get into your ship and a cutscene to get into and out of your pilot seat.
TotK is much more impressive than Starfield and I'm someone who was disappointed with both titles.
TotK is much more impressive than Starfield and I'm someone who was disappointed with both titles.
Holammer
Member
Well, it's obviously Starfield because it does more technically impressive stuff. It's pushing higher resolutions, level of detail that's probably ten times higher. It's objectively true it's more technically impressive.
A Switch trying to render this would require the last rites
TotK is impressive on another level, like a kid drawing The Last Supper with just a few crayons. A picture goes on the fridge and remains a conversation piece for years.
A Switch trying to render this would require the last rites
TotK is impressive on another level, like a kid drawing The Last Supper with just a few crayons. A picture goes on the fridge and remains a conversation piece for years.
Scratch that, Gothic came out in 2001 and didn't have loading screens every 5 meters.
Slicker than your average
Banned
If starfield didn't have loading for every instance.
If starfield didn't look like shit and ran a good frame rate.
Then maybe it would, but it doesn't.
There's nothing good tech wise in that ancient ass engine. I think people still love drunk on fallout 3, Vegas and Skyrim.
If starfield didn't look like shit and ran a good frame rate.
Then maybe it would, but it doesn't.
There's nothing good tech wise in that ancient ass engine. I think people still love drunk on fallout 3, Vegas and Skyrim.
charles8771
Member
Games on Xbox 360 were designed to stream from the DVD drive as didn’t have HDD by default
So games have loading times and pop-in as a result like Unreal Engine 3 games
Gothic requires 700MBs on HDD
Negotiator101
Member
Similar threads
- Poll