Starfield

djoye said:
CALM DOWN, CALM DOWN, you won't need DLSS because the game engine *still* won't natively run above 60 FPS. ;)

But seriously, have they even confirmed that it will have unlocked FPS on PC? Are there any online betting sites where I could place $100 on "Capped at 60 FPS on PC"?
Click to expand...
Considering fallout 76 runs over 100+ fps with no issues, I assume that Starfield will as well.
 
Armenius said:
Good point. The physics engine has always ran at a fixed rate in Bethesda games. If that is still the case, hopefully the multithreading improvements to the engine they're referring to means they put physics in its own thread to sync to the rendering thread, as modern games should do. Forza Horizon and Motorsport, for example, have physics running at a fixed 360 Hz while still supporting variable framerate far above 100 FPS (presumably up to 360 FPS).
Click to expand...

They fixed that it at some point years ago. I doubt it will have problems since higher framerates are so common these days, even some console games support 120 fps. I'm sure they were at least thinking about it as they made upgrades to the engine and didn't break support for higher fps. But as far as I know there hasn't been any confirmation on it.
 
polonyc2 said:
so it's confirmed that the RT is basically going to suck...
Click to expand...
Do we know if the game is going to use any ray tracing? They have been touting global illumination for the Series X|S as one of the reasons it runs at 30 FPS on that version, but as far as I know it is pixel shaded, not ray traced.
 
Armenius said:
Do we know if the game is going to use any ray tracing? They have been touting global illumination for the Series X|S as one of the reasons it runs at 30 FPS on that version, but as far as I know it is pixel shaded, not ray traced.
Click to expand...

nothing confirmed but Germain Mazac is a graphics programmer at Bethesda who has previously worked on both Fallout 76 and Skyrim: Special Edition...according to his LinkedIn profile, he is currently working on Starfield, and responsible for “PBR [physically based rendering] lightning, indirect lighting, [and] RTX integration”
 
peppergomez said:
Ha I must be a weirdo bc I am happy w 30fps
Click to expand...
I think it depends on your perception, and just what you like/dislike. Some people seem more FPS sensitive than others, and seem to care more about it than others. I'd say you are probably NOT that weird, since lots of companies target 30fps. If that really was something most people didn't like, they'd get more flack and wouldn't do it. However it seems most people when offered the option of higher FPS or more shinies take more shinies. We've seen this on a continual basis with the consoles ever since 3D became a thing. Heck there are games that even go below 30fps for better graphics. FF7 is a good example. It is 30 on the field, but in battle it drops to 15 because they wanted to use higher detail models.

Personally I'm an FPS whore, I really want 60 minimum and I like how smooth things get in the 90-120 range. I'd take even more, if that was feasible. Tears of the Kingdom annoys me because it looks SO choppy running at 20-30fps. My GF though doesn't seem to care or even really notice that much. She is happily plays TOTK running like garbage on the switch, and also Dead Space running smooth as glass on my PC.
 
Sycraft said:
I think it depends on your perception, and just what you like/dislike. Some people seem more FPS sensitive than others, and seem to care more about it than others. I'd say you are probably NOT that weird, since lots of companies target 30fps. If that really was something most people didn't like, they'd get more flack and wouldn't do it. However it seems most people when offered the option of higher FPS or more shinies take more shinies. We've seen this on a continual basis with the consoles ever since 3D became a thing. Heck there are games that even go below 30fps for better graphics. FF7 is a good example. It is 30 on the field, but in battle it drops to 15 because they wanted to use higher detail models.

Personally I'm an FPS whore, I really want 60 minimum and I like how smooth things get in the 90-120 range. I'd take even more, if that was feasible. Tears of the Kingdom annoys me because it looks SO choppy running at 20-30fps. My GF though doesn't seem to care or even really notice that much. She is happily plays TOTK running like garbage on the switch, and also Dead Space running smooth as glass on my PC.
Click to expand...

I can definitely notice a difference between 30 and 60 fps (even 30 and 45 difference) but for me 60 vs 120 fps does nothing.
 
Nebell said:
I can definitely notice a difference between 30 and 60 fps (even 30 and 45 difference) but for me 60 vs 120 fps does nothing.
Click to expand...
It also can depend on the game/media and the display as well. I find some games are more noticeable than others. Like one that is kind of surprising is Hearthstone. I could notice the difference between the 240Hz display on my laptop and 144Hz on my desktop. Dragging things around and following them with your eye is an area where you notice FPS more than you'd think. On the flip side, video shot with a camera is less noticeable 30 vs 60 than a game for a number of reasons, in part the natural motion blur that a slow camera shutter will impart. Like you can see it, don't get me wrong, but it is not nearly as night and day as with games.

Likewise, I notice FPS more on my OLED TV than my LCD monitor. I would presume it is because the OLED has such fast transitions that the frames are held longer and blurred less, so it is more noticeable when there are more of them and it looks more fluid.

I also think what you get used to can have an effect too. For awhile, I used nothing but high frame rate displays. I was working from home so on my desktop 144Hz all the time, and when gaming, and my phone has a 120Hz display. When I went back to the office the 60Hz monitor there seemed super choppy to me.
 
M76 said:
It's not about perception for me, I just prioritize graphics over FPS every time.
Click to expand...

I'm becoming the opposite, I am gradually favoring more FPS over graphics. I still try to strike that balance. Once I get into the mid 80s I am generally satisfied for single player games. But 105-120 just looks much smoother. The smoothness higher frame rates bring is a part of image quality for me.
 
30 fps is trash. Idk guys. Graphics or not, my wife was playing Hogwarts unknowingly capped at 30 and I kept wondering why everything looked slow.

60+ or bust.
 
M76 said:
It's not about perception for me, I just prioritize graphics over FPS every time.
Click to expand...
How can you appreciate the graphics when it's a stuttery mess. FPS plays a big part in viewing the amazing world you're inside of.
 
M76 said:
It's not about perception for me, I just prioritize graphics over FPS every time.
Click to expand...
Not me I prioritize both. I want top notch graphics with the best possible FPS.

I honestly dont mind that it is being bundled with an AMD CPU. Since they have the best gaming CPU you can get....makes the most sense to me.
 
MelonSplitter said:
How can you appreciate the graphics when it's a stuttery mess. FPS plays a big part in viewing the amazing world you're inside of.
Click to expand...

He did say prioritize. So for him that might be 60 or 80 frame rates. For some people they might want a minimum of 120, or 140. I doubt he enjoys playing at 30 or less frame rates.
 
MelonSplitter said:
How can you appreciate the graphics when it's a stuttery mess. FPS plays a big part in viewing the amazing world you're inside of.
Click to expand...
Some people don't mind, there are a lot of console players that game at 30fps. My GF is one of them. She seems completely unbothered by TOTK and it's 20-30fps gameplay, despite regularly playing PC games that usually run at 120fps. Not everyone cares about the same things. Me? I'm a huge graphics whore. I love high framerates, got addicted the first time I tried 120fps, particularly in combo with VRR so you don't get stutter when a drop happens. I also really like shinies and want to turn everything up. So I throw hardware at the problem, since I can afford to do that. Not everyone cares though, even if they can afford high end hardware.
 
Flogger23m said:
I'm becoming the opposite, I am gradually favoring more FPS over graphics. I still try to strike that balance. Once I get into the mid 80s I am generally satisfied for single player games. But 105-120 just looks much smoother. The smoothness higher frame rates bring is a part of image quality for me.
Click to expand...
I had a 144Hz monitor, but switched to a 75Hz one, and I don't regret it one bit. High FPS is good, but not that good to spend double on both dispaly and GPU to achieve it at high settings in games. And I'll be damned before I play a game on any medium or low setting, just to get to some magic arbitrary FPS number.
MelonSplitter said:
How can you appreciate the graphics when it's a stuttery mess. FPS plays a big part in viewing the amazing world you're inside of.
Click to expand...
How can you appreciate high FPS, when you know you are missing out on what the game has to offer graphically?

Being a stuttery mess is not a function of the FPS, I've seen many games produce annoying micro stuttering at 100+ FPS while others are butter smooth at 30.

Around 40-45 FPS most games seem perfectly playable to me, and there is no way I'm lowering graphics settings unless absolutely needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T4rd
like this
I will be pre-ordering Starfield.

Haven't been this excited about a space game since Descent: Freespace - The great War or Freespace 2.
 
I’m VERY interested but waiting for launch week and seeing how the reviews are. I’ll certainly pick it up shortly after release if it doesn’t have game breaking issues and, once we see some gameplay, it still looks interesting.
 
Sycraft said:
I love high framerates, got addicted the first time I tried 120fps, particularly in combo with VRR so you don't get stutter when a drop happens.
Click to expand...

High framerates can easily be ruined by bad 1% lows due to horrible CPU optimization, traversal stuttering, shader compilation stuttering and so on. Consistent frametimes should be the first priority in games for every dev.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M76
like this
AceGoober said:
I will be pre-ordering Starfield.

Haven't been this excited about a space game since Descent: Freespace - The great War or Freespace 2.
Click to expand...
I don't know man might have better luck putting the money on a bottlerocket for the 4th of July.
 
peppergomez said:
2nd this, preordering makes zero sense
Click to expand...

Ya I have no idea why people wanna do that anymore. Back in Ye Olden Thymes(tm), I could see it as if you didn't, stores could literally run out of copies and it could be a month or more before they got it back in. Logistics sucked in the 80s and 90s. So it was entirely possible for stores to sell out of a popular game and you to just be SOL for a long time. This was the era of "please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery" and that was even assuming there was a catalog that sold what you wanted. So if there was a game you really wanted, you preordered it to make sure you got it.

Now though? Microsoft isn't going to run out of bits. Azure will send you a copy if you pay for it when it releases, same as if you preorder. They aren't even going to give priority downloads to those who preorder, because they don't need to.

lors said:
High framerates can easily be ruined by bad 1% lows due to horrible CPU optimization, traversal stuttering, shader compilation stuttering and so on. Consistent frametimes should be the first priority in games for every dev.
Click to expand...

I mean there's only so much they can do about some things like 1% lows, some areas of the game are just going to be more intense. But I do know what you mean, prior to VRR I used to optimize my settings to hold 60fps solid, basically no matter what. I got comments about the fact that I had such a chonk of a GPU and yet turned down some things even though it could handle it no problem. The reason was I wanted it to handle it stable, never dropping out of vsync.

VRR fixed that issue for me though. In fact for me, VRR is a bigger deal than high frame rates. I'd take a 60Hz VRR monitor over a 120Hz non-VRR monitor. If a game temporarily drops from 60 to 59 or 58 on a VRR display, I don't notice it.
 
Sycraft said:
Ya I have no idea why people wanna do that anymore. Back in Ye Olden Thymes(tm), I could see it as if you didn't, stores could literally run out of copies and it could be a month or more before they got it back in. Logistics sucked in the 80s and 90s. So it was entirely possible for stores to sell out of a popular game and you to just be SOL for a long time. This was the era of "please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery" and that was even assuming there was a catalog that sold what you wanted. So if there was a game you really wanted, you preordered it to make sure you got it.

Now though? Microsoft isn't going to run out of bits. Azure will send you a copy if you pay for it when it releases, same as if you preorder. They aren't even going to give priority downloads to those who preorder, because they don't need to.
Click to expand...
It's simple, they allow themselves to be manipulated by corporate hype
 
Meeho said:
The downward trend of games' quality thanks you.
Click to expand...

peppergomez said:
2nd this, preordering makes zero sense
Click to expand...

LukeTbk said:
I could see it for small title that can need the help of pre-order figure for financing of something, for a Microsoft AAA digital license.... it is not obvious what is going on.
Click to expand...

peppergomez said:
Okay, I'll say it a little more articulately. In this day and age, preordering a triple A game title is just begging to be taken advantage of
Click to expand...

Comixbooks said:
I don't know man might have better luck putting the money on a bottlerocket for the 4th of July.
Click to expand...

Sycraft said:
Ya I have no idea why people wanna do that anymore. Back in Ye Olden Thymes(tm), I could see it as if you didn't, stores could literally run out of copies and it could be a month or more before they got it back in. Logistics sucked in the 80s and 90s. So it was entirely possible for stores to sell out of a popular game and you to just be SOL for a long time. This was the era of "please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery" and that was even assuming there was a catalog that sold what you wanted. So if there was a game you really wanted, you preordered it to make sure you got it.

Now though? Microsoft isn't going to run out of bits. Azure will send you a copy if you pay for it when it releases, same as if you preorder. They aren't even going to give priority downloads to those who preorder, because they don't need to.



I mean there's only so much they can do about some things like 1% lows, some areas of the game are just going to be more intense. But I do know what you mean, prior to VRR I used to optimize my settings to hold 60fps solid, basically no matter what. I got comments about the fact that I had such a chonk of a GPU and yet turned down some things even though it could handle it no problem. The reason was I wanted it to handle it stable, never dropping out of vsync.

VRR fixed that issue for me though. In fact for me, VRR is a bigger deal than high frame rates. I'd take a 60Hz VRR monitor over a 120Hz non-VRR monitor. If a game temporarily drops from 60 to 59 or 58 on a VRR display, I don't notice it.
Click to expand...

peppergomez said:
It's simple, they allow themselves to be manipulated by corporate hype
Click to expand...

I don't know about you all but this isn't 'normal' Bethesda where games are crashing left and right (Fallout 3, Skyrim Original) but I do understand your skepticism.

Whether you believe it or not Microsoft has been putting, from what I've read, much of their QA team behind Starfield. That carries a lot more weight than Bethesda alone saying it and is part of where I put my basis of pre-ordering.
 
AceGoober said:
I don't know about you all but this isn't 'normal' Bethesda where games are crashing left and right (Fallout 3, Skyrim Original) but I do understand your skepticism.

Whether you believe it or not Microsoft has been putting, from what I've read, much of their QA team behind Starfield. That carries a lot more weight than Bethesda alone saying it and is part of where I put my basis of pre-ordering.
Click to expand...
Pre-Ordering is literally, not figuratively or hypothetically, but literally giving money to the publisher to tell them that their marketing team is more profitable than their developers. when you pre-order a game, you're giving the publisher money for NOTHING, except entertaining you with their marketing campaign.

That's why pre-order incentives and advertising is getting more grandiose and games themselves are getting more buggy and unfinished.
 
AceGoober said:
I don't know about you all but this isn't 'normal' Bethesda where games are crashing left and right (Fallout 3, Skyrim Original) but I do understand your skepticism.

Whether you believe it or not Microsoft has been putting, from what I've read, much of their QA team behind Starfield. That carries a lot more weight than Bethesda alone saying it and is part of where I put my basis of pre-ordering.
Click to expand...
Still no reason to do it. MS doesn't need your money for this game to happen, it is getting the same amount of polish and QA regardless of preorders or not. You don't need to have it preordered to get it launch day. They will happily send a copy to people who buy it day of. However there IS a potential downside for you: If the game sucks, they already have your money.

See for me, and others not preordering, there's really not a downside. If the game launches, reviews are good, and it looks like something we want, we can buy it, download it, and play it same as if we preordered. However if the game is NOT good, we can wait, or just not buy.

While I hope the game is good, and I'm very much looking forward to it (heck I bought in 4090 in part to make sure I could run it at a nice high framerate and rez), I'm not giving them any money until I've seen what I'll be getting. There's just no reason, no upside. Sometimes, a game I'm looking forward to comes out and is great and even exceeds expectations. Tears of the Kingdom is like that. I wasn't looking forward to it for myself so much as my GF but man what a game. She has sunk so much time in it and enjoyed every minute. However sometimes a game I've been looking forward to comes out and it has issues, or even downright blows. An example of the former is Jedi Survivor. Still a game a I want to play but man what a fucking disaster of a launch. I'll wait and see how it goes, thanks. An example of the latter would be Enter the Matrix. I'm a Matrix fan and the game sounded so cool, I was even more hyped because of the heavy involvement of the creators, the actors, etc. Like this wasn't something just handed off to a studio and ignored, they were really working on making this a game in the universe... And it was complete and utter trash.

So I see no reason to preorder, and some good ones not to. I think it makes sense to simply wait, see what the launch looks like, see the reviews, then buy it if it is indeed good.
 
KazeoHin said:
Pre-Ordering is literally, not figuratively or hypothetically, but literally giving money to the publisher to tell them that their marketing team is more profitable than their developers. when you pre-order a game, you're giving the publisher money for NOTHING, except entertaining you with their marketing campaign.

That's why pre-order incentives and advertising is getting more grandiose and games themselves are getting more buggy and unfinished.
Click to expand...

What people are failing to realize is the repercussions if Starfield is a hot, steaming turd upon release. Bethesda doesn't want this and I know damn well Microsoft doesn't want this as it will negatively degrade their investment in Bethesda and associated acquisitions.

It's perfectly fine to debate the value of pre-ordering but please consider it is on a case by case basis.

That said, in this particular instance I believe Starfield will not be completely free of bugs yet will be a completely playable, and enjoyable, game.

I want to be perfectly clear that I'm not a fan of Bethesda or Microsoft. Yet, regarding Starfield, I believe we'll live a virtual experience unlike previous or in current development. And it will be enjoyable right out of the gate.
 
If the game is one you are certain to buy and the pre-order include at a good price bonus that will not exist at that price point (steel case, figures, posters, vinyl of soundtrack or what not) it can make sense but if I look of this:
https://bethesda.net/en/game/starfield/get-starfield

You only get the game and at full price ?
 
AceGoober said:
What people are failing to realize is the repercussions if Starfield is a hot, steaming turd upon release. Bethesda doesn't want this and I know damn well Microsoft doesn't want this as it will negatively degrade their investment in Bethesda and associated acquisitions.

It's perfectly fine to debate the value of pre-ordering but please consider it is on a case by case basis.

That said, in this particular instance I believe Starfield will not be completely free of bugs yet will be a completely playable, and enjoyable, game.

I want to be perfectly clear that I'm not a fan of Bethesda or Microsoft. Yet, regarding Starfield, I believe we'll live a virtual experience unlike previous or in current development. And it will be enjoyable right out of the gate.
Click to expand...
Microsoft also Wanted Halo Infinite to be amazing.
Microsoft also Wanted Redfall to be amazing
Microsoft also wanted Sea Of Thieves to be amazing

guess what? All of these games made budget based on Pre-orders alone, time and time-again people let publishers essentially cash-out early before finishing their games. Why would they? you've told them they don't need to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top