Starfield

I like the way PC Gamer put it:

Starfield's idea of exploration feels more like pointless filler

"I never felt excitement or awe, no goosebumps as my engines fired, no sense of grandeur as I set down on a new world. That's because despite cruising from one end of the galaxy to the other in Starfield, I never felt like I was really going anywhere"

And that's pretty much been my takeaway trying to play Starfield as a space sim enjoyer: stick to the quests, because none of my deeper space adventuring fantasies will be realized by fast traveling between systems for hours

What pulls me out of Starfield's star-hopping fantasy more than anything else is how my spaceship doesn't really feel like a spaceship—it's a teleporting house that I occasionally steer...

https://www.pcgamer.com/starfields-...than-i-expected-and-yes-there-are-boundaries/
 
polonyc2 said:
I like the way PC Gamer put it:

Starfield's idea of exploration feels more like pointless filler

"I never felt excitement or awe, no goosebumps as my engines fired, no sense of grandeur as I set down on a new world. That's because despite cruising from one end of the galaxy to the other in Starfield, I never felt like I was really going anywhere"

And that's pretty much been my takeaway trying to play Starfield as a space sim enjoyer: stick to the quests, because none of my deeper space adventuring fantasies will be realized by fast traveling between systems for hours

What pulls me out of Starfield's star-hopping fantasy more than anything else is how my spaceship doesn't really feel like a spaceship—it's a teleporting house that I occasionally steer...

https://www.pcgamer.com/starfields-...than-i-expected-and-yes-there-are-boundaries/
Click to expand...
Have you played it?
 
FearTheCow said:
Have you played it?
Click to expand...

I have the Standard Edition...so any reviews that have played it (finished the game) and criticize the game should be ignored?...have you finished the game?

I plan on playing it but I'm expecting another typcial Bethesda Elder Scrolls/Fallout game...they are not 10/10 amazing games but they are fun to explore for many hours...Starfield sounds like more of the same...don't let any small criticism of a game get you so defensive where you feel the need to defend everything...you can criticize a game and still like it...Starfield sounds like a solid 8/8.5 game
 
ghostwich said:
Locked first-person FOV to 75? Good Lord.
Click to expand...

if they're going to offer a locked FOV at least make it closer to 90...hopefully a patch is released before the Standard Edition is unlocked on Tuesday which offers an FOV slider
 
I'm having fun so far and I haven't run into any issues. It's definitely taking a bit to get used to the interface and controls. It is a slow start but it's the first time playing so whatever. It's going to happen anyway but people need to try and forget about ES and Fallout when playing. Yes there are similarities to those games and a familiarness but it's a completely new IP.
 
Two and half hours in and it has been fine for me so far, no noticeable bugs or crashes. Some of the character creation screens felt unwieldy.
Other menus haven't had any problems. I always stumble with their controls at the start.

I have not dug into any of the settings just running whatever it choose. Running on a 13700k, 32ram, 4080.
No real complaints from me. If you liked ES and FO, you will probably like this.
Feels like there is a lot to learn in the game about the various systems and few hours isn't enough to get into all of them.
 
12700KF and 4090 here, indoors it's over 100fps, outdoors it's 85-ish fps give or take a few. 3440x1440, native, DRS off, VRS off, FSR off. Everything else maxed. You get more fps with FSR off than with it on, also a more stable image around complex textures. The game uses under 6GB of VRAM for the process, it uses more system RAM than VRAM.

Graphically it's nothing to write about. Cyberpunk's world and graphical technologies are vastly superior in virtually every single way possible than this, and Cyberpunk path traced (Psycho SSR too) runs at circa 80fps path traced with only DLSS 2 enabled. So this begs the question as to why Starfield runs at path traced framerates when it doesn't even have basic RT..... The CPU utilisation is excellent, all 20 threads being used nicely, and GPU use is also 99%, so it can only boil down to the engine just being a bit crap for scaling.

The little loading screen transitions are super annoying after a while, they only show up for 1 second but they are not needed at all, why are they in the game on PC!

Not being able to fly on and off world through the atmosphere is quite sad

Each moon/planet so far feels lacking in activity and life, unlike Night City which has oodles of the stuff.

I'll stick to it, but am 80 minutes in currently and realise I do need to level up and go more places...
 
robbiekhan said:
Not being able to fly on and off world through the atmosphere is quite sad

Each moon/planet so far feels lacking in activity and life, unlike Night City which has oodles of the stuff
Click to expand...

the cut-scene when flying on/off world is disappointing...even No Man's sky allows actual low altitude flyovers...but I understand that it would take a lot more work on Bethesda's part to add this feature

the lack of life on the planets is disappointing...with the procedural generation can't they also add some form of activity to the planets as well...sucks that it only adds landscapes...after the first 50- 75 planets people are going to get bored after realizing that exploration is pointless and will just stick to the main quests
 
polonyc2 said:
the cut-scene when flying on/off world is disappointing...even No Man's sky allows actual low altitude flyovers...but I understand that it would take a lot more work on Bethesda's part to add this feature

the lack of life on the planets is disappointing...with the procedural generation can't they also add some form of activity to the planets as well...sucks that it only adds landscapes...after the first 50- 75 planets people are going to get bored after realizing that exploration is pointless and will just stick to the main quests
Click to expand...
You could just go play NMS if you want NMS gameplay....
 
FearTheCow said:
You could just go play NMS if you want NMS gameplay....
Click to expand...

once again you're getting defensive...you've played the game for 3.5 hours max...if you're a fanboy and love it and don't want to hear any criticisms then more power to you...I hope most people are more balanced in their appraisals...like I've said hundreds of times, you can criticize aspects of a game and still like it...not every game is a 10...an 8 or even a 7 is still a good score...stop equating an 8/10 with hate

I appreciate reviews which delve into both the positive and negative aspects of a game...if you want to see the game through rose colored glasses and ignore any issues then you're doing yourself a disservice
 
I played it for about an hour and it seems interesting. No performance issues for me so far (13900K/4090).
 
the problem with gamers nowadays is that everything needs to either be a 10 or a 0 (zero)...there is no in-between...if a game gets an 8/10 score then the fanboys call them haters...criticize even the tiniest thing and the same fanboys will go crazy...you can't make any sort of constructive criticism with some people

there are certain review sites that I trust and I know give unbiased reviews...with games I'm on the fence about I trust certain sources...even games I know I'm going to play I still like to read reviews from those trusted sites...you don't buy every single game and then decide if you like it or not...that's insane
 
Last edited:
Put in a few hours tonight on launch. 7700x, 32g 5600 c30 ram, 7900xt. In the first hour I had 3 CTD and one hard reboot.. Not great especially given everything else I do gaming and other uses the PC is super stable. People have been talking about how Starfield seems to hammer your CPU a bit and this may be the case. I had -20 on all cores set in curve optimizer which has been up to this point working fine. After dropping that back to -15 and still running in ECO mode I played another 2 hours with zero issues or crashes. Could be the solution for those CTD for me but only time will tell. I did update to the lates AMD driver that is dated 8/31 before playing as well.
Here are screen grabs of the game settings and Adrenaline stats from my last 2 hours of crash free play:
Starfield settings .pngStarfield Adrenalin stats.png
 
Got like 90 minutes in and now trying to progress in the labs hard reboots my PC

Threadripper 3960 and a 3090 with custom cooling so not like it should be challenging it and it’s not overheating or anything

Luckily I just picked up my save on the XBox
 
Loving the game. The only minor nitpick is there doesnt seem to be any HDR :/ unless im an idiot and didnt see it. But if there isnt thats too bad. A game like this could of really used it.
 
Iratus said:
Got like 90 minutes in and now trying to progress in the labs hard reboots my PC

Threadripper 3960 and a 3090 with custom cooling so not like it should be challenging it and it’s not overheating or anything

Luckily I just picked up my save on the XBox
Click to expand...
I doubt this game has ever been QA'd with a Threadripper. Just my first thoughts on the issue.
 
Well, maybe my 7900X would give enough cpu power to let my 6800xt max out 1440p well enough without resorting to upscaling. It'd be a good bit better than that 3600.

FrgMstr , you edited out the post just as I saw the video, but thanks nonetheless for it.
 
polonyc2 said:
once again you're getting defensive...you've played the game for 3.5 hours max...if you're a fanboy and love it and don't want to hear any criticisms then more power to you...I hope most people are more balanced in their appraisals...like I've said hundreds of times, you can criticize aspects of a game and still like it...not every game is a 10...an 8 or even a 7 is still a good score...stop equating an 8/10 with hate

I appreciate reviews which delve into both the positive and negative aspects of a game...if you want to see the game through rose colored glasses and ignore any issues then you're doing yourself a disservice
Click to expand...
No, I'm pointing out that you should play the game that has the mechanics you want.

Starfield is a Bethesda game set in space, not a space sim, trying to complain because it doesn't feel like a space sim is kind of stupid.
 
Brackle said:
Loving the game. The only minor nitpick is there doesnt seem to be any HDR :/ unless im an idiot and didnt see it. But if there isnt thats too bad. A game like this could of really used it.
Click to expand...
Microsoft owns this game and Windows Auto-HDR doesn't even work------------except, if you rename the exe to Farcry4 or something. Lemme get the details.
 
FrgMstr said:
I doubt this game has ever been QA'd with a Threadripper. Just my first thoughts on the issue.
Click to expand...
Yeah I figured it would be something like that, I tried a few times and had it consistently so just moved to my Series X

Bit annoying but I’m too old to start spazzing out about it. I get a comfier chair to play now, it’ll get fixed at some point soon I’m sure.

Just need to tell my daughter that no she can’t use the TV as daddy has important space business to deal with
 
Iratus said:
Got like 90 minutes in and now trying to progress in the labs hard reboots my PC

Threadripper 3960 and a 3090 with custom cooling so not like it should be challenging it and it’s not overheating or anything

Luckily I just picked up my save on the XBox
Click to expand...

I'd be curious what kind of framerates you are getting with the 3960x. You feel it is holding you back at all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top