- Joined
- Nov 15, 2013
- Messages
- 15,816
- Reaction score
- 4,949
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I remember playing Starfield way back in the eighties.Way back in the early days of the PC, circa 1986, a game was made called "Star Flight." It was a revolutionary achievement that created what would later be named "Sandbox games." The game basically plopped the player in a starship, with a galaxy full of stars that had planets, and let them mine, capture wildlife, engage in piracy, fight aliens, or whatever they wanted.
Fast forward to 2023 and Bethesda has rolled out a modern take on this model with Starfield. The name isn't an accident, Bethesda proudly acknowledges their inspiration for their new game.
So, is it any good? Does it live up to 25 years in development? Let's take a look.
First off, Microsoft bought Bethesda games and made some VERY questionable decisions about Starfield. The first one was that they took the PC game in development and turned it into an XBox exclusive in an attempt to bolster their fading XBox line. Oh the game is still on PC - as an XBox port, but Nintendo and Sony are both shut out.
I find this to not only be a bad business decision, but also a terrible technological decision. All modern games should be designed for the PC and then ported to consoles. Start with the highest technology and port down.
By designing for XBox, the game is confined to XBox limitations. Particularly AMD hardware, no ray tracing or DLSS here. Which leads to the first question, graphics. Well, this is NOT Cyberpunk 2077 by any means. It looks, and undoubtedly is, the Fallout 4 engine upscaled. The player models for closeup dialogue are good, but everything scales way down when not in dialogue. The artwork is very well done, so it would be wrong to say the visuals aren't good - but this is definitely 2018 technology, not 2023 - and this is driven purely by the XBox.
Many people had expected Skyrim in space. That is not what this is, it is Fallout in space. The pace and feel of the game are very much Fallout - which is not a bad thing, Fallout 4 is one of the best games ever made. The story starts out slow, but is solid. The characters are well fleshed out - though far too woke for my tastes. The promise of "do anything" is absolutely there, all the crafting options from Fallout - with settlement building replaced by spaceship building - but some of the ships that have been built are nothing less than spectacular.
I'm playing on PC and the controls are good for the most part - though menus are nerfed by the XBox centric nature. Still, everything responds well to a mouse/keyboard. I've run into several serious bugs, but they have all been one-off, reload and they are gone. Some are really annoying, screen stutters that are exceptionally bad. A few triggers that just wouldn't fire. But reloads have got me past all of these so far.
Combat is fun, with a huge selection of weapons that all feel unique. Space combat is meh, seems like an afterthought - even though this is a space game.
Some Bethesda people split off a few years ago and released a game called Outer Worlds - that clearly is the same genre. Outer Worlds has a more advanced graphics engine and really a good game. But it isn't the massive open world that Starfield is.
Given the competition from not just Outer Worlds, but also Chris Robert's Star Citizen, Starfield needs to fill some massive shoes to hit high marks, and it just doesn't quite make it. It's a good game, but can't climb to great, much because of the XBox decision.
My rating, 7.5 out of 10
Massively.Xbox is fading?
Xbox and PS5 are higher end hardware than the average PC. Games are gimped for low end PC hardware not current consoles.
PC components are just too expensive to justify continually upgrading in order to play the latest releases. Consoles are a much more affordable option for most gamers, so I'm personally glad that Starfield was built to run primarily on the XBOX.Way back in the early days of the PC, circa 1986, a game was made called "Star Flight." It was a revolutionary achievement that created what would later be named "Sandbox games." The game basically plopped the player in a starship, with a galaxy full of stars that had planets, and let them mine, capture wildlife, engage in piracy, fight aliens, or whatever they wanted.
Fast forward to 2023 and Bethesda has rolled out a modern take on this model with Starfield. The name isn't an accident, Bethesda proudly acknowledges their inspiration for their new game.
So, is it any good? Does it live up to 25 years in development? Let's take a look.
First off, Microsoft bought Bethesda games and made some VERY questionable decisions about Starfield. The first one was that they took the PC game in development and turned it into an XBox exclusive in an attempt to bolster their fading XBox line. Oh the game is still on PC - as an XBox port, but Nintendo and Sony are both shut out.
I find this to not only be a bad business decision, but also a terrible technological decision. All modern games should be designed for the PC and then ported to consoles. Start with the highest technology and port down.
By designing for XBox, the game is confined to XBox limitations. Particularly AMD hardware, no ray tracing or DLSS here. Which leads to the first question, graphics. Well, this is NOT Cyberpunk 2077 by any means. It looks, and undoubtedly is, the Fallout 4 engine upscaled. The player models for closeup dialogue are good, but everything scales way down when not in dialogue. The artwork is very well done, so it would be wrong to say the visuals aren't good - but this is definitely 2018 technology, not 2023 - and this is driven purely by the XBox.
Many people had expected Skyrim in space. That is not what this is, it is Fallout in space. The pace and feel of the game are very much Fallout - which is not a bad thing, Fallout 4 is one of the best games ever made. The story starts out slow, but is solid. The characters are well fleshed out - though far too woke for my tastes. The promise of "do anything" is absolutely there, all the crafting options from Fallout - with settlement building replaced by spaceship building - but some of the ships that have been built are nothing less than spectacular.
I'm playing on PC and the controls are good for the most part - though menus are nerfed by the XBox centric nature. Still, everything responds well to a mouse/keyboard. I've run into several serious bugs, but they have all been one-off, reload and they are gone. Some are really annoying, screen stutters that are exceptionally bad. A few triggers that just wouldn't fire. But reloads have got me past all of these so far.
Combat is fun, with a huge selection of weapons that all feel unique. Space combat is meh, seems like an afterthought - even though this is a space game.
Some Bethesda people split off a few years ago and released a game called Outer Worlds - that clearly is the same genre. Outer Worlds has a more advanced graphics engine and really a good game. But it isn't the massive open world that Starfield is.
Given the competition from not just Outer Worlds, but also Chris Robert's Star Citizen, Starfield needs to fill some massive shoes to hit high marks, and it just doesn't quite make it. It's a good game, but can't climb to great, much because of the XBox decision.
My rating, 7.5 out of 10
That surprises me, but oh well, I have every current console.Massively.
Xbox hardware sales in continued Slump as Microsoft announces Q4 figures
Xbox continues to trail PlayStationwww.gamesradar.com
Why are acting like this is some huge significant deal? Nintento is shut out? Did you expect a Switch release? Since when has Sony let their exclusives run on Xbox?The first one was that they took the PC game in development and turned it into an XBox exclusive in an attempt to bolster their fading XBox line. Oh the game is still on PC - as an XBox port, but Nintendo and Sony are both shut out.
Consoles are the most common denominator. There are way more console gamers than PC gamers. Also at this point consoles are the better technology on average, especially VRAM as they have 10-14gb usable depending on the game.All modern games should be designed for the PC and then ported to consoles. Start with the highest technology and port down.
?By designing for XBox, the game is confined to XBox limitations. Particularly AMD hardware, no ray tracing or DLSS here.
It is not. They basically built an entirely new game engine from scratch for their next gen releases (Starfield/Skyrim 6).It looks, and undoubtedly is, the Fallout 4 engine upscaled.
Just because it doesn't have ray tracing? It uses multiple DirectX 12 Ultimate exclusive features that didn't exist in 2018 like variable rate shading, mesh shaders, etc. On top of being so demanding to run that even the best GPU in 2018 (RTX 2080Ti) can't get 60 FPS at 1080p ultra.but this is definitely 2018 technology, not 2023
Not anymore than it is been the last decade or so. Series X/S market share is mostly in line with its previous 25% market share from last gen.Xbox is fading?
GTX 1650 is in no way similar to the performance of an RX 5700. An RTX 2060 would be a closer comparison for performance.Both the XBox series S/X and the Playstation 5 use amazingling similar hardware. Both have an AMD Ryzen 5 CPU with an integrated Radeon GPU. The CPU is pretty standard 8 core , 3.8 ghz stuff. The GPU is modified, but is roughly a Radeon 5700.
The current top end CPU on PC is the Intel I9 13900, a 24 core monster at 5.6 ghz. The 13900 produces roughly 70 times the GFLOP compute power of Ryzen 5. We have to keep in mind that the 13900 is $600 chip and more expensive than an entire XBox (or PS5)
When it comes to GPU, the world had moved on. The Nvidia RTX 4900 is king of the hill. A massively powerful card with an equally impressive price. The Radeon 5700 of the consoles isn't in the same ballpark as any RTX card, much less the mighty 4900. But a $1600 card better be able to mop the floor with a $500 console or no one would buy it.
The only valid source for finding what mainstream gaming PC's have hardware wise is the Steam Survey.
The most common CPU is a 10th gen I5, significantly more powerful than the Ryzen 5.
What really matters though is GPU. The most common is the GTX 1650 which is pretty similar in performance to the Radeon 5700. What is surprising is that the #2 slot is the massive RTX 3060, which is vastly more powerful.
GTX 1650 Still Most Popular GPU According to Newest Steam Survey
The GTX 1650 has maintained its number one position.www.tomshardware.com
So no, PC's don't hold games back, and writing to the most capable hardware ALWAYS means developing to PC specs and then scaling down. Games can be easily scaled down - scaling up is far more difficult.
Presumable you are talking about the i5 10600, a CPU that will at best perform within single digit % better than the Ryzen 7 3700x found in the series x/ps5.The most common CPU is a 10th gen I5, significantly more powerful than the Ryzen 5.
The closest PC GPU to a Series X in performance is the RX 6700XT or RTX 3060 12gb.The GPU is modified, but is roughly a Radeon 5700.
Say sike right now.The most common is the GTX 1650 which is pretty similar in performance to the Radeon 5700.
Was star flight similar to elite for the bbc computer?Way back in the early days of the PC, circa 1986, a game was made called "Star Flight." It was a revolutionary achievement that created what would later be named "Sandbox games." The game basically plopped the player in a starship, with a galaxy full of stars that had planets, and let them mine, capture wildlife, engage in piracy, fight aliens, or whatever they wanted.
Fast forward to 2023 and Bethesda has rolled out a modern take on this model with Starfield. The name isn't an accident, Bethesda proudly acknowledges their inspiration for their new game.
So, is it any good? Does it live up to 25 years in development? Let's take a look.
First off, Microsoft bought Bethesda games and made some VERY questionable decisions about Starfield. The first one was that they took the PC game in development and turned it into an XBox exclusive in an attempt to bolster their fading XBox line. Oh the game is still on PC - as an XBox port, but Nintendo and Sony are both shut out.
I find this to not only be a bad business decision, but also a terrible technological decision. All modern games should be designed for the PC and then ported to consoles. Start with the highest technology and port down.
By designing for XBox, the game is confined to XBox limitations. Particularly AMD hardware, no ray tracing or DLSS here. Which leads to the first question, graphics. Well, this is NOT Cyberpunk 2077 by any means. It looks, and undoubtedly is, the Fallout 4 engine upscaled. The player models for closeup dialogue are good, but everything scales way down when not in dialogue. The artwork is very well done, so it would be wrong to say the visuals aren't good - but this is definitely 2018 technology, not 2023 - and this is driven purely by the XBox.
Many people had expected Skyrim in space. That is not what this is, it is Fallout in space. The pace and feel of the game are very much Fallout - which is not a bad thing, Fallout 4 is one of the best games ever made. The story starts out slow, but is solid. The characters are well fleshed out - though far too woke for my tastes. The promise of "do anything" is absolutely there, all the crafting options from Fallout - with settlement building replaced by spaceship building - but some of the ships that have been built are nothing less than spectacular.
I'm playing on PC and the controls are good for the most part - though menus are nerfed by the XBox centric nature. Still, everything responds well to a mouse/keyboard. I've run into several serious bugs, but they have all been one-off, reload and they are gone. Some are really annoying, screen stutters that are exceptionally bad. A few triggers that just wouldn't fire. But reloads have got me past all of these so far.
Combat is fun, with a huge selection of weapons that all feel unique. Space combat is meh, seems like an afterthought - even though this is a space game.
Some Bethesda people split off a few years ago and released a game called Outer Worlds - that clearly is the same genre. Outer Worlds has a more advanced graphics engine and really a good game. But it isn't the massive open world that Starfield is.
Given the competition from not just Outer Worlds, but also Chris Robert's Star Citizen, Starfield needs to fill some massive shoes to hit high marks, and it just doesn't quite make it. It's a good game, but can't climb to great, much because of the XBox decision.
My rating, 7.5 out of 10
Way back in the early days of the PC, circa 1986, a game was made called "Star Flight." It was a revolutionary achievement that created what would later be named "Sandbox games." The game basically plopped the player in a starship, with a galaxy full of stars that had planets, and let them mine, capture wildlife, engage in piracy, fight aliens, or whatever they wanted.
Fast forward to 2023 and Bethesda has rolled out a modern take on this model with Starfield. The name isn't an accident, Bethesda proudly acknowledges their inspiration for their new game.
So, is it any good? Does it live up to 25 years in development? Let's take a look.
First off, Microsoft bought Bethesda games and made some VERY questionable decisions about Starfield. The first one was that they took the PC game in development and turned it into an XBox exclusive in an attempt to bolster their fading XBox line. Oh the game is still on PC - as an XBox port, but Nintendo and Sony are both shut out.
I find this to not only be a bad business decision, but also a terrible technological decision. All modern games should be designed for the PC and then ported to consoles. Start with the highest technology and port down.
By designing for XBox, the game is confined to XBox limitations. Particularly AMD hardware, no ray tracing or DLSS here. Which leads to the first question, graphics. Well, this is NOT Cyberpunk 2077 by any means. It looks, and undoubtedly is, the Fallout 4 engine upscaled. The player models for closeup dialogue are good, but everything scales way down when not in dialogue. The artwork is very well done, so it would be wrong to say the visuals aren't good - but this is definitely 2018 technology, not 2023 - and this is driven purely by the XBox.
Many people had expected Skyrim in space. That is not what this is, it is Fallout in space. The pace and feel of the game are very much Fallout - which is not a bad thing, Fallout 4 is one of the best games ever made. The story starts out slow, but is solid. The characters are well fleshed out - though far too woke for my tastes. The promise of "do anything" is absolutely there, all the crafting options from Fallout - with settlement building replaced by spaceship building - but some of the ships that have been built are nothing less than spectacular.
I'm playing on PC and the controls are good for the most part - though menus are nerfed by the XBox centric nature. Still, everything responds well to a mouse/keyboard. I've run into several serious bugs, but they have all been one-off, reload and they are gone. Some are really annoying, screen stutters that are exceptionally bad. A few triggers that just wouldn't fire. But reloads have got me past all of these so far.
Combat is fun, with a huge selection of weapons that all feel unique. Space combat is meh, seems like an afterthought - even though this is a space game.
Some Bethesda people split off a few years ago and released a game called Outer Worlds - that clearly is the same genre. Outer Worlds has a more advanced graphics engine and really a good game. But it isn't the massive open world that Starfield is.
Given the competition from not just Outer Worlds, but also Chris Robert's Star Citizen, Starfield needs to fill some massive shoes to hit high marks, and it just doesn't quite make it. It's a good game, but can't climb to great, much because of the XBox decision.
My rating, 7.5 out of 10
No. Because I'm defending the consoles but I don't have a current gen one, but do have an above average gaming PC.Wait did this turn into console peasants vs pc master race?
It did in a misplaced way. The Xbox and PC have never been more similar platforms. The Xbox is basically a PC with a locked down operating system at this point.Wait did this turn into console peasants vs pc master race?
Xbox and PS5 are higher end hardware than the average PC. Games are gimped for low end PC hardware not current consoles.
Was star flight similar to elite for the bbc computer?
Do I need a solid state drive to play Star Citizen?
Presumable you are talking about the i5 10600, a CPU that will at best perform within single digit % better than the Ryzen 7 3700x found in the series x/ps5.
View attachment 67467622
WOW! That IS significantly more powerful. God forbid I get 0.4 less FPS in Hitman 2.
The closest PC GPU to a Series X in performance is the RX 6700XT or RTX 3060 12gb.
Say sike right now.
View attachment 67467624
User benchmark is a completely unreliable source of performance. Cite literally any other benchmark.Not exactly.
The 2060 creams the AMD card.
View attachment 67468593
The 1650 lacks raytracing and DLSS, but performs similar to the 2060.
View attachment 67468594
Yeah, because the PS5/Series X have a Ryzen 7 5700x in them.You're comparing the Ryzen 7, not the 5.
No, but the Radeon 5700 is like 2x the performance of a 1650. It isn't even in the same tier.Nor does your list show the Radeon 5700 on it.
The 1650 lacks raytracing and DLSS, but performs similar to the 2060.
View attachment 67468594
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?