It’s not even a close comparison, Nintendo games look like ass because they have a max resolution of 1600x900 and 30fps, add in the texture resolution of things in game as well and it’s obvious why PC games often run “worse” also…
Did you account for the fact that Nintendo was developing for massively underpowered handheld hardware? And not significantly more powerful Xbox Series consoles? And actually made their games to fit the strengths and limitations of their target hardware?
They have one console they release on instead of the literally millions of possible different PC configurations.
You would have a point…if Starfield ran with decent performance on even the Xbox Series X. You know, the target platform?
…the fact that it has to run at 30fps on powerful hardware despite having nothing to show for it?
To put it another way, how the fuck is it not targeting 60 on the Series X? I could understand it for the Series S, but there is little to no fidelity improvements on show like they said there’d be.
It is definitely prettier then Witcher 3 lmfao, Cyberpunk is probably prettier however it also ran like shit for everyone and was infamously bad at launch lmfao.
I dunno dude, the next gen patch for Witcher 3 is absolutely gorgeous. Maybe there’s less opportunity for the game to show off reflections but damn it look pretty. Kinda hard to compare though as they are going for totally different graphical styles.
I’ll give you that Cyberpunk was an absolute mess at launch. It made typical Bethesda jank look muuuuuch preferable by comparison. Perhaps it would be more fair to wait for Bethesda to release a few patches before comparing?
I can show some of my in game screenshots from Starfield if you’d like, I just want people to actually try the game for themselves for a few hours instead of buying into internet rage bandwagon.
It’s a great game with tons of quests and things to do with minimal game breaking bugs to worry about.
I do have one friend who could never really get into Skyrim/Fallout but he took the plunge into Starfield and has far exceeded my playtime already and loving it, for what it’s worth.
The XSX isn’t running full fat Windows in the background for one thing, which adds overhead, for another XSX games can be optimised for the hardware at a level that isn’t feasible for equivalent generic PC hardware.
Despite that, the XSX still can’t run it at 60, how was generic PC hardware going to fare any better?
Did you account for the fact that Nintendo was developing for massively underpowered handheld hardware? And not significantly more powerful Xbox Series consoles? And actually made their games to fit the strengths and limitations of their target hardware?
You would have a point…if Starfield ran with decent performance on even the Xbox Series X. You know, the target platform?
It does run well, at 30fps like they specified, I’m not sure what performance issues being reported youre looking at
Most the original comments were about bugginess, which is just bad programming, hence the lack of polish
Most of the comments were most certainly not about bugginess lol
…the fact that it has to run at 30fps on powerful hardware despite having nothing to show for it?
To put it another way, how the fuck is it not targeting 60 on the Series X? I could understand it for the Series S, but there is little to no fidelity improvements on show like they said there’d be.
Have you literally not seen the game? It is quite pretty at higher settings
Is it prettier than, say, Cyberpunk? Witcher 3? Forza Horizon 5? Last I checked, those are open world games and run at 60fps on XSX.
It is definitely prettier then Witcher 3 lmfao, Cyberpunk is probably prettier however it also ran like shit for everyone and was infamously bad at launch lmfao.
Idk about Forza, haven’t seen it in a while
I dunno dude, the next gen patch for Witcher 3 is absolutely gorgeous. Maybe there’s less opportunity for the game to show off reflections but damn it look pretty. Kinda hard to compare though as they are going for totally different graphical styles.
I’ll give you that Cyberpunk was an absolute mess at launch. It made typical Bethesda jank look muuuuuch preferable by comparison. Perhaps it would be more fair to wait for Bethesda to release a few patches before comparing?
I can show some of my in game screenshots from Starfield if you’d like, I just want people to actually try the game for themselves for a few hours instead of buying into internet rage bandwagon.
It’s a great game with tons of quests and things to do with minimal game breaking bugs to worry about.
https://youtu.be/dapJH8y6JxI?si=yEuUzHxHxUzOzZNM this review pretty much sums up my thoughts too, but I’m definitely a Bethesda enjoyer, some people aren’t.
I do have one friend who could never really get into Skyrim/Fallout but he took the plunge into Starfield and has far exceeded my playtime already and loving it, for what it’s worth.
Digital Foundry built a PC using the Series X CPU and a similar level GPU and couldn’t get a stable 60 across the whole game.
Well…no shit?
The XSX isn’t running full fat Windows in the background for one thing, which adds overhead, for another XSX games can be optimised for the hardware at a level that isn’t feasible for equivalent generic PC hardware.
Despite that, the XSX still can’t run it at 60, how was generic PC hardware going to fare any better?