Starfield

It seems pretty clear that Bethesda isn't interested in spending time for R&D on making their engine better with modern features. In addtion to being largely dependant on single thread performance, This game has tons of load screens and forced mini-cinematics, to hide loading. Many of which are about 5, 7, and even 12 seconds long.
 
Just arrived home and am preloading Starfield. Another ~ 11 minutes remaining.

First playthrough I will be taking my time to explore the various cities and see what type of main and side missions there are as I've only watched previews at this point.
 
chameleoneel said:
It seems pretty clear that Bethesda isn't interested in spending time for R&D on making their engine better with modern features. In addtion to being largely dependant on single thread performance, This game has tons of load screens and forced mini-cinematics, to hide loading. Many of which are about 5, 7, and even 12 seconds long.
Click to expand...

These types of things can be annoying, but story, world design, game mechanics and such can outweigh them.

I couldn't tell you if this game is good enough to make us overlook those shortcomings.
 
FrgMstr said:
Let's face it, if AMD could have done it, they would have done it as this is the best marketing platform they will have for a long long time. To put out "half assed" FSR3 with Starfield would have not been a good move.
Click to expand...

Completely agreed. FSR3 isn't a simple adjust this, change this type of implementation. It takes time to do it right. As my parents taught me: measure twice, cut once.
 
There have been a handful of limited GPU benchmarks thus far.

Has anyone seen any CPU benchmark testing?

I'd be looking for traditional "all GPU settings to minimum, let's see what the CPU can do" comparison of a few modern and previous gen CPU's.

I'm trying to get a better understanding of just how heavy the CPU load is.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
There have been a handful of limited GPU benchmarks thus far.

Has anyone seen any CPU benchmark testing?

I'd be looking for traditional "all GPU settings to minimum, let's see what the CPU can do" comparison of a few modern and previous gen CPU's.

I'm trying to get a better understanding of just how heavy the CPU load is.
Click to expand...
Some 5600X + RX 6800 testing in IGN's video @ 17:47.


View: https://www.ign.com/videos/starfield-performance-review-xbox-series-xs-vs-pc
 
The more realistic reviews are calling it a good game, not a great game. The honest reviewers saying it's a 6 or 7 out of 10.

The Critical review above, says yeah it's not trying to be like No Man's Sky they are 2 different game types, but...it is somewhat marketed as being a little bit like No Man's Sky, but No Man's Sky lets you fly in and out of orbit to different planets seamlessly and no load screens. Starfield does not, and they say it makes the game feel outdated or not thought out well enough to be more free flowing with flying and in and out of planets and going wherever etc...
 
Zorachus said:
The more realistic reviews are calling it a good game, not a great game. The honest reviewers saying it's a 6 or 7 out of 10.

The Critical review above, says yeah it's not trying to be like No Man's Sky they are 2 different game types, but...it is somewhat marketed as being a little bit like No Man's Sky, but No Man's Sky lets you fly in and out of orbit to different planets seamlessly and no load screens. Starfield does not, and they say it makes the game feel outdated or not thought out well enough to be more free flowing with flying and in and out of planets and going wherever etc...
Click to expand...
See I dont know about that. Mass Effect did the same thing Starfield does when it comes to landing on a planet. And those games were fantastic (We dont talk about Andromeda). So to me as long as the story is good and be a RPG. I could care less if I cannot fly into a planet to land.

Now, I agree No Man Sky is a totally different game.
 
Zorachus said:
The more realistic reviews are calling it a good game, not a great game. The honest reviewers saying it's a 6 or 7 out of 10.

The Critical review above, says yeah it's not trying to be like No Man's Sky they are 2 different game types, but...it is somewhat marketed as being a little bit like No Man's Sky, but No Man's Sky lets you fly in and out of orbit to different planets seamlessly and no load screens. Starfield does not, and they say it makes the game feel outdated or not thought out well enough to be more free flowing with flying and in and out of planets and going wherever etc...
Click to expand...

You claim that the only realistic and honest reviews are the ones saying in the 6 or 7 range. Are you implying everyone else is not honest because that's going to require you backing up your statement with proof.

As far as traversal goes: Not every game can do everything exactly the same. Every game makes it's own trade offs to make things work. Every engine has it's own limitations. NMS was built around the ability to smoothy go from ground into space and Hello Games would have had to limit the game in other ways to ensure that it worked.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
There have been a handful of limited GPU benchmarks thus far.

Has anyone seen any CPU benchmark testing?

I'd be looking for traditional "all GPU settings to minimum, let's see what the CPU can do" comparison of a few modern and previous gen CPU's.

I'm trying to get a better understanding of just how heavy the CPU load is.
Click to expand...

Whenever it unlocks I can test it on 13700K, 5700X, 7950X3D. I've been wanting to try logging with the IPM software.
 
LigTasm said:
Whenever it unlocks I can test it on 13700K, 5700X, 7950X3D. I've been wanting to try logging with the IPM software.
Click to expand...

Looking forward to your findings.

I'm trying to figure out of the old Threadripper 3960x can still keep a 4090 fed. I realize it is a rate enough CPU to not expect it in reviews, but I was thinking I might be able to use a 3800x for comparison purposes (they usually perform similarly in games) but I just have not found any yet.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Looking forward to your findings.

I'm trying to figure out of the old Threadripper 3960x can still keep a 4090 fed. I realize it is a rate enough CPU to not expect it in reviews, but I was thinking I might be able to use a 3800x for comparison purposes (they usually perform similarly in games) but I just have not found any yet.
Click to expand...
A 3960x is not even remotely close to the CPU that's needed to feed something like a 4090. I mean did you not look at reviews and see that CPUs that would crap all over yours were still a bottleneck for a GPU like that?
 
jobert said:
A 3960x is not even remotely close to the CPU that's needed to feed something like a 4090. I mean did you not look at reviews and see the CPUs that would crap all ove yours were still a bottleneck for a GPU like that?
Click to expand...
I should have mentioned "at 4k" which was absent from my previous post.

The 4090 seems to manage about 65-70fps in busy scenes at 4k, so as long as the 3960x can give me 65-70fps I'll be happy.
 
7.5… 8/10… seems to be the “average.” Not bad for pre access time period especially. It’s a Bethesda game. We all know what we are getting here. The fact that we can use years’ old console codes says something and it isn’t necessarily good to be fair about it. Updates and mods guarantee an upswing.

I have seen a number of valid criticisms that I will probably end up sharing. Somehow everyone will dump a ton of hours into it. 😉 Even the “low” scores are talking about how they have played 90 hours and probably dump another 90 so it can’t be that bad.

My concern about Starfield coming into it is “trying to do too many things and doing none of them ‘really well’ “ and that’s what I’m gauging overall. I will of course post my own reactions once I’ve started playing .




Here is something I still don’t get:

How did Bethesda not have legal issues with Hello Games for so obviously ripping off No Mans Sky?
 
Last edited:
Brackle said:
See I dont know about that. Mass Effect did the same thing Starfield does when it comes to landing on a planet. And those games were fantastic (We dont talk about Andromeda). So to me as long as the story is good and be a RPG. I could care less if I cannot fly into a planet to land.

Now, I agree No Man Sky is a totally different game.
Click to expand...
Mass Effect planet exploring was so engrossing to the players Bioware decided to not include it in any of the sequels!

Yeah... not one of the bullet points I'd point out when defending Mass Effect as great.

The seamless transition between planet surface and space did provide quantifiable immersion to No Man's Sky. I'm not sure it was a defining factor for the game's greatness, but it did win some brownie points with me. NMS is definitely an outlier.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I should have mentioned "at 4k" which was absent from my previous post.

The 4090 seems to manage about 65-70fps in busy scenes at 4k, so as long as the 3960x can give me 65-70fps I'll be happy.
Click to expand...
Well at that resolution of course it makes it look a lot less silly but again go back and look at reviews and even the top of the line CPUs out there were limiting a 4090 in some games at 4K. You could end up with minimums that may only be half as much as something like a 13900k can deliver.
 
Absalom said:
Mass Effect planet exploring was so engrossing to the players Bioware decided to not include it in any of the sequels!

Yeah... not one of the bullet points I'd point out when defending Mass Effect as great.

The seamless transition between planet surface and space did provide quantifiable immersion to No Man's Sky. I'm not sure it was a defining factor for the game's greatness, but it did win some brownie points with me. NMS is definitely an outlier.
Click to expand...
So, one thing too. NMS was made with Multiplier in mind, which why the entries into planet has to work.

Starfield is a pure single player RPG game. NMS is more a hardcore space survival game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Q-BZ
like this
jobert said:
Well at that resolution of course it makes it look a lot less silly but again go back and look at reviews and even the top of the line CPUs out there were limiting a 4090 in some games at 4K. You could end up with minimums that may only be half as much as something like a 13900k can deliver.
Click to expand...

Which reviews? I've been googling the shit out of this and have only found a handful of GPU performance tests and no CPU performance tests.

If your info is sound, it sounds like I have another reason to put off starting this game.

Which feels insane, because I just bought this damn Threadripper at launch. Time passes at a different pace these days :p
 
What internet bandwidth do people have that you're still decrypting? Unless you're sub 100mbps just downloading will be faster.
 
Hmm, still saying it's not available even though I purchased the premium upgrade on game pass. I probably did something wrong.
 
I am in puredark's discord server. I'll post any updates.

puredark1.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Q-BZ
like this
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top