Todd Howard asked on-air why Bethesda didn't optimise Starfield for PC: 'We did [...] you may need to upgrade your PC'

Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world to Games@lemmy.world – 411 points – Todd Howard asked on-air why Bethesda didn't optimise Starfield for PC: 'We did [...] you may need to upgrade your PC'
pcgamer.com

You heard him 4090 users, upgrade to a more powerful GPU.

198

You are viewing a single comment
View all comments

people really need to put the nostalgia googles down...back in the days nobody played Crysis with full details and a steady framerate.

You were in 1024x768 and turned everything down just to play the game with barely 30fps and you know what, it was still dope as fuck. So yeah guys get used to lower your settings or to upgrade your rig and if you don't want to do that get a xbox

Crysis was built by a company specialising in building a high fidelity engine. It was, by all accounts, meant primarily as a tech demo. This is absolutely not the case with Starfield - first, the game doesn't look nearly good enough for that compared to Crysis, and second it's built on an engine that simply can't do a lot of the advanced stuff.

The game could be playable on max settings on many modern computers if it was optimised properly. It isn't.

sure mister gamedev, please continue to tell more on how an engine you clearly worked on, should run...

I dont say that Starfield is a well optimised game and performance will get better with upcoming patches. But I also don't think it's an unoptimized mess, I think it is running reasonable and people really should start review their rig, because modern games will need modern components

Oh and also other games did not run that well like you maybe remember ;)

You don't have to be a game dev to see that games that came out before Starfield look and perform better. If you bought the game and you enjoy it, that's all fine and I won't make fun of you for it, but let's not defend what is an obvious point of incompetence on Bethesda's side.

why buying starfield when it is on gamepass 😅

And buddy, I've been playing Bethesda Games since Daggerfall and believe me, Starfield is a fucking polished diamond compared to their old good games and compared to their latest shitshows like fallout 4 and fallout 76...

I'm not your buddy

You're comparing Bethesda games to Bethesda games, which we all know are buggy messes. Starfield falls short of my expectations for what a polished diamond looks like.

okay not-buddy 😂 I think we are also pretty much done here, since I dont see any point in discussing this any further with you. So byeeee and have a pleasent day not playing Starfield I guess.

sure mister gamedev, please continue to tell more on how an engine you clearly worked on, should run...

I can easily compare between what different game companies do. Why are you acting like I need to be a developer on a game to criticise that game?

I dont say that Starfield is a well optimised game and performance will get better with upcoming patches.

Todd could have said so. He didn't. Why?

But I also don't think it's an unoptimized mess, I think it is running reasonable and people really should start review their rig, because modern games will need modern components

I never stated this. I simply said: comparing Starfield and Crysis is deliberately disingenuous, because Crysis was fundamentally meant to break boundaries, which Starfield doesn't do.

Oh and also other games did not run that well like you maybe remember ;)

Okay, what's the argument here? Do you think I say for those games "well, you're not Bethesda, so I'm fine with you not running well"?

you don’t have to know the internals of the engine. you just need some basic deduction powers.

does it look it look good compared to other AAA games? no

does it run fast? no

ergo. the engine is crap.

the same thing happened to cd projekt red but they ditched their engine after the cyberpunk fiasco. they will just pay epic

I don't know why they keep using that piece of shit engine, Microsoft should order them to format every PC and start again with UE5, the engine that it's actually next gen

does it look it look good compared to other AAA games? no

well I beg to differ on that, but it's quiete a subjective topic right ;)

does it run fast? no ergo. the engine is crap.

Again very subjective, very dependend on your hardware and also a pretty dumb conclusion, since an engine has more qualities then to run "fast".

I already mentioned in this thread, the games runs quite well for me and I would call fps in the range from 80 to 124 quite fast for a Bethesda Open World Game. So what do we do now with our subjective oppinions 🤔

well you can put your “not in my computer” opinion in your ass. widespread benchmarks by established gaming journalists show good computers struggling.

complains about others wearing nostalgia goggles

calls Cysis dope

After all this time I don't think I ever heard anything about how Crysis plays or what's the story and such. People only talk about how hard it was to run and how fancy these graphics were. Doesn't make it sound all that great.

Story is meh but lots of people will say how the open ended nature of Crysis was fun and a pity that it was removed for a more linear CoD style in Crysis 2

Wtf Crysis 1 was awesome... At least the first part without the aliens... And not because of the graphics

Except this time even with 1024x768 and lowest settings you can barely break 60 FPS due to the huge CPU overhead.

And that's with a Ryzen 7 5800X.

I have the same processor and no issues. 1440p 80-125 fprs, high Details, 100% and FSR2

In New Atlantis City outdoors? Mine barely stays above 60 FPS, sometimes dipping under.

It's system by system, I have the same cpu and do fairly well, admittedly with it boosting to 4.5ghz. My wife has the same cpu and it struggles on her machine. It feels like the game just wasn't tested well.

There will always be that game that pushes the boundaries between current gen and next gen. Sometimes even more. Crysis is the perfect example of the past. Starfiels seems to do a decent job right now even if it's probably not even close to what Crysis did. When people spend a lot of money we feel entitlement, thats only natural. No one did anything wrong. So no need to point a finger anywhere.

But it didnt tho, it looks shit and hogs more resources compared to other games like cyberpunk which is probably a better example for next gen graphics

Please explain in detail how Starfield is pushing the edge graphically in any way that's comparable to Crysis.

Also please explain how you expect them to improve as a developer when you refuse to criticize them.

You seem to have missed the part where I wrote that Starfield is probably not even close to pushing the boundaries in the same way that Crysis did. So I can't do much explaining in detail about that it is.