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

Games@lemmy.world – 411 points – 1 years ago

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

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

You are viewing a single comment

View all comments Show the parent comment

I assume you're talking about Rage, which had an open world map, but no where near the level of simulation systems as a Bethesda game. In fact I remember back at the time most of us saying the map was pointless as it was just a way to travel between levels with nothing to do in it.

Starfield has less simulation than Fallout 4, it just has more (mostly empty) maps.

There are no "levels of simulation systems" in Starfield. NPCs don't even have schedules in this game, they literally just stand around in the same spot 24/7.

It's still keeping track of lots of variables across a big play space at any time regardless of NPC schedules.

They tried that once with Oblivion and clearly it didn't add enough to the game and players experience to return to.

They tried that once with Oblivion

They advertised that with Oblivion's AI but never delivered on half the claims.

Go look at the pre-release claims of the Radiant AI and what was actually delivered.

"keeping track of lots of variables" doesn't cost CPU time though, since nothing that isn't on the same map as you is ever relevant for anything. Their engine just fucking sucks.

Keeping track of variables doesn't use CPU time? Ok man. I'm all for hating on Bethesda's shitty engine but that's just not true. At the very least it does track what NPCs are doing off screen which is how they end up at your ship when you tell them to go there. They will actually walk to your ship if you don't get there first.

On the other hand it's basically guaranteed that Bethesda spent zero effort optimizing that. I bet it's the same code they ran for Skyrim.