this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023

172 points (91.3% liked)

Games

16689 readers

884 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc..
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.

Comments.

No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works

172

Trouble running Starfield? Todd Howard says 'Upgrade your PC' (www.pcworld.com)

submitted 1 year ago by nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works

69 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 64 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (15 children)

It's BS though. People with TOTL hardware are having issues. Those systems don't underperform because the game is advanced or anything like that -- the game underperforms because it is a new release that is poorly optimized. It's also expected because it's on a senior citizen of a game engine that likely needs a few other nudges.

Todd Howard forgets that PC users see this shit all the time, and it's pretty obvious with this one. Hoping to see talk of optimization in a coming patch instead.

Edit: a good example -- not hitting 60fps in New Atlantis, but concurrently, CPU usage in the 50s and GPU usage in the 70s. That's a sign of poor optimization.

[–] Alto@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm starting to think that maybe, just maybe brute forcing a 26 yesr old engine that makes skyrim have a stroke if you try to play above 30fps isn't a good idea

[–] NewNewAccount@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is it actually the same engine?

[–] Animoscity@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

No, Im not a fan of the game personally but a quick search shows they are using the creative engine 2, which is a newer version of their engine.

[–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago

They could have called it Creative Engine 129030129784.32985 for all that it matters. It's just a name for an engine update, as they do for every new game. They didn't re-write it from scratch; that would be a billion-dollar venture.

From what I've read it's the exact same engine as FO4 with better lighting (and of course, as with every new game, some improvements locally relevant to the gameplay).
But, fundamentally, underneath the fancy lights, still the same engine. That explains the 2008-esque animations, the bugs, the performance issues, and general flatness of the game. It can't be more than "Skyrim in Space" because that's what it technically is.

[–] mordack550@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Because putting a 2 after the name makes a new engine. It's just a new iteration of the same old engine that runs Fallout 3, skyrim, and Fallout 4.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] _waffle_@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What game engine is 26 years old other than the Unreal engine?

Edit: stepped on some toes i guess lmfao

[–] Xanvial@lemmy.one 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Gamebryo, the base of creation engine used by Bethesda for this

[–] _waffle_@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Ah okay. Thank you for the actual answer

load more comments (14 replies)

[–] Pocketyeti@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

Why upgrade when I will just pick it up on the PS7, 10 years from now, along with the Skyrim bundle.

[–] gearheart@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I expected this once everyone kept buying into nvidias dlss.

Nvidia and dlss will be required to get titles to run decently.

Minimal game optimization will be done on majority of future game titles.

Fml

[–] TheFerrango@lemmy.basedcount.com 3 points 1 year ago

Minimal game optimization will be done on majority of future game titles.

That’s more optimisation than we get now

[–] 1stTime4MeInMCU@mander.xyz 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I haven’t played starfield yet but many of the recent headliner releases have been performance hogs. It’s not unreasonable to expect people to either play with lower settings or upgrade if you want to run the best possible set up. That’s why there are performance sliders in most games. When you need a 3080 to run minimum settings that’s when you start running into trouble (👀ksp 2)

[–] DoomBot5@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

At the same time my 3080 runs these games just fine with 60-90 fps at 4k with high settings. Don't need more than that for games that aren't competitive.

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Man, that's why armored core blew me away. Completed the whole game, at launch, maximum settings and I don't recall a single frame drop. 3060, with very mediocre other hardware. I know there's a lot to be said about map sizes and instanced missions, but with as fantastic as that game looks and plays...

[–] weirdo_from_space@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Same happened with Doom Eternal. The graphics were a show stopper when the game came out and the game didn't even stutter. It's so well optimized that I'm told you can even play it with integrated graphics.

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's almost like having a giant open world comes with some massive drawbacks. I'm pretty fatigued over open world games tho so that may just be me.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] PeckerBrown@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Makes my decision to not buy it even easier.

[–] skweetis@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What made you previously decide not to buy it?

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Y'all are surprised the boss of a AAA studio suggested you buy hardware from companies he has a deeply vested interest in?

It's all one big circle jerk of companies and anyone buying "cutting edge" gets what they deserve.

You're the product in more ways than one

[–] Zeppo@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

You're literally the consumer in this instance. The game is the product. The computer is the product.

[–] cyanarchy@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Starfield also requires an SSD, a first for a modern triple-A PC game.

I recall the same being said about Cyberpunk 2077, and I'm not sure that was the first either.

[–] hypelightfly@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Cyberpunk doesn't require an SSD, it had "SSD recommended" under it's storage but not required. Starfield lists it as a requirement.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago

Cyberpunk also has a "HDD mode" in its options.

[–] BruceTwarzen@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Because you load every time you walk through a door.

[–] cyanarchy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

I stand corrected.

[–] Naz@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

To be fair, Cyberpunk 2077 came out in the peak of Covid GPU scarcity, I was still gaming on a GTX1080 at it's release and the only way I could have a decent experience was running it at 50% resolution scale with 100% sharpening.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Neato@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Its on Game Pass, Todd. If it doesn't run well I'll just not play Skyrim-Space Edition.

My partner who is interested has a PS5 and an older PC. If her PC doesn't run it, she'll probably just keep playing Stardew Valley. Honestly it's not like anyone is going to really be talking about Starfield in a month or two except ridiculous ship builds on social media.

[–] nivenkos@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I bought a new PC just to play Starfield (and BG3 with less issues).

It looks alright overall. But it's pretty crazy that even 30xx cards can't run it well (I had a 1070 though).

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago

I did a CPU/mobo/RAM upgrade for it -- but I was quite overdue.

It looks alright overall.

That's the thing. It looks alright, but it's not the next-gen beauty fest that they want people to think it is. Plenty look better and run better. I enjoy the game, but the whole argument that it's a graphical standout doesn't really hold water.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] manastorm@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I have a i9 13900k and a Radeon 7900xtx, 64GB RAM and I had to refund on steam it because it would keep crashing to desktop every few minutes. Sometimes I would not even get passed the Bethesda into Logo before crashing. Very frustrating experience to say the least.

[–] entropicshart@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

I have a i7-10700k/32gbRAM/3080ti - playing the game at 4k with all settings to max (without motion blur ofc) and with almost 80hrs into the game, I have yet to have a single crash or performance issue.

Only realized people were having issues when I saw posts and performance mods popping up.

[–] AmosBurton_ThatGuy@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I mean, the game definitely runs like shit but if you keep crashing that sounds like a you problem. My 7600x/6700XT/32GB DDR5 build hasn't crashed once in 15 hours of playtime and I've heard a ton of complaints about the game but barely any about crashing.

[–] ADHDefy@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Oh, only a 7900xtx? lol

[–] thanevim@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

If he's telling us this, does that mean we get to bill him for the upgrade?

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 year ago

Not that I'll be buying it anytime soon but if the hardware specifications I've read are true, no graphics card is worth €500+ to play a game. This is bonkers.

[–] comedy@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wish my computer weren't dead, so I could at least try to play it. Although my 2070 wouldn't have survived. It runs nice on my Series X, but I hate playing this type of game with a controller.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Nfntordr@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Runs fine for me. 5600X, RTX 3080 @ 1440p high-ultra settings native.

[–] Joker@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Same here except I use a 6600 xt, which isn’t anywhere near as good as your GPU. I’m running medium settings at 4k and it’s fine. It even runs on the Steam Deck, although the graphics are not so good on there. Still, it’s playable and I will probably play there when it’s convenient.

IMO, ultra settings are for people with new, high end hardware and to future proof a game for at least a couple years. It’s not for people running a 2-3 year old rig with a 1080p GPU. Medium and high settings are generally good. Ultra is just like bonus mode for hardcore enthusiasts.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Sho@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What Todd Howard is being a dipshit tool again? I'm shocked....shocked I tell you..

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Just upgrade your PC 4head

[–] JulesTheModest@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My 1060 would probably burst into flames at 640x480 then.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments