Starfield

2870 readers

1 users here now

Welcome to the Starfield community on Lemmy.zip!

Follow instance rules (no spam, keep it civil and respectful, be constructive, tag NSFW)

Helpful links:

Spoiler policy:

No spoilers in titles; if you want to share images with spoilers, preferably post the image in the body of the post. If you do make an image post, mark it NSFW.
Add [Spoilers] to your title if there will be untagged spoilers in the post.
Game mechanics and general discoveries (ship parts, weapons, etc) don't need a spoiler tag.
Details about questlines and other story related content are spoilers. Use your best judgement!

Post & comment spoiler syntax:

&lt;spoiler here>

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Demigodrick@lemmy.zip

132

Some of Starfield’s planets are meant to be empty by design - but that’s not boring, Bethesda insists (www.rockpapershotgun.com)

submitted 1 year ago by costalfy@programming.dev to c/starfield@lemmy.zip

127 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I could understand expecting improvements before they actually showed the game off; but after the very first gameplay reveal, it should have been pretty obvious to anyone familiar with BGS that it was going to be the same as Skyrim and Fallout 4, but with a different aesthetic and theme.

Everything Starfield does to blow my expectations is that it's surprisingly stable and bug free. I'm playing it with a 1660 Super and it's actually playable (I mean, only 30 fps when outside); the card isn't even supported! Fallout 4 wasn't even playable at launch (single digit fps when anywhere near Boston) and I had the recommended specs for it.