Todd Howard: "You may need to upgrade your PC for this game"
Haven't played Starfield yet, but comparing a small handrcafted world to a huge procedural generated world is like comparing a single screenshot from a movie to a single realistic painting. It doesn't mean that Starfield is good, just that it's not a fair comparison.
On the other hand, using procedural generation should free up a bunch of dev time that you could than be using to make sure the models that the generation uses are quality.
Now comparing individual features, elex looks better, while starfield should be better looking. Since they used procedural generation and should have used that time saved crafting hand crafted worlds making their base models better.
It’s more than an apt comparison, if you look at what they want you to compare.
On the other hand, using procedural generation should free up a bunch of dev ~~time that you could than be using to make sure the models that the generation uses are quality.~~
FTFY
Hence the “should”, most places just use it as cost cutting and don’t polish other parts unfortunately.
This is a city. The one you go to frequently for the main questline. It's a whole other level of fucked if you're procedurally generating the core locations in your game without 'handcrafting' over it. Looking like this is inexcusable and it still crippling my computer is an insult.
Not all of Starfield is randomly generated. This specific example is from one of the main big cities that are definitely hand built. The random stuff is mostly deserts and outposts like what players can build. So even according to your standards, this is a correct and legitimate comparison.
There's no excuse for not improving the water system since they released Skyrim. With that budget, it should've been doable. I mean, look at that. It looks like sewage.
maybe it's supposed to be sewage
Starfield is just a mess. I think Todd assumed he could ride the Skyrim goodwill into the sunset with his subsequent games because he’s consistently failed to deliver since then. I love the jank of a good Bethesda game because at its heart you have a true rpg that lets you roam and complete quests how you see fit. Starfield removed the roaming and the exploration and left some very mediocre storytelling and quests in its wake. Without that magic you’re just left with increasingly awful jank that can’t be ignored.
Thank god for Xbox game pass, I was only out about 15 dollars and was able to try the game without committing 70 dollars.
I disagree that Starfield doesn't let you explore like the other Bethesda games, it's more like if you took the map of FO4, took 10% of each section and spread it across 10+ different planets. All of the content is still there....it's just disconnected and feels barren because if you turn away from the pretty sections they made, there's nothing around it. I don't mind the storytelling, but the most of the quests are rough. If these quests were in any other game, the game would be considered generic and forgotten in a week. Also, the space combat is junk. I don't know what good space combat looks like, but this isn't it. It's not rewarding, and I dread any time I encounter it.
Starfield removed the roaming and the exploration and left some very mediocre storytelling and quests in its wake.
There are some great sidequests in Starfield. I started the game by just playing side quests and completely ignoring the main ones and it was awesome. I loved the Ryujin questline because I had a sneak-build and it was nice to just not be seen and wreak havoc. The one about the 200 year old starship and the AI ship were also pretty good.
But then I did the Sarah romance questline which was written like a fanfiction by a twelve year old...and continued doing the main quests which were just like Skyrim in space. Starborn...Dragonborn...ugh.
The first 40 hours were a solid 8/10 for me. Once I started doing the main quests, it dropped to 3/10. And the loading screens are just annoying after a while.
If this follows the cycle of No Man's Sky and Cyberpunk, it's a matter of time before we see the first YouTube videos titled 'Starfield is good now??'
It almost seems like releasing unfinished games is the way AAA developers crowdfund. Sure, the people who preorder get burned, but then there's a second wave of sales waiting when the game 'gets good'.
Drop the price of the original, but let it coincide with the release of an 'expansion' to offset the difference and you can sell the game again to the people who held out.
Meanwhile YouTubers rake in views, first on the wave of rage and later on that redemption arc, because people do want games to be good after all.
NMS at least has an excuse if not actually being an AAA game. IIRC, the team that was working on the game was pretty small
I suppose that's true. Maybe the common factor is just it being a very highly anticipated game. But I don't think that not being AAA constitutes an excuse for making false promises to people who already bought a game.
You guys should see some of the water physics modders put in Skyrim. They've even got some crazy rainstorms.
This is the most disingenuous comparison I've ever seen lol. You basically took a picture of a babbling Brook at noon and a waterfall at night and are somehow confused why they don't look the same.
First of all, your still shot is purposefully omitting the movement of the waterfall, the fact that it actually behaves and moves like a spray of liquid and gas particles, you know, like an actual waterfall, rather than just a moving block with a shader texture applied to it.
You also took this picture at dusk, when the plaza is draped in shadow and there is no sunlight directly bouncing off. If you'd even been to a waterfall this tall in such conditions in real life, you'd know they actually look more like this - like a non-descript spray of gas - than the Elex screenshot.
If you were to take a picture of the water in the day time, you know, when there is sunlight to bounce off the water particles, it would look absolutely beautiful. Which is also why nobody goes to waterfalls at night expecting a goddamn vista.
This game isn't perfect but one thing it is, is absolutely beautiful (with the exception of some well documented and unimportant NPCs). And calling Elex a better looking game than Starfield is the dumbest take I've heard yet.
The shot wasn't done at night, it was made during the day. You can clearly see sunlight in the image that shines onto the structure on the left.
First of all, your still shot is purposefully omitting the movement of the waterfall
That's called a screenshot. How am I supposed to capture the movement of a texture in a still image? It also doesn't make a whole lot of difference. The waterfall still looks like sewage even when it moves. Contrary to your claims, a real waterfall does not look like this, even at night or in the shadows. Why would the water be dark gray? It builds up foam when it falls down, so it's white. There are numerous pictures out there on the web of waterfalls in shadows and they all look white. Just an example.
Your whole post reads like you somehow need to defend this game at all cost. I had a lot of fun with Starfield, but the technical issues are glaringly obvious. And there is no shame in admitting that. Especially, since this is just meant to be a meme for shits and giggles. ;)
This game isn’t perfect but one thing it is, is absolutely beautiful
I'm sorry, but that is not true at all. There are beautiful areas, like the Neon planet, for example. But there are also a lot of barren planets with barely any materials or assets on them and these look really, really bad.
I just fired up the game again and landed on a random planet in my area (Al-Battani 1-C):
It's just the same type of rock everywhere and the same type of hill everywhere. To me, this just looks boring and visually uninteresting.
Compared to that, the Neon world looks great:
Neon is probably what you had in mind. But you cannot say that the game is "absolutely beautiful" with these extreme jumps in visual quality. And this meme is an example for an area on the main hub world that looks bad, so even those aren't always well-made either.
Starfield plays like shit, looks like shit (by today's standards) and the quests are shit. Neon is a lazy world that only ends up becoming one giant hallway with a few shops. Everywhere else feels lifeless and boring. Starfield was a flop, and while Elex isn't the best game out there, the fact that it can in fact in some situations stand toe to toe with Starfield on graphical fidelity is just an absolute disgrace. I was on a desert planet in Starfrield in the main story (can't remember the name) at night, on a balcony running on GeForce Now with an RTX 2080 and getting less than 24FPS, that's absolutely pathetic, game is just bad.
Par for the course for a lot of starfield content. OP doesn't have a point to make even if it wasn't such a corrupt attempt to say something. It's just more contrived outrage.
Got one even better: Kingdom Come: Deliverance vs Starfield
Now that's just unfair. :) It's shocking how well KCD holds up, it looks so beautiful!
Can someone explain what’s going on? I’m not sure I follow.
Seems to be comparing the waterfalls.
I heard we shouldn’t be chasing those
Yeah, I'm sticking to the rivers and the lakes that I'm used to, thank you very much!
To be fair I don't think the focus of Bethesda games has ever been on graphics
if you keep spending your money on an inferior product, nothing will change
Elex is one of the most un-fun games I've ever played. Sure, it looked nice. But that doesn't help with weak gameplay and bad writing.
It really starts to hurt physically when you start comparing starfield to cdpr games like witcher 3 or Cyberpunk...
They don't even have DLSS support, the modders had to fix it. Added to that, the terrible inventory system which modders also had to fix...a ton of loading screens between small sections because the engine can't handle more...constantly running out of oxygen and the stupid grind for unlocking more skills...
I had my fun with Starfield, but it's an average game, not more.
the second screen from a design point of view is way more interesting and isn't just using stock wireframes
At first I was like, it's fine. Then I realised we were comparing the flowing water. I didn't even notice that the second image is of flowing water too...
I needed you to even see the water.
I'm enjoying Starfield, but it isn't perfect by any means. I have to ask though, is the bottom screenshot from an area that is meant to be normally seen by the player? Because if it isn't, they should be toning down the graphics as part of optimizing performance. I guess it's not really a valid point either though, because Starfield's performance is terrible.
You're correct, you normally are walking around up on top of and past the top of that waterfall. You're allowed to go down there, but there's nothing to find or see.
The performance has markedly improved for me after the first patch, I now only dip below 60 FPS in cities on an RTX 3060, could still be better, though, as that's with most settings on low.
It took me a whole week of mucking about and bugtesting just to get the game to run without crashing every couple of minutes. It's bizarre to me how attached some people seem to be to the idea that the game is up to the standard we expected (not saying you are, but just look at some of the comments that have been downvoted)
Take a look at the water graphics in Remnant 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeY63Sf1lnQ
Both are great games to pick up for like $10 I assume. I have not played either.
