owandeseis
Member
Just the fact that pretty much every object is moveable and doesn't disappear when you leave it somewhere is absolutely massive, not in the way you mean it maybe, butI posted this question in another thread, but the people I was talking to did not respond, so I'll post it here.
I keep hearing about the "scale" of Starfield, because of which visual compromises had to be made. I honestly do not understand this argument.
Unlike Skyrim, Starfield is not a big gigantic world. It is split into 1,000 procedurally generated planets. Most of those planets, as seen in the presentation, would be barren for resource gathering. You land on a barren, tiny planet; the game loads that (single) planet. When you leave that planet, you wait on a loading screen, and the game dumps everything from that planet and loads the next planet.
So at any given point in time, the game is only rendering one small (mostly barren) planet, where there are no mechs, huge animals, or machines, or "Eikon type" battles that would be very expensive to render. Then where is this argument of "massive scale" coming from that's affecting the game's visual fidelity?
If what they say is true, it also has bigger cities than any other game they did, probably without loads, and about the rest, honestly we don't know so we just guess.
But yea flying on the space, space ships, lots of planets, NPC's with routines, base buildings, and most importantly, being able to be a diogenes syndrome guy... yea these guys do a lot of stuff that nobody else does in the industry.
Other than that, Starfield being 30 FPS, FFXVI and Star Wars Jedi Survivor having hard struggling "performance" modes... and more to come, it's time to get used to it.
You want 60 FPS on every game? well as some known guy would say, fortunately there's a product for these who want that, it's called PC.
This said i think that sometime after the game's release, they'll manage to do a performance mode, or at least a 40 FPS one, just like Asobo did with A plague tale
Last edited: