Todd Howard says they're working on 'other display modes on console' for Starfield (60fps)

M

ManaByte

Banned


Jurassic Park Ian Malcom GIF
 
Genuinely does anyone give a shit at this point? What a massive letdown this game was and is 🙁

If you got a lot of enjoyment out of it then I'm not meaning to take that away from you, but it didn't provide even close to the excitement I felt with Skyrim et al when I first played those games, even after I accepted the games limitations and played it on its own terms.
 
Would definitely replay with a 60fps mode.

Could also do with a better reason for landing on non-story planets to make it worthwhile.

And more gore.
 
LordCBH said:
They should've delayed this useless turd until it was actually finished. They clearly released it WAY before it was finished.
Click to expand...
lol this is by far the most polished bethesda game they have shipped. aside from some CPU related issues in towns, the game ran just fine.
 
LordCBH said:
Seeing how they couldn't even release the next Gen fallout 4 with all the advertised features (like a working quality mode on Xbox), you may be right.
Click to expand...

I just think they've rested on their laurels too much and a lot and the things that you might have overlooked ten years ago (or twenty in my case) aren't as forgivable anymore. My favorite part of the backlash against Starfield is it's the same reaction I've had with everything that came after Morrowind. I was just ahead of the curve for once and I welcome my new found friends.
 
I dont know how they get 60 fps in towns but outside of towns, 60 fps should be doable if they drop resolution down to 720-900p like most other games do. Maybe they have improved CPU usage since.

Or maybe hes talking about a 40 fps mode.
 
Kuranghi said:
Genuinely does anyone give a shit at this point? What a massive letdown this game was and is 🙁
Click to expand...

Yes?
The game will continue to have updates, official mod support via creation kit comes soon (incl consoles) and there's the DLC coming end year. Getting better performance for those who return to the title is a good thing.
 
I'm surprised how game is running on series S at 30fps with good graphic settings.
If graphic is downgraded at "aquarium" level, I will stick to 30fps.
 
bender said:
I just think they've rested on their laurels too much and a lot and the things that you might have overlooked ten years ago (or twenty in my case) aren't as forgivable anymore. My favorite part of the backlash against Starfield is it's the same reaction I've had with everything that came after Morrowind. I was just ahead of the curve for once and I welcome my new found friends.
Click to expand...
But Fallout 4 is still way more fun than Starfield and you can see that from the reception after the show launch. People went back to it after playing starfield and found the old bethesda with all their flaws more engaging.

There is something just deeply wrong with Starfield and while it might be due to some Bethesda trademark jank, i think in a lot of ways it doesnt feel like a bethesda game. the sense of discovery for one is completely missing. Especially when exploring planets. there is no stumbling into a brand new storyline when entering a random dungeon. In this case, a cave or a space ship. The combat in Fallout 4 is so much more fun than the barebones almost perfunctory combat in Starfield.

I too have never really considered Bethesda games GOTYs like everyone else does, so its not like im a bethesda fanboy, but that bethesda magic of exploration in Elder Scrolls games and the sheer randomness of fallout is completely absent in Starfield. The dialogue trees alone are so poorly done. It was great to see your player speak in Fallout 4. Why remove that? its just not the same having one way conversations especially since there is so much more of it in starfield.

I dont know, Starfield didnt feel like a bethesda game to me. i wish it was, at least it wouldve been far more enjoyable than the forgettable mediocrity it turned out to be.
 
Last edited:
SlimySnake said:
lol this is by far the most polished bethesda game they have shipped. aside from some CPU related issues in towns, the game ran just fine.
Click to expand...
Because there is nothing to brake there lol. The game is so barebones that they will patch city maps half a year after release.

Content-wise it's the most barebones Bethesda release since Redguard.
 
- The guy says "other DISPLAY MODES"
- People "that's FOR SURE, 60 FPS MODE"
- The update release without 60 FPS MODE
- People "WTF FUCKING LIAR, FUCK MICROSOFT AND FUCK TODD HOWARD FUCKING LIARS"
 
SlimySnake said:
Or maybe hes talking about a 40 fps mode.
Click to expand...

40 sounds more realistic and beneficial (unless they can really optimize it in some unexpected ways. ) However, it's a fairly niche feature, I'm not sure why Howard would bother to comment on a "Oh, that's a nice surprise" type of addition.
 
Last edited:
SlimySnake said:
But Fallout 4 is still way more fun than Starfield and you can see that from the reception after the show launch. People went back to it after playing starfield and found the old bethesda with all their flaws more engaging.

There is something just deeply wrong with Starfield and while it might be due to some Bethesda trademark jank, i think in a lot of ways it doesnt feel like a bethesda game. the sense of discovery for one is completely missing. Especially when exploring planets. there is no stumbling into a brand new storyline when entering a random dungeon. In this case, a cave or a space ship. The combat in Fallout 4 is so much more fun than the barebones almost perfunctory combat in Starfield.

I too have never really considered Bethesda games GOTYs like everyone else does, so its not like im a bethesda fanboy, but that bethesda magic of exploration in Elder Scrolls games and the sheer randomness of fallout is completely absent in Starfield. The dialogue trees alone are so poorly done. It was great to see your player speak in Fallout 4. Why remove that? its just not the same having one way conversations especially since there is so much more of it in starfield.

I dont know, Starfield didnt feel like a bethesda game to me. i wish it was, at least it wouldve been far more enjoyable than the forgettable mediocrity it turned out to be.
Click to expand...

I think the biggest issue with Starfield is they went with "realistic space" versus "fantasy space". Look at their other games, Elder Scrolls is a complete fantasy game with different races and such to choose from. Fallout, while taking place on our Earth, its setting is an idealization of the future dreamed of those in the 50s-60s. So it is still fantasy and does not match our true future.

Starfield took what we know to be true about space now, and applied it to if we could actually travel the stars. And what we know about space right now is: most planets are boring, empty rocks. People complain that most of the planets are boring and empty: well that is how space is. Their choice to make the game more grounded sci-fi, made it boring. What made it even more boring is there was no need for space in the games. The main storyline could happen on a single planet, with the temples a such hidden around the world. Going to planet to planet was not needed for the story, because in the end it was all about humans. If they would have added other intelligent, alien races, then I think it might have landed a little bit better. The gameplay complaints would still be there that some people have, but now the space aspect is needed for the story. Instead we got human settlements with empty planets in between, when they could have all been different cities on a single map.

My guess is they avoided the aliens so it would not have been directly compared to Mass Effect, and they wanted a more grounded scifi experience.

I still enjoyed Starfield. I completed the game and I am looking forward to the expansion, but I did not feel like hoping right back into it once I was done.
 
Its obvious that the Shattered Space DLC will be somewhat of a soft relaunch of the game, I imagine that will come with many technical improvements which will almost certainly include a performance mode. I'm expecting a PS5 version as well for the holiday as they've got no first-party games this year, should sell very well.
 
soulbait said:
I think the biggest issue with Starfield is they went with "realistic space" versus "fantasy space". Look at their other games, Elder Scrolls is a complete fantasy game with different races and such to choose from. Fallout, while taking place on our Earth, its setting is an idealization of the future dreamed of those in the 50s-60s. So it is still fantasy and does not match our true future.

Starfield took what we know to be true about space now, and applied it to if we could actually travel the stars. And what we know about space right now is: most planets are boring, empty rocks. People complain that most of the planets are boring and empty: well that is how space is. Their choice to make the game more grounded sci-fi, made it boring. What made it even more boring is there was no need for space in the games. The main storyline could happen on a single planet, with the temples a such hidden around the world. Going to planet to planet was not needed for the story, because in the end it was all about humans. If they would have added other intelligent, alien races, then I think it might have landed a little bit better. The gameplay complaints would still be there that some people have, but now the space aspect is needed for the story. Instead we got human settlements with empty planets in between, when they could have all been different cities on a single map.

My guess is they avoided the aliens so it would not have been directly compared to Mass Effect, and they wanted a more grounded scifi experience.

I still enjoyed Starfield. I completed the game and I am looking forward to the expansion, but I did not feel like hoping right back into it once I was done.
Click to expand...

NASA Punk was my favorite thing about Starfield.
 
SlimySnake said:
lol this is by far the most polished bethesda game they have shipped. aside from some CPU related issues in towns, the game ran just fine.
Click to expand...

The only thing not polished are the story, gameplay, animations, level design, UI, NPCs, weapons, and various gameplay systems

But yeah, not many game breaking bugs when your game at its core is broken
 
LordCBH said:
They should've delayed this useless turd until it was actually finished. They clearly released it WAY before it was finished.
Click to expand...
Starfield is far and away the most polished title that Bethesda have developed, performance wise. Absolutely zero issues with performance during my multiple hours of playing it. 30fps on the Xbox consoles doesn't correlate to "useless turd". Regardless of personal feelings related to this game, its performance is the opposite of horrible.
 
Last edited:
Maybe 60fps for the PS5 and PS5 Pro versions. They may have optimized some stuff while porting. They should optimize, to properly include it on Steamdeck too.

I don't see why this game doesn't run flawlessly well on Steamdeck, when games like No Man's Sky or Helldivers 2 run pretty well there.
 
Last edited:
adamsapple said:
Nah, it's fine. People overblow it as usual.
Click to expand...

Just because you and I like it doesn't mean the opinions of those who don't are "overblown".

DanielG165 said:
Starfield is far and away the most polished title that Bethesda have developed, performance wise. Absolutely zero issues with performance during my multiple hours of playing it. 30fps on the Xbox consoles doesn't correlate to "useless turd". Regardless of personal feelings related to this game, its performance is the opposite of horrible.
Click to expand...

I played it on fairly beefy PC and thought performance was ok. Could definitely be better though. I can't see any reason for this game not to have a performance mode on XSX though.
 
Last edited:
People expect mindblowing next gen graphics if devs stick with 30fps. When in reality all we will get is mediocre looking shit like Starfield because devs just won't bother to optimize their titles if they don't have to ship at 60.
 
proandrad said:
People expect mindblowing next gen graphics if devs stick with 30fps. When in reality all we will get is mediocre looking shit like Starfield because devs just won't bother to optimize their titles if they don't have to ship at 60.
Click to expand...
The beginning of Starfield had me excited because I genuinely thought it looked pretty good and it was running pretty well. Then once I got out of that intro it looked like ass and ran like shit.
 
Topher said:
Just because you and I like it doesn't mean the opinions of those who don't are "overblown".
Click to expand...

Everyone's entitled to their opinions, but you can't deny that this games 'negatives' were overblown to a higher extent than most cases.

30 FPS or not, calling it a useless turd is just a tad big extreme, no?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Todd Howard: Annual story expansions for Starfield, hopefully for many years
2
96
5K
REDRZA MWS replied
60fps Games (No Performance Mode)
28
375
diffusionx replied
Todd Howard on Overpriced Starfield Mods Backlash: "We take all the feedback"
Game Dev 
28
3K
Life Diff replied
Capcom says it’s working on ‘re-activating other dormant IPs’ like Onimusha and Okami
News  2 3
114
5K
Hawk The Slayer replied
Elder Scrolls fan literally eats a picture of Todd Howard after Bethesda confirms Oblivion Remastered
News Cringe 
36
399
kiphalfton replied
Top Bottom