Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2023]

[eastmen]

1296p 30 fps..... Very impressive smh. Frankly, I'm perplexed as to how digital foundry is praising the visuals as there is really nothing to praise here. There are better looking cross-gen games out right now. I mean from the animations, to the visuals, it's has strong last gen sentiments.... I appreciate the scope of this game but, it's very obvious that they're reusing their systems from old games with some new pieces tacked on. Like it's very clear that the world is not seamless but instead just large levels connected with cleverly disguised loading screens. Also 30fps shooting? really?

It leaves a bad taste in my mouth as this video comes across as a defense for its poor technical showing. Since when did digital foundry become a pr platform for certain publishers? I mean, they referred to 1296p with fsr as rather crisp which is laughable when DF has been complaining non-stop about fsr issues. Dis-occlusion issues, motion issues, etc. Now 1296p is rather crisp? I'm not going to lie, this video leaves such a bad taste in my mouth.... The lack of consistency in criticism comes across as very hypocritical.

A video game just came out which got extremely high reviews and runs at 4080p 30fps and the big thing was cloud tech and just reused old engines and systems. That didn't seem to hurt it in reviewers minds. There is a big holiday season game that will be the third game on the same engine in 5/6 years which is running at 1200p 30fps.

It just seems to be that the hardware in any of these systems is not powerful enough for 4k native at 30fps or higher , esp not as you layer advanced rendering tech like global illumination and ray tracing and what have you. For $300 to $500 these consoles simply can't keep up with pc's when a single piece of hardware is $300 up

 

[BitByte]

Keep in mind different people, different tastes. Aesthetically, Starfield may or may not be something special depending on the person.

Technically, it's incredibly impressive even if the 30 FPS presentation makes it look far (IMO) far worse in motion than if it was 60 FPS with some aspects turned down. For the sheer scale of the visuals and interactivity in game, nothing last generation comes even remotely close from a technical standpoint. RDR2 would be the closest in terms of scale and that's just not in the same league technically.

Sure, if you compare it to far more simplistic games in terms of scope, it may not compare well graphically/aesthetically, but those games are doing far less technically impressive things with their graphics.

So, it's fine to not be impressed if the only thing you are comparing it to are games that are doing just a fraction of what Starfield is doing. But technically speaking, especially within the scope of the game, it's absolutely next gen in ways that almost all titles this console generation haven't been.

Regards,
SB

I can't say I even remotely agree. Apart from the RPG aspects of this game, it's far lower in scope than No man sky which came out last gen. No man's sky has more planets, seamless entry between planets, base building, space combat, an underlying economy, frigates which you can fly into with your ship, trading, exocrafts, exo mechs, online coop, etc. What other than rpg mechanics is Starfield doing which no mans sky didn't already do on a 1.4tf machine?

In terms of graphics, from what I've seen, Starfield's graphics are slightly better than No Man Sky on current gen. We're not talking about a generational difference in visuals and in terms of animation, it's pretty much on par. Starfield will likely tell a better story, have better rpg elements, and more refined gun combat but in terms of scope, I don't think an argument can be made that Starfield is bigger in scope.

 

[arandomguy]

We'll have to see at release but I wonder how much of the 30 FPS is also going to be related to CPU (and memory/cache subsystem) limitations depending on how much heavier they go on world and game logic complexity. Bethesda past games also hit limitations with respect to data latency and despite the faster CPUs the consoles have relatively small cache sizes and system memory latency to the CPU was not the priority (over graphics bandwidth). Yes the optimization term is going to crop up here but that just might be the reality.

 

[BitByte]

A video game just came out which got extremely high reviews and runs at 4080p 30fps and the big thing was cloud tech and just reused old engines and systems. That didn't seem to hurt it in reviewers minds. There is a big holiday season game that will be the third game on the same engine in 5/6 years which is running at 1200p 30fps.

It just seems to be that the hardware in any of these systems is not powerful enough for 4k native at 30fps or higher , esp not as you layer advanced rendering tech like global illumination and ray tracing and what have you. For $300 to $500 these consoles simply can't keep up with pc's when a single piece of hardware is $300 up

Since when was raytracing and GI the only way to improve graphics? It's just fools gold on these machine. Ray-traced shadows and reflections are essentially a waste of resources. A majority of people cannot tell the difference between SSR + cube map fall back to raytraced reflections. All you need to do is go on youtube and see hoardes of content creators calling ssr raytracing. The only raytraced feature worth while right now for graphics is Gi but, GI doesn't have to be raytraced. For example you can use probe based GI/baked GI and a majority of people will not be able to tell the difference.

Finally, I don't blame the machines for what I'm seeing. If you get 8x more power and you produce a game that looks marginally better than last gen games, the machine is not the problem. It's the wasteful use of resources that's the problem. A very common theme we've been seeing this gen from Jedi Survivor to Gotham Knights and now Starfield. Remember, these are the same devs that manage to release a game that ran at 0 fps on ps3 and were proud of it. Sorry but trying to blame this technical showing on the machine is libel and I gotta call it out.

 

[troyan]

If you cant tell the difference between Raytracing reflections and SSRs + Cubemaps then i guess 1080p is just fine for you...

 

[Jupiter]

Exactly. If you can't see that you can't tell the difference between 720p and UHD either.

Raytracing is a waste of resources? When I play a game I always see if raytracing is on. This is very easy to recognize. With fast videos it's harder to see.

Raytracing shadows are not worth it? It clearly looks better. No Peter Panning, Shadow agne but realistic soft shadows. I always activate every raytracing effect. Without games just look a lot worse.

Starfield could use raytracing very well. At least it uses tessellation on terrain and the materials often look great. I am positively surprised by the visuals.

 

[Shortbread]

1296p 30 fps..... Very impressive smh. Frankly, I'm perplexed as to how digital foundry is praising the visuals as there is really nothing to praise here. There are better looking cross-gen games out right now. I mean from the animations, to the visuals, it's has strong last gen sentiments.... I appreciate the scope of this game but, it's very obvious that they're reusing their systems from old games with some new pieces tacked on. Like it's very clear that the world is not seamless but instead just large levels connected with cleverly disguised loading screens. Also 30fps shooting? really?

It leaves a bad taste in my mouth as this video comes across as a defense for its poor technical showing. Since when did digital foundry become a pr platform for certain publishers? I mean, they referred to 1296p with fsr as rather crisp which is laughable when DF has been complaining non-stop about fsr issues. Dis-occlusion issues, motion issues, etc. Now 1296p is rather crisp? I'm not going to lie, this video leaves such a bad taste in my mouth.... The lack of consistency in criticism comes across as very hypocritical.

I'm pretty sure the PC edition will be a visual masterpiece with high framerates to boot. Anyhow, XBSX edition looks beautiful for a game with so many complex elements and simulations that it must run along side with such beautiful visuals. Once you accept the limitations of these $500 boxes (PS5/XBSX), the more reasonable your takes/opinions become of these platforms and their games.

 

[eastmen]

Since when was raytracing and GI the only way to improve graphics? It's just fools gold on these machine. Ray-traced shadows and reflections are essentially a waste of resources. A majority of people cannot tell the difference between SSR + cube map fall back to raytraced reflections. All you need to do is go on youtube and see hoardes of content creators calling ssr raytracing. The only raytraced feature worth while right now for graphics is Gi but, GI doesn't have to be raytraced. For example you can use probe based GI/baked GI and a majority of people will not be able to tell the difference.

Finally, I don't blame the machines for what I'm seeing. If you get 8x more power and you produce a game that looks marginally better than last gen games, the machine is not the problem. It's the wasteful use of resources that's the problem. A very common theme we've been seeing this gen from Jedi Survivor to Gotham Knights and now Starfield. Remember, these are the same devs that manage to release a game that ran at 0 fps on ps3 and were proud of it. Sorry but trying to blame this technical showing on the machine is libel and I gotta call it out.

Yet FF16 requires you to go down to 1080p to get 60fps and its not even a locked experience on the demo . The spiderman 2 footage is 1200p 30fps. Why not call out these games ?

Lets face it , these systems can't do what many are asking for. Like DF said the 60fps + era of titles on these systems is dying out as last gen dies out.

I think the biggest issue is that as consumers we have allowed them to equate upscaling with native resolution. That is the biggest detriment to gaming



Also the great thing about the Xbox Ecosystem. For the price of $70 I can play it on my couch with my series x , in my bedroom with my series s or jump onto my pc and play it at as maxed out as I can run it. then I can grab my deck or pick up an ally if its not powerful enough and play it on my commute to work. All for $70 all for one low cost. If I want with my subscription to game pass I can even stream it to anything with a modern browser.

So if 4k 60+ is very important to you then I suggest you move to a pc. Of course only one of the companies allow their titles day one. So I will be running starfield at 4k 60fps + with all the bells and whistles on day one. Wish i could say the same about some of the other exclusives out this holiday

 

[dobwal]

I want to play Starfield because to me its Elder Scroll/Fallout in space. I imagine thats what most people envision. Not a next gen/not possible on 8th gen version of No Man's Sky.

Nor do ignore the history of a dev and its aim with its popular franchises, so I can be disappointed every time their new title doesn't cross some arbitrary threshold of what constitutes next gen visuals.

 

[BitByte]

If you cant tell the difference between Raytracing reflections and SSRs + Cubemaps then i guess 1080p is just fine for you...

This responses demonstrate a strong reading comprehension problem. Maybe read what i wrote and try again with a more thought out response.

I'm pretty sure the PC edition will be a visual masterpiece with high framerates to boot. Anyhow, XBSX edition looks beautiful for a game with so many complex elements and simulations that it must run along side with such beautiful visuals. Once you accept the limitations of these $500 boxes (PS5/XBSX), the more reasonable your takes/opinions become of these platforms and their games.

I will be playing it on PC as there's no way I'm playing at 30fps at "fake" 4k. With regards to it's simulations, no one has yet to put forward a solid argument as to how this game is simulating more than No Mans Sky from last gen. The biggest argument that can be made in Starfields favor is object persistence which is fair. The problem is that Bethesda's use of object persistence is extremely wasteful.

Exactly. If you can't see that you can't tell the difference between 720p and UHD either.

When I play a game I always see if ray tracing is on. This is very easy to recognize. With fast videos it's harder to see.

Raytracing shadows are not worth it? Why? It clearly looks better. No Peter Panning, hadow agne but realistic soft shadows. I always activate every raytracing effect. Without it games just look a lot worse.

Starfield could use raytracing very well. At least it uses tessellation on terrain and the materials often look great. I am positively surprised by the visuals.

Using 720p to UHD is a false equivalency fallacy. Most people can tell the difference between 4k and 720p. Most people cannot tell the difference between SSR + Cube Maps and Raytraced Reflections. Funny story, games are made for the majority not the minority that exists on this forum. Just because I can tell the difference doesn't mean that others can and I don't operate from the assumption that the way I see the world is the way it is. There are games where the use of ray-tracing is impactful and there are games where it's presence is a waste of resources. For example, using Raytraced reflections or shadows in a racing game, fast paced shooter, etc is just a waste of resources.

Raytraced shadows look better than good shadow maps? The majority of the population most certainly doesn't agree with you. It looks different? Sure but better? Is that why a majority of pc users always turn off ray tracing features in favor of performance? If the choice is between 60 fps or raytracing, It's very obvious that at least on PC, 60 fps wins. With regards to the materials, they look on par with other big budget last gen and cross-gen games. Certainly nothing special.

 

[BitByte]

Yet FF16 requires you to go down to 1080p to get 60fps and its not even a locked experience on the demo . The spiderman 2 footage is 1200p 30fps. Why not call out these games ?

Lets face it , these systems can't do what many are asking for. Like DF said the 60fps + era of titles on these systems is dying out as last gen dies out.

I think the biggest issue is that as consumers we have allowed them to equate upscaling with native resolution. That is the biggest detriment to gaming



Also the great thing about the Xbox Ecosystem. For the price of $70 I can play it on my couch with my series x , in my bedroom with my series s or jump onto my pc and play it at as maxed out as I can run it. then I can grab my deck or pick up an ally if its not powerful enough and play it on my commute to work. All for $70 all for one low cost. If I want with my subscription to game pass I can even stream it to anything with a modern browser.

So if 4k 60+ is very important to you then I suggest you move to a pc. Of course only one of the companies allow their titles day one. So I will be running starfield at 4k 60fps + with all the bells and whistles on day one. Wish i could say the same about some of the other exclusives out this holiday

We already know that Spiderman will have a 60fps mode as they've done so in their previous games and if they don't release with one, you can be sure I'll be complaining..... FF16 is 60 fps so why would I call out a 60fps game? 1080p 60fps is far better than 1296p unstable 30 fps. If you watched their trailers and the direct, there were frame drops for sure. Finally Digital foundry is not the gospel on anything. If they make the claim that the systems cannot do what consumers are asking, the burden of proof lies with them to back up that claim. This is the same digital foundry that was praising Jedi Fallen Order for looking "next-gen" and making excuses for the devs. When I saw it, I immediately called the technical performance a "dev skill issue" and was hit with a whole host of backlash. Then performance profiling of the pc game started to leak out on this forum and it turned out to be serious dev skill issue.

I want to play Starfield because to me its Elder Scroll/Fallout in space. I imagine thats what most people envision. Not a next gen/not possible on 8th gen version of No Man's Sky.

Nor do ignore the history of a dev and its aim with its popular franchises, so I can be disappointed every time their new title doesn't cross some arbitrary threshold of what constitutes next gen visuals.

If you don't want to discuss technical aspects of the game, why are you even commenting? Like the whole discussion is centered around the technical aspects of the game not whether it'll be a good game or not.

 

[eastmen]

We already know that Spiderman will have a 60fps mode as they've done so in their previous games and if they don't release with one, you can be sure I'll be complaining..... FF16 is 60 fps so why would I call out a 60fps game? 1080p 60fps is far better than 1296p unstable 30 fps. If you watched their trailers and the direct, there were frame drops for sure. Finally Digital foundry is not the gospel on anything. If they make the claim that the systems cannot do what consumers are asking, the burden of proof lies with them to back up that claim. This is the same digital foundry that was praising Jedi Fallen Order for looking "next-gen" and making excuses for the devs. When I saw it, I immediately called the technical performance a "dev skill issue" and was hit with a whole host of backlash. Then performance profiling of the pc game started to leak out on this forum and it turned out to be serious dev skill issue.

If you don't want to discuss technical aspects of the game, why are you even commenting? Like the whole discussion is centered around the technical aspects of the game not whether it'll be a good game or not.

Yes and what will the 60fps mode take to accomplish ? We going sub 1080p for it if the quality mode is 1200p ? FF16 isn't a stable 60fps. Digital foundry even calls it out in the Starfield video specifically to say its unacceptable lol. We are going backwards in resolution.

Digital Foundry makes nice with all the devs. They even glossed over the shit show that is SF6 on series s. The fact of the matter is that this is the first game on these new consoles doing what no other games are doing on it. As far as I am aware I can't take objects from one world in FF16 and gather them and collect them on another world and then deposit them on a table and come back to them and they are now always in that spot with an unlimited amount of items. FF 16 doesn't do it , Zelda doesn't do it. The technical aspects of this game are different than those.

I have often called out the gamebryo engine as being outdated and have clowned on Bethesda when they have said they upgraded in the past. This is the first time I can say the engine actually looks updated. There are some scenes in these trailers that look better than Star Citizen

 

[dobwal]

We already know that Spiderman will have a 60fps mode as they've done so in their previous games and if they don't release with one, you can be sure I'll be complaining..... FF16 is 60 fps so why would I call out a 60fps game? 1080p 60fps is far better than 1296p unstable 30 fps. If you watched their trailers and the direct, there were frame drops for sure. Finally Digital foundry is not the gospel on anything. If they make the claim that the systems cannot do what consumers are asking, the burden of proof lies with them to back up that claim. This is the same digital foundry that was praising Jedi Fallen Order for looking "next-gen" and making excuses for the devs. When I saw it, I immediately called the technical performance a "dev skill issue" and was hit with a whole host of backlash. Then performance profiling of the pc game started to leak out on this forum and it turned out to be serious dev skill issue.

If you don't want to discuss technical aspects of the game, why are you even commenting? Like the whole discussion is centered around the technical aspects of the game not whether it'll be a good game or not.

Because your initial post was not focused on technical aspects but rather being critical of DF because of its presentation. You want to talk technicals fine, you want to express your disappointment with DF's analysis, you would be better served by producing your own 45 minute video that expresses your sentiment regarding the game anyway you want.

 

[cwjs]

Aside from marketing and satisfying weird specs freaks I don't think resolution, native or not, really matters much. I've yet to see a videogame which looks as realistic, detailed, or good, as 480i tv shows and movies do. An early, blurry digital photo looks a lot better than an 8k 32xmsaa shot of gears of war 1 or whatever. And reconstruction techniques have mostly thrived at creating the impression of sharpness and accuracy at the cost of a little ghosting. Unfortunately, resolution has always been the easiest part of a game to scale -- if a game could run at 120fps just by dialing down the res by ~16x then it would almost definitely ship with a 120fps mode.

 

[eastmen]

Aside from marketing and satisfying weird specs freaks I don't think resolution, native or not, really matters much. I've yet to see a videogame which looks as realistic, detailed, or good, as 480i tv shows and movies do. An early, blurry digital photo looks a lot better than an 8k 32xmsaa shot of gears of war 1 or whatever. And reconstruction techniques have mostly thrived at creating the impression of sharpness and accuracy at the cost of a little ghosting. Unfortunately, resolution has always been the easiest part of a game to scale -- if a game could run at 120fps just by dialing down the res by ~16x then it would almost definitely ship with a 120fps mode.

Except those same tv shows or movies look much better at higher resolutions. Casablanca and Robin hood are two movies despite being almost 100 years old look amazing at 4k resolution and certianly you get a much better experiance watching it on the higher resolution options

 

[BitByte]

Yes and what will the 60fps mode take to accomplish ? We going sub 1080p for it if the quality mode is 1200p ? FF16 isn't a stable 60fps. Digital foundry even calls it out in the Starfield video specifically to say its unacceptable lol. We are going backwards in resolution.

Digital Foundry makes nice with all the devs. They even glossed over the shit show that is SF6 on series s. The fact of the matter is that this is the first game on these new consoles doing what no other games are doing on it. As far as I am aware I can't take objects from one world in FF16 and gather them and collect them on another world and then deposit them on a table and come back to them and they are now always in that spot with an unlimited amount of items. FF 16 doesn't do it , Zelda doesn't do it. The technical aspects of this game are different than those.

I have often called out the gamebryo engine as being outdated and have clowned on Bethesda when they have said they upgraded in the past. This is the first time I can say the engine actually looks updated. There are some scenes in these trailers that look better than Star Citizen

Look, I'm no star citizen stan but, in terms of scope, Star citizen is major league and Starfield is minor league. Star citizen is doing things that Todd and co don't even have the technology to do. With regards to the bold, that's just wasteful object persistence. They used the sandwich as a joke but there's meaningful persistence and unnecessary persistence. Marco persistence to the world is important. Micro persistence(low value/low importance items) should be deployed with more nuance for performance sake. I'm not impressed by that when it leads to unstable 30fps and 1296p. It's not an intelligent use of resources.

Because your initial post was not focused on technical aspects but rather being critical of DF because of its presentation. You want to talk technicals fine, you want to express your disappointment with DF's analysis, you would be better served by producing your own 45 minute video that expresses your sentiment regarding the game anyway you want.

Yes, I was criticizing digital foundry because of their technical hypocrisy. This is the same digital foundry that notices RTGI issues in avatar under the belly of a deer and complains about it on twitter but, then in the same breath calls FSR "crisp". If you look at their commentary on FSR in the past, that in itself is an oxymoron. They then proceed to defend unstable 30fps at 1296p on a machine that's 8x more powerful than its predecessor. I commented because it left a bad taste in my mouth because I truly enjoy their content. This is the same thing other small channels catch flack for and DF is not immune to it.

Aside from marketing and satisfying weird specs freaks I don't think resolution, native or not, really matters much. I've yet to see a videogame which looks as realistic, detailed, or good, as 480i tv shows and movies do. An early, blurry digital photo looks a lot better than an 8k 32xmsaa shot of gears of war 1 or whatever. And reconstruction techniques have mostly thrived at creating the impression of sharpness and accuracy at the cost of a little ghosting. Unfortunately, resolution has always been the easiest part of a game to scale -- if a game could run at 120fps just by dialing down the res by ~16x then it would almost definitely ship with a 120fps mode.

This is just a defense for poor performance. Nothing more, nothing less. We're not comparing the game to tv shows or movies, we're comparing it to other games.

 

[eastmen]

Look, I'm no star citizen stan but, in terms of scope, Star citizen is major league and Starfield is minor league. Star citizen is doing things that Todd and co don't even have the technology to do. With regards to the bold, that's just wasteful object persistence. They used the sandwich as a joke but there's meaningful persistence and unnecessary persistence. Marco persistence to the world is important. Micro persistence(low value/low importance items) should be deployed with more nuance for performance sake. I'm not impressed by that when it leads to unstable 30fps and 1296p. It's not an intelligent use of resources.

Having backed star citizen since its kickstarter over a decade ago I have to disagree with you. The majority of star citizen is unfinished and will need many more years to go

Yes, I was criticizing digital foundry because of their technical hypocrisy. This is the same digital foundry that notices RTGI issues in avatar under the belly of a deer and complains about it on twitter but, then in the same breath calls FSR "crisp". If you look at their commentary on FSR in the past, that in itself is an oxymoron. They then proceed to defend unstable 30fps at 1296p on a machine that's 8x more powerful than its predecessor. I commented because it left a bad taste in my mouth because I truly enjoy their content. This is the same thing other small channels catch flack for and DF is not immune to it.

This is just a defense for poor performance. Nothing more, nothing less. We're not comparing the game to tv shows or movies, we're comparing it to other games.

Unfortunately if they want access they have to play nice. It really doesn't change the fact that avatar does have that issue. They are also gamers so when a big game comes out that looks pretty amazing they will of course be excited.

Also imagine what this game would have looked like if there were still last gen versions of it.

 

[function]

Starfield looks legitimately next gen, and it's a huge scale game with an unusually high level of polish for Bethesda. Beautiful.

The GI system looks like a smart compromise between performance and quality, and the atmospherics are fantastically ... atmospheric. Hopefully there'll be a RT accelerated version (or at least a mod) for reflections. The reflections currently in place look like a great compromise considering the relatively weak RT in consoles (and older none RT cards like the 5700XT and 1080) but better hardware could make the game look even sweeter.

I'm also glad the game is getting the consideration it deserves despite 30 fps - at least in more thoughtful places. Graphics are about a lot more than fillrate.

Apart from the RPG aspects of this game, it's far lower in scope than No man sky which came out last gen. No man's sky has more planets, seamless entry between planets, base building, space combat, an underlying economy, frigates which you can fly into with your ship, trading, exocrafts, exo mechs, online coop, etc. What other than rpg mechanics is Starfield doing which no mans sky didn't already do on a 1.4tf machine?

Why are you linking the scope of rpg mechanics to the TF of the GPU???

In Starfield the sheer scale of the cities, in game-persistence, unique hand tuned items, and the number of NPCs that exist, have state, and continue to exist across the galaxy is appears to be staggeringly higher. These all come at a cost, potentially a big one.

Additionally, the complexity of the ground based combat is almost certainly higher in SF, with what appears to be more complex enemy behaviours, and you can have an AI squad with their own stats / equipment. The number of weapons and weapons combinations is almost certainly much higher in SF. Also, SF has various player character skill trees which I'm not sure NMS has to the same extent.

I'm going to go out on a crazy limb here and speculate that the dialogue options, branches, and variety of potential game outcomes are slightly higher on the Bethesda game.

In terms of graphics, from what I've seen, Starfield's graphics are slightly better than No Man Sky on current gen. We're not talking about a generational difference in visuals and in terms of animation, it's pretty much on par.

I'm starting to see why you can't tell the difference between cube maps and RT reflections.

 

[BitByte]

Having backed star citizen since its kickstarter over a decade ago I have to disagree with you. The majority of star citizen is unfinished and will need many more years to go

I didn't back star citizen since I considered it to be a scam(still do btw), however in Star citizen, the planet is actually a real planet. You can fly into it and explore the whole planet. It's not just some designated level that you fly into connected by a cleverly disguised load screen like starfield. In terms of scope, you cannot even begin to compare the two.

Unfortunately if they want access they have to play nice. It really doesn't change the fact that avatar does have that issue. They are also gamers so when a big game comes out that looks pretty amazing they will of course be excited.

Also imagine what this game would have looked like if there were still last gen versions of it.

It's a technical channel so you have to be consistent. You can't go around flexing an aura of technical superiority over other channels and then be hypocritical. You'll get called out 100%. There's no way on God's green earth that what Bethseda is doing with the power they have available to them is impressive. All they're doing is redeploying their old systems that they've iterated on in a new environment. It's basically fallout in space which from a gameplay perspective is exciting but, it's not technically impressive. As the gen goes on, technically competent teams will accomplish far more with the same amount of resources.

According to DF, this is "technically impressive" and totally justifies 1296p at 30fps:

 

[function]

According to DF, this is "technically impressive" and totally justifies 1296p at 30fps:

View attachment 9052

Yeah, sure, this one screenshot in isolation is

According to DF, this is "technically impressive" and totally justifies 1296p at 30fps:

We don't need this kind of disingenuous, argumentative, technically illiterate shitposting here. Sorry mods, but when you see dogshit you warn your fellows about stepping in it.

I'll pipe down now.