Yes, it's the exact same modus operandi as forza horizon 5
Premium edition for dlc included and early launch.
Probably discounted premium upgrade on gamepass, and use free gamepass base game
Yes, it's the exact same modus operandi as forza horizon 5
Premium edition for dlc included and early launch.
Probably discounted premium upgrade on gamepass, and use free gamepass base game
Just an overtly absurd claim. I dont know how you can say stuff like this with a straight face.
I'm not saying it has mind blowing, cutting edge graphics, but they're definitely quite good overall with the scope the game has.
Also glad to see the 30fps on console is confirmed. And yes, I genuinely mean that. It means they did not water down their ambitions just to hit a performance target.
Game looks absolutely beautiful on Series X, and will be drop-dead gorgeous when the PC edition gets reveled (i.e., better LoD, larger/higher quality textures, higher lighting/shadowing IQ settings, greater AA/AF settings, 60fps+, etc.). But yes, SF looks like (is!) a proper next-generation title.
Last edited:
cheapchips
Veteran
It's shocking how little gameplay/gameworld ambition is going on in many 30fps titles, nevermind 60fps ones.
cheapchips
Veteran
I know this is just Bethesda trying to create cheese/bucket memes, but I salute any game that allows this sort of thing.
Yup! When Todd Howard mentioned Red Dead Redemption 2 as being inspiration when getting lost in the game's world (immersion and exploration wise), I knew beforehand, before him even mentioning it, that Starfield had that true destiny feel of RD2 on tackling one's environment and building a life around it. God, this game is going to be glorious!
Last edited:
I think people just massively underappreciate what's actually 'going on' in the games they experience. Yes, there's a lot of safe AAA games out there, but that's one of the reasons that Bethesda's RPGs are so interesting and unique. They are not safe. I'm not saying they're like 'out of the box' thinking or anything like many indie games, but they make games that clearly scare any other major developers/publishers from trying to make. I mean, they are massively successful, which would normally create a whole succession of copycat attempts, yet this doesn't happen, and that's exactly why - it's too daunting.
But even 'safe' AAA games still require an incredible effort to make. And I'm all for developers who want to push boundaries on whatever, even if it's just graphics. Leverage that hardware to make games that simply couldn't exist before. And for all those that truly demand '60fps in everything', that's what PCs are for. I can play 30fps games on consoles just fine, but I do like my 60fps and that's a big reason I like PC gaming. And I'd much rather developers push the consoles hard and only aim for 30fps(at least in certain titles, obviously not all of em) so that PC users can get all the advantages from that, combined with the ability to scale graphics and performance further.
cheapchips
Veteran
Yes, it's fascinating stuff. It's one or another thread really and I'm not sure there's enough tangible stuff to chat about. AC's shift towards being an RPG is the most interesting example of a serious tech/gameplay/gameworld expansion I can think of for a blockbuster series. They actually planted the seeds of that in Syndicate, which ironically was reviewed in a fairly 'not this game again' manner. YMMV with the actual games and the direction they've gone of course.
A step back to rag on Starfield which is related to complexity of big titles - why aren't the conversion animations better? They're improved from prior games. They still could be so much better. With such a big game though, guess it comes down to having to draw the line somewhere.
davis.anthony
Veteran
Because it does, are you telling me the shot I posted is any better than Killzone:SF on PS4?
The game varies massively in visual quality, ranging from a PS4 launch game to one that looks next gen.
And the PS4 level parts massively stick out.
davis.anthony
Veteran
These shots are doing the rounds.....like hot damn.
It's like they decided to remaster the unreleased version
It's like they decided to remaster the unreleased version
massive difference. Goes to show a lot of what we saw was work in progress. There's still more opportunity for things to change, but likely it's just been polishing these last final months. I would rather have them make this game run really well, fix as many bugs as possible and just run smooth as silk than to try to move the graphics bar any further. People can complain that next gen is not meeting the visual expectations that gamers have, but that will wash over if this game is good.These shots are doing the rounds.....like hot damn.
It's like they decided to remaster the unreleased version
View attachment 9036
View attachment 9037
Wasn't the last time the game was shown off was June 2022 ? So roughly a year ago. The game was pretty much feature and content complete from what I understood and they took the year to focus on performance and bugs and some additional content. We even have another 2 months of development time for a strong day one patch. Then there is post launch support
Very different games man.
One is a highly curated FPS shooter, where you are setting up your lights, the zones, what you can see, and just baking the heck out of everything. The largest challenge for Killzone is to run the graphics engine and make it look as good as possible.
The other is a pseudo procedural sandbox game where you can build whatever you want, and largely go wherever you want, with over 1000 procedural worlds to visits; the largest challenge for the engine is managing the game itself. The world size has no comparison in usable player space and animations, interactivity with the environment etc. The labour force was tasked to make a massive content rich game for an entirely new IP.
The closest games related titles to Starfield are named Star Citizen and No Man's Sky. This is definitely better than NMS, and Star Citizen will never release. Compared to previous Creation engine titles this is a massive step up.
I think we need to ease up here on the whole, ha ha last gen graphics. Let's be real, many other engines out there, including UE5 are likely not up to task to take on this game. Star Citizen is still working out the systems to get to this level, let alone how far they still have to go and how many bugs need to be ironed out.
The game may very well still be stylized as well as an art choice. It's not trying to look as realistic as FPS games do. And I don't have a problem with that.
What's on display here: is what you can do, not what you can see. I think the graphics are more than sufficient, the gameplay looks incredible.
Last edited:
davis.anthony
Veteran
It doesn't make my comment any less true.
no, perhaps not. But it's certainly a half truth.
Your argument is contextually biased towards graphics as if it is completely separate of gameplay. When all the resources of any large scale project is not put towards graphics, how can we expect graphics to be incredible? there are many different problems to solve graphically, that can be solved if you simplify the gameplay stack. That's precisely what KZ:SF is; they are complete polar opposites in the graphical challenges they need to resolve in order for the game to work.
I think you should show us a game in the same scope as Starfield but on the ps4. The only ones I can think of are skyrim and fallout and both of them don't look as good as this
GTA 4 doesn't come close
nor does cyber punk
Also when looking at something like killzone
There is nothing in this game that matches up with Starfield. I think you are looking at it with some rose colored glasses. it's like looking at a MMO vs Gran Turismo and saying why doesn't this mmo look as good as GT ? Or as good as this fighting game that only has two characters on the screen at once. Or why it doesn't look as good as a single player rpg.
Last edited:
Yea for the sake of following along, I used this video:
versus the Starfield direct:
Upon comparison of the two: Starfield is way ahead in graphical features: Volumetric, lighting, environment, textures, shadows, about the only thing lacking or equivalent are particle shaders.
I think I'm in agreement here with the newer forum rules that people need to provide evidence for others to follow arguments along. When I compare side by side videos, and not screen shots, I'm seeing something dramatically different. If people saw Starfield level of graphics in XBO days, I think XBO would have won the generation.
Upon comparison of the two: Starfield is way ahead in graphical features: Volumetric, lighting, environment, textures, shadows, about the only thing lacking or equivalent are particle shaders.
I think I'm in agreement here with the newer forum rules that people need to provide evidence for others to follow arguments along. When I compare side by side videos, and not screen shots, I'm seeing something dramatically different. If people saw Starfield level of graphics in XBO days, I think XBO would have won the generation.
Similar threads
- Locked
