Yeah sure, the problem with optimizing complex software comes when no bottlenecks show up. We can profile it, and if we see the sum of many 'negligible costs', but no specific workload takes a seriously large amount of CPU time compared to others, then you can't expect noticeable improvements from further optimization.
But then you also can't speculate a certain system like the physics example 'causes' a too high cost. Rather we can only say the game as a whole is too large and does too much things, which makes sense here because it's a space game.
However, if we look back to previous Bethesda game, all of them were huge and open world, and they all did run at 60 fps.
The visual upgrade in Starfield does not impress me beyond the expected from a new console gen. It looks fine but not advanced. I can't see any use of RT for example, which would eventually explain higher costs. So i would rule this out for a reason too.
Also there is no increased amount of action to see on screen from the showcase. We see planets, space stations, a lot of scenery. But the places are not crowded by so many NPCs or spaceships.
I lack an explanation, and from that i assume their engine is just outdated. Optimization would likely not enable 60 fps, only a new engine would, i guess. So it's time for that, and ideally they would have done it before making Starfield.
That's not my intent. They won't cap on PC, but on my PC it will not run at 60fps, because it's slower than XBox. Many players will enjoy 60fps without doubt, and if i would really want to play this badly, i would accept to play at 30fps.
I'm just not so much into RPGs. The freedom, the ability to go anywhere... it sounds nice on paper. But then when i play it, i lack motivation and a sense of progress. Everything feels like side quests which have no real impact or outcome.
So i always try to figure out what people love about RPGs, and so far i liked Bethesda games the most from the genre. But i do not really get it and prefer a good linear story over branching into pointless infinity.
Kind of... 'See the mountain? You can go there!' - 'Um, yes. But why should i?'
I'd love to understand how people motivate themselves, how they answer this why, and why they can sink 200h into such games. But i fail on it.
I have played (or at least tried) Skyrim and FO3 / 4. (I also try to play FO2, at least that's on my to do list.)
But idk what you mean. Bethesda does rigid body simulation like anybody else does, using the same tech and limitations of it.
Like almost everywhere, the physics simulation has only a decorative and visual effect. It's passive. Ragdolls give nice death animations, you can stack up a pile of boxes, but there is no effect on the game from physics.
A counterexample would be the new Zelda game. That's active physics, spurs creativity, and has big impact on the game.
Basically they just merged RPG + Garys Mod, but it's surely serious progress towards waking up the sleeping princess of physics simulation. I'd like to see more of that, also in Bethesda games.
www.resetera.com
