It runs and is playable on a Ryzen 1600 and RX580, but just barely. This one has me thinking it's upgrade time.
Riddlewire
Regular
Interesting.
I get the feeling the game could probably be reconfigured to work very well on a HDD.
I get the feeling the game could probably be reconfigured to work very well on a HDD.
DavidGraham
Veteran
Those days are over, Warhammer Darktide already can't provide a good experience on a hard drive, Ratchet and Clank, Immortals of Aveum, and now Starfield. The days of hard drives are over now. SSD has become the min requirements for PC games.
I mean, that's just flatly not true. An SSD is certainly very recommended nowadays, but very few games need an SSD as an outright minimum requirement. Let's not redefine what that term is supposed to mean, ya know?
Just looking at the video, it's hard to disagree with the take that it could probably be made to work ok in Starfield, albeit with long load times, especially since it doesn't even look like he tried turning textures down low or anything.
Riddlewire
Regular
I was actually talking about a reworking of the game from the development side.
Tweak the cell size, alter the preloading parameters, adjust textures and detail content, and it could most likely run on a HDD. It would be the same game with the same gameplay features, just with a more traditional method of game world loading.
It was just lazy speculation for a Saturday.
Back in the days of Skyrim, this was true. Starfielfd’s gameplay is nothing special and doesn’t seem to have evolved from 2011 and the writing is just as bad.They do the opposite of most other AAA developers.
They spend the most of the budget on crafting a game where most AAA developers now spend most of the budget on the graphics.
Regards,
SB
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Apparently I'm one of the few people here playing the game, everybody else is playing with their settings. 
Some non-spoilers tips for those who are not far in, or who have not started yet:
Now, back to the Starfield...
edit: now.
Some non-spoilers tips for those who are not far in, or who have not started yet:
- You can access your ship's cargo hold from the cargo terminal on the left behind the cockpit. If you ship is nearby you can sell from it's inventory when talking to vendors/trade terminals.
- Behind on the cockpit on the right, on the floor is the Captain's locker, which is a good place to store weapons and other gear.
- Follow the main story until you get assigned a room. You get an infinite storage container and storage will be your biggest early game limitation.
- In the basement of the place where you get your room is a R&D facility with all research and crafting workbenches. It also has another infinite storage container which is handy for stockpiling massive amounts of resources and components needed for crafting. The UI makes it easy to Take All Resources and Store All Resources so do that when you start and end crafting sessions.
- You can compare highlighted equipment to what is equipped. Look at the UI prompt at the bottom for the screen.
- Spend a few minutes slowly looking at all of the UI elements on every screen. There is a lot of useful stuff that the game never mentions. Once you've played the game for a few hours, do this again. There will be UI things you saw before for which you had no context which now make sense.
Now, back to the Starfield...
edit: now.
Last edited by a moderator:
Someone said on reddit that currently starfield have zero ships that flies with momentum...
That's not true, right?
That's not true, right?
Oh yea I know. I was just pointing out that we couldn't even tell if anything could improve through settings changes, especially textures. But clearly it doesn't look so far off that it straight up could never work. Boots up, runs, doesn't crash.
Sounds like Bethesda-style games just aren't for you. If you just want 'slick action', you can always fire up Call of Duty. People love Bethesda RPG's for reasons other than combat for the most part, that's just something you kind of 'do' while on the journey, it's typically not the main motivation for playing. It's the questing and discovery and appreciating the scope of things and the immersion and the worldbuilding and all that as one big package. If you dont care about that stuff, again, that's fine, but to say Starfield hasn't evolved anything from Skyrim is just wildly untrue and doesn't sound like you're even trying to be reasonable.
Last edited:
No, and spare me that condescending tone. "You don't like this game. Sounds like your idiot brain would like COD better."
I've played every single Bethesda game since Daggerfall and they've actually gotten WORSE in terms of role-playing, bottoming out with Fallout 4. The RPG aspects in Skyrim have been stripped almost naked compared to Oblivion and the gameplay from the combat to questing to roleplaying amounts to very little without mods. The intricate guilds such as the Dark Brotherhood or Thieves Guild in Oblivion were reduced to 1-hour long affairs with 5-6 quests that see you ascend to the top while doing almost nothing and giving very little in terms of progress. Then Fallout 4 took it a step further and killed almost all of the systems and character building of Fallout 3 and NV (much better than Fallout 3 and not made by Bethesda) to something even more simplistic as if they didn't trust their player base to understand what roleplaying is. I can't even call Starfield an RPG anymore. If RPGs are a spectrum, Baldur's Gate is at one end while Starfield is at the other end.
The gameplay has devolved you mean. The more popular their games got, the more features Bethesda stripped down in favor of something more streamlined and less customizable giving less freedom and choices. Spellcrafting? Too complicated. Remove that. Attributes that govern skills? Nah, screw this, let's replace this by perks. Nowadays, the RPG mechanics of their games will invariably funnel players into a tiny variety of playstyles.
Am I expecting Baldur's Gate III level of roleplaying? No, but I certainly expect the mechanics to deepen and widen rather than getting shallower and shallower with each new release. There's a reason Starfield scored well but well below Skyrim and Oblivion. What made Bethesda games so special back then isn't so special in 2023. I still appreciate their ability to craft worlds that can only be rivaled by Rockstar but Bethesda needs to get with the time. This isn't 2005 anymore and they need to get their roleplaying mechanics up to snuff.
This will be my last response since this is a technical thread and not a gameplay one.
You cannot approach Starfield as a space sim in any way. You'll be disappointed. It's an RPG and how they've designed space around that works very well.
Yeah it seems that's to be the case. I wonder if I can create a space ship in the shape of quad copter, hopefully it will make thek movements made sense in my head.
Btw The lack of simulation also Not just on space aspect. Even jumping down from heights are no different than normal jumps. Same animation, same everything. Or maybe I hadn't reached high enough altitude....
And this got me remember that Bethesda has always been kinda weird with vehicles. Even the horse in skyrim was weird.
I wonder if the occlusion simulation that was in skyrim still in starfield or not. Like plopping a bucket on NPC's head to steal stuff safely.
Then again. This is a Bethesda game. Modders will allow people to bend the game to cater to each other's tastes.
the shadows of buildings etc from the sun is much more smooth than in older games, where it seemed to "tick" like a clock. now the intervals are much finer as far as i can see which is nice
seems like my crashes were because of fsr2 (probably because my gpu is below the spec) but im preparing to build a new computer. im looking to go all out but unsure if amd or intel platform right now. i basically have no budget constraints
edit: the crashes to desktop are not gone, seem to be because of alt-tabbing? which is weird in a borderless window fullscreen game
seems like my crashes were because of fsr2 (probably because my gpu is below the spec) but im preparing to build a new computer. im looking to go all out but unsure if amd or intel platform right now. i basically have no budget constraints
edit: the crashes to desktop are not gone, seem to be because of alt-tabbing? which is weird in a borderless window fullscreen game
Last edited:
You seem to be like many gamers, where you are unable to talk in a nuanced and reasonable fashion. Everything is hyperbole.
Like this comment, just to pick out one of many:
There's an argument that some RPG aspects of Skyrim were reduced from Oblivion, but to say 'stripped almost naked' is a massive exaggeration, and you're ignoring all the ways that it actually pushed RPG elements as well. Maybe these elements weren't ones you cared about as much, but they definitely mattered to other people. For instance, I much, much preferred the leveling system of Skyrim's to Oblivion's. And leveling is a huge part of RPG's, no?
You also said 'gameplay' hasn't evolved from 2011, but it clearly has in so many ways. It's not really deniable. You'd have to resort to bad faith arguments to claim otherwise.
Last edited:
Because it’s that and I can hardly call it an RPG anymore. I’m a few hours in and I’d rate it about as high as I rated Fallout 4 which isn’t very high.
The industry has immensely evolved since Oblivion and to a lesser extent, Skyrim. Bethesda hasn’t.
Honestly what people consider the typical game play loop for BGS games has never really stood out. The main draw for them has really always been the broader world creation and then what the players choose to do within that world (including outside of the game itself via mods).
Otherwise there's rather basic iteration with maybe one (or a few more minor ones) major concepts that have been relatively popularized. Then they refine and take elements from what the player base seems to find popular/lacking (including from the modding scene) in the previous iteration.
On the other side I don't know what major departure would really be appealing both to the broader public and the core fan base.
Circling back this is also why I think Fallout and now Starfield are important for them since diverisifies the world's the create. If we were hypothetically already on what TES 9? Formula and also the explorative aspect would be pretty stale.
You mean mid 90s?
Otherwise there's rather basic iteration with maybe one (or a few more minor ones) major concepts that have been relatively popularized. Then they refine and take elements from what the player base seems to find popular/lacking (including from the modding scene) in the previous iteration.
On the other side I don't know what major departure would really be appealing both to the broader public and the core fan base.
Circling back this is also why I think Fallout and now Starfield are important for them since diverisifies the world's the create. If we were hypothetically already on what TES 9? Formula and also the explorative aspect would be pretty stale.
You mean mid 90s?
Similar threads
- Locked
