Xbox Business Update Podcast | Xbox Everywhere Direction Discussion
- Thread starter iroboto
- Start date
I'm not really comfortable with sentences like these since there is no 'new joycon of switch 2', this is just based off some leak. Nothing is announced.
It worked great for Sony. The problem with MSFT is they either change their minds to quickly or are not commiting like they should.
How many people woul dbuy xbox just for strafiled, perhaps not many, but add new doom new forza new gears etc etc and suddenly i think many poeple would consider owning more than one console. Some pepole do.
But if i own PC or PS5 now, there is no reason for me to buy xbox.
That’s not true.
That requires a major assumption to continue to be true, which is they are at their base specs and underlying architecture is the same.
If they aren’t the same, then you have choice to make.
Sony didn’t do this at all. Sony cultivated a group of the best developers in the business. They didn’t buy Naughty Dog ten years after they made TLOU, they bought them when they made Crash Bandicoot and gave them the resources to make Uncharted. MS just buys washed up developers and tells them to output slop that nobody wants.
Washed up developers. Right. Thank you for great insight.
Starfield was supposed to be this generation defining game and most people remember it for having Fallout 4 graphics and uncanny facial animations. How else would I describe modern Bethesda besides ‘washed up’?
Starfield certainly has better graphics than FO4!
But if the rumour mill was to be followed, Sony was in discussions to lock down Starfield as exclusive. They also bought Bungie as soon as they became able to, of course after locking down their titles for exclusivity as well. Now they are on discussions to buy FromSoftware. And they aren't really known for their graphics eithers.
Lots of studios are trying to navigate this new world where increasingly just spending their time with live service/forever titles, not to mention challenges over asset creation, content creation, game design, etc, and now having to deal with politics, making money etc. Old game design paradigms need will be falling out here, all these AAA companies that have been producing titles are making their changes accordingly as they adjust to this new world.
I wouldn't be so quick to judge, anyone is capable of producing a flop in the current gaming landscape.
Still, Starfield is a very good game and one of the best of the generation. I won't go into detail about this, but many people appreciate Starfield in its place, after last summer's update and great mods from the community, it provides excellent entertainment.
But it's still somewhat true that it didn't serve well as a game when it came out. It's monumental, but it's this monumentality that makes average players unable to see below the surface... and form an opinion based on that... It takes a long time to unfold, and then it's delightfully good.
However, in addition to my previous review: Starfield /= TES series
But it's still somewhat true that it didn't serve well as a game when it came out. It's monumental, but it's this monumentality that makes average players unable to see below the surface... and form an opinion based on that... It takes a long time to unfold, and then it's delightfully good.
However, in addition to my previous review: Starfield /= TES series
I actually disagree and think in some ways it looks worse than FO4, especially so given what’s coming out these days! FO4 was rather outdated even on release graphically.
I’m sure someone on here will come out with still shots showing how the best area in Starfield looks better than the worst area in Fallout or whatever but actually playing Starfield is a graphically boring experience (it’s also a boring experience in general but I’ll stick to graphics).
Todd Howard telling people they need to upgrade their PCs to run Starfield was peak Bethesda lol, the game looks 2016 at best and my 3080ti barely scraped by with 60 fps at launch. Xbox was stuck at 30 fps and the Bethesda-heads all said it was just because the game was so advanced, until they released a 60 fps mode later lol. But I digress.
Aren’t they glad they didn’t pursue this route lol. Sony has similar delusions with exclusives sometimes too, don’t forget they were behind the Concord disaster. There’s rumors that Sony thought Concord would become this generational title and would be one of those permanent live service ‘forever games’ we talk about.
Starfield is not even one of the best of the generation so far, nevermind when it’s done and we have time to reflect on what was good and what was bad.
Yes we’re all just too simple minded to appreciate the ship flight/loading screens and systems lifted straight from Oblivion and Skyrim. Truly a generational title where going into a different room prompt a loading screen like Fallout New Vegas.
lol it's a tough industry to be in. I mean, if we had the formula to produce these 'system sellers' they would be using them all the time. The reality is that, no one cares about system sellers as much as before because live service games are now considered the 'system sellers' and they are on every platform.
And the worst part is, they're all free.
It can be seen that you can't judge the game well and you barely saw it. If someone concentrates on the more undeveloped details of such a monumental game, he doesn't appreciate the whole thing. It's beautiful in many places, and I often enjoy Starfield precisely because of the graphical experience. Many people who actually play with it think so.
Technically, Starfield can do things that far surpass Fallouts. For example, the realtime lighting effects, their special shadow technique that competes with ray-tracing quality, the ultra-high-resolution textures of the interiors and items.
Well, we're not the same.
I paid like $80 for the deluxe edition to play Starfield a few days early and played it extensively for the first few weeks it was out.It can be seen that you can't judge the game well and you barely saw it. If someone concentrates on the more undeveloped details of such a monumental game, he doesn't appreciate the whole thing. It's beautiful in many places, and I often enjoy Starfield precisely because of the graphical experience. Many people who actually play with it think so.
Technically, Starfield can do things that far surpass Fallouts. For example, the realtime lighting effects, their special shadow technique that competes with ray-tracing quality, the ultra-high-resolution textures of the interiors and items.
Well, we're not the same.
Doing a few new things compared to Fallout (which is like 10 years old mind you) means nothing, the game is painfully outdated looking. Ignoring the lack of raytracing or whatever (I maintain you can make a game look good without it so I won’t hold that against it) the lighting is straight out of 2016. The facial modeling and animations are straight up uncanny, which is ironic because you spend half the game zoomed into them talking to people.
Literally the first scene in the game you realize Bethesda fucked up by botching the HDR implementation. Raised blacks and banding galore.
It’s funny because that’s actually the three devs that come to mind when I think of who’s washed up lol. Forza Horizon is fine but they basically release the same game in a new location every year, Motorsport came out a little while ago and wasn’t really well received, and I can’t remember the last good Gears of War.
Not sure who the second one is but I think Ninja Theory is actually not bad and one of the better devs MS owns.
But now the game has one of the best HDR, I made separate pictures that illustrate this well.. Starfield can look very good, although the mods also have something to do with it. And in terms of gaming experience, it has become much better than when it was released. As I said, only those who play with it know this.
However, one thing is the graphics, the atmosphere, the grandiosity of the game is impressive for many of us. So yes, it became one of the best games of the generation for me.
Releasing working HDR is a rock bottom standard, almost every modern title implements it (not always great but Starfield basically didn’t support it at all lol). The fact it took them months to do this is very washed up.But now the game has one of the best HDR, I made separate pictures that illustrate this well.. Starfield can look very good, although the mods also have something to do with it. And in terms of gaming experience, it has become much better than when it was released. As I said, only those who play with it know this.
However, one thing is the graphics, the atmosphere, the grandiosity of the game is impressive for many of us. So yes, it became one of the best games of the generation for me.
Objectively the graphics aren’t good lol, what about Starfield looks current gen? Compare this to another MS exclusive, Hellblade. These don’t even occupy the same generation to me, Starfield looks like an early Xbox One game.
Also if you have to bring up mods in your review of a game the game isn’t good. I understand stuff like modding Fallout NV as it’s old and people like to modernize it but you can’t describe a game as generation defining if it needed mods on day one to fix the visuals (reminded of the horrible haze they used that I had to remove with a LUT mod). The game is barely a year old and we’re talking about mods to fix it!
Starfield looks very good in some cases. Very spectaclar lightning and shadow effects. Ultra detailed textures ín door environment, etc. And now, thanx the some free mods the HDR looks utterly fantastic.
The lighting and shadows are the exact same as we’ve seen in previous Creation Engine titles.
How on earth can we look at Hellblade or Metro Exodus (even the non RT one) and say that Starfield sits up with them and is one of the generations best for graphics????
If you have to mod the HDR it’s bad. A brand new game should not require mods to look good.
I look at it objectively, so it's very good in the open world genre. Due to its volume, it has more undeveloped parts, and there are also very good-looking ones. In comparison, HB2 is just a few hours of action game. Starfield is a monumental game of many hundreds of hours with extremely complex game mechanics. It makes no sense to expect the same graphical effect from such a grandiose title as from a simple cinematic game with the most detailed graphics. It's that simple.
Similar threads
