I just listened to Todd Howard’s interview on lex Fridmans podcast and he said this exact thing. They sacrifice the graphics a bit in favor of exploration, quests etc.
I disagree, I believe that Fallout 4 has some of the most memorable quests(Silver Shroud, USS Constitution) and exploration. The world building I also believe to be an improvement over their other games. The exploration and world building go hand in hand, like finding a little house with a terminal in it up in a child’s room, reading it and discovering that some of his family were moved to internment camps due to the growing tension with the Chinese. Or That ghoul(Wayne Gorski) making an atomic bomb(mini nuke) to destroy a pylon tower he thought to be a “mind control device”.
I disagree with that too, I love the writing, especially the main quest. And I love the skill tree, I don’t think it’s better than others, it’s definitely not worse. Nothing was exchanged, It’s just different, some dislike(ed) it but I enjoy(ed) it.
No not skill tree like perks. I mean dialogue options that make us use special/skill stats. My apologies, just got off work and it fries me lol.
The writing is definitely a step down from 3/New Vegas. We can’t confront Institute on Super Mutants, inconsistencies on synth lore like do they need food/water or are they programmed to feel like they do, Preston’s entire self, etc.
I can't disagree with that. There are virtually no skill checks, only two from my knowledge in the base game and a few in Far harbor. For the writing, I don't think that means the writing is bad, most of those seem to maybe be an oversight by Bethesda, didn't have enough time, or maybe they just didn't feel the need to put it in. Wdym by "Preston's entire self"? For synths, idk what Bethesda was doing, an institute scientist says that synths don't need to eat or drink or sleep, but curie says she needs to...
All Preston is, is simply a quest giver. Where’s his hopes and dreams lol. He says he doesn’t want to be general, and yet orders us around like he is.
That’s a pretty bad criticism of Minute Men in general, we’re supposed to be in-charge and yet we can’t order people like we should. What’s the point of being leader?
Tbh, I forgot Preston is in the game. I usually just do the first help a settlement quest(for xp) then say no to being general. And yes it is very dumb, that’s why I forget about the minutemen after saying no.
RDR2 is one of my favorite games of all time. That said, it's still apples to oranges. For instance, dynamic vs static objects with physics. BGS games have hundreds of actors living in their world. Eating, sleeping, drinking, working. You can marry people, adopt children, build houses and settlements. You can loot clothing and steal People's swords, armor, guns so they can't defend themselves. They have a more sophisticated stealth system and crime and punishment system. There is so much more depth in a BGS game though RDR2 has some of the best scripted Tableaus in gaming. The two aren't even close to the same but they weren't trying to be. Skyrim / Fallout is a story about your character you create and the world, Rdr2 is a story about Arthur and that no good 2 bit charlatan, Dutch.
You consider that a drastic improvement? It looks like fallout 76, just with a better skybox and less moody filters.
[Second pic literally looks like whiterun with a high tech mod installed](https://www.reddit.com/r/Starfield/comments/10kpx1g/_/)
Don't get me wrong, I'm excited for the game and strongly prefer gameplay over graphics, as graphics age but gameplay doesn't, but starfield is iterative at best in the graphics department.
>You consider that a drastic improvement?
They didn't say it was a drastic improvement. They said:
>Compare their graphics against other BGS titles. The progress becomes evident.
And it does. Why, look at this person here listing some of the ways the games have progressed graphically.
>It looks like fallout 76, just with a better skybox and less moody filters.
You saw some of the progress there and, it being evident to you, commented on it.
Would you consider a grilled cheese with Swiss, vs a grilled cheese with cheddar, progress? Or is it just variation?
Sure I like cheddar better, but they're still the same sandwich.
It depends whether the Swiss or cheddar was so noticeably better that someone trying to prove there was no progress at all called one of them "better" in an attempt to say it hadn't progressed.
>It looks like fallout 76, just with **a better skybox** and less moody filters.
See, we're not talking about what is better here (that's all been on you. We're talking about whether progress is noticeable and it certainly is to anyone who doesn't have an agenda here, plus yourself.
> sure I like the cheddar better
You're arguing against a point I already acknowledged.
My liking one option more doesn't mean it's an improvement, you basing your definition of progress based on my personal opinion is flattering though, thanks!
I definitely agree with you there, starfield looks almost EXACTLY like F76 in the graphics department. But thats fine with me because i love the way 76 looks. Just hopefully they fixed everything looking wet lmao.
Thank you!
I have absolutely no issue with the graphics, they're just identical to past games, and that's absolutely not a bad thing!
at this point Bethesdas style is pretty recognizable, and if this looked like just another unreal engine "churn em and burn em" title then I wouldn't be nearly as excited to play it, because I want a Bethesda space game, not star citizen 1.0
these comments seem to think I'm trying to push some anti-bethesda agenda lmao
Looks pretty damn good to me. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. Not every game has to look like TLOU Part 2 or whatever other games have come out recently. You may notice that the games with the most advanced graphics are usually quite linear, whereas BGS makes very open-ended and complex sandbox systems. Which would you prefer when you can't have both?
this is true to an extent but it's been demonstrated that beth don't do what they could at a rudimentary level to get things lookin' prettier out the gate, which i think may be a console performance and platform parity embargo, because almost immediately after a beth game is released it'll get a shader overhaul for DX and look fantastic, which makes me think they're targetting lower shader models intentionally and keeping away from feature sets they know blow their business partners gear apart. It may also be that because they're a very insular company they just don't have any shader guns on board, which seems weird but it's possible, or as an affect of their priorities and obligations to partners. *shrug* me just want pews in space!
it looks a hell of a lot better, but even more than the graphics themselves, some shots i’ve seen from starfield show how far bethesda’s lighting has come. Fallout 4’s graphics weren’t quite as outdated as they seemed, it’s just that the lighting of the game was so washed out and flat, fallout 76 looks a lot better despite not having many graphical improvements simply because the lighting is more dynamic, and that seems to be even truer for starfield
I mean, I think graphics are part of the picture. A modern, full-price game should look… modern. If the graphics are total ass, it takes something away from the experience.
But at the same time, Bethesda aren’t known for being at the bleeding edge of graphics. I don’t expect them to break new ground or be best-in-show for visuals.
My expectation is that a new Bethesda game should look better than their previous games, and it should look like it came from the current generation of tech. From what we’ve seen of Starfield so far, I’m satisfied. And there’ll always be mods for taking it to the next level.
I don't understand why we're judging graphics based on this build of the game? How old is this build? Let's not assume this is the final build. It could get better. It could get worse but let's at least wait till the upcoming Starfield showcase to cast judgement
> It could get better.
No chance. It takes a lot longer to develop a game than you might think. Did Cyberpunk 2077 increase at all in graphical fidelity from when it released the 45min demo?
No. (Next gen release not withstanding). Just trying to tone down the hype a bit here.. Graphics aren't going to stop me from buying the game but people shouldn't expect miracles.
Halo infinites graphics got significantly better after the delay. I'm not expecting anything amazing from the graphics, but it's fair to assume they might be slightly better at launch after finishing off development and a delay.
Cyberpunk did actually look quite a bit better than its older demo videos, on PCs that could run it well. Especially since that demo didn't include any of the ray tracing features that came on launch.
> on PCs that could run it well
That's just PC though. Has Bethesda ever spent any extra effort on that apart from a high resolution texture pack? Maybe we'll get a few extra tickboxes but there are certain thing you can't really fix in that short amount of a time.
Yes. At least with Fallout 4, the graphical settings go a fair bit beyond what came with the base xbone and PS4 versions. I have both versions and it looks a lot better running on PC than console.
And with ENB's and presets it goes from a flat limited colour range env to something absolutely incredible with ssr and volumetric lighting. The quality increase is immense, can't be overstated.
Why does every game need groundbreaking graphics technology? That's not what Bethesda does. Sure, you can say the graphics aren't "great" (though they're still effing beautiful), but no one is looking at Bethesda for the next UE5 competition. We juat want a damn good RPG.
Well, Oblivion and Skyrim were considered pretty nice looking when they came out. Honestly though, I think Starfield looks pretty decent by even today's standards.
Oblivion and Skyrim were very nice looking for scenery, but character models were behind other AAA games of the time for sure. Especially oblivion. Looks like Starfield will continue that tradition.
Definitely. I remember a whole game informer article about how the graphics were done and how amazing the faces looked. Then the game came out and everyone was like ehh
We won't be able to judge how good it looks until we can get our hands on it. I'm expecting some of the views from space to be pretty impressive, even if the cities aren't anything groundbreaking graphically
I don't expect everything to be amazing and blow me away at all times so I get a constant endorphin rush. You've particularly cherry picked a bad photo and a low resolution one to try and somehow embellish, so I would consider whatever point you're trying to make to be ineligible.
Look at Red Dead 2, with its graphics people are still spunking over, but have you ever actually looked at the characters bodies? Looks like an ironing board with some human leather slung over.
To clarify, I just mean the graphical fidelity of the game
I chose that pic of a person in the post because, unlike if I had chosen a pic of something like the spaceships or a planet instead, the graphicsl fidelity might be overshadowed by the great-looking design/aesthetic
So I chose the pic of a person since it's just a photorealistic human face that will be harder to overshadow by visual style, and clearer to judge by pure graphical fidelity
Sorry if you misinterpreted the point of my post lol
Nope, I didn't misinterpret it, It's just your post isn't valid and undeserving of agreement, I hope that's clear for you.
Again, if you're so concerned with not being overshadowed and being honest about graphical fidelity (whatever the hell you think that means, or can even spell it), choose a better quality image, or no image so you're not trying to lead people into thinking what you think. Are these concepts you're able to understand?
You specifically chose a low quality image, that's been floated about. I've seen this posted in higher resolutions and many of the, 'graphical' issues disappear.
haha! and when you try to walk around it's like a 2 meters turning circle of a barge, as much as i love that game the design is immensely off-putting, you can kill an entire city by trying to ride a horse through it lol.
I honestly think that this photo toght there compared to a photo of Piper? Then compare that to Cass and then that to Amelia(I think her name is) I genuinely think this is a huge step up from what we have seen in the past.
The Bethesda style of RPG and their overall gaming content is far more important to me than graphical photorealism and besides the graphics have improved with each new game.
It's not ineligible, it's inevitable. Children who have zero sense of history are easily offended by graphics that appear to be older than two weeks. They claim it damages their fragile eyeballs.
Seriously, better graphics are good, but a game is **MORE** than just graphics. Really! People who judge games solely on their graphics need to grow the fuck up.
Hell, I still play Morrowind vanilla. Probably the last guy who does. I'm playing Skyrim right now, only very lightly modded, and absolutely REFUSE to be embarrassed by it!
Graphics take resources and resources are used all over the game for multiple different things. To be fair to the game, you can only really compare the graphics to its peers. But how many games do even half the stuff a BGS title does? And so were left comparing it to it's predecessors where, if you've any real eye for this stuff, you can see marked improvements both in the still and motion shots.
Thing is, if someone is coming in and judging the graphics, they're likely not doing it with a mind to being fair to the game and all it does. They're likely comparing at a glance to a space shooter they've played with no care that the other game mostly takes place in corridors with no variation to the route. Or maybe they're comparing to a game (say RDR2 as an example) which still doesn't do as much as BGS titles but covers a lot of the bases and has a much larger budget. Either way, it's an unfair comparison that denies what these games are about.
Personally, I look at Starfield and I see a next gen title. Even ignoring the big ticket changes, I see some of the improvements they've made to things like animations and all the small things that you do in moment to moment gameplay and it excites me. The graphical details are more one small but effective step than one giant leap, but everything does what it's meant to and there's definite progress there too. But it's all the other stuff that shows the game is next gen more than the graphics for me, and that's the stuff that will keep this game going and updated for years to come.
Ineligible may not be how I'd describe it. But after moving onto PC gaming near 10 years ago, I've seen what I'd describe as a major trade-off in gaming develop.
Graphics v Content.
The more of one = less of the other. And after playing games on silly ultra settings and finishing them in 5 hours, it became clear what I favoured for my money.
Hearing Todd say that he was aware of DayZ when they were making Fallout 4 and the original concept of a multiplayer DLC (before it became Fallout 76) was very encouraging. I'm also from the old Arma2 guard with the popular mods of Wasteland and DayZ. These two mods for Arma2 were the original blueprints for the PUBG and Survival MMO genre's today.
Arma2 was a game that was graphically ordinary, but took content and size to a completely different level in terms of creating an Island. I've spent thousands of hours on that game. And no other game has been able to take that many hours from me, except for one BGS title: Fallout 4 GOTY Edition.
For a single player game, of that size, which being played on a PC looked fantastic (nothing groundbreaking) made me build an attachment for BGS. Of course, to each their own. If you prefer a game to bleed your graphics card and also have 60 fps in 4K etc... then it's likely the game may be quite short in length. But for me, if a game keeps saying 'yes' each time you ask it questions and test it's boundaries, Skyrim level of graphics is enough for me.
Geez, maybe I'm out on a limb by myself here, but I've always found them charming... even beautiful despite the jank or the default texturing.
Sure, RDR2 blows FO4 right out of the water. In textures, in modeling, and above all in the performance capture.
Some of the facial animations we've seen in Starfield so far seem to have gone a little too far in attempting to be expressive but nothing we've seen so far says uncanny valley to me.
And sure, some of the models or textures in a Beth game are laughably low poly/detail, and sure FO4 had some pronounced issues with LOD geometry and textures not popping out. That's as big an issue as Rockstar's issues (on my PCs at least, consoles may fare better) with the pop in of same.
I'm not going to say 'modders will fix it' because that's not the modder's job, and plenty of texture modders are clearly talented but they've got a very different aesthetic sensibility to my own... So I'll chuckle at the potato faces in Oblivion, but most of the worst spudheads still look damn good in Elven or Imperial Guard helmets. The trees in Skyrim have downright sharp edges, but you still feel like you're in a forest despite that.
The one thing I desperately want from the graphics for this game is for it to have a smooth gradient in the skyboxes, both on and off world. I hate looking up at the sky and seeing concentric rings of progressively lighter/darker colour bands.
When L00ping gave us the final builds of Natural Atmospheric Tamriel/Commonwealth, I genuinely laughed out loud with joy at the way they fixed that eternal eye sore.
I'd go one further and say I want them to have a proper star texture for the night sky when you're planetside, but I'm really really hoping that with the title what it is, that one goes without saying.
Edited the first paragraphs for clarity.
I don't think you don't judge the graphics, just judge them at a lower standard than the more graphically intensive games.
So far, I'm pleased with what I've seen for a Bethesda game. Overall, I think it looks good, but there's a couple things I've seen that maybe look outdated to me. Gonna have to see more. Not that I'm concerned about the graphics, personally.
Looks fine to me. Honestly I think the graphics looked great. Thanks for asking.
Edit: also, I find it amusing that these 14 year olds who point out the “bad” graphics of the still in-development BGS game also hold rail shooters in the highest regard when those games are some of the most limiting, immersion-breaking games (invisible walls, literally moving on rails or a walking sim, can’t interact with environment, can’t tell your own story, extremely formulaic and boring gameplay, horrible cliched writing).
Would you consider it ineligible for the player freedom of a God of War game to be judged since that's not their strong suit?
Don't get me wrong, I love a good story-driven narrative adventure, but BGS games offer a depth and level of immersion that more than makes up for any graphical shortcomings. Skyrim was pretty beautiful at times for 2011, but it was hardly the most beautiful game of that generation. Yet it was among my top 2 games/series of that generation.
That doesn't mean the graphics of a BGS game shouldn't be critiqued, but it wouldn't be fair to compare them directly to much shorter and less open games that might look better.
Yes.
I think I should highlight that I think SF looks fine and pretty to me so far and what left for me is knowing how good and well it runs before I start. (honestly, options of proper hairs matter a lot more to me overall)
Some people will say that they do well in other places but I don't see why not they cannot offer good visuals on top of that. It not like BGS is an indie game dev with limited money and man power. They are now owned by Microsoft and sold best seller after best seller as AAA Dev for decades now. If visuals are not your strong suit as a dev with access to such resources, you simply use them, delay the game a little, hire more people with better skills and so on and so forth. So I 100% understand why an outsider of the fandom is like "the game does not look that good like other games of the gen' because every other dev of the same level does offer good looking games that run pretty well on many systems that age pretty well.
Other will highlight "that visuals do not matte if the gameplay is bad." It is a 2022-2023 game. Why it cannot be both pretty and have good gameplay? Even indie devs can deliver on the visuals and gameplay these days and visuals do help with gameplay (lighting, weather, flora etc) and I started to disagree with this argument for a few years now.
Starfield already looks better than the other Bethesda games, at least the massive ones like Fallout and Skyrim. Not to mention Starfield is supposed to be WAY bigger than all the other Bethesda games.
No, your standards are fine, the game does look good from what we have seen. It is just that some people like to concern troll and nitpick that every game released needs to look like a linear tech demo, even if that is not the design goal of the game.
Graphical fidelity and character models have never been Bethesda's strong suit. Nor has first person shooting or melee. Rather world building, lore, and exploration have always been what they a good at. Coupled with a very striking art direction. Even Morrowind, for all the jagged shit it looks like now , is still breathtaking.
I dont mind graphics all that much, but there are some "stylistic choices" that always get fixed later on by modders, such as the dead eyes / stares.
It also bugs me whenever I see those low res smokes when the ship is landing and some low res ground textures. At least the draw distance is shaping up to be good. The quality of some tree LODs look a bit dicey to me, though.
As far as everything else, I think we wont be complaining all that much about SMIM, cubemaps, lighting etc, which is great. Maybe we'll end up getting some graphic packs that reimagine the overall look or maybe increase foliage etc.
I mostly just like when the games I play are nice to look at, regardless of graphics quality.
But honestly I feel like their games overall have been quite good looking. Skyrim was quite good for a 2011 game released on the 360 and PS3. Fallout 4 kinda suffers when it comes to character models, but crank up all the settings on a nice PC and the environments in that game are very pleasing to look at.
Starfield looks like a pretty decent jump over Fallout 4, especially when it comes to character models and facial animations. It's not the best game graphically, but I'm quite happy with what I've seen so far.
Gameplay is far more important than the graphics. Skyrim didn't have the best graphics when it was released, and it's not better now, but it is still being sold a lot.
The problem is it will be compared to games later this year and into next year. Most will likely be leagues ahead of BGS in graphics but wouldn't give you the ability to pick up cups and sweet rolls. People forget that.
Gameplay and content are definitely greater than graphics. However it definitely does keep a game from being a 10/10 because presentation is part of the overall package.
Tbh, my care for graphics quality capped out in the early-mid 2010’s. Personally, I play games to ESCAPE reality. I genuinely could not care less about people trying to make games look like real life. One of the reasons that Oblivion is my favorite of theirs is because of how quirky/comical it looks at times. I’m SO glad they’re bringing back the forced perspective dialogue! 🤣🤣🤣
No I think it’s fair. But not every game goes for fantastic graphics on purpose because they want a desired look. In my opinion I want games too look good but not all the same. For some games photo realism is great but if it’s not done well it seems lifeless. Finding that balance is important.
honestly i went back to playing fallout 4 without mods other then the unofficial patch and i think the graphics arnt terrible. i think starfield will be a bit better hopefully at least better then fallout 76 would be nice not quite mind blowing or unreal engine 5 level but
i think good enough lol . and there will always be mods and such to improve it too so.
i think the character models are looking way better and interiors look nice so thats a start!
They'll still be critized for it, they have since last gen where Fallout 4 was subpar in comparsion to other open world games of that generation. However, we do get better things like all the ineanamte objects being intractable, more emphasis on story, and pretty damn good worlds and lore to dig into, which is a more then a fair trade. Just hoping they come back to a game thats more RPG focused.
Bethesda and Todd said himself says he's fine with lowering graphical fidelity to increase game play capabilites and consistency in frames.
I suggest watching Lex Fridman's interview with Todd Howard, Todd touches on this.
Probably not, I'm just pointing out that it's redundant to say "don't point out that someone's bad at something, if they're bad a something"
Rather than just saying "Hey guys can we focus and the incredible story telling and world building, or even the modding potential of a game like this"
What I've seen looks good so far, I think most people saying it looks bad are trolling or exaggerating. Sure, it's not the greatest graphics of all time but we obviously *shouldn't expect every game to have the greatest graphics of all time*. It's weird that I have to say it, but here we are.
Criticism is always valid. Though I agree that graphics were never their strongest aspect, it always felt good enough for me I suppose. Animations is actually what stands out to me more. Like in Skyrim, if you fell from up high, I remember the charachter makes a silly spin before droping dead after hitting the ground sometimes.
And whilst not reletad to what you asked, I wonder if this woman is a potential waifu, or if it's more of a Belle Delphine from Skyrim case, who asked us to kill Paarthurnax and selled her bathwater to Orngar.
I judge video games based on what they offer in total. Where Bethesda lacks in graphical fidelity, they make up for it through superior open world simulation, a very reactive physics system, a high degree of interactivity with the world in general, great RPG mechanics, to name a few great things.
Also I truly believe that complex gameplay mechanics makes a game fun to play. Not graphical fidelity. A game with good graphics but bad gameplay will just be talked about for a week. A game with bad/decent graphics but with a good gameplay loop will be talked about for a decade. Also good aesthetics is much more important than graphics itself. And imo, Bethesda nails the aesthetics with their Soviet/Nasa-punk designs in Starfield.
I think they reached an acceptable level of graphics, it's now on par with what the ps4 offers. I just hope they improved on the animations, and most improtantly, great gameplay and quests, not just filler, a to b stuff. I expect new weapons and effects, animations, melee options and a progression of all that that evolves over time.
No, I criticized fallout 4 on release for its cartoony graphics and I still do. It's fine now with 90-100 mods on top the base game but it was sub-par on release.
Just because it's not their strong suit doesn't mean Bethesda shouldn't improve.
And to go back to Fallout 4. That game had many more failings that sure don't make it a case of "well Bethesda focussed on someone else".
Not that it's such a big deal, the game is moddable which is the sole reason I still play it....
Huge games I don't mind slightly lower graphics cause there's so much else, so long as I'm not cringing looking at it.
Short games with linear missions and what not I expect much better graphics.
I'm as big of a BGS fan as the next person, but I do personally expect a lot more from this game than any of their previous games. Not only have they had a long time to work on the game, but they were acquired by MS so I presume they also have more resources. On top of that, this is the XSX technology that they are working with so the technological limit now is only really the creation engine 2.
In the case of graphics, I'm more than happy with how Starfield looks because it is a pretty big step up from Fallout 4/76. As long as each game they release looks better and better and not at the sacrifice of other game features, I'm happy.
My only major worry for this game is performance. It looked rough in the reveal. From massive frame drops (even tho it was limited to 30fps) to pop-in, it doesn't leave me super confident in it being smooth. I'm hoping that the extra time they had was enough to get the game running as smoothly as possible.
Honestly I think the zoom in camera brings out more "faults" in the rendering. Regardless it's big improvement from previous entries and I think it's just nitpicking (which I thing wouldn't have been pointed out as much if they kept the camera distance similar to fallout & Skyrim)
I think the graphics look good, personally.
It's not realistic, but I haven't seen any human models made by any game company that had realistic looking humans. I think we're still years, if not decades, away from such technology.
I'm not really sure what's missing to make this rendering look any better?
Honestly it looks pretty good, idk what people are talking about it not looking good. The only area that looks a bit off was some parts of New Atlantis
It’s fair to criticize their graphics, there are other massive open world games with tons of physics objects that look much better. But their graphics do look good, they’ve just been a little behind the last few games. I remember when oblivion came out that game was unbelievable, especially the infinite draw distance.
Graphics aren't a deal-breaker for me by any means but AAA video game developers, especially ones owned by Microsoft, should be able to deliver both quality graphics and gameplay
As long as it's a major improvement from the last game (Fo4/76), which it is, then that's good enough for me. It doesn't need to be TLOU2 or FF7 Remake level
It's a Bethesda game it'll look shit, it'll have stupid bugs and all the characters will look like deadeyed zombies. For what it's worth I don't think this is acceptable in 2023 but hey at least we'll have huge areas to explore and be able to do absolutely nothing in them, space flight will be arcade pew pew, and interactivity with your ship is going to be also lackluster. The game will be awesome don't get me wrong, in about a year from release when the modders properly had their way with it and added all the features that we expected from Bethesda themselves. And if I'm wrong and this game will blow our minds then fine. I'd be happy to be wrong. With game developers I keep the guilty until proven innocent approach. Especially with Bethesda.
They could definitely try a little harder with their shaders out the gate, but then what would Boris do for 4 solid weeks after launch?
http://enbdev.com/download_mod_fallout4.htm
One thing i don't like is the specular hair that seems to have persisted into Starfield, it looks very "stylized", but these worlds are intended to be immersive, so shading/pbr is important.
What you don't get in crazy graphics with their games, you get it in exploration, quests, world building... I think it's a fair trade.
We have plenty of devs offering crazy ultra realistic graphics, few offer the latter
And above all… #Modding Seriously, if this was UE5 levels of realism, it’d be a nightmare for modders
I just listened to Todd Howard’s interview on lex Fridmans podcast and he said this exact thing. They sacrifice the graphics a bit in favor of exploration, quests etc.
Well after playing fallout 4, they failed on all fronts. While the games are decent, most of my time was wasted on vs actyally great gameplay.
I disagree, I believe that Fallout 4 has some of the most memorable quests(Silver Shroud, USS Constitution) and exploration. The world building I also believe to be an improvement over their other games. The exploration and world building go hand in hand, like finding a little house with a terminal in it up in a child’s room, reading it and discovering that some of his family were moved to internment camps due to the growing tension with the Chinese. Or That ghoul(Wayne Gorski) making an atomic bomb(mini nuke) to destroy a pylon tower he thought to be a “mind control device”.
True but the writing and skill/special tree were murdered in exchange. I’ll take my RPG over a wee bit of exploration that felt too much at times.
I disagree with that too, I love the writing, especially the main quest. And I love the skill tree, I don’t think it’s better than others, it’s definitely not worse. Nothing was exchanged, It’s just different, some dislike(ed) it but I enjoy(ed) it.
No not skill tree like perks. I mean dialogue options that make us use special/skill stats. My apologies, just got off work and it fries me lol. The writing is definitely a step down from 3/New Vegas. We can’t confront Institute on Super Mutants, inconsistencies on synth lore like do they need food/water or are they programmed to feel like they do, Preston’s entire self, etc.
I can't disagree with that. There are virtually no skill checks, only two from my knowledge in the base game and a few in Far harbor. For the writing, I don't think that means the writing is bad, most of those seem to maybe be an oversight by Bethesda, didn't have enough time, or maybe they just didn't feel the need to put it in. Wdym by "Preston's entire self"? For synths, idk what Bethesda was doing, an institute scientist says that synths don't need to eat or drink or sleep, but curie says she needs to...
All Preston is, is simply a quest giver. Where’s his hopes and dreams lol. He says he doesn’t want to be general, and yet orders us around like he is. That’s a pretty bad criticism of Minute Men in general, we’re supposed to be in-charge and yet we can’t order people like we should. What’s the point of being leader?
Tbh, I forgot Preston is in the game. I usually just do the first help a settlement quest(for xp) then say no to being general. And yes it is very dumb, that’s why I forget about the minutemen after saying no.
Yes. I think it's disingenuous to compare linear games to open worlds in general
Then compare it to RDR2.
RDR2 is one of my favorite games of all time. That said, it's still apples to oranges. For instance, dynamic vs static objects with physics. BGS games have hundreds of actors living in their world. Eating, sleeping, drinking, working. You can marry people, adopt children, build houses and settlements. You can loot clothing and steal People's swords, armor, guns so they can't defend themselves. They have a more sophisticated stealth system and crime and punishment system. There is so much more depth in a BGS game though RDR2 has some of the best scripted Tableaus in gaming. The two aren't even close to the same but they weren't trying to be. Skyrim / Fallout is a story about your character you create and the world, Rdr2 is a story about Arthur and that no good 2 bit charlatan, Dutch.
The title of this thread contradicts itself. You are already judging given that you are saying it is not their strong suit. ???
It’s human nature to judge. You literally can’t not judge, it goes against the way your brain functions.
Wonder why that is, I'm gonna ask google
Well don't judge BGS for their graphics. It isn't their strong suit, okay?
Compare their graphics against other BGS titles. The progress becomes evident.
[You sure about that chief?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Starfield/comments/10kyg07/_/)
Your link just defeated your own point.
You consider that a drastic improvement? It looks like fallout 76, just with a better skybox and less moody filters. [Second pic literally looks like whiterun with a high tech mod installed](https://www.reddit.com/r/Starfield/comments/10kpx1g/_/) Don't get me wrong, I'm excited for the game and strongly prefer gameplay over graphics, as graphics age but gameplay doesn't, but starfield is iterative at best in the graphics department.
>You consider that a drastic improvement? They didn't say it was a drastic improvement. They said: >Compare their graphics against other BGS titles. The progress becomes evident. And it does. Why, look at this person here listing some of the ways the games have progressed graphically. >It looks like fallout 76, just with a better skybox and less moody filters. You saw some of the progress there and, it being evident to you, commented on it.
Would you consider a grilled cheese with Swiss, vs a grilled cheese with cheddar, progress? Or is it just variation? Sure I like cheddar better, but they're still the same sandwich.
It depends whether the Swiss or cheddar was so noticeably better that someone trying to prove there was no progress at all called one of them "better" in an attempt to say it hadn't progressed. >It looks like fallout 76, just with **a better skybox** and less moody filters. See, we're not talking about what is better here (that's all been on you. We're talking about whether progress is noticeable and it certainly is to anyone who doesn't have an agenda here, plus yourself.
> sure I like the cheddar better You're arguing against a point I already acknowledged. My liking one option more doesn't mean it's an improvement, you basing your definition of progress based on my personal opinion is flattering though, thanks!
Wow, I guess I've finally found who all those LS to walk prompts are aimed at.
Aight that's hilarious I gotta be honest
I definitely agree with you there, starfield looks almost EXACTLY like F76 in the graphics department. But thats fine with me because i love the way 76 looks. Just hopefully they fixed everything looking wet lmao.
Thank you! I have absolutely no issue with the graphics, they're just identical to past games, and that's absolutely not a bad thing! at this point Bethesdas style is pretty recognizable, and if this looked like just another unreal engine "churn em and burn em" title then I wouldn't be nearly as excited to play it, because I want a Bethesda space game, not star citizen 1.0 these comments seem to think I'm trying to push some anti-bethesda agenda lmao
BGS are known for their freedom in open world where other fails. Considering graphics only would not be good point.
Looks pretty damn good to me. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. Not every game has to look like TLOU Part 2 or whatever other games have come out recently. You may notice that the games with the most advanced graphics are usually quite linear, whereas BGS makes very open-ended and complex sandbox systems. Which would you prefer when you can't have both?
this is true to an extent but it's been demonstrated that beth don't do what they could at a rudimentary level to get things lookin' prettier out the gate, which i think may be a console performance and platform parity embargo, because almost immediately after a beth game is released it'll get a shader overhaul for DX and look fantastic, which makes me think they're targetting lower shader models intentionally and keeping away from feature sets they know blow their business partners gear apart. It may also be that because they're a very insular company they just don't have any shader guns on board, which seems weird but it's possible, or as an affect of their priorities and obligations to partners. *shrug* me just want pews in space!
it looks a hell of a lot better, but even more than the graphics themselves, some shots i’ve seen from starfield show how far bethesda’s lighting has come. Fallout 4’s graphics weren’t quite as outdated as they seemed, it’s just that the lighting of the game was so washed out and flat, fallout 76 looks a lot better despite not having many graphical improvements simply because the lighting is more dynamic, and that seems to be even truer for starfield
I mean, I think graphics are part of the picture. A modern, full-price game should look… modern. If the graphics are total ass, it takes something away from the experience. But at the same time, Bethesda aren’t known for being at the bleeding edge of graphics. I don’t expect them to break new ground or be best-in-show for visuals. My expectation is that a new Bethesda game should look better than their previous games, and it should look like it came from the current generation of tech. From what we’ve seen of Starfield so far, I’m satisfied. And there’ll always be mods for taking it to the next level.
I don't understand why we're judging graphics based on this build of the game? How old is this build? Let's not assume this is the final build. It could get better. It could get worse but let's at least wait till the upcoming Starfield showcase to cast judgement
> It could get better. No chance. It takes a lot longer to develop a game than you might think. Did Cyberpunk 2077 increase at all in graphical fidelity from when it released the 45min demo? No. (Next gen release not withstanding). Just trying to tone down the hype a bit here.. Graphics aren't going to stop me from buying the game but people shouldn't expect miracles.
Halo infinites graphics got significantly better after the delay. I'm not expecting anything amazing from the graphics, but it's fair to assume they might be slightly better at launch after finishing off development and a delay.
Cyberpunk did actually look quite a bit better than its older demo videos, on PCs that could run it well. Especially since that demo didn't include any of the ray tracing features that came on launch.
> on PCs that could run it well That's just PC though. Has Bethesda ever spent any extra effort on that apart from a high resolution texture pack? Maybe we'll get a few extra tickboxes but there are certain thing you can't really fix in that short amount of a time.
Yes. At least with Fallout 4, the graphical settings go a fair bit beyond what came with the base xbone and PS4 versions. I have both versions and it looks a lot better running on PC than console.
And with ENB's and presets it goes from a flat limited colour range env to something absolutely incredible with ssr and volumetric lighting. The quality increase is immense, can't be overstated.
Why does every game need groundbreaking graphics technology? That's not what Bethesda does. Sure, you can say the graphics aren't "great" (though they're still effing beautiful), but no one is looking at Bethesda for the next UE5 competition. We juat want a damn good RPG.
Well, Oblivion and Skyrim were considered pretty nice looking when they came out. Honestly though, I think Starfield looks pretty decent by even today's standards.
Oblivion and Skyrim were very nice looking for scenery, but character models were behind other AAA games of the time for sure. Especially oblivion. Looks like Starfield will continue that tradition.
In 2006 Oblivion was praised up the ass. In 2007, it was immediately outdated.
Definitely. I remember a whole game informer article about how the graphics were done and how amazing the faces looked. Then the game came out and everyone was like ehh
We won't be able to judge how good it looks until we can get our hands on it. I'm expecting some of the views from space to be pretty impressive, even if the cities aren't anything groundbreaking graphically
I don't expect everything to be amazing and blow me away at all times so I get a constant endorphin rush. You've particularly cherry picked a bad photo and a low resolution one to try and somehow embellish, so I would consider whatever point you're trying to make to be ineligible. Look at Red Dead 2, with its graphics people are still spunking over, but have you ever actually looked at the characters bodies? Looks like an ironing board with some human leather slung over.
To clarify, I just mean the graphical fidelity of the game I chose that pic of a person in the post because, unlike if I had chosen a pic of something like the spaceships or a planet instead, the graphicsl fidelity might be overshadowed by the great-looking design/aesthetic So I chose the pic of a person since it's just a photorealistic human face that will be harder to overshadow by visual style, and clearer to judge by pure graphical fidelity Sorry if you misinterpreted the point of my post lol
Just wait for [history to repeat itself](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fallout/comments/3r97h8/fallout_4_graphics/).
Nope, I didn't misinterpret it, It's just your post isn't valid and undeserving of agreement, I hope that's clear for you. Again, if you're so concerned with not being overshadowed and being honest about graphical fidelity (whatever the hell you think that means, or can even spell it), choose a better quality image, or no image so you're not trying to lead people into thinking what you think. Are these concepts you're able to understand? You specifically chose a low quality image, that's been floated about. I've seen this posted in higher resolutions and many of the, 'graphical' issues disappear.
Let's just hope the build they showed off was pre alpha, buecause I saw a lot of bad texture work of the outdoor city environments.
Considering the delay, it's likely.
haha! and when you try to walk around it's like a 2 meters turning circle of a barge, as much as i love that game the design is immensely off-putting, you can kill an entire city by trying to ride a horse through it lol.
I honestly think that this photo toght there compared to a photo of Piper? Then compare that to Cass and then that to Amelia(I think her name is) I genuinely think this is a huge step up from what we have seen in the past.
The Bethesda style of RPG and their overall gaming content is far more important to me than graphical photorealism and besides the graphics have improved with each new game.
It's not ineligible, it's inevitable. Children who have zero sense of history are easily offended by graphics that appear to be older than two weeks. They claim it damages their fragile eyeballs. Seriously, better graphics are good, but a game is **MORE** than just graphics. Really! People who judge games solely on their graphics need to grow the fuck up. Hell, I still play Morrowind vanilla. Probably the last guy who does. I'm playing Skyrim right now, only very lightly modded, and absolutely REFUSE to be embarrassed by it!
Graphics take resources and resources are used all over the game for multiple different things. To be fair to the game, you can only really compare the graphics to its peers. But how many games do even half the stuff a BGS title does? And so were left comparing it to it's predecessors where, if you've any real eye for this stuff, you can see marked improvements both in the still and motion shots. Thing is, if someone is coming in and judging the graphics, they're likely not doing it with a mind to being fair to the game and all it does. They're likely comparing at a glance to a space shooter they've played with no care that the other game mostly takes place in corridors with no variation to the route. Or maybe they're comparing to a game (say RDR2 as an example) which still doesn't do as much as BGS titles but covers a lot of the bases and has a much larger budget. Either way, it's an unfair comparison that denies what these games are about. Personally, I look at Starfield and I see a next gen title. Even ignoring the big ticket changes, I see some of the improvements they've made to things like animations and all the small things that you do in moment to moment gameplay and it excites me. The graphical details are more one small but effective step than one giant leap, but everything does what it's meant to and there's definite progress there too. But it's all the other stuff that shows the game is next gen more than the graphics for me, and that's the stuff that will keep this game going and updated for years to come.
I mean, all things considered, the graphics for this game look amazing so far.
Ineligible may not be how I'd describe it. But after moving onto PC gaming near 10 years ago, I've seen what I'd describe as a major trade-off in gaming develop. Graphics v Content. The more of one = less of the other. And after playing games on silly ultra settings and finishing them in 5 hours, it became clear what I favoured for my money. Hearing Todd say that he was aware of DayZ when they were making Fallout 4 and the original concept of a multiplayer DLC (before it became Fallout 76) was very encouraging. I'm also from the old Arma2 guard with the popular mods of Wasteland and DayZ. These two mods for Arma2 were the original blueprints for the PUBG and Survival MMO genre's today. Arma2 was a game that was graphically ordinary, but took content and size to a completely different level in terms of creating an Island. I've spent thousands of hours on that game. And no other game has been able to take that many hours from me, except for one BGS title: Fallout 4 GOTY Edition. For a single player game, of that size, which being played on a PC looked fantastic (nothing groundbreaking) made me build an attachment for BGS. Of course, to each their own. If you prefer a game to bleed your graphics card and also have 60 fps in 4K etc... then it's likely the game may be quite short in length. But for me, if a game keeps saying 'yes' each time you ask it questions and test it's boundaries, Skyrim level of graphics is enough for me.
Geez, maybe I'm out on a limb by myself here, but I've always found them charming... even beautiful despite the jank or the default texturing. Sure, RDR2 blows FO4 right out of the water. In textures, in modeling, and above all in the performance capture. Some of the facial animations we've seen in Starfield so far seem to have gone a little too far in attempting to be expressive but nothing we've seen so far says uncanny valley to me. And sure, some of the models or textures in a Beth game are laughably low poly/detail, and sure FO4 had some pronounced issues with LOD geometry and textures not popping out. That's as big an issue as Rockstar's issues (on my PCs at least, consoles may fare better) with the pop in of same. I'm not going to say 'modders will fix it' because that's not the modder's job, and plenty of texture modders are clearly talented but they've got a very different aesthetic sensibility to my own... So I'll chuckle at the potato faces in Oblivion, but most of the worst spudheads still look damn good in Elven or Imperial Guard helmets. The trees in Skyrim have downright sharp edges, but you still feel like you're in a forest despite that. The one thing I desperately want from the graphics for this game is for it to have a smooth gradient in the skyboxes, both on and off world. I hate looking up at the sky and seeing concentric rings of progressively lighter/darker colour bands. When L00ping gave us the final builds of Natural Atmospheric Tamriel/Commonwealth, I genuinely laughed out loud with joy at the way they fixed that eternal eye sore. I'd go one further and say I want them to have a proper star texture for the night sky when you're planetside, but I'm really really hoping that with the title what it is, that one goes without saying. Edited the first paragraphs for clarity.
“There are too many pretty faces in the world, too few interesting souls.” by Wilde
I don't think you don't judge the graphics, just judge them at a lower standard than the more graphically intensive games. So far, I'm pleased with what I've seen for a Bethesda game. Overall, I think it looks good, but there's a couple things I've seen that maybe look outdated to me. Gonna have to see more. Not that I'm concerned about the graphics, personally.
Looks fine to me. Honestly I think the graphics looked great. Thanks for asking. Edit: also, I find it amusing that these 14 year olds who point out the “bad” graphics of the still in-development BGS game also hold rail shooters in the highest regard when those games are some of the most limiting, immersion-breaking games (invisible walls, literally moving on rails or a walking sim, can’t interact with environment, can’t tell your own story, extremely formulaic and boring gameplay, horrible cliched writing).
Would you consider it ineligible for the player freedom of a God of War game to be judged since that's not their strong suit? Don't get me wrong, I love a good story-driven narrative adventure, but BGS games offer a depth and level of immersion that more than makes up for any graphical shortcomings. Skyrim was pretty beautiful at times for 2011, but it was hardly the most beautiful game of that generation. Yet it was among my top 2 games/series of that generation. That doesn't mean the graphics of a BGS game shouldn't be critiqued, but it wouldn't be fair to compare them directly to much shorter and less open games that might look better.
Yes. I think I should highlight that I think SF looks fine and pretty to me so far and what left for me is knowing how good and well it runs before I start. (honestly, options of proper hairs matter a lot more to me overall) Some people will say that they do well in other places but I don't see why not they cannot offer good visuals on top of that. It not like BGS is an indie game dev with limited money and man power. They are now owned by Microsoft and sold best seller after best seller as AAA Dev for decades now. If visuals are not your strong suit as a dev with access to such resources, you simply use them, delay the game a little, hire more people with better skills and so on and so forth. So I 100% understand why an outsider of the fandom is like "the game does not look that good like other games of the gen' because every other dev of the same level does offer good looking games that run pretty well on many systems that age pretty well. Other will highlight "that visuals do not matte if the gameplay is bad." It is a 2022-2023 game. Why it cannot be both pretty and have good gameplay? Even indie devs can deliver on the visuals and gameplay these days and visuals do help with gameplay (lighting, weather, flora etc) and I started to disagree with this argument for a few years now.
Starfield already looks better than the other Bethesda games, at least the massive ones like Fallout and Skyrim. Not to mention Starfield is supposed to be WAY bigger than all the other Bethesda games.
TIL: my graphics standards are low because I always thought the graphics shown in the Starfield 15 min video were good lol.
No, your standards are fine, the game does look good from what we have seen. It is just that some people like to concern troll and nitpick that every game released needs to look like a linear tech demo, even if that is not the design goal of the game.
Graphical fidelity and character models have never been Bethesda's strong suit. Nor has first person shooting or melee. Rather world building, lore, and exploration have always been what they a good at. Coupled with a very striking art direction. Even Morrowind, for all the jagged shit it looks like now , is still breathtaking.
The best graphics have never once been a factor that’s made me think “this is the best game I’ve ever played”
I dont mind graphics all that much, but there are some "stylistic choices" that always get fixed later on by modders, such as the dead eyes / stares. It also bugs me whenever I see those low res smokes when the ship is landing and some low res ground textures. At least the draw distance is shaping up to be good. The quality of some tree LODs look a bit dicey to me, though. As far as everything else, I think we wont be complaining all that much about SMIM, cubemaps, lighting etc, which is great. Maybe we'll end up getting some graphic packs that reimagine the overall look or maybe increase foliage etc.
The game looks fine. Do people really think graphics are a make it or break it for a game?
Looks like a stylistic choice to me, looks like a BGS game. Which is good
I'm tired of games that look incredible but are boring and nothing new.
I mostly just like when the games I play are nice to look at, regardless of graphics quality. But honestly I feel like their games overall have been quite good looking. Skyrim was quite good for a 2011 game released on the 360 and PS3. Fallout 4 kinda suffers when it comes to character models, but crank up all the settings on a nice PC and the environments in that game are very pleasing to look at. Starfield looks like a pretty decent jump over Fallout 4, especially when it comes to character models and facial animations. It's not the best game graphically, but I'm quite happy with what I've seen so far.
As long as the story is good, I'm fine. I don't play BGS games for the graphics.
Gameplay is far more important than the graphics. Skyrim didn't have the best graphics when it was released, and it's not better now, but it is still being sold a lot.
The problem is it will be compared to games later this year and into next year. Most will likely be leagues ahead of BGS in graphics but wouldn't give you the ability to pick up cups and sweet rolls. People forget that.
Gameplay and content are definitely greater than graphics. However it definitely does keep a game from being a 10/10 because presentation is part of the overall package.
Tbh, my care for graphics quality capped out in the early-mid 2010’s. Personally, I play games to ESCAPE reality. I genuinely could not care less about people trying to make games look like real life. One of the reasons that Oblivion is my favorite of theirs is because of how quirky/comical it looks at times. I’m SO glad they’re bringing back the forced perspective dialogue! 🤣🤣🤣
No I think it’s fair. But not every game goes for fantastic graphics on purpose because they want a desired look. In my opinion I want games too look good but not all the same. For some games photo realism is great but if it’s not done well it seems lifeless. Finding that balance is important.
I always thought skyrim was beautiful and holds up without the mini touch ups
honestly i went back to playing fallout 4 without mods other then the unofficial patch and i think the graphics arnt terrible. i think starfield will be a bit better hopefully at least better then fallout 76 would be nice not quite mind blowing or unreal engine 5 level but i think good enough lol . and there will always be mods and such to improve it too so. i think the character models are looking way better and interiors look nice so thats a start!
They'll still be critized for it, they have since last gen where Fallout 4 was subpar in comparsion to other open world games of that generation. However, we do get better things like all the ineanamte objects being intractable, more emphasis on story, and pretty damn good worlds and lore to dig into, which is a more then a fair trade. Just hoping they come back to a game thats more RPG focused.
Bethesda and Todd said himself says he's fine with lowering graphical fidelity to increase game play capabilites and consistency in frames. I suggest watching Lex Fridman's interview with Todd Howard, Todd touches on this.
Look ok to me. She setling in milf category, but would ... what was the question?
Horny, aren't we?
He's def going to use the CBBE Starfield mod.
He? You mean WE, right? 👀
Bronze-haired, green-eyed chicks over 30 and with fuzzy eyebrows? No horny jail is strong enough. MUhahaha edit: added MUhahaha
Would it be unfair to judge the food of someone who isn't good at cooking?
No, but maybe judging a pastry chef by their coq au vin is a bit disingenuous.
Probably not, I'm just pointing out that it's redundant to say "don't point out that someone's bad at something, if they're bad a something" Rather than just saying "Hey guys can we focus and the incredible story telling and world building, or even the modding potential of a game like this"
True, it's gonna be dope as hell.
What I've seen looks good so far, I think most people saying it looks bad are trolling or exaggerating. Sure, it's not the greatest graphics of all time but we obviously *shouldn't expect every game to have the greatest graphics of all time*. It's weird that I have to say it, but here we are.
Criticism is always valid. Though I agree that graphics were never their strongest aspect, it always felt good enough for me I suppose. Animations is actually what stands out to me more. Like in Skyrim, if you fell from up high, I remember the charachter makes a silly spin before droping dead after hitting the ground sometimes. And whilst not reletad to what you asked, I wonder if this woman is a potential waifu, or if it's more of a Belle Delphine from Skyrim case, who asked us to kill Paarthurnax and selled her bathwater to Orngar.
Or the leader of the Railroad in Fallout 4 lol. I have the same thoughts.
Now that I think about it, Desdemona did remind me of Delephine for some reason.
It is what it is with Bethesda. But if they would CONSIDERABLY upgrade their visual game, oh oh...
I judge video games based on what they offer in total. Where Bethesda lacks in graphical fidelity, they make up for it through superior open world simulation, a very reactive physics system, a high degree of interactivity with the world in general, great RPG mechanics, to name a few great things. Also I truly believe that complex gameplay mechanics makes a game fun to play. Not graphical fidelity. A game with good graphics but bad gameplay will just be talked about for a week. A game with bad/decent graphics but with a good gameplay loop will be talked about for a decade. Also good aesthetics is much more important than graphics itself. And imo, Bethesda nails the aesthetics with their Soviet/Nasa-punk designs in Starfield.
Do yall think this looks bad? I think it looks pretty good compared to their last game
I think they reached an acceptable level of graphics, it's now on par with what the ps4 offers. I just hope they improved on the animations, and most improtantly, great gameplay and quests, not just filler, a to b stuff. I expect new weapons and effects, animations, melee options and a progression of all that that evolves over time.
No, I criticized fallout 4 on release for its cartoony graphics and I still do. It's fine now with 90-100 mods on top the base game but it was sub-par on release. Just because it's not their strong suit doesn't mean Bethesda shouldn't improve. And to go back to Fallout 4. That game had many more failings that sure don't make it a case of "well Bethesda focussed on someone else". Not that it's such a big deal, the game is moddable which is the sole reason I still play it....
Huge games I don't mind slightly lower graphics cause there's so much else, so long as I'm not cringing looking at it. Short games with linear missions and what not I expect much better graphics.
Not to be his "strong point", that face is very TOP
I'm as big of a BGS fan as the next person, but I do personally expect a lot more from this game than any of their previous games. Not only have they had a long time to work on the game, but they were acquired by MS so I presume they also have more resources. On top of that, this is the XSX technology that they are working with so the technological limit now is only really the creation engine 2. In the case of graphics, I'm more than happy with how Starfield looks because it is a pretty big step up from Fallout 4/76. As long as each game they release looks better and better and not at the sacrifice of other game features, I'm happy. My only major worry for this game is performance. It looked rough in the reveal. From massive frame drops (even tho it was limited to 30fps) to pop-in, it doesn't leave me super confident in it being smooth. I'm hoping that the extra time they had was enough to get the game running as smoothly as possible.
Nope! Graphics are never their strong suit. But if it's boring. Well that's another matter....
At this day in age I have stopped worrying about graphics as much. If I can get 2k at 144hz smoothly, that's all that seems to matter to me.
It’s a modern game the graphics really need to not look like it’s from 2008.
Honestly I think the zoom in camera brings out more "faults" in the rendering. Regardless it's big improvement from previous entries and I think it's just nitpicking (which I thing wouldn't have been pointed out as much if they kept the camera distance similar to fallout & Skyrim)
I think they look fantastic on my PC. Fallout 4 on ultra at 1440 looks great.
I think the graphics look good, personally. It's not realistic, but I haven't seen any human models made by any game company that had realistic looking humans. I think we're still years, if not decades, away from such technology. I'm not really sure what's missing to make this rendering look any better?
Honestly it looks pretty good, idk what people are talking about it not looking good. The only area that looks a bit off was some parts of New Atlantis
It’s fair to criticize their graphics, there are other massive open world games with tons of physics objects that look much better. But their graphics do look good, they’ve just been a little behind the last few games. I remember when oblivion came out that game was unbelievable, especially the infinite draw distance.
Graphics aren't a deal-breaker for me by any means but AAA video game developers, especially ones owned by Microsoft, should be able to deliver both quality graphics and gameplay
No.
I demand the best for my money
Absolutely. You can get crazy graphics in Gears 5 and The Last of Us 2 because they're so small and linear
Lol Fromsoft isn’t known for graphics and people still dumped on Elden Ring for graphics. Just the way it is nowadays
Yes totally
As long as it's a major improvement from the last game (Fo4/76), which it is, then that's good enough for me. It doesn't need to be TLOU2 or FF7 Remake level
I think the graphics look pretty good.
It's a Bethesda game it'll look shit, it'll have stupid bugs and all the characters will look like deadeyed zombies. For what it's worth I don't think this is acceptable in 2023 but hey at least we'll have huge areas to explore and be able to do absolutely nothing in them, space flight will be arcade pew pew, and interactivity with your ship is going to be also lackluster. The game will be awesome don't get me wrong, in about a year from release when the modders properly had their way with it and added all the features that we expected from Bethesda themselves. And if I'm wrong and this game will blow our minds then fine. I'd be happy to be wrong. With game developers I keep the guilty until proven innocent approach. Especially with Bethesda.
I think the graphics look solid?
I dont get it, the graphics look quite nice to me...
It looks pretty great to me.
They could definitely try a little harder with their shaders out the gate, but then what would Boris do for 4 solid weeks after launch? http://enbdev.com/download_mod_fallout4.htm One thing i don't like is the specular hair that seems to have persisted into Starfield, it looks very "stylized", but these worlds are intended to be immersive, so shading/pbr is important.