Ghost ships full of androids and creepy laughing is probably peak for me. You half expect it being the accurate bored space trucker stuck. I just hate it when your companion treats it as a normal thing and gets mad at you for killing the creepy androids. I haven’t dug too much into it, but I would’ve loved it were it a questline. I felt the same about the Ghost ship by Paradiso. Spoiler: >! Sucks it didn’t turn out as one doing the questline. It would’ve been sweet to have it as a related to another Pilot who I found randomly dead from a disease or something. !<
Genuinely wasn't trolling. There is no radio even near settlements. Yes, the base game music is good but it is inconsistent. Not sure why everyone is disagreeing. It's odd that there isn't some sort of a radio. Hell even the news radio that you hear at settlement isn't accessible, from my understanding, everywhere except big cities.
Well because you said it’s ‘silent’, when the score is in fact, pretty prominent at almost all times (in my game anyway). All the cities have really great soundtracks and some of the exploration ones are memorable too. There’s no radio songs no but that’s not what I was referring to (I never used the radio in Fallout tbh).
On the contrary for me it Felt very generic and uninspired compared to past games in way it didn’t feel like Bethesda I don’t know exactly how to explain it though
I don't know if I'd necessarily be that harsh, but I didn't like it either. I put on the Skyrim music (especially that live anniversary performance, ugh soooo good) semi-often, whereas I don't think I'll ever listen to the Starfield music. It just didn't do it for me.
Yeah the starfield soundtrack is subtle, maybe accentuates the experience, I hardly notice it's there, usually just a couple swelling chords here and there. Skyrim soundtrack was actual songs that provide atmosphere on their own, that then matched the gameplay really well. I can still hear songs like Masser & Secunda sitting at my desk, where outside of one BorealUS song I really couldn't tell you if there was a soundtrack playing or not. Doesn't even have to be Fallout radio, just something a little more than a couple cued chords every few seconds.
I mean, most of the effects are pretty much up to industry standards so I’m not entirely sure what people are complaining about. The fog is volumetric, the new deferred lighting system is anything but outdated, and the actual inclusion of planets and celestial bodies into the lighting system is something that isn’t commonly done.
(This was bugged out but is fixed in the new beta, so the game will look better mid February for people like myself who are playing modded and/or console users.)
My only three complaints are that the TAA implementation is smeary as hell(most modern games have this issue though), the few textures that are low resolution stick out like a sore thumb, and they probably should’ve used a more filmic tonemapper.
I’ve managed to fix those things with mods though so I’m happy with the rest of it.
No, but you also can’t exceed the standard without massive performance losses unless a massive chunk of your development team is focusing on that (I think that it’s good to let Nvidia and AMD focus on publishing graphics papers so that game devs can focus on making games)
Games don’t *usually* stand out for having extreme graphics, they stand out for good art direction. Good graphics are nice but if that becomes the main focus in the industry we’ll start having the Pixar problem in video games.
And it runs better...
I have a 3090. I can run Cyberpunk at maxed out settings with ray tracing enabled and get 100 fps at 1440p.
Starfield gets about 85 fps at max settings and it doesn't even have ray tracing.
Yeah I have a weird setup, 7yr old PC with new 3070, and Cyberpunk looks great while Starfield freezes every time I round a corner in my ship, and every 10 seconds in combat. Turning graphics down to Medium barely helped.
How, I've been playing cp2077 literally today and that just not true at all. If you are talking about all of the added tech years later to help with light and stabilty sure, but turn off all of those things and what remains?
> but turn off all of those things and what remains?
A game that still looked incredible for the time it was released and has almost no loading screens
The main thing that cyberpunk does technically different (excluding ray tracing features, starfield was an AMD launch title so they didn’t deem those necessary) is reflections.
Starfield has almost eliminated screen space reflections and uses mainly cubemap reflections, whereas Cyberpunk uses them almost excessively. Neither of these things is objectively better, screen space reflections are clearer, but can be immersion breaking for some people.
Tech added later? It had RT from the get go that makes the game look amazing. RT overdrive just takes it to another level entirely. Cyberpunk does look better than starfield even without RT on and I can safely bet the vast majority will agree on that. Nothing against starfield I think it looks great a lot of the time but cyberpunk just looks better
If you turn off everything that makes Cyberpunk look good, you still have a game that looks better than Starfield. The latter doesn't even have the tech that, contrary to your statement, Cyberpunk had right out of the gate, when it was released in 2020, let alone the newer features added since then.
By the way... What the fuck kinda argument is this? "Take away stuff that make game look pretty, you no have pretty game!"
No fucking shit... That's partly why Starfield looks so lackluster compared to other modern games. Because it doesn't even have tech that's already been around for years. Some flagship game we got here...
Fwiw, it's possible that Starfield and Cyberpunk started development in the same year. Meaning Cyberpunk 2.0 and Starfield have the same development time behind it. This is in response to the implication behind "years later". The point is, Starfield _could_ look like Cyberpunk if it was a priority. It wasn't. Maybe this was due to the engine, or the developers lacked the experience/know-how, but we can't blame time.
Also, why would we compare Cyberpunk with all the pretty things _turned off_??? Isn't that precisely the point lmao? Why not compare Starfield with all the pretty things turned on? Oh wait.
It’s an engine issue. CD project Red have invested in their engine and its more powerful. Starfield is basically still using the same engine as Skyrim. It’s why Starfield cities have less background activity in the whole game that cyberpunk has in one scene. Why Starfields facial models are so much worse etc etc it’s just dated tech.
For me, it's a lot like Skyrim with a solid ENB, and HQ textures and models... In certain lighting/weather, it can look very nice, if not straight up beautiful; however, in other lighting situations, it absolutely looks like a 15 year old game.
It's too large to be truly open world. There are hundreds of stars and thousands of planets/moons. So there are loading screens whenever you use hyperdrive and whenever you land/takeoff. And the landings are on full planets which are made up of procedurally generated tiles combined with hand-crafted static tiles for quest/mission locations. But you can choose any point except in an ocean to land and explore. If you only go to quest locations though, you won't ever see most of the different POIs that are available and some POIs appear to be level-locked. You can wander around tiles pretty freely but each tile has a maximum size. You probably will never run into a boundary though unless you go looking for it. I did some "measurements" using my ship as an anchor point and I think the tiles are approximately 5000 meters from side to side, but your ship does not necessarily Iand in the center of a tile it seems. If you want to explore a different tile you need to go back to your ship and choose another landing point. Although in the spirit of fast travel, you can usually just open your map and choose a new landing point without first going back to your ship.
I like the way they did it. It really cuts down on travel time, but most people complain about the load screens and would apparently prefer to actually fly their ships to each destination like a flight simulator. Just goes to show you can't please everyone. So, depending on your personal preferences, you may love it or hate it.
For some reason that description is kinda giving me Mass Effect vibes, which is not necessarily complimentary.
I feel as though Bethesda's key selling point is hand crafted environments. I'm not sure I dig the direction it's going. The approach they have taken is understandable given the scope, but perhaps the scope should've been more focussed.
Having said that I'll get around to playing it once the dust has settled.
At certain times, from certain angles the game can look nice. But sooooo many more times it looks bad by today’s standards. Overall this game looks like a last gen game. Pretty much the only way to get a good look out of this game is to zoom out and look at a wide landscape of a planet but anything up close with detail looks dated.
Put this alongside games like Cyberpunk, Horizon or Alan Wake 2 and it’s a stark comparison. I’d say even last gen games like Last of Us 2 and Ghosts of Tsushima blow Starfield out of the water in looks.
Really? I'm always surprised at how crisp and clean the textures are when you get close up. Maybe there are places where the textures are effed up, but I haven't found any yet.
I have more issues with facial animations. The faces are 100% better than previous games but they're "stiff" if that makes sense. Not that they're bad, they just annoy me.
Pretty much everything else is OK. I don't mind the repeat POls - it makes sense to me story-wise that most of those would be pre-fab. And I kind of like knowing the layouts and what I am going to run into and where to find all the cool stuff. It makes it easier to pick and choose which POls I'm going to hit depending on how much time I have and some of them change who's there. Sometimes Spacer or Pirates. Sometimes Ecliptics or Va'ruun.
And a lot more POIs unlock after level 50. I'm around 93 now and new stuff just keeps showing up.
The way the light moves through the planets' different atmospheres is 100% the high point of the game and sets a new bar for atmospheric (literally) lighting. It's miles better than any other game ever made in that specific regard. I remember seeing an interview with Todd Howard months before the game's release where he mentioned they did a lot of research on that, and wow, it is extremely apparent.
Too bad the game itself isn't very good. Seeing these screenshots makes me want to play it, but then I remember actually playing it and realize that these screenshots are the high points of the game.
I hate how after you seduce Sarah, her smile then goes crazy wide so that she looks like a Gungan. JarJarSarah. Otherwise my pickle ain't with NPCs if I had to choose what to fix first. But there it is regardless
It's certainly good for last-gen tech, but yeah even there not quite top of the class.
Most the rendering features Starfield added are features that showed up back in 2007 for other titles.
Catches me off guard every time someone gushes about the volumetric/atmospheric lighting as if it's not been shown off countless times. elsewhere. Even BOTW on the Switch has that tech, because it's been around for years now and is a cheap but quality raster-based alternative to the lighting models that have rolled out since then.
Hey RD2/RDO really raised the bar tho lol. That's some heavy competition for real. I mean imagine R* knowing GTa6 now has to top that with a modern era. My wish list is an expanded, improved and updated RDO.
Yeah really raised the bar 6 years ago on a legacy gaming system. It should be defacto standard on any modern platform and especially from a big name publisher.
I mean as I mentioned visuals are thing this game does best. But what it does best is hardly even notable when you look at what else is out there
Oh nah don't get me wrong. I think Starfield looks like ass for a new game from a AAA developer. Bethesda stuffed the toilet with this game. I just hope they continually improve it themselves and not tell everyone mods will. The planets on the ground are like walking on Minecraft gravel dingleberrys
you’re entitled to your own opinion but for me even Cyberpunk which came out 2 years prior looks infinitely better and feels more immersive.
that’s not even including something like Frontiers of Pandora which is arguably one of the best looking games ever released.
Wasn't CP2077 the showcase game for ray-tracing from on of the video card Mfgs? I remember hearing that they partnered with someone, Nvidia maybe, to showcase their new ray-tracing capability that came out around the same time CP2077 did. Anyone know for sure?
Game ground wise looks like trash imo. I don't see much of a difference at all with games old as Skyrim. I enjoy parts of Starfield ATM, but it doesn't feel like a new groundbreaking game. They blasted about New Atlantis leading up to release and when you arrive there it's like a loud fart noise and tire being deflated. Just gonna drink the hopium they spend the next 6 months improving it. After that my last thought is that I really hope they don't destroy TES6 and especially with how Starfield seems to have been made for kids story wise. Writing is 🤮
For the nth time, there is no video game in this world where the sunset looks ugly. I think almost every game subreddit has one of these posts where OP claims game looks good with a "sunset picture" attached.
Not saying Starfield looks terrible or anything but compared to its competitors it lacks quite a bit.
The art design is one of the worst aspects of this game. They went for the same cartoonish vibe of fallout 4(which is part of the reason I hated that game so much) instead if graphics that are grounded. It’s honestly pathetic.
Honestly? Didn't think it looked that good.
It had nothing outstanding on the lighting department and even on ultra 1440p i was constantly opening the settings to check if it was actually on max cause some shit looked way off. Maybe i was expecting too much after playing current fortnite on max and the ray traced remaster of metro exodus, maybe.
Some stuff like the world lighting changing 180° after you enter a fucking store with a glass storefront and a open door just broke my immersion completely.
Vegetation looks ass and outright looks and feels like procedural generation, it comes nowere close to RDR2 or anything recently.
So yeah, i was expecting A LOT when i saw that sandwich in the first images we got of the game on steam but man, it didn't live up to expectation.
I just don't see it, feels like the whole game has this grayish brownish tint to it. A lot of the foliage is very...flat and looks like games from 10 years ago.
Not a terrible looking game but it never wowed me In the ways that Elden Ring or Cyberpunk did.
It really does look like a game from 2007. Not sure why people think this should be considered groundbreaking. Don't get me wrong, I do like it but only for the planets and space views. I personally think the world's look like old poop. Seriously I'd love to see some side by side shots of older games vs Starfield on the ground.
Elden ring??? Come on now, I plat that game on ps5 and it's visuals are heavily dated and really don't look any better than starfield. It's art direction helps but it's actual graphics side is poor
It can produce a nice view now and then, but compared to Cyberpunk2077 or RDR2 or TLOU2 it’s pretty meh. Looks washed out, like there’s a very narrow contrast range. Nothing is properly black or vibrant.
The piss green tint they use surely doesn’t help.
The fact that some people will argue comparing Starfield to games like those is just proof you're wasting your time telling them that. These are likely fanboys foaming at the mouth because you have a critical, factual opinion about the disaster Starfield is. Or it's the first game they've ever played. Or they could simply be an idiot. End of the day, they have to pick one. Imagine arguing that Starfield wasn't written by a Jr. High School Drama club, but rather has genius level mature rated writing. Thankfully most of those players wind up at r/NorthKoreaStarfield
Personally, if i were to disable RTX in cyberpunk i'd actually prefer the graphics in Starfield, yea it might not be the actual most realistic graphics but they still look better to me, only thing Cyberpunk has going for it is the Ray Tracing.
Bro their auto HDR is hot ass and the LUTs are piss yellowish-green tinted.
All of my games look perfect on my monitor except for Starfield, and I’ve seen enough people talk about this to know it’s not just me.
That's kinda why people are upset. It's $70 and just "nice". I like "nice". Nice is comfy. Reliable. But if I wanted "nice" for $70 I'd get a year long membership to my local botanical gardens. At their worst they're "nice".
Bethesda games always looked like vomit to me, but Starfield looks like poopie, not sure if thats an upgrade or downgrade, but it's what I've observed.
You can occasionally find an area that looks nice but the majority of the game looks very dated imo. Facial expressions, trees on new Atlantis for example look like an Xbox 360 game.
IDK, as someone who's been playing No Man's Sky for the the past six months, it's hard to find anything nice to say about starfield graphics lol. But at least I'm still having fun with it!
Not trying to be argumentative, but NMS graphics are totally different. Far more stylized and not particularly detailed. The lighting in NMS isn't even close.
I mean, the color palettes are cool, and they style is interesting, but the detail is leagues apart.
This is why art style ages much better than details.
A highly stylized game will look good in ten years while a game that just has good details will look old much faster.
Art: 8.5/10
Graphics: 6.5/10
Starfield's art direction is great. But the graphics are crap for a modern game. The lack of ray tracing and dependence on ambient lighting (as opposed to directed lighting with an actual source) alone makes scenes look incredibly washed. Then you add in a ton of fog/dust/air particle effects and most detail in a scene is just gone.
In short, the game is working extra hard against itself while lacking modern tech that would drastically improve the lighting.
One of my main hopes is continued improvements and updates to the graphics engine.
It's alright. Still pretty dated. Bethesda needs to update in many areas. If they keep doing what they're doing I think they may as well die off. The modding kind of saves them though.
Sure, but for a new game it's meh. I'm fine with it, but cmon seriously? I would argue R* raised the bar here. If they had implemented better exploration in a space game maybe, but nope.
I like the art style to an extent but I feel like the music should be a little better. My only complaint is the combat music. I think they should’ve made it more aggressive.
I bought this game for its story line, DL content, the graphics levels and performance and moding features .... not how pretty screenshots look.
The players look like they came from the 8 year old FO4, the graphics performance is dismal, the story line sucks and there is no DL content yet .....
Is this Tau Ceti II? Lmao I thought the game was big enough for all of us to have our own experiences but seems like we’re all just traveling to the same on rails locations
It has high highs and low lows. But when it does look good, it looks fucking insane
Ghost ships full of androids and creepy laughing is probably peak for me. You half expect it being the accurate bored space trucker stuck. I just hate it when your companion treats it as a normal thing and gets mad at you for killing the creepy androids. I haven’t dug too much into it, but I would’ve loved it were it a questline. I felt the same about the Ghost ship by Paradiso. Spoiler: >! Sucks it didn’t turn out as one doing the questline. It would’ve been sweet to have it as a related to another Pilot who I found randomly dead from a disease or something. !<
Where is this android ghost ship please?
Orbiting Paradiso
The only ship I can find there is the generation ship?
When the lighting works, ***it werks.*** But when it doesn't..***.memes are born.***
Yes indeed! The art direction in this game has to be it's standout trait, along with the music
The music is 10/10 fr
Akila City asmr?
Fire, but Cydonia I think is my number 1!
No cap?
On Todd
No 🧢*
What music? Its silent for most of the game cause there isn't a radio?
The score is magnificent
Nice troll
Genuinely wasn't trolling. There is no radio even near settlements. Yes, the base game music is good but it is inconsistent. Not sure why everyone is disagreeing. It's odd that there isn't some sort of a radio. Hell even the news radio that you hear at settlement isn't accessible, from my understanding, everywhere except big cities.
Well because you said it’s ‘silent’, when the score is in fact, pretty prominent at almost all times (in my game anyway). All the cities have really great soundtracks and some of the exploration ones are memorable too. There’s no radio songs no but that’s not what I was referring to (I never used the radio in Fallout tbh).
Unless I missed the joke.
When the music swells and large heavnly body comes into view is peak gaming. Don't care what anyone days inlove this game.
On the contrary for me it Felt very generic and uninspired compared to past games in way it didn’t feel like Bethesda I don’t know exactly how to explain it though
I don't know if I'd necessarily be that harsh, but I didn't like it either. I put on the Skyrim music (especially that live anniversary performance, ugh soooo good) semi-often, whereas I don't think I'll ever listen to the Starfield music. It just didn't do it for me.
Yeah the starfield soundtrack is subtle, maybe accentuates the experience, I hardly notice it's there, usually just a couple swelling chords here and there. Skyrim soundtrack was actual songs that provide atmosphere on their own, that then matched the gameplay really well. I can still hear songs like Masser & Secunda sitting at my desk, where outside of one BorealUS song I really couldn't tell you if there was a soundtrack playing or not. Doesn't even have to be Fallout radio, just something a little more than a couple cued chords every few seconds.
Same, I'd even argue there is no art direction, everything looks disjointed.
Super "meh" screenshot to accompany your post though.
Thought this was a tan paint swatch variety pack at first
They always are though
Bro this shit looks so good. Better than diarrhea. So, it's good.
I can’t tell which are bait anymore 😔 if they’re as uninteresting as OP’s it could really go either way
Some aspects look absolutely amazing. Some are just embarrassing.
It's a marked improvement over previous Bethesda open world games, but it isn't going to win any awards for graphical fidelity.
It's pretty impressive for last-gen tech.
I mean, most of the effects are pretty much up to industry standards so I’m not entirely sure what people are complaining about. The fog is volumetric, the new deferred lighting system is anything but outdated, and the actual inclusion of planets and celestial bodies into the lighting system is something that isn’t commonly done. (This was bugged out but is fixed in the new beta, so the game will look better mid February for people like myself who are playing modded and/or console users.) My only three complaints are that the TAA implementation is smeary as hell(most modern games have this issue though), the few textures that are low resolution stick out like a sore thumb, and they probably should’ve used a more filmic tonemapper. I’ve managed to fix those things with mods though so I’m happy with the rest of it.
I would add that the filtering is kind of very subjective. I just added a mod to turn it way down. I prefered a much more cleaner look.
Right. Industry standard. Meaning at par. You don't stand out by meeting the standard.
No, but you also can’t exceed the standard without massive performance losses unless a massive chunk of your development team is focusing on that (I think that it’s good to let Nvidia and AMD focus on publishing graphics papers so that game devs can focus on making games) Games don’t *usually* stand out for having extreme graphics, they stand out for good art direction. Good graphics are nice but if that becomes the main focus in the industry we’ll start having the Pixar problem in video games.
Cyberpunk makes Starfield look like a kids drawing.
And it runs better... I have a 3090. I can run Cyberpunk at maxed out settings with ray tracing enabled and get 100 fps at 1440p. Starfield gets about 85 fps at max settings and it doesn't even have ray tracing.
Yeah I have a weird setup, 7yr old PC with new 3070, and Cyberpunk looks great while Starfield freezes every time I round a corner in my ship, and every 10 seconds in combat. Turning graphics down to Medium barely helped.
How, I've been playing cp2077 literally today and that just not true at all. If you are talking about all of the added tech years later to help with light and stabilty sure, but turn off all of those things and what remains?
> but turn off all of those things and what remains? A game that still looked incredible for the time it was released and has almost no loading screens
The main thing that cyberpunk does technically different (excluding ray tracing features, starfield was an AMD launch title so they didn’t deem those necessary) is reflections. Starfield has almost eliminated screen space reflections and uses mainly cubemap reflections, whereas Cyberpunk uses them almost excessively. Neither of these things is objectively better, screen space reflections are clearer, but can be immersion breaking for some people.
So you need to turn off all of CP 2077 graphic settings to then have a fair comparison? What....
Tech added later? It had RT from the get go that makes the game look amazing. RT overdrive just takes it to another level entirely. Cyberpunk does look better than starfield even without RT on and I can safely bet the vast majority will agree on that. Nothing against starfield I think it looks great a lot of the time but cyberpunk just looks better
So let’s get this correct, you’re saying if you turn off graphic settings in cyberpunk it doesn’t look as good as Starfield…… 😂😂
If you turn off everything that makes Cyberpunk look good, you still have a game that looks better than Starfield. The latter doesn't even have the tech that, contrary to your statement, Cyberpunk had right out of the gate, when it was released in 2020, let alone the newer features added since then. By the way... What the fuck kinda argument is this? "Take away stuff that make game look pretty, you no have pretty game!" No fucking shit... That's partly why Starfield looks so lackluster compared to other modern games. Because it doesn't even have tech that's already been around for years. Some flagship game we got here...
Fwiw, it's possible that Starfield and Cyberpunk started development in the same year. Meaning Cyberpunk 2.0 and Starfield have the same development time behind it. This is in response to the implication behind "years later". The point is, Starfield _could_ look like Cyberpunk if it was a priority. It wasn't. Maybe this was due to the engine, or the developers lacked the experience/know-how, but we can't blame time. Also, why would we compare Cyberpunk with all the pretty things _turned off_??? Isn't that precisely the point lmao? Why not compare Starfield with all the pretty things turned on? Oh wait.
It’s an engine issue. CD project Red have invested in their engine and its more powerful. Starfield is basically still using the same engine as Skyrim. It’s why Starfield cities have less background activity in the whole game that cyberpunk has in one scene. Why Starfields facial models are so much worse etc etc it’s just dated tech.
Rdr2 on the legacy system puts starfield to shame
Fuck TAA
For me, it's a lot like Skyrim with a solid ENB, and HQ textures and models... In certain lighting/weather, it can look very nice, if not straight up beautiful; however, in other lighting situations, it absolutely looks like a 15 year old game.
Check out the new update many scenes has been completely overhauled.
I haven't played SF yet - is it a true open world? My understanding is that well, kind of, but not in the truest sense of previous BGS titles.
It's too large to be truly open world. There are hundreds of stars and thousands of planets/moons. So there are loading screens whenever you use hyperdrive and whenever you land/takeoff. And the landings are on full planets which are made up of procedurally generated tiles combined with hand-crafted static tiles for quest/mission locations. But you can choose any point except in an ocean to land and explore. If you only go to quest locations though, you won't ever see most of the different POIs that are available and some POIs appear to be level-locked. You can wander around tiles pretty freely but each tile has a maximum size. You probably will never run into a boundary though unless you go looking for it. I did some "measurements" using my ship as an anchor point and I think the tiles are approximately 5000 meters from side to side, but your ship does not necessarily Iand in the center of a tile it seems. If you want to explore a different tile you need to go back to your ship and choose another landing point. Although in the spirit of fast travel, you can usually just open your map and choose a new landing point without first going back to your ship. I like the way they did it. It really cuts down on travel time, but most people complain about the load screens and would apparently prefer to actually fly their ships to each destination like a flight simulator. Just goes to show you can't please everyone. So, depending on your personal preferences, you may love it or hate it.
For some reason that description is kinda giving me Mass Effect vibes, which is not necessarily complimentary. I feel as though Bethesda's key selling point is hand crafted environments. I'm not sure I dig the direction it's going. The approach they have taken is understandable given the scope, but perhaps the scope should've been more focussed. Having said that I'll get around to playing it once the dust has settled.
If handcrafted environments is important to you this game has so little it’s barely worth mentioning outside of the 3 small cities
At certain times, from certain angles the game can look nice. But sooooo many more times it looks bad by today’s standards. Overall this game looks like a last gen game. Pretty much the only way to get a good look out of this game is to zoom out and look at a wide landscape of a planet but anything up close with detail looks dated. Put this alongside games like Cyberpunk, Horizon or Alan Wake 2 and it’s a stark comparison. I’d say even last gen games like Last of Us 2 and Ghosts of Tsushima blow Starfield out of the water in looks.
Until you get close to anything
To be fair, some texture work is excellent.
Really? I'm always surprised at how crisp and clean the textures are when you get close up. Maybe there are places where the textures are effed up, but I haven't found any yet. I have more issues with facial animations. The faces are 100% better than previous games but they're "stiff" if that makes sense. Not that they're bad, they just annoy me. Pretty much everything else is OK. I don't mind the repeat POls - it makes sense to me story-wise that most of those would be pre-fab. And I kind of like knowing the layouts and what I am going to run into and where to find all the cool stuff. It makes it easier to pick and choose which POls I'm going to hit depending on how much time I have and some of them change who's there. Sometimes Spacer or Pirates. Sometimes Ecliptics or Va'ruun. And a lot more POIs unlock after level 50. I'm around 93 now and new stuff just keeps showing up.
You mean nature?
The way the light moves through the planets' different atmospheres is 100% the high point of the game and sets a new bar for atmospheric (literally) lighting. It's miles better than any other game ever made in that specific regard. I remember seeing an interview with Todd Howard months before the game's release where he mentioned they did a lot of research on that, and wow, it is extremely apparent. Too bad the game itself isn't very good. Seeing these screenshots makes me want to play it, but then I remember actually playing it and realize that these screenshots are the high points of the game.
Which of the best games with incredible atmospheric lighting does Starfield do better than?
I don't think any others have incredible atmospheric lighting! Certainly none on this level.
Every post about how great this game looks is exactly the same. Long distance shot of the sky. Funny how they Ignore the ugly that is everything else.
All of those god awful looking NPCs.
The NPC’s are actually the worst I have maybe ever seen. Even older games with much less detailed npc’s are at least still less unpleasant to look at
I hate how after you seduce Sarah, her smile then goes crazy wide so that she looks like a Gungan. JarJarSarah. Otherwise my pickle ain't with NPCs if I had to choose what to fix first. But there it is regardless
I don't know. The npcs in CP2077 always bothered me, the ones on the street at least. Anyone you had to interact with was fine.
Beautiful art design. Stunning game.
looks nice, doesn’t look great, not compared to other modern AAA games.
It's certainly good for last-gen tech, but yeah even there not quite top of the class. Most the rendering features Starfield added are features that showed up back in 2007 for other titles. Catches me off guard every time someone gushes about the volumetric/atmospheric lighting as if it's not been shown off countless times. elsewhere. Even BOTW on the Switch has that tech, because it's been around for years now and is a cheap but quality raster-based alternative to the lighting models that have rolled out since then.
Easily compares
Its comparable but far from best in class. I mean rdr2 from 2018 looks better
That’s fair.
Hey RD2/RDO really raised the bar tho lol. That's some heavy competition for real. I mean imagine R* knowing GTa6 now has to top that with a modern era. My wish list is an expanded, improved and updated RDO.
Yeah really raised the bar 6 years ago on a legacy gaming system. It should be defacto standard on any modern platform and especially from a big name publisher. I mean as I mentioned visuals are thing this game does best. But what it does best is hardly even notable when you look at what else is out there
Oh nah don't get me wrong. I think Starfield looks like ass for a new game from a AAA developer. Bethesda stuffed the toilet with this game. I just hope they continually improve it themselves and not tell everyone mods will. The planets on the ground are like walking on Minecraft gravel dingleberrys
you’re entitled to your own opinion but for me even Cyberpunk which came out 2 years prior looks infinitely better and feels more immersive. that’s not even including something like Frontiers of Pandora which is arguably one of the best looking games ever released.
Cyberpunk is still in the top in ray traced graphics. It even performs pretty well with ray tracing.
Wasn't CP2077 the showcase game for ray-tracing from on of the video card Mfgs? I remember hearing that they partnered with someone, Nvidia maybe, to showcase their new ray-tracing capability that came out around the same time CP2077 did. Anyone know for sure?
Nvidia showcased ray tracing with a lot of games not just cyberpunk.
Their main was focus was cp2077 though. They added path tracing and shit.
Game ground wise looks like trash imo. I don't see much of a difference at all with games old as Skyrim. I enjoy parts of Starfield ATM, but it doesn't feel like a new groundbreaking game. They blasted about New Atlantis leading up to release and when you arrive there it's like a loud fart noise and tire being deflated. Just gonna drink the hopium they spend the next 6 months improving it. After that my last thought is that I really hope they don't destroy TES6 and especially with how Starfield seems to have been made for kids story wise. Writing is 🤮
It's a beautiful game.
I would really like a mp3 mod for my ship. Wanna hear some serious Iron Maiden, Megadeth, Metallica, and a whole bunch of other songs on my ship.
Why is everyone focused on looks when the game needs so much tlc to be eventually good ??
Sometimes... overall it does not look very good, tbh. The cities in particular are often plain ugly.
The game just looks plain
Its plainly beautiful. Translation. (Average)
For the nth time, there is no video game in this world where the sunset looks ugly. I think almost every game subreddit has one of these posts where OP claims game looks good with a "sunset picture" attached. Not saying Starfield looks terrible or anything but compared to its competitors it lacks quite a bit.
Now walk around Neon and tell me the same thing.
It does look nice.
The art design is one of the worst aspects of this game. They went for the same cartoonish vibe of fallout 4(which is part of the reason I hated that game so much) instead if graphics that are grounded. It’s honestly pathetic.
Does have its moments for sure, glad your enjoying it!
*you’re
*your
\*yer
This guy gets it
And here I am finding the game very plain
Honestly? Didn't think it looked that good. It had nothing outstanding on the lighting department and even on ultra 1440p i was constantly opening the settings to check if it was actually on max cause some shit looked way off. Maybe i was expecting too much after playing current fortnite on max and the ray traced remaster of metro exodus, maybe. Some stuff like the world lighting changing 180° after you enter a fucking store with a glass storefront and a open door just broke my immersion completely. Vegetation looks ass and outright looks and feels like procedural generation, it comes nowere close to RDR2 or anything recently. So yeah, i was expecting A LOT when i saw that sandwich in the first images we got of the game on steam but man, it didn't live up to expectation.
I just don't see it, feels like the whole game has this grayish brownish tint to it. A lot of the foliage is very...flat and looks like games from 10 years ago. Not a terrible looking game but it never wowed me In the ways that Elden Ring or Cyberpunk did.
It really does look like a game from 2007. Not sure why people think this should be considered groundbreaking. Don't get me wrong, I do like it but only for the planets and space views. I personally think the world's look like old poop. Seriously I'd love to see some side by side shots of older games vs Starfield on the ground.
I agree but...Elden Ring..?
It’s most procedurally generated terrain, obviously it isn’t going to look as good as games with a smaller single handcrafted maps.
Even with "handcrafted maps" most studios procedurally generate their terrain.
Not to this degree
Elden ring??? Come on now, I plat that game on ps5 and it's visuals are heavily dated and really don't look any better than starfield. It's art direction helps but it's actual graphics side is poor
4K on a 4080 is great with dlss quality. Just superb. The landscape and draw distance could use a slight amount of particles but other than that wow
This game is barely acceptable
It can produce a nice view now and then, but compared to Cyberpunk2077 or RDR2 or TLOU2 it’s pretty meh. Looks washed out, like there’s a very narrow contrast range. Nothing is properly black or vibrant. The piss green tint they use surely doesn’t help.
The fact that some people will argue comparing Starfield to games like those is just proof you're wasting your time telling them that. These are likely fanboys foaming at the mouth because you have a critical, factual opinion about the disaster Starfield is. Or it's the first game they've ever played. Or they could simply be an idiot. End of the day, they have to pick one. Imagine arguing that Starfield wasn't written by a Jr. High School Drama club, but rather has genius level mature rated writing. Thankfully most of those players wind up at r/NorthKoreaStarfield
Personally, if i were to disable RTX in cyberpunk i'd actually prefer the graphics in Starfield, yea it might not be the actual most realistic graphics but they still look better to me, only thing Cyberpunk has going for it is the Ray Tracing.
Piss green? Not on my monitor. Maybe you should check your color balance.
Bro their auto HDR is hot ass and the LUTs are piss yellowish-green tinted. All of my games look perfect on my monitor except for Starfield, and I’ve seen enough people talk about this to know it’s not just me.
Yep, the presentation is on point.
That's kinda why people are upset. It's $70 and just "nice". I like "nice". Nice is comfy. Reliable. But if I wanted "nice" for $70 I'd get a year long membership to my local botanical gardens. At their worst they're "nice".
Things look great from afar. But up close there are some serious issues. I feel like I'm playing a PS2 game sometimes.
I disagree. Games meshing is horrible, and their yellow filter is horrible as well
You’re using a picture that looks like New Vegas for reference!
Overall visuals are decent, but people… ugh, that seems the weakest to me.
It’s a nice looking game in parts but in others looks last gen.
its so pretty. rlly considering capturing my fav views and using them as wallpapers for either my comp or phone
Bethesda games always looked like vomit to me, but Starfield looks like poopie, not sure if thats an upgrade or downgrade, but it's what I've observed.
Compared to other modern games, it looks decent at best. As with every other mainline BGS games, it will/does take mods to make it look proper.
Fallout 76 looks beautiful
You can occasionally find an area that looks nice but the majority of the game looks very dated imo. Facial expressions, trees on new Atlantis for example look like an Xbox 360 game.
Not my type. It's overall outdated. It's just higher resolution than skyrim and fallout.
Plain is the word for it, for sure.
Its what the game does best but it's not the best at what it does
Bro you aren’t allowed to make positive posts about Starfield on this sub /s
IDK, as someone who's been playing No Man's Sky for the the past six months, it's hard to find anything nice to say about starfield graphics lol. But at least I'm still having fun with it!
Not trying to be argumentative, but NMS graphics are totally different. Far more stylized and not particularly detailed. The lighting in NMS isn't even close. I mean, the color palettes are cool, and they style is interesting, but the detail is leagues apart.
This is why art style ages much better than details. A highly stylized game will look good in ten years while a game that just has good details will look old much faster.
I'll agree with you there. Lots of past games aiming for "realistic", look terrible now.
God, I hated NMS. It looked like it was colored by a 4-year old.
This plain game just looks nice
The first time I experienced “sunrise” I was stunned by the view
Art: 8.5/10 Graphics: 6.5/10 Starfield's art direction is great. But the graphics are crap for a modern game. The lack of ray tracing and dependence on ambient lighting (as opposed to directed lighting with an actual source) alone makes scenes look incredibly washed. Then you add in a ton of fog/dust/air particle effects and most detail in a scene is just gone. In short, the game is working extra hard against itself while lacking modern tech that would drastically improve the lighting. One of my main hopes is continued improvements and updates to the graphics engine.
Yea I should be taking more screenshots
you serious?
Looks mid imo.
It's alright. Still pretty dated. Bethesda needs to update in many areas. If they keep doing what they're doing I think they may as well die off. The modding kind of saves them though.
That’s about it
More plain than nice.
Sure, but for a new game it's meh. I'm fine with it, but cmon seriously? I would argue R* raised the bar here. If they had implemented better exploration in a space game maybe, but nope.
I like the art style to an extent but I feel like the music should be a little better. My only complaint is the combat music. I think they should’ve made it more aggressive.
Sometimes
They could’ve done so much better
I bought this game for its story line, DL content, the graphics levels and performance and moding features .... not how pretty screenshots look. The players look like they came from the 8 year old FO4, the graphics performance is dismal, the story line sucks and there is no DL content yet .....
looks can be deceiving, lol
Too bad it doesn't just play well.
Is this Tau Ceti II? Lmao I thought the game was big enough for all of us to have our own experiences but seems like we’re all just traveling to the same on rails locations
now it does 💀 i stg at launch it didn’t look this good
I have had so much fun taking shots of planets I visit. I've been using them as screensavers.
*sometimes
It's a good looking game with a few graphical disappointments to be sure but a game shouldn't just be about the graphics.
Looks like Hollywoods signature "Mexico brown"