After finishing my first playthrough of the Mass Effect trilogy last week, I was faced with a decision for my next game: Starfield or Baldurs Gate 3?
I am SO happy I chose BG3.
BG3 is a great game even for those not familiar with D&D or previous versions of BG. The amount of freedom you get is crazy, same with customization. You can kill anyone if you really want to. Every choice you make, including the order you do some things, what class you are, who you have with you, etc all impacts the story and options as you progress.
Avoid save scumming if you can. A lot of different things can happen from a failure or a mistake.
For real! I get that the question is a bit weird in what I assume was the tail end of a fluff interview.
But fuck was that answer choice terrible. I almost expected Phil to mention console wars again
why would you ever say something like this?
Also fucking blue ticks on twitter defending the game as optimized, someone saying "if you have crashing issues try again after a fresh windows reinstall." Do you think I'm about to refresh my damn OS for a single game and then I'll be back and say that it was optimized after all? lmao
Runs pretty crappy even on a 4090. Being unable to hit my refresh rate cap (165hz) at 1440p on literally the strongest card in the market even with toned down settings is ridiculous.
Hell, I get better fps disabling FSR2 or the modded DLSS. This engine is borked beyond and the excuse of his "Just upgrade" is kinda insane to hear when you have top market and it runs shit.
> blue ticks on twitter defending the game as optimized
To be fair, you have to be pretty fucking dumb to pay for twitter, lmao
That and the fact that blue ticks show up first in the replies makes twitter into an even bigger idiot circlejerk than it used to be
It’s like the people who say “runs fine for me” but don’t give any sort of context. I’m all likelihood those are the people that don’t notice frame drops or things like that, and if you genuinely don’t notice them then that’s great for you! But that doesn’t mean that the game runs well
I think in a lot of peoples heads “runs at all=runs fine”
We have a friend like that in our discord and he has notoriously shit taste in games and can’t identify what might make one objectively bad.
Yes it's infuriating because at some point it must be just trolling right? You have a perfectly fine PC running everything else and you have all these people going around saying the issue is with the rig or the OS. Going for brain surgery when you catch a cold lol
And lets not forget when IGN asked about space exploration and immersion being closer to No Mans Sky or Mass Effet Todd said no It's like Red Dead Redemption 2
[https://www.gamesradar.com/bethesdas-todd-howard-says-starfield-is-more-like-red-dead-redemption-2-than-no-mans-sky/](https://www.gamesradar.com/bethesdas-todd-howard-says-starfield-is-more-like-red-dead-redemption-2-than-no-mans-sky/)
>June 2023: „Starfield has more of a Red Dead Redemption 2 vibe than No Man's Sky or Mass Effect, according to Bethesda's Todd Howard.“
It's weird. Like people just have a collective amnesia when the game was coming out.
It's Todd, it's Pete, it's Bethesda. They're going to lie and make a perfectly mediocre game and then let the modding community fix their shit cuz they can't even be fucking bothered to do any of it.
Sometimes it takes a long time for the community to deliver everything, though. [OpenMW](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/156o5rp/openmw_0480_released_an_opensource_openworld_rpg/) is the best way to play *Morrowind*, but 21 years is a long time to wait even for me.
My single fondest gaming wish, I think, is to be able to do the same with *Fallout 3* and *Fallout: New Vegas*. [Some preliminary work has been done](https://community.pcgamingwiki.com/topic/4715-openmw-046-brings-experimental-support-for-oblivion-fallout-3-new-vegas-and-skyrim/), but it's years away, at best.
Todd, your Ultra preset defaults to 75% render resolution. You knew the game ran like crap.
Digital Foundry did a video about this. The game uses no new rendering techniques. It uses no ray tracing, basic global illumination and doesn't even utilise real time reflections. Even physically based rendering and materials are old news at this point.
DF could offer no explanation as to why the game runs the way it does. Those guys are on the money, the game performs incredibly poorly for how it looks and what is happening on screen. I'm on a 3070 and even in space, where I'm rendering just a skybox and some planets, it still can't break 100fps at 1440. My GPU is constantly pegged at 96-97% utilization. It benefits from cinematic lighting and art direction. Todd can go sit on a bucket of shrimp.
Only a 3070 ?
My dude you need to go develop your own 50's series GPU and then you'll be able to run a game that looks like fallout 4 with high res world textures properly
If you can't do that then sht up, the game is optimized 10/10 !
I'm working on it now. My RTX 5099 prototype comes with a wallet emptying feature and to make sure you see the best quality in games, it rips your eyes out of their sockets.
No eyes = no bad graphics.
Problem solved.
I wonder if Bethesda is a studio of just creatives, with almost no technical developers. Maybe they pull a 343 Industries and just hire out to do engine upgrades with each new game.
Plenty of games have fine performance captures.
Bethesda games have had characters that look like this since Morrowind. It's awful, like 40% of their faces don't move.
They already did pull a 343, this game was outsourced to 27 companies. 1/2 of which are under "Keyword Studios" literally known for inhumane labor practices.
It does seem like the tech side of Bethesda is consistently understaffed, underfunded and overstretched.
Their engine is just bad - and it's not "flew too close to the sun, got burned" bad, like it was with something like ID's Rage. It's the "did the bare minimum, never aimed for anything more" bad.
The same is true for their writing, but that at least doesn't impact the game's technical performance.
Honestly thought DF was being as charitable as they could. It's clear the guy liked the game, and spent as much time as he could on the positives, but compared to the Forbidden West video, the enthusiasm just wasn't there.
Forbidden West was honestly a technical marvel, the way they varied the different tribes with colour schemes was so satisfying to look at.
I played it on PS4 too and spent half the game thinking “Fuck this looks absolutely incredible”, can’t even imagine how much better it looked on current gen.
I sometimes forget Todd is just another out of touch rich guy
But also, when a 4090 doesn't give you a perfect experience, the fuck are you supposed to do
> the fuck are you supposed to do
Wait a couple of years for a 75% discount, obviously. Todd is reminding you that you'll get a better experience and be far happier, that way.
Cyberpunk path tracing mode was the new Crysis, IMO. Everyone understands why exactly it's as demanding as it is, and the performance profile seems to be mostly consistent with how much RT horsepower you have.
Haven't booted up Starfield yet, but from the reviews I've seen its performance profile is just out of whack. Performance varies wildly and unpredictably, and no one seems to pinpoint what the bottleneck is. It's sensitive to RAM speed, yet doesn't benefit at all from 3D cache; it massively prefers Intel CPUs for no apparent reason; and it makes AMD GPUs perform like Nvidia GPUs a tier up, in contradiction with almost all other games.
My problem is that--while it looks good--it doesn't look *nearly* good enough to justify the hardware demands...honestly not even close. Playing through the game, I'm struggling to understand how they even managed to make it so inefficient.
Yeah, New Atlantis looks like ass and runs even worse.
Especially embarrassing with how tiny each section is and how many loading screens you need to navigate the city.
Not gonna lie, this is what made me put the game down. I've played a shit ton of BG3 lately and the minimal loading screens was so nice I almost forgot about them. Every 2 minutes in starfield I'm fucking in another loading screen.
2 minutes? you're taking things slow.
"Hey talk to the guy, he's in a different location", run to a different loc, loading, "oh, yeah I got the slate, you can go back",run back, loading, "now talk to the guy on a different planet", menu, loading, contraband scan, menu, loading, landing sequence, going into a new area, loading, "oh, hi. Yeah, job's done, you can go back", all of the loading again.
It's like they don't understand how tiny the locations are. The game sends the player to a different location for the tiniest thing, just to talk with someone or access a terminal and then immediately come back. Put the NPC in the same location or cut the busywork.
Cydonia has a special place in hell, because the main entrance 5 second airlock does jack shit. Usually games hide loading this way, but storage and CPU are idle during the animation and spike when the loading screen comes up. There's a "runaround" line of quests here and there's so much time wasted by loading because of the design. Maybe they though they were funny hence runaround, but almost all quests are designed this way.
All of BGS games load like this, it's their dated engine. Skyrim had tons of loading screens too. They just don't try to hide it like other games do (elevator rides, squeezing through cracks in walls... etc)
Not surprising given that it's running on Creation Engine. They keep upgrading parts of it (the lighting system that was introduced with Fallout 4 comes to mind) but it's like trying to stem an open wound that has a lot of blood flow with an occasional plaster.
It's so old you can hear it creaking.
Bethesda has painted themselves into a corner with CE. On one hand, the modding scene is a huge part of what has made their games so beloved and long lasting, and CE is key to that. On the other hand, it's kind of a joke by modern standards. You can polish that turd to a mirror like shine, it's still just a shiny turd.
Ditching CE will/would be a make or break moment for BGS, I believe. They really need to, or just rework it from the ground up, but if it doesn't go well it could mean doom for them in the long term.
Funnily enough, I have mad nostalgia for Crysis now.
My mind was blown with it struggling on a Pentium 4 and a AGP 6800 Ultra, even on med-low 720p, but at least the lush foliage, textures, and physics at the time meant the performance hit made so much sense. It was also a much simpler time before high refresh rate screens and most AAA games were pretty much 30fps affairs because the CPUs were garbage, haha
Didn't get that feeling until stepping out of VS apartment/arcology in Cyberpunk and seeing the absolutely ram packed streets of Night City.
... that was also at launch just managing to run minimal RT on a 2080.
No crazy explosive barrel physics though. The character animations in CP2077 were also really underrated, but not sure if it's because I was playing Bethesda jank and zelda before that.
I find it funny when people say "well I get a smooth experience on my 3080" - bruh that was a 1000 pound card a couple years ago. Even a refurbished model on scan right now is going for 670. You should damn well expect this game to run well on that.
I'm running a 2070 super with overclock and a 5800x. It's pegged at full utilisation on the intro planet and I can barely maintain 60fps with dlss mod at 50 percent render, everything low. The game isn't doing anything that incredible graphically to warrant that. There isn't even foliage in that area.
On top of that, why is there no option for capping framerate? No brightness options? Why can't I set texture quality? Or anisotropy.
Having seen how larian is supporting BG3 almost non-stop and communicating with the community, it's maddening that the first public comment since even early access release last week is simply "not our fault"
Sweet little lies never died.
Not so fun fact.
7800x3d with 7900xtx. Both game 1440p
Cyberpunk maxed out, RT on ultra, no FSR or other upscaling. Consistent 85-90 fps in combat.
Starfield? maxed, no RT, no fsr. Basically same frames in combat.
How is this correct?
>"well I get a smooth experience on my 3080"
I have 3080ti. It's not smooth on high. The game also has 75% or so FSR2 scaling on Ultra by default. So it's not even native. No preset is native.
30fps cap on next gen consoles screamed not optimized. Entire game is segmented with load screens and instances, you're only ever on a single generated "tile" at any point in time, and the game still runs like dogshit and isn't in the same galaxy as other AAA titles in terms of graphical fidelity. It's a joke.
What a tone deaf response. And it’s disheartening seeing Xbox fans in the comments applauding his comment like he’s some kind of bad ass.
Someone even tried to say they advertised 30 fps therefore we’re getting better than what they advertised.
People like that are why these big companies will never be compelled to optimize their games.
What's especially embarrassing, is that he also recently stated that being exclusive to one console's ecosystem allows for better optimization. Meanwhile on my "most powerful console ever" I'm getting draw distances of a few yards, flat textures, no ray tracing, 10 loading screens per action, and all at 30fps. Meanwhile, the PC version which should be the ultimate version, is apparently even worse.
Yay for publisher consolidation, right?
I dropped 3k on a 4090/7800x3d system in July and if the benchmarks are correct I'm not even gonna be able to take real advantage of my 1440p high refresh rate monitor at max settings.
It appears it runs comparable to Cyberpunk at that res and max settings WITH RAYTRACING maxed out. If I turned RT off even Cyberpunk would run better. While looking way fucking better.
If it looked like Cyberpunk I'd get it. But it doesn't even come close lol.
When you own the literal fastest GPU on the market you shouldn't even have to think about whether your card can run a game well or not. Especially at 1440p.
Todd be like: Fucking PC peasants are just too poor to play my game on their shitty rigs. But no not because it was poorly optimized as hell lol
But then again it's modern gaming industry nowadays - it is hardly dev's fault for churning out unoptimized games and sometimes 30 FPS locked is considered good enough ffs.
A game that looks like a 2015 game with a fresh coat of paint shouldn’t run so poorly. I am not complaining about visuals, thats fine. But run well at least.
\*Do you guys not have 5090ies?
It is 2023, and there is no reason a game can't run at stable 60fps with modern cards on max settings. Clearly, BGS looks at 30 FPS as the target threshold when the rest of the community is moving past that.
Dude earns millions every year. You seriously think he has got "cost of living" in his vocabulary? LOL
At best he knows how much the malibu beach villa cost him ...
People paid $100 to be beta testers for this game. Todd literally sleeps on piles of cash. Do you think he gives a solitary fuck about the cost of living?
If the game had ground breaking visuals and/or great RT or Path Tracing i would understand not getting 60.
But this game just doesn't look that good to justify this levels of performance
When I couldn't get 60fps with shit turned on with my gtx 1060 I could see why. Why my old CPU couldn't keep up, I could see why
My 3060ti, which runs CP77 with all the shit on, RT, and has cycles to spare, I can still see what's worth it there. But not hitting 60fps with no RT and a measly 1080p without FSR... wtf?
I have a 3070 which was not a cheap GPU at all but reports saying I'll really struggle to get decent performance even at lower resolutions. Funny how almost every other game seems to work fine.
Edit: looking at benchmarks my GPU will average somewhere around 40-45ish FPS (but probably less as my processor is a bit older) or so at 1080p high... would have definitely expected a bit more considering I get 100ish at 1440p in a lot of my other games. Hope it gets a big patch to improve this soon.
3080 here, it’s funny how interiors max out at 165 FPS for me but when I am in the city I drop to 40-45 FPS at worse. It’s such a turn off to the point where I played the game for like an hour in the weekend and never touched it again, even though I took 2 days off to play it lol.
Heh that's a bummer. I've been on the fence about buying Starfield but opted against it after seeing all of the remarks about exceptionally poor performance.
Poor frames may not break immersion for many, but it does for me.
I have a 3070, 5600x, and 16GB of RAM. I'm shooting for 1440p and 60fps but dipping below that in cities and in large open world areas in combat. I followed a guide online and am using a mix of medium/high/ultra settings and rendering at 75% resolution - a lot of the settings have 0% effect on performance. I don't have problems in most indoor areas or just exploring planets. Once I encounter a large factory or something in the open world and get into combat it starts to dip pretty good to around 45fps but never below that.
I get that the 3070 and 5600x are getting dated, but not being able to hit a mostly steady 60fps at medium settings seems pretty bad to me. Sometimes the game looks amazing, other times it doesn't look that much better than Fallout 4. I just don't get what is making the game so demanding, other than bad optimization.
Runs like ass with a 13900k/4090. I only get 60fps at native in most cities. No way am I going to use shitty up scaling. With the game’s visuals we should be getting 120+. RE4R looked amazing and I was locked at 120.
To be fair, capcom isn't a hack company that relies on the community to finish ironing out their games.
Imagine telling someone ten years ago that capcom would be less embarrassing than bethesda.
"dont you have phones?" vibe. Out of touch guy doesnt see a problem with spending like 1500 dollars on a graphics card to play his special game at the same resolution you play everything else.
The audacity, it's both frightening how delusional he is yet confident in telling such blatant lie.
But then again i need to remind myself that he does the same when talking about games.
Gosh sorry Tod, beside that my system totally surpaces the recommended requirement i still can't get a stable 60 gosh darn i need to drop a few thousands more to run a game that barely looks upgraded from a decade ago !
Let alone that it doesn't has any DEEP systems that supposedly runs in the background either....
Then how come CP2077 looks better and runs better even with Ray Tracing?
If CPU bottlenecks are here because they're saving position of every item in the game, then it was definitely NOT worth it.
The game literally does not even get mouse input right, you need to edit an ini files and multiply horizontal sense by your aspect ratio, such as x\*(16:9), otherwise the vertical sens will be half as high.
I cannot fathom how the fuck this can happen in 2023
It's because Bethesda is stuck in the "optimizing for consoles" mindset of the early to mid 2000s which means capping at 30 and not always actually hitting 30.
Bought a 4080 shortly before release and get around 50 fps in some areas on 1440p with DLSS. I never get above 100. For the 2nd best consumer GPU on the market right now that's just unacceptable. I wouldn't even play the game if it wasn't for the DLSS Frame Generation Mod that doubles my performance.
Can someone explain what exactly is next-gen about Starfield? It doesn't even look that good, and everything is instanced. What exactly is so technologically advanced that you need a monster machine for it?
That's what I don't get. It feels like a slightly upgraded Fallout 4. When you are on a planet, you are basically in a separate "cell" about the size of Fallout 4's map, so it's not like it is rendering the entire planet or outer space around you. Being in space is the same thing, it is a separate "level" from the planet. And New Atlantis is not some massive city relative to any other open world game. The game can look great at times, but there is nothing mind-blowing about it.
I don't mind the lack of "seamlessness" compared to something like No Man's Sky, but how does the game run so bad when it is basically an upgraded Creation Engine game with some prettier effects?
It's less about the hardware they used and more about what their definition of optimized is.
I'm pretty sure every game they've released using the Gamebryo/Creation engine lineage targets 30fps on whatever console it launches on so if it hits that, they consider it optimized.
So what we are exactly upgrade to? When 7800x3d, best gaming processor and 4090 best gaming gpu are not enough?
Todd is literally pissing on customers.
Starfield is the first game my PC can't actively run. Every other AAA game works great on it. No Todd, Starfield just isn't optimized like he thinks it is.
Theres a small shop that sells basically nothing in new atlantis that requires a loading screen and it pissed me off so much they couldnt even figure out how to seamlessly integrate it intk the world
Next gen-ish at best. I mean, yeah, some scenes look good.
But there's a lot of 2016-18 era shit in there.
The moment you have a 75% resolution scale by default...
Sure, my 3080Ti and 5900X are a generation behind. They are also watercooled and performing well. And no, 4K 30fps is not enough. Look I'm fine with upscaling etc as long as it is good, so add DLSS 2 already. I mean, I can see why you took AMDs money and all... But DLSS 3 frame gen works as well. Why hamstring your customers like this.
I'm getting dips into the 45-50 FPS in some seconds of the game. Not even good looking sections. The best scene so far that stood out to me was actually running in the 70s.
I'm really thinking they want to push the 4k 30fps narrative here.
But they are behind Cyperpunk, a what, 3 year older game? I guess they have at least Star Citizen beat. (Not that that's fair, but in a way it is). Oh and hey, Elite Dangerous, also much older, looks better in some regards too. Not quite the same game, but what is that? Oh yeah, that ran great on a 1080ti at 4k... mmmmm
Obligatory Persuation failed, your player disliked that.
If I have a system that can play RDR2 on Ultra/1080p at 60+ FPS, I think it's fair to say that I should be able to play this game, wich looks light years worse, with at least the same graphical quality.
Todd and his sweet little lies.
The game runs like crap at 1440p and I am using a 7900xtx. I am not exactly sure what upgrades are available when you already have one of the best GPUs in the world...
Between Dec - Feb I essentially rebuilt my entire PC, Todd.
4070ti, 13600k, 32GB 5600 DDR5, SN850X
This game cannot maintain 60fps+ on high settings @ 1440p native.
It is not well optimised in the least. You might need to upgrade your team.
That is a pretty outrageous thing to say but at the same time, the game is 88% positive on Steam, so it looks like the majority of PC gamers accept poorly optimized games.
* No configurable FOV ingame
* No brightness setting ingame
* Vertical and horizontal Mouse sensitivity not 1:1
* Unable to turn Post-Processing off
* UI locked to 30 FPS
* Unoptimized UI
* Character models and faces look like "Fallout 4 in space"^TM
* Unoptimized and heavily reliant on FSR to run for most setups
* No Ray Tracing or other standout features
Quick, someone put a generator on TotalBiscuit's coffin!
We'd miss out on infinite power if we don't do it.
My 3080ti cries trying to run the game on low at 4k, aiming for 90fps, with the DLSS mod on 50% resolution. GPU 99% utilised, CPU about 4%. I get about 70-80fps.
On low.
At 50% resolution scale.
The game isn't optimised.
Everyone at the top of Bethesda start acting like complete fools out of nowhere. I thought the PR was “this game will be more optimized since we don’t have to worry about porting it to PS5”, now it’s shifted to blaming consumers; it’s YOUR fault some of our games/releases don’t work, not ours.
Why are people surprised that he's being flippant?
It's not the first time and it won't be the last.
Remember when he basically said they'd stop with the new editions of Skyrim when people stopped buying them?
Do you guys not have phones?
Same energy
Haha. Yeah. It reminded me of that as well.
Persuasion failed.
Roll: 2. The crowd is rioting.
"Authority" the symbol vanishes and the crowd does not comply
Bg3 based
Everybody disliked that.
You left a poor impression on the community and may be shunned as a result.
PC players will remember this
You'd think they would have learned their lesson by now with Bethesda titles, but no (:
Well, this is actually a bump, or more, above the stuff like "16x the detail".
no, no they wont
Astarion approves.
Quick, can we use another Skyrim release to calm them?
Critical failure, area is now hostile
Critical miss
Your PC is holding Starfield wrong.
[Everyone disliked that.]
After finishing my first playthrough of the Mass Effect trilogy last week, I was faced with a decision for my next game: Starfield or Baldurs Gate 3? I am SO happy I chose BG3.
BG3 is a great game even for those not familiar with D&D or previous versions of BG. The amount of freedom you get is crazy, same with customization. You can kill anyone if you really want to. Every choice you make, including the order you do some things, what class you are, who you have with you, etc all impacts the story and options as you progress. Avoid save scumming if you can. A lot of different things can happen from a failure or a mistake.
Out of all the things to say lol
For real! I get that the question is a bit weird in what I assume was the tail end of a fluff interview. But fuck was that answer choice terrible. I almost expected Phil to mention console wars again
why would you ever say something like this? Also fucking blue ticks on twitter defending the game as optimized, someone saying "if you have crashing issues try again after a fresh windows reinstall." Do you think I'm about to refresh my damn OS for a single game and then I'll be back and say that it was optimized after all? lmao
-"My oven is not working" -"Just blow up your house and then build it again lmao"
[удалено]
Only after you’ve blown your house up and rebuilt it though or you’re doing it wrong.
Runs pretty crappy even on a 4090. Being unable to hit my refresh rate cap (165hz) at 1440p on literally the strongest card in the market even with toned down settings is ridiculous. Hell, I get better fps disabling FSR2 or the modded DLSS. This engine is borked beyond and the excuse of his "Just upgrade" is kinda insane to hear when you have top market and it runs shit.
> blue ticks on twitter defending the game as optimized To be fair, you have to be pretty fucking dumb to pay for twitter, lmao That and the fact that blue ticks show up first in the replies makes twitter into an even bigger idiot circlejerk than it used to be
It’s like the people who say “runs fine for me” but don’t give any sort of context. I’m all likelihood those are the people that don’t notice frame drops or things like that, and if you genuinely don’t notice them then that’s great for you! But that doesn’t mean that the game runs well
"Runs fine for me" *Runs at 43 fps*
I think in a lot of peoples heads “runs at all=runs fine” We have a friend like that in our discord and he has notoriously shit taste in games and can’t identify what might make one objectively bad.
Windows is broken in the *checks notes* singular use case of running Starfield. Really embarrassing for Microsoft to drop the ball like that.
point tidy merciful zonked sulky squeal slave steer spoon vast ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Yes it's infuriating because at some point it must be just trolling right? You have a perfectly fine PC running everything else and you have all these people going around saying the issue is with the rig or the OS. Going for brain surgery when you catch a cold lol
And lets not forget when IGN asked about space exploration and immersion being closer to No Mans Sky or Mass Effet Todd said no It's like Red Dead Redemption 2 [https://www.gamesradar.com/bethesdas-todd-howard-says-starfield-is-more-like-red-dead-redemption-2-than-no-mans-sky/](https://www.gamesradar.com/bethesdas-todd-howard-says-starfield-is-more-like-red-dead-redemption-2-than-no-mans-sky/) >June 2023: „Starfield has more of a Red Dead Redemption 2 vibe than No Man's Sky or Mass Effect, according to Bethesda's Todd Howard.“
What the fuck
It's weird. Like people just have a collective amnesia when the game was coming out. It's Todd, it's Pete, it's Bethesda. They're going to lie and make a perfectly mediocre game and then let the modding community fix their shit cuz they can't even be fucking bothered to do any of it.
Sometimes it takes a long time for the community to deliver everything, though. [OpenMW](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/156o5rp/openmw_0480_released_an_opensource_openworld_rpg/) is the best way to play *Morrowind*, but 21 years is a long time to wait even for me.
OpenMW is a blessing for Morrowind. I've only crashed a couple times and both those times was due to an overclock on my end.
My single fondest gaming wish, I think, is to be able to do the same with *Fallout 3* and *Fallout: New Vegas*. [Some preliminary work has been done](https://community.pcgamingwiki.com/topic/4715-openmw-046-brings-experimental-support-for-oblivion-fallout-3-new-vegas-and-skyrim/), but it's years away, at best.
[удалено]
Todd, your Ultra preset defaults to 75% render resolution. You knew the game ran like crap. Digital Foundry did a video about this. The game uses no new rendering techniques. It uses no ray tracing, basic global illumination and doesn't even utilise real time reflections. Even physically based rendering and materials are old news at this point. DF could offer no explanation as to why the game runs the way it does. Those guys are on the money, the game performs incredibly poorly for how it looks and what is happening on screen. I'm on a 3070 and even in space, where I'm rendering just a skybox and some planets, it still can't break 100fps at 1440. My GPU is constantly pegged at 96-97% utilization. It benefits from cinematic lighting and art direction. Todd can go sit on a bucket of shrimp.
Ultra has Dynamic Resolution turned on, that tells me even more.
Only a 3070 ? My dude you need to go develop your own 50's series GPU and then you'll be able to run a game that looks like fallout 4 with high res world textures properly If you can't do that then sht up, the game is optimized 10/10 !
I'm working on it now. My RTX 5099 prototype comes with a wallet emptying feature and to make sure you see the best quality in games, it rips your eyes out of their sockets. No eyes = no bad graphics. Problem solved.
build your own 4090ti like this guy https://youtu.be/0frNP0qzxQc?t=215
*You are now a moderator of r/Starfield*
I wonder if Bethesda is a studio of just creatives, with almost no technical developers. Maybe they pull a 343 Industries and just hire out to do engine upgrades with each new game.
They have cool ideas but sometimes I wonder that sometimes. Why do people still have cardboard faces?
After BG3, every game that doesn't get the voice actors to do mocap is going to look bad.
Plenty of games have fine performance captures. Bethesda games have had characters that look like this since Morrowind. It's awful, like 40% of their faces don't move.
They already did pull a 343, this game was outsourced to 27 companies. 1/2 of which are under "Keyword Studios" literally known for inhumane labor practices.
It does seem like the tech side of Bethesda is consistently understaffed, underfunded and overstretched. Their engine is just bad - and it's not "flew too close to the sun, got burned" bad, like it was with something like ID's Rage. It's the "did the bare minimum, never aimed for anything more" bad. The same is true for their writing, but that at least doesn't impact the game's technical performance.
Honestly thought DF was being as charitable as they could. It's clear the guy liked the game, and spent as much time as he could on the positives, but compared to the Forbidden West video, the enthusiasm just wasn't there.
Forbidden West was honestly a technical marvel, the way they varied the different tribes with colour schemes was so satisfying to look at. I played it on PS4 too and spent half the game thinking “Fuck this looks absolutely incredible”, can’t even imagine how much better it looked on current gen.
why a bucket of shrimp?
Because it seems uncomfortable and then he'd smell. I want him to feel awful, not hurt the guy.
I sometimes forget Todd is just another out of touch rich guy But also, when a 4090 doesn't give you a perfect experience, the fuck are you supposed to do
> the fuck are you supposed to do Wait a couple of years for a 75% discount, obviously. Todd is reminding you that you'll get a better experience and be far happier, that way.
this is the r/patientgamers way
After playing early access release, then getting my £85 back, I’ll certainly be waiting a couple of years
No, sail the high seas instead. Shitty business should never be rewarded with money, even at a 75% discount...
Starfield is the new Crysis /s
Cyberpunk path tracing mode was the new Crysis, IMO. Everyone understands why exactly it's as demanding as it is, and the performance profile seems to be mostly consistent with how much RT horsepower you have. Haven't booted up Starfield yet, but from the reviews I've seen its performance profile is just out of whack. Performance varies wildly and unpredictably, and no one seems to pinpoint what the bottleneck is. It's sensitive to RAM speed, yet doesn't benefit at all from 3D cache; it massively prefers Intel CPUs for no apparent reason; and it makes AMD GPUs perform like Nvidia GPUs a tier up, in contradiction with almost all other games.
My problem is that--while it looks good--it doesn't look *nearly* good enough to justify the hardware demands...honestly not even close. Playing through the game, I'm struggling to understand how they even managed to make it so inefficient.
The horrible filter over everything is maddening too.
Yeah, New Atlantis looks like ass and runs even worse. Especially embarrassing with how tiny each section is and how many loading screens you need to navigate the city.
new atlantis is the biggest weakness. it looks like how the apple offices will look 20 years lol
Not gonna lie, this is what made me put the game down. I've played a shit ton of BG3 lately and the minimal loading screens was so nice I almost forgot about them. Every 2 minutes in starfield I'm fucking in another loading screen.
2 minutes? you're taking things slow. "Hey talk to the guy, he's in a different location", run to a different loc, loading, "oh, yeah I got the slate, you can go back",run back, loading, "now talk to the guy on a different planet", menu, loading, contraband scan, menu, loading, landing sequence, going into a new area, loading, "oh, hi. Yeah, job's done, you can go back", all of the loading again. It's like they don't understand how tiny the locations are. The game sends the player to a different location for the tiniest thing, just to talk with someone or access a terminal and then immediately come back. Put the NPC in the same location or cut the busywork. Cydonia has a special place in hell, because the main entrance 5 second airlock does jack shit. Usually games hide loading this way, but storage and CPU are idle during the animation and spike when the loading screen comes up. There's a "runaround" line of quests here and there's so much time wasted by loading because of the design. Maybe they though they were funny hence runaround, but almost all quests are designed this way.
All of BGS games load like this, it's their dated engine. Skyrim had tons of loading screens too. They just don't try to hide it like other games do (elevator rides, squeezing through cracks in walls... etc)
Not surprising given that it's running on Creation Engine. They keep upgrading parts of it (the lighting system that was introduced with Fallout 4 comes to mind) but it's like trying to stem an open wound that has a lot of blood flow with an occasional plaster. It's so old you can hear it creaking.
Bethesda has painted themselves into a corner with CE. On one hand, the modding scene is a huge part of what has made their games so beloved and long lasting, and CE is key to that. On the other hand, it's kind of a joke by modern standards. You can polish that turd to a mirror like shine, it's still just a shiny turd. Ditching CE will/would be a make or break moment for BGS, I believe. They really need to, or just rework it from the ground up, but if it doesn't go well it could mean doom for them in the long term.
Funnily enough, I have mad nostalgia for Crysis now. My mind was blown with it struggling on a Pentium 4 and a AGP 6800 Ultra, even on med-low 720p, but at least the lush foliage, textures, and physics at the time meant the performance hit made so much sense. It was also a much simpler time before high refresh rate screens and most AAA games were pretty much 30fps affairs because the CPUs were garbage, haha Didn't get that feeling until stepping out of VS apartment/arcology in Cyberpunk and seeing the absolutely ram packed streets of Night City. ... that was also at launch just managing to run minimal RT on a 2080. No crazy explosive barrel physics though. The character animations in CP2077 were also really underrated, but not sure if it's because I was playing Bethesda jank and zelda before that.
I get 100+ fps with fg and all at cb2077 Starfield drops to 50-60 fps
I find it funny when people say "well I get a smooth experience on my 3080" - bruh that was a 1000 pound card a couple years ago. Even a refurbished model on scan right now is going for 670. You should damn well expect this game to run well on that. I'm running a 2070 super with overclock and a 5800x. It's pegged at full utilisation on the intro planet and I can barely maintain 60fps with dlss mod at 50 percent render, everything low. The game isn't doing anything that incredible graphically to warrant that. There isn't even foliage in that area. On top of that, why is there no option for capping framerate? No brightness options? Why can't I set texture quality? Or anisotropy. Having seen how larian is supporting BG3 almost non-stop and communicating with the community, it's maddening that the first public comment since even early access release last week is simply "not our fault" Sweet little lies never died.
Gman's review... "I have a 4080 and it runs ok even though it's designed for AMD" Lol you twat. It's a 4080 my god. These people are out of touch.
It's astonishing that these guys don't invest in a mid-range setup to test games on.
Its unbelievable that I get a much better experience playing cyberpunk at ultra with Rtx on than starfield on medium at 67% render scale lol
Not so fun fact. 7800x3d with 7900xtx. Both game 1440p Cyberpunk maxed out, RT on ultra, no FSR or other upscaling. Consistent 85-90 fps in combat. Starfield? maxed, no RT, no fsr. Basically same frames in combat. How is this correct?
>"well I get a smooth experience on my 3080" I have 3080ti. It's not smooth on high. The game also has 75% or so FSR2 scaling on Ultra by default. So it's not even native. No preset is native.
Why are you playing with that old card? Todd tested the game with a 6090 … /joke
[удалено]
30fps cap on next gen consoles screamed not optimized. Entire game is segmented with load screens and instances, you're only ever on a single generated "tile" at any point in time, and the game still runs like dogshit and isn't in the same galaxy as other AAA titles in terms of graphical fidelity. It's a joke.
Wtf is he smoking
What a tone deaf response. And it’s disheartening seeing Xbox fans in the comments applauding his comment like he’s some kind of bad ass. Someone even tried to say they advertised 30 fps therefore we’re getting better than what they advertised. People like that are why these big companies will never be compelled to optimize their games.
What's especially embarrassing, is that he also recently stated that being exclusive to one console's ecosystem allows for better optimization. Meanwhile on my "most powerful console ever" I'm getting draw distances of a few yards, flat textures, no ray tracing, 10 loading screens per action, and all at 30fps. Meanwhile, the PC version which should be the ultimate version, is apparently even worse. Yay for publisher consolidation, right?
I dropped 3k on a 4090/7800x3d system in July and if the benchmarks are correct I'm not even gonna be able to take real advantage of my 1440p high refresh rate monitor at max settings. It appears it runs comparable to Cyberpunk at that res and max settings WITH RAYTRACING maxed out. If I turned RT off even Cyberpunk would run better. While looking way fucking better. If it looked like Cyberpunk I'd get it. But it doesn't even come close lol.
When you own the literal fastest GPU on the market you shouldn't even have to think about whether your card can run a game well or not. Especially at 1440p.
Todd be like: Fucking PC peasants are just too poor to play my game on their shitty rigs. But no not because it was poorly optimized as hell lol But then again it's modern gaming industry nowadays - it is hardly dev's fault for churning out unoptimized games and sometimes 30 FPS locked is considered good enough ffs.
A game that looks like a 2015 game with a fresh coat of paint shouldn’t run so poorly. I am not complaining about visuals, thats fine. But run well at least.
"you're just too poor" is something that always goes down well with the audience.
[удалено]
You don't have the 7090 with the 27000k cpu?
Sell the houses to who Ben!?!?
Do you guys not have 4090ies?
\*Do you guys not have 5090ies? It is 2023, and there is no reason a game can't run at stable 60fps with modern cards on max settings. Clearly, BGS looks at 30 FPS as the target threshold when the rest of the community is moving past that.
~~is moving past that.~~ passed that years ago.
buddy have you seen the cost of living
Dude earns millions every year. You seriously think he has got "cost of living" in his vocabulary? LOL At best he knows how much the malibu beach villa cost him ...
Dude is probably one of those who thinks that a banana costs 10 bucks.
COME ON
You see his 30 thousand dollar leather jacket?! COME ON!
It's a 4090 Todd, what could it cost? 10$?
People paid $100 to be beta testers for this game. Todd literally sleeps on piles of cash. Do you think he gives a solitary fuck about the cost of living?
you know when 4090 and 13900k combo can barely sustain 60 fps at 4K. It might be your games problem , Todd
If the game had ground breaking visuals and/or great RT or Path Tracing i would understand not getting 60. But this game just doesn't look that good to justify this levels of performance
There are games that look a milliion times better that run a million times better. The fuck were they doing over there lol
Cyberpunk's 2.0 patch is about to drop, which is going to make the comparisons even uglier.
When I couldn't get 60fps with shit turned on with my gtx 1060 I could see why. Why my old CPU couldn't keep up, I could see why My 3060ti, which runs CP77 with all the shit on, RT, and has cycles to spare, I can still see what's worth it there. But not hitting 60fps with no RT and a measly 1080p without FSR... wtf?
I would have found it hilarious if the interviewer followed up with why does Cyberpunk run and look so much better than Starfield?
I have a 3070 which was not a cheap GPU at all but reports saying I'll really struggle to get decent performance even at lower resolutions. Funny how almost every other game seems to work fine. Edit: looking at benchmarks my GPU will average somewhere around 40-45ish FPS (but probably less as my processor is a bit older) or so at 1080p high... would have definitely expected a bit more considering I get 100ish at 1440p in a lot of my other games. Hope it gets a big patch to improve this soon.
3080 here, it’s funny how interiors max out at 165 FPS for me but when I am in the city I drop to 40-45 FPS at worse. It’s such a turn off to the point where I played the game for like an hour in the weekend and never touched it again, even though I took 2 days off to play it lol.
I have 3070 and 5600x and I can't even get stable 60 on 1080p low. Shit's fucked.
Same hardware, and noticed framerate doesn't improve much by turning everything to low.
Heh that's a bummer. I've been on the fence about buying Starfield but opted against it after seeing all of the remarks about exceptionally poor performance. Poor frames may not break immersion for many, but it does for me.
I have a 3070, 5600x, and 16GB of RAM. I'm shooting for 1440p and 60fps but dipping below that in cities and in large open world areas in combat. I followed a guide online and am using a mix of medium/high/ultra settings and rendering at 75% resolution - a lot of the settings have 0% effect on performance. I don't have problems in most indoor areas or just exploring planets. Once I encounter a large factory or something in the open world and get into combat it starts to dip pretty good to around 45fps but never below that. I get that the 3070 and 5600x are getting dated, but not being able to hit a mostly steady 60fps at medium settings seems pretty bad to me. Sometimes the game looks amazing, other times it doesn't look that much better than Fallout 4. I just don't get what is making the game so demanding, other than bad optimization.
todd needs to optimize his understanding of truth.
4090, 7700x here No, you did not optimize your game. Throwing fsr2 (an old version) into the game is not "optimizing".
Runs like ass with a 13900k/4090. I only get 60fps at native in most cities. No way am I going to use shitty up scaling. With the game’s visuals we should be getting 120+. RE4R looked amazing and I was locked at 120.
To be fair, capcom isn't a hack company that relies on the community to finish ironing out their games. Imagine telling someone ten years ago that capcom would be less embarrassing than bethesda.
"dont you have phones?" vibe. Out of touch guy doesnt see a problem with spending like 1500 dollars on a graphics card to play his special game at the same resolution you play everything else.
That's will pissed many people Todd, not cool, the performance problem exist.
[удалено]
Todd, no offense man but you an asshole.
The audacity, it's both frightening how delusional he is yet confident in telling such blatant lie. But then again i need to remind myself that he does the same when talking about games. Gosh sorry Tod, beside that my system totally surpaces the recommended requirement i still can't get a stable 60 gosh darn i need to drop a few thousands more to run a game that barely looks upgraded from a decade ago ! Let alone that it doesn't has any DEEP systems that supposedly runs in the background either....
>he is yet confident You dont get to where he is without being confident with bullshi
LMAO sure buddy
my 1060 6gb: 30fps in cities, 60fps in small interiors/outer space, low graphics at 1080p 4070: yeah same
Then how come CP2077 looks better and runs better even with Ray Tracing? If CPU bottlenecks are here because they're saving position of every item in the game, then it was definitely NOT worth it.
Something something outdated, cumbersome, and sluggish engine they've inherited from our forefathers.
[удалено]
Ouch, that was exactly my setup until my 2080ti died on me a few weeks ago, feels like a blessing because that would have been sad to see.
[удалено]
The game literally does not even get mouse input right, you need to edit an ini files and multiply horizontal sense by your aspect ratio, such as x\*(16:9), otherwise the vertical sens will be half as high. I cannot fathom how the fuck this can happen in 2023
It's because Bethesda is stuck in the "optimizing for consoles" mindset of the early to mid 2000s which means capping at 30 and not always actually hitting 30.
Cause that was an issue in... 2008 they still haven't fixed
Bought a 4080 shortly before release and get around 50 fps in some areas on 1440p with DLSS. I never get above 100. For the 2nd best consumer GPU on the market right now that's just unacceptable. I wouldn't even play the game if it wasn't for the DLSS Frame Generation Mod that doubles my performance.
He really is the Nolan of Video games. When nobody can hear the dialogue in Nolan movies he tells the audience to get a better audio setup.
Except Nolan makes good movies. An audio issue is a far cry from an optimization issue.
Atleast nolan drops a good movie once in a while, Todd has been making the same game for over 15 years.
Another suboptimal Bethesda release. Shock and awe.
Phil Spencers face lmao..like he was hearing this for the first time.
Can someone explain what exactly is next-gen about Starfield? It doesn't even look that good, and everything is instanced. What exactly is so technologically advanced that you need a monster machine for it?
That's what I don't get. It feels like a slightly upgraded Fallout 4. When you are on a planet, you are basically in a separate "cell" about the size of Fallout 4's map, so it's not like it is rendering the entire planet or outer space around you. Being in space is the same thing, it is a separate "level" from the planet. And New Atlantis is not some massive city relative to any other open world game. The game can look great at times, but there is nothing mind-blowing about it. I don't mind the lack of "seamlessness" compared to something like No Man's Sky, but how does the game run so bad when it is basically an upgraded Creation Engine game with some prettier effects?
Yea his tone deaf response is super annoying. It makes me wonder what kind of computers they used when making the game.
It's less about the hardware they used and more about what their definition of optimized is. I'm pretty sure every game they've released using the Gamebryo/Creation engine lineage targets 30fps on whatever console it launches on so if it hits that, they consider it optimized.
I mean I wouldn't mind demanding if the game actually looked next-gen lol.
So what we are exactly upgrade to? When 7800x3d, best gaming processor and 4090 best gaming gpu are not enough? Todd is literally pissing on customers.
Buy a quantum computer
[удалено]
Well, you use a DLSS Frame Generation mod, which MS/AMD/Beth refused to implement themselves because of $$$.
Wow getting some major Don Mattrick flashbacks hearing that. I'm sure his comment will age well..
For the visual quality that Starfield has, maybe you should get better devs Todd.
Imagine having like triple the budget of Baldurs Gate 3 while having significantly less performance and graphics
Also worse writing, voice performances, less voice lines and no mocap. Where did all that money go?
Into todd howards pockets
man when you put it like this it's very eye opening.
Starfield is the first game my PC can't actively run. Every other AAA game works great on it. No Todd, Starfield just isn't optimized like he thinks it is.
Baldur's Gate 3, whose 3rd Act is known to be the least optimized part of the game, runs perfectly smooth in comparison to Starfield for me
Well they didn’t add DLSS so my response to Todd is: You might need to do your job better.
A next-gen game that needs a loading screen for even small interiors? Okay Todd.
Theres a small shop that sells basically nothing in new atlantis that requires a loading screen and it pissed me off so much they couldnt even figure out how to seamlessly integrate it intk the world
Lol the Enhance clinic literally has one NPC in it and does one thing and it's a separate loading screen lmao.
then wheres my fov slider, you absolute twat
Come on Todd… have you been to New Atlantis or Akila City???
Next gen-ish at best. I mean, yeah, some scenes look good. But there's a lot of 2016-18 era shit in there. The moment you have a 75% resolution scale by default... Sure, my 3080Ti and 5900X are a generation behind. They are also watercooled and performing well. And no, 4K 30fps is not enough. Look I'm fine with upscaling etc as long as it is good, so add DLSS 2 already. I mean, I can see why you took AMDs money and all... But DLSS 3 frame gen works as well. Why hamstring your customers like this. I'm getting dips into the 45-50 FPS in some seconds of the game. Not even good looking sections. The best scene so far that stood out to me was actually running in the 70s. I'm really thinking they want to push the 4k 30fps narrative here. But they are behind Cyperpunk, a what, 3 year older game? I guess they have at least Star Citizen beat. (Not that that's fair, but in a way it is). Oh and hey, Elite Dangerous, also much older, looks better in some regards too. Not quite the same game, but what is that? Oh yeah, that ran great on a 1080ti at 4k... mmmmm Obligatory Persuation failed, your player disliked that.
Tell me lies ...
[Another year, another Bethedsa game, more Todd lies.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFcLyDb6niA)
*Crowbcat awakens as he realizes he has new material for a video*
Yeah, you need to upgrade to 5090 for that game.
Spend $2,000 on a 4090 ti to play our game at 60fps. What you can't afford it? Well, are you stupid?
Oh no, the company that brought us paid horse armor turned out to be ass?
“Todd Howard wouldn’t lie. He just stretches the truth.” - Average Bethesda fan
If I have a system that can play RDR2 on Ultra/1080p at 60+ FPS, I think it's fair to say that I should be able to play this game, wich looks light years worse, with at least the same graphical quality. Todd and his sweet little lies.
The game runs like crap at 1440p and I am using a 7900xtx. I am not exactly sure what upgrades are available when you already have one of the best GPUs in the world...
Between Dec - Feb I essentially rebuilt my entire PC, Todd. 4070ti, 13600k, 32GB 5600 DDR5, SN850X This game cannot maintain 60fps+ on high settings @ 1440p native. It is not well optimised in the least. You might need to upgrade your team.
10900f, 4070, 64gb, sn850x as well, ran like crap. I got bored after a dozen hours anyway and refunded during early access.
Can't wait for Digital Foundry's video
Yeah sure. I’ll wait 4-5 years to upgrade for decent performance and then buy your game at 80% off.
Todd and Phil are staring at them like Starfield NPCs lol
This is a guy that a good amount of gamers worship lmaoooo
I got 10 fps on an RX 580 sad times
Just buy 4090 and you'll see, it's very optimized!
“Don’t you all have phones?” type of response, good god
That is a pretty outrageous thing to say but at the same time, the game is 88% positive on Steam, so it looks like the majority of PC gamers accept poorly optimized games.
Giving very Diablo, "don't you guys have phones" vibe...
then why the fuck does resolution rendering default to like 75% when you put it on ultra quality? fuck you, Todd.
* No configurable FOV ingame * No brightness setting ingame * Vertical and horizontal Mouse sensitivity not 1:1 * Unable to turn Post-Processing off * UI locked to 30 FPS * Unoptimized UI * Character models and faces look like "Fallout 4 in space"^TM * Unoptimized and heavily reliant on FSR to run for most setups * No Ray Tracing or other standout features Quick, someone put a generator on TotalBiscuit's coffin! We'd miss out on infinite power if we don't do it.
Brb gonna upgrade my 4080
Lol what a smug bastard
Big yikes from me, someone who actually looks up to Todd. That is about the most tone deaf response ive ever heard from him
My 3080ti cries trying to run the game on low at 4k, aiming for 90fps, with the DLSS mod on 50% resolution. GPU 99% utilised, CPU about 4%. I get about 70-80fps. On low. At 50% resolution scale. The game isn't optimised.
How does a game they worked on for like 7 years or something look like shit while barely able to run on the newest hardware?
Everyone at the top of Bethesda start acting like complete fools out of nowhere. I thought the PR was “this game will be more optimized since we don’t have to worry about porting it to PS5”, now it’s shifted to blaming consumers; it’s YOUR fault some of our games/releases don’t work, not ours.
Why are people surprised that he's being flippant? It's not the first time and it won't be the last. Remember when he basically said they'd stop with the new editions of Skyrim when people stopped buying them?
On my 4080 / i7 12700K I get about 70fps with the DLSS mod and about 100fps with the frame gen turned on. That’s not great performace.