Everyone Loves Starfield Already - Inside Games 

I think everyone is just giving them the benefit of the doubt because in the age of dead eyed devs coming out to announce the 50th live service looter shooter its refreshing to see AAA devs talk about a game and actually sound proud of what they did.

This is why Todd maxed his charisma

It doesn't look worse it just looks less glossy which I'm a fan of. I'm not sure why so many new games have this grease filter on all the skin textures where eveyone looks like they have been standing in a sauna all day.

The new showcase looked graphically better than 2022 by a mile

The side by side...the newer one looked better, am I going crazy? They made some design choices like making the iris more pronounced in the eyes. The beard looks MORE consistent though and better in my opinion.

All BGS games have NPCs attack you when you do bad things. There is even a point within the showcase where the UC are attacking the player in space.

Those "downgrade" dont look like downgrades at all to me. The game looks way better in nearly every way and runs a lot smoother from what they showed last year. Watch through last year's showcase and compare it to what they showed on sunday. It's a night and day improvement.

The only news show brave enough to give it's viewers bias whiplash. We salute you kings.

If all I get from Starfield in September is "Fallout in space", I'll call it a win.

I'll be playing on PC so it doesn't affect me much, but I also see why they'd stick with 30FPS for consoles. There's nothing worse than enjoying a smooth 60FPS experience in a game and then going into that one city or dungeon that tanks your FPS. It's so jarring to go from smooth to slideshow. Consistency really is key.

AHH yes Lawrence telling a studio who made the game why their game should be running at 60 FPS ..... does he think they just couldn't be bothered??

Also, in terms of downgraded NPCs, yes and no. There are some parts that do look like a bit of a downgrade, but if you look at literally everything else the entire game mostly got an upgrade in visuals. So the downgrade on NPCs really doesn't bother me that much (especially since NPCs were never their strong suit anyway), when they massively improved everything else.

Thankfully Todd´s most recent interview (with Kinda Funny Games) tempered expectations. He said "no" to some things (land vehicles; fishing; etc) people were hoping for.

I really haven’t seen negative feedback and I don’t think players really expect to do “anything “ it really seems like everyone knows what to expect because it seems like the excitement has come from what they’ve seen at the show.

I think the presentation was just really well done. Very in depth, included a lot of the features people are looking for in space games, clear improvements over their previous RPGs that a lot of people love.

I think Bethesda is simply managing expectations well and their reputation, good and bad, helps with this. You can't get people mad about Bethesda offering graphics that aren't up to date, because they have literally NEVER offered graphics that were up to date in the first place. If Bethesda wouldn't offer a large playground or denied mod support, people would be FURIOUS, because thats what they expect from the game. I think the showcase was ridiculously clever. They didn't hide their flaws and also showed us their strengths. And most Skyrim fans are absolutely fine with the compromise.

Okay. I'll say this. I left a comment being a bit more harsh. However. I respect that you guys have a background in CS, I'll say cs is what I'm studying specifically focused on game design. As someone who worked on my own custom engine, just because you program that doesn't mean you have the full picture of why this game might be limited to 30 fps. and while I agree some have made assumptions, there is no doubt that the scale of this game is much much larger than redfall. And there could be a ton of potential reasons that are valid for this being 30. I also am dialing it back because I felt like there is a lot of hype for what we've seen. However, if you're correct in saying that there is hype for made up shit and expecting this game to do literally everything. That's dumb and people should lower their expectations. Maybe it's just cause I think I have somewhat realistic expectations but; what they showed, actually working looks fantastic and entertaining to me. I don't expect more than what they showed, and I hope it is stable and the generation is fun. That's all I'm looking for.

12:42 There's actually a bounty system in Starfield, similar to their Elder Scrolls game. With CDPR's gameplay demo they showed a vehicle chase that wasn't indicative of what you could do in the final game; it was a single scripted event but we were unaware (they even said in their commentary that people would come after you). CDPR showed a vertical slice of what they wanted their game to be way too early, and a lot of people felt deceived. What Bethesda is showing is three months out, and so far they've been pretty upfront about what is and what isn't in the game. People just like what they are seeing; it's really that simple.

Even FF16 can't hit a locked 60 without dropping the internal res to 720p. Too many compromises.

I feel like Lawrence wanting people to be more skeptical is warranted, but at the same time he’s being too skeptical himself. Openly said not a fan of Bethesda and I think that’s showing.

I wouldn't say I love it or that I'm not skeptical, but I am optimistic about it which is much better than every other AAA title these days

Star field is gonna be so fun

If you look closely in the sandwich scene, the physics system seems to be very much improved though. Physics in bethesda games so far were that every item behaves exactly the same, like a gum that falls to the floor and just sticks. That scene looked like the sandwiches were a bit "squishy" and act more natural, weapons dropping from enemies seem to fall and slide over the floor more natural too, that requires more performance obviously. It's not the same as we had the last 10 years basically. Might not be obvious to everyone, but I immediately noticed this.

I’m excited for Starfield because I love Fallout & Bethesda games, but I fully agree the problems start when people project what you can and can’t do. There’s no vehicles, mounts, etc. There’s not fishing, or hunting like at the level of RDR2. Like Lawrence said you (presumably) can’t shoot up the main city and take over. It’s a Bethesda game. There are going to be limits & a gameplay loop that is familiar to those who have played Fallout 4 especially. The main thing I think people need to brace themselves for is the presentation showed 4 big city areas. The main first planet, the Mars one, the Cowboy one, and the Cyberpunk one. I’m not so sure there’s going to be any other cities/planets that size. I think those will be the main ones, then you’ll maybe have some smaller ones like where they showed the factions, and then the rest is just procedurally generated filler which can be fun for some side missions & help to add a bit of grind for late game ship building/economy stuff. I’m expecting 80% of time will be spent in those 4 main areas, 15% on the smaller areas and 5% in the procedurally generated ones. I personally won’t have a problem with this because I think these big areas are going to be where the game shines. But if people have bigger expectations than those areas, I think they’re setting themselves up for disappointment.

"It's gonna be FO in space". My take exactly. It's a beth game...if you like them you'll like it. When I watched the deep dive all I could think was "OMG nms had a baby with FO". curious to see how big the explorable areas will be. I'm hyped but BECAUSE I *KNOW* that it will be Fallout Space Skyrim. (hell you can obviously see the DNA from the other games right on the screen/menus) can't wait!

I would think that having my goldfish modeled ship filled w/ sandwiches & dead bodies land on a base planet that's also fully customized with its own crew... let's stop there. It wasn't that long ago that you had to close every SINGLE door you entered in Skyrim to keep the game from breaking on PS3, because it remembered the cheese you left in a Giants' Nest 70 hours ago. The pretty 10-30hr games that come out & have you moving through tight spaces every 20mins... are not the same on the most basic of levels.

I personally wasnt hyped for starfield until the showcase. However it was the systems that got me hyped for the game...if they can deliver on all these different systems no matter how half baked they come out ill be happy because i know the mod community will be all over it.

"fallout in space" is exactly *why* I'm genuinely amped for the game. That's all I want; a new Bethesda single player bug-fest.

This is about expectations I think. People are getting hung up on 60fps locked vs able to get to 60fps occasionally. If they set a 60fps mode, it's possible, very possible that the frame rate is all over the place like Jedi Survivor and don't want to take the PR and gamer rage hit. Hardly any of that game gets to 60fps on Xbox and PS5 and I think Starfield is probably doing more going on than anything Jedi Survivor did. After this is all said and done, I bet there will be a 60fps mode added down the line. It probably won't be locked and will be wildly unstable though :).

Lawrence, stack a bunch of gems in skyrim in one display case and get them to stick.

I'll check out the game on PC. I'm honestly hopeful. It's a Bethesda game after all, move aside the bugs and you have an immersive gameplay loop of exploration, quests, combat, and more. I guess I'm just willing to admit that I am just easily entertained with video games. I even enjoyed CP2077 at launch even before all those improvements.

As one of the few people who played Cyberpunk on PS4 Pro back when it launched, I overall enjoyed my experience, even if the game crashed over 40 times for me during my 50+ hour playthrough, if a game is still able to bring me enjoyment, I consider that a win, and I expect a glitchy mess for Starfield but I've been playing Bethesda games since Oblivion, so I'm used to the early glitchiness. But overall, I'm certainly playing Day 1 with Game Pass either way, and I look forward to more videos you guys put out on the subject!

I'm going to play this on PC, I'm guessing it'll be 40-70 fps at 1440p for me and will look amazing. And I'll probably put 800 hours into this game.

To be fair Lawrence, FF16 just released on the PS5 and can’t hold a stable 60fps even when dropping to as low as 720p internal resolution. And that’s a linear action RPG now. Not a sprawling open world/Galaxy game. Is FF16 bad because it runs better in Quality mode locked at 30fps? Hell no. And Starfield will be fine.

I will say you guys are right to be skeptical in their justification of 30 fps but I would also like to point out in other BGS is the kind of studio that has every NPC persistently simulated. In Oblivion goblins would roam and kill each other all over the map with zero player input. If anything remotely similar is happening with Starfield at its size it makes perfect sense that it isn't going to be 60 fps.

The 30fps lock is not that much of a price to pay for what we are getting. I prefer a consistent frame rate over a tanking 60fps.

Redfall, fast paced action game should be 60fps, since gameplay relies on quick action. Starfield, slower more rpg exploratory game feels more acceptable to me to be 30fps. Does that make sense?

at the end of the day gameplay is all that matters and the gameplay looks fun

Im really excited for the starfield anniversary edition we'll get in 10 years, after they turn all the community mods into DLC

Okay, here's one thing we DO know. Over 1000x planets. Can put outposts on planets. Outposts can accrew resources and have team members posted at them. Game has to log what resources each outpost is gaining and the status of the people there.

Im very excited for this game no matter the hate, I know what the game is and I know I will play so many hours

Remember everyone, starfield will be a bethesda rpg in space, that's it. It's not going to redefine gaming, it's not going to be boundless, there are invisible walls keeping you from flying in space forever, a vast majority of those 1,000 planets are barren like they said, there are going to be visual performance issues on good PCs on launch. That said, I will be playing it and hopefully having fun

Man this is why yall have been my favorites in the business for nearly a decade. Actual constructive thoughts and arguments but with a palpable sense of excitement and love for video games, keep em coming Bruce and Lawdawg.

Todd said, "You're landing, exploring somewhere around that landing spot, and then going somewhere else." It seems like we'll land on specific Points of interest, explore that area while the remaining 98% of each planet will offer little to no content. Also, there won't be in-atmosphere flight. This does not ruin the game for me, but it does keep my hype in check.

I don’t think that those downgrades are downgrades i personally like it better. I don’t mind the 30 fps on X and S. you guys are 100 % right about gamepass. Don’t buy it and trash it cause this or that. Get gamepass for a month and try it if you don’t like the 30 fps don’t play it,and maybe wait to see if they add a 60FPS mode later Great job once again guys I’d like to see a video of your thoughts of the FTC Xbox case.

Lawrence hates the fact that people aren't bashing this game like they did with Cyberpunk 2077.

I'm sorry. I don't think you guys know what you're talking about. I think the game does calculate some things as soon as you enter a cell, but there are a lot that they track far away from you as well. We know this from Skyrim dragons on PS3. Where people's framerates were bugged out because they encountered a dragon earlier in the game, ran away, but that dragon was still being tracked, even though it was all the way across the map. That's also how you can run into NPCs as they travel from one city to another, and also find their corpses and signs of struggle (weapons strown on the ground, arrows in trees). The game is 100% calculating things Also, Fallout 4 has just as many systems in play as Skyrim plus some. You can still pick up any item with more clutter for that around the world, more NPCs, more densely packed, and they could all still react to each other and get into fights. Then you had settlement building and settler management on top of that. Fallout 76 was a step backwards because it's an online game. They put more restrictions on because what one person does can effect another person's game. But that has no bearing on single player. Also the fact that you think these consoles should be able to do 60fps in this game. You said you didn't see anything that would stop it from hitting 60fps. But just the graphical fidelity moving from Fallout 4 to this is a generational leap. If this game looked like Fallout 4 which ran 30fps last gen, then you could expect it to run at twice the fps because these consoles are at least twice as powerful as their last-gen mid-gen refreshes. But it looks so much better. And we saw a single shot of a small portion of New Atlantis's entrance that had at least 30 NPCs in one frame. Plus, interior lights all casting shadows is so much of a bigger leap than people probably noticed. Then you said no one's played the game so we don't know if they'll have the same interactiveness as their previous games. But Ryan McCaffrey played the game and described his session, and Todd Howard said in an interview that predator animals can hunt prey animals, so we still have all that interaction. They also showed bounty levels in the direct, so there's still some sort of crime system.

I'm in the same boat. Excited for the game, want to play it asap but I don't think its going to be as groundbreaking as some people seem to think it is. I see similarities to Fallout 4 in some of its RPG mechanics that I'm not a huge fan of but i'm just waiting for release to find out fully. I expect a slightly better fallout 4 with a new space theme and some new space mechanics.

People have pretty much seen the game from the presentation. Anything on top of that in gameplay is just icing on the cake. Time to stop trolling and appreciate game-design now.

I've played a lot of survival games and games that give you a lot of freedom in building massive structures, I feel like they're building in headroom for the sheer amount of bases/ship customizing people will likely do. There is also inventory bloat. In Fallout 4, if you had almost every settlement built up to capacity and were hoarding equipment and junk that game would definitely start to chug. No idea if bases will be limited, but the way they presented it was that you would want to setup multiple outposts and with everything else that they showed I could see that being a massive resource hog. I'm still hyped for the game and don't really care about the 30 vs 60 fps debate and I'll still be waiting until after the game launches to see how it fairs in the wild before I put down my money. I've been burned by enough game launches across every platform that I straight up refuse to buy any game on day one.

Do I think Starfield, like "the internet" said about Cyberpunk 2077, is the second coming of Christ? No, but do I think the game is going to be dope as fuck yes! It's looking to be my kind of game and I'm here for that. I love the shit out of Cyberpunk 2077 and I think much of the tomfoolery responses to the fact that all it needed were some patches later, were out of control. Now with Starfield, I believe the same thing is happening again. Where folks are creating some other thing in their head about it rather than taking the Direct at face value. Be excited about the things you like, always. But, also be realistic about them and don't just become so cynical about it either.

The deep dive of Cyberpunk came 2 years before release, and the constant delays clearly did show it was a mess. The last delay was even a 15 days delay, which was evidence of catastrophy incoming (because it showed they were desperate enough to take the hit of this last minute dealy for a mere 15 days of bug crushing). Here the deep dive comes weeks before release, at this point they won't advertise anything they haven"t already ironed out. As for the 30fps issue. It may be an issue for the console players... but why be a console player? :p

Adding another comment here. "There were some people that COULD NOT enjoy an open world game that did not have fully immersive GTA style police when Cyberpunk came out." I don't know man, this feels like a pretty big mischaracterization of why people had problems with Cyberpunk. The problem with Cyberpunk was the exact problem with No Man's Sky. Over promising, and not delivering on their own advertisments. People were incredibly disappointed when the cops were very bare bones and almost tacked on because CD Projekt RED said in their promotional material that there would be a very in-depth system. While I do %100 agree that no one should pre-order a game because of the hype-train, it is not people's fault that they thought there was going to be something in the game when they were told so directly by developers of it. That being said, I do agree with the statements directed toward Starfield. Lawrence, you are calling it correct here where people are putting hopes and dreams into the game merely because it's locked at 30fps and there "MUST be a reason" for it. That will spiral out of control with the "you can do anything" crap. But Bethesda presumably hasn't shown anything that would be removed from the game that was shown or talked about in the direct, I say that because as you yourself said, they didn't really show anything crazy that would justify the 30fps. That's not what CD Projekt RED did, they directly lied about what was in the game.Hopefully that will be rectified much like No Man's Sky has been following its many updates, but Starfield and Cyberpunk are not comparable in this type of situation IMO.

From a perspective of someone who (partially) understands SW development and works in tech development I'm really not too angry about the slight downgrade of graphics for the release. As that is part of the optimization process to make it run on as many systems as possible. Of course for high-end systems it should be possible to have it at that higher fidelity if you so wish. But sometimes they do general changes in shaders and texture sizes that impact the graphics fidelity overall (even though I personally think that such drastic changes should not be done that late in development). Starfield is on a huge scale but with very high close range fidelity and if Bethesda feels that the frame drops on console will be too hard going with 60 fps it's justified to reduce that. Because in the end fluctuating FPS between 60 and 20 and much harder on the eyes than a more or less constant 30 fps. I play a lot of simulation games like ArmA3 or flight sim, which hardly ever run at 60 fps unless your PC is a monster, sometimes it's even less than 30. So I limit the FPS for those games down to not have those fluctuations, which in turn reduces load on the CPU, too (because the CPU can realx a little and only calculate physics every idk. 33 ms instead of every 17 ms. That is perfectly fine, even in a realistic shooter sim like ArmA. That said on PC we won't have that 30 fps limit from my understanding. It will only be for console. Plus Starfield is a SP game only, so there's no need to have higher FPS than that other player. ;) I also wasn't hyped at all for Starfield in the teaser from a year back. It didn't make me follow the game. Now the recent reveals got me more excited. And I guess that's the same for most people. Yet I still hold back from pre-ordering the game. I want to wait for more info.

Note on the Zelda comment, Zelda is an incredibly simple game. It's greatness is a testament to game design rather than technical difficulty. It has a way easier time with LOD, which is a huge bottleneck on the cpu side of things, especially for anything with high detail. High detail means more LODs to optimize the rendering on the GPU at the detriment of adding more instructions to the CPU. And that's not guesswork. But I do have a few guesses, 1. The procedural content will run very well, even densely populated. 2. Man made ares like city's and stations will run worse.

The only show you can trust to tell you to be kind AND be careful!

I really don't care about what whoever is mad about the game it's right up my alley as was no mans sky when it launched AND AFTER AND SINCE.....that's the thing if you love the primise of the game idea and the studio is committed to bringing that vision to fruition then alot of ppl can deal with some things not being perfect....also not everyone can afford a pc so 30 fps is not that big of a deal I've literally not played many games on higher and I may be in a minority here but it all boils down to ...IS THE GAME FUN TO PLAY?

I’m one of those who doesn’t care about the fps thing. And because I own Skyrim I know how the game was at launch. I still enjoyed it and loved it. But the game won’t be perfect, is just that to be honest seems very fun to be able to visit many planets and find whatever is there the way they’re setting it as is “going to be”.

9:50 in the direct they show a clip of an animal killing another and then eating each it, it was a big spider like creature pouncing on and killing another animal, the clip is shown within the first 10 minutes of the direct they even said while in an interview before that that they had trouble with the planet eco systems at first because the apex predators would kill off all the herbivores/scavengers too quickly, u should check it out the animations for it look really cool.

The way I see it, it's the new Skyrim. Skyrim wasn't massively graphically beautiful on console, and it ran at 30fps. Starfield looks nicer, is running at a higher resolution, is running on updated hardware, and is still at 30fps. For me, the trade-off is clear. It was always going to be a big ask of the current gen hardware to run at 4K and 60fps. A regular game could do either or. Most games have some form of upscaling. The Tourist (I think) runs at 8K but it is very graphically simplistic.

Just my take on this, I think I'd like a consistent 30fps then getting a laggy 60fps that'll just frustrate someone playing Starfield. In the end we'll see mods coming out to improve it overall. Hopefully it's not that buggy though.

I believe the physics, polygon count, global illumination, LODs, large amounts of procedural generation, the AI model, and the overall scale is what prevents it from hitting 60 on XBOX in regards to their engine. Comparing this to older Bethesda games won't hold up because the older games are just less in terms of tech in every way. Comparing this to other games won't hold up either because they were not built with the same engine and, for most, are not on the same scale. If the developers say they can't hit a consistent 60 on XBOX, then no amount of complaining is going to make it magically hit that number.

I literally went forward years ago thinking it was just gonna be fallout in space and guess what, I love fallout and I love space. So I’m basically golden. If it happens to be really pretty or does things fallout doesn’t even do then that’s just a bonus to me.

I understand tempering expectations because of disappointing games. But I had high expectations for Zelda, Red Dead, God of War and they blew them away. Nothing wrong with high expectations, just means you care. Disappointment and satisfaction are part of being a consumer.

Keeping track of items is a pain in ass, no matter what method they use running through huge arrays, lists, dictionaries whatever method they use can become time consuming. Everyone assumes it's just about the graphics and textures are cumbersome they are not.

Unfortunately the consoles just aren’t very powerful. Final Fantasy 16 has a performance mode that apparently runs terribly and most are advising to play at 30 fps. It is what it is.

There is a loading screen between Space and Planets (there's a loading screen between planets and buildings). I would bring it back to Oblivion, where the main world had a loading screen to a city and then there was a loading screen between the city and buildings. I 100% believe that the example of a burning forest would occur, but the physics and everything will be determined when the landing cutscene is playing.

The only way Starfield fails for me, is if they fuck with the mod community. Im gonna play through it once, ever, stock vanilla. After that, I have a scifi base for mods (starfield), a post apocolyptic base for mods (fallout), and a fantasy base for mods (skyrim). All i have to do is wait 3 days after it comes out, and peek in on the mod community and see if its gonna be worth buying for some fun goofiness.......

I think people focus too much on FPS and Graphics. 60 fps Always nice to have, but its not the end of the world. focus on the gameplay, Everything else is extra Please don't pre order and wait for reviews. have an awesome day/night love you all

I do not understand the absolute need to have games at 60 fps, no matter what... It's like... I'd much rather prefer the frame rate to be stable above anything else. Would it be nice? Certainly. Will it disrupt my enjoyment of a game? No. What does is when it goes from 60 frames to 25 frames, to 45 frames, to 15 frames. As for the visual downgrades... I still don't understand why people get upset with this. These downgrades happen during the optimization of the games, and there's only so many ways they can do it. Often, a developer will choose to simplify textures a bit to allow better performance in areas. Most of the time, our first look at games is footage taken before games go through major optimization endeavors.

I personally am excited for having something on my ship, but something wrong goes on with the collision and it spazzes out and either breaks part of the ship or messes with the movement of it. I'm going to love this game and I fully understand how broken it will be.

Bruce and Lawdogg being CS graduates is dope, i feel like i just learned some deep lore

Tears of the Kingdom, a literal masterpiece of a game, is 30 FPS and isn't nearly as large or has the same amount of moving gears as Starfield. Also that NPC downgrade? I disagree. I actually think a lot of them look like an improvement from the last demo. I think what's happening is people just genuinely feel like they are morally obligated to be critical towards Bethesda because of Fallout 76 which, compared to all their other games that they've made that are good games, I feel that the knee jerk criticisms of Starfield are a bit misplaced. Edit: man it's funny how it seems like mainly Lawrence but even Bruce to a degree are trying to call out gamers for being too lenient on Starfield. I don't think that's farther from the truth. This game is under a damn microscope but thankfully what we saw in that showcase is NOT what is being told to us here. What we saw was a graphical upgrade, good gameplay mechanics, and everything fans of space sandboxes could have asked for (Unless you're a fan of X4, then you're just never going to be pleased outside of that franchise). And what Lawrence says is such a strawman argument. "Oh when I could stack cheese in a room in Oblivion and I can run it at 60FPS HoW cOmE wE cAnT dO iT nOw?!" Oh, I don't know, maybe because BACK THEN IT ALSO WASN'T 60 FPS. IT WAS 30. Same with Skyrim on 360, not 60 FPS. Their games have been historically very taxing on hardware because of not just the persistent physics but also the fact that the world persists outside of the player being there. Meaning, when you leave that city the NPC's don't just despawn, they continue to exist and live their simulated lives and interact with the persistent world that is still being rendered. Now ramp that up to 1000+ planets and it's very understandable that it would be locked at 30 FPS (again, real contradictory that no one is calling Tears of the Kingdom out on that too but oh well). Now I already know someone will use that to argue why 1000 planets is bad. I disagree there because we want a massive sandbox, not a boring star system of 4 hand made planets with a bunch of redundant quests. The ONLY argument I can see is someone saying that this wouldn't be this way if they would just have moved on from the creation engine. That is fairly valid, however, I still am in favor of creation engine 2 as that is what allows for such a vibrant and lively modding community and no other engine gives you THAT much freedom when modding their games.

I’ll take 30fps @ 4k and 1000 procedurally generated planets over any live service game that PS announced at their showcase.

Looks like Zelda has smacked a lot of reviewers up side the back of the head about how AAA should run

wow all these years I watched you guys and I never knew you guys had computer science degrees

I've loved you guys for many years from Machinima to Funhaus to now, and it feels good to be a new Patreon subscriber and see my name at number two in the credits 🤩! Keep up the great work!

All I can do is hope they deliver what they promise, skeptical but hopeful, I'll wait until it actually releases and even a bit after that. We've seen games ruin things after good press so lets wait and see.

I'm expecting a Bethesda game and it looks like that I'd exactly what we're getting. I loved skyrim and fallout 4 so I'll probably love this game too, but I'm still expecting it to be a mess at launch

A big part of the reason it could be 30 fps (not saying I'm right it's just a guess) could be due to the magic powers being heavily physical based. The only hint we saw about magic is seemingly some sort of telekinesis or gravity manipulation so it could definitely get intensive with later powers.

Not being mad at a game that isn’t out yet, doesn’t automatically mean a lack of scepticism lol.

I understand being sad or disappointed if the graphics have been downgraded in the marketing period, but i dont understand being angry, the game isnt out yet, and they are still working on it. Its not like they promised one thing and then we bought another. its still being marketed.

I remember the creation engine having issues with fps and physics in og Skyrim... But what i want to know is why can't there just be an option to choose say 1440p and keep the fps? Don't we already get to choose between crappy ray traced shadows or more frames in most other big titles on console? I own a series x and am curious

Anyone who thinks this game won't be a broken mess for 6 months obviously hasn't looked at Bethesda games in the last decade.

I’m going bet on my luck cause I’m one of the VERY few people who had a great experience with Cyberpunk 2077 on PS4, I love Fallout 3 & 4, Skyrim is my first love in open world games and I actually play ESO TO THIS DAY but despite all the stuff people say I always get lucky with titles that people criticize

Um, persistence of world has been a thing in the BGS games since I think daggerfall....you cant burn down the forest since well, the forest are not individual items tracked by the engine but the game DOES track other things while you are not there..... E.g In Fallout 4, you can give the settlers in your various communities the nuclear weapon (the Fatman)/. If you then either wait or mod/script in raiders/mutant/feral ghouls etc, you will see across the map massive nuclear explosions going off constantly And yes, this can result in an entire settlement wiping itself out because 1 raider wandered into detection range of the settlement/ I am honestly surprised that people dont know this since well, it is part of WHY Bethseda games are si buggy usually at launch....the game engine isnt JUST running what you see on screen buy also whatever

I already want mods to add a driver's seat and lasers on those alien animals and recreate my dino-riders childhood.

The amount of speculation by media and youtubers does seem a bit exaggerated. It's kinda like that scenario where a girl smiles at a guy while they're on the bus or something, and the guy imagines their whole married life together with kids and a house. That smile could mean anything, but it doesn't stop the guy from daydreaming to his heart's content. Although I am secretly hoping that it's all true.

Prob the Calc of asset placements and what their state should be for when you return causes perf lag spikes. Also the tracking of the items physics in a cargo hold that "might" shift around during space flight might also be a perf hit? All in all, agree with Lawrence's takes.

Only thing I hard disagree with Lawrence about is that they didn’t show anything cool in the 45min showcase. Like I loved every system they showed, especially ship building and outposts

Lawrence, its really a combination of the world generation, increased geometry, better physics (sandwiches not glitching tf out), global illumiation, customised ships and bases, that make a giant impact on CPU usage

I am not a framerate diva, and I can never understand all this framerate discussion. I cannot tell the difference between 30 and 60.

Well, we got to get excited about something

how are you going to call the visuals a “downgrade” when the planets and details of armor and guns look 10x better. Literally in the picture that you showed the armor looks more detailed and better. Personally i’d rather have nice looking environments and armor than being able to see an npcs eyebrows in more detail 😂 and i’m pretty sure if the devs thought they could have a stable 60 fps then they would. Obviously it’s locked at 30 for a reason and we’ll see how smooth or janky it ends up being. They’ve confirmed in an interview that animals interact with each other. They showed us how ships and outposts can do things in the background, so what exactly are you saying they didn’t show us anything about interconnected systems? They’ve given us multiple systems that connect specifically with just our characters economy. Also this is just hilarious to me that they really said the gun had to be lowered in the cities, you realize you can holster your weapon and then pull it out later… just like almost any bethesda game. Seriously why the hell would you think you can’t pull your gun out in a city This video was honestly just really funny, i completely agree with making expectations realistic but making points like these guys did was just stupid as hell. And they told us that our character will get a bounty if we do bad things. SERIOUSLY what the hell were they talking about. The lack of knowledge and info to produce a video like this is such a joke. There’s things to criticize, but why make points and say things that just outright aren’t true.

It's frustrating. Everyone will shit on ANY and EVERY other game dev for the same shit Bethesda does constantly, yet they get the pass. I just want consistency god dammit

I'll play on PC and graphics isn't really a priority for me. But what concerns me is the depth and interesting gameplay. I'm excited about the shipbuilding, space fights, and piracy but the empty planets concern me and the number of interesting locations/quests/storylines. It feels like they're going wide and not deep, which I get its an open world, and making your own narratives to keep yourself interested is important but I feel like it could get stale fast. For me No man sky is very fun after all of its updates there is a lot to explore and do but in terms of gameplay it's pretty shallow and gets stale after 40-50 hours for me. And to be fair I played cyberpunk for 120 hours and got my worth out of it. I also played outer worlds and that was okay. I just hope I can get at least more than 1 playthrough out of Starfield.

Redfall was blasted for 30fps because they claimed it would be higher AND the game was trash overall. Also, Starfield actually looks pretty good, though I am skeptical as hell. It’s free on GamePass, so I’m cool with it for the most part. Hoping it’s good and stable.

We didn't see connected systems, true; but we heard about them from Todd, when he gave his "favorite in-game moment thus far." We shall have to wait and see I suppose.

Final fantasy 16 is running at 720p to get to unstable 60... Everyone is an expert. It's amazing how people will turn a blind eye to the stuff they love.

The simulation in Starfeld is more complex by powers compared to older Bethesda titles. They take full usage of the CPU power for it and they prioritized it over draw calls for the GPU. Other than most 30 fps games on 9th gen consoles Starfield has a real justification for 30 fps. It really would change and dumb down the game to set other priorities. I don't like it, but is was probably the right decision. We all know that Bethesda's ambitions for every game since Morrowind were far bigger than what we got. This time and thanks to MS' financial and technological power I think we come as close as never before to the original vision in the final game. Morrwind had only 40% of the originally planned territory, Skyrim had only some 70% of the quests completed if you take into account the cut content and alls the quests that feel cut and downgraded.