System Light Dark

xentr_theme_editor

xentr_page_setup xentr_appearance xentr_sidebar

  • xentr_page_width

    xentr_toggle_page_width

    xentr_page_width_description

    xentr_color_pickers

    xentr_toggle_color_picker

    xentr_toggle_color_picker_description

    xentr_typography

    xentr_select_the_font_you_want_to_use

    xentr_node_layout

    xentr_grid_layout

    xentr_grid_layout_description

  • Style variation

    xentr_select_the_style_variation_you_want_to_use
    System Light Dark

  • xentr_sidebar

    xentr_toggles_sidebar

    xentr_sidebar_description

    xentr_sticky_sidebar

    xentr_sticky_sidebar_description
    xentr_sidebar_position
    Left
    Right
  • Please do not post any links until you have 3 posts as they will automatically be rejected to prevent SPAM. Many words are also blocked due to being used in SPAM Messages. Thanks!

Starfield

ipaine said:
Agreed. I certainly had way more issues right after release with Fallout 4 than CP2077. And also think that CDPR's biggest mistake with regards to Cyberpunk was releasing it on the older consoles at all. That took lots of dev time that should have been put towards making it better for current tech. This is one of the things people have mentioned about the new Phantom Liberty being just more alive than before and how this is most likely tied to the fact it is not coming to the old consoles.

And as I remember I am in the Starfield thread, I guess people are just complaining the NPC visuals. I mean sure they are not up to CP2077 levels but then again, look at just the absolutely massive world they are creating. And lets face it, if the NPC's are really bad then the modders will fix that for us on PC.


Anything at the AAA level should be. I just can't imagine using a hdd for games anymore. Media yes, but OS and games, not a chance.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree that it "should" be SSD. I was just surprised to see it as required. I would have thought it would still work on a spin drive, just slower. Not an issue for me, but just surprised to see it as an actual requirement. Maybe that's common in AAA title now and I've just never checked?
 
I was surprised to see SSD listed as a requirement simply because, when was the last time any recent PC capable of gaming came with anything but an SSD as primary?

the two most obvious reasons are a) it's an advertising gimmick and / or b) they're saying not to install it on a HDD used as secondary storage that you may also use for game installation.

both are plausible but if b) is correct, I wonder what makes Starfield so different than all the other massive games that others do that with.

edit - I hope to see tests of the game on a HDD that also uses SSD caching. and see how big a difference there is between 128 / 256 and 512GB capacities.
 
This is an interesting watch, some decent info:


I'll admit I am pretty excited for this game now. Wishing the summer away a little bit :)
 
Marzipan said:
I read an article about how Starfield will be limited to 30fps as maximum fame rate. a lot of reasons / rationale was given for this but i bet it's mostly due to being hardware friendly allowing it to run well on a big range of HW.
Click to expand...
Better be console only. TBH if I can't run @ 120FPS I probably won't play it. :o
 
Marzipan said:
I read an article about how Starfield will be limited to 30fps as maximum fame rate. a lot of reasons / rationale was given for this but i bet it's mostly due to being hardware friendly allowing it to run well on a big range of HW.
Click to expand...

lowfat said:
Better be console only. TBH if I can't run @ 120FPS I probably won't play it. :eek:
Click to expand...

The article I saw yesterday was definitely referencing 30FPS on a specific console, but did not go so far as to offer reassurances that the PC version would not have the same restriction.
 
sswilson said:
The article I saw yesterday was definitely referencing 30FPS on a specific console, but did not go so far as to offer reassurances that the PC version would not have the same restriction.
Click to expand...
That video I just linked addressed the 30FPS cap on consoles, and Howard explains why.

He also says there that Starfield is often running higher than that, up to 60, to give them the "headroom" they need for intense combat scenes. He also said they cap on consoles because they are more concerned about consistent FPS rather than high FPS. Feels it's a better overall experience. I'd agree with him on that, especially for a single player game. I'm not sure how high the cap should be, but I agree with the idea. Especially if a lower cap allows them to give me more NPCs going about their activities, more weather systems, more planetary mechanics, more random events, etc. That's important in this genre of game, more so than exceedingly high FPS I think.

In that video he doesn't address FPS on PCs. My guess would be it will be max 60 on PC. I was surprised the IGN interviewer didn't ask, but IGN's content is sometimes lacking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

xentr_legal_notice_title

xentr_legal_notice_description

Back
Top