Crysis was built by a company specialising in building a high fidelity engine. It was, by all accounts, meant primarily as a tech demo. This is absolutely not the case with Starfield - first, the game doesn’t look nearly good enough for that compared to Crysis, and second it’s built on an engine that simply can’t do a lot of the advanced stuff.
The game could be playable on max settings on many modern computers if it was optimised properly. It isn’t.
avater@lemmy.world 1 year ago
sure mister gamedev, please continue to tell more on how an engine you clearly worked on, should run… I dont say that Starfield is a well optimised game and performance will get better with upcoming patches. But I also don’t think it’s an unoptimized mess, I think it is running reasonable and people really should start review their rig, because modern games will need modern components
Moghul@lemmy.world 1 year ago
You don’t have to be a game dev to see that games that came out before Starfield look and perform better. If you bought the game and you enjoy it, that’s all fine and I won’t make fun of you for it, but let’s not defend what is an obvious point of incompetence on Bethesda’s side.
avater@lemmy.world 1 year ago
why buying starfield when it is on gamepass 😅
And buddy, I’ve been playing Bethesda Games since Daggerfall and believe me, Starfield is a fucking polished diamond compared to their old good games and compared to their latest shitshows like fallout 4 and fallout 76…
Moghul@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I’m not your buddy
You’re comparing Bethesda games to Bethesda games, which we all know are buggy messes. Starfield falls short of my expectations for what a polished diamond looks like.
FooBarrington@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I can easily compare between what different game companies do. Why are you acting like I need to be a developer on a game to criticise that game?
Todd could have said so. He didn’t. Why?
I never stated this. I simply said: comparing Starfield and Crysis is deliberately disingenuous, because Crysis was fundamentally meant to break boundaries, which Starfield doesn’t do.
Okay, what’s the argument here? Do you think I say for those games “well, you’re not Bethesda, so I’m fine with you not running well”?
anonono@lemmy.world 1 year ago
you don’t have to know the internals of the engine. you just need some basic deduction powers.
does it look it look good compared to other AAA games? no
does it run fast? no
ergo. the engine is crap.
the same thing happened to cd projekt red but they ditched their engine after the cyberpunk fiasco. they will just pay epic
avater@lemmy.world 1 year ago
well I beg to differ on that, but it’s quiete a subjective topic right ;)
Again very subjective, very dependend on your hardware and also a pretty dumb conclusion, since an engine has more capabilites then to run “fast”. # I already mentioned in this thread, the games runs quite well for me and I would call fps in the range from 80 to 124 quite fast for a Bethesda Open World Game.
anonono@lemmy.world 1 year ago
well you can put your “not in my computer” opinion in your ass. widespread benchmarks by established gaming journalists show good computers struggling.
Saltblue@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I don’t know why they keep using that piece of shit engine, Microsoft should order them to format every PC and start again with UE5, the engine that it’s actually next gen