DownLikeBCPowder
Member
RDR is a third person game, it's going to have better and more detailed animations. Starfield is a first person game (that "can be played" in third person) and by Bethesda.
Name me a game that does Starfield better than StarfieldWhat is it doing that other games haven't/couldn't?
Name me a game that does Starfield better than Starfield
Yes, lighting is way better than, for example, Horizon Forbidden West, God of Wat Ragnarok or The Last of Us remake
When you're answering a question with a question — you clearly don't have an answer (or the answer isn't good).Name me a game that does Starfield better than Starfield
You answered my question with a question and I answered your question with a question. I await your answer or question again.When you're answering a question with a question — you clearly don't have an answer (or the answer isn't good).
Their engine is outdated and as far as I can understand, their approach to game development is also very outdated. The more I look into this game, the more it feels like Skyrim / Fallout but with a skin on top.You're actually spot on comparing it to RDR2 (as opposed to NMS) precisely because it had a large development team and budget, just like Starfield.
One could absolutely make the argument that Bethesda had no excuse to not make a game as polished as RDR2, especially so after they got bought out by Microsoft and presumably had even more financial freedom.
You could also fairly argue that NMS sort of "had no business" being as complete (albeit dead and barren) as it was when it released considering the size of the team.
And it’s boring af.
I'm practically turning into an amateur photographer due to this game's photo mode. I think it's primarily because of the drop dead gorgeous art direction. Every aspect of the game from gun modeling to architecture to menu UI looks like giant teams of art designers just were set loose to follow their passion for 8 years.Does the fact that I have made million times more screenshots playing this than any other game answer the question?
In other words, nothing.You answered my question with a question and I answered your question with a question. I await your answer or question again.
I could say the exact sameIn other words, nothing. Good to know.
Nah, doesnt feel next gen in terms of gameplay, but visuals can look next gen at times. Mostly interiors and some great lighting outdoors that you dont typically see in other open world games. But the world detail is last gen as fuck.
You could, because I never made a claim. You continue to give no examples as to what the game does "better than other games on current hardware", but I admit, watching your flimsy tightrope walk continue has become increasingly entertaining.I could say the exact same
I'd say it's once in a generation level art design. Truly inspired work unified across all aspects of the game, menus, logos, guns, store branding, in game corporate branding. Their designers just had a field day. Then I do think some of the lighting and interior moments are fantastic also. Graphical quality is uneven but art design trumps that every time.Game continues to be constantly gorgeous. I've taken so many screenshots
It's not always consistent, and it's not as technically impressive as something like Horizon Forbidden West, but between the scope, sheer variety of environments, texture quality, lighting, and art-direction, it's an absolute looker.
I Love the game, but it would feel "next gen" if you could enter and leave the planets as you can in NMS. You have loads even for opening doors.
You can look out windows in your ship, and in all space stations.Interiors that load never have windows that look outside either which again breaks immersion.
Precisely. How such a plain looking title can be so demanding. There are games using RT that runs better than Starfield while looking miles ahead. I understand, the game has a lot of model objects that can be manipulated. But even that sucks in the game. In every other game with FPS gun play, you can replenish ammo from fallen foes by just hitting X above them. Here we need to stop, aim for the body and get item by item, doesn't matter if you already have that gun, you will take another one. After a while I find myself dropping dozens of weapons and gear randomly through the world, the game will keep track of them, adding to the CPU/RAM requirements to such useless feature.P.S. What surprises me the most about Starfield is just how demanding it is on hardware given how dated the game looks. It might be bigger than prior Bethesda games but it isn't really doing anything that we haven't seen in their other games. And due to the loading screens and modular nature of the games all space is in this game is another zone you can just happen to fly around in. There's no real sense of going from planet to planet here, not really. I feel Mass Effect did a much, much better job of making me feel like I was exploring space.
But that's all you do. So far half of Starfield is No Man's Sky, albeit with loading screens but it looks better, feels better to play and the planets don't look like playdough.no mans sky has seamless transitions and lets you land anywhere in the universe and it runs on the switch lite
Exactly. Unlike Zelda TotK, it doesn't really make use of any of these amazing physics, and it isn't as consistent. It feels more of a gimmick than something the game is built around.That physics, like how some people spawn thosands of things and let it interact between each other is actually really impressive (collision aren't cheap).
BUT
Game itself make zero use of that, it feels like its mod-ed into it, like how cool it would be that you would fly through some cloud of small rocks, it would collide with your ship and so on.
This next gen enough for you:
the game has been updated quite a lot if you ever played itBut that's all you do. So far half of Starfield is No Man's Sky, albeit with loading screens but it looks better, feels better to play and the planets don't look like playdough.
And the best part? That half of the game is nearly entirely optional. You can just play the other half like Fallout 4 if you want.
Haha I'm leaning into my avatar trope a little too much I must admit. On a serious note I would say it's a current gen game which is fine to say but I wouldn't say it's anything like a last gen game because there's no game I've personally seen on them consoles that came close to doing what Starfield does now.You could, because I never made a claim. You continue to give no examples as to what the game does "better than other games on current hardware", but I admit, watching your flimsy tightrope walk continue has become increasingly entertaining.
I have. I would play after every update but it's always missing something. Probably that it's waaay too convoluted at this point. Like there is way too much stuff to do but it never became a good thing for this game. It always seems like it just makes it harder to figure out what to do. The planets also feel way too alive in that game as well.the game has been updated quite a lot if you ever played it
I do agree for the F4 part almost
That's clearly not the scope that can make it look next gen, for the very reasons you mentioned. In its structure we can't say it's next gen.it takes advantage of the current gen hardware in its scope