16
Starfield's new PC patch delivers the game we should have had at launch
(www.eurogamer.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
16 points (73.5% liked)
Starfield
2850 readers
4 users here now
Welcome to the Starfield community on Lemmy.zip!
- Follow instance rules (no spam, keep it civil and respectful, be constructive, tag NSFW)
Helpful links:
Spoiler policy:
- No spoilers in titles; if you want to share images with spoilers, preferably post the image in the body of the post. If you do make an image post, mark it NSFW.
- Add
[Spoilers]to your title if there will be untagged spoilers in the post. - Game mechanics and general discoveries (ship parts, weapons, etc) don't need a spoiler tag.
- Details about questlines and other story related content are spoilers. Use your best judgement!
Post & comment spoiler syntax:
<spoiler here>
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The game we should have had at launch?
Sorry, but improving the performance of an ancient engine that shouldn't have been used for the last decade is not what I call "the game we should have" when there's so much more about the game that sucks other than the performance.
It's like Bethesda laser focused on us bitching about the bugs for 20 years, finally tried to iron them out, but then forgot to make the game world alive so it would be less buggy.
The engine is about 12 years old, and the engine it's based on is about the same age as Unreal Engine, which the current version of is generally considered a powerful and capable modern engine. That complaint is tired and nonsensical with even the slightest bit of critical thinking.
The engine is 26 years old.
It started its life as NetImmerse, and then got upgraded into Gamebryo, and then got Upgraded into TotallyNotGambryo™ (aka creation).
Here, a visual representation of Creation.
It's based on Gamebryo. It was substantially rebuilt.
Its lineage is 26 years old.
So is Unreal Engine.
Age isn't the issue.
Its so substantially rebuilt that it still has the same bugs and quirks as decades ago.
You cant say the same about Unreal.
Okay, but saying, in effect, that it's bad because it's old is ridiculous and inaccurate
Except its not.
because it is bad. and it is old. and it being old, is bad.
Its old, and bad, because it is still functionally the same fucking thing it was decades ago, the only real difference is they've stuck higher end graphics on it with ducktape and bubblegum.
its not a 1977 TransAm. Being old doesnt make it good. Being old doesnt make it performant. Being old doesnt make it stable. Its a piece of software. Being old means its got decades of cobbled together mess and baggage and unsolvable inefficiency that relies on nothing but brute force via powerful hardware to make it look good. Which is why it it runs like shit and still looks worse than a AAA title from a decade ago.
Creation sucked then and it sucks now.
Unreal is a different story, it was good then and it's good now.
This complaint is valid as every single Bethesda launch in the last 20 years has had the same fucking bugs in it because of the same fucking engine.
@canis_majoris @laurelraven I'm not sure that is really true. For one thing, I haven't been killed by clutter in Starfield. I definitely remember multiple deaths by clutter in Skyrim (physics silliness). I also haven't used fast travel and zoned in somewhere up in the sky (although that would be much less lethal in Starfield).
I may just be lucky, however. I haven't encountered most of the Starfield bugs I have seen complaints about.
A lot of them got ironed out because MS made them delay the launch by an entire year, and then put ALL of Xbox's QA onto the project. After 76, it was the least they could do.