-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Does Starfield feel "next gen" to you?
- Thread starter GetInTheRobot
- Start date
nightmare-slain
Member
nah. Skyrim and Fallout 4 were better than this. All Starfield has going for it is improved combat (still not too good) and better graphics. It's not impressive visually. This could be a PS4 game and I say that when I can play the game on PC at max graphic settings.
edit: I mean an Xbox One game. It's not on playstation
edit: I mean an Xbox One game. It's not on playstation
Last edited:
SF Kosmo
Al Jazeera Special Reporter
I don't think Starfield could be reasonably ported to last gen at all, no. It would be worse than Cyberpunk. So in that sense I think it feels current gen.
But it maintains certain structural design features that feel very rooted in last gen, so I get what people mean when they say it feels last gen, but that doesn't mean it isn't pushing new hardware very hard, it's just doing it in ways that are more of a direct extension of what's been done before.
But it maintains certain structural design features that feel very rooted in last gen, so I get what people mean when they say it feels last gen, but that doesn't mean it isn't pushing new hardware very hard, it's just doing it in ways that are more of a direct extension of what's been done before.
prinz_valium
Member
No, but nothing this generation did feel next gen so far.
Probably won't until GTAVI. But if the rumors about a fucking PS4 version are true, neither will that game feel next gen
Probably won't until GTAVI. But if the rumors about a fucking PS4 version are true, neither will that game feel next gen
Schmendrick
Member
Some snippets of the visuals can look next gen-ish like some interiors while much of the outside areas, charachters etc look downright old at times.
And that a game with a supposedly humongous scale is chopped into a myriad of small scale level areas you have to load into absolutely destroys any next gen feeling concerning the overall game structure.
A few very good looking assets vs a thousand average looking ones in a chopped up universe consisting of small levels and procedurally generated mediocrity.....
No, this isn`t next gen by any means except for maybe Bethesda`s internal standards. I get the feeling that some people mix up "next gen game" and "a lot of content game".
And that a game with a supposedly humongous scale is chopped into a myriad of small scale level areas you have to load into absolutely destroys any next gen feeling concerning the overall game structure.
A few very good looking assets vs a thousand average looking ones in a chopped up universe consisting of small levels and procedurally generated mediocrity.....
No, this isn`t next gen by any means except for maybe Bethesda`s internal standards. I get the feeling that some people mix up "next gen game" and "a lot of content game".
Last edited:
tommycronin
Banned
Name me a game that does Starfield better than Starfield
GHG
Member
There isn't one, and thank fuck for that.
Denton
Member
At times it feels nextgen, at other times it feels barely last gen. The word that defines Starfield the best is inconsistent.
Only in some places. In others, lighting is absolutely terrible.
Only in some places. In others, lighting is absolutely terrible.
Last edited:
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
When you're answering a question with a question — you clearly don't have an answer (or the answer isn't good).
Last edited:
coolmast3r
Member
No, it simply doesn't. The sole fact that there's no seamless space travel in a game focused on joys of space exploration is enough to disqualify it from even approaching current gen standard, let alone "next gen".
This game is just too unambitious and feels like a relic from the past.
This game is just too unambitious and feels like a relic from the past.
tommycronin
Banned
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).
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
How in your right mind do you see this as next gen. It looks nicer and runs like an Xbox One S game on a technical level.
Maybe worse in some ways. The answer is emphatically and hygienically no.
Maybe worse in some ways. The answer is emphatically and hygienically no.
BootsLoader
Banned
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.
ByWatterson
Member
When was the last time you played it?
M1chl
Currently Gif and Meme Champion
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.
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.
StueyDuck
Member
It's fun game for sure, but no...
It just feels like more Bethesda
It's impossible to define what is "next gen" and I'm sure everyone's definition will be different, but when a game feels the exact same as a game you played on the prior 2 generations I think that kind of writes it off.
Skyrim and fallout 4 felt like fallout 3 and oblivion too and I wouldn't of called them next gen either during their release
It just feels like more Bethesda
It's impossible to define what is "next gen" and I'm sure everyone's definition will be different, but when a game feels the exact same as a game you played on the prior 2 generations I think that kind of writes it off.
Skyrim and fallout 4 felt like fallout 3 and oblivion too and I wouldn't of called them next gen either during their release
Last edited:
ClosBSAS
Member
no, but yet again, only a few games have felt next gen. this gen is all about diminishing returns. not even ps5 can save it.
now ppl saying it feels like a late ps4 game, lmfao, you cant do starfield on a ps4 just like you cant do cyberpunk on it. last gen consoles are complete and utter shit. right now, top graphics easily and hands down, goes to cyberpunk 2077 on pc with path tracing. consoles cant even reach half of that fidelity.
now ppl saying it feels like a late ps4 game, lmfao, you cant do starfield on a ps4 just like you cant do cyberpunk on it. last gen consoles are complete and utter shit. right now, top graphics easily and hands down, goes to cyberpunk 2077 on pc with path tracing. consoles cant even reach half of that fidelity.
MirageMew2
Member
Not in the slightest. Even No Man’s Sky’s “next-gen” patch felt proper next-gen. Starfield feels dated in every way.
Doctor Hades
Member
Does Starfield feel next-gen to me?
Honestly, no. Absolutely not. It feels exactly like I am playing a game running on an enhanced version of the engine used for Fallout 4 and one with all the same limitations, e.g. dated character faces, bizarre lighting (what is it with the game's horrid washed out look by default?) and lots of loading screens. Granted, I am playing this on PC - 75 hours in now - where I can use a mod to fix the dreadful colours and my loading times are mostly 1-3 seconds at most and 10 seconds to resume a save (unlike on Xbox Series X where the loading times are surprising long and annoying in the GamePass version I briefly tried).
If this was a next-gen experience then I would expect it to be far more seamless, for one, with the kind of transitions from planet to space and vice versa that No Man's Sky has. Also, given how dialogue heavy this game is, I would expect character dialogue to be far more interesting and with better facial modelling, lighting and animation than what we have here. Baldur's Gate 3 has set the benchmark here and I relish every single moment of dialogue in that game because Larian made them engaging and believable even if they are not perfect (animation hiccups crop up from time to time). Still, they're leagues ahead of Starfield which at times makes me think I am speaking with plastic action figures. I will say that the lip-syncing is awesome in Starfield though to the point where I can lip read what the characters are saying.
To sum up Starfield really does feel like Fallout 4 set in space. I know people will argue against that but this is exactly what the game feels like to me after playing it for around 75 hours. It's still a good Bethesda game but also a very familiar one that just iterates on what they did before rather than innovates. It isn't the ground-breaking RPG I was hoping for and does highlight for me just what careful editing in the pre-release footage can do to make a game look better than it actually is.
Honestly, no. Absolutely not. It feels exactly like I am playing a game running on an enhanced version of the engine used for Fallout 4 and one with all the same limitations, e.g. dated character faces, bizarre lighting (what is it with the game's horrid washed out look by default?) and lots of loading screens. Granted, I am playing this on PC - 75 hours in now - where I can use a mod to fix the dreadful colours and my loading times are mostly 1-3 seconds at most and 10 seconds to resume a save (unlike on Xbox Series X where the loading times are surprising long and annoying in the GamePass version I briefly tried).
If this was a next-gen experience then I would expect it to be far more seamless, for one, with the kind of transitions from planet to space and vice versa that No Man's Sky has. Also, given how dialogue heavy this game is, I would expect character dialogue to be far more interesting and with better facial modelling, lighting and animation than what we have here. Baldur's Gate 3 has set the benchmark here and I relish every single moment of dialogue in that game because Larian made them engaging and believable even if they are not perfect (animation hiccups crop up from time to time). Still, they're leagues ahead of Starfield which at times makes me think I am speaking with plastic action figures. I will say that the lip-syncing is awesome in Starfield though to the point where I can lip read what the characters are saying.
To sum up Starfield really does feel like Fallout 4 set in space. I know people will argue against that but this is exactly what the game feels like to me after playing it for around 75 hours. It's still a good Bethesda game but also a very familiar one that just iterates on what they did before rather than innovates. It isn't the ground-breaking RPG I was hoping for and does highlight for me just what careful editing in the pre-release footage can do to make a game look better than it actually is.
Last edited:
Punished Miku
Gold Member
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.
Personally, I don't really spend time worrying about what can run on what system.
Last edited:
Doctor Hades
Member
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.
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
In other words, nothing.
If you're going to claim it is doing things "better than any other games on current hardware", at least be able to explain why. The egg isn't on my face in this exchange.
Doctor Hades
Agreed.
Last edited:
tommycronin
Banned
I could say the exact same
Doctor Hades
Member
Faces are pretty awful too. Sometimes they can look okay when lit well but many conversations I've had have featured bland plasticky looking faces due to the way the lighting works. It can look really awful at times. Considering how much time you spend engaging in conversations, I would have thought Bethesda would have put a lot more effort into these.
What we have here are the same dialogue scenes as Fallout 4 with higher poly models, far better lip-syncing and some semblance of humanity and emotions from basic facial animations but this is marred by them being mostly static and too many instances where the lighting makes the faces, including the eyes, look weird. It's one step forward really and two steps back.
There's nothing next-gen on display here at all in my opinion, well, maybe the lip-syncing because I think that is very good.
Last edited:
HeWhoWalks
Gold Member
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.
Last edited:
Roman Empire
Member
It feels next-gen by Bethesda standards, which isn't a high-bar to match.
analog_future
Resident Crybaby
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, volumetric effects, and art-direction, it's an absolute looker.
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, volumetric effects, and art-direction, it's an absolute looker.
Last edited:
Punished Miku
Gold Member
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.
Doctor Hades
Member
I agree.
What spoils Starfield a bit for me is the inconsistency with doors. Sometimes you open a door and there is a loading screen (plus NPCs fade in and out as they enter these... very immersive for sure!) and other times they will open and you can enter a building without a loading screen. Interiors that load never have windows that look outside either which again breaks immersion.
It's a shame that Bethesda didn't do more work to minimise these to make the game a bit more immersive but I suspect they were limited by the engine they are using. A more modern engine would likely allow for this.
Punished Miku
Gold Member
You can look out windows in your ship, and in all space stations.
Ev1L AuRoN
Member
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.
It's cool to ground the world that objects stay in place, but not at the degree this game does it. It makes the world feel dead, not other entities are allowed to interact with these misplaced objects.
Games of Today
Member
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.
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.
KXVXII9X
Member
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.
coolmast3r
Member
Zheph
Member
the game has been updated quite a lot if you ever played it
I do agree for the F4 part almost
Gamer_By_Proxy
Member
Feels 2008 to me. Like jimquisition said. I wouldn't give it a 4 however.
rodrigolfp
Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
tommycronin
Banned
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.
As for the next gen claim that is most certainly true for Bethesda themselves be that may wherever you see them on the scale of what gen they have been in the last 10 years. There's no doubt this is a huge leap from their last 2 games.
Games of Today
Member
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.
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.
I think some interiors are absolutely stunning though. There are places where the game feels very detailed. I mean it's all relative but perhaps for their engine it is next gen looking.
But it's uneven, sometimes the game looks better than Cyberpunk and other times it looks like how you remember Fallout 4 (and even Skyrim outdoor when the lighting is not there).
