-
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.
Starfield - Official Gameplay Trailer Reveal (2023)
- Status
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Yep, and I expect that will be ironed out prior to release, but this game is looking great. I never expected this to possibly play as good as it seems Cyberpunk 2077 does from a shooter perspective, but it appears like it might.
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
I dont game on PC, I hope its good on XSX. it should be considering its a relatively new console gen and the tech it uses is all very good, there arent any glaring bottlenecks.
Also on side note.
Ship interiors and characters models(facial models are not mich better then fallout 4s apart from the old guy) look as good as any other game.
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
That would be great. However I would be happy with a Stable 30fps. We dont know how taxing the huge galaxy will be on the CPU.
I've been watching some star citizen gameplay
And on that rig more powerful then a XSX, the framerate is really iratic, on the ground and indoors it can be 60fps+, but other times it can shit the bed to the sub 30s
Stuart360
Member
I honestly dont know how some poeple think the graphics arent good. It might not of matched the expectations in your head, but i get the sense its going to be like that for a lot of games this gen.
Graphics look great to me considering scope and scale of the game.
I'm going to hold out on this one as I did Fallout 76, which I still haven't played.
I honestly was not impressed for the first part of the trailer. The only thing that looked cool was the space ship customization which I thought was neat. I'm pretty sure the "1000 planets" explorable comes with a big disclaimer ala "procedural generation". I was reminded heavily of the trailer for Anthem overall. A sweeping score over what appears to be mostly generic combat gameplay.
If they blow this out of the water I'd be happy to buy it. Otherwise I'm sticking with my modded Fallout TTW playthrough.
I honestly was not impressed for the first part of the trailer. The only thing that looked cool was the space ship customization which I thought was neat. I'm pretty sure the "1000 planets" explorable comes with a big disclaimer ala "procedural generation". I was reminded heavily of the trailer for Anthem overall. A sweeping score over what appears to be mostly generic combat gameplay.
If they blow this out of the water I'd be happy to buy it. Otherwise I'm sticking with my modded Fallout TTW playthrough.
Lognor
Banned
The concept of starfield was skyrim in space. Skyrim, which you said was just okay. Uhhh OK riiiight
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Agreed. Why complain about optional content. Imagine the DLC/Mod potential in this game!!!!!!!!
In Cold Blood
Banned
On the bright side of it, those saying they don't like it won't be able to play it anyway.
alucard0712_rus
Member
Did you ever played any space game before?
Rivet
Member
Now that's what I call a balanced opinion.
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
Im looking to DF breakdown, they will identify the good and the bad.
But from my observations
+Character outfit geometry is high, there spacesuits are detailed, with air pipes, and different layers to the spacesuits, materials look realistic with appropriate roughness or reflectivity to light
+Starship and building interiors while not doing anything new are of a high quality, they have a high level of geometry and are overall very detailed, materials look realistic with appropriate shaders where metel, glass, rubber react realisticly to light. There looks to be the usual SSR, cube maps and other atmosphere effects like gas and smoke.
- sub 30 framerate and maybe frame pacing issues?
- the lighting outdoors is not the best, just the general quality of the how environmental materials react to light does not look the best
- there seems to be objects lacking shadows at further distances when outside, things like trees.
Apart from the framerate issues im pleased with how it looks. Even the best looking games have there weaker points visually.
I think this gen is going to be a smaller leap visually. Other current gen games just seems like small improvements over last gen with some iq and fps boost. While I like better visuals, im pretty over it, theres plenty of other ways games can be improved technically.
Last edited:
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
You can also play on PC and cloud. Hopefully by the time starfield comes out they have there cloud stick available. Or u could get an xbox one for like $50 and play it via cloud on that.
Last edited:
MrTroubleMaker
Gold Member
Looking good, can't wait to mod it.
Shmunter
Member
Get ready for the official Shmunter certified opinion....
Good
Bad
It is critical for the performance to be 60 on next gen, otherwise back to the drawing board
Good
- Worlds look captivating
- Great realistic art style
- Hard Scifi is the way to go
Bad
- Framerate - 20 - 30fps?? What's this running on Xbox One?
- Shimmer - Bad IQ is no longer acceptable, what's this running on Xbox One?
- Janky Gunplay - somewhat to be expected
- Resources, Building - Not for me, I want a captivating adventure not busy work
It is critical for the performance to be 60 on next gen, otherwise back to the drawing board
OsirisBlack
Banned
The stream did the games presentation a disservice. Watch it in 4k if you have the option to. It does look like a much prettier more refined NMS but that’s not a bad thing, hoping their is a good story.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Everything after the one hour mark was running on the series x.
This is targeting 30 fps like all xsx games should. No idea what the resolution is, but I am guessing they will have a 60 fps performance mode at 1080p or 900p. Or you can always play this on a more powerful PC.
Maxwell Jacob Friedman
leads to fear. Fear leads to xbox.
This game reeks, jack of all trades, master of none. It looks like they bit off more than they can chew. This is why innovating in the games industry is hard. Dont reinvent the wheel, just add more to it
ChorizoPicozo
Banned
So...success guarantee?
ChorizoPicozo
Banned
As always.....we need to wait until the retail game is out.
Game looks really fucking good. Alot better than what alot of people are giving it credit for.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
After just re-watching the 4K footage on my LG C1, I'm gonna really need the people who said this game doesn't look incredible (or the genius who said it looks like an Xbox One game) to get an eye test at a qualified professional, buy a pair of glasses or get themselves a decent damn television because this game looks fucking UNBELIEVABLE visually. I pray they can lock down performance while mostly achieving this level of fidelity for the final release. I don't mind a few frame drops here and there if it can look somewhere very close to this good.
Joho79
Member
All of them, more or less. Your point?
MightySquirrel
Banned
I was thinking since they already have something like VATS [from Fallout] mayhaps there could be an expensive mid to late game item [some sort of targeting Visor] available to get so to reintroduce that cool mechanic. Would fit right in imo.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Game looks really fucking good. Alot better than what alot of people are giving it credit for.
It's on another level for a game of THIS kind. Watch it on an LG C1 and have your mind blown. For people who don't own one I'm going to, when I get some time, record a 4K 60fps off-screen from my Galaxy s22 Ultra and upload that so people can see just how fantastic this game really looks on a nice TV.
93xfan
Banned
Looks fantastic to me as well. While game is blowing me away as I rewatch the 15 minute segment in better quality.
This game is going to be truly special.
alucard0712_rus
Member
It's strange that you are THAT excited. 1000 planets sounds good but reality may be very different. I'd be more sceptical.
sol_bad
Member
It's not just the guns actually. The weapons look all generic, the planets all look like Earth and where are the aliens? Every NPC looks to be human.
There really is zero creativity in the design.
I know it's just an FPS but look at High on Life, visually it's dripping with unique designs.
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
This is a very superficial take. It is not just "Skyrim in space"
You can build outposts, build your ship, there are shooting mechanics instead of melee and magic. You can explore/fly planets.
The games differ substantially even though there's much of the Bethesda DNA in Starfield as well. I don't see how you could think that some people may be interested in Starfield but not Skyrim.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Only watched a few clips here and there. Didn't catch the whole show. Not going to watch the whole show on replay as everyone has already talked about it with topics.
Starfield looks awesome except the frame rate looked shit. I thought it was stream since a few times on YT I got a buffering icon, but it was still janky in many parts. And everyone seems to be saying the same thing. Not surprisingly, it's a Bethesda RPG, so you could tell the game engine has similarities with legacy RPGs.
ES and Fallout have tons of optional nit picking where you could search every nook and cranny for items (often junk), but they showed none of this. So not sure how much search and looting of tables, containers, junk on the ground there is in the game.
The first vibe I got of the game is it's a more gritty earth tone version of Mass Effect. And if the sample clip is true of the game, it wont have tons of searching and picking up random items and parts like ES/FO. Most stuff will be placed in containers or out in the open in an obvious way. The sci-fi look to the game doesn't have tons of crazy neon colours everywhere, which I like. Even Fallout and ES games can get bloomy bold colours. Starfield looks a lot more down the earth on colour choice.
The ship and colony design looked solid.
As for the 1000 planets to explore, sounds good on paper, but who knows how many of them are good or shit. Also, how much of the planet is really explorable? A few zones or alien cities (you could only explore 1% of that big planet shown on the space map?) Or you can literally walk on foot 50,000 km worth of terrain and find randomly generated shit? There's no way the programmers dedicated to making 1000s detailed handcrafted planets.
It'll probably be like 10 planets that have some detail core to the plot, and 990 planets of mostly junk, unless they figured out a way to make most or all of them worth checking out.
Starfield looks awesome except the frame rate looked shit. I thought it was stream since a few times on YT I got a buffering icon, but it was still janky in many parts. And everyone seems to be saying the same thing. Not surprisingly, it's a Bethesda RPG, so you could tell the game engine has similarities with legacy RPGs.
ES and Fallout have tons of optional nit picking where you could search every nook and cranny for items (often junk), but they showed none of this. So not sure how much search and looting of tables, containers, junk on the ground there is in the game.
The first vibe I got of the game is it's a more gritty earth tone version of Mass Effect. And if the sample clip is true of the game, it wont have tons of searching and picking up random items and parts like ES/FO. Most stuff will be placed in containers or out in the open in an obvious way. The sci-fi look to the game doesn't have tons of crazy neon colours everywhere, which I like. Even Fallout and ES games can get bloomy bold colours. Starfield looks a lot more down the earth on colour choice.
The ship and colony design looked solid.
As for the 1000 planets to explore, sounds good on paper, but who knows how many of them are good or shit. Also, how much of the planet is really explorable? A few zones or alien cities (you could only explore 1% of that big planet shown on the space map?) Or you can literally walk on foot 50,000 km worth of terrain and find randomly generated shit? There's no way the programmers dedicated to making 1000s detailed handcrafted planets.
It'll probably be like 10 planets that have some detail core to the plot, and 990 planets of mostly junk, unless they figured out a way to make most or all of them worth checking out.
Last edited:
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
Targetting 60 fps at 1080p or 900p on the XSX would be an absolute disaster with what the game looks like. It would ruin the image clarity, which isn't even good compared to the top tier next-gen titles we've seen so far.
Those kind of standards are extremely low. I don't know how you can claim to have a critical next-gen eye but give this stuff a pass.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Considering how bad the FR was, it looks like it'll target 30 fps gaming at whatever res it was at.
I'm hoping for a 60 fps performance mode. Even if it gets dumbed down to 1080p, that's fine. I'll decide whether hi res/30 or 1080p/60 is right for me. I'll probably take the 60 fps mode sacrificing image quality. It's really hard to go back to playing games at "up to 30 fps" since 60 fps gaming has been standard lately for most games.
Last edited:
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
We should be seeing 1800p 60 fps minimum with the visuals on display.
But their engine has never been strong, filled with lots of technical issues. Settling for 1800p or 4k30 would be quite a disappointment since there are so many good 60 fps alternatives on the market right now that run at least 1400p on consoles. 1080p or 900p is unacceptable unless it is like The Matrix quality, which clearly this is nowhere close
Last edited:
MightySquirrel
Banned
It could be similar to Star citizen where whole planets are procedurally generated with their own unique weather, but outposts related to story will be manually placed and environment around them touched up a little to make them distinct/prettier.
Other small quest outposts for bandit camps, other faction hideouts etc can be premade and scattered around so you can encounter them anywhere in the verse.
why the hell are so many people in this thread complaining about the visuals/graphics? this is bethesda, they make games with a singular artistic vision, graphics be damned. this isn't fuckin microsoft flight simulator. why in the world would anyone complain about visuals regarding a bethesda game, it literally makes no sense.
Last edited:
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Because if they target 60 fps at 1440p or whatever their resolution target is for 30 fps, it will make the game look even worse. You said it yourself, the game already isnt a looker. I disagree, but imagine if HALF of the 12 tflops GPU was spent rendering 2x more frames because thats what it needs. The game would look far far worse.
I think consoles have always targeted 30 fps for these RPGs and action adventure games and it should stay that way. They are cheap budget machines that are never going to offer 4k 60 fps. If you want that, both Sony and MS are offering their games on PC so you can pay extra for it.
Or wait for mid gen refresh. Or settle for 1080p with some kind of upscaling. Matrix looks just fine at 1080p. A generation ahead of anything else out there.
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
Why can't you expect a studio to get better? They only have to focus on less platforms now. We should see less bugs. They have Microsoft financial backing and support, so we should hopefully NOT see a repeat of prior mistakes with some of their other games.
There's nothing wrong with expecting studios to get better with time.
Nydius
Member
Gee, what a totally rational, not-at-all incendiary response.
Compared to how HFW looks at 4K HDR, especially after the latest patch, what they showed of Starfield looked like a pile of poo -- and that was using the most optimal conditions possible in order to build the gameplay trailer. It's going to need at least another full year in the oven for visual polishing alone.
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
I am hopeful that this game will be 4K30. No reason it shouldn't be since there's nothing I see that's really next-gen about it. I think the game has great art style, so in that sense it is a looker. But it just doesn't strike me as anything next-gen technically. It looks worse than some cross-gen games that run at or near 4K30.
No excuses really, just because this is the best they could do technically doesn't mean we shouldn't try and expect better in general. And I'm hopeful we'll get there at launch, but 30 fps with stuttering and a 1440p resolution would be a massive disappointment.
- Status