And we just the official bullshit of “Well it runs on my PC just fine.” from a developer.
“Never trust a man with two first names.”
Three is okay tho, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCGD9dT12C0
Get a new game engine, Todd. Bethesda owns id Software. id Tech is right where.
Engines for linear first person shooters aren’t necessarily good for Skyrim-scale RPGs.
Other then the hourly crashes (that I assume the video driver update I did resolved) and what I deem some terrible game design choices like shit inventory limitations, runs fine for me. I9-9900 with 1080ti sc2.
Runs fine on my 5600x w/ 2070 super on High settings, 3440x1440. I did however install a DSLL 3.5 mod from the beginning.
Teach me please, sensei. This is exactly my setup, 5600x, 2070s, wqhd and dlss mod. However, I could definitely not crank it up to high, and it still runs at only like 45-50 FPS. Can you maybe screenshot your settings? Maybe I overlooked something that I need to turn off/on?
I honestly haven’t done much tweaking. Really all I’ve done is set it to High and then decrease the Render Resolution Percentage from the default 62% on High down to 57% (which I believe is roughly similar to a DSLL “Balanced” vs “Quality”). I typically end up with around 50-60 FPS I believe, which is plenty for me in a game like this one (it about what I’ve typically aimed for with years of heavily modified Skyrim). Obviously, if it was a competitive FPS, I’d want higher like 120+, but I don’t feel like that’s needed for a single-player shooter/RPG like this one. That is of course personal preference though.
I’m running out on an i7 4090 with a low profile amd rx6400 (used office PC) at 1080p in high with scaling set to 60% and a solid 30-40 fps. It’s an RPG, who cares as long as it’s not a slideshow?
I cursed myself by buying a 170hz monitor. Now that I’m used to that, everything under, say, 120fps feels incredibly draining on the eyes
Has anyone tried it on RTX 3050 laptop?
SSD Usage In Starfield Is Causing Stuttering Issues: Report https://www.tomshardware.com/news/badly-optimized-ssd-usage-starfield-traversial-stutter#xenforo-comments-3819696
What upgrade to my pc would allow me to play that game at 1440p 144fps stable on high or ultra exactly?
Runs fine for me 5600X, RTX 3080 @1440p high ultra settings native.
“Runs fine on my high end rig”
Thanks for telling us.
Reason why I mentioned is because I’m finding people with better specs complaining… If we just turned the FPS counter off and enjoyed the game without needing to check if it’s dipping below 60 and turned it on if we really needed it, we’d all be a bit more appreciative.
Except it’s literally not playable on my system, so I can’t appreciate shit. I meet the minimum requirements, but the second I leave a building interior my fps goes from smooth as butter to unplayably choppy. This is with everything on low, and even the DLSS mod installed.
I’d accept my PC just isn’t actually up to snuff if not for the fact other people with the exact same specs are saying they’re playing at medium settings comfortably. The only way that makes sense is if Starfield IS, in fact, badly optimized.
At what framerate
Slideshow.
Dunno, it’s running fine enough to not need to enable the FPS counter.
If you don’t have an FPS counter enabled by default I’m inclined to believe it’s not actually fine, and that you’re just not used to any refreshrate above 60
No, with my specs I definitely am used to and know what 60fps looks like. New Atlantis may not be 60 but it’s not anywhere near a slide how either. I’m still enjoying it personally but hey, don’t let my contentment get in the way of a good whinge.
Anything below 60 on your specs should be considered unacceptable
I don’t think you realise how good your specs are
Hell, I’d say the same about 120 tbh. Modern games are just unoptimised pieces of shit
I know my specs and i’m playing native, no FSR and haven’t encountered any stuttering. What am I gonna do? Not play the game because it dips below 60 fps? I’ve been on FPS counter bandwagon and I prefer peace and simple enjoyment over FPS anxiety - for me the counter is only if/when required.
Oh I love this part.
Developer makes game that looks fucking fantastic but only runs on newish high end shit - “Fucking devs”
Developer makes game that can run on a potato but really isnt anything visually special especially for a AAA title- “Fucking devs”
I’d much rather have a unique artstyle instead of the normal AAA as close to photorealism as possible, games like that tend to age better too. Like look at all the games made by Supergiant Games, way prettier than any COD or Assassin’s Creed and will absolutely run on a potato.
Well I absolutely agree with you there.
People criticize companies for pushing the graphical aspect past what hardware is capable of, and yet these games that push the envelope are the ones that tend to sell the best.
The fact is that PC gamers (of which I am one) are some of the worst consumers to make products for.
To make a AAA title with no bitching you need to break new ground and be innovative without feeling derivative or alienating, it needs to offer absolutely endless gameplay without being boring situationally generated filler, have a real sense of progression that isnt a lootgrind, be inclusive without being “woke”, offer endless customisation of literally everything and run on absolutely any hardware and os configuration from the last decade with absolutely zero issues. Oh and god help you if the release is delayed by so much as a day, the game cant have any kind of subscription model or cosmedic microtransactions to fund the free DLCs that need to be released regularly until the heat death of the universe.
Very VERY rarely someone gets it right, sure it can be done. But its like hitting an out of the park home run, its not supposed to be easy.
You godamned right it is. Nothing wrong with asking for the best if you’re paying premium prices. Cry more.
