• Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not even a close comparison, Nintendo games look like ass because they have a max resolution of 1600x900 and 30fps, add in the texture resolution of things in game as well and it’s obvious why PC games often run “worse” also… They have one console they release on instead of the literally millions of possible different PC configurations

    Just a dumb comparison to any PC games

    • 520@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s not even a close comparison, Nintendo games look like ass because they have a max resolution of 1600x900 and 30fps, add in the texture resolution of things in game as well and it’s obvious why PC games often run “worse” also…

      Did you account for the fact that Nintendo was developing for massively underpowered handheld hardware? And not significantly more powerful Xbox Series consoles? And actually made their games to fit the strengths and limitations of their target hardware?

      They have one console they release on instead of the literally millions of possible different PC configurations.

      You would have a point…if Starfield ran with decent performance on even the Xbox Series X. You know, the target platform?

      • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It does run well, at 30fps like they specified, I’m not sure what performance issues being reported youre looking at

        • Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Most the original comments were about bugginess, which is just bad programming, hence the lack of polish

        • 520@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          …the fact that it has to run at 30fps on powerful hardware despite having nothing to show for it?

          To put it another way, how the fuck is it not targeting 60 on the Series X? I could understand it for the Series S, but there is little to no fidelity improvements on show like they said there’d be.

            • 520@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Is it prettier than, say, Cyberpunk? Witcher 3? Forza Horizon 5? Last I checked, those are open world games and run at 60fps on XSX.

              • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It is definitely prettier then Witcher 3 lmfao, Cyberpunk is probably prettier however it also ran like shit for everyone and was infamously bad at launch lmfao.

                Idk about Forza, haven’t seen it in a while

                • 520@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I dunno dude, the next gen patch for Witcher 3 is absolutely gorgeous. Maybe there’s less opportunity for the game to show off reflections but damn it look pretty. Kinda hard to compare though as they are going for totally different graphical styles.

                  I’ll give you that Cyberpunk was an absolute mess at launch. It made typical Bethesda jank look muuuuuch preferable by comparison. Perhaps it would be more fair to wait for Bethesda to release a few patches before comparing?

                  • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I can show some of my in game screenshots from Starfield if you’d like, I just want people to actually try the game for themselves for a few hours instead of buying into internet rage bandwagon.

                    It’s a great game with tons of quests and things to do with minimal game breaking bugs to worry about.

                    https://youtu.be/dapJH8y6JxI?si=yEuUzHxHxUzOzZNM this review pretty much sums up my thoughts too, but I’m definitely a Bethesda enjoyer, some people aren’t.

                    I do have one friend who could never really get into Skyrim/Fallout but he took the plunge into Starfield and has far exceeded my playtime already and loving it, for what it’s worth.

          • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Digital Foundry built a PC using the Series X CPU and a similar level GPU and couldn’t get a stable 60 across the whole game.

            • 520@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Well…no shit?

              The XSX isn’t running full fat Windows in the background for one thing, which adds overhead, for another XSX games can be optimised for the hardware at a level that isn’t feasible for equivalent generic PC hardware.

              Despite that, the XSX still can’t run it at 60, how was generic PC hardware going to fare any better?