evan23

Obviously, they are very different games. Also, Cyberpunk has had lots of evolution that Starfield has not yet benefited from.

I have 45 hours into Starfield now and......it is both awesome and a complete mess. Honestly, I don't know how any serious review outfit could rate this game 10/10. It is definitely a good game but it is tragically flawed in multiple ways.

The obvious one is that it is littered with obvious bugs. I have multiple times had NPCs float away from me while talking to them. Once this happens they seem to be permanently gone. This has broken quests for me. I have also had some crazy graphical glitches like most of the models for NPCs disappear leaving them as strange floating polygons. Plenty of other strange bugs as well. I suspect most of these will be fixed over time.

The act of interfacing with the game is rough in multiple ways. I find I have to switch between using a kb/mouse and a controller as I play the game.

• The game generally feels like it was meant to be played with a controller. Even though I don't usually play FP games with a controller, I usually play starfield this way. It relies heavily on the sticks for both space flight and just generally walking where acceleration is tied to the tilt of the stick.
• On the other hand, the ship builder is exceptionally painful to work on with the controller. It almost requires you to use a kb/mouse to be productive for larger changes.
• The inventory management UI is awful. I am not sure how nobody thought to fix that. It took a modder 2 days to improve it quite a lot so I am not sure why it would have ever shipped in it's current state.
• The game doesn't explain enough to you and the UI isn't easily discoverable. If you don't read walkthroughs and tutorials you are almost guaranteed to miss key game features.

There are also a bunch of gameplay issues:

• Companion AI is awful. They almost always take up the same position as you in combat instead of a complimentary position. Uhh....thanks for drawing all the enemy fire to me....again.
• Shipbuilding is baffling. You can't easily control how habs are connected and the game often chooses the most labyrinthine method possible.
• The encumbrance system is set too low in my opinion. Especially at the beginning before you have unlocked any perks.
• The vendor limits are annoyingly low. Before adding a mod to fix this, I would often have to 10+ vendors on 3 planets to sell my stuff. It takes almost as much time to sell the stuff as to acquire it. I don't mind that there are limits, but they need to a bit higher from a QoL perspective.
• Getting around planets is not very fun and time consuming. Oh, I need to walk to that object 2000 meters away. Might be fun if there was something between me and the object but since there is nothing of interest, it is just wasted time.
• There are tons of immersion breaking aspects to the game.

All that being said, it is still a good game and well worth playing.

I am still playing Starfield. I only have so many hours per day for gaming so it might be a while.

This is purely symbolic at this point. It is nothing more than political wrangling. Such a waste.

Starfield is an interesting game. In some ways it is amazing and in other ways tragically flawed. Of course, it also has a lot of bugs.

I would say overall it is a "good" game and I am enjoying playing it.

However, 2023 has been an amazing years for games. It is definitely top 10 for me and probably top 5 at least as of right now. The year isn't over yet though....

I don't stress overly about it.

I play whatever is most interesting to me.

Since I play mostly single player games, I am fine not playing games at launch. In most cases, waiting will give me a game that is both cheaper and better.

I happened to upgrade my CPU a couple of months ago which gave me a free copy of Starfield on PC so I will play that as soon as I finish Hogwarts.

@Kienda

Conclusion: Bethesda could easily have delivered a 60fps option on Series X version only with slightly downgraded graphics. (And personally I can’t understand why they didn’t).

You must of watched a different video than I did since that certainly wasn't what I took away from that video.

I think the headline is worded in a way that is a bit misleading to be honest.

If you watch the entire DF analysis it was pretty clear it wasn't running anywhere near 60 fps for large parts of the game. Even 40fps wasn't consistently achievable.

Doesn't the xbox already support outputting at 480p, 1080i and 720p via the component cables?

They basically made it playable by disabling RT. This just further demonstrates that our current gen of consoles can't really handle the visual features devs are adding to games.

That being said, they should have shipped performance mode without RT from the beginning. They had to know it was an issue and they already had support for it in the game since it was always an option on PC.

I think this is partially about UE5 optimization and partially about the fact that current gen consoles are under powered for accomplishing the visuals that developers are pushing for. Especially at 60fps.

The reality is that pushing high-end visuals in some of these games at 4K pushes an RTX 4090 to the max. That is often with DLSS scaling enabled using internal resolutions less than 4K. Current gen consoles are not even close to that.

As we continue to move toward increased ray tracing and other advanced features, we are going to see this more and more in the current generation.

@GamingFan4Lyf

I do wonder how well FSR3 works with frame generation. What is the minimum native framerate that can produce a locked 60fps? Also, is it something that can be done on console?

AMD only recommends using FSR3 frame gen when the base framerate is already at least 60fps. The point of it is to increase visual fluidity, not solve performance problems.

I am not sure it is news that Microsoft has no plans to drop support for the Series S.

It is an interesting question if they would compromise on feature parity though. To me, forcing full feature parity is an extreme position to take given how much less RAM the system has.

It is a shame when these get shutdown.

However, this seems pretty reasonable to me. You can't keep this stuff running forever. Processing financial transactions is something that needs ongoing care and maintenance. It isn't something that just runs on it's own if you keep the servers up.

As long as the servers stay up to allow people to download content I don't see this as a game preservation issue.

Microsoft's implementation of could gaming is pretty terrible on PC in my testing.

I actually retested just last weekend because I was curious. I have separately tested with both a GB fiber connection and 300Mbps cable connection and both product sub-par results.

At all times, most games have serious artifacts present under most types of motion. Frequently, there are resolution drops in games below an acceptable level.

Perhaps on a mobile device with a small screen it would be less of an issue but when using a full sized display it is not playable for me.

@Fiendish-Beaver I believe BG1:EE and BG2:EE have a setting to enable auto-pause to essentially give you turn based combat but I don't remember the exact options in that menu.

@Fiendish-Beaver There is a lot of text, that is true. However, at least on the PC version, there are controls to configure the size of the text. Also, most text appears in box that waits for you to acknowledge it so it wouldn't be that common that you would miss something meaningful.

@Fiendish-Beaver Yes, I would say it is a long game. Although, it depends on how you play it. If you race towards the finish ignoring non-essential quests you could finish it it in less time.

@Fiendish-Beaver Those games have had an active modding community for over 20 years. There are countless mods available.

There are mods that make small changes and mods that complete transform the game into something else. There are so many mods that there are tools developed to help you find and manage your mods.

I have played BGII over 20 times with various mods in place.

Sweet, now the 3 people that are interested in this style of game but don't already own it can play it.

But seriously, these are some of the best games ever made. Especially BGII.

The only unfortunate thing about playing them on XBOX is you miss out on all the amazing work modders have done over the years.

To be fair, part of the reason this runs at such a low internal resolution on current gen consoles is the forced RT. If there was a rasterization option, it would I bet it would run a lot better.

Since RT isn't an option on prior gen consoles, there is a chance those consoles get a decent 30 fps experience.

I thought this was a great game but I don't know if I would buy it at $24 USD. I think I would wait until it drops a bit more than that unless you are excited to play it right away.

@Savage_Joe The steam deck doesn't need to support split screen so the comparison is fairly irrelevant. Larian has never said that there is an issue getting the game to run on Series S outside of that.

It is all about the split screen functionality. I wouldn't be surprised if the issue wasn't more about the limited memory the system has available than the GPU hardware.

I frankly not sure that the PS5 and XSX are capable of delivering what I would consider a next gen experience.

Even for the games that have only supported current gen consoles the improvements haven't been great. When someone tries to deliver a feature rich experience, visuals suffer.

Look at Jedi Survivor. They added RTGI and it drove internal resolutions so low that there are tons of artifacts on objects in motion. FSR2 can't take a sub-720p image in motion and turn it into 1440p/4K with reasonable fidelity. I find those types of artifacts really distracting so that for me that game is basically unplayable.

Now that the cross-gen period is ending, we are going to see more and more 30fps games as developers try to live within the limitations of the current hardware while delivering "next gen" features and visuals. Even then, I think we will still be seeing compromises.

Trying to wrap my hands around "The Duke" and play games at the same time.

I would have preferred GWG to have been brought on par with Sony's essential tier offerings rather than being switched to a slowly changing list of subscription titles. It seems like a downgrade to me.

As for if the service is called GP Core or XBL Gold I have no particular preference.

I barely use my XSX. I can't imagine buying a second one in a different color.

For me to be interested in an upgraded model it would have to be significant improvement. I am not sure that is possible unless AMD is hiding some kind of generational game changer that hasn't leaked.

I am curious to see what happens if Sony releases an upgraded console and Microsoft doesn't though. That will lead to some interesting marketing shenanigans I think.

I think this paying for early access trend is something that needs to end. I definitely won't be paying for early access to anything.

@dmcc0 Eh...I guess you are right.

I suppose it was the same before but it seems really messed up given this model. I wonder if they will fix that?

@MattWithoutFear I think you are misreading that.

The chart shows the things that get added with each tier.

EDIT: I guess this isn't the case.

That is both super cool and not very useful due the small and highly specific sizes of the compartments. I also doubt it gets very cold.

Yeah, the $1 deal doesn't offset the greatly worsening of the value due to the conversion ratio being reduced since it is no longer 1:1.

It seems like that should really be added to the article @Kezelpaso.

@Moonglow To be fair, I think the sales numbers reflect your thinking. The upgraded consoles sold in far fewer numbers last generation. Presumably, it is only the serious enthusiasts or people who don't care about that amount of money who purchase them.

Last generations upgraded consoles seemed a lot more needed than this time around. Especially with the original Xone being so underpowered. Although, the XoneX launched so late that it was too late to make a big impact.

On the other hand, Sony has a lot more market data available than we do so they must have some rationale for making this move at this time.

@BrilliantBill Yes, that is exactly my point, as more games target current-gen hardware they will use more features and/or increased visuals that will come with lower performance targets. It isn't that games can't run at 60fps, it is that games won't be willing to make the compromises required to make it happen.

I think Jedi Survivor is an example of this. The burden from ray-tracing causes the internal resolution of the game to drop extremely low and as a result the upscaled image looks awful in motion.

@UltimateOtaku91 It only takes one person with the information to share it. Leaks happen. However, it is even more likely to happen between companies in an industry with a relatively small number of people who move around during their careers. You can call an old friend or take them out for some drinks. You can also sometimes get info out of the supply chain.

Even if they don't reveal everything you need you can piece together info from multiple sources.

It happens in all industries.

I think the only way a PS5 Pro could be game changing and still be priced feasibly is if AMD has some unannounced AI upscaling in the pipeline and the PS5 Pro ships with an updated GPU to support that. Unfortunately, it seems like it would be difficult to get something like that launched by late 24 unless they already had access to it. Since there haven't been leaks or rumors to support that it doesn't seem likely.

Alternatively, they could launch a "Pro" model that was more like a refresh at the same price point as the existing PS5. For example, a more modern CPU could make a noticeable difference since we are seeing more single core, CPU bound games due to a lack of optimization from devs.

That being said, I think 4K/60 for most games is probably not going to happen in this generation, even with upgraded hardware. We have been seeing 4K/60 in games early on because they were mostly cross-gen games. As more devs utilize the features of the current-gen hardware, I think we will see more 30fps games unfortunately. Even in those, the 4K will probably be coming from up-scaling.

Mostly I am just curious to see what it ends up being.

I played it at launch and thought it was good.

It isn't an amazing game that will blow your mind forever but it was fun to play something different. It is definitely worth playing IMO.

I don't really understand what Microsoft is doing here with their consoles. The prices make no sense, at least in the US market.

The 1TB XSS is $349 compared to $399 for the PS5 digital/slim. But the PS5 vastly outperform the XSS for only a $50 difference.

@InterceptorAlpha Yes, but what was in that demo isn't part of any of the restored content I have seen.

That KOTOR presentation is definitely worth a watch if you are a fan of the game.

There is an entire sequence there that didn't make it into the game. It is also interesting to see how the early UI looked.

The difference between Games with Gold and the PS Plus Essentials free games continues to be staggering.

Most months it isn't even worth turning on the console to collect the games.

I feel like no matter what kind of spin is put on it, at the end of the day, AMD is paying large amounts of money to make the gaming experience worse for many players.

That is the worst kind of anti-consumer behavior. There is literally nothing good about it for any gamer on any platform.

@ChromeMud

Maybe DLSS will come in a patch later. That isn't unheard of you know. Plenty of games get DLSS added after a games release.
Don't know what the fuss is about.

These AMD agreements lock out the developers from adding DLSS later. That is the problem. Sometimes, modders can do it unofficially but it isn't supported and isn't always possible.

@Moonglow

If they can make the FSR perform better than the average DLSS for the 20x and 30x Nvidia GPUs then it's going to be best for everybody.

FSR 2 does not provide that. Even on 30-series cards, DLSS 2.0 provides superior results to FSR 2.0 in most scenarios.

Also, there is literally no upside to this in any way for the consumer. AMD pays money to lock out nVidia and then generates marketing material saying how awesome it is.

This is not good news to anyone. AMD pays to lock out nvidia. The rest is marketing spin. Nothing about this actually benefits XBOX.

If you look at recent titles that have this AMD "partnership" it hasn't done much to help them. Jedi Survivor was one of the most recent ones.

@Moonglow

From a development and business point of view, there is absolute no advantage shipping physical games in 2023

For this specific game that may be true, but for other games I am not sure I agree.

There are some cases where physical games can increase sales on consoles:

• People are more likely to gift physical games. Giving a download code isn't really the same for the buyer or the receiver.
• Believe it or not, some people still go to the store, look at things and determine what to buy. That is lost sales for online-only gaming.
• Games in stores can sell based on sitting on an endcap and getting passing traffic. This is especially true for games that target younger audiences.

This is why we have physical releases with download codes inside. Because even if there is nothing inside but a code, those above things all still hold true.

Although, again, most of that probably doesn't apply to Alan Wake 2 which has a fairly specific audience and would never be featured in retail.

I really don't think not shipping a physical disc will make the game better. It isn't like they have to stop the development process to create a physical copy.

I do wonder if this isn't more about the disappointing sales figures for the Alan Wake 1 remake. Not wanting to dump a bunch of physical copies of the game into the market that will end up on the discount rack.

That XSX and those dolls would probably sell for some crazy money to collectors.

@RIghteousNixon The discounts work in both directions. You can also buy games at a discount. Even day 1 in most cases. Also, not everyone needs XBOX Gold. Many people play primarily single player games or multiplayer games that don't require gold.

Ultimately, a single way to determine the value for every circumstance would be complicated. Everyone needs to judge the value for themselves and the answer still won't be as universal as some people seem to think.

GP will be a good value for some people and not for others. It is a poor value for me but that doesn't mean it isn't a great value for someone else.

The aggressive fanboyism from a very small number of posters here is pretty funny. I guess it is to be expected on a gaming site.

Ultimately it comes down to value. In the US, ultimate now costs $204/yr. The answer to "Is it worth that much?" will be different for everyone.

You can justify it a few ways. That is three AAA day 1 games purchases.

For me, if I look back over the last year, how many AAA games that showed up on GP day 1 would I have purchased on Day 1. The answer is zero.

That leaves indie games and older games. For me, the next question is did I play enough of those games to justify $204 per year. Definitely not.

For me, I will probably cancel GP after my gold conversion time runs out.

That being said, I respect that the answer is different for other people. IMO, it depends on a few factors:

• How much free time you have. If you are willing to farm rewards every day you can get it for free or much less which changes the value proposition.
• What kind of games you play and does the service have a lot of those games.
• How do you consume games? Do you complete one game and go onto the next or do you play the same small number of games every day.
• Do you have a backlog of games waiting for you? If you do, day 1 games have less value.

@abe_hikura I suspect that game pass has a much higher percentage of "casual" users than Netflix.

People who converted gold at one point and just let their subscription carry over month to month. A price hike of $2/mo might be enough to remind those users that they can live without it and cancel.

Certainly, the heavy GP users will not cancel over this.