• 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.

Digital Foundry: Starfield: The Digital Foundry Tech Review

Mr Hyde

Member
Game looks very impressive. Haven't watched a ton of footage or reviews, because I want to be somewhat in the dark for this game, but one thing really irked me. Longer load times the longer you play? That is something I really didn't wanna hear. That sounds straight up awful to be honest. Hope it's a issue that can be fixed later down the road.
 

Xtib81

Member
I think some people will always view Digital Foundry videos under a biased lens even before they start the video, you say he minimises the criticism but that's not what I sensed at all. In the past DF have been called shills for pretty much every damn company under the sun if they mention anything positive, so I guess the clock is now pointing back to "Microsoft paid them!!!11!!11!" because they mentioned the positive things about Starfield.

Tbh, I feel like John doesn't want to be too harsh on games, no matter the platform and is more about positivity. I mean, that's cool and all but quit doing technical reviews then.
 

BootsLoader

Banned
Damn, so the planets are just an Area that is generated at the moment. Rest of the planet is non explorable. So much for those 1000s planets.

Got to admit, the ship looks damn impressive inside.
 

YCoCg

Gold Member
Tbh, I feel like John doesn't want to be too harsh on games, no matter the platform and is more about positivity. I mean, that's cool and all but quit doing technical reviews then.
You can point out the flaws and not dwell on them, we've already got enough channels and forum posters who already do that, so yeah it's nice to get someone who DOES point it out but wants to focus on the benefits instead, especially since people on social media have been attacking John whenever he's been positive or negative over "other brand I don't like" people. If you want to see John annoyed enough to the point where he swears though, watch the Sonic 06 playthrough.
 

twilo99

Member
Your ship is the most impressive thing I saw in the game in the first hours. Almost CGi level:
18Bh513.jpg
EPE4cIx.jpg
LwxZp6U.jpg
M2jm21E.jpg
2dU33kK.jpg

Yes, they’ve done a great job in there and that weird hazy look isn’t present as well…
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
Very disappointed that he didnt talk about the massive downgrade in outdoor areas or that the PC version has none of the terrain, LOD and draw distance settings sliders. The game on PC and xbox series x is essentially a souped up version of the series s with largely same level of detail. As confirmed by the very low vram requirements on pc barely even pushing 6GB.

All of that would be ok if the game's open world levels werent massively downgraded from the gameplay trailers not just from last year, but from the starfield direct literally 3 months ago.

John used to be my favorite of the bunch but his refusal to criticize big AAA first party studios is getting very annoying. he completely shrugged off the awful performance mode IQ in HFW, droned on and on for 50 minutes over a last gen looking remake of tlou, and now Starfield is getting a pass despite having arguably the biggest downgrade of the generation. I get that the indoor levels didnt get downgraded and look stunning but as a critic you should be able to praise and criticize the game for its shortcomings.

4291e3481c6eb8787cc7238d77f63b55e699ebbd.gif


starfieldworlds.gif


To this:

AACNbMp.jpg
KC7SHRc.jpg
 
Last edited:

FunkMiller

Member
Very disappointed that he didnt talk about the massive downgrade in outdoor areas or that the PC version has none of the terrain, LOD and draw distance settings sliders. The game on PC and xbox series x is essentially a souped up version of the series s with largely same level of detail. As confirmed by the very low vram requirements on pc barely even pushing 6GB.

Have the feeling that once the hype for the game calms down, and some level headed analysis takes place, a lot of the problems with it will be traced back to having to run on the stupid box.

Microsoft GIF by Xbox
 

FunkMiller

Member
I keep hearing this excuse but when you have games like Forbidden West which were developed for PS4/5, and look incredible on PS5, it goes out the window.

I didn’t think HFW on Ps5 looked or played all that much better than on Ps4. Similar story with GOWR. Burning Shores was a step up. If you have to develop for lesser tech, you’ll suffer for it.

Although with Xbox it all feels a lot worse because they’re so intent on keeping the Series S on par with Series X.
 
The campaign that many of you are leading to discredit starfield is impressive. I don't remember something so exaggerated against any game ever.

I wonder if the story would have been completely different if the game came out on all platforms....
Dude, you know it would have. The game is simply amazing especially after about 10 hours once the training wheels come off. Genuinely impressed at the number of things to do, all the different systems, factions, writing is on point, acting is on point, and it's been bug free (except the ones you kill) easily a 9.5/10. it has 33/52 reviews have scored it 9 or higher and 16/52 scored it 80+. The only outliers are the typical sony shill sites accounting for 5/52.
 

Bogroll

Likes moldy games
Looks decent overall. Its the only review I've seen that shows both ways of travelling from planet to planet. And for me while it wasn't great it wasn't as bad as I first imagined when he actually walked to his ship and flew off then space warped to another planet etc. But when he fast travelled from planet to planet that was totally emersion breaking. Trouble is trying not to fast travel like that as opposed to fast travel directly to a planet. I can see myself unfortunately see myself using the later after a while.
 

Bogroll

Likes moldy games
To anyone who has played the game. How do you ever come across pirate ships/dog fighting or abandoned ships etc if you fast travel everywhere ?
 

M.W.

Member
To anyone who has played the game. How do you ever come across pirate ships/dog fighting or abandoned ships etc if you fast travel everywhere ?

I have no idea, I haven't seen anything like that in 13 hours played.
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Very disappointed that he didnt talk about the massive downgrade in outdoor areas or that the PC version has none of the terrain, LOD and draw distance settings sliders. The game on PC and xbox series x is essentially a souped up version of the series s with largely same level of detail. As confirmed by the very low vram requirements on pc barely even pushing 6GB.
Well, Phil is segwaying the PR in calling the PC your "pro console." 🤷‍♀️
 

Gaiff

SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
Thoroughly unimpressed by the tech in this game. $200-400M budget? Where did it go lol?

Their outdated engine still doesn't allow them to make seamless worlds and the damn game is rife with loading screens and pauses. Not only that, but the load times are also long for a system with fast storage and Direct Storage (which doesn't appear to be in use).

There is no modern tech whatsoever. No use of fast streaming, high-quality geometry, ray tracing, or fast load times. The texture work can also be very inconsistent. At times, it looks amazing and at other times, it looks like a holdover from Skyrim. No wonder it fits under an 8GB budget.
 

Thirty7ven

Banned
oof. The foliage, the character models, the animation, the loadings.

It basically gets a pat on the back because it looks better than previous Bethesda Games…

Art design wise it’s not exactly inspiring either.

People who were saying that neon city looked better than Night City in Cyberpunk are on drugs.
 
Last edited:

Dorfdad

Gold Member
I feel this is a game most gamers won’t enjoy. It’s an epic undertaking to say the least but it’s full of slow moving dialogue and alot of arcade sim traveling / research and scanning / crafting etc. lots more than just action dude bro battles and I’m not sure there is a large enough base of those players willing to invest to get the most out of this game.
 

linko9

Member
As someone who will never play this game (had more than my fill of Bethesda with Fallout 3), I think the man-made environments look great, and barren rocky worlds look pretty good too. However all plant life looks absolutely abysmal. From what I can tell plants (especially trees) are barely lit, don't move, and the models aren't very detailed. Have seen lots of shots of the capitol city, where it looks really bad, but there was a world shown in the video that was equally terrible, if not worse. Surprised that wasn't touched on much, and I haven't seen many other people mention it.
 

DenchDeckard

Moderated wildly
Coming from outer worlds to this ....starfield looks insane.

Plus I played games like final fantasy xvi just before outer worlds and the pc version of starfield looks easily as good as that game imo.
 
Last edited:

ShaiKhulud1989

Gold Member
Coming from outer worlds to this ....starfield looks insane.
Coming from NMS in PSVR 2 to this... You see how stupid this juxtaposition is, right?

The art in Starfiled is king, the tech is dated even by 2015 standarts, sorry. Especially when you know that Horizon Forbidden West is a PS4 game too.
 
Last edited:

KAOS

Member
Game is definitely more Mass Effect than No Man's Sky. I appreciate the fact that the mission set up is pretty easy to go through without the boredom and hassle of forced travel. Neat that some of the loading screens are of the screenshots you've taken. Game is fun! A sci-fi time sink of you're own making!
 

GHG

Member
Very disappointed that he didnt talk about the massive downgrade in outdoor areas or that the PC version has none of the terrain, LOD and draw distance settings sliders. The game on PC and xbox series x is essentially a souped up version of the series s with largely same level of detail. As confirmed by the very low vram requirements on pc barely even pushing 6GB.

All of that would be ok if the game's open world levels werent massively downgraded from the gameplay trailers not just from last year, but from the starfield direct literally 3 months ago.

John used to be my favorite of the bunch but his refusal to criticize big AAA first party studios is getting very annoying. he completely shrugged off the awful performance mode IQ in HFW, droned on and on for 50 minutes over a last gen looking remake of tlou, and now Starfield is getting a pass despite having arguably the biggest downgrade of the generation. I get that the indoor levels didnt get downgraded and look stunning but as a critic you should be able to praise and criticize the game for its shortcomings.

4291e3481c6eb8787cc7238d77f63b55e699ebbd.gif


starfieldworlds.gif


To this:

AACNbMp.jpg
KC7SHRc.jpg

They clearly don't want to (or aren't allowed to) talk about the performance of the PC version yet either.

They are not the informative outlet they once were. The whole video stinks of PR puff piece.
 
Last edited:

Mr Moose

Member
It can look nice at times from what I have seen and also very bad. Character models are kinda bad as with most of their games, a bit better than their others mostly so that's a plus I guess.
3rd person mode, dude's gonna have a bad back in no time, leans forwards while "running".
I am assuming the moon section? Reminds me of Destiny 2. There's another game recently that reminded me of Destiny 2 visually but I forgot the name of it, I think its a coop game.
Performance for what is on screen isn't up to scratch, some recent games are pulling the same shit (UE5 games).
The big downside for me is it's Fallout in space. I didn't like Fallout 4/76 all that much... Skyrim though :messenger_heart:
 

ryan90k

Neo Member
Interiors look superb but foliage especially grass and trees look so flat and artificial and lack basic shading, I don't think the games massive scale is an excuse for things that are repeated all over the place being bad. It just looks inconsistent to me I'm surprised the DF video didn't criticise this.
 
Top Bottom