re: Starfield Info/Discussion Thread

quote:

---

Are the reviewers at IGN fricking retarded?

---

Undoubtedly

I'm about to preorder the game but can't decide if I should get the standard or premium edition. I won't be able to play it until the 6th anyway so I'd basically just be paying $30 for the story expansion which will be released early next year for probably cheaper. I'm just wondering if I'll regret not getting the DLC now while I can and making myself wait for it for at least 4 months. Anyone else getting the standard edition only?

Couple of the youtube reviews saying probably the biggest disappointment is that outside of main quest some of the other world exploration stuff get repetitive quick. That and space combat really just boils down to if your ship has the stats to win or not, not necessarily skill level of pilot.

outside of that pretty much all positives. i personally think some of the facial and body animations of npcs seems a little off. very old gen looking, but that's not that big of a deal.

quote:

---

Vibe im getting is it sucks until 70+ hours in.

---

I hope this is not true because that is awful.

quote:

---

I'm about to preorder the game but can't decide if I should get the standard or premium edition. I won't be able to play it until the 6th anyway so I'd basically just be paying $30 for the story expansion which will be released early next year for probably cheaper. I'm just wondering if I'll regret not getting the DLC now while I can and making myself wait for it for at least 4 months. Anyone else getting the standard edition only?

---

If you assume story expansion is $15-20, then the real price is an additional $10-15. If you plan on playing 200-1000 hours, seems like easy math.

quote:

---

IGN USA is the only ign entity to give the 7. Every other one gave 9/10 or 10/10 scores

---

IGN for a while has been very pro-PlayStation. Their editors and writers think Microsoft is an evil American company trying to create a monopoly.
They constantly are posting articles about the court battles going on in the Microsoft Activision saga. Anytime something goes against Microsoft their titles are something like “Microsoft suffers ANOTHER embarrassing loss!”.

And anytime something goes in favor of them they post something very short and direct like “Court sides with Microsoft”

Their reviews are dog shite and they try to be edgy unless they’re paid off

quote:

---

Their reviews are dog shite and they try to be edgy unless they’re paid off

---

Gamespot gave it a 7/10 too :D

Luke Stephens was also not overly high on the game.

Yeah anyone expecting 10's or 9's after everything we've seen for over a year was just misguided.

7 is a fine score. PC Gamer is probably my favorite these days and they gave it a 7.5 and that's the PC version with 2x the graphics and environment plus 60FPS+.

Some info on PC settings:

quote:

---

Dynamic Resolution: On
Render Resolution: 75%
Graphics Preset: Custom
Shadow Quality: Medium
Indirect Lighting: High
Reflections: Medium
Particle Quality: Low
Volumetric Lighting: Medium
Crowd Density: Low
Motion Blur: Off
GTAO Quality: Medium
Grass Quality: High
Contact Shadows: Medium
VSync: On
Upscaling: FSR2
Enable VRS: On
Depth of Field: On

Gasp! Your eyes don’t deceive you. You should run Starfield below native resolution. As I’ll dig into with my benchmarks later, the game is clearly designed around AMD’s FidelityFX Super Resolution 2 (FSR 2), and even the highest graphics preset defaults to FSR 2 running at 75% of the native resolution.

It’s a bit different than FSR in other games. Normally, FSR 2 includes three or four presets that determine your render resolution. Starfield instead includes a slider that goes from 100% of render resolution to 50%. Right in the middle at 75% is definitely the sweet spot for image quality, so it’s best to optimize your performance with settings rather than push FSR 2 down to its lowest point.

The biggest performance wins for Starfield come from Shadow Quality, Volumetric Lighting, GTAO Quality, and Contact Shadows, so these are the settings to reach for first to optimize your performance. Motion Blur also has a decent impact on performance, so turn it off unless you’re running below 60 frames per second (fps) and need a little smoothing.

For instance, there’s the Crowd Density setting. My testing shows that Starfield is very taxing on the CPU, with some scenes driving even the 24-core Intel Core i9-13900K to 60% utilization. Turning down this setting vastly reduces the load on the CPU, so it’s a good place to cut if your CPU isn’t as powerful as your GPU. Crowds still look dense even at the lowest setting, but when it’s maxed out, you can see 50 or more people in an area at one time.

---

I think you would say that no matter what.

Nah I'm not into Star Wars. But that's what I mean by your tainted view regardless projecting it onto others before even playing or even reviews with details on FSR2 in general.

No FSR benchmarks tell us how bad the engine is though.

quote:

---

There’s no Intel representation here, not only because there isn’t an official Starfield driver for the Arc A770 and A750, but also because the game refused to load with the card in my prerelease testing.

---

Surely they have a driver coming.