this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
813 points (98.2% liked)
Games
32663 readers
1972 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
so it does not stutter or anything and it does run on an average of 70fps outside and in taxing environments and you are describing this as dogshit?
lol. no further questions.
Give it up mate, even the first rudimentary workaround more than doubled the FPS people have been getting. https://linustechtips.com/topic/1530726-starfield-now-runs-twice-as-fast-on-linux-compared-to-windows/
I won't click on a LinusTechTip Link 😀
And I dont say the game could be better optimised, but to say that a stutter-free expierence with an average of 70 fps is "runing like dogshit" is some kind of special. Could it be better, yes, is it running like dogshit, nope.
🤦 So you'll just continue to ignore overwhelming evidence and get defensive. It's ironic you'd call them special.
70 fps on average without any kind of wrong framepacing or stuttering is not "running like dogshit", thats my whole point, "mate". If the the game would run with 30 fps and crazy frame spikes on modern hardware I would agree but to call a >60fps stutterfree expierence that is just supid, on every game.
If you wouldn't call having your performance more than halved dogshit, I don't really give a fuck what you have to say.
Feel free to not answer to my posts. Please. I'm more than fine never to hear from you again...
He's kinda right though. You are partially too, the game doesn't run great but it runs fine. Definitely not dogshit. Hogwarts ran way worse for what it was with similar performance but also tons of stuttering on the best setups not to mention lots of crashing in multiple big AAA games this year. Starfield afaik has none of that, it just has lower than expected FPS but not terribly so.
By the standard of being playable, I get that. But I'm not here to mince words. When you zoom out and look at the big picture, this one incorrectly used driver call turns a 3080ti into a 2060. A $1000 difference in performance. Defending Bethesda is just going to make future issues worse and worse.
I guess. I do have the luxury of having a 4090 and I've simply seen much smaller games with similar graphics run...similar if not much worse than this. Perhaps others have a different experience but besides the frames being lower than I would like I'm kinda glad such a huge game doesn't constantly crash for me or stutter every time is press the "sprint" button in a crowded area.
I do hope for improvement though
Other people in these comments have been reporting Starfield crashes, some of which "brick a character" apparently if it happens on an exit save (which you can't opt out of lol). Any sentiment of "it could be worse" just weakens our position as consumers IMO.
If I set the resolution to 1024x768 and the graphics to Low but the FPS is still the same, something is wrong.
That just means the bottleneck isn't graphics rendering.