- cross-posted to:
- starfield@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- starfield@lemmy.zip
According to Hans-Kristian Arntzen, a prominent open-source developer working on Vkd3d, a DirectX 12 to Vulkan translation layer, Starfield is not interacting properly with graphics card drivers.
People figured out the performance issues with Starfield when it was first announced: the Bethesda logo
Creation Engine 2.0.
AKA Creation Engine 1.0 with more patches than a 1sqmi quilt.
Evolution isn’t wrong. It’s not like Unreal Engine gets rewritten from scratch for each major version.
Exactly, people forget that most of the well known engines today are as old or older than Creation Engine, they’re all patched/upgraded as it fits, though Creation Engine has no apparent version numbers and it’s made by Bethesda so you get free internet points and a feeling of superiority for hating on the popular thing.
If you took these folks opinions as truth you’d think Bethesda games are massive flops that barely sell 10 copies and are a study case on how not to develop a game, but the real world is very different from the echo chamber…
It boggles my mind how many things people say about this game that are patently untrue, obviously extremely biased against the game/studio, or make it seem like this game killed their dog.
The game has issues, for sure, some things like the nonexistent city/building local map systems are indefensible, but damn dude, I wish people would just try to have mature discussions with realistic expectations about it instead of whatever this shit show is that we call “gaming discussions”
For $120 AUD expectations will be high.
Sure, if the game doesn’t appeal to you for that value, then there will be eventual sales. It won’t be worth that amount to everyone. Doesn’t really excuse the overly emotional criticism, or even the overly emotional defense from others. It’s a good game. A true value judgment from there will be harder and more tied to individual tastes.
Gamers will never be mature or have realistic expectations. They cannot fathom that people are enjoying a thing they don’t like, and they’re very vocal about it, it’s petty, really.
I try to move myself off of these discussions but there’s always one comment that drags me down the well because it’s so blatantly untrue, but it’s miserable. Lemmy, kbin and Reddit are overly negative places where it seems the goal is to get everyone mad with terrible takes.
People need to remember that opinions aren’t factsz and learn to shut the fuck up and let people enjoy things.
You want people to have more mature discussions but then disavow any nuance in the same breath. Do you not see how this is a contradiction?
Oh don’t get me wrong, Bethesda games are generally great (with notable exceptions like Fallout 76), and do phenomenally well in sales. However, dismissing any and all criticism of the games’ numerous flaws (including glitches which often carry over between subsequent titles, like clipping through collision boxes and falling through maps) is willful ignorance at its finest. Every Bethesda game has performance issues and game-breaking bugs, and there was no reason to expect Starfield to be any different in that regard.
These are famously common bugs across games in all genres running on all kinds of different engines. I’d go so far as to not even call them bugs because computers simply don’t have the power to calculate collision down to the picosecond/picometer. Every game that’s ever been made has sacrificed precision in physics for performance.
Perhaps the reason it’s more noticeable in Bethesda games is because they typically have way more persistent, physics-enabled objects. That’s actually a strength of the engine, and something no other developer really even attempts.
Correct, but we aren’t talking about them. Whataboutism isn’t constructive.
Actually, a large proportion of OoB clips in games are due to some combination of lacking speed caps and having acute angles in collision boxes.
Correct, and I’m not disputing this.
This definitely contributes to the issues common in Bethesda games, but it’s not the only reason. Take Skyrim for example: some of its best-known glitches (such as restoration bonuses buffing enchantments, the various duplication glitches, and basically everything involving horses) have nothing to do with the number of dynamic objects loaded.
Not really - plenty of other games use Havok physics and don’t suffer from the same issues, or at least not to the same degree. Perhaps there’s a reason other developers using the Havok physics engine don’t make games with huge quantities of dynamic objects loaded at once.
Uh… you were talking about them. Those are the two examples of bugs that you provided. I literally wouldn’t have made the comment if you hadn’t brought them up.
Like if you had said these originally, I wouldn’t have even argued with you. I never personally experienced those bugs, probably because I don’t play games like I’m a QA tester, but I know many people did.
I’ve definitely fallen through the world in several of the games listed there. But anyway, specifically, I said persistent physics objects. You can drop a cabbage in Whiterun, walk to Solitude and back, and the cabbage is right where you left it. In, say, GTA, you get out of your car and look away for 5 seconds, turn around, and it’s gone. Most games work more like GTA, where a limited number of objects even have full physics simulation, and those that do are only in memory if you’ve looked at them in the last x seconds. Otherwise, they unload and are lost forever.
Now, whether it’s even worth having so much physics-enabled clutter is another question. It certainly contributes to immersion, but is it more trouble than it’s worth?
Or the Source 2 engine, which is just a patched version of the Quake 1 engine.
Except unreal engine literally was rewritten from 3 to 4.
Which is, literally, not every major version. I didn’t say “all Unreal Engine versions are evolutionary steps over their predecessors”, I said “they don’t get rewritten from scratch for each major version”.
Someone else also brought up the Quake engine, which has even more evolutionary steps; even with forks like the Source engine.
That’s not really a good metaphor for software.
Or maybe it is if you meant how many weird and inefficient things living creatures have because it was good enough. Think about that the next time you accidentally choke on nothing
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_evolution
You can only reinvent the Bounding Box once. Epic is a better steward of technical debt. Bethesda doesn’t know what that is.
But with the optimization quality of current UE 5 games I’m quite pessimistic about the current trend of game development.
Evolution frequently discards baggage.
Bethesda just keep piling shit on top without doing any of the necessary groundwork to make it run well.
aka Gamebryo
That’s the engine in which Creation Engine was based on, so what? Saying that name won’t somehow invalidate everything that was developed using the two engines or accomplish anything really. By your logic, we should call Source 2 engine the Quake engine
I know you say that as a joke but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Bethesda splash screen genuinely had some actual performance cost