It's sad that this is necessary. And given that it took less than a week for modders to get actual performance gains means that bethesda could've easily done it themselves.
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
7 points (100.0% liked)
Games
16697 readers
1103 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Don't think Bethesda is focused on making their gaming look specifically bad just to make it run on older hardware. Similar to all other companies there is a minimum spec. I do think that having such great mod support allows for this to happen which is great.
They are sabotaging their own sales by not doing it. Starfield is such a hyped game that many people who don't usually game much will want to play it and those people tend to not have the most up-to-date hardware. The PC I built in 2018 for about 1100€ is pretty much exactly the minimum spec for starfield. And given that minimum specs usually target 30fps for some reason, I'd need this mod if I wanted to play it at a reasonable framerate.
I'm running starfield medium graphics on a 1660 super and getting 60fps at 1440p.
It honestly runs fairly good on just a decent graphics card.
No, you're not. I have a 3080Ti and get anything between 20 and 45 fps in 1440p, lowering the graphics options doesn't do jack shit either. 12700k, 32GB 3600 MHz DDR4, Game installed on a m.2 980 SSD. Do you lie about your fps to feel better about buying it ?
https://youtu.be/NsK3zrqtPCM?si=A3RLuly8GYzCeuFM
Medium can't even keep a stable 30 fps on 1660S.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/NsK3zrqtPCM?si=A3RLuly8GYzCeuFM
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
You see modders care for the game.
Starfield is a shit game that should not need the level of detailed gfx to run. Anything from 2000 will trash Starfield today. The devs know this.
Sad that the article focused on this particular mod. It's aimed at textures for low-end systems, yes, but there are 2-3 others that are aimed at systems across the board and use stock textures with simple config file changes. They're all tweaks with options that are in the game but unavailable on the menu, and they do vastly improve performance without a drop in quality.
A better headline could have been "Modders fix in days what Bethesda didn't do with years".
The fact you need a 4090 to touch 120fps on 1080p in 2023 is disgusting. That should be the minimum target fps for mid range hardware at the least.
Meh, game is bland anyway.
PC bad. Game bad.
Not having a 4090 = pc bad.
You don't need a 4090.
Ok sure, 1080p low settings, I can get away with a 4080 if I have an i9 13900K. 1080p high? Yeah, not even a 4090 with a 13900K will get you near 120fps.
The game runs like shit.
1440 at 144fps, max settings with nothing more than a 3080 12gb and i7 12700k.
This is very deceptive if you're using dlss or the amd equivalent.