• jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Computers (including consoles) have limited resources, at some point you need to deal with tradeoffs, for example do you prioritize graphics quality or do you prioritize FPS? Do you want/need to have more resources available for the physics engine? That eats on the maximum possible FPS. Do you want to do real time procedural generation? Do you want to use the GPU to run some kind of AI? All this are design considerations and there’s no one size fits all prioritization decision for all videogames. Clearly the people working on Starfield believe that for their intended game experience graphic fidelity is more important than FPS, and this is a perfectly valid design choice even if you don’t agree with it.

    • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s a matter of optimization and Bethesda games have all had pretty poor optimization. They could get it running at a higher framerate but there’s no need because people will buy it even if it runs 30fps.

      • ApexHunter@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If it was only a matter of optimization we would all still be playing games on the original NES.

        • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What’s so revolutionary or ambitious about Starfield that it couldn’t be optimized to have “acceptable” framerate? Pretty much everything Starfield does has been done before and the creation engine isn’t some visual marvel that would burn down graphics cards. So where’s the performance going?