Crew are not considered companions. They’re passive buffs to your ships and outposts
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
OS Neutral StarField (Bethesda 2023, Spoilers)
- Thread starter Huntn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Crew are not considered companions. They’re passive buffs to your ships and outposts
Its not. I watched a comparison video between this and No Man's Sky. And the amount of scenarios and "progress" you can make in No Man's Sky is insane. I will definitely play NMS over this, especially with MANY reviewers saying "you need to play Starfield for at least 12 hours before the game gets good". Many people said that so it has me worried. My time is limited, I would rather have 5 scenarios in 2 hours like NMS 2023 reviews are saying than nothing happening in 12+ hours in Starfield. So far I have been quite happy. Some people might prefer Starfield's style and that is fine! But an alternative to those on the fence should check out current No Mans Sky.
Here is a nice video showing what stuff to expect. Sure it has the slow 1 hour start but better than others are saying about the 12 hour Starfield slow start.
Last edited:
So how much of this games relies on a server? After watching the video, it seems like much of it does. The game has changed since I played it, but I see zero visuals that make it comparable with Starfield. Not that I’m saying NMS is not worthy, but it is in a different league.
I don't play with others, but some stuff does rely on servers.
I don't care about visuals. I prefer looks of games like Zelda vs realistic like Starfield anyway. Cartoony/Cell Shaded games can stand up decades later vs more realistic graphics. Try firing up a "realistic" at the time Xbox or Xbox 360 game today and it won't look as good as a PS2 game that is Cell Shaded Anime style. Just from my POV obviously, you are free to like realistic looks more.
In my POV, NMS is leagues above Starfield from an exploration standpoint. Instead of fast travel everywhere you can enter planets and structures with seamless transitions. It really is from my experience a much better exploration game than Starfield. Plus you can land anywhere and even use your spaceship to travel around on the planet (a lot of people are wanting vehicles in Starfield to make exploring planets more fun). Starfield has very small sections on the planet with invisible walls where you can literally walk the entire planet in NMS and wrap around. You can even mine through a mountain like was shown in the video to get to your destination.
Starfield seems to be leagues above from an RPG/Story perspective (I only played for a couple hours), but what I look for in these types of games are the exploration aspect. NOT just limiting to fast travel, but the aspect of flying in and out of planet's without much loading if at all in many scenarios.
So it depends on what you like. From my POV, No Mans Sky is what Starfield should have been. It's been improved upon greatly, but NMS is a 2016 game and I just feel Starfield being AAA (where NMS is indie) and being 7 years later is just disappointing to me. For actual RPG game I will fire up Final Fantasy or Persona games instead.
Take out of this what you will. I tried many Bethesda games and did not like any of them. I didn't enjoy Skyrim or Fallout. Only played those for a few hours before dropping them. The whole "12 hours before you get to a good game" doesn't do well for me on my limited time I get to game.
Since I own it, I'll take another look at No Man's Sky. My guess is that Starfield puts much more emphasis on narrative and interaction. I can say from both Skyrim and Fallout 4, that environment has a huge impact on the players experience, backed up by a good story. The Fallout 4 story, for myself was wonderful. The Skyrim environment makes me feel like I'm running around, kind of like in a Lord of the Rings Story (although it's not...LoTR
) So, in some areas our interests align and in others they do not exactly, no biggy. 
The differnce is Starfield you follow someone else's narrative, No Man's Sky you make your own. Once this drops you'll understand why the game is so highly regarded and will be far more enjoyable...Since I own it, I'll take another look at No Man's Sky. My guess is that Starfield puts much more emphasis on narrative and interaction. I can say from both Skyrim and Fallout 4, that environment has a huge impact on the players experience, backed up by a good story. The Fallout 4 story, for myself was wonderful. The Skyrim environment makes me feel like I'm running around, kind of like in a Lord of the Rings Story (although it's not...LoTR
Q-6
Having played both No Man's Sky and Starfield, they have their different attractions and aren't so easily comparable outside of being 'space' games. I certainly didn't feel Starfield took twelve hours to 'get good' - that was the case within an hour of playing for me. No Man's Sky has yet to be as compelling, outside of being able to fly around easily. The game performs poorly when transitioning from space to planet (and vice versa) despite my powerful hardware, which damages my enjoyment of it. It's a very broad pool, but quite shallow at the same time, whereas Starfield has more depth.
Starfield is certainly more a casual experience than No Man's Sky. No Man's Sky focuses more on being a big universal sandbox while Starfield is a crafted RPG adventure. Starfield honestly feels like those space fantasies we had as kids made real
The story for any Bethesda game never really was interesting to me. I think other RPGs like Final Fantasy 7 and Persona and Trails in the Sky/Cold Steel have better story and world building.Since I own it, I'll take another look at No Man's Sky. My guess is that Starfield puts much more emphasis on narrative and interaction. I can say from both Skyrim and Fallout 4, that environment has a huge impact on the players experience, backed up by a good story. The Fallout 4 story, for myself was wonderful. The Skyrim environment makes me feel like I'm running around, kind of like in a Lord of the Rings Story (although it's not...LoTR
My biggest issue with Starfield is how they built it up as an incredible exploration adventure. But they give you fish bowl planets and you spend a lot of time in fast travel menus.
Last edited:
I preordered NMS and played that for a while, this was during the dark times, when the game wasn't very good. What I didn't like was the lack of direction and focus. It was, if you will, too open, I know the game is completely different today and I tried it a little while ago but even starting over there's just not something that I like. I see people saying here that the writing/story telling of bethesda is too boring, well NMS is that in spades.
What I like about Bethesda games, is the attention to detail, lore, pacing and the ability to do the main quest, but then stop and do your own thing for extended periods. I did the quest on kreet, but then I stuck around and explored for a bit. That did not disappoint.
I'm still basically on square one of the game, but its been incredibly fun. YMMV but I think Bethesda hit it out of the park. I'm really happy this is successful, as much as I love the Fallout series games, they really needed some new content. There's only so many wolfenstein, fallout, doom games, they needed something fresh
The funny thing about Starfield, is the city of Neon is honestly more Cyberpunk than Night City in CP2077 is.
The Ryujin Industries faction missions is a prime example. That entire questline was so well made and is my favorite next to the Crimson Fleet faction missions.
Look at this place. It just screams Cyberpunk megacorporation
I'm running Starfield on a RVT 4070 on a 4k monitor. Most of the scenes look like they have fog, a lot of partical action in them. I just landed at New Atlantis, and it looks like what I would call smog.Not crisp and clear.
I let GeForce Experience optimize the game, and everything is basically on low quality settings. If the first part of the game I've been getting 60 fps. I turned some setting up to high and I'm getting more like 35 fps. I wonder if it would help the appearance of the game if I turned down the resolution to 2k? I'd like clarity, not fog and particle effects if this is what is causing it to look this way. I watched the video in this post and it looks much nicer that what I'm seeing, everything is nice and clear, and it looks the author is running it on 1080. Any thoughts appreciated.
1440p is the sweet spot; 1080p can be a little rough at times. 4K just kills the performance and depending on the size of display I'd far rather be on 1080p on Ultra than 4K at low. Game is sell you ever bigger numbers, forking out ever more $$$$, dont fall for that one...
Just had a session with Witcher 3 on the new engine, 1080p Ultra locked to 60 FPS looks fabulous, plays better. I could push it to 1440P or 4K display but it wont be the same as just a game of ever diminishing returns.
As for GeForce Experience optimising games, just NO as is simply a function to sell NVidia's overpriced hardware. Back to Witcher 3 NVidia want's to run the game on low LOL. This ROG Strix easily runs the game on ultra with hairworks on! My advice is dial everything to the max then selectively drop the graphics as some effects have a very high power budget versus the actual image quality.
Q-6
Last edited:
I am running the game at 3440x1440 native on my 6900xt and am in the 50's on fps at ultra. Turned off FSR and dynamic resolution scaling. You can also turn off motion blur and I think there is a film grain setting.
Your 4070 shouldn't be that far behind.
I also have a VRR display so I leave vsync on and don’t have to deal with tearing.
Last edited:
Try DF's optimized settings in this video:
This gives quality settings similar to Xbox Series X.
Keep in mind the game is very CPU heavy and runs better on AMD cards than Nvidia at the moment. You might not get 60 everywhere unless you have a modern CPU.
There are weather effects, so far as I can tell, so it may have been that’s what the weather actually was that day. You can always sleep or sit down and wait it out.
Here's a screen grab from GamerNexus's video on GPUs and Starfiield.
The 1440p with fans on fall blast. He's detailing an average of 63 FPS for the 4070
Here's the 4k results
In other news, the current AMD drivers seem to have a bug, where if you enable FSR (and possibly vsync) The game crashes. I stumbled upon one reddit thread that mentioned disabling FSR fixes the issue and AMD is working on a fix. I don't know if its strictly related to 7800/7700 cards but I need to run w/o FSR
I turned FSR off because it causes weird ghosting issues. I don’t mind the performance hit. Again having a VRR display helps a lot. HDR is also broken on PC
Auto HDR now works for me; it doesn't seem to do anything for dark parts of the screen, but I can see the change with light sources. I also turned FSR off, when I entered the city of Neon it caused obvious artifacting with any neon lights. Hopefully like Jedi Survivor Starfield gets DLSS3 in an upcoming patch. Yes, I know there's a mod, but I'm doing this playthrough without any.
@Spaceboi Scaphandre Neon doesn't feel more cyberpunk than Cyberpunk 2077 to me; it's not as gritty, violent, the casual body modification isn't there, and so on. To me it feels more like a red light district transplanted to another world.
@Spaceboi Scaphandre Neon doesn't feel more cyberpunk than Cyberpunk 2077 to me; it's not as gritty, violent, the casual body modification isn't there, and so on. To me it feels more like a red light district transplanted to another world.
That's good to see - I'm a 60fps or GTFO kind of guy, so it's nice to know that my 4070 will push Starfield at that frame rate. I don't see much benefit of trying to game at 4K - even preferring the slightly softer edges at 1440p.
My monitor is 4k and things have been going nicely until this game. I’m behind the times, I recently upgraded to a 4070 card and thought this would make Starfield easily playable. I noted the chart @maflynn posted, and it matches well with what I’m seeing when I upped a variety of setting to high, about 35fps. I have seen it when a game fills my monitor, but is at 2k not 4k. Last night I turned down the resolution of the game down to 2k and it only filled a portion of my screen. Anyone know the settings to lower the resolution of the game, but still fills the monitors screen, something you do through windows? But as I said, I’ve seen games running full screen at less that 4k. Something like set the game resolution, but then tell it to run full screen. I’ll have to experiment.
But you have a much better card than I…
I’ll play with FSR and DRS, I’ve already turned off Motion blur and Film grain.I’ll watch this and give it a go. My card is AMD, but processor is Intel.
It looks to me like volumetric fog. That is fine when it is on in the distance, but this is too close
This aligns with what I am seeing. Silly me, I should have held off on my current card and get the 6000 serues for $2-300 more. 🤔
However, honestly I am good with the appearance of the game even on low settings if I can eliminate the fog-like effect, which seems to be just about everywhere except in space.
Bare in mind that both the game and drivers will mature, however your throwing a lot away for the sake of pixels. I'd still go with 1080p unless is a very large display. Even 1440p on a 27" looks great 4K is mostly overkill and serves little purpose outside of a large TV.My monitor is 4k and things have been going nicely until this game. I’m behind the times, I recently upgraded to a 4070 card and thought this would make Starfield easily playable. I noted the chart @maflynn posted, and it matches well with what I’m seeing when I upped a variety of setting to high, about 35fps. I have seen it when a game fills my monitor, but is at 2k not 4k. Last night I turned down the resolution of the game down to 2k and it only filled a portion of my screen. Anyone know the settings to lower the resolution of the game, but still fills the monitors screen, something you do through windows? But as I said, I’ve seen games running full screen at less that 4k. Something like set the game resolution, but then tell it to run full screen. I’ll have to experiment.
But you have a much better card than I…
I’ll watch this and give it a go. My card is AMD, but processor is Intel.
It looks to me like volumetric fog. That is fine when it is on in the distance, but this is too close
This aligns with what I am seeing. Silly me, I should have held off on my current card and get the 6000 serues for $2-300 more. 🤔
However, honestly I am good with the appearance of the game even on low settings if I can eliminate the fog-like effect, which seems to be just about everywhere except in space.
Low in games turns off far too much for my liking. I do the opposite and set my games to the maximum then dial back if needed. Generally shoot for 60 FPS, some games do benefit from higher FPS many dont.
Q-6
I just watched this video and of all things it showed me that the graphics I'm seeing in the video match what I'm seeing in the game which often looks cruddy, yellowish, muddy and foggy. Most of the street and environment scene have this volumetric fog effect. This is a real disappointment. I want clear and unmuddied colors in the textures instead. Whoever the art director is I question the choices made. The good news is that what I'm seeing in the game is not a problem on my end, it's more of a problem with the game itself.
Secondly I was dissapointed because I thought in advance the Narrator was going to go down a list of what he thought was the optimized settings for a variety of hardware, while looking at the Settings Menu in Starfield and making specific recommendations. He did not do this, he just droned on about generalities. I'm looking for something that directly addresses specific settings for my hardware and GPU.
However for @Spaceboi Scaphandre a comment was made about feeling dizzy because of the FOV, and I experienced this a little. I am going to go look for a FOV mod and possibly the FSRS Bridge to Replace FSR2 with DlSS or XeSS Mod.