PCGaming

6338 readers

1 users here now

Rule 0: Be civil

Rule #1: No spam, porn, or facilitating piracy

Rule #2: No advertisements

Rule #3: No memes, PCMR language, or low-effort posts/comments

Rule #4: No tech support or game help questions

Rule #5: No questions about building/buying computers, hardware, peripherals, furniture, etc.

Rule #6: No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.

Rule #7: No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts

Rule #8: No off-topic posts/comments

Rule #9: Use the original source, no editorialized titles, no duplicates

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Todd Howard asked on-air why Bethesda didn't optimise Starfield for PC: 'We did [...] you may need to upgrade your PC' (www.pcgamer.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

And we just the official bullshit of "Well it runs on my PC just fine." from a developer.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Reason why I mentioned is because I'm finding people with better specs complaining.. If we just turned the FPS counter off and enjoyed the game without needing to check if it's dipping below 60 and turned it on if we really needed it, we'd all be a bit more appreciative.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Except it's literally not playable on my system, so I can't appreciate shit. I meet the minimum requirements, but the second I leave a building interior my fps goes from smooth as butter to unplayably choppy. This is with everything on low, and even the DLSS mod installed.

I'd accept my PC just isn't actually up to snuff if not for the fact other people with the exact same specs are saying they're playing at medium settings comfortably. The only way that makes sense is if Starfield IS, in fact, badly optimized.