starfield is a mess but there are so many greatly optimized games as well, AC Mirage is smooth and beautiful
NiceRedAutumn
MGS 5 was just an all together different beast. I was surprised after playing it in PS4 how good the PS3 version looked.
bogas04
Not negating your point, but for a fair comparison try comparing it to the highly optimised Bethesda game from 2015, like Fallout 4.
Update: Okay, GTX 970 could [match](https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fallout-4-performance-benchmark,4370-2.html) 70 FPS at Max settings, 1080p, and even after inflation that’s ~450 USD of today’s money. So yeah, 1080p Max of 2015 was much more achievable than 1080p medium of 2023 Bethesda game. Now one can say Starfield medium still looks much better than Fallout 4 max, but eh, it still is a wasteful way of using PC resources.
SameRandomUsername
Starfield is not a fair comparisson. The CK engine has always been a shitty example of optimization and the CPU is more important than the GPU.
marksona
Pretty sure mgs5 has better graphics than starfield too…
M3chanist
16 times your income.
DropDeadGaming
Ugh. Can we stop using MGSV as a performance benchmark? Game is glorious I agree, but it’s so freaking barren there’s nothing taxing to render, ofc it works well. The same year this released also saw the release of Arkham Knight, a game that was pulled from stores for a year because of how bad it performed.
FineLettuce244
You also need to add how MGS V has better graphics.
Griffemon
The insane thing is that Starfield looks *way* worse than MGS V
EatHerMeat
this is a little cherry-pickey tbh.
shitpickle2020
MGS V was one of the first big PC games to release after I got into PC gaming, and it ran amazingly on a super old Core 2 Quad and GTX 750 TI. It’s fucking pathetic modern games don’t run well on even the highest spec hardware
faverodefavero
One aspect that surprises me a lot (in a negative way) now a days is: how modern games lack realistic model animations and complex animated interactions between the player character model and the world and it’s NPCs, as well as interactions from NPCs models and the world in general.
Everything is usually so stiff or not even animated anymore.
Starfield is a prime example.
Like all Bethesda games, Starfield suffers a lot from models simply having very few animations and graphical interactions with the world, and the ones that are present are stiff as hell. Now compare that to huge gama of varied and fluid animations and moves models from MGSV have, it’s night and day.
I wish modern games all had a wide variety of different fluid and complex animations for their models and many different animated ways to interact with the world.
But it seems animations is an aspect that has fallen to the backseat in modern engines and development even for games focusing in graphical fidelity, which is very sad to me.
RDR2 is a good example of what I’m talking about, games should all head in that direction.
Pleasant_Gap
Jesus fucking christ, can’t there be enough about this fucking whining about unoptimized games already? We’re all annoyed about it, but ffs enough is enough.
Also honest question. While I agree that new games can probably be better optimized, how much of the bad performance is optimization, and how much is that new gen graphics just demands more from your gpu? (and I’m not talking about how you think the game look, I’m talking about how much computing power it actually takes to render)
gnocchicotti
Meanwhile Steam Deck gang “Starfield runs great mostly solid 20 fps with some drops”
BigGucciNasty
Not only does it run like shit, it’s also extremely boring
CarlWellsGrave
This mob mentality needs to stop.
5nn0
what I said it people laughed and said just buy a new pc stop been a cry baby
SimplySatisfyin
Isn’t this cherry picked. 3080s aren’t 1000 anymore. But I get your point.
burner7711
Whatever. It runs perfectly fine on my $3,000 super computer.
AppendixStranded
My 6 year old 1070 never really struggled at all until recently, and I still can play some of the new-ish games if I’m not picky with graphics. Meanwhile cards that are one generation old are struggling to hit native 1080p 30fps on recent games.
But Nvidia can sell you a new card every year unless you want to play at upscaled 720p and developers can just slap DLSS and frame gen on their games with 0 optimization so they both win and have no incentive to change. Really hoping things don’t continue like this but I’m not feeling very confident lol.
Paul_Subsonic
MGS V is a fucking PS3 game.
This subreddit is fucking stupid.
Either-Chair4054
ah yes pc ports used to be so good amirite??? gimme a break…
SirSpicyBunghole
I played through MGSV with everything except particles and lighting set to max, upscaled to 1440, and got an unwavering 72 fps on my trusty CPU that came out in two-thousand-and-freaking-eight.
Toiletpaperplane
MGS V had great graphics too!
Deepfork_
My 6700XT, though not listed, does better than half the numbers there with starfield on medium.
This chart doesn’t seem entirely… true.
Ihenaco2460
i remember playing MGS V on integrated graphics XD can’t do that shit again
ahrikitsune
STARFLOP ISNT EVEN GRAPHICALLY AMAZING
Affectionate_Rub_589
mgsv was a ps3 game and there were terrible ports in 2015 such as arkham knight
addzy94
Todd Howard is the biggest lying piece of shit.
RipExtra1053
Developers don’t get paid that much anymore so they just fix it later
Scroto_Saggin
PC gaming is turning into shit. Pediod
Steviejoe66
Another example would be the GTX 1050 & 1050ti, MSRPs @ $140 and $110 respectively, getting over 60fps in BF1 on high/medium settings. Not open world, but beautiful game with graphics that IMO hold up today.
Cute_Nothing
Metal gear solid phantom pain is from 2015? I feel old now
SilverWerewolf1024
yeah, optimization is becoming a cancer since many years, i always said it
xKosh
Not to discredit optimization woes, but maybe we need to talk a bit more about why the 4060 released at $500 when the 960 was a $200 card. I think prices have gone a little too wild in less than a 10 year span.
35 Comments
starfield is a mess but there are so many greatly optimized games as well, AC Mirage is smooth and beautiful
MGS 5 was just an all together different beast. I was surprised after playing it in PS4 how good the PS3 version looked.
Not negating your point, but for a fair comparison try comparing it to the highly optimised Bethesda game from 2015, like Fallout 4.
Update: Okay, GTX 970 could [match](https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fallout-4-performance-benchmark,4370-2.html) 70 FPS at Max settings, 1080p, and even after inflation that’s ~450 USD of today’s money. So yeah, 1080p Max of 2015 was much more achievable than 1080p medium of 2023 Bethesda game. Now one can say Starfield medium still looks much better than Fallout 4 max, but eh, it still is a wasteful way of using PC resources.
Starfield is not a fair comparisson. The CK engine has always been a shitty example of optimization and the CPU is more important than the GPU.
Pretty sure mgs5 has better graphics than starfield too…
16 times your income.
Ugh. Can we stop using MGSV as a performance benchmark? Game is glorious I agree, but it’s so freaking barren there’s nothing taxing to render, ofc it works well. The same year this released also saw the release of Arkham Knight, a game that was pulled from stores for a year because of how bad it performed.
You also need to add how MGS V has better graphics.
The insane thing is that Starfield looks *way* worse than MGS V
this is a little cherry-pickey tbh.
MGS V was one of the first big PC games to release after I got into PC gaming, and it ran amazingly on a super old Core 2 Quad and GTX 750 TI. It’s fucking pathetic modern games don’t run well on even the highest spec hardware
One aspect that surprises me a lot (in a negative way) now a days is: how modern games lack realistic model animations and complex animated interactions between the player character model and the world and it’s NPCs, as well as interactions from NPCs models and the world in general.
Everything is usually so stiff or not even animated anymore.
Starfield is a prime example.
Like all Bethesda games, Starfield suffers a lot from models simply having very few animations and graphical interactions with the world, and the ones that are present are stiff as hell. Now compare that to huge gama of varied and fluid animations and moves models from MGSV have, it’s night and day.
I wish modern games all had a wide variety of different fluid and complex animations for their models and many different animated ways to interact with the world.
But it seems animations is an aspect that has fallen to the backseat in modern engines and development even for games focusing in graphical fidelity, which is very sad to me.
RDR2 is a good example of what I’m talking about, games should all head in that direction.
Jesus fucking christ, can’t there be enough about this fucking whining about unoptimized games already? We’re all annoyed about it, but ffs enough is enough.
Also honest question. While I agree that new games can probably be better optimized, how much of the bad performance is optimization, and how much is that new gen graphics just demands more from your gpu? (and I’m not talking about how you think the game look, I’m talking about how much computing power it actually takes to render)
Meanwhile Steam Deck gang “Starfield runs great mostly solid 20 fps with some drops”
Not only does it run like shit, it’s also extremely boring
This mob mentality needs to stop.
what I said it people laughed and said just buy a new pc stop been a cry baby
Isn’t this cherry picked. 3080s aren’t 1000 anymore. But I get your point.
Whatever. It runs perfectly fine on my $3,000 super computer.
My 6 year old 1070 never really struggled at all until recently, and I still can play some of the new-ish games if I’m not picky with graphics. Meanwhile cards that are one generation old are struggling to hit native 1080p 30fps on recent games.
But Nvidia can sell you a new card every year unless you want to play at upscaled 720p and developers can just slap DLSS and frame gen on their games with 0 optimization so they both win and have no incentive to change. Really hoping things don’t continue like this but I’m not feeling very confident lol.
MGS V is a fucking PS3 game.
This subreddit is fucking stupid.
ah yes pc ports used to be so good amirite??? gimme a break…
I played through MGSV with everything except particles and lighting set to max, upscaled to 1440, and got an unwavering 72 fps on my trusty CPU that came out in two-thousand-and-freaking-eight.
MGS V had great graphics too!
My 6700XT, though not listed, does better than half the numbers there with starfield on medium.
This chart doesn’t seem entirely… true.
i remember playing MGS V on integrated graphics XD can’t do that shit again
STARFLOP ISNT EVEN GRAPHICALLY AMAZING
mgsv was a ps3 game and there were terrible ports in 2015 such as arkham knight
Todd Howard is the biggest lying piece of shit.
Developers don’t get paid that much anymore so they just fix it later
PC gaming is turning into shit. Pediod
Another example would be the GTX 1050 & 1050ti, MSRPs @ $140 and $110 respectively, getting over 60fps in BF1 on high/medium settings. Not open world, but beautiful game with graphics that IMO hold up today.
Metal gear solid phantom pain is from 2015? I feel old now
yeah, optimization is becoming a cancer since many years, i always said it
Not to discredit optimization woes, but maybe we need to talk a bit more about why the 4060 released at $500 when the 960 was a $200 card. I think prices have gone a little too wild in less than a 10 year span.