Pc ain't saving you from design choice
Starfield has loading screens when entering buildings
- Thread starter Box
- Start date
It must be 2001 because this is sounding like GTA3 levels of immersion.
Pretty embarrassing, and I doubt there's anything more to do in most of those building than there is in most current open-world games that lack this. It's one thing if these are massive buildings or facilities but even then, the "loading screen" should feel seamless and appear natural, make it look clever and not like a loading screen. Devs figured this stuff out back in the '90s (well, some did).
Just sounds like the engine is extremely poor at efficient asset & data streaming management, how it compresses & decompresses data in memory, etc. And what gets me is, the excuses that the game "has so much more going on" are all BS. It has a lot of content, but there's nothing happening on the screen at any one time in this game that's on the scale of stuff I've seen in HFW or Burning Shores. Not in terms of geometry density, texture variety, texture quality, animation systems, particle systems & effects, physics, collisions, # onscreen enemies, etc.
In fact, HFW & BS outdo Starfield in all of those areas from what I've seen, but somehow can offer 60 FPS on PS5, so what gives with Starfield? I still think Starfield's going to be a pretty cool game and a nice change of pace in terms of ambitious MS 1P that (mostly) does things right. I'm going to look forward to eventually playing it. But it's got some glaring drawbacks on the technical side and I hope the critic reviews weigh those into their scores considering how much they've dinged other games for smaller issues.
Pretty embarrassing, and I doubt there's anything more to do in most of those building than there is in most current open-world games that lack this. It's one thing if these are massive buildings or facilities but even then, the "loading screen" should feel seamless and appear natural, make it look clever and not like a loading screen. Devs figured this stuff out back in the '90s (well, some did).
Just sounds like the engine is extremely poor at efficient asset & data streaming management, how it compresses & decompresses data in memory, etc. And what gets me is, the excuses that the game "has so much more going on" are all BS. It has a lot of content, but there's nothing happening on the screen at any one time in this game that's on the scale of stuff I've seen in HFW or Burning Shores. Not in terms of geometry density, texture variety, texture quality, animation systems, particle systems & effects, physics, collisions, # onscreen enemies, etc.
In fact, HFW & BS outdo Starfield in all of those areas from what I've seen, but somehow can offer 60 FPS on PS5, so what gives with Starfield? I still think Starfield's going to be a pretty cool game and a nice change of pace in terms of ambitious MS 1P that (mostly) does things right. I'm going to look forward to eventually playing it. But it's got some glaring drawbacks on the technical side and I hope the critic reviews weigh those into their scores considering how much they've dinged other games for smaller issues.
It is more limitations of a shitty, ancient engine than a design choice.
It was a design choice not to fix the engine,
One must pursue purity in one's art, I suppose.It was a design choice not to fix the engine,
I hope they make a mod like Resident Evil that loads a door opening while you walk into the building.