570°

CDPR Lead Condemns Gamers For Comparing Starfield With Cyberpunk 2077

A CD Projekt Red lead has expressed his disdain for gamers comparing Starfield with Cyberpunk 2077 to support false narratives.

Flawlessmic281d ago

Starfield has launched in a wayyyyyyyyyyyyy better state than Cyberpunk did, I've barely had any issues at all.

Is starfield as great as we all hoped it would be, no it's not. its a average to good game which is disappointing considering how high my hopes were for this, but if I remove the hype and expectations and just look at what's there it's still a good game just not a great one.

shinoff2183281d ago

Agreed. Good game. Way way way better the cyberpunk released. I swear it seems cdproject is trying to rewrite history. It's not good when anyone does it whether it's politicians or game developers.

VenomUK280d ago

@Flawlessmic That’s a nuanced opinion that stands out from the people who only see things in absolutes.

Ashunderfire86279d ago

Well for one Starfield didn’t release on last gen Xbox One, which would have severely limit the game compared to Series S that is superior. Cyberpunk 2077 released with all systems, and it just wasn’t ready! A huge huge letdown! Every time when I was playing it on PS5, it kept on freezing! I sent that crap back to get my full refund!

JackBNimble279d ago

Venom
How is that a nuanced opinion?
The game was so broken you couldn't even play it and Sony even pulled it from the psn store.
Nothing like massRefunds am I right?

VenomUK279d ago (Edited 279d ago )

@JackBNimble some people are shouting that Starfield is the best game ever (a valid opinion) and some are decrying it as a huge disappointment (not many may agree but also valid). So the nuance is one person coming on N4G and giving their subjective opinion that the game hasn’t met their expectations built up by hype but that it’s still a good experience.for them. However, the fanboys and girls will not accept another’s view on a game simply because they personally disagree with it.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 279d ago
patriz420280d ago

I felt that way at first but with about 25 hours in my opinion has changed significantly from my first impressions, I'm having a blast.

JeffGUNZ280d ago

This. I liked it a lot when I first played it but now, 57 hours, I am addicted. I am in NG+ and exploring every planet/moon/system to 100% everything. The amount of cool things I am finding is insane. Game is great.

PhillyDonJawn279d ago

The game gets better and better as you go on. I personally don't recommend this game for those that don't have a lot of time to game lol. It'll consumer your life when you got important things to do. Or you'll drop it before it gets good

dumahim280d ago

I feel like I've had quite a few crashes while loading. They seem to come in streaks though. I can go a couple days with none, and then get a few within an hour. Also, the maps/fast travel screens are a bit odd. I'm 50 hours in and I just saw for the first time a zoomed in image of the planet that doesn't show any detail, but shows any nearby locations. Why did this just show up? And it doesn't always come up. Why? It's so much easier to fast travel. I also saw my fast travel from one system to another animate through the different levels of the map system it hadn't ever done before that I thought was neat. Only saw it once though. Might be for the better as it takes extra time to do that instead of just loading.

Other than that, it has been pretty solid. It still baffles me about the stuff they couldn't get to that should have been very simple like an FOV slider or gamma settings. Personally, I think the UI needs some quality of life improvements that seem obvious. There's a nice mod someone did that makes the space the items in the inventory take up a bit less and provides more columns for more details. They even include a DPS stat for the weapons since the damage and rate of fire is already there. I also really think there needs to be a way to mark locations as favorites you can keep on a list to select instead of finding the system on the map.

dumahim279d ago

Anyone wondering about the UI mod I mentioned, this is it.
https://www.nexusmods.com/s...

Vx_279d ago

both are bad buggy overrated overhyped boring games.

Daeloki279d ago

For someone who doesn't like Starfield, you sure do find your way into the comments of every Starfield related post to whine. Maybe get a hobby?

Crows90279d ago (Edited 279d ago )

Idk the pc version of cyberpunk was all right. The rest of your comment actually applies to cyberpunk. Average to good game but failed to meet hype.

On that note how's the PS4 and Xbox One versions of starfield?

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 279d ago
MrDead281d ago

Cyberpunk runs better with full raytracing on than Starfield without, they have screwed the PC release up. Digital Foundry were shocked at the disparity between AMD, Nvidia and Intel cards for a AAA title, this should never happen. Bethesda have ignored 85% of the PC hardware market.

shinoff2183280d ago (Edited 280d ago )

Oh gtfo. It runs better at release or 2 years after ?

Even if cyberpunk ran better at release the game was a broken piece of shit dude. Starfield is atleast playable without my ps4 crashing every half hour. I beat and platinumed cyberpunk on ps4 within release and it was a huge pile. I enjoyed the setting so much so I stuck it out. Cyberpunk is probably a fantastic game now sure but starfield has released in a better state no doubt. I've played both at release and starfield takes the cake

MrDead280d ago (Edited 280d ago )

Digital Foundry used Cyberpunk as an example of how poorly optimised Starfield is, Cyberpunk is one of the benchmarks for graphics on PC, Starfield is not even slightly close to being that. The fact that a very demanding game with full raytracing runs better then Starfield is shocking and that they ignored 85% of the PC hardware market on release is insane, there has never been a bigger disparity between graphics cards on a AAA game.

Zeke68280d ago

@shinoff Not hating but now I get the downvotes: "Starfield is atleast playable without my ps4 crashing every half hour."
And here silly old me though this was an PC/Xbox exclusive. You learn something new every day it seems ;)

shinoff2183280d ago (Edited 280d ago )

I meant to say xbox crashing lol. But refer to cyberpunk crashing my ps4 every half hour

Far as graphics they both looked straight to me. It's not always about the graphics dude. Game can be a graphical beast but if it runs like shit dhit it's useless

--Onilink--280d ago (Edited 280d ago )

The topic is clearly PC performance, not last gen consoles. Why even bring up PS4 Cyberpunk to compare?

Cyberpunk PC performance was and is better than Starfield’s.
The game has no business being this heavy without running a single RT feature.
We also know that settings that typically would imply its CPU heaviness aren’t doing anything particular to performance and its performance is actually dropping the more cores a CPU has, which is the opposite of what it should.

Its extremely poorly optimized on Nvidia (and literally non-playable on Intel), with cards performing 20-40% worse than they would be expected too (plus the whole discussion of lacking DLSS and XeSS)

The settings menu is really bad and lacking meaningful performance gains between graphics tiers (and basic options like FOV slider). That and their HDR presentation is awful (and also lacking menus to customize)

I’m loving the game, have well over 50 hours, but I also have a 4090 rig that just powers through poor optimization. And in terms of bugs or just being unplayable like many recent PC ports, Starfield is in a pretty good spot. But there is no denying just how badly optimized Starfield is for so many PC setups and Bethesda needs to step up

FPS_D3TH279d ago (Edited 279d ago )

Starfield on your ps4 huh? Try that one again but without the bs maybe?

Crows90279d ago

Nothing about cyberpunk was broken. Main story is better. Gunplay is better. Choices are better. World building is actually better as well...but that's my preference cuz starfield has good world building too.

Graphics are also better on cyberpunk...

Maybe cyberpunk had more glitches...that's a possibility for sure.

Extermin8or3_278d ago

Cyberpunk ran alright on ps5 and presumeably xbox series x too. The unplayable version was last gen.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 278d ago
Profchaos280d ago

To be clear df used cyberpunk in its current state for comparison we all know how bad it's launch really was.

I'm not in love with starfeild at all I like aspects of it but it's not my cup of tea however I'm not going to go out of my way and make frivolous claims it's still a decent game on PC where I played it.

Could things be Betty for the PC version yes, is it worse than cyberpunk at launch no

MrDead280d ago

Digital Foundry used it as a comparison because it shouldn't even be a thing, Starfield should be running far, far better then Cyberpunk because it's not even in the same ballpark when it comes to visuals. Cyberpunk is pushing full ray-traced reflections, light and shadows, higher quality models, denser crowds, literally more of everything at a far higher quality. Starfield is very poorly optimised.

Sonic1881279d ago (Edited 279d ago )

I'm still surprised that they got away with it. I mean what's the reason to invest in a Nvidia card if you can't take full advantage of it. No DLSS support 🤔

gold_drake280d ago

i agree with the cdpr leader,

starfield runs way better than cyberpunk.
the audacity of some people haha