**** Starfield ****

I do think two things can be true:

The game clearly has optimisation issues, especially on the CPU side of things, and modern hardware that should be running the game flawlessly is struggling to do so.

There will also be a point when hardware from a few generations ago will start struggling with new releases, even if the graphics aren't necessarily cutting-edge. I do not for a second buy into the 'you need to upgrade regularly!' mindset (a good GPU should ideally be robust enough to last at least a half decade), but 9 and 10 series cards, for example, will probably start struggling a bit to run a fair few modern games these days - especially at extra high frame rates - and older CPUs doubly so.

That said, it's clear PC gaming has been in a rough place, especially over the past year, and the cost of entry to newer gen hardware is absolutely ridiculous (looking at you, Nvidia). I'm very interested to see Alex Battalgia's breakdown of Starfield, but it doesn't seem as obviously broken as something like TLOU or Jedi Survivor. Just needs a few more optimisation passes to wring out higher performance.

Console is a slightly different beast than PC here. I'd also have much preferred a 60 FPS target here for console, but if the technology really struggled to achieve that a rock-solid 30 FPS is probably a necessary compromise. I disagree with that call, but I can see how they reach it.

That said, it's definitely more complex than stunning visuals vs performance. I've seen prettier games than this, absolutely. But there is a lot of ultra detailed assets in the game world which probably make this heavier performance-wise than usual. The game holds up to scrutiny when examining small objects in the game world, which wouldn't be the case in a lot of 'prettier' games.

Personally, I have zero interest in item 'persistence' in games - it makes for funny videos like the potato one but not much more - but features like that will also have a major impact on performance. Whether it was the right focus for Bethesda... I'd say probably not. But I've no doubt it makes the render budget a lot more complicated.

I actually think fidelity wise the game is often impressive - the level of details on some objects is particularly excellent - but I find the art style pretty uninspiring!

The game runs fine for me on PC (mid-range but modern system) - at 1440p with DLSS 'fidelity' settings it dips into the 50-55 FPS mark in most demanding outdoor circumstances and up to the 100-120 mark in the least demanding indoor ones. Generally at 60-80. I'd say it's slightly less performative than I'd expect given the hardware, but not by a whole bunch - and it performs a whole lot better than, say, FF16 performance mode on PS5.

That said, if people on very capable hardware are having big issues then that's obviously unacceptable. And the nature of PC gaming is that there's likely to be some inconsistency across individual setups even with broadly similar hardware.

Absolutely, it's very much each to their own in that respect - I'm not a fan of their approach here, but can easily see others digging it. At least when it comes to performance we have raw, objective numbers to discuss and contrast ;)