The only thing missing is per-object motion blur on weapons and enemies. As an RPG, there is still a sense that you're draining a life bar more than directly dealing damage, but the reactions are greatly enhanced. Enemy animation is generally much better as well. I was never a fan of the designs in Fallout 4 - the model and animation work left me cold - but Starfield introduces weapons which appear both stylish and powerful. There are a lot of positive elements here too. For a setting flush with metallic surfaces, this strikes me as a little strange, and screen-space reflections would go a long way to improve overall image cohesion. In the original teaser trailer, we noted almost RT-like reflections, but in every gameplay sequence there's no evidence of screen-space reflections, let alone RT reflections. This does raise one interesting omission - the lack of reflections. Compared to Fallout 4, the leap in fidelity is significant, as that game features rudimentary interior lighting and a distinct lack of texture and object detail. This section evokes a mood not unlike Doom 3, with direct lights piercing the darkness as specular highlights play off the surfaces. Inside, things are different - large-scale shadows, which were low-res and grainy outdoors, become crisply-defined internally. While it's attractive, the rendering features are not pushing any boundaries - which is understandable given the game's large scale and lengthy development time. The terrain rendering itself resembles earlier Bethesda games, but pop-in is kept to a minimum and detail is evident far out into the distance. Regardless, it does produce attractive results - we just need to see how dynamic it is in the final game.Įverything is tied together by the terrain system then - it's likely that planet surfaces and structures are built using a combination of procedural generation and hand-placed assets, which is a common approach these days. What I'm not clear on yet is the sky system - it looks very promising but due to the low bitrate of the trailer footage we had to look at, it's tough to tell if we're looking at a proper volumetric sky system or a simple sky dome.
In general, atmospheric rendering appears reasonably robust from what we can see in this demo. Starfield also appears to feature a system which displays a localised fog volume within valley crevices, which looks great. Watch on YouTube What can we glean from the Starfield reveal? Quite a bit - as John Linneman discovers. This is one of the key problems we identified with Halo Infinite and it's great to see that Starfield has a solution in place. For example, in an outdoor scene, we can see the game has long distance shadowing, which is crucial for maintaining distant detail. Conversely, the more cinematic shots use TAA in a manner similar to Fallout 4, which ought to be more in line with what we'll see in the final product.īeyond simple resolution, we can get a sense of the dev team's design goals by looking at how Starfield handles wide open areas on-planet, interior spaces, character rendering and finally outer space. Interestingly, gameplay sequences seem to lack any sort of anti-aliasing, so you get razor-sharp edges with visible aliasing throughout. Let's start with rendering resolution - the trailer is presented at native 4K but shots vary in clarity. I thought it would be fun to dive into Bethesda's presentation and see what we can glean about the game - from basics like image quality and performance to the overall approach to tech and design. On paper, Starfield feels like the logical conclusion, a game that extends beyond a single planet through the reaches of space. There's a reason games like Skyrim remain popular to this day - the meticulously crafted worlds and sense of freedom capture the imagination. It's fair to say that Starfield is one of the most anticipated games and it's not difficult to see why - Bethesda, for all its faults, has built its empire with large-scale open world RPGs.
0 kommentar(er)
