Starfield Xbox Series X vs PC Graphics Analysis – Is This Bethesda's Best Work To Date?



Bethesda’s highly anticipated space epic is just around the corner, and we’re happy to report that Starfield is everything that fans wished from this project. In addition to a complex web of gameplay mechanics and systems, Starfield also impresses with its visuals that have been built using Creation Engine 2.

Despite sticking to traditional rendering techniques, Starfield is able to achieve a striking level of detail right from the physically based materials to the complex terrain geometry and much more. We have tested the game on both the Xbox Series X and a high-end PC, and with this feature – we will be diving deep into the technical aspects of the game and see how the two versions stack up against one another in terms of visuals and performance.

source

30 thoughts on “Starfield Xbox Series X vs PC Graphics Analysis – Is This Bethesda's Best Work To Date?”

  1. Reflections are cube maps, not SSR (thank god). That's why reflections don't show NPCs, because it's not SSR, as SSR would reflect the NPCs, or at least the parts of the NPCs, that are on screen.

    Per pixel motion blur is not the "good kind", it's literally the reason most people just turn off motion blur w/out looking. The "good kind" is per object motion blur, where only fast moving objects have motion blur. Per pixel motion blur ONLY exists to hide poor frame pacing.

    Speaking of frame pacing… where's the performance analysis? Graphics are great, but it's incomplete without the impact of those graphics. Even an RTSS output would have been better than nothing.

    Why is there no breakdown of the graphics settings, this being a graphics analysis?

    This is honestly a pretty poor "Graphics Analysis" considering how much is either missing or blatantly incorrect.

    Reply
  2. Played for about an hour on X and i can't stand 30fps. I will play a little more to decide if new gaming PC is in the cards. If this game is 30fps hellblade 2 will certainly be only 30fps on X.

    Reply
  3. Last gen effects, last gen tech, why does it seem like the specs are much higher than they should be? I don't want to hear that the game is big because there's loading screens between all the areas that aren't really shit and seamless. Cyberpunk overall looks better and came out way earlier.

    Reply
  4. Anybody else wishing the colors were a bit more bright/vibrant? To me looks a little greyscale/pale colors contrasted to Fallout 4’s gorgeous blue skies. Just my opinion.

    Reply
  5. What a terrible performance review. RTX 3080ti, still enables dynamic resolution. Blocking this channel. Incompetence is showing because this channel can't offer just basic results.

    The amount of fake YouTube channels is staggering, like watching cable.

    Reply
  6. PC with mods best choice, XSX version on disk only for collection. How about XOX, first game without support for XOX?
    P.S. It’s bad that there is no animation of dialogues and voice acting, and also landing and takeoff are not implemented.

    Reply
  7. The graphics on the series x looked better in this video and 60 fps makes movement seem a bit more responsive but sped up like there’s a missing frame in each second and just compressed some frames instead of adding a new instance of movement so it’s prob more in the range of 50-60 with compressed frames. I get that feeling a lot with 60 fps games. The graphics on the series x and 30 fps seems to be more optimized.

    Reply
  8. Im definitely not playing this anytime soon. Too many games coming soon and ive got armored core, and zelda to try and finish before lies of p and alen wake 2 come out on top of a frick load others.

    Reply
  9. I'm not a pc gamer really. I have an Asus laptop with 980m that I bought in 2015 and at the time, it was about as good as you can get for a laptop and really only used it for music production. I play xb series x for games. It was time to upgrade to a desktop pc and so I bought a 4090 with ryzen 9 7950X3D 64gig 2tb ssd. I way over did it I know. I get it in 10 days. It better be the baddest mf pc for the price, over 4.5k. I already kinda regret it

    Reply
  10. beautiful video, enjoyed it a lot.

    if i had to nitpick , it was more of a graphical analysis than a comparsion perse , i missed more head to head shots , to see how the console version stood against a maxed out pc version

    Reply
  11. I personally think it looks great on my Series X & B2 65" OLED. Definitely an upgrade over F4 & 76. It's not the greatest graphics I've seen lately, but it still looks remarkable & fresh for a Bethesda Maryland title. One thing I am sort of confused on is back around 2020 or so, Todd had said they were completely rebuilding the Creation Engine & that it'd have its first true succession since Oblivion & F3, & that's the main reason Starfield had been taking so long is bc a whole new engine was being written for it & more importantly – Tes6 to eventually use. I'm confused bc it's evident in the graphics/ gameplay, & also being reported that it was more of a " refresh " for Creation Engine, not a full redev. Back when Todd said this he said that it was the main reason Starfields development was stretched so long, & he assured that Tes6 would take significantly way less time to develope/ be finished since the new engine would be up & ready to go. That's the main thing I'm worried about, is Creation Engine 2 needing way more time & development so it's ready for Tes6 & ends up making its development like 8 years + like we unfortunately went thru with Starfield. That would reeeeally blow & I hope that isn't the case man.

    Reply
  12. Xbox series x… Starfield is constantly crashing for lots of people making it unplayable.
    There's lots of posts on reddit starfield. Bethesda is ignoring people's complaints.

    Reply

Leave a Comment