Graphics, performance and image quality: how the consoles compare.
Expectations are enormous for Bethesda’s latest title,Starfield.
It promises a galaxy-spanning adventure with a wealth of content and hundreds of planets to explore.
But that’s not to say there haven’t been concerns.
Top of mind are technical worries, with prospective players perturbed by the potential for bugs and frame-rate hiccups.
There are other key concerns too.
For example, what’s the story with Xbox Series S?
It’s not always a stunner, but it is an accomplished effort, especially considering its incredible scope.
Some significant compromises do become evident, however.
On consoles, the other key concession comes down to frame-rate.
Both Series X and S machines target a 30fps update, with no higher frame-rate options available.
Draw distances on Series S see a bit of a cutback.
Foliage sees a bump too, with dense shrubs and knee-high grass on Series X. Texture detail does typically look similar.
Even Xbox Series X can still look a bit blurry here.
I did notice a curious difference in the terrain rendering when comparing these two platforms.
The ground surface itself just looks different between the two machines, even at close range.
like enable JavaScript to use our comparison tools.
Probably the clearest visual difference between Series S and X comes down to the cubemap rendering.
On top of those distinctions, there is a split in resolutions between the two systems.
From a visual perspective, Starfield is a very good experience on both current-gen Xboxes.
But visual quality is only half the picture, so how does performance hold up?
Bethesda has a bit of a checkered past when it comes to console performance in their RPGs.
Fallout 4 had more conventional issues, with generally inconsistent frame-rates at launch.
Is this a game to play on day one?
Or should you wait a while for more polished, patched up experience?
Testing with the day one patch installed, the good news is that overall gameplay is surprisingly solid.
Starfield basically hits a locked 30fps for just about everything you do during the game.
Combat is rock-solid, as is exploring the various planets.
This applies equally to both Series S and X, which perform identically here.
That said, there is one substantial caveat.
Two of the game’s cities - namely New Atlantis and Akila - are prone to occasional performance problems.
When running around these areas, there are a smattering of dropped frames, including some significant stutter.
Most of the time these areas run just fine at 30fps, but there are issues for sure.
It was pretty egregious, but this was the absolute worst I saw during my time with Starfield.
So, Starfield performs well enough, especially judged by the standards of Bethesda’s prior efforts.
Outside of occasional issues in cities, the game delivers a very solid 30fps update with consistent frame-pacing.
From a technical perspective, Starfield is probably the most polished RPG that Bethesda has ever shipped.
It’s largely a bug-free experience that proceeds with mostly unblemished performance and it looks great to boot.
You get the sense that the game’s ten month delay likely helped significantly on this front.
The game itself is also very good.
Starfield’s scope is immense, though that does come with certain caveats.
Planetary exploration isn’t terribly exciting, given the procedurally-generated landmasses with repeated content.
It’s a super polished, genuinely fun Bethesda RPG.
Even the combat feels great and the main content of the game is in very good form.
Starfield is a solid day one experience, with consistent performance and great visuals across both console platforms.
