Well... Confirmed what I had feared. They heavily rely on dynamic resolution and DLSS/FSR instead of real optimization. Meet most of the recommended specs, except the GPU. I've got a 1660 Super and even on low settings @1080p, the game runs anywhere between 25 and 60 fps. And it's like... Backwards from what I would expect. Indoor areas are the slower areas, while outdoors is nice and snappy. But it looks blurry as fuck with the resolution scale at anything other than 100%, and even ultra settings do not put it that high.

That said, it is still playable without having to mod in lower textures and reducing clutter. Which is more than I can say about Fallout 4 at release, and I had the exact recommended specs for that one back then.

First game since I built this machine to run this poorly with settings this low. Even Baldur's Gate 3, which looks way better, runs so much better at Ultra settings than Starfield does at the minimum.

Other than that, the setting feels pretty bland, which is not what I expected considering the passionate way they talked at lengths about it. It's all very generic and very obviously just trying to make every fun sci-fi trope they like stick. I am not playing for the story or the writing, but the world building is usually one of their best features... This one is pretty lackluster with the world building, and so far has not really drawn me in.