Support NeoGAF

[Viking Warrior]

Just the fact that pretty much every object is moveable and doesn't disappear when you leave it somewhere is absolutely massive, not in the way you mean it maybe, but

If what they say is true, it also has bigger cities than any other game they did, probably without loads, and about the rest, honestly we don't know so we just guess.

But yea flying on the space, space ships, lots of planets, NPC's with routines, base buildings, and most importantly, being able to be a diogenes syndrome guy... yea these guys do a lot of stuff that nobody else does in the industry.

Other than that, Starfield being 30 FPS, FFXVI and Star Wars Jedi Survivor having hard struggling "performance" modes... and more to come, it's time to get used to it.

You want 60 FPS on every game? well as some known guy would say, fortunately there's a product for these who want that, it's called PC.

This said i think that sometime after the game's release, they'll manage to do a performance mode, or at least a 40 FPS one, just like Asobo did with A plague tale

This game will never run at 60fps on series X/S, better find you a PC.

 

[Gameplay Gods Bless]

I don't buy this 30 fps. You can drop native resolution, use DRS, checkerboard render and now even FSR 2. You can use dynamic between to low/medium/high settings, dynamic LOD...

PS4/Xbox One would be fine, but we're now in an age of amazing tools to mitigate the framerate. The game don't need to be native 4k, but neither 30 fps.

Will PC version runs at 30 fps with resolutions like 1920x1080p with weaker CPUs than Series X too?

You're talking about GPU homie there's a lot more to a PC and console than the GPU. Normally the GPU is the one holding the rest of the components like ram, CPU and storage and is therefore the one holding back the framerare but in games that push the CPU this isn't the case. AI, physics, world simulation and even RT all put the CPU to work, if the game is a sandbox or simulation game expect it to hammer the CPU and Bethesdas games are just this.

 

[DaGwaphics]

I don't think we are disagreeing here though. They could make a 60 fps mode and it would not limit their gameplay system ambitions. There's only so much resources and they decided to optimize for 30 because optimizing for 60 takes a lot of effort and maybe they don't have the luxury of time.

You can repeat that line as much as you want, but you literally have no idea what CPU utilization is like running the game in high stress areas of the major cities and during combat (no one does yet). I know this comes as a complete shock to you, but eventually developers are going to want to push the CPU part of the equation past last-gen standards and this won't scale with resolution or graphical features. Many games were CPU limited last gen, many will be again.

And people joke about the sandwiches but they do need to allow some overhead for those features. Not so much with the sandwiches per se (since those are just duplicates of the same model in that example) but if a user drops one of every weapon in the game on the table (each with its own physics applied) and then throws a grenade at it...

I'm sure that represents a very small part of things but still, it's all the systems that have to work together that form the whole.

 

[Little Chicken]

I like how people doubt 60fps in a open world RPGs but games like horizon 2 do it just fine while being a open world rpg with better visuals

Are you really comparing a Bethesda RPG to Horizon...

 

[Fake]

You're talking about GPU homie there's a lot more to a PC and console than the GPU. Normally the GPU is the one holding the rest of the components like ram, CPU and storage and is therefore the one holding back the framerare but in games that push the CPU this isn't the case. AI, physics, world simulation and even RT all put the CPU to work, if the game is a sandbox or simulation game expect it to hammer the CPU and Bethesdas games are just this.

Again, I don't buy this. They are not pushing any limits, no next gen features... not even a Raytracing.
All those tricks I mention are to medigate the perfomance penalty from CPU, not to mentio the low level acess API.
Bethesda are well knowed for bad/shit optimization and I not expecting anything different from this game. They past are here to prove.

You can believe whatever you want from them, but saying is a 'design choise' for justify 30 fps of the 'most powerful console in the world' is the most absurd thing I have heard this generation.

Just the ideia of using FSR 2.0 just for archieve a misarable 30 fps is absurd. Is like falling from ND bullshit about TLOUSpart1 PC trash port. They already proved that is a matter of optimization.

 

[Neo_game]

The game is running at like 1296 with FSR, at 30fps. Even assuming they're just capping it for consistency and they can get 30-50, we aren't talking about a huge difference in terms of resolution, to the point where you will get locked 60fps.

I dunno, I'm actually glad that Bethesda chose graphics settings they feel best represent their game in all facets, and you buy the game, and you experience it the way they chose to present it. It is almost like the studio, as videogame developers and designers, designed and developed a videogame.

I also support devs that opt for fidelity. The game was 4K 30fps last year. Now they haved halfed the resolution, improved the gfx. But according to devs it can run 60fps on some instances. Is it 60fps when you land on a bareen planet with nothing but just some rocks and mountain ? and other planets or instances during firefights it drops to 30fps. That means it has more to do with the GPU than the CPU, similar to FF16.

 

[mansoor1980]

16 times the bottleneck

 

[Dunnas]

Is Cyberpunk a RPG? Well whatever it is the AI is dog shit, no matter if its 30fps with RT or 60fps.

This is probably both. It's 1296p.

FSR isn't just 100% free resolution. 1296p up to 4k using FSR2 will be pushing the GPU more than just 1296p native.

 

[feynoob]

Again, I don't buy this. They are not pushing any limits, no next gen features...

Stop with this crap notion.

 

[Anchovie123]

 

[feynoob]

 

[mansoor1980]

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

You can repeat that line as much as you want, but you literally have no idea what CPU utilization is like running the game in high stress areas of the major cities and during combat (no one does yet). I know this comes as a complete shock to you, but eventually developers are going to want to push the CPU part of the equation past last-gen standards and this won't scale with resolution or graphical features. Many games were CPU limited last gen, many will be again.

And people joke about the sandwiches but they do need to allow some overhead for those features. Not so much with the sandwiches per se (since those are just duplicates of the same model in that example) but if a user drops one of every weapon in the game on the table (each with its own physics applied) and then throws a grenade at it...

I'm sure that represents a very small part of things but still, it's all the systems that have to work together that form the whole.

We've seen snippets of the cities, there are many open world games this generation that have 60 fps modes with busy cities.

This whole CPU debate has very little backing. The types of systems they have in Starfield is very similar to their older games, and there are 60 fps versions of those on next gen consoles. We are not seeing any advanced AI or physics. Pretty landscapes with little activity. Combat that seems pretty similar to other open world titles with 60 fps modes.

If the "sandwiches" are literally holding the game back from 60 fps, then that is a very poor decision on the part of the developers. And they could easily still have the "sandwiches" and just let the framerate tank if somebody is that fascinated with the silly idea.

 

[In Cold Blood]

This game is just ridiculous.
Nothing else this generation comes close to the scope and anticipation of this game.
Forget GOTY talk, this is game of the generation.

 

[Gaiff]

We've seen snippets of the cities, there are many open world games this generation that have 60 fps modes with busy cities.

This whole CPU debate has very little backing. The types of systems they have in Starfield is very similar to their older games, and there are 60 fps versions of those on next gen consoles. We are not seeing any advanced AI or physics. Pretty landscapes with little activity. Combat that seems pretty similar to other open world titles with 60 fps modes.

If the "sandwiches" are literally holding the game back from 60 fps, then that is a very poor decision on the part of the developers. And they could easily still have the "sandwiches" and just let the framerate tank if somebody is that fascinated with the silly idea.

At this point you're just parroting the same thing over and over. Their older games don't look as good as Starfield so how is that relevant? Skyrim running at 60fps on PS5 means Starfield should? Are these games similar in terms of hardware requirements or did I miss something?

Their AI and physics are leaps and bounds better than almost every open world game out there. No other open world game has a combination of AI and physics like Bethesda. Zelda has more advanced physics but that's where it stops. Everyone else isn't close except for RDR2 but I don't think there's a next-gen patch for it either and even then, it's still easily dwarfed by Starfield.

Maybe it could run at 60fps and it's simply a matter of time but your insistence on false equivalencies and bad comparisons is quite egregious. Pretending that games like Horizon or Zelda are on the same level as Starfield in terms of what's going on on screen is ridiculous.

 

[diffusionx]

I also support devs that opt for fidelity. The game was 4K 30fps last year. Now they haved halfed the resolution, improved the gfx. But according to devs it can run 60fps on some instances. Is it 60fps when you land on a bareen planet with nothing but just some rocks and mountain ? and other planets or instances during firefights it drops to 30fps. That means it has more to do with the GPU than the CPU, similar to FF16.

Was the demo last year running on a XSX? It was native 4K (according to DF) but ran like total ass. It was very rough. This one ran much better.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

At this point you're just parroting the same thing over and over. Their older games don't look as good as Starfield so how is that relevant?

It's relevant because that means the limiting factor is literally the visual fidelity and GPU, not the "backend systems" and CPU utilization people keep talking about. That's the point I'm making.

Where is this supposed "more activity than any other game" argument? Visually, No. AI/Physics? No. It's a great looking game. There are plenty of others on the level or even better that have 60 fps modes. So the only argument you guys have is "the sandwiches", which is pretty nonsensical, and if that's worth the tradeoff to you, more power to you but that's a very bad decision and it makes sense why many people are not happy about it

 

[OuterLimits]

I love Bethesda games, but I will be amazed and pleasantly surprised if the game manages a locked 30fps on console. I'm fully expecting some significant drops and/or complete crashes the first several months after release.

 

[Gaiff]

It's relevant because that means the limiting factor is literally the visual fidelity and GPU, not the "backend systems" and CPU utilization people keep talking about. That's the point I'm making.

Where is this supposed "more activity than any other game" argument? Visually, No. AI/Physics? No. It's a great looking game. There are plenty of others on the level or even better that have 60 fps modes.

That would be assuming Starfield hasn't even evolved from their older games which literally never happens? Each Bethesda game is more complex than its predecessor. They don't stand still or move backwards.

So the only argument you guys have is "the sandwiches", which is pretty nonsensical, and if that's worth the tradeoff to you, more power to you but that's a very bad decision and it makes sense why many people are not happy about it

More dishonesty. You're sitting here telling us you don't mind NPCs vanishing out of thin air and that it's no big deal. Clearly, if something as immersion breaking as that hardly matters to you, then almost nothing else will.

 

[salva]

Me on release enjoying Starfield in awe on my XSX, and not giving a fk about 30FPS:

everyone else apparently:

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

That would be assuming Starfield hasn't even evolved from their older games which literally never happens? Each Bethesda game is more complex than its predecessor. They don't stand still or move backwards.

I guess we'll have to find out, because after a 45 minute direct there's not really any evidence to suggest that's the case. Yes, the game is brought up and expanded to modern standards that goes without saying, but the gulf in CPUs from this gen to last gen is enormous as is the SSD. There should be plenty of margin for those improvements AND the ability to reduce fidelity for a 60 fps mode

At the end of the day I think you guys have very little to stand on when claiming the impossibility of a 60 fps mode. Yes, they made a decision to launch with 30 fps only, but that could be to many reasons other than technical feasability. I am sure for a game of their scale, trying to optimize for just 30 fps is a LOT of development time and resources. I believe *that* is the likely reason why it doesn't exist.

And hey - if it makes the 30 fps the best version it could be and doesn't cause a watered down 30/60 game that would just make everyone unhappy at launch - then great! It's better than delaying the game until next year. But 60 fps should certainly be achievable if they had the time/resources. I'd be surprised if it doesn't eventually get patched, they just don't want to set up a Redfall situation of broken promises IMHO

 

[Gaiff]

I guess we'll have to find out, because after a 45 minute direct there's not really any evidence to suggest that's the case. Yes, the game is brought up and expanded to modern standards that goes without saying, but the gulf in CPUs from this gen to last gen is enormous as is the SSD. There should be plenty of margin for those improvements AND the ability to reduce fidelity for a 60 fps mode

Their only games last-gen were Fallout 4 and Fallout 76. Neither of which received a next-gen patch I believe.

At the end of the day I think you guys have very little to stand on when claiming the impossibility of a 60 fps mode. Yes, they made a decision to launch with 30 fps only, but that could be to many reasons other than technical feasability. I am sure for a game of their scale, trying to optimize for just 30 fps is a LOT of development time and resources. I believe *that* is the likely reason why it doesn't exist.

And hey - if it makes the 30 fps the best version it could be and doesn't cause a watered down 30/60 game that would just make everyone unhappy at launch - then great! It's better than delaying the game until next year. But 60 fps should certainly be achievable if they had the time/resources. I'd be surprised if it doesn't eventually get patched, they just don't want to set up a Redfall situation of broken promises IMHO

Not saying 60fps is impossible. It might be. I'm saying using other, much more simple open world games is a flawed comparison. The closest you have is RDR2 which doesn't have a next-gen patch and would still fall short anyway. I'm assuming it's a CPU bottleneck or perhaps something given the fact that it's 4K/30 but I could also be completely off the mark. The bottom line is, Starfield will be the most complex and arguably ambitious game released thus far. Doesn't mean the best though.

 

[Balducci30]

I love Bethesda games, but I will be amazed and pleasantly surprised if the game manages a locked 30fps on console. I'm fully expecting some significant drops and/or complete crashes the first several months after release.

I will say - I highly doubt even 30 fps will be completely stable. I’m imagining more of a TOTK situation

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Not saying 60fps is impossible. It might be. I'm saying using other, much more simple open world games is a flawed comparison. The closest you have is RDR2 which doesn't have a next-gen patch and would still fall short anyway. I'm assuming it's a CPU bottleneck or perhaps something given the fact that it's 4K/30 but I could also be completely off the mark. The bottom line is, Starfield will be the most complex and arguably ambitious game released thus far. Doesn't mean the best though.

Cyberpunk is probably the closest example. The game launched in a disastrous state with both 30 and 60 fps modes, but ultimately it got patched into a decent state. But it's a big open world game with a lot of "stats" and impressive visuals.

I also still fail to see how something like Starfield is anymore CPU intensive than stuff like bog standard Assassin's Creed titles. Again, the systems that are unique to Starfield is more about the diverse range of options available, but that's just gameplay developed systems of optionality that really aren't stressing CPU. They take a LOT of time to develop, but they are not highly stressing cycle times.

 

[Gaiff]

Cyberpunk is probably the closest example. The game launched in a disastrous state with both 30 and 60 fps modes, but ultimately it got patched into a decent state. But it's a big open world game with a lot of "stats" and impressive visuals.

Yeah and those guys didn't even manage to get a proper police system in place. They also have NPCs that vanish a couple of meters away as mentioned before and their game ended up being a watered-down version of what we thought we'd get. The Cyberpunk we were supposed to get would have been a match but we didn't get it. Instead, we got a basic-ass open world with nice visuals and ray tracing.

 

[BrutalTruth_]

We've seen snippets of the cities, there are many open world games this generation that have 60 fps modes with busy cities.

This whole CPU debate has very little backing. The types of systems they have in Starfield is very similar to their older games, and there are 60 fps versions of those on next gen consoles. We are not seeing any advanced AI or physics. Pretty landscapes with little activity. Combat that seems pretty similar to other open world titles with 60 fps modes.

If the "sandwiches" are literally holding the game back from 60 fps, then that is a very poor decision on the part of the developers. And they could easily still have the "sandwiches" and just let the framerate tank if somebody is that fascinated with the silly idea.

dude the game isn't even out yet.. you don't even know all the full features in the game or how many cities or how big they are and you're parroting this bullshit.

That would be assuming Starfield hasn't even evolved from their older games which literally never happens? Each Bethesda game is more complex than its predecessor. They don't stand still or move backwards.


More dishonesty. You're sitting here telling us you don't mind NPCs vanishing out of thin air and that it's no big deal. Clearly, if something as immersion breaking as that hardly matters to you, then almost nothing else will.

Well said.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Yeah and those guys didn't even manage to get a proper police system in place. They also have NPCs that vanish a couple of meters away as mentioned before and their game ended up being a watered-down version of what we thought we'd get. The Cyberpunk we were supposed to get would have been a match but we didn't get it. Instead, we got a basic-ass open world with nice visuals and ray tracing.

Yeah it launched buggy

But just look at the recent patch. And also Phantom Liberty is doing another massive AI overhaul and it’s still going to have 60 fps modes

So it was clearly possible; dev time was the constraint - NOT hardware or system complexity

 

[Heisenberg007]

We've seen snippets of the cities, there are many open world games this generation that have 60 fps modes with busy cities.

This whole CPU debate has very little backing. The types of systems they have in Starfield is very similar to their older games, and there are 60 fps versions of those on next gen consoles. We are not seeing any advanced AI or physics. Pretty landscapes with little activity. Combat that seems pretty similar to other open world titles with 60 fps modes.

If the "sandwiches" are literally holding the game back from 60 fps, then that is a very poor decision on the part of the developers. And they could easily still have the "sandwiches" and just let the framerate tank if somebody is that fascinated with the silly idea.

I think the more important question is to ask is "if 60 FPS had to be compromised because, as others have claimed, 'you can pick up and drop objects' and 'stack sandwiches', is it really worth the sacrifice?"

Should those features be prioritized over frame rates, which, as the consensus always was, the most important thing.

 

[cash_longfellow]

I’d be more worried about bugs than fps or resolution if I were looking forward to the game.

 

[odhiex]

Will it run on the Steam Deck? That's what I'm interested to see. Seems like it is a pretty demanding game on PC.

 

[mansoor1980]

Will it run on the Steam Deck? That's what I'm interested to see. Seems like it is a pretty demanding game on PC.

there are potato pc mods available for fallout4 and skyrim , the community will come up with something

 

[Heisenberg007]

Will it run on the Steam Deck? That's what I'm interested to see. Seems like it is a pretty demanding game on PC.

It should, as games with better visual fidelity have been running on the system. But I don't think it will unless it is optimized properly.

 

[Zathalus]

When a dev can make a systems driven game equivalent to a Bethesda RPG at 60fps on console then we can talk. Hell if anybody can get Morrowind on OG Xbox, Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Skyrim on 360/PS3 or Fallout 4 on base PS4/Xbox One running at 60fps stable on console then we can talk.

Not once has any of this happened btw, the closest we got was Kingdom Come Deliverance and that game ran WAAAAAY worse on consoles than a Bethesda game. So yea.. I think the gaming industry has spoken.

I keep asking for games that are just as complex that run at 60 Fps, but so far zero have been forthcoming. If it was so easy surely some would mention it. Cyberpunk keeps getting mentioned but that has game complexity as deep as a puddle and still has CPU related drops in certain sections.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Cyberpunk keeps getting mentioned but that has game complexity as deep as a puddle

Explain the complexity and depth of Bethesda games then? What makes them stand out to you over other games that offer plenty of choice and freedom or emergent gameplay?

 

[Silent Viper]

Frankly it boils down to this, everyone stating that this should easily be 60 Fps because it is nothing impressive has very likely a specific agenda they want to push. This agenda is transparently obvious when looking at thier post history. The war continues.

Watch video from DF.

Why some of you folks dont watch video?

 

[Rykan]

Frankly it boils down to this, everyone stating that this should easily be 60 Fps because it is nothing impressive has very likely a specific agenda they want to push. This agenda is transparently obvious when looking at thier post history. The war continues.

Right? I don't understand why Bethesda isn't being given the benefit of the doubt here. They've introduced 60 fps patches for Skyrim on both consoles. Several older Bethesda titles are part of the FPS boost on series x. They are planning a patch for FO4 so it runs on 60 as well.


If they say it can't run at 60, then there is probably a good reason for it.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

I think the more important question is to ask is "if 60 FPS had to be compromised because, as others have claimed, 'you can pick up and drop objects' and 'stack sandwiches', is it really worth the sacrifice?"

Should those features be prioritized over frame rates, which, as the consensus always was, the most important thing.

Yes, because the same feature allows you to place and build outpost and settlements.

 

[Zathalus]

Explain the complexity and depth of Bethesda games then? What makes them stand out to you over other games that offer plenty of choice and freedom?

Persistent NPCs and game objects.
Sheer number of objects that actually interact with the world. Full physical interaction.
Complex base building.
Entire planet with all of the above.
Procedurally generating the actual planet on the fly when exploring it.
Large cities with hundred of NPCs that actually have AI and numerous quest lines.
Full dynamic weather simulation.
Position of celestial bodies and sunset/sunrise are still being calculated on each planet. It's not just a static skybox.
Global Illumination on this scale has a CPU cost as well.

No other game actually offers all of the above, the closest I can think of is Kingdom Come, Cyberpunk, and No Man's Sky but each lack in comparison.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Persistent NPCs and game objects.
Sheer number of objects that actually interact with the world. Full physical interaction.
Complex base building.
Entire planet with all of the above.
Procedurally generating the actual planet on the fly when exploring it.
Large cities with hundred of NPCs that actually have AI and numerous quest lines.
Full dynamic weather simulation.
Position of celestial bodies and sunset/sunrise are still being calculated on each planet. It's not just a static skybox.
Global Illumination on this scale has a CPU cost as well.

No other game actually offers all of the above, the closest I can think of is Kingdom Come, Cyberpunk, and No Man's Sky but each lack in comparison.

This is embellishing quite a lot. What does it even mean to have “full physical interactivity”? It’s not like you can literally transform every single object into whatever your heart desires.

Complex base building - many claim to find these aspects boring along with mining. Games like Hogwarts have various means of building, breeding, and crafting. Assasins creed you can build up your home base or pirate ship and what have you. Cyberpunk you get to build out your dwelling and vehicles.

Many open world games have big cities with lots of layered NPC side quests, the footage of Starfield shows cities that are about as populated as you see in other titles. Titles like RDR2 have extremely organic, emergent quests

Starfield certainly expands on the space theme aspects and obviously - such as ship customization and procedural generation

These are all impressive features but it’s not like it’s somehow more complex and deep compared to other big games that have their own twist on things. Historically the gameplay mechanics have not been as strong. Starfield looks significantly improved but the scale of combat seems limited; other games feature bigger boss encounters with a wider variety of enemies.

So to me it’s not a matter of “this is leagues better and more deep than other open world titles” and more “here’s Bethesda’s brand of open world games that’s awesome but also has its own drawbacks”.

In terms of complexity that actually drives a performance consideration, I’m unconvinced that most of these systems actually limits Framerate. They just take forever to design and code in a way that is meaningful.

 

[Zathalus]

This is embellishing quite a lot. What does it even mean to have “full physical interactivity”? It’s not like you can literally transform every single object into whatever your heart desires.

Complex base building - many claim to find these aspects boring along with mining. Games like Hogwarts have various means of building, breeding, and crafting. Assasins creed you can build up your home base or pirate ship and what have you. Cyberpunk you get to build out your dwelling and vehicles.

Many open world games have big cities with lots of layered NPC side quests, the footage of Starfield shows cities that are about as populated as you see in other titles. Titles like RDR2 have extremely organic, emergent quests

Starfield certainly expands on the space theme aspects and obviously - such as ship customization and procedural generation

These are all impressive features but it’s not like it’s somehow more complex and deep compared to other big games that have their own twist on things. Historically the gameplay mechanics have not been as strong. Starfield looks significantly improved but the scale of combat seems limited; other games feature bigger boss encounters with a wider variety of enemies.

So to me it’s not a matter of “this is leagues better and more deep than other open world titles” and more “here’s Bethesda’s brand of open world games that’s awesome but also has its own drawbacks”.

In terms of complexity that actually drives a performance consideration, I’m unconvinced that most of these systems actually limits Framerate. They just take forever to design and code in a way that is meaningful.

Full physical interactivity in the context of any spawned items or NPCs that the creation engine is famous for. Have you ever actually played a Bethesda game?

You keep mentioning systems in other games. I'm not stating other games don't do the same things I'm stating that other games don't combine all of them. I've asked you to name just one and you bring up freaking Hogwarts.

Look obviously there is no convincing you. I can probably have Todd Howard personally post on these forums stating as such and would still be unable to accept it.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

I've asked you to name just one and you bring up freaking Hogwarts.

I don’t see how “freaking hogwarts” isn’t a legitimate title to bring up. It has all sorts of systems you can choose to sink time into if you want, it’s a huge game with one of the most fleshed out communities/cities in any game I’ve played.

You keep mentioning systems in other games. I'm not stating other games don't do the same things I'm stating that other games don't combine all of them.

Well clearly Bethesda games don’t have some claim on every single open world system either; there’s many things it lacks that I’ve described such as the combat depth and diversity of enemy and boss encounters of something like elden ring.

Bethesda may combine many more systems than your usual title - no arguments - but it’s lacking in some as well, and again those systems aren’t really a driver of performance limitation

 

[Team Andromeda]

Yes, I know, not saying it didn't, I loved it and loved how it looked (way better than most realistic aimless western game graphics), but the fact it didn't run at 60 fps alongside Gotham Knight releasing without 60 fps mode too was polemic, it was a drama all across social media and youtube.

I don't hardly anyone who said the game was broken or unfished because it runs at just 30 FPS. Most looked to praise the game for using its own tech and being one of the 1st true currents gen games.

This anti 30 FPS for a console game is sheer nonsense and largely done by SONY fans desperate to look for anything they can to knock Starfield. Jealously really does bring out the worst in people.

 

[DenchDeckard]

I never claimed anyone was "incompetent", so please don't put words in my mouth. Post the SSM developer's quote. You can't claim it's 100% impossible to reach 60 fps when we have other games on the market to compare it, and where the devs themselves have stated it's not these supposedly "complex systems" which is why they went with 30 fp . Are the systems so much more complex than their previous games? If so, how, and why does that limit 30 fps? It's one thing to be difficult to create, it's another to claim it's technically restrictive.

Tell me a comparable game at 6ofps on console and ill check it out.

Also, I hope everyone making these wild statements has actually watched the video.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

This thread is on another level of stupid. Keep the posts coming, people.

 

[dotnotbot]

I don't hardly anyone who said the game was broken or unfished because it runs at just 30 FPS. Most looked to praise the game for using its own tech and being one of the 1st true currents gen games.

This anti 30 FPS for a console game is sheer nonsense and largely done by SONY fans desperate to look for anything they can to knock Starfield. Jealously really does bring out the worst in people.

Poor way to spin this discussion. 30 FPS games were already heavily criticized for years even if they were multiplatform, this has nothing to do with being 'Sony fan' or whatever.

 

[Zathalus]

Tell me a comparable ga,e at 6pfps on console and ill check it out.

Also, I hope everyone making these wild statements has actually watched the video.

Hogwarts apparently.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Hogwarts apparently.

Lmao, it's not even close..plus it doesn't run at 60fps.

 

[Zathalus]

Lmao, it's not even close..plus it doesn't run at 60fps.

Sorry, forgot the /s

But it's 60fps on console isn't it? I played on PC so no idea.

 

[Team Andromeda]

Poor way to spin this discussion. 30 FPS games were already heavily criticized for years even if they were multiplatform, this has nothing to do with being 'Sony fan' or whatever.

Bullcrap.

I never remember last gen console fans saying Bloodborne, God of War, Last Of Us 2, Drakes 4, Spiderman, Ghost of Tsushima
and Witcher 3 were unplayable and broken because of 30 FPS on the console..

 

[Team Andromeda]

Hogwarts apparently.

You can travel to 1000 worlds in Hogwarts, that's a new one on me....