-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
[VG247] I’m excited to play Starfield, but that 30fps news took the wind out of my sails
- Thread starter Lunatic_Gamer
- Start date
- Opinion Drama Cringe
Bernardougf
Member
.jpg?width=1920&height=1920&fit=bounds&quality=80&format=jpg&auto=webp)
Yes, 30fps is playable, but I thought the whole point of these new consoles is that 60fps should be the standard? Or, at the very least, an option?
I’m not going to argue the merits of Bethesda games here, but I have always believed the studio can’t rely on its old arguments of scale and simulation anymore, not when most major games do much of that very well, and look/run significantly better.
Assassin’s Creed, Cyberpunk 2077, The Witcher 3, The Outer Worlds just to name a few. All of those games are basically Bethesda spin-offs. Open-world with light RPG mechanics, loads of dialogue, some okay mechanics (whether it’s gunplay or swordplay), a large core narrative and endless side content.
That is to say, Bethesda games do not impress me anymore, which means I only really see their shortcomings when viewed next to their contemporaries. I can tell you that Starfield wasn’t about to change my sentiment towards them, until the 45-minute deep dive the developer showed after the Xbox Showcase.
For the first time, I am looking forward to a Bethesda game. I’m fairly certain that it has to do with the volume of fresh ideas and the interesting ways they factor into gameplay. Building a ship, staffing it, flying it into uncharted territory and being free to act anyway I can is something we need more of in-game.
I can board ships rather than blast them. I can land on the surface and deal with problems in person. I can exploit trade shortages and become a billionaire. All of those possibilities feel tangible, not one of Todd Howard’s nebulous aspirations - which is why it’s easy to get caught up in the hype.
But then we get the news that Starfield will be locked to 30fps on Xbox, and I just have to wonder, why? Obviously, the official line is that all the simulation in the background and visual fidelity (which honestly isn’t all that) are the reason. But really, I think it signals that Bethesda’s tech hasn’t caught up enough with modern games.
You could argue that Bethesda games have always been 30fps on consoles, and I do want to stress that 30fps is FINE. But this is Xbox’s first major AAA first-party release on its new consoles since Halo Infinite, it should be a miracle not good-enough.
Starfield is also much more of an action game than any of Bethesda’s previous projects.There’s a lot of shooting, both in first-person and in ship combat. There isn’t V.A.T.S. to rely on here, which makes 30fps all the more awkward.
If I play Starfield, it’s going to be on PC, so I’m not as upset as some people are about the lack of a performance mode on Xbox. But I also know that PC and console code are intertwined, which likely means I can expect the game to perform about on par with Fallout 4. Which is to say, okay, but not groundbreaking.
Xbox needs a big, uncompromised win. After the Redfall disaster, a game that by the way, Phil Spencer said would get a 60fps patch, it needed a launch without caveats, without hemming and hawing. Starfield, sadly, doesn't appear to be it, so we’re going to have wait for the next game from Xbox.
.jpg?width=1200&height=630&fit=crop&enable=upscale&auto=webp)
I’m excited to play Starfield, but that 30fps news took the wind out of my sails
Starfield being 30fps isn't the end of the world, but it's not a good look for Bethesda, or Xbox.www.vg247.com
I wont support or play another game in 30 fps ... that time is over at least for me... we should strive for better smooth gameplay and not some pretty sharpy lights and bushes
After playing some gens like ratchet and clanck and forbidden west at 60 fps and top notch graphics there is simple no justification to push this 4k/30 fps "creative choice" nonsense
Last edited:
avin
Member
Eh, I'm thinking the complaints are largely from people who have no ability or intention to play it. But for me, 30 fps isn't bad news, it might even be what I want to hear. Whatever their tech, they're pushing it as hard as they're able.
If this is good, it will be around for years. The hardware will catch up.
avin
If this is good, it will be around for years. The hardware will catch up.
avin
Last edited:
Negotiator101
Member
Yeah given Zelda looks very dated and runs sub 30fps at times, why should that get a pass but Starfield doesn't? Both games are pushing the hardware they're on as much as the graphics engine allows. I'm sure Bethesda would have loved to get to 60fps but they unfortunately couldn't, just getting a stable 30fps should be their goal now 
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
Oh noez, only teh 30 for uh rpg
Last edited:
Portugeezer
Member
Nah fuck off with that nonsense, the game appears to be doing a lot, unlike Redfall 30fps which seems unjustified.
Also VG247 when reviewing the great 30fps TOTK:
Be a PC gamer if framerate is so important. The choice is there. This framerate shits tiring at this point.
Also VG247 when reviewing the great 30fps TOTK:
- Performance hiccups when the going gets tough
Be a PC gamer if framerate is so important. The choice is there. This framerate shits tiring at this point.
Games of Today
Member
30fps is certainly tolerable if you're only playing that one specific game that is running in that framerate and nothing else. Your eyes and motion sick stomach will adjust in due time. You can even try watching a film or tv show shot in the standard 24fps before hand to get used to the lower frames.
I'm one of these people who obviously prefers 60fps now in my games. How anyone could prefer 30fps is beyond me and if they do I think they're playing with themselves.
However every once in a while I boot up my PS4 disc version of Red Dead 2 on my PS5 to play the unpatched v1.00 version of the game. If I sit there and play it for a few hours or even a couple of days in a row, my brain and eyes feel perectly fine and I'd argue that the 30fps gives the game a more cozy feeling.
The biggest problem arises when you try jumping from 30fps to 60fps back and forth. It feels horrendous.
I was seriously thinking about buying a Series X for this but like many I don't really feel like going back to 30fps with newer games at this point. So what I may do now is wait for the game to launch and the reviews of the PC port to come in and if they positive sell my mid range PC and buy a new PC with a 4090 or something that is future proof for the next 10 years or so.
I'm seriously hyped as shit for this game. And I really want to see it in 4K, 60fps at least. A 1440p, 60fps version of the game on Series X could make me buy a console though simply to save money and for ease of use.
Last edited:
Not really judging by the "will starfield be 30fps" thread
Games of Today
Member
It really blows that Fallout 76 is absolute dogshit. It's a cool concept and now that they added Pittsburgh and Atlantic City I'm tempted to try it being a Pennsylvania native.
ReBurn
Gold Member
This generation launched giving us the choice between good image quality at (mostly) 30 fps or not so good image quality at (mostly) 60 fps. There was some marketing doublespeak during the launch window, but in reality this generation has never shown anything close to 60 fps being standard.
Schmendrick
Member
Is that a joke my PC is too powerful for me to understand?
GHG
Gold Member
Well the reality is that as time goes forward it won't just be this game. I tried to warn them:
adamsapple
even hit me with this zinger:
MidGenRefresh
*Refreshes biennially
Graphics whores in this thread are having a mighty hard time understanding that supporting features like item physics, AI simulation with full day schedule, item placement persistency, procedural generation or settlement building is more taxing on CPU than their flashy static worlds.
DAHGAMING
Member
People are actualy dumb if they thought we was going to be riding dirty at 60fps all gen. These game journos know this but use it to create a narative and to get clicks. It wont be long and PS5 will have 30fps only games, i just hope we see the same attitude when it happens, I say that as someone who dosnt suck either off like some do, I have both consoles and enjoy both for different reasons so I dont lean towards 1 or the other but im interested to see for eg come The Last of us 3 in a couple of yrs if its 30fps will it get the same treatment or will mandem get there soyboy face on and simp over it.
I can understand the Redfall criticism and that game is basic as fuck and should be 60fps, but as we move on the games like Starfield which are massive or a graphical leap we have to accept 30fps or just go down the PC route.
I can understand the Redfall criticism and that game is basic as fuck and should be 60fps, but as we move on the games like Starfield which are massive or a graphical leap we have to accept 30fps or just go down the PC route.
poodaddy
Gold Member
I get it completely OP, and I can't lie, it definitely made me consider it on PC more, though I'm not sure my desktop's CPU will really do any better than the consoles and it's clearly a CPU heavy game. I'd love to upgrade my PC, but it's just not the time to do it financially with the insane prices right now.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
I'm sure one of the many re-releases will have the game running at 60fps on some future console. There is hope!
I'm playing on PC.
I'm playing on PC.
Gorgon
Member
...and which had the same cost/benefit ratio as a console...
OceanGaming
Member
Why would you even play BGS games on console if you have the PC that can play them?
You know SFSE(Star Field Script Extender) won't be able to be put on the console, you know that right?
You know SFSE(Star Field Script Extender) won't be able to be put on the console, you know that right?
SF Kosmo
Al Jazeera Special Reporter
I suspect the issue here is a large variability if framerate. It can probably hit 60 most of the time, but if it's getting sustained drops into the 40s, that a bad look, and consistent 30 is probably going to be better.
They should offer an unlocked framerate mode or at least VRR support for those that want it.
I have a Series S and a high end PC, so I am getting exactly what I expected out of both of those but I can see why Series X owners in particular might be let down. Weird how much of the conversation this is taking up though.
They should offer an unlocked framerate mode or at least VRR support for those that want it.
I have a Series S and a high end PC, so I am getting exactly what I expected out of both of those but I can see why Series X owners in particular might be let down. Weird how much of the conversation this is taking up though.
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
That thread is full of concern trolling and butthurt fanboys.
gothmog
Gold Member
GamePass gives me the flexibility to play where I would like to, so my comfortable couch with a controller and my awesome HT rig and OLED TV is often way more compelling than my PC.
I bought D4 on PC and PS5 to play with my kids and I spend most of my time on the PS5 playing. It's a much more relaxing experience to me.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Same. A very good game presenting, dampened by the 30 FPS news.
High-end PC gamers are in the best spot right now regarding Starfield. They will get the game, 60 FPS, and mod capabilities.
High-end PC gamers are in the best spot right now regarding Starfield. They will get the game, 60 FPS, and mod capabilities.
Winter John
Member
Yeah. All these years later and it's still running like dog shit. I'm going to try it again today just for fairness sake. It's possible my internet was acting up for those 4 minutes I walked around being all horrified at how bad it was.
rodrigolfp
Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
Cost/benefit ratio of PC is much higher. That's why tons of people buy them.
Del_X
Member
Premium things cost premium prices, welcome to econ 101.
Balducci30
Member
Just play it on PC man, I’m so over this 60fps shit. I’ve been back to playing 30fps games this entire year - if you want games to progress in any way - you gotta make peace with 30 on console - you can’t expect these 3 year old boxes to keep up with the latest technology. What’s going to happen when these consoles are 5 years old? Or 7? You’re just gonna say prioritize 60 fps over anything else? That’s not how innovation happens, Totk would not be possible on switch at 60 FPS -
And I’m sorry it’s not “unplayable” unless you’ve never owned a console before this generation.
And I’m sorry it’s not “unplayable” unless you’ve never owned a console before this generation.
LazyParrot
Member
The Xbox version will be just as buggy, with the added bonus of being unable to fix shit via console commands.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Build a PC then.
People playing all of those cross gen games were led to believe their consoles could handle anything at 60fps.
Newsflash; this is how it’s always going to be regardless of which numbered console were on.
People playing all of those cross gen games were led to believe their consoles could handle anything at 60fps.
Newsflash; this is how it’s always going to be regardless of which numbered console were on.
Balducci30
Member
You played horizon in performance mode?
Team Andromeda
Member
Well if the only way trolls can knock the game is for 30 FPS. Its job done for Xbox
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Balducci30
Member
I hope last of us 3 is 30 fps - I hope naughty dog prioritizes pushing the technology past what we have seen is possible - imagine them being asked to do last of us 2 at 60 fps or 4k on ps4 - it wouldn’t be possible and we wouldn’t have gotten it otherwise.
Lucifers Beard
Member
We’ve gone through this already, couldn’t this be dropped in the 30fps Starfield thread?
This kind of article does nothing but rile people up who either don’t understand the limitations of the Xbox Series X (despite it being a very capable machine), or just cannot comprehend that graphics aren’t the only thing that require resources from the machine. In their defence they do kind of acknowledge this, but brush it off and whine some more about it.
Also, if 60fps remains the absolute baseline for development this generation, people will complain that games lack ambition. It’s not always possible to have both of those things.
The whole 30fps doesn’t work well for shooting games is bollocks. Yes, it’s not the best but Destiny managed it and it felt great, even at 30fps! It is now about making sure that 30fps feels responsive and it’s up to Bethesda to make sure it does.
This kind of article does nothing but rile people up who either don’t understand the limitations of the Xbox Series X (despite it being a very capable machine), or just cannot comprehend that graphics aren’t the only thing that require resources from the machine. In their defence they do kind of acknowledge this, but brush it off and whine some more about it.
Also, if 60fps remains the absolute baseline for development this generation, people will complain that games lack ambition. It’s not always possible to have both of those things.
The whole 30fps doesn’t work well for shooting games is bollocks. Yes, it’s not the best but Destiny managed it and it felt great, even at 30fps! It is now about making sure that 30fps feels responsive and it’s up to Bethesda to make sure it does.
Gorgon
Member
Only if you'll use the PC for many other things, like work. As a dedicated gaming machine, the cost/benefit most definetely isn't high or remotely on the same level as a home console. Like Del_X said suggested below, if it's only for gaming then it's gonna be very much a premium item, meaning that diminishing returns is a big factor when factoring in the cost. And like any premium item, if it's worth it or not is really up to you. And I would know, given that I did it for several decades and in fact when I started gaming (back in the Sinclair and Spectrum days) there was no such thing as "PC gaming" to begin with. These days, for me, it's not worth it, but as former exclusive PC gamer for decades I totally get it.
You're certainly right about that.
GHG
Gold Member
I still think its a bad post for what it's worth
You will take 30fps and you will love it.
FunkMiller
Gold Member
I honestly don't believe for a fucking second the Series X could handle this game at an unlocked framerate that will go a fair amount above 40 fps. If Nintendo can get the Switch to run a fucking enormous game like ToTK at a stable framerate of 30fps most of the time, then I'm sure the flagship Xbox could get Starfield at above 30.
But it ain't just made for the Series X, is it? Nope. Gotta make sure the retarded little brother and all those dogshit PC rigs can run it too.
If nothing is made just for a console, then nothing is optimised for that console.
Whatever though, if my laptop can run the game above 30 fps (which it should, it has a 3070 and a Ryzen 9) then I'll be buying it on that and probably getting rid of the Series X.
What a waste of a console.
But it ain't just made for the Series X, is it? Nope. Gotta make sure the retarded little brother and all those dogshit PC rigs can run it too.
If nothing is made just for a console, then nothing is optimised for that console.
Whatever though, if my laptop can run the game above 30 fps (which it should, it has a 3070 and a Ryzen 9) then I'll be buying it on that and probably getting rid of the Series X.
What a waste of a console.
Last edited:
hyperbertha
Member
Agreed. We already have Spiderman 2 looking like trash at 30 fps. I dread to think of its 60 fps version.
Mister Wolf
Gold Member
Todd isn't going to listen to these people. They want to hold back progress because they're too cheap to buy a PC.
Last edited:
Trogdor1123
Member
I completely agree about the 30 fps. I’ll wait for the 60 fps version
Trogdor1123
Member
Who are “these people”? Seriously. Can you find a single issue of a person saying both these things? I’m not trying to be a jerk as i really want to know where, exactly, this hypocrisy lays.