Just stop man...That's a cross gen game that doesn't even come close to the kind of scale and scope of Starfield.
Bad example.
If you want a better example, look at the FF16 demo, the performance mode has lots of drops, even the Graphics mode drops to 20s.
30 fps isn't smooth on anything. I will be playing this on pc. I wonder if the physics engine will mess up if you unlock the 60fps cap?Cyberpunk 30 fps on Series X is stutter mess. On Oled at least. Doesn't give me much hope that Starfield will be smooth on Oled.
And starfield was made with a ~30 year old game engine that has been upgraded countless times. The Xsx prototype hardware didn't even exist when they started working on this game. Let's stop with the bullshit excuses please.That was made on The Last of Us Part 2 engine.
Your fanboyism truly knows no bounds, I salute you.They had a different creative vision. What else.
Ignoring the rest of the posts, why on earth would they change the game engine? It's not the game engine (as such) that determines if a game is next gen or not. Their next game will be PS5 only, Death Stranding 2 will be PS5 only, both will be running on Decima.It's the same game / engine just with cloudier clouds lol, they didn't change the game engines or make the world or mechanics any more complex.
I interpreted it to be more to do with holding the resolutions.Pretty sure what they meant is that they aimed for a graphic fidelity that would allow to operate at 30 fps. Targeting 60fps would have likely meant a downgrade in graphics. Obviously, this will not affect PC.
At least, that was how I interrupted it.
In all fairness, they could have probably given us a 60 fps performance mode...they have simply chosen not to give us the option.
Wait and see. In 3 years most first party exclusives won't have a 60fps mode, only on hypothetical "pro" consoles.And starfield was made with a ~30 year old game engine that has been upgraded countless times. The Xsx prototype hardware didn't even exist when they started working on this game. Let's stop with the bullshit excuses please.
And watch him dog the game and not rest on the "creative choice" narrative.Your fanboyism truly knows no bounds, I salute you.
The second Sony release a first party title with no performance mode on machines with these specs, I will hold them to the same account.
I understand this is a huge world but the excuses are coming thick and fast for this generation again.
For starfield, maybe. The game is huge.So its a technical issue?
Then now you are talking about it being cross-gen? What has that got to do with anything?
I understand this is a huge world but the excuses are coming thick and fast for this generation again.
And watch him dog the game and not rest on the "creative choice" narrative.
You gotta admit the guy does say a ot of needless stupid shit.Too right mate. Any time Phil says something, the counter-attacks are always ready in seconds.![]()
PR material changed
They been "optimizing" for more than a year, .... I think MS made the call: Whe can delay it anymore, bring it out, 30fps it is.. But whe will spin the comment like: "Its a creative Choice" and most people will except it.Yet you post a screenshot comparing to games that don't have the same scale and scope
Both starfield and Horizon are openworld
Starfield even has loading times by landing in the planet and entering planets
The problem here is hardware limitations or Bethesda don't want to spend time optimizing
They had a different creative vision. What else.
It absolutely should be locked, PC audience deserves creatively complete games at day 1.So PC is locked to 30fps to keep that creativity?
I think 8k 15 fps would be objectively the better experience.. in fact 16k and slides would be the better one ... because I alone of course can define what its objectively better ...Good.
The people who bitch about 30fps would prefer the game look like the top image, just so it could be 60fps.
Normal people are happy with the locked 4K30fps decision. It will be an objectively superior experience because of it.
Well offer your services to them. I'm sure they'll love to hire you if are that much of an expert and can get the game running at 60 fps on consoles with no problems.doesn't matter if the game is current gen or old gen stop trying to use that as an excuse
Digital foundry already said that the PS5 version of Horizon is the best looking game so far and the game has 30 fps and 60 fps mode without a problem
Redfall had both too but they decided to delay it and it'a current gen only game
Starfield if they want they can put a 60 fps mode without problems
It won't be elder scrolls anymore.Please don't use the Creation Engine for Elder Scrolls VI! I'd hate to see them forced to make more "creative choices"
That's why it's okay to say we made 30 fps only because we are hardware limitedWell offer your services to them. I'm sure they'll love to hire you if are that much of an expert and can get the game running at 60 fps on consoles with no problems.
I feel a bit silly telling you this since you are clearly such an expert and all, but PC/consoles have both GPUs and CPUs. Some games are really heavy on the CPU. If they are, just changing a few graphics settings and reducing the resolution probably isn't going to get you very far toward your easy stable 60 fps. That's ok though, you can just start stripping out features like NPC companions and object persistence and get rid of the GI to get it to 60 fps, because that certainly won't change the game or creative decisions in any way, right?
I dont know why people do this though...For starfield, maybe. The game is huge.
As for others, I can't talk for them.
100% this, although not sure going all the way down to 1080 would be needed.Give a 60 FPS option at launch, drop the resolution to 1080p and lower the visual settings if you want, but give people the choice.
Most powerful console shouldn't proudly be touting 30fps. That should have died this gen.
No creative choices on the PC front.
They could skip the 60 FPS mode from Series S. Would be bad but not this bad.100% this, although not sure going all the way down to 1080 would be needed.
But what about the elephant in the room? As in, if X drops from 4k to xyz, where does 1440P drop down to on S?
The real issue seems clear as day IMO.
In that case, shouldn't the visuals be something that we have never seen before?
This generation, we already have several way better-looking first-party and third-party games than Starfield (visually) that even run on 60 FPS.
What do you want more A buggy 60 fps or smooth 30 fps?
Doesn't look like a cpu bottleneck.It's between that and a Ryzen 7 5700 I think
Exactly. We want our game to look like this, creative choice.That's why it's okay to say we made 30 fps only because we are hardware limited
Not creative choice excuses
PC is different than consoles.I dont know why people do this though...
Talk about the game being huge... I really can't wait till this game comes out and we see a 2080 running this game at 1080p@60fps+.