Phil Spencer: Starfield being 30fps is a "creative choice", not a hardware issue.

Cyberpunk 2077 broke down those systems before cdpr patched the game for next gen, which took them 2 years to do it.
 
Calverz said:
Samuel L Jackson Reaction GIF by Coming to America
Click to expand...
It made sense to me. The 60fps mode itself would have to look much worse, but it wouldn't affect their original "creatively 30fps game."
 
this will backfire… once the performance is reviewed, it'll become a meme "we fucked up the framepacing as a creative choice" 🙄
"The resolution dynamically scales to 900p as a creative choice".

Tetris runs at 4K/120fps, so ObViOuSlY it isn't the console's fault 🤭
 
V2Tommy said:
That's a personal opinion. Frame rate and temporal information is more important to some than resolution or texture work.
Click to expand...
Good for these people.
For me, I prefer to have better experience. If Bethesda can achieve that, it's a win in my book.

It's a miracle that we are getting a combat like that on starfield.
 
Last edited:
feynoob said:
If it looks worse, it means you can't experience the game very well.
Click to expand...
Every game looks worse in the performance mode. Is there literally any game that looks better in the performance mode than in quality mode? That's what a performance mode means -- it deprioritizes visual fidelity in favor of performance and more frames.

Everybody knows the game will look worse in PF mode. It still doesn't stop the majority of people from playing in PF mode because 2x frames provide a much better experience to most gamers.

And people can always shift back to 30 FPS if they don't like how the game looks. That's what people did in Horizon Forbidden West when the 60 FPS mode had shimmering.
 
TheGrat1 said:
When you expect less, you accept less and then you get less.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. What I'm not willing to accept is a lack of ambition. It's sad, although perhaps somewhat understandable, to watch hugely talented people making the same damn game over and over, taking minimal risks, doing what they already know how to do.

This seems to be the most ambition I've yet seen this gen. If that turns out to be true, I intend to cut these guys plenty of slack.

avin
 
Last edited:
avin said:
Bullshit. What I'm not willing to accept is a lack of ambition, talented people making the same damn game over and over, taking minimal risks, doing what they already know how to do.

This is the most ambitious I've yet seen this gen. I - and I would think every minimally sane person - are willing to cut these guys plenty of slack.

avin
Click to expand...
It's reddit view point. They think they know more than the devs who make the game.

Heisenberg007 said:
Every game looks worse in the performance mode. Is there literally any game that looks better in the performance mode than in quality mode? That's what a performance mode means -- it deprioritizes visual fidelity in favor of performance and more frames.

Everybody knows the game will look worse in PF mode. It still doesn't stop the majority of people from playing in PF mode because 2x frames provide a much better experience to most gamers.

And people can always shift back to 30 FPS if they don't like how the game looks. That's what people did in Horizon Forbidden West when the 60 FPS mode had shimmering.
Click to expand...
More of a reason for Bethesda to do lockdown on 30 fps.
This isn't a normal game like we have right now. It's Bethesda game. It won't have the same issue as we know with those games. That option might break the game and make the experience shit.

Bethesda are the last devs I would trust with option like that. They have yet to switch from that engine.
 
Heisenberg007 said:
Every game looks worse in the performance mode. Is there literally any game that looks better in the performance mode than in quality mode? That's what a performance mode means -- it deprioritizes visual fidelity in favor of performance and more frames.

Everybody knows the game will look worse in PF mode. It still doesn't stop the majority of people from playing in PF mode because 2x frames provide a much better experience to most gamers.

And people can always shift back to 30 FPS if they don't like how the game looks. That's what people did in Horizon Forbidden West when the 60 FPS mode had shimmering.
Click to expand...

This isn't a graphically driven arcadey game though. Todd gave us a clear hint it's not just about graphics, but about "game fidelity" as well. A Plague Tale Requiem is just a small hint of the sacrifices that BGS would have to expand on in a CPU heavy game, this could include core mechanics in the backend, IDK. But I do know there's no reason to think this is a big conspiracy, and yet some people talk about BGS and Starfield as if they've faked the moonlanding.
 
Last edited:
nemiroff said:
This isn't a graphically driven arcadey game though. Todd gave us a clear hint it's not just about graphics, but about game fidelity as well. A Plague Tale Requiem is just a small hint of the sacrifices that BGS would have to expand on in a CPU heavy game, this could include core mechanics in the backend, IDK. But I do know there's no reason to think this is a big conspiracy in any way.
Click to expand...
There is a reason why they are called bugthesda.

We have to hope they ironed out all those bugs first.
 
Meh..... I will enjoy the game either way. Will I wish it was smoother with the same visuals in a 60fps mode? Sure, but until I actually play the game, I will hold back my judgement.

If the gameplay is solid enough I will be happy. You can always want more improvement, but it is the fun that matters.
 
Heisenberg007 said:
I agree. No arguments there. But that's how every developer does it. And to account for that, they create 2 modes:
  1. A 30 FPS mode, where they make the game look like they wanted to, at increased visual fidelity.
  2. A 60 FPS mode, where they compromise the graphics in order to give players option to play at higher frames if they choose to.
What's misleading about this statement by Xbox is the fact that the existence of a 60 FPS mode does not compromise the look and fidelity of the game in 30 FPS mode.
Click to expand...
Well, that's because those games are more GPU bound, that's literally setting the graphical complexity down which scales easy but if the game is CPU bound, there's no way to do that without compromising actual game design.

If anything, what current gen games should strive for is pushing CPU with actual gameplay complexities instead of pushing for "moar graphx!!!1!!1".
 
Kataploom said:
Well, that's because those games are more GPU bound, that's literally setting the graphical complexity down which scales easy but if the game is CPU bound, there's no way to do that without compromising actual game design.

If anything, what current gen games should strive for is pushing CPU with actual gameplay complexities instead of pushing for "moar graphx!!!1!!1".
Click to expand...

Seriously, people who don't understand that are so, so, so stupid. Reading the recent Starfield threads gave me a chronic headache.
 
feynoob said:
It's Bethesda game. Add that with their history.
You will know why it's bad.
Click to expand...
Can't look any worse than FO4. In fact, I would say it would still look far better. Lighting does not take that much of a hit compared to other things.

Anyways, the PC tests will tell us all we need to know.
 
DeepEnigma said:
Can't look any worse than FO4. In fact, I would say it would still look far better. Lighting does not take that much of a hit compared to other things.

Anyways, the PC tests will tell us all we need to know.
Click to expand...
Hope it drops on GeForce now.
I am afraid that it will cook my PC.
 
Heisenberg007 said:
Who's blaming the console here? Of course the console can output the 60 FPS. It can even do 120 FPS.

Not working to create a 60 FPS performance mode has nothing to do with the console. It has all to do with the developers cutting corners.
Click to expand...
These consoles are duds. There is no corner cutting here. Starfield is simply too much game.
 
MidGenRefresh said:
Seriously, people who don't understand that are so, so, so stupid. Reading the recent Starfield threads gave me a chronic headache.
Click to expand...
I have the feelings people think games are created first the 3D models with "effects", and then magically they add behavior on top so graphics are the stepping stone... That's my understanding of why people call XSS a "4TF console", hell no, it's a console with 4TF GPU (which can mean whatever without context on its own).

For people to know: Internally a game is just a skeleton, an infinite blank space with invisible boxes colliding and lots of calculations that consume A LOT of CPU/Memory resources the more gameplay, simulations (including AI), etc there are.

The graphics are just a facade, a "costume" devs put on top, they make the "skeleton" game with whatever graphics or even without them and put that "facade" on top to make you all think that the characters and the ones moving, that the environment is actually a jungle, a desert, a building, but those are just a facade, that consumes GPU resources, so these can be scaled without affecting the main game tasks at all... They also consume CPU resources due to some CPU tasks that have to be passed on to the GPU (like the amount and positions of the vertices on screen) but with the new technologies those CPU only tasks should be mitigated or relegated to GPU.

Most 8th generation games are GPU bound so gameplay stagnated but graphics improved. When Pro/X consoles came out, they could scale game performance due to just having more powerful GPUs, but kept the same CPU, that's also why you see many games on those consoles with only 30 fps modes, specially these days, they're probably CPU bottlenecked.

So if the game is CPU bound in current gen machines, there are two things that will happen:

1. Games cannot run on 8th gen machines no matter how "cross gen" or "dated" they look, they simply can't and there's nothing to do but completely redesign those games if devs are asked to port them down. It's not about "how they look", it's about what's happening inside, the invisible stuff.

2. Performance cannot improve by reducing graphical features, since they reduce GPU but keep CPU usage, so basically no difference at all, maybe they can gain back some... 5% performance? Maybe.

It's like having a machine that works with water and oil, one to make fire and the other for electricity. You use more oil than water so when there's no more oil, you can't think of using water to produce more fire, it simply doesn't work like that because the system asks you for oil, not water. You can try decomposing water molecules and get oxygen to get more fire but that's a more complex stuff to do and your system is nor prepared for that task, nor it is the most efficient or economically viable way.

That's basically what being CPU bound or GPU bound in a game means, you're bound to water or to oil, you can be bound to both but each on their own tasks.
 
Kataploom said:
I have the feelings people think games are created first the 3D models with "effects", and then magically they add behavior on top so graphics are the stepping stone... That's my understanding of why people call XSS a "4TF console", hell no, it's a console with 4TF GPU (which can mean whatever without context on its own).

For people to know: Internally a game is just a skeleton, an infinite blank space with invisible boxes colliding and lots of calculations that consume A LOT of CPU/Memory resources the more gameplay, simulations (including AI), etc there are.

The graphics are just a facade, a "costume" devs put on top, they make the "skeleton" game with whatever graphics or even without them and put that "facade" on top to make you all think that the characters and the ones moving, that the environment is actually a jungle, a desert, a building, but those are just a facade, that consumes GPU resources, so these can be scaled without affecting the main game tasks at all... They also consume CPU resources due to some CPU tasks that have to be passed on to the GPU (like the amount and positions of the vertices on screen) but with the new technologies those CPU only tasks should be mitigated or relegated to GPU.

Most 8th generation games are GPU bound so gameplay stagnated but graphics improved. When Pro/X consoles came out, they could scale game performance due to just having more powerful GPUs, but kept the same CPU, that's also why you see many games on those consoles with only 30 fps modes, specially these days, they're probably CPU bottlenecked.

So if the game is CPU bound in current gen machines, there are two things that will happen:

1. Games cannot run on 8th gen machines no matter how "cross gen" or "dated" they look, they simply can't and there's nothing to do but completely redesign those games if devs are asked to port them down. It's not about "how they look", it's about what's happening inside, the invisible stuff.

2. Performance cannot improve by reducing graphical features, since they reduce GPU but keep CPU usage, so basically no difference at all, maybe they can gain back some... 5% performance? Maybe.

It's like having a machine that works with water and oil, one to make fire and the other for electricity. You use more oil than water so when there's no more oil, you can't think of using water to produce more fire, it simply doesn't work like that because the system asks you for oil, not water. You can try decomposing water molecules and get oxygen to get more fire but that's a more complex stuff to do and your system is nor prepared for that task, nor it is the most efficient or economically viable way.

That's basically what being CPU bound or GPU bound in a game means, you're bound to water or to oil, you can be bound to both but each on their own tasks.
Click to expand...
So was Todd Howard lying when he said Starfield could hit 60 fps on the series X?
 
There is no point in arguing anymore.. once the game comes out and is heavily downgraded on the series S and/or low/mid pc settings brings fine 60 fps game play... we will have our answers
 
It's actually promising the only thing people are bitching about is the FPS. Sounds like they like the look of the actual game, if their pissy, mucousy, watery-ass eyes could take 30 FPS!
 
Roxkis_ii said:
So was Todd Howard lying when he said Starfield could hit 60 fps on the series X?
Click to expand...
If the game is CPU bound at 30 fps, yes, he was... Where's the surprise? The guy literally said "Fallout 76 won't have bugs on release" on stage and it was literally the buggiest game in Bethesda history lol
 
feynoob said:
In a baren planet? Yes. But in density area, nope.
Click to expand...
I think the whole contention is that people want to be able to make the choice in prioritizing what's important to them, weather that be locked 30 with the bells and whistles, or an unlocked, sometimes 60, with whatever that may entail.

Kataploom said:
If the game is CPU bound at 30 fps, yes, he was... Where's the surprise? The guy literally said "Fallout 76 won't have bugs on release" on stage and it was literally the buggiest game in Bethesda history lol
Click to expand...
I think I recall seeing the cpu in the series X is a teir higher then the recommend cpu for pc, would that means that starfield would be locked 30 for pc players too?
 
Roxkis_ii said:
I think the whole contention is that people want to be able to make the choice in prioritizing what's important to them, weather that be locked 30 with the bells and whistles, or an unlocked, sometimes 60, with whatever that may entail.
Click to expand...
There is what people want. Then there is what the devs want in order for their games to work.
I think the later wants stable game, considering their past track.
 
Here is the thing, no matter what MS/Bethesda do folk would be mad/upset regardless. (they're damned if they do and damned if they don't)
What we know:
Starfield sits above 30FPS all the time and can reach 60FPS some times.

30FPS mode is their choice. (It is a creative choice, whether you agree or not. It's what it's)

Until release we can only go on what we have been told. We can all speculate all we want but we don't actually have a clue what's what.

Preference:
Would I like a 60FPS mode. Damn right, would I take slightly worse graphics, yes. That includes animations being lower FPS in the background to save some CPU. But there is a limit before it becomes an eyesore.

Opinion:
I think due to the way the systems (game was coded and designed) instead of a FPS jumping from 36, 44, 60, 55 due to an NPC walking on the screen or a massive ship landing (filled with AI) with all the smoke sprites (that get shadowed dynamically) flying everywhere, or the weather changing to thunder and lightening with the latter all happening. They locked it to 30FPS to stop the FPS effecting gameplay.

From the info we have been given we can surmise a lot is done on the CPU, real-time lighting system, skybox simulations, object tracking, AI and underlying subsystems etc… the CPU is just being hammered too much.

As Todd stated in the show, due to how dynamic the game is, they need overhead. So they made the choice to lock it to 30FPS for consistency.
Click to expand...

I use a 55" LG CX, so I have VRR. 40FPS mode would be ideal for me, but if the game can't stay above 40FPS 100% of the time due to crap happening in the game dynamic and out of the control of the devs, 30FPS it has to be.

Give me a solid 30FPS with no frame-pacing and I will adapt and enjoy the game. (Just don't jump between 60FPS games while playing 😂)
 
Roxkis_ii said:
I think the whole contention is that people want to be able to make the choice in prioritizing what's important to them, weather that be locked 30 with the bells and whistles, or an unlocked, sometimes 60, with whatever that may entail.


I think I recall seeing the cpu in the series X is a teir higher then the recommend cpu for pc, would that means that starfield would be locked 30 for pc players too?
Click to expand...
LOL no, PC has way more powerful CPUs even in lower mid range like the 5600X which is on another league even being a generation above and we have way better RAM memories too, but when using a PC that only meets requirements I don't know honestly, PC requirements are based on 60 fps as baseline but we've seen some devs put requirements for "30 fps" on current gen games, I'm curious to see how it will end up.
 
Bernardougf said:
There is no point in arguing anymore.. once the game comes out and is heavily downgraded on the series S and/or low/mid pc settings brings fine 60 fps game play... we will have our answers
Click to expand...
I guess the "creative choice/vision graphics" wouldn't be meant for the S.
Super Freak Flirting GIF by Rick James
 
Last edited:
V2Tommy said:
It made sense to me. The 60fps mode itself would have to look much worse, but it wouldn't affect their original "creatively 30fps game."
Click to expand...
It's already been talked about that the game is more CPU bound so just simply lowering the resolution would not = 60fps.
 
feynoob said:
It doesn't have 60 fps.

You guys are reaching this too much.
Click to expand...
Where did I say 60fps?

The arguments being made for 60, are that the graphics would be lowered to achieve that optional performance mode sacrificing their "creative choice," yet if the graphics have to take a sacrifice, which resolution is already confirmed so far for the S, then that same creative choice is being sacrificed on the lesser box already.

Pure mental gymnastics to stick up for not having options that they conditioned us with for the first 3 years of marketing for these machines. I personally don't think they had enough time to get 60 in, just like Redfall. Both games that were leaked to have development issues and needed extra time to cook, hence delays.

I can see it now. Phil putting out a statement, "we heard you." Then boom, a 60 mode drops 6mo to a year later.
 
Last edited:
DeepEnigma said:
Where did I say 60fps?

The arguments being made for 60, are that the graphics would be lowered to achieve that optional performance mode sacrificing their "creative choice," yet if the graphics have to take a sacrifice, which resolution is already confirmed so far for the S, then that same creative choice is being sacrificed on the lesser box already.
Click to expand...
Because the game is CPU demanding, not graphics. 2 different things.
 
feynoob said:
Love when people talk they know more than Todd.
Click to expand...
And here comes the reductive appeal to authority posts. Disingenuous.

3 years people argued for options and praised them, now just because "Todd" and the Brand™ says different, they throw that all out the window on the flip of a switch. Good little Lemmings.

The argument isn't about "knowing more than such and such."
 
DeepEnigma said:
And here comes the reductive appeal to authority posts. Disingenuous.

3 years people argued for options and praised them, now just because "Todd" and the Brand™ says different, they throw that all out the window on the flip of a switch. Good little Lemmings.

The argument isn't about "knowing more than such and such."
Click to expand...
I mean, I am not the one who is looking a gatcha moment here.
Like I said, Todd knows how his game works, not us forum people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Game Pass Is "Not For Everybody," says Phil Spencer
News Business  2 3 4 5 6
254
7K
Mibu no ookami replied
Phil Spencer's Legacy as told by Phil Spencer
2 3
106
6K
Negotiator replied
  • Poll
Which UBI IP should Phil Spencer and XBOX purchase?
2
85
2K
Holammer replied
Xbox boss Phil Spencer reiterates Switch 2 support: ‘I’m a big believer in Nintendo’
News  2
71
2K
Fabieter replied
Phil Spencer. Post if you're okay.
2 3 4
152
12K
Kerotan replied
Top Bottom