Ok, now I am hungry. Time for fried chicken run! There is a Korean chicken place nearby that’s great!
Ok, now I am hungry. Time for fried chicken run! There is a Korean chicken place nearby that’s great!
I am going to eat some wings at cinematic 24 fps for maximum enjoyment.
And that’s why they should have offered options to players. Much like Bethesda was able to (mostly) get 60fps mode working , Obsidian should have done the same but not six months post releaseAss?
It might not be a stunner like Avatar but it does not look like ass lmao. Outer Worlds looked like ass.
Like that, no.Will Xbox have RTX like that tho?
And that’s why they should have offered options to players. Much like Bethesda was able to (mostly) get 60fps mode working , Obsidian should have done the same but not six months post release
thats because immortals was targeting 60 fps with no 30 fps mode because the director/studio head was a 60 fps nutjob who mandated 60 fps on the team from the start. Had they targeted 30 fps, it wouldve looked like avowed at worst and wukong at best.Obviously it looks better than OW but that game never was a looker. There is nothing mindblowing about Avowed graphics, we already had super demanding UE5 games that didn't look very good like Immortals of Aveum. Just using Lumen and Nanite doesn't automatically make game look good.
I get why game is targeted at 30fps with those tech but for me it's not worth it, they could have make some sacrifices to make game run in 60fps and it wouldn't change overall presentation that much, there are many last gen games that don't look much worse than this and they are obviously not using nanite/lumen (and would run 60fps on SX).
Just having working 40fps mode at launch would be something but based on how long it took Redfall and Skyrim to get patches I doubt this game will be "playable" (for me at least) for months. MS loves to fuck up stuff.
Good point. While this is a disappointing news, I expect a lot more AAA games will run at 30FPS as this gen rolls on and devs push for complex visuals.I'm on PC. But 30 is totally fine if they implement smooth frame-pacing and low latency. Both feasible.
The 60 or bust crowd is bit cringe if you're on console. Good luck skipping GTA6 which will be 30 locked for sure.
If you want 60FPS and better on everything I say just build a PC
30fpsI'm on PC. But 30 is totally fine if they implement smooth frame-pacing and low latency. Both feasible.
The 60 or bust crowd is bit cringe if you're on console. Good luck skipping GTA6 which will be 30 locked for sure.
all run fine on the OLED at 30 fps.
Smooth as butter.
Is so cute people in 2024 after 99% of games coming out with 60 fps modes trying to cope with xbox 30 fps games because of "reasons" it was the same bullshit with starfield until the 60 fps modes released and the initial "creative" vision was not important anymore.I'm on PC. But 30 is totally fine if they implement smooth frame-pacing and low latency. Both feasible.
The 60 or bust crowd is bit cringe if you're on console. Good luck skipping GTA6 which will be 30 locked for sure.
Put yourself in their shoes. You spend 5 years creating assets from scratch, you carefully light up each area to look as best as possible placing shadows and light sources to make it look as best as it can look. And then you have some exec come in, tell you to take out half of the shadows, downgrade the asset fidelity, halve the resolution, remove all volumetric effects, remove all rt effects, all because of some backlash from the same audience that handed GOTY awards left and right to 30 fps games just 3 years ago.And that’s why they should have offered options to players. Much like Bethesda was able to (mostly) get 60fps mode working , Obsidian should have done the same but not six months post release
Ass?
It might not be a stunner like Avatar but it does not look like ass lmao. Outer Worlds looked like ass.
Waiting to play something is for sure the best way this days ... gta 6 its a game that will leave for a long time... no need to rush and play the pseudo - beta as soons as it launches... in fact any game benefits from 6 to 12 months of delay. Cheaper, better optimization and even more complete with dlc.If GTA VI is 30 FPS then I'll probably wait for PC this time.
I refuse to have double standards, and my OLED hates 30FPS.
The PC version already lets you do all that on graphics settings, so...take out half of the shadows, downgrade the asset fidelity, halve the resolution, remove all volumetric effects, remove all rt effects, all because of some backlash from the same audience that handed GOTY awards left and right to 30 fps games just 3 years ago.
The PC version already lets you do all that on graphics settings, so...
LoL calling 30 fps smooth as butter...thats some next level cope for better graphics at all costs... but nice tryingI have been gaming on an LG CX OLED since day 1 on PS5. Miles, Ratchet, Horizon, FF16 all run fine on the OLED at 30 fps. Smooth as butter. Some games are trash like Demon Souls and FF7 Rebirth. but thats on the devs. I also went back and played DriveClub on this tv thinking it would be shit but its fine and still the best sense of speed to date despite the 30 fps cap.
Right now im playing Wukong at 30 fps on PC. I had to ensure i locked the framerate from the RTSS app instead of ingame or through nvidia control panel because they both add incorrect framepacing but 30 fps is very smooth with proper frametimes on my OLED.
P.S Horizon FW had some issues with brightness flickers at launch but it was due to some motion blur and sharpness issues and i was able to fix it after messing around with some settings. it was patched later so clearly a
Watch Steam Deck run this above 30fps on low while XBSX being locked to 30.Exactly. The developers have already put in all the work to do all that. But......we just can't have that work applied on console.......why again?
Watch Steam Deck run this above 30fps on low while XBSX being locked to 30.
nah, starfield blew me away. The lighting and asset quality in that game is stunning. Some randomly generated open worlds do look like shit but i cant expect procedurally generated worlds to look good. The actual levels, ships and interiors designed by the devs looked amazing because the devs decided to use realtime GI and extremely high quality assets all of which have a high cost on GPU.Yes, ASS
If you look at actual gameplay
You're getting hoodwinked by panoramic shots just like you did with Starfield, and when you actually got to a planet on Starfield it looked nowhere near the pre-canned shots. It looked terrible barren and bland.
nah, starfield blew me away. The lighting and asset quality in that game is stunning. Some randomly generated open worlds do look like shit but i cant expect procedurally generated worlds to look good. The actual levels, ships and interiors designed by the devs looked amazing because the devs decided to use realtime GI and extremely high quality assets all of which have a high cost on GPU.
These are all my playthroughs. Game looks better than this because my capture is only 1440p and me downscaling the gifs adds all those shimmering artifacts and removes half the detail.
Avowed will have its moments where it looks bland. Its an open world game after all. But the tech they are using speaks for itself and will stand out once people finally play the game on their tvs.
If it can run Starfield around 30fps (indoors way above that), I doubt the Xbox can't run this at near 60.That seems like a real stretch. Maybe with Frame Gen.
Yes, and PC gamers spend thousands of dollars on the GPU alone to max out those settings. you were in the black myth thread, everyone there was pissed they werent getting 120 fps with path tracing maxed out. No one wants to play at shit settings. especially not pc gamers. why would console gamers?The PC version already lets you do all that on graphics settings, so...
LoL calling 30 fps smooth as butter...thats some next level cope for better graphics at all costs... but nice trying
I am the one playing it right now. You want me to capture my playthrough? I was shocked myself at how smooth the camera pans were even with motion blur turned off. Like I said before, most people on PC have no idea how to fix frametime issues and they attribute it to PC games running like shit at 30 fps.
Some play, like some Steam Deck players and GTX 1660 owners. Few console gamers care about graphics, they will accept whatever devs delivers, like Witcher 3 on Switch. Even more as an option.No one wants to play at shit settings. especially not pc gamers. why would console gamers?
LoL calling 30 fps smooth as butter...thats some next level cope for better graphics at all costs... but nice trying
Not here. On both desktop and Steam Deck.It is smooth as butter if the alternative experience on PC is excessive shader compilation and traversal stutter. Recently the Final Fantasy 16 demo was released on Steam and despite being able to play at 100fps on my my 4070 Super using DLAA and frame gen, the game stutters every few steps when moving through the game world. That was simply not present in the PS5 version. I switched back and forth between them and found the locked 30fps on PS5 to be the least bad option. Some people value a consistency of the experience which PC fails time and time again to deliver this generation.
i never said 30 is amazing or that you can barely see the difference. Of course, 60 fps is always better. if i didnt believe that i wouldnt have spent 6 months paychecks making $5.85 an hour 20 years ago on a PC. Or thousands of dollars every gen after that.30 is amazing.. you can barely see the difference.. is BUTTER SMOOTH... gtfo
Yes, and PC gamers spend thousands of dollars on the GPU alone to max out those settings. you were in the black myth thread, everyone there was pissed they werent getting 120 fps with path tracing maxed out. No one wants to play at shit settings. especially not pc gamers. why would console gamers?
A recent study found substantial differences between individuals in the temporal resolution they were able to perceive the world at. I expect that more responsive your visual system is, the worse 30 FPS will feel.I can assume that the quality of the game is heavily degraded sometimes and we loose a lot of fidelity to play at 60 fps ... I can see all the shortcomings of lower resolutions and assets but for my taste I preferer the obvious advantages of 60 fps for a better smooth gameplay experience... why is so fucking hard for this graphics whores to assume they preferer seeing pretty shit in a slower framerate ? No.. its always the same bullshit .. 30 is amazing.. you can barely see the difference.. is BUTTER SMOOTH... gtfo
I am not the one with the agenda for 30 fps, it's the people who know why it's 30 fps and choose to ignore the reasoning behind it because they have a 60 fps agenda they want to shove down everyone's throats instead of ponying up for a PC like the rest of us. You can actually build a 500 dollar potato PC and run games at series s quality settings at 60 fps if you are so price conscious.
Yeah it may well be.. but I always roll my eyes to individuals that can see the minimal pixel difference, or fine details in light or grass but at the same time say they cannot see difference between 30 or 60 fps... its just ridiculously bullshit since all of this is eye detail perception.... can we at least agree on this ?A recent study found substantial differences between individuals in the temporal resolution they were able to perceive the world at. I expect that more responsive your visual system is, the worse 30 FPS will feel.
Yeah it may well be.. but I always roll my eyes to individuals that can see the minimal pixel difference, or fine details in light or grass but at the same time say they cannot see difference between 30 or 60 fps... its just ridiculously bullshit since all of this is eye detail perception.... can we at least agree on this ?
Mate its the same ridiculous argument at the starfield topic... creative vision.. devs choices... and them the same fucking game comes out on PC . With the usual multiple settings that allow their vision to be dragraded to oblivion ... this apologists are helpless without new arguments.You are missing the point. Developers are already allowing their games to be played at lower settings for higher frame rates. A mode is just a preset collection of settings that are in the engine. Only difference on console is you get a couple of choices instead of many. So this....
"And then you have some exec come in, tell you to take out half of the shadows, downgrade the asset fidelity, halve the resolution, remove all volumetric effects, remove all rt effects"
...are already options in the game whether you like it or not. So ultimately what you arguing for is simply the removal of a toggle button. That's really it and there is no good reason for it.
I just think the same eyes that catch minimal graphics details should easily see the difference between 30 to 60fps since its a graphical feature... I understand someone dont seen both ...but one or another? ..nah... they are integrated.. and yes.. options are great. Always.Hard to say. I can't see what others see. I mean.....I agree with you. I hate 30fps, but some folks do fine with it. Doesn't make sense to me, but that's why I think we need options.
Well as I see it the spatial resolution is the amount of detail your eyes and visual system can resolve at a given moment, while the temporal resolution is the frequency at which your brain can update that information. So you might have bad eyesight but your brain can "update" 120 times a second. Or you have great eyesight but your brain updates at half the speed.Yeah it may well be.. but I always roll my eyes to individuals that can see the minimal pixel difference, or fine details in light or grass but at the same time say they cannot see difference between 30 or 60 fps... its just ridiculously bullshit since all fo this is eye detail perception.... can we at least agree on this ?
Yeah starfield actually had pretty great graphics, uneven but far better than most. Avowed however I’m not seeing it tbhnah, starfield blew me away. The lighting and asset quality in that game is stunning. Some randomly generated open worlds do look like shit but i cant expect procedurally generated worlds to look good. The actual levels, ships and interiors designed by the devs looked amazing because the devs decided to use realtime GI and extremely high quality assets all of which have a high cost on GPU.
These are all my playthroughs. Game looks better than this because my capture is only 1440p and me downscaling the gifs adds all those shimmering artifacts and removes half the detail.
Avowed will have its moments where it looks bland. Its an open world game after all. But the tech they are using speaks for itself and will stand out once people finally play the game on their tvs.
Well as I see it the spatial resolution is the amount of detail your eyes and visual system can resolve at a given moment, while the temporal resolution is the frequency at which your brain can update that information. So you might have bad eyesight but your brain can "update" 120 times a second. Or you have great eyesight but your brain updates at half the speed.
Personally I can "feel" the responsiveness difference between 30 and 60 FPS (eg. playing a multiplayer game) but my brain struggles to perceive the extra visual smoothness.
i suppose if its allowed on PC, it should be allowed on consoles. But like with starfield, we dont know what the bottlenecks are. We do know with starfield, it was the CPU which was the bottleneck and simply reducing the graphics settings wouldnt do until they spent months optimizing the CPU performance and even then werent able to get the cities to run at 60 fps. Even on PC, The game in the cities ran like shit because of the CPU bottlenecks and PC gamers rioted over being told to upgrade their systems.You are missing the point. Developers are already allowing their games to be played at lower settings for higher frame rates. A mode is just a preset collection of settings that are in the engine. Only difference on console is you get a couple of choices instead of many. So this....
"And then you have some exec come in, tell you to take out half of the shadows, downgrade the asset fidelity, halve the resolution, remove all volumetric effects, remove all rt effects"
...are already options in the game whether you like it or not. So ultimately what you arguing for is simply the removal of a toggle button. That's really it and there is no good reason for it.
This is an interesting comment and goes to perception and how peoples brains process visual data.Smooth as butter.
It’s what you’ve trained yourself to see after playing 60fps games. You could see 30fps as smooth if you never had played 60fps. Just like I’m sure people used to 120fps can see the difference with 60. We spent decades playing games at 30 and very few people actually gave a fuck thoThis is an interesting comment and goes to perception and how peoples brains process visual data.
You are not wrong in your own frame of reference but you are completely wrong in many other peoples.
It is no exaggeration for me to say NO 30fps image on an Oled is smooth as butter in motion, especially panning across the wider horizontal axis. It is ALWAYS jarring as f*ck and takes a few minutes for the experience to smooth out in my head a bit. But even then its never smooth, just familiar.
Its just as noticeable if for some reason I watch a TV show accidentally in Game mode. The instant the shot pans I'm reaching for the remote with the rest of the family laughing at me. My wife just shakes her head as she doesn't see it, but the kids do (but it doesn't bother them as much). So its all about the individual.
i suppose if its allowed on PC, it should be allowed on consoles. But like with starfield, we dont know what the bottlenecks are. We do know with starfield, it was the CPU which was the bottleneck and simply reducing the graphics settings wouldnt do until they spent months optimizing the CPU performance and even then werent able to get the cities to run at 60 fps. Even on PC, The game in the cities ran like shit because of the CPU bottlenecks and PC gamers rioted over being told to upgrade their systems.
So maybe its just like the Starfield situation and its not just a GPU but a CPU bottleneck. We need to stop judging these RPGs differently from action adventure games that are very low on CPUs. I was telling people that my CPU was being hammered at 70-80% when no other game ever comes to even 40% but they kept saying it was unoptimized. Nah, it was just heavy. Even after dozens patches, the cpu performance only improved by 15-20% at best.
When Kingdom Come 2 comes out, we will do this whole song and dance again. Instead of just celebrating what the game is doing visually and giving devs credit for actually putting in effort and incorporating next gen tech. We deserve cross gen.