Support NeoGAF

[James Sawyer Ford]

For two, you've been told but keep playing dumb. The fact that the game is 30fps but 4K suggests a CPU bottleneck, pointing to the game logic and all the stuff the CPU has to do to run the game properly. This includes the thousands of things a character can do, their schedules, stats (that you hilariously tried to dismiss as being irrelevant), equipment, what faction they belong to, their pathfinding, etc.

This has nothing to do with intense CPU tasks. It’s literally memory. Which can be stored and pulled quickly thanks to the SSDs

The nearest competitor, Cyberpunk, has a 60 fps mode. All of these complex things you talk about were done in the ps3 era for Skyrim. So clearly that is not why their game cannot reach 60fps today

I personally don’t care much about 30fps in this case and I’m fine with it, but their messaging as to why it’s not in the game is flat out dishonest

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

So it' upscaled 4k and not native.

And 30fps...

 

[clarky]

Just so we got all the info, DF pixeltounded the demo and it can drop well below 4k, in this particular case 1296p so even below 1440p
Timestamped in the vid
Now if xsx can go as low as this expect xss to go much lower, at least to 900p too, maybe lower

Love it how people are clinging to anything that might bring this game down. The presentation was stellar, one of the best ever.

Fingers crossed they don't shit the bed come release. I could go either way right now but the amount of people wanting it to fail is just sad. Great games are good for everyone, regardless of platform.

 

[DenchDeckard]

I know what a maxed out Star Citizen looks like, and I know how massive the game is with colonies, cities, ship customizations, outposts, weaponry, planetary travel, etc., etc.. All will being fully persistence living multiplayer universe.

This is not the most ambitious game of all time, regardless if you're a huge fan or not. Most ambitious game to you, nothing more.

Oh, I totally get that Scam Citizen is more ambitious but is there any others you can think of> i Don't know why you have been so triggered by my comment?

I don't know of a game that is coming out anytime in the near future that is the scale of this, or attempting anything like this.

This is a bethesda assed Bethesda game, just think what that is going to be like across a game of this size.

I'm going to be a space cowboy!

 

[SF Kosmo]

That's fine, I don't mind taking the hit to at least try to reach 60. Anything is better then just 30 fps.

A lot of people find uneven frametimes to be a lot more disruptive to the sense of fluid motion than a locked 30. Todd Howard said the game does run at 60fps a lot of the time, but it can't do it consistently so they locked it to 30 to get a consistent experience.

I mean options are always good, I hear you, but we all know what's going on here and it's not that different than games like FF16.

 

[ChiefDada]

People have been saying here for a long time that 30 fps will become standard on consoles once crossgen is over. That you don't believe it and hope for some miracle. Is your own problem.

Wait so we are now basing the future standards for current gen performance on one game built on the Creation engine?

Say it ain't so.

 

[nemiroff]

And if that is true its a poor compromise because this adds almost nothing to the game

There’s a reason that all the best engines don’t allow you to stack a thousand sandwiches in the world, because it’s pointless baggage

It's a good thing you're not in charge of BGS.. No one would want to play your boring ass games.

 

[Loxus]

His quote is literally including everything about a huge open world that is fully dynamic and hyper detailed. That doesn't just mean graphics.

Also if you watched the direct and see no gameplay complexity then I cannot fucking help you as those fanboy goggles are likely stuck forever.

"We do lock it at 30, because we want that fidelity, we want all that stuff."

In most next-gen games, we have two modes. A fidelity mode and performance mode.

Fidelity mode is more GPU intensive and performance mode is more CPU intensive.

Fidelity has always been associated with more detail graphics not physics.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I posted this question in another thread, but the people I was talking to did not respond, so I'll post it here.

I keep hearing about the "scale" of Starfield, because of which visual compromises had to be made. I honestly do not understand this argument.

Unlike Skyrim, Starfield is not a big gigantic world. It is split into 1,000 procedurally generated planets. Most of those planets, as seen in the presentation, would be barren for resource gathering. You land on a barren, tiny planet; the game loads that (single) planet. When you leave that planet, you wait on a loading screen, and the game dumps everything from that planet and loads the next planet.

So at any given point in time, the game is only rendering one small (mostly barren) planet, where there are no mechs, huge animals, or machines, or "Eikon type" battles that would be very expensive to render. Then where is this argument of "massive scale" coming from that's affecting the game's visual fidelity?

 

[DenchDeckard]

Well, the armchair Devs are out in force who know more about this games development than the actual studio.

 

[PropellerEar]

Well, the armchair Devs are out in force who know more about this games development than the actual studio.

Basically you described the stooges at DF.

 

[Gaiff]

This has nothing to do with intense CPU tasks. It’s literally memory. Which can be stored and pulled quickly thanks to the SSDs

No, you can literally use console commands and watch you CPU usage skyrocket as you spawn more objects and straight up crash your game.

The nearest competitor, Cyberpunk, has a 60 fps mode. All of these complex things you talk about were done in the ps3 era for Skyrim. So clearly that is not why their game cannot reach 60fps today

And now they must be done in a game that is ostensibly larger and even more complex.

I personally don’t care much about 30fps in this case and I’m fine with it, but their messaging as to why it’s not in the game is flat out dishonest

Coming form someone who's barely played their games and hasn't got the faintest idea how they work? Sure.

 

[nemiroff]

Well, the armchair Devs are out in force who know more about this games development than the actual studio.

It's because they think Todd is stealing half the frames and is storing them on secret tables around his house.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Basically you described the stooges at DF.

That's who I was talking about...

 

[Batiman]

It really does look great for a Bethesda game. Big showing. Glad to see other studios involved with helping them achieve that.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Well, the armchair Devs are out in force who know more about this games development than the actual studio.

That's who I was talking about...

Don't worry. They'll get an email with all the proper talking points around the time the game launches for the tech breakdown.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

And now they must be done in a game that is ostensibly larger and even more complex.

It’s not any larger. It’s loading up a procedurally generated, largely barren planet landscape

These “complexities” may require dev resources, but they ARE NOT massive limitations for hardware

Seems a lot of people want to crown Bethesda for some nebulous complexity that only really exists in their own minds.

Physics. Actual complex AI routines. That may limit the vision to 30fps.

An open world shooter that has lots of stats? No. That is nothing new. I see no technical reason why Cyberpunk can have a 60fps mode but Starfield cannot

 

[Spyxos]

Wait so we are now basing the future standards for current gen performance on one game built on the Creation engine?

Say it ain't so.

People here expect 60 fps from all upcoming games. I have said that it is unrealistic. Starfield will be just one of the many games that will only be available at 30 fps. And no matter if Ps5 or XSX the performance of the consoles is relatively close.

 

[Gaiff]

It’s not any larger. It’s loading up a procedurally generated, largely barren planet landscape

I said "ostensibly", and did you actually play the game?

These “complexities” may require dev resources, but they ARE NOT massive limitations for hardware

Say the armchair game dev.

Seems a lot if people want to crown Bethesda for some nebulous complexity that only really exists in their own minds.

Physics. Actual complex AI routines. That may limit the vision to 30fps.

Yeah, so like I said, thousands of objects that have their own properties like mass and volume, NPCs that have thousands of possible interactions, far more complex than in Zelda or RDR2, but you must have missed those.

An open world shooter that has lots of stats? No. That is nothing new

Now you're just being willfully ignorant.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Yeah, so like I said, thousands of objects that have their own properties like mass and volume, NPCs that have thousands of possible interactions, far more complex than in Zelda or RDR2, but you must have missed those.

He says thousands folks!

Other games don’t have material properties, apparently. Anyways, enough snark you are not arguing in good faith any longer

 

[DenchDeckard]

It’s not any larger. It’s loading up a procedurally generated, largely barren planet landscape

These “complexities” may require dev resources, but they ARE NOT massive limitations for hardware

Seems a lot of people want to crown Bethesda for some nebulous complexity that only really exists in their own minds.

Physics. Actual complex AI routines. That may limit the vision to 30fps.

An open world shooter that has lots of stats? No. That is nothing new. I see no technical reason why Cyberpunk can have a 60fps mode but Starfield cannot

Holy shit, dude. How do you know what the game is doing?

How long is it, how much story? how are the side quests?

 

[93xfan]

CPU bound?!?!

But all the know-it-all experts here said it was a simple resolution drop to get 60FPS

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

How long is it, how much story? how are the side quests?

That’s…literally not what we’re taking about at all. We’re discussing the technical merits of it being limited to 30fps

 

[Zathalus]

"We do lock it at 30, because we want that fidelity, we want all that stuff."

In most next-gen games, we have two modes. A fidelity mode and performance mode.

Fidelity mode is more GPU intensive and performance mode is more CPU intensive.

Fidelity has always been associated with more detail graphics not physics.

Post the entire quote and stop being dishonest.

Always these huge, open worlds, fully dynamic, hyper detail where anything can happen. And we do want to do that. It's 4K in the X. It's 1440 on the S. We do lock it at 30, because we want that fidelity, we want all that stuff. We don't want to sacrifice any of it.”

It's obvious he is referring to multiple things. Is the game 1296p because of GPU load? Yes. Is dropping the res to 720p going to make the game run at a stable 60? No.

 

[Gaiff]

He says thousands folks!

Compared to Zelda that has a dozen and you miserably tried and failed to compare to it?

Other games don’t have material properties, apparently. Anyways, enough snark you are not arguing in good faith any longer

Most open-world games besides TOTK/BOTW don't or it's very basic, which has been a complaint for years and why Zelda stands out so much in the first place.

 

[DeepEnigma]

It's because they think Todd is stealing half the frames and is storing them on secret tables around his house.

He's stacking the frames hidden somewhere on each planet like sandwiches.

 

[93xfan]

I see no technical reason why Cyberpunk can have a 60fps mode but Starfield cannot

I’m sure you don’t.

For one, you forgot Cyberpunk’s NPC disappear all the time, didn’t you?

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Compared to Zelda that has a dozen and you miserably tried and failed to compare to it?

There’s a ton of NPCs that have their own daily routine. And in switch hardware. It’s impressive. I never said it was better. What you are describing is not a CPU intensive task, and it is running on a 12TF modern console. Expectations should be much higher, and you have failed to explain why the things we saw on 2005 hardware now suddenly mean 2020 hardware still can’t manage at 60?

It’s not an NPC complexity restraint, that’s an excuse, and not even the ones the devs use. They claim it’s due to the fidelity

 

[Neo_game]

Nobody would tell that resolution based on the trailer if it wasnt for DF... It looks great and sharp and thats what matters at the end, not the numbers

Most people can't tell the difference in other games as well or in vs vieos. But I also like that devs are putting emphasis on gfx detail is more important than game resolution.

Post the entire quote and stop being dishonest.



It's obvious he is referring to multiple things. Is the game 1296p because of GPU load? Yes. Is dropping the res to 720p going to make the game run at a stable 60? No.

I will be really suprised if R5 3600 RTX 2070 PC cannot run this game at 1080p 60fps. Let us wait and see.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

For one, you forgot Cyberpunk’s NPC disappear all the time, didn’t you?

Oh no. An NPC disappeared. Anyway. Is storing every little thing worth the 30fps tradeoff? Maybe to some. If that’s actually the reason (which it’s probably not)

But 99% of the players won’t care that you can stack sandwiches

 

[SportsFan581]

That’s how most Quality Modes handle 4k. Reconstructed or whatever. It’s just a matter how good a job the dev did with the IQ. There was a video in the recent past from DF where they went in depth on how the reconstruction method matters more than the end result of 4k, or whatever.

This. I figured there would likely be some FSR or similar involved. That's what makes the 1440p target output for XSS really nice because FSR to 1440p typically looks a lot better than FSR to 1080p, even in the balanced or performance modes. Don't get me wrong the 1080p DLSS/FSR is getting a lot better, but I'm still thankful for the 1440p.

 

[Gaiff]

There’s a ton of NPCs that have their own daily routine. And in switch hardware. It’s impressive. I never said it was better. What you are describing is not a CPU intensive task, and it is running on a 12TF modern console. Expectations should be much higher, and you have failed to explain why the things we saw on 2005 hardware now suddenly mean 2020 hardware still can’t manage at 60?

I'm sure the Series X could manage Skyrim at 60. Starfield isn't Skyrim.

It’s not an NPC complexity restraint, that’s an excuse, and not even the ones the devs use. They claim it’s due to the fidelity

They claim it's a creative choice. Considering no game comes close to what even freakin' Skyrim was doing in 2011, I would be inclined to believe them.

 

[Loxus]

Post the entire quote and stop being dishonest.



It's obvious he is referring to multiple things. Is the game 1296p because of GPU load? Yes. Is dropping the res to 720p going to make the game run at a stable 60? No.

Where does he mention physics or anything physics based?

"Always these huge, open worlds, fully dynamic, hyper detail where anything can happen."


Edit:
Imo, this is what Todd meant when he said this.
"Always these huge, open worlds, fully dynamic, hyper detail where anything can happen. And we do want to do that. It's 4K in the X. It's 1440 on the S. We do lock it at 30, because we want that fidelity, we want all that stuff. We don't want to sacrifice any of it.”

Which is jaw dropping fidelity.

 

[Mr Moose]

I will be really suprised if R5 3600 RTX 2070 PC will not be able to run this 1080p 60fps. Let us wait and see.

I have a 3060 and a 3600, if I don't forget (I will forget), I'll let you know.

I'm sure the Series X could manage Skyrim at 60. Starfield isn't Skyrim.

Yeah, Skyrim is 4k 60fps.

 

[DenchDeckard]

There’s a ton of NPCs that have their own daily routine. And in switch hardware. It’s impressive. I never said it was better. What you are describing is not a CPU intensive task, and it is running on a 12TF modern console. Expectations should be much higher, and you have failed to explain why the things we saw on 2005 hardware now suddenly mean 2020 hardware still can’t manage at 60?

It’s not an NPC complexity restraint, that’s an excuse, and not even the ones the devs use. They claim it’s due to the fidelity

literally watch the video, they pretty much explain why they feel 60fps is off the table.

 

[SportsFan581]

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

You haven't seen the recent PC ports have you? There will be a lot of older CPUs that can't do 60 here, there will also be some quite old ones that can actually outperform these console CPUs (in particular Intel has some really fine wine Xeons out there with a lot of cache that do very well in games).

 

[CleverCaviar]

Optimization at a high-level, is toggling visual fidelity and optimizing code to a degree.

I think a lot of "optimization" is quite often "throwing things out"

 

[Roxkis_ii]

A lot of people find uneven frametimes to be a lot harder to cope with than a locked 30. Todd Howard said the game does run at 60fps a lot of the time, but it can't do it consistently so they locked it to 30 to get a consistent experience.

I mean options are always good, I hear you, but we all know what's going on here and it's not that different than games like FF16.

I completely agree that having options is alway good. I think it's always been an unmet demand for 60 FPS games on consoles, but it's only been recently that meaning those demands have even been feasible. Even if it was from cross gen games. Finally, we got to taste the smoothness PC players have enjoyed since the the early 2000's(?). Who would ever want to go back to shit SANDWICHES?

But I understand everything comes with sacrifices, and it's not fair to force my preference of sacrifices on other people. So I think giving people the option to select a graphics or performance mode is a good compromise. Maybe even having devs concidering reaching for 60 fps on current gen consoles will result in better running games in general. A rising tide lifts all boats.

 

[ChiefDada]

People here expect 60 fps from all upcoming games. I have said that it is unrealistic. Starfield will be just one of the many games that will only be available at 30 fps. And no matter if Ps5 or XSX the performance of the consoles is relatively close.

Hey I'm with you brother not all current gen games need to be 60fps. I just feel like we're collectively acting as if the calculus has changed to where a Bethesda game is 30fps on consoles because of incapable hardware, when in reality nothing has changed; the game is 30fps mainly because it is a Bethesda game. I'm rooting for Starfield and I respect Todd Howard as a visionary but the engine is notoriously inefficient (no big deal in grand scheme). Has nothing to do with current gen transition imo.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Starfield isn't Skyrim.

I haven’t seen anything that Starfield does, from a system complexity standpoint, that looks to create a more limited 30fps vision

Not even the devs have said that, either btw!

They claim it’s the fidelity and visuals. Which look good, but not so good that a lowered resolution mode wouldn’t be possible.

They just don’t have the time or resources to make it happen or it simply wasn’t a priority for them

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

literally watch the video, they pretty much explain why they feel 60fps is off the table.

DF ain’t gospel. They are free to have their own opinion. I disagree. 60fps should be totally possible

 

[Zathalus]

I posted this question in another thread, but the people I was talking to did not respond, so I'll post it here.

I keep hearing about the "scale" of Starfield, because of which visual compromises had to be made. I honestly do not understand this argument.

Unlike Skyrim, Starfield is not a big gigantic world. It is split into 1,000 procedurally generated planets. Most of those planets, as seen in the presentation, would be barren for resource gathering. You land on a barren, tiny planet; the game loads that (single) planet. When you leave that planet, you wait on a loading screen, and the game dumps everything from that planet and loads the next planet.

So at any given point in time, the game is only rendering one small (mostly barren) planet, where there are no mechs, huge animals, or machines, or "Eikon type" battles that would be very expensive to render. Then where is this argument of "massive scale" coming from that's affecting the game's visual fidelity?

Because it's not always a small barren planet. Does the Alpha Centauri look small and barren to you? A massive city with the rest of the planet you can still explore? And just because you load up a single planet does not mean the game suddenly forgets the rest of the game systems that you can influence.

Tell me this, do you think they are deliberately not running the game at 60fps if it was so easy? They got Fallout 4 to run at 30 Fps on 1.6Ghz Jaguar CPU so if this was as easy and simplistic as you say then 60 Fps on a CPU with 4x the processing power should be trivial?

Most people can't tell the difference in other games as well or in vs vieos. But I also like that devs are putting emphasis on gfx detail is more important than game resolution.



I will be really suprised if R5 3600 RTX 2070 PC cannot run this game at 1080p 60fps. Let us wait and see.

If a 3600 2070 can do that then there is zero reason a XSX can't do the exact same. But it is not, so I doubt it.

 

[SportsFan581]

Game looks awesome, but yeah...some of the characters are PS3 characters.

A new gen Mass Effect this game is certainly not.

Definitely not a lot of emotion from the characters, but that's typical for Bethesda.

@ Zathalus completely agree. It's almost like some people think they turned the knob down to 30 for shits and giggles. If they could consistently hit 60, 120, or 240 they would. Todd even said they are over 60 (likely on those smaller, more barren worlds without a lot of NPCs, or the atmospheric effects, etc. that has been talked about). They are capping at 30 there because swapping back and forth between the 30 and 60fps areas would be jarring and uncomfortable. The more bustling areas likely can't go much above 30. By just capping at 30 your eyes can adjust to that and you just settle into it. I honestly don't know who the real wildly swinging performance modes are for, not sure who would want to play those.

Including them just seems to be a lightning rod for criticism about how that mode needs improvement (see Jedi Survivor).

 

[DeepEnigma]

literally watch the video, they pretty much explain why they feel 60fps is off the table.

FWIW

They said that about Plagues Tale and tried to push the start of the 30fps being the new normal doom & gloom with its launch. Then they patched performance options in after.

 

[BennyBlanco]

My 4090 is ready. I felt that showcase footage in my undercarriage. I was always gonna buy this but I’m very hyped for it now.

 

[eNT1TY]

I posted this question in another thread, but the people I was talking to did not respond, so I'll post it here.

I keep hearing about the "scale" of Starfield, because of which visual compromises had to be made. I honestly do not understand this argument.

Unlike Skyrim, Starfield is not a big gigantic world. It is split into 1,000 procedurally generated planets. Most of those planets, as seen in the presentation, would be barren for resource gathering. You land on a barren, tiny planet; the game loads that (single) planet. When you leave that planet, you wait on a loading screen, and the game dumps everything from that planet and loads the next planet.

So at any given point in time, the game is only rendering one small (mostly barren) planet, where there are no mechs, huge animals, or machines, or "Eikon type" battles that would be very expensive to render. Then where is this argument of "massive scale" coming from that's affecting the game's visual fidelity?

It's in space, in must be massive scale! Stars!!!! Stars are massive. Fields!!! Fields are also massive. But yeah, it is a bunch (a whole bunch mind you) of small instances (and some probably not so small) tied together by a UI. I bet a good amount of those "instances" have more topography and navigable terrain that half of BOTW's core map however, and the game needs to keep track of item permanence in all of them.

 

[sendit]

I think a lot of "optimization" is quite often "throwing things out"

That can be lumped in with 'toggling visual fidelity'

 

[R6Rider]

I'm in the process of deciding the route I take for upgrading my PC.

This game is going to require a $500+ CPU to not run horribly...

Was thinking about a 5800X3D before, but now that's probably not going to cut it.

 

[adamsapple]

FWIW

They said that about Plagues Tale and tried to push the start of the 30fps being the new normal doom & gloom with its launch. Then they patched performance options in after.

Let's see if after 5, 6 months Bethesda feel like doing a Performance toggle that cuts out literal swathes of detail.

Despite the Performance mode, I still think Requiem is best played in the 40hz mode. It just cuts out too much.

A new gen Mass Effect this game is certainly not.

Definitely not a lot of emotion from the characters, but that's typical for Bethesda.

Maybe not in terms of character details related to time of release but in terms of the sense of exploration, it definitely feels close to ME1.

 

[DenchDeckard]

FWIW

They said that about Plagues Tale and tried to push the start of the 30fps being the new normal doom & gloom with its launch. Then they patched performance options in after.

And we saw the cuts they had to make to achieve that. I expect if it is at all possible, starfield will receive a 60FPS patch down the road and it will pull a lot back I imagine, foliage etc.