Support NeoGAF

[DenchDeckard]

There's ps5 and series x games running at internal resolutions of 720p and I believe maybe below. Why is anyone surprised.

There was a lot of chatter at the start of this gen that resolutions didnt matter anymore. I've always disagreed with that statement but yeah. What's the performance mode on series x dropping to? Under 1080p at any point?

 

[Panajev2001a]

There was a lot of chatter at the start of this gen that resolutions didnt matter anymore.

What is the problem with forgetting context exists in statements? Is it inconceivable that resolution differences would have diminishing returns after you go high enough and conversely matter more and more the lower resolution ranges you go into ?

 

[Corporal.Hicks]

It's not 432p native, but reconstructed to 1080p. The image quality should look more comparable to 1080p than 432p.

 

[Three]

It's not 432p native, but reconstructed to 1080p. The image quality should look more comparable to 1080p than 432p.

It uses FSR. Now picture all the "OMG FSR artifacts" posts you heard for a certain other title but upscaling from a meager 432p instead.

 

[winjer]

That performance mode is a disaster.
Bethesda was so concerned on whether they could do it, they never considered if they should do it.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

Eh, all the hate the Series S gets is so overblown. It's the cheapest way to play current gen games. 99% of them hit 1080p and decent framerates.

If that's not good enough, pay double for a Series X / PS5.

 

[Three]

Eh, all the hate the Series S gets is so overblown. It's the cheapest way to play current gen games. 99% of them hit 1080p and decent framerates.

If that's not good enough, pay double for a Series X / PS5.

Talking about overblown yet your numbers are all overblown. It doesn't hit 1080p in anywhere near 99% of titles, especially recent releases that aren't crossgen. A PS5 Digital edition is nowhere near "double" the cost of a Series S either.

 

[Mr Moose]

Eh, all the hate the Series S gets is so overblown. It's the cheapest way to play current gen games. 99% of them hit 1080p and decent framerates.

If that's not good enough, pay double for a Series X / PS5.

Are you sure about that?

 

[Mr Reasonable]

Are you sure about that?

To be honest, no. But tbh, I don't know what most games run at on Series X /PS5 either, but do know that loads of games on PS5 and Series X aren't anywhere near 4k, but that doesn't seem to bother people.

PS5 Digital edition is nowhere near "double" the cost of a Series S either

Just looked

Amazon
PS5 disc £465
PS5 digital £389
Series S 229

My mistake, I had thought of the Series X, PS5 pricing. But neglected to consider the digital PS5.

Either way, it's still by far the cheapest way to play current gen games, coming in at 58% of the cost of a PS5 digital, the next cheapest system.

 

[salva]

It wasn't marketed as such.

Isn't that headline what's happening here though? Series S has the Starfield performance mode, just at a reduced resolution compared to the Series X.

 

[SF Kosmo]

Switch port territory. 30fps is probably fine for Series S, better than Cataract Simulator.

I'm on PC so I don't really care but also I don't know when I'm really going to get time to go back to this one.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Isn't that headline what's happening here though? Series S has the Starfield performance mode, just at a reduced resolution compared to the Series X.

Not really, because it is not holding to 60 FPS at all. It instead drops to even 30 FPS. Also, reduced visual fidelity and lower graphical settings in addition to lower resolution.

So, instead of offering the same experience as Series X, it offers:

• Lower resolution,
• Lower graphical settings,
• Terrible FPS

 

[diffusionx]

I watched the video and it is not hyperbole to say the game looks like genuine ass with that brown planet surface that looks like poop smear with N64 textures. I don't even know why they bothered.