Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
The choice isn't the frame rate, it's the scale of the game that necessitates the frame rate. As has been said many, many, many times.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
[Prima Games] Starfield Should Have a 60 FPS Performance Mode
- Thread starter Lunatic_Gamer
- Start date
- Opinion News Drama
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Quick question, do we think Alan wake 2, Star wars outlaws, avatar will be 60fps on console?
I have my doubts.
I feel the real current gen games are basically going to be 30fps with some half naked 60fps modes maybe?
I have my doubts.
I feel the real current gen games are basically going to be 30fps with some half naked 60fps modes maybe?
Pretty sure there will be a mod on consoles that unlocks the frame rate. Much like they did on fallout And Skyrim. I’d be surprised if there wasn’t at some point. Being all the same engine….
Skyrim and Fallout 4 can be modded to run at 60fps on Xbox Series X
Word emerged last week that with a simple mod, owners of the Xbox Series X console were able to revisit The Elder Scrol…www.eurogamer.net
Wouldn’t put much hope in that. On the same Xbox console (Xbox One) the games launched at, the mod took the game from a locked 30fps to 33-43fps
That suggests we’d only see major gains with a pro console. Though VRR could help
feynoob
Banned
PC isnt the same as consoles. We can modify our FPs unlike consoles.
Bernardougf
Member
we dont want to compromise the artistic vision*
*artistic vision not included on the series S and low/mid settings on pc
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
We really are gonna keep getting terrible takes like this about Starfield for a while, aren't we
Low Moral Fibre
Member
I'm not simping for Bethesda here as there is zero percent chance this gets installed on any console I own until maybe XSXXX comes out in 2030 but I think we just have to be realistic about what these machines can do. There will be linear stuff like TLOU2 with baked lighting and no dynamic time of day that will look insane all the way up to the end of this gen but for anything with a bit more scope I think we'll get more poor performance, poor IQ or both.
In terms of resolution I think sub 1080p for 60fps is just to be expected going forward for open world stuff pushing any kind of technical boundary and for me FSR is useless from such a low resolution - maybe UE5 super resolution is better but I've not tried it out.
Maybe Bethesda will give a very low res 60fps version in the future (unless Starfield is also CPU bound). The engine has always made possible what no other games do but it is also a complete dog so it may just be that too.
Here are the last two games I played on PS5 so maybe anomalies (and one is a demo but I have a bridge to sell you if you think the last second day one patch will improve FF16 IQ and performance to a point where it is comparable to the cross gen stuff we've had).
Here's Jedi Survivor which as we know can drop to 648p and into the 30's in terms of FPS in performance mode. Here is a comparison between the 'graphics mode' which looks like shit and the 'performance mode' which looks like shit through eyes with cataracts. Literally nothing is happening on screen so it's a best case scenario for performance mode - looks :chefskiss: on a 65" OLED let me tell you.
And here's what it looks like with that super high quality FSR and motion blur. Simply sumptuous stuff here lads.
If people are happy with this then fine but I'm definitely not.
I can't pixel count this FF16 shot as it is so blurry but it looks like Xbox One resolution and FSR can't magic detail out of thin air. Even then outside of the swamp none of the combat sections in the demo are close to locked 60fps. Again this has drops to the 30s but isn't as bad as Jedi Survivor at least although the demo locations are absolutely tiny so I'm curious how the bigger and better looking locations perform as Jedi Survivor was acceptable on the first level then shits the bed on Koboh.
Maybe these games are just badly programmed as Ratchet and Clank still looks crazy and runs 60fps plus at a good resolution with some minor RT reflections but the best looking levels are very linear:
While the open world levels can look pretty barren so they have obviously had to tone things down to get things to run acceptably.
I think now that the cross gen period is over we are just seeing the limitations of 2019 hardware.
In terms of resolution I think sub 1080p for 60fps is just to be expected going forward for open world stuff pushing any kind of technical boundary and for me FSR is useless from such a low resolution - maybe UE5 super resolution is better but I've not tried it out.
Maybe Bethesda will give a very low res 60fps version in the future (unless Starfield is also CPU bound). The engine has always made possible what no other games do but it is also a complete dog so it may just be that too.
Here are the last two games I played on PS5 so maybe anomalies (and one is a demo but I have a bridge to sell you if you think the last second day one patch will improve FF16 IQ and performance to a point where it is comparable to the cross gen stuff we've had).
Here's Jedi Survivor which as we know can drop to 648p and into the 30's in terms of FPS in performance mode. Here is a comparison between the 'graphics mode' which looks like shit and the 'performance mode' which looks like shit through eyes with cataracts. Literally nothing is happening on screen so it's a best case scenario for performance mode - looks :chefskiss: on a 65" OLED let me tell you.
And here's what it looks like with that super high quality FSR and motion blur. Simply sumptuous stuff here lads.
If people are happy with this then fine but I'm definitely not.
I can't pixel count this FF16 shot as it is so blurry but it looks like Xbox One resolution and FSR can't magic detail out of thin air. Even then outside of the swamp none of the combat sections in the demo are close to locked 60fps. Again this has drops to the 30s but isn't as bad as Jedi Survivor at least although the demo locations are absolutely tiny so I'm curious how the bigger and better looking locations perform as Jedi Survivor was acceptable on the first level then shits the bed on Koboh.
Maybe these games are just badly programmed as Ratchet and Clank still looks crazy and runs 60fps plus at a good resolution with some minor RT reflections but the best looking levels are very linear:
While the open world levels can look pretty barren so they have obviously had to tone things down to get things to run acceptably.
I think now that the cross gen period is over we are just seeing the limitations of 2019 hardware.
feynoob
Banned
Most of time, I am busy trying to fight enemies or trying to do dumb shit. I barely pay attention to quality picture that much even when it glitches or stutters. Maybe that is why I dont care about itI'm not simping for Bethesda here as there is zero percent chance this gets installed on any console I own until maybe XSXXX comes out in 2030 but I think we just have to be realistic about what these machines can do. There will be linear stuff like TLOU2 with baked lighting and no dynamic time of day that will look insane all the way up to the end of this gen but for anything with a bit more scope I think we'll get more poor performance, poor IQ or both.
In terms of resolution I think sub 1080p for 60fps is just to be expected going forward for open world stuff pushing any kind of technical boundary and for me FSR is useless from such a low resolution - maybe UE5 super resolution is better but I've not tried it out.
Maybe Bethesda will give a very low res 60fps version in the future (unless Starfield is also CPU bound). The engine has always made possible what no other games do but it is also a complete dog so it may just be that too.
Here are the last two games I played on PS5 so maybe anomalies (and one is a demo but I have a bridge to sell you if you think the last second day one patch will improve FF16 IQ and performance to a point where it is comparable to the cross gen stuff we've had).
Here's Jedi Survivor which as we know can drop to 648p and into the 30's in terms of FPS in performance mode. Here is a comparison between the 'graphics mode' which looks like shit and the 'performance mode' which looks like shit through eyes with cataracts. Literally nothing is happening on screen so it's a best case scenario for performance mode - looks :chefskiss: on a 65" OLED let me tell you.
And here's what it looks like with that super high quality FSR and motion blur. Simply sumptuous stuff here lads.
If people are happy with this then fine but I'm definitely not.
I can't pixel count this FF16 shot as it is so blurry but it looks like Xbox One resolution and FSR can't magic detail out of thin air. Even then outside of the swamp none of the combat sections in the demo are close to locked 60fps. Again this has drops to the 30s but isn't as bad as Jedi Survivor at least although the demo locations are absolutely tiny so I'm curious how the bigger and better looking locations perform as Jedi Survivor was acceptable on the first level then shits the bed on Koboh.
Maybe these games are just badly programmed as Ratchet and Clank still looks crazy and runs 60fps plus at a good resolution with some minor RT reflections but the best looking levels are very linear:
While the open world levels can look pretty barren so they have obviously had to tone things down to get things to run acceptably.
I think now that the cross gen period is over we are just seeing the limitations of 2019 hardware.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I can't pixel count this FF16 shot as it is so blurry but it looks like Xbox One resolution and FSR can't magic detail out of thin air. Even then outside of the swamp none of the combat sections in the demo are close to locked 60fps. Again this has drops to the 30s but isn't as bad as Jedi Survivor at least although the demo locations are absolutely tiny so I'm curious how the bigger and better looking locations perform as Jedi Survivor was acceptable on the first level then shits the bed on Koboh.
Looking at this, it looks like the game is literally dropping to near 50% resolution in battles.
They have the luxury to do that because the game enters a bespoke combat mode where they have a through line of when they can trigger such a heavy drop in resolution.
A first person shooter like Starfield, that would be extremely jarring if they're dropping resolution so much every time you run across an enemy in the world.
I really don't think it matters what a lesser known site like Prima Games have to say about this. One or two articles ain't really gonna do anything. At the end of the day 90%+ of the people who buy these games don't take part in these discussions and don't read these articles. This is always about a small group of very loud fans on internet making a lot of noise that means squat all at the end of the day.
Most people who are taking part in this discussions are the ones that don't plan to play Starfield anyway. Just wait till it's their beloved franchise that has 30fps cap and they'll sing a very different tune. We've seen it play out too many times now.
Last edited:
Sure, if you think the creative choice was choosing 30 fps, instead of it being the creative choices that resulted in it only being limited to 30 fps on the consoles. But you'd have to be pretty stupid or completely disingenuous to actually think that.
Pharaoh 117
Member
Oh Jesus, another genius who thinks the solution is just lowering the resolution. If you don't have even the most basic notion of how a thing works you should refrain from giving your opinion.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
Morrie’s wig shop
Banned
But there are 3 Gaffer’s in this very thread, that took their time away from developing the game to inform us it’s not CPU bound….
Minsc
Gold Member
What about the ol' I game on consoles BECAUSE I don't want any options argument?
Roxkis_ii
Banned
Can you quote a post that says that? I've never heard anyone ever say that my life.
Last edited:
Ar¢tos
Member
Should devs limit "creative choices" when they cripple a game instead of making it more enjoyable?
If the game ran at native 4k and fixed 30fps it would be one thing, but running at sub 4k with framerates hitting 19fps is not acceptable.
Save that specific "creative choice" for the next gen.
If the game ran at native 4k and fixed 30fps it would be one thing, but running at sub 4k with framerates hitting 19fps is not acceptable.
Save that specific "creative choice" for the next gen.
Minsc
Gold Member
Oh it's an old argument for not having (hundreds) graphic options including editing .ini files to further change graphics like there are on PCs in consoles. Something I've read many times, but long back.
Belthazar
Member
It's a Bethesda RPG... It won't be anywhere close to locked.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
FUBARx89
Member
Skyrim isn't even 4k locked 60fps on PS5 or Series X.
PS5 is full 4K with drops to 50fps
Series X is dynamic 4k with drops to 50fps.
So I'm not really surprised that Starfield isn't 60fps, it looks alot better graphically than Skyrim and seems to have more systems tacked onto the engine BGS use.
PS5 is full 4K with drops to 50fps
Series X is dynamic 4k with drops to 50fps.
So I'm not really surprised that Starfield isn't 60fps, it looks alot better graphically than Skyrim and seems to have more systems tacked onto the engine BGS use.
Last edited:
Roxkis_ii
Banned
I see a thread on a guy who can't afford to upgrade their pc, could you quote a post of someone saying they don't want options?
JimboJones
Member
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Honestly, you can search for
rofif
's posts like above, he's been extremely vocal on gaf about devs pushing with single profiles.
Gudji
Member
Roxkis_ii
Banned
I'll take your word for it, but all I'm advocating for is a proformance option that has been standard so far in games releasing for current gen consoles. I think Xbox console gamers deserve at least that.
Minsc
Gold Member
They (the developers) say it runs at 60fps (and above) on a XSX right in the OP.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
A locked 30 > fluctuating 30 ~ 60 all the time.
Not sure we can extrapolate that way. Updated engine, more powerful CPUs.
We'll see.
Gudji
Member
Oh shit a STARFIELD DEV.
feynoob
Banned
Locked means stable framerate.
It can do 60 fps, but doesn't mean it's locked on 60 fps. People here will go mad if that happens, as fluctuated frame rate is not good visually.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
There's hardly any defense to not shoot for 60fps in a cut down mode on console.
You can twist it and be happy and I hope it's solid 30 but it doesn't change that it's not as acceptable as the PR machine wants you to think.
Enjoy the game but that will be a talking point no matter what.
You can twist it and be happy and I hope it's solid 30 but it doesn't change that it's not as acceptable as the PR machine wants you to think.
Enjoy the game but that will be a talking point no matter what.
Gudji
Member
So they can do a performance mode after all. No more cpu bound or too much simulation or even weak hardware bullshit anymore? Who would have thought.
Roxkis_ii
Banned
I could have sworn there was a thread asking people what mode they played the FF16 demo in and a majority selected performance mode in the thread poll. That games isn't a locked 60.
MadchesterManc
Member
I don't get why they don't just have an unlocked framerate option too seen as Xbox has Freesync support. Seems like a lot of performance is being left on the table from what the man himself has been saying in interviews, I'm sure 40-60 on a VRR display is preferable to those that have one than a locked 30
What is this mythical 'PC' that is only one fixed spec and has a relatively mid GPU and CPU?
People understand why it's 30fps and - while not ideal - will happily play it at 30fps on console. You are completely free to skip the game, or buy it on PC where your specs determine your framerate.
Hell, you've publicly claimed you have no interest in Bethesda RPGs and Starfield, so not sure why you're crusading on behalf of people who aren't complaining.
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
Soon? Look pretty dumb now.
Gudji
Member
Just the current generation.
It's barely a talking point at this stage. It won't influence reviews on consoles, and fps is unlocked for the PC release. Nobody gave a damn about the 30fps framerate for TOTK, for example.
Everything lies with the quality of the final version. If they deliver on its potential and land a solid 90+ game, nobody's going to care about 30fps on console except the usual angry fanboys.
Gudji
Member
They would if the switch had the hardware to back up a 60 FPS mode.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
I agree in the end. I just want that patented stability for console and PC to fully enjoy this because the last thing we need is frame pacing, horrible 1% lows, and visual inconsistency.
Definitely looks like their best visual presentation to date but they still have an uphill for me other than just hype. It's looking better after the showing but that doesn't guarantee with me based on their evolution. I hope it's good.
The people have the same eyes. if 30fps wasn't a 'stuttery mess' and 'unplayable' in Zelda TOTK, then it certainly can't be described as unplayable in Starfield.
'The most powerful console' still had to make do with an affordable Zen 2 CPU and RDNA 2 GPU combo from 2020. Do we now demand for full path-tracing in all games because the current consoles were marketed as a powerfiul leap in processing power?
Digital Foundry showed off Star Citizen chugging at 17fps in some sections with a Zen 2 CPU roughly equivalent to that in the PS5 and Series X.
Bottlenecks can exist if the game is CPU bound.
I wonder when you guys will realize that the 'switch hardware is old' line isn't the point. Aside from the fact that there are existing 60fps titles on the Switch, including demanding stuff like Bayonetta 3, something you've described as 'uncomfortable' and 'unplayable' doesn't suddenly become magical because of the age of the hardware.
Last edited:
RyanEvans21
Member
Switch is almost 6 yrs though. plus switch is very weak spec compare to PS4 or Xbox One.