-
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.
[VG247] I’m excited to play Starfield, but that 30fps news took the wind out of my sails
- Thread starter Lunatic_Gamer
- Start date
- Opinion Drama Cringe
rodrigolfp
Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
??? I prefer never play a game at 30fps. That's one reason I avoid consoles the maximum I can.
Phase
Member
Not seeing an argument here, just you telling me it's not worth it. I can see creature comforts like couch, tv, controller, but beyond that PC does everything better (and you can play on your tv, couch, with a controller on PC too). If you're saying ease of installing games and less fuss, never having to worry about settings, pc issues etc. then that's again not even a big deal if you know anything about PC's. And now PC is getting many PS games now, just have to wait a bit.
Not seeing where it's ridiculous to think if you have the money then playing on pc is the superior choice many times over.
Kacho
Gold Member
I usually double dip on Todd Howard epics on both Xbox and PC, but after Fallout 4 I don’t know if I can stomach 30fps anymore. Even after the adjustment period it never looks or feels right.
Very curious to see how it truly performs on Series X. I’m not expecting a stable 30fps but it would be great if it can achieve that.
Fans of these games already know PC is the place to play them. Better performance, mods, mouse and keyboard… it’s just a better experience overall.
Very curious to see how it truly performs on Series X. I’m not expecting a stable 30fps but it would be great if it can achieve that.
Fans of these games already know PC is the place to play them. Better performance, mods, mouse and keyboard… it’s just a better experience overall.
ResilientBanana
Member
The game looks massive and has over 1000 planets. 30fps was the only way it would look good and function on consoles.
Last edited:
PixelatedBeast
Member
Kenneth Haight
Gold Member
Phil said something recently about Xbox console gamers being the “core” of the Xbox brand. I think it was on kinda funny podcast.
They’re getting a second fiddle product to a PC version, that’s the issue. There’s no reason to own an Xbox really. I’m not going to buy one but had every intention at the start of the generation. As the majority of posters on here say, PC really is the way forward.
They’re getting a second fiddle product to a PC version, that’s the issue. There’s no reason to own an Xbox really. I’m not going to buy one but had every intention at the start of the generation. As the majority of posters on here say, PC really is the way forward.
crazepharmacist
Member
Hate to break it you bud but it’s a creative design choice. They very well may target 30fps for the next generation Xbox as well regardless of how powerful it is. Some developers like to push visual boundaries.
Last edited:
Bry0
Member
I mean it really depends. If your pc is some basic office pc then that’s probably not the case. Some people would rather get a $500 game box and some would rather spend thousands on a gaming pc. 60 fps would come at cost of visuals on either platform unless you are spending nearly a grand on just the gpu. It’s different options with different trade offs. Y’all are so dramatic. MS gets your money either way, they don’t care lol.
rofif
Can’t Git Gud
Ehhh… I am done today.And we can play games on high powered PCs, but some people choose consoles....
Agent_Nobody
Member
This is the biggest point where it’s clear they have no clue what they’re talking about.
Assassin’s Creed, Cyberpunk, The Witcher 3 or the Outer Worlds, being on par in simulation? Oh Pleeeeaaase. Go play Fallout 4, get a bunch of settlements, tie them all by supply lines and equip the settlers running the caravans with Fat Man missile launchers. Then just stand in the open and listen to the amount of nukes going off and tell me those games do anything on that scale of background simulation.
Honestly one of the dumbest gaming articles I’ve read outside of a blog.
Last edited:
Matt_Fox
Member
Yes indeed, the emergent gameplay that can occur in Bethesda sims can be hugely exciting. I remember stumbling upon a 3 way battle in Skyrim between a group of hunters, a bear, and a dragon. It was the middle of the night and the bear was running down the hillside on fire. I thought to myself, you dont get to see that every day...
EDMIX
Writes a lot, says very little
tbh, if you own Series X, who cares? I'd assume someone bought it to play a title like this, 30fps would be a dumb reason to avoid this game.
I don't get how anyone would get Series X or PS5 for that matter with this idea that all games would be 60 fps, this is developer dependent folks lol If you want 60 FPS, build a gaming PC and lower all settings and keep upgrade to get that number if its so important
I don't get how anyone would get Series X or PS5 for that matter with this idea that all games would be 60 fps, this is developer dependent folks lol If you want 60 FPS, build a gaming PC and lower all settings and keep upgrade to get that number if its so important
SkylineRKR
Member
You'll live.
Its about exploration, I don't expect the action to be like Doom or Devil May Cry. I would prefer 60fps but honestly I played countless hours of Skyrim, Witcher 3, Horizon etc at 30fps. Then, when either a more powerful XSX comes out, or next-gen consoles, this game will be upgraded anyway. People started with Skyrim on fucking PS3 and now still play it on gaming rigs or PS5.
Its about exploration, I don't expect the action to be like Doom or Devil May Cry. I would prefer 60fps but honestly I played countless hours of Skyrim, Witcher 3, Horizon etc at 30fps. Then, when either a more powerful XSX comes out, or next-gen consoles, this game will be upgraded anyway. People started with Skyrim on fucking PS3 and now still play it on gaming rigs or PS5.
Dr. Wilkinson
Member
Such a silly take.
Imagine anyone having this attitude when Fallout 3 or Skyrim launched. Those games definitely weren’t misses. Highly doubt this one will be.
Imagine anyone having this attitude when Fallout 3 or Skyrim launched. Those games definitely weren’t misses. Highly doubt this one will be.
djjinx2
Member
This is a theme here right now I see, PC>Xbox. There's no reason for Xbox blah blah.
On enthusiast forums maybe. But 90% of people (casuals) will see Starfield or Forza etc and just buy a Series X/S. Most people don't care about building the greatest most powerful PC, they care about CoD and Fifa and whatever is advertised on the TV (for example)
SteelCurtain 59
Member
The "whole point of these new consoles" is to be able to make better games, it will always be a devs choice what to focus on. Personally I'd rather have all the cool physics and AI stuff that Bethesda games are great at then a few more frames. It's not like every game can just cut the resolution and ray-tracing and have that be enough to go from 30-60. If they have to fundamentally change the game and remove things in order to up the framerate I don't see why anybody would want the increased framerate that much. Let the devs make their decisions on what's best for the game
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
The overly long cross gen period has made people over optimistic about fixed spec hardware.
Last edited:
VulcanRaven
Member
I'n glad its 30fps so it can look better.
X-Wing
Member
Just a thought, if the issue isn’t GPU and, as I think, it is more I/O and storage bound (CPU needs to wait on them) then a faster SSD might have helped sustain the 60 fps…
I mean... you can post as many laugh reactions as you like, but I would appreciate much more a counter argument on why an AMD Ryzen 5 3600x, which has only 6 cores, seems to be enough to get it running at 60 FPS and Xbox's Zen 2 with 8 cores isn't... If the issue really is CPU and not I/O and storage.
Or is it GPU after all and could be fixed by rendering everything at an even lower internal resolution?
I guess, once it releases on PC, we will get many answers.
I mean... you can post as many laugh reactions as you like, but I would appreciate much more a counter argument on why an AMD Ryzen 5 3600x, which has only 6 cores, seems to be enough to get it running at 60 FPS and Xbox's Zen 2 with 8 cores isn't... If the issue really is CPU and not I/O and storage.
Or is it GPU after all and could be fixed by rendering everything at an even lower internal resolution?
I guess, once it releases on PC, we will get many answers.
Last edited:
Agent_Nobody
Member
There’s base building and a thousand planets to do it on, I’d imagine IO would be an issue (I can break any machine you put in front of me with Fallout 4’s base building if I turn off the limits). But tying those bases with supply lines with NPCs (because it’s Bethesda they will simulate every part of their journey while the player is off somewhere else) you also get CPU issues.Just a thought, if the issue isn’t GPU and, as I think, it is more I/O and storage bound (CPU needs to wait on them) then a faster SSD might have helped sustain the 60 fps…
I mean... you can post as many laugh reactions as you like, but I would appreciate much more a counter argument on why an AMD Ryzen 5 3600x, which has only 6 cores, seems to be enough to get it running at 60 FPS and Xbox's Zen 2 with 8 cores isn't... If the issue really is CPU and not I/O and storage.
Or is it GPU after all and could be fixed by rendering everything at an even lower internal resolution?
I guess, once it releases on PC, we will get many answers.
And who said an AMD Ryzen 3600x is going to be above 60fps all the time? And why are you tying cores to power? I could get better results off a single core compared to a 16 core if the single core was fast enough, it’s not a valid metric to anything.
Last edited:
Dr. Wilkinson
Member
Exactly this.
I imagine the majority of people who played Skyrim did so first on either a 360 or a PS3. We all survived and lived to tell the tale, and no one was complaining about the graphics. We were too busy having an amazing time in a once-in-a-generation game
93xfan
Banned
I personally love the consistency and simplicity of consoles. No stutter, less cheaters, not going up against k/m players online and plenty of other reasons.
You even listed some reasons yourself.
X-Wing
Member
True. I assume the recommended specs are targeting 60 fps on PC. As for the second part, both CPUs are Zen 2 and at about the same clock speed so I wouldn't expect much difference, more cores will allow for more processes to be ran at the same time. The game probably relies on heavy multithreading to keep track of the position and state of all the different objects... Now I don't believe this processes remain active all the time. They are most likely swapped to persistent storage and have to be loaded again when the player approaches the location where the needed objects are. Hence why I think I/O has a role to play in this.
Last edited:
bender
What time is it?
...nothing to do with the framerate though. Further, the popularity that Bethesda has garnered with their games is admirable and jaw dropping.
Last edited:
Dr. Wilkinson
Member
Exactly. So what’s the problem
...nothing to do with the framerate though. Further, the popularity that Bethesda has garnered with this games is admirable and jaw dropping.
All that matters is if you’re having fun or not. Instead people love to whine about frames. First world problems, and not something anyone cared about ten years ago
Last edited:
bender
What time is it?
People love to bitch endlessly.
Phase
Member
Well we were discussing whether it's worth it if you have the money to get a PC over consoles. He provided no reasons so I gave a few I thought were reasonable but those could still be attained using PC. Your mention of cheaters, however, is a good reason.
recursive
Member
I want both so I will play on PC.
You want impressive simulation and game-logic persistency which is all heavily CPU I/O based? Or fancy visuals at 60fps, but ultimately static gameplay irrelevant window-dressing.
AstronomerIT
Neo Member
Man, still now after all this year of forum, people doesen't know how Bethesda's ow works and why technically you can't do any kind of comparison.
I kindly suggest to invest less than one hour and learn all the peculiarity/differences expecially for Starfield
MMaRsu
Member
MMaRsu
Member
*Laughs in PC
Cries in Windows Store version without Starfield script extender
Dreathlock
Member
Imagine how fantastic the game would be at 15fps. I hope they add an option for that.
MMaRsu
Member
Returnal is a very linear game.
So is Ratchet & Clank
HFW is based on PS4 tech
FF16 dips to 720p at 45fps in 'performance' mode
SF6 is a 2d fighter
Redfall is trash either way
Gudji
Member
Starfield is based on PS4 tech too going by your logic.
MMaRsu
Member
Yes, but it was never going to reach 60fps (on current gen consoles) based on the amount of simulations going on
TheProtector
Neo Member
People exaggerate too much about 30fps. The most important for me is that the frametime is stable. I spend 100 hours on Witcher 3 in 4k ultra and 60fps before I started BotW on the Switch. Yes the first hour or so Zelda looked liked a slideshow and my eyes almost hurt because the difference is so huge, but then after the 1-2 hours I didn't even noticed anymore because the frame time in Zelda games are good (even the framedrops are "fluent", don't know to explain) and if the game is good fps doesn't matter anyway. If it's 30fps with a bad frametime then yes it's a no go. If it's 30fps with a good frametime then I really don't care.
Last edited:
Roxkis_ii
Banned
Whatever excuse you want to use for a new game running at last gen framerates in 2023.
If you like to eat shit, don't let me stop you.
MMaRsu
Member
I play on PC.
What excuses are you talking about? These consoles cant do 60fps on real new gen games.
The Fuzz damn you!
Gold Member
I won’t be playing the game, but 30 fps doesn’t bother me. 15 fps does.
If 30 fps bothered me, I’d play it on PC rather than whine about it.
None of this is difficult to grasp.
Roxkis_ii
Banned
You say that, then quote my list of next gen games with a proformance mode, then give excuses why they don't count, but seemed confused why a console player would have the expectation of games having a proformance mode....
Does console games running at a higher framerate make you insecure about your pc purchase??
MMaRsu
Member
What
Im saying those games arent really next gen, so ofcourse they can run at higher fps.
Roxkis_ii
Banned
MMaRsu
Member
Games that are released only a next gen console, aren't next gen.
So if I release a port of Tetris on a next gen console, its a next gen game?
Uhh yea
I dont even get why your trying to argue with me. Do you think every game that comes out on these 'next gen systems' will be 60fps? Or should be able to? Or what is your point exactly.
Last edited:
Gudji
Member
Every Bethesda game has simulation going on and it is a new gen console that runs circles around previous hardware and even most current gaming PCs, so I have to call bullshit on that one.
Also you have Todd howard saying that the gane runs often way above 60 fps and sometimes at 60. But keep going with the bullshit excuses I do enjoy it.
Last edited: