Starfield - The Bear and Badger

SpaceGazelle

Looks solid, I'm totally in. Is this thing on PC pass day one? I get confused about the pass thing.

Blocks100

It was a very generous reveal; considering all the other false dawns there's been regarding their previous previews, yeah that was a good thing.

Slightly worried by Todd's assertion during the video that exploration is "different from our usual games" - so we just talking a large procedural map to explore with handcrafted points of interest auto generated on the fly? Or can we actually traverse the whole planet without confined explorations zones?

It was honest of them to open up about the combat by declaring it had been "overhauled". And whilst the absence of ground-based transport vehicles and survival elements might disappoint hardcore fans, Starfield definitely appears to be shaping up to be a proper AAA game for Xbox.

Remember the time when AAA games were actually good? This could be it.

digi

Starfield runs at 30 frames per second on both Xbox Series X and S, Bethesda's Todd Howard has confirmed.

Speaking to IGN in a new interview ahead of the Xbox and Starfield showcases, Howard said Starfield runs in 4K resolution on the Xbox Series X and 1440p on the Xbox Series S, but has locked Starfield at 30fps on console to ensure "consistency" of performance.

"I think it'll come as no surprise, given our previous games, what we go for," Howard said. "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.

"Fortunately in this one, we've got it running great. It's often running way above that. Sometimes it's 60. But on the consoles, we do lock it because we prefer the consistency, where you're not even thinking about it.

Blocks100

In space...nobody can see your frames.

Paul the sparky

Davie up there, searching for a cloud among all this silver lining

TheBoyRoberts

30FPS?! Man, I'm gutted.

I'm really trying not to be a FPS whore, but it really is just so hard to go back to playing at 30FPS once you've experienced the 60+FPS dream.

It also looks garbage on a modern TV too.

I'm at a bit of a loss as to why they've not offered a 1440p performance mode on the Series X. Man, I would have taken a 1080p up-res if it ran at 60FPS.

afgavinstan

See, I think it's different in Starfield's case in comparison to, say, Redfall. The latter had numerous gameplay bits shown in trailers where it was 60 then just a couple weeks before release they announced it was 30. For Starfield, we're months out, I don't think anything shown in-game before yesterday was 60, and I'm doubly sure Skyrim, Fallout 3/NV/4/76 all launched at 30, sooooo.....

Shrug.

TheBoyRoberts

They we're all 30FPS, but that was years ago and running games like you mentioned on the 360 at 60FPS wouldn't have been possible.

I fell like now the 60FPS genie has been let out of the bottle there's no going back.

Each to their own, but I really struggle to play at 30FPS now. It really looks rubbish to my eyes; as soon as the camera starts to pan around the scene things just turn into a blurry mess.

Minnesänger

Agreed.

afgavinstan

I'm just about the same tbh, I do really notice it. I'm just willing to give the benefit of the doubt given past titles, and the scope of this one.

That's a sentence I didn't imagine typing.

Anyhoo, it'll no doubt get a goty edition and they'll boost it for X in due time, imo.

Syph79

If they’re talking about consistency of performance, I’d say (again) it could run at 60 on the X, but they’re not going to do it until they can match it on S, which could be never. Same reason Redfall’s 60 fps patch is further down the line no doubt.

I love that little S console, but I do feel the plan to have console parity in all but resolution and visual effects is going to hold the Series X back.

Anyway, Starfield looks like it could be a good Bethesda game.

LivDiv

Past titles would have been less of an issue but they have upped the fluidity of the combat quite significantly. They aren't in that part turn based VATs, hack and slash space now, it's closer to a full FPS with all that flying about and whipping around.

LivDiv

Not sure the S is the issue.
Just offer different performance vs fidelity modes like pretty much everything else.

Graphical performance is the area the S is supposed to be inferior. It's performance mode could just be 1080p uncapped FPS to the X's 1440p uncapped.

Minnesänger

Yeah, I don't think this is a 60FPS on S issue - I took consistency to mean that the game outright (even on X) couldn't hit 60FPS consistently.

If the X had a 1440 (or even DRS down to 1080) at a stable 60, but the S was locked 30, I think people would be ok.

yourfavouriteuncle

Minnesänger wrote:

Yeah, I don't think this is a 60FPS on S issue - I took consistency to mean that the game outright (even on X) couldn't hit 60FPS consistently.

If the X had a 1440 (or even DRS down to 1080) at a stable 60, but the S was locked 30, I think people would be ok.

Yeah, this is sensible. I did think MS allowed different frame rates across the two consoles tbh but clearly I’m wrong. Again.

This looks like the first Bethesda game I’ll bother with since Fallout3 borked my 360. Never been able to overlook the jank on their other titles but the lighting alone has got me in on this. It’s RDR2 levels of lovely haze.

Kernowgaz

As Zelda hits 20 fps, no one playing that anymore?

If it was a First person shooter I could understand the issue but with a game like this it’s ok for me.

Minnesänger

yourfavouriteuncle wrote:

Yeah, I don't think this is a 60FPS on S issue - I took consistency to mean that the game outright (even on X) couldn't hit 60FPS consistently. If the X had a 1440 (or even DRS down to 1080) at a stable 60, but the S was locked 30, I think people would be ok.

Yeah, this is sensible. I did think MS allowed different frame rates across the two consoles tbh but clearly I’m wrong. Again.

Oh no, they do allow different framerates. They require content parity, but the S can run at lower res and framerate if needed.

Minnesänger

Kernowgaz wrote:

As Zelda hits 20 fps, no one playing that anymore? If it was a First person shooter I could understand the issue but with a game like this it’s ok for me.

I also don't particularly enjoy Zelda's performance, even if it's technically impressive...

And no, not playing it anymore, to answer that question.

Kernowgaz

I think it will get 60fps but the priority is just getting it out of the door and then concentrating on the other modes later.

LivDiv

I cant emphasise enough that this will almost certainly be various levels of jankfest.
Todd's "consistent 30fps" will almost certainly be 30fps with some occasional dips.

There will be texture pop, NPCs doing weird shit or reacting jarringly when you speak to them.

Plus the meme worthy stuff.

Hopefully they avoid the really bad, crash, save deleting shit that was previously reserved for Playstation users.

If its not a jankfest happy days but I woudln't count on it. Luckily most will be playing on GP, if you plan to buy it just adjust expectations accordingly.

afgavinstan

https://twitter.com/dark1x/status/1668160644527321089?t=anw8lg_HuIMPpOWHFvSLTA&s=19

Food, ahem, for thought.

Minnesänger

Yeah, ain't ever hitting 60 on console.

LivDiv

A few comments there I kind of agree with.
Should this really be prioritised over fps and resolution, if this is indeed where the issue is.

FranticPea

30fps yet this is the first console game, in scope, that looks truly next gen to me. I'll take it.

And yeh, If I place something in one of my 1000 outposts I'd quite like it to be there when I return 300 hours later.

monkey

Every morning I pray for solid basic functionality and the game to be released in a non- embarrassing state.

Syph79

Minnesänger wrote:

yourfavouriteuncle wrote:

Yeah, I don't think this is a 60FPS on S issue - I took consistency to mean that the game outright (even on X) couldn't hit 60FPS consistently. If the X had a 1440 (or even DRS down to 1080) at a stable 60, but the S was locked 30, I think people would be ok.

Yeah, this is sensible. I did think MS allowed different frame rates across the two consoles tbh but clearly I’m wrong. Again.

Oh no, they do allow different framerates. They require content parity, but the S can run at lower res and framerate if needed.

Not trying to be a dick here, but can anyone give an example of a MS game that has the ability to run on 60 on the X, but only 30 on the S. I genuinely believe they've got an internal rule that prevents this.

g.man

I like this idea of being a “sandwich pirate”

Less Mando, more Sando…

Syph79

g.man wrote:

I like this idea of being a “sandwich pirate” Less Mando, more Sando…

This is the way

EvilRedEye

I would have liked an unlocked framerate VRR mode but I don’t really mind 30fps if the inherent nature of the gameplay means the framerate is CPU limited.

Kernowgaz

Syph79 wrote:

Minnesänger wrote:

yourfavouriteuncle wrote:

Yeah, I don't think this is a 60FPS on S issue - I took consistency to mean that the game outright (even on X) couldn't hit 60FPS consistently. If the X had a 1440 (or even DRS down to 1080) at a stable 60, but the S was locked 30, I think people would be ok.

Yeah, this is sensible. I did think MS allowed different frame rates across the two consoles tbh but clearly I’m wrong. Again.

Oh no, they do allow different framerates. They require content parity, but the S can run at lower res and framerate if needed.

Not trying to be a dick here, but can anyone give an example of a MS game that has the ability to run on 60 on the X, but only 30 on the S. I genuinely believe they've got an internal rule that prevents this.

Forza Horizon 5? But not sure

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories