Definitely a push for PC vs the X, but why not a 1440p mode at 60? Or dynamic scaling? Or even a 40fps mode like some of the PS5 games, they are much better than the 30fps modes in those games.
Fuck me, there’s always a tweet from this fanboy.
He has connections with the Xbox execs, why does he keep misleading his fan base?
How is a third to first person shooter game slow paced...?I can live with 30 fs for slow paced games like Bethesda RPGs, but would be way better if they had a dumbed down 1080/1440 60 fps option.
How long you think it took him to take his dick out his mouth?
DAMNMouth?
Good. Graphics need to be pushed forward. If you want to play at 60 then you know what to do. Stop being cheap.
If perspective translates to game speed then why don't all first person shooters feel like the exact same game?. Hmmmm now that you mention it, Squad feels exactly like doomHow is a third to first person shooter game slow paced...?
I see this game like ME games. Lots of walking around, exploring and the occasional shoot out. Totally playable at 30 fps.How is a third to first person shooter game slow paced...?
Have you see the presentation?Actual legit lol.
The fact they can't even provide an option targeting a lower resolution @ 60 FPS says a lot. Many other open-world games do this and please do not pretend Starfield is some game magnitudes ahead of most others when it comes to complex systems. It's not. At least, not in ways that other open-world games don't match in areas they focus on in particular.
It's the lack of an option for 60 FPS, or even 40 FPS, at least with maybe DRS, that is laughable in this case.
Actual legit lol.
The fact they can't even provide an option targeting a lower resolution @ 60 FPS says a lot. Many other open-world games do this and please do not pretend Starfield is some game magnitudes ahead of most others when it comes to complex systems. It's not. At least, not in ways that other open-world games don't match in areas they focus on in particular.
It's the lack of an option for 60 FPS, or even 40 FPS, at least with maybe DRS, that is laughable in this case.
Actual legit lol.
The fact they can't even provide an option targeting a lower resolution @ 60 FPS says a lot. Many other open-world games do this and please do not pretend Starfield is some game magnitudes ahead of most others when it comes to complex systems. It's not. At least, not in ways that other open-world games don't match in areas they focus on in particular.
It's the lack of an option for 60 FPS, or even 40 FPS, at least with maybe DRS, that is laughable in this case.
How would you even know that?Actual legit lol.
The fact they can't even provide an option targeting a lower resolution @ 60 FPS says a lot. Many other open-world games do this and please do not pretend Starfield is some game magnitudes ahead of most others when it comes to complex systems. It's not. At least, not in ways that other open-world games don't match in areas they focus on in particular.
It's the lack of an option for 60 FPS, or even 40 FPS, at least with maybe DRS, that is laughable in this case.
Did any gameplay that involved shooting in the deep dive look slow? If so, Im afraid you may have to go to a hospital because Im worried your havn a fuckn strokeIf perspective translates to game speed then why don't all first person shooters feel like the exact same game?. Hmmmm now that you mention it, Squad feels exactly like doom
Cyberpunk made me upgrade my PCThe Witcher 3 pushed me to do that last gen.
The trolls have crowled from their bed and are doing everything they can to downplay this game.How would you even know that?
If the game is CPU or bandwidth bound then lowering resolution simply won't do anything. And it definitely seems that way judging by the video.
FSR won't be helpful if CPU is the bottleneck. And looking at the scope of the things they showed, that's probably it.
If it were GPU, they wouldn't be citing 4K.
Did you even watch the showcase? This game is definitely ambitious and feels pretty complex, it's the first game I've seen this gen that actually feels next generation
How would you even know that?
If the game is CPU or bandwidth bound then lowering resolution simply won't do anything. And it definitely seems that way judging by the video.
Actual legit lol.
The fact they can't even provide an option targeting a lower resolution @ 60 FPS says a lot. Many other open-world games do this and please do not pretend Starfield is some game magnitudes ahead of most others when it comes to complex systems. It's not. At least, not in ways that other open-world games don't match in areas they focus on in particular.
It's the lack of an option for 60 FPS, or even 40 FPS, at least with maybe DRS, that is laughable in this case.
How many current-gen only open world RPGs have we seen which come anywhere near close to the scope of Starfield. How many open world RPG's have we seen of this scope in general.
Yeah, you didnt watch the show that much, if this is what you got.I watched the whole thing and, no, it's not the only game this gen that "feels" next-generation. You've got planetary transitions with cutscenes going in and out the atmospheres instead of actual gameplay, and that's just one drawback out of many in the pursuit of sheer content. If the team cut down the number of planets from 1,000 to say 40 or 50 key planets, had the others there as backdrops, maybe we'd get atmospheric re-entries that weren't cutscenes.
Meanwhile other things like the spaceship fights, look really cool, but I'm not going to pretend it's the first game doing that stuff. Per-object interactivity doesn't seem any more deep than any other games I can think of AAA-wise, but the customization options for the spaceship are really cool.
Name them in alphabetical order.
How many current-gen only open world RPGs have we seen which come anywhere near close to the scope of Starfield. How many open world RPG's have we seen of this scope in general.
60 fps don’t matter
Ascending or descending alphabetical order?
Ascending, with full names, release dates and platforms.
Yeah, you didnt watch the show that much, if this is what you got.
What you wrote down there is pure downplay.You're entitled to your opinion.
What is Starfield's scope? Genuine question.
I'm glad you picked ascending.
F
U
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.
Where's the other 40 you lying sack ?
Bethesda:You don't have to. Let me decide if I want to sacrifice it. Give players the option. Like basically every other major modern release. Garbage.
To be fair, you would be fine with it even if it was 15.Totally fine with 30.
Same area.
There is a definitive improvement.
2022:
2023:
Actual legit lol.
The fact they can't even provide an option targeting a lower resolution @ 60 FPS says a lot. Many other open-world games do this and please do not pretend Starfield is some game magnitudes ahead of most others when it comes to complex systems. It's not. At least, not in ways that other open-world games don't match in areas they focus on in particular.
It's the lack of an option for 60 FPS, or even 40 FPS, at least with maybe DRS, that is laughable in this case.
Definite improvement over the first one. Volumetric fog?
That’s why Todd stated the FPS is always above 30, even close to 60 (they lock it as it feels better than fluctuating frame rates) as they need the headroom as anything can happen in their game that may tank the FPS.My worry is when you lock a game like this at 30fps and you have multiple enemies and explosions happing all at once will the frame rate dip to a noticeable point. As in slow down the game in parts
Series S is clearly not the bottleneck if it's running at 1440p at the same framerate. I think you're making up issues that you don't even know exist in the first place.If it's a CPU bottleneck issue then IMO it shows the drawback in MS's dual-console approach. If they just had the Series X spec to target, they could've probably utilized spare GPU compute to offload some CPU-bound tasks to, and that could've maybe freed the CPU up to issue out display lists faster, giving a framerate boost. Especially if that could've been paired with DRS or something similar.
But since the game also has to run on the Series S, they can't target Series X's compute headroom in that type of way, so I guess both consoles are stuck with 30 FPS unless a patch comes later down the line.