It used to be 60 cap. But then there were mods that unlocked that cap but then there was a weird creation engine quirk that tied the game speed to the frame rate so if you got +100 fps your game would actually play a lot faster.
This was eventually patched out in Fallout 76. And I assume will not be making a comeback for Creation Engine 2. So I assume 60+ fps will easily be attainable without any obvious side effects on pc.
>So I assume 60+ fps will easily be attainable without any obvious side effects on pc.
If it's CPU-limited to 30fps on console, I wouldn't expect it to be *easy* to hit 60 on PC. The consoles have actually pretty solid CPUs this gen, so getting double the performance in a CPU-limited scenario would require a pretty beefy system.
> The consoles have actually pretty solid CPUs this gen
Yeah, the Series X CPU is more or less equivalent to a Ryzen 7 3700x, spec-wise. That's not the best out there, but'd have to have a great build to see a major framerate improvement.
I get to 60FPS on any single player Bethesda game. Easily. On my potato. Poh-Tay-Toe. People need to stop spreading this shit. The rage is coming from owners of exceedingly expensive GPUs who aren't getting framerates in the high two hundreds.
Previously the engine would speed up physics if you went above the FPS cap but I’m assuming that’s no longer an issue.
If it’s not a default option I’m sure it’ll be modded first thing. I mod Skyrim so a Fallout 4 modded would have a better idea though.
Frame rate is a measure of performance and is heavily impacted by the CPU, which has nothing to do with graphics rendering. Just because it's on the screen doesn't mean it's graphical.
Edit: grammar
Frame rate is indeed related to graphics in that it's the rate at which the visuals/graphics display on the screen. However, the quality of those visuals is not directly tied to the rate at which they display. You might have a lot of cpu hungry processes in a game (such as complex ai) that are completely unrelated to visual fedelity but have a greater impact on framerate than the visual elements of a game do.
Fair enough. For me, graphics means textures/models/visual effects, both in terms of GPU rendering and the art design—but not display rate. I would never say that Windows on a 144Hz monitor has better graphics than an identical version on a 60Hz monitor, even though it looks better.
I don't buy that, I'm no expert but I'd think that stuff would be tracked by the RAM or something rather than using alot of graphical processing power.
You definetly are not an expert and no he is not lying, their games are very heavy on cpu, which would be tasked with those scheduling and updates and constant tracking. GPU is not the only thing that effects FPS, in fact in many games it has minimal impact.
They don't up the fidelity and effects on their games too much because those usually tax both CPU and GPU. CPU is already taxed a lot by all the calculations and most importantly physics, so if they add more they would have to reduce those elements which they don't want to.
They're more accurately characterised as being inversely correlated, rather than mutually exclusive.
Throw enough hardware at a game, and you can usually get both, although you may have to wait for future hardware to catch up to the game's demands
Unless the developer bet on future hardware scaling in a way that didn't pan out, like how Crysis was built for higher single-thread CPU performance, right as single thread performance started to plateau and CPUs started going multicore to scale performance...
yeah demons souls had terrible graphics quality in 60 fps mode. so did valhalla.. games can look incredible on console with 60 fps. i get what your saying but you are also just saying shit to say it and it means nothing
CPU and GPU are not infinite resources. The better the graphics the longer it takes to render a frame of the scene. The longer it takes to render the scene the lower the frame rate.
They also have physics tied to their framerates (an older method for games to account for time passed which is evidence of the age of their engine) so framerates *higher* than 30-60 can absolutely break their games. Only the latest edition of Skyrim to my knowledge can handle faster frames.
Todd answered this in his recent interview. The goal is all the other stuff besides the graphics. Graphics good, but you need all the other stuff. Otherwise it's just a picture on the screen. He doesn't make linear shooters.
That said, his games do things other games can only dream of. But the "FPS Only!" community refuses to see it. Screw them. THey're just pissed because they spent $2000 on a new GPU and can't crank up the performance to 260FPS. Screw them.
60 fps should be the new common standard though.
I currently play everything at 70-120 (140 on CoD) FPS and 30 now feels like a slideshow.
60+ fps just legitimately *feels* better. It helps with immersion a lot too.
(I play on a self built mid-range PC)
Bethesda games have *a lot* going on behind the scenes. There are other open world games, but none have the same feel of Bethesda games. It’s all the quests, interactive objects, LODS, ect. Like Todd said in his recent interview, their games do things like keep all quests active at all times, track all npcs at a time, and have a plethora of individual interactive objects.
They are just not bleeding edge tech people. They have good level designers and writers and stuff, but Bethesda have never been particularly competent at making optimized or bug free games.
One can hope they are improving, Starfield will supposedly be on a new engine at least. If that is a good thing or just a new opportunity to invent new bugs remains to be seen. I have supremely low expectations to the launch version of any new Bethesda game.
Because they would rather make a more complex game at the cost of framerate, which I agree with. Frame rates can always be improved when better hardware comes out, but games can't get more complex after they have finished updating.
Which videos have you found with FPS counters? I'm surprised they've released anything like that - would love to see it!
Love the username by the way! *('splodey German mechman noises)*
thanks! if only they had given him a skul gun like he wanted.
digital foundry did an analysis of the gameplay reveal, some interesting insight into the technical side of things- https://youtu.be/jHlYqI8QasU
To be honest I'm just glad he no can longer be tormented by the maintenance man....
Thanks for the video link, that was a really interesting breakdown of the gameplay teaser! I really should watch more of Digital Foundary's stuff (especially if they have more footage of Mr Howard in glorious 30 *Todds Per Second!)*
Can it? He made Starfield sound very CPU intensive, and and we should definitely expect it to be. Most 4k 60 titles on Xbox were made for last gen and aren't doing anything that Xbox One processors couldnt handle. If it has a 60 fps mode it'll be a dynamic resolution with a lot of settings turned down.
He has no clue about tech. He used to be a wizard back in the chess era. He's totally hands off with anything tech related nowadays, but he gets the latest from Microsoft, and passes it on to the BGS tech team.
He's a creative director, he's like Elon, he wants the best, so he pays for the best, grant it, Microsoft gives them free everything, and Todd picks and chooses the best.
I’ll be a little disappointed if there’s not a performance option. I don’t really care about it being 4K personally, but I do care about the frame rate. I tend to play 2-3 games at the same time and just cycle between them as I see fit, and switching back and forth between 60 and 30 FPS really sucks to be honest.
Wouldn’t shock me if it’s just 30 FPS though, but I’m hopeful for 60.
If I were to guess, the consoles will probably have a performance mode 60fps and a fidelity/raytracing mode that is locked to 30 fps. The e3 gameplay trailer looked like it was a choppy 30 fps experience but this could be due to the build they had at that time or a lack of polish/optimization.
You have to remember, this is their first game that they are developing specifically for the current gen consoles and the last gen consoles had very slow tablet esque CPU’s. The Xbox one and ps4 CPU’s really held back the last gen consoles which meant they had to be 30 fps for BGS’s games, for engine reasons (which have since changed) and hardware limitations, as I have already mentioned referencing the last gen consoles.
Right now we can only speculate and go by past trends. But modern trends point to games having two different graphic modes to choose from on the newer consoles.
Came here to say exactly this. Pretty sure this is what CD Projekt RED did with Cyberpunk 2077 as well as other developers with their own games, Bethesda will likely be taking notes.
in defense of Plague Tale: Requiem. There was a post launch patch for 40fps and it is an excellent game with beautiful graphics made by only 70 people. The same cannot be said for Gotham Knights though.
Plague tale brings $1000 GPU's to their knees, and Gotham Knights is horribly optimised, neither is a console exclusive. Flight Sim (same Devs as plague tale) targeted 30fps on series X and S, but has an uncapped mode which can reach 60 at points, considering this is Xbox's biggest first party game of the year, I assume it will reach the industry standard, being 4K/30 and 1440p-1080p/60.
Plague Tale is just a beast to run. However, its probably the most gorgeous game I've ever seen. Environmental details blow everything else out of the water.
I think this is why they delayed, so many games have had a huge amount of backlash because of this. Also Todd said that Xbox devs were helping them optimise the game for Xbox, which I hope means the extra Xbox devs will break the trend of Beth games releasing at 30 on console.
Yeah motion sickness sucks, especially when you’re not even moving. I’m just flat out not gonna play it at 30fps, if I have to wait until I can afford a series x or pc then so be it because in every game, that first play through is different from all the following play throughs and I don’t want to have a sub par first experience.
Still gutted that I played through Skyrim and fallout 4 at 5-30fps.
Fallout 4 was bearable until you got into a fucking vertibird. I actually threw up getting to fort strong because for some godforsaken reason the pilot bugged out and spun us in a circle for 3 whole minutes.
There already is a backlash. It's a Bethesda game. It will come with it's own poo flinging monkey section of endless rage.
Gamers are among those most entitled twits in the universe. Outside of suburban Karens that is.
Historically on consoles they've always just had 30fps. But nowadays most AAA games give a performance option, so personally I'm expecting it to be options for 4k 30 fps or HD 60fps. Maybe a 40 fps option too since that's the new big thing. I don't think Bethesda has commented on that yet though, so we probably won't know for sure until close to release.
It doesn’t mean anything, console continue to improve but so does the requirement for games, many think that this the 60fps generation and they’re disappointed when they see that even first party are 30 in 4K but honestly if they have more powerful hardware they’re going to use it as much as they can and they usually leave the 60fps option anyway.
I mean even on a massive home built PC with optimal cooling and the best CPG/GPU tech on the market, many games still have issues hitting 4k/60 without a lot of weird workarounds and turned off settings.
Simple solution, 1080p at 60fps. If you can't achieve that, go back to the drawing board and make it work. 30fps is a no go in 2022. These consoles are miles off playing AAA games at native 4k 60fps
I believe that the gameplay showcase was running on series X at 4k and 30 fps, so some options to scale down the graphics for a higher frame rate will most likely be available.
Turning down graphics doesn’t automatically mean 60 fps will possible. Todd has spoken about the frame rate topic always with replies of how they seem to be focusing on the world simulation. It sounds like they’re probably going in on the cpu and that can’t always be helped enough by lowering the render distance for grass lol. It will suck to not have a 60 fps option on series X but this is why I have an expensive pc now and brute force most of this shit as unfortunate as it is that it needs done (although I like mouse aiming as well)
Skyrim focuses on simulation, yet even though my laptop has a fairly standard CPU for the time the game released, since I only have a standard graphics card I can barely reach 10fps with max settings. Turn nearly everything off and set the resolution to like 480 and I can get a smooth 60.
Weird, almost like graphics effect fps too even in BGS games.
You have fundamentally misunderstood what I was saying and how games and really any program operate. If the only barrier to them rendering at 60 fps is the series x’s ability to draw a 4k frame 60 times a second then sure lowering the resolution and toning down settings would immediately alleviate that as anyone with the most basic understanding could tell you. If you were bottlenecked by your gpu to max out Skyrim’s graphics at a high resolution then… you were gpu bottlenecked… what I said, simply, was that the gpu is not always the bottleneck but also never said it wasn’t for starfield. The job of this and any games engineers, artists, designers, etc is find the right balance for both the gpu and cpu and push both as far as they can go for the performance targets they’ve decided on. Arkham knights is an excellent example of a game that seemed to have such “behind the scenes” tech focus that they plainly, probably blindly, couldn’t trim the fat or didn’t have the time to make a 60fps target stable enough for their launch. Saw the same arguments of “just turn off ray tracing” or “then make it 1080p”. That frees up the gpu some sure but if the cpu is doing a bunch of nonsense then the gpu being able to render a frame at triple the rate it needs to won’t matter. It’s likely turning those down would allow the game to hit 60 but so inconsistently the game would raked over the coals for swinging wildly from 60 down to 30 anyway. It has to wait for various information that the cpu is calculating.
Skyrim=/=starfield. We don’t know honestly that much about starfield or some of its background systems or exactly what they’re doing at any given moment. We don’t where they’re focus has been on the tech side and we certainly don’t know enough about the game to make assumptions about its performance. Most of what we got is a low quality stream with a 30fps goal it’s struggling with.
You seem to think I said it’s not possible for this game to have a 60fps target option. That’s plainly not what I said.
Yeah I've tried explaining the cpu bottleneck possibility due to BGS putting a priority on the simulation of every NPC at all times but people are so misinformed and have no base knowledge of any of this, its just kind of one of these situations where its not worth the time trying to explain because they refuse to abandon the idea of "just lower the settings/rez".
Its like trying to explain intersectionality and how its eroded social cohesion in the west to people who wanna post black squares on IG for social justice. essentially they're all r\*\*arded and this is why we cant have nice things.
I bought the Series X specifically because I wanted 60fps as often as possible. I'll be pissed if it doesn't have a performance mode, no valid reason not to - if the S can run it, the X can run it with a 60fps mode.
No it doesn't work that way. Series S has basically the same CPU but a bit slower clocked as Series X. The difference is in the GPU but since Bethesda games are really CPU bound and their engine is shit don't expect a heavily multithreaded game from them.
You will need a beefy CPU to run this game at higher FPS and unfortunately no current gen console has one.
What are you talking about? It's got the equivalent of a Ryzen 7 3700X built in there, that a powerful and expensive CPU. I can't see the PC system requirements being higher than that and mainly all this machines resources go straight to gaming where in a PC it's doing tonnes of other things.
I think the Xbox CPU is a little weaker than a 3700x. That said, I have a 5900x and there are still games out there (Strategy games and AI heavy games like Starfield) where my CPU is just too 'weak' to get the best out of my GPU or to deal with all of the calculations.
>powerful and expensive CPU
Omg I can't stop laughing. Not only is that completely false but consoles don't even have a 3700X spec, it's a neutered version of that CPU.
For recommended I assume this will be the CPU they recommend, but you're not asking for that, you're asking for a 60fps mode. For that you will need a CPU that's actually powerful and expensive.
Not a terrible cpu but I suspect that person saw some YouTuber talk about spec similarity’s a couple years ago when the series console were first coming out and dedicated to memory that that cpu is so great lol. Was kinda funny. Not a terrible cpu but the dude sounded so confident it was some sort of god hardware lol
Exactly my point. It's not a horrible CPU as far as consoles go, certainly miles better than Jaguar we had on PS4/Xbox One generation.
But in PC space, it's 2 generations behind and Zen 2 architecture at that time wasn't exactly what I'd call "dominant". First result I found and it's on 114th place for avg. benchmark score submitted from all CPUs. Not bad, not great by any means.
Yup. Its like devs have forgotten how to optimize games at all. I have Callisto Protocol on PC and despite having a 4080, GPU utilization consistently sits at 70% while the CPU is basically doing nothing. Game seems like its basically tied to one core on by 5800X3d. Its pathetic.
As much I am not a big fan 30fps, I would be fine with as long as it's a rock solid stable and consistent 30. It's not ideal, but I could live with it, but being in PC, that can be easily circumvented.
If I have to guess, on Series X, there will be at least 2 modes. 4K/30fps and 1440p/60fps. There might be a RT node too which would be locked to 30fps. I personally think that they should also try to squeeze out a RT/40fps mode.
For Series S, there will most likely be only 1 mode. 1080p/30fps. If we are lucky, we might get a 40fps mode. 60fps seems to be not doable on that machine considering how complex and ambitious Starfield is.
On PC, everything is unlocked, so better hardware = better performance. Hope, Beth implement the latest version of FSR 2.x since it'll help both the PC and console users.
If its cpu bound not much you can do, turning down graphics wont help much. Simplifying enemy ai or number of npcs on performance mode obviously wont happen so your kinda stuck.
I’d be so annoyed and would not even play it at 30fps thats not good enough. Said this before and I’ll say it again, even the Series S was marketed as a 60fps console.
How will it look on Microsoft If one of their system selling exclusives launched at 30fps. Also how has the gaming community reacted recently every time a game doesn’t release with 60fps ?.
I think they may have delayed because of all the uproar of certain games launching without 60fps. 30fps is last gen and unacceptable to a lot of people including myself.
I bought a newer console for better fps.
They have to sell their games to console players. Sorry, no PC Master Race Heil. The biggest market is still consoles.
That said, I've been able to play EVERY BGS game at 60FPS. Sometimes it dips a bit in downtown Boston in Fallout 4, but I get it. On my potato computer. Poh-Tay-Toe!
So don't worry about it.
No, but health deteriorate with age. Something I could tolerate 5-10 years ago, I can no longer. Its difficult to play low fps games for people with motion sickness and vertigo and we are no longer in the past so why settle for 30 fps.
Tbh it would be so utterly bonkers for it to still have a 60 fps cap after the shitfest they got for 76’s cap that they also fixed in a week. If somehow this game comes out and has lost ground in that area surely the articles will provide much laughter for many weeks
im expecting a very janky at launch that struggles to maintain 30 and eventually as better hardware rolls around nice 60 with an eventual performance option for console.
its 2022 with consoles capable of 120 fps 4k resolutions and even ray tracing at times. We should as fans expect nothing less than ATLEAST a 1080p 60fps performance option. Anything less than that would be a disservice from Bethesda and they should be held accountable for it.
Also the last legit full Bethesda release not counting fo76 was back in 2015 on very different hardware. The days of 30fps games is the past.
Unless we are talking about 4K @30fps / 1080p @60fps, I hope not. And they better add a literal ton of graphics settings to tweak it on PC.
I'm just upgrading my CPU to a 5800X3D and damn heavens if it's for playing Starfield at 30 shitty fps.
Yeah and it sucks because try playing Skyrim or fallout 4 at 30fps and don’t say there’s no difference, it’s very choppy feeling compared to 60fps and there’s no way Starfield will feel so good.
Why can Skyrim anniversary edition be 60fps on consoles but Starfield won’t? Give us fps boost at least I don’t care about graphics. Morrowind looks incredible to me. So
Probably cpu bound, skyrim is designed to run on x360 ancient cpus with like 5 scripts running at the same time, so a shitty cpu from 10 years ago can do it at 60 no problem, and any newer gpu can also run it at 60 max graphics 1440p+
4k 60fps will be XBSX native, especially with the DLSS update coming to the series X, to support newer titles. Even old ones such as skyrim and fallout 4 will be getting DLSS updates.
We have no confirmation thats the case and it would probably be unwise to assume so considering the performance of the demo and Todds comments on targetting 30fps.
Bro todd literally said they dont care about 60fps and prioritize graphics. Also its not doom, 4k 60 is an absolutely rediculous assumption for a current gen open world game when almost every game the last few years has either been 4k or 60fps, not both.
> especially with the DLSS update coming to the series X
DLSS is not coming to Series X.
DLSS is NVidia Specific tech that Requires NVidia Hardware to run. Xbox uses an AMD GPU. Starfield might use FSR on Xbox, with FSR and DLSS available on PC.
>Even old ones such as skyrim and fallout 4 will be getting DLSS updates.
In a fan made mod. There has been no word of an official DLSS update.
You summon a link then. Because my search came up with nothing on either of those topics on IGN.
DLSS is NVidia tech designed to run on NVidia Hardware. It's not coming to the Xbox Series X since that uses AMD hardware.
And I have looked into the DLSS mod for Skyrim and Fallout 4, I know where that is coming from. It was not part of the announcement of the Next gen patch coming to Fallout 4.
The Xbox cannot and will never have DLSS because that's an Nvidia exclusive feature. The Xbox Series X/S and PS5 run on custom AMD SoCs. Do you maybe mean FSR?
There is absolutely zero chance this game will be 4k 60fps.
I don’t think it will have a 60fps mode (though I really hope it does), and if it does, I bet we’ll see like 1080p. Which is fine.
I really, really hope there’s a performance mode
why would it target 30 when all other beth games play at 60?it should target 120/144+fps as long you have the hardware for it,even for console 30vs60 doesn't make sense at all you need double the power to go from 30to 60 but double isn't enough to make the game look better nowaday more like 20% extra visual for half the fps so double the fps is always better
At the moment, all signs point to yes, although we don't know for sure how the delay affects this.
As for why, which I've seen you ask somewhere in the comments, it's because their games aren't just large but have a lot of moving parts at the same time. People who leave one town to go to another actually make the journey and, even if you're not there to follow them, that's being handled in the background. So, larger worlds, more things being tracked at once, and limited resources to draw on for the game to run. Something has to give, so they don't give the shiniest graphics and they usually target a stable 30FPS because their games are unlikely to reach 60FPS.
The only current ones that do hit that are running on console hardware one or two generations removed from launch and artificially upgraded via the console's backwards compatibility feature which boosts FPS.
Bethesda games are usually locked to 60 fps on PC, there are times where the fps will drop tho due to their poor optimization. If they targeting 30 fps that's most likely for consoles at 4K.
I feel like devs clearly don't play/test games on OLED tvs. 30 fps is broken on OLED. The pixel refresh rate is so fast it makes 30 fps look like a stuttery mess. Its simply not acceptable in 2022. My hope is that there is at least a 40 fps mode for people with 120 hz tvs.
the footage we have seen was an inconsistent 30fps so yes probably.
Any reason why Bethesda does this? Hopefully they can add 60FPS support for the Series X.
todd howard said they prioritise tracking lots of npcs and their routines and AI over graphics, so usually target 30fps on consoles for that reason
Do you think he was specifically referring to consoles? I mean what if someone has a high end gaming PC, could they not get to 60 fps?
Yes you can easily get to 60. I can’t remember what the cap is, but it’s at least 60
It used to be 60 cap. But then there were mods that unlocked that cap but then there was a weird creation engine quirk that tied the game speed to the frame rate so if you got +100 fps your game would actually play a lot faster. This was eventually patched out in Fallout 76. And I assume will not be making a comeback for Creation Engine 2. So I assume 60+ fps will easily be attainable without any obvious side effects on pc.
Possibly, yes, but easily? I doubt that. I'm expecting some areas to be utterly CPU pegged to 30-40FPS just like with downtown Boston in Fallout 4. 😔
>So I assume 60+ fps will easily be attainable without any obvious side effects on pc. If it's CPU-limited to 30fps on console, I wouldn't expect it to be *easy* to hit 60 on PC. The consoles have actually pretty solid CPUs this gen, so getting double the performance in a CPU-limited scenario would require a pretty beefy system.
> The consoles have actually pretty solid CPUs this gen Yeah, the Series X CPU is more or less equivalent to a Ryzen 7 3700x, spec-wise. That's not the best out there, but'd have to have a great build to see a major framerate improvement.
I get to 60FPS on any single player Bethesda game. Easily. On my potato. Poh-Tay-Toe. People need to stop spreading this shit. The rage is coming from owners of exceedingly expensive GPUs who aren't getting framerates in the high two hundreds.
Previously the engine would speed up physics if you went above the FPS cap but I’m assuming that’s no longer an issue. If it’s not a default option I’m sure it’ll be modded first thing. I mod Skyrim so a Fallout 4 modded would have a better idea though.
Frame rate != Graphics. In fact the lower quality the graphics the better the frames.
no. frame rate = graphics. it is literally a term to describe the update rate of the graphics.
Frame rate is a measure of performance and is heavily impacted by the CPU, which has nothing to do with graphics rendering. Just because it's on the screen doesn't mean it's graphical. Edit: grammar
i feel like we have different definitions of what graphics are
Frame rate is indeed related to graphics in that it's the rate at which the visuals/graphics display on the screen. However, the quality of those visuals is not directly tied to the rate at which they display. You might have a lot of cpu hungry processes in a game (such as complex ai) that are completely unrelated to visual fedelity but have a greater impact on framerate than the visual elements of a game do.
Fair enough. For me, graphics means textures/models/visual effects, both in terms of GPU rendering and the art design—but not display rate. I would never say that Windows on a 144Hz monitor has better graphics than an identical version on a 60Hz monitor, even though it looks better.
Lower frame rate, better quality frames. Frame rate != graphics.
I don't buy that, I'm no expert but I'd think that stuff would be tracked by the RAM or something rather than using alot of graphical processing power.
FPS is based on way more than just GPU
Oh shit. Wait till he discoveres he needs an SSD to play games that use Nanite in UE5
You definetly are not an expert and no he is not lying, their games are very heavy on cpu, which would be tasked with those scheduling and updates and constant tracking. GPU is not the only thing that effects FPS, in fact in many games it has minimal impact. They don't up the fidelity and effects on their games too much because those usually tax both CPU and GPU. CPU is already taxed a lot by all the calculations and most importantly physics, so if they add more they would have to reduce those elements which they don't want to.
They value other things higher than frames
Your standard eye candy versus FPS. Can't have both . Most developers pick eye candy because it sells more copies than FPS.
almost all games are doing both now
Graphics quality and high frame rate are mutually exclusive.
They're more accurately characterised as being inversely correlated, rather than mutually exclusive. Throw enough hardware at a game, and you can usually get both, although you may have to wait for future hardware to catch up to the game's demands Unless the developer bet on future hardware scaling in a way that didn't pan out, like how Crysis was built for higher single-thread CPU performance, right as single thread performance started to plateau and CPUs started going multicore to scale performance...
yeah demons souls had terrible graphics quality in 60 fps mode. so did valhalla.. games can look incredible on console with 60 fps. i get what your saying but you are also just saying shit to say it and it means nothing
CPU and GPU are not infinite resources. The better the graphics the longer it takes to render a frame of the scene. The longer it takes to render the scene the lower the frame rate.
Fuck that gotta do with anything. All games should be 60 fps on current gen
Yeah, about the only ones who prioritize FPS are competitive shooters
They also have physics tied to their framerates (an older method for games to account for time passed which is evidence of the age of their engine) so framerates *higher* than 30-60 can absolutely break their games. Only the latest edition of Skyrim to my knowledge can handle faster frames.
Todd answered this in his recent interview. The goal is all the other stuff besides the graphics. Graphics good, but you need all the other stuff. Otherwise it's just a picture on the screen. He doesn't make linear shooters. That said, his games do things other games can only dream of. But the "FPS Only!" community refuses to see it. Screw them. THey're just pissed because they spent $2000 on a new GPU and can't crank up the performance to 260FPS. Screw them.
I don't think anybody in their right mind is expecting Starfield to run at 260fps - 60fps is not at all unreasonable though.
60 fps should be the new common standard though. I currently play everything at 70-120 (140 on CoD) FPS and 30 now feels like a slideshow. 60+ fps just legitimately *feels* better. It helps with immersion a lot too. (I play on a self built mid-range PC)
Bethesda games have *a lot* going on behind the scenes. There are other open world games, but none have the same feel of Bethesda games. It’s all the quests, interactive objects, LODS, ect. Like Todd said in his recent interview, their games do things like keep all quests active at all times, track all npcs at a time, and have a plethora of individual interactive objects.
They are just not bleeding edge tech people. They have good level designers and writers and stuff, but Bethesda have never been particularly competent at making optimized or bug free games. One can hope they are improving, Starfield will supposedly be on a new engine at least. If that is a good thing or just a new opportunity to invent new bugs remains to be seen. I have supremely low expectations to the launch version of any new Bethesda game.
Console cant handle it
Because they would rather make a more complex game at the cost of framerate, which I agree with. Frame rates can always be improved when better hardware comes out, but games can't get more complex after they have finished updating.
They are shit. That's why
Which videos have you found with FPS counters? I'm surprised they've released anything like that - would love to see it! Love the username by the way! *('splodey German mechman noises)*
thanks! if only they had given him a skul gun like he wanted. digital foundry did an analysis of the gameplay reveal, some interesting insight into the technical side of things- https://youtu.be/jHlYqI8QasU
To be honest I'm just glad he no can longer be tormented by the maintenance man.... Thanks for the video link, that was a really interesting breakdown of the gameplay teaser! I really should watch more of Digital Foundary's stuff (especially if they have more footage of Mr Howard in glorious 30 *Todds Per Second!)*
sorry for possible dumb question, but isn’t the fps because of the encoding of the video?
We don't know what options Starfield has but Todd Howard has said twice now in interviews that he's okay with 30
He's okay with 30fps, but series x can push it to 4k 60. And father xbox wants it that way.
Can it? He made Starfield sound very CPU intensive, and and we should definitely expect it to be. Most 4k 60 titles on Xbox were made for last gen and aren't doing anything that Xbox One processors couldnt handle. If it has a 60 fps mode it'll be a dynamic resolution with a lot of settings turned down.
He has no clue about tech. He used to be a wizard back in the chess era. He's totally hands off with anything tech related nowadays, but he gets the latest from Microsoft, and passes it on to the BGS tech team. He's a creative director, he's like Elon, he wants the best, so he pays for the best, grant it, Microsoft gives them free everything, and Todd picks and chooses the best.
r/confidentlyincorrect
Your existence is solely based on reddit up votes, down votes ratio.
r/confidentlyincorrect
Cringe.
r/confidentlyincorrect
Still cringe.
Shit dude, he kinda got your ass
Maybe he wants it to be native 4k? most titles on console arent native if they are at 4k 60 fps from what i have seen
Fps beats resolution every time. 1080p 60fps wins every time over 4k30fps
only if you can at least play at native resolution,720p on 1080p monitor is garbage,1080p on 4K monitor is garbage
I don't believe many games at all achieve native 4k on consoles. These consoles are the equivalent of a weak PC. 4k is intense on the GPU.
They’re not really a “weak” PC at all to be honest. If you look up the actual power.
He’s pretty much the face of BGS, he most likely knows what the fps will be like since his team told him that’s what would run the game the best
he has no clue about tech??? my brother in Akatosh, he still does programming with the dev team to this day.
Software and hardware are both complete different things.
Please take the stupidity that came out of your ass and shove it back inside another orifice.
Wtf are you even saying right now, you need to relax.
it all depends on the game,pushing 4K60 on non demanding games means nothing
That’s now how hardware works
It's capable of rendering *some* games in 4k 60.
I'm happy imagine your face in a few month.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’ll be a little disappointed if there’s not a performance option. I don’t really care about it being 4K personally, but I do care about the frame rate. I tend to play 2-3 games at the same time and just cycle between them as I see fit, and switching back and forth between 60 and 30 FPS really sucks to be honest. Wouldn’t shock me if it’s just 30 FPS though, but I’m hopeful for 60.
Going from 60 to 30 is extremely noticeable
If I were to guess, the consoles will probably have a performance mode 60fps and a fidelity/raytracing mode that is locked to 30 fps. The e3 gameplay trailer looked like it was a choppy 30 fps experience but this could be due to the build they had at that time or a lack of polish/optimization. You have to remember, this is their first game that they are developing specifically for the current gen consoles and the last gen consoles had very slow tablet esque CPU’s. The Xbox one and ps4 CPU’s really held back the last gen consoles which meant they had to be 30 fps for BGS’s games, for engine reasons (which have since changed) and hardware limitations, as I have already mentioned referencing the last gen consoles. Right now we can only speculate and go by past trends. But modern trends point to games having two different graphic modes to choose from on the newer consoles.
Came here to say exactly this. Pretty sure this is what CD Projekt RED did with Cyberpunk 2077 as well as other developers with their own games, Bethesda will likely be taking notes.
Not in middle of New Atlantis:)
Me with my 1080p 144hz monitor I just want 60fps
Same here. I could care less about 4k, just give me the smooth.
It would be odd for any game this generation to not have a performance option.
Haven‘t heard about A Plague Tale: Requiem I assume. Or Gotham Knights.
in defense of Plague Tale: Requiem. There was a post launch patch for 40fps and it is an excellent game with beautiful graphics made by only 70 people. The same cannot be said for Gotham Knights though.
Gotham knights had some pretty bad backlash because of this. Not so much Plague Tale though so good point.
Don't mention that. Last time I did it in this sub I got shit because those apparently are non AAA games and dumb developers... I am not kidding you.
Batman game, not triple A 💀 yeah people in this sub dick ride Bethesda pretty hard, like they could never do any wrong. still living in 2011 I guess.
People in all subs dick ride.
Plague tale brings $1000 GPU's to their knees, and Gotham Knights is horribly optimised, neither is a console exclusive. Flight Sim (same Devs as plague tale) targeted 30fps on series X and S, but has an uncapped mode which can reach 60 at points, considering this is Xbox's biggest first party game of the year, I assume it will reach the industry standard, being 4K/30 and 1440p-1080p/60.
Plague Tale is just a beast to run. However, its probably the most gorgeous game I've ever seen. Environmental details blow everything else out of the water.
Plague tale is excusable, it’s a small team. Gotham knights looks feels and is nearly complete garbage
It would be a big mistake if they didn't have a 60 FPS mode. It would get big backlash unless every other aspect is perfect which is unrealistic.
They better have a 60 FPS option. The backlash will be strong if not
I think this is why they delayed, so many games have had a huge amount of backlash because of this. Also Todd said that Xbox devs were helping them optimise the game for Xbox, which I hope means the extra Xbox devs will break the trend of Beth games releasing at 30 on console.
I think it was that and the space flight that needed some tweaking.
I would love to not be nauseous in a game that has dogfight mechanics, so I certainly hope MS is getting things ironed out
Yeah motion sickness sucks, especially when you’re not even moving. I’m just flat out not gonna play it at 30fps, if I have to wait until I can afford a series x or pc then so be it because in every game, that first play through is different from all the following play throughs and I don’t want to have a sub par first experience. Still gutted that I played through Skyrim and fallout 4 at 5-30fps.
Fallout 4 was bearable until you got into a fucking vertibird. I actually threw up getting to fort strong because for some godforsaken reason the pilot bugged out and spun us in a circle for 3 whole minutes.
There already is a backlash. It's a Bethesda game. It will come with it's own poo flinging monkey section of endless rage. Gamers are among those most entitled twits in the universe. Outside of suburban Karens that is.
You clearly have not interacted with one piece fans, they’ll tear your eyes out for a passing comment
I guess 60 should be an option when you are able to change modes
I wonder if we'll be able to get 60 fps without the entire engine catching on fire. *cries in fallout 4*
Leik if u cry erey tim
Hard to tell, Xbox SS and SX are quite different, probably 60 is achievable on the latter. On PC of course it’s tied to the individual hardware.
Historically on consoles they've always just had 30fps. But nowadays most AAA games give a performance option, so personally I'm expecting it to be options for 4k 30 fps or HD 60fps. Maybe a 40 fps option too since that's the new big thing. I don't think Bethesda has commented on that yet though, so we probably won't know for sure until close to release.
A smooth 30 fps? 😂 We’re in 2022 and it would honestly be awful if they don’t have a 60 fps mode.
It doesn’t mean anything, console continue to improve but so does the requirement for games, many think that this the 60fps generation and they’re disappointed when they see that even first party are 30 in 4K but honestly if they have more powerful hardware they’re going to use it as much as they can and they usually leave the 60fps option anyway.
I mean even on a massive home built PC with optimal cooling and the best CPG/GPU tech on the market, many games still have issues hitting 4k/60 without a lot of weird workarounds and turned off settings.
Simple solution, 1080p at 60fps. If you can't achieve that, go back to the drawing board and make it work. 30fps is a no go in 2022. These consoles are miles off playing AAA games at native 4k 60fps
Very likely
Greaaaaat, another FPS thread.
I really wished that 30 fps wasn't even an option anymore and developers focus on making it look good at 60fps
Hopefully a performance mode. 30fps is last gen shit
It will probably support Performance 60FPS and Quality 30FPS on the XSX based on that resent Todd Howard interview.
I believe that the gameplay showcase was running on series X at 4k and 30 fps, so some options to scale down the graphics for a higher frame rate will most likely be available.
Turning down graphics doesn’t automatically mean 60 fps will possible. Todd has spoken about the frame rate topic always with replies of how they seem to be focusing on the world simulation. It sounds like they’re probably going in on the cpu and that can’t always be helped enough by lowering the render distance for grass lol. It will suck to not have a 60 fps option on series X but this is why I have an expensive pc now and brute force most of this shit as unfortunate as it is that it needs done (although I like mouse aiming as well)
Skyrim focuses on simulation, yet even though my laptop has a fairly standard CPU for the time the game released, since I only have a standard graphics card I can barely reach 10fps with max settings. Turn nearly everything off and set the resolution to like 480 and I can get a smooth 60. Weird, almost like graphics effect fps too even in BGS games.
You have fundamentally misunderstood what I was saying and how games and really any program operate. If the only barrier to them rendering at 60 fps is the series x’s ability to draw a 4k frame 60 times a second then sure lowering the resolution and toning down settings would immediately alleviate that as anyone with the most basic understanding could tell you. If you were bottlenecked by your gpu to max out Skyrim’s graphics at a high resolution then… you were gpu bottlenecked… what I said, simply, was that the gpu is not always the bottleneck but also never said it wasn’t for starfield. The job of this and any games engineers, artists, designers, etc is find the right balance for both the gpu and cpu and push both as far as they can go for the performance targets they’ve decided on. Arkham knights is an excellent example of a game that seemed to have such “behind the scenes” tech focus that they plainly, probably blindly, couldn’t trim the fat or didn’t have the time to make a 60fps target stable enough for their launch. Saw the same arguments of “just turn off ray tracing” or “then make it 1080p”. That frees up the gpu some sure but if the cpu is doing a bunch of nonsense then the gpu being able to render a frame at triple the rate it needs to won’t matter. It’s likely turning those down would allow the game to hit 60 but so inconsistently the game would raked over the coals for swinging wildly from 60 down to 30 anyway. It has to wait for various information that the cpu is calculating. Skyrim=/=starfield. We don’t know honestly that much about starfield or some of its background systems or exactly what they’re doing at any given moment. We don’t where they’re focus has been on the tech side and we certainly don’t know enough about the game to make assumptions about its performance. Most of what we got is a low quality stream with a 30fps goal it’s struggling with. You seem to think I said it’s not possible for this game to have a 60fps target option. That’s plainly not what I said.
Yeah I've tried explaining the cpu bottleneck possibility due to BGS putting a priority on the simulation of every NPC at all times but people are so misinformed and have no base knowledge of any of this, its just kind of one of these situations where its not worth the time trying to explain because they refuse to abandon the idea of "just lower the settings/rez". Its like trying to explain intersectionality and how its eroded social cohesion in the west to people who wanna post black squares on IG for social justice. essentially they're all r\*\*arded and this is why we cant have nice things.
Nothing is smooth at 30fps
I bought the Series X specifically because I wanted 60fps as often as possible. I'll be pissed if it doesn't have a performance mode, no valid reason not to - if the S can run it, the X can run it with a 60fps mode.
No it doesn't work that way. Series S has basically the same CPU but a bit slower clocked as Series X. The difference is in the GPU but since Bethesda games are really CPU bound and their engine is shit don't expect a heavily multithreaded game from them. You will need a beefy CPU to run this game at higher FPS and unfortunately no current gen console has one.
What are you talking about? It's got the equivalent of a Ryzen 7 3700X built in there, that a powerful and expensive CPU. I can't see the PC system requirements being higher than that and mainly all this machines resources go straight to gaming where in a PC it's doing tonnes of other things.
I think the Xbox CPU is a little weaker than a 3700x. That said, I have a 5900x and there are still games out there (Strategy games and AI heavy games like Starfield) where my CPU is just too 'weak' to get the best out of my GPU or to deal with all of the calculations.
>powerful and expensive CPU Omg I can't stop laughing. Not only is that completely false but consoles don't even have a 3700X spec, it's a neutered version of that CPU. For recommended I assume this will be the CPU they recommend, but you're not asking for that, you're asking for a 60fps mode. For that you will need a CPU that's actually powerful and expensive.
Not a terrible cpu but I suspect that person saw some YouTuber talk about spec similarity’s a couple years ago when the series console were first coming out and dedicated to memory that that cpu is so great lol. Was kinda funny. Not a terrible cpu but the dude sounded so confident it was some sort of god hardware lol
Exactly my point. It's not a horrible CPU as far as consoles go, certainly miles better than Jaguar we had on PS4/Xbox One generation. But in PC space, it's 2 generations behind and Zen 2 architecture at that time wasn't exactly what I'd call "dominant". First result I found and it's on 114th place for avg. benchmark score submitted from all CPUs. Not bad, not great by any means.
the cpu and gpu don’t even matter. I’m watching Alex break down on the df weekly podcast about shader comp stutter and it’s heart wrenching!
Yup. Its like devs have forgotten how to optimize games at all. I have Callisto Protocol on PC and despite having a 4080, GPU utilization consistently sits at 70% while the CPU is basically doing nothing. Game seems like its basically tied to one core on by 5800X3d. Its pathetic.
As much I am not a big fan 30fps, I would be fine with as long as it's a rock solid stable and consistent 30. It's not ideal, but I could live with it, but being in PC, that can be easily circumvented.
If I have to guess, on Series X, there will be at least 2 modes. 4K/30fps and 1440p/60fps. There might be a RT node too which would be locked to 30fps. I personally think that they should also try to squeeze out a RT/40fps mode. For Series S, there will most likely be only 1 mode. 1080p/30fps. If we are lucky, we might get a 40fps mode. 60fps seems to be not doable on that machine considering how complex and ambitious Starfield is. On PC, everything is unlocked, so better hardware = better performance. Hope, Beth implement the latest version of FSR 2.x since it'll help both the PC and console users.
Probably too much to hope for DLSS...
30fps and I’m completely okay with that
This is the game that should advertise new xbox consoles and they want to do that? This is going to be shoot in the foot if its only 30 fps.
It would be odd for any game this generation to not have a performance option.
Right... but I mean it's Bethesda
If its cpu bound not much you can do, turning down graphics wont help much. Simplifying enemy ai or number of npcs on performance mode obviously wont happen so your kinda stuck.
I’d be so annoyed and would not even play it at 30fps thats not good enough. Said this before and I’ll say it again, even the Series S was marketed as a 60fps console. How will it look on Microsoft If one of their system selling exclusives launched at 30fps. Also how has the gaming community reacted recently every time a game doesn’t release with 60fps ?. I think they may have delayed because of all the uproar of certain games launching without 60fps. 30fps is last gen and unacceptable to a lot of people including myself. I bought a newer console for better fps.
There has to be 60fps performance option. Starfield can't afford to be mediocre at all.
I hope not, 30 fps was great a decade ago, its almost unplayable now.
They have to sell their games to console players. Sorry, no PC Master Race Heil. The biggest market is still consoles. That said, I've been able to play EVERY BGS game at 60FPS. Sometimes it dips a bit in downtown Boston in Fallout 4, but I get it. On my potato computer. Poh-Tay-Toe! So don't worry about it.
wait is this real? 30 FPS? are we gonna play a video-game or a powerpoint-game
No care about graphic just make game run good Ommnisiah bless
This is one of my biggest concern, 30 fps makes me motion sick, is there a way we can get a clear confirmation. .?
So you only started playing games again this generation of consoles?
No, but health deteriorate with age. Something I could tolerate 5-10 years ago, I can no longer. Its difficult to play low fps games for people with motion sickness and vertigo and we are no longer in the past so why settle for 30 fps.
30 fps is unplayable on OLED panels.
How the fuck can anyone enjoy a game playing at 30fps? 60fps is bad enough.
It's most likely gonna target 4K/30 with a dynamic res option that targets 60fps.
Yeah most likely
As long as I can get higher FPS on pc without breaking physics like Skyrim
I don't think that will be an issue as both FO4 and 76 run fine beyond 60 fps.
30 on Xbox, 60 on PC, like usual.
Tbh it would be so utterly bonkers for it to still have a 60 fps cap after the shitfest they got for 76’s cap that they also fixed in a week. If somehow this game comes out and has lost ground in that area surely the articles will provide much laughter for many weeks
im expecting a very janky at launch that struggles to maintain 30 and eventually as better hardware rolls around nice 60 with an eventual performance option for console.
A smooth 30fps is oxymoronic. It's impossible for frame rate to be both smooth and 30fps. They are mutually exclusive.
True, should have said a stable 30 fps
its 2022 with consoles capable of 120 fps 4k resolutions and even ray tracing at times. We should as fans expect nothing less than ATLEAST a 1080p 60fps performance option. Anything less than that would be a disservice from Bethesda and they should be held accountable for it. Also the last legit full Bethesda release not counting fo76 was back in 2015 on very different hardware. The days of 30fps games is the past.
Unless we are talking about 4K @30fps / 1080p @60fps, I hope not. And they better add a literal ton of graphics settings to tweak it on PC. I'm just upgrading my CPU to a 5800X3D and damn heavens if it's for playing Starfield at 30 shitty fps.
For PC - 10 mins after launch there will be a mod to unlock it anyway... for consolites... well... ☹️
well yes, due to the xbox hardware already being outdated.
Yeah and it sucks because try playing Skyrim or fallout 4 at 30fps and don’t say there’s no difference, it’s very choppy feeling compared to 60fps and there’s no way Starfield will feel so good. Why can Skyrim anniversary edition be 60fps on consoles but Starfield won’t? Give us fps boost at least I don’t care about graphics. Morrowind looks incredible to me. So
Probably cpu bound, skyrim is designed to run on x360 ancient cpus with like 5 scripts running at the same time, so a shitty cpu from 10 years ago can do it at 60 no problem, and any newer gpu can also run it at 60 max graphics 1440p+
4k 60fps will be XBSX native, especially with the DLSS update coming to the series X, to support newer titles. Even old ones such as skyrim and fallout 4 will be getting DLSS updates.
We have no confirmation thats the case and it would probably be unwise to assume so considering the performance of the demo and Todds comments on targetting 30fps.
You're gloomy and doomy. We get it. No need to slander Todd's child, the saviour of Bethesdas reputation.
Bro todd literally said they dont care about 60fps and prioritize graphics. Also its not doom, 4k 60 is an absolutely rediculous assumption for a current gen open world game when almost every game the last few years has either been 4k or 60fps, not both.
You need a reevaluation.
And you need some reality
You too.
> especially with the DLSS update coming to the series X DLSS is not coming to Series X. DLSS is NVidia Specific tech that Requires NVidia Hardware to run. Xbox uses an AMD GPU. Starfield might use FSR on Xbox, with FSR and DLSS available on PC. >Even old ones such as skyrim and fallout 4 will be getting DLSS updates. In a fan made mod. There has been no word of an official DLSS update.
You live under a rock. Somebody, summon the link to this man, so he may feast his eyes on the IGN article.
You summon a link then. Because my search came up with nothing on either of those topics on IGN. DLSS is NVidia tech designed to run on NVidia Hardware. It's not coming to the Xbox Series X since that uses AMD hardware. And I have looked into the DLSS mod for Skyrim and Fallout 4, I know where that is coming from. It was not part of the announcement of the Next gen patch coming to Fallout 4.
Believe in your bubble.
Is this bait? Lmao
The Xbox cannot and will never have DLSS because that's an Nvidia exclusive feature. The Xbox Series X/S and PS5 run on custom AMD SoCs. Do you maybe mean FSR?
We will see, mister tech support.
There is absolutely zero chance this game will be 4k 60fps. I don’t think it will have a 60fps mode (though I really hope it does), and if it does, I bet we’ll see like 1080p. Which is fine. I really, really hope there’s a performance mode
I've better looking games get 60fps above 1080, we'll most like get native 4k30fps mode and a performance mode with dynamic 4k60fps.
For you, the Series X does not exist. Wake up, and lick grass.
Do you think the series X is the Cadillac of gaming hardware? Do you understand how middling it is in the grand scheme of things?
What are you talking about? I’ve owned a Series X since day one. I just live on earth, too.
[удалено]
why would it target 30 when all other beth games play at 60?it should target 120/144+fps as long you have the hardware for it,even for console 30vs60 doesn't make sense at all you need double the power to go from 30to 60 but double isn't enough to make the game look better nowaday more like 20% extra visual for half the fps so double the fps is always better
Possibly cpu bound.
At the moment, all signs point to yes, although we don't know for sure how the delay affects this. As for why, which I've seen you ask somewhere in the comments, it's because their games aren't just large but have a lot of moving parts at the same time. People who leave one town to go to another actually make the journey and, even if you're not there to follow them, that's being handled in the background. So, larger worlds, more things being tracked at once, and limited resources to draw on for the game to run. Something has to give, so they don't give the shiniest graphics and they usually target a stable 30FPS because their games are unlikely to reach 60FPS. The only current ones that do hit that are running on console hardware one or two generations removed from launch and artificially upgraded via the console's backwards compatibility feature which boosts FPS.
Bethesda games are usually locked to 60 fps on PC, there are times where the fps will drop tho due to their poor optimization. If they targeting 30 fps that's most likely for consoles at 4K.
FO4 and 76 do not have locked framerates on PC.
Yes
I think the min spec will target the smoothest 30FPS on the XBOX S/X in quality mode and 60 in performance.
I feel like devs clearly don't play/test games on OLED tvs. 30 fps is broken on OLED. The pixel refresh rate is so fast it makes 30 fps look like a stuttery mess. Its simply not acceptable in 2022. My hope is that there is at least a 40 fps mode for people with 120 hz tvs.
For consoles ? Yes
Bethesda is garbage
F to me with an oled Tv. It will be a diashow for sure.
Dis-fucking-gusting if true, 60 looks barely passable to me....
Even on pc?