**** Starfield ****

Homelander

I'll probably wait a few weeks before jumping in. Nature of these games usually means they're pretty buggy on launch even if the core game is fine.

Apart from Fallout 76 I can't really think of a game actually developed by Bethesda themselves that was not great on launch. And even 76 got fixed into a great game, I'm sure they learned serious lessons from that.

Retr0gamer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121011891#Comment_121011891

Fallout 3 DLC was a complete disaster so there's one. And all their releases on PS3 were near unplayably broken and never fixed.

EoinHef

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121011178#Comment_121011178

Played Cyberpunk 2077 a week after launch on PC. Enjoyed it too. I also bought NMS at launch and enjoyed that.

But I did wait until I at least knew what I was buying for both as I bought both about a week or two after launch.

So yeah if you think I'm some sort of gaming perfectionist your just wrong really.

The problem with Bethesda games is usually performance based, like they run like crap or they crash all the time. Look at the Disater that Fallout 76 was on launch.

I'm 99% sure I'll be buying amd playing Starfield, im just not gonna put money down blindly first...

DarkJager21

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121012488#Comment_121012488

One of the early access reviewers said he'd played 15 hours without a single bug. There was also some leaked footage of the first 40 mins put up today and rapidly taken down, got a quick look cos I was curious 🤣

Can safely say from the footage I briefly skipped through (which was played on series X) that my fears about the 30fps are gone now - it ran as smooth as could be and looked amazing, especially the lighting.

Potential-Monke

Being on Gamepass will make the trying it part easier, but having just finished Miles Morales where I was using Performance mode, I changed over to Fidelity and switched back within a minute, immediate negative difference so I can't see how Starfield will pull it off for me. But I will try.

SuperBowserWorld

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121013612#Comment_121013612

I run Zelda Tears of the Kingdom, which is 30 FPS, in regular, non game mode on an LG C1 and it's a smooth as butter. Maybe latency is higher, but I can't honestly say I notice. So, I'll do the same with this if it's looking crap. OLED can really show up 30 FPS games, so it's nice to have this "hack". Think it'll be fine for these kinds of games. Anyway, free entry for me with GamePass until end of October, when my sub is up.

murpho999

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121008362#Comment_121008362

Well Bethesda’s record is not that bad. Fallout 76 is the big fail and I really think they have learnt from that.

As for spending money before you know. I’m not. I’ll be playing through Game Pass and people paying for games on pre-order is just crazy imho.

wotzgoingon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121013874#Comment_121013874

I used to be addicted to crack so spending a few quid on a game isn't too much of a issue.

Retr0gamer

A live action trailer at gamescom this close to release. They shouldn't have bothered. That's the stuff you pull when you've no game to show when you just announce a game.

TitianGerm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121013909#Comment_121013909

Actual crack or Vampire survivors?

McFly85

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015548#Comment_121015548

It looked like a trailer for a better sci-fi film than Rebel Moon that was also shown for some reason

awec

I'm actually a bit shocked at the 30fps thing, I hadn't realised. I thought gaming, even console gaming, had moved well past this by now, particularly for AAA titles.

Retr0gamer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015888#Comment_121015888

Every gen we are promised 60 FPS and every gen devs are enticed by better graphics for 30 FPS trade off. It's just console gaming.

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015917#Comment_121015917

But usually you get a choice right? Fidelity vs performance mode.

It doesn't sound like there's a choice here?

Retr0gamer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015921#Comment_121015921

I think the problem with games like this and Baldur's Gate 3 is how CPU heavy they are. Reducing GPU resources isn't going to help the mediocre CPUs these consoles are running and these simulation based games are very CPU heavy.

johnny_ultimate

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015921#Comment_121015921

Fidelity vs performance has become a de facto but entirely unofficial standard for next-gen, yes, but it benefited a lot from a lengthy cross-gen period where it was easier to give games a performance boost to 60. Fully next-gen games are pushing newer tech which is going to see degraded performance in favour of improved fidelity. We're seeing it already with games like A Plague Tale: Requiem and Remnant 2. Unreal Engine 5 games are also remarkably heavy (check out the ludicrous recommended PC specs for Immortals of Aveum, which is the first big new release to push all UE5 headline features) which is going to become more of a problem for consoles as the gen proceeds. As it always does, really.

That said, the current-gen consoles are very capable machines relative to the last few console gens, and clearly developers can push for decent performance if they prioritise that over sheer graphical fidelity (some, like the wizards at Insomniac, have managed to achieve both). So developers are clearly making a call, and on Starfield they obviously wanted scale and fidelity over performance. But given Bethesda's patchy to completely unacceptable console work in the past, a stable 30 FPS would be progress for them.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015936#Comment_121015936

Larian are targeting 60 FPS on PS5 so hopefully they'll deliver - although by all accounts the game's third act is much heavier than the rest of the game, as PC gamers are gradually finding out. The main CPU limitation for the Xbox Series S seems to be in delivering split-screen multiplayer.

awec

30fps would be entirely immersion breaking for me, I find it very distracting any time I play games at this frame rate.

I'm sure loads of people will have no issue with it, but it just surprises me really. Maybe they'll do a 60fps version if enhanced versions of the consoles are released.

McFly85

A rock-solid 30fps will be fine. Might be jarring for a short while but I don’t think it’s a deal breaker.

I believe I heard something along the lines of the amount of permanence they are implementing in the universe meant they felt targeting 30fps was the better option.

40fps I’ve found is a great compromise on the steam deck, feels far smoother than you’d think. Wonder if that will be a post launch possibility.

Sierra Oscar

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015921#Comment_121015921

If I remember correctly Bethesda have basically said that 60fps was beyond the capability of the console and it wouldn't be an enjoyable experience whatsoever to play it at that. Reading between the lines it would have been unplayable.

Can you imagine the negativity that would surround the release if they had included a 60fps option that was unplayable? No point getting people's hopes up I suppose.

wotzgoingon

I've a decent PC but play mostly on Xbox SX. I do not notice FPS at all and even play some games at 120Hz on PC. I also have a Freesync Premium Tv. 30FPS is not going to bother me in the slightest.

johnny_ultimate

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121016260#Comment_121016260

Play five minutes of a game in 60FPS or higher mode, and then switch back to 30. The difference can be pretty vast - can feel like running through treacle when you switch to 30.

That said, if a game only has 30 FPS it's a bit easier to swallow given there's no alternative. Even with the unstable 60 FPS in FFXVI I just can't go back to the more stable 30 FPS given the loss in responsiveness in combat. But I'd definitely go with a PC version if that was more likely to run at 60 FPS compared to a console.

murpho999

Am I alone, in that I just don't get the difference between 30fps and 60? I have a 60hz TV before someone asks which is capable of 60fps.

I've watched numerous comparison videos on You Tube, played games in both modes and just really don't see a difference.

Watched the Digital Foundry videos where they complain that FPS drops from 60 to 50 for action etc but I just don't see it.I really wonder if its my eyesight.😀

Bethesda have clearly said they're going for consistency and quality and that the game is so vast that having 60fps run perfectly through the whole game was not on and 30fps will give the better experience.

Also, reviewers have the game and there's an embargo but some comments and news is leaking out and the general feedback is that the game is excellent, looks stunning and has little to no bugs.

I think it's just Sony players who are doing most of the complaining about the game as they won't have access.

pixelburp

I'll notice the "smoother" movement in a game that's running at 60fps, but not to the extent that I'd prefer it or say it's some Red Flag if it's "only" running at 30fps. Maybe it's cos I'm a film-head that I'm well used to visual images running at a lower frame-rate that it doesn't bother me in the slightest lol.

Sephiroth_dude

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121016667#Comment_121016667

Nope your not alone, was always comfortable with 30, only time I've ever had issues with frame rate with atelier iris and and a sword art online game on the vita and they were dropping well below 10fps.

johnny_ultimate

I dunno, it's a pretty night-and-day difference to me. The extra responsiveness you get in 60 FPS + is transformative for many titles, especially fast paced action ones. It can dramatically impact playability as much as simple aesthetics.

That said, I wouldn't let a 30 FPS limit stop me from playing a game I really wanted to play. I played through all of Tears of the Kingdom without a second thought, and many of my favourite games were 30 FPS (and in some cases an unstable 30 FPS) only when I played them. Still, I've grown more sensitive to it as the years have gone on - I would have more happily tolerated 30 FPS a lot more even five years ago (with a track record on this very forum to that effect), but these days my eyes are extremely sensitive to the differences and would never choose 30 over 60 if the option was available.

But hey, I'll give Starfield a whirl on PC GamePass where I will be able to pump up the performance hopefully :)

And I say that as someone who feels physically ill at the mere sight of a 'motion smoothed' film or TV show :P (24 FPS for life!)

awec

The difference between 60fps and 30fps is chalk and cheese IMO. If you play games that run at 60 and then go play a game that runs at 30 the difference is very stark.

If you can't see a difference then possibly there's something wrong with your setup, it's not a subtle difference.

I'm sure it looks great and you'd probably get used to the frame rate, but I'm still just a bit surprised.

murpho999

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121016793#Comment_121016793

Sorry but my set up is fine. What is to be set up anyway? You just need a console and a correct TV and cable.

I have used my own set up and others and just not seen the difference, and I'm not alone on this.

That's why I find saying things like 30fps woudl be "immersion breaking" to be OTT as a game at 30fps that is solid will be totally playable and immersive.

Retr0gamer

I'm sorry but if you think there's no difference between 30 and 60 fps then you are talking nonsense. Beyond the inherent smoothness it brings to the visuals in the game there's a massive difference in how a game feels. Halving the framerate halves the responsiveness of the game and doubles the lag. It really makes a big difference in how well a game plays and feels. It's why platinum games feel so good compared to most other games.

Now I'm not saying that 30 fps is awful. 60 fps is always preferable and a stable 30 fps isn't all that bad once you give it an hour and get used to it. It's not going to ruin a game and make it unplayable. But to say there's no difference though is just wrong. As JU said, play a game on 60 fps and then drop it to 30 and then judge if there's no difference.

I honestly just think people aren't used to 60 fps. If you can't tell the difference between how a game controls when you switch from 60 to 30 then see a doctor.

Edit: Sorry, I get really wound up about this because it's like Anti-vaxxer denial when people say there's no difference between 60 and 30 FPS when it's backed up and provable with actual stone cold facts. And then people take offense when you try and explain otherwise.

SuperBowserWorld

You notice 30 FPS Vs 60 FPS on an OLED TV a lot more. I played RDR2 on an LED monitor, Series X, and it was fine. Then tried it on an OLED TV (game mode) and it's horrible to the point of making me feel sick. Moving forward is ok, but rotating the camera, yuck, and that game already plods along.

I used regular mode on the OLED TV for Tears of the Kingdom and it smooths things out, for me, at least. I am hoping the same trick works for Starfield, for me.

Ubisoft provided free 60 FPS updates to a lot of there games recently, also Skyrim now runs 60 FPS. They just look and feel so much nicer at higher frame rates. I think Spiderman Remastered takes the biscuit, you get really high resolution and high frame rates, above 60 on PS5. IIRC, even get some ray tracing too at this spec.

Hellrazer

Ill be playing on PC - if I can get 1080 / 60 Ill be happy -Im not sure if Ill have to upgrade for this though 6700xt and Ryzen 7 1700x @ 4.00 ghz / 16gb ram - Ill wait until its released before making a decision on an upgrade or not but I should get away with just a cpu upgrade.

Doesnt matter if I have to drop some eye candy down.. 60 fps with lesser detail is way better than 1080 / 30 with better looking settings.