Current Events > Todd Howard confirms Starfield locked at 30fps on console.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Why not just uncap it for displays that support VRR?

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/starfield-will-run-at-30-fps-on-xbox-series-x-s/1100-6515086/

Womp womp

people will defend this

Console gamers dont buy consoles for performance or cost savings

I never understood the obsession with framerate. I am 100% happy with a constant 30fps

Nice

If its stable then I wouldnt care

Well if Todd Howard says something then it must be true

The human eye can only see in 30fps

If it's constant, then it really doesn't matter

firedoom666 posted...

I never understood the obsession with framerate. I am 100% happy with a constant 30fps

this and the human eye cant really see more than 20 FPS anyway so it doesnt matter if it drops below 30 fps

Sounds fine to me.

When did this obsession with fps start? I don't remember this being a thing.

it was always gonna be better on pc shocked squirtle face

Kloe_Rinz posted...

this and the human eye cant really see more than 20 FPS anyway so it doesnt matter if it drops below 30 fps

Here we go with this nonsense.

all that ms money same shitty Todd Howard

I just made it though TotK, and if the framerate is more stable than that game was, I'll be fine.

A locked 30 is way better than an inconsistent 60. Build a PC if you really care about performance.

Oof

I have an eye condition and find The Hobbit and Spiderverse equally unwatchable.

so is the S fucking over the X's performance seems likely

30 fps is pretty easy to get used to

I've trained my mind to be able to tolerate down to 15 fps .

firedoom666 posted...

I never understood the obsession with framerate. I am 100% happy with a constant 30fps

Seriously.

JasonSehorn posted...

so is the S fucking over the X's performance seems likely

There's really no reason a 60fps mode could have been an option for the X. IIRC other games do this

"Todd Howard confirms Starfield..."

Honestly I doubt that finishing that sentence with "...will contain full-frontal nudity" could stir my interest.

I think Ms fucked up with the s should have been a disc less x tbh diff performance fucks devs up

Friends,

If the game is crap, it will not matter the FPS,

they tend to have very buggy games,

I am playing fallout 4 right now. I save every chance I get, because of the
freezes downtown.

They have nice ideas, but there devs seem to push it to far.

firedoom666 posted...

I never understood the obsession with framerate. I am 100% happy with a constant 30fps

Having bad eyesight is not something to brag about

Jon Starbuckle and Starfield

i mean at launch its gonna be a buggy mess its beth its what they do

Irony posted...

Having bad eyesight is not something to brag about

Imagine being happy :[

For fast-paced games 60 fps is nice, but as long as the framerate stays consistent I have zero issue with 30. If I was hung up on something like that I'd be dumping money into a gaming PC

Like may as well play it at 240p

Damn, that sucks. 30 FPS is extremely jarring to me nowadays. I only play that if there's simply no other higher FPS option.

So this is gonna be a pass like Gotham Knights was.

Nevermind the framerate, it's being developed by Bethesda.
It's the glitches I'm excited about.

Avirosb posted...

Nevermind the framerate, it's being developed by Bethesda.
It's the glitches I'm excited about.

lol

firedoom666 posted...

I never understood the obsession with framerate. I am 100% happy with a constant 30fps

It's one of those things where you just don't know what you're missing. I never really cared about fps until I had to get a PC with a GPU. It is noticable if you've played games at a higher fps. I play most games at 120 fps, so 30 fps looks like the game is stuttering to me now

DipDipDiver posted...

For fast-paced games 60 fps is nice, but as long as the framerate stays consistent I have zero issue with 30. If I was hung up on something like that I'd be dumping money into a gaming PC

For the past couple of single player aaa games I've played, I've noticed no serious difference turning game mode on and off on my TV (should have like +60 ms input lag with it off. Should be higher input lag than playing at 30 fps w/ low latency screen.). Even did this for elden ring which I consider a slower paced action game and was still relatively same experience.

Mashy beat em ups like dmc 3 was a worse experience w/ game mode off however cuz of how demanding it is for a single player game (like 8+ button presses a second at times). Can't play it at 30 fps game mode on either tbh.

30fps in 2023 is inexcusable, no matter how they try to spin it.

It's a game, not a cinematic experience. 60 should be the bare minimum, with fully functional 1080/120 as an option for every game, so people can choose whatever they prefer.

firedoom666 posted...

I never understood the obsession with framerate. I am 100% happy with a constant 30fps

Games look and feel better at a higher FPS.

refmon posted...

people will defend this

Why are you psychic?

I4NRulez posted...

Games look and feel better at a higher FPS.

Everyone who never experienced a fast-paced game at 240+ fps should find a way to do so. I don't care how, but once you feel the fluidity you can't ever go back.

NoxObscuras posted...

It's one of those things where you just don't know what you're missing.

I mostly stick to old obscure PC games and trying to make those run less fast on modern hardware is a pain and a half.

lol all these years and console gamers are still slurping up half-assed games

TwoDoorPC posted...

lol all these years and console gamers are still slurping up half-assed games

TBF us PC gamers do too.
Don't look at Oblivion and Skyrim and tell me those games' GUI were made with mouse and keyboard in mind.

And no, controller support doesn't make it better.

I'll take 1080p@60fps over 4k@30fps.

And 1080p@120fps should be doable. 1440p@60fps should be doable as well.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


The obsession started when most AAA devs decided it's way easier to go for some gimmicky visual effects than actual fluid gameplay.

Who even notices dynamic lighting, next-gen shadows, a bit better draw distance in dynamic games where you need to put all of your focus on the gameplay.

But it's way easier to scale things up to 4k with irrelevant gimmicks than produce a stable framerate.

Avirosb posted...

I mostly stick to old obscure PC games and trying to make those run less fast on modern hardware is a pain and a half.

This. Last half of darkness games (the non dos ones) run like 5 fps on modern systems in areas with a lot of shadows. there is a fix that just involves dropping a file in the game's directory but a ton of older obscure games might not have a fix. Even some sorta popular games are still stuck at 30 fps without any mod like Okami. I remember people on steam bitching about that game being native 30 fps.

Tolerating low res and low frames is pretty much required when playing some old obscure titles. Just have to get used to it

GunmaN1905 posted...

Everyone who never experienced a fast-paced game at 240+ fps should find a way to do so. I don't care how, but once you feel the fluidity you can't ever go back.

You don't even need to go to 240. Most things higher than 60 will be a vast difference.

My monitor hits 200 frames and it still looks amazing