- cross-posted to:
- gaming@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- gaming@beehaw.org
You must log in or register to comment.
As long as it’s a consistent 30 fps, then I am fine with this decision.
Tears of the Kingdom has convinced me that as long as the performance is consistent, the only thing that matters is the gameplay.
But it is Bethesda we are talking about here lol.
Maybe 30fps is less noticable with a controller, but 30fps with a mouse is very noticable.
It’s not locked at 30fps on PC.
But it is Bethesda we are talking about here lol.
I’m sure they will rely on the mod community for bug fixes like they have their last few games.
What exactly do you mean by your Tears of the Kingdom comment? That game was constantly dropping frames. Any time you used ultrahand or fuse, the game would drop to <15 fps. I still really enjoyed the game despite that, but the performance was really poor and inconsistent. Breath of the Wild had similar issues, but it felt less severe. Or maybe I’m misremembering, since it has been 6 years since I played BotW on the switch.
What I meant by that comment is that even when TOTK drops frames, it never bothers me enough to retract from the gameplay. It is consistent in when, and how it drops frames.
This is in contrast to most AAA games these days that seem to vary anywhere from 120+ fps to sub-30 fps at random. This causes studder, inconsistent frame times/input latency, and overall just bad feeling controls.
Back in 2002, Morrowind was a stuttering mess for basically every player. Back then, you’d use FPS optimizer, which increased and decreased your view distance according to your FPS, and absolutely everybody had the fog right under their nose in Balmora. And still it was played and loved.
I think we will be okay with 30 fps in a Bethesda game.
I love my playthrough of Watch dogs despite the 1-2 FPS when driving the corners close to the city. The game was fun to play, so the FPS really didn’t bother me. A lot of people just get extremely fixated on big numbers, and the mindset of big equals better.
And on a personal note, I would rather have a consistent fps than big fluctuation in it. Preferably the consistent fps is in the dubble digits, but 30 clears that gole with ease.
I don’t get the controversy over 30fps. Like I played RDR2 at 30fps and didn’t even notice it.
The gameplay itself is far more important and on that front Bethesda has been second to none. There isn’t even one single game that comes close to what they have achieved in The Elder Scrolls. Kingdom Come: Deliverance was close but much smaller in scope (which makes sense given the size of the studio).
I’ve played every single one of their games since Morrowind and while Fallout 76 was a flop and Fallout 4 was perhaps a bit disappointing, at least without DLC, almost all of their games have been incredible.
In Todd we trust.
Well, maybe you don’t notice and that’s good for you (or not, I don’t really know) but for the majority of people it’s quite noticeable, especially if you can directly compare 60 vs 30 (the higher the better) and the point of the article is that if it’s locked at 30 on consoles that may be a sign that it’s not well optimized for pc and the vast majority won’t be able to achieve 60…
Good performance is what allows good gameplay to shine. 30 fps might be fine for you, but anyone playing on PC with M&K will attest that 60 fps is the bare minimum.
The minimum requirements for this game are very high,and that’s for running it at 30fps. Add that AAA always have problems at release + it’s Bethesda… So I bet the game is going to run terribly.
(Also I’d rather have 60fps and last gen graphics than 30fps for a game with shooting and fast-paced action)
Fallout 4 was good but is almost 8 years old now, at this point I would worry that the talent that made of their hit games up to Skyrim has mostly left or retired. 76 is their most recent game was a huge flop with massive technical problems, why should we trust that starfield will be different?
8?! Surely you mean 4… God I feel older and older.
I like to think 76 had problems because it was multiplayer and Bethesda doesnt have a lot of experience in that area. But Starfield is single player so hopefully it will just work™
Fallout 76 was made by a different studio (most of it anyway).
They’ve literally been working on Starfield solidly for over 6 years.
We’ll see. I’m pretty optimistic about it though.
30fps is not a stylistic choice, it’s due to hardware limitations. A higher framerate with no motion blur is preferable in nearly all circumstances.
Sure you ‘get used to it’, but I could say the same thing for playing games while in a room with a strobe light flashing in my eyes. Yeah my gaming experience isn’t materially different, but I’d be a lot more comfortable in better circumstances.
Once you’re used to higher framerates, 30fps is a big downgrade, with motion blur smearing things around to keep it from looking like a slideshow.
It’s much less noticeable on LCD screens than it was on CRT’s back in the day. And like I mentioned on another post on the subject, a consistent 30 fps is way better than higher but inconsistent framerates.
Plus this is a single player game where you’re not competing with other players who might have an edge with better framerates than yours.
The truth is if you keep asking developers to push the envelope on graphics, framerates will suffer. 30 fps isn’t great, but it’s a compromise.
RDR2 came out last gen. Since the release of newer systems it’s been standard to a have a 60 fps option.
deleted by creator
I’m disappointed but it’s not a dealbreaker for me at all
Well of course it’s a choice. It’s not like they would’ve chosen 30fps if 60+ was free, but the same way they chose not to create all of GTA7 to put on their intractable microwaves or choose not to make their game be a racing game, they also chose that they wanted to target a 30fps spec. Aiming for 60 would change everything about the game. It’s a very considered and deliberate choice.
That being said, it’s very possible Bethesda would be incapable of making anything in this genre at 60 since they’re generally bad at tech.
I have to wonder if part of the reason is that even the upgraded engine still struggles with physics at higher frame rates. Skyrim had issues with objects not playing well with higher FPS. 30fps may just be a sweet spot for the engine that it looks “good enough” and doesn’t struggle to keep objects settled in the ground.
Unless the PC version is also locked to 30 fps, then I have a hard time believing this is the case. It seems more likely that it’s just a matter of the complexity of the world and visuals that make it harder to push more than 30 fps.
There’s no way PC would be locked.
It’s not. They’ve already talked about getting higher frame rates on the PC version.
It would be ridiculous to go back to the early 2010s/mid 2015s where locked frame rate is the norm. High refresh rate (at least 144) should be standard now. To be honest, games should be made to be viable at all frame rates though I can understand why physics calculations are easier to do when having a standard frame rate.
It’s because they made an ambitious, demanding game and console manufacturers decided 4K was the new normal. A lot of console games let you choose between 4k/30fps and 1440p/60fps (or whatever resolution the performance mode is targeting).
With what I saw I’m really ok with the 30 fps. Sure being able to choose a performance mode with 60 fps would be nice but I guess sometimes it’s okay if the game has a lot to offer
I respect stylistic choices as much as the next guy, but capping the game’s FPS to 30 seemingly completely arbitrarily is stupid design, especially on PC where most people want 60 minimum.
probably why it’s done on console.
