@@G360LIVE Well yeah because it also taking clips from the showcase and discuss it with prediction, nobody know it's true or not until it release though
I really like this format where you guys break stuff down together without being super heavily scripted. And I'm also glad you release it in video and podcast form. It does take away from the experience some not being able to see the examples, but it's good enough that I wanted to go back after getting home from work and watch parts again.
@@rizzo-films same... Its also a reason why i think it would be particularly hard to remaster without losing the vibe possibly, some games have an art style that can be retained easier but oblivion could so easily lose that if not handled properly.
Skyrim was beautiful too. But in a way so was Fallout 3. I loved the atmosphere it created with the green filter. It really brought you into the struggle.
I rather hope the game is ready enough. So we don't have another triple a. Buggy mess. This year has a lot of games with bad performance. I am not in a rush for any game. I want a polished game.
@@albanier8426This is a stupid statement. It’s not as if they have first hand knowledge about what the CPU performance overhead is on Series X. There is a good chance that the game could run at 40fps, even if that involved more testing and some extra time.
Not related to the topic at hand, but watching these two discuss anything is super enjoyable. Unlike many other channels and even other TV shows, people love to talk over one another. These guys do a great job of "passing the mic" if you will. Good stuff as always!
ESPECIALLY considering how many people are so up in arms about it being 30fps and claiming that is unacceptable. To them I say: 1. If you feel that way, then don't buy it. 2. Beauty in anything is subjective, but I would argue that when comparing this game to any other game of it's scale, Starfield definitely comes out on top. 3. No one cares that you're upset that this game is 30fps and I challenge you to create a game this massive and manage 60fps. Best of luck! (spoiler alert: you won't)
@@NamelessJoja tbf just because no one else makes games with as big a scope as Bethesda's doesn't mean Bethesda can't do better themselves. They definitely do have a bit of a longstanding performance optimization problem. And by longstanding I mean like 20 years lol. But yeah... no one else is even gonna try to make a game like this, can't argue there.
@@yewtewbstew547 I do agree that everyone should strive to do better. Even I would prefer 60 over 30, no doubt. But to claim they aren't trying hard enough would be silly. Of course they'd rather it be 60. My guess is that is what they were initially shooting for. But this video as well as Todd's statements make it clear that 30 was the only way they were going to get away with it being as visually appealing and technically capable as it is. Here's hoping that the next generation consoles are easily capable of 60/4k or better. Time will tell!
@@NamelessJoja both the Ps5 and Xbox were sold with the promise of 60fps to 120fps at least Sony is keeping that promise for now because every exclusive runs at 60 or 30 on quality mode. 30fps should be a thing of the past right now
@@mxg8475 Can you mention which Sony game has this level of load for the CPU? Sony's open worlds look beautiful, but they don't even come close to having the number of objects, and interactive elements, systems, etc. of a beteshda rpg? Will studios now have to limit their vision to achieve 60 fps?
The storing of object locations and such actually wrecked Morrowind on Xbox as after a while your save size would get so large that the Xbox could not load it into RAM and you would get an error. To remedy this two ways were to always close each door and always leave items stored in your inventory or NPCs inventory and not in the game world. edit: Bethsda added a 'loot overflow bag' to the game I remember now, which would activate if you put too many objects on the ground in one area, but I dont think it solved the problem fully.
It could happen to Oblivion too if you duplicated too many different items into the open world into the ground eventually with a DLC they changed it so eventually the game world might cull objects with **!** Assets lol
yea.. this game is doing nothing at all to justify 30 fps. it does look good, it gameplay is Fallout in space, and why are they pretending that this engine does not have a known cpu threading issue that causes problems? this studio always gets a pass for releasing unpolish games in ways that no one else gets a pass for.
that shouldn't happen, and it's actually ironic, that for a game like Minecraft, they have no issues saving millions of world blocks and player items with no issues..IN FUCKING JAVA.
@@BrotherO4 and i think it justifies the 30 fps, these kinds of physcics simulation, world rendering etc is taxing as fuck, and the cpu that is +- equal to ryzen 5 3600 probably isn't enough to run all these simulation while keeping item position and such in memory. Just like an first xbox wasn't able to keep up with morrowind. They could make engine forget the objects location, not render scenes that u can't see, nor calculate physcis for them, but as they said, they don't want to. U just don't understand how many things there actually is on the screen and how many things cpu has to calculate. Flat 30 fps is a lot better than fps fluctuating between 30-60.
@@faceurhellRight? I want anyone who complains about "lazy game developers" to take just one CS class and realize it's an absolute miracle that functional videogames even exist.
I used to love playing Mechwarrior 2: Mercenaries when I was a kid, and I was always astounded by the pre-rendered cut scene intro. I remember thinking, "it would be amazing if we could play games that looked that good!". Not only are we there now, we're so far beyond it. Maybe I'm just getting old, but I can't imagine being critical of games graphics today. I appreciate John and Alex sharing a grounded analysis of modern rendering techniques and tricks compared to other modern titles. I just feel like just about any game today looks really fantastic compared to where we came from 20 or 25 years ago.
Right there with you! I was terrible at Mercenaries but I loved the hell out it. I was just a couple years too young to grasp the strategies and planning needed to win missions. Just loaded my mech with what ever gun seemed the coolest to me. Thanks for taking me back.
@@skatecar1596Can’t the console or any hdmi device for that matter set a fixed refresh rate at whatever Hz 1-60 ? Xbox has a couple of options to enable 24,30 and 60 I think plus Amazon fire sticks are able to set refresh rates based on content ?
@@gadgetcritic 40Hz on a 60Hz screen doesn't look good. 60/40 does not equal a whole number. But if you're playing on 120Hz tv, 120Hz/40Hz = 3, which is why it would look good on a 120Hz panel.
@@skatecar1596 Current TVs don’t refresh at 60hz. The point of Xbox One X and Xbox Series X was to push 4K gaming. and all 4k TVs that are the worth the salt are 120Hz TVs. 40fps is apt compromise bcos 30fps on a 120Hz tv looks atrocious as each frame has to be repeated 4 times. We didnt mind 30fps in previous gen bcos most of us had 60hz TVs/Monitors. So 60/30 means 30fps games had to repeate a frame only 2 TIMES. But now they have to repeat 4 TIMES. Add to that OLED Tvs perfect pixel response with no motion smoothing and 30fps looks like literal turd on a OLED 120Hz TV. So PLEASE get a 40fps mode like PlayStation 1st party games.
@Teja most of what is you said is true but to a tiny degree. 30 fps looks fine on my c2, this is coming from someone with a gaming pc that plays at 144hz most of the time.
Oh no... you're far too invested in well written narratives to enjoy Starfield. lol sorry just figured I'd warn you in advance. You WILL be disappointed by the writing. But if you're just a slut for graphics? I mean... sure? I guess you can get excited for this. We're all entitled to make our own mistakes.
You hit the nail on the head. I don't generally like motion blur because it is frequently implemented really badly. If it's done right, I should barely notice it but wonder why the image is so smooth. The REAL question is this: what appears when you utter the words "Real-time cubemaps" three times in a dark field at night?
The amount of people assuming you can just lower visual fidelity to hit 60fps is surprising, and the amount of people that adamantly dismiss CPU load as a non issue is actually insane. Whether it's people that are annoyed it's not on Playstation, people that have overcorrected from being disillusioned with Bethesda, or just trolls, the discussion around this game has been shockingly bad. Nobody should be expected to fully understand technical details, but hopefully people like DF can help inform the wider gaming audience about performance characteristics that are usually discussed only in PC gaming circles.
They simply just have zero clue what they’re talking about. They put together a pc or watch a video about how performance works and automatically think they know what goes into developing a game.
@@ElderSnowball even that would give you a lot more information than just mindlessly playing on consoles that figure it all out for you. Nothing wrong with consoles, but they don't enable learning this kinda thing. CPU vs GPU bottlenecks are like the no1 thing you learn if you get into the settings customisation side of pc gaming. That and Vram. Task manager on one side, game on the other, and see which setting effects the actual bottleneck you've got without sacrificing other elements you'd loose by lowering the preset.
Yeah totally not the 20 years old modified engine. It’s the magic of the game which is two generations ahead that makes it run at native 1080p 30 fps with 4 delays over 3 years . I usually play games at 30fps and it doesn’t bother me, but Starfield doesn’t have any good reasons to not run at 60 fps or at least native 4k. Also most people don’t count the fact that we now have ssd which really really helps these types of games . Also the budget is immense for this game, and the team at Bethesda is working on this game since fallout 4 ( even before fallout4) . This was supposed to be a last gen game. They really need to move to a new engine .
@@76_SPZL didn’t even notice. Are we really gonna notice all the small stuff in real time footage. These guys are basically zooming in and slowing down everything to critically nitpick everything that’s going on to know what the devs did to make it happen. Even as a longtime viewer of this channel you just don’t care to notice a lot of these small things right away.
@@76_SPZL honestly, screen space reflection is a double edged sword. it looks good when everything you want reflected is on-screen...if not, then the reflection gets abruptly cut off and it looks more jarring than if it was just a lower detailed cubemap.
@@nikoc8968Yeah. GTA V uses the same technique, but reflections break on far objects like building's windows, because they reflect stuff right beside you.
DF comparing Starfield a single player game with loading screens to Star Citizen which is an MMO as to why its 30fps on Series X, and then trying to say 30fps is going to be the norm this gen. No, 60fps is the norm on other platforms, 30fps is the norm on Xbox. In fact DF were instrumental last gen in getting devs to lock games at 30fps with no toggle, then as the next gen came in all games were stuck and needed manpower to to revisit old titles. Demand 60fps, demand better, when it releases on PC it will have an option to lower the graphics on lesser machines yet still still run at +60fps, they are talking nonsense to you.
When it comes to the general ui and inventory screens i get starfields is way more functional than the pip-boy, but one thing I always really liked about how the fallout games handle inventory screens was that it felt grounded in the world seeing as its literally a device on your arm, and you can see your charater interacting with it, instead of the menu feeling like an entirely different "dimension" separate from the actual game world.
If all the pipboy mods and UI mods for fallout and Skyrim are anything to go by I'm sure there will be a mod for that pretty quickly. Now we just need to see if you can get mods on Xbox or not.
@@EggEnjoyerhmmm guns, a hud like hardware on your arm, robots and traits that affect dialogue I wonder why its closer to fallout than a medieval fantasy game with dragons.
@@reasonjefferey4644 Because setting and genre don’t dictate everything. Game design does. I personally never felt like fallout was a game about exploration like how elder scrolls and starfield is
@@EggEnjoyer well that’s like what you said “personally” Skyrim and fallout are both are exactly the same in game design fallout is essentially Skyrim with guns lol so it’s closer to starfield. Also give fallout a space ship and what do you have.... starfield it’s got base building, resource management and even empty wastelands lol.
No 60fps, no play. You can bang on about how it's part of the "vision" or suitable for the type of game, but the fact of the matter is many would prefer a compromise to visual fidelity and/or game mechanics to hit 60fps.
@@Bestwick1983 Preferring a hit to game mechanics is by far the dumbest thing I've ever heard someone say for a f'ing video GAME.... so, Mr. Professional, why don't you go tell all these dev's how to make everything work since... well, you know... you obviously know more than anyone else?! Did you take a LONG break during PS4/Xbone era? lol give it a break... honestly think you're just a fanboy, but who knows... maybe you're just ignorant.
@@pocketsand76 you’re right, it’s not in the FPS genre, I shoulda said first-person perspective, which I still argue feels like shit when played in 30 FPS… Especially for someone like me that’s used to 240hz/fps esport kinda FPS. I know it’s a very different game, but 60 FPS should be a minimum target.
you can't call this fanboyism. the excuses they game for 30FPS don't even make sense. for example, storing object's location is not a heavy task that bogs down the system. that's only when you place ungodly amounts of objects in a single place and render them. 30 FPS in such a title is just stupid and people should be angry otherwise we return to the 30FPS only era.
Yea. I remember the breakdown of the specs reveal of the XBSX... Not even half of what you guys predicted performance wise vs the PS5 came true. Smh.... Now i see why people say DF is biased... 1200p @30fps is now cool and acceptable by xbox standards now
12:36 I'd more say that it's graphically beautiful and artistically beautiful, while their previous games have only been artistically beautiful, if you understand what I mean. The graphics used in Skyrim were nothing impressive, but I thought the artstyle and views were absolutely stunning.
same. I actually disliked a lot of the modded HD texture packs because they never nailed the balance of detail and contrast of the original materials. The gritty look was well handled for the time, and well contrasted by the fantastical skyboxes and architectures.
I've literally been commenting on many videos trying to shed some light about this that lowering the resolution or turning down graphics only helps if your CPU isn't a bottleneck and that a game like Starfield cannot be directly compared to any other game in the marked due to its complex systems and simulation. Unfortunately the discourse around Starfield is hijacked by people that participate in console wars in many cases so that's unfortunate.
Yeah cause as we all know, no other game like Starfield has ever existed, therefore an Xbox Series X is incapable of running anything like it… This is just Cope from fanboys. They could drop it to 1440p and give you 60FPS, but they don’t want to. You guys need to stop acting like this is some Simulation Powerhouse. It’s an ARPG like many others.
@@LordLentils That was sarcasm. Many games exist that are similarly hard to run. The fact that it’s in space is irrelevant. There’s many other games that are equally as taxing on the system. This game doesn’t even have SSR. It’s using basic cube maps. It’s not even using RT. It’s a joke that you’ve all accepted the lies that this game is some NASA level simulation that isn’t possible to run over 60 fps. Todd Howard get you guys every time! Hook, Line, and Sinker!
@@Quizack Not many games do what Bethesda games do and based on what they presented Starfield is an evolution of what they are doing. No one is claiming this is some Nasa level of simulation other than you maybe. We're simply discussing what was shown, as that's common for video game enthusiasts to do. Could they be lying and the game isnt what they claim to be? Maybe, anything's possible but I have no evidence to suggest that they are. You say that its just an ARPG like many others, when it obviously isn't and the fact it takes place in space doesn't matter when it obviously does because a big part of the game takes place in space, you travel in it, interact with it, your ship, modifications, companions and base buildings etc. How could it not matter? The one game I can think of that does some of what Starfield does to a degree is Star Citizen and you can click on my channel and videos and search for Star Citizen to see what an obvious CPU bottleneck looks like, and I'm using a 7700X there which blows the Series X cpu out of the water and it can't do a locked 60 leaving the spaceport. Optimization discussions aside its a point of consideration. We will benchmark the game though on similar hardware as Series X on PC and see how demanding and well optimized the game is.
StarField is created on a framework called The Forge by ConfettiFX. It’d be interesting if DF can interview the mastermind behind that framework, Wolfgang Engel.
The fact that some fanboys are comparing graphics of these massive open world games to corridors like The Last of Us really highlights the importance of videos like this.
Both had different hurdles to be as advanced as they were. Last Of Us maxed out the PS3 hardware to get where it got, Starfield probably melted so many CPU’s tracking all the objects, characters and mapping let alone the actual gameplay.
You guys were absolutely crucial this year with all the horrible half baked releases on PC. The revisits are much appreciated as well, thanks for all you do.
I'm going to guess there will still be a lot of crying on the forums about performance. Eventhough the recommended specs online have been bumped up to a Ryzen 7700X + RX 6800 XT for 1440p (high fidelity and fps, or so they say). So they are absolutely right the CPU load will be very high. And those requirements are steeper than most people's systems according to steam survey. So you can already grab the toast and cheese, because there will be lots of wine... i mean whine.
@@The_Noticer.I love how when people have bad performance you blame it all on the customer. Like it isn’t their job to optimize the game. Which they won’t because it’s Bethesda
@@FlipFlopGod No but people are too dumb to judge what is happening on screen. They think a corridor shooter running at 120fps means a openworld map that retains all information about every object you've placed and has huge planets implies it should also run at 120fps. Optimizing, like bottlenecking, are just overused terms. And implies that anything not running 120fps on their entry level system means its poorly optimized. They cried about cyberpunk being poorly optimized aswell and that didnt hold water then, and it doesn't now. It scales perfectly fine with settings and hardware, its just very graphically intensive. I'll happily point out the game that doesn't warrant poor performance, like remnant 2. But a game of this scope, you can imagine CPU's having a hard time, and then some person says "he has a 4070TI and therefor it should run 100fps", not even mentioning the fact he's running it on a Ryzen 1600 AF.
@@FlipFlopGod It's a two-way street, bro. Devs need to have good optimization and the player needs to have decent system specs. You need to consider that "optimization" only goes so far. I read somewhere recently that it is highly recommended Starfield be installed on a fast SSD or M.2. Is that poor optimization on Bethesda's part? No. Games are becoming too big and are including significantly more high resolution textures than even a few short years ago, along with all the fancy lighting models and physics. Little Timmy can't just load up Starfield on a potato with a 7200rpm HDD, i5 2500, and a GTX 660 and expect the game to have good performance. We all don't want to see a game run like steamy doo doo, of course. Building a clean game without bloated code really does help, and taking advantage of all the modern advances in game engines does create more performant games, but at some point you will hit a wall and then it becomes a computational problem. Which means you need faster hardware. All the optimization in the world can't create high frame rates and ultra settings without the computational and GPU horsepower to make it happen.
low distant and close clouds was always something fascinating for me... i remember Just Cause 2 back then had particle clouds which could be set through modding all the way down above JC2 ocean and even spread the height variety so they would show higher too and they were visible from any distance, amazing stuff back then, seems like decade ago 😁
You can not land your ship yourself. The game will do it for you. Also you will not see entering and exiting the atmosphere of a plant/moon. You'll see only a cutscene of you ship landing.
I generally prefer the real-time cube map approach to screen space reflections. SSR artifacts are incredibly immersion-breaking. To me, at least, they're more noticeable than the cube-map weirdness.
Agreed. I can easily get used to something that doesn't look quite realistic but very consistent as opposed to something that looks great some of the time but has a tendency to break constantly. It's why I love what the devs have done with the Metroid Prime remake. It's just so consistent and solid looking.
@@JustFun-ho6qy This, there are many things your brain chooses to ignore or process in a way where you dont care - like getting used to a third person game with a 'smooth' actually-30fp OR cube maps that dont look stupid. SSR are nice, right up until something magically disappears from a reflection, and then you are ripped out of the experience.
@@xBINARYGODxI can't even enjoy checkerboard rendering or the insane sparkly effect that still occurs with RTX. & I feel worse because I feel lik most people don't even perceive it
@@infernaldaedra the sparkly effect from the RTX reflection is because it’s being rendered at a lower resolution. Don’t feel bad , some people don’t notice shader comp stutters 💀, and will say the game runs “fine”.
Cyberpunk had issues with SSR for a long time. The reflections would look horrible and grainy if your settings weren’t maxed out, which at the time was pretty hard to achieve.
To me there's no "Next-gen" experience without better framerate. If a game cannot run at 60 fps on console, give it at LEAST a 40 FPS option for those who have 120Hz screens..
Interesting to note about Starfield - it seems that the creation engine is now (at least partially) using the open-source The Forge rendering engine, as The Forge Interactive, the developers of such, were contracted by Bethesda to integrate it. Not entirely sure what the capacity of usage is, but its there !
Didn't know about that so thanks for pointing this out. What makes me the happiest about Starfield is that *Creation Engine 2 looks to be holding the comparison with next-gen engines* , such as (not to name it) UE5, in most of its features: animation, gunfire/combat framework, textures, lighting, etc. (but for the facial animation, tho...). As we can hope this game's gonna be delivered with a CE2 toolkit, this means *the game is supposedly going to be moddable as is, making it an insane new tool for modders to dive into* .
@@mezzb The CE is a fantastic engine that does ALOt of very complex things. people just love to find something to hate on even if there is zero logic in it. not to mention UE is not mod friendly
@@mezzbPerfectly said. Not to mention that, personally, I find the concentration of the industry in a few outsourced, shared engines to be somewhat negative in the long run. I'm glad Bethesda sticks by the Creation Engine and I hope they continue to do so. I wish CD Projekt hadn't completely abandoned REDEngine..
I think it was also the Remedy CEO or someone that said (I think specifically about SSDs and loading times) but in general, that just because hardware gets better doesn't mean games will perform better. As the hardware gets better, good AAA devs are going to push that new hardware. They're not just going to keep graphics and scale consistent and push 1000fps. They're going to be like "Oh, we have 3X the power... alright boys let's up the physic sim, let's up the geometric detail, lets add RT, let's add particle effects, let's make our AI more advanced..." etc. There goes your frame rate.
Great point. This is also why webpages still take 5 seconds to load (on average). Another parallel point is that games are made to target the lowest common denominator of hardware. You might have a $3k gaming PC, but you still have to play more or less the same games as little Timmy on his mom's $400 business laptop. Imagine how great games would be if devs just said "screw it, Timmy's 8 year old laptop is out, we're only making games for PCs with 64 GB of RAM, the latest CPU and GPU, and 8TB of SSD storage.". We'd get an instant 5-10 year leap in game capability overnight.
Locking a game at 30fps and the amount of motion blur that usually comes with it is bad enough but even if you have a VRR display is unacceptable. Quite a few people I know have bought a monitor for console gaming for the reduced latency as they play a lot of FPS games and FIFA, almost all mid range monitors support VRR over HDMI these days. It makes such a huge difference.
No Man's Skyrim, regardless of whether John "likes" the comparison or not! The similarities are obvious and apparent so consumers are perfectly entitled to make them. We are not here to act like PR and marketing guys for Bethesda/Microsoft albeit I can appreciate that DF may be in a different place with its history of having previously produced content sponsored by Microsoft.
Really, one of the things that makes or breaks a game is the score - I’d like to hear more from channels about the music in games. The Skyrim soundtrack 100% set that game in it’s world and it wouldn’t be at all the same or as good without that amazing music. So hoping Starfield’s score gets the attention it deserves.
The music from the showcase was pretty varied I was surprised. I really liked the main theme of the game when it released but wanted to hear more variety also. The music during the Skill section overview was particularly great
@@mikewade777 what a stupid thing to say. 60FPS gaming is objectively a much better experience. Most people have a display capable of 60hz refresh, meaning to most people a 60FPS experience is more fluid. The year is absolutely relevant. It's 2023, we've had consoles capable of 4k@60FPS for nearly 3 years. It's time we started demanding a better experience. All Sony's first party games have had a 60FPS option on the PS5. The PS5 is the weaker console. There's no excuse.
@@MattBooth saying '60 fps is objectively much better', is in itself a 'stupid thing to say'. 240 fps Pong would then be objectively better than than Gta or Rdr. The year is irrelevant, I played 60 fps games decades ago, whilst 30 fps console games started to dominate. Sonys games are notoriously shallow, thats how they achieve 60 fps. There is nothing in Sonys library on the content scale of this game. Yes there is an excuse.. More CONTENT
@@mikewade777 your reading comprehension needs some work. Let me explain it for you. 60FPS is objectively a better experience over 30FPS, in the same game. 60FPS Starfield is an objectively better experience than 30FPS Starfield. The "scale" of the overall game doesn't affect the framerate, just what's going on on the screen at any given moment. The ambition behind this game is huge. Calling Sony's first party games shallow in response just belies you as a fantard.
@@MattBooth Then your reading comprehension, "'Needs work'' I did not say that 60 fps was not objectively better!. I said it's less relevant as its only a part of overall gameplay. I also never said it was because of the scale. "content'' is implying what is ''on screen'', and the depth of what, when and how you want to do things, and how you change the world around you. Your comment about Sony having 60fps on PS5, belies YOU as a fantard. Because we know cheap tricks.. like the hated QTEs that are used to boost cinematic eye candy and performance. The ambition in Starfield goes way beyond Sonys and MS present IPs. As for the 'fantard' drivel.. Not liking Sonys present shallow IPs does not make you one. I don't like Nintendo's or Microsoft's present IPs either. 60fps does not turn trash into a work of art.
@@joeystar1043nah, it’s not the like the said developer has made any of the greatest games of all time is it with multiple GOTY awards 😂 Clearly they know nothing!
@@AntonKushnir-tc5kz you’ll be able to run at 60fps if you are CPU is very fast. If not you won’t. What is so hard to understand that games can be CPU limited on console? You can be unhappy about that but that’s the design choice that has been made. I think it’s a good choice but we will see.
I wish they just gave an option for a unlocked frame rate so those with a VRR can take advantage (or any future consoles). Just add a disclaimer (like what some games do with a fov slider), more options the better.
If Bethesda releases Starfield with a 30fps cap on consoles then that doesn’t speak highly of their development team. Anything less than 60fps even on consoles these days is completely unacceptable.
You’re correct as these New Consoles are definitely capable of 60fps in all games so long as the devs actually put in the required time, effort, and energy at pushing maximum optimization and when it doesn’t happen it’s because the devs aren’t pushing for it and it’s somewhat excusable with small indie devs but not when it’s a major triple a game studio pushing a major 1st party game…….. Indie devs created the next gen plagues tale requiem and it launched at 30fps on all New Consoles and people said it was because the consoles was too weak and blah blah blah and yet the devs recently patched the game and now you can get between 60fps and 120fps on Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 so we know the systems are more than capable but again it’s all on the devs
tbh the game should be able to run 60fps or close to it so you get a decent vrr experience. That fact they dont have that is because they want to get the game out earlier like redfall. Its what they prioritize during development is all it comes down to. Is the game advance? yes but it should be possible to add that mode is after launch. Plague tale is another example, that game runs past 60fps to 90+. We'll see why it "can't run 60" with the PC version
I haven't played A Plague Tale, but it is my understanding that it's a very linear game. To compare that to this is not fair to either. I suspect that what will take the heaviest load is the CPU, which for consoles will be a big bottleneck. I remember console Cyberpunk with dread ...
@@alexlyster3459 It’ll probably happen but it will be when Starfield gets it’s huge 1 year update that these Beth games usually get. No lie if I didn’t have a kid on the way I’d invest in a Series S just to play Starfield. I’m on PS5 but Starfield looks amazingly fun.
@@Mark-99999 Not every game but the majority of Sony studios implement both a capped 40fps mode and a VRR uncapped mode. Thing is that Sony’s most recent games have typically been way less ambitious than Starfield is and have plenty of CPU and GPU overhead on PS5 to make those systems worthwhile.
30FPS in 2023 is pathetic, and if it does indeed become standard, this new generation of consoles was a fucking lie. As a PC Gamer, I feel bad for the people that paid up the ass for a new console only for the games to run like shit. Hang in there lads. I'm at the point where I wouldn't mind if games looked "worse" as long as they ran at a good framerate of 60 or higher on console. The PS2/Xbox/GameCube era was still the best in gaming, and the fact that games coming out now are running worse than ones released two decades ago is sad and pathetic.
Im surprised that they praised the motion blur in the FFXVI. At least in the graphics mode of the demo the blur was so aggressive and the camera felt jumpy, that I switched to performance mode. Its still there but in motion it felt better. Ive never been too framerate sensitive but how motion blur is implemented can be very critical to my enjoyment.
PC gamers can lower the fidelity to get better performance, but Todd won't allow it on the Series X? ... what a load of BS..., such a dumb excuse, obviously the game is unfinished for the Series X, as MS is making games for PC, Series X AND S (3 systems), and wants the game out asap ... Sony only needs to focus only on ONE system, the PS5.. (no wonder they are getting timed exclusives so easy, and all with performance modes) ... Todd, we are not asking for Starfield to only run @60fps, but for the OPTION .. ... Starfield should be invalid from any Goty nominations, as its beeing shipped too early.. ... now every next gen Xbox game might only have 30fps modes on the most powerful console (Hellblade 2,.. dont see them bothering with a 60fps mode..)
@@VampireNoblesse Assuming it's a CPU bottleneck, then there is nothing they can do to get it up to a consistent 60fps on consoles. Lowering the resolution and textures and shadows would do nothing. They would have to start cutting things from the dynamic simulation itself, which destroys the entire point of the game.
Wasn't the Series X designed to have enough overhead to prevent something like this from happening? It's understandable that the Series S has to make these concessions, but a $500 console shouldn't be limited by these constraints. A PC using the same specs as the Series X will be able to play the game with unlocked framerates, whether it's stable 60FPS is debatable but Bethesda should give consumers the ability to play with uncapped refresh rates.
@@ElderSnowball Well thats the problem, they should not make games this big, if the hardware cant run it proplerly. just my opinion. They knew it from the start that they Would make it 30 fps only for xbox.
@@Amhoj1 Yeah, that's likely the case - that they always knew it would be a 30fps title on console, that is. Bear in mind that this project started before the Microsoft acquisition, and despite the UI woes BGS titles have always been primarily best played on PC. So despite claims that the game was "built from the ground up" for Xbox, that's marketing spiel. And perhaps just my bias speaking, as a PC player who will not be capped at 30fps, but they absolutely should make games this big and this ambitious. It's why their titles are so beloved to this day, where higher-performing games have been forgotten. Because they don't base their scope around current hardware, per se, but project vision. Why you hear Todd say "wasn't possible until now" a lot here. Worst case scenario it'll run beautifully next generation, as with Skyrim Special Edition, although I'm sure that's not news you'd like to hear at this point, soz.
30fps didn't create conversation, it was just people on twitter either are really ignorant or fanboys using it as a vector of attack in the name of console wars.
I’d love 60 fps on this game but I prefer a stable experience. For single player games it’s not as big of an issue for me. A lot of multiplayer games coming out now are up to 120fps on series X which I think is more important.
i usually reject any game that runs below 60 fps nowadays, but Starfield looks so big and impressive that i can understand the decision to lock it at 30
If you call frames down to 12fps stable you have low standards especially on a fps shooter but get keep on getting fucked by xbox that does it form me im done with them time to switch
I have absolutely no problem with 30FPS. I played games at that setting for years. It always allowed me to crank whatever game I have to max settings and maintain consistent framerate while also keeping GPU temperatures incredibly low and extending it's lifespan.
Hardware tessellation is also in No Mans Sky. Actually every ground texture has it and it looks pretty nice, very high detailed. It was not in the base game in 2016 but was added some years ago.
Almost done talking myself into getting a Series X for this game. My brother thinks I'm crazy for considering going this far for one game given I already have the competitor but as a huge all things space buff as myself, it's really tempting. Will wait to see in what state the game releases though.
Get it on pc you cant turn down the settings on console and will have a worse experience at 30fps they aren't even adding a performance mode its a total joke
This will be a once in a generation type game in my opinion. Think back to how much of an impact skyrim had on the gaming landscape, that is what we're about to get again with starfield. And it's so fucking exciting! I genuinely cannot wait for this game, 2 and a half long months to go!!
@@mdog86 cod sells more than anything doesn't make it the best game. And now that it's a gamepass only titles none of their games will come close to those skyrim sales which was released and re-released on any platform imaginable. Dark souls was better than skyrim. Many games try to copy soul games, how many skyrim look alike game have we seen? So who really changed the landscape.? The witcher 3 was also better than skyrim, but I bring up dark souls cause they released the same year. I like what starfield is doing, we haven't seen space games on such scale, but comparing it to skyrim is not a flex in my book.
Looks like this generation of consoles isn't gonna be able to provide us with 60 fps in most AAA games. Just hope the devs understand how important 60 fps is to most people and target it as a baseline.
@@igorthelight I know but he's obviously talking about consoles or would of never made this comment... and the fallout 4 60fps mod worked great on console.
I'm glad you guys are doing a video explaining why 30fps is reasonable here. However it is sad that you need to explain it. If people don't understand what is going on under the hood with the games they are trying to criticize then they really just shouldn't.
I think it's completely reasonable to expect 60FPS for current generation consoles. They advertised it as being the most powerful console ever made. That being said, they really really tried to get it to work and it won't. You can still get more frames on PC, so that's cool.
@@Raztatic all true and if what Todd said about it running in the 40s and 50s most the time then there's a chance they'll add a performance mode later. I get it with games like redfall, where there really is no reason it can't do 60. But starfield is a bit more ambitious lol
Why you guys avoid talking about loading zones! We know that the game will have them on planets and outside. Object permanence, huge cities, Large crowds have already beend done before couple this with load screens and 30 fps argument is starting to look weird!
@@makaiokalahama 30 because it's truly next gen. Ubisoft or CDPR can hit higher framerates because of their dead open world. Even Rdr2 was extremely disappointing in that sense. Technologically speaking Starfield is the largest leap in gaming in a looong time.
The excuse-making for this game is truly surprising. It's not a straight 4K, it's not offering cutting edge visuals, it's not offering next gen animations or character modelling. It's offering large scale, but not without constraints, and it doesn't look like it's going to even hold 30fps. The X should be doing *much * better than this.
Don't be surprised. We just saw Tears of the kingdom get deserved praise but the performance completely glossed over. Sub 30 fps constantly and mostly when using the new mechanics. Hard to go back to criticism of 30fps when most of them turned a blind eye to it barely a month ago
@@jamesbb4 Not at all. The Switch uses a mobile chipset with roots in 2014. The Series X is meant to be the world's most powerful console. It should not be performing this badly.
@SimonStewart75 Nah. Nintendo should not get a performance pass because they chose to go with shit hardware. Nobody forced them to release a handheld with outdated tech at launch. Its a flagship title that should have been more optimized and running 30 locked in the dock at least, but it cant.
"Why is it okay for a game like Starfield to be 30 fps?" - It's not, if it's 30 fps I won't play the game, it's a terrible experience for me as I'm used to 120+. Hell, I'm just hoping the game isn't capped to 60 on the PC, otherwise I may also skip it, since 60 no longer looks smooth to me either. To me it seems like "it's a design decision" could also be replaced with "Our engine is old and crappy, but we want to keep using it".
Thanks for showing your ignorance. The engine allows them to do what people like about their games. The fact that manchildren everywhere fail to understand this is quite funny.
@@ElderSnowball I never said I had an XBox, but that doesn't mean I don't think it's dumb that games in 2023 are still being limited to 30 fps, especially when one of the selling points of the new PS5 and XBox were higher framerates.
@@tatianaes3354 I think i'd take that over something generic and crappy but good looking. I don't think they can afford to make it look any better anyway
Great video as always. Explains BGS's viewpoint and why they chose 30 FPS, but it does highlight the limitations of console; both technical limitations as well as user choice. Even being able to add a 40 FPS down the line would be a notable improvement for those who use high end panels.
Consoles are physically limited, but PC players are limited by their wallets, and in many cases, MUCH more limited than console players based on the average specs by Steam userbase. People always make it seem like PC players aren't limited... sure, if you can afford the latest generation of high frequency clock speed, multi-core processors and RTX 40 Series GPUs. If you don't have that, these newer games are going to also start destroying the first couple generations of Ryzen CPUs, 12th gen intel CPUs and 30 Series Nvidia GPUs, and systems without PCIe SSDs. Star Citizen is a prime example, let alone terrible ports that run so much worse on high end PCs than consoles lol. Limitations can be technical, but there are other limitations that are just as bad, or worse. However, I do agree that console users should have some choice, but it's also not obvious that Starfield even run well with lower resolution or lower visual settings, so sometimes developers just don't give you a choice if it's going to be sh*t and make the console or the developers look bad.
@@af4396 Money's a limit for everyone. It applies to both consoles and PC. But consoles hit their ceiling far, far sooner. The other key limitation of consoles in this case is you're stuck with Howard's vision of the game. What settings he wants, what framerate he wants. PC provides such much more freedom to shape your experience and tailor settings based on what's important to you.
Yeah no matter how many generations we get into there's always gonna be a dev that wants to push the envelope somewhere just to force 30fps. I still think most games these days going forward will be able to play 60fps on Series X/Ps5 but yeah that's our reality as console gamers.
@@Csal92 It's better than last gen at least, where every AAA developer was pushing the envelope to the point where games were regularly seeing dips below 20. I still remember my first playthrough of The Witcher 3 on PS4 and how bad that was. If the new _minimum_ standard is a stable 30fps, I'd be totally fine with that. The thing a lot of people (mostly people who don't watch DF lol) don't get about frame rate is that the actual frames per second number is not the most important factor of how smooth the game runs. It _is_ important, but not the _most_ important. The frame pacing is the most important factor by a long shot. A game running at 30fps with a completely flatlined 33.3ms frame pacing will always feel better to play than a game running at 60fps with frame times skipping between 10-30+ms (for reference, with 60fps you want a steady 16.6ms pacing). Whenever that frame time drops below the mean, or even just at all in many cases, it results in a noticeable stutter. Maybe not visibly, not everyone is going to notice a difference of milliseconds with their eyes, but you will definitely "feel" the sudden loss of responsiveness even if you miss the visual stutter itself. And when that is happening constantly, as it does in many poorly made games both on console and PC, any additional frames per second are basically meaningless. Even high refresh rates like 120+ still feel pretty bad when their pacing is off, just not quite as bad as 30 or 60. That said, only time will tell with Starfield. Hopefully, since they're targetting 30fps, it's actually a _stable_ 30. If it's 30fps with bad frame pacing, then I expect to see it get torn to shreds.
I'm assuming i've missed something, but isn't FSR supposed to be implemented on consoles? Surely, these types of massive open world games should have that baked in.
I hope 30fps only does not become the main option for this next generation, 60 fps for most new releases has been a breath of fresh air since the ps4/Xbox one days. I thought DF of all outlets would be more on board with that idea but it seems they are defending its use now
@@Akkbar21 DF didn't make this game or any other game they're just guessing like you and I and they have been wrong in the past claiming "cpu limited" when it's not. Minimum pc requirements are much lower than XSX|S and Bethesda aren't even using directstorage that would optimize cpu tasks a lot.
@positivevibe5034 most developers aren't making games like starfield. The only comparison would be rockstar. Who will also be releasing gta 6 in 30fps unless a new console releases
What people don't realize half the time is that it's even remarkable that the consoles now a days can even run these new games for $500 give or take. Build a pc with 500 same specs as a ps5 or Xbox series x it's not as easy if even possible as it once was.
I'll just say this. I always find it fascinating how those who don't work in videogames development think they know more about optimisation of games than the actual developers. You sound like Dreamcast Guy who funily enough got schooled on the optimisation of Starfield by a PlayStation developer.
In Morrowind I started using this imperial tower in the village of Palegiad as my home base. I stacked it with so much stuff that the game has difficulty running (like hundreds of tourches all with shadow and lighting effects). I was playing on Xbox and one day my Xbox couldn't handle it anymore and the game crashed. When I loaded back into the save all my stuff was gone. This greatly annoyed my teenage self. Nowadays I look back and think how impressive that game was for it's time that it allowed me to do that in the first place.
I did something similar in the slum house in Oblivion. It was just full of treasure. I made the mistake of putting things too close to the door, so if I went in I would trigger physics updates on all these objects which brought things to a standstill. Eventually I had to abandon all that loot, lol
the Starfield footage they showed in the showcase had very stunning images, but very blurry video. However its a video game not a slideshow. Motion Blur has never looked good, even in most movies it just looks bad and games aren't movies. 60fps should be the norm for on the lower end with dips down to 50.
I love the last part of the video. I’m hearing a bunch of people say they’re worried about a lot of the planets being empty. Every time I hear that I’m like, but in real life most planets are empty, so it makes perfect sense 🤷🏽♂️
I think the grass on the planets are on a grid system. Like voxels. This is really noticeable at 26:24 through 26:26 if you keep looking near the robot's feet and you'll see a "block" of grass get culled out at the bottom of the screen. The rest of the grass is in a box pattern as well. There's areas after this that show it off too.
@@questionmark9713 I have. I've worked on a couple and (foolishly) went to college for it earning a BFA. Most engines, by default, use mainly either hand placed, hand painted instances, or scatter systems. Not a hard grid. Just thought it was interesting and may give in a little behind-the-scenes look at the new generation tools in this new version of The Creation Engine.
If it was a "creative decision" why isn't the PC version capped at 30 fps? I'm pretty sure 90% of players would prefer a lower resolution and 60 fps. Especially those of us with an OLED. Just give us the option to choose. I can't believe you are defending this.
Isn't the StarCitizen facial animation actually the same tech that was later bought by Epic and became Meta Human, and they just still use an "older" version of that for SC?
@@DigitalFoundry i actually wonder if CIG can still get updates or if they can update or develop it further themselves, since they were partners before Epic bought out 3Lateral to make Meta Human for them.
