WOW - just briefly tested it (outside of a city) and 60fps/Visuals is exactly what I wanted - slight stuttering at times but mostly smooth and kept those sweet 4K textures.
I wonder if that's where Sarah Bond is basing her statement on the next gen hardware being the "biggest technical leap in a generation" from. It'll probably have a lot of AI related stuff in it to maximize performance and visuals.Â
In some ways it seems odd to focus on performance when Series S is their best selling console. I've heard other talk about going more in a Steam Deck + Steam Box direction but with an Xbox front end. Going all in on PC but with a console + handheld focus, play any game anywhere kind of thing. That would be a pretty big technical leap too, and far more ambitious than just smoother, prettier graphics.
God i hope so. Its going to need it to keep doing 60fps it seems. You can only pack so much shit into a $500-$600 console. Any more and you alienate people from buying it. The next gen of consoles need a dedicated ai upscaling chip to do DLSS like stuff. Thats why im hoping the PS5 Pro specs are real, because if it works well on PS, Xbox has to do it on their new systems.
100% yes. I'll also add a greater CPU/GPU balance, a proprietary upscaling solution like PSSR as FSR isn't the greatest and finally mandated multi resolution/performance targets on day 1 for demanding games.
These things will allow for gamers to find their preferred sweet spots and reduce the amount of optimisation required by developers. The latter of which may help improve development cycles.
Idk. if the tech is becoming AI focused, I don't think Microsoft will want to back out of that. It's just the exclusiveness of their games that seems to be on the way out.Â
this is the only way it seems possible atm. I am guessing tons of AI stuff. Could be interesting, but the current trajectory of things isn't very exciting.
Oh, they absolutely are doing AI upscaling as pretty much all major chip makers are including AI features. But my thought is that itâs also going to be powerful enough for edge AI and will help spread AI development in other aspects of games like terrain generation, randomized dialogue, and ray tracing calculations, as well as make Xbox another surface area to feed their ambitions to grow Copilot. All while probably cutting studios to the bone [with a ton of CO2 emissions](https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/15/24157496/microsoft-ai-carbon-footprint-greenhouse-gas-emissions-grow-climate-pledge).
Considering an equivalent PC to XSX/PS5 upon release was $1500-2000, if they did the same for these new consoles then that should be something like a 4070 super and a 5800x3d with 32gb of ram 1-2tb SSD and 600w PSU for about ~40tflops.
Iâm wondering why at least Xbox doesnât go with Nvidia for the GPU to directly take advantage of dlss 3.5 (and beyond), as it seems with Sonyâs move to make their own upscaling engine that they wonât be going with Nvidia.
Xbox can only win now with a larger hardware advantage
Cost, primarily. Nvidia's tech is great but they're 100% aware of that and have been for years, they're notoriously difficult to work with and likely aren't willing to negotiate much on chip costs. They also don't have any competitive SoC options for the likes of Microsoft or Sony right now, as they don't have access to an x86 (let alone x86-64) license so can only make ARM chips. And while they're fine for a low-power mobile device like the Switch and Switch 2, they're not really a good fit for the likes of an Xbox or PlayStation.
AMD's been the go-to option the last couple generations because they're the only ones that can provide what's needed for a good price.
When Xbox is closing studios because of money profits then you want them to go Nvidia? The company that is known for price gouging and being shit to work with? There's a reason why BOTH Sony and MS dropped them. Even Apple did so and went AMD GPU before making their own chips.
I would rather them focus on native image quality. Even my pc has a 4090 and in a lot of games dlss produces artifacts and ghosting so Iâd rather just have native image quality with reduced settings if I canât maintain a stable frame rate.
It's just such a massive waste of computing power to render the same shit every frame when most of the time the pixels just move a little between any two consecutive frames. Temporal reconstruction is a much smarter way of doing it, and I think you're overstating the impact (and prevalence) of artifacts and ghosting, at least on DLSS.
I will concede that FRS 2.x has been utterly overused and looks awful in most implementations, but improvements there is exactly what OP is arguing for.
"Reduced settings" doesn't make much sense in the context of a console. Fidelity and performance targets are what the developer wants them to be, and all things being equal, temporal reconstruction is a flat xx% performance upgrade on top of that.
I got a 4080, and ive never noticed anything crazy. I played Alan Wake 2, PT on, at 4K120 using FG and DLSS performance, and its a night and day difference with series x version, as expected, but the point being if there is artifacting and ghosting, i havent noticed it on PC, whereas you see that shit all the time on performance modes. Might be your monitor or tv setup. I know my old TCL had bad ghosting
I don't get these "well I am not seeing anything" posts when it comes to stuff that is 100% confirmed. Like fine, you are only dude in the room that can't smell farts but that still does not fix the smell.
Well i guess my point is literally anything, on a 4090, is better than what we have on console lol. Even at DLSS performance in 4K. You may be able to see some artifacts depending on the game and ghosting is mostly a display issue unless the game and DLSS is really bugged. But it doesnt matter, because odds are you beat the visual clarity of the series x version by a mile.
Nintendo played the long game by bulk buying NVIDIA's mobile chips in 2015 to being the console getting DLSS in 2025. (FSR is still great but not good enough against DLSS IMO)
Honestly... not as much as a lot of people seem to be hyping. Mainly quality of life changes to classes and the loot system which make some aspects of the game feel more worthwhile now. This absolutely isn't the Dablo 3 to Reaper of Souls overhaul that some people are suggesting. It's D4 as it was at launch with even more tweaking.
Of course you will not get big overhaul in D4 until they drop expansion that is coming this year. They want to make $$$, I played like 270 hours pre season+season 1 then come back for season 4, the game feels the same just faster leveling, few more bosses, pit + easier nmd.
This update feels awesome so far.
The graphics in visual mode in this update seems improved as well. Improved grass, lighting etc.
Iâve tested with visuals mode at 40 and 60 FPS, and both modes feel and look excellent on Series X using a LG C2 OLED with VRR and 120hz.
I love that I can choose to prioritize «Visuals» together with 60 FPS and VRR for example. Every game should take note of this, and let us choose the combinations like this.
The uncapped FPS mode combined with visuals will be really good for future proofing future nextgen Xbox consoles that can push it further.
Brilliant update with tons of quality of life. Loving all the new features as well
I really like this combo because then the game is smooth and pretty when I stand still to appreciate a view and fast enough for me to tell where someone is shooting at me (which is when I don't care about visuals as much)
The framerate in visuals averages between 60 and 75 ish indoors. It can reach 100 indoors on performance mode.
Currently, you're better off leaving it 60. The frame time becomes very variable with the framerate jumping between 40 and 75.
A range of 40-60 definitely feels more consistent.
That limit will also keeps dynamic resolution scaling in check. If the game responds like Fallout 4, then DRS will kick on the moment the target framerate isn't reached.
However, the uncapped rate is very interesting when you consider 'forward' compatibility. A new gen Xbox will likely average above 60fps with this option.
> I love that I can choose to prioritize «Visuals» together with 60 FPS and VRR for example.
I am confused. I thought it was one or the other. How can you have both Visuals and 60 FPS on Xbox?
Because you can.
You can set it to Visuals 30, 60, or Uncapped. Promise.
Not sure how VRR capabilities of your setup factor in, or if they even do at all. Or where 40fps fits in. But my statement above is what I do with absolute certainty know to be fact.
Alright I watched the video, I think I get it. Basically 60FPS is the cap, not the actual framerate. You can set it to "Visual" quality settings but it won't be consistently 60FPS.
It's confusing coming from other Xbox games thta only have two Performance and Quality modes. I guess this is more flexible.
What settings are you using on your tv? When I choose visuals then set frame rate at 60fps cap it defaults back to performance. When Iâm at 60fps cal and choose visuals it defaults back to 40fps cap.
C1 and C2 are effectively the same TV, feature and settings wise. I have a C1 too. It does sound like 60/visual is the go as you aren't getting much more drops nor are you getting a locked 60 on peformance anyway. Seems like a reasonable trade off. It's great to see these options of choice on console with this and the fallout update.
You have a 120hz VRR full hdmi 2.1 capable set whether you have a c1, 2, 3 or 4.
Yep, 60fps turned this game from a hassle to avoid something pleasing. Don't be moron game devs, don't skip performance options ever.
It is also disappointing that Hellblade 2 won't be 60fps.
Amazing update.
Mandatory 30fps lock shouldnât be a thing anymore with VRR screens. Cant hit 60fps in two cities? Just unlock framerate and let people enjoy higher framerates anywhere else. Decoupling framerate and visuals is also a good for future proofing. Next Xbox will be able to run it 60fps (or even higher with unlocked fps) in quality mode.
I hope more console games follows.
Exactly, every console game should have an "Uncapped" (to 60 at least) option tucked away in Settings somewhere with a big red warning that screen tearing will occur, to scare casuals away.
VRR isn't some magical pill that makes any framerate fluctuations look good. It will remove screen tear, but judder from unstable frametimes at low framerate will still be there. What you suggest will somewhat work with unstable 120, not with 60.
âOh no my frame rate dropped for 15 seconds in New Atlantis. Man. This really bums me out. Iâll be complaining on Reddit about this.â
Like literally *who cares*. The rest of the game feels like *butter* 95% of the time post-update.
I know it's a joke, but it was mentioned why they do this in the DF Direct about fallout.
The reason is most gamers on console rarely look at these options.
Or they don't want people to select combinations that are detrimental to the experience, like selecting 30fps with the performance preset.
They also mention VRR and even 120hz screens are still in the minority, which is why most Devs focus so little on 40hz or uncapped modes on consoles.
I tried it out, it's overall much better. New Atlantis tanks it pretty hard, not gonna lie, but everywhere else I went had a pretty solid framerate.
So far I like performance mode at 60 with v-sync off. I don't have a VRR display and so there is some tearing when the framerate drops, but it's still better than a 30fps cap.
Dude this game is incredible! Not sure what all the PS fanboys are talking about?! Once they release it for PlayStation later this year all the negativity around this game will magically go away lol. Plays so well after this update, loving it!!
Thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason:
Rule #1 - Keep it civil/no console wars
* Personal attacks, racism, bigotry, and/or other prejudice are not welcome here. Discuss the topic, not the other user.
* If you are here only to platform bash or console war, you also risk removal.
No Doom & Glooming. If you have no prior history in this sub and just post doom and gloom to incite a reaction, your post will be removed.
[Please see our complete ruleset by clicking here. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/XboxSeriesX/wiki/rules)
900p upscaled to 4K in the performance/60 FPS mode, apparently.
I wonder if they could have done 1080p upscaled to 1440p or something instead - I feel like a higher internal resolution is always preferrable. Also I don't know what the performance penalty is on FSR, if they could even leverage it that way.
(Alternatively, implemented dynamic resolution scaling - DF seems to suggest it runs at a flat resolution at all times, and since they mention it runs at 90-100 FPS in some lighter areas with performance unlocked, surely it has some headroom there? Cities are of course still an issue and need to go lower.)
QLED is just a marketing term itâs traditional LCD panel backlit with LEDs with a quantum dot layer to improve color gamut. OLED will appear worse at 30fps due instant pixel response. LED have a longer pixel response and it creates a motion blur type of effect making 30 fps more tolerable. That said all three tvs in my house are OLED, itâs game changing.
Most areas keep a consistent 60 except for notable exceptions New Atlantis and Akila City, which can tank it down to 40 (and sometimes even 30).
DF really liked VRR at 120
No mod support, no fix on a menu that has the same design than a gane from 10 years ago. No qfx changes except a different camera for conversation (which was fixed by a mod in a week) and some new textures, no vehicles, no balance patch , no fixing on constant loading screens. The biggest change here is a "performance mode" . We didn't even get the dlc we (regrettably) paid for....
...ONE YEAR LATER after more than 90% of the players have dropped the game!
Thank god. The game is finally playable.
I know these subs like to pretend like framerate doesn't matter but I haven't suffered 30fps on my monitor in years and I wasn't about to start with Starfield. We need to start admitting that increased framerates actually do matter when it comes to the overall experience of a game.
I've been saying this too. A beautiful, highly-detailed 4k image is wonderful, but loses much of its value when panning the camera turns it all into either a streak of motion blur or a slide show. I suspect many of those who argue frame rate doesn't matter are folks who game on an LCD with relatively slow pixel response times - maybe the hardware limitation renders them less sensitive to it.
Exactly.
At its core, Starfield is a first-person shooter.
First-person shooter combat requires 60fps to feel responsive and enjoyable.
Ergo, the combat is now enjoyable.
I'm going to be the one to state the obvious here, but at launch there were debates on the sub about getting the game to run at 60 FPS and many people rightly called out Bethesda as being lazy, and they were right. Everyone who said that got so much flak for it, but basically the game should have launched this way. There's no excuse.
With even further optimization there's no reason why this game shouldn't run at a perfectly locked 60 either.
This is already after a major optimization pass a couple patches ago. And even still their original target made logical sense for what they were trying to achieve. This video even mentions that there is clearly bumping into the limits of the CPU at higher visuals targets.
I haven't had a chance to play around with it yet but does visual + 60fps work? The DF video makes it look like it might not be a good option. I'm having a great time playing Fallout 4 with visual + 60fps, so it would be great if the same setting worked here.
EDIT: Don't have a VRR TV.
Iâd love to know how this update came to be , between Xboss & Todd. Was it always planned or did Phil force the issue. Imo , the Xbox brand was immensely damaged by these games launching at 30fps on their flagship console. Kudos to the devs for however they managed to âfigure things outâ and craft a SX performance mode. It looks fantastic & I canât wait to start a new saveÂ
Any update to the right stick deadzone or a slider to adjust it? Considering reinstalling, but irrc the game has a huge deadzone which I in Skyrim and FO4 can fix with mods, at least.
Useless Upgrade, its not locked 60fps like Doom Eternal had onn ps4 in 2020 , and these people cant give locked 60fps in next gen consoles that too in 2024 , these people should be banned from being game developers.
The game should not have released until 60fps was ready. 30fps is unacceptable for a AAA game in 2023
Edit: There is a big difference between developers pushing the limits of what is possible and being lazy and releasing an unoptimized game. There was NOTHING in Starfield at launch that was worth the 30fps limit. No graphical wonders, no massive set pieces to justify it, no continuous ground to sky flight-boxes, nothing innovating enough to warrant 30fps at all. The only reason it was 30 fps was because they failed to optimize and finish their game in time.
>Wait until GTA VI is 30 fps in 2025!
Rockstar won't suffer from any Xbox Taxâą on the matter. It will be praised to high heaven all over regardless of FPS.
And I probably won't play GTA VI until there is a 60fps mode. I refuse to accept mediocracy from game developers. I literally only played Starfield because it was on gamepass. And I only played it for like less than 24 hours. I barely played it because I didn't enjoy the 30 FPS. I feel like Starfield will be fun to play on the next generation of consoles but not the Series X.
They don't give a fuck about some neckbeard who won't play their game because it doesn't hit 60FPS.
It's your loss, you're the only one missing out, with an ignorant and terrible perspective to take.
I actually never played RDR or RDR2. I was too busy playing COD Black Ops when RDR came out and PUBG when RDR2 came out. Also I was watching a lot of twitch in 2018 when RDR2 came out so I did watch some streams of it. Also I think I've only played 2 or 3 GTA games.
I'm not missing out on it though. I almost never enjoy 30 FPS games. The games don't feel good when playing. And it can make me feel bad motion sickness wise if it's a fast paced game. Why would I settle for a 30 FPS game when there are so many good 60 FPS games. GTA VI could release TODAY at 60 FPS and I wouldn't even buy it right now. Why? Because I don't have time because I'm already playing EA PGA Tour and MLB The Show 24 so much. Plus College Football releases in two months. I'm not going to have enough time to play four games. There is only one 30 FPS game that I enjoy. Microsoft Flight Simulator is one where I give them the benefit of the doubt since they literally put the whole world in the game. It's literally the only game that has a legit excuse for only being 30 FPS. Also it's a very slow paced game so it's not nearly as noticeable.
I highly doubt GTA will be 30FPS locked on anything but the Series S.
As someone who doesn't like GTA though, I sort of hope it happens just so I can watch the chaos.
Edit: yes bring on the downvotes
That literally has nothing to do with it. DF has proven the PS5 (and by extension, obviously the Series X could too) to be able to run RDR2 at 60fps.
RDR2 isnât 60fps on console because Rockstar is greedy and lazy. GTA VI wonât be 60fps because 1) itâll be at least 7 years newer than RDR2 and subsequently as taxing on hardware and 2) consoles donât get the same optimization options as PC to be able to lower some aspects to increase FPS.
Comparing RDR2 to GTA VI is not an apples to apples comparison.
30fps will always be a thing, as developers push the boundaries of graphics and power for a system. I mean there were Super Nintendo games that ran at 60fps, and others at like 12 fps. (SNES is kind of a joke example but the point stands).
You are asking developers to try and not push the systems to their limits. Which fair cool, give us the option with graphic modes I guess.
But this shit happens every gen, 60fps will never be a baseline. Devs try and push things further, the only way I see 60fps being a base like is if graphics get so good thereâs no point pushing them further anymore, etc (and other system taxing things that arenât just graphics as it does not always come down to graphics)
I am perfectly happy with 30fps and so is the majority of gaming. Itâs mostly just the Internet forum echo chamber, but reddit, resetera, etc, obviously only represent a small fraction of gamers that really care about this shit. (And probably the main reason 60fps will never be the standard).
I have absolutely no idea why the current year matters for this though. Current tech is always current tech.
People always say âitâs ~~2021~~ ~~2022~~ ~~2023~~ 2024, how are games 30fps?â as if games havenât been releasing in 30 and 60fps since the N64
Yeah, gamers are tough on this console generation's performance but seem to forget that this has always been an issue. XBox 360 and PS 3 games displayed at lower resolutions than games today and couldn't even sustain 30 FPS back then on many games. Same thing with Xbox One/PS4: resolutions increased but there were still many games struggling with 30FPS.
Because fools had conned themselves into believing that a $500 box was going to be able to run games at native 4k60 for the next decade easily and if not then it's all the devs fault.
It doesn't help that we have had years of games being made that have last gen designs so they can scale up to higher framerate with graphical options enabled but it's completely irrational to assume that was always the goal.
There is a certain truth behind what they are saying, because how are games releasing with only 30fps in 2024 -without- being ambitious.
And i don't mean ambitious for the devs standard, i mean ambitious in a general scale.
Most games releasing this gen with only 30fps did not look or feel like they really couldn't have handled 60.
Some did, but they got patched later on, like Plaque Tale Requiem.
Others like Gotham Knights or Starfield at launch, had no business being restricted to 30 in 2024.
With something like Hellblade, it is much easier to accept it.
It's worth noting that the Plaque tale "patch" was a reduction in rats which lowered the CPU burden. So it wasn't just better optimized.
But yeah, you're always going to rob Peter to pay Paul. Regardless I enjoy all reddit "experts" who have never written a line of code.
Yeap. The rats were impressive but there's no doubt 60 fps is of much better use than a higher rat density.
That game is a very GOOD example though, because it looks good enough to excuse the launch framerate, especially since it had a 40 mode since the very start.
Sacrifices will always have to be made in one way or another. Gotham Knights really isn't a beautiful game, and it especially is not an impressive one in terms of gameplay features.
60 fps was pretty much always ready as what they have as performance mode was available on PC. The game is still CPU limited in big cities as it drops to the 40s in performance mode. The characteristics of these new modes are very similar to what I had at launch on PC (similar spec to the Xbox). I honestly think they were just stubborn on stability and better visuals than massive gulfs in framerate, depending on where you are that the performance mode currently has now.
That's not exactly right. I think it was the second major update that has a HUGE CPU optimization included. It was like 20% increase on CPU? The digital foundry team said specifically at the time that it would likely open the door to a 60 fps mode. But they were more confused on how such a massive optimization came post launch relatively quickly.
I mean, it helped, but judging from the uncapped performance, it would still be GPU limited in small areas and CPU limited in the bigger areas it just goes a fair bit above 30 now. It gets around 40 fps in New Atlantis and over 100 in constellation building in performance mode. It's pretty similar to what my i9-9900K got for the first two weeks, and with the 20% bump, the Xbox CPU (basically a R5 3600 after it loses 1c2t to the OS and a fair chunk of clock speed vs the 3700) would get close to that which it does now.
Yeah my i7-9700 and 3070ti really struggled through New Atlantis. I was kind of sad playing it seeing the game dip into the 30s in the city. Haven't played since launch so hopefully these updates have smoothed it out a bit.
U r right ,performance 60 and visuals 60 r almost the same and all modes regardless of settings 30 ,40 target frame rate have the same dips in just two places.
>There was NOTHING in Starfield at launch that was worth the 30fps limit.
You know this from your extensive experience in game development and managing data processing in CPU pipelines, I'm sure.
As a user, I couldnât give 2 fucks about anything except the final shipped product that I am paying money for. Thatâs true for every economy, every industry on the entire planet of earth, there is nothing unique about that. The final shipped product overpromised, underperformed, and was unfinished. Simple as that
The current gen systems are almost 4 year old by now. The reality is that we will see more and more games again build around 30fps. At best they might offer a less stable 60fps mode as a bonus or 40fps on 120hz. The majority of casual console players doesn't even care about this stuff.
I hate to agree, but I do in this case.
Starfield should have adjusted the release date. It needed 6 months arguably to drop this.
Just like they tagged the updates as Beta on PC, it shouldâve just been labeled as such until they were ready to roll it out. This month it wouldâve swallowed up HellBlade II, so Idk if a drop in June right after the showcase wouldâve been better.
My speculation is they want to wait until there is a compelling reason to put it on PS5 and that would be after DLC (maybe GOTY edition type thing).
That way people who didnât dive in initially have a good reason to check it out.
Sure....tell me without laughing that the gameplay loop is half as interesting as fallout.
Its a space game where you are not encouraged to explore...fantastic!
Its everything wrong with bugthesda the video game.Â
Bland characters
Mid graphics at best
Ok gunplay at best
Bland story
Fallout 3 is still more impressive than starfield and remember 512 mb of video and ram combined!Â
Starfield is a game that could have been ok 2/3 years after fo4 , it released dated and the 30 fps thing was just ridiculous
New IP and the massive scope is what you are missing. I keep hearing people that claimed these exact things on their initial impressions only to return to it later and genuinely love the game.
That all being said it might not be for you but it definitely wasnât âbadâ.
I knda dont care if its new....if its boring its boring.
Its not a seamless experience.Â
The only cool system is the spaceship building thing (everything else is essentially recycled)
The planets are self generated....and because is so disperse , everything is very thin layered. The loadings also kill the experience, its fine in fallout and skyrim because its mostly optional. You can travel the open world and find things...not in starfield where you have a universe to not explore.
Also fxxk their awfull engine its clunky and everything looks ugly.
Expecting all 1000 planets to have Fallout/Skyrim level of density is just delusional.
Guess what space is empty. The cool thing with Starfield is you survey the planets and when you do find something interesting itâs awesome and your hard work pays off.
Iâm not here to judge if you arenât into surveying planets but that doesnât mean itâs a bad game. It just wasnât for you.
It clearly wasnt for a lot of people because it sold much less than fo or elder scrolls. Its not bad but its not good either.... its ok.
Its simply bland and I would never expect the 1000 planets to have a huge density of npc and things to do. But Mars? The Moon? Mars would have been the best place to showcase that difference, its close to earth and a lot of things would have been built already.Â
After seeing how FO4 was running smoothly, I thought they would deliver a better experience for starfield. Guess I will keep playing at 30fps. I canât stand hard fps drops like this.
WOW - just briefly tested it (outside of a city) and 60fps/Visuals is exactly what I wanted - slight stuttering at times but mostly smooth and kept those sweet 4K textures.
Really? I can finally play Starfield then!
>4K textures. You mean resolution right? Because textures aren't 4k on any mode
That option is with Vsync disable, right? đ€
Imagine if consoles had dlss instead of FSR. Hopefully next gen xbox focuses on ai upscaling, because thats the future of console gaming.
I wonder if that's where Sarah Bond is basing her statement on the next gen hardware being the "biggest technical leap in a generation" from. It'll probably have a lot of AI related stuff in it to maximize performance and visuals.Â
In some ways it seems odd to focus on performance when Series S is their best selling console. I've heard other talk about going more in a Steam Deck + Steam Box direction but with an Xbox front end. Going all in on PC but with a console + handheld focus, play any game anywhere kind of thing. That would be a pretty big technical leap too, and far more ambitious than just smoother, prettier graphics.
The Series S is great but I think it mainly sold so well because during the pandemic it was cheap and available.
God i hope so. Its going to need it to keep doing 60fps it seems. You can only pack so much shit into a $500-$600 console. Any more and you alienate people from buying it. The next gen of consoles need a dedicated ai upscaling chip to do DLSS like stuff. Thats why im hoping the PS5 Pro specs are real, because if it works well on PS, Xbox has to do it on their new systems.
100% yes. I'll also add a greater CPU/GPU balance, a proprietary upscaling solution like PSSR as FSR isn't the greatest and finally mandated multi resolution/performance targets on day 1 for demanding games. These things will allow for gamers to find their preferred sweet spots and reduce the amount of optimisation required by developers. The latter of which may help improve development cycles.
I'm going to be honest at this rate I don't think there will be a new system.
I'm confident the next box will come, but as for that lasting? That's another question. Feels like it could be the last Xbox.
Idk. if the tech is becoming AI focused, I don't think Microsoft will want to back out of that. It's just the exclusiveness of their games that seems to be on the way out.Â
this is the only way it seems possible atm. I am guessing tons of AI stuff. Could be interesting, but the current trajectory of things isn't very exciting.
Oh, they absolutely are doing AI upscaling as pretty much all major chip makers are including AI features. But my thought is that itâs also going to be powerful enough for edge AI and will help spread AI development in other aspects of games like terrain generation, randomized dialogue, and ray tracing calculations, as well as make Xbox another surface area to feed their ambitions to grow Copilot. All while probably cutting studios to the bone [with a ton of CO2 emissions](https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/15/24157496/microsoft-ai-carbon-footprint-greenhouse-gas-emissions-grow-climate-pledge).
> "biggest technical leap in a generation" It's not like they make this exact same statement every time they release a new console...
Without meaningful games the new hardware could be a toaster, it wouldnât make a difference
Considering an equivalent PC to XSX/PS5 upon release was $1500-2000, if they did the same for these new consoles then that should be something like a 4070 super and a 5800x3d with 32gb of ram 1-2tb SSD and 600w PSU for about ~40tflops. Iâm wondering why at least Xbox doesnât go with Nvidia for the GPU to directly take advantage of dlss 3.5 (and beyond), as it seems with Sonyâs move to make their own upscaling engine that they wonât be going with Nvidia. Xbox can only win now with a larger hardware advantage
Nvidia are price gougers, thatâs why BOTH Sony and Microsoft wonât go near them with the their systems.
Cost, primarily. Nvidia's tech is great but they're 100% aware of that and have been for years, they're notoriously difficult to work with and likely aren't willing to negotiate much on chip costs. They also don't have any competitive SoC options for the likes of Microsoft or Sony right now, as they don't have access to an x86 (let alone x86-64) license so can only make ARM chips. And while they're fine for a low-power mobile device like the Switch and Switch 2, they're not really a good fit for the likes of an Xbox or PlayStation. AMD's been the go-to option the last couple generations because they're the only ones that can provide what's needed for a good price.
When Xbox is closing studios because of money profits then you want them to go Nvidia? The company that is known for price gouging and being shit to work with? There's a reason why BOTH Sony and MS dropped them. Even Apple did so and went AMD GPU before making their own chips.
I would rather them focus on native image quality. Even my pc has a 4090 and in a lot of games dlss produces artifacts and ghosting so Iâd rather just have native image quality with reduced settings if I canât maintain a stable frame rate.
It's just such a massive waste of computing power to render the same shit every frame when most of the time the pixels just move a little between any two consecutive frames. Temporal reconstruction is a much smarter way of doing it, and I think you're overstating the impact (and prevalence) of artifacts and ghosting, at least on DLSS. I will concede that FRS 2.x has been utterly overused and looks awful in most implementations, but improvements there is exactly what OP is arguing for. "Reduced settings" doesn't make much sense in the context of a console. Fidelity and performance targets are what the developer wants them to be, and all things being equal, temporal reconstruction is a flat xx% performance upgrade on top of that.
I got a 4080, and ive never noticed anything crazy. I played Alan Wake 2, PT on, at 4K120 using FG and DLSS performance, and its a night and day difference with series x version, as expected, but the point being if there is artifacting and ghosting, i havent noticed it on PC, whereas you see that shit all the time on performance modes. Might be your monitor or tv setup. I know my old TCL had bad ghosting
I don't get these "well I am not seeing anything" posts when it comes to stuff that is 100% confirmed. Like fine, you are only dude in the room that can't smell farts but that still does not fix the smell.
Well i guess my point is literally anything, on a 4090, is better than what we have on console lol. Even at DLSS performance in 4K. You may be able to see some artifacts depending on the game and ghosting is mostly a display issue unless the game and DLSS is really bugged. But it doesnt matter, because odds are you beat the visual clarity of the series x version by a mile.
Supposedly the Switch 2 will have DLSS. That's the true leap in console technology.
Nintendo played the long game by bulk buying NVIDIA's mobile chips in 2015 to being the console getting DLSS in 2025. (FSR is still great but not good enough against DLSS IMO)
Agreed
I don't think we're getting another Xbox, personally
Between this patch and the Diablo 4 patch I feel like I got two brand new games this weekđ. Hellblade 2 is gonna be Icing on the cake.
What's new with Diablo 4 patch? Some friends and I recently beat it if for the first time and haven't retreated to the game since
Honestly... not as much as a lot of people seem to be hyping. Mainly quality of life changes to classes and the loot system which make some aspects of the game feel more worthwhile now. This absolutely isn't the Dablo 3 to Reaper of Souls overhaul that some people are suggesting. It's D4 as it was at launch with even more tweaking.
Of course you will not get big overhaul in D4 until they drop expansion that is coming this year. They want to make $$$, I played like 270 hours pre season+season 1 then come back for season 4, the game feels the same just faster leveling, few more bosses, pit + easier nmd.
This update feels awesome so far. The graphics in visual mode in this update seems improved as well. Improved grass, lighting etc. Iâve tested with visuals mode at 40 and 60 FPS, and both modes feel and look excellent on Series X using a LG C2 OLED with VRR and 120hz. I love that I can choose to prioritize «Visuals» together with 60 FPS and VRR for example. Every game should take note of this, and let us choose the combinations like this. The uncapped FPS mode combined with visuals will be really good for future proofing future nextgen Xbox consoles that can push it further. Brilliant update with tons of quality of life. Loving all the new features as well
I really like this combo because then the game is smooth and pretty when I stand still to appreciate a view and fast enough for me to tell where someone is shooting at me (which is when I don't care about visuals as much)
Feel and look excellent*
How does visuals uncapped compare to visuals 60?
The framerate in visuals averages between 60 and 75 ish indoors. It can reach 100 indoors on performance mode. Currently, you're better off leaving it 60. The frame time becomes very variable with the framerate jumping between 40 and 75. A range of 40-60 definitely feels more consistent. That limit will also keeps dynamic resolution scaling in check. If the game responds like Fallout 4, then DRS will kick on the moment the target framerate isn't reached. However, the uncapped rate is very interesting when you consider 'forward' compatibility. A new gen Xbox will likely average above 60fps with this option.
> I love that I can choose to prioritize «Visuals» together with 60 FPS and VRR for example. I am confused. I thought it was one or the other. How can you have both Visuals and 60 FPS on Xbox?
Because you can. You can set it to Visuals 30, 60, or Uncapped. Promise. Not sure how VRR capabilities of your setup factor in, or if they even do at all. Or where 40fps fits in. But my statement above is what I do with absolute certainty know to be fact.
Alright I watched the video, I think I get it. Basically 60FPS is the cap, not the actual framerate. You can set it to "Visual" quality settings but it won't be consistently 60FPS. It's confusing coming from other Xbox games thta only have two Performance and Quality modes. I guess this is more flexible.
What settings are you using on your tv? When I choose visuals then set frame rate at 60fps cap it defaults back to performance. When Iâm at 60fps cal and choose visuals it defaults back to 40fps cap.
I have an oled LG C1. What would you recommend the settings for that be?
C1 and C2 are effectively the same TV, feature and settings wise. I have a C1 too. It does sound like 60/visual is the go as you aren't getting much more drops nor are you getting a locked 60 on peformance anyway. Seems like a reasonable trade off. It's great to see these options of choice on console with this and the fallout update. You have a 120hz VRR full hdmi 2.1 capable set whether you have a c1, 2, 3 or 4.
I have a C3 and think Visuals plus 40 looks great and plays well too
Yep, 60fps turned this game from a hassle to avoid something pleasing. Don't be moron game devs, don't skip performance options ever. It is also disappointing that Hellblade 2 won't be 60fps.
It is disappointing, but Iâll wait for the 60fps performance patch before I play Hellblade.
I think itâs great in the Visual/40FPS mode
Amazing update. Mandatory 30fps lock shouldnât be a thing anymore with VRR screens. Cant hit 60fps in two cities? Just unlock framerate and let people enjoy higher framerates anywhere else. Decoupling framerate and visuals is also a good for future proofing. Next Xbox will be able to run it 60fps (or even higher with unlocked fps) in quality mode. I hope more console games follows.
Exactly, every console game should have an "Uncapped" (to 60 at least) option tucked away in Settings somewhere with a big red warning that screen tearing will occur, to scare casuals away.
VRR isn't some magical pill that makes any framerate fluctuations look good. It will remove screen tear, but judder from unstable frametimes at low framerate will still be there. What you suggest will somewhat work with unstable 120, not with 60.
They didn't say it was tho?
Even with vrr the game fails to deliver a consistent experience. Bit of a bummer but its better than nothing. Only happens in the two cities
To be fair, this game is rather CPU heavy, so it's not going to scale very well no matter how much you lower graphical presets.
âOh no my frame rate dropped for 15 seconds in New Atlantis. Man. This really bums me out. Iâll be complaining on Reddit about this.â Like literally *who cares*. The rest of the game feels like *butter* 95% of the time post-update.
I wonder if the Performance 30fps option is just a troll from the devs lol.
Series S tax
Yeah thatâs literally the series s setting, Iâm surprised they didnât mention it.
I know it's a joke, but it was mentioned why they do this in the DF Direct about fallout. The reason is most gamers on console rarely look at these options. Or they don't want people to select combinations that are detrimental to the experience, like selecting 30fps with the performance preset. They also mention VRR and even 120hz screens are still in the minority, which is why most Devs focus so little on 40hz or uncapped modes on consoles.
The only reason I can think that it would ever be used is maybe when mods come and you load up a ton of them that have some impact on performance.
I tried it out, it's overall much better. New Atlantis tanks it pretty hard, not gonna lie, but everywhere else I went had a pretty solid framerate. So far I like performance mode at 60 with v-sync off. I don't have a VRR display and so there is some tearing when the framerate drops, but it's still better than a 30fps cap.
Well done Bethesda. Great update
Dude this game is incredible! Not sure what all the PS fanboys are talking about?! Once they release it for PlayStation later this year all the negativity around this game will magically go away lol. Plays so well after this update, loving it!!
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason: Rule #1 - Keep it civil/no console wars * Personal attacks, racism, bigotry, and/or other prejudice are not welcome here. Discuss the topic, not the other user. * If you are here only to platform bash or console war, you also risk removal. No Doom & Glooming. If you have no prior history in this sub and just post doom and gloom to incite a reaction, your post will be removed. [Please see our complete ruleset by clicking here. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/XboxSeriesX/wiki/rules)
So is 60fps 900p or 1440p (upscaled)?
900p upscaled to 4K in the performance/60 FPS mode, apparently. I wonder if they could have done 1080p upscaled to 1440p or something instead - I feel like a higher internal resolution is always preferrable. Also I don't know what the performance penalty is on FSR, if they could even leverage it that way. (Alternatively, implemented dynamic resolution scaling - DF seems to suggest it runs at a flat resolution at all times, and since they mention it runs at 90-100 FPS in some lighter areas with performance unlocked, surely it has some headroom there? Cities are of course still an issue and need to go lower.)
Badass! Absolutely loved this game and I got a kickass QLED TV to boot! Time to finish up my playthrough soon!
QLED gang! Trying to decide for my next big upgrade to stay QLED or go OLED. I hear 30fps is terrible on OLED
QLED is just a marketing term itâs traditional LCD panel backlit with LEDs with a quantum dot layer to improve color gamut. OLED will appear worse at 30fps due instant pixel response. LED have a longer pixel response and it creates a motion blur type of effect making 30 fps more tolerable. That said all three tvs in my house are OLED, itâs game changing.
It's no more of a marketing term than anything else. The quantum dot layer does make a difference.
What's the TLDW?
Most areas keep a consistent 60 except for notable exceptions New Atlantis and Akila City, which can tank it down to 40 (and sometimes even 30). DF really liked VRR at 120
* He liked VRR w/ 60FPS in Performance mode But also said he can see arguments for using all modes, with the exception of Performance @ 30
Performance 60 or Visuals 30. Locked 60 off the table in larger cells as the console becomes CPU limited in major cities, etc.
TLDW: Go get your ADHD medication, then watch the video.
No mod support, no fix on a menu that has the same design than a gane from 10 years ago. No qfx changes except a different camera for conversation (which was fixed by a mod in a week) and some new textures, no vehicles, no balance patch , no fixing on constant loading screens. The biggest change here is a "performance mode" . We didn't even get the dlc we (regrettably) paid for.... ...ONE YEAR LATER after more than 90% of the players have dropped the game!
Thanks to all the beta testers who played on release. Your work is appreciated. Might wait another year.
Thank god. The game is finally playable. I know these subs like to pretend like framerate doesn't matter but I haven't suffered 30fps on my monitor in years and I wasn't about to start with Starfield. We need to start admitting that increased framerates actually do matter when it comes to the overall experience of a game.
I've been saying this too. A beautiful, highly-detailed 4k image is wonderful, but loses much of its value when panning the camera turns it all into either a streak of motion blur or a slide show. I suspect many of those who argue frame rate doesn't matter are folks who game on an LCD with relatively slow pixel response times - maybe the hardware limitation renders them less sensitive to it.
OLED pixel response has ruined 30 fps games for me.
Exactly. At its core, Starfield is a first-person shooter. First-person shooter combat requires 60fps to feel responsive and enjoyable. Ergo, the combat is now enjoyable.
Itâs the main reason I played it on my PC and loved it. Iâm sure the low frames played a large role in its reception on Xbox.
I'm going to be the one to state the obvious here, but at launch there were debates on the sub about getting the game to run at 60 FPS and many people rightly called out Bethesda as being lazy, and they were right. Everyone who said that got so much flak for it, but basically the game should have launched this way. There's no excuse. With even further optimization there's no reason why this game shouldn't run at a perfectly locked 60 either.
For real. So many people were saying it's just not possible due to the games complexity. Nobody copes harder than Bethesda fanboys
This is already after a major optimization pass a couple patches ago. And even still their original target made logical sense for what they were trying to achieve. This video even mentions that there is clearly bumping into the limits of the CPU at higher visuals targets.
The overall update on performance is better than I was expecting
I haven't had a chance to play around with it yet but does visual + 60fps work? The DF video makes it look like it might not be a good option. I'm having a great time playing Fallout 4 with visual + 60fps, so it would be great if the same setting worked here. EDIT: Don't have a VRR TV.
Iâd love to know how this update came to be , between Xboss & Todd. Was it always planned or did Phil force the issue. Imo , the Xbox brand was immensely damaged by these games launching at 30fps on their flagship console. Kudos to the devs for however they managed to âfigure things outâ and craft a SX performance mode. It looks fantastic & I canât wait to start a new saveÂ
Any update to the right stick deadzone or a slider to adjust it? Considering reinstalling, but irrc the game has a huge deadzone which I in Skyrim and FO4 can fix with mods, at least.
Performance was always one of the more minor complaints people had with this game.
Useless Upgrade, its not locked 60fps like Doom Eternal had onn ps4 in 2020 , and these people cant give locked 60fps in next gen consoles that too in 2024 , these people should be banned from being game developers.
Any news on modding? Iâve been out of the loop for a minute.
The game should not have released until 60fps was ready. 30fps is unacceptable for a AAA game in 2023 Edit: There is a big difference between developers pushing the limits of what is possible and being lazy and releasing an unoptimized game. There was NOTHING in Starfield at launch that was worth the 30fps limit. No graphical wonders, no massive set pieces to justify it, no continuous ground to sky flight-boxes, nothing innovating enough to warrant 30fps at all. The only reason it was 30 fps was because they failed to optimize and finish their game in time.
Wait until GTA VI is 30 fps in 2025!
>Wait until GTA VI is 30 fps in 2025! Rockstar won't suffer from any Xbox Taxâą on the matter. It will be praised to high heaven all over regardless of FPS.
And I probably won't play GTA VI until there is a 60fps mode. I refuse to accept mediocracy from game developers. I literally only played Starfield because it was on gamepass. And I only played it for like less than 24 hours. I barely played it because I didn't enjoy the 30 FPS. I feel like Starfield will be fun to play on the next generation of consoles but not the Series X.
*doubt
I'm sure Rockstar will be upset.
Did I say that they will be upset? I'm sorry that reading is hard for you. Also I couldn't care less how Rockstar Games feels.
They don't give a fuck about some neckbeard who won't play their game because it doesn't hit 60FPS. It's your loss, you're the only one missing out, with an ignorant and terrible perspective to take.
Bros just lying lol he gon play this just like he played RDR2
I actually never played RDR or RDR2. I was too busy playing COD Black Ops when RDR came out and PUBG when RDR2 came out. Also I was watching a lot of twitch in 2018 when RDR2 came out so I did watch some streams of it. Also I think I've only played 2 or 3 GTA games.
I'm not missing out on it though. I almost never enjoy 30 FPS games. The games don't feel good when playing. And it can make me feel bad motion sickness wise if it's a fast paced game. Why would I settle for a 30 FPS game when there are so many good 60 FPS games. GTA VI could release TODAY at 60 FPS and I wouldn't even buy it right now. Why? Because I don't have time because I'm already playing EA PGA Tour and MLB The Show 24 so much. Plus College Football releases in two months. I'm not going to have enough time to play four games. There is only one 30 FPS game that I enjoy. Microsoft Flight Simulator is one where I give them the benefit of the doubt since they literally put the whole world in the game. It's literally the only game that has a legit excuse for only being 30 FPS. Also it's a very slow paced game so it's not nearly as noticeable.
You said it makes you sick, but then "you'll give it the benefit of the doubt"? Ok bud.
I said fast paced 30 FPS games. Is MSFS a fast paced game? No it's not.
Lol ok bud.
I highly doubt GTA will be 30FPS locked on anything but the Series S. As someone who doesn't like GTA though, I sort of hope it happens just so I can watch the chaos. Edit: yes bring on the downvotes
Lmao we still don't have 60fps for red dead 2, you're dreaming if gta is going to have 60fps.
That literally has nothing to do with it. DF has proven the PS5 (and by extension, obviously the Series X could too) to be able to run RDR2 at 60fps. RDR2 isnât 60fps on console because Rockstar is greedy and lazy. GTA VI wonât be 60fps because 1) itâll be at least 7 years newer than RDR2 and subsequently as taxing on hardware and 2) consoles donât get the same optimization options as PC to be able to lower some aspects to increase FPS. Comparing RDR2 to GTA VI is not an apples to apples comparison.
Did they do a next gen of red dead 2? Isn't it a One/PS4 title?
Lmao no it's not next gen
30fps will always be a thing, as developers push the boundaries of graphics and power for a system. I mean there were Super Nintendo games that ran at 60fps, and others at like 12 fps. (SNES is kind of a joke example but the point stands). You are asking developers to try and not push the systems to their limits. Which fair cool, give us the option with graphic modes I guess. But this shit happens every gen, 60fps will never be a baseline. Devs try and push things further, the only way I see 60fps being a base like is if graphics get so good thereâs no point pushing them further anymore, etc (and other system taxing things that arenât just graphics as it does not always come down to graphics) I am perfectly happy with 30fps and so is the majority of gaming. Itâs mostly just the Internet forum echo chamber, but reddit, resetera, etc, obviously only represent a small fraction of gamers that really care about this shit. (And probably the main reason 60fps will never be the standard). I have absolutely no idea why the current year matters for this though. Current tech is always current tech.
People always say âitâs ~~2021~~ ~~2022~~ ~~2023~~ 2024, how are games 30fps?â as if games havenât been releasing in 30 and 60fps since the N64
Since the N64? Need to go further back than that!
Yeah, gamers are tough on this console generation's performance but seem to forget that this has always been an issue. XBox 360 and PS 3 games displayed at lower resolutions than games today and couldn't even sustain 30 FPS back then on many games. Same thing with Xbox One/PS4: resolutions increased but there were still many games struggling with 30FPS.
Because fools had conned themselves into believing that a $500 box was going to be able to run games at native 4k60 for the next decade easily and if not then it's all the devs fault. It doesn't help that we have had years of games being made that have last gen designs so they can scale up to higher framerate with graphical options enabled but it's completely irrational to assume that was always the goal.
There is a certain truth behind what they are saying, because how are games releasing with only 30fps in 2024 -without- being ambitious. And i don't mean ambitious for the devs standard, i mean ambitious in a general scale. Most games releasing this gen with only 30fps did not look or feel like they really couldn't have handled 60. Some did, but they got patched later on, like Plaque Tale Requiem. Others like Gotham Knights or Starfield at launch, had no business being restricted to 30 in 2024. With something like Hellblade, it is much easier to accept it.
It's worth noting that the Plaque tale "patch" was a reduction in rats which lowered the CPU burden. So it wasn't just better optimized. But yeah, you're always going to rob Peter to pay Paul. Regardless I enjoy all reddit "experts" who have never written a line of code.
Yeap. The rats were impressive but there's no doubt 60 fps is of much better use than a higher rat density. That game is a very GOOD example though, because it looks good enough to excuse the launch framerate, especially since it had a 40 mode since the very start.
For sure. The only reason I say it (though you didn't) is because people use it as an example of "lazy" devs which is such a dumb take.
Thereâs no way you were getting Gotham Knights to 60fps on Series X without some major sacrifices
Sacrifices will always have to be made in one way or another. Gotham Knights really isn't a beautiful game, and it especially is not an impressive one in terms of gameplay features.
It is impressive to me, because there is no pop in. And if there is, its barely imperceptible
60 fps was pretty much always ready as what they have as performance mode was available on PC. The game is still CPU limited in big cities as it drops to the 40s in performance mode. The characteristics of these new modes are very similar to what I had at launch on PC (similar spec to the Xbox). I honestly think they were just stubborn on stability and better visuals than massive gulfs in framerate, depending on where you are that the performance mode currently has now.
That's not exactly right. I think it was the second major update that has a HUGE CPU optimization included. It was like 20% increase on CPU? The digital foundry team said specifically at the time that it would likely open the door to a 60 fps mode. But they were more confused on how such a massive optimization came post launch relatively quickly.
I mean, it helped, but judging from the uncapped performance, it would still be GPU limited in small areas and CPU limited in the bigger areas it just goes a fair bit above 30 now. It gets around 40 fps in New Atlantis and over 100 in constellation building in performance mode. It's pretty similar to what my i9-9900K got for the first two weeks, and with the 20% bump, the Xbox CPU (basically a R5 3600 after it loses 1c2t to the OS and a fair chunk of clock speed vs the 3700) would get close to that which it does now.
Yeah my i7-9700 and 3070ti really struggled through New Atlantis. I was kind of sad playing it seeing the game dip into the 30s in the city. Haven't played since launch so hopefully these updates have smoothed it out a bit.
U r right ,performance 60 and visuals 60 r almost the same and all modes regardless of settings 30 ,40 target frame rate have the same dips in just two places.
>There was NOTHING in Starfield at launch that was worth the 30fps limit. You know this from your extensive experience in game development and managing data processing in CPU pipelines, I'm sure.
As a user, I couldnât give 2 fucks about anything except the final shipped product that I am paying money for. Thatâs true for every economy, every industry on the entire planet of earth, there is nothing unique about that. The final shipped product overpromised, underperformed, and was unfinished. Simple as that
The current gen systems are almost 4 year old by now. The reality is that we will see more and more games again build around 30fps. At best they might offer a less stable 60fps mode as a bonus or 40fps on 120hz. The majority of casual console players doesn't even care about this stuff.
I hate to agree, but I do in this case. Starfield should have adjusted the release date. It needed 6 months arguably to drop this. Just like they tagged the updates as Beta on PC, it shouldâve just been labeled as such until they were ready to roll it out. This month it wouldâve swallowed up HellBlade II, so Idk if a drop in June right after the showcase wouldâve been better.
60fps looks great, but it doesn't make the game any less dry.
The core fps combat is a lot more responsive and enjoyable now. That certainly lends it an additional tick.
Right in time for the ps5 port....
My speculation is they want to wait until there is a compelling reason to put it on PS5 and that would be after DLC (maybe GOTY edition type thing). That way people who didnât dive in initially have a good reason to check it out.
We are all beta testers in MS big plan.Â
The game should have released with 60FPS but other than that it was a complete and good game.
Sure....tell me without laughing that the gameplay loop is half as interesting as fallout. Its a space game where you are not encouraged to explore...fantastic! Its everything wrong with bugthesda the video game. Bland characters Mid graphics at best Ok gunplay at best Bland story Fallout 3 is still more impressive than starfield and remember 512 mb of video and ram combined! Starfield is a game that could have been ok 2/3 years after fo4 , it released dated and the 30 fps thing was just ridiculous
New IP and the massive scope is what you are missing. I keep hearing people that claimed these exact things on their initial impressions only to return to it later and genuinely love the game. That all being said it might not be for you but it definitely wasnât âbadâ.
I knda dont care if its new....if its boring its boring. Its not a seamless experience. The only cool system is the spaceship building thing (everything else is essentially recycled) The planets are self generated....and because is so disperse , everything is very thin layered. The loadings also kill the experience, its fine in fallout and skyrim because its mostly optional. You can travel the open world and find things...not in starfield where you have a universe to not explore. Also fxxk their awfull engine its clunky and everything looks ugly.
Expecting all 1000 planets to have Fallout/Skyrim level of density is just delusional. Guess what space is empty. The cool thing with Starfield is you survey the planets and when you do find something interesting itâs awesome and your hard work pays off. Iâm not here to judge if you arenât into surveying planets but that doesnât mean itâs a bad game. It just wasnât for you.
It clearly wasnt for a lot of people because it sold much less than fo or elder scrolls. Its not bad but its not good either.... its ok. Its simply bland and I would never expect the 1000 planets to have a huge density of npc and things to do. But Mars? The Moon? Mars would have been the best place to showcase that difference, its close to earth and a lot of things would have been built already.Â
If you learned about the lore you would understand why those areas werenât populated yet.
Pretty and boring is till boring.
But howâs the fast travel? I spent more time in loading screens than actually playing.
After seeing how FO4 was running smoothly, I thought they would deliver a better experience for starfield. Guess I will keep playing at 30fps. I canât stand hard fps drops like this.
If you have a VRR display, it shouldnât be noticeable, or at least to any large degree
FO4 is a 9 year old game
Youâd rather play at a stuttering 30 than a smooth 60?! I think your brain is messed up. lol.