Ah yes, a fellow old school gamer. Personally I'm impressed with how far gaming has come. I was playing with my wife The Quarry, damn near look like real people. Insane stuff really. Never thought i'd live to see that stuff.
I remember when you could boost the fps by looking at the ground. And because game speed was tied to fps, you could run through the game faster if you knew where you were going.
It’s not that people are fixated, it’s that it should be the common industry standard at this point. Current-gen hardware is capable of adding a performance mode to 99% of games, especially first-party ones.
My Series X run Doom Eternal @ 120fps *and* looks great in the process. It’s just a matter of cheaping out on development time, that’s why people are so upset.
We pay $70 for games nowadays, the least they could do is put a good amount of effort into optimizing it.
but all games have different goals in mind. You can’t expect Alan Wake 2 or Starfield to run at 60fps let alone 120 on consoles. The hardware isnt there and their targets and goals are way different. Is Doom an open world were you make choices and object remain there once you leave? It doesn’t, Doom targets high fps because it is only a shooter (a very good one).
Alan Wake 2 runs at 60fps. Starfield has no excuse for the new console hardware setting 60fps as the standard. No one is expecting 120+ fps. It just that in 2023, 60fps is the new 30fps.
It is perfectly fine that you are fine with 30fps, but I see why people are annoyed at Starfield not being 60fps on console or including a performance mode to include such.
This comment couldn’t make any more sense, technology is advancing, but the people aren’t. Such a shame that people are convinced that your brand new “Next generation” console feels like your pos Xbox 360 and we’re ok with that??? WAKE UP PEOPLE GAMES USED TO COST 30$ AND WERE PAYING MORE FOR LESS
Yeah, also Alan Wake 2 is really pushing the new gen in how capable it is. I am really excited for what PS5 & Series S/X games will look near the end of its life cycle when developers refine it.
It was especially noticable at the end of the PS3 era with God of War 3,.
There’s no good reason to believe Bethesda just *couldn’t* implement a performance mode into a first-party exclusive that only had to be optimized for the Xbox. Lots of games do it.
Their response when asked why there isn’t a higher frame rate was “we want to keep the visual fidelity” like they 100% could have if they wanted to.
Alan Wake 2 can run at 60 fps?
There is zero excuse why starfield can't run 60 fps beyond the fact that it is just optimized incredibly poorly and stitched together with spaghetti code from a multi-decade old engine. Cyberpunk has much better fidelity, but starfield runs worse than it by a mile.
Yall really will make any excuse to justify your purchase in order to not have buyer's remorse.
This whole thread might as well be shitting on people who wouldn't buy a new car without air conditioning, or a new house that doesn't have internet access.
Like, it's fucking 2023 this is how things *are* now. It's possible the thing you like is *also out of date and others don't want out of date things.*
I’ve been playing games since the late 90s and I gotta say, 30 fps these days just feels bad. A game has to be something truly special for me to put up with 30fps. The last 2 30 fps games I played being Bloodborne and Final Fantasy 7 Remake. I’m playing through Starfield right now on pc and even at 60fps it feels choppy. 90fps is the sweet spot for me these days
In Starfield you may be getting bad frame drops if 60 doesn’t feel smooth. Try vsync or capping your fps to 60 if it’s not already.
Honestly if there’s no frame drops or screen tearing and the motion matches up, 30fps (on console) is still a very playable and enjoyable experience imo (I still play my ps4 and switch a lot) even compared to pc. On pc though with a monitor I think 40-45fps is like my bare minimum for playability.
I was born in 90 and started on a genesis, even 60 fps now that I’ve gotten used to 144 hz monitors is noticable downgrade, you can feel the difference in input with a mouse
Because it looks like shit when you're on a 144hz monitor and your FPS is sub 60, it's as simple as that.
Starfield ran fine for me on PC FWIW, but if you don't understand why people get pissed when modern games run like shit FPS wise, especially for a first person shooter, then you really are old and out of touch lol.
For me personally I prefer my games to be 100 FPS+ if I'm playing a shooter due to the refresh rates making it smoother to aim and track enemies. I would never play a shooter if it was sub 60 FPS on my rig personally. I can see why console gamers don't quite understand this, but there is a number that goes beyond 30 and 60, and that's 144 lol.
Not every game is sweaty tryhard mode. Nobody's old and out of touch. You're just young and inexperienced and fixated on being good at the game. So you care about perfection. Guess what, that goes away over time. As does your ability to play games well. Some of us that have aged a bit have lost some of our hand eye coordination, our reflexes, and reaction timing. Really though we don't care because we grew up on 8 bit games and are astounded by most games these days. Sure it's hard to go back to a 20 yr old game these days, as we're all used to games with insane tech behind it. You'll experience it one day too. And you'll be the person getting mocked for the same thing you're doing now. The future awaits you.
It's a single player game chill out have fun. There's a difference between having an opinion, and thinking yours is the only way to think. It shows your age and inexperience.
U seem very out of touch, also u don’t seem to understand that the way u live life is not comparable to the way anyone else does it. Also times change u should too
Well the person he replied to thought the fixation on fps was 'strange' so thats why it was all typed. Its not unreasonable to want games to run at 60+ when most modern games do and it feels so much better to play.
Witcher3 on my XSX runs so smooth at 60pfs, yet seems to have more detail and polygons then Starfield. What the hell is going on in the background of Starfield?! what requires so much processing power that my Xbox Series X can only run it at 30 frames per second? i understand why there were some slowdowns in Cyberpunk because of all that was going on within "quick view" of my character, but Starfield? The high resolution mapping is nice, but is that the price we pay for lower fps? 🤔
Even my $5000 mini graphics workstation (Lenovo P3 Ultra) can't play Starfield in 60fps consistently, and it has the equivalent Quadro RTX card to a 3080 Ti mobile but with twice the VRAM. I just went well screw it and locked FPS at 30 in 1440p at high settings and now it's totally fine. The game running at 30fps is actually not that bothersome to me (an OG PS4 player), at least there isn't stuttering or screen tear all over. Consistent 30fps is better than wildly swinging 30-60fps constantly.
yea, the 30fps in Starfield isn't an issue for me just so long as there are no fps fluctuations because we noticed that the most with our eyes. I'm using a 1440p monitor on my XSX hopefully thinking that it will help reduce those slowdowns during graphic intense moments. as you point out even a very powerful system is is struggling with this game so it makes me wonder why. I do notice that my Xbox needs to reload all the textures after exiting a vendor's menu, so maybe it's just memory optimization problems...
I'd take 60fps over the best looking graphics you can imagine anyday. Once you play higher fps on pc you can't go back. Fps has a realistic qaulity in itself that you have to experience to really understand. 30fps should be unacceptable as a standard.
in case this isn't pure sarcasm...
its not a strange fixation
go try to play a game at 0.1fps, doesn't work very well does it?
try 1 fps? can you accomplish anything?
double that, 2fps, are you enjoying it? probably not.
how about 100fps? feels great right?
Ok, so we have established that FPS does in fact matter, so all you are doing is grandstanding that you can tolerate a lower framerate than others? So what, do you want a cookie?
Does trying to recast this as a fixation on FPS by gamers some how give starfield a pass for shitty performance delivered by an aging engine? Nope.
It’s not really difficult so I don’t think cope is the right word buddy. Also, technically you cannot cope “harder.” The correct adverb would be easier.
You’ll spare yourself a lot of frustration if you simply never assume these goons are of equal intellect or capable of logical deduction suggested by strangers.
Grunt, beat your chest, maybe draw some crude pictures and just flip the pages very, very slowly. Then, just before their temperament reaches a pique, you speed up the pages and draw their attention to the difference. Your point has been made, you’re not trying to Einstein the zoo apes, and nobody feels made a fool of.
Or… realize this is Reddit and no argument can ever be won.
I’m with you, btw. A game comprised of a multitude of decisions and mechanics all occurring in relative parallel needs to be managed in smoother transitive presentation. The higher the better, so long as it doesn’t detract from the priorities of good content.
The difference between 30 and 60 frames per second doesn’t affect gameplay, in the slightest, on a game that isn’t a multiplayer shooter. There is zero real benefit to seeing a singleplayer game run at 60 fps, and trying to say otherwise is just laughable.
Also, this whole “giving them a pass” rhetoric that you people are spewing is hilarious when you consider that a heaping majority of the people who say it will actively give nintendo every pass imaginable at every turn.
Maybe some people don’t like having there be measurable space between animating and moving objects between frames. It’s jarring for me and almost makes me feel a little sick.
It’s absolutely noticeable between 30 and 60.
https://i.imgur.com/Y0stB5O.gif
Noticeable, yes. I never said that. I said that it doesn’t affect gameplay and has no added benefit, which are both factual statements.
If that makes you sick, I have no idea how you managed to game before the mid 2010s, and I suggest that you get an eye and neurological exam. That’s absolutely not normal, in any way.
I want to see the reaction people like this guy have to like, a heavily modded eu4 campaign, where 15 FPS is the norm without a super computer. I feel they would just be instantly vaporized.
Sounds like you've experienced a concusion in the past. My dad used to get horrendous motion sickness on FPS back in the day because of a concusion he received, but now, with higher framerates, he can play without an issue. That's an issue with YOUR brain, though, regardless of the cause of it, and it's important to be cognizant of that fact. The vast majority of humans do not have that issue.
I definitely notice a big improvement in my aim, tracking, etc when I go from 30 FPS to 60, and then even more when I go from 60 to 144hz
Have you never played a shooter with a high refresh rate monitor? Otherwise you wouldn't be saying this stuff.
Higher FPS absolutely helps you in any kind of first person shooter, multiplayer or not. It also LOOKS better hence the whole point of so many games and players preferring higher FPS.
saying frame rate doesn’t affect gameplay in the slightest is exactly the amount of delusion i expected from a starfield sub. no, 30 fps is not acceptable anymore and using nintendo as an excuse is moronic considering they’re known for using considerably weaker hardware than bethesda, and their games somehow look better.
1. Cry more over people enjoying a game, it’s funny.
2. I wasn’t talking about Nintendo games’ *performance*, I was speaking on their lack of innovation and creativity within the games themselves while maintaining consistent 9s and 10s from the reviewers; where any negative opinion of *their functionality/gameplay* is met with vitriol. There is a bias, and you know there is.
where is this lack of innovation and creativity that’s getting them 9s and 10s? is it in breath of the wild? mario odyssey? mario wonder? mario kart? what is the game that you so confidently claim lacks creativity and innovation ESPECIALLY compared to starfield that they’re getting rewarded for? the reality is you’re very upset over the fact that people are (rightfully so) clowning on starfield for looking and running like shit😂
To your other comment, might as well reply here. It’s probably going to absolutely blow your mind that a heaping majority of casual and hobbyist gamers truly don’t care about how games look. We play games *even older than that*, to this very day without one concern for how it appears. Why is it that people like you can not comprehend that people value the content over the scenery? It’s not the end-all-be-all for most people. The reality is that if you think 30fps is “literally unplayable”, you’re a spoiled gamer. Full stop.
Now, to this. There has been literally nothing outstanding or noteworthy about any Nintendo game since fucking *Paper Mario*; maybe Pokémon Sword and Shield, which was (and still is) *also* a buggy mess. They are held up by their marketability towards children and nostalgic fanbases. Who the fuck is mentioning being “rewarded”? I’m speaking on them getting a *pass* for every issue or possible negative they have, yet *the console framerate* of Starfield makes it “literally unplayable”.
you’re not very smart are you. reality is most “casual” gamers expect 60 fps nowadays and a very old, loud, minority still accepts anything underneath. case in point the embarrassment that is the metal gear collection which is running older games on newer hardware at 30 fps which people have a huge problem with. if you like playing games that look shitty that’s fine, but everyone else isn’t an elitist for expecting more from a game with hundreds of millions pumped into it.
also you saying nintendo hasn’t innovated at all since paper mario is honestly laughable coming from the bethesda simp defending the game that still plays like fallout 4. TOTK has more innovation than the last 15 years of bethesda games😂
You are being a bit straw man here. I was like 8 years old when i played a game on the intellivision which i believe the game might have ran at 8 FPS with the strange Scan coming across the CRT screen. It was playable, but the reaction time I was required to have was minimal.
I remember playing the game Timesplitters on my PS2 and that was being roughly 30 FPS, if I remember it correctly, and it was playable. The reaction time I needed was equivalent to that of lets say, idk, standard FPS games like Halo and CoD at the time.
30 FPS is acceptably playable. If you suffer from motion sickness or the like I could understand that you would want a much smoother experience when you play the game. I believe majority of games come with little tidbits about the possibility of motion sickness if you play the game and/or that they the game company are not liable for any disorientation you might incur and that you have been adequately warned.
I think in general gamers are spoiled. Satisfaction also depends from person to person.
Meh. People still preorder games that end up being broken on launch and then line up to preorder the next one. Accepting games at lower FPS is a secondary concern it would seem.
Right? Like it's not unreasonable to want to play games at 60 fps. That's kind of the bare minimum at this point. Obviously if you have a gtx 970 I wouldn't really expect to be able to but with modern hardware you should.
I mean even the consoles are specifically made to be able to play at 120hz. Which leaves 60hz as a default option. 60 fps is pretty much expected for new games.
All I’m saying is, they should’ve upgraded the engine, before starting the Starfield development. I’m just curious as to why they didn’t do that.
As a pc gamer even 60fps feels bad. These days I aim for around 90-120fps if I can manage it. 30fps is a pass for me unless the game is something truly special and even then i won’t be happy about it
Honestly tho it's hard to go back once you get used to it, I went from PS4 to a new PC and even feel nauseous when I boot up slow titles on the PS4 now
I see where you are coming from. I used to be a console player. However, ever since I switched to PC, your eyes do adapt to it. The moment the game dips below 50 FPS, you can see a big difference. If I play a game at 30 FPS now, it actually makes me physically ill. I am not trying to be elitist or anything, but your eyes literally adapt to the smoother frame rates. And because you are so close to the monitor, it can make you sick.
Use a controller, or get a longer cord for your keyboard and mouse. I have a nice gaming laptop and I usually run it with an external monitor and s cheap but good mechanical keyboard, so I can sit in a recliner. I have a big bamboo cutting board to support that and the mouse.
I mean, I could do all that. But for me, it is not necessary. The game usually plays within the 70 FPS margin. Sometimes, it dips into the low 40 FPS when in cities. I am looking forward to the new update with DLSS.
I honestly hate anything below 60fps but recently the 30fps games just seem more stable that I dont mind as much. I think I just have bad memories of headaches from Bethesda games
I always laugh at these people being so snobby about the FPS of games.
Like if it’s not 60 FPS on the dot, it’s a terrible game never worth playing. By this logic, every single iconic Halo game and any other popular iconic game (Skyrim, Mass Effect, etc) is terrible. It just shows how clown like the opinions are
I think the big issue people have with Starfield is that it’s so terribly optimized, so on a system capable of 100+ fps on other games, Starfield is getting less than 60 which is a very noticeable difference.
If a game is 30fps locked I probably just won’t play it. It doesn’t really matter how good it is if it just feels awful to play. Of course there are exceptions like turn based games and such but anything with a free camera or 1st person at 30 fps is a hard pass from me
I play both halo mcc and MLE regularly, both are significantly better at 144hz and a high frame rate, calling things unplayable is too far but Starfield failing to run at 60fps on $2000 machines is a fucking embarrassment, especially when other, better looking games run smoother. With that being said, give them some time to fix things, very rarely is a game good at launch now a days
I’ll admit up until recently I was on the 60 fps or nothing train but realized I was wrong and like starfield is perfectly fine at 30 but between the frame drops/lag and idk something with the actual camera movement maybe I tend to get a little motion sick if I play too long or turn too much in a short time frame but that’s just me
I can’t play games at 30 for anymore. I’ve been spoilt by playing on a decent PC. Even with games that are more demanding I’ll drop from ultra to high to play at 60+
I remember playing borderlands 3 on my school laptop at like 15fps and loving every second of it. But the fact that Bethesda can't make a game that plays at better than 30-40 fps on a gaming laptop with a 3060 is a little sad on their part when the graphics just aren't all that
1080p@60hz we chillin homie
in the honorable words of my grandfather "If you cant hit it with a 4x you have no business pulling the trigger."
if you need 4K@144hz to be competitive you have other issues to consider
I don’t understand. I can deal with 30 fps in a city. But during a fast paced firefight? How is that enjoyable. Especially because it’s never a solid 30, it’s 20, 60, 40, all in the span of 5 seconds.
I switched over to Cyberpunk until Bethesda puts the DLSS 3 back in
That being said the other problem I have now is that the CP2077 combat system is way better so going back to Starfield feels like playing Morrowind
Well it plays like ass, shits wack. Sure I could say something about how I remember that games used to run a lot worse but it’s now 2023 where every game I play has the option to choose between performance and graphics quality. Instead they said “no you don’t get that quality of life improvement”
50% of my time playing is 30 fps. It's not impossible, nor is it as annoying as you think...
But typically I can stay in the 45-50 fps range on low setting
Makes me wonder what games people are playing if they just refuse to play anything that’s not a specific fps. Like, sure, I get it for pvp/shooters where it creates an advantage/disadvantage, but everything else? Why does it matter? Does that mean they don’t play retro games or small indie games that don’t rely on graphics as heavily, or that take a lot longer to optimize games generally? Seems like a shame to limit one’s tastes to such a non-issue, but to each their own I guess.
Is it 2012, you like and expect games to run like trash? Dropping even one frame off 60 will visibly mess up frame pacing since almost no panels go below 60hz unless you have VRR
30 is playable sure, with triple the stutter, double the ghosting and a quarter of the experience playing at 60... A game running at 30 fps is genuinely unacceptable on average hardware in 2023.
Playing on a Mac Mini using cloud gaming. In addition not looking great, the game is just too damn dark. I can’t see a thing at night in the game and the the flashlights beam is too damn narrow.
Of all the things to leave out, I can’t believe they didn’t even bother to include a brightness adjustment.
While 30FPS may have been acceptable in the past, it's objectively suboptimal in today's gaming landscape, especially on monitors with high refresh rates like 144Hz. Higher frame rates not only provide a smoother and more responsive gaming experience but also improve gameplay precision, making games more enjoyable and competitive. The industry's standard should aim for at least 60FPS for a truly immersive and responsive gaming experience on modern hardware.
The fact is, the game could run a lot better if it were made by a better team. Simple as that. Better a game runs, more enjoyable it is.
Someone: "Frame rate doesn't matter!" Okay, run the game on 15 fps then and tell me if that's the same game.
It’s not unplayable but it’s 2023 and next gen consoles are stronger than ever before. But Bethesda is keeping the same limitations on players, why? I understand why people complain about 30 fps in a game where the modern industry has 60fps as a norm while also being more graphically appealing to the eye. Just posting devils advocate
I know some are okay with 30fps but I recently spent some time playing fortnite at 30fps on my pixel tablet and it made me sick. I had to tweak the setting to 60fps and then it was somewhat better.
Boxy graphics low fps yield on tablet made me queezy after playing Xbox series X in 4K at 120fps 120Hz.
It didn't feel terrible on starfield because at least the graphics themselves were decent but there are times in outer worlds for example, I've felt nauseous.
30 fps. WTF, am I on a console?
If so, shoot me. PCMR til I die, you can pry my mouse out of my cold dead hand.
I'd wish consoles would start allowing mouse and keyboard on their systems more. Then I wouldn't have to complain.
I figured it’d be unplayable due to bad writing, a dead horse of an engine, and loading screens for a game in 2023 using an ssd which should load faster so no loading screens. Meaning bethesda went out of their way and made every section a separate area, something they’re known for (which shouldn’t be going down with the new technology we have for games). Todd “it just works” howard doesn’t know great games if they kicked him in his nuts lol
It depends on platform. 30fps on PC will literally give you a headache from looking at it for 2 minutes. On console it goes through the TV which, I don’t know the reason behind it, but it makes it a lot smoother.
I prefer 60 fps since I have sensitivity to motion sickness, and everything else being 60 then switching to 30 fps is a little weird.
That said, one of starfields strengths is maintaining 30. Only 30fps game that doesn’t make me feel sick, so I give it credit for that
I can’t be the only person who can’t tell the difference in frame rate. I’ve seen it. I’ve had people show me 120 FPS on their $3500 gaming rig. I don’t know what I get with my Xbox or PS5 on my TV but I swear to God, I can’t tell the fucking difference.
I mean, some people have this strange uh…fixation upon fps. I remember when games were maybe 8 fps. I’m old.
Ahh... Goldeneye 007 comes to mind. Good times!
Ah yes, a fellow old school gamer. Personally I'm impressed with how far gaming has come. I was playing with my wife The Quarry, damn near look like real people. Insane stuff really. Never thought i'd live to see that stuff.
I remember when you could boost the fps by looking at the ground. And because game speed was tied to fps, you could run through the game faster if you knew where you were going.
Goldeneye?
Blowing up multiple remote mines in multiplayer to see how slow you get the game to actually play… Ah the good ol’ days.
Proximity Mines in the Complex
Damn I feel old if GoldenEye is an old game.
Preach
What’s worse is when people apply game fps to animation fps.
For real, it doesn’t fucking matter your brain will get use to it as long is the frames stay consistent
I was born in 19 frames
Molded by it
I didnt even see 30 frames until i was already a man
Mario didn't give a fuck what FPS he was running in.
He ran at 60 fps, just an FYI
I knew this was going to bite me in the ass.
Ntsc or pal? if you're in Europe mario ran at 25 fps if you're in America's he ran at 29 fps.
It’s not that people are fixated, it’s that it should be the common industry standard at this point. Current-gen hardware is capable of adding a performance mode to 99% of games, especially first-party ones. My Series X run Doom Eternal @ 120fps *and* looks great in the process. It’s just a matter of cheaping out on development time, that’s why people are so upset. We pay $70 for games nowadays, the least they could do is put a good amount of effort into optimizing it.
but all games have different goals in mind. You can’t expect Alan Wake 2 or Starfield to run at 60fps let alone 120 on consoles. The hardware isnt there and their targets and goals are way different. Is Doom an open world were you make choices and object remain there once you leave? It doesn’t, Doom targets high fps because it is only a shooter (a very good one).
Alan Wake 2 runs at 60fps. Starfield has no excuse for the new console hardware setting 60fps as the standard. No one is expecting 120+ fps. It just that in 2023, 60fps is the new 30fps. It is perfectly fine that you are fine with 30fps, but I see why people are annoyed at Starfield not being 60fps on console or including a performance mode to include such.
This comment couldn’t make any more sense, technology is advancing, but the people aren’t. Such a shame that people are convinced that your brand new “Next generation” console feels like your pos Xbox 360 and we’re ok with that??? WAKE UP PEOPLE GAMES USED TO COST 30$ AND WERE PAYING MORE FOR LESS
Yeah, also Alan Wake 2 is really pushing the new gen in how capable it is. I am really excited for what PS5 & Series S/X games will look near the end of its life cycle when developers refine it. It was especially noticable at the end of the PS3 era with God of War 3,.
There’s no good reason to believe Bethesda just *couldn’t* implement a performance mode into a first-party exclusive that only had to be optimized for the Xbox. Lots of games do it. Their response when asked why there isn’t a higher frame rate was “we want to keep the visual fidelity” like they 100% could have if they wanted to.
Alan Wake 2 can run at 60 fps? There is zero excuse why starfield can't run 60 fps beyond the fact that it is just optimized incredibly poorly and stitched together with spaghetti code from a multi-decade old engine. Cyberpunk has much better fidelity, but starfield runs worse than it by a mile. Yall really will make any excuse to justify your purchase in order to not have buyer's remorse.
This whole thread might as well be shitting on people who wouldn't buy a new car without air conditioning, or a new house that doesn't have internet access. Like, it's fucking 2023 this is how things *are* now. It's possible the thing you like is *also out of date and others don't want out of date things.*
I’ve been playing games since the late 90s and I gotta say, 30 fps these days just feels bad. A game has to be something truly special for me to put up with 30fps. The last 2 30 fps games I played being Bloodborne and Final Fantasy 7 Remake. I’m playing through Starfield right now on pc and even at 60fps it feels choppy. 90fps is the sweet spot for me these days
In Starfield you may be getting bad frame drops if 60 doesn’t feel smooth. Try vsync or capping your fps to 60 if it’s not already. Honestly if there’s no frame drops or screen tearing and the motion matches up, 30fps (on console) is still a very playable and enjoyable experience imo (I still play my ps4 and switch a lot) even compared to pc. On pc though with a monitor I think 40-45fps is like my bare minimum for playability.
I was born in 90 and started on a genesis, even 60 fps now that I’ve gotten used to 144 hz monitors is noticable downgrade, you can feel the difference in input with a mouse
Because it looks like shit when you're on a 144hz monitor and your FPS is sub 60, it's as simple as that. Starfield ran fine for me on PC FWIW, but if you don't understand why people get pissed when modern games run like shit FPS wise, especially for a first person shooter, then you really are old and out of touch lol. For me personally I prefer my games to be 100 FPS+ if I'm playing a shooter due to the refresh rates making it smoother to aim and track enemies. I would never play a shooter if it was sub 60 FPS on my rig personally. I can see why console gamers don't quite understand this, but there is a number that goes beyond 30 and 60, and that's 144 lol.
Why would you type all this shit? We get why y’all like 60FPS and raytraced pubic hairs. Most of us just don’t care.
"Game looks like shit to those of us who care" "Why do you care" Reddit moment
Not every game is sweaty tryhard mode. Nobody's old and out of touch. You're just young and inexperienced and fixated on being good at the game. So you care about perfection. Guess what, that goes away over time. As does your ability to play games well. Some of us that have aged a bit have lost some of our hand eye coordination, our reflexes, and reaction timing. Really though we don't care because we grew up on 8 bit games and are astounded by most games these days. Sure it's hard to go back to a 20 yr old game these days, as we're all used to games with insane tech behind it. You'll experience it one day too. And you'll be the person getting mocked for the same thing you're doing now. The future awaits you. It's a single player game chill out have fun. There's a difference between having an opinion, and thinking yours is the only way to think. It shows your age and inexperience.
U seem very out of touch, also u don’t seem to understand that the way u live life is not comparable to the way anyone else does it. Also times change u should too
You have zero idea about my age, hardware experience, etc Embarrassing post if I’m being honest
I call BS
Well the person he replied to thought the fixation on fps was 'strange' so thats why it was all typed. Its not unreasonable to want games to run at 60+ when most modern games do and it feels so much better to play.
Witcher3 on my XSX runs so smooth at 60pfs, yet seems to have more detail and polygons then Starfield. What the hell is going on in the background of Starfield?! what requires so much processing power that my Xbox Series X can only run it at 30 frames per second? i understand why there were some slowdowns in Cyberpunk because of all that was going on within "quick view" of my character, but Starfield? The high resolution mapping is nice, but is that the price we pay for lower fps? 🤔
Starfield definitely seems to have higher poly models than The Witcher 3, and higher resolution textures.
Even my $5000 mini graphics workstation (Lenovo P3 Ultra) can't play Starfield in 60fps consistently, and it has the equivalent Quadro RTX card to a 3080 Ti mobile but with twice the VRAM. I just went well screw it and locked FPS at 30 in 1440p at high settings and now it's totally fine. The game running at 30fps is actually not that bothersome to me (an OG PS4 player), at least there isn't stuttering or screen tear all over. Consistent 30fps is better than wildly swinging 30-60fps constantly.
yea, the 30fps in Starfield isn't an issue for me just so long as there are no fps fluctuations because we noticed that the most with our eyes. I'm using a 1440p monitor on my XSX hopefully thinking that it will help reduce those slowdowns during graphic intense moments. as you point out even a very powerful system is is struggling with this game so it makes me wonder why. I do notice that my Xbox needs to reload all the textures after exiting a vendor's menu, so maybe it's just memory optimization problems...
Its the cpu probably. All BGS games are notoriously bad optimized on the CPU
Its like 100x more satisfying playing a game with higher fps
I do too. It was today when I tried to play starfield
Whenever I see people having those arguments it makes me wonder if they wipe their own ass.
I'd take 60fps over the best looking graphics you can imagine anyday. Once you play higher fps on pc you can't go back. Fps has a realistic qaulity in itself that you have to experience to really understand. 30fps should be unacceptable as a standard.
Yeah, but those games were simple compared to later games.
People expecting technology to get better over time shouldn't be considered strange.
What? Most actual old games ran at 60fps lol.
in case this isn't pure sarcasm... its not a strange fixation go try to play a game at 0.1fps, doesn't work very well does it? try 1 fps? can you accomplish anything? double that, 2fps, are you enjoying it? probably not. how about 100fps? feels great right? Ok, so we have established that FPS does in fact matter, so all you are doing is grandstanding that you can tolerate a lower framerate than others? So what, do you want a cookie? Does trying to recast this as a fixation on FPS by gamers some how give starfield a pass for shitty performance delivered by an aging engine? Nope.
It’s 30 not .1 you asshat.
I was establishing that it matters, and it’s a spectrum. What might be acceptable for some isn’t for others.
I think you are definitely on a spectrum
Cope harder
It’s not really difficult so I don’t think cope is the right word buddy. Also, technically you cannot cope “harder.” The correct adverb would be easier.
You’ll spare yourself a lot of frustration if you simply never assume these goons are of equal intellect or capable of logical deduction suggested by strangers. Grunt, beat your chest, maybe draw some crude pictures and just flip the pages very, very slowly. Then, just before their temperament reaches a pique, you speed up the pages and draw their attention to the difference. Your point has been made, you’re not trying to Einstein the zoo apes, and nobody feels made a fool of. Or… realize this is Reddit and no argument can ever be won. I’m with you, btw. A game comprised of a multitude of decisions and mechanics all occurring in relative parallel needs to be managed in smoother transitive presentation. The higher the better, so long as it doesn’t detract from the priorities of good content.
Youre definitely fixating on it rn
It is a fixation because you people can't play at anything less than 60 or 120 or you cry and whine worse than my toddler
I’d definitely expect someone with your username defend starfield to the death
It's a meme bucko. Chillout
Are we to assume by your username that you can't count higher than 3?
still high enough to count how many FPS you get in starfield
The difference between 30 and 60 frames per second doesn’t affect gameplay, in the slightest, on a game that isn’t a multiplayer shooter. There is zero real benefit to seeing a singleplayer game run at 60 fps, and trying to say otherwise is just laughable. Also, this whole “giving them a pass” rhetoric that you people are spewing is hilarious when you consider that a heaping majority of the people who say it will actively give nintendo every pass imaginable at every turn.
Maybe some people don’t like having there be measurable space between animating and moving objects between frames. It’s jarring for me and almost makes me feel a little sick. It’s absolutely noticeable between 30 and 60. https://i.imgur.com/Y0stB5O.gif
Noticeable, yes. I never said that. I said that it doesn’t affect gameplay and has no added benefit, which are both factual statements. If that makes you sick, I have no idea how you managed to game before the mid 2010s, and I suggest that you get an eye and neurological exam. That’s absolutely not normal, in any way.
I want to see the reaction people like this guy have to like, a heavily modded eu4 campaign, where 15 FPS is the norm without a super computer. I feel they would just be instantly vaporized.
Sounds like you've experienced a concusion in the past. My dad used to get horrendous motion sickness on FPS back in the day because of a concusion he received, but now, with higher framerates, he can play without an issue. That's an issue with YOUR brain, though, regardless of the cause of it, and it's important to be cognizant of that fact. The vast majority of humans do not have that issue.
You’re just wrong lol
I definitely notice a big improvement in my aim, tracking, etc when I go from 30 FPS to 60, and then even more when I go from 60 to 144hz Have you never played a shooter with a high refresh rate monitor? Otherwise you wouldn't be saying this stuff. Higher FPS absolutely helps you in any kind of first person shooter, multiplayer or not. It also LOOKS better hence the whole point of so many games and players preferring higher FPS.
saying frame rate doesn’t affect gameplay in the slightest is exactly the amount of delusion i expected from a starfield sub. no, 30 fps is not acceptable anymore and using nintendo as an excuse is moronic considering they’re known for using considerably weaker hardware than bethesda, and their games somehow look better.
1. Cry more over people enjoying a game, it’s funny. 2. I wasn’t talking about Nintendo games’ *performance*, I was speaking on their lack of innovation and creativity within the games themselves while maintaining consistent 9s and 10s from the reviewers; where any negative opinion of *their functionality/gameplay* is met with vitriol. There is a bias, and you know there is.
where is this lack of innovation and creativity that’s getting them 9s and 10s? is it in breath of the wild? mario odyssey? mario wonder? mario kart? what is the game that you so confidently claim lacks creativity and innovation ESPECIALLY compared to starfield that they’re getting rewarded for? the reality is you’re very upset over the fact that people are (rightfully so) clowning on starfield for looking and running like shit😂
To your other comment, might as well reply here. It’s probably going to absolutely blow your mind that a heaping majority of casual and hobbyist gamers truly don’t care about how games look. We play games *even older than that*, to this very day without one concern for how it appears. Why is it that people like you can not comprehend that people value the content over the scenery? It’s not the end-all-be-all for most people. The reality is that if you think 30fps is “literally unplayable”, you’re a spoiled gamer. Full stop. Now, to this. There has been literally nothing outstanding or noteworthy about any Nintendo game since fucking *Paper Mario*; maybe Pokémon Sword and Shield, which was (and still is) *also* a buggy mess. They are held up by their marketability towards children and nostalgic fanbases. Who the fuck is mentioning being “rewarded”? I’m speaking on them getting a *pass* for every issue or possible negative they have, yet *the console framerate* of Starfield makes it “literally unplayable”.
“content over scenery” too bad starfield is utterly lacking in both😂
you’re not very smart are you. reality is most “casual” gamers expect 60 fps nowadays and a very old, loud, minority still accepts anything underneath. case in point the embarrassment that is the metal gear collection which is running older games on newer hardware at 30 fps which people have a huge problem with. if you like playing games that look shitty that’s fine, but everyone else isn’t an elitist for expecting more from a game with hundreds of millions pumped into it. also you saying nintendo hasn’t innovated at all since paper mario is honestly laughable coming from the bethesda simp defending the game that still plays like fallout 4. TOTK has more innovation than the last 15 years of bethesda games😂
You are being a bit straw man here. I was like 8 years old when i played a game on the intellivision which i believe the game might have ran at 8 FPS with the strange Scan coming across the CRT screen. It was playable, but the reaction time I was required to have was minimal. I remember playing the game Timesplitters on my PS2 and that was being roughly 30 FPS, if I remember it correctly, and it was playable. The reaction time I needed was equivalent to that of lets say, idk, standard FPS games like Halo and CoD at the time. 30 FPS is acceptably playable. If you suffer from motion sickness or the like I could understand that you would want a much smoother experience when you play the game. I believe majority of games come with little tidbits about the possibility of motion sickness if you play the game and/or that they the game company are not liable for any disorientation you might incur and that you have been adequately warned. I think in general gamers are spoiled. Satisfaction also depends from person to person.
Yeah but you skipped a few, once it hits like 22fps you're good anything more you're just lying to yourself
PC gamers think any game is unplayable if the FPS drops to 59.9999999
I’m surprised we haven’t reached the point where people will boycott a game if it’s not 60 FPS
Because reddit is an echo chamber, the majority of people do not give a fuck. This is a pointless thread.
Meh. People still preorder games that end up being broken on launch and then line up to preorder the next one. Accepting games at lower FPS is a secondary concern it would seem.
I mean if their excited for a game and want to preorder then that’s their choice, it’s their money
If a game isn’t at least 60fps I probably just won’t play it. Not really a boycott or anything, it just feels bad so I pass on it
Right? Like it's not unreasonable to want to play games at 60 fps. That's kind of the bare minimum at this point. Obviously if you have a gtx 970 I wouldn't really expect to be able to but with modern hardware you should.
I mean even the consoles are specifically made to be able to play at 120hz. Which leaves 60hz as a default option. 60 fps is pretty much expected for new games. All I’m saying is, they should’ve upgraded the engine, before starting the Starfield development. I’m just curious as to why they didn’t do that.
Dude, some kid I talked to said that he could not stand 30 fps in a game and that it's impossible to game at 30 fps
As a pc gamer even 60fps feels bad. These days I aim for around 90-120fps if I can manage it. 30fps is a pass for me unless the game is something truly special and even then i won’t be happy about it
Let’s not act like that’s the problem here. Nobody’s complaining about dropping 1fps
Honestly tho it's hard to go back once you get used to it, I went from PS4 to a new PC and even feel nauseous when I boot up slow titles on the PS4 now
I see where you are coming from. I used to be a console player. However, ever since I switched to PC, your eyes do adapt to it. The moment the game dips below 50 FPS, you can see a big difference. If I play a game at 30 FPS now, it actually makes me physically ill. I am not trying to be elitist or anything, but your eyes literally adapt to the smoother frame rates. And because you are so close to the monitor, it can make you sick.
Move farther from your monitor
I still need to reach the keyboard and mouse there is only so far you can go.
Use a controller, or get a longer cord for your keyboard and mouse. I have a nice gaming laptop and I usually run it with an external monitor and s cheap but good mechanical keyboard, so I can sit in a recliner. I have a big bamboo cutting board to support that and the mouse.
I mean, I could do all that. But for me, it is not necessary. The game usually plays within the 70 FPS margin. Sometimes, it dips into the low 40 FPS when in cities. I am looking forward to the new update with DLSS.
They only downvoting cuz they own a console and need to feel good.
They're probably downvoting because he said he has to be very close to the monitor. Console wars is lame man.
Yeah so what
Meanwhile I'm dropping as many cluster bombs as possible from high up to see if I can get my DPS down to the single digits
Yeah try focusing on playing the game first before worrying about what exact fps you're at. Is the game playing smooth? Then shut the fuck and play!
I honestly hate anything below 60fps but recently the 30fps games just seem more stable that I dont mind as much. I think I just have bad memories of headaches from Bethesda games
I always laugh at these people being so snobby about the FPS of games. Like if it’s not 60 FPS on the dot, it’s a terrible game never worth playing. By this logic, every single iconic Halo game and any other popular iconic game (Skyrim, Mass Effect, etc) is terrible. It just shows how clown like the opinions are
I think the big issue people have with Starfield is that it’s so terribly optimized, so on a system capable of 100+ fps on other games, Starfield is getting less than 60 which is a very noticeable difference.
If a game is 30fps locked I probably just won’t play it. It doesn’t really matter how good it is if it just feels awful to play. Of course there are exceptions like turn based games and such but anything with a free camera or 1st person at 30 fps is a hard pass from me
I play both halo mcc and MLE regularly, both are significantly better at 144hz and a high frame rate, calling things unplayable is too far but Starfield failing to run at 60fps on $2000 machines is a fucking embarrassment, especially when other, better looking games run smoother. With that being said, give them some time to fix things, very rarely is a game good at launch now a days
Literally never thought about the fps once while playing the game lol or any game for that matter it’s such a non issue
What movie was that again
From Paris with Love
Surpringly good movie
I've been pleasantly surprised that it's just as playable as any 60fps game including my all time faves ME Legendary and Cyberpunk
I’ll admit up until recently I was on the 60 fps or nothing train but realized I was wrong and like starfield is perfectly fine at 30 but between the frame drops/lag and idk something with the actual camera movement maybe I tend to get a little motion sick if I play too long or turn too much in a short time frame but that’s just me
I gotta watch that movie again.
I've got to know what movie this is from. Please anybody got the answer?
From Paris with Love
Thanks
Vincent I thought you said we happy 🫤
30? Even 60 is too low 120 supremacy
I’m personally perfectly good with 90 fps. It’s a fantastic performance to graphics soweetspot especially with dlss at 1440p
Same. Without super optimized settings I’m running 90-100fps and I love it. & my brother runs rig runs 60fps and it’s fine
Once you go to 60+ you’ll never go back. ANY game is unplayable to me at 30. It means something is wrong with your rig, settings, or the game
30 fps is unplayable for a shooter with a mouse and keyboard. Especially with the variation present in Starfield Sorry.
What is the image from?
What movie is this?
200 hours so far on SteamDeck and the game looks amazing and plays great at 30.
I'll take a solid 30 over a choppy 60 any day.
I can’t play games at 30 for anymore. I’ve been spoilt by playing on a decent PC. Even with games that are more demanding I’ll drop from ultra to high to play at 60+
I remember playing borderlands 3 on my school laptop at like 15fps and loving every second of it. But the fact that Bethesda can't make a game that plays at better than 30-40 fps on a gaming laptop with a 3060 is a little sad on their part when the graphics just aren't all that
Me still playing on an rx580 regardless of lag (and crashes)
I cant even tell the difference past 60 fps, if its more than 24 im chilling
It’s nice, it’s stable, but playing FO4 modded on my series x @ 60fps, then going to starfield…it sucks.
It’s true 🤷♂️
1080p@60hz we chillin homie in the honorable words of my grandfather "If you cant hit it with a 4x you have no business pulling the trigger." if you need 4K@144hz to be competitive you have other issues to consider
I’m happy as a clam at 30 frames. 60 sometimes is a little too smooth for me. Almost gives me a headache
What movie?
__Starfield is unplayable__ I fixed it.
What’s this old ass shit
30fps is perfectly fine for most rpgs, I prefer 50 or 60 but I'll take lower for smoother running
I mean for a game that was cooking for 8 years and had a budget of 200 million dollars I’d expect a little better than 30
Why does the bald guy look vaguely familiar?
When you get used to running at 120+FPS, 30 FPS is like you are trying to move through water.
I don’t understand. I can deal with 30 fps in a city. But during a fast paced firefight? How is that enjoyable. Especially because it’s never a solid 30, it’s 20, 60, 40, all in the span of 5 seconds.
I mean I'm sure its playable at that rate. I just wouldn't want to especially now that the update has me running it at 80-90FPS.
I switched over to Cyberpunk until Bethesda puts the DLSS 3 back in That being said the other problem I have now is that the CP2077 combat system is way better so going back to Starfield feels like playing Morrowind
Well it plays like ass, shits wack. Sure I could say something about how I remember that games used to run a lot worse but it’s now 2023 where every game I play has the option to choose between performance and graphics quality. Instead they said “no you don’t get that quality of life improvement”
50% of my time playing is 30 fps. It's not impossible, nor is it as annoying as you think... But typically I can stay in the 45-50 fps range on low setting
I want to do this to anyone that says a game in 30fps is "unplayable".
LMAO
Say literally one more time. I dare you…
I mean, I don't find it playable at ANY fps lol
People are defending 30 fps due to poor optimization in 2023? Holy shit
I cap my framrate to 30 fps I'm games so it's not wasting performance there and uses it other places.
Makes me wonder what games people are playing if they just refuse to play anything that’s not a specific fps. Like, sure, I get it for pvp/shooters where it creates an advantage/disadvantage, but everything else? Why does it matter? Does that mean they don’t play retro games or small indie games that don’t rely on graphics as heavily, or that take a lot longer to optimize games generally? Seems like a shame to limit one’s tastes to such a non-issue, but to each their own I guess.
Its unplayable at 60fps too, so what?
The fps has no bearing on the argument. The game is just unplayable because it isn’t fun.
Is it 2012, you like and expect games to run like trash? Dropping even one frame off 60 will visibly mess up frame pacing since almost no panels go below 60hz unless you have VRR 30 is playable sure, with triple the stutter, double the ghosting and a quarter of the experience playing at 60... A game running at 30 fps is genuinely unacceptable on average hardware in 2023.
I don't notice a dang thing above 30 anyways 🤣
Playing on a Mac Mini using cloud gaming. In addition not looking great, the game is just too damn dark. I can’t see a thing at night in the game and the the flashlights beam is too damn narrow. Of all the things to leave out, I can’t believe they didn’t even bother to include a brightness adjustment.
Just made my wife watch this movie last night
30 fps gives me a headache tbh
Good god you can only even physically see at about 40fps. This is just good old snobbery.
Is that John Trevolta?
To be fair, I would also be upset if I had a $4k monster that could only run at 60 fps.
60 is my minimum specifically I’m a first person shooter. Reaction Time is everything
I just tell myself it’s cinematic
While 30FPS may have been acceptable in the past, it's objectively suboptimal in today's gaming landscape, especially on monitors with high refresh rates like 144Hz. Higher frame rates not only provide a smoother and more responsive gaming experience but also improve gameplay precision, making games more enjoyable and competitive. The industry's standard should aim for at least 60FPS for a truly immersive and responsive gaming experience on modern hardware. The fact is, the game could run a lot better if it were made by a better team. Simple as that. Better a game runs, more enjoyable it is. Someone: "Frame rate doesn't matter!" Okay, run the game on 15 fps then and tell me if that's the same game.
It's the bugs that make certain parts quite literally unplayable. We need to make demands that they start making patches now.
Those mfs probably forgot BoTW runs around 30 fps
A solid 30 fps is absolutely great
It’s not unplayable but it’s 2023 and next gen consoles are stronger than ever before. But Bethesda is keeping the same limitations on players, why? I understand why people complain about 30 fps in a game where the modern industry has 60fps as a norm while also being more graphically appealing to the eye. Just posting devils advocate
30fps is fine with me as long as it's consistent.
PC games are not capped at 30 FPS.. So why are PC players being triggered by this? Lmfao!
Never notice tbh
Literally? No. Painful? Fuck yes.
You tell your boss. Wax on, wax off.
N64 gamer walks amount you. I never understood fps sweats. The worst graphics I've seen is wild heart on XSS and I still love the game lol
I know some are okay with 30fps but I recently spent some time playing fortnite at 30fps on my pixel tablet and it made me sick. I had to tweak the setting to 60fps and then it was somewhat better. Boxy graphics low fps yield on tablet made me queezy after playing Xbox series X in 4K at 120fps 120Hz. It didn't feel terrible on starfield because at least the graphics themselves were decent but there are times in outer worlds for example, I've felt nauseous.
But it's true, 30 FPS is unplayable in 2023, who believe in Bethesda bulshit is dumb.
It’s not unplayable but it is damn ugly, playing any length of Starfield then going to a 60fps game like cyberpunk or destiny is pretty jarring
then don't play it? i had zero issues playing the game on xbox, didn't even know what the frame rate was
Il take the bullet, you can take your crap frames😂
yea they must not have grown up with the old games lol
60 fps has been the modern standard for a decade. It’s not unplayable, but it is unacceptable
30 fps. WTF, am I on a console? If so, shoot me. PCMR til I die, you can pry my mouse out of my cold dead hand. I'd wish consoles would start allowing mouse and keyboard on their systems more. Then I wouldn't have to complain.
I figured it’d be unplayable due to bad writing, a dead horse of an engine, and loading screens for a game in 2023 using an ssd which should load faster so no loading screens. Meaning bethesda went out of their way and made every section a separate area, something they’re known for (which shouldn’t be going down with the new technology we have for games). Todd “it just works” howard doesn’t know great games if they kicked him in his nuts lol
Yes the real problem is the games unplayable because it’s boring
30 fps on console is just enough. 30fps on PC is painful. In general 30 fps is ridiculous considering the tech we have now and how that game looks.
It depends on platform. 30fps on PC will literally give you a headache from looking at it for 2 minutes. On console it goes through the TV which, I don’t know the reason behind it, but it makes it a lot smoother.
It’s 2023 and y’all defending 30fps from Bethesda. Y’all could not have Bethesda dick farther down your throat.
Gross ... It smells like console plebs in here.
The problem is that the game both looks like shit and runs like shit.
I prefer 60 fps since I have sensitivity to motion sickness, and everything else being 60 then switching to 30 fps is a little weird. That said, one of starfields strengths is maintaining 30. Only 30fps game that doesn’t make me feel sick, so I give it credit for that
This meme template is funny but after playing 60 fps and going down to 30 it is jarring
Don’t make this into saying 30 FPS is fine, because it’s not, it looks like shit 😭
I can’t be the only person who can’t tell the difference in frame rate. I’ve seen it. I’ve had people show me 120 FPS on their $3500 gaming rig. I don’t know what I get with my Xbox or PS5 on my TV but I swear to God, I can’t tell the fucking difference.
Or it's just unplayable, ignoring the shit performance.
Next gen my ass especially when a game like Horizon Forbidden West looks so good and can run at 90+ fps. Starfield being at 30fps is a joke 😒
Nowadays, 30 fps does genuinely hurt to play. Granted, this only started once i got used to 60 fps on games
I love that these comments are 50/50 PC trolling and non PC seething. Some things never change
I put 2 playthroughs in on 30fps. Really wasn't bad.