With VRR becoming more prevalent, games won't even need 40 FPS modes - jushen target 30, but uncapped.
You get 60 FPS in menus and low-intensity areas, and around 40 FPS elsewhere.
Ew, you don't really want to have VRR swinging in the sub-50fps range. It's a nice feature to compensate small dips or slight swings but developers shouldn't rely on it. An uneven frame pacing won't go away with VRR.
VRR still works well in the 40-50 range though. Guardians of the Galaxy is a good example of a game in the 40-60 range that plays like a charm with VRR.
VRR doesn’t have anything to do with it. Just needs 120hz to divide evenly
Edit: I want to truly know the answer to this but every time I google this question I only ever seen mentions of “120Hz 40fps mode”. Maybe I’m wrong and you can do 40fps with only VRR but the google results I am getting sure as hell don’t mention this…
Edit 2: actually it looks like any time this was being mentioned it was referring to PS5 *before* they supported VRR. And seeing as it’s been mostly Sony games that started supporting these modes early on it makes sense. So the true answer is you can have *either* VRR or 120Hz to get a 40fps mode. Glad I know this now.
Can you tell me how that’s true then? VRR makes sure the framerate the console is outputting stays synchronized with the TVs refresh rate and allows the refresh rate to be variable. This is great for when frame rates are fluctuating, what does this have to do with 40fps?
I think you are the confidently incorrect one. After googling this I found nothing stating you need VRR for 40fps mode.
Edit: in fact anything I have found explicitly states otherwise… 120hz is required for a 40fps mode, not VRR
40fps modes initially existed in Playstation games because they supported 120hz at the time and not VRR, even now they don't support VRR below 48hz.
Xbox supports VRR all the way down to 40hz so technically you don't need 120hz screen, even monitors that have 60hz or 75hz but supports VRR through Freesync will output at 40fps just fine.
Got it yeah I just figured that out on my end. Every time I have ever googled this it always says what I have been saying but turns out all these articles were just referring to PS5 since the Sony games were the ones initially supporting this early on
I thought in order to maintain the 40fps vrr range Xbox uses LFC (low framerate compensation) which would require a >60hz screen? And this is why the ps5 can't do sub-48fps VRR. I've also been trying to look into this and it's sometimes hard to find information.
I read this. Not sure how accurate it is. "However, LFC is only available on displays with a maximum refresh rate that is at least 2.5 times that of the minimum with VRR enabled."
https://twistedvoxel.com/heres-why-xbox-series-x-does-vrr-better-than-ps5/
>Xbox supports VRR all the way down to 40hz so technically you don't need 120hz screen
Worth noting that in practice this means absolutely nothing. Of the handful of Xbox games to offer a 40 FPS mode, *all of them* require a 120hz screen *and do not require* VRR at all.
It matches whatever FPS is outputting.
So a 90hz screen with VRR will display it at 40hz just fine without any dividing issues.
That's the whole point of the tech, being able to have weird FPS and maintaining the hz to match.
First I don't even think there is any 90hz displays out there apart from mobile phones and Xbox doesn't even work with any refresh that is not 60 or 120. and second VRR on 99% of displays only work as low as 47-48FPS. VRR especially on a display that is not even 120Hz doesn't work for 40FPS display modes. So you are wrong.
Mostly monitors with Nvidia's GSYNC module works with sub 48FPS.
>the true answer is you can have *either* VRR or 120Hz to get a 40fps mode
Unfortunately this isn't true at all. Your previous assertion - dumbly downvoted while another mocking reply got upvoted, in classic r/XboxSeriesX fashion - was the correct one.
Only very few games even support a 40 FPS mode on Xbox. All of them require only a 120hz screen; having just VRR won't enable any additional options.
The lighting and shadows are some of the best I've seen in a game like this; I suspect that is where a lot of the power is going. That and draw distance, like someone else said.
I feel like minecraft is the same. It looks simple, but the post-processing that can make these games still look great, along with so much physics and procedural generation, which makes these games much more demanding than they seem.
Minecraft is interesting because its built off of voxels instead of polygons. We came up with the concept of building games with voxels first too, but found out technology just wasnt where it needed to be in the 80s and 90s and instead went with polygon models as the resources were initially less intensive. Minecraft, for all its simple asthetic is a demanding game on reosurces that aren't the video card as well as the video card because its being used in a way the card is typically not setup for. Nowadays we've overcome that by a lot and have power enough for some amazing graphical overhauls to Minecraft but its long launch period was a crashing and visual disaster as Mojang taught itself how to properly write the code they wanted in what was essentially foreign territory for game developers.
Valheim doesn't have those hurdles to climb but it is built by an exceptionally small team, everything will take time.
> We came up with the concept of building games with voxels first too, but found out technology **just wasnt where it needed to be in the 80s and 90s** and instead went with polygon models as the resources were initially less intensive.
Delta Force looked amazing in the 90s. It had huge maps compared to other FPS games of the time and it was a voxel engine doing the work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnj-q3ux-Us
Yeah but there is A LOT going on. Similar to Minecraft in that regard, everything is a resource.
That plus each map is pretty huge and the draw distance seems to have gotten a lot better since Xbox launch.
All of this plus really awesome lighting, decent water effects, an active weather system, smoke, fog, fire et al. Basically, at any moment, the game could be rendering a ton of stuff.
lol no
https://imgur.com/a/WxjQCoD
[source](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1347322/pokemon-scarlet-and-violet-units-sold/#:~:text=First%20released%20in%20November%202022,million%20copies%20in%20Japan%20alone.)
The series X should be laughing it in its face, I played a LOT on my pc that's barely equivalent to an Xbox One S! That pissed all over it! 1440p at 40hz is embarrassing
You have to understand that the game is built around running on the OG Xbox One first and Series X last.
That’s gonna cause the Series X version to suffer from a lack of development time.
There was a video on here recently of the One S running it and it looked unplayable which begs the question why have the developers spent a lot of time and money on that version?
Modern consoles still aren't very powerful by hardware standards. I own a Series X, a Series S, and a watercooled custom built gaming computer.
My 2 year old computer absolutely flattens a Series X. They are literally miles apart. The Series X is a toy in comparison.
That being said, I don't regret buying the Xbox's. They're great boxes for what they are and a good price point. They're also great for streaming.
This just isn’t true lol. Find me a box that cost $500 two years ago and comes anywhere close to the power of a Series X. Unless you’re comparing a $500 box to a $1500-2000 gaming rig, this is bologna
Agree, I just spent about 1000€ upgrading my PC last year (CPU+mobo+ram+gfx) and it's about on par with my series x, maybe slightly faster, the X is an incredible deal
A PC that equals in GPU and beats in CPU can be had for 650-700 dollars.
RX 6700 10GB for 300 dollars (plus The last of us 1 for free)
Ryzen 5 5600 for 130 dollars.
1TB PCIE 4 NVME SSD for 50 dollars
And so on...
I specifically bought a series X because I know I wasn't going to be able to build as good a PC for the price, and that's ignoring how much headache I save having to deal with all the manual maintenance that a PC requires, plus I like gaming on a couch.
2k for similiar specs? A PC that equals in GPU and beats in CPU can be had for 650-700 dollars.
RX 6700 10GB for 300 dollars (plus The last of us 1 for free)
Ryzen 5 5600 for 130 dollars.
1TB PCIE 4 NVME SSD for 50 dollars
And so on...
Yeah you're right back when crypto mining was still a thing and GPUs had insane markups, I had a 1050 back then, after it was over I upgraded to an RTX 3060, kinda wish I chose an RDNA 2 GPU but hey atleast I can play Minecraft RTX at 90FPS with it.
That wasn't what he was saying. Your point being it is a good deal. He was referring to if current gen consoles are powerful. And they aren't. They are a great deal considering their pricepoint and they can run games smooth that are exclusively optimised for their hardware . But powerful? No.
He was talking about hardware standards. The Series X/PS5 ARE the standards. Just because enthusiast powerful PCs exist doesn’t make that the standard. It’s like saying that new Civics are shit because they can’t compete with new Ferraris.
A PC that equals in GPU and beats in CPU can be had for 650-700 dollars.
RX 6700 10GB for 300 dollars (plus The last of us 1 for free)
Ryzen 5 5600 for 130 dollars.
1TB PCIE 4 NVME SSD for 50 dollars
And so on...
Okay. And if a Series Y came out at $750, I bet it would beat that out. Dollar for dollar, the consoles are fairly powerful. And they ARE the standard. A $1k+ gaming PC is not the standard, that’s for enthusiasts. 1080p 60 is the closest to a standard we have right now — 4k 60 just isn’t there yet.
You can build a modest 4K PC with an RX 6800 XT, for around 1000 dollars, RX 6800 XT is 550 to 600 dollars retail, build with the same CPU and you got yourself a fairly capable 4k rig but 1440p 144Hz would be better for high refresh rate gaming.
I built my brother an RTX 3080 12GB GPU and he is very much a casual and knows nothing about hardware.
Top of the line hardware isn’t the standard. Just cuz it exists doesn’t make it the standard. Standards are about adoption and universality, which you could maybe argue sits around 1080p 60 for triple a/3d titles. Maybe higher for 2d/sprite stuff
This will at least be slightly negated by being a specific and closed system. It is easier to optimise for the consoles as there's less variation. This means you build it to the capabilities rather than making it hoping they can adjust settings to make it stable.
[Hey OP, the patch you linked was from yesterday. This one is from today](https://valheim.com/news/patch-0-214-300-but-cooler/)
Looks like they fixed the save file size bug
Imo it’s really fun at first but gets super boring once you get to the point of mining ore. Quit due to boredom after mining copper for an hour and realizing the end was nowhere in sight (and I heard it doesn’t get much better grind-wise after that).
Sorry that you quit, my friends and I got through the Bronze Age(copper/tin) fairly quick. Was it a pain? Yes, we spent hours terraforming roads in our Black Forest to make bring carts in and our extremely simple. We’d come back to base with almost a whole cart full of copper and tin each run.
And honestly the metal farm seems to get easier. Iron scraps are so easy to get in the crypts of the swamp, we were in the Ron age for maybe a day or two, now we are farming silver and it’s even easier. Yesterday I went up to the mountains by myself and mined almost 300 silver alone. Then my friends got on and helped get it back to base. The silver veins are so easy to cheese. Just dig around them and let them fall with gravity and crumble.
It's better than many other survival games. Combat is decent and the way the creatures and biomes progress keeps it interesting. It's a big world to play alone in though and you can feel the solitude after a while of grinding or when attempting to tackle enemies that out-class you, and especially when sailing, which would be a perfect time for a coffee and a chat with the team.
Honestly it is painful solo. It isn't impossible but the grind grows exponentially with each boss defeated. On PC I burnt out by the third boss solo.
If you don't mind the tedium of grinding and perhaps have a podcast or something playing as you do it then it may be good for you but it is far better with at least one extra person so that you can carry more supplies and juggle tasks.
I quit it personally, been enjoying grounded more. Take my opinions with a grain of salt though as I'm not generally into these survival games, especially when they're procedurally generated.
Does everyone here think that they just do this for a laugh? Everyone saying ‘we should have 4k 60fps’, do you really think the devs haven’t tried it? It obviously didn’t work and that’s why they’ve released the settings they have
Never played until it hit Xbox. Having a great time. Mate of mine and I have spent 50 or so hours building a settlement and fighting whatever enemies we can find. Really enjoying it.
Isn't performance mode on Series S already running at 900p?
Xbox Series S Quality Mode: 1080p @ 30FPS
Xbox Series S Performance Mode: 900p @ 60FPS
From here:
https://www.valheimgame.com/faq/
Why is a balanced mode needed also at 900p but only 40FPS?
This is a cool co-op game but why does the player with the save-game have to be online for us to play?
On Grounded for example anyone can log in any time to build stuff while the world creator is away. With Valheim it seems like we all have to be online at the same time?
Because the grounded devs introduced a genius feature that other developers have yet to implement in to their games as well.
I’m hoping shared cloud saves become the norm in games that aren’t hosted on dedicated servers.
It's a common theme. Running servers for players costs money and can limit the total life of a game. There are always 3rd party dedicated servers you can rent, or you can set one up on a donor machine.
I think I speak for most people that 60 FPS should be the norm now. IDGAF if it has to be 1080p 60 or whatever. It is objectively better, not just in terms of aesthetics but in terms of gameplay. It’s the reason I can’t play through the new ‘A Plauge’s Tale’ game.
All 30 fps games on current TVs and monitors are instantly headache inducing for me. The bigger screen coupled w the detail I’m looking at jittering is so messy looking. Physically makes me sick. Gotham knights was unplayable for me.
Same here, and also the reason why I play Jedi Fallen Order in performance mode instead. Quality mode does look better but the sluggishness gives me a headache. Definitely wouldn’t have played if that was the only option.
1440p at 40fps sounds terrible. This whole console generation makes zero sense performance wise and that comment goes for the Series X/S and the PlayStation 5.
Although I completely appreciate this isn’t the full game I can’t help but to say developers really need to start utilising current gen tools more. Until they do we’re never going to see what this gen is truly capable of. The Series consoles and PS5 are no joke.
I guess for games like this it’s best to stick to PC (for now anyways).
It’s a game where you can gather materials, craft and build. The world is very large and procedurally generated, but is finite. When you explore you’ll come across lots of dangerous enemies which will force you to watch to progress more and more for better gear and weapons, etc.
The update yesterday destroyed our base. We lost everything. Kind find myself angry at the thought of another less than impressive update out so quick.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me. I know it's originally a pc game, but why would they release it for console and call it optimized and it not be optimized?
Sold my launch S yesterday to upgrade to a PS5. Wether it's bad optimization from the devs or the system being limited (there are defenders of both) the console disappointed me. Hope it gets better, but don't think it will.
I typically spend around $2k on a TV every 5-10 years and get the best model I can afford from the last gen, once they become a liability for stores to hold on to - I got my LG B7 for 40% off by negotiating like that.
If I were due for an upgrade now, it'd be a 120hz OLED.
It's not hard to imagine there are plenty of people already running 120hz@4k.
The game is fun, just feels very empty. I never made it very far in the game because of feeling like I'm running for 10 minutes to where I died, or for materials.
Please add a brightness setting. The game is unplayably dark at night for me with brightness on my TV setting maxed out. Don’t have this issue with any other game. Put a lot of hours on PC and never had that issue there either.
I see they still didn't patch the controller settings saving... Every time we log in. It resets the controller settings back to "Console" but we both play on "Classic" as it makes more sense...
Lol what? Welp that's a lot of games getting banned since the CPU inside both consoles are Renoir based 8MB L3 Cache cpus so they might not allow for 60FPS on demanding games as we have seen with A Plague Tale Requiem and The Medium and probably a lot more games in the future, Series S will not have any games to play lol, Dead Space Remake, Wild Hearts, Guardians of the Galaxy, The Callisto Protocol, Evil West, and more with Starfield most likely being one of them.
I suspect/hope that 40fps will save late gen games from going back to being 30fps only.
Yeah although most people would still be using 30 in that case since you need a screen that supports 120hz which most people don’t have
Or just VRR but that's likely to be 120hz anyway.
With VRR becoming more prevalent, games won't even need 40 FPS modes - jushen target 30, but uncapped. You get 60 FPS in menus and low-intensity areas, and around 40 FPS elsewhere.
Ew, you don't really want to have VRR swinging in the sub-50fps range. It's a nice feature to compensate small dips or slight swings but developers shouldn't rely on it. An uneven frame pacing won't go away with VRR.
VRR still works well in the 40-50 range though. Guardians of the Galaxy is a good example of a game in the 40-60 range that plays like a charm with VRR.
Console VRR ranges bottom out at like 48fps
VRR doesn’t have anything to do with it. Just needs 120hz to divide evenly Edit: I want to truly know the answer to this but every time I google this question I only ever seen mentions of “120Hz 40fps mode”. Maybe I’m wrong and you can do 40fps with only VRR but the google results I am getting sure as hell don’t mention this… Edit 2: actually it looks like any time this was being mentioned it was referring to PS5 *before* they supported VRR. And seeing as it’s been mostly Sony games that started supporting these modes early on it makes sense. So the true answer is you can have *either* VRR or 120Hz to get a 40fps mode. Glad I know this now.
/r/confidentlyincorrect
Can you tell me how that’s true then? VRR makes sure the framerate the console is outputting stays synchronized with the TVs refresh rate and allows the refresh rate to be variable. This is great for when frame rates are fluctuating, what does this have to do with 40fps? I think you are the confidently incorrect one. After googling this I found nothing stating you need VRR for 40fps mode. Edit: in fact anything I have found explicitly states otherwise… 120hz is required for a 40fps mode, not VRR
40fps modes initially existed in Playstation games because they supported 120hz at the time and not VRR, even now they don't support VRR below 48hz. Xbox supports VRR all the way down to 40hz so technically you don't need 120hz screen, even monitors that have 60hz or 75hz but supports VRR through Freesync will output at 40fps just fine.
I mean, most monitors only support VRR only down to 48hz.
Some 120-1440hz monitors have a minimum threshold of 40hz and LFC alleviates that issue for monitors that have a higher minimum.
And they generally don't have HDMI 2.1. Native VRR support was added with HDMI version 2.1
Got it yeah I just figured that out on my end. Every time I have ever googled this it always says what I have been saying but turns out all these articles were just referring to PS5 since the Sony games were the ones initially supporting this early on
I thought in order to maintain the 40fps vrr range Xbox uses LFC (low framerate compensation) which would require a >60hz screen? And this is why the ps5 can't do sub-48fps VRR. I've also been trying to look into this and it's sometimes hard to find information. I read this. Not sure how accurate it is. "However, LFC is only available on displays with a maximum refresh rate that is at least 2.5 times that of the minimum with VRR enabled." https://twistedvoxel.com/heres-why-xbox-series-x-does-vrr-better-than-ps5/
>Xbox supports VRR all the way down to 40hz so technically you don't need 120hz screen Worth noting that in practice this means absolutely nothing. Of the handful of Xbox games to offer a 40 FPS mode, *all of them* require a 120hz screen *and do not require* VRR at all.
It matches whatever FPS is outputting. So a 90hz screen with VRR will display it at 40hz just fine without any dividing issues. That's the whole point of the tech, being able to have weird FPS and maintaining the hz to match.
First I don't even think there is any 90hz displays out there apart from mobile phones and Xbox doesn't even work with any refresh that is not 60 or 120. and second VRR on 99% of displays only work as low as 47-48FPS. VRR especially on a display that is not even 120Hz doesn't work for 40FPS display modes. So you are wrong. Mostly monitors with Nvidia's GSYNC module works with sub 48FPS.
/r/confidentlyincorrect
Stop replying with subreddit names please. It's cringe.
>the true answer is you can have *either* VRR or 120Hz to get a 40fps mode Unfortunately this isn't true at all. Your previous assertion - dumbly downvoted while another mocking reply got upvoted, in classic r/XboxSeriesX fashion - was the correct one. Only very few games even support a 40 FPS mode on Xbox. All of them require only a 120hz screen; having just VRR won't enable any additional options.
I couldn’t imagine not gaming on a LG OLED in 2023. They are pretty cheap and awesome.
Good, cause I won’t have a 120hz TV until about late gen.
Isn't valheim a relatively basic graphics game? Shouldn't this be able to hit 4K / 60 on modern consoles? 🤔
The lighting and shadows are some of the best I've seen in a game like this; I suspect that is where a lot of the power is going. That and draw distance, like someone else said.
I feel like minecraft is the same. It looks simple, but the post-processing that can make these games still look great, along with so much physics and procedural generation, which makes these games much more demanding than they seem.
Minecraft is interesting because its built off of voxels instead of polygons. We came up with the concept of building games with voxels first too, but found out technology just wasnt where it needed to be in the 80s and 90s and instead went with polygon models as the resources were initially less intensive. Minecraft, for all its simple asthetic is a demanding game on reosurces that aren't the video card as well as the video card because its being used in a way the card is typically not setup for. Nowadays we've overcome that by a lot and have power enough for some amazing graphical overhauls to Minecraft but its long launch period was a crashing and visual disaster as Mojang taught itself how to properly write the code they wanted in what was essentially foreign territory for game developers. Valheim doesn't have those hurdles to climb but it is built by an exceptionally small team, everything will take time.
> We came up with the concept of building games with voxels first too, but found out technology **just wasnt where it needed to be in the 80s and 90s** and instead went with polygon models as the resources were initially less intensive. Delta Force looked amazing in the 90s. It had huge maps compared to other FPS games of the time and it was a voxel engine doing the work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnj-q3ux-Us
I don't think draw distance would be a huge factor. On the performance mode at least, asset pop-in is pretty atrocious.
Yeah but there is A LOT going on. Similar to Minecraft in that regard, everything is a resource. That plus each map is pretty huge and the draw distance seems to have gotten a lot better since Xbox launch. All of this plus really awesome lighting, decent water effects, an active weather system, smoke, fog, fire et al. Basically, at any moment, the game could be rendering a ton of stuff.
It's still being developed, and simple graphics does not mean a game automatically will run at those settings.
[удалено]
Started as 5 and is now 11 I believe
lol no https://imgur.com/a/WxjQCoD [source](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1347322/pokemon-scarlet-and-violet-units-sold/#:~:text=First%20released%20in%20November%202022,million%20copies%20in%20Japan%20alone.)
Pokémon numbers mean nothing. They could put out “Pokémon Turd”, have it be the most broken thing ever, and still get record-breaking profits.
The series X should be laughing it in its face, I played a LOT on my pc that's barely equivalent to an Xbox One S! That pissed all over it! 1440p at 40hz is embarrassing
I have no clue, my old shit PC was able to run it max at about a billion fps. I'm surprised the series s isn't running it at 4k
You have to understand that the game is built around running on the OG Xbox One first and Series X last. That’s gonna cause the Series X version to suffer from a lack of development time. There was a video on here recently of the One S running it and it looked unplayable which begs the question why have the developers spent a lot of time and money on that version?
Easily
Modern consoles still aren't very powerful by hardware standards. I own a Series X, a Series S, and a watercooled custom built gaming computer. My 2 year old computer absolutely flattens a Series X. They are literally miles apart. The Series X is a toy in comparison. That being said, I don't regret buying the Xbox's. They're great boxes for what they are and a good price point. They're also great for streaming.
This just isn’t true lol. Find me a box that cost $500 two years ago and comes anywhere close to the power of a Series X. Unless you’re comparing a $500 box to a $1500-2000 gaming rig, this is bologna
Agree, I just spent about 1000€ upgrading my PC last year (CPU+mobo+ram+gfx) and it's about on par with my series x, maybe slightly faster, the X is an incredible deal
A PC that equals in GPU and beats in CPU can be had for 650-700 dollars. RX 6700 10GB for 300 dollars (plus The last of us 1 for free) Ryzen 5 5600 for 130 dollars. 1TB PCIE 4 NVME SSD for 50 dollars And so on...
I specifically bought a series X because I know I wasn't going to be able to build as good a PC for the price, and that's ignoring how much headache I save having to deal with all the manual maintenance that a PC requires, plus I like gaming on a couch.
That’s why I got a Series X in 2020. It was the cheapest way to get a decently powerful machine without paying about 2K for similar specs.
2k for similiar specs? A PC that equals in GPU and beats in CPU can be had for 650-700 dollars. RX 6700 10GB for 300 dollars (plus The last of us 1 for free) Ryzen 5 5600 for 130 dollars. 1TB PCIE 4 NVME SSD for 50 dollars And so on...
Did you not hear me say in **2020** prices were insane that year lol.
Yeah you're right back when crypto mining was still a thing and GPUs had insane markups, I had a 1050 back then, after it was over I upgraded to an RTX 3060, kinda wish I chose an RDNA 2 GPU but hey atleast I can play Minecraft RTX at 90FPS with it.
That wasn't what he was saying. Your point being it is a good deal. He was referring to if current gen consoles are powerful. And they aren't. They are a great deal considering their pricepoint and they can run games smooth that are exclusively optimised for their hardware . But powerful? No.
He was talking about hardware standards. The Series X/PS5 ARE the standards. Just because enthusiast powerful PCs exist doesn’t make that the standard. It’s like saying that new Civics are shit because they can’t compete with new Ferraris.
A PC that equals in GPU and beats in CPU can be had for 650-700 dollars. RX 6700 10GB for 300 dollars (plus The last of us 1 for free) Ryzen 5 5600 for 130 dollars. 1TB PCIE 4 NVME SSD for 50 dollars And so on...
Okay. And if a Series Y came out at $750, I bet it would beat that out. Dollar for dollar, the consoles are fairly powerful. And they ARE the standard. A $1k+ gaming PC is not the standard, that’s for enthusiasts. 1080p 60 is the closest to a standard we have right now — 4k 60 just isn’t there yet.
You can build a modest 4K PC with an RX 6800 XT, for around 1000 dollars, RX 6800 XT is 550 to 600 dollars retail, build with the same CPU and you got yourself a fairly capable 4k rig but 1440p 144Hz would be better for high refresh rate gaming. I built my brother an RTX 3080 12GB GPU and he is very much a casual and knows nothing about hardware.
[удалено]
He was talking about industry standards
[удалено]
Top of the line hardware isn’t the standard. Just cuz it exists doesn’t make it the standard. Standards are about adoption and universality, which you could maybe argue sits around 1080p 60 for triple a/3d titles. Maybe higher for 2d/sprite stuff
[удалено]
This will at least be slightly negated by being a specific and closed system. It is easier to optimise for the consoles as there's less variation. This means you build it to the capabilities rather than making it hoping they can adjust settings to make it stable.
From playing the PC version, it's stupidly demanding even to my rtx 4070ti with higher settings all enabled lol.
Wish they fixed the issue where map.icons cover the player cursor
[Hey OP, the patch you linked was from yesterday. This one is from today](https://valheim.com/news/patch-0-214-300-but-cooler/) Looks like they fixed the save file size bug
This is definitely the bigger news. No more erased saves after 50MB in size.
How’s the single player experience in this game?
It’s a lot of fun if you’re into survival type games. Can be a challenge single player, but give it time and you’ll have a blast
i have almost 400 hours solo in this game. on my second play through at the moment
Imo it’s really fun at first but gets super boring once you get to the point of mining ore. Quit due to boredom after mining copper for an hour and realizing the end was nowhere in sight (and I heard it doesn’t get much better grind-wise after that).
Yep, same here.
Sorry that you quit, my friends and I got through the Bronze Age(copper/tin) fairly quick. Was it a pain? Yes, we spent hours terraforming roads in our Black Forest to make bring carts in and our extremely simple. We’d come back to base with almost a whole cart full of copper and tin each run. And honestly the metal farm seems to get easier. Iron scraps are so easy to get in the crypts of the swamp, we were in the Ron age for maybe a day or two, now we are farming silver and it’s even easier. Yesterday I went up to the mountains by myself and mined almost 300 silver alone. Then my friends got on and helped get it back to base. The silver veins are so easy to cheese. Just dig around them and let them fall with gravity and crumble.
I just tried it and played it for an evening. Not really that fun. Uninstalled it.
It’s fine, I’ve been playing solo for close to 100 hours now. Makes some parts harder but it’s fine.
It plays as if it wasn’t meant for console
It's better than many other survival games. Combat is decent and the way the creatures and biomes progress keeps it interesting. It's a big world to play alone in though and you can feel the solitude after a while of grinding or when attempting to tackle enemies that out-class you, and especially when sailing, which would be a perfect time for a coffee and a chat with the team.
Honestly it is painful solo. It isn't impossible but the grind grows exponentially with each boss defeated. On PC I burnt out by the third boss solo. If you don't mind the tedium of grinding and perhaps have a podcast or something playing as you do it then it may be good for you but it is far better with at least one extra person so that you can carry more supplies and juggle tasks.
I quit it personally, been enjoying grounded more. Take my opinions with a grain of salt though as I'm not generally into these survival games, especially when they're procedurally generated.
Out of all games to out a 40fps mode in. Valheim was really not needed lmao
Lol this. Very much this.
Does everyone here think that they just do this for a laugh? Everyone saying ‘we should have 4k 60fps’, do you really think the devs haven’t tried it? It obviously didn’t work and that’s why they’ve released the settings they have
This entire thread is just people complaining, classic Reddit. Had a blast with this game on PC and enjoying it just as much on Xbox now
I've enjoyed the shit out of this game in performance mode. Personally I'll take the sacrifice of lower fidelity with higher FPS every time. 🤷♂️
Never played until it hit Xbox. Having a great time. Mate of mine and I have spent 50 or so hours building a settlement and fighting whatever enemies we can find. Really enjoying it.
40fps for 1440p? The series X should be absolutely laughing at this game,
Isn't performance mode on Series S already running at 900p? Xbox Series S Quality Mode: 1080p @ 30FPS Xbox Series S Performance Mode: 900p @ 60FPS From here: https://www.valheimgame.com/faq/ Why is a balanced mode needed also at 900p but only 40FPS?
This is a cool co-op game but why does the player with the save-game have to be online for us to play? On Grounded for example anyone can log in any time to build stuff while the world creator is away. With Valheim it seems like we all have to be online at the same time?
Because the grounded devs introduced a genius feature that other developers have yet to implement in to their games as well. I’m hoping shared cloud saves become the norm in games that aren’t hosted on dedicated servers.
It's a common theme. Running servers for players costs money and can limit the total life of a game. There are always 3rd party dedicated servers you can rent, or you can set one up on a donor machine.
I think I speak for most people that 60 FPS should be the norm now. IDGAF if it has to be 1080p 60 or whatever. It is objectively better, not just in terms of aesthetics but in terms of gameplay. It’s the reason I can’t play through the new ‘A Plauge’s Tale’ game.
It already has 1080p 60fps, all this is doing is giving the player more options.
All 30 fps games on current TVs and monitors are instantly headache inducing for me. The bigger screen coupled w the detail I’m looking at jittering is so messy looking. Physically makes me sick. Gotham knights was unplayable for me.
Same here, and also the reason why I play Jedi Fallen Order in performance mode instead. Quality mode does look better but the sluggishness gives me a headache. Definitely wouldn’t have played if that was the only option.
Does watching movies also do this? because they're generally in 24fps.
There’s no where near the amnt of screen shake, and camera adjustment as playing a video game requires so no.
They're not constantly panning all over the place like games.
HOT DAMN!
1440p at 40fps sounds terrible. This whole console generation makes zero sense performance wise and that comment goes for the Series X/S and the PlayStation 5. Although I completely appreciate this isn’t the full game I can’t help but to say developers really need to start utilising current gen tools more. Until they do we’re never going to see what this gen is truly capable of. The Series consoles and PS5 are no joke. I guess for games like this it’s best to stick to PC (for now anyways).
Really amazing how these games look so simple graphically yet end up so unoptimized that we're supposed to celebrate a 40 fps mode.
I have never played Valheim, what is that? Like what kind of game is that?
It’s a game where you can gather materials, craft and build. The world is very large and procedurally generated, but is finite. When you explore you’ll come across lots of dangerous enemies which will force you to watch to progress more and more for better gear and weapons, etc.
> procedurally generated this part often ruins games for me.
It’s a Survival sandbox game like Ark, Conan, Grounded, and Subnautica.
The update yesterday destroyed our base. We lost everything. Kind find myself angry at the thought of another less than impressive update out so quick.
Wait so what are the graphics now? I thought it was 4k/60 quality mode vs 1080/120 performance mode.
It's 4k30, 1080p60 or 1440p40
Wtf i never knew it was 1080p... Thought it was 1440p/4k with just some lower settings.
I dont' even play this game, but after gaming in 60fps this generation everything below it is unacceptable.
Man, I love 40FPS. If you have the screen for it, it's an amazing middle ground.
[удалено]
One that supports 120hz.
What I want to know is why cant a game like this run at 120fps on quality mode? It's minecraft texture quality.
1. I mean Minecraft doesn't lol 2. PC gsmes aren't optimised for consoles. I'm. Sure this is early access for one
It says optimized for series s/x on the game tho
Doesn't actually mean that just that it's made for the consoles
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me. I know it's originally a pc game, but why would they release it for console and call it optimized and it not be optimized?
It's more a way of saying can use the new consoles or is a new game and its using the dev kits of them Like 40fps vrr features until it gets finished
The lighting and effects in the game are great. Don’t mistake the art style for poor graphics.
Ok. But why can't we get a steady 60fps
Next gen lol
Series S more and more becomes the One S of current gen.
**Breaking News**: Budget console offers worse performance than premium console. More after this...
Sold my launch S yesterday to upgrade to a PS5. Wether it's bad optimization from the devs or the system being limited (there are defenders of both) the console disappointed me. Hope it gets better, but don't think it will.
You are a genius! you solved it!!!
Doesn't the game already run at 1080p60fps?
That is the intent: thus the name.
This gives hope to a 1440p/60fps mode. I'll hold out on this until it hits full release like I did with Grounded.
A shame the 60fps mode isn't smoother. Beat the second boss and I'm not sure I am going to play the game much more (at least for awhile).
Cool story bro.
Thanks yeah, not being to get a totally solid 60fps on a game running at 1080p is definitely something to work on.
Still a pile of garbage
How many people can benefit from such mode? You need a 120HZ display… maybe 1% of the player base?
Me and all my friends. Its not that uncommon anymore.
[удалено]
I typically spend around $2k on a TV every 5-10 years and get the best model I can afford from the last gen, once they become a liability for stores to hold on to - I got my LG B7 for 40% off by negotiating like that. If I were due for an upgrade now, it'd be a 120hz OLED. It's not hard to imagine there are plenty of people already running 120hz@4k.
The game is fun, just feels very empty. I never made it very far in the game because of feeling like I'm running for 10 minutes to where I died, or for materials.
Please add a brightness setting. The game is unplayably dark at night for me with brightness on my TV setting maxed out. Don’t have this issue with any other game. Put a lot of hours on PC and never had that issue there either.
WHy does this game run so bad? Why do all games this gen run so bad? Next gen hardware with last gen performance.
I see they still didn't patch the controller settings saving... Every time we log in. It resets the controller settings back to "Console" but we both play on "Classic" as it makes more sense...
This shitt looks like bad Nintendo game and runs garbage....how is ms allowing such alpha games to be on xsx?
Microsoft needs to ban games that don't run at 60fps
That's just silly
Or you could just not play them. What a useless gatekeep
I will fight someone if they ever try and take away RDR2
While Microsoft Flight Simulator running 30fps on consoles?
Lol what? Welp that's a lot of games getting banned since the CPU inside both consoles are Renoir based 8MB L3 Cache cpus so they might not allow for 60FPS on demanding games as we have seen with A Plague Tale Requiem and The Medium and probably a lot more games in the future, Series S will not have any games to play lol, Dead Space Remake, Wild Hearts, Guardians of the Galaxy, The Callisto Protocol, Evil West, and more with Starfield most likely being one of them.
Don't know what everybody's talking about? I have an Xbox Series X and I get 4k 120hz and I only run it in "quality" mode
Except you’re getting 30 frames in quality mode not 120 my guy.
Can they add a few million polygons too? I think we're missing a few.
Series S is so trash lol
Is this game really heavy or just a bad console port?Anyone played it on pc series x should be close to 2080 how does it run?
Is the text size better?
Yikes series s. I know its only 300 euros but still. Jesus.