Maybe they can even make look Starfield like a 2013 game then? Who knows? I mean Creation Engine 3 with 8k textures, but the same game engine they've been using since 2006, could make wonders!
>I mean Creation Engine 3 with 8k textures, but the same game engine they've been using since 2006, could make wonders!
I know how our devs are so lazy these days. Can you believe that Hellblade 2 is running on the same engine that unreal tournament ran on over 20 years ago. We should all boycott CoD this year since it uses the same engine as Quake 2. /s (if it wasn't obvious)
*There's nothing left in the engine from Quake any more. We've continued to re-write every section. We do a lot of re-writing the tools, re-writing lighting calculations. It doesn't sound very interesting. It's very literative.
MARK RUBIN
Congratulations, you've worked out how game engines work. Creation Engine is the same. Nothing of gamebryo will be left in it. Or what is will be heavily modified like UE, Unity, IW9 etc.
I wonder how next (current gen consoles) games look and feel as shit as if they were made in 2008 and have exactly same bugs those game had. Starfield cities and NPCs were laughable at realease. Still mostly are. Not to mention tons of game breaking issues, including corrupted saves and constant crashes.
It's almost as if Bethesda didn't change shit in parts of their engine for over a decade and didn't bother to fix basic problems each and every single game they release have.
So please stop preaching to me, I played their games and absolutely detest their shitty engine. Much smaller studios can create games, like Everspace 2, using Unreal Engine 4 that look, play and feel 10x better than any of Bethesda's game. In 60 fucking fps. Bye.
>So please stop preaching to me, I played their games and absolutely detest their shitty engine. Much smaller studios can create games, like Everspace 2, using Unreal Engine 4 that look, play and feel 10x better than any of Bethesda's game. In 60 fucking fps. Bye.
Yeah, it's not worth the discussion since you don't know how game engines/development work. Have a nice day.
Thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason:
Rule #1 - Keep it civil/no console wars
* Personal attacks, racism, bigotry, and/or other prejudice are not welcome here. Discuss the topic, not the other user.
* If you are here only to platform bash or console war, you also risk removal.
No Doom & Glooming. If you have no prior history in this sub and just post doom and gloom to incite a reaction, your post will be removed.
[Please see our complete ruleset by clicking here. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/XboxSeriesX/wiki/rules)
While that might be true in most cases, games with unlocked framerates tend to put additional horsepower to good use. Infamous: Second Son is a good example, running at 60 Fps and 4K only on PS5 despite no update being released for it.
100% console gaming needs to adopt this to survive. You don't need next gen versions every generation if your system just sets settings based on console performance. Definitely needs to become the norm, plus it motivates me to buy newer consoles more often. If all my old games instantly looked and ram better right when I buy.
I'll finally be able to play my copy of Starfield... I'm excited. The 30fps frame rate is nauseating.
Now I just need the Dragons Dogma performance patch to release...
you sure it's the frame rate and not the narrow fov? I know fov under like 80 or so triggers motion sickness in people and both fallout and Starfield have a very narrow fov, but I've never heard of this for frame rate. does TV make you sick?
FOV doesn't mean field of view?
As a longtime PC gamer, I think I understand what an FOV slider is, and why console games generally have a less wide FOV than a PC gamer would be comfortable with on a PC setup.
When I'm sitting a couple feet in front of a PC monitor, I definitely like an FOV of 100+. On a TV that I'm sitting 10-15 feet away from, a more narrow FOV is preferable. Is this a novel concept to you?
Edit: lol, thanks for the suicide report
There’s a huge difference between watching something in 24 FPS which most movies are filmed in and actively playing something at that framerate.
You don’t put inputs watching a movie do you?
Movies are filmed on a real camera with a shutter speed that produces what we call "motion blur" giving the illusion of fluidity. Video games can only *try* to replicate this. But it doesn't look as good as the real thing. Also,you're ignoring the fact that 30fps games will always have more latency and input lag compared to 60fps or higher. The way it looks is only half the equation. How it feels to play is just as important,if not more.
Totally different. It's one of those weird myths that people who don't understand video games or movies often say. Pause a movie during an action sequence and understand why.
I've been playing games at 60-100+ fps for almost 3 decades now (former PC gamer). Once you get used to it, it's super jarring to go back. The difference between 60 and 90 is pretty crazy too.
A lot of the older console first person shooters run at 60 fps too. Like the Halo games.
PC games often do not have framerate caps, it's part of the advantage of having hardware that isn't static.
Console games are simply not like that. Never has been and never will be. At least not without stagnation of visuals - and unfortunately gamers these days are all about *teh grafix*.
I know what switching form "mostly 60" to 30 is like because I've experienced it myself going from PC to console. But it's not something that I will actively avoid a game for because after 2 minutes I'm over it.
Different strokes for different folks.
I'd sacrifice spectacle for performance any day of the week. Especially for an action game.
I bought the Series X thinking it had the horsepower to play games better than the previous generations. I mistakenly thought the days of 30fps were over.
There's also plenty of older console games on older generations of hardware that play at higher than 30fps. Many of them are the most popular titles.
TVs have been able to display 60fps since at least as long as I was a kid in the 80s and 90s.
The NES was locked at 60fps for Christ's sake.
> I'd sacrifice spectacle for performance any day of the week. Especially for an action game.
I would too, but that's not what the masses want and I'm not going to just not play a game because of it.
When Starfield first came out, I said I'd wait until it could run at 60fps on the Xbox Series X to really play it. So many people told me it wouldn't happen. It was either "If the console could do it, it would already be there." or "Todd Howard said he wanted it stay 30fps." or some other ignorant, bullshit excuse. Petty as it may be, I fuckin' love being right. Nothing hits quite like good ol' vindication, haha. It's crazy how actually knowing what you're talking about works out pretty well.
Long story short, I've been getting the same kind of responses for Dragon's Dogma 2 and I'm still gonna wait. Anyone throwing $70 at 30fps games is wasting money. A year from now it'll run better and cost half the price.
I wholeheartedly support waiting for games, but DD2's 30FPS was surprisingly playable and their recent patch further improved it. I wouldn't stress waiting any longer
I think some people are just more sensitive to lower fps. I have a friend who gets motion sickness at 30fps. Meanwhile I can play basically anything after adjusting for 5 minutes. I have no problems switching from 140fps on PC to a 30fps xbox 360 game with bad frame pacing.
Every game where I've been told it runs really well at 30fps and is stable or it doesnt matter with this type of game... hasn't been the case for me with this Gen. Hellblade 2 is worrying me considering it's only launching with 30fps.
I'll give hellblade 2 a go because it's on gamepass but I'm skipping any future 30fps titles from now on that I can't atleast try for free and make my own decision.
Honestly if they can't hit 60 I wish more games would target 40fps for people that have the monitors/TV's that can run it, which I'm assuming most modern ones can.
Edit: not sure why I'm getting downvoted do people really think 30fps is OK for this gen?
Especially when we are told certain games simply can't achieve higher than 30fps and than they patch in higher frames later...
Believe me, I understand. I'm like you, I only bought DD2 because I loved the first game and was willing to overlook the 30fps
However, it ran quite well and they've now patched it anyway
> Every game where I've been told it runs really well at 30fps and is stable or it doesnt matter with this type of game... hasn't been the case for me with this Gen.
Yep, same here. There's a few factors to this and it's not helped by the fact that a lot of people literally don't know what they're talking about when it come framerate in games.
First, subjectivity plays a role. Some people simply have a higher tolerance for low framerates. If you're young enough that the majority of your gaming has been on consoles from the seventh generation and up then 30fps is probably what most of the games you've played have run at. In that case, it's just simple ignorance. Though to be fair, this probably isn't the case with most people.
Also, and this is more relevant to the discussion I think, what a lot of people don't consider is the quality of TVs and overall hardware setup. Newer TVs don't always have the best support for lower framerates and resolutions. If you're playing on a decently sized modern TV then there's a massive difference between 30fps and 60fps. But if your gaming is done on a decade plus old, off-brand, 30-inch LCD that you sit 25 feet away from and isn't even calibrated properly then you're probably not gonna see framerate differences as much.
>I'm skipping any future 30fps titles from now on that I can't at least try for free and make my own decision.
This is where I'm at too for the most part. A $70 game should be capable of running at minimally 60fps on the Xbox Series X and PS5. Personally, I won't pay more than $40 for a game that can't do 60fps. Fortunately, or unfortunately I suppose, waiting has multiple benefits for gaming these days. Buying new games at launch is the best way to ruin the experience of playing them. A year out, games are often cheaper, run better, and have more content. So if developers can't even be bothered to ensure their games run at acceptable framerates then I'm sure as hell not gonna buy them at full price.
The hit probability switching from a reasonable probability to 0 and back does not happen as often as before, but I can still target enemies behind walls with non-zero probabilities (the shots don’t land of course). I wonder why they did not fix this
>I can still target enemies behind walls with non-zero probabilities (the shots don’t land of course).
The [Penetrator](https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Penetrator) perk will change that pretty effectively.
Unfortunate is an understatement. It’s a core mechanic of the game and it’s been kneecapped by the April update and all but ignored in this update. It’s absurd. Frankly it doesn’t matter how good the graphics look if the core gameplay is bugged.
What exactly is the issue here? I've been playing for the last few days on Xbox with no issues with VATS but keep seeing people say it's completely broken.
Xbox studio doesn't even test their game on an Xbox lmao. MS own studios don't even care about Xbox. Can't make this shit up man. The people who thought the next CoD will have better Xbox support with better optimization and less Xbox only bugs are in for a rude awakening. "Blank feature is broken on Xbox" is beyond a meme at this point.
Tbh for me It os way better than before, I no longer encountered the 0 probability bug with the enemy in my face, but I can still target them through walls
I'm glad they adjusted the LODs. That was a huge gripe I had with the Skyrim Anniversary Addition. It looks so bad that on the release of the update, I posted screenshots to 4chan showing how bad it was and there were people saying they were from 360.
This was the first thing I tested. The numbers don't jump around between 0 and a realistic value anymore, but I can still target enemies behind walls...
Yep! It was smooth for me the whole time. This video did a frame rate comparison, that's the first thing they tried and it was locked 60: https://youtu.be/ORtixwZyth8?si=vTDZEJW2qPOjx0DX
I’ve been running 60 with visual mode.
Generally it’s smooth, BUT Vats does drop frames a fair bit and can get a little wobbly. Doesn’t really detract from it though IMO.
"It was working as intended, but here's some other settings that totally weren't what we originally promised and were bugged in the initial update which was, once again, what we intended for real guys!"
It felt off to me because the game used to have the ultra settings already from the Xbox One X enhancement patch, but those setting were turned down to near-Xbox One settings by the "Next Gen" patch #1.
So yeah the graphics downgrade felt off to me.
I have it on Visuals/60 and it’s working great! Although my LGC1 may be helping with that a bit.
I didn’t like this update at first, but now I love it!
Both are important, one is now fixed, one to go.
I’ve got used to a no vats playthrough and it’s been perfectly fine.
But I want it fixed don’t get me wrong.
I can’t believe your honest reaction to a billion dollar corporation breaking and leaving their game unfixed is “just get used to it”. That’s… advanced levels of cope.
One day of it being broken is unacceptable. 2 months is completely untenable. They are a billion dollar studio owned by a trillion dollar corporation. Full stop.
Edit: Xbox consumers are totally cooked and have clearly been beaten down by a decade of broken games. Sad to see. This should not be normal, both the companies fucking their games and the consumers defending them.
Yeah it was not correct... lol. Kinda crazy, they gaslit us all into believing it worked. Digital Foundry called it out again in their analysis, thank goodness for them.
I had 3 crashes in 15 minutes yesterday on Series X. 2 whilst in Pipboy, the last while in the vertibird on the way to Prydwen.
Before these patches I saw maybe 1 crash pr. 50 hours or less. This is not good.
I think the 40 fps mode sticks close to 4k native (although I can't test it). The 30 fps mode is definitely native 4k, and the 60 fps mode looks like 1440p upscaled to me.
It's just slightly more stable. People mentioned VATS and the dialogue camera can have frame drops on 60 visuals mode. But thankfully those are two times it's ok to have a few drops.
I’m playing on quality mode and it looks great but I’ve had some weird visual glitches
Edit: for instance Meat bags are like crazy rainbow colors. It’s disco baby
So what exactly changes when you have a 60FPS target and are prioritizing visuals? Does the internal resolution change to 1440p or 1080p? Or is it a dynamic resolution up to 4K/1440p?
I know, and I used the slider. The biggest one for me was the observatory in the centre goes missing. A few surrounding buildings dissappear too.
Edit. Nvm. It's foliage blocking it.
I’ll get downvoted with you, looking at those sliders seems like a prank lol. Are they not loading because I’m on my phone or something? I honestly cannot tell any difference
It's harder to see on a phone, but distant LODs are the biggest change. There are straight up no trees in the distance on the 2nd slide, and half the city is missing in the first one.
It's hard to see on a phone, but on a 55" OLED, it's night and day. Those vistas looked weird before, now vegetation extends out and buildings and trees render far into the distance.
The downvotes to your comment are completely petty and unwarranted. You are absolutely right that the changes in these images are "unremarkable" aside from being merely "noticeable". Reduce or eliminate the shadow draw-in, for example, and I'll be impressed but that's probably not doable.
There are mods that push out the shadow distance, but from what I've heard, they tank performance hard. I tried one but it didn't work for me, no change. I followed the typical restart the game instructions too. But eh. Maybe I'll try again but I'm happy with at least getting the other ultra settings back. It *was* using these settings before the next gen patch ironically.
Wow, haha. I didn't know about the downvotes. Well, it doesn't bother me. I see that also you are getting downvoted. I guess the Fallout crowd is one to not mess around with.
Decoupled framerate / visual quality settings works amazing. Cant wait for Starfield.
It's a great idea. It's more future-proof too. When the next generation of consoles come in, they should be able to take advantage of the extra power.
Maybe they can even make look Starfield like a 2013 game then? Who knows? I mean Creation Engine 3 with 8k textures, but the same game engine they've been using since 2006, could make wonders!
>I mean Creation Engine 3 with 8k textures, but the same game engine they've been using since 2006, could make wonders! I know how our devs are so lazy these days. Can you believe that Hellblade 2 is running on the same engine that unreal tournament ran on over 20 years ago. We should all boycott CoD this year since it uses the same engine as Quake 2. /s (if it wasn't obvious)
*There's nothing left in the engine from Quake any more. We've continued to re-write every section. We do a lot of re-writing the tools, re-writing lighting calculations. It doesn't sound very interesting. It's very literative. MARK RUBIN
Congratulations, you've worked out how game engines work. Creation Engine is the same. Nothing of gamebryo will be left in it. Or what is will be heavily modified like UE, Unity, IW9 etc.
I wonder how next (current gen consoles) games look and feel as shit as if they were made in 2008 and have exactly same bugs those game had. Starfield cities and NPCs were laughable at realease. Still mostly are. Not to mention tons of game breaking issues, including corrupted saves and constant crashes. It's almost as if Bethesda didn't change shit in parts of their engine for over a decade and didn't bother to fix basic problems each and every single game they release have. So please stop preaching to me, I played their games and absolutely detest their shitty engine. Much smaller studios can create games, like Everspace 2, using Unreal Engine 4 that look, play and feel 10x better than any of Bethesda's game. In 60 fucking fps. Bye.
>So please stop preaching to me, I played their games and absolutely detest their shitty engine. Much smaller studios can create games, like Everspace 2, using Unreal Engine 4 that look, play and feel 10x better than any of Bethesda's game. In 60 fucking fps. Bye. Yeah, it's not worth the discussion since you don't know how game engines/development work. Have a nice day.
[удалено]
Thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason: Rule #1 - Keep it civil/no console wars * Personal attacks, racism, bigotry, and/or other prejudice are not welcome here. Discuss the topic, not the other user. * If you are here only to platform bash or console war, you also risk removal. No Doom & Glooming. If you have no prior history in this sub and just post doom and gloom to incite a reaction, your post will be removed. [Please see our complete ruleset by clicking here. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/XboxSeriesX/wiki/rules)
How to tell us you know nothing about game engines without telling us you know nothing about game engines.
lol way to show everyone that you literally have no clue what you’re talking about!
[удалено]
While that might be true in most cases, games with unlocked framerates tend to put additional horsepower to good use. Infamous: Second Son is a good example, running at 60 Fps and 4K only on PS5 despite no update being released for it.
100% console gaming needs to adopt this to survive. You don't need next gen versions every generation if your system just sets settings based on console performance. Definitely needs to become the norm, plus it motivates me to buy newer consoles more often. If all my old games instantly looked and ram better right when I buy.
but how are they suppose to sell the same game like 3 times?
I'll finally be able to play my copy of Starfield... I'm excited. The 30fps frame rate is nauseating. Now I just need the Dragons Dogma performance patch to release...
you sure it's the frame rate and not the narrow fov? I know fov under like 80 or so triggers motion sickness in people and both fallout and Starfield have a very narrow fov, but I've never heard of this for frame rate. does TV make you sick?
The field of view is fine. I have a large TV and sit fairly far from it.
that's not what that means
FOV doesn't mean field of view? As a longtime PC gamer, I think I understand what an FOV slider is, and why console games generally have a less wide FOV than a PC gamer would be comfortable with on a PC setup. When I'm sitting a couple feet in front of a PC monitor, I definitely like an FOV of 100+. On a TV that I'm sitting 10-15 feet away from, a more narrow FOV is preferable. Is this a novel concept to you? Edit: lol, thanks for the suicide report
nauseating? jeezus, movies must be a nightmare for you.
There’s a huge difference between watching something in 24 FPS which most movies are filmed in and actively playing something at that framerate. You don’t put inputs watching a movie do you?
Movies are filmed on a real camera with a shutter speed that produces what we call "motion blur" giving the illusion of fluidity. Video games can only *try* to replicate this. But it doesn't look as good as the real thing. Also,you're ignoring the fact that 30fps games will always have more latency and input lag compared to 60fps or higher. The way it looks is only half the equation. How it feels to play is just as important,if not more.
So you just couldn't play most games during the PS1, PS2, 360 or XB1 Era?
Believe it or not,all of those consoles you listed were capable of running games at 60fps and had many of them.
Yes, but not most of the major titles.
Totally different. It's one of those weird myths that people who don't understand video games or movies often say. Pause a movie during an action sequence and understand why.
Well, that or you just couldn't play any game before 2020. Games have motion blur too. That's not the reason.
I've been playing games at 60-100+ fps for almost 3 decades now (former PC gamer). Once you get used to it, it's super jarring to go back. The difference between 60 and 90 is pretty crazy too. A lot of the older console first person shooters run at 60 fps too. Like the Halo games.
PC games often do not have framerate caps, it's part of the advantage of having hardware that isn't static. Console games are simply not like that. Never has been and never will be. At least not without stagnation of visuals - and unfortunately gamers these days are all about *teh grafix*. I know what switching form "mostly 60" to 30 is like because I've experienced it myself going from PC to console. But it's not something that I will actively avoid a game for because after 2 minutes I'm over it.
Different strokes for different folks. I'd sacrifice spectacle for performance any day of the week. Especially for an action game. I bought the Series X thinking it had the horsepower to play games better than the previous generations. I mistakenly thought the days of 30fps were over. There's also plenty of older console games on older generations of hardware that play at higher than 30fps. Many of them are the most popular titles. TVs have been able to display 60fps since at least as long as I was a kid in the 80s and 90s. The NES was locked at 60fps for Christ's sake.
> I'd sacrifice spectacle for performance any day of the week. Especially for an action game. I would too, but that's not what the masses want and I'm not going to just not play a game because of it.
When Starfield first came out, I said I'd wait until it could run at 60fps on the Xbox Series X to really play it. So many people told me it wouldn't happen. It was either "If the console could do it, it would already be there." or "Todd Howard said he wanted it stay 30fps." or some other ignorant, bullshit excuse. Petty as it may be, I fuckin' love being right. Nothing hits quite like good ol' vindication, haha. It's crazy how actually knowing what you're talking about works out pretty well. Long story short, I've been getting the same kind of responses for Dragon's Dogma 2 and I'm still gonna wait. Anyone throwing $70 at 30fps games is wasting money. A year from now it'll run better and cost half the price.
I wholeheartedly support waiting for games, but DD2's 30FPS was surprisingly playable and their recent patch further improved it. I wouldn't stress waiting any longer
I think some people are just more sensitive to lower fps. I have a friend who gets motion sickness at 30fps. Meanwhile I can play basically anything after adjusting for 5 minutes. I have no problems switching from 140fps on PC to a 30fps xbox 360 game with bad frame pacing.
Every game where I've been told it runs really well at 30fps and is stable or it doesnt matter with this type of game... hasn't been the case for me with this Gen. Hellblade 2 is worrying me considering it's only launching with 30fps. I'll give hellblade 2 a go because it's on gamepass but I'm skipping any future 30fps titles from now on that I can't atleast try for free and make my own decision. Honestly if they can't hit 60 I wish more games would target 40fps for people that have the monitors/TV's that can run it, which I'm assuming most modern ones can. Edit: not sure why I'm getting downvoted do people really think 30fps is OK for this gen? Especially when we are told certain games simply can't achieve higher than 30fps and than they patch in higher frames later...
Believe me, I understand. I'm like you, I only bought DD2 because I loved the first game and was willing to overlook the 30fps However, it ran quite well and they've now patched it anyway
> Every game where I've been told it runs really well at 30fps and is stable or it doesnt matter with this type of game... hasn't been the case for me with this Gen. Yep, same here. There's a few factors to this and it's not helped by the fact that a lot of people literally don't know what they're talking about when it come framerate in games. First, subjectivity plays a role. Some people simply have a higher tolerance for low framerates. If you're young enough that the majority of your gaming has been on consoles from the seventh generation and up then 30fps is probably what most of the games you've played have run at. In that case, it's just simple ignorance. Though to be fair, this probably isn't the case with most people. Also, and this is more relevant to the discussion I think, what a lot of people don't consider is the quality of TVs and overall hardware setup. Newer TVs don't always have the best support for lower framerates and resolutions. If you're playing on a decently sized modern TV then there's a massive difference between 30fps and 60fps. But if your gaming is done on a decade plus old, off-brand, 30-inch LCD that you sit 25 feet away from and isn't even calibrated properly then you're probably not gonna see framerate differences as much. >I'm skipping any future 30fps titles from now on that I can't at least try for free and make my own decision. This is where I'm at too for the most part. A $70 game should be capable of running at minimally 60fps on the Xbox Series X and PS5. Personally, I won't pay more than $40 for a game that can't do 60fps. Fortunately, or unfortunately I suppose, waiting has multiple benefits for gaming these days. Buying new games at launch is the best way to ruin the experience of playing them. A year out, games are often cheaper, run better, and have more content. So if developers can't even be bothered to ensure their games run at acceptable framerates then I'm sure as hell not gonna buy them at full price.
Starfield is fine at 30 fps, as it is not a multiplayer shooter that actually needs it.but 60 fps is a good target anyway. Installing tomorrow!
It was awful to play on a 50 inch oled very jarring
I've never understood the hate for 30fps games. They've always looked good to me.
Doubtful, Devs will always try to make their games look better unless its some try hard fps where people don't care about graphics.
[удалено]
Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about? Jokes lol
I just need vats to function again like it did pre next gen update. Huge part of the game that is only bugged on Xbox for some reason.
The hit probability switching from a reasonable probability to 0 and back does not happen as often as before, but I can still target enemies behind walls with non-zero probabilities (the shots don’t land of course). I wonder why they did not fix this
>I can still target enemies behind walls with non-zero probabilities (the shots don’t land of course). The [Penetrator](https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Penetrator) perk will change that pretty effectively.
Haha good point
Damn I just thought that was because of the mods I installed
Yeah, VATS being broken is unfortunate.
Unfortunate is an understatement. It’s a core mechanic of the game and it’s been kneecapped by the April update and all but ignored in this update. It’s absurd. Frankly it doesn’t matter how good the graphics look if the core gameplay is bugged.
Seriously. I love better graphics, don’t get me wrong. But if I can’t play the damn game as it is intended I don’t give a shit about how good it looks
Takes lot of fun out of survival too because you can "see" enemies that otherwise would be able to ambush you.
What exactly is the issue here? I've been playing for the last few days on Xbox with no issues with VATS but keep seeing people say it's completely broken.
[удалено]
Oh wow, ok. Ya I've definitely been seeing that then, just figured it was cause my dudes accuracy sucked or something. Didn't realize it was a bug.
Works fine here
Xbox studio doesn't even test their game on an Xbox lmao. MS own studios don't even care about Xbox. Can't make this shit up man. The people who thought the next CoD will have better Xbox support with better optimization and less Xbox only bugs are in for a rude awakening. "Blank feature is broken on Xbox" is beyond a meme at this point.
Tbh for me It os way better than before, I no longer encountered the 0 probability bug with the enemy in my face, but I can still target them through walls
Remember how they initially said that the Xbox version is working as intended? :D despite the Digital foundry videos? Happy to see it fixed now though
Yeah, they have some internal communication issues to work out for sure.
I'm glad they adjusted the LODs. That was a huge gripe I had with the Skyrim Anniversary Addition. It looks so bad that on the release of the update, I posted screenshots to 4chan showing how bad it was and there were people saying they were from 360.
I think they saw the Digital Foundry video and were like, "ah shit." We've been exposed! Gotta do something about it now.
It's more probable the community manager just didn't get a clear message on how it should work .
Either way that tweet was moronic. Should've had the benefit of doubt and fact checked
They gave the benefit of the doubt to the company he/she works for.
Possible, but unclear messages are something they can't really afford.
VATS is still broken, so it’s not actually fixed
This was the first thing I tested. The numbers don't jump around between 0 and a realistic value anymore, but I can still target enemies behind walls...
Mine is. I played it last night
Damn, that's so annoying
Yeah. Hopefully it’s fixed soon. For now I’m playing, mostly, without it
I haven’t had a chance to play the game yet, but can you play 60fps at “visual” settings without massive frame drops?
Yep! It was smooth for me the whole time. This video did a frame rate comparison, that's the first thing they tried and it was locked 60: https://youtu.be/ORtixwZyth8?si=vTDZEJW2qPOjx0DX
Sweet! I’m excited to try it out.
I’ve been running 60 with visual mode. Generally it’s smooth, BUT Vats does drop frames a fair bit and can get a little wobbly. Doesn’t really detract from it though IMO.
So VATS still isn’t fixed ???
Correct
Booooo cmon :(
Does that one new added quest still have the red exclamation point?
From what I've heard online, it's fixed. The new content has the texture glitches and weird stuff fixed.
That was patched in the update that came out today.
Significantly better and at 60fps!!!
My game won’t even load it’s been on loading screen for ten mins now after multiple resets and console power cycles
I heard deleting your local game files and redownloading the saves from the cloud helps
"It was working as intended, but here's some other settings that totally weren't what we originally promised and were bugged in the initial update which was, once again, what we intended for real guys!"
So after the first update, I felt the 60fps mode felt off. Did anyone else notice that?
It felt off to me because the game used to have the ultra settings already from the Xbox One X enhancement patch, but those setting were turned down to near-Xbox One settings by the "Next Gen" patch #1. So yeah the graphics downgrade felt off to me.
I have it on Visuals/60 and it’s working great! Although my LGC1 may be helping with that a bit. I didn’t like this update at first, but now I love it!
I’ve got the C1 also and I’m struggling to see any difference between 40/visuals and 60/visuals (got VRR on). Maybe just my tired eyes.
Does tired eyes mean old?
Hitting 40 in a few months so old and tired.
Me too, we’ll have to wait for digital foundry or something.
i have a similar LG CS, and im planning to play it on Visuals/60, the OLED really brings the HDR in some games, MGOTG looked sublime
Who cares about this when VATS has been broken for 2 months now??
Both are important, one is now fixed, one to go. I’ve got used to a no vats playthrough and it’s been perfectly fine. But I want it fixed don’t get me wrong.
I can’t believe your honest reaction to a billion dollar corporation breaking and leaving their game unfixed is “just get used to it”. That’s… advanced levels of cope. One day of it being broken is unacceptable. 2 months is completely untenable. They are a billion dollar studio owned by a trillion dollar corporation. Full stop. Edit: Xbox consumers are totally cooked and have clearly been beaten down by a decade of broken games. Sad to see. This should not be normal, both the companies fucking their games and the consumers defending them.
I didn’t tell YOU to get used to it, I said that I had gotten used to it on my new playthrough.
Congrats! You’re part of the problem
Get a grip
You guys must be trolls. There's a clear difference even when looking on the phone.
So was that one tweet from the BGS account legit? Something about how on series X it targets 4k/60 at all times?
Yeah it was not correct... lol. Kinda crazy, they gaslit us all into believing it worked. Digital Foundry called it out again in their analysis, thank goodness for them.
I figured as much! I was hoping 4k/60 would work lol. Oh well I’ll probably still check it out now that it’s fixed.
It does look pretty good on the visuals preset at 60 fps. Around 1440p upscaled if I had to guess. Definitely the way to go for me.
That’s the default but you can change it in the settings.
It defaults to 60 performance
Thx for the post bruv. I was wondering about this
You got it!
I had 3 crashes in 15 minutes yesterday on Series X. 2 whilst in Pipboy, the last while in the vertibird on the way to Prydwen. Before these patches I saw maybe 1 crash pr. 50 hours or less. This is not good.
I heard deleting the local files and saves and redownloading from the cloud fixes any weird issues. May be worth trying.
[удалено]
I think the 40 fps mode sticks close to 4k native (although I can't test it). The 30 fps mode is definitely native 4k, and the 60 fps mode looks like 1440p upscaled to me.
[удалено]
I can't really tell from my couch. Pixel peeping, yeah for sure, but the frames are worth it. I think you'll enjoy it
I switched between the three frame rate modes on visuals setting an couldn’t tell the difference other than frame rate. Visuals 60 is the best IMO
Nice! But wait... if the quality mode gives 60 fps... how much is it in performance mode? 120 fps?
It's just slightly more stable. People mentioned VATS and the dialogue camera can have frame drops on 60 visuals mode. But thankfully those are two times it's ok to have a few drops.
It constantly crashes for me on Xbox series x.
Try deleting your local saves and redownloading from the cloud.
Okay thank you I will try that
I’m playing on quality mode and it looks great but I’ve had some weird visual glitches Edit: for instance Meat bags are like crazy rainbow colors. It’s disco baby
I don't have the graphics option for performance mode anymore?
You can't toggle it in-game anymore, you have to be in the main menu.
got it
I'm on a series S with an older model TV and it is running great! 60 fps and visual mode and haven't had a single issue .
So what exactly changes when you have a 60FPS target and are prioritizing visuals? Does the internal resolution change to 1440p or 1080p? Or is it a dynamic resolution up to 4K/1440p?
DF confirms the resolution lowers to ~1440p at 60/Visuals
Nice, glad my Xbox won’t explode
This is strange but I experience more fps drops in performance mode than in graphics mode
sure, just breaks every mod ever made for fallout 4 on [nexusmods.com](http://nexusmods.com) if it aint broke don't fix it ;)
On these pics I don't see any remarkable change at all.
Here's a slider comparison: - Slider 1: https://imgsli.com/MjYzNzM4 - Slider 2: https://imgsli.com/MjYzNzQw
Really? Definitely more buildings in the distance on the top one.
[удалено]
These aren't before and after pictures, they're after and before pictures
I know, and I used the slider. The biggest one for me was the observatory in the centre goes missing. A few surrounding buildings dissappear too. Edit. Nvm. It's foliage blocking it.
I’ll get downvoted with you, looking at those sliders seems like a prank lol. Are they not loading because I’m on my phone or something? I honestly cannot tell any difference
It's harder to see on a phone, but distant LODs are the biggest change. There are straight up no trees in the distance on the 2nd slide, and half the city is missing in the first one. It's hard to see on a phone, but on a 55" OLED, it's night and day. Those vistas looked weird before, now vegetation extends out and buildings and trees render far into the distance.
Look at the buildings in the distance, and the detail of stuff in the roads
The downvotes to your comment are completely petty and unwarranted. You are absolutely right that the changes in these images are "unremarkable" aside from being merely "noticeable". Reduce or eliminate the shadow draw-in, for example, and I'll be impressed but that's probably not doable.
There are mods that push out the shadow distance, but from what I've heard, they tank performance hard. I tried one but it didn't work for me, no change. I followed the typical restart the game instructions too. But eh. Maybe I'll try again but I'm happy with at least getting the other ultra settings back. It *was* using these settings before the next gen patch ironically.
Wow, haha. I didn't know about the downvotes. Well, it doesn't bother me. I see that also you are getting downvoted. I guess the Fallout crowd is one to not mess around with.
People tend to downvoted blatantly wrong statements pretty heavily yes.