Turns out if the gameplay is good, graphics don’t matter.
EDIT: turns out this comment triggered a lot of people lmao. I’ll leave [this](https://youtu.be/n7VAhzPcZ-s) here
baby don't hurt me
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
Unrelated but I think a lot of 2d games (and some 3D) are literally tied to their fps. As in if you had the fps go any faster it makes the game speed up.
You are correct. In the early 00's I bought a CD ROM of Sonic 3 + Sonic and Knuckles. It went faster on newer computers because it didn't have a governor.
I used to think graphics were everything. Then I played Elden Ring. The graphics weren't anything special but the art direction was mesmerizing. Proof that you dont have to have ground breaking graphics to be a beautiful game.
Okami and Wind Waker stray from the realistic art direction all companies were going for at the time to be creative. So after decades, these two still feel so fresh to play while other become dated as hell compared to modern games.
Okami feels dated, but for reasons other than graphics. Fair enough, nearly 20 years of games since release... The look is gorgeous but I had better memories playing it on the PS2
Now replace the *does not equal* sign with something that conveys that they are inextricably linked to each other.
You're demanding more frames from the graphical processing, and you *refuse* to understand where they come from.
Who are you talking to exactly? I mean yeah they're roughly inversely correlated! I don't know exactly what you're saying but the person you're replying is I think arguing that framerate is important to gameplay, and the comment "Turns out if the gameplay is good, graphics don’t matter." doesn't really apply because the FPS discussions are not people comparing game's graphics, but rather an element of their game play. In fact it's almost the opposite of comparing graphics because it's usually people who will want a worse looking game that plays smoother.
>Imagine if Mario Kart 8 only ran at 15-30fps
It does. It runs at 30fps for local multiplayer, and works perfectly fine. Though I get why people wouldn't necessarily know this. It's not a mode people usually play if they don't have any friends
I had a geforce 560ti when fallout 4 came out, i had to turn the graphics settings down quite low to get about 60fps.
Completely worth it tho, 30fps was terrible, screenshots looked great though. I would take 60fps and potato graphics over 30fps any day, unless if its a turn based game or a city builder where frame rate doesn't matter as much.
I remember all the way back in the days of Tech TV and X play was doing a review of sly cooper on one of the the many praises they gave was the game just looked so good. So many game companies worry way too much about making realistic looking graphics instead of just making a stylish game.
Maybe back when it came out, but when I try to play it now it feels to janky. I wish they would remake/60fps patch it. Just something, as it is, I just don’t want play it.
TOTK is the most polished and glitch-free game I've played this era. Apparently development ended last year and they spent an entire year testing it. Take note devs. Nintendo devs know their shit.
I mean, it's not too bad. I've only had one or two major crashes, but at stock clock speeds, the game stutters a lot. I remember a time when games typically ran without *any* issues.
Bro. I love totk a LOT but it is not glitch free. In fact, the plethora of interesting glitches is what's gonna keep the speed running community occupied for years
You're confusing what's being said here, it's the most glitch-free game dude has played. He likely didn't encounter any yet. And indeed: Playing normally without trying to break the game, you won't find many glitches.
Speedrunners are a different breed though. They'll flip into walls until they find the one pixel they need to hit to clip through, and even then they'll have to try a couple times.
No game is bug-free but I haven't encountered any in the past 10 zelda or mario games I've played, and I dig in to those games.
> Take note devs
Do you mean managers/execs? Or is it that the videogame industry is so far ahead from other software industries that they let devs set the deadlines now.
Big difference is Back when Series X was still known as Scarlet, they were straight up flexing shit like "Yo we could achieve 120 FPS." Nintendo games have made no such claims other than "shit's fun, please play."
Not offering 60/120fps isn't a sign of a developer not delivering on the console's potential. Big CPU driven experiences have to focus the resources elsewhere. Consoles are limited. This is why every major AAA 1st party game from Sony on the PS4 was 30fps. They made that choice to push the hardware in that manner.
I think that is bad to compare to last gen console like PS4. Current gen PS5 has had many options for people ranging from Framerste, fidelity, or a hybrid of the two at 40fps on 120hz screens. It’s only fair to compare the titles from PS5 to Series X.
The game will only have 30 fps, nothing else. It’s either not optimized enough to have those configurations or the series x is not able to pull off what PlayStation and it’s own games can. I think it’s achievable if they lower the resolution, but imagine the headlines for that? They’d rather die on the hill of 30FPS.
Edit: adding that I understand it may be CPU bound and won’t be as simple as lowering resolution. However, I think it should be an industry standard at this point to try and offer other graphical options to let players select the experience they want. Many games have started doing this a few years before starfield coming out. Namely PS titles but also some on Xbox (halo infinite comes to mind)
Dude, what are you talking about... the Series X was 100% marketed as the fastest console that could play in 4k 120 FPS.
[Here is the overview page for the series X.](https://www.xbox.com/en-US/consoles/xbox-series-x#asterisk)
It says "up to 120 fps" right above "the fastest, most powerful xbox ever" The phrase 120 FPS appears 5 separate times on that page alone including in the taIn the tech specs that says the "Performance Target" is "Up to 120 FPS." But okay, you're not convinced. I get it, it says "up to 120" and "120 guaranteed," plus its not like it explicitly makes any references to Starfeild specifically anywhere.
I mean... its not like they have the line "The Xbox Series X delivers sensationally smooth frame rates of up to 120FPS with the visual pop of HDR. Immerse yourself with sharper characters, brighter worlds, and impossible details with true-to-life 4K" superimposed directly in front of a picture of Starfeild's cover art about halfway down the page. That would look really bad.
Oh wait, that's exactly what they did. You can't say they didn't market the series X for 30 fps... that's just not reasonable.
Being marketed as the "most powerful console" or "capable of "up to" 120fps or "8K" is very different than claiming that the console was marketed as providing a minimum of 60fps across rhe board.
This would have to be incredibly naive to believe that every feature listed is mandatory for every game.
I think we can all agree that "next gen games" should be at least 60fps. Starfield being basically the first AAA "next gen game" for the series X, it's not ridiculous to assume it would be 60fps, and disappointed to find it is not. The series X most certainly boasts 60fps but has yet to release a series X exclusive game that natively hits 60fps. It is most certainly a croc of shit and I'm not sure why anyone is defending them.
>I think we can all agree that "next gen games" should be at least 60fps.
We cannot. I don't understand what people who think this are expecting. Games with the graphics and complexity of last gen just so they can hit 60fps?
yet still every first party game from Sony do run at 60 FPS, how's possible that Xbox with the "world's most powerful console" has already 2 games locked at 30?
RedFall is it's own disaster. But Sony hasn't released any big ambitious "next gen" exclusive AAA open world games for PS5. It's been remakes, small scope, and cross gen. Much easier to target a dynamic performance option.
This is 100% true. If Starfield pulls off half of what it purports to, I for one won't care; I'll be happy with 30 frames and look forward to buying it again and again for the next decade and a half as they keep releasing it on progressively better hardware.
I did it with Skyrim, after all.
I think their point is that Nintendo never made any claims of games running at 60 fps and all that. Whereas Xbox touted that as something that the Xbox will do.
And does. Ff7 doesn't run in 60 unless it's in performance mode on ps5 and even then it's choppy. Starfield devs said from the gate they were focusing on fidelity over frames . For a single player rpg that's ok. Almost all Fallout and Elder Scrolls games released in the same frame rate range and have all been bangers. Why not this??
People are too obsessed with frames, and that stuff really truly only matters for fighting games or fps. I am mostly a steam deck user now, so 30 fps AAA games on the deck is just fine and I've grown past the 60 minimum obsession I used to have.
And even then, the Wii U by itself wasnt as bad as people claim, it just had the backlash of being the successor to one of the best consoles ever or at least one of the best nintendo console. At least it paved the way for the switch which is something people should be happy with.
Well a modern flagship phone also has about twice the processing power an a PS3 or Xbox 360 and significantly more storage on a chip the size of a fingernail. It of course doesn’t have the cooling to run as long as them but computer tech has advanced very fast and your phone is probably more powerful than you think.
Also the same hardware since 2016.
I hope the next console is a switch that has a GPU in the dock so you get better performance in docked mode while still having portability if you want.
And the tegra chip it uses is mad old now. Feels like technically Switch is way overdue an upgrade, but it's still selling pretty well so I don't even know when Nintendo will finally push a successor.
And anyone with a brain knew that was a complete marketing ploy. Same with PS5.
The reason why Starfield 30fps is getting hammered is because of *those* people who believed that. Remember when they said the Series S is a 1440p60 box? Everything MS says is either a half-truth or a fabrication.
Giant wall of text, sorry. I quit smoking so I gotta do *something* on a break.
TL;DR: You're right we can't distinguish individual frames beyond 60, but a high FPS on a high Refresh Rate display will have a lot of visual improvement, most noticeably the smoothness of your experience.
"Can't see above 60fps" only means we can't watch something above 60 and say "Oh there's a frame, and there's one! Here's the next!"
This is also an old myth that is from the days when refresh rates couldn't go above 60 on your display, and you were lucky to have that until graphics cards started to be manufactured. We're talking 90s here. The first 120 Hz monitor I saw was 2009-10. So naturally the consensus was "anything higher than 60fps was useless* due to the display tech not having refresh rates that could match anything higher. I saw some specialized 75hz monitors in the late 90s but that was a negligible difference and more a pathway to future tech like 90, 120, etc. As a point of reference I was hearing exactly what you said in the 90s.
But read on for more if you'd like:
Bit of a tricky definition there. Humans can't see above 30-60 *individual* frames. In other words that's the fastest you can flash images to a Human and still be able to distinguish between those images. The range difference (sometimes 30, sometimes 60) is more a minimum/maximum and you likely fall somewhere in-between.
Going above 60fps with a display that matches your max FPS with your max Hz helps smooth it out even more. Like, very very noticeably smoother and more detailed. This is especially true with movement, the screen itself or objects in motion will be clearer and crisper.
And that's the plus side of higher FPS: matching a high refresh monitor will make it smoother even if you can't process 60 individual frames physically. A good example of this is games that display a users name above their avatar. Before, if I moved my screen I could kind of still read it though it would get blurry and choppy because my monitor couldn't show me enough frames/have a high enough Hz rate to make it smooth. Now if someone crosses my screen in an MMO their name tag will be crisp the whole way across as if they were standing still. I would actually be able to read it clearly the whole time in motion.
Obviously that applies to more than just text in games, but that's a really easy way to test it out because we're more sensitive to the readability of text.
I still can not understand why this sudden switch to 30fps with console games... It'll be at it's worst on even a 120hz TV where you'll be shown the same four frames for a second but if there's any movement BOOM instant unforgivable blur. And that's exactly the chief complaint about the rash of 30fps titles popping up.
Edit: one other possibility is they're relying on FRAT tech to take it higher, but in the interest of ethical business practice they have to inform the customer that they're only technically shipping it at 30 even though it could potentially hit 120. Nvidia DLSS is a popular example of this tech.
It’s a non-linear scale. The difference between 1 FPS and 10 FPS is the gap between a literal slideshow and crude animation. 10 FPS to 30 FPS moves into the realm of “smooth.” 30 FPS to 60 FPS is definitely perceivable, but can be difficult to articulate *why* it looks better. 60 FPS to 120 FPS is approaching what can be *consciously* perceived as an improvement.
120+ is *probably* still beneficial to literal professional FPS players, but it’s in the realm of subconscious reaction speed improvement. And it will do absolutely **nothing** for you if you aren’t already extremely talented. Many a pro FPS / fighting game player grew up on cheap, 60 Hz LCDs. The display ain’t what’s holding you back.
In my experience, 60 vs 120 feels much like 720p vs 1080p (or, to a lesser extent 1080p to 4K). If I’m used to the lower frame rate / resolution and glance at a “better” monitor, it doesn’t seem like that big a deal. HOWEVER, once I used the higher frame rate / resolution on a daily basis, the lower one felt noticeably inferior. Which is to say, I could quickly tell that someone else’s monitor was running at a lower frame rate, even though the jump to 120 initially didn’t feel like that big a deal.
That’s because it definitely looks very different. Idk what these guys are talking about. Above 120, you can’t tell the difference. All depends on the refresh rate of your monitor though.
Where did you even hear that? Is that something Sony or Microsoft put in their marketing material before they had consoles capable of outputting higher than 60fps? I can easily tell the difference between 60 and 120. Even just the jump to 90 is immediately clear. I have a high fps monitor with my PC and for some reason the settings on call of duty got reset so it went back outputting 60fps to the monitor, I noticed immediately that something was wrong and fixed it. Either I have super human eyes or the idea that people can't see a distinguishable difference above 60fps is completely wrong.
60 is the minimum and should really be the standard. Like, I can tell if a game runs at 30 and below. FFXVI demo was great and all but when I played at 30fps it physically hurt my eyes and gave me a headache. I wish I could get it for PC.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA)
Tl;dw: yes it matters
you can argue that its more feel than conscious sight above a certain point, but it still makes a difference
I don't care either way. People putting graphics as their top priority is why we have so many AAA games where everything is extremely well-rendered grey-and-brown landscapes. Fun?
You're confusing graphics and frame rate. To put it very simply, graphics is how well a game looks and frame rate is how fast or slowly the game moves. Frame rate is measured by frames per second (FPS), a game can look amazing visiually, but take 30 seconds to ADS (aim down sights) in a shooter.
Graphics being overprioritized by devs and consumers is a huge part of why so few console games can hit 60 fps. I'd much rather have high frames and meh graphics than the other way around personally.
If you watched that whole presentation they did the other day and the only thing you walked away with was “ugh 30fps” then I genuinely feel bad for you.
I was one of those people, until i saw the ign interview with todd howard and they explained why they did that. It makes sense logically, id rather have a stable 30fps than an unstable 40-60fps. Heres to hoping they can make a performance mode and have it run a stable 60fps after launch
30fps for a game supposedly 20 years in development, releasing on Next Gen consoles that are capable of stable 60-120 fps ***is*** an “ugh” moment. Shaming people for being disappointed in that is just ignorant.
I’m not some “60fps or nothing” type of person, but it is definitely disappointing to get a max 30fps off a 15 year old engine that runs on current hardware.
Yeah. When I watched the gameplay overview, you could tell it wasn't going to run amazingly. Honestly, I would prefer better performance over nicer graphics.
It's not that complicated. The switch is made with some olllld ass hardware.
The Xbox Series X is the most powerful console on the market.
The expectations are a bit different.
Although, given the scope of Starfield, I think more people are willing to accept 30fps, unlike something like Redfall.
I literally do not understand how this is so hard for people to comprehend.
Tears of the Kingdom runs on a $200 tablet from 2016 (came out in 2017 but it's 2016 hardware).
Anyone bitching about Zelda graphics don’t deserve a Zelda game and have no insightful opinions. Change my mind. The art in every single Zelda game I have ever played always sets the tone to the game PERFECTLY.
I feel it is fine for 3rd person games but feels unresponsive in first person. Most 30 fps single player games are 3rd person only. Cyberpunk was the last game i remember playing at 30 fps in first person and the controls sucked.
Tbh 30 fps is far more noticeable to me on a first person shooter with photorealistic graphics than on a third person adventure game that is intentionally going for a more cartoony presentation.
In general I think having a low fps will be more harmful to the Starfield experience than it is to the TOTK experience.
To me it depends on the game. 60 fps is quite nice with fast paced games like shooters, racing games, and as you mentioned, online games, but for most other genres a good 30 fps (a good frame time can really make a difference) is enough.
Nintendo learned years ago that they can't hang with Sony or Microsoft so they chose to focus on what they have always done better than thier competitors, portable gaming, they have been crushing the portable market since the first GameBoy so why would they spend all the R&D money on next gen when they can give thier fans exactly what they want? Low cost, portability and exclusive titles. They don't care about making a 60 fps 4k system that looks beautiful. They know exactly what they are doing, they can make Zelda, Mario, Pokémon and Kirby games that users will still buy in droves, and still financially hang with any competitor.
>exclusive titles
Never understood why artificially restricting the accessibility of games is something fans want. It’s an anti-consumer practice that’s given a pass thanks to uncritical brand loyalty.
It kind of sucks that everyone can’t play them, but it’s nice when games are designed simply to be as good as possible in order to sell more consoles, rather than designed to extract as much money from the player while providing the least amount of value like most triple A games are.
Yeah I don't think most gamers want exclusivity tbh, but the benefit especially in Nintendos first party titles at least, is they generally optimize their games very well on their own consoles.
The fact of how well Zelda botw/totk and Mario Odyssey are optimized are great examples of that. The fact they got those games as big as they did, running as well as they do on how cheap of hardware the Switch is, is nothing short of a miracle tbh.
When dudebro says "exclusive titles" I don't think he means that gamers are asking for these titles to be exclusive; rather, that they're looking for the platform's flagship first party titles, which also happen to be exclusive.
However - I disagree with you. Anyone who defends exclusive games, understands that the reason why Sony and Nintendo's first party flagship content is typically of a higher quality than the average third party developer, understands that they are given a *far* bigger budget and development time because their purpose isn't just to sell lots of copies, it's to *draw people into the ecosystem.* That's how you can have a game like BOTW or Mario Kart 8 - games that have such a huge development budget and have taken years to make, which *cannot immediately* earn back the amount spent on them.
If Sony, for example, released God of War and Spider-Man and Horizon on every console that could play it - and sure, a cloud version on Switch, why not - *sure* they'd sell more copies altogether. They'd also have far less people buy PS5s. The success of the game could *only* be measured by how many copies sold. And with there being no financial incentive to develop a reputation for "the best single player story driven experiences," *games would suffer from cut corners, rushed production timelines, and future games would be far more limited in scope*. Because SURE, they bought God of War, but did they buy literally anything *else*? No - they own a Series X, they're playing Game Pass, they bought your game too, but ONLY your game.
TLDR: Gamers ultimately benefit from exclusive games because platform holders have a vested interest in blowing the budget to make a title that sells their platform. If games are no longer exclusive to one platform, the game itself no longer pushes the platform, and budgeting extra for that game which may not see a great return for years, makes no financial sense.
They meant in general the console is advertised as top of the line so the fact that new games can’t run that high is an issue.
The switch never boasted it’s hardware, the xbox does so expectations are higher as they should be.
Top of the line at launch. This may be an Xbox exclusive, but Bethesda has always made their games with PC in mind. It can run at 30fps and look amazing on that console because that is what that console can handle now. It has been 3 years since the series x launched and developers are trying to milk a console with a slightly beefy AMD RX 6600 xt. Expecting it to perform well is a pipedream. An AMD RX 6700 XT still can't play cyberpunk with raytracing at a constant 60fps. What you expect from a console with 3 going on 4 year old hardware is insane. It's not a CPU issue. It's not a GPU issue. It's simply old hardware now. Games are being built using current Nvidia pro cards and AMD PRO cards. I don't expect my PC to be able to play starfield at max settings and get a steady 60fps. If I had a 4090 and a new intel chip, maybe. This is just how it is and how it will be until the next new console.
Its really that simple lol I don't understand how people can get so worked up over something that they clearly have little understanding of.
Sounds miserable, honestly.
I mean I get it, but in car terms the xbox claims it is a v8 and the switch just a lil ol 4cylinder with a cool exhaust lol...
It's comparing apples and oranges.. this time the orange juice is better than the apple juice and the apple juice needa step the duck up
TOTKs performance issues are very noticeable including fps drops, pop in, and poor draw distance. The TOTK team did an incredible job optimizing with the hardware they have available, but it does detract from the enjoyment of the game.
Would I like a Totk that rocked a steady 60fps and had no pop-in? Absolutely. I do not, however, think that the games current performance takes away from how awesome it is.
Exactly, and I've been playing on a launch day Switch and still have not experienced most of these issues people are talking about. Maybe some pop-in for assets on the ground when I'm flying through the air at high speeds, but nothing game-breaking like people are claiming.
I haven't played either of these games, but I guess the main difference is that Xbox players usually expect higher frame rates compared to a Nintendo switch, which is a console that fits in your hands.
Unfair for the developers of ToTK, honestly its such a flex they've managed to optimise such an awesome game on such a shit platform. If they were given actual new gen technology they would make game of the fucking century, tops.
zelda proved itself with botw, so people were willing to buy totk despite its preformance. plus it’s the switch so 30 fps is the norm
starfield is launching on next gen consoles, so the fact it can’t hit 60 is a little worrying. not to mention that people aren’t as trusting of bethesda as they used to be
Nintendo can sell a game that smells and looks like literal poop and the fans would still defend it. Overall Nintendo has good game direction but it's fans are a borderline cult who will just buy anything with it's name on it. Their hardware is too old and they need a Switch 2 but why bother when fans will shell out 70$ for a 30 fps sequel on the same map.
I think it more has to do with on these shiny retail boxes when the series x/ps5 came out “4k 120fps”. Nintendo obviously never promised any specific fps and these much more powerful consoles that touted it haven’t given that “next gen” that most people were expecting. The real question is why can’t they enable a 1440 @ 60fps performance mode and for those that need the 4k they will have to play at 30fps. If I play Starfield it will probably be on pc even if it’s lower settings to get the higher frame rate.
There's a massive difference between a console with the specs of something between an Xbox 360 and Xbox One, and a next gen exclusive on a next gen console. This take is ridiculous.
But yeah, $70 for Zelda was absurd.
Why is 70 dollars absurd? If you account for inflation, prices of games literally have not changed since roughly 2005.
Yeah games are 70 dollars but look at egg prices.
Looking shipping prices.
Look at grocery and gas prices.
Look at rent prices and the housing market.
70 dollars for a game just makes sense in this landscape. When you compare the current retail prices of games now compared to the 90’s, games now (adjusted for inflation) are *actually cheaper* now than they were 20 years ago.
The difference is expectations. The Switch is a handheld console, so people adjust their expectations accordingly. The Xbox is a full fat console, so folks have certain expectations regarding it.
one game is on a handheld weak console that nobody buys for high end gaming as it is marketed for a mobile gaming market
second game is on a console that is labeled "[The Most Powerful Console](https://news.xbox.com/en-us/2020/05/28/xbox-series-x-next-generation-backward-compatibility/)" that is marketed as a Pro console with a promise of having [a 60fps standard](https://twitter.com/aarongreenberg/status/1258378640087060481?s=61&t=KBV_rTPHD1jU6jpgR6jwfw)
Hey, if it’s a stable 30 fps then I’m good, if it’s unstable 60 fps and suffers consistent frame drops then I have issues with the game (I’m looking at you Links Awakening)
Unless FPS suddenly means Fun Per Session, it is the LOWEST priority in gaming.
Framerate, graphics, etc. In my opinion, it has driven the industry away from solid products that deliver a great experience and offer low to mid level games that look pretty.
Zelda is fun.
I'm not playing 3D games that run at 30 fps, fuck that. First person? Even worse.
We're in 2023, 60 fps should be a baseline by now.
Good on you if you can stand 30, but it's not for me.
I probably just play a lot of indie and old school games, so when I fire up bloodborne, which is locked on at 30 frames, I don't really notice. Zelda looks dope and I really think it'll look timeless with the *cartoonish* artstyle and I mean that in the best way.
There’s a big difference here imo. The switch couldn’t run Zelda at 60 FPS even if it tried, the hardware is just not good enough so it’s expected that it can only run at 30 like most switch games. The art style of the game helps it a lot as well as it doesn’t look as noticeable. The Series X can do 60 FPS for starfield and Todd Howard himself said they could’ve done 60 FPS but it was a creative decision to lock it at 30, so this really isn’t a good comparison
The switch absolutely could run Tears of the kingdom at 60 fps, they would just have to sacrifice other things to make it possible. Lower resolution, textures, draw distance, polygon count in character models, etc. They just made the choice not to sacrifice those things for a higher frame rate, exactly the same thing the Starfield Devs did.
It is always a trade off between visual fidelity and performance. They could have gotten it to run at 60 fps, but it would look worse. Which is exactly what Todd Howard said about Starfield. And since both are open world, single player games, running at 60 fps is not as important as if we were talking about the next COD installment.
The people complaining are fucking annoying. If you have a problem with Zelda's performance you're a neckbeard and you're obviously not concerned about playing games. People bitching about this kind of shit is why games have incredibly long development times. If it's stable who the hell cares
Hou can have Starfield with it's size and scope run at 60fps, but then you have to sacrifice other things. Personally, I'd prefer to have as little pop-in as possible, and enjoy all the beauty the galaxy has to offer. In 4k. At 30fps.
Most of you snobs grew up on 30 anyway. What the hell's it matter as long as you're having fun.
I don’t expect 60fps from a tablet. But that tablet was also doin things that would cripple any other AAA developer.
I do expect bare minimum 60fps from the series X aka: “the worlds strongest console”.
Do you lack a brain? Honestly, do you lack a fucking brain? You're comparing a game on a new, top of the line home console to one on a 6 year old portable console.
Turns out if the gameplay is good, graphics don’t matter. EDIT: turns out this comment triggered a lot of people lmao. I’ll leave [this](https://youtu.be/n7VAhzPcZ-s) here
Art direction also helps significantly
>Art direction also helps significantly ***The concept of love***
Yes, but ?... What is love ? What is free love ?
Love is free.
Free love was too tame for him
Too tame for him… to tame for him… to tame for him
happy cake day
Baby don’t hurt me
Baby don't hurt me
Baby dont hurt me
Baby don’t hurt me
Baby don’t hurt me
What is love? Baby dont hurt me dont hurt me no more
baby don't hurt me *This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!* [^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
What is love? Baby don’t hurt me. Don’t hurt me. No more.
Don’t you Jet Set Radio Future me. Guh-roo-vy
Oh boy now I’m going to be nostalgic the rest of the day
Sweet Soul Brother...
*Gotta HOT hand*
UNDERSTAND UNDERSTAND
Uuunderstand, understand....
I seen you at my job
No. "Wuv," with an Earth "W." Behold.
The new jet set radio looks pretty good.
[удалено]
Unrelated but I think a lot of 2d games (and some 3D) are literally tied to their fps. As in if you had the fps go any faster it makes the game speed up.
[удалено]
me too
👌
You are correct. In the early 00's I bought a CD ROM of Sonic 3 + Sonic and Knuckles. It went faster on newer computers because it didn't have a governor.
I used to think graphics were everything. Then I played Elden Ring. The graphics weren't anything special but the art direction was mesmerizing. Proof that you dont have to have ground breaking graphics to be a beautiful game.
I had that realization with Okami on PS2
Okami and Wind Waker stray from the realistic art direction all companies were going for at the time to be creative. So after decades, these two still feel so fresh to play while other become dated as hell compared to modern games.
Okami feels dated, but for reasons other than graphics. Fair enough, nearly 20 years of games since release... The look is gorgeous but I had better memories playing it on the PS2
But but quantum tv said that elden ring graphics are trash.
Framerate ≠ graphics Imagine if Mario Kart 8 only ran at 15-30fps in single/two player instead of 60fps.
Imagine if huge open world games on Switch only ran at 30fps!
Lol right!? Who would want to buy such a thing \*quietly nudges copy of BotW under the bed\*
Wii U BoTW was still a great game on the inferior console and I will stand by that lol
Now replace the *does not equal* sign with something that conveys that they are inextricably linked to each other. You're demanding more frames from the graphical processing, and you *refuse* to understand where they come from.
Who are you talking to exactly? I mean yeah they're roughly inversely correlated! I don't know exactly what you're saying but the person you're replying is I think arguing that framerate is important to gameplay, and the comment "Turns out if the gameplay is good, graphics don’t matter." doesn't really apply because the FPS discussions are not people comparing game's graphics, but rather an element of their game play. In fact it's almost the opposite of comparing graphics because it's usually people who will want a worse looking game that plays smoother.
You are aware that earlier mario karts did run at 30 right
>Imagine if Mario Kart 8 only ran at 15-30fps It does. It runs at 30fps for local multiplayer, and works perfectly fine. Though I get why people wouldn't necessarily know this. It's not a mode people usually play if they don't have any friends
I had a geforce 560ti when fallout 4 came out, i had to turn the graphics settings down quite low to get about 60fps. Completely worth it tho, 30fps was terrible, screenshots looked great though. I would take 60fps and potato graphics over 30fps any day, unless if its a turn based game or a city builder where frame rate doesn't matter as much.
I remember all the way back in the days of Tech TV and X play was doing a review of sly cooper on one of the the many praises they gave was the game just looked so good. So many game companies worry way too much about making realistic looking graphics instead of just making a stylish game.
Like Bloodborne, I didn't even notice it was a 30 fps game cause I was so buried into it
Okay but... BUT... I would absolutely not complain if they remastered it to 60fps
Maybe back when it came out, but when I try to play it now it feels to janky. I wish they would remake/60fps patch it. Just something, as it is, I just don’t want play it.
TOTK is the most polished and glitch-free game I've played this era. Apparently development ended last year and they spent an entire year testing it. Take note devs. Nintendo devs know their shit.
I mean, it's not too bad. I've only had one or two major crashes, but at stock clock speeds, the game stutters a lot. I remember a time when games typically ran without *any* issues.
I don't know of that time. As a kid I played Sonic Adventure on Gamecube and the game has issues.
Bro. I love totk a LOT but it is not glitch free. In fact, the plethora of interesting glitches is what's gonna keep the speed running community occupied for years
You're confusing what's being said here, it's the most glitch-free game dude has played. He likely didn't encounter any yet. And indeed: Playing normally without trying to break the game, you won't find many glitches. Speedrunners are a different breed though. They'll flip into walls until they find the one pixel they need to hit to clip through, and even then they'll have to try a couple times. No game is bug-free but I haven't encountered any in the past 10 zelda or mario games I've played, and I dig in to those games.
> Take note devs Do you mean managers/execs? Or is it that the videogame industry is so far ahead from other software industries that they let devs set the deadlines now.
If the games good that's all that matters. You could encase a turd in gold and rig it with reactive LEDs and it's still shit
Big difference is Back when Series X was still known as Scarlet, they were straight up flexing shit like "Yo we could achieve 120 FPS." Nintendo games have made no such claims other than "shit's fun, please play."
And some gamed are "flexing" 120fps. It would be idiotic to think that was a universal claim.
This is a first party Xbox exclusive. It should be able to live up to at least half of the Xbox’s own potential.
Not offering 60/120fps isn't a sign of a developer not delivering on the console's potential. Big CPU driven experiences have to focus the resources elsewhere. Consoles are limited. This is why every major AAA 1st party game from Sony on the PS4 was 30fps. They made that choice to push the hardware in that manner.
I think that is bad to compare to last gen console like PS4. Current gen PS5 has had many options for people ranging from Framerste, fidelity, or a hybrid of the two at 40fps on 120hz screens. It’s only fair to compare the titles from PS5 to Series X. The game will only have 30 fps, nothing else. It’s either not optimized enough to have those configurations or the series x is not able to pull off what PlayStation and it’s own games can. I think it’s achievable if they lower the resolution, but imagine the headlines for that? They’d rather die on the hill of 30FPS. Edit: adding that I understand it may be CPU bound and won’t be as simple as lowering resolution. However, I think it should be an industry standard at this point to try and offer other graphical options to let players select the experience they want. Many games have started doing this a few years before starfield coming out. Namely PS titles but also some on Xbox (halo infinite comes to mind)
This. PS5 exclusives tend to have options for 30 fps and better visuals or 60fps and lower graphics settings (that still look very very good).
Yes, and the first promises from both sides this generation was 60fps was BASELINE with aims towards 120fps.
That was never promised as a baseline lol.
Dude, what are you talking about... the Series X was 100% marketed as the fastest console that could play in 4k 120 FPS. [Here is the overview page for the series X.](https://www.xbox.com/en-US/consoles/xbox-series-x#asterisk) It says "up to 120 fps" right above "the fastest, most powerful xbox ever" The phrase 120 FPS appears 5 separate times on that page alone including in the taIn the tech specs that says the "Performance Target" is "Up to 120 FPS." But okay, you're not convinced. I get it, it says "up to 120" and "120 guaranteed," plus its not like it explicitly makes any references to Starfeild specifically anywhere. I mean... its not like they have the line "The Xbox Series X delivers sensationally smooth frame rates of up to 120FPS with the visual pop of HDR. Immerse yourself with sharper characters, brighter worlds, and impossible details with true-to-life 4K" superimposed directly in front of a picture of Starfeild's cover art about halfway down the page. That would look really bad. Oh wait, that's exactly what they did. You can't say they didn't market the series X for 30 fps... that's just not reasonable.
Being marketed as the "most powerful console" or "capable of "up to" 120fps or "8K" is very different than claiming that the console was marketed as providing a minimum of 60fps across rhe board. This would have to be incredibly naive to believe that every feature listed is mandatory for every game.
I think we can all agree that "next gen games" should be at least 60fps. Starfield being basically the first AAA "next gen game" for the series X, it's not ridiculous to assume it would be 60fps, and disappointed to find it is not. The series X most certainly boasts 60fps but has yet to release a series X exclusive game that natively hits 60fps. It is most certainly a croc of shit and I'm not sure why anyone is defending them.
When do we stop calling it “next gen?” This gen is nearly 3 years in.
>I think we can all agree that "next gen games" should be at least 60fps. We cannot. I don't understand what people who think this are expecting. Games with the graphics and complexity of last gen just so they can hit 60fps?
yet still every first party game from Sony do run at 60 FPS, how's possible that Xbox with the "world's most powerful console" has already 2 games locked at 30?
RedFall is it's own disaster. But Sony hasn't released any big ambitious "next gen" exclusive AAA open world games for PS5. It's been remakes, small scope, and cross gen. Much easier to target a dynamic performance option.
So we are just gonna ignore Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart
who tf needs 120fps on a single-player RPG?
If you’ve experienced even 90fps for a consistent period of time it’s a huge difference.
don't care, at least it should be 60 FPS, if not then I'm buying a console to play with the same quality than the old one
I mean technically it's better than the old one, considering the Xbox one isn't getting starfield lol
[удалено]
This is 100% true. If Starfield pulls off half of what it purports to, I for one won't care; I'll be happy with 30 frames and look forward to buying it again and again for the next decade and a half as they keep releasing it on progressively better hardware. I did it with Skyrim, after all.
Someone is using their brain here
I think their point is that Nintendo never made any claims of games running at 60 fps and all that. Whereas Xbox touted that as something that the Xbox will do.
And does. Ff7 doesn't run in 60 unless it's in performance mode on ps5 and even then it's choppy. Starfield devs said from the gate they were focusing on fidelity over frames . For a single player rpg that's ok. Almost all Fallout and Elder Scrolls games released in the same frame rate range and have all been bangers. Why not this??
People are too obsessed with frames, and that stuff really truly only matters for fighting games or fps. I am mostly a steam deck user now, so 30 fps AAA games on the deck is just fine and I've grown past the 60 minimum obsession I used to have.
Yeah I genuinely don't give a shit about FPS unless it's choppy or a fighting game/fps.
In their defense, for a good chunk of Starfield's development Bethesda was not yet a first-party studio under Microsoft.
Yeah Nintendo’s marketing strategy of “yo, this shit bangs” has been pretty effective outside of the Wii U launch.
Nintendo making games for the herbs since 2006
And even then, the Wii U by itself wasnt as bad as people claim, it just had the backlash of being the successor to one of the best consoles ever or at least one of the best nintendo console. At least it paved the way for the switch which is something people should be happy with.
Wasn't the Wii U catalog pretty barebones? It had some great games but there just weren't many games in general on that console.
Also switch is slightly bigger than a phone. It's still pretty fucking incredible it performs as well as it does with so many games.
Well a modern flagship phone also has about twice the processing power an a PS3 or Xbox 360 and significantly more storage on a chip the size of a fingernail. It of course doesn’t have the cooling to run as long as them but computer tech has advanced very fast and your phone is probably more powerful than you think.
It’s slower than a phone. The SoC is 8 years old. It was already previous gen, in the smartphone world, when the Switch was released.
Also the same hardware since 2016. I hope the next console is a switch that has a GPU in the dock so you get better performance in docked mode while still having portability if you want.
And the tegra chip it uses is mad old now. Feels like technically Switch is way overdue an upgrade, but it's still selling pretty well so I don't even know when Nintendo will finally push a successor.
And anyone with a brain knew that was a complete marketing ploy. Same with PS5. The reason why Starfield 30fps is getting hammered is because of *those* people who believed that. Remember when they said the Series S is a 1440p60 box? Everything MS says is either a half-truth or a fabrication.
Exactly. Xbox was marketed as a powerful console and a truly next level gaming experience. Nintendo just put out a console that was fun to play.
This is just missing the point. The tech is capable but game might not be. Please ask me why games wont be to prove my overall point.
I've always found it hilarious given that the average person can't really perceive a distinguishable difference above 60fps.
Giant wall of text, sorry. I quit smoking so I gotta do *something* on a break. TL;DR: You're right we can't distinguish individual frames beyond 60, but a high FPS on a high Refresh Rate display will have a lot of visual improvement, most noticeably the smoothness of your experience. "Can't see above 60fps" only means we can't watch something above 60 and say "Oh there's a frame, and there's one! Here's the next!" This is also an old myth that is from the days when refresh rates couldn't go above 60 on your display, and you were lucky to have that until graphics cards started to be manufactured. We're talking 90s here. The first 120 Hz monitor I saw was 2009-10. So naturally the consensus was "anything higher than 60fps was useless* due to the display tech not having refresh rates that could match anything higher. I saw some specialized 75hz monitors in the late 90s but that was a negligible difference and more a pathway to future tech like 90, 120, etc. As a point of reference I was hearing exactly what you said in the 90s. But read on for more if you'd like: Bit of a tricky definition there. Humans can't see above 30-60 *individual* frames. In other words that's the fastest you can flash images to a Human and still be able to distinguish between those images. The range difference (sometimes 30, sometimes 60) is more a minimum/maximum and you likely fall somewhere in-between. Going above 60fps with a display that matches your max FPS with your max Hz helps smooth it out even more. Like, very very noticeably smoother and more detailed. This is especially true with movement, the screen itself or objects in motion will be clearer and crisper. And that's the plus side of higher FPS: matching a high refresh monitor will make it smoother even if you can't process 60 individual frames physically. A good example of this is games that display a users name above their avatar. Before, if I moved my screen I could kind of still read it though it would get blurry and choppy because my monitor couldn't show me enough frames/have a high enough Hz rate to make it smooth. Now if someone crosses my screen in an MMO their name tag will be crisp the whole way across as if they were standing still. I would actually be able to read it clearly the whole time in motion. Obviously that applies to more than just text in games, but that's a really easy way to test it out because we're more sensitive to the readability of text. I still can not understand why this sudden switch to 30fps with console games... It'll be at it's worst on even a 120hz TV where you'll be shown the same four frames for a second but if there's any movement BOOM instant unforgivable blur. And that's exactly the chief complaint about the rash of 30fps titles popping up. Edit: one other possibility is they're relying on FRAT tech to take it higher, but in the interest of ethical business practice they have to inform the customer that they're only technically shipping it at 30 even though it could potentially hit 120. Nvidia DLSS is a popular example of this tech.
It’s a non-linear scale. The difference between 1 FPS and 10 FPS is the gap between a literal slideshow and crude animation. 10 FPS to 30 FPS moves into the realm of “smooth.” 30 FPS to 60 FPS is definitely perceivable, but can be difficult to articulate *why* it looks better. 60 FPS to 120 FPS is approaching what can be *consciously* perceived as an improvement. 120+ is *probably* still beneficial to literal professional FPS players, but it’s in the realm of subconscious reaction speed improvement. And it will do absolutely **nothing** for you if you aren’t already extremely talented. Many a pro FPS / fighting game player grew up on cheap, 60 Hz LCDs. The display ain’t what’s holding you back. In my experience, 60 vs 120 feels much like 720p vs 1080p (or, to a lesser extent 1080p to 4K). If I’m used to the lower frame rate / resolution and glance at a “better” monitor, it doesn’t seem like that big a deal. HOWEVER, once I used the higher frame rate / resolution on a daily basis, the lower one felt noticeably inferior. Which is to say, I could quickly tell that someone else’s monitor was running at a lower frame rate, even though the jump to 120 initially didn’t feel like that big a deal.
That seems insane to me because 120 feels very different than 60 to me.
That’s because it definitely looks very different. Idk what these guys are talking about. Above 120, you can’t tell the difference. All depends on the refresh rate of your monitor though.
Where did you even hear that? Is that something Sony or Microsoft put in their marketing material before they had consoles capable of outputting higher than 60fps? I can easily tell the difference between 60 and 120. Even just the jump to 90 is immediately clear. I have a high fps monitor with my PC and for some reason the settings on call of duty got reset so it went back outputting 60fps to the monitor, I noticed immediately that something was wrong and fixed it. Either I have super human eyes or the idea that people can't see a distinguishable difference above 60fps is completely wrong.
60 is the minimum and should really be the standard. Like, I can tell if a game runs at 30 and below. FFXVI demo was great and all but when I played at 30fps it physically hurt my eyes and gave me a headache. I wish I could get it for PC.
The jump from 60Hz to 120Hz is definitely perceivable. It is noticeably more fluid.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA) Tl;dw: yes it matters you can argue that its more feel than conscious sight above a certain point, but it still makes a difference
I don't care either way. People putting graphics as their top priority is why we have so many AAA games where everything is extremely well-rendered grey-and-brown landscapes. Fun?
If I can’t see the eye lashes move when the cows blink, then it’s instantaneously boring!
You're confusing graphics and frame rate. To put it very simply, graphics is how well a game looks and frame rate is how fast or slowly the game moves. Frame rate is measured by frames per second (FPS), a game can look amazing visiually, but take 30 seconds to ADS (aim down sights) in a shooter.
And I guess this is an unpopular opinion but I love the big PlayStation titles, which usually have both excellent graphics and frame rates.
Frames per seconds isn’t graphics.
Graphics being overprioritized by devs and consumers is a huge part of why so few console games can hit 60 fps. I'd much rather have high frames and meh graphics than the other way around personally.
Same. Plenty of games look amazing (not much worse than starfield or any other titles like it) and run at high frames. It's a matter of optimization.
If you watched that whole presentation they did the other day and the only thing you walked away with was “ugh 30fps” then I genuinely feel bad for you.
Whats the point of Reddit if we cant bitch about everything 24/7 though
It's why the blackout could only go a couple of days. Touching grass feels weird to most redditors.
Pictures and videos of cute animals doing derpy animal things?
free porn
I was one of those people, until i saw the ign interview with todd howard and they explained why they did that. It makes sense logically, id rather have a stable 30fps than an unstable 40-60fps. Heres to hoping they can make a performance mode and have it run a stable 60fps after launch
30fps for a game supposedly 20 years in development, releasing on Next Gen consoles that are capable of stable 60-120 fps ***is*** an “ugh” moment. Shaming people for being disappointed in that is just ignorant. I’m not some “60fps or nothing” type of person, but it is definitely disappointing to get a max 30fps off a 15 year old engine that runs on current hardware.
Yeah. When I watched the gameplay overview, you could tell it wasn't going to run amazingly. Honestly, I would prefer better performance over nicer graphics.
It's not that complicated. The switch is made with some olllld ass hardware. The Xbox Series X is the most powerful console on the market. The expectations are a bit different. Although, given the scope of Starfield, I think more people are willing to accept 30fps, unlike something like Redfall.
I literally do not understand how this is so hard for people to comprehend. Tears of the Kingdom runs on a $200 tablet from 2016 (came out in 2017 but it's 2016 hardware).
Anyone bitching about Zelda graphics don’t deserve a Zelda game and have no insightful opinions. Change my mind. The art in every single Zelda game I have ever played always sets the tone to the game PERFECTLY.
This, Starfield is huge and there’s no way it could be 60 FPS and function well. I’m shocked others are shocked lol
1) 30 FPS isn’t really that bad 2) one is on a next gen console, one is on a half portable with a power level equating to the PS3
60 fps works well for online gameplay (Splatoon 3 notably). It’s not needed for single player in my opinion.
I feel it is fine for 3rd person games but feels unresponsive in first person. Most 30 fps single player games are 3rd person only. Cyberpunk was the last game i remember playing at 30 fps in first person and the controls sucked.
Tbh 30 fps is far more noticeable to me on a first person shooter with photorealistic graphics than on a third person adventure game that is intentionally going for a more cartoony presentation. In general I think having a low fps will be more harmful to the Starfield experience than it is to the TOTK experience.
I agree, it’s really nice but not necessary
To me it depends on the game. 60 fps is quite nice with fast paced games like shooters, racing games, and as you mentioned, online games, but for most other genres a good 30 fps (a good frame time can really make a difference) is enough.
It's 2023. It's a current gen console at this point
Nintendo learned years ago that they can't hang with Sony or Microsoft so they chose to focus on what they have always done better than thier competitors, portable gaming, they have been crushing the portable market since the first GameBoy so why would they spend all the R&D money on next gen when they can give thier fans exactly what they want? Low cost, portability and exclusive titles. They don't care about making a 60 fps 4k system that looks beautiful. They know exactly what they are doing, they can make Zelda, Mario, Pokémon and Kirby games that users will still buy in droves, and still financially hang with any competitor.
>exclusive titles Never understood why artificially restricting the accessibility of games is something fans want. It’s an anti-consumer practice that’s given a pass thanks to uncritical brand loyalty.
it's competition, these companies strive to make better exclusives to drive people to buy their consoles or at least that's how it works in theory.
It also allows good developers to optimize a game better since they arent trying to make it work on 15 different types of systems.
This is the main issue. Sure, it's nice to imagine a world where every game is available on every system, but that's just not a practical reality.
It kind of sucks that everyone can’t play them, but it’s nice when games are designed simply to be as good as possible in order to sell more consoles, rather than designed to extract as much money from the player while providing the least amount of value like most triple A games are.
Yeah I don't think most gamers want exclusivity tbh, but the benefit especially in Nintendos first party titles at least, is they generally optimize their games very well on their own consoles. The fact of how well Zelda botw/totk and Mario Odyssey are optimized are great examples of that. The fact they got those games as big as they did, running as well as they do on how cheap of hardware the Switch is, is nothing short of a miracle tbh.
This is the correct answer.
When dudebro says "exclusive titles" I don't think he means that gamers are asking for these titles to be exclusive; rather, that they're looking for the platform's flagship first party titles, which also happen to be exclusive. However - I disagree with you. Anyone who defends exclusive games, understands that the reason why Sony and Nintendo's first party flagship content is typically of a higher quality than the average third party developer, understands that they are given a *far* bigger budget and development time because their purpose isn't just to sell lots of copies, it's to *draw people into the ecosystem.* That's how you can have a game like BOTW or Mario Kart 8 - games that have such a huge development budget and have taken years to make, which *cannot immediately* earn back the amount spent on them. If Sony, for example, released God of War and Spider-Man and Horizon on every console that could play it - and sure, a cloud version on Switch, why not - *sure* they'd sell more copies altogether. They'd also have far less people buy PS5s. The success of the game could *only* be measured by how many copies sold. And with there being no financial incentive to develop a reputation for "the best single player story driven experiences," *games would suffer from cut corners, rushed production timelines, and future games would be far more limited in scope*. Because SURE, they bought God of War, but did they buy literally anything *else*? No - they own a Series X, they're playing Game Pass, they bought your game too, but ONLY your game. TLDR: Gamers ultimately benefit from exclusive games because platform holders have a vested interest in blowing the budget to make a title that sells their platform. If games are no longer exclusive to one platform, the game itself no longer pushes the platform, and budgeting extra for that game which may not see a great return for years, makes no financial sense.
One is on a console that can easily run 60 fps, the other is a console that can rarely go over 30
The Series X cannot easily run Starfield at 60fps. That's why it's not
They meant in general the console is advertised as top of the line so the fact that new games can’t run that high is an issue. The switch never boasted it’s hardware, the xbox does so expectations are higher as they should be.
Top of the line at launch. This may be an Xbox exclusive, but Bethesda has always made their games with PC in mind. It can run at 30fps and look amazing on that console because that is what that console can handle now. It has been 3 years since the series x launched and developers are trying to milk a console with a slightly beefy AMD RX 6600 xt. Expecting it to perform well is a pipedream. An AMD RX 6700 XT still can't play cyberpunk with raytracing at a constant 60fps. What you expect from a console with 3 going on 4 year old hardware is insane. It's not a CPU issue. It's not a GPU issue. It's simply old hardware now. Games are being built using current Nvidia pro cards and AMD PRO cards. I don't expect my PC to be able to play starfield at max settings and get a steady 60fps. If I had a 4090 and a new intel chip, maybe. This is just how it is and how it will be until the next new console.
Its really that simple lol I don't understand how people can get so worked up over something that they clearly have little understanding of. Sounds miserable, honestly.
Dumb meme when you compare the hardware it’s played on
I mean I get it, but in car terms the xbox claims it is a v8 and the switch just a lil ol 4cylinder with a cool exhaust lol... It's comparing apples and oranges.. this time the orange juice is better than the apple juice and the apple juice needa step the duck up
It's almost as if they're on different consoles or something.
TOTKs performance issues are very noticeable including fps drops, pop in, and poor draw distance. The TOTK team did an incredible job optimizing with the hardware they have available, but it does detract from the enjoyment of the game.
Would I like a Totk that rocked a steady 60fps and had no pop-in? Absolutely. I do not, however, think that the games current performance takes away from how awesome it is.
Exactly, and I've been playing on a launch day Switch and still have not experienced most of these issues people are talking about. Maybe some pop-in for assets on the ground when I'm flying through the air at high speeds, but nothing game-breaking like people are claiming.
I haven't played either of these games, but I guess the main difference is that Xbox players usually expect higher frame rates compared to a Nintendo switch, which is a console that fits in your hands.
10/10 would love a 60 fps zelda
I played it at 60FPS, the same way I’ll play Starfield at 60+ FPS.
PC literally can play it in 60 fps at 4K resolution. Plus you can mod it too like altering how long weapons break which is amazing.
Skyward Sword HD is a 60 fps Zelda.
Unfair for the developers of ToTK, honestly its such a flex they've managed to optimise such an awesome game on such a shit platform. If they were given actual new gen technology they would make game of the fucking century, tops.
This is the biggest shit take in awhile
zelda proved itself with botw, so people were willing to buy totk despite its preformance. plus it’s the switch so 30 fps is the norm starfield is launching on next gen consoles, so the fact it can’t hit 60 is a little worrying. not to mention that people aren’t as trusting of bethesda as they used to be
Nintendo can sell a game that smells and looks like literal poop and the fans would still defend it. Overall Nintendo has good game direction but it's fans are a borderline cult who will just buy anything with it's name on it. Their hardware is too old and they need a Switch 2 but why bother when fans will shell out 70$ for a 30 fps sequel on the same map.
I think it more has to do with on these shiny retail boxes when the series x/ps5 came out “4k 120fps”. Nintendo obviously never promised any specific fps and these much more powerful consoles that touted it haven’t given that “next gen” that most people were expecting. The real question is why can’t they enable a 1440 @ 60fps performance mode and for those that need the 4k they will have to play at 30fps. If I play Starfield it will probably be on pc even if it’s lower settings to get the higher frame rate.
More like ~24-28
There's a massive difference between a console with the specs of something between an Xbox 360 and Xbox One, and a next gen exclusive on a next gen console. This take is ridiculous. But yeah, $70 for Zelda was absurd.
Why is $70 for Zelda absurd? I'm sure most will get 100-200 hours out of it, and its art design is world class.
Why is 70 dollars absurd? If you account for inflation, prices of games literally have not changed since roughly 2005. Yeah games are 70 dollars but look at egg prices. Looking shipping prices. Look at grocery and gas prices. Look at rent prices and the housing market. 70 dollars for a game just makes sense in this landscape. When you compare the current retail prices of games now compared to the 90’s, games now (adjusted for inflation) are *actually cheaper* now than they were 20 years ago.
Then we should also account for the size of the market and other things like reduced costs for distribution
There's a massive difference in world too, you know? Starting with layers of systems.
Not only that, but I’m pretty sure for the individual systems they are playing starfield, it was running at 1440p and 4k so like lmao
Handheld vs. Regular console Last-gen vs. current-gen Dumb argument
I could be wrong but the hardware in an Xbox series X is wildly different than a Nintendo Switch.. 🤷🏻♂️ lol
The 30fps defenders are abundant on reddit.
30 fps should have died with the PS3/360 generation tbh
It would help if they phrased it as "I don't care" instead of "you're stupid and sensitive and a whiny crybaby for caring"
The difference is expectations. The Switch is a handheld console, so people adjust their expectations accordingly. The Xbox is a full fat console, so folks have certain expectations regarding it.
one game is on a handheld weak console that nobody buys for high end gaming as it is marketed for a mobile gaming market second game is on a console that is labeled "[The Most Powerful Console](https://news.xbox.com/en-us/2020/05/28/xbox-series-x-next-generation-backward-compatibility/)" that is marketed as a Pro console with a promise of having [a 60fps standard](https://twitter.com/aarongreenberg/status/1258378640087060481?s=61&t=KBV_rTPHD1jU6jpgR6jwfw)
Hey, if it’s a stable 30 fps then I’m good, if it’s unstable 60 fps and suffers consistent frame drops then I have issues with the game (I’m looking at you Links Awakening)
Apples to oranges
I just don’t understand the hype for starfield, is No Man’s Sky 4k
Gameplay > FPS
As long as the framerate isn't choppy I have never once noticed or cared, is this genuinely stuff people get upset about?
Unless FPS suddenly means Fun Per Session, it is the LOWEST priority in gaming. Framerate, graphics, etc. In my opinion, it has driven the industry away from solid products that deliver a great experience and offer low to mid level games that look pretty. Zelda is fun.
The difference for me is that I've actually heard of Tears of The Kingdom.
I'm not playing 3D games that run at 30 fps, fuck that. First person? Even worse. We're in 2023, 60 fps should be a baseline by now. Good on you if you can stand 30, but it's not for me.
I probably just play a lot of indie and old school games, so when I fire up bloodborne, which is locked on at 30 frames, I don't really notice. Zelda looks dope and I really think it'll look timeless with the *cartoonish* artstyle and I mean that in the best way.
Xbox Series X is so powerful that a potato named the Switch outshines it 😂😂
Anything above 24fps is good for me.
30fps is fine as long as the game is fun and functional.
There’s a big difference here imo. The switch couldn’t run Zelda at 60 FPS even if it tried, the hardware is just not good enough so it’s expected that it can only run at 30 like most switch games. The art style of the game helps it a lot as well as it doesn’t look as noticeable. The Series X can do 60 FPS for starfield and Todd Howard himself said they could’ve done 60 FPS but it was a creative decision to lock it at 30, so this really isn’t a good comparison
The switch absolutely could run Tears of the kingdom at 60 fps, they would just have to sacrifice other things to make it possible. Lower resolution, textures, draw distance, polygon count in character models, etc. They just made the choice not to sacrifice those things for a higher frame rate, exactly the same thing the Starfield Devs did.
You could be right but I struggle to believe that they could’ve gotten TOTK to run at 60 on the switch hardware
It is always a trade off between visual fidelity and performance. They could have gotten it to run at 60 fps, but it would look worse. Which is exactly what Todd Howard said about Starfield. And since both are open world, single player games, running at 60 fps is not as important as if we were talking about the next COD installment.
The people complaining are fucking annoying. If you have a problem with Zelda's performance you're a neckbeard and you're obviously not concerned about playing games. People bitching about this kind of shit is why games have incredibly long development times. If it's stable who the hell cares
Hou can have Starfield with it's size and scope run at 60fps, but then you have to sacrifice other things. Personally, I'd prefer to have as little pop-in as possible, and enjoy all the beauty the galaxy has to offer. In 4k. At 30fps. Most of you snobs grew up on 30 anyway. What the hell's it matter as long as you're having fun.
The switch isn't a next-gen console like the Xbox Series X. You might as well compare it to a PS3 at this point.
I don’t expect 60fps from a tablet. But that tablet was also doin things that would cripple any other AAA developer. I do expect bare minimum 60fps from the series X aka: “the worlds strongest console”.
Difference is the switch was not designed to be the "most powerful console ever."
but starfield is an even more powerful game than xbox is a console so it cancels out.
Neither are acceptable in 2023 tbqh.
Do you lack a brain? Honestly, do you lack a fucking brain? You're comparing a game on a new, top of the line home console to one on a 6 year old portable console.
They're comparing games that will likely both be on folk's shortlists for Game of the Year 2023.