shikamaru317 said:
Don't know if I agree with that, a first person shooter is a first person shooter, rather one has RPG elements or not (and both Redfall and Starfield have RPG elements). 60 fps is definitely important in any first person shooter, 30 fps is far more noticeable with a first person camera than with a 3rd person camera, always has been. I still remember Far Cry 4 getting shat on by a good many people for being 30 fps on PS4/XB1 and that was 2014, it's 2023 now, 9 years later, more people than ever before find 30 fps unacceptable now, especially with a first person camera. 9 years ago I was one of those people that didn't care that Far Cry 4 was 30 fps, I found it totally acceptable at the time. Now though, I tried the 30 fps mode in Ghostwire Tokyo just a few days ago (also a first person camera game), and it just felt totally unplayable to me, ended up having to switch to the HFR Graphics mode, which is like 40-50 fps but works well on a VRR screen like mine. |
I think there's a large difference between the two, Starfield will be a much slower paced title than Redfall will be which will be almost constant action, Starfield also has the option of TPS. Starfield will be far less action packed than most primarily FPS titles and you'll probably spend hours overall walking around doing absolutely no shooting. Redfall's primary objective is to go and kill shit. Starfield's seems more to be go and explore.
“We don’t have a problem with 30 frames per second as long as it looks really good and the simulation is running and all that stuff,” said Todd Howard.
Maybe we get it though on Series X, 1080p/60fps, Lol.