Currently Online 
Ryuu96 said:
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. |
Again, I don't know if I agree there. Sure Starfield will have a 3rd person option, but if it's anything like their previous games it will feel largely unusable due to a combination of poor player animations and the difficulty of targeting lootables on shelves and such in 3rd person camera (and I'm a loot whore in Bethesda games, so difficulty looting stuff in 3rd person was a total dealbreaker for me when I tried 3rd person in Fallout 4 and Fallout 76). Meanwhile every Arkane game I have ever played felt very exploration heavy, be it the Dishonored series or Deathloop (never played Prey or their older games like Arx Fatalis), I probably spent around half of my playtime in each of their previous games outside of combat since I favor stealth in their games and there is alot of nooks and crannies to search for loot. While Redfall might have a greater ratio of combat to exploration than Starfield, I don't know if that is accurate or not, I wouldn't be surprised if there are a good many enemies, be they animal or human, within Starfield's various planet open worlds, with the indoor sections of settlements obviously having alot of combat, just like Fallout 4 and Skyrim, nor would I be surprised if Redfall has as much exploration as Arkane's previous games (albeit with less stealth unless you choose to play as Jacob and take things slow).
It's also worth noting that these days I find 30 fps in first person exploration nearly as poor as 30 fps during first person combat as I can see the frame changes as I move my camera around while just exploring (I didn't used to be able to see that). After the previous generation where a good many games had 60 fps options (especially on the Pro consoles, which I used PS4 Pro the latter half of last gen), followed by a 3 year cross-gen period where most games were 60 fps on Series X/PS5, I feel like far too many of us core gamers have acclimated to 60 fps now to ever get used to 30 fps again. Devs going back down to 30 fps this gen to push graphics harder would be a big mistake imo. The casuals might not notice but alot of the core gamers are going to struggle with it. It's far too easy to offer both a graphics/fidelity mode and a framerate/performance mode these days for devs to not put in the work to offer at least those 2 options. There are some devs out there putting as many as 6 graphics modes into their games on console these days (we even have a few who have offered a partial suite of customizable graphics options, like a toned down level of of the customization you see on PC), the devs who don't at least offer the basic 2 modes of fidelity (30 fps) and performance (at least 45 fps for use on VRR screens, the closer to locked 60 fps the better) are going to look quite lazy in comparison to those devs who are willing to put in the work to offer lots of modes.
Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 14 April 2023
