crissindahouse said:
"less enjoyable" is a personal opinion, though. It's 30fps because of things you can do in the game and not because of bad optimization. They could also release a 60fps Starfield but give you less of the game they have in mind. Sure, 60fps would be much better but that doesn't help when the game itself would be worse then. |
From what Todd has said, there are many times they've been able to get Starfield to run at 60fps on console, but it's so insanely inconsistent that they would prefer consistency, which I can respect. Star Wars Jedi Survivor performance mode comes to mind which was so bad many just preferred to play in quality mode.
DF gave Star Citizen as an example of where when on an empty planet, 60fps was pretty good, but GPU was running at 99% usage. Then when going into a city, which is going to be pretty heavy in Starfield still, the framerate dropped into the teens and every single CPU core was almost at 100% usage. So console for Starfield may be CPU limited.
Which makes sense. I was playing CP2077 on PC, and when I was in the wastelands, I had no problem getting 70-80fps on High settings. But when I got into the center Night City....dropped into the 20s consistently. I had to adjust the graphics settings for hours to be able to get a consistent framerate. But, a lot of the graphical stuff I was sacrificing, Todd Howard doesn't want to do. He wants all the visual fidelity, which looked amazing at the Direct on Sunday, along with consistent performance.
60fps will always be preferred, but if that means a performance mode is so inconsistent that it's jarring, then I wouldn't want it.
