KiigelHeart said:
There, I highlighted some key points of my post so you can evaluate if your response made any sense. 30fps with no performance mode is disappointing these days even if it was understandable & expected in this case. You still hope there would be a performance mode. Yes Starfield's reception has been good overall and for a reason. Comparison to Infinite seems unnecessary and odd. |
For some games it's not so simple as just dialing down a few graphics settings to reach 60fps in performance mode. I imagine it's already tough enough for them to reach a stable 30fps in this case, and there's no doubt going to be several areas and scenarios in the game that will drop that down.
Thinking that all games need to reach certain benchmarks and designed a certain way to be enjoyable, you're just narrowing your perspective. It has nothing to do with the hardware's architecture or capability but with the developer's own design choices. 343 since Halo 5 felt their vision of the Halo experience required the game to run at high framerates to be more enjoyable. Bethesda when making their mainline RPGs, have always pitched an expansive in-game universe with lots of unique environments and interactive assets, along with seemless traversal within that world, which makes it very difficult to optimise hardware performance.
This is why comparing it to Halo Infinite makes perfect sense; both games have been headline titles for the same system, both carrying the same kind of weight and expectations for the Xbox brand; both games while sharing open-world level design and FPS gameplay, are also completely different experiences and will naturally prioritise different aspects when utilising the hardware's power.