Absolutely bizarre that a 1st party title doesn't seem optimized for the console they're developing for. This makes me skeptical the PC version will be optimized too.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PunchingWood@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

It’s a first-person, single-player game, you don’t necessarily need that 60 frames

These people shouldn't be allowed to work in game development.

Just grow a fucking pair and say that the Xbox isn't powerful enough to run it at anything beyond that.

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago

Dev: The Xbox isn't powerful enough for that

Phil Spencer: You now work at the CoD mines

[–] Ghoelian@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'd say 60+fps is especially necessary for first-person games. I seriously have issues making out objects and other things when looking around first-person at 30fps.

[–] xavier666@lemm.ee 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

60 fps is the bare minimum for FPS games

[–] RxBrad@infosec.pub 4 points 2 months ago

Luckily, this is about as much of a FPS as Skyrim.

Skyrim, too, was 30fps when it first released on PS3/360 back in 2011. None of this is new.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

I’d say 1 FPS is the minimum for an FPS game 🤷

[–] RxBrad@infosec.pub 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Both can be true.

I mean.. 30fps has been the single-player console experience for as long as I can remember. (Except for the PS4/XboxOne-native games -- seemingly this entire generation -- which get 60fps on current gen.)

Yes, PC can do 60fps+ if your rig is beefy enough. Yay.

Console wars bullshit is insufferable. Even when PC is one of the consoles.

[–] Ghoelian@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah but on PC you usually get graphics settings you can tune to whatever you like. I'd personally rather have a slightly worse looking game running at 60+fps, than a beautiful one at 30.

[–] RxBrad@infosec.pub 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

That was an option on console for most of the generation so far: Performance Mode vs. Quality Mode. But that's mostly because nearly every game released so far has been a hastily ported last-gen title. It feels like this gen has really just barely started.

Single-player console games being 30fps is not new by any stretch. That's basically what consoles do. And they've managed pretty well with it so far. If you want to spend 2-3x more on a beefy PC, you can get all the frames you want. More power to you.

20 years ago... Skyrim, Fallout, The Last of Us 1, GTA4-5 on PS3/360 gen. 30fps.

10 years ago... God of War, Gears of War single-player, Fallout 4, The Last of Us 2 on PS4/XBoxOne gen. Also 30fps.

[–] Ghoelian@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Single-player console games being 30fps is not new by any stretch

Yeah I know, that's why I never really got into console gaming unfortunately. As I said elsewhere, I genuinely have trouble making out objects while looking around in first-person games, if it's running at 30fps.

Didn't know about the current gen having performance settings, that's pretty neat. Might actually consider getting one if I can actually run games at a reasonable framerate on them with a lower quality setting.

[–] PunchingWood@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Just because 30FPS has been a standard on consoles for so long doesn't mean it should stop there.

There's no reason to not advance if they got the opportunity to do so, the entire gaming industry benefits from it.

Xbox is just not capable of handling the game at higher framerates, that has nothing to do with console wars or whatever, it's just the limitation of the hardware and it being an underwhelming console in general.

[–] RxBrad@infosec.pub 1 points 2 months ago

Consoles are $500 gaming machines, generally capable of about 30fps in games. It's no different for Microsoft or Sony.

And Nintendo... Well, Nintendo is Nintendo.

The bean counters have decided that people don't want to spend more than that on videogame consoles. If you want more fps, luckily everything gets a PC port nowadays; and your almost-certainly-more-than-$500 rig can handle that.

It is what it is.

[–] simple@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

say that the Xbox isn’t powerful enough to run it at anything beyond that.

There's no way they can't just lower the resolution and apply upscaling like every other game that has a quality and performance"mode. They're intentionally locking it to 30 for some bizarre reason.

"It's 4K in the X. It's 1440 on the S. We do lock it at 30, because we want that fidelity, we want all that stuff. We don't want to sacrifice any of it."

[–] PunchingWood@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I might hope it's not because of the same reason Bethesda locked their framerates, because their entire game's physics and other stuff would break when you unlocked it. I assume it's not, if it's only locked on Xbox, which then would mean that the console is just weak.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

If they said that, Microsoft wouldn't allow them to work in game development.