Starfield's new Xbox performance modes are thoughtful and comprehensive

Digital Foundry : Bethesda's Starfield was generally a well-regarded RPG, but the game's 30fps target on consoles was the subject of some controversy. The game's massive scope arguably justified that 30fps refresh rate, with only high-end PCs capable of hitting 60fps and higher, but now Bethesda has changed course and opened the floodgates on Xbox Series X consoles following significant optimisation work. Players can now independently select performance and visuals modes at arbitrary frame-rates. How exactly do these new combinations fare, and is 60fps really a possibility after it was explicitly ruled out before?

[darthv72]

900p in performance mode for SX.... I'd assume a 5pro would at least hit 1080p if not more.

[jwillj2k4]

It’s a point, click and load game. Stop with all the massive scale bullshit. Only thing massive is the number of junk items they decided to throw in the game.

[Armaggedon]

Its not BS. This games running more systems than virtually any AAA game. Why else do you think it has loading screens? Besides, the clutter has been apart of their DNA for decades at this point. There are other games out there for people that dont care about that kind of stuff.

[Mr_cheese]

Probably because it's been created on a very outdated engine that isn't designed to fully utilise current gen abilities.

You've only got to look at what rockstar games achieve with their releases.

[Armaggedon]

@Mr_Cheese People keep saying the engine is outdated, even though other engines have built upon past iterations. I think it would be more accurate to say that the engine does not do what you expect to see from a “current gen” game. Red Dead 2 was cool, but its not packing as many systems and permutations as Starfield. People make flimsy comparisons too often: “Look what this open world game can do with its visuals and presentation. Whats Bethesdas excuse?”

Yes, look at what this open world game can do that has no skills or attributes, no building potential and minimal crafting potential, coupled with all of the other variables packed in a Bethesda game. Not mentioning all of the other systems in place, you already have an unbelievable amount of potential variables to calculate. No wonder starfield has loading screens.lol
Heck, I would say that even Fallout 4 in 2015 had more systemic depth than Red Dead 2. It amazes me how much people underestimate Bethesda. Keep sleeping on them.

[Mr_cheese]

RDR2 is a living, breathing world with dynamic weather, full interiors, changing landscape with unscripted encounters, multiple onscreen npcs, wildlife, all with their own functions, animations, skins.

I wouldn't disregard one for the other.

Bethesda is notorious for operating on an outdated engine.

We could even use cyberpunk as an example of a fully open world game with multiple levels of variants.

Edit

Played the majority of Bethesda titles, not sleeping on them, just noticing a pattern

[Armaggedon]

@Mr Cheese

Rant inbound. Dont blame you for not reading.

I honestly think their notoriety with the engine is here-say sprinkled with a bit of confirmation bias over the years. For example from a typical naysayer: “Bethesda games have lousy performance and their gameplay is outdated, therefore their engine must be outdated.”

There was one journalist/Youtuber that mentioned something interesting. He was breaking down the negativity behind Bethesda, and mentioned that if there is an issue, its not Bethesda’s engine….its Bethesda.

If there is an issue, it is that Bethesda are very ambitious and seek to prioritize testing themselves to see how much stuff they can put into a game and still have it function without crashing. This ambition can cause them to forget their core audience, and pay attention specifically to what they want. I think thats one of the key reasons why BG3 is so beloved by people, its because the game was in a form of early access for years, and is literally built on the feedback of those that were able to access it. People who play Bethesda games are looking mostly for “meaningful” exploration, cool loot, and environmental storytelling, but Bethesda has honestly been shifting gears recently. It seems they want to focus on terraforming the open world rpg further via building and crafting.

I think Starfield is an example of a solid game, alienating the expectations of the core audience. Bethesda wanted to make this game for years, and they sought out to achieve their ambitions, rather than service their audience. The “problem “ with Starfield is that it is a clash of design philosophy, ery similar to Fallout 76. You just dont try to fit a Bethesda game with all of its variables into a multi world, multi landing zone game space. But they tried it anyway, hence the loading screens and othe supposed issues. I admire their ambition, and I love Starfield, ut I can understand where people that dont like the game are coming from. I just wish naysayers understood the true nature of this game.

[gold_drake]

900p... good grief.