None of that is really relevant to the conversation on the tech in the game IMO. I didn’t see this concern or issue when Star Wars was released, so I don’t understand why it’s a topic now.
Regarding FH5 in 30fps, the draw in reduction was just a bit too much for me at 60fps. The foliage and LODs popped in just a bit too close to the camera, at least compared to 30fps mode, and the quality mode still looks and plays great. So I’m fine with it.
Out of curiosity, what are the specs of your PC?
IGN made a 27 minutes interview with Todd Howard, where various aspects of the game and its developments where discussed. The game’s scope, mechanics, graphcs rendering, long development times etc. The only thing from that interview other outlets reported upon - 30fps only.
They reported on this news while playing (for a review) a major PS5 exclusive that does not have an effective 60fps mode.
I think it is important to actually watch the video. John spends 35 minutes explaining his thoughts in detail. He covers pretty much anything you would want to know.
Including that he thinks 30fps is disappointing, but quality mode is generally consistent 99% of the time. The dip it showed was like 2 seconds and it dropped to 28.
The frame rate was bound to be a major topic regarding Starfield because it was one of the areas that was never clearly outlined and because of the shit show that happened with Redfall. Reporting on something many were wondering about on Starfield, especially after Redfall, is not the same as writing an article about a game that anyone can play a demo for and see for themself.
Again, where was all this talk about Star Wars Survivor or is this just an issue because it’s regarding a PS5 exclusive? I didn’t see any articles about Star Wars’ performance and that was just fine.
Jedi Survivor got lambasted for its disastrous performance, on PC in particular.
Quoting myself from an earlier thread:
Obviously it’s out of date, but I don’t have much of a sense of how out of date it might be.
Yes on PC because that version was a disaster. FF isn’t a disaster, so I don’t understand the issue here. Survivor’s performance didn’t prevent it from receiving extremely high scores nor did I see articles or reports on console performance. So expecting any differently for FF is odd IMO.
You’ll probably need to upgrade unfortunately. The lack of video memory on the GPU alone is likely going to be a big issue.
I’ll probably just “upgrade” to a PS5 then. 
And here’s the crux of the issue - somehow, multiplatform or PS5 games’ performance does not need to be reported on, even when it’s substandard.
And how often are Xbox games receiving reports about performance? Again, the context surround Starfield makes sense IMO given what happened with Redfall and them never confirming anything with Starfield in the past. We didn’t see any reports about HFR, Minecraft, FH5, Halo, Psychonauts, etc. So you can add Xbox to that group. Plus Starfield is one of the first major 1st party games to launch with just a 30fps mode, which again makes it a different case. This nothingburger is especially weird when the vast, vast majority of journalists have been defending Starfield’s cap on twitter.
How are Starfield and Redfall related other than targeting the same platforms?
I’m not on Twitter, just commenting on what I saw in the headlines.
Both games being published by Bethesda and after a number of disappointing releases from the publisher (WYB, F76, GhostWire, and Redfall). The lack of full transparency surrounding Redfall, with frame rate targets changing right before launch, with most Xbox gamers online expressing disappointment over the last minute 30fps cap, and no clear indication on the performance profile surrounding Starfield. Add in Phil specifically stating we’ll have a clear idea about the performance around the showcase. It is all related and was already a talking point before the confirmation came in. So of course it’s going to be reported on.
Besides, it’s not like reporting on Starfield running at 30fps is bashing or being negative towards the game or platform in any way.
The majority of negative reviews for Jedi Survivor weren’t for the game but for its performance with PC being the hardest hit due to its issues.
None of that goes against anything I’ve said. I even pointed out how the performance of the PC version was a disaster earlier. I said the performance didn’t prevent it from getting high scores, I never said no one ever complained about it or pointed it out.
The performance lowered its scores drastically, it did prevent its OC/MC from reaching the high 80s/low 90s despite the majority of reviews I’ve checked out saying specifically that the game is great but performance is not so they had to lower the scores.
There was nothing unusual about Ghostwire or Wolfenstein on the technical level, F76 was 5 years ago LOL. Doom Eternal was from Bethesda, between those releases, and was a technical marvel.
There’s nothing wrong about reporting framerates per se, but the comments sections are immediately filled with statements like “anything below 60fps is unplayable, I won’t touch the game”, So when you report substandard performance for some games (Starfield, Redfall), but not for others (FF16), you do have biased reporting.
I never gave it a criteria of what’s considered “high” scores. I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying but what does this have anything to do with the discussion? I still consider mid-80s a high score and remember, I was someone who said the game should have been delayed because of the performance and bugs. The key difference with Star Wars is the 30fps mode still had performance issues, so it all makes sense. I still didn’t see articles written about it on console.
First of all, who gives a shit about what people say in a comments section? Some of you pay too much attention to the cesspools of the internet. And I didn’t see any reporting about Starfield’s frame rate as “substandard”.
Believe what you want, but at the end of the day, none of this has anything to do with the topic on this thread. It’s tiring how almost any video related to an exclusive tries to steer in the direction of “media bias” instead of discussing the tech itself.
Yeah, we have literal video and written evidence. Can we not do the thing today where we pretend people who can read and see with their eyes are gaslit into thinking that there’s not an prevalent bias…? It’s literally the reason this site and forum was created. Of course there’s not anything inherently biased in discussing Starfield’s framerate, but it is how those arguments or discussion points are presented, and there are more than enough examples of plenty of journalists further cementing this point, so I think it’s pretty disingenuous to reframe the argument as such to make others’ observations account seem “lesser than”.
On that same token, when we have evidence of a title being knocked for performance on one or more platforms, it’s absolutely fair to question why performance woes call for a docking of points on the former but not for certain titles like FF16.
What does any perceived reviewer bias have to do with the technical make up of a game? Falling back to the tired “media biased” trope is lazy, lacks nuance, and sidelines any discussion that can be made about the tech itself. That is of course ignoring how the performance between the two games aren’t in any way comparable with one at least having a stable option and the other one not. And again, despite that difference, we still didn’t see reports about console performance on Star Wars.
If 60fps is standard, then 30fps is by default substandard? 
For FF16 specifically, it is a pretty game clearly designed for 30fps and the visual fidelity came at the expense of interactivity, the environments are static, foliage doesn’t move even in the middle of a storm. So in that sense, it’s a traditional Square Enix game.
