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.
If you think it’s substandard, I think that’s perfectly fair considering how standards have kind of changed this generation. I’ve said it early on this gen that as the generation goes on, and games become more and more demanding, we’re going to see more games lean back to the 30fps targets that we’ve seen for generations on consoles. It’s only because the cross gen period has lasted as long as it has that we’ve seen as many 60fps games as we have. IMO those standards and expectations are going to start shifting as games start to target current gen hardware exclusively. I wouldn’t be surprised if future games like Star Wars Outlaws and Fable target 30fps as well.
I don’t think anyone is happy with games leaning on 30fps, but at the same time, gamers do continue to expect bigger and better looking games. So it’ll be interesting to see how things unfolds.
I don’t know… maybe having a tech reviewer call a title that has an entire graphics mode effectively broken, one of “the most polished titles” they’ve ever seen is an easy illustration to just how those biases permeate even technical review discussion. This is no longer going to be a thread where every thought is policed.
I’ll assume not policing this thread means that it can just go off topic about “media bias” whenever someone says something we don’t agree with. Great direction.
You’re free to disagree on how polished the game is but I see nothing wrong with what’s described in the video. It’s a great looking game that runs a solid frame rate at 30fps and isn’t riddled with bugs. That’s pretty polished by today’s standards IMO. They even cover how the developers seemingly intended for the performance mode to work and pointed out how they disagreed with the approach saying “the performance mode isn’t good enough”, offering different preferences they would like the developer to take. But sure, let’s summarize a video covering the good and bad about a game as “media bias” because that adds so much to the conversation.
When two sets of data are identical but is being interpreted differently, depending on the source, it’s literally part of the scientific method to discuss, and potentially disprove the interpretation. Full stop. People are obviously wanting to discuss such things and throwing your head in the sand and yelling “both sides” isn’t exactly a logical position.
To help me better understand, what are the two sets of data that are identical? I legitimately don’t know what two sets of data you’re referring to. Also I’m not putting my head in the sands or yelling “both sides”. Not even sure how that makes sense in this context. The topic itself has seemingly jumped from journalists being biased because they didn’t report on FF performance, to reviewers bias, and now we’ve come back full circle to DF bias. None of which is relevant to the discussion of the video, which I’m curious if you’ve even watched, or the tech itself.
And the green block isn’t necessary, I haven’t done anything worth moderating.
Edit:
With the talk of bias, it’s amusing how those biased to another platform have a different point of view. Interesting how someone’s preference or bias can influence perception.
Again, it’s perfectly fine. Those of us who are sensitive towards framerates have the option to invest more though into a capable gaming PC (assuming, of course, that publishers stop shipping unfinished PC versions).
I do think it’s very unhealthy that media decide that Starfield not running at 60fps on console is newsworthy, but do not the same in case of FF16 or some other titles. If the audience was informed about both simultaneously, a large part of the shitstorm we had last week would have been avoided. This selective reporting feels very deliberate to me and makes the discourse online worse.
And again, Redfall is not related to Starfield - Redfall was designed to be a 60fps game, but the publisher released the game in an unfinished state (no excuses here for Zenimax/Microsoft). Starfield and FF16 are designed as 30fps games on console.
