Gamers are a critical bunch, as they should be. Gaming requires 100% focus and attention. Every bit of imperfection gets noticed immediately, turning what could've been a seamless experience into a less-than-ideal one. And, while some bumps in the road, or to so speak, aren't as noticeable, one hill that many gamers are willing to die on is the never-ending debate of higher framerates. In particular, why 60 FPS should be the standard, is a topic that became front and center once again because of Bethesda's upcoming sci-fi RPG, Starfield. 

When Starfield took center stage following the conclusion of the Xbox Games Showcase showcase, it didn't take long for it to capture the imagination of many with its vast, intricate universe and the potential for endless exploration. The game's colossal world, intricate detailing, and depth all seem overwhelming and impressive. Yet, for some, the revelation that the game would run at 30 FPS instead of 60 has cast a shadow over these positive impressions.

The argument for 60 FPS is that it provides a smoother, more fluid gaming experience. So why would Starfield, a game set to push boundaries, choose to run at 30 FPS? The answer is simple, yet layered: not all games have the same technical demands or creative goals.

As clarified by Starfield director Todd Howard, the decision to lock Starfield at 30 FPS was intentional, a "creative decision" to be exact. By sticking with this rate, Starfield can showcase greater visual fidelity, better accommodating its large, detailed environments, and vast cityscapes. This frame rate also aligns well with the game's exploration-focused RPG nature, where the richness of the setting, dialogues, and visuals can make a significant impact on the player's immersion. The fact that a game like Starfield, which relies on its narrative and universe's intricate details, does not necessitate the fluidity offered by a higher frame rate like a high-speed racer or a fighting game.

While the game reportedly achieved 60 FPS during development, this decision was taken to ensure consistency. Starfield's graphics-heavy design could strain modern consoles, making the higher frame rate unattainable throughout the gameplay. Consistency is key to an enjoyable gaming experience, and a steady 30 FPS is arguably preferable to sporadic peaks and troughs.

While some have argued that other games achieve 60 FPS, so should Starfield, it's essential to remember that games are unique, with different goals and technical requirements.

For instance, some questioned why Starfield should receive a "pass" for running at 30 FPS when Redfall was criticized for the same thing. Redfall, with its smaller scale and relative lack of complexity, was expected to reach 60 FPS at launch. Both are AAA titles either, so, what gives?

This isn't to say that all criticism of Starfield is unjustified. There are valid concerns about potential performance issues and bugs, typical of Bethesda's large-scale games at launch. Still, comparing Starfield's graphics and frame rate to games a lot smaller in scale and budget demonstrates a misunderstanding of game development intricacies.

Keep in mind that Starfield is Bethesda's first new IP in decades. It's arguably the most important game of its generation, a potential trendsetter that could usher in a new era of space-age games. Who knows? If it's as good as advertised, it might even encourage Cloud Imperium to finally release Star Citizen. Even Santa Monica Studio, one of Sony's premiere first-party developers, is reportedly hiring for a sci-fi game to presumably "compete" against Starfield.

The outcry over Starfield's frame rate has also led to discussions about the expectations for this console generation. Many gamers argue for a standard of 60 FPS, feeling let down by Starfield's choice. While 60 FPS offers undeniable advantages for some genres, it remains technically challenging for vast, graphically intensive games like Starfield. This reality has been accepted by major console producers like Sony and Microsoft.

Starfield's story, in-depth ship customization, and the detailed rendering of the vast cosmos promise an immersive gaming experience, the main attraction for most players. As such, many won't even notice the lower frame rate. However, it's also true that in the current generation, gamers have come to expect more from their games in terms of performance. We've seen many games offering a 60FPS performance mode, which significantly enhances the smoothness and quality of the gaming experience. Games like Gotham Knights and Redfall, for instance, have been criticized for not offering this higher-performance mode.

Yet, we have to remember that the decision to lock Starfield at 30FPS is not an arbitrary one. Bethesda's developers, led by game director Todd Howard, have decided to prioritize "fidelity over fluidity." While this has caused some backlash, it's crucial to understand that their decision is rooted in technical demands and creative choices, not a mere inability to deliver a higher frame rate.

As we've already mentioned, consistency is key in gaming. Occasional high frame rates interspersed with frequent dips can disrupt gameplay more than a steady 30FPS. Prioritizing consistent frame rates over sporadic performance is a decision that is, ultimately, in the best interest of the game and its players.

Moreover, it's important to remember that not all games benefit equally from higher frame rates. Fast-paced action games, for instance, can greatly benefit from the increased fluidity and responsiveness that 60FPS, let alone 120FPS is capable of providing. However, Starfield is not that kind of game. It is a more subdued, exploration-focused RPG. The game wants to highlight its other "more important" aspects like is on world-building, dialogue, and visuals. The controls aren't expected to require the same level of fluidity as a high-speed racer or a fighting game with long combos.

Even if Bethesda's decision has been met with backlash, it's essential to look at the situation from a broad perspective. The gaming industry has seen many instances where developers often over-promise and under-deliver, leading to frustration among players. By being transparent about Starfield's limitations, Bethesda is setting realistic expectations. This honesty, although initially met with some negativity, may lead to a more satisfying gaming experience in the long run.

Finally, it's crucial to understand that there's no fixed formula when it comes to making video games; each has different demands and priorities. Bethesda's Starfield, hopefully, will prove this. Despite the criticism, Starfield promises to offer an immersive, visually stunning experience that may well redefine our expectations of RPGs.

So while the debates over 30FPS vs 60FPS will undoubtedly continue, let's not overlook the larger picture: the joy and the wonder of exploration that Starfield can offer.

Besides, if you already have an Xbox Series X, the Starfield-themed accessories are looking really good for an arguably justifiable price. Instead of, let's say, buying a PC that could cost you well over a thousand dollars just to run Starfield at 60 FPS if not higher, you could deck yourself out with all the space gear in preparation for its launch on September 6. And, if you don't have a gaming console just yet, the new 1TB Xbox Series S is a steal if you want to enjoy a "tailored" gaming experience with Starfield.