“After dozens of hours on just Steam Deck, Starfield feels good in some parts, but really struggles in the bigger cities. Turning everything to low and enabling FSR2 is basically the only way to play it right now on Valve’s handheld, and even that drops to 20fps often in the first major city (New Atlantis). The game itself can look very good on the device screen in many parts, but it is very CPU-heavy right now. This has been tested after the day one patch as well.”
I think they should add some eplanation to each “Verified” status game, giving some insight as to what performance to expect. Games that run at a stable 60fps deserve to be separated from games that only just run at 30. At least make separate “Verified (60fps)” and “Verified (30fps)” tags.
I could see that being better than Verified/Playable. At the end of the day though, seeing these games under 30 FPS getting verified is a shocker.
Many people play games at 40fps on the deck. Maybe taking a look in ProtonDB or Steam reviews is more useful than having a 8 tier verification system?
As I understand Verified should be runs on the deck in SteamOS stable, at 30fps most of the time, text can be read, game is 100% playable with gamepad.
Playable should be you will jump hops. Text is not legible on the deck screen, input with a keyboard or mouse is required, launchers make weird launching the game.
The Verified program is not a performance benchmark. It’s a baseline and each gamer has different performance thresholds.
Some games won’t run at 60fps in any platform (Dark Souls original release) so they should not be PC verified?
Sounds good to me. I’m not part of the group that thinks every game has to run at 240FPS to be an acceptable port, but if you don’t run at 60 you’re absolutely a bad port.
It’s not (only) a port thing. The game is 30fps locked in every platform.
Doom was 35fps hardcode locked. Could not go above that. Not a port. There are always compromises, and sometimes they are in frame rate.
And, in another order of things, what do you get from 60fps Europa Universalis? 60fps is a cool metric for the usually available monitors and TVs, and I love having at least that in most games. But in many games 30fps and 60fps are the same with a somewhat jumpier mouse cursor. And they are usually the most PC games of them all.
Would I play 30fps Devil May Cry? I don’t think I could if I wanted. Would I play Baldur’s Gate 3 at 24fps? Doesn’t really make that much of a difference in most of the gameplay. Would it be cool to play BG3 at 120fps? Yeah, but my computer is ancient and the deck does not have that kind of power.
I can’t play Deathloop for example. 30fps first person games are really hard in my eyes. The camera movement and input lag are too much.
It doesn’t matter. 30FPS is a technically bad game if it’s literally flawless in every other aspect.
It’s one thing to say “the switch is such shit that that’s all we can handle” and ship it without limitations, but there is no game where it isn’t a significant limitation. It’s not suddenly OK just because your actions aren’t in real time.