“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.”
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.