In the run up to Avowed launching on Xbox Game Pass, we're hearing more about the shape of the game following its 2024 delay - and it sounds like Xbox Series X users will have plenty of performance options on day one.
After finding out the game can at least run "up to 60FPS", a new interview with game director Carrie Patel has revealed even more Avowed performance details. Here's what the Obsidian dev had to say when talking to Last Stand Media:
"Optimization and performance tuning — that's all been a more recent effort for us — but yes, as you noted we're going to have Performance mode. We'll also have Balanced mode, which is sort of in-between Quality and Performance, for players who have a 120Hz TV."
This means that, for those with supported TVs, there should be three gameplay options here for Avowed; which is a big improvement on 30FPS - that was supposedly the main target back in August 2024. Standard 60Hz TV users will likely just have Quality mode at 30FPS and Performance mode at up to 60FPS.
For now, we don't have any real detail on the Xbox Series S version of Avowed in terms of performance, so we'll just have to wait and see how the all-digital console is shaping up on release. For all of the launch details on Avowed, check out our full Pure Xbox guide down below.
Which mode will you play on? Talk to us about Avowed's performance details down below.
Comments 32
Hopefully it's good I'd say series s has just straight up 30fps mode there's no point doing a 60fps on series s if it would end up being sub 720p but I'm just guessing here Indiana Jones did a decent job on 60fps for that game.
Doesn't bother me in regards to the FPS and resolution. This game looks absolutely amazing and I can't wait to get stuck in.
Hopefully this is a sign that Xbox have listened and will not allow their devs to simply prioritise visuals over gameplay performance.
These options need to be standard across the whole 1st party catalogue.
Cool, I'm ready to read reviews.
It does sound as though the game has benefited dramatically in terms of technical polish from the delay.
Any console any game after lots of tests.
I always find 60fps the best for smoothness and less blur and smear when panning around.
Better than 30fps and the 120hz 40fps balanced mode.
Good. If the frame pacing is consistent then 40hz is probably my prefered output - in terms of frame timing its exactly halfway between 30 and 60hz (you need to do the maths) and should retain a sharper image which I will appreciate.
NICE! and lovely to see a 40fps balanced mode, we need more of that with 120Hz TV's becoming more commonplace. That will probably be what i'll choose.
@Titntin Totally agree. 40fps is great and to my eyes feel a LOT more fluid than 30fps and is usually my sweet spot. As you said it's exactly half way between in terms of frame time between 60fps and 30fps modes... for anyone wondering the math is:
There's 8.33ms gap between 30 and 40 and 40 and 60.
The Ubisoft games that use 40fps mode are a real treat for the eyes
@OldGamer999 Just my opinion but I've found I can do 40fps balanced in first person (Avatar looks incredible and plays just fine), but I have to stick to 60fps in third person (Hogwarts Legacy being my test subject there). I suppose it could be different depending on each title nonetheless. 30 is out of the question if there are options. Improving upscaling technology will kill 30fps by next gen.
40fps is my go to option when it's available so it's good to see another game using it.
I'll be playing on PC beyond these but it's great to see more developers supporting 40fps output for consoles, as these give the user a much better experience than 30fps does on supported screens
Glad to see that the game has options for players on the Series X. I can't wait until Thursday evening! I managed to get the premium physical edition from Currys for £81. It doesn't have a disc but to get the steelbook, the A3 cloth map and other bits alongside all the digital stuff/early access was too good to turn down. The other plus point is that the game comes out at 6pm so I will likely get my delivery in time.
@OldGamer999
I love 60 fps as much as the next guy, but playing Starfield I found that quality mode at 40 fps is my sweet spot. I wish more games offered this option.
Edit: just noticed a bunch of guys above me said the same thing haha.
@gollumb82
Yeah seem to be getting 120hz 40fps vibe on here.
I guess everyone has their own preference and also different TVs as well can make a bit of difference.
I will stick to my 60fps with VRR mode unless I find a game that proves me wrong.
@OldGamer999 I find the same exact thing. I have an LG C2 120hz panel and 60fps still moves so much better than 40fps
I don't really play FPS games, as I get nauseated pretty easily, so I wasn't really looking forward to Avowed.
But I learned today that it seems to have a third person view, and just now that it will also support both 60fps and probably 40fps for 120hz tvs, so I'm definitely getting excited for this one now!
@Blastfemur
So you are OLED like me, I’m QD OLED but that should not make a difference.
40fps to me isn’t much of a smoother or cleaner experience than 30fps.
But 60fps is smoother and so much clearer.
@OldGamer999
I game on a 4K 32 inch Alienware QD-OLED monitor (240Hz, VRR, HDMI 2.1 and Dolby Vision). I’m currently playing a few games, but been jumping between CP2077 and Starfield lately. Starfield is really smooth at 40 fps in quality mode and looks great, while CP2077 in quality(raytracing) mode looks great but it’s too sluggish at 30 fps. Especially the combat. At 60 fps it’s silky smooth but the lighting and image quality take a noticeable hit. I seem to remember Resident Evil 8 championing the 40 fps raytracing mode, looking spectacular while also playing pretty smoothly. In some games (racing games especially) 60 fps is mandatory, of course. Otherwise, I’m fine with 40 fps. 30 fps is really something that should just stop.
@Medic_alert They talked about it in the interview referenced. The team was focused on finishing the game first and then optimizing graphics and performance. Targeting 30fps was just the bare minimum for a smooth experience. I don't think they otherwise wanted to promise anything they couldn't guarantee and the delay allowed them a LOT more time for optimization than they expected. It's more of a case of Obsidian saying "our goal is to at the bare minimum give gamers solid and stable and good looking experience at 30fps. We don't want to promise anything we haven't already done. Once everything else with the game is finished we will begin optimizing it as much as possible to boost performance."
40 is better than 30 but still noticably worse than 60. It might depend on what you're used to, as someone who played mainly on PC for decades, give me the frames.
"for players who have a 120Hz TV" this tell me this person dsnt know sh*t about gaming...
Won't mean nothing if the game is bad and for me I'm expecting the worst, don't think it'll do the pillars of eternity world justice and whoever you play as will surely pale in comparison to being the watcher, i doubt the writing will be as good as the pillars of eternity games too.
@WildConcept6 fair enough, however we have heard from developers under the Xbox banner that they are prioritising visuals over performance to 'fully recognise their vision this gen, thinking particularly Starfield and Hellblade when in my view it really isn't a great position to be in considering that this generation was all about higher frame rates and faster load times.
@themightyant I'm going to assume (because I don't understand FPS technicality) that 40FPS is less taxing? Oftentimes I see "we had to settle for 30FPS because we didn't want to compromise too much".
@Kaloudz Yes. Basically the frame time (like 25 milliseconds or 0.025 of a second for 40fps) is how much time the console has to render and display the next frame (30, 40 or 60 every second). So the more time it has to render each frame the more visually rich each frame can be.
This is why the 30fps version will be the 'Quality' version as it has a whole 33.3 milliseconds (0.033 seconds) to render each frame, whereas 60fps 'performance' version has half the amount of time at 16.6 milliseconds (0.016 seconds) to render the scene in each frame.
40fps is a nice sweet spot that FEELS much smoother to play to most users than 30fps but allows more time to render better visuals. It's a great balance between visuals and performance and personally my preference when done well.
@themightyant Right, I think I follow that buddy, thank you. I assume this also means that, this will (or could be) starting a new norm, and one that will eventually replace 30FPS all together?
I checked my TV I don't have the 120hz option (or at least I don't think it supports it) but I'm very curious to see the difference. I see no difference between 30/60 - I suspect I'd have to sit a TV side by side or perhaps my head just doesn't register it lol - but I am curious to see if I can see the diff with 40. I'll have to check the downstairs TV and see if that's 120hz. Is the 120 thing a new tech or something?
@Kaloudz 120Hz is mostly only available on higher end TV models from the last 10ish years. I'm not sure if it will become the new norm for ALL TVs as it's mostly only really gaming that uses it. But it is the norm for higher end models.
The reason we usually only have the option for 30fps OR 60fps is that TV panels would be 60Hz and for frames to display evenly they could only be at a whole number multiple of that 60, so 60fps (1x) or 30fps (2x) or 20fps (3x) on older consoles like N64 for Zelda: Ocarina of time, or even 15fps (4x).
A 60Hz Tv can't display at 40fps (1.5x) at evenly paced frames so it is disabled as it would look horribly choppy.
Whereas a120Hz TV can display at 120fps (1x), 60fps (2x), 40fps (3x), 30fps (4x), 24fps (5x), 20fps (6x), 15fps (8x) etc. it gives more choice to developers.
@themightyant Righttttt. I get it now. Thanks dude. Yeah I just checked my TV. I'm a pauper lol, it only goes 60hz. Oh well, guess I'll just have to wait until I need an upgrade
Man, I miss the old days of never needing to worry too much about specs on a console. I don't ever recall all this stuff going back to the Snes / Mega D.
@Kaloudz You still don't really have to worry about specs on a console, just play games and enjoy.
@themightyant That's true 🤣
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...