New details are beginning to emerge about Alan Wake 2, as major outlets have gone hands-on with Remedy's upcoming thriller. One interesting quote has caught our attention, though, and it pertains to the choice between a quality mode and a performance mode.
Remedy Entertainment's communications director, Thomas Puha, confirms the game will feature a "solid" performance mode option, though seems to be recommending the alternative:
"[Alan Wake 2] has been built from the beginning as a 30fps experience focusing on visuals and ambiance, but somehow we have managed to include a solid Performance mode," he writes in a post on X. "We’ll talk details later."
While many people will prefer the smoothness of a 60 frames-per-second performance mode, it appears that Remedy has largely focused on the cinematic experience. Indeed, Alan Wake 2 is a game primarily concerned with telling its twisted narrative, which folds in live action sequences and other visual flourishes, so we understand prioritising quality mode on consoles.
Still, the important thing is that players will have a choice. You can play it at 30fps to get the full visual quality, or opt for performance mode to keep things smooth. What will you go for when you play Alan Wake 2? Tell us in the comments section below.
[source x.com]
Comments 65
30 fps for me. Got to have that cinematic vibe on a game like this.
Removed - trolling/baiting
60fps for me... as long as the performance mode is 1440p. Control was SO much more fun on the PS5.
For this title 30 is just fine with finally tuned motion blur and in all honesty, I guarantee you, that based on the visual fidelity previews are suggesting that AW2 operates at; you would be insane to opt for a downgrade in those to try and reach 60fps. As it will either not hit that target, or the downgrade will have to be quite significant to do so.
'the most polished version' is built around 30 fps?
Damn guess we're lucky it didn't release on physical /s
Ohhhh, come on. Much better looking and high pased games have 60fps. When I hear smth like that i am sure it is just lazy dev work.
There are multiple reasons why Starfield is 30fps, @Mauzuri. There is a great video from Digital Foundry explaining why it is the preferred option. Something to do with item persistence (dropping a potato, for example, at a location and it still being in the same location 200 hours later), and the variety of lighting on each planet, as, from what I understand, each planet rotates around a sun, and so gets differing lighting depending on the time of day, and the distance away from the sun. Apparently, that kind of thing would not work at 60fps...
Anything above 16fps is unplayable if you ask my 386 pc from 1996.
Good. I absolutely despise when cutscenes end up looking like speedy soap garbage in a more cinematic or realistic game.
Real life runs well under 60fps 😁😁😁
Didn't understand very well. There's the 30fps mode which focuses on visuals etc... and then performance mode at 30fps as well? maybe I'm getting this wrong but what's the difference? if this game is locked at 30fps I'll pass =D
I don’t have an issue with 30 FPS at all. Pretty sure I’m currently playing Cyberpunk 2077 at 30 FPS and that feels pretty smooth to me.
I will day 1 buy a PS5 Pro if they release it. Really want more power and we are only nearing 3 years in. Or i should just build a PC and move on. Tho i really don’t love PC gaming outside of the power performance.
Absolutely serious question, @HonestHick, but can you actually build a PC that will outperform a PS5 for $500?
Literally unplayable, 3/10 too much 30fps water.
@Fiendish-Beaver I can answer that: No way in hell.
Personally, @Geep, I don't get the great drama over 30 or 60fps. I have no idea whether I would actually notice the difference, and to my mind it almost comes across as some form of snobbery, than a game that runs perfectly well at 30fps is somehow no longer good enough to be played. Then again, I'm really old, and my first gaming experience was of the game Pong in the early 70s... 😂
I didn't think it possible, @dskatter, but I often see people cite building a PC as the better option.
I have a gaming PC that cost me £2600 ($3100) and have little understanding of the ins and outs of computers, but you would not believe the amount of problems I encounter when gaming on it. It's much, much easier to simply turn on my PS5, press play, and, well... play...! 😉
@Ravix I wonder how many people will actually fall for this comment. 10/10 bait
Hey as long as the PC version has an unlocked frame rate I'm good. It's great that there's at least an option to choose for the console
While I 100% believe the devs when they say 30fps is their preferred option, I still will pick the 60fps option if it's available. As I find it increasingly more difficult to go back to 30fps with every 60fps game that I play. I've been completely spoiled
@Fiendish-Beaver Exactly. I totally respect those who PC game, but maintaining a gaming rig seems like an annoyance I don’t want to deal with.
That said, a friend of mine just built a decent gaming PC for about $1500, and he’s very happy with it. Me, I just want to put the disc in and (after install, of course) play without worrying about configuring anything!
I actually don't mind, for example: I'm playing Hogwarts Legacy on I think it's 4K quality + rt mode (whatever maximum is) and the performance is terrible but I enjoy the visuals. When it's a single player game I don't mind as much, if it's a multiplayer game I much prefer 60fps.
Could not agree more, @dskatter...
"30fps experience"?
That's should read more like a
"30fps limitation "
"...but somehow we have managed to include a solid Performance mode."
Somehow? I mean, you guys are supposed to know the reason behind the mode lol. I just get a chuckle out of the specific wording in that tweet.
Joking aside, glad to see they got a performance mode working in the game, just curious to see how much they scaled back their graphic fidelity to compensate for it.
@Mauzuri
How can you compare Starfield which is a much bigger gaming experience technically and in replayability than a 10 hour game like Alan Wake 2.
If you are going to troll next time make sure you comparing apples to apples.
As long as Barry is back I'm happy
I feel a bit sorry for these studios having to announce this stuff.. hearts in their mouths praying to avoid a ***** storm. reality is for these newer games 30fps is a realistic target. As great as the PS5 is for the price these games take a lot to do 4k / 60fps. However i'd love to see more of those 40fps modes, it's a nice sweet spot. I actually play my steam deck as 40/45fps on a lot of titles and i'm really sold on it, perfect balance of fidelity and framerate. But then you need certain hardware specifications to do custom framerates so mass adoption is tricky.
@dskatter @Fiendish-Beaver 100% there is not $500 dollar PC that is more capable than a PS5 or Series X. Plus i have always been a Mac user and not windows, so like dskatter said i do like the convenience of consoles. However i am now fortunate enough that i could spend money on a PC rig of my choice and the one i would build is closer to $4K, maybe after some sales i could get it to $3,500 my buddy told me. Thats a big investment to find out i don’t care for it. Especially when i have thousands in my game room setup with a Series X, PS5, LG Oled and surround sound. However i ain’t getting any younger and wouldn’t mind having all my games in one place and performing at top level. So i am torn on it. I kind of fell for the bait that this gen would be more at 60fps and pushing new game engines. I suppose i need to wait another year and see how MS and Sony are doing. Throw in the fact outside of Xbox i don’t do Microsoft products as i was raised on Mac and have all apple ecosystem in my home. So my windows knowledge is poor, throw in a bad driver and i am going to need time and help understanding how to get the game running instead of just playing. Like i said I’m torn. I would buy a PS5 Pro if Sony decides to launch one and PC is still a idea at this point.
It's Remedy and I feel they probably have some crazy stuff going on in this game, 30 fps is fine. It's gonna look incredible, I have no doubts about that.
@Fiendish-Beaver id agree with you here. If it’s good it’s good
Really looking forward to this.
@Fiendish-Beaver and all this stuff sounds a lot more interesting than 60 fps, too.
Unless the live action stuff is shot at 60frames too I'll stick to 30. I usually rather play in 60fps but to have smooth gameplay followed by stuff that is shot at 30fps would be VERY jarring. At that point it hinders imersion .
Reading these comments confirms what I’ve long suspected, which is that many of those obsessed with high frame rates don’t actually understand frame rates. More is not always good. Different rates serve different purposes depending on the desired effect. Fighters, sports games, COD, etc. benefit from high rates because they’re built around reaction times and the increased visual information aids that. AW2 and other survival horror games have a very deliberate pacing that simply doesn’t require it, especially if, as the case is here, you’re going for a cinematic feel. In fact, to be technically accurate even 30’s too high for this aim, since 24fps is the long established ideal for cinema. So there.
They’re capable of offering players a choice between Quality and Performance but giving players a choice between a physical or digital edition is somehow too hard…
Bravo, Remedy and Epic. Bravo.
There are a few games that I liked more with 30 FPS ray tracing, like Horizon FW and Star Wars Jedi Survivor. I changed to 60 fps whrn the things got too intense.
Meanwhile Insomniac has you gliding through a whole city with ray-traced windows at 60fps...
@Ravix That's not how eyes work buddy.
We don't see things as 30 still images (frames) in sequence. We just see things in motion, with no still images needing to be put together. The world around us is in perpetual motion, and nothing is ever still.
Frames per second, is a measure of video being output by a source, not a measure of perception. The human eye and FPS are not at all related.
Real life does not run below 30 FPS. LMAO
Real life doesn't run at 60, 120, 200, or any FPS for that matter.
30 fps is for my xbox s gamepass exclusive machine 60 fps i might try it out on my PS5 too many good games not wasting my time on 30 fps and 40 fps game modes suck too bye
@HonestHick Game developers then will just bump resolution to keep providing you with that 30 FPS cinematic experience on your shiny new PS5 Pro
@Constable_What really? You're saying that our eyes aren't inverse projectors 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
Mind blown 😁
@Mauzuri Have you played Starfield?
@Sergo Give this "muh lazy devs" crap a rest
If I’m constantly rotating camera I need smooth else it’s not cinematic just rough as a badgers arse.
@viktorcode that could happen and that would for sure push me even closer to selling my PS5 and Xbox and going PC. Cause a 20 plus TFLOP PS5 Pro could do 60fps fairly easily. It’s the dev’s that aren’t optimizing enough for these consoles in my opinion and granted they both have some limitations also. Hard to tell, i will wait and see how it looks in mid to late 2024. I will try and get a Switch 2 next holiday season also. That should be a nightmare to track down haha
Yuck.
(Hmm, is that it? Can you think of something more to say?)
@Mauzuri
"At least the option is THERE.. unlike Starfield."
Alan Wake is on the XBOX too...
You're comparing an option in a game that's on PS and XBOX to an option not being in a XBOX game that isn't on PS...?
You're melting my brain...
1080/60FPS, the machines are potatoes, but 60 fps at 1080p should always be there and well optimized.
@Mauzuri
I'm not defending Starfield for not having a performance option (on the SeriesX).
Highlighting that by saying "well Alan Wake has it" doesn't make a lot of sense. They are two completely different games.
40fps is a sweet spot if you have a 120hz tv. I did GOW and HFW in this mode it was great. OLeds are notorious bad with low frame rates.
@MasterPlayerOne mad because it didn't come to playstation like most of the people who hate on the game, we all know if it was a playstation exclusive it'd be hailed as the greatest game ever made and 30fps wouldn't ever be brought up.
60fps for me. 30 is just too choppy these days
Performance mode. I don't tolerate anything less than 60 fps very well at all these days. And I'm someone that played through things like FF9 back in the day.
Even a stable 30 fps game these days just isn't good enough for me. Finished FF16 this week and enjoyed the game, but the non-fully optimised performance mode brought it down a notch.
Devs: add a performance mode to your game and do what you must to ensure it remains at a steady 60 fps. At 40 I now would rather have smoothness and snappiness over graphical bells and whistles.
@Fiendish-Beaver for me it's extremely noticeable, especially in first person or racing games. I suppose it doesnt work the same for everyone but the 60 fps feels so smooth it's very hard to go back to 30.
@HonestHick
Consoles always were and always will be a bad investment in the long term.
Also, if I wanted to play Xbox Series X, PlayStation 5 and Nintendo Switch games, it would cost more than £1000+ in hardware alone, and that's without even buying a game, accessories or adding in subscriptions.
Therefore, i'd rather invest this money in building a gaming PC, have all the benefits that go with that platform and carry all my games/accessories over with no worries whatsoever. Plus it's the only platform you can play Xbox, PlayStation and Nintendo (emulated) games on one device.
Consoles are dead. Streaming will even eventually replace those devices. Casuals drive the console market, once they can get a good enough experience, there is no need for them to spend £500/$500 on hardware. Just look at GeForce Now, it's f**king amazing, and those types of services will only get better.
In the future, the only platform you'll be playing with dedicated hardware is the PC (also due to the fact the PC is needed for productivity, content creation, etc, so hardware will still be manufactured). Everything else will be a streaming platform.
@Digital_Nomad i hate to admit it. But you are right and very well stated. I can’t find anything you said to be incorrect and that has been on my mind as well. I am not interested in streaming cloud games even tho i have fiber internet at 1000mbps. Factor in Shooters and ARPG’s as my favorite genres and well the PC does those the best. Your comment must have been meant for me to see cause that is another feather in the cap towards pushing me that direction. It’s why MS wants this strategy they have now cause in the short term they lose to Sony and Nintendo, and in the long term they own the rights to games that will be driven by PC players and have the IP’s and infrastructure to be where the money is headed. Hmm well my birthday is in 3 weeks, should i do it ?
60 FPS is way better than 30 FPS because you're getting twice as many FPS, so you're basically getting a free game, which is way better value.
Come on people - it's, like, economics 101.
@HonestHick
You should do it, can't go wrong with a gaming PC, plus all the options and advantages it provides the user.
And you're right, MS are looking long term and these devices (consoles) will be irrelevant. The writing is on the wall for them.
I don't mind playing in 30 FPS but I do feel like it's time for a PS5 Pro so we can play 60 FPS with high settings!
@Digital_Nomad Yeah Xbox isn’t going to outsell PS or Switch. But they will have Cloud/Console/Mobile/PC and that is a load of money when you add in King from the ABK deal. Once console is gone Microsoft has arguably the best PC/Mobile lineup in terms of cash and players. I do wish Sonly would bring their games to PC sooner and maybe the new CEO will. Plus i love the last of us, but wow they did a bad port for that on PC. But yeah lately i am just done with the console war goof off’s and wouldn’t mind seeing the industry being console less and cloud/ PC only. Course Nintendo will still do their thing. Which i will keep in the house for the little one and myself.
@Deityjester : Very true, so many people criticized Starfield running at 30fps, and yet those same people are praising the 30fps on Alan Wake.
@MasterPlayerOne one game is on Xbox/PC only and the other is for the beloved PS. Welcome to the fight as a 3 way console owner as i tried to do on here. Only to get blasted for others lack of common sense.Great call out tho. 😊
I've got no issues play it at 30fps 🤷 especially if it's abit of bump in quality and it's only a survival horror game not an action or racing game so won't make much difference gameplay wise.
Also if the devs say that's the preferred option then fair enough.
Really looking forward to AW2
@Sergo I very much so doubt it's lazy devs 🙄🙄🙄
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...