• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Assassin's Creed 4 runs at 1080p@60fps on the PS4 [DF: Nope...]

Haunted

Member
I didn't even know there was a PS4 version, it looked so bad I just assumed it was PS360.


edit: people are making too much of a deal of the freeze, it's a WIP, it happens.
 

Madness

Member
I felt so bad for them.

Me too... Same goes for Battlefield at Microsoft's exhibit. That's pretty much a fear come true. Having it freeze or not play on the big stage.

What's worse is, these guys probably spent like 2+ years on Black Flag and after it froze, it just segued onto another game after.
 
What's the reason for 60fps/1080p being such a big deal this coming gen? I read that and I think it has become more important than the game being good. A game can be worth a rating of 10/10 with 30fps and low res, or 60 fps/10000000000p and utter shit.

Is it only recently that PC owners have been able to run games at at high resolution and at least 60 fps and everyone has realised that it makes a massive difference to gameplay (does it?) so they are making it a must for console games whenever possible?
 

Thrakier

Member
Gemüsepizza;70053401 said:
Elitist statement with smug smiley - Check.

According to the DF report from above, AC runs "silky-smooth" with "no frame-rate dips at all". I guess that the game probably runs at something between 30fps and 60fps in SP mode, but is locked to 30fps here (for now). Watch_Dogs is also from Ubisoft, and while it doesn't seem to use the same engine as AC, I am pretty sure that they will get the performance right. In Infamous 2, devs used a dynamic resolution technique in scenes when there is much happening on the screen to prevent frame rate drops, so I don't think we will see anything "choppy" in it's successor. There was some pop-in in the demo, but I am confident that they will be able to eliminate this, after all the PS4 has 8GB of high-speed GDDR5 RAM. And I really wonder how you are going to play a PS4-exclusive game on your PC...

You go long ways for just stating: "Hey, what you just said is true."
 

kazebyaka

Banned
What's the reason for 60fps/1080p being such a big deal this coming gen? I read that and I think it has become more important than the game being good. A game can be worth a rating of 10/10 with 30fps and low res, or 60 fps/10000000000p and utter shit.

Is it only recently that PC owners have been able to run games at at high resolution and at least 60 fps and everyone has realised that it makes a massive difference to gameplay (does it?) so they are making it a must for console games whenever possible?
pc owners have been able to run all games in 60fps for ages, and it makes a world of difference. And now we want same experience on consoles.
 

Damian.

Banned
What's the reason for 60fps/1080p being such a big deal this coming gen? I read that and I think it has become more important than the game being good. A game can be worth a rating of 10/10 with 30fps and low res, or 60 fps/10000000000p and utter shit.

Is it only recently that PC owners have been able to run games at at high resolution and at least 60 fps and everyone has realised that it makes a massive difference to gameplay (does it?) so they are making it a must for console games whenever possible?

60fps isn't something new. The original Super Mario Bros ran at 60fps for instance. 30fps is shit, and there is really no excuse for it anymore.
 

sunnz

Member
It is a quantifiable reason why you would want to buy a new console. Current gen consoles cannot really do this.

Current game also can't produce the quality of graphics next gen offers too with the poly count to the methods used ( AA, lighting, texture resolution) and better graphics are more noticeable than 60 fps ( I mean when marketing the game)

I would prefer 60fps with downgraded visuals since it improves the experience so much, but won't mind locked 30fps.
 

Hypron

Member
60fps isn't something new. The original Super Mario Bros ran at 60fps for instance. 30fps is shit, and there is really no excuse for it anymore.

Yeah, most 2D games were running at 60fps. It's only when consoles started getting 3D games that the average framerate went to shit.
 
What's the reason for 60fps/1080p being such a big deal this coming gen? I read that and I think it has become more important than the game being good. A game can be worth a rating of 10/10 with 30fps and low res, or 60 fps/10000000000p and utter shit.

Is it only recently that PC owners have been able to run games at at high resolution and at least 60 fps and everyone has realised that it makes a massive difference to gameplay (does it?) so they are making it a must for console games whenever possible?
TVs and computer screens are made for displaying stuff at 1080p (or more, but not less) and 60 fps. It's a standard or at least it should be, just like colour and stereo sound.
 

thuway

Member
Developers should give players options :/. I would take dynamic resolution + 60 fps over standard 1080p 30 fps any day.
 

Blimblim

The Inside Track
TVs and computer screens are made for displaying stuff at 1080p (or more, but not less) and 60 fps. It's a standard or at least it should be, just like colour and stereo sound.

I agree with 1080p, scaling is always lossy, but in terms of framerate all screens have no problem at all duplicating a frame once, twice or more if needed, so 30 fps, 20 fps are (for the hardware) the same thing as 60 actual fps. Nothing is lost.
What about 120Hz TVs?

They just double every frames, no problem.
 

Thrakier

Member
Gemüsepizza;70062161 said:
What are you babbling about bro? Doesn't make any sense.

I say: There will be plenty of framerate and other technical problems on console games.

You describe 3-4 games with technical problems or shit framerates.

I say: Thanks, that was my point.

You get it now?
 
Whats up with people not wanting 60 fps next gen? When you play a killzone 60 fps and if it is good like the ps3 ones, you'll never want to play 30 fps anymore.
 

Nethaniah

Member
Whats up with people not wanting 60 fps next gen? When you play a killzone 60 fps and if it is good like the ps3 ones, you'll never want to play 30 fps anymore.

You can't sell a high framerate as well as good graphics.

I watched Pirates of the Caribbean on a 120Hz TV and it certainly looks more fluid (soap opera-ish) than on regular TVs.

See

They don't exist, only monitors with that refresh rate exist.

Tv's have frame interpolation, think it's called motion flow for some tv's, turn it off.
 
I say: There will be plenty of framerate and other technical problems on console games.

No, that's not what happened. You quoted a post and bolded those 3 specific games, and said that we will see a lot of "choppy framerates" and "pop in" (there) unless you play on PC (which doesn't even make sense in the first place, because one of those titles you have bolded will not be released for PCs at all). I answered and explained why this is most likely not true for these titles.

You describe 3-4 games with technical problems or shit framerates.

I say: Thanks, that was my point.

You get it now?

A demo of one (1) of these games had a little bit of pop in, which isn't really surprising considering that this is probably an alpha version (who would have thought). So maybe you should wait before you make generalizing statements about software not yet released. And 30 fps locked isn't a "shit" framerate and certainly not "choppy". And maybe you should phrase your posts a little bit more exactly, so I don't have to guess what you mean.
 

BigDug13

Member
I watched Pirates of the Caribbean on a 120Hz TV and it certainly looks more fluid (soap opera-ish) than on regular TVs.

Your TV was making up frames in between. Those frames to smooth the motion into 120hz are not real frames captured during the 24 fps filming. I'd rather watch 100% of what the director intended and not 20% what the director intended and 80% what my TV thinks the director intended.
 

Momentary

Banned
The thought of playing character action games, first person shooters, racing games, fighting games, and RPGs at 30fps makes me almost throw up. 30fps affects gameplay so much for me due to making the controls feel sluggish and unresponsive.
 
You go long ways for just stating: "Hey, what you just said is true."

Hey, choppy frame rates, pop-in and low res textures have been happily living it up in the PC space since day 1. They are still hanging out and enjoying themselves to this very day.

Anyway, I think this game looks ace visually. PS4 version looks much better than the AC games I have played on current gen consoles at least.
 

Majanew

Banned
Your TV was making up frames in between. Those frames to smooth the motion into 120hz are not real frames captured during the 24 fps filming. I'd rather watch 100% of what the director intended and not 20% what the director intended and 80% what my TV thinks the director intended.

Lol it doesn't do anything but get rid of the horrible judder in film. I can't stand turning motion smoothing off on my TV. The panning shots in movies stutter without it and it's all I can notice now. Even going to the theater now, it's all I can see. I will never buy another TV without it.
 

Metfanant

Member
They don't exist, only monitors with that refresh rate exist.
say what?

I watched Pirates of the Caribbean on a 120Hz TV and it certainly looks more fluid (soap opera-ish) than on regular TVs.

has nothing to do with 120hz...most 120hz (or higher) sets include some sort of frame interpretation software...for instance Samsung calls it Auto Motion Plus (AMP)...bare with me here...

Blu-ray movies display at 24fps (because that is what they are filmed at)....older "normal" TV's (60hz) would have problems displaying 24fps because they can't display each frame for an even amount of time (because 24 does not divide into 60 evenly). But it works with a 120hz set...lets look at a 5 frame "video" as an example...

- played back normally (at 24fps) it would be: 1-2-3-4-5
- on a 60hz "normal" or "older" TV: 1-1-2-2-2-3-3-4-4-4-5-5

you're going to get "judder" and overall smoothness is messed up at 60hz

- on a 120hz set: 1-1-1-1-1-2-2-2-2-2-3-3-3-3-3-4-4-4-4-4-5-5-5-5-5

each frame is just displayed 5 times in a row and everything is nice and smooth...

Now here is where your "soap opera" effect comes in...the TV's software tries to "interpret" or create new frames to fit into the above sequence in an attempt to make things look even smoother...

so you might get something like

1-1.5-2-2.5-3-3.5-4-4.5-5

the ".5" frames created "magically" by your TV using software...one of the side effects of this process is the "soap opera" effect...usually TV's allow you to turn off...or at least turn down this process...
 

Thrakier

Member
Gemüsepizza;70064176 said:
No, that's not what happened. You quoted a post and bolded those 3 specific games, and said that we will see a lot of "choppy framerates" and "pop in" (there) unless you play on PC (which doesn't even make sense in the first place, because one of those titles you have bolded will not be released for PCs at all). I answered and explained why this is most likely not true for these titles.

Well, my statement was surely more in general. However, those games mentioned suffer those problems:

- they run at 30 w. stuttering FPS (yeah, I know, silky-smooth 30FPS...what the fuck. Doesn't exist.)
- Infamous has pretty noticable pop-ups and a lot of stuttering, just watch the videos. It's very, very rough. And then it also drops resolution. That's a mess.
- Watch_Dogs performed horrible in they videos they saw.

Judging from what we've seen so far, nothing looked better than current high end PC gaming but performed even worse, which is a huge disapointment.
 

Nethaniah

Member
I don't know why people are analysing the production values so much. I still love playing PS1 games like Spyro the Dragon, Crash Bandicoot, Castlevania etc. And if those are perfectly fine and the games work perfect, does resolution and frame rate really matter?

The only visual aspect I care about is screen tearing because that really does piss me off.

Does screen-tearing really matter?
 

Thrakier

Member
I don't know why people are analysing the production values so much. I still love playing PS1 games like Spyro the Dragon, Crash Bandicoot, Castlevania etc. And if those are perfectly fine and the games work perfect, does resolution and frame rate really matter?

The only visual aspect I care about is screen tearing because that really does piss me off.

Funny.

"I don't get why people care about technical issues but I CAN'T STAND TEARING".
 

Metfanant

Member
Judging from what we've seen so far, nothing looked better than current high end PC gaming but performed even worse, which is a huge disapointment.

first mistake is expecting that a sub $400 complete system with limited development time is going to look/perform better than "high end" rigs where single GPU's cost more than the entire PS4 right out of the box...

PC's can benefit from a sheer brute force approach to improved visuals...throw enough hardware (and $$) at a game and its bound to run better...
 

casmith07

Member
I've just never cared about frame rate unless its dropped to choppy levels.

Don't understand why people freak about 30 vs 60 so much.
 

Thrakier

Member
first mistake is expecting that a sub $400 complete system with limited development time is going to look/perform better than "high end" rigs where single GPU's cost more than the entire PS4 right out of the box...

PC's can benefit from a sheer brute force approach to improved visuals...throw enough hardware (and $$) at a game and its bound to run better...

I didn't compare cost/value or anything like that. I just stated, that next gen games will still have massive technical issues and he doesn't need to be worried playing those next to GTAV. However, when you are used to stable 60FPS at native resolution and top tier image quality...yeah, when you'll have a problem with GTA V. A big one.
 

Thrakier

Member
It's the only one I can agree with people having a problem with.

But look at Gran Turismo 6, it's rendering in a higher resolution than Gran Turismo 5 did and it's had some minor performance drops. But does it really matter?

Is the game playable? Are there pressing issues that make the game unplayable?

It's like, why do some people boycott a game because it's not 60 frames per second or native 1080p? Isn't the game play the most important aspect?

What the fuck dude. You said that you hate screen tearing, I hate anything less than 60FPS and 1080p. Where is the problem?

And yeah, I wouldn't touch GT6 from ten miles away. The demo was horrible and it looks pretty shitty.
 

Nethaniah

Member
It's the only one I can agree with people having a problem with.

But look at Gran Turismo 6, it's rendering in a higher resolution than Gran Turismo 5 did and it's had some minor performance drops. But does it really matter?

Is the game playable? Are there pressing issues that make the game unplayable?

It's like, why do some people boycott a game because it's not 60 frames per second or native 1080p? Isn't the game play the most important aspect?

A higher framerate improves the gameplay so......yeah, gameplay is the most important aspect.
 

Metfanant

Member
I've just never cared about frame rate unless its dropped to choppy levels.

Don't understand why people freak about 30 vs 60 so much.

I prefer 60 surely...but FOR THE MOST PART...as long as a game is LOCKED at 30fps and doesn't dip..they i don't have a problem...

but when you target 30fps...and then have performance problems and the framerates dip to 20, or 15....or worse...you really have a problem...

if your goal is 60...and you dip to 50, or even 40...you notice it...but its not as bad...

I didn't compare cost/value or anything like that. I just stated, that next gen games will still have massive technical issues and he doesn't need to be worried playing those next to GTAV. However, when you are used to stable 60FPS at native resolution and top tier image quality...yeah, when you'll have a problem with GTA V. A big one.

but you have to compare cost/value...the visuals of the PS4/Xbone can only be a "huge disappointment" if you're expecting them to equal those of high end gaming rigs...
 

Thrakier

Member
but you have to compare cost/value...the visuals of the PS4/Xbone can only be a "huge disappointment" if you're expecting them to equal those of high end gaming rigs...

No I don't have to because I'm speaking from a personal perspective. A game at 30FPS is pretty much useless to me, so if I spent 400$ on a console to NOT play all those 30FPS games...that's a pretty shitty cost/value rate, isn't it?
 

Thrakier

Member
I don't get the argument people make about many aspects of technical aspects though. >.<

It's like there were people saying "Oh, The Order is 1920 x 800? I won't be buying it then." Seriously? That's going to put you off?

Screen tearing I can consider a hindrance to game play, playing Mirrors Edge on PS3 was a pain when I turned fast and misjudged where the door was because the screen tear just screwed with my perception of 3D space.

That's an example of one game, I was talking about the technical aspects of it, not the game play. Like what kind of anti-alising it's using, native rendering resolution, what texture sizes are being used etc.

The reason why people want 60FPS is gameplay. It's impact is much bigger than any screen tearing.
 

Portugeezer

Member
I suspect this game could be 60fps on PS4, however they will keep it consistent at 30fps for future next gen AC games which will be 30fps.
 
Top Bottom