CadetMahoney
Member
targeting 30 fps -> high risk of 20's
*Unless you're looking at a wall and nothing else is happening.
targeting 30 fps -> high risk of 20's
That's completely missing the point. You asked what the point in graphical technology is if it doesn't result in pleasing aesthetics, but it's a faulty premise, because it's not a fact.
To use a Nintendo example, I actually think SMW, and especially Yoshi's Island, both look massively better than NSMBU. That's an example of hugely superior hardware, and development tools, resulting in a far less appealing aesthetic for me. There are good reasons for this, Nintendo moved from rasters to vectors, and for whatever reason, when I see them, I have different emotional responses to them, one I enjoy, the other I don't. But the important thing is that this was a choice, not a hardware implication. Nintendo didn't have to change, they choose to. Better technology was never a limiting factor.
Now when attempting to make a game that evokes reality, I have never had a similar experience. I don't see PS1's swimming textures or N64's blurry textures as more evocative, or charming or whatever.
So, for Bloodborne...
Put simply, this:
Is just hugely more evocative than this is:
And when DemonBorne or whatever comes to PS5, it's going to be much better still.
When striving for realism, graphics technology hugely improves the aesthetic I think. Maybe we start really seeing diminishing returns in the next twenty years, but until we somehow achieve infinite local compute processing, there will always be compromises to make, and developers that want realistic visuals are always going to favor graphics over performance.
If realism matters that much to you, 60 fps should be even more of a priority. 30 fps is not realistic in any way, shape or form and instantly kills any sense of immersion you get from a realistic looking game.
Your comparison is flawed because it shows two different settings which are trying to evoke a completely different atmosphere, but even so, the fidelity in the Dark Souls screenshot is more than sufficient to evoke a sense of realism, and with the PS4 they could have still easily surpassed that level of fidelity while targeting 60 fps.
If realism matters that much to you, 60 fps should be even more of a priority. 30 fps is not realistic in any way, shape or form and instantly kills any sense of immersion you get from a realistic looking game.
Your comparison is flawed because it shows two different settings which are trying to evoke a completely different atmosphere
As Hey said, your first statement is not a fact, far from it actually. Our eyes stagger on individual points of interest as we 'sweep' our vision. We don't experience that smooth camera rotation at 60fps provides in reality. It's notably more jerky, as is 30fps. Secondly, the comment also ignores the fact that at 60fps, the graphics will be worse, most importantly including the quality of motion blur possible, which substantially helps recreate our visual experience of reality.If realism matters that much to you, 60 fps should be even more of a priority. 30 fps is not realistic in any way, shape or form and instantly kills any sense of immersion you get from a realistic looking game.
Your comparison is flawed because it shows two different settings which are trying to evoke a completely different atmosphere, but even so, the fidelity in the Dark Souls screenshot is more than sufficient to evoke a sense of realism, and with the PS4 they could have still easily surpassed that level of fidelity while targeting 60 fps.
Huh? No. Targeting 60fps -> At worst, wildly inconsistent performance bouncing all over the place.
This is just not true for everyone. It's probably not true for the large majority of people. I have certainly never felt any loss of immersion from it.
Says the guy who compared Captain Toad to Bloodborne.
Please point out where I compared Toad to Bloodborne.
You don't think this looks "insanely good"? Never mind that it's running at 60 fps on LAST GEN HARDWARE!
If developers made targeting 60 fps a priority like Nintendo does, they can achieve similarly eye-popping results.
Did you start gaming with the PS3 and Xbox 360? There are literally thousands of 60 fps games available on other consoles.
If they allow you to lock the framerate. 'At worst', they wouldn't, would they? How is it a worst case scenario if you omit the worst case?Do your best to not understand...if at worst you do ~45-50 average it means you have a rock solid vsync lock at 30
Gotta half agree.
In my personal experience, I've found that 60 almost looks funny in the same way the Hobbit did in 48. Not for all games of course.
I don't think 60 is necessary 100% of the time. I'm perfectly ok with a smooth 30 in most games. I still cant adjust to Halo at 60 in the MCC footage yet. Just looks funny.
Where is the Bloodborne comparison? I don't see it.
Now we're arguing aesthetics vs graphics? Yeah, those games look good aesthetically, but from a technical/graphical standpoint, they're relatively simple. If From wanted Bloodborne to look like a cartoon, then sure, they could get 60 FPS. The bottom line is, FromSoft is unable to achieve >30 FPS with the visual fidelity they want in Bloodborne. Like it or hate it, that's just how it is.
What's the point of having advanced technical graphics if they don't result in attractive aesthetics? And need I remind you that Captain Toad is running on (effectively) last gen hardware? The PS4 hs more than enough power to reach that level of fidelity at 60 fps in large environments.
Is Toad 1080p? Mario was only 720p.
You said Bloodborne should be able to do 1080p60fps because Captain Toad can do it.
Is Toad 1080p? Mario was only 720p.
EDIT: Here's the comparison:
Oh. Well now I'm even more confused about what he's trying to prove.
This is making me consider buying a gaming PC so I can play this at 60FPS.
No I didn't. I said it's possible for games to run at 60 fps and still look good, using Toad as an example.
I still don't see how that statement has anything to do with Bloodborne specifically.
Are you serious?I still don't see how that statement has anything to do with Bloodborne specifically.
You're in a Bloodborne thread you know.
Are you serious?
He said Toad has small environments.
You said PS4 is more powerful than Wii U so could look like Toad and do big environments.
This is a 30 vs 60 fps thread with Bloodborne as a subtext.
Okay, so I'm comparing Toad to a hypothetical nonexistent PS4 game?
This is making me consider buying a gaming PC so I can play this at 60FPS.
Bayonetta 2 disagrees with that statement.
So you are trolling, cool, sorry man.Okay, so I'm comparing Toad to a hypothetical nonexistent PS4 game?
This
So you are trolling, cool, sorry man.
Firstly, Servbot24 said you made the comparison, and I agree that you did.I'm simply arguing that you can have impressive graphics and 60 fps at the same time. You're the one putting words in my mouth and attributing a comparison to me that I never made.
I'm pretty sure they could still make it look insanely good at 60 fps if they tried.
Firstly, Servbot24 said you made the comparison, and I agree that you did.
Secondly, this is a thread about Bloodborne. If you don't want to discuss Bloodborne, you can post elsewhere.
This was the post that started it, directly in response to From and Bloodborne:
'Make it', it being Bloodborne, not some hypothetical PS4 game that looks like Toad. Bloodborne is set in a twisted Victorian Romania, it's not set in the Mushroom Kingdom, it's intricately detailed, it's not a fever dream bouncy castle. To create the atmosphere they intended, they needed to dedicate lots of resources to the visuals, those resources make achieving 60fps not viable.
Ridiculous Bayonetta comparison
This
FROM said they were aiming for a solid 30 in DS2 as well.
I want to bet they won't manage for Bloodborne.
I think the bloodbourne producer has clearly given his opinion on the matter. They basically say... "ok, we cannot make our game run at 60fps sorry guys"
Surprised that this thread keeps rolling... I find PS4 not being powerful enough a very legit reason.
Bayonneta is just an example, so if you prefer you can pick up yours.Look, I can do this stupid shit too!
Castlevania I on the NES ran at 60FPS with NO* drops! Why can't Bayonetta 2 do that on the Wii U?
*Unless you threw three crosses while Death had three scythes flying. Then the game would crash
If they allow you to lock the framerate. 'At worst', they wouldn't, would they? How is it a worst case scenario if you omit the worst case?
That's really surprising, coming from you!At this point, I might just pass on Bloodborne and stick to whatever the FROM B team releases on Steam. Dark Souls 3 at silky smooth 60FPS? No problem here!
At this point, I might just pass on Bloodborne and stick to whatever the FROM B team releases on Steam. Dark Souls 3 at silky smooth 60FPS? No problem here!
That would be very sad if it ends up being the case.This game is gonna have so many framerate drops ��
That would be very sad if it ends up being the case.
Bayonneta is just an example, so if you prefer you can pick up yours.
But yours is worst because it prove that a less less powerfull console can run a game at 60 fps.
While we're all expecting here to see the power of PS4 be used.
Frame rate change during a game depending of what is happening in the game.
Even in Bayonnetta 2, it loose 10 FPS during some heavy combats.
So there is a high change that game will drop to 20 fps when there will be multiple ennemies or effects happening on the screen.
That's why people wish the game to aim higher FPS so the game will have less chance to suffer any visual drop frame rate like lag or jerking.
Edit : we all want here Bloodborn to be a smooth action game.