I felt so bad for them.
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...
What's the reason for 60fps/1080p being such a big deal this coming gen?
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.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?
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?
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.
It is a quantifiable reason why you would want to buy a new console. Current gen consoles cannot really do this.
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.
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.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?
this makes me laugh every timesilky-smooth 30fps presentation
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.
this makes me laugh every time
You go long ways for just stating: "Hey, what you just said is true."
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.
What about 120Hz TVs?
What about 120Hz TVs?
Gemüsepizza;70062161 said:What are you babbling about bro? Doesn't make any sense.
They don't exist, only monitors with that refresh rate exist.
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.
I watched Pirates of the Caribbean on a 120Hz TV and it certainly looks more fluid (soap opera-ish) than on regular TVs.
They don't exist, only monitors with that refresh rate exist.
Although not the best looking game of the show, thinking it was ps360 is truely a sign of being terrible at judging and remembering graphics.I didn't even know there was a PS4 version, it looked so bad I just assumed it was PS360.
.
I watched Pirates of the Caribbean on a 120Hz TV and it certainly looks more fluid (soap opera-ish) than on regular TVs.
They forgot to mention that the 60fps is so awesome that it hangs and stutters a lot.
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?
I watched Pirates of the Caribbean on a 120Hz TV and it certainly looks more fluid (soap opera-ish) than on regular TVs.
Hard to believe after watching the demo during the presser...
Was one of the best looking games i saw during the entire event.
You go long ways for just stating: "Hey, what you just said is true."
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.
say what?They don't exist, only monitors with that refresh rate exist.
I watched Pirates of the Caribbean on a 120Hz TV and it certainly looks more fluid (soap opera-ish) than on regular TVs.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?
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?
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 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.
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.
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...
Maybe my eyes are foreign or broken, but I can't tell the difference between 30 and 60.
Sucks
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.