Support NeoGAF

[shinobi602]

Huh, so it's 30fps?

Disappointing I guess. Pretty crazy next gen consoles can't even run a cross gen game like Assassin's Creed at 60fps. I'm actually surprised, they seem weaker than I anticipated.

 

[Ahasverus]

Huh, so it's 30fps?

Disappointing I guess. Pretty crazy next gen consoles can't even run a cross gen game like Assassin's Creed at 60fps. I'm actually surprised, they seem weaker than I anticipated.

Come on Shinobi, it's Ubisoft, you can't expect pears from an orange trees, I mean, oh so hi-end PCs couldn't handle AC3 at constant fps last year, current gaming tech is weaker than I expected.

 

[shinobi602]

Come on Shinobi, it's Ubisoft, you can't expect pears from an orange trees, I mean, oh so hi-end PCs couldn't handle AC3 at constant fps last year, current gaming tech is weaker than I expected.

The way I look at it is AC4 doesn't look like a massive step up from AC3 visually, on PC at least. I was assuming with all that extra power over current gen consoles, even a somewhat incompetent dev like Ubisoft would have no problem getting 60fps out of it on next gen systems.

 

[Felix Lighter]

Its unfortunate, but I think this gen it makese sense to make a PC version as the consoles are so similar to PCs.


My point is if people care so much about frame rates then get a PC. It clearly is only an issue for certain people with agendas against a certain platform or exclusive, or folks who stopped playing games long ago and simply talk about games. I understand that some games are simply unplayable because frame rates drop well below 30 consistently. But these debates are really getting stupid. Especially when the games in question look great thus far and have yet to be released,

Framerate is only an issue for folks with an agenda or people who stopped playing games a long time ago? Yeah that's horseshit.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Huh, so it's 30fps?

Disappointing I guess. Pretty crazy next gen consoles can't even run a cross gen game like Assassin's Creed at 60fps. I'm actually surprised, they seem weaker than I anticipated.

It seems to be locked at 30fps in SP at the moment, and 60fps in MP according to DF (don't know why the title still says something different...). I assume it actually runs at something between 30 and 60 fps in SP mode, but is locked to 30fps until they can get it to solid 60 fps (or not).

 

[qa_engineer]

Framerate is only an issue for folks with an agenda or people who stopped playing games a long time ago? Yeah that's horseshit.

Thats in reference to the back and forth in the KZ thread. Not a generalization. Apparently the game is unplayable to some; Now that is horseshit. way to read into one part of my post.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

What's the benefits of 60fps? Can someone explain this to me because I'm confused on what makes it different than 30. I also want to know why is it these consoles can't do it? Are the systematically incapable of doing it?

 

[Loofy]

Just wondering, what would be better. A variable framerate(slowdown) between 30-60fps. Or a locked 30fps game?

 

[Hip Hop]

Ran through the thread some, and can't believe people are defending 30FPS.

 

[TheOhrenberger]

That's odd, I'm pretty sure what we saw at the Sony Conference was 60 seconds per frame.

 

[velociraptor]

Huh, so it's 30fps?

Disappointing I guess. Pretty crazy next gen consoles can't even run a cross gen game like Assassin's Creed at 60fps. I'm actually surprised, they seem weaker than I anticipated.

A GTX 580 struggles to output 60FPS with AC3.

:\

 

[Felix Lighter]

Just wondering, what would be better. A variable framerate(slowdown) between 30-60fps. Or a locked 30fps game?

Actual slowdown is something that occurs when the game's physic is tied to the framerate. Slower framerate, slower game. That's less common today if a game is designed to handle changes in framerate.

As for which is better, it depends what's important to you. A highly variable framerate would look worse and less smooth but input lag would be decreased. I'll take a constant 30 in a lot games over a frame rate that's constantly fluctuating between 30 and 60 but you will still be sacrificing control responsiveness.

 

[Principate]

A GTX 580 struggles to output 60FPS with AC3.

:\

But it's coded to the metal man, that means it should be 3 times faster

Spoiler

if you didn't get it, it was a joke

 

[Metfanant]

No sense in talking to you. You theories and opiniones are crazy talk throughout.

why because i don't believe your BS about being able to spot something scaled with your eyes closed, and how if its not native res your eyes will melt?

must be difficult to watch TV for you...

i mean to honestly say that Uncharted 3, or Killzone 3, or The Last of Us, or Grand Turismo 5, or Forza 4, or Halo 4, or CoD MW3/Blops2, or BF3, or MGS4, or Arkham City are unplayable because they have to be scaled and or are 30fps is absolute GARBAGE...

This is actual nonsense.

please enlighten us on how Uncharted would have been such better games if they were 60fps...

Or could it be that running it at 60fps isn't as important to game play as you and others make out?

bingo!

Yeah, it probably isn't. I mean, just look at Call of Duty, right? No idea why no other shooter can reach similar numbers on consoles.

Coincidences and shit.

some cases it is very important...fast paced, twitch type stuff? sure...like CoD...yup...though i never had a problem playing KZ...i think its an exponentially better shooter in every way...

What's the benefits of 60fps? Can someone explain this to me because I'm confused on what makes it different than 30. I also want to know why is it these consoles can't do it? Are the systematically incapable of doing it?

the benefit of 60fps is everything refreshes twice as fast...so in theory its smoother and more responsive..

the reason that its harder to do it is all the calculations needed to display the game on your screen need to be done twice as fast...so normally to increase framerate you need to sacrifice in other areas...lower resolution...lower quality textures, fewer effects...etc..

or....if youre a PC gamer...spend more than the cost of an entire PS4 or Xbone (or both) on a new GPU...

Just wondering, what would be better. A variable framerate(slowdown) between 30-60fps. Or a locked 30fps game?

rock solid 30 all day the continuously variable frame rate (if it actually fluctuated a full 30 frames at times) would cause much worse problems than 30fps could ever...

 

[perineumlick]

Ran through the thread some, and can't believe people are defending 30FPS.

What's there to defend? Some of us don't mind 30fps. I'll take 60 sure, but a locked 30 is perfectly playable for me, a console owner. PC guys, yeah we know where some of you stand, but really this discussion is getting tired. People want cheap consoles, with high end GPU power, and it just ain't happening.

 

[Metfanant]

Ran through the thread some, and can't believe people are defending 30FPS.

its not a defense of 30fps in the sense that its better than 60fps...obviously nobody would say that...its the idea that anything less than 60fps is unplayable that is being argued against...

 

[velociraptor]

But it's coded to the metal man, that means it should be 3 times faster

Spoiler

if you didn't get it, it was a joke

Look at the GPU you need to run this game at 60FPS.

LOL.

 

[nib95]

For a game like AC, I'll take 30fps and better visuals. This new everything must be 60fps move is such utter rubbish. Somehow 99% of the games this gen, and the vast majority of games in all other gens, were unplayable. For certain games, fighters, racers, twitch shooters etc, sure, but for everything? No. Better visuals for many games are still arguably more immersive and important than that extra bump in frame rate, especially in games that are 30fps locked, are slower moving, use effects such as motion blur etc.

Only criticism I have is that AC BF does not look particularly great, so whilst I can excuse 30fps for something like Watch Dogs or KZ SF, especially as launch titles, I can't really for AC BF. It just doesn't look especially graphically advanced, then again, maybe it's far more open than past AC games, and ultimately, it is still a launch title.

 

[sonic moob]

It's amazing that a game that runs at a better framerate plays better? Okay.

I don't care what is supposed to be right and cool on this fucking site, It's AMAZING that you could say that OOT isn't playable because of it's frame rate, when every Crysis game that has been made and ever will be made won't be 1/100000th as good as OOT. Crysis isn't even among the best FPS, OOT is one of the best games of all time.

 

[Lambda Pie]

Just wondering, what would be better. A variable framerate(slowdown) between 30-60fps. Or a locked 30fps game?

locked, for the sake of consistency.

 

[Metfanant]

Look at the GPU you need to run this game at 60FPS.

LOL.

so what you're telling me...is that AC3 is at times a completely unplayable game regardless of GPU because even the GTX690 dips to a low of 53fps?...


settled...Assassins Creed 3 = unplayable mess for ALL gamers

 

[velociraptor]

so what you're telling me...is that AC3 is at times a completely unplayable game regardless of GPU because even the GTX690 dips to a low of 53fps?...


settled...Assassins Creed 3 = unplayable mess for ALL gamers

Of course not. I'm merely suggesting Ubisoft are incompetent if you need such an expensive GPU to run a current console port at 60FPS.

In reality, AC4 should be running at 60 frames at 1080p - they really have no excuses. It doesn't look like much of a jump over the previous game.

Those cards running AC3 at 30FPS can run BF3 at 1080p60fps (at high settings).

Clearly something is wrong with the coding.

 

[eighty(one)]

The way I look at it is AC4 doesn't look like a massive step up from AC3 visually, on PC at least. I was assuming with all that extra power over current gen consoles, even a somewhat incompetent dev like Ubisoft would have no problem getting 60fps out of it on next gen systems.

But the game is designed to be the same experience on X1/PS4, as much as it is on 360/PS3. The game is scalable, but it would need a bunch of changes that would harm performance for those staying on a current gen machine; more than those upgrading.

Once current gen winds down, the new minimum bar for next gen systems and PC parts will not need to incorporate lower denominators of compatibility: 256/512MB ram respectively, to perform better.

You cannot gauge games that still are designed with all fundamentals perfectly workable on current gen to be mechanically, visually and fundamentally different on next gen.

 

[cammy2]

The latest AC4 demo here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzDgoL3LeqM was next gen right? Its probably just me. But if that was current generation with the same graphics on that vid would we be surprised? It did look current gen to me. Pushing it to the limit of course. Or it might just be me

 

[Megasoum]

The latest AC4 demo here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzDgoL3LeqM was next gen right? Its probably just me. But if that was current generation with the same graphics on that vid would we be surprised? It did look current gen to me. Pushing it to the limit of course. Or it might just be me

You need to refresh your memory on what AC3 looks like on 360/PS3 lol...it's nowhere near that.

 

[velociraptor]

You need to refresh your memory on what AC3 looks like on 360/PS3 lol...it's nowhere near that.

AC3 PS3 gameplay
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NM3W9mp7bs

 

[cammy2]

You need to refresh your memory on what AC3 looks like on 360/PS3 lol...it's nowhere near that.

Maybe i was just expecting a bigger jump in next gen. To be fair though its a launch game and also cross generation.

 

[Nethaniah]

I don't care what is supposed to be right and cool on this fucking site, It's AMAZING that you could say that OOT isn't playable because of it's frame rate, when every Crysis game that has been made and ever will be made won't be 1/100000th as good as OOT. Crysis isn't even among the best FPS, OOT is one of the best games of all time.

I would argue that many people would consider OOT unplayable at this point in time because of it's framerate but than you have people saying that 60fps does not make a game more enjoyable.

To be frank i really don't care if it's the best game of all time, i wasn't talking game design or even gameplay for that matter, shame you couldn't see that even though it was obvious from my post and the subject we were talking about in this thread, i still stand by what i said, 20 fps is unplayable and the fact that Crysis 3 has no obvious fps cap makes it more playable than OOT will ever be in it's original n64 state.

 

[sonic moob]

Maybe i was just expecting a bigger jump in next gen. To be fair though its a launch game and also cross generation.

TBH I thought the same going from Xbox to 360. They have been the same games pretty much. Well, the massive difference in power was not perfectly shown in the size, scope, effects, graphics etc of the games imo. Halo was Halo and thank fuck.

 

[sonic moob]

I would argue that many people would consider OOT unplayable at this point in time because of it's framerate but than you have people saying that 60fps does not make a game more enjoyable.

To be frank i really don't care if it's the best game of all time, i wasn't talking game design or even gameplay for that matter, shame you couldn't see that even though it was obvious from my post and the subject we were talking about in this thread, all in all i stand by what i said, 20 fps is unplayable.

LOL I thought you were being sarcastic. If you can't enjoy OOT because of the frame rate then I just hope to God that you don't speak for modern programmers in general or we are going to have some incredibly shallow-but-speedy-crap to look forward to.

 

[velociraptor]

TBH I thought the same going from Xbox to 360. They have been the same games pretty much. Well, the massive difference in power was not perfectly shown in the size, scope, effects, graphics etc of the games imo. Halo was Halo and thank fuck.

I'm actually watching the AC4 sea exploration video and it looks pretty damn good to me. Sharp textures, huge draw distances, nice lighting. It looks better than AC3.

 

[Nethaniah]

LOL I thought you were being sarcastic. If you can't enjoy OOT because of the frame rate then I just hope to God that you don't speak for modern programmers in general or we are going to have some incredibly shallow-but-speedy-crap to look forward to.

Again you're talking about game design while i'm clearly not, i'm gonna resign from this discussion because you're too heated up because of me saying something negative about your favourite game.

 

[sonic moob]

Again you're talking about game design while i'm clearly not, i'm gonna resign from this discussion because you're too heated up because of me saying something negative about your favourite game.

Are you serious? I couldn't be more relaxed. You must be taking what I said wrong. But DON'T (LOL) say things that people might find utterly ridiculous if you don't want anyone to reply to you.

 

[dEvAnGeL]

ive said it many times, last cycle of consoles was different because we were coming from standard definition in to HD, so everything by default looked amazing, right now is more of a polishing cycle all around, better textures, better particle effects, better animations, but we have become so spoiled with what some developers can do people are way to demanding on what to expect from a 400 dollars package, i believe that what have been showed looks amazing, whoever don't see a difference between killzone 3 and shadow fall is clearly full of it, assassins creed 4 looks great on ps4 as well, when it comes down to it you can never make people happy and when a few are there will always be the so called "im a pc gamer i know everything, that game looks like shit on consoles" that will come around just to trow some salt in to the thread, be happy the new consoles don't cost as much as a top graphics card, im happy with 30 frames at native 1080p for only 400 bucks

 

[rvy]

please enlighten us on how Uncharted would have been such better games if they were 60fps...

Too bad that's not what you wrote, now is it? You wrote that Uncharted would be just as enjoyable running at 30 as opposed to 60, which is complete nonsense.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

AC3 PS3 gameplay
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NM3W9mp7bs

I'm pretty sure that Ubisoft has a fame for showing better graphics for their E3 conferences.

 

[Matt2thefuture]

Despite it having some problems, AC3 on PC with MAX setting is a pretty game. When I saw the PS4 gameplay of AC4 at 1080p it looked better. I'm not saying PS4 is going to look better than the PC version of AC4 (it shouldn't) however it looks about as good if not better than as AC3 on MAX on a pc right now...which to me, is pretty damn impressive. Day one Im playing this on ps4.

 

[Metfanant]

Of course not. I'm merely suggesting Ubisoft are incompetent if you need such an expensive GPU to run a current console port at 60FPS.

i was using your post to make a point...

we've been told in this thread that basically anything less than 1080p/60fps is basically unacceptable and unplayable...

so i was being rather sarcastic and suggesting that AC3 must be just a completely unplayable game because all of those GPU's will see dips below 60...

Too bad that's not what you wrote, now is it? You wrote that Uncharted would be just as enjoyable running at 30 as opposed to 60, which is complete nonsense.

a game's enjoyment factor goes hand in hand with how good of a game it is...i would imagine most would agree with that...

 

[Thrakier]

I tried going back to UC3 @30FPS after playing through Tomb Raider @60FPS. I couldn't enjoy it. Not fore a second. And I did play all UC games for hours on end.

 

[Piggus]

Huh, so it's 30fps?

Disappointing I guess. Pretty crazy next gen consoles can't even run a cross gen game like Assassin's Creed at 60fps. I'm actually surprised, they seem weaker than I anticipated.

AC3 was heavily CPU bound and I don't see this being any different. AC3 would often drop into the 35 to 40 fps range for me even though I have a 3.5 TF GPU and a Core i5 running at 4.8 Ghz. I ended up locking framerate to 30 fps just to keep it consistent. Still looked and played great.

 

[JohnnySasaki86]

Huh, so it's 30fps?

Disappointing I guess. Pretty crazy next gen consoles can't even run a cross gen game like Assassin's Creed at 60fps. I'm actually surprised, they seem weaker than I anticipated.

Or they just don't have enough time to optimize it properly for release. Remember this is the first game they've done on next gen consoles, and im sure its a shorter development period, around 1yr.

The E3 demo definitely had a bunch of issues. Maybe it will be optimized in time for release and it was just the E3 demo they couldn't.

 

[Pwn]

Look at the GPU you need to run this game at 60FPS.

LOL.

Judging by this benchmark chart, I'm quite optimistic that PS4 can run this game @1080p:60fps with mid-high graphic setting.

 

[Papacheeks]

Since Watch Dogs uses different engine, does anyone know if they are targeting the same quality as AC4? I want to know if the'r target is 1080p (60FPS)?

Mostly what they've shown is on a pc running at like 30 right?

Can anyone confirm this for me or is it in another thread?

 

[rvy]

a game's enjoyment factor goes hand in hand with how good of a game it is...i would imagine most would agree with that...

What a non-argument. Well done.

 

[RetroStu]

Its weird because all the other AC4 vids have obviously been 30fps or even less, maybe they are at the final polish stage.

EDIT: Now people are saying it IS 30fps?

 

[RoKKeR]

If it's locked at 30fps then I'm perfectly fine with that. Hell, it'd be running better than AC3 can on PC, and that's with a 770. Such a horribly optimized game.

 

[RetroStu]

Maybe my eyes are foreign or broken, but I can't tell the difference between 30 and 60.

Sucks

If you get chance, do a search on here for the 'Killer Instinct Glaceaus gameplay' thread where there are 2 vids of the same video, one on Youtube at 30fps and one on Gametrailers at 60fps. If you still can't see a difference after that then i suggest going to the doctors or something as you may have something wrong with your eyes, i don't even mean that in a dickish way but if you can't tell the difetrence between both those vids then something may be wrong.

 

[Futurevoid]

I locked AC3 to 30fps on a GTX680 specifically because it often dropped into the high 30's/40's in Boston and other areas on PC. I was running a on a i5 2500k @4.5ghz as well.

If AC4 offers a properly locked 30fps experience on PS4, I'm perfectly down with that. Unless of course they've better optimized it on the PC and it is able to run at a fluid 60fps. That'll be the deciding factor for me. However, I've no issue playing a game at 30fps if its 100% consistently locked at that framerate. I can't stand jumps from 60 down to 30 and back up, etc. Locked framerate all the way.

 

[x3sphere]

I'm fine with a stable 30. When it dips below that, there's problems, as AC3 on consoles did quite frequently.

 

[dan2026]

I they can do 30fps, 1080p with zero screen tearing I'm fine with it.

I really, really wish they would target 60 though.