Support NeoGAF

[KaiserBecks]

Yeah I'll wait for digital foundry. I've heard this "targeting 60fps" crap too often at this point. Battlefield 4 has problems maintaining 60 fps and Killzone is unlocked, but not stable. "Average fps" doesn't really say much, it's the "min fps" that make it interesting. Xbox One is screwed though, what a surprise.

 

[mjontrix]

My guess is Watchdogs?

Probably is - but to be fair letting Ubisoft anywhere near a PC is a bad idea - have you seen ACIII and the fps it gets on a high end PC rig? They're probably struggling to get the game running at all!

They should hire a few more people (as in 20 or so) to work on their engine because damn is it awful or what?

I would also say TitanFall - but it's source engine so it should be running at 300fps with all the bells and whistles - although it does have a lot of limits on it.

EDIT: Wait, unsteady Rock? You wouldn't happen to mean GTA5 would you?

 

[Hanmik]

LOL. Think nibzy. Think hard.

rocksteady.. lol

 

[nib95]

LOL. Think nibzy. Think hard.

Oh wait. I think I see what you did there!

Damn….new Rock Steady game. It was right there. I feel stupid.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

anyone who buys the ps4 version is dumb as it wont have the power of da clawwwd!

That's why I'm Rollin XBawks!

 

[Fredrik]

Yup, that's the beauty of consoles. Plug and play (for the most part) without having to tweak and stuff. That should be left to pc gaming.

You wouldn't have to tweak anything, it's like a difficulty or controller option, either you play with the default settings or you can go into a menu a change stuff the way you like it.
TressFX On/Off
Resolution 720/1080
Vsync On/Off
Detail Mid/High/Ultra
A mandatory menu like this in every game would be a true revolution in console gaming for me. No more 30fps.

 

[Jack cw]

Yeah I'll wait for digital foundry. I've heard this "targeting 60fps" crap too often at this point. Battlefield 4 has problems maintaining 60 fps and Killzone is unlocked, but not stable. "Average fps" doesn't really say much, it's the "min fps" that make it interesting. Xbox One is screwed though, what a surprise.

I agree with this. I cant wait to see how low the fps goes at Shanty Town. Anyway, 1080 with average 60fps an optimized tressFX on PS4 is still impressive.

You wouldn't have to tweak anything, it's like a difficulty or controller option, either you play with the default settings or you can go into a menu a change stuff the way you like it.
TressFX On/Off
Resolution 720/1080
Vsync On/Off
Detail Mid/High/Ultra
A mandatory menu like this in every game would be a true revolution in console gaming for me. No more 30fps.

That is the most horrible idea since forced DRM.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

Was mainly stating "seemingly" since this is still the early point of the gen. I don't know how things will play out.

And this is the first case of frame rate difference on the (now) current gen when it comes to a multiplat. I remember EA sports games (e.g.: Madden) being 30 FPS on PS3 but 60 FPS on Xbox 360 but that was only for one year. So yeah, I said that since I can't say for sure. Things can change over time.

Stop using last gen. This gen we have same architecture. They're both PC's and there's a specs difference.

 

[CosmicGroinPull]

I wonder though... If wonder if this sells decently, will it give other devs incentive to port their ps3/360 titles.

Lord knows we need that thou and gets5 love.

Thanks to this 60fps news, I'm buying 2 copies instead of 1. Hope that helps.... >.>''

 

[liger05]

Have to admit this has now got me interested in purchasing the game.

 

[The Incredible Muffin]

Wow,

could someone answer me this, what is the cause of all the reports of X1 games running in either lower resolution, or lower framerates than the PS4?

I am not up to date to all facts, hence the question, but wasnt PS4 only ever so slightly more sophisticated in the DDR department?

If that is the only real difference, than how can the results up till now be so significant?

Is it not a thing where X1 games are a bit harder to optimize atm, and is to be expected to improve over time?

 

[nib95]

LOL. Think nibzy. Think hard.

Oh wait. I think I see what you did there!

EDIT:
Or did I? Damn it! It's becoming impossible to read people these days!

Out of curiosity, what did you think I was doing, before you realised you weren't sure I wasn't?

Wow,

could someone answer me this, what is the cause of all the reports of X1 games running in either lower resolution, or lower framerates than the PS4?

I am not up to date to all facts, hence the question, but wasnt PS4 only ever so slightly more sophisticated in the DDR department?

If that is the only real difference, than how can the results up till now be so significant?

Is it not a thing where X1 games are a bit harder to optimize atm, and is to be expected to improve over time?

It's not just the DDR thing (ram difference in both available quantity and bandwidth). It also has a better GPU, and is easier to develop for.

 

[HariKari]

You wouldn't have to tweak anything, it's like a difficulty or controller option, either you play with the default settings or you can go into a menu a change stuff the way you like it.
TressFX On/Off
Resolution 720/1080
Vsync On/Off
Detail Mid/High/Ultra
A mandatory menu like this in every game would be a true revolution in console gaming for me. No more 30fps.

You effectively double (or more) the work necessary to make the game. It's not as simple as offering graphical options like that. It's done on the PC because there are too many variables to account for, so the task of optimizing the game for your individual PC is left up to the user.

 

[revolverjgw]

You wouldn't have to tweak anything, it's like a difficulty or controller option, either you play with the default settings or you can go into a menu a change stuff the way you like it.
TressFX On/Off
Resolution 720/1080
Vsync On/Off
Detail Mid/High/Ultra
A mandatory menu like this in every game would be a true revolution in console gaming for me. No more 30fps.

I remember Bioshock having an option to disable vsync to get a higher framerate. I was hoping more stuff like that would catch on.

 

[iMax]

Yes and it also a fact that the PS4 has more rendering power. So put the two together

I know, that's exactly what I said.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

You do realize that Tim Lottes, Creator of FXAA [an anti-aliasing technique used widely] predicted almost all of this more than a year prior to the consoles launched based off of just the specs?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=510076

ESram was the biggest problem he had with the XB1 and higher res/framerates

ESRAM is obviously not the biggest issue here, though. It's a challenge for developers, sure, and he points that out clearly, but the GPU, pure and simple, is the bigger difference maker in the majority of instances where the PS4 will outperform the Xbox One in graphics performance, particularly at higher resolutions such as 1080p. I'm a little surprised how reluctant people seem to be to want to acknowledge this much. There is no magic at work here. It's just stronger hardware. The problem for the Xbox One isn't that it can't do 1080p. It can always do that if devs are willing to make the necessary sacrifices to graphics quality. With the GPU specs it has it's far more ideal to create the types of games that people expect to see at lower than 1080p resolutions.

Question: Do you think the Xbox One, with no ESRAM, and with a single pool of main memory bandwidth equaling the PS4's, would match the PS4's performance here while being the same resolution? How about in BF4? Not happening. At some point, no matter the unique architectural differences between the machines, the GPU with close to 600 more GFLOPS and twice the ROPs will factor heavily into the equation and will always win out. You try to balance that advantage by lowering the resolution on the Xbox One. The ESRAM is a challenge, but it isn't the biggest reason for why PS4 should outperform the Xbox One in raw graphics performance. The answer is the GPU.

Even a glance at dedicated GPU on the PC with more or less similar differences in specs will tell you that the better GPU always wins at higher resolutions (normally by the same, or bigger, gap in FPS), particularly at 1080p. And those aren't using ESRAM. They use GDDR5 like the PS4.

Wow,

could someone answer me this, what is the cause of all the reports of X1 games running in either lower resolution, or lower framerates than the PS4?

I am not up to date to all facts, hence the question, but wasnt PS4 only ever so slightly more sophisticated in the DDR department?

If that is the only real difference, than how can the results up till now be so significant?

Is it not a thing where X1 games are a bit harder to optimize atm, and is to be expected to improve over time?

1.84 teraflop GPU PS4 vs 1.31 teraflop GPU Xbox One
32 ROPs PS4 vs 16 ROPs Xbox One

It's really as simple as that. The memory is a challenge to work with, but even without the more complicated memory setup on the Xbox One, the results would be more or less the same. The PS4 has more graphics performance muscle is the easy answer here. This is usually why developers choose to lower the resolution of the Xbox version, so they don't have to lower graphics or make sacrifices to the framerate. In this case, they opted for 1080p on both versions. That places the Xbox One version at a more serious handicap performance wise. Short of locking the framerate of the PS4 version at 30fps (which would be dumb, imo. If you have the extra performance, I say use it.), there is nothing preventing the PS4 version from running away from the Xbox One version performance wise. Lowering the resolution of the Xbox One version would have helped alleviate that, but they wanted both to be 1080p, so there you have it.

 

[SwiftDeath]

Rocksteady confuses me

Their pedigree consists of

[B]Urban Chaos: Riot Response[/B] 2006 PS2, Xbox 
[B]Batman: Arkham Asylum[/B] 2009 Windows, Mac, PS3, Xbox 360 
[B]Batman: Arkham City [/B]2011 Windows, Mac, PS3, Xbox 360, Wii U

How do you go from urban chaos riot response into making arkham asylum? How do you survive as a studio for 3 years in the constant turmoil of the industry without making a big game to survive off of? What changed that made them so awesome?

I think the story of rocksteady is probably fascinating

Oh also I guess we can take it that the next rocksteady batman game is having issues on XB1, at least getting it up and running well

 

[Nags]

XB1 - That weird SSJ2 form that Trunks used when he got fully bulked but slow as hell.
PS4 - SSJ2 Gohan

Basically twice as powerful and faster.

The ESRAM is holding back Trunks (XB1) even though he's gotten more powerful than before (Pre upclock).

^This is the most accurate.

 

[PhatSaqs]

Have to admit this has now got me interested in purchasing the game.

Its funny because the interest in the game shot up simply due to differences in performance it seems. Tons of free pub just from this revelation alone.

 

[SmokyDave]

That is the most horrible idea since forced DRM.

I cannot fathom your viewpoint. Having a hidden menu to tinker with settings would be fucking awesome. It's up there with full controller remapping for awesome things that really should've happened by now.

 

[Bgamer90]

Stop using last gen. This gen we have same architecture. They're both PC's and there's a specs difference.

I used "last gen" since the person I was replying to used "last gen".

 

[KingpinZero]

Now now, a 60fps Definitive edition of TR can get me interested into buying it on ps4.

considered the ps4 specs it should run at that framerate without much issues. Wouldnt mind to play it again, i loved it on PC.

 

[KeRaSh]

I also don't want tons of graphical options in console games. What I would be OK with is a simple switch between 30 fps and 60 fps.
People who keep complaining about 30 fps in games can opt to switch to a pre defined set of graphics that allows the game to run in 60 fps. It will be less shiny and might only run in 900p but it's a choice for the die hard fps evangelists.

Considering the fps discussion has been going on internally at Evolution I think it would be the perfect solution for Driveclub. That way we have the option to play this game in all its graphical glory or have it run super smooth at 60 fps with less details and a few more jaggies.

 

[Radec]

Can someone please translate this into DBZ?

PS4 = SSJ3 Goku
Xbone = Majin Vegeta
WiiU = Krillin


Always has been.

 

[dofry]

Based on some comments in teh internets about XBO version average being in the 45 and dips to 30, while PS4 version has max 60 and dips to 45, I have created a chart.

It demonstrates the balance of both being around 45 fps.

 

[samurai1226]

Do we really get the same debate for the next years, everytime we got a proof that the ps4 has more hardwarepower? It's a fact, so lets move on and focus on whats important: Getting good games and next-gen gameplay - because at the moment all we got is nothing new or exiting.
but maybe there are too much fanboys who prefer smashing each others heads because of hardware specs (that they cant even understand) and then buying same old call of duty, tomb raider full-price upgrade and all that stuff again -.-

and if youre so much into hardware specs and maximum frames, resolution, etc just buy a pc for gods sake -.-

Exactly. For the people who have played this on pc and know what the requirements are to make this game run at a constant 60 fps and to see that the ps4 is capable of such performance is HIGHLY impressive, even more so with it being a $400 system.

But you have to admit that the pc verion was really bad optimized for what you get in terms of graphic - it performs kinda equal to crysis 3 on some pcs

 

[NullPointer]

I remember Bioshock having an option to disable vsync to get a higher framerate. I was hoping more stuff like that would catch on.

And man did that tear like crazy. Which is probably one part of why it didn't catch on.

I cannot fathom your viewpoint. Having a hidden menu to tinker with settings would be fucking awesome. It's up there with full controller remapping for awesome things that really should've happened by now.

Then what mix of settings would the devs target for the best experience? Would those really just amount to various downgrades? Would multiplayer modes require a specific set of options to keep everything balanced (foliage draw-distance and shadows that could affect cover and concealment, for instance, but framerate too)

PCs are for tinkerers. Consoles are for locked down toasters that offer one particular spec to maximally optimize for the platform hardware and features.

 

[CCIE]

The only thing similar in the PS4 and XB1 is the CPU. The PS4 has better bandwidth, and a better GPU. Most third party games are simply going to be superior on the PS4. And the internal studios are doing some mind blowing stuff

 

[Fredrik]

That is the most horrible idea since forced DRM.

Wat?? How can a graphics option menu be seen as a negative in any possible way?? If you don't want it, don't use it. Default setting could be the usual ultra detailed 1080p 20-25fps with tearing like you're used to.

 

[Hanmik]

You wouldn't have to tweak anything, it's like a difficulty or controller option, either you play with the default settings or you can go into a menu a change stuff the way you like it.
TressFX On/Off
Resolution 720/1080
Vsync On/Off
Detail Mid/High/Ultra
A mandatory menu like this in every game would be a true revolution in console gaming for me. No more 30fps.

why not just make 2 buttons..?

"Show me how underpowered my Xbox one is"
and
"I have forgotten my glasses so it´s ok to display it this way"

 

[TheCloser]

I agree with this. I cant wait to see how low the fps goes at Shanty Town. Anyway, 1080 with average 60fps an optimized tressFX on PS4 is still impressive.


That is the most horrible idea since forced DRM.

I agree, i have a pc when i want to tweak with settings. Everyone should have the same experience. Thats why we buy consoles. A game should not perform differently or look differently if its in my console vs my friends console. Just buy a pc.

 

[The Incredible Muffin]

Wat?? How can a graphics option menu be seen as a negative in any possible way?? If you don't want it, don't use it. Default setting could be the usual ultra detailed 1080p 20-25fps with tearing like you're used to.

defenitly not a terrible idea,

but we all know that is never going to happen.


well,, maybe i should bite my tongue. Do you guys remember the first bioshock on xbox 360, it had a option where you could, i believe, turn of ambient occlusion. The game would be slightly less attractive, but would run in a higher framerate.

 

[viveks86]

Out of curiosity, what did you think I was doing, before you realised you weren't sure I wasn't?

I thought you were mocking/humoring his 'subtlety' by pretending to guess incorrectly. Thought you were infallible. You disappointed me, dear.

 

[Fredrik]

You effectively double (or more) the work necessary to make the game. It's not as simple as offering graphical options like that. It's done on the PC because there are too many variables to account for, so the task of optimizing the game for your individual PC is left up to the user.

Is there really going to he much more work when the consoles are basically PCs this generation? I mean these graphics options are already there since most games are made with PC in mind and often as lead platform.

 

[Dragon1893]

I figured something like this would happen though I thought it would be more of a case of PS4 holding solid 30 and the X-1 being more around 20. Pretty impressive for the PS4.
People need to realize stuff like this will be the norm.
Lol at people pulling the lazy dev card.

 

[derwalde]

MS will find a way to spin it, im sure.

 

[foxbeldin]

Based on some comments in teh internets about XBO version average being in the 45 and dips to 30, while PS4 version has max 60 and dips to 45, I have created a chart.

It demonstrates the balance of both being around 45 fps.

Not sure if joke chart...

Are you assuming PS4 version dips at 45 fps at the same moments xb1 version peaks at 45?
And that PS4 version dips most of the time while xb1 version peaks most of the time?

 

[nib95]

I thought you were mocking his 'subtlety' by pretending to guess incorrectly. Thought you were infallible. You disappointed me, dear.

I disappointed myself

Lol. On that note, does anyone know what Rocksteady's new game is yet? Also, I had no idea they were based in North London (UK) till now.

 

[Flandy]

I also don't want tons of graphical options in console games. What I would be OK with is a simple switch between 30 fps and 60 fps.
People who keep complaining about 30 fps in games can opt to switch to a pre defined set of graphics that allows the game to run in 60 fps. It will be less shiny and might only run in 900p but it's a choice for the die hard fps evangelists.

Considering the fps discussion has been going on internally at Evolution I think it would be the perfect solution for Driveclub. That way we have the option to play this game in all its graphical glory or have it run super smooth at 60 fps with less details and a few more jaggies.

I would love this

 

[Opus Angelorum]

I'd rather it be locked at 30fps, dropping from either 45 or 60 is going to hurt my eyes.

 

[quetz67]

Not sure if joke chart...

Are you assuming PS4 version dips at 45 fps at the same moments xb1 version peaks at 45?
And that PS4 version dips most of the time while xb1 version peaks most of the time?

It should just show how there is not a 100% performance advantage for the PS4 version, which many read into the OP.

 

[NullPointer]

Considering the fps discussion has been going on internally at Evolution I think it would be the perfect solution for Driveclub. That way we have the option to play this game in all its graphical glory or have it run super smooth at 60 fps with less details and a few more jaggies.

Wouldn't you then need to have two different leaderboards for all the club records? In the interest of fair play?

 

[dead monkey uk]

Will definitely try now. For one reason or another I skipped the PS3 version. 1080p 60fps has grabbed my attention. More of these versions please! (Cheaper than £40 would be better though)

Just ask http://www.play.com/Games/PS4/4-/57866599/-/Product.html

 

[SwiftDeath]

ESRAM is obviously not the biggest issue here, though. It's a challenge for developers, sure, and he points that out clearly, but the GPU, pure and simple, is the bigger difference maker in the majority of instances where the PS4 will outperform the Xbox One in graphics performance, particularly at higher resolutions such as 1080p. I'm a little surprised how reluctant people seem to be to want to acknowledge this much. There is no magic at work here. It's just stronger hardware. The problem for the Xbox One isn't that it can't do 1080p. It can always do that if devs are willing to make the necessary sacrifices to graphics quality. With the GPU specs it has it's far more ideal to create the types of games that people expect to see at lower than 1080p resolutions.

Do you know how large the framebuffer is on Killzone Shadowfall? If memory serves it's upwards of 120 - 140 mbs at certain points in the game. the Esram is infact a serious issue with higher resolutions and higher framerates using the most modern rendering methods such as deferred rendering. We have a developer who is so talented he created an industry standard approach [one of several] to anti-aliasing telling us that yes in fact with modern deferred rendering of buffers the ESram will cause issues with high resolution/high framerate games. Yes the GPU is also a problem. Yes it has far less headroom than the PS4. Yes it's shortcoming do lend itself to some of the problems the XB1 is facing but the ESram is also a bottleneck in the situation that even if the XB1 had the PS4's GPU it would not be able to compete due to the subpar memory solution.

Question: Do you think the Xbox One, with no ESRAM, and with a single pool of main memory bandwidth equaling the PS4's, would match the PS4's performance here while being the same resolution? How about in BF4? Not happening. At some point, no matter the unique architectural differences between the machines, the GPU with close to 600 more GFLOPS and twice the ROPs will factor heavily into the equation and will always win out. You try to balance that advantage by lowering the resolution on the Xbox One. The ESRAM is a challenge, but it isn't the biggest reason for why PS4 should outperform the Xbox One in raw graphics performance. The answer is the GPU.

No of course it wouldn't match the performance [answered it above as well] because BOTH parts of the architecture are problematic to higher res higher framerate rendering. How you can't seem to accept that is mind-bogglingly after all this time. I'm not necessarily trying to compare it against the PS4. I want to see 1080p/60fps games with deferred rendering on the XB1, I want Halo 5 to be that game but I fear it will be like Forza 5 and crippled in a way to make due with it's memory deficiencies. Why is Forza 5 a forward rendered game in this day and age?

Even a glance at dedicated GPU on the PC with more or less similar differences in specs will tell you that the better GPU always wins at higher resolutions (normally by the same, or bigger, gap in FPS), particularly at 1080p. And those aren't using ESRAM. They use GDDR5 like the PS4.

Again my point is what the future holds for all XB1 games not just multiplatform comparisons. My interest in the XB1 will solely be for its exclusives which I would hope can deliver great graphics. Can I settle for 900p and 30fps for the next Halo or lower? Sure but it won't make me as happy as better resolution and FPS that might be possible if they had used a unified pool that could handle larger framebuffers

 

[iMax]

Wouldn't it just be better if the game was displayed as the developer intended?

 

[SenjutsuSage]

I'd rather it be locked at 30fps, dropping from either 45 or 60 is going to hurt my eyes.

In a game like tomb raider, unlocked frame rate isn't an issue.

*to make my post shorter*

I read it all, and the ESRAM is indeed an issue, and a real challenge, but it isn't, and never will be, the biggest cause for lower resolutions or framerates on the Xbox One. They both play a part, but the GPU is the bigger culprit here. Maybe in the early stages, there are things that the ESRAM can take the lions share of the blame for, such as COD and BF4 being 720p on the Xbox One. Surely the xbox one gpu can do better than that, but even with full mastery of ESRAM (which will obviously help), with both consoles at 1080p, you will still see a sizeable gap in framerate between the two systems. Even with a lower resolution on the Xbox One, the PS4 still has a real and legitimate chance to still lead in raw framerate, as is the case in BF4. With full mastery of ESRAM, I do not think this would change in any tremendous way. I do think it would be a big help, just not in a way that will completely erase the gap that exists between the GPUs. Framebuffers can be stored between either ESRAM or DDR3, even separating parts of a specific framebuffer is possible, so the size of the framebuffer isn't as big an issue as you think. It just takes more work and planning to decide what will be where and when, and that's a legitimate and real challenge.

Forza 5 was a launch game. Just as turn 10 made amazing strides on the Xbox 360, the same will hold true for their work on the Xbox One. Just give them time, although I suspect the resolution will be lowered in some future titles, but I don't have a big issue with that. People would do well to remember what Forza 2 looked like on the Xbox 360. It was a far cry from the drastic improvements seen in the follow-ups. Forza 5 is just the Xbox One example of Forza 2. I'm quite certain of that. I don't deny that the ESRAM is a challenge and part of the problem, but I think it's crazy to label it as the biggest culprit when we know the type of GPU gap that exists between the two machines.

The system delivering great graphics well into its life isn't an issue. There's no serious concern of the system not delivering on that front, and Ryse at launch is a shining example of that, I feel. However, if we're talking comparisons as between xbox one and ps4, depending on the type of game, the xbox one version will suffer in obvious ways if the dev attempts to achieve resolution parity, rather than lowering the resolution to give the Xbox One some breathing room. With or without ESRAM, the Xbox One was always going to be better suited for resolutions lower than 1080p in order to produce the kinds of games we want and expect, and I expect this to remain true well into its lifespan. Every dev, if they wish, can always produce less impressive looking Xbox One titles at native 1080p. I don't feel that's an issue for them, but at what cost is the million dollar question? Devs will get more out of the hardware, but the realities of the GPU aren't going to change. Even once devs get a firm grasp on ESRAM, we'll still see some devs making the decision, particularly on exclusives, to target 900p. I fully believe Halo 5 will be less than 1080p also, especially since it's going for 60fps. And everybody expects it to look good, obviously.

 

[slapnuts]

Based on some comments in teh internets about XBO version average being in the 45 and dips to 30, while PS4 version has max 60 and dips to 45, I have created a chart.

It demonstrates the balance of both being around 45 fps.

Ah..I believe the PS4 holds up longer to 60fps than this graph shows man. I've been around a bit on the net to some with review copies and just about all are saying a pretty constant 60fps on PS4. But hey...who knows, time will reveal the truth.

 

[Hasney]

They should do it like GT6 where you get a higher framerate running at 720p, no need for the rest of the fannying about. Hopefully with it being an unlocked framerate, this is the case.

Although the fannying about is exactly why I play mostly on PC. I can play it my way, either 60fps solid or some bells and whistles... And I usually love those solid 60fps.

 

[nextgeneration]

But you have to admit that the pc verion was really bad optimized for what you get in terms of graphic - it performs kinda equal to crysis 3 on some pcs

Possibly, but I don't think we can say conclusively that it was poorly optimized. And the reason why it performs poorly (I think) is because the game is heavily cpu dependent. I recently upgraded my cpu from an i7 975 extreme to a 4770k and then went back to Tomb Raider and my performance shot up tremendously, especially in the scenes where I was previously getting poor frame rates. It's because in those scenes, the scene is cpu heavy.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

In a game like tomb raider, unlocked frame rate isn't an issue.

I disagree. I've played most of the TR games on PC and when the frame-rate drops it's nauseating.

I understand what you are saying though, it's less important than other genres.