Support NeoGAF

[mrklaw]

From an average distance of 10' away do you really need 1080p? what about developers doing 900p sort of like how we got a bunch of 600p games this gen.

I'd be reasonably happy to trade full 1080p and/or 60fps, but I hope they choose more wisely. Eg instead of weird inbetween resolutions this gen, do something like dynamic resolution keeping the 1080p lines which you're more sensitive to, but perhaps dropping to 1280x1080 if necessary. Or drop to 720p which HDTVs at least mostly scale pretty nicely (or do it internally on the console)

Just no more oddball resolutions hopefully.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

From an average distance of 10' away do we really need 1080p? what about developers doing 900p sort of like how we got a bunch of 600p games this gen.

1080p looks a lot better than 720p. That in between stuff probably doesn't tend to work so well on tv's.

The 30 fps was to be expected. I guess you can't tell the difference on a youtube video so they don't think 60 fps is very marketable. They're wrong, they're all wrong.

 

[Stallion Free]

Heh. Battlefield 4 will bring you back in.

You are really set on that being true, aren't you?

 

[Reiko]

You are really set on that being true, aren't you?

If EA wants to cut into that COD money they would hope for it to be true too next gen.

 

[Stallion Free]

If EA wants to cut into that COD money they would hope for it to be true too next gen.

BF3 at 60 fps on PC doesn't feel as tight as COD at 60 fps on PC though.

And with like 17 million copies of BF3 shipped, I don't think EA is stressing about COD money.

 

[SniperHunter]

60 FPS BF game on consoles won't make it popular as CoD. CoD is all about small maps, fast kills, small amount of players. BF is about big open maps with a lot of players and matches can get boring at times.

 

[bigboss370]

i've never really card about fps, as long as the game runs smooth i'm good

 

[Majanew]

You are really set on that being true, aren't you?

It's what DICE is aiming for on Durango: 60fps/64 players.

I'll be fine if the majority of games next gen are 1080p/30. Frame-rate dips and screen-tearing need to get lost.

 

[KageMaru]

Next Gen or, same-ish gen?

Seriously, this whole 'next gen' is slightly more powerful than last gen bullshit is getting really old. You'd think they could do a lot more in the 8 year hardware cycle.

Hell, you could get 60fps @ 1280x960 in 2005 hardware in games like F.E.A.R. with 4x AA on the pc. The hardware at the time was top end, but that hardware today would be pocket change.

It's amazing how far behind console tech is. I realize that they have to have a standard so dev kits can know what to expect, etc. but shesus when was this bar set? 2006?

There is nothing "same-ish gen" about this news or the new consoles releasing next year.

Where do you get the whole next gen is slightly more powerful than last gen anyways or are you strictly talking about the Wii-U?

Sure they can do plenty with an 8 year gap in generations, but they'll always be limited by heat, power consumption, and cost. This has always been the case and will always be the case. Unless you think $600-$700 ticking time bombs the size of a 1980's VCR is a good idea.

Not sure why you bothered listing FEAR. Would you be happy with a console that could play FEAR at 960p60? Next gen should be much more powerful than that.

Actually I'm not sure what your point even is.

Heh you know that is interesting when I come to think of it, NG/B ran at 60 fps whilst still being one of the best looking games of that generation. Funny how that works.

It's pretty easy when your system is ~2x stronger than the competition =p

I would say KojiPro too except they pushed PS2 too hard with MGS3.

Capcom made a ton of great looking 60fps titles on PS2 like Team Ninja.

We did have a few 60fps Western titles on the Xbox like this one:

Dead to Rights.

Dead to Rights originally started as a PS2 game, not surprising it ran at 60fps. =p

 

[Jake Tower]

Remember back in the NES days when pretty much everything ran at a smooth 60fps?

3D killed framerates

Except when there were too many sprites onscreen.

 

[Loofy]

Except when there were too many sprites onscreen.

I like how back then things actually slowed down when there too many things on screen, almost like a cheat. Now it just gets choppy and you die.

 

[Anth0ny]

From an average distance of 10' away do we really need 1080p? what about developers doing 900p sort of like how we got a bunch of 600p games this gen.

Even 1080p is starting to look like shit on larger screens for me...

gimme dat 4k game devs!

 

[Jake Tower]

I like how back then things actually slowed down when there too many things on screen, almost like a cheat. Now it just gets choppy and you die.

Yeah the slowdown acted like primitive bullet time.

 

[Akuun]

Not at all surprising. Consoles have to keep prices realistic, and a gaming PC that can run today's games at 1080p/60fps at max settings is most likely way out of the price range of a typical console.

 

[Xdrive05]

From an average distance of 10' away do we really need 1080p? what about developers doing 900p sort of like how we got a bunch of 600p games this gen.

As a 1680 x 945 PC gamer, I support this. A good compromise resolution between 1080p and 720p, and for most people it won't be noticeable at living room distances.

 

[Dictator93]

I like how back then things actually slowed down when there too many things on screen, almost like a cheat. Now it just gets choppy and you die.

Yeah the slowdown acted like primitive bullet time.

Modern games can sitll do this actually. It is decoupling game logic from framerate. You can actually do this in CRyengine games if you want.

It was almost touted as a feature in the game Black. WHen the game would lag, it would instead go all bullet time.

 

[rjc571]

It's pretty easy when your system is ~2x stronger than the competition =p

Obvously it wasn't that easy for the Xbox, since it had far fewer impressive games running at 60 fps than the Gamecube or PS2. The only really impressive 60 fps Xbox games were Rallisport Challenge 2 and the handful of exclusive games developed by Team Ninja and Sega. Meanwhile the majority of the best looking PS2 and Gamecube games run at 60 fps while still looking better than most of the Xbox's library.

 

[SapientWolf]

Battlefield 3 doesn't even run at 60 FPS on most top of the line cards...the frame drops in that game are so annoying.

Except it does? Unless you're talking about Ultra with 4xMSAA. I run med/high at 1080p w/FXAA on two 5850s and average around 80fps.

BF3 at 60 fps on PC doesn't feel as tight as COD at 60 fps on PC though.

And with like 17 million copies of BF3 shipped, I don't think EA is stressing about COD money.

Don't know what that means. I turned off vsync and I can run and gun just fine as long as I fire in bursts. The engine is smooth as butter.

 

[RoboPlato]

From an average distance of 10' away do we really need 1080p? what about developers doing 900p sort of like how we got a bunch of 600p games this gen.

10 feet is way more than most people sit from their sets. I do think 900p will happen though. I can also see a lot of games utilizing dynamic resolution.

 

[Forsaken82]

From an average distance of 10' away do we really need 1080p? what about developers doing 900p sort of like how we got a bunch of 600p games this gen.

that is exactly whats going to happen.

 

[Reiko]

that is exactly whats going to happen.

Sub 1080p is actually a good thing.

Beyond 720p is when things get interesting in IQ.

 

[KageMaru]

Obvously it wasn't that easy for the Xbox, since it had far fewer impressive games running at 60 fps than the Gamecube or PS2. The only really impressive 60 fps Xbox games were Rallisport Challenge 2 and the handful of exclusive games developed by Team Ninja and Sega. Meanwhile the majority of the best looking PS2 and Gamecube games run at 60 fps while still looking better than most of the Xbox's library.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. Many of the xbox exclusives were made by western teams, which focused on graphics over frame rates.

I'm also not sure why you mention "most" of the xbox's library when the vast majority of those games were ps2 ports. This is all last gen crap anyways, making it all silly.

 

[Reiko]

Obvously it wasn't that easy for the Xbox, since it had far fewer impressive games running at 60 fps than the Gamecube or PS2. The only really impressive 60 fps Xbox games were Rallisport Challenge 2 and the handful of exclusive games developed by Team Ninja and Sega. Meanwhile the majority of the best looking PS2 and Gamecube games run at 60 fps while still looking better than most of the Xbox's library.

Not really. But they did look good at 60fps.

It's amazing what using better shaders did last gen.

 

[Dark Octave]

I would say KojiPro too except they pushed PS2 too hard with MGS3.

Capcom made a ton of great looking 60fps titles on PS2 like Team Ninja.

We did have a few 60fps Western titles on the Xbox like this one:

Dead to Rights.

Wait a minute...

 

[Reiko]

Wait a minute...

To be fair, Dead to Rights was made with half the budget of Shenmue...

 

[NullPointer]

I don't even mind 30fps if its god damned 100% of the time LOCKED. Lock it down, and if you can't, reduce the bells and whistles until you can.

 

[dark10x]

Don't know what that means. I turned off vsync and I can run and gun just fine as long as I fire in bursts. The engine is smooth as butter.

Yes, but you disable v-sync which automatically demonstrates that your definition of smooth as butter is different from my own.

 

[cyberheater]

That's a good example of something I really don't want to see on next gen games. The face has a relatively high resolution texture but just look at the guys belt buckle. Horrible.

I hope they manage to have a reasonable amount of texture resolution for all objects.

 

[WeAreStarStuff]

I have no problem with 30 fps. I guess it's b/c I've not played a PC game since 2002; so I don't know what I'm missing....I hate the feel of COD games though; it's like swinging a stick around with no resistance, if that's 60 fps no thanks.

 

[Reiko]

I don't even mind 30fps if its god damned 100% of the time LOCKED. Lock it down, and if you can't, reduce the bells and whistles until you can.

So Watch Dogs on PS3/Xbox 360 with a smooth framerate =

I have no problem with 30 fps. I guess it's b/c I've not played a PC game since 2002; so I don't know what I'm missing....I hate the feel of COD games though; it's like swinging a stick around with no resistance, if that's 60 fps no thanks.

I remember last gen people saying MGS3's 30fps was good enough. But that all changed when MGS3 was demonstrated on PS3/360 in 60fps. It really looks much better and changes how the game is played in regards to controller feedback.

 

[NullPointer]

So Watch Dogs on PS3/Xbox 360 with a smooth framerate =

Then make the game look like that. There is simply no excuse for framerate dips and tearing. That's amateur hour and puts the lie to the need for new, more powerful hardware.

 

[Portugeezer]

And Call of duty at 60 fps will continue to outsell them


"buh buh why people still buy that instead of our shitty game," maybe if your games offered what they do people would bother, EA

COD at 30fps would continue to outsell them.

 

[Reiko]

COD at 30fps would continue to outsell them.

COD was 60fps last gen though.

Some games shouldn't be 30fps. I remember the negative reaction of Madden going 30fps. Notice how that was quickly changed.

 

[Portugeezer]

1080p looks a lot better than 720p. That in between stuff probably doesn't tend to work so well on tv's.

The 30 fps was to be expected. I guess you can't tell the difference on a youtube video so they don't think 60 fps is very marketable. They're wrong, they're all wrong.

I don't know, that 600p stuff didn't seem too bad on my 720p TV, so maybe something like 900p won't be too bad on 1080p TV. I expect many games to be sub 1080p.

 

[Stallion Free]

Yes, but you disable v-sync which automatically demonstrates that your definition of smooth as butter is different from my own.

We were talking about the feel on the controls of a game, not the visuals. The best a mouse will feel in a competitive FPS is without vsync. I don't think BF3 as a competitive shooter feels that crisp or reactive even with 60+ fps and vsync off. The feel of COD goes a lot deeper than just the FPS.

 

[Majanew]

COD at 30fps would continue to outsell them.

Yep.

 

[Freshmaker]

John Carmack delivered the (shocking?) news via Twitter:



Those of you who crave 60 fps, PC gaming's got you covered.

30's a mere 6 frames from artistic nirvana. Dunno what the problem is.

 

[Boogdud]

There is nothing "same-ish gen" about this news or the new consoles releasing next year.

Where do you get the whole next gen is slightly more powerful than last gen anyways or are you strictly talking about the Wii-U?

WiiU included, but I mean as a whole, it seems that the gap in power between console generations seems to be shrinking or stagnating. Mainly this is in regard to the 30/60fps argument going on here. I'm just disappointed that we're still talking about 30/60fps for "next gen" consoles. To me it should have been a natural progression to higher frame rates and visual fidelity. It just seems flat out lazy that we're sacrificing one for the other at this point, since when you move on to the next generation you should be making leaps not babysteps. It guess it's just something that console-only folks don't care that much about, which is why they're not people.

Sure they can do plenty with an 8 year gap in generations, but they'll always be limited by heat, power consumption, and cost. This has always been the case and will always be the case. Unless you think $600-$700 ticking time bombs the size of a 1980's VCR is a good idea.

Not sure why you bothered listing FEAR. Would you be happy with a console that could play FEAR at 960p60? Next gen should be much more powerful than that.

Fear was just one I could pull benchs from 2005 running at 720p+ at 60fps with 4xAA, a standard that still isn't met by consoles today. My point was just that it seems the bar on these next gen systems seems low as far as performance goes. I see your point though.

Actually I'm not sure what your point even is.

Then I'm not sure why you responded. Good on you though.

I get your point about being limited by hardware, heat, cost, etc. I guess if you could get 1080 or 720p @ 60fps on a console there wouldn't be much reason for a pc. But the hardware gap has to be catching up rather than getting further away. Which is why I can't figure out why the framerate issue hasn't been addressed in 2+ generations.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

I don't think many people expected otherwise sadly.

 

[SniperHunter]

i think some of the parts in that watch dog video were complete bull shit, especially the stuff they showed before the gameplay started (huge amount of cars, pedestrians on screen with no lod pop ins)

 

[dark10x]

We were talking about the feel on the controls of a game, not the visuals. The best a mouse will feel in a competitive FPS is without vsync. I don't think BF3 as a competitive shooter feels that crisp or reactive even with 60+ fps and vsync off. The feel of COD goes a lot deeper than just the FPS.

Ah, well, I actually prefer mouse filtering myself but I don't play competitive games so fluidity is more important. Raw mouse input feels way too rough to me.

I agree that CoD feels better than BF3 when both are at 60 fps, however. No doubt about that.

Fear was just one I could pull benchs from 2005 running at 720p+ at 60fps with 4xAA, a standard that still isn't met by consoles today.

Bull fucking shit. I don't believe you. Even the 8800GT that I bought two years later couldn't do that completely smoothly let alone the 7000 or 6000 series cards.

FEAR doesn't even look all that good, if you ask me. It's an ugly game.

 

[Reiko]

i think some of the parts in that watch dog video were complete bull shit, especially the stuff they showed before the gameplay started (huge amount of cars, pedestrians on screen with no lod pop ins)

Next gen. Tessellation to help with LOD pop in.

 

[MoonLightWave]

Next gen 720p 30 fps.

 

[Orayn]

Next gen 720p 30 fps.

But think about how pretty Medal of Honor 3 will look!

 

[Recall]

I can see the difference between 30 and 60, but know nothing about how frame rates work. Can something like 40 frames per second be achieved and locked or must it only be 60 to be considered good?

 

[Boogdud]

COD was 60fps last gen though.

Some games shouldn't be 30fps. I remember the negative reaction of Madden going 30fps. Notice how that was quickly changed.

Nobody gives a crap about 30fps because most of them have never played the same game @ 60fps.

See: Dark Souls - pc+durante vs. console



If all you've eaten your whole life is fast food, you don't realize a fliet mignon is pretty good.

 

[Majanew]

WiiU included, but I mean as a whole, it seems that the gap in power between console generations seems to be shrinking or stagnating. Mainly this is in regard to the 30/60fps argument going on here. I'm just disappointed that we're still talking about 30/60fps for "next gen" consoles. To me it should have been a natural progression to higher frame rates and visual fidelity. It just seems flat out lazy that we're sacrificing one for the other at this point, since when you move on to the next generation you should be making leaps not babysteps. It guess it's just something that console-only folks don't care that much about, which is why they're not people.




Fear was just one I could pull benchs from 2005 running at 720p+ at 60fps with 4xAA, a standard that still isn't met by consoles today. My point was just that it seems the bar on these next gen systems seems low as far as performance goes. I see your point though.


Then I'm not sure why you responded. Good on you though.

I get your point about being limited by hardware, heat, cost, etc. I guess if you could get 1080 or 720p @ 60fps on a console there wouldn't be much reason for a pc. But the hardware gap has to be catching up rather than getting further away. Which is why I can't figure out why the framerate issue hasn't been addressed in 2+ generations.

Has nothing to do with the leap in power with the next Xbox/PS. Devs will focus on 30fps, so they can push more in terms of overall graphics.

guess it's just something that console-only folks don't care that much about, which is why they're not people.

And what the hell is this garbage?

 

[Orayn]

I can see the difference between 30 and 60, but know nothing about how frame rates work. Can something like 40 frames per second be achieved and locked or must it only be 60 to be considered good?

Some try it (God of War III), but games target multiples of 30 FPS because most displays flicker 60 times per second no matter what. With 60FPS it's 1:1 and with 30 you can just display each frame twice, but anything else will require some form of "pulldown," which is something that's generally avoided.

 

[dark10x]

Next gen 720p 30 fps.

Hey, if I can get this at 720p I would be way more impressed than what we currently have running at 1440p.

 

[Portugeezer]

Some try it (God of War III), but games target multiples of 30 FPS because most displays flicker 60 times per second no matter what. With 60FPS it's 1:1 and with 30 you can just display each frame twice, but anything else will require some form of "pulldown," which is something that's generally avoided.

I don't know. On PC I get a lot of in between framerates, Vsync off, and never have any real problems playing or enjoying the pretty visuals, but yes visually it's not as stable as 30fps Vsync.