nkarafo
Member
Ok?
Ok?
I think you're onto something. Game developers this gen must be purposefully not trying to reach 60fps. Yeah, that's it. Obviously the development challenges for GC, Xbox, PS2, PS3, 360, PS4 & XBO are the exact same and it's just as easy to throw in 60fps this gen as it was in the old days, right? "Sacrifices", psshhh.I mean, can you say that Metroid Prime on GC had sacrifices in its graphics for its 60fps update? It was still one of the most impressive GC games plus one of the most visual effect heavy i ever played. Was there any talk about sacrifices for this game? The only thing i remember is people complaining about the lack of bump mapping but, come on, the geometry level was so high that cracks and bumps on walls were polygonal 3D already, they didn't even need bump mapping for details like that.
And what about Rallisport Challenge 2 on XBOX? A racing game so its on topic. Again, one of the best looking games on the system but running at 60fps at the same time. Was there ever a discussion about sacrifices on its graphics for this one? What about GTA3/4 on PS2? What about F-Zero GX? I didn't see sacrifices on that one! Lots of track detail and 60fps, like Outrun 2006. And there are many more examples of games that had both great gfx (better than every other game on these systems) and 60fps at the same time.
This whole "sacrifices" talk was a thing in PS1 times when superior looking arcade games couldn't be ported without huge cuts. Or with N64 and F-Zero X. It stopped in the next generation but when PS3/360 were released, talk about sacrifices started again for some reason. These machines had at least one excuse though. The increased resolution. So ok, ill give them that. But now? No excuses. Their games are rendered at the same resolutions anyway.
I don't appreciate your tone but yeah. I think the standards have dropped and pretty graphics in still pictures are more important for the mainstream. And even if they could give us 60fps at the same, most developers won't spend time and money on that because of the lower standards. People now are fine with "fine".I think you're onto something. Game developers this gen must be purposefully not trying to reach 60fps. Yeah, that's it. Obviously the development challenges for GC, Xbox, PS2, PS3, 360, PS4 & XBO are the exact same and it's just as easy to throw in 60fps this gen as it was in the old days, right? "Sacrifices", psshhh.
Is this a free game for PS+?
60 fps used to be the goal. Now flashy graphics are. Looking at this thread, sales-wise theyre probably doing the right thing :/I don't appreciate your tone but yeah. I think the standards have dropped and pretty graphics in still pictures are more important for the mainstream. And even if they could give us 60fps at the same, most developers won't spend time and money on that because of the lower standards. People now are fine with "fine".
GT6 is a PS3 game and it looks photo-realistic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Wxj4OhqSyLA#t=36
Yeah clearly the level of complexity in building a good looking world is the same as it was on Gamecube and XboxIt makes me wonder though... there was a time when 60fps games existed with virtually no sacrifices.
I mean, can you say that Metroid Prime on GC had sacrifices in its graphics for its 60fps update? It was still one of the most impressive GC games plus one of the most visual effect heavy i ever played. Was there any talk about sacrifices for this game? The only thing i remember is people complaining about the lack of bump mapping but, come on, the geometry level was so high that cracks and bumps on walls were polygonal 3D already, they didn't even need bump mapping for details like that.
And what about Rallisport Challenge 2 on XBOX? A racing game so its on topic. Again, one of the best looking games on the system but running at 60fps at the same time. Was there ever a discussion about sacrifices on its graphics for this one? What about GTA3/4 on PS2? What about F-Zero GX? I didn't see sacrifices on that one! Lots of track detail and 60fps, like Outrun 2006. And there are many more examples of games that had both great gfx (better than every other game on these systems) and 60fps at the same time.
This whole "sacrifices" talk was a thing in PS1 times when superior looking arcade games couldn't be ported without huge cuts. Or with N64 and F-Zero X. It stopped in the next generation but when PS3/360 were released, talk about sacrifices started again for some reason. These machines had at least one excuse though. The increased resolution. So ok, ill give them that. But now? No excuses. Their games are rendered at the same resolutions anyway.
It makes me wonder though... there was a time when 60fps games existed with virtually no sacrifices.
I mean, can you say that Metroid Prime on GC had sacrifices in its graphics for its 60fps update? It was still one of the most impressive GC games plus one of the most visual effect heavy i ever played. Was there any talk about sacrifices for this game? The only thing i remember is people complaining about the lack of bump mapping but, come on, the geometry level was so high that cracks and bumps on walls were polygonal 3D already, they didn't even need bump mapping for details like that.
And what about Rallisport Challenge 2 on XBOX? A racing game so its on topic. Again, one of the best looking games on the system but running at 60fps at the same time. Was there ever a discussion about sacrifices on its graphics for this one? What about GTA3/4 on PS2? What about F-Zero GX? I didn't see sacrifices on that one! Lots of track detail and 60fps, like Outrun 2006. And there are many more examples of games that had both great gfx (better than every other game on these systems) and 60fps at the same time.
This whole "sacrifices" talk was a thing in PS1 times when superior looking arcade games couldn't be ported without huge cuts. Or with N64 and F-Zero X. It stopped in the next generation but when PS3/360 were released, talk about sacrifices started again for some reason. These machines had at least one excuse though. The increased resolution. So ok, ill give them that. But now? No excuses. Their games are rendered at the same resolutions anyway.
I don't even understand what your point is.I don't appreciate your tone but yeah. I think the standards have dropped and pretty graphics in still pictures are more important for the mainstream. And even if they could give us 60fps at the same, most developers won't spend time and money on that because of the lower standards. People now are fine with "fine".
Where exactly did he clarify that? Was there some follow up tweet?
It makes me wonder though... there was a time when 60fps games existed with virtually no sacrifices.
I mean, can you say that Metroid Prime on GC had sacrifices in its graphics for its 60fps update? It was still one of the most impressive GC games plus one of the most visual effect heavy i ever played. Was there any talk about sacrifices for this game? The only thing i remember is people complaining about the lack of bump mapping but, come on, the geometry level was so high that cracks and bumps on walls were polygonal 3D already, they didn't even need bump mapping for details like that.
And what about Rallisport Challenge 2 on XBOX? A racing game so its on topic. Again, one of the best looking games on the system but running at 60fps at the same time. Was there ever a discussion about sacrifices on its graphics for this one? What about GTA3/4 on PS2? What about F-Zero GX? I didn't see sacrifices on that one! Lots of track detail and 60fps, like Outrun 2006. And there are many more examples of games that had both great gfx (better than every other game on these systems) and 60fps at the same time.
This whole "sacrifices" talk was a thing in PS1 times when superior looking arcade games couldn't be ported without huge cuts. Or with N64 and F-Zero X. It stopped in the next generation but when PS3/360 were released, talk about sacrifices started again for some reason. These machines had at least one excuse though. The increased resolution. So ok, ill give them that. But now? No excuses. Their games are rendered at the same resolutions anyway.
It makes me wonder though... there was a time when 60fps games existed with virtually no sacrifices.
I mean, can you say that Metroid Prime on GC had sacrifices in its graphics for its 60fps update? It was still one of the most impressive GC games plus one of the most visual effect heavy i ever played. Was there any talk about sacrifices for this game? The only thing i remember is people complaining about the lack of bump mapping but, come on, the geometry level was so high that cracks and bumps on walls were polygonal 3D already, they didn't even need bump mapping for details like that.
And what about Rallisport Challenge 2 on XBOX? A racing game so its on topic. Again, one of the best looking games on the system but running at 60fps at the same time. Was there ever a discussion about sacrifices on its graphics for this one? What about GTA3/4 on PS2? What about F-Zero GX? I didn't see sacrifices on that one! Lots of track detail and 60fps, like Outrun 2006. And there are many more examples of games that had both great gfx (better than every other game on these systems) and 60fps at the same time.
This whole "sacrifices" talk was a thing in PS1 times when superior looking arcade games couldn't be ported without huge cuts. Or with N64 and F-Zero X. It stopped in the next generation but when PS3/360 were released, talk about sacrifices started again for some reason. These machines had at least one excuse though. The increased resolution. So ok, ill give them that. But now? No excuses. Their games are rendered at the same resolutions anyway.
I can see that.I don't even understand what your point is.
Actually, no, it wasn't.Metroid Prime was very low poly
Best looking racer ever made.
If it's his personal one or official doesn't really matter since I posted the pic in a response to someone saying that the devs are under a lot of pressure from people expecting 60FPS. So he's certainly in that groupWhy would it need clarifying? If you spend one minute to actually look at his twitter account, you'd know that it's a personal one and that almost everything on it is his opinion. You'd also know that he has next to nothing to do with Sony's first parties, so assuming that he's talking for them is laughable.
Then again, all the framerate trolling in this thread is pretty laughable as well.
It makes me wonder though... there was a time when 60fps games existed with virtually no sacrifices.
I mean, can you say that Metroid Prime on GC had sacrifices in its graphics for its 60fps update? It was still one of the most impressive GC games plus one of the most visual effect heavy i ever played. Was there any talk about sacrifices for this game? The only thing i remember is people complaining about the lack of bump mapping but, come on, the geometry level was so high that cracks and bumps on walls were polygonal 3D already, they didn't even need bump mapping for details like that.
And what about Rallisport Challenge 2 on XBOX? A racing game so its on topic. Again, one of the best looking games on the system but running at 60fps at the same time. Was there ever a discussion about sacrifices on its graphics for this one? What about GTA3/4 on PS2? What about F-Zero GX? I didn't see sacrifices on that one! Lots of track detail and 60fps, like Outrun 2006. And there are many more examples of games that had both great gfx (better than every other game on these systems) and 60fps at the same time.
This whole "sacrifices" talk was a thing in PS1 times when superior looking arcade games couldn't be ported without huge cuts. Or with N64 and F-Zero X. It stopped in the next generation but when PS3/360 were released, talk about sacrifices started again for some reason. These machines had at least one excuse though. The increased resolution. So ok, ill give them that. But now? No excuses. Their games are rendered at the same resolutions anyway.
"Games were 60fps on PS2 how could they go to 30 when the systems are so much more powerful"
Why do people have this mentality? It doesn't matter how much power you have there are still going to be limits and budgets to what you can do. If you want 60fps sacrifices have to be made to achieve that and some developers believe their art direction is more successful when limited to 30fps and able to achieve better image quality.
Can someone remind me what this thread was about? 4 out of 5 comments are about some other game or 60 fps
Oh Woooord?
Goes back to actually playing the best looking racer ever made
When is DC's release date again?
I can see that.
My point is that these 60fps games were also the best looking games on these systems. Could they look better if they were 30fps? Sure but they didn't need to. They were already the best looking ones. And at the same time running at 60fps. Which adds to the visual fidelity. See, higher FPS makes graphics look better in motion, i don't understand why it isn't considered a visual improvement.
Actually, no, it wasn't.
I've seen the press trailers of pCars. Sure they are great, nothing is ever as sexy as a lie. Search youtube for actual gameplay, the graphics are well... I want to say rubbish, so I'll say it.. pCars graphics are rubbish. Compared to other PC sims the graphics are amazing, but the truth is most PC racers look at PS2 games with graphics envy (ok maybe not PS2 but you get the picture, they suck).
What? There is clear and obvious aliasing in the file footage. Even the steam I can see it.
Well it isn't
Great argument. I suppose knowing how to code and having experience on making games is a requirement? Or maybe making games should be your daily job?or try making a game of your own and then tell me if you can reach your target 60fps.
Something tells me you never played these games or your memory is foggy. Especially the drawing distance on Outrun... dude!Outrun and Rallisport had barely any texture details, lighting effects of any sort, draw distance was a joke
I'm starting to think DriveClub got pushed back as to not hurt GT6 sales.
Great argument. I suppose knowing how to code and having experience on making games is a requirement? Or maybe making games should be your daily job?
Anyway, some developers can do that i suppose, some other's can't and most won't even bother.
what's weird is...I don't understand why THIS game is the lighting storm regarding 60fps.
I mean all of their other PS3 racers were 30fps..and had great sense of speed.
Why isn't NFS's thread being blown up with these 60fps comments? And they have even more reason to with EA locking the PC version at 30fps...I know a thread was started for that particular issue..but it seems like 60fps gets mention much more in DriveClub threads.
You read those initial comments that start the storm...they just seem like drive by trolling.
Really?
I know the shot is pretty heavily compressed but I can usually tell where there is some aliasing present and I do not see it. It's at least substantially improved from older builds where my eyes went straight to it.
When exactly is this thing coming out anyway? The delay turned out to be a smart decision, hopefully the online racing is good and they get all their features in.
I can see that.
My point is that these 60fps games were also the best looking games on these systems. Could they look better if they were 30fps? Sure but they didn't need to. They were already the best looking ones. And at the same time running at 60fps. Which adds to the visual fidelity. See, higher FPS makes graphics look better in motion, i don't understand why it isn't considered a visual improvement.
Actually, no, it wasn't.
Recent Facebook snippets stitched together, total about a minutes worth of video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hqMvLX8ak0
Is this kind of drawing distance a joke to you?