killatopak
Member
Just make the framerate stable. I don't care what resolutions there are in the game.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
New Games with Sub-1080/60FPS
- Thread starter mdsfx
- Start date
Things are not that simple and going for 30fps and/or sub-1080p resolution could be more than pretty screenshots especially on boxes with standard horsepower as the consoles are - compromises have to me made either way, this can affect the visuals, IQ or the game itself...you simply can't have everything unless we're talking about a PC exclusive game and even then optimization and lowest common denominator comes into discussion.
If Insomniac went with 1080p/30fps or 900p/60fps (which is actually more demanding than the former) they would have to decrease the draw distance, poly count, downgrade the particle effects, the textures or the enemy count, as you can imagine something like this would alter the vision Incomniac had for the game and will probably made it an inferior experience due to decreased visual feedback (particle effects) and less populated world (enemy count).
Another example is Halo 3 which is still criticized for it's lackluster IQ due to the sub-HD resolution and complete lack of AA, these decisions gave us the epic double scarab fight...if the game run at 720p with 4xMSAA would such a battle be possible? most likely not, then yes the game was actually better because it was more blurry and jaggy and Bungie made the right call prioritizing more complex battle scenarios over IQ.
Gipsy Danger
Member
A great game does not need 60fps to be great. However, 60fps should be aimed for at all costs and I can't help but be a little disappointed when it is not. If I'm playing PC games then I will turn down any graphics settings I need to to get to 60. It improves my enjoyment of games significantly.
Quixz
Member
Even if you might be joking I agree 100%
Lower resolutions than 1080p in this day and age is a failure tbh. I could almost understand 30fps for certain game types if it was a completely stable 30fps (Which Dead Rising 3 and Ryse on Xbone failed to provide for example), but to see 30fps racing games on hardware not even a year old in 2014 is laughable. What next? 30fps one on one fighters?
My holdover console stockholm syndrome has made me fairly tolerant of sub-60fps for some types of game on console, it's true, but there are still some where anything less than 60fps is a failure, racers are one of those.
Oh, and clarity and performance do very much impact upon gameplay, so don't kid yourselves about that for a second either. Blurry as fuck IQ can shit on a game experience just as bad as a nosedive in framerate can.
My holdover console stockholm syndrome has made me fairly tolerant of sub-60fps for some types of game on console, it's true, but there are still some where anything less than 60fps is a failure, racers are one of those.
Oh, and clarity and performance do very much impact upon gameplay, so don't kid yourselves about that for a second either. Blurry as fuck IQ can shit on a game experience just as bad as a nosedive in framerate can.
sechsterangriff
Member
I'm expecting 720p or even a return to sub-HD native resolutions to make a comeback as this generation goes on. Developers love resource hungry bells and whistles...
dragonelite
Member
For current gen i will only support games that can reach atleast 900p, unless really special game like Halo or something but i believe 343 can reach 900p@60fps.
Fattony12000
Member
I would very much like to play The Witcher 3 in 1440p60.
Very Much.
Very Much.
SliceSabre
Banned
Didn't you know if it runs at 1080p with 60fps it couldn't possibly be a bad game!
Fucking get out of here with that shit.
I don't and have never carded if a game runs at 60fps at 1080p. As long as I'm having fun with the gameplay and everything else I don't care about such things. Is it nice for games to run at that level? Yes. Do I require all game I play to run at that level? No.
Yes I like stable frame rates, but I don't mind a bit of jank either.
Fucking get out of here with that shit.
I don't and have never carded if a game runs at 60fps at 1080p. As long as I'm having fun with the gameplay and everything else I don't care about such things. Is it nice for games to run at that level? Yes. Do I require all game I play to run at that level? No.
Yes I like stable frame rates, but I don't mind a bit of jank either.
Gipsy Danger
Member
Pretty sure no one is saying that bad games are good at 60fps. But if you're going to pay $400-$500 for a new console you would hope that games would at least try to reach what I feel should be the industry standard. I don't think Forza Horizon 2 is a bad game because of it's frame-rate but it is definitely less enjoyable than it could be.
Eh, I don't buy that whole "We had to make the game run at a poor FPS and sub-HD resolution because of the game's demands." excuse. With any game, it's possible to scale back other things than put up the frame rate and/or resolution for sacrifice, if a little harder.
To use Halo 3 as an example, they could have dialed back the lightning effects a bit, they could have simplified the geometry of the character models and/or battlefields, they could have had a dynamic draw distance dependent on the draw distance necessary, etc. They didn't have to sacrifice their FPS, they chose to sacrifice it versus other aspects of the game's visual design.
That's the thing I'd love to see developers do: Stop sacrificing frame rate as the first option when they realize they've pushed more polys on-screen than they should have. Exercise some good art direction and realize that the hundreds or thousands of enemies you want to render on screen which I will only see in passing as I mow through them on a huge, death-dealing care with a giant drill on the front could be early-PS3 quality models for all I care, because I'm not looking at a horde of enemies that closely.
RavenValor95
Member
Resolution isn't that big of a factor for me, but framerate is important just because it makes the game just feel better.
Last generation I played a TON of Call of Duty, and that's because it felt so good to play, and a lot of that has to do with the fact that it was 60FPS, games like Battlefield I just couldn't get into because of how sloppy they felt in comparison(at least until I went to PC, then when I played games like BFBC2 at 60FPS, I was hooked)
60FPS just feels so much better to me and while I won't outright ignore games that are 30FPS, I do tend to put them on a lower priority to consider purchasing since I know that I'll enjoy them less than I will a 60FPS game.
So what you're saying is that Halo 3 should have been 720p at 60fps...and that could happen at what cost exactly? everyone who played games on the PS360 should know that this would've mean heavily downgraded visuals at best and it would most certainly affect the game design/battle scenarios a lot as well with less enemies on screen/reduced scale e.t.c.
Just look at Halo 4 versus Halo 3 and the compromises that had to be made game design wise for all the improvements that 343i did on the visual department.
Red Chocobo
Banned
I can live with sub-60fps. But sub-1080p is inexcusable this gen.
It really depends on the game to be honest so lets take some sub 1080p games on PS4 and have a look at why they are sub 1080p.
BF4 - As a launch game across 5 platforms it is totally understandable that they were not able to fully optimise the game so chose the safe route to get as close to the 60 FPS experience they were aiming for.
Watch Dogs - This should be 1080p on the PS4 since it is a 30 FPS game on the consoles. Similar PC hardware can get 1080p at High settings which is good enough and considering how bad Ubisoft are at the PC ports you would expect the consoles to have more optimised performance profiles.
UFC - This also should be 1080p. They are running 900p with 4x MSAA, it would be better IQ with 1080p and 2x MSAA and chances are the frame rate would be smoother too leading to an overall better experience. Why this is not the case in this game is a complete mystery.
If the game is really pushing the boundaries of what is possible on the consoles and the devs chose to go down to 900p to achieve some expensive physics modelling which enhances the way the game plays then that is fine. If they chose to go down to 900p so that they can turn on a few extra effects then I would rather they stick to 1080p and lower the effects slightly as in very few cases does running at lower than native resolution + effects look better than native resolution without them.
With regards to frame rate then stability is key, they do not always need to be locked as long as the swings are not too great. If they really want to ensure stability then locking at 30 FPS or 60 FPS depending on their goals is the way to go but a game that averages ~55 FPS with mins in the mid/high 40's is perfectly fine for me as long as those minimums are not sustained.
BF4 - As a launch game across 5 platforms it is totally understandable that they were not able to fully optimise the game so chose the safe route to get as close to the 60 FPS experience they were aiming for.
Watch Dogs - This should be 1080p on the PS4 since it is a 30 FPS game on the consoles. Similar PC hardware can get 1080p at High settings which is good enough and considering how bad Ubisoft are at the PC ports you would expect the consoles to have more optimised performance profiles.
UFC - This also should be 1080p. They are running 900p with 4x MSAA, it would be better IQ with 1080p and 2x MSAA and chances are the frame rate would be smoother too leading to an overall better experience. Why this is not the case in this game is a complete mystery.
If the game is really pushing the boundaries of what is possible on the consoles and the devs chose to go down to 900p to achieve some expensive physics modelling which enhances the way the game plays then that is fine. If they chose to go down to 900p so that they can turn on a few extra effects then I would rather they stick to 1080p and lower the effects slightly as in very few cases does running at lower than native resolution + effects look better than native resolution without them.
With regards to frame rate then stability is key, they do not always need to be locked as long as the swings are not too great. If they really want to ensure stability then locking at 30 FPS or 60 FPS depending on their goals is the way to go but a game that averages ~55 FPS with mins in the mid/high 40's is perfectly fine for me as long as those minimums are not sustained.
nkarafo
Member
Your TV also has a 60hz refresh rate minimum. Don't you want this to be used fully as well?
blastprocessor
The Amiga Brotherhood
Majority of games on PS4 are 1080p so that's good. Some are 60 fps too. If a title is not 1080p then it's a no buy especially if it's multi-platform as l can buy on PC and run at that res.
Ray Wonder
Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
FPS>Resolution
I love 1080p 120fps on my 120hz monitor, but If there's a good game at say, 900p 30fps. I'm still going to buy it. I think that it's such a petty thing to refuse a dev the money solely over resolution and framrate. Just reading through these comments makes me cringe.
EDIT: Unless there's something seriously wrong with the framrate to the point it's unplayable. But that is eliminated in the "good game" part of my comment.
I love 1080p 120fps on my 120hz monitor, but If there's a good game at say, 900p 30fps. I'm still going to buy it. I think that it's such a petty thing to refuse a dev the money solely over resolution and framrate. Just reading through these comments makes me cringe.
EDIT: Unless there's something seriously wrong with the framrate to the point it's unplayable. But that is eliminated in the "good game" part of my comment.
ElectricKaibutsu
Member
I do think all games should be 1080p. That's the standard for TVs now. It was OK when everyone used CRTs to have sub native games, but they look so bad on these fixed pixel displays 
. Last gen got a pass since it was the transition, but come on, hardware makers new the score going into this gen.
30fps is fine depending on the genre. Get out of here with screen tearing though.
. Last gen got a pass since it was the transition, but come on, hardware makers new the score going into this gen.30fps is fine depending on the genre. Get out of here with screen tearing though.
legacyzero
Banned
I would prefer 1080p primarily over framerate (depending on the game). I get headaches with lower resolutions. If it's a simple RPG, or hack-n-slash, I'm cool with 30. But shooters/fighters, 60 is crucial.
megabytecr
Member
Same here, was actually going to get one but decided to wait and get a PS4.
60fps > resolution
Now I do check other things the game is doing, I don´t think I will not get a game because it does not offer 1080p and/or 60fps, but honestly it will be a deciding factor for me when I compare certain games, I will favor 1080p60 or at least 1080p30 locked.
This should not be black or white, certain games are OK at 30fps while others suffer, and then you have to value everyones opinion and right to choose, there isn´t a wrong decision IMHO.
It's totally acceptable to prioritize your purchases based on your preference for particular performance levels. Just as it's totally acceptable to realize that personal preference for this sort of thing is subjective, and that the resolution of a game has zero impact on how entertaining it is, unless the performance element is part of how you appreciate the hobby. Framerate, as has been made clear by Oculus Rift development, is equally subjective outside of extremes.
nkarafo
Member
Since we are talking about standards, 60hz was the standard in TVs ever since.... ever? I don't remember TVs being less than that, except on PAL territories where we used 50hz. Oh and games used to be 60fps from the beginning because of this. Even on Atari 2600 games were 60fps.
The 30fps "standard" appeared in the PS1/N64 generation because they were the first consoles to make 3D textured graphics a standard but they weren't powerful enough to also keep up the frame rate in sync with the TV's hz (like how the arcades were powerful enough to also have smooth frame rates along with 3D textured graphics). Nobody cared back then though because 3D textured graphics in your home was awesome enough to cover this compromise.
But now there is simply no excuse to still having to deal this compromise. Consoles are powerful enough to have 60fps as a standard along with superb 3D graphics. In fact, they were like that in the PS2/GC/XBOX generation (where many of their best looking games also run at 60fps). Unfortunately, everyone today only care about still screenshots to be as amazing as possible.
It seems like you may be misunderstand broadcast standards and TV tech. The idea of 30 fps (or 29.97 fps) being a "new" development is a misunderstanding of refresh rate vs frame-rate. Even just in videogames, many older games were being rendered as an interlaced signal, or with different planes/objects refreshed at different rates.
nkarafo
Member
Console games before the first 3D capable consoles were 60fps, no?
MaximusPayne
Member
Desitny is my most played game this new generation so far and it's 30fps. It doesn't matter if the game is awesome. /thread
They tended to render an alternating set of resolution lines, each at 30 fps, and even in that setup, the framerates/output speed weren't always locked in like you're suggesting.
nkarafo
Member
The screens and sprites scroll at smooth 60fps. It doesn't mean they also have as much animation frames though. There were a few games that scrolled at 30fps but these looked jarring in comparison. I remember Sonic Spinball being tiresome because of this.
Davey Cakes
Member
Things like this aren't deal breakers.
That said it's kind of crazy how the most powerful consoles on the market haven't provided 1080p/60fps as standard. It's 2014.
Of course, based on GAF it seems like gamers don't care and would rather sweep it under the rug.
"Game is awesome anyway so it doesn't matter" is a common and silly sentiment. The game would be even better at full optimization.
That said it's kind of crazy how the most powerful consoles on the market haven't provided 1080p/60fps as standard. It's 2014.
Of course, based on GAF it seems like gamers don't care and would rather sweep it under the rug.
"Game is awesome anyway so it doesn't matter" is a common and silly sentiment. The game would be even better at full optimization.
QuantumZebra
Member
Sarcasm is a lost art for many
Err no, 2D consoles output 60 full frames per second in 240p. And even if they were interlaced, the interlacing wouldn't effect the smoothness. 60 fps in 480i is exactly as smooth as it is in 240p/480p.
Resolution and frame rates are independent from a game being good. Audiophiles play music that sounds good on their speakers but it doesn't mean they like the song. Same thing with videophiles. Using the game as a benchmark doesn't mean the game has to be good.
I know that when Ryse comes out on PC, I will be buying it (on sale) because it's a great benchmark, not a great game.
I know that when Ryse comes out on PC, I will be buying it (on sale) because it's a great benchmark, not a great game.
Console gamer's care more for the graphics, if they didn't they would just buy a PC and have what frame rate they want. Console dev's know this so target 30fps most the time for better visual's im sure if both console's were even more powerfull the devs would still go 30fps and I can't see it changing for a long time. But you are right they can target both now and the game would still look good.
Actually, no. The old consoles usually fudged with the video signals so that the TV treated the video fields as all even or all odd, resulting in a true progressive-scanned 60Hz.
It's true that they sometimes refreshed scene elements at different rates though; that was typical with sprite animation. Such things are still common today, really; tons of modern games have shadows that only update every other frame, or some such business.
Rendering a 480-line interlaced "60fps" game was most common during the sixth gen. It's not even remotely appropriate to call that "30fps", though; it's much more computationally expensive than 480p30, and much of the time it's visually impressively close to 480p60.
Framerate is a tricky question, but as far as image quality is concerned, the gameplay content isn't really what hurts Halo 3. It's mostly the lighting. The game uses a very heavy (and somewhat inefficient) buffer format to achieve phenomenal HDR depth, and some aspects of the game's lighting model are really computationally expensive.
The interlaced component was more explaining why there was a jump for more demanding outputs as time (and resolutions) went on. The framerate/smoothness component was my pointing out that slowdown and frame drops were absolutely standard in early-to-mid aged 2D games.
Right, that was why I said two interlaced fields running at 30 each. I wasn't suggesting that it meant it was "really" only running at 30. I meant for the further clarification to make that point. My bad for being unclear.
Alcoholikaust
Member
what about us 4k set owners?
There are nice tri-980 PCs waiting to be built for you.
Actually progressive is only more demanding than interlaced if the interlaced game uses field rendering, which was extremely uncommon outside of some early PS2 titles. Also frame drops never happened in 2D games,just slow down. But the point is that nearly every single game displayed 60 unique images per second, resulting in a pleasantly smooth image that you just don't see on today's consoles (Nintendo notwithstanding).
I'm sure you are as sensitive as every other one. You are just not knowing. Which is no wonder because on console you get fed 30 and sub 30FPS shit for more than a decade now. How are people supposed to know and see it without experiencing it. Even I was fine with 30FPS for the longest time.