Support NeoGAF

[mdsfx]

I've been seeing this a lot lately: A new game is on its way out when we get confirmation that it's running natively at 900 or is locked at 30fps. The next 6 pages of the thread are full of "preorder canceled" comments.

I know new generations of consoles offer us better visuals, but is that ALL next-gen is about? Why are people's game purchases hinging on resolution or frame rate?

I love smooth, shiney things as much as the next person, but in my opinion, a lot of that is very much secondary to the gameplay, story, artwork, scale, and a myriad of other things that are part of the whole package.

I'm curious to hear what others have to say. If resolution and framerate ARE that important to you, why is that the case?

 

[chicagocubsfan]

As long as its stable framerate wise its good for me. 1080p/60fps is icing on the cake and makes me value my purchase more though.

 

[Skyzard]

I love smooth, shiney things as much as the next person, but in my opinion, a lot of that is very much secondary to the gameplay, story, artwork, scale, and a myriad of other things that are part of the whole package.

60fps / smoothness adds a lot to the gameplay, especially in fast games.


Sunset Overdrive isn't something I'd skip (if I had a x1) though.

 

[IAmRandom31]

1080 is a near must but not 60fps.

 

[nkarafo]

Because that's why we buy newer and more powerful hardware. Having many more games at 60fps in 2000-2005 than we have today its kind of embarrassing.

 

[JayEH]

Don't care much for resolution. Frame rate is definitely more important to me but I wouldn't not buy a game because it runs at 30.

All games should run at 60 though, I need a PC...

 

[Soulflarz]

As long as its stable framerate wise its good for me. 1080p/60fps is icing on the cake and makes me value my purchase more though.

This. A great game doesnt need 60fps/1080p is my view. But maybe im weird.
I do enjoy it though!

 

[Eggbok]

It only matters to me if it effects the gameplay experience, other than that idgaf. 1080p/60fps is ideal, but if a game doesn't have it I'll survive. It's not the end of the world.

 

[mdsfx]

Because that's why we buy newer and more powerful hardware. Having more games at 60fps in 2000-2005 than today its kind of embarrassing.

I think that's partially correct, but they also allow us to have larger set pieces, giving us everything on a larger scale, or give us more effects, better lighting, etc.

 

[Zeyphersan]

Some of my favorite games were in 240p/20fps

Now, does that mean I don't like all the graphical bells and whistles, high resolution, and smooth framerate? Of course not, I built a PC because I value all that. But I'll never skip a game because they don't have that stuff

 

[abstract alien]

1080 is a near must but not 60fps.

I'm the exact opposite in most cases.

 

[Vesmir]

1080 is a near must but not 60fps.

It's not necessary for a game like Binding of Isaac: Rebirth or similar games.

 

[outunderthestars]

Most of those people didn't have preorders in the first place.

 

[Rnr1224]

framerate is more important to me than resolution.

 

[Allforce]

It's not a deal breaker to me whether I enjoy a game or not but it's sort of discouraging that we're at this point and it's not something that is just a constant. I mean you heard plenty of PC gamers playing games at 60 FPS and up that were 30 FPS on 360/PS3. You'd think that would be the baseline now with more powerful hardware in these consoles like PS4 and XBO.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

The preordered cancelled is a joke

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

Buy new thing, expect better graphics. Are those expectations always reasonable? No. Do some people care a lot about their expectations being met? Obviously.

Is this so hard to glean from the countless discussions of this subject on this forum?

 

[7DollarHagane]

I do wish it was the standard because it makes game play better and look so sharp. But pushing more effects is more important I guess.

 

[CLEEK]

1080p is the magical sweet spot, as that's the native resolution of people's HDTVs. Anything below this introduces blur and artefacts from scaling. You should never be happy with some half-arsed res like 792p, 800p, 900p or so on. Dev should have 1080p in their sights from the moment the game design starts.

In many cases, 30fps is perfectly fine. It was always going to be a mainstay of this gen, as it has been every gen before it. For certain genres, 60fps is a must. Fighters, racing sims etc. But for most, I find it entirely acceptable. I've not once felt the frame rate in Destiny is an issue, but obviously it would be hugely improved experience if the game ran at 60fps. The caveat to this is, if a game is to run at 30fps (and it's not EDF - they're exempt from criticism) it needs to be a solid 30fps. Games they yo-yo into the 20s look horrible,

 

[Moon_frogger]

Because that's why we buy newer and more powerful hardware. Having many more games at 60fps in 2000-2005 than we have today its kind of embarrassing.

You realize the games are a little bit more complex than they were in 2005, right? Like, that's almost 10 years ago and I'm sure the Xbox one and ps4 could handle most of those games at a framerate and image quality that statisfys you.

 

[RowdyReverb]

At this point, many games are still cross-gen. As a result, resolution and framerate are the biggest changes from the previous gen, so people fixate on it. Also, console warz

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

preorder cancelled/cancel the generation are said as jokes the majority of the time.

 

[Protagonist Jake]

Not having an at least somewhat stable framerate of 60FPS when most games back in Gen 6 had that is extremely disappointing to me. Not a purchase changer (usually depends on the game), but its like... 2 gens later and games are performing worse? It just shows moneys going into the wrong places and priorities are mixed up (again usually, depends on the game)

Id sacrifice less pixels on the screen at once ANY DAY for better performance, and I dont understand people who think the opposite honestly.

 

[IAmRandom31]

It's not necessary for a game like Binding of Isaac: Rebirth or similar games.

Indeed. But neither is 60fps

 

[GreatMightySymp]

It's nice, but it isn't a huge issue for me. I care more about janky framerates than if it's 30fps or 60fps.

Granted I game on consoles/handhelds instead of PCs so I don't really have the "PC MASTER RACE" mentality when it comes to specs.

 

[nkarafo]

You realize the games are a little bit more complex than they were in 2005, right? Like, that's almost 10 years ago and I'm sure the Xbox one and ps4 could handle most of those games at a framerate and image quality that statisfys you.

Yes. I also realize that the games of 2000-2005 were more complex than the games of 1995-1999. That didn't stop them from having a better frame rate. Because, hey, that's what the better hardware is for.

 

[TheCloser]

1080 is a near must but not 60fps.

This, its 2014 and i refuse to purchase sub hd games.

 

[Pappasman]

1080 is a near must but not 60fps.

A higher framerate should be much more important than a higher resolution imo.

 

[nkarafo]

A higher framerate should be much more important than a higher resolution imo.

.

 

[Purest 78]

It's a situation where you don't know what you where missing, until you see it for yourself. Tlou:R is a great example of that,I thought it looked great on ps3. After playing it on ps4 at 1080p 60fps. The ps3 version looks blurry and plays clunky Campared to the ps4 version.

 

[Protagonist Jake]

Indeed. But neither is 60fps

see I dont understand this.

in what world does the game, the interactive experience, performing better < having more pixels on the screen at once. Some of my favorite games are at 16 bit for crying out loud.

 

[impact]

1080 is a near must but not 60fps.

Yea this is how I feel about my consoles. If it's a game I want 60fps for I have a PC.

 

[nkarafo]

see I dont understand this.

in what world does the game, the interactive experience, performing better < having more pixels on the screen at once. Some of my favorite games are at 16 bit for crying out loud.

Just a fun fact, 99% of 16bit games (and 8bit games) are 60fps. People just have low standards now.

 

[fuzzyreactor]

Bad image quality really bothers me. I'll take 30fps over low resolution for most games

 

[sn00zer]

The last thing I look for in a console game is its resolution or fps.... on PC where I can modify these I absolutely try and maximize both, because there is this constant stress whenever there is a framedrop that there was something I couldve done about it...its kind of why I stopped PC gaming...on consoles though I cant change it and everyone is having the same experience so there is no stress about tweaking settings and I can just enjoy the game.


God something like Journey would have absolutely been killed if I was worrying about getting the right resolution and framerate.

 

[Superflat]

I'd love for every current game to have at least one of those two things.

1080p/60fps
1080p/30fps
900p/60fps

All okay.

I just want 720p/sub-30fps to die off with this gen. For the most part, so far so good.

 

[The Llama]

Stable framerate is most important. Even if its 30, make it an effectively locked 30. Seemed last lastgen the framerates got progressively worse and worse as devs tried to squeeze every little bit of power out of them. I refused to play TLOU on PS3 just because of that.

 

[Protagonist Jake]

Just a fan fact, 99% of 16bit games (and 8bit games) are 60fps.

Precisely.

I PLAY the vidyagarme first most, the game isnt inherently worst by not having as much pixels on the screen, but it is by performing bad.

 

[DirtyLarry]

Some of my favorite games were in 240p/20fps

Now, does that mean I don't like all the graphical bells and whistles, high resolution, and smooth framerate? Of course not, I built a PC because I value all that. But I'll never skip a game because they don't have that stuff

This post sums it up absolutely perfectly for myself.

It goes without saying I would truly love if these latest next gen consoles were capable of 1080p/60fps across the board. That it was just a given. It would be truly fantastic if they were capable of making that type of advancement from a technological perspective.

However because I have been gaming since 1978, I have seen video games come a very, very, very long way in what they are capable of compared to where they began for myself. So having perspective is very relative to my own personal experience. In fact what games are capable of now is downright magical at times when I think back to my 5 year old self playing Pitfall on the Atari 2600.

However because I do like good graphics when possible, It is why I built my first dedicated gaming PC 11 years ago now.
Hell, I was gaming at 1080p and over 60 FPS before it was even officially a thing (okay, technically my CRT monitor was 1680 x 1050, but you get my point).

So while it would be great if these latest consoles were always 1080p/60fps, no argument from me there, that is personally not why I own them and why I play on them.

I own them as I consider myself a gamer first and foremost and that means experiencing all types of games, at all types of resolutions and all types of frame rates. I also use them as being older now with very limited time, there is no doubt the factor of just throwing a disk in and having a machine capable of playing a game within minutes from the comfort of my couch.

Honestly, caring about resolution is quite silly imho, but then again I have a whole lot of history that provides me with the perspective to have no problem taking this stance. I suppose for kids nowadays who do not have that perspective it could potentially be a big deal, but then I also think to myself they are missing the point of playing games to begin with. To have fun. Eye candy was, and always will be for myself, an added bonus.

Just one mans opinion. A fairly old man at that.

 

[Renekton]

Todd Howard of Bethesda mentioned how the consoles' 8GB RAM (before OS) will allow them to put new gameplay or immersion aspects to their TES series that were not possible on PS360.

That's my idea of next-gen.

 

[GitarooMan]

I never don't buy games because of it, but from my end the lack of 1080p is always disappointing because I had thought for years that after waiting through an extra long generational cycle, new systems released in 2013 would support 1080p routinely. I feel like the fact the XBO struggles so much on this front to be a huge planning/design failure on the part of MS. As far back as a few years ago I would have thought that 1080p would be an absolute target for this console gen to match up with current TV's native resolution, and to see a system designed for release in 2013 that can't really reliably handle it was disappointing last year and is still disappointing now.

 

[hemtae]

I buy a couple of games per year to satisfy my inner graphics whore but those are typically on PC so I don't really care about resolution and framerate then. On consoles, I'd prefer native 1080p for a cleaner image but it isn't a dealbreaker.

Framerate on the other hand directly ties to gameplay in a few genres and is a dealbreaker for me. I won't be getting Driveclub because of it.

 

[IAmRandom31]

A higher framerate should be much more important than a higher resolution imo.

Not for me.

See, we console gamers have dealt with pure shit looking games for basically the past 15 years ever since the word polygon was used. Horrible aliasing, low texture palettes, shimmering, lack of any advanced post processing, sub native framerates, you name it. The PS3 / 360 era introduced high poly environments but in the PS3s case we still had screens that generally looked like ants were crawling all over the screen anytime it moved.

This gen we finally get our chance at a clean screen and I want that WAAAYYY more then any sort of arbitrary perceptual advantage 60 FPS supposedly brings. 60fps is nice, but I'm able to play my games just fine with 30fps especially if the game is built for that framerate. Even a racer like DriveClub when built for 30fps can have a fantastic sense of speed usually reserved for the smoother transitioning of a 60fps game.

I'm all about that 1080p this gen

 

[Surface of Me]

Todd Howard of Bethesda mentioned how the consoles' 8GB RAM (before OS) will allow them to put new gameplay or immersion aspects to their TES series that were not possible on PS360.

That's my idea of next-gen.

Basically this, extra pixels and frames are nice, but arent huge to gameplay IMO.

There is no good reason for games to be sub 60fps and sub 1080p these days.

60 fps makes games feel smoother and play better. There's more control in-game and everything looks a hell of a lot better in motion because there's less choppiness in objects which are moving extremely fast.

1080p as a native resolution for most TVs just looks great. There's no stretching of pixels or bad upscaling to deal with, everything is displaying exactly how the developer expects it to be displayed, regardless of hardware quirks.

The reason we get 30fps-targeted games and sub-1080p resolutions is because of screenshots: It's easier to push polys and post-processing effects if you scale everything else back, so why not half the frame rate to double your effective prettiness, because the sheep will buy whatever as long as the still image looks pretty enough!

I'm not even asking for every game to be a hard-locked 60 fps, either. Metal Gear Rising was perfectly playable even when it dipped. But there's nobody who can claim that 30 fps is a better experience without devolving into that "cinematic experience" bullshit. No game has ever been improved by being choppier and more blurry.

If reaching 1080p and 60 FPS would mean, just for example, less enemies on screen, then I'd rather the game take the hit to the resolution/framerate.

 

[Zaku]

I'm curious to hear what others have to say. If resolution and framerate ARE that important to you, why is that the case?

There is no good reason for games to be sub 60fps and sub 1080p these days.

60 fps makes games feel smoother and play better. There's more control in-game and everything looks a hell of a lot better in motion because there's less choppiness in objects which are moving extremely fast.

1080p as a native resolution for most TVs just looks great. There's no stretching of pixels or bad upscaling to deal with, everything is displaying exactly how the developer expects it to be displayed, regardless of hardware quirks.

The reason we get 30fps-targeted games and sub-1080p resolutions is because of screenshots: It's easier to push polys and post-processing effects if you scale everything else back, so why not half the frame rate to double your effective prettiness, because the sheep will buy whatever as long as the still image looks pretty enough!

I'm not even asking for every game to be a hard-locked 60 fps, either. Metal Gear Rising was perfectly playable even when it dipped. But there's nobody who can claim that 30 fps is a better experience without devolving into that "cinematic experience" bullshit. No game has ever been improved by being choppier and more blurry.

 

[The Llama]

Todd Howard of Bethesda mentioned how the consoles' 8GB RAM (before OS) will allow them to put new gameplay or immersion aspects to their TES series that were not possible on PS360.

That's my idea of next-gen.

Same and its why I can NOT wait for crossgen to die. It's killing game design.

 

[Audible]

I can't tell the difference between 792p and 1080p (I play on a monitor), but I'd like 60fps if possible.

It's not a deal breaker for me and I sometimes cringe at people here who constantly demand 60fps and won't buy a game cause of it. I guess that's why they have PCs as well.

 

[CLEEK]

A higher framerate should be much more important than a higher resolution imo.

I agree, but the reality is not a simple choice between Sub-HDp/60 and 1080p/30.

Doubling the frame rate requires far more computational power than doubling the resolution.

When games are designed, based on the genre, the dev should know whether to target 30fps or 60fps. Then their goal is to get that frame rate consistent, and scale everything going on to achieve it. Lowing the res from 1080p to 900p might help eke out a few more fps, but it's not going to help double the frame rate. 1080p (with AA) should always be the target, regardless of genre. This gen should be the gen to provide consistently great IQ.

The concerns about 30fps usually stem from the game genre. Driveclub has sacrificed frame rate for stunning graphical excess. But many rightly feel that racing games should always be 60fps.

Likewise, with Sunset Overdrive, many are disappointed that a twitch, arcade shooter should run at 60fps, like the Ratchet & Clank games did. The writing was always on the wall for Insomniac, after that admitted that 60fps games didn't sell any better and they'd stop making them.

 

[CaptainGyro]

I can play with both sub 1080p and 60 fps, but if I had to choose one I'd take a higher framerate and a lower resolution like 900p.. I'm used to 60 fps, and 30 fps just looks distractingly weird for a long time until I get used to it. I haven't actually seen a lot of games in 900p. but from what little I have seen it's not as big a deal to me.

 

[whitehawk]

I'll always prefer 1080p 60fps, but I just finished Watch Dogs and really enjoyed it. Despite being 900p, it looks better than a lot of games. Hopefully the sequel is 1080p though.