Support NeoGAF

[ALLseeingEYE]

Consumers are funny. They want everything regardless of logic or reason.

They have no idea what it takes to create the things they expect. Here are some examples of games where sacrifices make sense, in my opinion:

- Dead Rising 3 (720p/30fps) - This game has "Thousands" of zombies on screen in an open-world. The overall shock and gameplay benefits of having so many zombies easily outweighs having slightly better image quality.

- Battlefeild 4 (900p/60fps) - Gameplay over slightly better resolution. 64 players and faster framerate benefit way more than slightly higher resolution. Even the 720p X1 version still looks excellent.

- Ryse (900p/30fps) - Absolute stunner of a game. Would look amazing at 1080p, but it wasn't an issue.


I think the truth is, before people experience a game, all they have to go by are these buzzwords and grainy game trailers. Most people have no idea what it actually takes to create a beautiful image, so they judge things based on shallow aspects like these.

These things are important, but they are secondary to the actual experience of playing the game. Personally, I choose to trust the immensely talented art directors on these projects rather than make uninformed decisions based of these fractionally important aspects.

 

[garbagejuicer]

I have an analogy for this framerate/resolution stuff that I like to use when discussing this with friends.

If someone came up to you and said a car was awesome looking (think Ferrari?) and got 30 mpg, would it be enough to make a complete and accurate assessment of it just off those two things? Or if they said it had 300 hp? The answer of course is no, because there are many things to take in account besides power/MPG. The car could have 300 hp but weigh 5000 lbs and be slower than a car with less HP and less weight. Or it could be amazing looking and handle like crap.

I think its unfortunate that its come down to this when making snap assessments of a games quality. Is 1080p and 60 FPS desirable? Yes, but then again PC guys would immediately say No- 4K and 120/144 FPS is... But what about the gameplay? You can play Duke Nukem Forever at 4K and it will still be a pile of shit.

Bottom line for me, if my immersion in the game isn't broken by glitches or something looking absolutely horrible I could care less about resolution. Framerate- I'm good as long as its 30 locked.

 

[Freeman]

If the game is good the game is good. I think its fair to expect games to perform well on 400$ machines you just bought and it is good when a game is technically impressive but basing your purchase around just that isn't very clever.

I'm up for devs experimenting with all combinations of resolution and framerate as long end result is impressive or at least decent.

A similar thing happens on PC when you get a game that performs poorly due to not being very well made/ported. It sucks but I used to care way more about it than I do now.

 

[sn00zer]

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.

I thin I agree with this..... I just feel like any game thats goal is 1080p/60fps is going to be taking serious cuts to game designs if they are trying to be competitive graphically. Im ready to be blown away by Uncharted 4's promise of 1080p/60fps, but I will be shocked if its anything more than the standard Uncharted corridor shooting.

I will say though that 1080p/60fps is absolutely acceptable if you are making a smaller game of sorts that doesnt have the insane combination of art assets/Ai/animation that AAA games have.

 

[Chezzymann]

1080 is a near must but not 60fps.

Opposite for me. A smooth framerate is far more vital for a game to feel good than a slightly blurrier image.

 

[Teremap]

Going to be a massive elitist for a second and say that I'd much rather all (multiplatform) console releases run at 720p 30 FPS so I have more pretty eye candy to gawk at when I run it on my PC.

irregardless

 

[Astral Dog]

It depends on the game, hardware,company, etc.
Im not going to expect many 1080p games on Wii U, but Xbox ONE and PS4 should be capable of it, and PS 4 is able to hit that goal for most of the games, its important too as most HDTVs are 1080p nowdays, as for the framerate, as long as its stable, thats fine,games runing at better framerates are much more common than last gen.
But expecting 1080p 60fps on every console game is a pipe dream,personally i would still buy a game if its sub 1080p if the game looks interesting enough.

 

[Piercedveil]

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.

Why would this make you cringe? Different people value different things. As someone who has little issue passing up a game since there are thousands more out there for me to play, I want a good framerate and will play games that are capable of providing that. I'm assuming many others that value framerate think similarly. I see no reason to spend money on something I'm not totally happy with.

 

[CLEEK]

I will say though that 1080p/60fps is absolutely acceptable if you are making a smaller game of sorts that doesnt have the insane combination of art assets/Ai/animation that AAA games have.

1080p/60 and AAA games aren't mutually exclusive. They just have be be designed from the ground up to target that, and be in a genre that warrants the trade off of having the high frame rate. We've already had a bunch of 1080p/60 AAAs, with more to come.

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

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

As I've mentioned already, frame rate and resolution don't have the same requirements. You can't jump from 30fps to 60fps by slightly dropping the resolution

The reality is, 1080p/30 games use the slower refresh rate to draw vastly more geometry and effects each frame. Upping the frame rate to 60fps would need a considerate downscale in what is drawn. The only time we've seen frame rate toggles is in games that target 1080p/60 and don't quite achieve it consistently. The 30fps option is just to gaurentee a consistent frame rate. Everything else is the same.

 

[MvmntInGrn]

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

I echo this position.

The idea of passing on a game because it doesn't meet your technical specifications is crazy. If graphics are why you play games thats fine but you need a PC.

 

[PensivePen]

I'd obviously prefer better performance but unless it makes the game completely unplayable it's not going to be a deterring factor if it runs at 720p and/or 30fps. I played plenty of great games the past generation that performed similarly and it's not as if the fun I had with them was fake. That said, I expect developers to do -something- with the new tech. So I want to see these games advancing in some fashion. AI, scale, shading, lighting, physics, effects, resolution, framerate. Something needs to see a noteworthy improvement.

 

[ShadowKingpin]

1080 is a near must but not 60fps.

This quote I agree with completely. A great example is Driveclub. People can whine all they want about it being 30fps, but regardless, it will be a blast. I am glad they used the extra resources to add a ton of incredible detail and polish to the game and not for 60fps.

 

[Callibretto]

Framerate is a big deal with me, and I have no problem with solid 30fps, as long it didn't drop to 20s or lower, some end gen ps3 games is really distracting, especially if you compare it to many ps4 version of crossgen games running at better framerate. I cannot play borderlands 2 and xcom ps3 even though I got them for free from ps+. End up buying pc version instead and play it there even if I had to give up my big tv and surround speaker setup.

 

[KnightHart]

I can play most games at 1080p/60FPS on my PC. So I guess I win.

The fact that most console games are having devs choose between 1080p and 60FPS is concerning. It's an actual choice between visual fidelity, and having the game run and play better. The sad part is that most of them are choosing visual fidelity because eye candy sells more than actual gameplay apparently.

This is part of the reason why I've slowly started to see the COD series in a better light because the games on consoles look like fucking ass but they run 60FPS and feel better than most other console shooters running at maybe sub 30FPS.

 

[krypt0nian]

Native resolution or forget it. If you can't hit that, downgrade your assets til you do.

 

[sn00zer]

1080p/60 and AAA games aren't mutually exclusive. They just have be be designed from the ground up to target that, and be in a genre that warrants the trade off of having the high frame rate. We've already had a bunch of 1080p/60 AAAs, with more to come.
.

Which one? All I can think of is Forza which had baked lighting, and paper crowds. MGSGZ was one area and recent pics from phantom Pain dont look nearly as good as other games when you look beyond the character models (mother base does look good, but its has no background besides the ocean)

 

[Ogawa-san]

It feels like I'm taking crazy pills... How on earth is a resolution bump more noticeable than 30 to 60fps?

 

[ProjektXero]

I really don't care, as long as the game is fun. I have a beast PC, so I could hypothetically play any game 1080p / 60+ fps, so it ain't no thang. I just wanna have fun, nawmean? That's what I buy most multiplat games for my Xbone (Dragon Age, CoD, Alien a few upcoming examples) ... I just have fun on the bone.

So resolution / fps isn't a huge deal for me... and hell, I play competitive fps shooters... I know the struggle of low FPS.

 

[adamantypants]

Every game I play is 1080/60

Spoiler

on PC

In regards to resolution on consoles, drop everything to 900p if it helps framerate. Hell drop it to 720 if you can guarantee me 60fps. Resolution isn't going to kill me. Framerate literally can in some games.

 

[KnightHart]

1080p/60 and AAA games aren't mutually exclusive. They just have be be designed from the ground up to target that, and be in a genre that warrants the trade off of having the high frame rate. We've already had a bunch of 1080p/60 AAAs, with more to come.
.

1080p/60FPS AAA's? Where? Last time I checked even the latest ones like Watch Dogs and Destiny are all 1080p but are al running 30FPS. Pretty sure Farcry 4 on consoles will be the same and I've seen Ubisoft mention AC Unity at 60FPS on consoles which if that happens would be fantastic.

 

[CLEEK]

Which one? All I can think of is Forza which had baked lighting, and paper crowds. MGSGZ was one area and recent pics from phantom Pain dont look nearly as good as other games when you look beyond the character models (mother base does look good, but its has no background besides the ocean)

Off the top of my head (as they're the games I own that are 1080/60):

Tomb Raider DE
Killzone SF
TLoU Remastered
Diablo 3 RoS
Forza 5
MGS GZ

And in the future, there's Halo MCC. As far as I'm aware, Halo 5 is also1080p/60. ND confirmed that Uncharted 4 is targeting 1080p/60. All games that are as big AAA games as you can get.

Edit:

List of XB1 and PS4 games with res and frame rate listed. There are a ton of 1080/60 on there, for the PS4 at least.

http://au.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/PS4_vs._Xbox_One_Native_Resolutions_and_Framerates

 

[ALLseeingEYE]

Going to be a massive elitist for a second and say that I'd much rather all (multiplatform) console releases run at 720p 30 FPS so I have more pretty eye candy to gawk at when I run it on my PC.

Honestly, I agree with that idea . Push those consoles to the limit, give us PC gamers even better looking PC games!

Also...fine, if it saves your head from popping, I'll edit the word. Wouldn't want to lose a fellow gaffer.

 

[Madness]

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?

How is say 900p and 30 not better graphics than sub 720p and not even locked 30 fps of last gen?

Resolution and frame rate don't exist in a vacuum. Not only are games more expansive than ever, but the lighting, shading, textures, draw distance, anti-aliasing is much improved as well.

But these days, gamers won't even care that the game looks ridiculously amazing, but if it doesn't have 1080p/60, it's automatically shit and pre-orders canceled. Gears of War back in 06 blew people away, no one cared about arbitrary numbers exactly, so why now? Not to day 1080p isn't better, but it's like imagine every thread, gamers used to 1440p or 4K coming and saying, ewww barf, it's not even 4K.

I think as the generation goes on, you'll see them squeeze more power out of each console. But at the end of the day, you're still playing whatever they deem is the best and most achievable experience.

 

[Darknight]

To me 1080P should be a standard across all games on current gen even if you can't tell the difference between 900P and 1080P, period. (not talking about PC)

Now 60FPS vs 30FPS im not so strong about because by locking the framerate to 30, it gives devs a boost in graphics or whatever. So games can be 1080P+30FPS and offer greater looking games that are what is expected of this generation.

 

[arit]

When the generation ends a 60fps game will still be 60fps and play like today, 1080p will still be the maximum resolution the consoles can display. The shiny flavour of the month though will be long gone and all that remains is the ugly mess of a sub 60fps/1080p game.

Therefore framerate/resolution are preferred. Of course there might be cases in which a higher framerate cannot be achieved due to gameplay influencing things like ai/physics/amount of enemies. But if the only limiting things is eye candy, I couldn't care less about its existence (well except that the games run like shit then).

People always say that one should use a pc for 60fps, but why? My demands are constant, the hardware is constant and the variable is 'pretty graphics' which could always be made more pretty on pc.

 

[Duxxy3]

I think there are certain expectations with any new generation. The jump from one to the next is typically large. This generation, for the first time, hardware manufacturers did not even remotely push the limits. We ended up with hardware that is years old, and with a very slow processor.

That's the bad part. The good part is that prices for these consoles will almost certainly drop to that magic $149 at the end of the generation. So while it may not have the longevity of the PS3/360 it will have a huge burst of sales in the last couples years.

So for now we'll see most PS4 games at 1080p, some XB1 games at 1080p. My guess is that 1080p will go down to 900p midway through the generation, as developers push for more detail and effects. Similar to last generation where we slowly went down in resolution, but up in effects and detail.

The PS5/XB2 will need to be almost two generations ahead if they want to aim for 4k gaming.

 

[ALLseeingEYE]

How is say 900p and 30 not better graphics than sub 720p and not even locked 30 fps of last gen?

Resolution and frame rate don't exist in a vacuum. Not only are games more expansive than ever, but the lighting, shading, textures, draw distance, anti-aliasing is much improved as well.

But these days, gamers won't even care that the game looks ridiculously amazing, but if it doesn't have 1080p/60, it's automatically shit and pre-orders canceled. Gears of War back in 06 blew people away, no one cared about arbitrary numbers exactly, so why now? Not to day 1080p isn't better, but it's like imagine every thread, gamers used to 1440p or 4K coming and saying, ewww barf, it's not even 4K.

I think as the generation goes on, you'll see them squeeze more power out of each console. But at the end of the day, you're still playing whatever they deem is the best and most achievable experience.

Exactly, I'm not even sure that hey_it's_that_dog truly believes that resolution and framerate are the only important factors, but yeah, these are far from the only things that make a game 'better looking'.

In truth, a game at 720p 30fps can look vastly better and more technologically advanced than another game at that same resolution/framerate.

 

[sn00zer]

Off the top of my head (as they're the games I own that are 1080/60):

Tomb Raider DE
Killzone SF
TLoU Remastered
Forza 5
MGS GZ

And in the future, there's Halo MCC. As far as I'm aware, Halo 5 is also1080p/60. ND confirmed that Uncharted 4 is targeting 1080p/60. All games that are as big AAA games as you can get.

Of the ones youve listed 2 were on previous gen and ported without many new assets, I already stated issues with MGS GZ and Forza, and Killzone multi was not 1080p/60 fps, hovered mostly around 40-50 at half the resolution.

Any AAA game Ive seen that is 1080p/60 had to take cuts somewhere either to graphics or area size and I just rather devs not have to worry about it. I dont think we're going to get "next gen" defining gameplay and graphics at 1080/60 in the next few years.

 

[MvmntInGrn]

People always say that one should use a pc for 60fps, but why? My demands are constant, the hardware is constant and the variable is 'pretty graphics' which could always be made more pretty on pc.

If only, like a personally built PC, the mass marketed consumer product needed to be tailored to you (hint: it doesn't, if you feel 1080p/60fps is the only way to game you would be a happier gamer if you built a PC).

 

[WhiskerFrisker]

To be quite honest, I would be disappointed. If I'm paying $400+ for a console, I would hope that games would at least natively match the resolution of my tv. Next generation means doing things the previous generation couldn't do. If a game doesn't run at 1080p 30fps, it's disappointing, but I'd still play it. However, I think the "I don't care if it's 720p 30 fps" attitude is more of a detriment then support. That kind of attitude will keep us stuck in the standard definition age while the rest of technology advances.

 

[Dragon]

I don't believe you.

 

[Last Hope]

It was no surprise to me that developers are still choosing visuals over resolution and frame rate. It seems like most of us disagree with that decision but it's the one developers side with.

 

[Nuke Soda]

I am all for whatever works as long as it runs smoothly. If you make a graphical power house game that runs at a stable 30fps, cool, and if you make a medium graphics game that runs at 60fps groovy. Stability is my big thing, no screen tearing, no weird flux in the frames per second, stuff like that sucks.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

If the game is good I really don't care. 1080/60 is fantastic to have if it can be achieved, but if a fantastic game cant, no biggie.

Id prefer an awesome 900/30 game to a shit 1080/60 game.

 

[SparkTR]

Anything sub-native resolution looks bad, you can have all the cool tech you want but if the resolution can't keep up it'll just look blurry and unappealing. I've already moved to 1440p and thus even 1080p content on my screen is a big no these days.

 

[MvmntInGrn]

To be quite honest, I would be disappointed. If I'm paying $400+ for a console, I would hope that games would at least natively match the resolution of my tv. Next generation means doing things the previous generation couldn't do. If a game doesn't run at 1080p 30fps, it's disappointing, but I'd still play it. However, I think the "I don't care if it's 720p 30 fps" attitude is more of a detriment then support. That kind of attitude will keep us stuck in the standard definition age while the rest of technology advances.

Your games are doing things they didn't' before. Visual quality extends far past resolution and framerate.

And the expensive consoles of the past didn't fill standard definition for a long time...

 

[Darknight]

If the game is good I really don't care. 1080/60 is fantastic to have if it can be achieved, but if a fantastic game cant, no biggie.

Id prefer an awesome 900/30 game to a shit 1080/60 game.

Yea I'd choose a 240x320 good game than a shitty as 2014 1080P game. See where the problem is? A game can be good/bad regardless of resolution but its 2014 and anything 1080P should be criticized.

 

[Zafir]

I'm not going to not buy a game because it isn't 1080p/60fps. That would be silly. However, I do prefer it if games are that. I'm not a fan of games being sub resolution though. I'd rather them cut back on some of the fancy tech over lowering the resolution... Lowering the resolution is the last thing I do on my PC to reach a stable frame rate.

 

[Later Alligator]

ps3 and 360 games still look great to me. hell so do some ps2 and xbox games

neither are a requirement for me. 30 fps is fine and so is < 1080p. my new tv is 1080p though so if i had a choice between 720p/60 fps and 1080p/30 i'd take 1080p/30 every time

locked 30 fps doesn't bother me. the one thing that drives me nuts is screen tearing as it gives me a headache. too much of it and i'll skip over a game

 

[rokkerkory]

1080p does not equate to sales

 

[Bjoern the Smexy]

I'm that one guy who plays Dead Rising 3 at 1360x768 with 10-30 fps and you don't hear me complain.

I'm perfectly fine with games running sub-1080p and sub-60fps.
I couldn't care less about that, as long as the game is playable.

We had one of the longest console generations with the PS360 and Wii, with games ranging from 480p to 1080p, framerates between 30 and 60 fps, and even some of the 480p30 games dipped into the 20s from time to time.

I just don't understand the mentality of people who think that 1080p60 is a must in this generation.
The game should run stable first and foremost. 30fps is a good and perfectly playable framerate.
720p also is a good resolution. Yes, most HDTVs nowadays have a native resolution of 1080p and scaling 720p up to 1080p makes it look slightly blurry but would you even notice that?
If you notice jpscqling blurriness while you're playing any game then you're probably sitting way too close to your TV anyway.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

I really don't care. They really are just numbers to me. Everything else being equal yes more resolutions and more frames is objectively better. But everything else is never equal. There is always some kind of tradeoff.

 

[Shyakugaun]

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.

Great post

 

[Paskil]

60FPS is nice and preferred, but a very vocal minority. Hence all the shit posts.

 

[Josh7289]

It's silly that there are modern console games not running at 1080p60. It's not hard to do, compared to the overall difficulty of making a game.

EDIT: The easiest solution for developers who are having trouble doing that is to just lower the graphical settings until the game runs at 60 fps. I don't care about poorer graphical fidelity if it means a clean 1080p resolution and a smooth 60 fps framerate.

 

[bounchfx]

I can understand a preference, but not buying it because of those factors is hilarious to me.

Games were fucking fantastic back 15-20 years ago and didn't have either for the most part. I think megaman was like, 64 "p" and had a shitload of stuttering, but it was still great, because the gameplay and design was great. Not because of how many pixels that was in it or the framerate.

sure, this day and age, steady framerate should be a given, but if you guys want better graphics overall then you're going to have to understand the tradeoff.

 

[Redrop]

I just want to play games. And as long as the game works, I'm usually just peachy.

Neogaf being the forum it is though, there are plenty of very passionate people here about performance, as they have every right to be. And if I had to take a guess I'd say that a good portion of them have gotten into PCs in some way or another, and it's very understandable for them to expect a certain level of performance.

And for competitive players, especially in fighting games, it's very understandable that there would be a desire for 60 FPS.

But what's equally understandable is if a game is at X resolution, and at X framerate, because of the design and hardware decisions. You really, really aren't losing much for slightly-less-than-1080p, and you're especially not losing much for (locked) 30fps if the game doesn't demand a highly intensive level of inputs. But I think the whole point of this post has been said a million times over already, so meh.

 

[JordanN]

I have to wonder what goes through a developer's mind when they lower the resolution below native.

The other day, I was trying to find pics of Uncharted: Golden Abyss to post in a thread, but every screenshot I could find, the image quality was so blurred to hell and back.

I wish video games were always locked to a resolution and fps. If something doesn't work, just cut it and leave it for another console gen. But that's just my opinion. I'm not too crazy about resolution and fps since after all, I own a 3DS which can't match the PS4 in IQ or power. But playing blurry games or something that dips to 10fps, can leave an impression.

 

[JAYSIMPLE]

It's all about framerate consistency. I play games on 3ds. I play Mario kart on the same TV I play my xbox one and ps4 and I still think Mario kart looks better than 90 percent of xbox one and os4 games. I also play Mario kart at 92 inches on a projector so anyone saying screen size us the issue is talking doo doo. My projector is 1080p too

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

Yea I'd choose a 240x320 good game than a shitty as 2014 1080P game. See where the problem is? A game can be good/bad regardless of resolution but its 2014 and anything 1080P should be criticized.

Yay. You've brought hyperbole to the table. Good job.

&#128528;