Support NeoGAF

[shinobi602]

Would I prefer 1080/60fps? Of course. I don't think anyone wouldn't. However, I have no problem if a game is 900p or 30fps.

There are numerous multiplatform games that run at a lower resolution or framerate on the Xbox One vs the PS4. I own both systems so luckily I have the luxury of choosing and always go with the better performing/better looking version.

However, I personally don't view my consoles as competition to one another. They're their own thing, Sunset Overdrive for example at 900/30fps? Fine, I would've liked a crisp image at native 1080, but that's what the developers were able to get out of the hardware, I'm not going to get on their ass for it.

 

[Glass Shark]

I don't think that's what next-gen is "all about," but it's not unreasonable for players to ask for or expect 1080p60 when it's been shown that it's possible to hit that and have your game look great on the new platforms.

 

[vg260]

Would I prefer 1080/60fps? Of course. I don't think anyone wouldn't. However, I have no problem if a game is 900p or 30fps.

This is exactly why devs are content making the sacrifices they do. When should we stop being content? If we don't start taking issue with it, why would they change their approach?

 

[shinobi602]

This is exactly why devs are content making the sacrifices they do. When should we stop being content? If we don't start taking issue with it, why would they change their approach?

What do you want me to do, boycott games? Fun is the reason I play, I can't skip games that look enjoyable because of that. I've never had a problem if game's 30 or 60fps, I've always been content with 30 as it doesn't detract from my experience in any real meaningful way. I'd always prefer 60, sure.

As for resolution, if 900p is what developers can squeeze out of the hardware with the visual/design vision of their game, then that's all they could do with specs. Who am I to tell them otherwise lol?

 

[HTupolev]

This is exactly why devs are content making the sacrifices they do. When should we stop being content?

When we think that a compromise was not worth it to the extent that we significantly care, obviously.

 

[NickFire]

I give the 2013 games a pass as the new consoles were brand new, but 1080p is very important to me at this juncture. 60 fps is the icing when it hits, but 1080p is a near must (probably is a must, I know of no sub 1080 games coming out soon I am considering). I did not pay for a new console for up-scaled images.

 

[vg260]

What do you want me to do, boycott games? Fun is the reason I play, I can't skip games that look enjoyable because of that. I've never had a problem if game's 30 or 60fps, I've always been content with 30 as it doesn't detract from my experience in any real meaningful way. I'd always prefer 60, sure.

No, but forums like this, the publisher/dev's forums and social media now that most companies have some sort of community managers, are ways to communicate your preferences on the matter (and are bothered enough to do so). That's what a lot of people are doing now.

 

[jem0208]

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.

Halo 3 ran at a pretty solid 30fps though.

They didn't sacrifice framerate, they ran the game at some weird ass resolution.

 

[Nzyme32]

I'm not seeing the entire problem as far as console gaming goes. You have fixed hardware and inevitably, sooner or later, the games are not going to be 1080p, 60fps. I suspect that overtime no one will give a shit, because they will be happy with the games anyway. Quick example that comes to mind is the Witcher 3. Very few complain because they understand the scale and scope of the game and don't care

 

[megabytecr]

I'm not seeing the entire problem as far as console gaming goes. You have fixed hardware and inevitably, sooner or later, the games are not going to be 1080p, 60fps. I suspect that overtime no one will give a shit, because they will be happy with the games anyway. Quick example that comes to mind is the Witcher 3. Very few complain because they understand the scale and scope of the game and don't care

I see it as a game by game basis. For example I plan to have at most 2 active MP games, I am going to give 60fps games the advantage. IMO it gives a game the edge to be 1080p60,

 

[OuterLimits]

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.

I'm hopeful that Bethesda will get some decent writers this gen as well. One thing that won't change this gen is the amount of glitches and bugs in Bethesda games. They are amazingly consistent in that regard.

They make fun games though.

 

[BigDug13]

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.

Part of the problem with this line of thinking is that back in those days, resolution didn't matter at all. It was all low def and we didn't care because we were plugging them into non-fixed pixel analog displays like CRT. Now we have fixed pixel digital displays and anything other than native resolution of those exact pixels simply doesn't look as good. PS360 was fine during the 720p TV era, but now we are in the 1080p TV era (trying to get to a 4k TV era but that's for later.)

If we still had CRT TV's and getting exact resolution wasn't so important, then they could use that power towards frames. If 4K TV's never really catch on and we still have 1080p TV's as the norm in 5 years, maybe we will see 1080p/60 in most games. If 4K does become the norm and gamers expect games that match the pixel count of their TV, then buckle up for another 30 fps generation.

 

[PFD]

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

This

 

[ikariX]

I think as this gen in it's later stages we'll start seeing 720P or 900P more often due to devs wanting to give us better looking games on PS4 and Bone(I have both). I don't really mind. But 60FPS is nice.

 

[SimonM7]

Consistent 1080p content is a notion that died pretty abruptly when these systems were nearing release, when it became clear that there wasn't a platform-wide policy to hit that. That of 60fps died even sooner, just sorta snuffed out by common sense and precedent. Nearly every platform has had its games that targeted 60fps or higher resolution thanks to some particular developer's individual philosophy, but it's never really been more than lofty promises at E3 from a platform holder's perspective.

Apart from that one time when Sony said the PS3 would do 120 fps so it could output 60fps games to two HDTVs, thus trumping "split screen" couch gaming. Ahh, the memories.

Anyhoo. When the respective notion died, I already got over it. We just sorta missed that on-ramp already. This generation will not dependably and consistently deliver on the 1080p standard that may have been the hope for a bit there, back when we didn't know. I understand feeling upset about that realisation, but surely that is a moment that has passed, and now we're playing games in a reality where it just isn't the case.

So while I understand feeling jazzed about games being 1080P, 60fps or both, when they are, I'm frankly a little surprised that people are still so invested in it as a rule.

 

[TeddyShardik]

I couldn't care less... as long as its playable and plays well.

A consistently high framerate does translate to playing well though.

I'm way more accepting of lower resolutions than of inconsistent framerates. I'll take a solid 30 over a game meandering between 31-59 all the time. If your game can't reach the locked 60, lock it at 30.

Unlocked framerates are the thing that needs to go really. Having it inconsistent just so you can say your game sometimes has a high framerate makes it a worse product in my opinion.

None of these things will keep me from buying a game I'm really interested in but they sure can impact my enjoyment of it.

 

[Gvaz]

1080 is a near must but not 60fps.

im actually the opposite

 

[machemachete]

Framerate is King

60 FPS is King

Gameplay is King

 

[clutch.as.it.gets.]

In this day and age of cheap post process aa solutions high resolutions are essential to combat all the blurriness the devs are smearing onto their games.

As long as a game doesnt have screen tearing, i can live with lower framerates.

 

[PsihoPerihelion]

I like them both and I realize the impact they have on how a game look and feels, but I bought a console knowing that I wasn't going to get the full experience in terms of res/framerate. If I wanted 4K or 1080p@144fps, I would have bought a PC and call it a day. You buy consoles under the risk (if you can even call it that) of developers sacrificing stuff in order to push more on screen. I can deal with consoles not being 1080p at 60fps.

Now, if you seriously want me to pick one, I will go with 1080p. 30fps with a good motion blur solution can look amazing and I'm one of those that can't feel the difference in controller response, so I'd rather have 1080p, but as I said, I don't mind if its 900p or a bit below 1080p like Far Cry 4.

I think as this gen in it's later stages we'll start seeing 720P or 900P more often due to devs wanting to give us better looking games on PS4 and Bone(I have both). I don't really mind. But 60FPS is nice.

It's not like the only resolutions they can use are those. Last gen many games cut from 1280x720 to things like 1160x630 and what not. They can always go 1760x990 if they are going to cut stuff depending on developer's needs. It's just an example of how they don't need to go as low as 900p at least on PS4. I expect X1 to be 800p or something if resolution starts to being sacrificed like we saw last gen.

 

[Gvaz]

I don't like motion blur, in fact I turn it off 99% of the time.

 

[Feindflug]

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.

Yeah but even when Bungie got rid of the expensive HDR solution they still couldn't hit 720p with Reach (I guess edram was the reason for this), frame-rate was worse than Halo 3 and as far as I remember there wasn't a scenario as impressive as the double scarab fight even though the engine evolved and as I said earlier the high quality HDR of Halo 3 was gone...and of course in all of that 60hz is completely out of the question (especially at 720p).

As I see it every game is a unique thing, some games favor IQ, others performance, scale, particle effects or lighting and I try to appreciate each one of them for what they do right rather than complain about what they did wrong or could've been better. This may sound naive or not demanding enough but I like to focus to the positive side of things, I prefer being impressed than being disappointed and of course the game being good/fun is the thing that I care most about..everything else is a nice bonus.

 

[matrix-cat]

I've made my peace with the fact that we're never going to live in an all 60FPS, all the time utopia, but I still think games coming out at sub-1080p is crazy. 1080p was the target at the start of the 360/PS3 generation, and it was a rude awakening when people realised that we were going to be lucky to see 720p as the norm. Eight years later, however, the TV standard is still 1080p and it's insane that so many games still aren't hitting it.