Rage 2 will run at 60fps on enhanced consoles, 30fps on base consoles

GoldenEye98

posts news as their odd job
Jan 7, 2018
1,009
897
445
#1
https://www.windowscentral.com/rage-2-runs-1080p-60-fps-xbox-one-x

Recently, Hardcore Gamer sat down with id Software Studio Director Tim Willits to discuss post-launch plans for Rage 2 and performance on Xbox One X and PlayStation 4 Pro. Instead of focusing on a 4K 30 FPS mode, the team decided to improve the frame rate. Willits said the following:

"To make it simple, on the enhanced consoles, it runs at 1080p 60 FPS. On base hardware, it runs at 30 FPS. On PC, it's uncapped. We went for speed over 4K for the enhanced consoles. "
 
#4
As I said on the other place, it’s terrible. We should be getting more OPTIONS, not forcing people into one. There’s no reason to not include a 4k/30 mode in addition to this, as well as an FOV slider, which should be mandatory in ALL FPS games.

However the dev and their own in-house engine leaves me worried, as this isn’t id software or id tech.
 
Last edited:
Oct 29, 2017
337
719
230
#5
Real gamers know FPS is much more important than Resolution.
Shame so many bought into the 4K PR not realizing that while they're bragging about 4K most of those games running 4K are at medium graphical settings. So not only are they not as good looking as a lower res with more options turned on - - they play like shit compared to 60fps.
 

GoldenEye98

posts news as their odd job
Jan 7, 2018
1,009
897
445
#8
I think it should be an option alongside an boosted resolution mode. However everything I have seen about this game is that it sort of reminds me of DOOM in a sense and I suspect you'll want to play it 60FPS. If anything the bigger issue is that it's 30FPS on the base consoles...
 
Mar 14, 2013
9,400
225
455
#9
i expect 4K standard for something like RDR2 or GoW on my Pro. games centered around frantic and dynamic first person shooting, not so much

have to keep in mind they're still working with a 2013 baseline here...
 
Last edited:

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
Feb 22, 2009
638
448
845
Ottawa, Canada
#10
As I said on the other place, it’s terrible. We should be getting more OPTIONS, not forcing people into one. There’s no reason to not include a 4k/30 mode in addition to this, as well as an FOV slider, which should be mandatory in ALL FPS games.

However the dev and their own in-house engine leaves me worried, as this isn’t id software or id tech.
There are good reasons not to offer more options.

Optimizing for resolution is not the same as optimizing for frame rate. You're basically asking the developer to double the optimization work, and that could include significant changes to object/world detail, special effects, that sort of thing.

Besides, if you hadn't noticed, the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X are consoles, not PCs. The focus is on something that's easy to sit down and use, that encourages you to play. Insisting on a vast array of options suggests you just want a PC that happens to sit in the living room.
 
Apr 15, 2007
9,456
372
980
London UK
#12
I'm still waiting on a game that will make me upgrade to a Pro or X.
I don't have a 4K TV yet so for me framerate is by far the most important thing and DOOM is one of the games of the generation for me so far so if Rage 2 ends up reviewing well that may be the game to make me upgrade.
 
#13
Nah, it’s just Avalanche can’t optimise for shit.

Source: Every game they have ever made. Ever.

The point I’m trying to make is that more options should be available. Most games these days support multiple options for the mid gen consoles, and it’s not some massive under taking. To be fair, the statement on resolution and frame rate is very none detailed... there’s a world of difference between 60fps and targeting 60fps. If the game is running 60fps locked at 1080p then resources are likely going to waste, and there’s no reason the game couldn’t be pushed higher at a lower frame rate.

Again, not a discussion about what’s more important, more so that options are always better. Don’t forget even increasing FOV will reduce frame rate, but a fair few games on console offer this.

Edit: also, you all failed to notice one important thing - the games the same FPS and res on both pro and X. That’s... not right. In other words let’s say the game is 60fps locked on Pro at 1080p. There’s very, very little reason the game can’t be the same 60fps at 1440p on X.
 
Last edited:
Feb 18, 2019
4
1
75
#19
Can't say I am not disappointed. Out of all the games that had a 30fps/4k and a 60fps/1080p option on my Xbox One X, I always chose the former. Not just for the resolution, but mostly because I like my games to feel cinematic.
 
Dec 16, 2018
69
36
210
Eugene
#20
Real gamers know FPS is much more important than Resolution.
Shame so many bought into the 4K PR not realizing that while they're bragging about 4K most of those games running 4K are at medium graphical settings. So not only are they not as good looking as a lower res with more options turned on - - they play like shit compared to 60fps.
Depends on the game, i thought Hellblade for instance was best in 4k on consoles as opposed to the other two options. But maybe thats because its easy and i dont need the extra frames.
 

JohnnyFootball

The Last of Us may be third person, but it is hardly third person.
Jan 20, 2014
8,177
1,160
595
#26
What is this obsession with 4k in the first place? I see it as super expensive anti-aliasing (more pixels on the edges). It offers nothing significant visually but destroys performance.
Because 4K provides superior image quality over 1080p. I won't even touch 1080p games anymore.

That's the obsession. However, you can get image quality pretty close to 4K anywhere above 1440p with solid AA and much less of a performance cost.
 
Likes: octiny
Jun 8, 2004
16,781
140
1,430
43
Canada
#31
Avalanche is trash. Bethesda is trash. I have no reason to believe Rage 2 will be anything other than trash.
The only part of Avalanche that is trash is the team that made Just Cause 3 and 4. The original team made Just Cause 2 and Mad Max, which were far from trash and they are making Rage 2. Also Bethesda may be trash, but neither id or Avalanche are.
 
Nov 17, 2018
46
28
80
#33
There are good reasons not to offer more options.

Optimizing for resolution is not the same as optimizing for frame rate. You're basically asking the developer to double the optimization work, and that could include significant changes to object/world detail, special effects, that sort of thing.

Besides, if you hadn't noticed, the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X are consoles, not PCs. The focus is on something that's easy to sit down and use, that encourages you to play. Insisting on a vast array of options suggests you just want a PC that happens to sit in the living room.
2 is a "vast array of options"?
 
Jan 1, 2009
9,494
234
905
London UK and France
#44
Sure, 30 is not 24, but the feeling is more similar. I recently played through God of War and I don't think I even tried the 60fps option. That said, sports games, racing games and pretty much everything lacking any kind of storytelling really benefits from 60 fps. Sorry, I'm weird that way.
I hear you. Things like fighting games shooters etc need a faster frame rate. And if not faster. More consistent frame rates
 
Sep 11, 2018
44
21
90
#45
Because 4K provides superior image quality over 1080p. I won't even touch 1080p games anymore.

That's the obsession. However, you can get image quality pretty close to 4K anywhere above 1440p with solid AA and much less of a performance cost.
And 50 000 polygon model TECHNICALLY provides superior model quality over 25 000 one. But does it really improve visually?

1440p with little AA is more than enough. Next gen consoles will spend all that new power to push that pointless 4K.
 
Last edited:
#48
Not quite the same thing, as a polygon can only be visually observed based on its rendering resolution. Plus, you can make a 100,000,000 cube if you want to. Model media is an art form, it’s about getting the most out of an asset for the least cost. Resolution is a different beast: adding more will always add more detail to a scene, however of course there’s a debate over when too much has too little gain (diminishing returns). At the moment the industry has decided 4k is the peak, with 8k sets being really pointless... at the moment. I say at the moment because A) on a 65” set I can easily see 4k isn’t enough and B) a few years back we were all taking about how 1080p was insane clarity wise, compared to the previous generation.

I do believe that the chase of 4k is a tota waste of resources, and if next gen is all about 4k, then it was be a shitty one. Rendering at 4k means we will have much smaller gains over this generation, and people may not be happy. I think, personally, we should be aiming for 1440p, and not much more. This provides a decent boost over 1080p while not needing anywhere near the grunt for 4k (and example is even though the X is more powerful than the pro, the pro usually runs games at 1440p better or equal in performance to the X at it’s full 4k).

However... even with all that jazz... I do believe this is weird choice to make in Rage 2, for two reasons: A) you’re not giving people options, which is so so wrong. And B) the X is running at the same setting as the Pro, at the same frame rate, meaning... Why?

I’m not sure what’s going on here. As I said previously, it’s possible that the “60fps” is a target and not a lock, and that actualy the game hovers between 30-60fps. In this case then yeah the X will hit that target more often than the Pro, with its equal settings. If not then something is really wrong. But IF the games a lock for 60 on both machines, that means the X is seriously under used.

This all shocks me most of all because I grew up with id software, and develop on the quake engine. I’m intimate with id tech more than probably anybody here (baring legit devs) I know the old id software, and they were always at the forefront of not just technology but also user choice and scalability. So seeing their name plastered onto a product so limited in user choice really does make me scratch my head.

As it stands, everything is just guesswork. We don’t know if it’s 1080p locked, if it’s 60fps locked, or even for sure if other visual changes are there between the two formats. There’s no info at all.

The only thing we can say for sure is if you really want to play Rage at its best, then the pc is the best way to do it, if you have the power. And if you have a console, then you best hope you don’t have a base one, as you’re quite clearly an afterthought here.
 
Last edited:
Likes: MadAnon
Sep 11, 2018
44
21
90
#50
Not quite the same thing, as a polygon can only be visually observed based on its rendering resolution. Plus, you can make a 100,000,000 cube if you want to. Model media is an art form, it’s about getting the most out of an asset for the least cost. Resolution is a different beast: adding more will always add more detail to a scene, however of course there’s a debate over when too much has too little gain (diminishing returns). At the moment the industry has decided 4k is the peak, with 8k sets being really pointless... at the moment. I say at the moment because A) on a 65” set I can easily see 4k isn’t enough and B) a few years back we were all taking about how 1080p was insane clarity wise, compared to the previous generation.

I do believe that the chase of 4k is a tota waste of resources, and if next gen is all about 4k, then it was be a shitty one. Rendering at 4k means we will have much smaller gains over this generation, and people may not be happy. I think, personally, we should be aiming for 1440p, and not much more. This provides a decent boost over 1080p while not needing anywhere near the grunt for 4k (and example is even though the X is more powerful than the pro, the pro usually runs games at 1440p better or equal in performance to the X at it’s full 4k).

However... even with all that jazz... I do believe this is weird choice to make in Rage 2, for two reasons: A) you’re not giving people options, which is so so wrong. And B) the X is running at the same setting as the Pro, at the same frame rate, meaning... Why?

I’m not sure what’s going on here. As I said previously, it’s possible that the “60fps” is a target and not a lock, and that actualy the game hovers between 30-60fps. In this case then yeah the X will hit that target more often than the Pro, with its equal settings. If not then something is really wrong. But IF the games a lock for 60 on both machines, that means the X is seriously under used.

This all shocks me most of al because I grew up with id software, and develop on the quake engine. I’m intimate with id tech more than probably anybody here. I know the old is software, and they were always at the forefront of not just technology but ask user choice and scalability. So seeing their name plastered onto a product so limited in user choice really does make me scratch my head.

As it stands, everything is just guesswork. We don’t know if it’s 1080p locked, if it’s 60fps locked, or even for sure if other visual changes are there between the two formats. There’s no info at all.

The only thing we can say for sure is if you really want to play Rage at its best, then the pc is the best way to do it, if you have the power. And if you have a console, then you best hope you don’t have a base one, as you’re quite clearly an afterthought here.
With that polygon example, I meant the geometrical quality of a model. Technically the higher one is better quality than a lower one but at a certain distance, they will look the same (not talking about simple flat surface models like a cube). Similar to resolutions, at certain distance 1080p image quality will start to look the same as 4K on the same screen but 4K technically has better image quality right?
 
Last edited: