Support NeoGAF

[dragonelite]

Shouldn't be a problem, I have a 1600x900 monitor but still play games at 1440p

Dat super sampling

 

[RibbedHero]

I hope you don't mean mathematically.

He's talking about the jump in resolution, and in that sense he is mathematically correct for the most part.

480p

640 * 480 = 307 200

720 * 480 = 345 600

854 * 480 = 409 920

720p

1280 * 720 = 921 600

1080p

1920 * 1080 = 2 073 600


Ratios

1080p / 720p = 2.25

720p / (640x480) = 3

720p / (720x480) = 2.67

720p / (854x480) = 2.25

 

[Stallion Free]

Native resolution isn't good enough, I need flawless image quality.

vs.

 

[CorkyFromLifeGoesOn]

60 fps should only matter for fps games (for multiplayer) and racing games. I don't think it has to be a standard. 1080p standard would be great though.

 

[Kelegacy]

60 fps should only matter for fps games (for multiplayer) and racing games. I don't think it has to be a standard. 1080p standard would be great though.

I don't agree. 60 should be standard for almost every genre barring stuff like puzzlers (Tetris, etc). Heck, I'd love more FPS, but I'm trying to be more realistic. 60fps in things like third person games makes everything that must smoother, so the immersion is increased and the gameplay is therefore enhanced. I was stuck with Dead Space going at like 30fps until I realized I could boost it by turning off vsync and forcing it via the CCC for my ATI card. And BAM, that simple little change was do dynamic. It made my experience that much more enjoyable.

Almost every genre can benefit from 60fps. It just makes games feel less choppy. But if you are used to 30fps and don't see anything higher for years and years, you get used to it. It's sort of like when you use a new HDTV default settings right out of the box. You don't know what you are missing until you mess with the contrast and shutting off the eye-bleeding factory settings and realize you haven't been getting the most out of your visual experience the entire time.

As my PC ages, if I get to a point where I can't get a stead FPS going I will have to upgrade. After experiencing how much more enjoyable a good FPS can make a game, I don't think I can ever go back. A poorly optimized port like Dragon Knight Saga on PC is HARD to get to run at anything over 30-40fps. After months of playing 60+fps games, I noticed something was off. I had to turn down shadows a bit on my high-end rig just to get the fps to increase up to 60-80fps, but it is completely worth it. I will sacrifice eye candy for that smooth gameplay every single time.

 

[RibbedHero]

Playing MW3 on max settings I'm able to hit 120fps, which matches the refresh rate of my monitor. The difference is quite noticeable, but for more demanding games (e.g. BF3) I'm not willing to turn down settings to boost the framerate from 60 to 120.

Native res games shouldn't even be up for discussion, it has to be native res or higher.

60fps matters. I'd love to get 120fps in all my games too, but as it stands 120fps is a little too demanding for my current setup.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

A question to console gamers: What would you prefer, a game that looks like this in 720p/30fps (scaled up to 1080p, obviously pixelated etc.):

Or a game that looks similar, but with worse lighting, less reflections, reduced viewing distance and worse physic effects in 1080p/60fps (I explicitely don't ask PC players, as they can outscale the target platform of this game)?

This is what you have to deal with on a console. Devs have to choose: Add more effects or increase resolution/fps, because their target has fixed hardware. I would prefer more effects over a resolution/fps increase anytime. And most devs think similar, because they believe that these effects look better than a simple resolution increase. Again, this is totally irrelevant on PCs, they don't have to make this compromise. But devs have to do this on consoles.

 

[monlo]

When I opened this thread, I felt like I was just ported back in time 6 years ago

 

[iNvid02]

yeah i think i'd go with the higher resolution and 60fps

i play consoles sometimes

 

[Gemüsepizza]

yeah i think i'd go with the higher resolution and 60fps

i play consoles sometimes

Even if you lean back a little bit, increasing the distance between your eyes and your PC monitor? If you are sitting in front of a TV, the distance between your eyes and the display is probably greater. I would not give up these effects for a resolution bump.

 

[Kelegacy]

This morning I fired up Assassin's Creed Brotherhood on PC and I immediately went into the game options when my eyes visually saw the game running at sub 60fps. I'm not surprised a port, especially from Ubi, was running this way. My eyes can see the difference immediately, so yes, it's noticeable.

I turned on Fraps and had the confirmation that it was capping at 30fps. I had to turn vsync off and lower AA to 2x but it runs at 60fps now.

It ruins my enjoyment when I see the missing frames that I am so used to with 60fps. It's like watching nice HD movies and broadcasts for years and then having to watch SD again--you become so used to it that it's hard to settle for anything less.

 

[iNvid02]

im kidding, i've learned to accept the fact that consoles won't be able to provide the same experience as a computer.

i'm only interested in the first party and exclusives the consoles have to offer, and if that means playing the odd game at 720p/30fps im ok with it (as long as it looks decent of course).

for everything else i have the pc

but racers and shooters should definitely aim for 60fps all the time, it makes a world of difference for those kind of games

 

[LCGeek]

im kidding, i've learned to accept the fact that consoles won't be able to provide the same experience as a computer.

i'm only interested in the first party and exclusives the consoles have to offer, and if that means playing the odd game at 720p/30fps im ok with it (as long as it looks decent of course).

for everything else i have the pc

but racers and shooters should definitely aim for 60fps all the time, it makes a world of difference for those kind of games

Forgot to mention fighters. Less frames restricts how animated moves are and gives developers less options in terms of depth.

 

[iNvid02]

Forgot to mention fighters. Less frames restricts how animated moves are and gives developers less options in terms of depth.

yep fighters too, 30fps would be tragic lol.

 

[hodgy100]

It would be nice if Sony and Microsoft would impose a minimum resolution / fps for a game to be licensed.

Even if it's only 720p/30fps
ANYTHING to put an end to the awful sub HD awful frame rate issues of this gen.

If i was being hopeful i would love a lower limit of:
720p/60fps and 1080p/30fps

In an ideal world this would ensure that most games will run at 1080p as the extra horsepower used for making it run at 60fps at 720p could be used to make the game run at 1080p at a lower resolution. throw in an option for user preference of resolution / frame rate and you could probably make most people happy.

 

[RibbedHero]

It would be nice if Sony and Microsoft would impose a minimum resolution / fps for a game to be licensed.

Even if it's only 720p/30fps
ANYTHING to put an end to the awful sub HD awful frame rate issues of this gen.

If i was being hopeful i would love a lower limit of:
720p/60fps and 1080p/30fps

In an ideal world this would ensure that most games will run at 1080p as the extra horsepower used for making it run at 60fps at 720p could be used to make the game run at 1080p at a lower resolution. throw in an option for user preference of resolution / frame rate and you could probably make most people happy.

The console manufacturers will never encourage developers to include options/choice in terms of visual fidelity.

 

[michaelius]

It would be nice if Sony and Microsoft would impose a minimum resolution / fps for a game to be licensed.

Even if it's only 720p/30fps
ANYTHING to put an end to the awful sub HD awful frame rate issues of this gen.

If i was being hopeful i would love a lower limit of:
720p/60fps and 1080p/30fps

In an ideal world this would ensure that most games will run at 1080p as the extra horsepower used for making it run at 60fps at 720p could be used to make the game run at 1080p at a lower resolution. throw in an option for user preference of resolution / frame rate and you could probably make most people happy.

In ideal world we would get graphic settings in console games so everyone can choose how much he wants to sacrafice for more fps

 

[MrBig]

The console manufacturers will never encourage developers to include options/choice in terms of visual fidelity.

Microsoft did try to enforce min requirements at first for the 360 iirc, but then retracted it.

 

[Kelegacy]

I really don't want any sacrifices. I bought a 1080p HDTV back in 2007 and no games really support it. Just upconversion. But the same goes for television, though blu-rays look great.

I want full HD support since most televisions these days are 1080p anyway, and I want 60fps. If we have the tech to support it, let's have it. Otherwise the full HD experience is a joke for video games.