lol. 1080p 60 fps is the current gen pc gaming standard.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The '1080p, 60 FPS' Buzz Words.
- Thread starter Conor 419
- Start date
lol. 1080p 60 fps is the current gen pc gaming standard.
Muffdraul
Member
60 fps is not important to me. I can live with 30.
1080p, now that I do care about. But not in terms of native resolution. The simple fact is, I have a Sony Bravia, and it's designed to display 1080p, period. If it receives a 720p signal, it doesn't look so hot. If the device that's sending the signal to the TV upscales the image to 1080p so the TV doesn't have to upscale it, then it looks great.
The native resolution literally doesn't matter. Halo 1 running on an Xbox 360 is a native 480p image being upscaled to 720p by the software emulator, and the the 360 itself upscales that to 1080p. It still looks like Halo 1, it doesn't look like a current gen game. Bottom line is that it's a native 480p game beng upscaled to 1080p and it looks good on my TV. That's all that matters.
What really chaps my hind is that the Xbox 360 does this to everything, across the board, period. Everything it does displays at 1080p on my TV and it looks fine. While on the other hand, it seems like half of the software for PS3 will only go as high as 720p. If you disable 720 to force it to 1080p, it automatically reverts to 480p. And what *really* makes this infuriating is PS3 games like MGS4, FFXIII, GT5, Dead Space 2 etc. run at 1080p without having to be forced, and then games like 3D Dot Heroes and all of the PS2 HD reiussues only go to 720p. What the fuck? I just don't get it.
1080p, now that I do care about. But not in terms of native resolution. The simple fact is, I have a Sony Bravia, and it's designed to display 1080p, period. If it receives a 720p signal, it doesn't look so hot. If the device that's sending the signal to the TV upscales the image to 1080p so the TV doesn't have to upscale it, then it looks great.
The native resolution literally doesn't matter. Halo 1 running on an Xbox 360 is a native 480p image being upscaled to 720p by the software emulator, and the the 360 itself upscales that to 1080p. It still looks like Halo 1, it doesn't look like a current gen game. Bottom line is that it's a native 480p game beng upscaled to 1080p and it looks good on my TV. That's all that matters.
What really chaps my hind is that the Xbox 360 does this to everything, across the board, period. Everything it does displays at 1080p on my TV and it looks fine. While on the other hand, it seems like half of the software for PS3 will only go as high as 720p. If you disable 720 to force it to 1080p, it automatically reverts to 480p. And what *really* makes this infuriating is PS3 games like MGS4, FFXIII, GT5, Dead Space 2 etc. run at 1080p without having to be forced, and then games like 3D Dot Heroes and all of the PS2 HD reiussues only go to 720p. What the fuck? I just don't get it.
Kelegacy
XBOX - RECORD ME LOVING DOWN MY WOMAN GOOD
Cake and eat it too?
I would hope people aren't playing terrible games at 1080p60 just because they are 1080p60.
A fun game is made even better with the increased framerate. My tweaking of Dead Space has me enjoying it much more than I did on 360. If a game defaults to 30 these days I will jump through hoops to figure out how to unlock 60fps or more if possible. To me it makes games that much more fun when the experience is increased.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Damn near every game I play on PC is 1080p60. It's such a low bar for modern tech.
Wonko_C
Member
Brofist.jpg
it was unappreciated
RR7, a first generation PS3 sequel which took a lot of assets from a first generation Xbox 360 game still looks stunning despite (or should I say, thanks in part to) being 1080p@60fps.
1080p@60 does not automatically make games look like PS2. Does this
honestly looks like this?
I think I kind of lost/contradicted myself there, and instead turned into crazy RR7 praise, which tends to happen to me everytime someone mentions it, LOL.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Next gen games will, in all likelihood, make the graphics nicer while keeping 720p/30fps. If not at first, over time.
You can't show 1080p or 60fps in a screenshot. You also can't show it in a Youtube video, either. You can, though, show more shiny. I wonder how many of the Call of Duty fans out there actually know why the game feels so much smoother and more responsive than similar games.
Gully State
Member
1080p and 60fps are benchmarks. HD consoles and cinematic gameplay are buzzwords.
abstract alien
Member
They aren't adjectives, so they aren't buzz words.
I've got a friend that says he can't play games that don't run at 60fps of 1080p and constantly makes fun of me because I've got a PS3. I started playing Wipeout HD and he said "see, this would look so much better if it was at 60fps on PC"
I imagine a lot of you guys just say it to seem like you're 'better' too.
I imagine a lot of you guys just say it to seem like you're 'better' too.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Yeah, no.
Right, because expecting people to be educated about it on a video game forum is just silly.
Seriously?
Not in the least.
As long as the game isn't a blurry mess, and the framerate isn't a slide show, I couldn't care less about whether or not it's 1080p+ or 60FPS.
I just want to play kickass games.
And I have.
Most of them were 720p/30fps.
I'm currently playing Gravity Rush on my Vita, and it's not even 720p, and the framerate occasionally hitches (in particular when transitioning between areas, and in really heavy fights), but it's one of the best games I've played this year.
"Fun," is the only word I care about when it comes to gaming. It's a subjective thing, but fortunately, there's no shortage of fun games out there this generation, at any resolution.
As long as the game isn't a blurry mess, and the framerate isn't a slide show, I couldn't care less about whether or not it's 1080p+ or 60FPS.
I just want to play kickass games.
And I have.
Most of them were 720p/30fps.
I'm currently playing Gravity Rush on my Vita, and it's not even 720p, and the framerate occasionally hitches (in particular when transitioning between areas, and in really heavy fights), but it's one of the best games I've played this year.
"Fun," is the only word I care about when it comes to gaming. It's a subjective thing, but fortunately, there's no shortage of fun games out there this generation, at any resolution.
R
Retro_
Unconfirmed Member
Or just don't play games on PC.
Makes as much of a difference in shooters as it does in fighting games. Or any game where you need to react precisely to split second stimulus to get an advantage.
Doesn't really matter in single player games, which is what seems to be what most people on gaf enjoy. But it still looks a whole world better to anyone with eyes.
All this post does is make it sound like you have some sort of inferiority complex over something minor your friend said in jest.
morningbus
Serious Sam is a wicked gahbidge series for chowdaheads.
I've got a friend that, hand-to-god, offers me sexual release every time I show him a PC game. So I whipped out the old NES and started playing Contra and he was like, "Oh man, the power of your PC. Can I be with you sexually?"
Then I was like, "GOTCHA!" And he had egg on his face, among other things.
Omegasquash
Member
4th post nails it. We ought to have higher standards by now. Take advantage of the hardware, for the love of pete.
Wasn't there some noise awhile back about developers willing to guarantee 720p and 30fps on next gen systems?
1080p and 60fps are excellent benchmarks for future performance, although I doubt the next gen of consoles will be able to do both at the same time. 720p/60, 720p/30/3D, and 1080p/30 is what I hope for next gen.
1080p will also have more gameplay benefits than people realize. While it's a lot less tangible than the benefits that 60 provides it will improve a few issues from this gen, aside from just looking nice.
1080p TVs are becoming more and more prevalent. A lot of manufacturers are phasing out 720p on all but the smallest sets. Early on in the next-gen's tenure, 1080p will become standard for all TVs. If more games are 1080p, it will help prevent extra input lag from being added from having to scale the image from whatever random resolution to 1080p. It's not a huge impact but if they're going to be 30fps games the lowered latency will be nice. I hope more devs implement dynamic resolution like in Wipeout HD. 1080p won't always be able to be maintained with a steady framerate if rumored specs are to be believed but if they can maintain the 1080 horizontal lines while changing the vertical line count, it'll scale pretty easily and won't be too noticeable in gameplay.
Another issue that will be improved is the amount of screen space HUDs take up. While more minimalist HUDs are preferable, I don't foresee many devs cutting down on the information they want to display on screen (particularly in multiplayer games). 1080p resolutions will allow the HUDs to be significantly smaller and still be clear.
Here's a comparison: (YouTube screen grabs, not meant to illustrate visual fidelity, just HUD size)
BF3 PS3 720p HUD:
BF3 PC 1080p HUD
1080p will also have more gameplay benefits than people realize. While it's a lot less tangible than the benefits that 60 provides it will improve a few issues from this gen, aside from just looking nice.
1080p TVs are becoming more and more prevalent. A lot of manufacturers are phasing out 720p on all but the smallest sets. Early on in the next-gen's tenure, 1080p will become standard for all TVs. If more games are 1080p, it will help prevent extra input lag from being added from having to scale the image from whatever random resolution to 1080p. It's not a huge impact but if they're going to be 30fps games the lowered latency will be nice. I hope more devs implement dynamic resolution like in Wipeout HD. 1080p won't always be able to be maintained with a steady framerate if rumored specs are to be believed but if they can maintain the 1080 horizontal lines while changing the vertical line count, it'll scale pretty easily and won't be too noticeable in gameplay.
Another issue that will be improved is the amount of screen space HUDs take up. While more minimalist HUDs are preferable, I don't foresee many devs cutting down on the information they want to display on screen (particularly in multiplayer games). 1080p resolutions will allow the HUDs to be significantly smaller and still be clear.
Here's a comparison: (YouTube screen grabs, not meant to illustrate visual fidelity, just HUD size)
BF3 PS3 720p HUD:
BF3 PC 1080p HUD
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Jonathan Blow had a presentation about just that, but that's a whole other can of beans.But Fun is just a buzzword too
Brofist.jpg
RR7, a first generation PS3 sequel which took a lot of assets from a first generation Xbox 360 game still looks stunning despite (or should I say, thanks in part to) being 1080p@60fps.
1080p@60 does not automatically make games look like PS2. Does this
honestly looks like this?
I think I kind of lost/contradicted myself there, and instead turned into crazy RR7 praise, which tends to happen to me everytime someone mentions it, LOL.
Racing games by and large have been an exception. Not sure why.
Honestly, 60fps by itself has made a lot of games more fun in my experience. A lot of Nintendo's games are good examples of this.
diffusionx
Gold Member
It matters in singleplayer games too. R&C games at 60fps are just excellent to play.
Not sure why people are fighting this. A great game at 30fps is still a great game at 60fps, it's just more responsive and smoother. Resolution isn't as noticeable, but with 1080p TVs being the norm, native resolution is very nice as well.
Wonko_C
Member
LOL. What did he say after he found out it was actually 1080p@60fps? Did he pull out the "dynamic resolution" card?
Indeed
Late but...first post nails it.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
There's nothing magical about 60fps. You just want to lock the framerate to your refresh rate and have that refresh rate be as high as possible. Otherwise you get some weirdness that's basically the motion equivalent of aliasing. A locked 50fps looks pretty good too if you drop your refresh rate to 50fps. Not as good as 60fps at 60hz, but much better than 50fps at 60hz.
GoofsterStud
Member
1080p is where it's at. Whichever system can output 1080p games at 60 frames has my vote. I'll gladly spend up to $600 for that system.
1080p on my high screen monitor improves game-play a ton. Seeing things you normally wouldn't see is amazing, and can be used to improve games.
1080p on my high screen monitor improves game-play a ton. Seeing things you normally wouldn't see is amazing, and can be used to improve games.
I'm talking about the people that claim to only be able to play games in 1080p and 60fps, anything less and they can't enjoy it. I remember posts in the Dark Souls PC port thread saying they won't buy it if it's only 720p.
Obviously it's better and nice to have but come on, it can't matter to anyone that much.
Yeah, that's it.
GoofsterStud
Member
The bigger and higher quality your screen, the more noticeable the difference is. Viewpoints will vary depending on the display.
$$$>The Difference
R
Retro_
Unconfirmed Member
Lol I didn't get the wipeout joke. Never played it
Still lame to assume a whole group of people are full of shit just because your friend is though
ReBurn
Gold Member
I honestly can't tell the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps. I sit about 2.5 meters away from my TV when I play games, so I really can't see the difference between 1080p and 720p when a game is in motion.
That's just me, though. I'm sure if you sit up close to the screen it's a lot easier to tell the difference.
That's just me, though. I'm sure if you sit up close to the screen it's a lot easier to tell the difference.
I think this might be a clear distinction between the type of game being played and this requirement. For example, if I were ever to go play a Final Fantasy game, I wouldn't require these things nor would pay close enough attention to notice. If I were playing Civ V, I wouldn't care what my FPS was as long as it was smooth and consistent.
When it comes to competitive games, like Dota2, Tribes: Ascend, APB, QuakeLive, or even action-oriented games like Skyrim or Demon's Souls when I need complete smoothness and ultra-zippy input, I *NEED* 120FPS and I can certainly tell a difference between 60 to 120, let alone something below 60. I'm not kidding when I say the switch to 120hz/fps dramatically improved my T:A comp play. I play defense, and when you have a capper moving across the screen at 300km/h, every millisecond counts.
ReBurn
Gold Member
*avatarquote*
Exactly, my friend. Exactly.
GoofsterStud
Member
You bring up another point. Everyone has a different set of eyes.
I can't play a 30 frame game, as they feel to choppy to me. Yes the animation might be splendid, but if you put 60 frames and 30 frames side to side I will instantly notice the difference. Yet some friends can't notice the difference, others instantly can.
Some like 3D, others like myself can't stand it. Not that 3D is horrible, it works for somethings and can be innovative if used appropriately in gaming; however because the picture quality suffers, the colors are washed and off, and that annoys me.
Yet others can't barley see a color difference.
I guess I just have expensive eyes :-(
ReBurn
Gold Member
3D in most of the games I've played is gimmicky and I can't see the point. Super Stardust HD, OTOH, is a game that absolutely does it right. Is it true that the resolution and framerate get dropped when you turn on 3D mode?
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
I was reading this thread in disbelief, and once I got to this post I just cracked up. Horse shit is definitely one way to put it.
TheContact
Member
Definitely not "Buzz words"
1080p for graphics
60fps for smoothness of gameplay
1080p for graphics
60fps for smoothness of gameplay
GoofsterStud
Member
Stardust runs at 720p compared to 1080p, which on my TV makes a huge difference. The colors are again off in 3D mode and don't look as good, which bugs me. Frame rate seemed the same to me.
Still didn't enhance the gameplay enough. We need games where the 3D portion is used to really do something different with interaction. Where a game has to be 3D for it to work. Problem is nobody wants to develop that. To many people do not have 3D capable TV's. The 3DDS games generally don't have the budget or hardware to fully realize this vision.
So we are stuck in limbo, and while we are in that limbo I prefer 2D and 1080p.
I'm one of the crazies that can't really tell much difference. Frame rates much below 30 do start to bother me, but between 30 and 60? I'd just be guessing.
I don't even notice the difference between 480 and 720/1080 unless I'm just looking for it. Of course games on HD systems look markedly better, but from my perspective they look basically the same in SD. Probably about to upgrade to an LCD just so I can read text in newer games.
I don't even notice the difference between 480 and 720/1080 unless I'm just looking for it. Of course games on HD systems look markedly better, but from my perspective they look basically the same in SD. Probably about to upgrade to an LCD just so I can read text in newer games.
HoodWinked
Member
definitely means alot for me things like this are instantly obvious for me.
dragonelite
Member
I have the same thing right now.
I just breaks immersion a bit for me and i have to get over it when i put my 360 on.
Should be interesting if more a fps @60fps comes out earlier then Cod and plays like Cod
Will it take away a big share from the fps market.
I wont even try to play BF3 on my 360 when i can play 1080p@60 with Ultra and some high settings(shadow and AA).
Wonko_C
Member
It bugs me when camera pans are so slow that I can't figure out if it's running at 30 or 60fps. When the camera pans so slowly across the showroom cars in Forza Motorsport 4, I know it's running at 30fps but it looks like 60 to me, unless I move the camera myself to a point where it moves fast enough, I don't like how my eyes are fooled there. (Crazy, I know.)