TLOU Remastered: 30 fps option gives better shadow quality [Up: Comparison GIF in OP]

#1


Thanks, Wishmaster92.

---

http://www.craveonline.com/gaming/articles/732969-30-vs-60-fps-a-the-last-of-us-remastered-shadows-comparison#/slide/1
The results show something more than subtle.

What you’re going to see in our screenshots and videos are a variety of results, sometimes indistinguishable, and other times enough difference present to raise an eyebrow. When playing at 60 FPS without the lock enabled, you will encounter shadows with high aliasing (blocky edges), and sometimes even shadows missing altogether. With the 30 FPS lock enabled, the edges of shadows are much smoother, and shadows will appear on certain surfaces.

In my opinion, I think Naughty Dog wanted to incorporate the higher quality shadows by default, but simply couldn’t get the game to run smoothly enough, opting to lower the intensity of shadow quality when running at 60 FPS. After all, in the case of PC games shadows are usually the first thing to go when performance takes a dive.

During my playtime with the 30 FPS lock disabled, I didn’t necessarily notice the blocky shadows during gameplay. The only occasions where they caught my attention is when I was looking for them, or a shadow was flickering (uncommon).
 
#12
Hell yeah.

I'm not the type of dude to sacrifice 60fps for anything (especially shadows... shadow filtering and res are literally the first things to go when I need to lower settings) but that they're willing to enable enhanced visual elements for those who choose 30fps is fantastic middle ground.

I don't get why y'all are predicting a fucked up thread. This is whynotboth.gif and it's great

Nice, was going to lock it at 30 anyway. Worked great for Killzone and Infamous.
Yeah because those were games that weren't hitting 60fps all the time. This very well could and IMO there's no reason to switch to 30fps at all in that event.

Except now there is :p I guess
 
#22
website says the 30fps lock is better because of better shadow quality but doesn't actually show any proof apart from a wall of text? i bet they're just trying to bait for clicks
 
#33
Crave Online are the same people from "Thief PS4′s Low Framerate is Proof that 1080p isn’t Always the Answer" and then PS4 framerate was better than One's.
 
#38
Why not make the shadows and the fps lock separate options?

Also, this isn't a big deal so I see no need for anyone to cancel their pre-order, but I still wonder why a PS3 game has trouble running 60FPS on a PS4...

Crave Online are the same people from "Thief PS4′s Low Framerate is Proof that 1080p isn’t Always the Answer" and then PS4 framerate was better than One's.
These two things have nothing to do with each other. 1080p not always being worth it is a separate issue from the framerate on PS4 versus Xbone.
 

ElTorro

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
#39
From now on we shall divide us into those who preferred shadowz over framez and those who did not, and judge each other forever.
 
#41
...so we're suddenly pretending 30 FPS massively reducing resource usage is unusual? I don't get the freak out. They actually did something with the extra oomph from 30FPS, and they did it without taking 60 FPS out of the game.
 
#47
Pretty awesome that Naughty Dog is giving everyone the choice of better graphics or 60FPS. Wish more games did stuff like this.
well ok but they did flat out say they only included the 30fps option for preference only (some gaffer said 60fps made him feel uneasy).

for it to now emerge that 30fps brings some potentially noticeable improvement in shadows is pretty crummy

need pics first though
 
#50
Nice! I think it's a good trade off. Lower frame rate for higher visual fidelity, or higher frame rate with slightly less visual fidelity. You're not locked in either way, so adjust to your needs. Looks like console gaming is inching ever closer to PC gaming with the graphical option stuff.