-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Uncharted 4 multiplayer will run at 900p / 60fps
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
Papacheeks
Banned
Isn't this their first game using the Engine they used for Last of Us? SO they havn't had a lot of time with it yet. I'm wondering if their engine needs refining, like it did with First Uncharted and go better as the games went on.
So I wonder if their next project will have 1080 60fps with same IQ.
So I wonder if their next project will have 1080 60fps with same IQ.
Dick Justice
Banned
That's too bad. Not everyone wants to take the time to say "in my opinion" or "I think that", unfortunately.
Well this time around they're building from what they had engine wise I believe and are therefore set up to hit the ground running faster.
Last gen first Uncharted I believe they started from scratch with the engine/tools hence the chance to make big jump from 1 to 2.
Mind you this assumes U4 does represent the max for them. It may well just be max for V1 for their tools moved to PS4 with any further games featuring further optimization to the engine.
The SP shown so far looks pretty amazing to me and TBH the MP does too in terms of what's going on, the detail level and the 60fps with a ton of effects.
Worth noting every game could be 1080p/60fps they'd just look more like the Uncharted or TLOU remasters although with code built for PS4 from the ground up vs a port possibly a little better.
I dont understand what you mean.
I will try it and see for myself how it is, that's for sure.
But this have nothing to do on having bad first impressions. I learnt to not give a fuck about first impressions. They are wrong a lot of times.
FloorEssence
Neo Member
Opinions aside, developers know what's better for their game than your average forum poster. The fact that the flagship title for both Xbox and now PS is prioritising 60fps just highlights its importance.
Dick Justice
Banned
As long as there are fanboys, never gonna happen. Just look at every performance comparison thread, with the 900peas and 1080peas shit-slinging.
FTFY.
Bl4ckSunsh1n3
Member
No, you don't need to. But, when you post this:
That's not a statement about your preference. So anything you post after it will be assumed to be in that context.
Dictator93
Member
There was a screenshot of some green lighting inside of a car and a gif of the sun moving. BUt there was not primary examples where you see a bounce light against a surface move according to light position, or bounce light from a moving surface (beyond SSR) changing position along a static surface. You really need that to see that to. It is called global illumination btw : GI and not GL.
Also, we literally have no idea how it functions.
I have no idea, and yes, it is surprising that they have not been more forward with what their game is doing intternally. I would like to know.
Dick Justice
Banned
That's the problem of anyone who wants to assume then. I'm not going to babysit anyone to let go of their preconceptions.
Bl4ckSunsh1n3
Member
You're right. What was I thinking?
People are defending their 'preference' for inferior frame rate as if the game is going to look terrible if ND makes consessions to achieve 60fps. That silly high/low comparison for example is not at all whats happening for the game. The multiplayer will look and play better than most ps4 games and the framerate will be a big part of that.
Ha ha! When will that be?
Xan Kriegor
Banned
Oh the irony.
That high/low comparison was not aimed at Uncharted 4 game. It was aimed to demonstrate that 60fps does not objectively lead to a better gaming experience compared to 30fps like many people say here. In order to make people understand the point, sometimes extreme examples are needed. Ofcourse it's more nuanced than simply high low, graphics rendering has a lot of parameters to play with.
And what do you know? How can you be aware of the changes or sacrifices needed to achieve 60 fps?
There's people who cant play at 30 fps, and there's people who actually can.
And because there's people who can, the trade-off between graphics and fps exists.
Now tell me why the industry should only focus on one of those groups.
And precisely the most demanding and whinning.
No. Graphics and fps offers different things for different needs. Stop talking about it like something objective because it's not.
At the end of the day we're talking about competitive multi-player here. The people that will put more time on this aspect tend to value the higher FPS especially long after the game stops being impressive to them (visually). I can't see there being too many people who would prefer more input lag, jankier motion, and overall less precision just to have a slightly crisper image spending too much time on MP. ND knows what they're doing and they certainly aren't listening to scrubs for their MP configuration.
There's no study that's been done on how FPS, resolution, or other technical aspects affects the sales of console games. So for ND and UC it's a much safer bet to stick to 30 FPS for their SP in order to make for the best marketing material possible (screenshots, low fps videos) and to continue the tradition of what UC is known for (good graphics).
All of this is pretty logical. I would prefer all games to be 60 FPS no matter how shitty they make look but really the point of a console is to be a closed-box experience where the consumer sits back and lets the decisions be made for them.
There's no study that's been done on how FPS, resolution, or other technical aspects affects the sales of console games. So for ND and UC it's a much safer bet to stick to 30 FPS for their SP in order to make for the best marketing material possible (screenshots, low fps videos) and to continue the tradition of what UC is known for (good graphics).
All of this is pretty logical. I would prefer all games to be 60 FPS no matter how shitty they make look but really the point of a console is to be a closed-box experience where the consumer sits back and lets the decisions be made for them.
Alpha Phoenix
Member
I'm just kind of surprised because this sounds like ND pushed the console to its limits with their first project this generation.
Maybe I'm just paranoid.
Maybe I'm just paranoid.
Negotiator
Banned
They haven't said anything about it, that's why I'm asking.
Only Infamous, BF4 and an indie game (don't remember the name) utilize async compute currently.
Bornstellar
Member
The right decision, IMO. Wish SP would be 60fps as well.
No doubt the PS3 throws a wrench in any discussion because of the exotic nature of the hardware, but it still holds true...as shown by the performance issues of the first game...fast forward to TLoU, and you have your fair share of performance issues, but for obviously different reasons.
I always wondered if any console game has ever given the option to have 60/900p (or whatever) and 30/1080p -that being a locked frame rate with only minor dips- and kept record of how the player who choose either option did. On PC frame rate had a major impact on how well I did in games like CS/Unreal/Quake. Not as applicable to something like Uncharted but I'd be interested to see the stats; PC is far too varied to get this kind of data.
Also, wow, some people saying they don't care about frame rate in VR. You're going to get a literal shock to the system.
Also, wow, some people saying they don't care about frame rate in VR. You're going to get a literal shock to the system.
RoyalLaFlame
Banned
Why, is there a problem with that? I always question even if it's Naughty Dog.
About being 900p@60fps, expected.
velociraptor
Junior Member
This is the price for 60FPS on console gaming. There is no way we will see U4 like graphics at 1080p60.
It sucks, but what can you do. I'm not really a fan of 'switching' framerates between SP and MP.
I personally would have been content with 1080/30, as the SP is already at this framerate.
Guess it all depends how the game looks on screen.
It sucks, but what can you do. I'm not really a fan of 'switching' framerates between SP and MP.
I personally would have been content with 1080/30, as the SP is already at this framerate.
Guess it all depends how the game looks on screen.
NoMoreTrolls
Banned
Disingenuous shit post... These quotes all preceded yours:
There's no conspiracy; some people care, others don't give a shit. I think you'll find that there aren't many individual posters changing their stance on resolution vs frame rate just because this is Naughty Dog/a PS4 game.
Personally, I like 1080p.
Mr. PlayStation
Member
60fps to 30fps transition feels more jarring in first person shooters than third person games. Destiny feels incredibly hard to control coming from BF4's 900p60fps
Slangblade
Member
This is one of the worst threads I have ever read. The fact that people are arguing 60fps vs 30fps and 1080p vs 900p is disgusting. 60fps is better than 30fps and 1080p is better than 900p period! This is objective. If you think otherwise you are wrong!
Now with that said, I agree with the route ND has taken. People have to understand why and it's because of the hardware. It's that simple. If NG had a choice I pretty sure they would want 1080p and 60fps for both modes. But because of the hardware they are doing the best the can with they are working with. Nothing wrong with this.
If this game was available for the pc that's what I wound choice because I have a powerful pc that could run this game at 1080p and 60fps.
I think what I'm trying to say is it's all about the hardware you have. The most powerful the hardware will always get you better performance. No one wants to play at this game at 30fps and 900p but because of the the hardware we have know choice and you know what it still going to be fun game.
Now with that said, I agree with the route ND has taken. People have to understand why and it's because of the hardware. It's that simple. If NG had a choice I pretty sure they would want 1080p and 60fps for both modes. But because of the hardware they are doing the best the can with they are working with. Nothing wrong with this.
If this game was available for the pc that's what I wound choice because I have a powerful pc that could run this game at 1080p and 60fps.
I think what I'm trying to say is it's all about the hardware you have. The most powerful the hardware will always get you better performance. No one wants to play at this game at 30fps and 900p but because of the the hardware we have know choice and you know what it still going to be fun game.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
Should've went for 60 fps in single player too.
i'd look at it more like how uncharted 1 turned out. screen tearing, bad aliasing...yes, there is less of a learning curve on the new hardware, but improvements will be made. we won't see an uncharted 1 to uncharted 3 level jump. but i'd imagine certain things that are causing bottleneck here will be worked on and hopefully reduced in the future. i have no doubt in my mind last of us 2 will look better then uncharted 4.
Alpha Phoenix
Member
Good point.
dgrdsv
Member
Maxing out ACEs is extremely easy and should actually be avoided as launching too many jobs on the same scarce GPU resources will inevitably lead to a performance loss, not gain.
The trick is to find the proper balance of workloads which will be able to run concurrently on the GPU most of the time, not push as many threads as possible into the 8 ACEs.
To answer the question - I'm sure that UC4 will use it.
Pathfinder
Member
I disagree. If 30fps in SP would allow them to provide prettier graphics, I say go with that.
As long as it's a locked 30fps.
Negotiator
Banned
Are you insinuating that 8 ACEs are a waste of silicon?
Dick Justice
Banned
Work on your insults, they're not very good.
paragonpro
Banned
Thats fine, multiplayer should be 60 no matter the cost
alexandros
Banned
This argument gets brought up a lot but it isn't always true, at least not in such absolute terms. Obviously some devs will push for better visuals at native res and 30 fps while others will go for 60 fps at lower settings and/or resolution. However, the hardware of the console is extremely important in determining how big of a visual leap you can expect in a 60 fps game. In Halo 5 threads some people are calling it 'Halo 4.5', which means that they don't perceive the visuals to be representative of a true generational leap. If the Xbox was twice as powerful then the developers would be able to provide much better visuals while maintaining a 60 fps refresh rate.
The same goes for the PS4. I think it's clear from the original UC4 trailer and the statements regarding TLOUR that Naughty Dog really wanted to go the 60 fps route. Why didn't it? My guess (and it is just a guess) is that the developers just couldn't offer the graphical quality people expect from a Naughty Dog title while keeping the 60 fps intact. If the hardware was powerful enough to offer the current UC4 visuals at 60 fps then I think there is a high possibility that Naughty Dog would go for that option instead of pushing graphics even further. In that sense, the hardware directly impacts the resolution and the framerate.
Chozo_Lord
Member
I'll take it. I never got into the TLOU multiplayer on PS3, but I absolutely loved it in Remastered because of the 60fps.
Yes you can see a scaled image differs to a native one
LookAtMeGo
Member
I want my SP to be a bombastic spectical of graphical awesomeness so 30 if fine if steady.
I want my MP to be as smooth as possible so 60 is ideal for competitive gameplay.
I could give 2 fucks about 900p in my MP.
Sounds like they know what they're doing to me.
*shrug*
I want my MP to be as smooth as possible so 60 is ideal for competitive gameplay.
I could give 2 fucks about 900p in my MP.
Sounds like they know what they're doing to me.
*shrug*
tattooed_dwarf
Member
Exactly.
Jonneh3003
Banned
I honesty don't care. I don't care about 900p Xbox One games and I don't care about this. I feel my experience is better being oblivious to resolution as so many people get worked up about it. I can quite happily play Ocarina of Time and not even notice it's in 240p, that's not to say I don't see a difference but it is to say I don't bat an eye at it.
The Baron Count
Member
Highly doubt anything would be different if there were more power. A developer like Naughty Dog isn't going to settle for "good enough" with their visuals. Their games always look better than virtually every other game on the market and they need 30FPS to pull that off. I expect on the PS5 we will see the same thing.
My brother, until yesterday, when Naughty God announced that Uncharted 4 multiplayer would run at 900/60, nobody could have imagined this console capable of achieving that.
900/60!!!
Isn´t it amazing?
Actually they have already gone beyond the boundaries of the PS4´s processing capabilities, trust me on that, even if your mind can´t grasp the dimension of that wonderful fact, reinventing game development, and opening up a world of new possibilities for other developers, for other mediocre developers.
It will be called coding to the Naughty Gods.
That or they are just a mediocre developer with an extremely vocal and complacent fanbase. I like the art style of their games, and the gun play is usually very satisfying.
That's all that separates them from shit tier.
SonicAaron
Member
After the awfulness that was Uncharted 3's multiplayer - I'd hoped they'd go back to the U2 basic style.
But no. . .this has C4 being thrown all over the place. . . .some sort of super power kill streak reward. . .and worst of all for a competitive multiplayer game. . .DOWNING AND REVIVING.
Ugh.
But no. . .this has C4 being thrown all over the place. . . .some sort of super power kill streak reward. . .and worst of all for a competitive multiplayer game. . .DOWNING AND REVIVING.
Ugh.
alexandros
Banned
I don't know, it seems to me that the 60 fps movement is gaining traction. All of the big FPS games are now 60 fps: Call of Duty, Battlefield, Battlefront, Halo.