Support NeoGAF

[Hugstable]

most people don't give a shit. This is the same excuse people give when 30fps vs 60fps debates come up, or resolution. CoD looks like dogshit and it was breaking it's own sales records that it set. Crysis 2 looks great, no one bought it on consoles. No one even bought the third.

even on PC where we're all graphics whores, the most popular games are ones that can be played on toasters.

Graphics are for fanboys that feel the need to tell other fanboys they spent their money wrong. It's not to sell systems.

Hell the highest rated PC game this year looks like a worse looking clone of Earthbound, but the game is fucking amazing. I personally hate what graphics is doing to gaming.

Like even a toggle would be great. Allow me to play the SP at a lower resolution and have 60fps but leave the 30fps option for those who would rather look at pretty things

 

[Portugeezer]

Surprised Naughty Dog would take that approach.

 

[Joco]

Good decision imo.

 

[hawk2025]

I'm pleasantly surprised they did this, and wish we would be given an option for the same (hell, I'll take a 720p option if it's needed, lock it behind a code if you have to) for the single player.

I'd love to run through the single player both ways.

 

[QuantumZebra]

bah
Maybe it's just me but I don't like when devs do this. Going from 60 to 30 is jarring

I didn't think id see the day someone on GAF complained about 60 fps in a game.

Well done.

 

[etta]

They said it was in-engine at the time. He's literally using a "in-engine" comparison to a MP model.

That's beyond ridiculous in terms of comparisons.

The biggest downgrade to the game came in the form of 60 to 30 FPS.

"captured on a PS4" does not mean real time. The fact that they do not make that extremely necessary step to say "real time" is something that should cause eye brows to raise always IMO.


Pretty easy to see that if you watch the video. But it is multiplayer, so it is not exactly surprising.

Hmmm, interesting.
Character model aside, the rest of shots are pretty valid I think.

 

[Primethius]

Hmmm, interesting.
Character model aside, the rest of shots are pretty valid I think.

How are they remotely valid? He's using an SP model to compare to an MP model. An SP model that's in-engine with an in-game MP model.

MP in games never looks as good as SP. On top of the things listed above, that makes the comparison beyond stupid.

 

[etta]

How are they remotely valid? He's using an SP model to compare to an MP model. An SP model that's in-engine with an in-game MP model.

MP in games never looks as good as SP. On top of the things listed above, that makes the comparison beyond stupid.

I'm talking about the "cut corners" observation. Not the part where he compared it with the in-engine reveal.

 

[Servbot24]

That's a stupid comparison tbh. The game has been downgraded for sure in terms of framerate. But comparing an in-engine face model with a multiplayer model?

That's actually ridiculous.

How has frame rate been downgraded when we have no idea how it was running to begin with?

And yeah, that guy is just trolling. There's no way anyone could actually think comparing multiplayer freezes to in-engine renders is a good idea.

 

[Tatsumi Oga]

I am honestly rather shocked by the comments here. At first i thought people were joking and truly not minding it at all, but now i realize people are serious and acting like it's the end of the world.

Xbox One has been my only new gen console since it's launch in Holland last year and i have been 'coping' with plenty games that had 900p or even lower. Witcher 3 for example is 900p but it looks fine, absolutely fine. MGSV is 900p and again..looks fine. And this is on a 55 inch screen.

As for U4 multiplayer. Just please go over to Gamersyde and check their gameplay video. That looks......bad? full of jaggies? Blurry? Hellz naw. Sure i understand it sucks that ND spoke about 1080p/60fps in the beginning but it clearly is not possible at all. That very first reveal video, was amazingly impressive and as nice as U4 now looks in the E3 footage...it sure ain't the reveal trailer.

It is what it is.

 

[Hugstable]

I'm pleasantly surprised they did this, and wish we would be given an option for the same (hell, I'll take a 720p option if it's needed, lock it behind a code if you have to) for the single player.

I'd love to run through the single player both ways.

It's like they had the toggle in TLoU, but Last of Us only reduced the shadows instead of the resolution due to it being a PS3 game in the first place. But I don't see why they couldn't just throw the toggle in and have it run like the MP. Once you experienced TLoU in 60 FPS it's hard to go back, and it turned Last of Us from a game that I didn't really like at all on PS3 into a game I really enjoyed due to how smooth and responsive the gameplay was. The whole experience for me was enchanced greatly because of it.

 

[zsynqx]

Hmmm, interesting.
Character model aside, the rest of shots are pretty valid I think.

In game cutscene from E3.

I do think that scene would have been easily possible in game at 60, with perhaps the exception of the spotless IQ, which like someone earlier mentioned seemed to be downsampled from a higher resolution.

 

[B.O.O.M]

Best compromise! Well done ND.

Keep SP with all the visual bells and whisltes to 30fps but have the MP at 60fps with a lower resolution. Perfect

 

[Primethius]

I'm talking about the "cut corners" observation. Not the part where he compared it with the in-engine reveal.

I'm talking about (and was before) about the entire comparison itself. Which is still stupid.

How has frame rate been downgraded when we have no idea how it was running to begin with?

And yeah, that guy is just trolling. There's no way anyone could actually think comparing multiplayer freezes to in-engine renders is a good idea.

I mean, yea, I agree. But I'm not even trying to get into that.

 

[mattp]

i mean lol
they said the main campaign is 1080p and 30 fps because they couldnt achieve 60
and they also said the multiplayer would be 60
so...what did you think would happen? lol
they didnt just set the single player to 30 for funsies
how did you think they would be able to get 60fps?

 

[Crisium]

i mean lol
they said the main campaign is 1080p and 30 fps because they couldnt achieve 60
and they also said the multiplayer would be 60
so...what did you think would happen? lol
they didnt just set the single player to 30 for funsies
how did you think they would be able to get 60fps?

There is always an alternative and you're missing the obvious one. They can further reduce the settings and achieve 1080p 60fps in multiplayer. Like changing a PC game from High to Medium but keeping the resolution and you will see your framerate skyrocket.

 

[Hugstable]

how did you think they would be able to get 60fps?

by either reducing graphical settings like shadows or texture, or reducing the resolution

 

[pixelbox]

It isn't news that some people like inferior things.

Hints the 60 FPS talk.

 

[etta]

I'm talking about (and was before) about the entire comparison itself. Which is still stupid.

No, forget that comparison.
I mean this:

You don't need to make a comparison to notice the missing AO, some low polygon models, some low textures...etc.

I'm not saying it's terrible or anything, I too support the 60fps decision. I'd prefer they drop graphics further to get back to 1080p as well to be honest.

 

[StevieP]

There is always an alternative and you're missing the obvious one. They can further reduce the settings and achieve 1080p 60fps in multiplayer. Like changing a PC game from High to Medium but keeping the resolution and you will see your framerate skyrocket.

by either reducing graphical settings like shadows or texture, or reducing the resolution

They've clearly already done that

 

[GametimeUK]

I love how the only two things that exist in the mind of the gaming community this gen are resolution and framerate. What about the actual graphical effects that are on display etc? 1080p and 60fps is a standard that can't produce mind blowing graphics on these consoles. That is the bottom line.

 

[ubersticky]

Will his chest hair still move in the wind in MP?

 

[zsynqx]

No, forget that comparison.
I mean this:

You don't need to make a comparison to notice the missing AO, some low polygon models, some low textures...etc.

I'm not saying it's terrible or anything, I too support the 60fps decision. I'd prefer they drop graphics further to get back to 1080p as well to be honest.

For someone who supports this decision, you sure are going out of your way to show everyone the compromises which were made to get there.

 

[MaLDo]

"captured on a PS4" does not mean real time. The fact that they do not make that extremely necessary step to say "real time" is something that should cause eye brows to raise always IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wesmJkTqldI

In game visuals is clear

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=835985

 

[Portugeezer]

I guess Corrinne Yu quit.

 

[Primethius]

No, forget that comparison.
I mean this:

You don't need to make a comparison to notice the missing AO, some low polygon models, some low textures...etc.

I'm not saying it's terrible or anything, I too support the 60fps decision. I'd prefer they drop graphics further to get back to 1080p as well to be honest.

I have nothing to say in regards to that picture because I expect MP to look worse then SP. Sacrifices and so on. I can pretty easily tell all the places that there have been cutbacks.

My initial post was about how stupid the comparison was. I stand by that.

 

[EternalTruth]

Good news imo, rather have a rock solid framerate and impressive visuals too boot, than a crisp version of sh!t.

 

[xxracerxx]

I guess Corrinne Yu quit.

What's that now?

 

[RoboPlato]

I guess Corrinne Yu quit.

I know this is a joke but she actually did leave back in January.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

I have nothing to say in regards to that picture because I expect MP to look worse then SP. Sacrifices and so on. I can pretty easily tell all the places that there have been cutbacks.

My initial post was about how stupid the comparison was. I stand by that.

yep they had to sacrifice res plus more to get 60 fps .
I just hope this mean 60fps most of the time and not huge drops like some other games.

 

[AlphaDump]

There is always an alternative and you're missing the obvious one. They can further reduce the settings and achieve 1080p 60fps in multiplayer. Like changing a PC game from High to Medium but keeping the resolution and you will see your framerate skyrocket.

that is exactly what they did, just not in your vision.

 

[Portugeezer]

I know this is a joke but she actually did leave back in January.

Oh. Well there goes that.

 

[xxracerxx]

I know this is a joke but she actually did leave back in January.

For such an interesting position as well. Prime Air.

 

[LuuKyK]

As someone who really doesnt notice/cares about 60fps in games, this is quite a disappointment. I would rather they stick with one of the choices for the entire game. Not a dealbreaker at all for me, but still weird to see ND have such an approach.

 

[etta]

For someone who supports this decision, you sure are going out of your way to show everyone the compromises which were made to get there.

Except the conversation wasn't about the sacrifices made, it was about the comparison being apt. I thought it was (for that specific pic), Primithius disagreed.
You're going out of your way to make this about something that it's not.

I have nothing to say in regards to that picture because I expect MP to look worse then SP. Sacrifices and so on. I can pretty easily tell all the places that there have been cutbacks.

My initial post was about how stupid the comparison was. I stand by that.

Fair enough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wesmJkTqldI

In game visuals is clear

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=835985

So it was realtime?

 

[Head.spawn]

I have a 980Ti. I prefer 30 FPS for some games on consoles.

*shrugs*

Don't really understand the mentality of 60 FPS for everything.

Do you frame-limit your PC games to 30fps?

 

[Kralamoonard]

As someone who really doesnt notice/cares about 60fps in games, this is quite a disappointment. I would rather they stick with one of the choices for the entire game. Not a dealbreaker at all for me, but still weird to see ND have such an approach.

Just curious, but how can you not "notice" 60fps?

 

[Primethius]

Do you frame-limit your PC games to 30fps?

Not really.

Sometimes, depending on the res I want to run them at.

 

[jett]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoyLGYUGT-M new video

Graphics look gorgeous. Yall are crazy!!!

They finally have good weapon sounds as well more importantly

Lazarevich telling someone "You...ARE A DISGRACE!" when he revives them is pretty genius.

 

[Kralamoonard]

I'm confused about what the posts by Maldo are getting at regarding the "in-engine footage" which is just a cutscene (no?) compared to the recent MP footage? I thought it was established that not only do cutscenes generally look better than their SP gameplay counterpart (due to being able to "hide" other stuff or push graphical features in specific areas), but also the fact that SP is running at 30fps compared to 60fps? (I for one just think Sony published the original cutscene trailer in 60fps to maintain what they were initially targetting, although it's evident now that the cutscenes run in 30fps).

 

[Head.spawn]

Not really.

Sometimes, depending on the res I want to run them at.

Gotcha. I saw some guys on another forum that would aim for that 4k30 over the 60fps.

I prefer 60 myself, but I haven't tasted 4k/ultra setting goodness, so I don't know what I'm missing yet.

 

[zsynqx]

Except the conversation wasn't about the sacrifices made, it was about the comparison being apt. I thought it was (for that specific pic), Primithius disagreed.
You're going out of your way to make this about something that it's not.

My bad, apologies for misunderstanding your intentions.

 

[Primethius]

Gotcha. I saw some guys on another forum that would aim for that 4k30 over the 60fps.

I prefer 60 myself, but I haven't tasted 4k/ultra setting goodness, so I don't know what I'm missing yet.

I mean, that's why I like PC gaming. Options. But it depends entirely on the game. FPS games? 60 FPS for sure.

But for example, say a crazy looking (graphically) X-Com game came out? Eh. I'd aim for 30 FPS with crazy res I if could over 60.

 

[MaLDo]

I'm confused about what the posts by Maldo are getting at regarding the "in-engine footage" which is just a cutscene (no?) compared to the recent MP footage? I thought it was established that not only do cutscenes generally look better than their SP counterpart (due to being able to "hide" other stuff or push graphical features in specific areas), but also the fact that SP is running at 30fps compared to 60fps? (I for one just think Sony published the original cutscene trailer in 60fps to maintain what they were initially targetting, although it's evident now that the cutscenes run in 30fps).

It's pretty easy. The first reveal showed a real time real game level footage at 1080p60 and is light years above what they can really put in real time real game level at 900p60. That's all. I know SP runs now at 30, same as cinematics. I only answered someone that talks about tiny downgrade. Halving the framerate is a big one. And looking at footage at the same framerate, resolution and assets are downgraded too. People are reacting in different ways and that's ok.

 

[Kralamoonard]

It's pretty easy. The first reveal showed a real time real game level footage at 1080p60 and is light years above what they can really put in real time real game level at 900p60. That's all. I know SP runs now at 30, same as cinematics. I only answered someone that talks about tinny downgrade. Halving the framerate is a big one. And looking at footage at the same framerate, resolution and assets are downgraded too. People are reacting in different ways and that's ok.

I see, although I'd take the original "in-engine" footage with a grain of salt and rather use the PSX demo (+cut scenes) as the standard, until of course we see how the original "in-engine" footage holds up in the game (I still believe it's a cutscene and the 60fps footage wasn't really representative of the game at all and Sony just decided to slap on the 60fps for the sake of it which I think is a stupid move).

I get your opinion though. Where I stand on it is that the SP has remained the same at 1080p 30fps (of course apart from the stupid 60fps "in-engine" thing which might just be a 30fps cutscene in the final game for all we know), but in the multiplayer, the it's 900p as the frame rate has been doubeld, and some assets aren't as detailed as the SP.

TLR SP hasn't been downgraded, MP has been "downgraded" (relative to SP) to achieve 60fps.

 

[Doug Heffernan]

Oh the irony...

 

[gundamkyoukai]

It's pretty easy. The first reveal showed a real time real game level footage at 1080p60 and is light years above what they can really put in real time real game level at 900p60. That's all. I know SP runs now at 30, same as cinematics. I only answered someone that talks about tiny downgrade. Halving the framerate is a big one. And looking at footage at the same framerate, resolution and assets are downgraded too. People are reacting in different ways and that's ok.

the first reveal show a real time cut scene in SP and cut scenes always look better than gameplay .
No one was expecting MP to look like SP even at the same frame rate and res , it never does.
Of course now MP is twice the frame as SP so they have to be even more cut backs because MP never look as good as SP to begin with .
How the game looks in MP is no way to judge how it would look like in SP even if the SP was going to be 60fps much less a cut scene.

 

[Ghost Slayer]

Oh the irony...

Yeah, I mean ND tell us that MP will run at 1080p before right?

Spoiler

/s

 

[Walpurgis]

For shame, Naughty Dog. I never thought it would come to this.

 

[zsynqx]

For shame, Naughty Dog. I never thought it would come to this.

Hey your back