Support NeoGAF

[IvorB]

Just lower the single player resolution to 900p so we can get it running at 60 fps. Come on!

See now this is where you 60fps guys start to sound a little crazy...

 

[Negotiator]

I don't know if it's been posted before, but here it goes:

900p MP = 1600 * 900 * 60fps = 86400000 pixels/sec

1080p SP = 1920 * 1080 * 30fps = 62208000 pixels/sec

SP numbers are clearly off, unless it's unlocked 40fps (like the Infamous games).

So it should be more like this (closer to the MP figures):

1920 * 1080 * 40fps = 82944000 pixels/sec

What do you think GAF?

ps: 900p is still better than KZ-SF MP's half-assed "1080p" (aka 960x1080 interlaced).

 

[Give War A Chance]

60fps or 1080p?

Seems like an obvious choice to me.

 

[Bastables]

I don't think 60fps and subnative res is worth it. There, i said it.

I played gears competitively for years and still had a great time, played Halo for years at 30fps and still had a great time. UC4 at 1080p30fps for all modes would be absolutely fine for me.

I hate this new obsession with a number over consistency.

It is even worse because i hate games that differ in framerate and res on a mode basis to begin with, just keep everything the same

I don't think it's worth it either. I suppose luckily I never really got into the UC mp so it won't really impact me. Other than a concern that it'll eventually lead to the sacrifices being deemed ok for future single player games.

 

[fastmower]

I don't know if it's been posted before, but here it goes:

900p MP = 1600 * 900 * 60fps = 86400000 pixels/sec

1080p SP = 1920 * 1080 * 30fps = 62208000 pixels/sec

SP numbers are clearly off, unless it's unlocked 40fps (like the Infamous games).

So it should be more like this (closer to the MP figures):

1920 * 1080 * 40fps = 82944000 pixels/sec

What do you think GAF?

ps: 900p is still better than KZ-SF MP's half-assed "1080p" (aka 960x1080 interlaced).

pixels/sec aren't everything.

 

[Inuhanyou]

I don't think it's worth it either. I suppose luckily I never really got into the UC mp so it won't really impact me. Other than a concern that it'll eventually lead to the sacrifices being deemed ok for future single player games.

Yep. The CPU's in the consoles don't jive with how ambitious devs want these games to be, the devs themselves are not disciplined enough to reign in their scope either.

Something has to give and i say 60fps should be that thing unless its a certain genre like twitch shooters, racing sims or fighting games.

Stable 30fps is absolutely fine for me if it keeps the game design as good as can be, and keeps the native res IMO.

 

[Tagyhag]

You do realise that Black Flag on PS4 had native 1080p60fps patched in a lil after its launch?

That's MP brah.

 

[btrboyev]

The whining in this thread is downright embarrassing. 60fps is more important than 1080p. Always will be. Maybe folks still haven't accepted that PS4 isn't a PC powerhouse.

 

[Electret]

Battlefront looks fantastic at 900/60 too. As I've said before, the added temporal res of 60fps helps offset 900p blur a fair amount.

AA might as well be the determining factor in deciding how good 900p looks. Battefront is indeed an excellent example. I found it to be pretty crisp, only really seeing obvious effects of the resolution with specular aliasing (e.g., bright reflections off rocks).

As for UC4, 900p is a bit disappointing, but 60 fps is a valid cause. I do find it surprising, though, given Naughty Dog's technical pedigree. I would have thought they'd establish 1080/60 as the baseline and worked from there. Ostensibly, that would have required cutbacks too steep for ND.

As for the single player, I'm good with 1080/30. Why do folks think dropping the res to 900p automatically guarantees 60 fps? It doesn't. I'm betting a lot of the physics and destruction would have to be scaled back if they went for 60, and that's a compromise I don't think I'd go for - the physics and destruction looks to be a fundamental and distinguishing element of UC4.

 

[Portugeezer]

AA might as well be the determining factor in deciding how good 900p looks. Battefront is indeed an excellent example. I found it to be pretty crisp, only really seeing obvious effects of the resolution with specular aliasing (e.g., bright reflections off rocks).

As for UC4, 900p is a bit disappointing, but 60 fps is a valid cause. I do find it surprising, though, given Naughty Dog's technical pedigree. I would have thought they'd establish 1080/60 as the baseline and worked from there. Ostensibly, that would have required cutbacks too steep for ND.

As for the single player, I'm good with 1080/30. Why do folks think dropping the res to 900p automatically guarantees 60 fps? It doesn't. I'm betting a lot of the physics and destruction would have to be scaled back if they went for 60, and that's a compromise I don't think I'd go for - the physics and destruction looks to be a fundamental and distinguishing element of UC4.

For sure. A 720p video looks better than a 720p game because the jaggies just become a huge blurry mess on a game, whereas a video has infinite AA.

As for Battlefront, I didn't see complex enough levels to say it is some revelation when it comes to 900p looking crisp. The forest level was left out of the beta.

 

[Sotha_Sil]

I see 343i and Naughty Dog have come to the same, correct conclusion.

Wolfenstein and MGS5 feel great when I'm playing them. 60fps is a huge part of that.

 

[jett]

I see 343i and Naughty Dog have come to the same, correct conclusion.

Wolfenstein and MGS5 feel great when I'm playing them. 60fps is a huge part of that.

It's never not sad when I see people downplaying the effect a high framerate has on games. It's not just input response. Everything feels and looks better. In a perfect world, 60fps would be the bare minimum, and all devs would design their games with that in mind.

 

[vg260]

Eh... I'm yet to buy a 900p game this gen.

Would not have expected this from Naughty Dog of all people.

They push what the systems can do with graphics as good as anyone. I'm not sure why this is worded like this was a failure. They chose what they thought was the best emphasis for each mode, and are probably maxing out the system in both to the best of their current ability.

 

[Mike Golf]

ps: 900p is still better than KZ-SF MP's half-assed "1080p" (aka 960x1080 interlaced).

KZ:SF MP was not 960x1080 interlaced, the remaining horizontal pixels were created using an estimation algorithm of what was expected to be in that pixel next; there was literally no scaling done.

 

[NippleViking]

I don't know if it's been posted before, but here it goes:

900p MP = 1600 * 900 * 60fps = 86400000 pixels/sec

1080p SP = 1920 * 1080 * 30fps = 62208000 pixels/sec

SP numbers are clearly off, unless it's unlocked 40fps (like the Infamous games).

So it should be more like this (closer to the MP figures):

1920 * 1080 * 40fps = 82944000 pixels/sec

What do you think GAF?

ps: 900p is still better than KZ-SF MP's half-assed "1080p" (aka 960x1080 interlaced).

That's not how it works. At all.

 

[Diablos]

Oh well.

 

[Condom]

900p is fine and always has been for this gen as soon as those console specs were announced

 

[Fahrenheit]

Higher frame rates are always worth the trade off IMO. Wish they did it with the single player as well.

 

[TheRealTalker]

took a hit for 60fps and destructible environments

 

[Mike Golf]

Really don't get all the "this gen" and "these consoles" remarks; what exactly is the travesty here? When you're running MP there is drastically less control of what is on screen at once compared to SP where so much can be scripted and carefully controlled, allowing much greater fidelity. They made the cut backs as neccessary to hit 60 fps which is far more important than visuals in MP. I make the same choice if I'm playing games on PC; at times I'll ramp up the graphical fidelity with a locked 30 or variable fps for SP but if I'm playing MP you bet I'm sending graphics options down a pit to hit a constant 60.

 

[Soulflarz]

I don't know if it's been posted before, but here it goes:

900p MP = 1600 * 900 * 60fps = 86400000 pixels/sec

1080p SP = 1920 * 1080 * 30fps = 62208000 pixels/sec

SP numbers are clearly off, unless it's unlocked 40fps (like the Infamous games).

So it should be more like this (closer to the MP figures):

1920 * 1080 * 40fps = 82944000 pixels/sec

What do you think GAF?

ps: 900p is still better than KZ-SF MP's half-assed "1080p" (aka 960x1080 interlaced).

By this math
1080p/900p
6/5
so really, 1080p is 20% more taxing only, so somethings off with 900p being 60fps and 1080p being 30, it should be 50, right?

Spoiler

that isn't how this works

 

[XBP]

60fps just feels so much better honestly. I'm glad they went with that rather than eye candy in MP, where gameplay matters 10x more. Maybe they can have a 30/60fps switch in the final build? That way anyone who wants to play at a higher resolution can do that at a lower frame rate.

 

[AgentP]

900p is fine and always has been for this gen as soon as those console specs were announced

Fine for 60fps only.

 

[Negotiator]

That's not how it works. At all.

Then explain how it works.

The GPU has to process a finite amount of pixels in a finite amount of time.

 

[etta]

Then explain how it works.

The GPU has to process a finite amount of pixels in a finite amount of time.

There's no need to do any of this anyway, so it doesn't matter who's right.
60 fps is still much better than 40 fps, so the 900p is still worth it.

 

[Chris23]

Then explain how it works.

The GPU has to process a finite amount of pixels in a finite amount of time.

The GPU is rendering more than just pixels, it has to render polygons (possibly millions depending on the scene), effects, lighting etc. There are a lot more things going on than just a set amount of pixels.

 

[unempLLOYD]

How will a few downgrade in resolution alter your experience with this game? Last time I checked; 60fps in multiplayer can make a bigger difference in gameplay rather than a few resolutions. Who focuses on textures and graphics in multiplayer anyways? Im happy with this choice tbh, I have faith in Naughty Dog.

 

[Negotiator]

The GPU is rendering more than just pixels, it has to render polygons (possibly millions depending on the scene), effects, lighting etc. There's a lot more things going on than just a set amount of pixels.

I know that, but I was talking about the fillrate.

They cannot hit 1080p60 without downgrading a lot of stuff (shaders, polygon count, physics/destruction etc.)

Either way, ND has said that they're still trying to optimize the Campaign's framerate. That means that it could be unlocked 40fps, just like Infamous Second Son/First Light. Why should it be 30 or 60fps?

 

[Sniffynose]

I never touched MP in any of the Uncharted so this is a zero shits given matter but on the other hand it shows that these current gen systems are way underpowered if Naughty Gods have to make sacrifices on it to hit a decent framerate =/

 

[SuperSonic1305]

Fuck that shit. 900p is a travesty.

 

[Chris23]

I know that, but I was talking about the fillrate.

They cannot hit 1080p60 without downgrading a lot of stuff (shaders, polygon count, physics/destruction etc.)

Either way, ND has said that they're still trying to optimize the Campaign's framerate. That means that it could be unlocked 40fps, just like Infamous Second Son/First Light. Why should it be 30 or 60fps?

An unlocked frame rate usually results in a worse experience than a locked frame rate.

 

[Pathfinder]

Fuck that shit. 900p is a travesty.

May they burn in Hell for all eternity.

 

[Lord Error]

Fine for 60fps only.

Agreed... but I wouldn't mind some revelatory rendering techniques being employed Ico-style in a 900p/30FPS game.
Heck, The Order 1886 is practically that, just letterboxed instead of scaled.

It's never not sad when I see people downplaying the effect a high framerate has on games. It's not just input response. Everything feels and looks better.

But you can't really say that UC4 MP looks better, or even as good as its SP. I can't really imagine anyone would be happy with a next gen Uncharted game campaign looking like this MP footage tbh. Although, I know cutbacks need to be made just because it's MP, regardless of resolution and framerate differences. UC2/3 MP ran at the same framerate, but looked way worse than SP.

An unlocked frame rate usually results in a worse experience than a locked frame rate.

If it's unlocked, and above 40FPS, I disagree. I preferred playing Infamous and KZ:SF unlocked, which was how they were set by default, so I assume majority of playtesters preferred it too. I guess for a more cinematic game, it'd ruin a feel to have an uneven framerate, but for those quicker action games, I found it worked better.

 

[Negotiator]

I preferred playing Infamous and KZ:SF unlocked.

Me too.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

60fps just feels so much better honestly. I'm glad they went with that rather than eye candy in MP, where gameplay matters 10x more. Maybe they can have a 30/60fps switch in the final build? That way anyone who wants to play at a higher resolution can do that at a lower frame rate.

Doubt it, then you would fracture the community.

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

This is an outrage.

Shit, I'm fine with most Wii U games being 720p and people are miffed about a game being 900p???

Framerate matters so much more, it's why Call of Duty games are entertaining.

 

[Xan Kriegor]

I don't know if it's been posted before, but here it goes:

900p MP = 1600 * 900 * 60fps = 86400000 pixels/sec

1080p SP = 1920 * 1080 * 30fps = 62208000 pixels/sec

SP numbers are clearly off, unless it's unlocked 40fps (like the Infamous games).

So it should be more like this (closer to the MP figures):

1920 * 1080 * 40fps = 82944000 pixels/sec

What do you think GAF?

ps: 900p is still better than KZ-SF MP's half-assed "1080p" (aka 960x1080 interlaced).

This is a strange comparison of pixels. The SP will undoubtedly have higher graphical settings.

 

[L4nnist3r]

First no 60FPS in the campaign, now 900p in multiplayer. This new consoles are really weak. What will happen when games keep getting bigger and more demanding?

:/

 

[interfreak]

If you want to play Uncharted 4 at 1080p/60fps - wait for the remaster on PS5.

PlayStation. For the Remasters.

 

[Chris23]

If it's unlocked, and above 40FPS, I disagree. I preferred playing Infamous and KZ:SF unlocked, which was how they were set by default, so I assume majority of playtesters preferred it too. I guess for a more cinematic game, it'd ruin a feel to have an uneven framerate, but for those quicker action games, I found it worked better.

Only if you can reach an unlocked 50-60 fps, any lower (KZ:SF danced between 30-50) and you experience judder and frame pacing issues become more apparent. Not something that would be great for a MP game.

 

[TAJ]

Gross. Good thing I don't play MP.

 

[emrober5]

The whining in this thread is downright embarrassing. 60fps is more important than 1080p. Always will be. Maybe folks still haven't accepted that PS4 isn't a PC powerhouse.

More important...to you.

 

[jett]

But you can't really say that UC4 MP looks better, or even as good as its SP. I can't really imagine anyone would be happy with a next gen Uncharted game campaign looking like this MP footage tbh. Although, I know cutbacks need to be made just because it's MP, regardless of resolution and framerate differences. UC2/3 MP ran at the same framerate, but looked way worse than SP.

I don't play still images. I usually play games in motion. And that's when visuals really should be judged, especially when a game is aiming for a high framerate. I thought the footage looked fine to be honest.

Anyway, UC2 MP did look worse than SP, but UC3 MP looked pretty great to be honest. Several maps are straight out of the campaign with no discernible quality reduction.

(this is a UC2 remake tho)

 

[EASTC0AST_GH05T]

So basically you would need a really good PC to run a very good looking game like Uncharted 4 at 1080p 60fps. Naughty Dog and Dice are my favorite devs and they are really good at what they do so if they can't get there games to run at 1080p 60fps on console I say we just accept the tech that we have this gen and stop whining about the shortcomings.

 

[Randam]

Couldn't turn down some effects?

 

[RoboPlato]

I don't play still images. I usually play games in motion. And that's when visuals really should be judged, especially when a game is aiming for a high framerate. I thought the footage looked fine to be honest.

Anyway, UC2 MP did look worse than SP, but UC3 MP looked pretty great to be honest. Several maps are straight out of the campaign with no discernible quality reduction.



(this is a UC2 remake tho)

Character models were significantly different between 3's SP and MP.

Couldn't turn down some effects?

They're doing that too. Just dropping to 900p from 1080p won't get you to 60.

 

[Kssio_Aug]

So basically you would need a really good PC to run a very good looking game like Uncharted 4 at 1080p 60fps. Naughty Dog and Dice are my favorite devs and they are really good at what they do so if they can't get there games to run at 1080p 60fps on console I say we just accept the tech that we have this gen and stop whining about the shortcomings.

Wow... that's such a different speech compared to what you said in the Halo thread.

 

[Leona Lewis]

First no 60FPS in the campaign, now 900p in multiplayer. This new consoles are really weak. What will happen when games keep getting bigger and more demanding?

:/

The market spoke when Sony went all out with hardware and floundered with a $600 financial anvil as a result.

This is what you get for $400.

I wish the SP campaign were 60fps as well. TLOU:R is glorious, and it's basically gospel that 60fps games age much more gracefully.

There's a reason we look back so fondly on games like Wipeout HD or R&C:ACIT even if they weren't the most graphically amazing at the time: they still play like a dream because of their fluidity.

 

[etta]

Wow... that's such a different speech compared to what you said in the Halo thread.

What did they say in the Halo thread?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Let the faux outrage begin!

In to agree. Battlefront looked stellar, and if this means a little less graphical sacrifices from the single player (physics, etc), I am all for it.

Some of these posts just crack me up in here. They can easily make it 1080p/60, (they could have on the PS360), they are just choosing the best graphical/fps combination. But ah well, gamers gonna "game".