The Legendary Zoltan Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 Games are constantly being announced for PS4 and XBO as having as high of resolutions as they can handle at 30 FPS. I'm totally against this. I really think they should try to get the highest resolution they can at 60 FPS. If that means 720p, I'm fine with that. Final Fantasy 13 is 720p and it looks amazing. I guess the reason they focus on resolution is because it's visible in all the media leading up to the games release. You can't see 60 FPS in a screenshot, so... Crappy. For me anyway. What do YOU think? I'm curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazygecko Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 Options. Let consumers choose for themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoeTaKa Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 Options. Let consumers choose for themselves. Spot on. I prefer frame rate over resolution personally. Take GTAV, I probably would have got it for the PS4 if I could play it at 60FPS and it's precisely why I'm waiting for the PC version (and mods). Don't care if I have to play it at 720. I was already annoyed by frame rate drops in the PS3 version. Another example of letting consumers choose for themselves: I played the average PC port of The Evil Within which didn't run too great but I could remove those damn letterbox borders with a little modification (as well as an average fps of 30-50). I would have been so pissed on console. I don't care what people prefer but really we should be allowed options in this day and age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrett Williamson Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 I say consoles up their game and do both at the same time if it's such a big deal personally I don't care, just give me a good game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadofsky Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 (edited) For all the tech they were praising on these new systems, I find it funny that so few are able to hit that bench mark, let alone what the glorified trailers they were showing as "real in game footage". Take the Order 1886, giving us the BS that it's more cinematic when it's 30 fps (movies are 24fps you dolt, or maybe it was Ubisoft that gave us that excuse for Assassin's Creed), then letter boxed it because then they can cut down the amount of rendering needed for the game. I thought this was supposed to be the next step, a new thresh hold for games? Is your engine that inefficient that you can't achieve a higher frame rate? I played MGS Ground Zeroes on my PS3, and then gave it a go on my PS4, it's ten times better in 60 fps (the game will look even better on PC, you should see the comparisons). Games look so much better at 60 fps, and while it's not that big of a deal for me personally, it's what all games should be shooting for. Heck, most of Nintendo's games are always hitting that frame rate (some exceptions, MK8 I believe doesn't hit 60 fps w/more than two players). And I agree with Garret, I want good games. I was against getting a Wii U because it had nothing I wanted to play, fast forward to this year's E3, and I bought one and already have at least 6-7 games (not counting digital ones). I've played the Wii U more than my PS4 and the games I bought on it, and right now I'd recommend it more than any other system. This year has had some good games, but the online, let alone the games themselves, have been shipped as broken. I have a strong distaste for Steam "Early Access", and I didn't want nor ask for it when I bought a new console (see Assassin's Creed Unity, Master Chief Collection). I should not have to get a 20gb download in order to play your game, you should have had that done and fixed up before it went to ship, there is no excuse for it, I don't care what you tell me, there is no excuse for it. A small patch is one thing, but a massive patch like MC Collection had is just ridiculous. There's nothing that says, "we couldn't finish our game in time, oh screw it! Ship it anyway!" quite like that sort of patching done with that game. Edited December 12, 2014 by Toadofsky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrett Williamson Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 (edited) I would agree with that. Heck, most of Nintendo's games are always hitting that frame rate (some exceptions, MK8 I believe doesn't hit 60 fps w/more than two players). except for Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask at a mind-blowing 25fps or maybe even lower. Also, yes, MK8's 3 or 4 player gameplay has got to be like 25 fps. I think they had to make the decision to either drop a lot of cool graphical stuff to keep framerate high or drop the framerate to keep the graphical stuff at its best. They picked the latter. Obviously I don't know that for a fact, that's just a guess. But with like Mario Kart Wii, they dropped some graphical additions from characters and stages in 3-4 player modes to maintain a high framerate. They did that in 2-4 player modes in Double Dash as well and I'm pretty sure they did that in games before it too. Pretty sure MK8 was the first time they decided to go for graphics over framerate in multiplayer modes, which honestly I think is a little silly. It's hard to see how pretty stuff is when your screen in 4 player is ¼ what it is in one player. And see Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask still get a lot of praise. So as long as it's a very good game and obviously the framerate is good enough that you can actually see what's going on (which should be always on a console game), then framerate and resolution don't matter as much. Obviously we're now in the generation where graphics and speed are everything. It's always mattered but now it does more than ever. I mean I know younger kids that won't play older games just because they are graphically worse than games of today. I think that's straight up pathetic. But that's beside the point. Edited December 12, 2014 by Garrett Williamson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadofsky Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 I would agree with that.except for Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask at a mind-blowing 25fps or maybe even lower. Also, yes, MK8's 3 or 4 player gameplay has got to be like 25 fps. I think they had to make the decision to either drop a lot of cool graphical stuff to keep framerate high or drop the framerate to keep the graphical stuff at its best. They picked the latter. Obviously I don't know that for a fact, that's just a guess. But with like Mario Kart Wii, they dropped some graphical additions from characters and stages in 3-4 player modes to maintain a high framerate. They did that in 2-4 player modes in Double Dash as well and I'm pretty sure they did that in games before it too. Pretty sure MK8 was the first time they decided to go for graphics over framerate in multiplayer modes, which honestly I think is a little silly. It's hard to see how pretty stuff is when your screen in 4 player is ¼ what it is in one player. And see Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask still get a lot of praise. So as long as it's a very good game and obviously the framerate is good enough that you can actually see what's going on (which should be always on a console game), then framerate and resolution don't matter as much. Obviously we're now in the generation where graphics and speed are everything. It's always mattered but now it does more than ever. I mean I know younger kids that won't play older games just because they are graphically worse than games of today. I think that's straight up pathetic. But that's beside the point. Heck, how could I forget how Ocarina and Majora chugged? Especially the latter when you put on the Giant's mask, the N64 was squealing like a pig to get that running. I'm not as much of a stickler about it, but as I said, I'd like to see companies at least shoot for 60 fps, if they can't do it, eh, not a big problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malaki-LEGEND.sys Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 I play on PC so I can avoid these problems... Unless the game is a shitty port. When faced with the choice though, give me 1080p or give me death! 30 FPS is perfectly tolerable for me, but I want that thing looking crisp. Don't give me none o' them muddy images! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenogu Labz Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 Options. Let consumers choose for themselves. I may be very incorrect, but I'd expect that the two aren't limited by exactly the same factors. It isn't a linear trade-off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalxero Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 I play on PC so I can avoid these problems... Unless the game is a shitty port. When faced with the choice though, give me 1080p or give me death! 30 FPS is perfectly tolerable for me, but I want that thing looking crisp. Don't give me none o' them muddy images! I've can always see the difference between 30 and 60 fps, but it's never really bothered me much. Sure, I'll notice it at first but once I start getting into the game and getting more comfortable/better at playing it, the difference between 30 and 60 becomes pretty insignificant IMO. If the game plays at a relatively consistent framerate and it doesn't stutter too hard I don't really have that much of a problem with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnWake Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 Also, yes, MK8's 3 or 4 player gameplay has got to be like 25 fps. I think they had to make the decision to either drop a lot of cool graphical stuff to keep framerate high or drop the framerate to keep the graphical stuff at its best. They picked the latter. Obviously I don't know that for a fact, that's just a guess. But with like Mario Kart Wii, they dropped some graphical additions from characters and stages in 3-4 player modes to maintain a high framerate. They did that in 2-4 player modes in Double Dash as well and I'm pretty sure they did that in games before it too. Pretty sure MK8 was the first time they decided to go for graphics over framerate in multiplayer modes, which honestly I think is a little silly. It's hard to see how pretty stuff is when your screen in 4 player is ¼ what it is in one player. From what I know, MK8 is 60fps for 1 and 2 players, 30fps for 3 and 4 players. In that case it isn't a matter of dropping one or two effects, it's the fact that they're rendering the image 4 times that forces them to lower the framerate. Of course, if the overall game looked a lot worse (like, less polygons and stuff) they could pull off 60fps with 4 players. Looking back, the same happened with Mario Kart Wii, and that game didn't look special at all, so it isn't Nintendo choosing pretty over functional I believe. As you say, I believe MKDD indeed mantained 60fps for all modes, no clue how! Regarding the topic, I don't have a strong preference in most cases. However, there are types of games that need to be 60fps. Precision platformers, fighting games and similar games based on reactions need to run at 60fps since it improves the playability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrett Williamson Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 As you say, I believe MKDD indeed mantained 60fps for all modes, no clue how! because it's the best game in the entire series Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.