Video Games +

Chat about anything you like, as long as it's games related.
Post Reply
User avatar
*OneTwo*
Posts: 4677
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:50 pm

Video Games +

Post by *OneTwo* » Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:34 pm

Not sure if we need a thread for this but we are kinda taking over the Xbox thread so...
One-armed dwarf wrote:Do you know why CoD was so dominant last gen? 60fps. I swear, when people say that it doesn't matter or that you can't notice a framerate higher than 30 (why do people believe this).. rgargahrg :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: . But it's fine to have 30 for RPGs I think, ones like Dragon Age and Final Fantasy anyway. I wouldn't have stopped playing Dark Souls on 360 if the framerate wasn't so shit. It got so bad that I just decided not to bother playing it anymore to experience it 'proper' on PC when I get the funds, it's too good a game to waste on consoles.
Not sure I'd say its entirely down to the framreate myself as I find games like battlefield fine on 30FPS. CoD is a different Audience entirely (dicks mainly :lol: ). No reason you couldn't do what Killzone Shaow fall went for with 1080 30 on SP and 900 60 on MP I believe.
maf-me-quick wrote:
*OneTwo* wrote: We bought a nex gen console for the games yes but c'mon your lying if it wasn't for the visual jump also. I don't buy just a frame rate bump is fine. I do honestly find it disappointing if these consoles can't do 1080 down the line. It's been a viable resolution now for years with new technology looming. We can pull games out to show it's not just about the visuals, and there's weight to that, but if we weren't bothered about visuals we wouldn't bother upgrading. We'd wall be happy with the WiiU's standards? You had a WiiU and then the PS4 came out with the same games but looked better you wouldn't buy it? Visuals are important. I'm not saying they are the be all and end all but it is an important factor so just trivilising it like it doesn't matter is bull.
I never said it didn't matter. Visuals are a major part in the enjoyment of video games. But that's not because of resolution, that's just the amount of graphical grunt one of these things can spit out. Forza Horizon 2 is the best looking game I've seen all year, Assassin's Creed: Unity will probably be the other, but that's not solely down to resolution. That's not solely down to frame rate. It's look at this thing we've built that you couldn't do before. It's huge, and it's colourful, and it's intricate, and it's detailed, and it's lit beautifully, and it animates like a cartoon, or animates like real life, and it's all moving at once, and there's all these effects and there's all these things you couldn't do at once last gen. That's the power of graphics I think, to enable worlds and views and spectacle that couldn't be done before. The resolution in which it displays it all however is not the be all and end all to me. I don't know the resolution in which Horizon 2 runs at, but if it had to lose any of it's detail to go to a higher resolution I wouldn't swap. If it gained more and went to lower resolution, I probably would.

That and, actually, Assassin's Creed is the perfect example of why I couldn't wait to go next gen. Assassin's Creed 3's woodlands area was visually amazing...until you started trying to interact with it and it crumbled down around you. Frame rate plummets, graphical glitches abound, pop-in. That was a key moment for me where people who had experienced better on PC were saying these consoles were done and it's like, yeah. They really are aren't they? Current gen over last gen, for sure.

The Wii U is interesting. You ask if I'd be happy with the standard Wii U games. What's the standard? Is it lazy 3rd party ports or is it Nintendo's standards? Mario Kart 8 looks stunning. It is absolutely beautiful. I do feel Nintendo are becoming very overly reliant on their bloom effect, but it's a spit shine over the top of the game. It doesn't stop the things in Mario Kart 8 from being crazy. It doesn't stop the things in Mario 3D World from being crazy. The Wonderful 101, not a Nintendo 1st party game, but the things in that game look fucking crazy. I love the way these games look. It can't do competitive "realistic games" to save it's life, but, then that's why it's the 2nd console. That's why it's a different console. That's why regardless of your first choice being PS4 or Xbox One it doesn't matter, they're are for all intents and purposes the same. But the choice for your 2nd console has to be a Wii U. You still can't beat Nintendo when they pull out all the stops, but then man can't live by Nintendo alone, either.

And to culminate most of this in to a single point: Mario Kart 8 runs on more or less last gen hardware, it has 60 FPS, and it's the best playing game of the year. You can really feel every hop and drift and push and pull of the kart. The responsiveness of the button inputs is borderline holy. The plastic shoulder buttons underneath your fingers becomes like squidgy foam with every tap, squeeze and pull. No 3 buttons have approximated the joy of racing as close as Mario Kart 8 has this year. The sound, animation and sense of speed that comes from every other part of the gameplay for sensory overload are big factors in it's success, but the 60FPS adds so much to making that game sensational.

Resolution is going to enchance those visual goodies textures to a cleaner image especially when compared to upscaling on a large TV. I'd take resolution over some frame rate enhancement I never missed to begin with which is the issue I have.

I recently finished Bayonetta and I could tell it was a lest gen machine dropping down and although it didn't ruin the game I couldn't help wonder what it'd be like on current gen. Your point about Mario kart 8 pretty much sums up what I'm about with this debate. I said it before its about the game. Killzone played great, at 30fps, and its one of PS4's stand out games visually. MP I didn't dabble much but runs at lower res to get 60fps. It's about hitting that target of what you want. A racer like MK8 needs 60fps as its at speed. same for beat-em-ups or sports games. They can do that with little fuss as their isn't so much going on usually but it isn't required for every genre IMO.

It's a shame consoles aren't like PC in that you can adjust resolutions and graphical affects to your own preference on PC (going by what kit you have) so we could all get what we want 8)

Like I and recently Jax re-iterated, It's too early to say they should gimp the resolutions. Wait till Batman and Metal gear have come out and then we can debate more :mrgreen:
Image

User avatar
Guinnes1981
Posts: 3589
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 6:05 pm
Location: Ipswich

Re: Framerate VS Resolution: Its a balancing act.

Post by Guinnes1981 » Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:47 pm

PS4TW

Runs
Image

"I know winning isn't everything, but I thought you'd at least heard of it."

User avatar
tresdoss
Posts: 3542
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:03 am
Location: Gridlock.

Re: Framerate VS Resolution: Its a balancing act.

Post by tresdoss » Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:11 pm

This'll end well.... :lol:

Not entirely sure why Killzone gets lorded up as this graphical showpiece for the PS4, it looks pretty sure but it's nothing particularly special in my eyes. It's Tomb Raider and TLoU that get the graphical plaudits from me on Playstation.... both 1080p, both 60 fps.... both PS3 games.

As for Xbox One, although the game was pretty shit, the character models in Ryse were amazingly realistic, TitanFall holds up well with the amount of action on screen, as does Sunset Overdrive.

I think the only game that's disappointed me looks wise, so far this gen, was Transformers Rise of the Dark Spark... And I'd already thought that would look a bit pants.

There's already a lot of pepole warning we aren't going to get the jump like we got from say, 1st year to 6th year 360 software... as these machines are basically PC's, devs already know how to code for them unlike the PS3.

Looking at what I've just written, ermmm... What was the question again?. :?
Image
Image

User avatar
One-armed dwarf
Posts: 3952
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:03 pm
Location: Laandan

Re: Framerate VS Resolution: Its a balancing act.

Post by One-armed dwarf » Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:47 pm

The problem I have with sacrificing performance over resolution and graphics is that they age these games terribly. I can still go back to the original DMC and have a great time when the art is so good and the performance solid, even if the textures look like nappy poo poo and Dante's hair looks like ice cream. But I absolutely cannot stand trying to interact with any of the older Assassin's Creed titles on PS3 because they perform so horribly and (already) look like ass. There's nothing about those games that can redeem them for me now, short of playing them on PC. AC Unity will be like that one day as well. Maybe not a problem with that particular series but a major issue with console exclusives.

User avatar
*OneTwo*
Posts: 4677
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:50 pm

Re: Framerate VS Resolution: Its a balancing act.

Post by *OneTwo* » Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:56 pm

tresdoss wrote:This'll end well.... :lol:

Not entirely sure why Killzone gets lorded up as this graphical showpiece for the PS4, it looks pretty sure but it's nothing particularly special in my eyes. It's Tomb Raider and TLoU that get the graphical plaudits from me on Playstation.... both 1080p, both 60 fps.... both PS3 games.

As for Xbox One, although the game was pretty shit, the character models in Ryse were amazingly realistic, TitanFall holds up well with the amount of action on screen, as does Sunset Overdrive.

I think the only game that's disappointed me looks wise, so far this gen, was Transformers Rise of the Dark Spark... And I'd already thought that would look a bit pants.

There's already a lot of pepole warning we aren't going to get the jump like we got from say, 1st year to 6th year 360 software... as these machines are basically PC's, devs already know how to code for them unlike the PS3.

Looking at what I've just written, ermmm... What was the question again?. :?
Get your eyes cheked fool.

And i dont know what your on about either. Transformers pc something or or what?...
Image

User avatar
tresdoss
Posts: 3542
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:03 am
Location: Gridlock.

Re: Framerate VS Resolution: Its a balancing act.

Post by tresdoss » Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:59 pm

Pfft... Says the guy who thinks rezolootions=graficks.

:mrgreen:
Image
Image

User avatar
Blakey
Posts: 9512
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Surrey, European Union.

Re: Framerate VS Resolution: Its a balancing act.

Post by Blakey » Wed Nov 26, 2014 7:59 pm

Talking about purely graphics and leaving FPS/Resolution behind, the only games that have impressed me on graphical fidelity alone this gen so far are: AC:Unity, Ryse, inFAMOUS:SS and KZ:SF.

In terms of technical prowess Wolfenstein has got to be up there, 1080p/60fps on both consoles (I think?!) and the graphics are bloody gorgeous too, not quite the same level as AC:U, Ryse etc. but still lovely considering the resolution and frame-rate.
MFGamers Twitter
Image
Image
“Let fascism find not even a single passage to power or else that poisonous snake will infiltrate into the every vital corner of the country and kill the future of the nation!” - Mehmet Murat ildan

User avatar
RYAN WHITELAW
Posts: 5580
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: hamilton, scotland
Contact:

Re: Framerate VS Resolution: Its a balancing act.

Post by RYAN WHITELAW » Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:58 pm

Can we please not have a thread like this?

Cant we talk about what matters in games? Im sick fed up hearing about resolution bullshit.

And if i am going to give my opinion on the whole res vs Frame yet then its pretty obvious to me that a steady frame rate is much more important. My nephews own a PS4 and a X1 and they buy the same games, the resolution is supposedly better on PS4 but i honestly can never tell the difference.

So enough.
Image
Yum. Mince.

User avatar
*OneTwo*
Posts: 4677
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:50 pm

Re: Framerate VS Resolution: Its a balancing act.

Post by *OneTwo* » Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:07 pm

tresdoss wrote:Pfft... Says the guy who thinks rezolootions=graficks.

:mrgreen:
You can't read either then. I never said resolutions = graphics but they are part of the visual appeal. You don't appreciate the finer images and cleaner texture detail and such till you go up in resolution.
Blakey wrote:Talking about purely graphics and leaving FPS/Resolution behind, the only games that have impressed me on graphical fidelity alone this gen so far are: AC:Unity, Ryse, inFAMOUS:SS and KZ:SF.

In terms of technical prowess Wolfenstein has got to be up there, 1080p/60fps on both consoles (I think?!) and the graphics are bloody gorgeous too, not quite the same level as AC:U, Ryse etc. but still lovely considering the resolution and frame-rate.
I'd give a nod to Destiny too. That game is gorgeous :)
Image

User avatar
*OneTwo*
Posts: 4677
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:50 pm

Re: Framerate VS Resolution: Its a balancing act.

Post by *OneTwo* » Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:12 pm

RYAN WHITELAW wrote:Can we please not have a thread like this?

Cant we talk about what matters in games? Im sick fed up hearing about resolution bullshit.

And if i am going to give my opinion on the whole res vs Frame yet then its pretty obvious to me that a steady frame rate is much more important. My nephews own a PS4 and a X1 and they buy the same games, the resolution is supposedly better on PS4 but i honestly can never tell the difference.

So enough.
It's an honest discussion on opinions I don't get your beef? It's informative and good to get peoples thoughts on it. This is why a thread has been made rather than take up another one. If you don't like the discussion don't come in :?

In respect to your opinion I agree. Nothing wrong with a steady 30fps is my argument. I'd get used to it too as your more likely to get 30fps this gen if they cant hit 60. A Dev in most cinematic adventure type games would rather have all the flashy effects than a quick frame rate.
Image

User avatar
tresdoss
Posts: 3542
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:03 am
Location: Gridlock.

Re: Framerate VS Resolution: Its a balancing act.

Post by tresdoss » Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:09 pm

I think the fact devs can chuck millions more polygons on screen this gen has more effect on details than resolution onetwo...

But carry on.

I'm playing Dust : An elysian tale at the minute, **** knows what resolution it is but it looks pretty. :wink:
Image
Image

User avatar
*OneTwo*
Posts: 4677
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:50 pm

Re: Framerate VS Resolution: Its a balancing act.

Post by *OneTwo* » Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:41 pm

Your point is? You not keeping up with the discussion or lost on my points? Trying to do a higher resolution on those effects is resource intensive meaning frame rate is sacrificed. That's the debate. Not all the other things affecting visual fidelity. Of course could reduce things like anti aliaising affects or the amount on screen like foliage to reduce that demand also. But like I mentioned earlier Devs want the best looking game as that's the first thing you see about the game.

Bet you couldn't give a **** what frame rate Dust is. Your just enjoying the game. Been my point all along but you started this discussion back in the Xbox One thread. Page 170 of you want to look. I've merely put my opinion across to you and others. Your "carry on" point mean it's not worth discussing now? :?
Image

User avatar
One-armed dwarf
Posts: 3952
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:03 pm
Location: Laandan

Re: Framerate VS Resolution: Its a balancing act.

Post by One-armed dwarf » Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:49 pm

Dust runs at 60fps, part of why it looks so glorious.

User avatar
tresdoss
Posts: 3542
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:03 am
Location: Gridlock.

Re: Framerate VS Resolution: Its a balancing act.

Post by tresdoss » Thu Nov 27, 2014 8:28 am

Tbh, I'm struggling to see what points you're making Onetwo... You're bouncing all over the place.

Let's bump up resolution... Which means we can't hit 60fps... So let's nerf other effects like AA, partical effects and others so maybe we can.

Doesn't really make much sense to me.

As for Dust, no I don't care what framerate it was... I don't care what resolution it was either.
Image
Image

User avatar
*OneTwo*
Posts: 4677
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:50 pm

Re: Framerate VS Resolution: Its a balancing act.

Post by *OneTwo* » Thu Nov 27, 2014 9:35 am

If your struggling to see what my point is why not ask instead of chipping in with little sarcastic comments?

I've talked to number of different people so maybe the conversation is hard to follow.

In summary I mentioned your original artlicle your not going to notice the minor frame rate dips of like 4fps in minor occurrences so I'd be fine at a higher resolution. Then others said a stable frame rate is better than resolution (which it is) and maybe Devs should ditch higher resolution for higher FPS. My argument was 30fps is a stable frame rate, one we have been used to and enjoyed for years so why all of a sudden the need to nerf the visuals to get 60? Adding to that its dependent on the game. Some games like Beat em ups want 60fps for quick fluid motion and others like Dragon age you want visuals for cinematic impact and playing at 30fps is fine. In an ideal world we'd have both. I think they (current gen consoles) may be still able to achive this in time but if not I prefer 1080 30 myself. Perfectly playable with a nice visual bump.

All this ever was, was an opinion. Opinion on prefered stance and I just explained my side of it. I prefer to do that rather make knee jerk statements. If some took this as a PS4 vs XboxOne thing then you need to read and stop being so defensive. I'm the most impartial guy to discuss with as I criticise all aspects of anything if I see it. Nothing is ever to do with pure preference over any one company. I shouldn't need to say that and hope I don't have to again.
Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest