# If you could choose between 720p60 or 1080p30?



## DarkFlare69 (Mar 22, 2015)

Would you choose:

720p resolution with 60 frames per second

1080p resolution with 30 frames per second

1440p resoluton with 15 frames per second


----------



## SpongeFreak52 (Mar 22, 2015)

All depends on the content. 60fps for games, 30fps for movies, and 15fps for maybe anime?


----------



## sblast3 (Mar 22, 2015)

720p60 without a doubt.  When it comes to gaming, pixel-clarity isn't that important.  What's important is good controls and no input lag.  However, modern consoles in reality should be able to do 1080p60 considering how much they cost.


----------



## grossaffe (Mar 22, 2015)

Gimme a nice clean frame rate.


----------



## DarkFlare69 (Mar 22, 2015)

SpongeFreak52 said:


> All depends on the content. 60fps for games, 30fps for movies, and 15fps for maybe anime?


The forums title is "General Gaming Discussion"  But I see. The hentai I watch seems to be about 15 FPS



sblast3 said:


> 720p60 without a doubt.  When it comes to gaming, pixel-clarity isn't that important.  What's important is good controls and no input lag.  However, modern consoles in reality should be able to do 1080p60 considering how much they cost.


Should. But since when is the economy good?


----------



## Armadillo (Mar 22, 2015)

720p60

FPS over graphics, always.


----------



## yuyuyup (Mar 22, 2015)

Neither are acceptable for my Virtual Reality enjoyment


----------



## aofelix (Mar 22, 2015)

720p60.

i honestly don't know how console gamers cope with 30fps and under for some titles. I remember playing TR last gen on PC and I could hardly cope with the dips in FPS with tress FX even though it never went anywhere near 30.  Maybe it was due to not being locked.

Anyway performance > prettiness IMO.


----------



## DarkFlare69 (Mar 22, 2015)

aofelix said:


> 720p60.
> 
> i honestly don't know how console gamers cope with 30fps and under for some titles. I remember playing TR last gen on PC and I could hardly cope with the dips in FPS with tress FX even though it never went anywhere near 30.  Maybe it was due to not being locked.
> 
> Anyway performance > prettiness IMO.


I get you there. Playing Watch_Dogs on a Wii U in a high speed cop chase = not good. It was like 20 FPS and I was going super fast, it looked like it was 5 FPS.


----------



## DarkFlare69 (Mar 22, 2015)

Since it seems everyone chooses 720p60 against 1080p30, would you go down to 480p60 if 720p60 was not a choice, or go up to 1080p30?


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 22, 2015)

We really need context here. Is this on a PC or on a television? And what genre of a game are we talking about?

Since there is not much of a choice on a console, I'm _assuming_ this is on a PC. Likewise, since first and third person shooters/action adventures are both the ones pushing the hardware the most AND where it is the most important, I am _assuming_ this is the genre we're talking about. Keep note that if the genre was something like a platformer or anything turn-based, my vote would've been completely different (though 15FPS isn't a game but a slideslow).



DarkFlare69 said:


> Since it seems everyone chooses 720p60 against 1080p30, would you go down to 480p60 if 720p60 was not a choice, or go up to 1080p30?


 
It's really as simple as you can make it: the frames per second is what matters. The resolution is just window dressing. So yes, 480p60 > 1080p30. Without a doubt.


I've played UT2004 for years on pretty much the bare minimum at that time. With every tweak in the book, I managed to get a somewhat stable 30FPS out of my rig on the onslaught maps. Since I played it for easily 2 years that way (after which I FINALLY upgraded my rig), I can personally testify two things:
1) it's not so much the framerate by itself that matters but the fluctuation. Of course, on higher FPS, the difference becomes relatively less (the difference 25-35 FPS is way more noticeable than 55-65 FPS). Nonetheless, even when things aren't visible with the naked eye, a lower FPS (say...50 instead of 60) tires your eyes faster than a higher one.
2) the visual difference is certainly noticeable when doing a side-by-side comparison, but when a game is at all engaging, it'll take less than five minutes to completely forget any differences whatsoever. To take UT2004 as an example again: I remember being disappointed when I finally started playing it on above-minimum specs: I hardly noticed the game being different AT ALL. In fact, the only differences I did notice got in the way of my gaming experience (there were a handful of levels where foliage, lens flare and stuff like that made it harder to see your opponents...and UT2004 was always a game where your enemies were relatively hard to see). Speaking of which...if you have time, go check out the settings competitive players use. These guys pretty much always tweak their visual settings to make important things stand out the most and/or crank out the highest FPS possible.


----------



## MarioFanatic64 (Mar 22, 2015)

Frame Rate > Resolution

Gameplay needs to be nice and smooth before resolution.

720p is still very impressive, and by sitting a little further back than usual you'll likely not notice any difference. That is not the case with the frame rate.


----------



## Fishaman P (Mar 22, 2015)

I'd take 720p60 over 1080p30, and 480p60 over 720p30.
Hell, I'd take 480p60 over 1080p30. I'm all about that frames.


----------



## Vipera (Mar 22, 2015)

I had that problem back when I played Saints Row IV, but 768p instead of 720 (@60fps), vs 1080p (@30). The game felt a lot better with the lower resolution but with greater framerate.


----------



## Jayro (Mar 22, 2015)

Last gen should be able to handle every game at 1080p 60fps no problem, and no excuses. Current gen should have no problem handling 4K at 60fps, given their price and MUCH beefier hardware. But they don't. I don't know if it's just developer laziness with optimization or what, but the current gen still struggles to hit 60 fps at 1080p, and that's not only sad, it's unacceptable. Especially since a gaming PC can do it with shittier specs no problem.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 22, 2015)

Assuming LCD and not CRT or a headset.

24-30 for video though make it the actual framerate -- no pulldowns please.

30 for games if they ever introduce proper motion blur (it is what largely makes video acceptable at that rate)

Personally I do not mind 30 for games if they do not have proper motion blur so I probably would go for 1080p30 as well.


----------



## mightymuffy (Mar 22, 2015)

Jayro said:


> Last gen should be able to handle every game at 1080p 60fps no problem, and no excuses. Current gen should have no problem handling 4K at 60fps, given their price and MUCH beefier hardware. But they don't. I don't know if it's just developer laziness with optimization or what, but the current gen still struggles to hit 60 fps at 1080p, and that's not only sad, it's unacceptable. Especially since a gaming PC can do it with shittier specs no problem.


??? - You can buy any reasonably priced gaming PC today that'll smash a PS4, in fact, on the PS4's launch - if you shopped around - you could build yourself a PC with at least the same amount of power for the same price as that console's rrp!
Honestly, you could go out today, shop around, and for the same price as a PS4 you could get a tower unit that'd outperform the console by some margin, even after taking into account the whole 'set top box' thing.
I have both a PS4 and XBO, and think they're both fantastic, and DON'T have (or play on) a powerful PC (my sons have one each though). But, both machines are terribly underpowered: think back to the Xbox 360 launch - you (arguably) couldn't even GET a PC that offered that kind of power at that time, let alone one for the same price...

Anyway, topic in question: 720p/60 > 1080p/30, for the most part! My 2 fave games of last year cover this argument - Mario Kart 8, @ 720p/60 (well, sort of 60 , let's not bring that up again!!) and Forza Horizon 2, @ 1080p/30... Now Horizon 2 has to be the most responsive 30fps game I've ever played, and certainly the level of detail, whilst not Driveclub standards, is still amazing, compared to MK8's simpler, cartoony style ....run the 2 games side by side though, and there's no question which is the smoother, and as a result actually the prettier....

Can depend on the game though..... for say a JRPG, or a strategy game, I'd take the resolution hike instead....

480p/60 vs 1080p/30.... come now lads, we're getting a bit daft here!  Sure if your console's attached to your 14" TV upstairs in your bedroom, coz you live with your parents or something fair enough, you knock yourselves out with 480p, but if your consoles are downstairs under the main TV, which is say around 42" and up, no no NO  - let's stick with 30fps!


----------



## Shady Guy Jose (Mar 22, 2015)

It all depends on the genre. I have no problem playing Pokémon of Final Fantasy (maybe even one or two Tales titles) at 30 FPS, as long as it's stable and the image is optimized for such (motion blur, etc), so I'd go for the higher resolution. However, I could never play Super Smash Bros at that framerate, for example...


----------



## Arras (Mar 22, 2015)

Jayro said:


> Last gen should be able to handle every game at 1080p 60fps no problem, and no excuses. Current gen should have no problem handling 4K at 60fps, given their price and MUCH beefier hardware. But they don't. I don't know if it's just developer laziness with optimization or what, but the current gen still struggles to hit 60 fps at 1080p, and that's not only sad, it's unacceptable. Especially since a gaming PC can do it with shittier specs no problem.


The thing is, you have limited processing power, so you have to choose what to use it for. One of these options is raising the framerate, or rendering at a higher resolution. Another option is adding more filters/objects to make things look prettier. Most developers pick the latter, because it's more obvious to consumers than the marginal 720 -> 1080 increase. Gaming PCs can mostly do it because
A. people who use gaming PCs go absolute batshit insane if a game doesn't support [email protected] (MUH MASTER RACE) while most console gamers are like "eh"
B. gaming PCs are usually quite a bit more powerful anyway
C. games on PC have quality settings that you can lower to turn down the "more filters/objects" and raise the resolution/framerate. Consoles don't have this option


----------



## Cyan (Mar 22, 2015)

games with slow or almost inexistant motions (pre-rendered background, still pictures etc.), 1080p looks really nice. Castlevania Lords of shadow 1 looked gorgeous in 1080p.
Games based on Real time 3D environment or high speed (FPS, action, cars, etc.) should focus on frame rate.

But, for me, 30fps is already very nice. games sometime drops below.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 22, 2015)

Okay, who added that comedy last option there? It's hilarious...even more so that someone actually voted for it. 

"Yup, I DO like to play games on a screen size of 1 pixel that refreshes every second. Unlike you bastards with your fancy-schmancy "graphics", I can keep playing on my 10-year old digital watch FOR WELL OVER A YEAR without running out of battery power."


----------



## aofelix (Mar 22, 2015)

Jayro said:


> Last gen should be able to handle every game at 1080p 60fps no problem, and no excuses. Current gen should have no problem handling 4K at 60fps, given their price and MUCH beefier hardware. But they don't. I don't know if it's just developer laziness with optimization or what, but the current gen still struggles to hit 60 fps at 1080p, and that's not only sad, it's unacceptable. Especially since a gaming PC can do it with shittier specs no problem.


 


What are you talking about???  Last gen handle 1080p/60fps? Are you having a laugh?  And this gen, the PS4 and XBOX one cost peanuts to make and are cheap at launch. WTF are you expecting?  A £600-£800 PC can handle 1080p/60FPS. You're paying half that for your PS4. 

And the hardware is hardly that beefy in technical terms. 

Some games will make 1080p/60fps but big sacrifices will need to be made with some talented developers (e.g. Nintendo springs to mind, cartoony or more simple graphics with more vibrant colors >>> detail and individual textures).


----------



## aofelix (Mar 22, 2015)

I completed TLOU on 30fps and it was clunky as hell. I loved the shit out of the game regardless. 

However once the PS4 library expands to a minimum of 10 exclusives I want (or KH3 drops), I will be buying it and putting TLOU in ASAP.


----------



## DjoeN (Mar 22, 2015)

720p / 60fps


----------



## migles (Mar 22, 2015)

is the last option on the poll, 1 pixel resolution at 1 frame per second rate? XD


----------



## zoogie (Mar 22, 2015)

I demand 500fps and 8K. Neogaf told me anything less is last gen.

Or just give me a good game for god's sake rather than budgeting game dev targeting specific numbers: fps, res, metacritic etc.


----------



## DarkFlare69 (Mar 22, 2015)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay, who added that comedy last option there? It's hilarious...even more so that someone actually voted for it.
> 
> "Yup, I DO like to play games on a screen size of 1 pixel that refreshes every second. Unlike you bastards with your fancy-schmancy "graphics", I can keep playing on my 10-year old digital watch FOR WELL OVER A YEAR without running out of battery power."


I added it lol and now 2 people voted for it.

Btw I voted for 720p60.


----------



## migles (Mar 22, 2015)

DarkFlare69 said:


> I added it lol and now 2 people voted for it.
> 
> Btw I voted for 720p60.


 
i wonder what is the ratio? is that 4:3  16:9 ? is that 1pixel widescreen?


----------



## DarkFlare69 (Mar 22, 2015)

migles said:


> i wonder what is the ratio? is that 4:3  16:9 ? is that 1pixel widescreen?


Yes, that 1 pixel is 16:9.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Mar 22, 2015)

This was a really tough decision. Since my tv is full hd, using 720p equals pixel distortion, but playing at 30fps although acceptable is a very noticeable downgrade from 60fps.
No one should be forced to make that kind of decision 

I say slightly less impressive graphics + 1080p60
Seriously gaming companies, I don't need to see every last detail until the nose hair if it's going to sacrifice resolution and/or fps....


----------



## filfat (Mar 22, 2015)

SpongeFreak52 said:


> All depends on the content. 60fps for games, 30fps for movies, and 15fps for maybe anime?


Anime isn't that like kid shows?


----------



## DarkFlare69 (Mar 22, 2015)

filfat said:


> Anime isn't that like kid shows?


You've never heard of Anime?.. it's like Japanese cartoons.


----------



## filfat (Mar 22, 2015)

DarkFlare69 said:


> You've never heard of Anime?.. it's like Japanese cartoons.


I've heard about, just never understood the targeted audience.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Mar 22, 2015)

filfat said:


> I've heard about, just never understood the targeted audience.


 
Watch Death Note. Seriously, it's a very good anime and even my mom which doesn't watch animes enjoyed it very much.


----------



## migles (Mar 22, 2015)

filfat said:


> I've heard about, just never understood the targeted audience.


 
there are tons of anime destined for adults, and they usually are


----------



## emigre (Mar 22, 2015)

All I want is a consistent framerate whether it be 30/60fps. Games which fluctuate with framerate are an actual pain to play.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 22, 2015)

migles said:


> there are tons of anime destined for adults, and they usually are


 
Damnit...I wanted to say this.

But it's worth repeating: anime doesn't have a single audience; it depends on the genre. It can go from things perfectly fit for children (Chobits) all the way to lolita tentacle-raping someone into sex slavery (song of Saya...and no, I'm not making this up).
+1 on death note, by the way...in case my avatar doesn't already give it away.


----------



## Issac (Mar 22, 2015)

I picked 1080p30Hz. Because it really depends on what games I play. A pretty pixel perfect game, with not a lot of motion is perfect. But then again, to play action games @ 60Hz is wonderful.


----------



## shakirmoledina (Mar 22, 2015)

i've always loved 1080p and to see 30 FPS is quite perfect for regular action games.

As cyan (perfectly) describes it, most games that I play work excellently at 30 FPS that dont require much speed.

However playing football or far cry 4 requires the best speed possible


----------



## GammaGeorgeX (Mar 22, 2015)

At least for _my_ resources best fit, 720p with 60 fps


----------



## Sakitoshi (Mar 23, 2015)

If there is something I've learned over the years of hybrid PC-Console gaming is that a consistent framerate is more important, so if those [email protected] are rock solid then there is no need to worry, your eyes wont tire at all if the framerate is stable, maybe you wont even notice.
To take a personal experience as example: has anyone here played Puzzle Agent?? that game runs at like 15fps and I didn't noticed until someone pointed it out to me. well to say truth the art style make it pretty obvious that wasn't even supposed to run at a higher framerate.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2015)

It really depends. If the framerate is going to be all around the place then I'd rather have lower framerate simply because fluctuation isn't as easily noticeable. If we're talking about fluid framerate then fast-paced games that require more precision _(FPS, TPS, SHUMP, Action Adventure etc.)_ require higher framerate wheras slower ones don't. That being said, I'm pretty used to 30 FPS and I'm still getting used to 60 _(I even find it __disconcerting at times, it just "feels" like the motion is faster when it isn't - it's crisper)_, anything below that tends to be annoying.


----------



## kristianity77 (Mar 23, 2015)

I couldn't care less what the resolution is. I'm equally happy with anything thats 720p, 900p or 1080p. All I want is that whatever resolution a final product turns out to be, do it on the basis of it having a totally locked frame rate of either 30 for slower titles, or 60 for the ones that need it (which is basically only FPS games and quick arcade style racers. Nothing else really benefits from it.  The current trend in a few games is that the PS4 has the higher resolution but the Xbox one has the faster frame rate at a lower res.  Being a PS4 owner this pisses me off no end.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2015)

kristianity77 said:


> I couldn't care less what the resolution is. I'm equally happy with anything thats 720p, 900p or 1080p. All I want is that whatever resolution a final product turns out to be, do it on the basis of it having a totally locked frame rate of either 30 for slower titles, or 60 for the ones that need it (which is basically only FPS games and quick arcade style racers. Nothing else really benefits from it. The current trend in a few games is that the PS4 has the higher resolution but the Xbox one has the faster frame rate at a lower res. Being a PS4 owner this pisses me off no end.


I'm pretty sure the framerates are about the same on both systems, I haven't noticed much framerate disparity. For all intents and purposes, the PS4's GPU is leagues ahead of the Xbox One's _(due to Microsoft shoving embedded memory on the die instead of graphics cores, god knows why)_, so higher resolution is understandable, lower framerate is not.


----------



## kristianity77 (Mar 23, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm pretty sure the framerates are about the same on both systems, I haven't noticed much framerate disparity. For all intents and purposes, the PS4's GPU is leagues ahead of the Xbox One's _(due to Microsoft shoving embedded memory on the die instead of graphics cores, god knows why)_, so higher resolution is understandable, lower framerate is not.


 

It has happened on more than a few occasions recently. Dragon Age being the most high profile one. It does look better on PS4 without question, but it runs better on the Xbox One. Battlefield Hardline is the newest entry in to this category too. But there has been more as well, Evil Within for one. All games that sacrifice frame rate in order to run at a higher res on PS4. For me, that shouldn't be happening.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2015)

kristianity77 said:


> It has happened on more than a few occasions recently. Dragon Age being the most high profile one. It does look better on PS4 without question, but it runs better on the Xbox One. Battlefield Hardline is the newest entry in to this category too. But there has been more as well, Evil Within for one. All games that sacrifice frame rate in order to run at a higher res on PS4. For me, that shouldn't be happening.


That's very odd. Perhaps it's a problem with optimization or system software. Then again, perhaps the devs themselves just wanted the games to run at the highest framerate possible. Here's for hoping it won't happen as often in the future.


----------



## Hells Malice (Mar 23, 2015)

720p60 easily. 30 fps feels like shit to play on.




RodrigoDavy said:


> Watch Death Note. Seriously, it's a very good anime and even my mom which doesn't watch animes enjoyed it very much.


 
Please don't tell people to watch really shitty animes if they've never seen any before.


----------



## TheCasketMan (Mar 23, 2015)

I would choose 720p 20fps.  That way next gen games can look more stunning detail wise.  Also, I never had problem playing N64 games on 20fps or last gen games at 30fps.  Also I cannot tell the differences between 720p and 1080p, maybe 1440p but it is not worth the cost.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Mar 23, 2015)

Nope. Pc. 1080p60

If I HAD to choose? 720p60


----------



## DinohScene (Mar 23, 2015)

I honestly don't care.
GTA SA is 25/30 fps iirc.

As long as the game is smooth playing then I'll be fine with it.
720p or 1080p


----------



## pokemoner2500 (Mar 23, 2015)

Wii U can do 1080 60 if i remember correctly.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Mar 23, 2015)

I voted 720p60, but honestly I'd rather they didn't try to push hardware beyond it's capabilities. I'd rather have slightly less fancy graphics running at 1080p60.
Console games in this day and age not being able to run at 1080p60 is in my opinion inexcusable and shows that they make piss poor decisions when it comes to graphics design.


----------



## RevPokemon (Mar 23, 2015)

Fps matter way more to me than resolution so I pick 720p60fps


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 23, 2015)

pokemoner2500 said:


> Wii U can do 1080 60 if i remember correctly.


So can the 360 and the PS3. For all intents and purposes, the original Xbox could do 1080 @ 60FPS, albeit 1080i. Framerate is one thing, level of detail is another.


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Mar 23, 2015)

performance over res every time.

Shit, if I could choose 1080p/30fps or 480p/60fps I would choose 480p


----------



## sarkwalvein (Mar 23, 2015)

filfat said:


> I've heard about, just never understood the targeted audience.


 
Anime target audience is very wide.
You can go from Kids (Pokemon) to a mature audience (Monster).
From boys to girls, from men to women, with all kind of diverse topics and genres.
If you want to take a look at some shows that aren't kid targeted, take a look at eg. Monster, Master Keaton, Spice and Wolf, Mamoru Oshii's versions of Ghost in the Shell, to a certain extent Baccano!, etc. (there are many more but my memory fails me)
Also you may want to take a look at visual masterpieces from Makoto Shinkai, they are more targeted to young adults: The place promised in our early days, 5 centimeters per second, The garden of words.
And you have some good thrillers from Satoshi Kon, I think all the movies he directed are good and more adult oriented.
Death Note is targeted to teens, so maybe that will not convince you they are not kid shows.
IMHO, the big majority of anime is targeted to teens, but there is very good mature anime.

I hope that, if you want by watching some of those suggestions, you can get a broader view of how wide is the target audience from different anime shows, and you can leave the misconception that all anime is 'kid shows' behind.

PS: When I say mature or adult I don't mean porn, porn is also targeted to teens the irony of the world.


Going back on topic, I prefer up to 60FPS (more is not significant for me), and a resolution greater than 480p.
If I had to chose between 720p60 and 99999p30, I go for 720p60. But if I have to chose between 480p60 and 720p30 I will have to take a good look at the type of game.
If it is an FPS, then I go with 60FPS, if it is something more slow paced, puzzle based or so, eg. JRPG, Adventure, SRPG, VN, etc. then 30FPS is ok.


----------



## Sakitoshi (Mar 23, 2015)

pokemoner2500 said:


> Wii U can do 1080 60 if i remember correctly.


 
Super Smash Bros U is pretty much the only software that has done it(not even the menu runs at 1080p), but yes it possible.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Mar 23, 2015)

Sakitoshi said:


> Super Smash Bros U is pretty much the only software that has done it(not even the menu runs at 1080p), but yes it possible.


 
There are others like Bayonetta 2, Wind Waker HD and Rayman Legends that run at 1080p60


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 23, 2015)

DarkFlare69 said:


> I get you there. Playing Watch_Dogs on a Wii U in a high speed cop chase = not good. It was like 20 FPS and I was going super fast, it looked like it was 5 FPS.


 

You can thank Ubishit for rushing the Wii U port , had it been 30 fps, it would have been more enjoyable ><


----------



## sarkwalvein (Mar 23, 2015)

the_randomizer said:


> You can thank Ubishit for rushing the Wii U port , had it been 30 fps, it would have been more enjoyable ><


 
Well, they 'rushed' it with so much patience.
More like no one rushed in there, they were all just jerking off until someone said it's time to release it already, and they released (probably) the same BS buggy version they already had half a year before.


----------



## Sakitoshi (Mar 23, 2015)

RodrigoDavy said:


> There are others like Bayonetta 2, Wind Waker HD and Rayman Legends that run at 1080p60


 
Bayonetta 1 and 2 are [email protected], Wind Waker HD is [email protected], Rayman Legends is [email protected] everywhere except Vita(can't be 1080p for obvious reasons, but runs at 60fps). I own all but Legends on Wii U(bought it on PS3 eons before, thanks to Ubisoft for delaying the U version).





the_randomizer said:


> You can thank Ubishit for *rushing* the Wii U port , had it been 30 fps, it would have been more enjoyable ><


now delay a game launch is rushing it?? I'm confused .


----------



## PewnyPL (Mar 23, 2015)

To be honest, depends on a person. With me for example, I can't really notice a difference between 30FPS and 60FPS. I blame this on the fact I got into emulation on a very shitty PC (try using Project 64 on a 400MHz Pentium 2) so I guess I kinda got accustomed to see games at low framerates (like SM64 going at between 15 and 20 with frameskip). What is the MOST important, is for the framerate to be consistent. Because now when I play a 60FPS game and it drops anywhere to like 45 or so, it's immediately noticeable that somthing is wrong, but if it's stable, then even 20FPS *can* be bearable.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Mar 23, 2015)

Sakitoshi said:


> Bayonetta 1 and 2 are [email protected], Wind Waker HD is [email protected], Rayman Legends is [email protected] everywhere except Vita(can't be 1080p for obvious reasons, but runs at 60fps). I own all but Legends on Wii U(bought it on PS3 eons before, thanks to Ubisoft for delaying the U version)..


 
Oh, I read it in a website that these games were 1080p60, so much for trusting the internet, right? Although apparently Bayonetta 2 is higher than 30fps most of the time and does reach 60fps at some points according to this youtube video: 



Spoiler







But it's not 60fps nevertheless


----------



## driverdis (Mar 23, 2015)

I want console games to have a 1080p60 option where settings are either turned down or to have a custom settings menu like PC games.


----------



## TecXero (Mar 23, 2015)

I don't see a problem with console games having options like PC games. Why not let the player decide if they'd be willing to sacrifice framerate for better graphics or resolution?


----------



## CathyRina (Mar 23, 2015)

Sacrificing Resolution to get better framerate is simply the best deal.
On consoles resolution doesn't matter that much since you'll be sitting a few meters away from the screen and most likely not notice any difference between 1080p.
However framerate, while 30 is perfectly playable, has a bigger impact on how a game feels and controls. With stable 60FPS you can't do anything wrong.



TecXero said:


> I don't see a problem with console games having options like PC games. Why not let the player decide if they'd be willing to sacrifice framerate for better graphics or resolution?


Fun fact FF14 has such options. The game runs on 1080p60 on current gen consoles but if the place is too crowded you might want to turn down the resolution to get better framerate. Clever on Squenix's part.


----------



## TecXero (Mar 23, 2015)

XrosBlader821 said:


> Fun fact FF14 has such options. The game runs on 1080p60 on current gen consoles but if the place is too crowded you might want to turn down the resolution to get better framerate. Clever on Squenix's part.


 
They did something like that with the Kingdom Hearts game on PSP as well. It's surprising to me that they're the ones being progressive in that aspect.


----------



## Sakitoshi (Mar 23, 2015)

TecXero said:


> They did something like that with the Kingdom Hearts game on PSP as well. It's surprising to me that they're the ones being progressive in that aspect.


 
not quite... but yes, there is an option to select 16 bit color or 32 bit color to eliminate dithering at the cost of performance and an option to _overclock_ the PSP at 333mhz for better performance at the cost of battery drain(which I didn't noticed on my PSPgo), I turned on both and ran excellent.

now I'm wondering if some games(inFamous Second Son comes to mind, runs at 1080p with unlocked framerate, most of the time at 30 but go up if few things are on screen) could run better if I select 720p or 480p in the PS4 video settings....


----------



## tbb043 (Mar 23, 2015)

Can I get 1080i at 45fps?


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 23, 2015)

tbb043 said:


> Can I get 1080i at 45fps?


 

Why would you want a 25% reduction in speed? And 1080p vs. 1080i is almost impossible to differentiate.


----------



## CathyRina (Mar 23, 2015)

Sakitoshi said:


> now I'm wondering if some games could run better if I select 720p or 480p in the PS4 video settings....


From my PS3 experience doing so does absolutely nothing.
Most games nowadays are programmed to render at a specific resolution and if the video output is lower than that resolution they simply downscale and keep the same framerate.


----------



## Silverthorn (Mar 23, 2015)

Voted for 720p60, but honestly it depends on the game.
For RPGS without much action, and games that don't require reflexes, 30 fps is fine.
But for most of the games I play (FPS, MOBA, Action/Adventure and stuff), I'll take the 60 fps anytime. A few less pixels won't make me cry, but if I can't perform correctly and feel impaired because of the lack of fluidity, it's certainly gonna annoy me a lot.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Mar 23, 2015)

Sakitoshi said:


> and an option to _overclock_ the PSP at 333mhz for better performance at the cost of battery drain


 
It's not actually an overclock, since the PSP has a 333mhz CPU, but it is underclocked to 222mhz by default


----------



## grossaffe (Mar 23, 2015)

the_randomizer said:


> Why would you want a 25% reduction in speed? And 1080p vs. 1080i is almost impossible to differentiate.


I've been told that 1080p and 1080i makes no difference, but I could tell despite needing-but-not-wearing glasses.


----------



## Drak0rex (Mar 23, 2015)

DarkFlare69 said:


> The hentai I watch seems to be about 15 FPS


 
Sure you don't mean "Faps Per Second"?


----------



## mightymuffy (Mar 23, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> I've been told that 1080p and 1080i makes no difference, but I could tell despite needing-but-not-wearing glasses.


Actually it makes a crapload of difference, just depends on what size of TV you have, what you're viewing, and how far away you sit from it.... I've got a 46" TV and trust me there's a big difference, so I'll bet the difference is even larger on a bigger telly..... The difference is most apparent on a static image, say a menu, but less so on an action movie for instance, or, arf arf, a 60fps video game , but there's still a difference!


----------



## TecXero (Mar 24, 2015)

Sakitoshi said:


> not quite... but yes, there is an option to select 16 bit color or 32 bit color to eliminate dithering at the cost of performance and an option to _overclock_ the PSP at 333mhz for better performance at the cost of battery drain(which I didn't noticed on my PSPgo), I turned on both and ran excellent.


 
Not really overclocking, as it's designed to clock up to it. It was just underclocked to 222Mhz due to battery life. I forgot that it still capped it to 30fps as I played it with a cheat that ups that cap to 60fps. Still, it's an option to sacrifice graphics and/or battery life for smoother performance.


----------



## Sakitoshi (Mar 24, 2015)

RodrigoDavy said:


> It's not actually an overclock, since the PSP has a 333mhz CPU, but it is underclocked to 222mhz by default


 


TecXero said:


> Not really overclocking, as it's designed to clock up to it. It was just underclocked to 222Mhz due to battery life. I forgot that it still capped it to 30fps as I played it with a cheat that ups that cap to 60fps. Still, it's an option to sacrifice graphics and/or battery life for smoother performance.


 
that's why I used _italics._


----------



## DarkFlare69 (Mar 31, 2015)

the_randomizer said:


> You can thank Ubishit for rushing the Wii U port , had it been 30 fps, it would have been more enjoyable ><


What FPS is it?


----------



## aofelix (Mar 31, 2015)

I don't think its ubisoft's fault. I think its nintendo's for making it hard for developers to develop for their system. 

I'm slowly coming to terms with that Nintendo probably should cut their losses with the Wii U and bring out a new system because they're not even really supporting the Wii U this game with enough good games. 

With the success of FEA, the next FE game should have been on the Wii U to try and get a bit more support. Mario Party sounds like a  huge flop and the locked DLC with amiibos is honestly a fucking joke. Its beyond insulting. For  a company who before didn't do DLC, this amiibo shit is infuriating. 

And the controller system is a mess. Supporting so many consoles for a system but then not letting them all be usable for every game is beyond stupid. Don't release a Wii Pro controller if it can't be used for half your games. So many good ideas but ultimately terrible in terms of how they've integrated them together. The Wii U gamepad is an awesome idea but even Nintendo have struggled to utilise it to its fullest ability. 


[/off topic rant]. 

Sorry Didn't expect that to come out.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 31, 2015)

DarkFlare69 said:


> What FPS is it?


 

When there are huge areas or a lot going on, often times <20 fps, also, you can see this on many YT videos as well. It's a bad and rushed port, graphically, it looks pretty darn good, but framerate...Ubi rushed the port.


----------



## DarkFlare69 (Mar 31, 2015)

the_randomizer said:


> When there are huge areas or a lot going on, often times <20 fps, also, you can see this on many YT videos as well. It's a bad and rushed port, graphically, it looks pretty darn good, but framerate...Ubi rushed the port.


Yeah, I've seen comparison videos, including IRL experiences.

Can the Wii U handle GTA 5 at 1080p30?


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 31, 2015)

DarkFlare69 said:


> Yeah, I've seen comparison videos, including IRL experiences.
> 
> Can the Wii U handle GTA 5 at 1080p30?


 

It would be somewhat toned down graphically, but given enough time to optimize it, I don't see why not. Most ports' bad framerates could have been avoided if the companies actually had time to optimize them.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Mar 31, 2015)

aofelix said:


> I don't think its ubisoft's fault. I think its nintendo's for making it hard for developers to develop for their system.


 
What do you mean by "making it hard for developers to develop for their system"?

If you mean that it's hard to develop games for the Wii U, I beg to disagree. Numerous sources claimed that developing for Wii U is actually easy...

Now if you mean that Nintendo couldn't make the Wii U a very desirable platform to develop game for, I completely agree with you.


----------



## BullyWiiPlaza (Mar 31, 2015)

Voted for: 720p60

There's barely a difference between 1080p and 720p but the 60 frames are pretty important for the vividness of the video in general.


----------



## grossaffe (Mar 31, 2015)

aofelix said:


> I don't think its ubisoft's fault. I think its nintendo's for making it hard for developers to develop for their system.


 
That's just a cop-out lazy developers use to excuse their lazy ports.  We're not dealing with the Cell Architecture here.


----------



## aofelix (Mar 31, 2015)

Why would they devote time to optimising a port for the Wii U when its foreign,  uses weird gamepad technology AND will sell like shit because of a low install base? 

I'm sorry but in no right mind is it worth devoting resources to perfect and optimising a title for the Wii U at this current moment in time and definitely not before when Rayman was first released.


----------



## emigre (Apr 1, 2015)

RodrigoDavy said:


> What do you mean by "making it hard for developers to develop for their system"?
> 
> If you mean that it's hard to develop games for the Wii U, I beg to disagree. Numerous sources claimed that developing for Wii U is actually easy...
> 
> Now if you mean that Nintendo couldn't make the Wii U a very desirable platform to develop game for, I completely agree with you.


 

Google "Wii U difficult to develop for."


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Apr 1, 2015)

emigre said:


> Google "Wii U difficult to develop for."


 
I did this and while I found some results, almost all of them were very vague citing annonymous sources, making vague statements like "The Wii U CPU seems underpowered" and most of these results are from 2012 or the beggining of 2013 when most devs didn't have any experience with the Wii U.

I don't think those sources reliable, it's not because it show up in Google that it must be true


----------



## aofelix (Apr 1, 2015)

Is the Wii U x86? I don't think so.

Is every other next gen console? Yes. Are most games now developed on the PC and ported over? Yes.



They went with shitty old architecture for cheapness and because it allowed backwards compatibility. Sadly thats bitten them in the ass.

If it was easy to port games over to the Wii U with little need for too much financial outlay and optimisation, developers WOULD do it because its a financially sound decision. However its too difficult and unlike the Wii, the number of people owning a Wii U is too low for developers to bother.

People should just be thankful that ubisoft release anything on the Wii U since a lot of developers have pretty much abandoned it. I don't blame them either. You have the gamepad, you have the myriad of different controllers to support.. its all just such a mess. Fuck, even Nintendo struggle to support all their controllers and hardware. And you think third party developers will? 

Throw into the mix that the Wii U is underpowered compared to the other next gen consoles and you have a recipe for disaster.


----------



## grossaffe (Apr 1, 2015)

aofelix said:


> Is the Wii U x86? I don't think so.
> 
> Is every other next gen console? Yes. Are most games now developed on the PC and ported over? Yes.
> 
> ...


You're calling PPC a shitty old architecture while praising x86?  x86 came out in 1978 and is based on the archaic CISC design.  PPC came out in 1991 and is based on the more modern RISC design.  Even if developers were coding to the metal (which is very unlikely these days as they're dealing with OSes and APIs to handle things), given the choice between the coding in assembly for the CISC x86 ISA and RISC PPC ISA, I'd choose the PPC ISA every time.


----------



## aofelix (Apr 1, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> You're calling PPC a shitty old architecture while praising x86? x86 came out in 1978 and is based on the archaic CISC design. PPC came out in 1991 and is based on the more modern RISC design. Even if developers were coding to the metal (which is very unlikely these days as they're dealing with OSes and APIs to handle things), given the choice between the coding in assembly for the CISC x86 ISA and RISC PPC ISA, I'd choose the PPC ISA every time.


 

Its not about age, its about relevance. I must have written my point incorrectly in the previous post.

PC is where its at. Thats x86. Thats where games are developed. Therefore that should be the preferred architecture if you want to work with third parties.

Its a pretty easy to understand common point and people's fanboyism of Nintendo is really really retarded. The proof is in what we see now. The Wii U has missed out on a myriad of third party titles and is 99% going to lose this generation.

Nintendo historically have gone out of their way to always be different and make life hard for third parties. This gen, its really caught up with them. Just thank god for the 3DS + amiibos.


----------



## grossaffe (Apr 2, 2015)

aofelix said:


> Its not about age, its about relevance. I must have written my point incorrectly in the previous post.
> 
> PC is where its at. Thats x86. Thats where games are developed. Therefore that should be the preferred architecture if you want to work with third parties.
> 
> ...


 
Only one console in the history of game consoles (at least that ever mattered) before this generation was ever x86, which was the original Xbox (big surprise that Microsoft entered on PC architecture).  What suddenly makes that architecture superior after all these decades that THIS generation it is the obvious choice and anyone who doesn't use it is dumb?  It's not like PCs suddenly took off.
If working with an architecture that developers are familiar with is what's important, then how is PPC a poor choice when that is what every console last gen was using?

CPU architecture is not the reason third parties aren't bringing their games to Wii U.  Third parties already had a strained relationship with Nintendo and this  is just a continuation of it.  Before the Xbone and PS4 released, they still weren't bringing multiplats to the Wii U with a few exceptions that generally released much later, with fewer features, poor framerates (completely at the fault of lazy developers), etc., and then blamed Nintendo when their crap ports didn't sell.  Considering that the 360 and PS3 each had PPC architecture, the PS3's Cell was the one convoluted and hard to work with, and the Wii U was easily more powerful than those consoles, there was no excuse architecture-wise for the developers to not be able to bring the games to the Wii U.


----------



## aofelix (Apr 2, 2015)

The fact that games are now being developed on the PC first and then ported over. Sony learnt from their mistakes last gen. Their first priority this year was to make it easy for developers to port over. It was smart. 

Third parties aren't bringing games to the Wii U because its underpowered, more difficult to port over and the install base is too small.

Third parties last gen loved Nintendo because the Wii was selling by the bucketload. Theres no strained relationships, its all about money.


----------



## grossaffe (Apr 2, 2015)

whatever you say, boss.


----------



## aofelix (Apr 2, 2015)

Let me also reiterate, the difficulty in porting games over COMPARED to the Xbox One and PS4 is NOT the main reason games aren't being ported over to the Wii U.

*The main reason is the install base is way too small and it's not worth developers time and money to port them over.* Add into the mix a different type of architecture compared to the other platforms, a messy situation with the gamepad/controller support and then we see why third parties just aren't bothered.


----------



## MegaV2 (Apr 2, 2015)

I'd take fucking 480p60 over anything 30FPS.


----------



## CrimzonEyed (Apr 2, 2015)

Completely depends on what kind of games it is for me. Fast shooter/action game?  720 60fps all the way.  If it is a rpg/adventure game I could go for 1080 30fps.


----------



## Spectro87 (Apr 7, 2015)

I can't play games in 30FPS. It just looks terrible.


----------



## Disco (Apr 7, 2015)

Higher FPS always better than higher resolution!


----------



## nxwing (Apr 8, 2015)

I don't mind having 30 FPS for 1080p but 60 FPS will always win me.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Apr 16, 2015)

720/60. Less input lag and much MUCH smoother motion is worth sacrificing resolution and graphical quality as a whole imo.(for example, fighting games HAVE to be 60fps) If the game is a turn-based RPG or something I may choose 1080p/30 because quick reflexes wouldn't be as important, but generally speaking 60fps is preferable. I kinda envy people that can't tell the difference between 30 & 60fps because it's fucking night and day for me, and my vision isn't even that great.



Cyan said:


> games with slow or almost inexistant motions (pre-rendered background, still pictures etc.), 1080p looks really nice. Castlevania Lords of shadow 1 looked gorgeous in 1080p.
> Games based on Real time 3D environment or high speed (FPS, action, cars, etc.) should focus on frame rate.
> 
> But, for me, 30fps is already very nice. games sometime drops below.


 
Good point. A consistent framerate is incredibly important. imo, a SOLID 30fps usually beats games with higher overall framerates that aren't consistent/dip frequently.

edit: dammit, made the mistake of not looking at the date of the last post. My mistake.


----------



## TecXero (Apr 16, 2015)

Hungry Friend said:


> dammit, made the mistake of not looking at the date of the last post. My mistake.


 
Eh, the last post was only a bit over a week ago. I doubt anyone will care. It's not like you necroed a thread from 2008.

I tend to agree. That's one of my major problems I had with Sonic Colors. Once it got to a decent speed, it felt like you were playing a blurry slideshow. I might check it out again on Dolphin to see if I can get better performance out of it.


----------



## Dork (Apr 16, 2015)

1p1

The human eye cannot notice the difference past 1 frame per second.


----------



## Catastrophic (Apr 16, 2015)

Dork said:


> 1p1
> 
> The human eye cannot notice the difference past 1 frame per second.


 
My blind cousin can confirm that you cannot even distinguish between 0 frames per second. Don't let PC gamers lie to you.


----------



## tbb043 (Apr 16, 2015)

the_randomizer said:


> Why would you want a 25% reduction in speed? And 1080p vs. 1080i is almost impossible to differentiate.



It's a reduction in speed compared to 720p60fps, but an increase from 1080p30fps. I was splitting the difference, and as a joke at that. Woosh, right over your head.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Apr 17, 2015)

It is pretty funny that many people actually believe the human brain can't distinguish between 30 and 60fps. I must be a demigod or something because it's immediately obvious to me.

In all seriousness, I'm not very picky about graphics so 60fps/better gameplay all the way unless it's a game that doesn't require quick reactions, and even then I'm kinda torn. A _consistent_ 30 is usually alright though.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 17, 2015)

Voted on this yesterday but I didn't really have anything to say then.
720p, to me, is just right. I also like having a very smooth frame rate when I can. 
I always use 720p60 on YouTube when I get to, 1080p60 makes my computer lag too much, anyways, and I can't really tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. They pretty much look the same to me.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Apr 17, 2015)

I can tell the difference but it's not like 720p looks horrendous or anything. Art direction trumps things like resolution in my view anyway. Games like Okami on the PS2 still look gorgeous despite being low res with tons of jaggies. I know I'm going a little OT but if a game's art direction is good I'd much rather it perform well than be at a higher res. Despite being able to tell the difference, I agree that 720p is usually more than good enough.

Where I'm really torn is if I had to choose between a game that runs at 60fps 90% of the time at 720p but dips when there's a lot of shit on screen VS a rock solid 30 at a higher res. Things like framerate dips and screen tearing do bother me a bit and the fact that it depends on the game further complicates the issue. All shooters, racing and fighting games should run at 60fps imo.(probably mised a genre or 2 but you get my point)


----------



## Smuff (Apr 17, 2015)

Doubt I'd notice the difference, and couldn't give a fuck anyway.


----------



## 2Hack (Apr 17, 2015)

720/60 easy. The difference between 720 and 1080 is not as big as 30vs60. 

Also, I feel 30 fps, especially when it dips, puts a bit of strain on my eyes, and I find it hard to concentrate on one thing while the screen is moving.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Apr 18, 2015)

I'd settle for 4k120


----------



## 2Hack (Apr 18, 2015)

Subtle Demise said:


> I'd settle for 4k120


Eh, that is really hard man. 4k? What are we, in the 1900's? 

We need some 16k at least, with a min 240fps!


----------



## DarkFlare69 (Apr 18, 2015)

Subtle Demise said:


> I'd settle for 4k120


The current gaming consoles SHOULD be able to do 4K 60 (Probably even higher), for their price, but...


----------



## 2Hack (Apr 18, 2015)

DarkFlare69 said:


> The current gaming consoles SHOULD be able to do 4K 60 (Probably even higher), for their price, but...


They're really not that expensive tbh. And not really. And it's an unreasonable expectation. 

4K TVs/monitors haven't really picked up. 1080 is the nicest resolution/price combo ATM. 

400$ isn't really gonna get you a nice gaming PC, but it will get you a nice PS4. At that price, it does everything it should in terms of gaming. More consistent 1080/60fps will come in time; once ps4 games start to be more optimized.


Why would they invest into making them 4k res supporting, when no one really cares about that right now.


----------



## aofelix (Apr 18, 2015)

DarkFlare69 said:


> The current gaming consoles SHOULD be able to do 4K 60 (Probably even higher), for their price, but...


 

No.

You know nothing about technology obviously.

For the price of the PS4, its pretty decent value in all honesty. 

If you want to game in 4k on PC, you're looking at 1k+.


----------



## DarkFlare69 (Apr 19, 2015)

aofelix said:


> No.
> 
> You know nothing about technology obviously.
> 
> ...


LOL, my friend has a $500 gaming PC and a 4K TV, it can play certain games at max resolution and 60+ FPS.


----------



## 2Hack (Apr 19, 2015)

DarkFlare69 said:


> LOL, my friend has a $500 gaming PC and a 4K TV, it can play certain games at max resolution and 60+ FPS.


No Patrick, playing Indie games at 4k is not an achievement.


----------



## DarkFlare69 (Apr 19, 2015)

2Hack said:


> No Patrick, playing Indie games at 4k is not an achievement.


 
That's what I was talking about, no need to be snide.


----------



## aofelix (Apr 19, 2015)

DarkFlare69 said:


> LOL, my friend has a $500 gaming PC and a 4K TV, it can play certain games at max resolution and 60+ FPS.


 


Very very very few games and most probably not on very high or ultra settings. 


Really, just admit you're wrong lol. Its no big deal. 


When 4K is possible on ultra/very high on PCs using a single graphics card (and in a 500-600$ budget), home consoles should do that. I think next-gen is their best bet. 

1080p vs 720p @ 60FPS comes down to the graphical fidelity and effects users want (tesselation, high quality textures etc.). Its hard for the video game companies given no one now wants to sell at a loss after the PS3. 

The only company which I think could possibly do 4K is Nintendo first party titles if they release a powerful console hardware wise because their developers and aesthetics for their games could pull it off. Now that would REALLY raise the bar. However, it won't happen.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Apr 19, 2015)

sblast3 said:


> 720p60 without a doubt. When it comes to gaming, pixel-clarity isn't that important. What's important is good controls and no input lag. However, modern consoles in reality should be able to do 1080p60 considering how much they cost.


 
This is how I feel. I'll definitely choose 720p60fps if forced to choose, but it's not even a choice that should have to be made today.




Catastrophic said:


> My blind cousin can confirm that you cannot even distinguish between 0 frames per second. Don't let PC gamers lie to you.


Psh! Of course you feel that way: You have mouths for eyes!


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 19, 2015)

xwatchmanx said:


> This is how I feel. I'll definitely choose 720p60fps if forced to choose, but it's not even a choice that should have to be made today.


 
Well, Wii U not so up-to-date hardware, time constraints, laziness of developers, etc. (you know)
Actually I believe that having very strong hardware that allows for rapid (less optimized) development, and lets the development team concentrate on the game story, art, gameplay, etc. instead of the programming, is good hardware.
People may look at it as "laziness" , but you know, it is a world of limited resources, if you put more effort into the code optimization, you have to take away effort from some other place.
And if you told me you would either give me a 720p60 game with very good and refined gameplay or a 1080p60 game with some buggy not fun gameplay, I would go with the one that plays better.
Also having stronger hardware to give more room to being lazy at optimizations would be better. Always. Perhaps.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 20, 2015)

Depends. Some fast paced games like Xenoverse actually look slightly better at 30fps. Slower games like League of Legends need the 60 FPS though. On a PC the difference between 1080P and 720P is more noticeable than playing a couch console.
Definite no on the third option, 15 fps is noticeably worse on everything and I don't need to go above 1080P


----------



## Hungry Friend (Apr 20, 2015)

Anything below 30 is shit and inconsistent framerates also suck, so if you have to lower the res, remove some texture detail/particle effects or whatever to make a game run at a consistent 30 or preferably 60, do it. As far as limited hardware goes, I'm somewhat of the mind that HW limitations inspire creative solutions when talented dev teams are involved, but I also agree that more powerful HW allows devs to spend more time on gameplay, story and general content rather than optimizing a game to run on weak hardware. Companies don't have as much pressure on them to release *COMPLETE* games these days because they can just patch an initial buggy release which is a shitty trend. If Gran Turismo 4 can run at 480p(upscaled to 1080i too) on a fucking PS2 @ 60fps(I think), today's games should at least be able to push a consistent 720p/60fps or at least 1080p with a rock solid 30fps. In short, more time needs to be spent optimizing games and less time needs to be spent on taking shit out of games and selling it as "DLC".(had to shoehorn that in)

Like I said earlier, 60fps is very much needed in games like shooters, racing games and fighters that require quick reactions, but a consistent 30 is generally more than playable. Modern LCD & Plasma displays generally have much more input lag than old CRTs, so 60fps is also needed to minimize that kind of thing.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 21, 2015)

Hungry Friend said:


> Like I said earlier, 60fps is very much needed in games like shooters, racing games and fighters that require quick reactions, but a consistent 30 is generally more than playable. Modern LCD & Plasma displays generally have much more input lag than old CRTs, so 60fps is also needed to minimize that kind of thing.


Input lag =/= FPS
Many good fighting games are 25-30 FPS and I think I read something about Halo 3 being 30FPS once


----------



## Taleweaver (Apr 21, 2015)

DarkFlare69 said:


> That's what I was talking about, no need to be snide.


 
Erm...okay?

Look...the more I read of your threads, the more I think you're making fun of the PC situation. It's either that, or you're completely missing the context. Getting a high FPS in itself isn't an achievement at all. As is mentioned somewhere: open up a game engine (say unrealED), create a boxed room, compile it and run it. There you go: even if you crank the settings all the way up and display it on a 4k television, you'll still have 60+ FPS on pretty much any rig up to five or even ten years old. For obvious reasons, these sort of scores don't mean shit when comparing today's games, as people are expecting more visual quality than an empty box.
Indy titles are made by small teams and pretty much by definition have lesser visual stuff going on (there are exceptions). As such, these don't count.

It's also a stupid remark to say that "modern games should play great on PS4's". That's not really true, as any developer can just throw so many visuals into a given view that it brings any hardware to its knees. It's always their job to ensure that this DOESN'T happen. And that should certainly be easier, yes. But developers are still competing in the "who has the nicest looking graphics"-contest, so it's only a matter of time before some guys push the limits.


----------



## aofelix (Apr 21, 2015)

Yeah graphic whoring sadly is what sells games, therefore developers sacrifice fps over resolution.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Apr 21, 2015)

Snugglevixen said:


> Input lag =/= FPS
> Many good fighting games are 25-30 FPS and I think I read something about Halo 3 being 30FPS once


 
Framerate isn't directly related to input lag but framerate hiccups fuck up timing and lower framerates= slower response time when putting a command in. I can't think of one serious fighting game(one that people play in tournaments) that doesn't run at 60fps, but if I'm wrong I'll admit it. Try playing 3rd Strike, KOF, Tekken or Virtua Fighter at 30fps. Your timing would be utterly fucked and the games would be nearly if not completely unplayable. 60fps is needed for serious fighting games.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 21, 2015)

Hungry Friend said:


> Framerate isn't directly related to input lag but framerate hiccups fuck up timing and lower framerates= slower response time when putting a command in. I can't think of one serious fighting game(one that people play in tournaments) that doesn't run at 60fps, but if I'm wrong I'll admit it. Try playing 3rd Strike, KOF, Tekken or Virtua Fighter at 30fps. Your timing would be utterly fucked and the games would be nearly if not completely unplayable. 60fps is needed for serious fighting games.


Most Dragon Ball Z fighting games except 7th gen are 30FPS and Xenoverse is 30 FPS online except on PC version which needs to be set at 30 FPS to fix bugs anyway.
And I don't think 60FPS was a thing on 4th gen consoles.
And unless you have a 1/60th of a second chance to respond to something it doesn't matter if it's 60 or 30FPS. The human brain automatically fills in movement gaps. Though some games that are programmed to run at 60FPS might have game engine related issues on lower framerates if the devs never bothered to test sub 60FPS


----------



## The Catboy (Apr 21, 2015)

4K with 240FPS
Because it just looks amazing.


----------



## Taleweaver (Apr 22, 2015)

aofelix said:


> Yeah graphic whoring sadly is what sells games, therefore developers sacrifice fps over resolution.


 
...except that just about every PC game from this century has a way to lower the resolution, which means it's not the developer but the player who chooses what to sacrifice (fps, resolution or - if they shell out the most expensive graphic card(s) - their wallet).

On consoles, the importance of FPS usually isn't as high (a controller isn't as precise as a mouse and you're further away from the screen), which is probably the reason developers chose to lock it at a certain level (as said before: fluctuation is far more noticeable than consistency, even if it's consistently lower than an FPS that is only higher on average).


----------



## aofelix (Apr 22, 2015)

Taleweaver said:


> ...except that just about every PC game from this century has a way to lower the resolution, which means it's not the developer but the player who chooses what to sacrifice (fps, resolution or - if they shell out the most expensive graphic card(s) - their wallet).
> 
> On consoles, the importance of FPS usually isn't as high (a controller isn't as precise as a mouse and you're further away from the screen), which is probably the reason developers chose to lock it at a certain level (as said before: fluctuation is far more noticeable than consistency, even if it's consistently lower than an FPS that is only higher on average).


 
I'm referring to consoles not PCs, in terms of selling games in that comment.

The shitty adverts and crap gaming magazines which sell a butt load of titles all go off of graphic whoring to the 11-18 year old bracket. 

I still think FPS is very important on consoles. Most of my PS3 games feel sluggish as shit and I hate it. If a PC port is available, I'll always opt for that and I play my PC games using a controller.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Apr 22, 2015)

Snugglevixen said:


> Most Dragon Ball Z fighting games except 7th gen are 30FPS and Xenoverse is 30 FPS online except on PC version which needs to be set at 30 FPS to fix bugs anyway.
> And I don't think 60FPS was a thing on 4th gen consoles.
> And unless you have a 1/60th of a second chance to respond to something it doesn't matter if it's 60 or 30FPS. *The human brain automatically fills in movement gaps.* Though some games that are programmed to run at 60FPS might have game engine related issues on lower framerates if the devs never bothered to test sub 60FPS


 
Casual fighters like the DBZ games can get away with 30 but if you tried to play Tekken, VF or 3rd Strike(or Smash Bros for that matter) at 30fps your timing would be completely fucked and high-level play would be nearly if not impossible. Precise timing is absolutely essential in fighting games especially when played at high levels so 60fps is an absolute must. I'm just average at those games but ensuring a consistent 60fps has been part of fighting game design since SF2 WW.(probably before but I don't know) 30fps for cinematic games? Totally cool with that because of the whole "movie magic" effect ie the bolded part of your quote. It needs to be a consistent 30 for the effect to work though.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 23, 2015)

Hungry Friend said:


> Casual fighters like the DBZ games can get away with 30 but if you tried to play Tekken, VF or 3rd Strike(or Smash Bros for that matter) at 30fps your timing would be completely fucked and high-level play would be nearly if not impossible. Precise timing is absolutely essential in fighting games especially when played at high levels so 60fps is an absolute must. I'm just average at those games but ensuring a consistent 60fps has been part of fighting game design since SF2 WW.(probably before but I don't know) 30fps for cinematic games? Totally cool with that because of the whole "movie magic" effect ie the bolded part of your quote. It needs to be a consistent 30 for the effect to work though.


I wouldn't consider Budokai Tenkaichi or Xenoverse casual. Smash Bros on the other hand is casual, a party game even, which is the one issue I have with the new one as they tried too hard to appeal to the hardcore audience and made the AI difficult for people who played the previous 3 casually.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Apr 23, 2015)

Snugglevixen said:


> I wouldn't consider Budokai Tenkaichi or Xenoverse casual. Smash Bros on the other hand is casual, a party game even, which is the one issue I have with the new one as they tried too hard to appeal to the hardcore audience and made the AI difficult for people who played the previous 3 casually.


 
Erm... Smash Bros, specially previous versions (and Melee just in case)... casual?
Party games, for sure... but casual?
I think we are talking about different games.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 23, 2015)

sarkwalvein said:


> Erm... Smash Bros, specially previous versions (and Melee just in case)... casual?
> Party games, for sure... but casual?
> I think we are talking about different games.


They were always meant to be casual
Note how Ridley was cut from Melee due to not being able to program his tail and this time it was being unable to make him a balanced character without ruining him


----------



## Hungry Friend (Apr 23, 2015)

SF2 WW was meant to be casual from what I've heard & the combo system wasn't even intentionally implemented, so depth can be discovered in games that were meant to be quick quarter munchers or party games. I'm no expert when it comes to fighters but ask anyone who plays SF, Tekken, VF, DOA, KOF, SSB Guilty Gear etc. at a high level if 30fps would be acceptable for a serious, competitive fighter and you will get an absolute no every time. 60fps makes games that require pinpoint precision/timing much more responsive. Parrying in 3rd Strike with any consistency would be impossible at 30fps for example.

edit: One of the many reason 2d Mario and Megaman games are so responsive is that they target 60fps, although there is some flicker/slowdown, especially in the NES games. They're also very well designed but 30fps would also be unacceptable in, say, SMB3 and Mega Man X.


----------



## Sakitoshi (Apr 24, 2015)

I think you all are missing a little big detail..... internal speed isn't the same as display speed.
games can run at a internal 60vps(vertical interrupts per second) but display only 30fps on the screen. a game programmed like that would take full advantage of 1/60 control precision.

Why would a game be programmed like that?!!?!!? why commit such blasphemy?!!?!?!
this way you can attain a rock solid 30fps and crank the graphics up without inconsistency AND you'll have all the benefits of "muh 1 frame botton prezz".

list of examples I can think off now:
Bioshock Infinite. on PS360, can be turned off.
Zelda's since Wind Waker.
Infamous Second Son. has an option to turn on a 30fps limiter.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Apr 24, 2015)

I admit I'm not technically literate enough to really argue with you there, but I am skeptical that a fighting game like SF or Tekken would be playable in such a form. Wouldn't it still run slower, even if the controls are precise? 60fps has become such the standard for fighting games for so long that I doubt anything below 60fps in game would be accepted by serious players. Also 30fps looks jerky as fuck but cinematic games work well with it.(if they're well designed) Basically, I'd have to play SF or another fighter locked at 30fps to really know if that could work, but I don't really care about having better graphics if the framerate has to be sacrificed; not worth it imo.


----------



## Sakitoshi (Apr 25, 2015)

Is only a thing of habit. you think 60 frames per second is the superior format for video, but tell that to cinephiles and they'll accuse you of blasphemy.
Is things where the other way around(I mean films at 60fps and games at 23.97fps) the same thing would happen.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Apr 25, 2015)

Well, cinematic games that run at 30fps retain that "movie magic" effect when done well. 30fps for a fighting game is just bad game design. As far as aesthetics go, that kinda thing is so subjective that there's no right or wrong answer and there are plenty of people who want movies to be 48fps or higher, but that's pure taste and has nothing to do with gameplay or timing. Fighting games running at 60+ FPS is necessary for silky smooth gameplay and pinpoint timing, so it's a different matter altogether. Generally speaking though I agree because you're talking about individual taste.


----------

