• 59 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Edited by mosdl (3387 posts) -

The mass majority of people don't care or even know what fps is.

#52 Posted by prapin (35 posts) -

People saying 30FPS is totally fine have never played at 60fps or even 120fps.

Seriously, the difference is so vast it's not even funny.
I'd take 60fps and 1080p over crazy graphic effects every day of the week.

The denial here is pathetic.

#53 Edited by prapin (35 posts) -

This topic sounds accusatory. Of course the launch title games won't be great, games will ramp up to 60 fps by the end of the life cycle, I'm sure.

By the end of PS4's life cycle I'm pretty sure the standard will be 120Hz for monitors.

#54 Edited by Zekhariah (700 posts) -

@jasonr86 said:

That seems dumb. It can clearly run games at 60 fps. If current PCs can run games at 60 fps so can the PS4. Maybe they have a good reason why they don't want to do 60 fps. Maybe the first few games will straddle that generation line until the older consoles are dead and gone and the majority of PC consumers have moved up to better hardware.

I don't get why you and the OP are trying to say here. Framerate's a result of tradeoffs, not a hardware feature. Faster processing gives them more graphical bandwidth, but they can choose to fill that series of tubes with more polygons, effects, post-processing, etc. rather than using it to hit 60 FPS.

I imagine that most people are more receptive (whether they're cognizant of it or not) to a solid 30 FPS and better graphics than a solid 60 FPS and worse graphics, but I'm sure that's a trade-off the developers don't make lightly, and make depending on the style of game. Thief and Killzone aren't particularly twitchy or fast games, and probably wouldn't benefit from a high framerate the same way a Call of Duty or Gran Turismo would.

This proves nothing about the PS4, it just proves that a couple of developers have decided against allocating resources (human and/or processing) into hitting 60 FPS.

If you look at how PC performance is evaluated, and at the PS4 hardware, you can tell that it will be biased for higher effects and lower frame rates.

From a PC prospective, frame rate ramp up (after the GPU can handle everything) is limited by the CPU. Usually this is done in testing where faster cpus (like and i5) will run a game at 150+fps on lower settings, while a lower end CPU (say Athlon II) will only be in the 70s. For a GPU test you want a fast enough CPU, but instead the game is run at maximum resolution + settings to get an order of performance. In the case of the PS4 there is a very slow CPU (netbook class) and a relatively good 1080p PC type GPU. Considering the low end CPU coupled with high end GPU, it looks like the system is optimized for effect heavy 1080p scenes at lower frame rate targets. There will be enough CPU to feed the GPU, but not at 60fps in most cases - while image quality can still be improved by increasing GPU load somewhat independently.

#55 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5904 posts) -

You do realize that with a worse framerate generally comes a better LOOKING game, right? You know what my very kick ass PC can't do? Play Crysis 3 at the max settings at solid 60. Man, PCs must suck ass then.

I'm so fucking tired of you people. Really. Just stop it. I want 60fps, and that's what matters to me. SO I BOUGHT A PC. But that's not the console way and if you expected them to go to 60fps on consoles, you're pretty god damn naive. If you want 60fps? Get a PC. That's not how consoles work and they never really have. Even when they ran games at like a million frames per second, there were about 4 frames of animation.

Having a high framerate isn't a technical feat that most people care about, and having a normal console framerate doesn't mean the games don't look MILES better, it doesn't mean jack shit. And honestly? 30fps is an improvement over half of the current console titles. Most console games don't require 60fps, and those that do have it.

60fps was a bench mark for pcs for very heavy graphics test. It really has no impact on actual enjoyment of games.

That's total bullshit. Playing a game is very different at 60 vs 30 frames per second. There is less latency and more precision in your input when the game renders that input every 60 seconds rather than 30. That being said, 30 is fine. It's a difference, and saying it isn't is stupid, but it's not the end of the world. If we can handle movies being 24 freakin frames per second, 30 is acceptable for games. Especially when they look awesome, for most of the console market.

Also we're talking about launch games that almost certainly started on current consoles and as a result aren't recieving nearly as much optimization and new tech as other games that have been concieved from thre start as true next generation titles. Also, just running at a resolution higher than 540p with actual MSAA? That's a huge difference. If that's no, then neither is 60fps vs 30fps.

#56 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4569 posts) -

Some games are better at 30FPS, the Mass Effect series is one of these because it keeps the cinematic feeling, conversations in 60fps in ME just look weird. I have no problem with a game that looks fantastic being locked at 30FPS, I did it with Bioshock Infinite just so I could beef up the graphics and just have the frame rate locked instead of going from 60 to 35 every different scene. I just wish that a framerate lock became the new normal in gaming in general, just keep it consistent.

#57 Posted by ajamafalous (12392 posts) -


#58 Edited by Sooty (8195 posts) -

Sorry but if anyone thought most games next gen will run at 60 FPS you are deluded. Developers will continue to sacrifice framerate for better visuals hoping for better sales and market appeal.

30 FPS is still going to be the norm. I'll see you in 3 years when I'm right. >:) Exceptions will pop up. (mostly fighting games, racing games, and stuff like Bayonetta)

It doesn't really bother me because I accept on console that I have to put up with the framerate given, if I don't like it I'll either buy the game on PC instead or just not buy it. (like I wouldn't have bought Far Cry 3 on console even if I didn't have a good PC)

and games like GTA IV on console shouldn't be allowed a release. That game ran like shit, so did Mass Effect (the first) on 360, HIDEOUS.

#59 Edited by Sooty (8195 posts) -

@sins_of_mosin said:

60fps was a bench mark for pcs for very heavy graphics test. It really has no impact on actual enjoyment of games.

Fighting games are horrendous at 30, and racing games are vastly inferior too.

Competitive FPS requires 60+ for a variety of reasons, that doesn't include Halo which runs at 30 and should never be taken seriously in anything more than a casual competitive environment.

and hey don't get me wrong. I'm happy to play games at 30 if it's actually a consistent 30, but if it's a shooter, fighting game or racing game, it's 60 or bust.