• 53 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3906 posts) 1 year, 10 months ago

Poll: Would you make 1080p or 60 fps standard in the next generation? (158 votes)

Always 1080p, but sometimes 30 fps and sometimes 60 fps 41%
Always 60 fps, but sometimes 720p and sometimes 1080p 59%

If you could make one standard in the upcoming console generation, would you rather games ALWAYS be presented in true 1080p HD, or ALWAYS run at 60 frames per second?

#1 Edited by TheHT (11797 posts) -

ALL THE FRAMES

#2 Edited by Yummylee (22570 posts) -
@theht said:

ALL THE FRAMES

!!!

#3 Posted by Clonedzero (4196 posts) -

60fps.

cus my tv is only 720p lol

#4 Posted by Oscar__Explosion (2405 posts) -

Unless there is something I'm missing why shouldn't it be both?

#5 Posted by BeachThunder (12427 posts) -

Always 1080; always 120.

#6 Posted by jjm494 (84 posts) -

60fps. doesn't matter how good your game looks if its running sluggish.

#7 Posted by Caustic_Fox (112 posts) -

I would want smooth 60 FPS at all times. Since when was ~30FPS at sub-HD resolutions found acceptable?

#8 Posted by Bucketdeth (8048 posts) -

I'd almost prefer 1080p over the 60 frames, really depends on the type of game though.

#9 Posted by Spoonman671 (4773 posts) -

Maybe let developers do whatever the fuck they want?

#10 Posted by pandorasbox (303 posts) -

1080p. 30fps is fine, as long as you keep it locked at 30fps.

Also, i feel like expressing my opinion about "60fps" as to what it means in console terms. If somebody told me that their game was running at 60 frames on a pc, i would assume that it never drops below 60. But, in console terms, "60fps" simply means that it is above 30fps at (almost) all times. For example, people often refer to COD on consoles as a "60fps" game, but in actuality the game is usually running in the high 40's-50's and can drop as low as the mid 20's during intensive SP missions.

#11 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3906 posts) -

@oscar__explosion said:

Unless there is something I'm missing why shouldn't it be both?

It could have easily been both THIS generation, but developers are always so focused on putting the best possible graphics into their games so they sell. When that happens, screen resolution and frame rate are frequently sacrificed. It will likely be the same situation next generation. Either games look a fair amount better than 360 and PS3 with great screen resolution and frame rates, or they look WAY better than the 360 and PS3, but have the same crap resolution and frame rates that console gamers have been dealing with for years.

@beachthunder said:

Always 1080; always 120.

In case you couldn't tell, this thread is basically asking the question of what you value more, resolution or frame rate.
#12 Edited by TheManWithNoPlan (6002 posts) -

All the Graphics

#13 Posted by ajamafalous (12160 posts) -

Both because PC lol

#14 Posted by sickVisionz (1268 posts) -

1080. Sometimes 60fps looks weird and too smooth. Maybe it's "lo-fi" animations being scaled to 60fps and that's why, but many 60fps games remind me of when people turn on 120hz on their TV and it basically ruins how movies and some shows look.

#15 Posted by Levius (1230 posts) -

I voted 1080p because I have realised don't care about framerate, Far Cry 3 looked fine on PS3 except for dodgy lighting and textures occasionally. I remember having no problems with Half Life 2 on XBOX or Goldeneye on N64. As long as I can't count frames, I am fine with whatever comes out on the box.

#16 Posted by BoFooQ (752 posts) -

NO

where is the "none of the above" option? The only people you will stop and hurt are smaller games. If you only want to play or buy games at 1080/60 than only play those games. However if you make it a requirement than the smaller games go to steam and don't even bother with next gen. Also you will have companies dumbing down games cause they have to make sure they run fast enough. If you only want AAA top of the line games great, but why force out the small guy.

#17 Posted by Ares42 (2797 posts) -

If a single triple-A game comes out for the next generation consoles that doesn't do 1080 it's a failed generation. That's like a game for this generation only doing 480. The step up in hardware should make 1080 completely and utterly trivial.

#18 Posted by DaMisterChief (628 posts) -

How about devs standardize games not sucking. I mean the tech is all there but STILL IN 2013 games suck (Aliens Cough Cough)

#19 Posted by Scroll (602 posts) -

More frames. I prefer smoother play with better controller response time.

But we all know developers will push too many silly effects and such on screen and we'll end up with 25 fps average on most games by the end of the generation.

#20 Posted by Time_Lord (723 posts) -

I find having lower that 60 fps to be quite jaring epically in fighting games and action so I hope it's standard next gen.

#21 Posted by believer258 (12203 posts) -

I would much rather have a smooth framerate at a lower resolution than a worse framerate at a high resolution. There's just so much more difference between 30 and 60 than there is between 720p and 1080p.

Online
#22 Posted by MAGZine (438 posts) -

@scroll said:

More frames. I prefer smoother play with better controller response time.

But we all know developers will push too many silly effects and such on screen and we'll end up with 25 fps average on most games by the end of the generation.

#23 Posted by Mirado (1056 posts) -

Frames. Most people sit so far away from their TVs that the difference between 1080p and 720p is physically unnoticeable.

#24 Posted by Branthog (5597 posts) -

In console gaming, 60fps is more important than 1080p, because in most instances, 720 scales just fine.

However, I hate 16:9 gaming and, therefore, hate 1080p. As a PC gamer, I know the proper aspect is 16:10 (ie, 1920x1200 and 2560x1600). Unfortunately, since 16:9 is the direction televisions went and it would be expensive to continue producing smaller sets of just 16:10, 16:9 is slowly infecting the PC world.

But, yeah, for consoles -- 60fps (for most games) is more important than 1080p, because the fluidity trumps the slight fidelity improvement that most won't even notice, after scaling.

#25 Posted by mikey87144 (1806 posts) -

Ratchet and Clank taught me that a high frame rate is paramount. When they went to 30 the game went to shit.

#26 Posted by PenguinDust (12636 posts) -

On consoles, I can't tell the difference half the time. What are some 30fps games and some 60fps games? What are some 720p games and some 1080p games?

#27 Posted by Cold_Wolven (2295 posts) -

All the resolution, a cleaner looking game that runs at a steady 30 fps.

#28 Edited by Kidavenger (3629 posts) -

I'm expecting both...

#29 Posted by tread311 (357 posts) -

I play on a 110" screen. Resolution is way more important for me.

#30 Posted by JaredA (832 posts) -

60 fps always!

#31 Posted by SlashDance (1843 posts) -

That's my equivalent to Brad's "what's your favorite GNR song". I just can't chose.

#32 Edited by Pr1mus (3950 posts) -

It would be great to have both but it's not realistic to force either as a standard. Even if they wanted too how could they enforce a framerate standard? How much drops in FPS is acceptable and how do you judge this across different engines and style of games?

I suppose the console makers could force 1080p but even then they'll probably do it like Microsoft did with the 360 and upscale everything that's not running natively at 1080p.

Personally i would like more developers aimed for 60 fps. The fluidity 60 fps offers is the main reason why i play on PC. Better graphics are always nice but that's not the main draw for me.

#33 Edited by HerbieBug (4208 posts) -

Nevermind 60fps, I'd settle for required minimum of 30fps and your game does not pass certification if it dips below that ever.

#34 Posted by Pr1mus (3950 posts) -

Nevermind 60fps, I'd settle for required minimum of 30fps and your game does not pass certification if it dips below that ever.

That would require the certification process stopped being the joke it has become this generation.

#35 Posted by Miketakon (514 posts) -

60fps. It's pretty sad a lot of games this gen didn't stay locked at 30fps.

#36 Edited by _Chad (960 posts) -

1080p and 30fps is fine for me. I guess as long as the game isn't that ladder in New Londo Ruins in Dark Souls, where the frames cease to exist.

#37 Posted by Catarrhal (860 posts) -

1080p resolution isn't even a factor unless your screen is larger than 40".

#38 Edited by WasabiCurry (425 posts) -

I would want both, reason why I PC game.

If I were to choose, 60 fps is better than 1080p.

Also, 90 frames to 120 frames please. :p

#39 Posted by videogamesarenotart (121 posts) -

you got some hilarious expectations from developers

#40 Edited by fisk0 (4498 posts) -

I generally prefer decent framerates over high resolutions, but there are a lot of games where neither are all that important. I think it should be up to the developers to decide on a per game basis, but, yeah, in general I'd prefer playing a super smooth game in 320x240 and 300 fps than watching a slide show in 4k resolutions.

#41 Posted by EXTomar (4951 posts) -

This is a meaningless "standard".

#42 Posted by Codeacious (960 posts) -

Both. Of course, I'm a PC gamer, so I'm already there.

I don't think I could choose between the two, actually. I hate it when games are < 45 FPS (as that's when it starts to become noticeable to a large degree), and I hate it when something isn't being rendered at the resolution of the screen.

#43 Posted by Daveyo520 (7003 posts) -

Both?

#44 Edited by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -

I'm pretty adamant about playing PC games at 1080p 60fps, but I never seem to notice 30fps on consoles at all. For some reason 30fps on consoles is perfectly playable to me while 30fps on PC games is abysmal.

Edit: Same thing goes for resolution too. For some reason I don't really notice 720p on consoles, but on PC it's a huge difference and 720p comparable resolutions look pretty terrible. It's probably all to do with the display technology and the distance I am from the screen or something though.

#45 Posted by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -

1080p. 30fps is fine, as long as you keep it locked at 30fps.

Also, i feel like expressing my opinion about "60fps" as to what it means in console terms. If somebody told me that their game was running at 60 frames on a pc, i would assume that it never drops below 60. But, in console terms, "60fps" simply means that it is above 30fps at (almost) all times. For example, people often refer to COD on consoles as a "60fps" game, but in actuality the game is usually running in the high 40's-50's and can drop as low as the mid 20's during intensive SP missions.

This isn't true at all.

#46 Edited by Andorski (5366 posts) -

Both should be mandatory. On my PC I will always tone down every graphic setting just so I can get a solid 60fps at native resolution on my 1080p HDTV.

#47 Posted by captain_clayman (3328 posts) -

Both would be good, but I really love a silky smooth framerate. It'd be nice if both were mandatory, but that would be a lot more work for programmers, especially small time ones.

#48 Edited by 71Ranchero (2833 posts) -

1080p without question. 60 frames is great and all but shit, we used to be lucky to get a steady 15 and that was fine. People may be a bit spoiled these days. 30-45 is fine for most games if its consistent.

#49 Posted by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -

Both would be good, but I really love a silky smooth framerate. It'd be nice if both were mandatory, but that would be a lot more work for programmers, especially small time ones.

It wouldn't be much work at all, achieving both of those goals is certainly possible with PS4 and Nextbox technology. Resolution is really simple, and achieving a smooth framerate can be done by just being modest with the use of effects.

#50 Edited by egg (1469 posts) -

60fps without question. 1080 resolution is great and all but shit, we used to be lucky to get a steady 480 and that was fine. People may be a bit spoiled these days. 480-720 is fine for most games.