• 53 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by SpaceInsomniac (4191 posts) 2 years, 1 month 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 (12187 posts) -

ALL THE FRAMES

Online
#2 Edited by Yummylee (23178 posts) -
@theht said:

ALL THE FRAMES

!!!

#3 Posted by Clonedzero (4206 posts) -

60fps.

cus my tv is only 720p lol

#4 Posted by Oscar__Explosion (2600 posts) -

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

#5 Posted by BeachThunder (12984 posts) -

Always 1080; always 120.

Online
#6 Posted by jjm494 (87 posts) -

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

#7 Posted by Caustic_Fox (117 posts) -

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

#8 Posted by Bucketdeth (8231 posts) -

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

#9 Posted by Spoonman671 (4917 posts) -

Maybe let developers do whatever the fuck they want?

#10 Posted by pandorasbox (316 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 (4191 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 (6233 posts) -

All the Graphics

#13 Posted by ajamafalous (12301 posts) -

Both because PC lol

#14 Posted by sickVisionz (1299 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 (1288 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 (861 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 (2917 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 (612 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 (616 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 (792 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 (12587 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.

#22 Posted by MAGZine (441 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 (1086 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 (5717 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 (1978 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 (12728 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 (2351 posts) -

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

#28 Edited by Kidavenger (3841 posts) -

I'm expecting both...

#29 Posted by tread311 (373 posts) -

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

#30 Posted by JaredA (841 posts) -

60 fps always!

#31 Posted by SlashDance (1856 posts) -

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

#32 Edited by Pr1mus (4087 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 (4228 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 (4087 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 (533 posts) -

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

#36 Edited by _Chad (995 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 (861 posts) -

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

#38 Edited by WasabiCurry (430 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 (122 posts) -

you got some hilarious expectations from developers

#40 Edited by fisk0 (4974 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 (5021 posts) -

This is a meaningless "standard".

#42 Posted by Codeacious (957 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 (7315 posts) -

Both?

#44 Edited by SathingtonWaltz (2167 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 (2167 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 (5452 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 (3345 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 (3079 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 (2167 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 (1585 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.