I know not everyone is hot on the idea of this console, I'm also not sure about it, but getting that out of the way, if it existed, and you had one hypothetically, what current games out now would you like to see updated and improved? The two games for me personally, though I am happy playing them as they are, but always want something better if it can happen, is The Witcher 3 (I don't have a good enough PC, so if the Neo can help in any way, that's good enough for me), and Bloodborne, which I am currently playing. Bloodborne to me needs a bit of help with its frame rate, and anti-aliasing. Also, do we know if the runs in 1080p? It seems kind of blurry. While The Witcher 3 could first, like Bloodborne, make a smoother frame rate throughout. I'm fine with a solid 30, and then if it were possible, add some of the PC additions in there that are absent from the consoles.

Loading screens aren't as important to me, but that could be worked on too if there was room. I also think Bloodborne was updated so it's not much of an issue anymore, at least to me. I want these games to be worked on most, though with that said, I think both look superb still, and the issues are extremely tolerable, but if aspects were worked on in both these games, it'd eke out even more enjoyment to me. So how about you, what games would you have on your wishlist to be improved? This is all hypothetical; heck, we don't know the console exists yet (though it probably does), and I know there are probably a lot of you that will want to say this console is dumb (or say 'my PC could just do that'), but just for fun, instead of that, name some games you'd love to play with better visual aspects, as I believe that's what the console will bring.

If it's not, what else would you like to see your current games do that it can't do currently?

Id like to see every game at 60fps, 1080 is fine and 4k is impossible atm but just getting smooth framerate would make almost every game feel and look better.

Because this is basically all the game was anyway, if The Order: 1886 could be patched to play full screen and be a little brighter/higher res that would be interesting and a good showcase of what the Neo can add to a game. Use a game that only exists to prove graphics on these consoles can be pretty spectacular to prove the new version of the console is significantly better at letting that game do that thing it's supposed to do.

@oursin_360: I don't know. I think I prefer if games just smoothed out the frame rate to a solid 30, for those that struggle with it, and then make the visuals better in other ways.

@nodima: I actually like 1886 honestly. I played it late. I just wish the game had a bit more shooting gameplay, or what have you, rather than walking around as much as you do.

After gaming at 60 for a long time, anything under 50 frames looks like a slide show to me. I think people would be really surprised how much better games would look at higher framerates, the fluidity of the movement really adds to the visuals IMO. I think fps and refresh rate is just something that's harder to explain than resolution, like I had no idea how much better games looked at 120hz as compared to 60. 30hz regardless of the motion blur amount will always have a "jilted" look to it IMO, and it's something that you really don't notice until you start gaming constantly at higher fps especially smooth 60 and over.

If ps neo could get 1080 60fps, it would be a huge leap IMO. I've recently got a 4k tv, and yes 4k at 60fps is amazing, 4k at 30 hz isn't that great IMO.

It interesting. I see this sentiment quite often, that once you get used to 60 FPS anything less is unacceptable. I don't doubt that for you and many people that is the case, but it's never held true for me. I jump back and forth between games at 60 FPS and 30 FPS quite often and I've never had a huge problem with it.

I split my gaming time fairly evenly between console and PC because my PC is a few years old so I play most new AAA games on PS4, but still use my PC quite often for older and/or less intensive games. The only frame rate related issues that really bother me are highly variable framerates or excessively low framerates (20s and under). Even jumping straight from playing Dark Souls 3 at 60 FPS to Destiny and The Division at 30 on PS4 the same week didn't bother me at all.

I still appreciate and prefer 60 FPS, but I'm totally fine with a locked 30. I guess I'm just lucky that it doesn't bother me like it does some people that routinely play games at 60 FPS.

@oursin_360: Don't you have to match refresh rate with frame rate though? I don't think refresh rates matter as much if you don't run it with an adequate enough frame rate. Also, 30Hz? I know 60Hz, though not 30. I wouldn't think 30 would be good either. I like 60fps, and I can totally notice the difference between 30 to 60, but I think I'd rather have other visual aspects introduced into an update than 60fps, as long as they also make the fps a steady 30. I have two 4k TV's available to play on, but I don't, nor would I be able to when it comes to PC games. Also, when it comes to film, a higher refresh rate can make them look super weird.

Same for me. I just hate when frames jump ten above or below often in some games (as an example), that's all that bothers me. I can play games back to back that have differing fps' with no issue.

maybe bloodborne could not be a hot mess during certain boss battles/areas?

All of em.

I am sorta on the boat.

When it comes to gameplay and frame rate depending on each other (fighting games, FromSoftware RPGs sort of), the optimal performance would matter for me.

The feeling of an excellent framerate is undeniable, but I'd say I'm in the same boat as the above two posters. 60 fps for most console games is pretty low on the list of improvements I'd want Neo modes to have. More enemies, destruction, physics, shorter loads, better textures, there are lots of things more worth improving. Depends on the game. It would be cool to see some crazy fps games that are mirrors edge trial mode levels of simple and just run them at 120 fps or something. I'd be in to that also.

I think Sony pretty much bans any gameplay affecting changes like more enemies or destruction (unless you mean just cosmetic destruction, like textures or whatever.)

We're not going to get anything that PC gamers don't already get in the ports of their games. So something like frame rate, load times, or higher definition textures are possible, but not something like, say, the difference between Shadow of Mordor on the PS3 and on the PS4.

Personally I think that insofar as old games are revisited (and I doubt they will be with a couple exceptions) my wish list is 1) fix frame rates (Fallout 4, Just Cause 3); 2) Increase resolution to 1080p; 3) Improve load times where possible.

Something like un-letterboxing The Order doesn't appeal to me because that game was ultimately designed to run in that aspect ratio (even if it was for performance reasons.) I also just don't see a lot of games getting backwards looking upgrades. Most games sell the vast majority of their copies straight out the gate, so there's not much profit in going back and fixing the frame rate on older games for some subset of the buying public. Now something like Fallout 4, which continues to have DLC, maybe that's different, and I hope they do improve that. Of course with Bethesda's crack programming squad they'll probably end up wiping your save and deleting all necks from the game in the 'upgraded' version.

When did 60 vs 30 fps become such a huge issue? Maybe it's because I've gotten older and more aware of these kinds of things, but it seems like there was a clear "before" and "after" that began around the end of the ps2 era/beginning of the 360/ps3 era. As someone who goes between 30/60 fps regularly, its baffling.

The answer is when people moved away from interlaced TVs incapable of displaying progressive scan...which for many people was about the end of the PS2 era beginning of 360. Many CRT tvs couldn't display progressive scan so 30 vs 60 was not a big deal (since 60i doesn't look that different from 30p). Increased image quality also made frame rate issues a little more obvious.

I think people like to say they hate 30 fps just because it's the hot shit to brag about their PC with. I'd rather a game have a steady framerate than anything else; I usually cap my games at 45 FPS on the PC so I can bump up the effects if need be. I'd rather a smooth 30-45 fps than jumping around between 50-60, because then the frame timing is all fucked up and it feels like garbage anyway.

I was content with playing Bloodborne for over 200 hours at 30 fps ( or lower sometimes) but I wouldn't mind if From Software updated it to run better on Neo. Maybe Dark Souls 3 too? I have a pc that can run it just fine but play it mostly on console for the pvp.

yeah, most monitors tv's are 60hz or above, but until recently 4k tv's couldn't or wouldn't get a signal over 30hz at that resolution, which i'm sure is what the ps Neo will be able to do if it will do anything at 4k. Basically hz is the refresh rate, and frames fps are the animation frames that match your refresh rate. I've used programs on pc that change the monitor to 30 hz to match a game at 30fps before, and it does look a bit smoother than 30fps on a regular 60hz display.

But anyway, it's just my personal opinion which is actually different than it was a year ago which was more like yours. But to me, fps is way more important than resolution, especially at 4k with a console and that's what i'd like to see the psNeo do.

@oursin_360: I wasn't arguing fps vs resolution really. Not sure if you thought that or not. I'm just saying, if a game can become a steady 30, as well as manage to put in other aspects, like somewhat better lighting, better texture work, etc. I'd rather have that than the game look the same as it did before, just 60fps. Also, it's probably more realistic I think right? I doubt they'll be able to make The Witcher 3 run at 60fps.

Uhh...improving things like lighting and textures is a HECK of a lot more work than improving frame rate (some frame rate improvement may come 'naturally' depending on the way the Neo handles normal PS4 games.) Now they may do it, because the lighting and texture code already exists for the PC version for a game like the Witcher, but it still needs to be implemented and patched into the PS4 version. Frame rate and resolution improvements seem MUCH more likely, since that doesn't involve implementing new assets.

Of course the most likely outcome is 'no change' because upgrading games for the Neo is unlikely to move units.

I just want a console where developers don't have to drastically downgrade their engine's capabilities that hamper their art directions and tech. I don't mind a retexture or remodel here and there for the sake of performance, but something like The Witcher 3 or Watchdogs is unacceptable for a console generation this early.

That's why I hope they make Cyberpunk 2077 the way its intended.

@bigsocrates: I was thinking about 60fps in 4k, not just 60fps in 1080p or what have you.

I'm largely the same way - 60fps is far nicer, but 30fps is fine (hell, I played Dirt 2 in a 640x480 window and it peaked 22fps [avg. 17fps], and had a decent enough time playing it. Uneven framerates are a nightmare, but a reasonably constant framerate, regardless of value, is generally playable).

More on topic, Until Dawn could probably benefit from a Neo bump. Majority of the time it looks fine, but occasionally some of the character animations start to look a little framey. Smoothing those out wouldn't go amiss.

On the other end of the spectrum, when I played Last of Us Remastered I kept the framerate at 30FPS. Something about the 60 just felt unnatural, sort like how soap operas look hyperreal compared to regular films or primetime TV.

I'd love to play Bloodborne at 60FPS but that ain't happening with the specs they're going for. I'm not getting steady 60FPS in Dark Souls 3 on my PC and it's already way better than the specs of the NEO. Maybe the closed platform buffer will fill that gap but I honestly think From Software are just terrible at optimizing their games.

@humanity: I too doubt that they'd be able to get 60fps with Bloodborne, but a steady 30 would be much appreciated, and I think doable.

@stordoff: Yeah, that game looks good, but the frame rate was an issue I thought; the biggest hindrance when it came to its visuals. It was one of those games that had an uneven frame rate.

@nodima: Weirdly, I was totally fine with the 30fps on PS3 for The Last of Us; it was a non issue, but when I switched back and forth between it on PS4, I was astonished at how bad the 30fps was. It made me question whether it was really 30fps.

@ntm: Yah but man if "Steady 30 FPS" is the new goal for these improved consoles then what are we even doing. I mean 30 FPS is supposed to be the standard now.

Would 'more stuff' be allowed? I feel like that would go against the rules. I think graphical improvements are fine, but Sony doesn't want the non-neo games to be gimped gameplay wise.

@masterrain: @bigsocrates: I think more stuff is allowed, but it depends what that more stuff is. Not having more stuff doesn't make a game gimped...

Guess we'll know for sure when the games come out and this is all just conjecture, buy my example would be, say, if we took Resogun, and made a Neo mode, I'm pretty certain the devs could add even more particle effects. Could they add more enemies? Possibly. I think it really depends what the effect is. If Dynasty Warriors on PS4 can show 75 npcs at once and PS4 NEO can show 100 that too seems to be within their rules.

What the rules say is you cannot have unique mechanics or modes but you 100% can have enhanced modes (so long as they are offline). If you are allowed to make a 2 player co-op mode 4 player co-op, then obviously that would require balance changes to number of enemies, etc.

Anyways, whatever you do change, my ultimate point was just that framerate is low on my list. Not off the list, just low.

Can't say about the last of us, but i played a bit of the Uncharted 2 demo on ps4 and it felt pretty damn good. Then again TLoU is a more slow paced game.

I've found some games that were designed around 30fps play better that way, like Dark Souls 1 is glitchy as hell at 60 fps and some games have a lot of motion blur for 30fps and when they move to 60 they cause me some motion sickness.

Everything across the board a solid 60 FPS 1080p is all I want. (yeah I know its a pipe dream)

Depends on whether the improvements are noticeable, really. I wonder how Unity will roll on this hardware, given how that engine has its issues on PS4.

The Witcher 3 is all I really got. If they can just somehow magically fix the sluggishness to everything that'd be rad too. Invisible Inc has some wierd end of turn slow down. Other than that maybe EDF or Dynasty Warriors. Both could just use more shit on screen. I heard that new Final Fantasy doesn't run too hot but I'm sure that'll happen.

If everything else could just magically run and look better that'd be cool too.

@humanity: No, I'm not talking about a steady 30 for new games to come, but games we already have and played, like The Witcher 3 and Bloodborne, but then adding other graphical enhancements to them. Bloodborne, as I said, I'd like a steady 30, if they can manage to get the game using better anti-aliasing, and perhaps other things, compared to just 60fps. I wasn't saying I hope all game in the future are a solid 30fps.

@geraltitude: You might be right, but my interpretation of those rules would be that there should be no gameplay differences only visual, so just like changing the settings in a PC game. Stuff like more enemies is a different game. I think Sony has to be very careful not to piss off 'old' PS4 owners, seeing a neo version populated with more stuff and thus more fun gameplay is a sure way to get some good internet rage coming your way. Internet rage took down the Xbox One, and it has no loyalty, that same consumer rage directed their way could damage the PS4.

I would buy it if Bloodborne was improved