Back there with NES and SNES we had screenshots to sell games too, yet 99% of games were 60fps. I guess the standards were higher at that time :p
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Next-gen has to mass-transition to 60fps
- Thread starter Wollan
- Start date
In theory the graphics can get better. But the costs in achieving this is blowing up. Now the problem isn't "can the hardware run this", but "can we even afford to spend the time and money to make it look that good, and could we make our money back?"
Games getting prettier is now a massive drain on time and money. All that detail needed to be hand-drawn by somebody. Procedural generation helps but only a little.
With Mass Effect Andromeda, we have a team that had to massively shrink the number of planets in the game not because they couldn't write enough stories for each of them, but because they couldn't get the terrain generation to work right. Other than the famous graphic bugs, the fact that graphic issues ended up hampering the physical quantity of gameplay is very concerning.
And of course, there is the FFXV, which had to be re-written so much to work around the limits of what the graphics can deliver. And be unable to make important changes once the graphics are baked because it would take too long to redraw things.
I am just sick of the story and gameplay suffering due to sacrifices needed to make the game pretty. That's not suppose to happen, but here we are.
I cant see it happening myself, if you really want 60fps (and above) you're going to have to build a PC
Zero camera movement? It's a third-person action game with bows and thrown weapons. The camera is moving all the time.
The problem is that modern displays don't flicker at a rate of 24Hz.
Displaying 24 FPS content at a refresh rate which is a multiple of 24 eliminates telecine judder.
Displaying it on a flicker-free screen introduces significant motion blur and judder due to persistence of vision. People praising 24 FPS seem to ignore that.
There are two white circles going back and forth across the screen. Both move at the same low framerate.
Assuming that your current display is flicker-free, the upper circle will not flicker.
The lower circle flickers at a very low refresh rate.
If you track the motion of the two circles, covering up one at a time, you should see that the lower circle appears to move much more smoothly than the upper circle, and each frame is distinct.
The upper circle appears to judder, and the frames almost seem to blend together.
That is the difference between a proper 24Hz presentation of film, and how our modern displays present 24 FPS content.
24 FPS sources do not look how they were originally intended, due to a lack of flickering, and enabling interpolation or moving to HFR sources is the fix.
So if I want to watch 24hz content on my 120hz monitor and to have it look right.
How would I do that?
How would I do that?
You cant see 60 fps on tv ads. It's a marketing nightmare. So when given the choice which one do you choose from that perpective? It's a pretty clear choice.
I personally dislike 30fps full stop, I tolerate it to play console exclusives but I will never lock a PC game to 30, ever. Even if I have to put the game to very low and drop the res just to hit at least 60.
to me 60 is the bare minimum of enjoyable framerate.
This. It's dreadful for actions movies. Movies like Transformers with fast paced action scenes suffer consideraly because of the low amount of frames per second.
While Michael Bay would do well to stop ORBITING THE DAMN CAMERA FOR NO REASON, I think a huge factor in the perception of his movies being visually chaotic and non-cohesive is because the framerate is so low that the ridiculous amount of stuff onscreen doesn't sink in. I think temporal resolution is way more important than people give it credit.
Yes you can. TV broadcasts are often 720p60. It's just that marketing companies don't provide 60fps source material a lot of the time.
Just Cause 3 is basically a case study for why this isn't a thing. Graphical fidelity isn't the only reason for lower frame rates. Games can be CPU limited due to the nature of the gameplay.
I do wonder if 60fps is a given when new consoles get a decent CPU. Look at the graphic grunt in the consoles already, particularly what the Pro and X can do, that's with the terrible Jaguar. Next gen will have a much better GPU and a good CPU, I actually think people are underestimating what a good CPU would do and still deliver amazing visuals. What is going to eat into the CPU that 30fps is so hard to come by next gen considering it won't be a toaster CPU like this gen.
I don't believe in mandating a specific resolution or frames per second. If you want 60fps then stick to high end PC gaming.
And why do you see films being shot at 24fps as a negative? There is something magical about 24fps in regards to movies. I've seen The Hobbit at 48fps and it looked cheap. I don't want my movies looking like Soap Operas.
And why do you see films being shot at 24fps as a negative? There is something magical about 24fps in regards to movies. I've seen The Hobbit at 48fps and it looked cheap. I don't want my movies looking like Soap Operas.
60FPS is the most overrated feature in the history of gaming. The compromises to get that frame rate for something the majority of people playing the game can't even notice is pointless. Fighting games, driving games and twitch sooters are the only games 60 is worth the effort.
I feel like "shit optimization" is pretty asinine thing to say. Games are made on a schedule and for this one they prioritized one version over another. Also It's pretty difficult to say anything about optimization unless you actually have the games source code to read through. Like it or not the Consoles just have terrrible CPUs and that will show in physics heavy games like Just Cause 3.
Bullshit, plenty of games with more intensive physics run wayy better than Just Cause 3. Just Cause 3 is an unoptimzed piece of shit on ANY platform.
Disagree. People might not know it's 60fps or 30fps but I bet they appreciate the smoothness. I don't think COD would be as successful if it was 30fps. All the big shooters aim for 60fps, not a coincidence, it's just better to play whether people know the difference or not. Is there compromises, sure but the better the tech gets the less extreme it is.
Next gen won't solve that issue and we'll still get games like Battlefront 2015 with pretty graphics and next to no content. That's why I'm happy about mid gen console refreshes since that can push existing games to theoretical higher framerates which is impossible to demand from developers from the beginning. While I'm confident that the chase for the most beautiful graphics will result in developers cutting into their own flesh, they still should be allowed to follow their own vision of games. We don't need companies to dictate how games have to look and play like, except when it comes to the bare minimum like QA.
On closed platforms, it's not just prettier visuals that are enabled by targeting 30fps from the ground up. It's potentially everything. The size, scale and breadth of the game world, better physics, animations, AI, improved weather systems, the number of enemies, number of NPCs, degree of dynamics and so on.
That is the reason most open world games are 30fps on consoles. They can't simply be lowered in graphical fidelity until they hit 60fps. Were they 60fps, the games would have to be fundamentally changed, and the gameplay itself would be impacted.
Closed platform development on consoles isn't like how you game on PC's, where it's a few graphical sliders to change between the two.
Also, how exactly do you play a game? By responding to the visual information on display. Graphics matter too. If a game is trying to sell you on a particular scene, mood, sense of scale, sense of realism etc, jaggies, bad lighting, poor textures, lower poly assets, a low draw distance etc, all of these things can impair that sense of realism, grandeur, believability, level of immersion etc, which all impact gameplay too.
As a side example, for me, really poor jaggies, textures etc in certain genres of games, impact my gameplay far more than 30fps does. As long as a game is a solid 30fps, after literally 2-3 minutes I'll completely adjust and forget the frame rate is even 30fps, whilst the IQ woes are there the entire time, and stick out constantly. Poor IQ isn't something you can really adjust to, because it isn't a constant thing, it has ever varying degrees of harshness or impact.
Also, input lag needn't be high because a game is 30fps. There are console games that actually specifically work on rendering and optimisation techniques to reduce input lag to the point where their input lag is comparable to other 60fps games. Eg DRIVECLUB and Destiny 2 have a similar input lag to Tekken 7, Street Fighter V, Mortal Kombat X, Master Chief Collection, Marvel vs Capcom etc, despite the latter being 60fps whilst the former are 30fps.
Last edited:
Yup. People might not know the term, but they understand the change in fluidity when you go from CoD to a 30fps shooter.
Either way it doesn't change my point. Whether the code is sloppy or it just requires more cpu power to run the game as is just "reducing the settings" won't make it hit 60. Also I want to know what these games are? Can you name an open world game that does so much with physics and runs at a solid 30 on consoles? I'd really like to know sense I can't think of one.
Such a strange statement
Some people might not know what "60fps" is, but they'll definitely feel the impact of smoother camera panning, smoother animation, and much more responsive controls, no matter what they're playing. Even if it's just some slow-paced RPG. Feedback in general is improved considerably.
It's about time 60fps becomes the bare minimum standard in this industry (again). It's really quite unfortunate that Nintendo is the only one carrying that torch (even if they have to make occasional concessions). And despite having the weakest hardware too. And their games sell gangbusters anyway.
I really don't know what to make of Just Cause 3. Its destruction is extremely impressive, and its explosions are very explosion-ey. But it has performance issues on high end PCs and has a glaringly poorly made PC port. So I can't help thinking the game is, for lack of a better term, poorly coded. If your coding skills lead to a PC port that breaks completely at non 16:9 resolutions, I fundamentally don't trust anything about your game. (Just Cause 3 was by their American team, while the Swedish one made Mad Max.) Also, Just Cause 3 reeks of tech problems. Why the hell is there is a glaring fade to black before and after each cutscene?
In fairness, I think Nintendo is better able to carry that torch because most of their games use a more simplistic art style and aesthetic. In terms of geometry, number of polygons, textures etc. They're clearly not going to be as taxing as something that is going for more realism or complexity.
Hell when they try something with a bit more realism at 60fps, you get results like New Donk City. Compare New Donk City to something like the breathing, bustling, dynamic city in a game like Grand Theft Auto V. Granted even New Donk City still has a paired back fairly playful art direction. I suppose it has to given the framerate and hardware.
Infamous Second Son, GTA V, Horizon ZD, Zelda BOTW etc even the upcoming Crackdown 3 gameplay which was running in Xbox One is more closer to solid 30 than Just Cause 3 is
What's most likely gonna happen is developers will continue to make the art itself first priority until games are pretty much at CG quality. Then we'll see more effort towards increased framerate from next gen or half gen consoles.
If course games where framerate dramatically effects gameplay - racing games, fighting games, online competitive multiplayer, action games that require quick reflexes, etc - framerate will still continue to be first priority.
If course games where framerate dramatically effects gameplay - racing games, fighting games, online competitive multiplayer, action games that require quick reflexes, etc - framerate will still continue to be first priority.
I'm currently playing Super Mario Odyssey and Assassin's Creed: Origins.(PS4 Pro)
After playing AC for a while and then moving on to play Mario, the first thing I think to myself is "wow, this looks and feels so much better."
Going from 30fps to 60fps is far better than extreme resolutions, especially in games with a lot of screen movement. AC:O on the Pro has an average of 1440p with dynamic resolutions, more or less. It already looks so sharp as it is, true 4k doesn't seem worth it.
Resolution definitely has diminishing returns though. The higher the resolution, the smaller the details need to be to look improved.
I'm playing on a 60" KS8000 for reference.
After playing AC for a while and then moving on to play Mario, the first thing I think to myself is "wow, this looks and feels so much better."
Going from 30fps to 60fps is far better than extreme resolutions, especially in games with a lot of screen movement. AC:O on the Pro has an average of 1440p with dynamic resolutions, more or less. It already looks so sharp as it is, true 4k doesn't seem worth it.
Resolution definitely has diminishing returns though. The higher the resolution, the smaller the details need to be to look improved.
I'm playing on a 60" KS8000 for reference.
Well neither infamous nor BOTW do as much with physics as Just Cause 3, I haven't played GTAV yet so I won't touch that one, also doesn't Crackdown 3 use cloud computing for much of it's physics?
Look, I'm not saying Just Cause 3 is perfect under the hood, it seems like there are major issues with the PC version that I didn't know about, but they did try to do something pretty ambitious with the destruction.
Which again goes back to my point. As long as a game can be CPU limited you can't hit 60fps just by "turning down the settings."
Well, to be fair, it's a Mario game lol. Mario games handle better than most non-Mario games.
Just play the content and it will look right straight up ?
You can watch 24 fps content on your 120hz with SVP manager to crank it up to 120 fps. But that's for another topic
Botw literally does everything with physics. Destruction engine handling environment isn't the same gameplay wise than elemental interaction. Two different things. But you can push around a lot of things, cut down trees, burn entire plains and freeze water, aswell as lifting metalic objects (on top of destroying some stuff with bombs)
Just cause doesn't run at a solid 30. Zelda doesn't run at a solid 30.
as for cemu i suppose its 60 fps only in shrines ? but yeah I mean, if you can increase graphical fidelity by sacrificing fps, that's almost always the road that will be taken unless you're nintendo
If you play on a well calibrated TV, you wont notice that Horizon is running at 30 fps given how smooth the game is
Last edited:
Dungeons run great on CEMU but overworld it's a struggle to get to a locked 30fps unless you have a heavily overclocked Intel cpu.
yeah don't worry, not even the switch is hitting a constant / smooth 30, be it handheld or docked. game's engine is garbage
It would be nice, but publishers are for the most part going to be pushing for better graphics over frame rate. Much easier to advertise to the masses.
Another thought about the possible direction of PS5:
I'm not quite so sure if there will be a big marketing focus on native 4K for PS5. With the PS4 Pro, Sony introduced a product for people with 4K TVs, while still offering the PS4 for the mass market. And while it sold well, most people still play on PS4, because they don't have a 4K TV. So does it really make sense to release a PS5 with a big focus on native 4K as their new mainstream console? Obviously the PS5 will offer 4K output and will be able to do everything the PS4 Pro can do, and there will be titles which run in native 4K. But maybe it makes more sense to focus marketing on features that everyone can enjoy.
I mean, what sounds more appealing to the mass market, where many people don't have a 4K TV yet:
PS5: A nextgen console focused on 4K gaming. You don't need a 4K TV, but it would be kind of a waste if you don't have one. It's mainly a console for 4K TV owners.
PS5: A nextgen console focused on 60fps gaming. You will get nextgen 60fps games, wether you play on a 1080p or a 4K TV. It's a console for everyone.
I could see people hesitate with the first approach, the second approach seems far more attractive. And then, after 3 years, they can release a PS5 Pro which focuses on native 4K and additional graphic enhancements.
The good thing is, a new generation with a strong CPU allows devs to make a clean cut so you won't notice any compromises. Games would look better than what we have now on PS4 Pro and be 60fps.
I'm not quite so sure if there will be a big marketing focus on native 4K for PS5. With the PS4 Pro, Sony introduced a product for people with 4K TVs, while still offering the PS4 for the mass market. And while it sold well, most people still play on PS4, because they don't have a 4K TV. So does it really make sense to release a PS5 with a big focus on native 4K as their new mainstream console? Obviously the PS5 will offer 4K output and will be able to do everything the PS4 Pro can do, and there will be titles which run in native 4K. But maybe it makes more sense to focus marketing on features that everyone can enjoy.
I mean, what sounds more appealing to the mass market, where many people don't have a 4K TV yet:
PS5: A nextgen console focused on 4K gaming. You don't need a 4K TV, but it would be kind of a waste if you don't have one. It's mainly a console for 4K TV owners.
PS5: A nextgen console focused on 60fps gaming. You will get nextgen 60fps games, wether you play on a 1080p or a 4K TV. It's a console for everyone.
I could see people hesitate with the first approach, the second approach seems far more attractive. And then, after 3 years, they can release a PS5 Pro which focuses on native 4K and additional graphic enhancements.
The good thing is, a new generation with a strong CPU allows devs to make a clean cut so you won't notice any compromises. Games would look better than what we have now on PS4 Pro and be 60fps.
Last edited:
I think that devs would most likely go for new features / more complex simulations, but time will tell ~
There are a lot of people in here who are grossly underestimating how difficult optimization to reach 60fps can be. You don't just lower the visual fidelity and VOILA! 60fps.
Developing games isn't like you tweaking your settings on your PC...
Developing games isn't like you tweaking your settings on your PC...
A well developed game is a well developed game and the frame rate is up to the developer, as long as it's solid. I'm not a fan of the notion of chaining a teams ambitions to an arbitrary standard. We would have never had the Witcher 3, the Last of Us, Shadow of the colossus, Ico, GTAV, RDR, Uncharted, Alien Isolation, not to mention countless, countless others... all of them would not have been possible on the console they released on at 60 frames, by the teams who developed them.
But it's not like 60fps in Nintendo's games is a secondary, arbitrary effect of their art design. They design their games around that framerate from the ground up. They have been doing that for a while now, not just on Switch. It's probably true though that their stylish/cartoonish nature does a good job at hiding the compromises needed to achieve it, but I say that their games often look great regardless, and the smooth framerate that accompanies them is a big factor in that no doubt.
I also refuse the suggestion that 60fps would somehow bring shitty/shittier graphics in "realistic"-looking games. Aren't shooters like Battlefront and Battlefield among the best looking games around? For my money one of the reasons if not the main reason MGSV looked so good back in 2015 was its perfectly steady 60fps.
I guess big, open world games usually will always have trouble with getting to 60fps this generation though (MGSV had the "advantage" of being essentially a crossgen game). Hopefully next-gen hardware will have sufficiently powerful enough CPUs, even for the next evolution of open world games.
That thread was so unbelievably fun. Dissecting every bit of fuzzy, potato quality, leaked shots. I remember thinking that the graphics were insane for PS2.
And for some reason, of so many threads I've read through the years, my time on that thread has stuck with me.
Good to see you, again. I know you were pretty active on GAF but I never bothered to ask.