Quantcast
Scarlett Will Prioritize Frame Rate Over Graphics

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Scarlett Will Prioritize Frame Rate Over Graphics

Tagged games:

Do you prefer 60/4k with reduced visuals or 30/4k with increased visuals?

YES! 27 38.57%
 
No. 5 7.14%
 
Depends on the game. 31 44.29%
 
I dont care. 7 10.00%
 
Total:70
NobleTeam360 said:
Isn't framerate vs graphics largely up to the developers? I mean, maybe MS will force framerate over graphics on its own developers?

Ofcourse its up for devs, dude is talking out of his ass like always.



 

Around the Network
LudicrousSpeed said:

Nice. Horizon 4 looks gorgeous in 4k but I always play in the 60fps mode. 

It's pretty cool when console games even offer a choice between 4k / 60fps, rocket league on Switch has the same sort of thing, either higher res/details or locked 60 but the visuals take the hit.

Choice is what it should be all about, give the user the option where they wanna shove the power and make it as easy as a tickbox of [] Performance mode and most users will be happy with the choice.



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

ClassicGamingWizzz said:
NobleTeam360 said:
Isn't framerate vs graphics largely up to the developers? I mean, maybe MS will force framerate over graphics on its own developers?

Ofcourse its up for devs, dude is talking out of his ass like always.

He's just talking about first party stuff I'd say, kinda like how most Nintendo games on the Switch are locked 60fps but then you have the 3rd party titles like Doom/Wolfenstein and such happily coming in at 30fps. When it comes to game development, the way the game runs is always down to the developer.



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

Ganoncrotch said:
ClassicGamingWizzz said:

Ofcourse its up for devs, dude is talking out of his ass like always.

He's just talking about first party stuff I'd say, kinda like how most Nintendo games on the Switch are locked 60fps but then you have the 3rd party titles like Doom/Wolfenstein and such happily coming in at 30fps. When it comes to game development, the way the game runs is always down to the developer.

From what I know there are first party games on Switch that are 30fps.

like Zelda BotW



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

CGI-Quality said:

Educate who/how and what is it that you do for a living that is relevant to this discussion? :P

You tell me who, apparently someone in here is a layman and i am curious to know. Happy to help, i dont charge for knowledge however sometimes i think i should on here. Apparently everyone in here is an eye optometrist.

Last edited by Azzanation - on 17 August 2019

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
CGI-Quality said:

Eh, I game on a 27" 4K HDR monitor and can sit a good 8-12' away and still be satisfied.

Seems like many still use those reverse distance x resolution chartz that are spread around. Where it is bad to have a 4k TV if the monitor is to small, or that it's bad to have a big TV if you sit to close.

DF mentions many times on the Switch that 720p looks sharp on a small screen in portable mode. This is no different the bigger the screen the more noticable the pixels get.

I gamed on a 42inch 1080p screen and it looked super sharp. Going to 55inch 4k screen, i can tell if i am running 1080p instead of 4k. 

Honestly anything around 30inches i am happen to drop resolution for preformance however on a big 4k TV i wont, due to how noticable it is.

It doesnt take a rocket science to see a difference, however it depends if its worth the preformance gap.



DonFerrari said:
Ganoncrotch said:

He's just talking about first party stuff I'd say, kinda like how most Nintendo games on the Switch are locked 60fps but then you have the 3rd party titles like Doom/Wolfenstein and such happily coming in at 30fps. When it comes to game development, the way the game runs is always down to the developer.

From what I know there are first party games on Switch that are 30fps.

like Zelda BotW

Very much so there are! Breath of the Wild was also in development for a long time before the Switch hardware was probably finalised, that game works on the Switch as well as it can given the scope of the title. But the stuff which was designed more with Switch in mind like Splatoon2, Arms, Mario Ody, MK8D, Yoshi Crafted World (even running on unreal engine) all target and for the most part are locked to 60fps then with the hits taken to either resolution, visuals or both in the case of Yoshi.

Breath of the wild also probably fluctuates far more from 30fps than any of the other listed games drops from 60fps, I think their priority in creating and releasing that game was to release the game, the frame-rate was serviceable (was fixed somewhat after launch in some regions) but definitely the main prio was the game to be delivered as it was designed.

You take one walk through Korok village and you will never see anywhere close to locked 30fps, that region is so crazy how built up it is and then so densely filled with grass, leaves, npcs and other items, it's almost like they wanted it to be somewhere you didn't run through quickly... I dunno how it got through testing and wasn't cut back a little bit, even if you go there yourself and just spin out some of the grass the performance comes back a bit, but to release it and leave it as it is was always shocking to me.



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

Ganoncrotch said:
DonFerrari said:

From what I know there are first party games on Switch that are 30fps.

like Zelda BotW

Very much so there are! Breath of the Wild was also in development for a long time before the Switch hardware was probably finalised, that game works on the Switch as well as it can given the scope of the title. But the stuff which was designed more with Switch in mind like Splatoon2, Arms, Mario Ody, MK8D, Yoshi Crafted World (even running on unreal engine) all target and for the most part are locked to 60fps then with the hits taken to either resolution, visuals or both in the case of Yoshi.

Breath of the wild also probably fluctuates far more from 30fps than any of the other listed games drops from 60fps, I think their priority in creating and releasing that game was to release the game, the frame-rate was serviceable (was fixed somewhat after launch in some regions) but definitely the main prio was the game to be delivered as it was designed.

You take one walk through Korok village and you will never see anywhere close to locked 30fps, that region is so crazy how built up it is and then so densely filled with grass, leaves, npcs and other items, it's almost like they wanted it to be somewhere you didn't run through quickly... I dunno how it got through testing and wasn't cut back a little bit, even if you go there yourself and just spin out some of the grass the performance comes back a bit, but to release it and leave it as it is was always shocking to me.

That is the strangest part, made to run on WiiU but still have the roadblocks on Switch. But won't derail the thread on it.

Just wanted to say that even though Nintendo focus a lot on 60fps it isn't mandatory even for then. There may be other games that will be 30fps until the sucessor.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

Seems like many still use those reverse distance x resolution chartz that are spread around. Where it is bad to have a 4k TV if the monitor is to small, or that it's bad to have a big TV if you sit to close.

DF mentions many times on the Switch that 720p looks sharp on a small screen in portable mode. This is no different the bigger the screen the more noticable the pixels get.

I gamed on a 42inch 1080p screen and it looked super sharp. Going to 55inch 4k screen, i can tell if i am running 1080p instead of 4k. 

Honestly anything around 30inches i am happen to drop resolution for preformance however on a big 4k TV i wont, due to how noticable it is.

It doesnt take a rocket science to see a difference, however it depends if its worth the preformance gap.

I agree with you there. I had a 21" monitor and for the life of me I was never able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p in there. I was like, wtf are these people talking about?

It wasn't until I upgraded to a 24" that I started to notice the difference, and even then it was negligible.



Azzanation said:
CGI-Quality said:

Educate who/how and what is it that you do for a living that is relevant to this discussion? :P

You tell me who, apparently someone in here is a layman and i am curious to know. Happy to help, i dont charge for knowledge however sometimes i think i should on here. Apparently everyone in here is an eye optometrist.

Considering it was you who called something 'eye-popingly better', this should have been left out of the post. In reality, you don't have to be an eye optometrist (a term you're using out of place as it is) to give a view on something.

As far as who you can 'educate', what exactly do you think it is you can teach someone in here? 

Last edited by CGI-Quality - on 17 August 2019