| Shiken said:
30 fps will never go away...ever. If Bloodborne had been released at 60fps, it would have suffered graphical cuts and people would say, "this is next gen?" But when a game is released at 30 fps people want to complain that it is not 60. Every console or PC build will always have a trade off, you can't have both without investing stupid amounts of money to do so, which in time will also hit that same wall.
Bloodborne will look WAY better than Souls and will probably have smarter AI and such as well. As long as it runs smooth, 30 fps is not and never will be a problem. |
30fps isn't running smooth though. 60fps is running smooth. 30fps is running poorly.
Look, I get that not every game can run at 60fps. I'm even okay with that. What bothers me is when there's no gameplay benefit, or nothing groundbreaking to offset the bad framerate. When Shadow of the Collosus ran like garbage on the PS2, I was fine with it because it made sacrifices everywhere with the pinpoint focus of providing a gameplay experience that could not be provided at the time without it. I'm fine with No Man's Sky not running at 60fps, because it's game design demands the sacrifice in performance to produce a game not seen before. I'm even more lenient on open world games, though that leniency is fading as technology progresses. Bloodborne is not doing any of that, at all. There's nothing revolutionary about it. It's just a great game with high intensive graphics on hardware that clearly can't support it.
It's the job of an art designer to make a game look good, not its graphics. That's why Metroid Prime was the best looking game of its time when it came out at 60fps. Obviously the game could have looked better at 30fps, but the developers made the right choice and sacrificed high intensity graphics that weren't even needed to make the game look good, in order to make the game run at an acceptable framerate.
Dark Souls II is clear proof that a game like Bloodborne is possible on the PS4 at 60fps, not that any proof is needed. If Bloodborne was 720p, which I'm not sure that it is, it could make up much of the graphical ground lost from the performance boost, just at a less clear resolution. There is absolutely nothing outstanding about the AI found in Bloodborne either. Well designed? Absolutely. More complex than what is found in Dark Souls, enough to so harshly cut the framerate? I highly doubt it with the way this game is being evidently designed, and with the gameplay we've been shown thus far.
So what we're left with is a great looking game with a poor framerate that would have still looked great at the entirely reachable 60fps. And don't get me wrong, it's still one of my most anticipated games of the year, but I definitely won't act like I'm happy that it's not as good as it could be given the tech it's on.
