firebush03 said:
I see what you’re saying, but the purpose of this thread isn’t about whether you rock-steady 60FPS or a nice 4k resolution, it’s about whether you prefer to see games that push what their respective hardware is capable of to the point of needing lower FPS (20FPS in the case of OoT, 30FPS in the case of RDR2 as examples). Hmm not sure how to convey this… let me see if this new title does a better job. |
There's a use case for both. Super Mario 64 runs faster than Ocarina of Time, but the tradeoff was far simpler graphics and a smaller scope. Ocarina of Time, meanwhile, did have a much larger scope and much more detailed graphics. Having, simple, chunky polygon models in exchange for faster performance would have made it look like Mega Man 64, and would not have done justice to what Nintendo was trying to accomplish. A bump in framerate in exchange for a low-res world would not have improved the experience in OoT or Majora's Mask.
Super Mario 64 was built to hum along at a fast pace. Ocarina of Time was built to present a grand adventure with as much detail as they could wring out of the hardware they had. Super Mario 64 needed performance more. Ocarina of Time needed graphical fidelity more.
If I'm playing a fighting game, I'm going to opt for performance because higher framerates are a clear benefit there, but if performance mode makes the game look like complete ass, I'm not going to be interested.
If I'm playing an adventure or a RPG, 60FPS is nice, but not a must-have, while graphical fidelity is going to be more important, as long as the game steady otherwise.
Last edited by SanAndreasX - 1 day ago
