By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - It's not about the framerate!

Lulz said:
theprof00 said:
Lulz said:
theprof00 said:

I don't know how detractors have managed to control a debate to such a point that it no longer makes sense arguing, but it's happened. At this point, both sides are arguing whether you can see the 1080 vs 720 difference, whether fuzziness lends a more cinematic experience, and if too much AA makes things too hard to see.

It's all nonsense.

The argument was never about whether CoD had better shacks, or whether AC4 had "just the right amount of smoke", or if Lara's skin looked 'so lifelike'.

It was about the undeniable FACT of these differences within multiplats PROVES the massive power difference.

People would say, I don't see much of a difference in the resolutions. It doesn't matter what you think...it takes a massive amount of power to go from 720 to 1080. They would think that is a legitimate argument within the context of power! It's like every single new thread that pops up about this is addressing it from such a skewed perspective. And about multiplats no less, where console optimization is likely minimal at best.

Just because you don't think the visual fidelity looks much better, it doesn't mean the capabilities are equal! It doesn't mean that those little differences will be the only difference you'll ever see. Launch multiplat unoptimized ports showing PROVEN difference immediately should tell you that.

I am so tired of reading this garbage everyday. I just want these framerate threads to end. It's so incessant and mindless.

well i'll just leave it at that.

Yeah, you sure told us! You're so sick of this topic and all the threads about it that you decided to make another thread about it!!!! 

Thanks!

You sure told me, with your xbox sig featuring the only five franchises you'll see for the next 7 years.

I see I struck a nerve. Way to avoid my pointing out of how ridiculous it is to create a thread complaining about a topic that you think there are too many threads about.

Also, how are you enjoying your PS exclusives so far? Having fun with KZ and................................

LMFAO!

Thanks for the lulz, kid.

Pointing out how ridiculous? Nah, you did a great job being rude tho.

I wasn't making a thread about how we have too many threads. I made a thread about how an argument about power slowly was spun into an argument about framerate.

It's almost a completely different topic, a meta-topic looking at how a negative was being turned into a null argument. It's like saying one banquet has filet mignon and another has strip steak and then slowly everyone arguing about how the color is the same so there is no difference really.

PS: If you're going to include halo and titanfall in your sig, doesn't really make sense to exclude all the ps franchises and talk about launch titles, does it? But thanks, you've made the quintessential metaphor for how the spin I'm addressing in the OP works. You really nailed it.



Around the Network
Mr Puggsly said:
theprof00 said:
Mr Puggsly said:
superhippy420 said:
I really don't understand how the Xbox One is having trouble running games at 60 FPS, when the Wii was able to run Smash Bros, Mario Kart, Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 and Donkey Kong at 60 FPS. I get they are different types of games (cartoon style vs. more realistic) but the Xbox One should have ton's of power to make it happen.


Developers are still learning how to better optimize the hardware.

Your examples aren't the most visually demanding games either. I mean BF4 and Forza 5 run at 60 fps and technically look much better than the games you mentioned.

Dude, it's over. The power resides in the ps4, by over 30%. The difference will be shown, and for many it will be way too late..because they think 1080 vs 720 is the difference. It's much more than that.

Hmmmm? What are you babbling about? Did you respond to the wrong post?

I anticipated the differences between many X1 and PS4 games will be resolution and/or frame rate and its been true thus far.

If they can put a game on PS4, they can put it on X1. The PS4 version will just always have a visual and/or frame rate advantage. At the end of the day, I guarantee the average consumer doesn't care about graphics as much as forum dwellers. Average consumers certainly aren't counting pixels or frames either.

My "babbling" just goes to show what you anticipated is pretty short-sighted. You think these early games are confirming your viewpoint, but it's really just coincidence.



Well who would of thought the same debates would result from this thread?

Certainly not me >_>

Good job in adding to it haha.



http://imageshack.com/a/img801/6426/f7pc.gif

^Yes that's me ripping it up in the GIF. :)

theprof00 said:

You're one of the people the OP is addressed at. You think that the minimal differences you see on a visual level on a multiplat is all there is, and that diminishing returns confirms that the power difference really means nothing....confirmed by your own two eyes.

The differences you're seeing now in multiplats are the tip of the iceberg for the differences you'll be seeing later on.


Both consoles run on the same CPU, have same GPU architecture(kinda) and both will get optimised in the future, so it's not like the difference will be bigger when PS4 games get optimised because X1 games will also get optimised. The difference will be the same as it is right now in multiplatform games.



Ashadian said:
Chris Hu said:
The power difference really isn't that huge its not like we are talking about original X-Box versus PS2 or SNES versus Sega Genesis/Megadrive where with those you could easily spot the power difference even without having side by side screen comparisons.

No your right the power difference is negligable at best isn't it???? 1080p vs720/900p? 30fps vs 60fps??? That isn't huge is it?


Well if you owned the four consoles that I mentioned like I did then you know first hand that there was a much bigger difference between them there is between the X1 and PS4.  The SNES could do Mode 7 which is only one major different between it and the Genesis.  The original X-Box had twice as much ram and ran at 733 Mhz compared to the 299 Mhz of the PS2 which is a lot more then the 50% overal advantage the PS4 has over the X1.  You also have to realize that most people can barely see the difference between 1080p and 720/900p and 30 fps and 60 fps since most people don't have a proper size tv set to actually make the difference noticable and on top of that most people don't have perfect 20/20 vision.



Around the Network

Sorry if people want the better version of a game.

Next time my mum or gyal buys the expensive perfume instead of the cheap crap that smells almos like it i will tell them not to bother.


Your title makes you look silly by the way because one thing that can make or break a game is frames per second.



Nobody's perfect. I aint nobody!!!

Killzone 2. its not a fps. it a FIRST PERSON WAR SIMULATOR!!!! ..The true PLAYSTATION 3 launch date and market dominations is SEP 1st

Chris Hu said:
Fusioncode said:
How the hell did this turn into an SNES vs Genesis thread? Are we back in the 90s? Alright, may as well go with it. Genesis wins because it had Sonic and Knuckles.


The Genesis had some decent games but the SNES was pretty much superior in every aspect plus since it could do Mode 7 games like Teenage Muntant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time, Mario Kart, Star Fox, Super Castlevannia IV and any other SNES game that used Mode 7 couldn't have been done on the Genesis plus on top of it most SNES games used more colors and had better sound.  On top of that it had a vastly superior controler with a better d-pad and four extra buttons.


The megadrive had a better version of the lion king game. Snes version had less detail on screen at any given time. As if the camera was zoomed in. resolution related? Could be. 

Also the megadrive had teh blast processing :D



Nobody's perfect. I aint nobody!!!

Killzone 2. its not a fps. it a FIRST PERSON WAR SIMULATOR!!!! ..The true PLAYSTATION 3 launch date and market dominations is SEP 1st

The Genesis had a slightly faster processor but overall power the SNES was way ahead Mode 7 isn't the only effect that couldn't be done on the Genesis on top of that the SNES could display more colors run at a higher resolution and had a better sound chip.  Not to mention that the SNES also featured a vastly superior controller.



Chris Hu said:

The Genesis had a slightly faster processor but overall power the SNES was way ahead Mode 7 isn't the only effect that couldn't be done on the Genesis on top of that the SNES could display more colors run at a higher resolution and had a better sound chip.  Not to mention that the SNES also featured a vastly superior controller.


In your opinion.

My mum actually hated that the sness had shoulder buttons because of the way she holds her cotrollers. She is strange, She holds them fingers on top thumbs on the underside. So her fingers were used to for the d=pad and face buttons istead of her thumbs. 

 

Its really frustraiting to watch.



Nobody's perfect. I aint nobody!!!

Killzone 2. its not a fps. it a FIRST PERSON WAR SIMULATOR!!!! ..The true PLAYSTATION 3 launch date and market dominations is SEP 1st

Serious_frusting said:
Chris Hu said:

The Genesis had a slightly faster processor but overall power the SNES was way ahead Mode 7 isn't the only effect that couldn't be done on the Genesis on top of that the SNES could display more colors run at a higher resolution and had a better sound chip.  Not to mention that the SNES also featured a vastly superior controller.


In your opinion.

My mum actually hated that the sness had shoulder buttons because of the way she holds her cotrollers. She is strange, She holds them fingers on top thumbs on the underside. So her fingers were used to for the d=pad and face buttons istead of her thumbs. 

 

Its really frustraiting to watch.


Not only in my opion but in most peoples opinions especially people that where huge fans of fighting games.