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!

RazorDragon on 25 January 2014
Kane1389 said:
RazorDragon said:
Kane1389 said:
RazorDragon said:

Both consoles are completely underpowered against a current PC, so I find comparing framerates and resolution pointless when those games can be played at like, 4K and 120FPS on PCs.


You can play these games at 360FPS and 8K resolution on a NASA super computer so i find comparing framterates and resolutions pointless


NASA computers run proprietary OS's, so games can't be played on those.

Im pretty sure you can run anything  on a NASA PC if you really want to


Only if NASA PCs are running on x86 processors and if NASA accepts the installation of Windows on their PCs.



Around the Network
Conina on 25 January 2014
RazorDragon said:
Kane1389 said:
RazorDragon said:
Kane1389 said:
RazorDragon said:

Both consoles are completely underpowered against a current PC, so I find comparing framerates and resolution pointless when those games can be played at like, 4K and 120FPS on PCs.


You can play these games at 360FPS and 8K resolution on a NASA super computer so i find comparing framterates and resolutions pointless


NASA computers run proprietary OS's, so games can't be played on those.

Im pretty sure you can run anything  on a NASA PC if you really want to


Only if NASA PCs are running on x86 processors and if NASA accepts the installation of Windows on their PCs.

Virtual Machine



FlamingWeazel on 25 January 2014

Power doesn't matter, yet everyone keeps talking about it..................kind of says it all no?



FlamingWeazel on 25 January 2014
Aielyn said:
theprof00 said:
It was about the undeniable FACT of these differences within multiplats PROVES the massive power difference.

I think YOU have missed the point. If such a "massive" power difference makes so little impact to the player, then is it really of value? Ever heard of "diminishing returns"? It's kind of like how you can buy a good computer for $1000, a really good computer for $2000, an even better computer for $4000... but the difference between what you'll get for $10,000 and $20,000 is actually rather small, certainly not of the same scale as the difference between $1000 and $2000.


Say what? 30 fps is just minumum for a game to be playable, 60 fps is a lot different experience when playing especially for shooters, and racing games. It directly effects gameplay and the player.



MonstaTruk on 25 January 2014
Kane1389 said:
Aielyn said:
theprof00 said:
It was about the undeniable FACT of these differences within multiplats PROVES the massive power difference.

I think YOU have missed the point. If such a "massive" power difference makes so little impact to the player, then is it really of value? 


Yes, especially if a vastly more powerfull system is 100$ cheaper. Also, 100% difference (30 to 60) in framerate IS easly noticable, and it directly effects the gameplay

THIS.  Whether it's slightly/massively/evenly powered, the VALUE, from my point of view, is the fact that one is $100 CHEAPER.  THAT...is a big kablooey, right there.  THAT...over all the Bilderberg Group conspiracies, over the NSA collaboration, over the 180-to-180 policy changes, over the Kinect 2.0 spy device worries...is the biggest "SH*T NO" for the average consumer.  Not the techy that would've bought the Xbox One at launch REGARDLESS, not the naive/committed-to-Microsoft-by-an-means-necessary individuals that preordered an Xbox One during E3...but the average Joe.  The one who reads the newspaper, works 5+ days a week, at a few dollars more than minimum, who plays games as a hobby, and wants the best value for their buck.  Those buyers will be the folks that carry the Xbox One sales AFTER the first 12 months.  Unless Microsoft changes that PRICE, everything else is extra, but that PRICE...has to change to be more competitive.  And to be honest, I've read (like I'm sure alot of you have read, also) the price breakdown of the Xbox One.  As much as they need a major drop in price like I need a threesome with Kate Upton, Marissa Miller, & Tyra Banks, it's really not possible without letting go of the Kinect 2.0.  And if you let go of the Kinect 2.0, that UI will need a MAJOR overhaul, to navigate decently.  That system just really seems like they've put Microsoft between a rock and a hard place.  Forgive me if I don't feel comfortable putting myself between those two objects... :-/



Around the Network
RazorDragon on 25 January 2014
Conina said:
RazorDragon said:


Only if NASA PCs are running on x86 processors and if NASA accepts the installation of Windows on their PCs.

Virtual Machine


That would make performance go down, framerates would go from 1000~FPS to a lot less.



Conina on 25 January 2014
RazorDragon said:
Conina said:
RazorDragon said:


Only if NASA PCs are running on x86 processors and if NASA accepts the installation of Windows on their PCs.

Virtual Machine


That would make performance go down, framerates would go from 1000~FPS to a lot less.

Naturally, but "a lot less" performance of the NASA computers will still be a lot more than a $5000 gamer PC with quad-SLI ;)



Lulz on 25 January 2014
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................................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Knack? LMFAO!

Thanks for the lulz, kid.



Mr Puggsly on 25 January 2014
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.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

theprof00 on 25 January 2014
Aielyn said:
theprof00 said:
It was about the undeniable FACT of these differences within multiplats PROVES the massive power difference.

I think YOU have missed the point. If such a "massive" power difference makes so little impact to the player, then is it really of value? Ever heard of "diminishing returns"? It's kind of like how you can buy a good computer for $1000, a really good computer for $2000, an even better computer for $4000... but the difference between what you'll get for $10,000 and $20,000 is actually rather small, certainly not of the same scale as the difference between $1000 and $2000.

It happens with most things. The difference between 480p and 720p is about the same in technical terms as the difference between 720p and 1080p... but the latter difference seems a lot smaller to the viewer/player. An in-game draw distance of 20 m will seem dramatically different from a draw distance of 40 m, but the difference between 1 km and 2 km won't be nearly as noticeable. Doubling the polygons in a model of a face from 300 to 600 will make a noticeable difference, doubling from 10,000 to 20,000 will make very little difference. A game with 2 modes will seem to have a lot more variety than a game with just 1 mode, while a game with 200 modes will not seem like it has any more variation than a game with 100 modes.

The "massive" power difference is having less of an effect, because of this. The difference between PS2 and PS3 seems a lot bigger than the difference between PS3 and PS4... despite the differences being fairly comparable. We have entered the realm in which the art matters more than the graphical technology, where intelligent design of AI matters more than sheer AI computational power, where attention to detail means making things react just right rather than making sure that the surface has a high enough level of visual detail. We were beginning to enter it with PS3 and 360. With the Wii U, it has completed the process, and now the PS4 and XBO are deep into that realm.

That's why the most visually appealing titles of 2013 include a Wii U title, a Vita title, a current-gen multiplatform title (Wii U, PS3, X360, Vita), two PS3 titles, and a PS3/360/PC title, to name a few, despite the release of the PS4 and XBO. It's why the highest-rated title of the year for this generation was a Wii U game (unless you count the PS4 port of flower - and that's only because very few sites have reviewed it), and why none of those beat the top PS3 or 360 title of the year.

When it comes down to it, the only way you're really going to notice the difference between XBO and PS4 once a bit of optimisation for each platform is done is by comparing them side-by-side. And when you have to do that to notice the difference, most people aren't going to notice it at all. This is why Nintendo changed their approach, and whether the new approach is working well or poorly, one thing you can honestly say is that you can tell the difference - playing Wii U is a different experience from playing XBO or PS4, or X360 or PS3 (I make no value judgment - no call as to which is better, just noting the different-ness), and the difference isn't due to power (as the 360/PS3 to Wii U comparison makes clear).

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.