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

Forums - Sony - The Order 1886 will run at 1080p@30fps

Tagged games:

small44 on 05 February 2014

I never feel a difference between a game runing on 30fps and 60fps



PS4 - over 100 millions let's say 120m
Xbox One - 70m
Wii U - 25m

Vita - 15m if it will not get Final Fantasy Kingdoms Heart and Monster Hunter 20m otherwise
3DS - 80m

Around the Network
Trunkin on 05 February 2014
small44 said:
I never feel a difference between a game runing on 30fps and 60fps

It is jarring and extremely unpleasant, imo. I've found that well done motion blur does a lot to alleviate 30fps pains, though. In some games the quicker reaction times 60fps brings are noticeable, but in my (limited) experience, it doesn't make much more than an aesthetic difference most of the time.



papamudd on 05 February 2014

This would be a killer co-op must have game if it was co op...



Talal said:
I will permaban myself if the game releases in 2014.

in reference to KH3 release date

petroleo on 05 February 2014

excuses pure excuses cinematic experience my @#SS, still I'm very interested :D



Raven722 on 05 February 2014
Trunkin said:
Raven722 said:
Trunkin said:
Raven722 said:
Trunkin said:
Raven722 said:
DeadBigfoot21 said:
deskpro2k3 said:
DeadBigfoot21 said:
I wonder what happened to that power? 50% more? i dont see it

30fps....and 50% more power.

At least i hope the gameplay is at least good.


Big difference between 720p and 1080p. Do you have a 1080p HDTV? And I'm not talking about a small size one.

The differences are very minor. 

I've compared them both on 2 tv's. 

Both tv's are 1080p. Only hardcore fans see what they want to see. 

The differences are very minor even after being "50% stronger" as most claim. 

Of course exclusives always look better and both will have them. I just find it funny how "the other side" seems to believe the ps4 is 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times stronger than the xbox one. Thats how they portray it but it isn't reality. 


The difference will become more noticeable as time goes on. We're already seeing games like Tomb Raider where the framerate is considerably lower and that was basically a last gen title with a fresh coat of paint. I wouldn't harp too much on the "50% power claim" when all of us are still waiting "for the truth to come out" and where exactly the "infinite power of the cloud" is.

Why would the diference increase over time, rather than decreasing or just staying the same?

Also, I doubt we'll be seeing the infinite power of the cloud until the end of this gen. If it does exist at well.


As games become more complicated and demand more power the X1 will fall behind. More corners will need to be cut to achieve playability. At best things will stay the same but that still means a lot more games down the road with lower resolutions, framerate, or both on the X1. The only way it will decrease is if developers intentionally make both versions the exact same from here on out and do nothing to make use of the extra power. So far it looks like developers are more interested in pushing rather than settling.

But wouldn't similar compromises have to be made on the ps4 as well when games reach that point?  After all, we're already seeing some compromises, and the gen just started.(BF4 900p, The Order 30fps). So wed be seeing 720p-900p/30-60fps as the norm on the ps4, and 540p to 720p/24-50fps on the One, leaving the gap the same, no?

No. Because development is not that clear cut and dry. There are a lot of factors that go into it. Is the CPU needed more for this game or is it the GPU? Is the RAM type a big factor here? What does the architecture allow for? Were the dev tools adequate? Did the team get laid enough? You get the point. If a game is developed that makes good utilization of a part of the consoles in which the PS4 excels in then you'll see those games looking better over time because as the games become more GPU dependent corners will need to be cut on the X1. The differences don't follow one straight line.

Well, the differences in the systems seem pretty clear cut to me. From the into that's been revealed, they both use PC architecture, and their specs are basically identical, but the ps4 has gddr5 RAM and a superior GPU. We also know that BF4(and most games, really) is largely GPU reliant, at least on PC. Based on that info, its safe to assume that the performance differences we see with BF4 at the very least are thanks to the PS4's GPU and RAM advantage, right? You say that games will become even more GPU dependant in the future, but what is it that you base this assumption on? Exactly what kind of games are going to showcase this gap increase? Physics heavy? Open world?

As for Dev tools/ working environment, it's hard to know much. Going back to the bf4 example, though, I think based on the issues the game had, it was probably rushed, developed with early hardware and immature Dev tools. That affects both consoles, though, and ( based on rumors , yes) the One's tools were apparently less mature than the ps4's anyway.


The difference in hardware on paper is the clear cut part. Games are not created equal. Some games require more of the CPU. Some require more of the GPU. Some games need a lot of RAM and others don't. As the GPU of the PS4 is obviously better, any games that make more use of it will show larger differences on the PS4. These differences will not be linear. They will be exponential. Not significantly so but exponential nonetheless.

Note how PS3 and 360 multiplatform games were largely even for the first few years. Heck, some games ran better on the 360. As time went on it was noted that PS3 multiplatform games were popping up that were running better. Games like Dragon Age: Origins for example. So why did these games go from being pretty much even to having some noticeable differences even if they weren't night and day? If it's linear then it should not have happened that way but it did. That means that as time went on the hardware in the 360 struggled to keep up with certain multiplatform games, especially as developers started figuring out ways to make the PS3 hardware work better than they did early on.

No one has tapped these machines yet and it's obvious that the ceiling is higher for the PS4 so as developers dig in you'll notice the difference grow. Will it be by such a margin that the X1 looks like a joke? No. Not at all. X1 multiplatform games will be competitive in the performance and/or looks department for the entirety of the generation. They will just not be as good. Some games will be a lot closer. Games that don't put as much emphasis on the GPU. The reason I say the GPU will become more important over time is because the CPUs of both of these consoles are nothing impressive besides the number of cores they have. The GPU is the biggest difference between these machines so as the CPUs get loaded down they will have to make use of the GPU to offset.

So basically, the higher performance ceiling of the PS4 coupled with the fact that this performance ceiling is based on components that are a mixture of even and superior to the X1 while developers find ways to get more out of what they have in front of them makes it likely that at some point the gap will grow and not simply remain equal. 



Around the Network
Raven722 on 05 February 2014
J_Allard said:
Cool, seems 30 frames is acceptable again.


Well it's been acceptable. For Killzone's single player. Knack. Tomb Raider. Dead Rising 3. Ryse.



ice on 05 February 2014

It could be 720p, I don't care. I just hope it's a good game.



JoeFlex on 05 February 2014
X1Gates said:
This game also has no multiplayer and yet some are comparing it with Gears which is far from it. Gears is GEARS because of the multiplayer and not story. Sony studios only know how to produce single players and totally suck at multiplayer.


I'm inclined to disagree due to MAG, UC2, KZ2, UC3 & TLOU. Even KZ SF isn't bad (for some). Let's not forget Socom back in the day.



Darkjolly on 05 February 2014

I don't know why, but I feel like this game will be an utter dissapointment



Obscure Vita 2014 games to look out for

Kick and Fennick Murusaki Baby Metrico

Raven722 on 05 February 2014
JoeFlex said:
X1Gates said:
This game also has no multiplayer and yet some are comparing it with Gears which is far from it. Gears is GEARS because of the multiplayer and not story. Sony studios only know how to produce single players and totally suck at multiplayer.


I'm inclined to disagree due to MAG, UC2, KZ2, UC3 & TLOU. Even KZ SF isn't bad (for some). Let's not forget Socom back in the day.


Let's not forget EverQuest and PlanetSide. EverQuest pretty much wrote the book for the way MMORPGs would be done for the next decade, World of Warcraft is based on that book, and PlanetSide 2 is a great game that too many people are overlooking simply because it's a F2P MMO.