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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Naughty Dog won't push Uncharted 4 to 60fps if it compromises player experience

Zekkyou on 15 January 2015
bananaking21 said:


i said it in this thread and i will say it again. a better game at 30FPS is preferable than a worse game at 60FPS. 

uncharted as a series (well 2&3) have pushed many boundries, and not just graphical ones. in uncharted 2 you played an entire moving level that went through landscape to landscape (the train level). and in uncharted 3 you had a level that moved dynamcally based on random ocean movment, flip 90 degrees mid gameplay, and sink (the ship level). 

my point is, uncharted has pushed technical limits in previous games, the animation fidilty, much improved AI and more interactivity with the enviroment is just a part of the game we seen so far in uncharted 4. and i would much rather they push the game more than have 60FPS. 

I totally agree. One of the most enjoyable things abut Uncharted is the crazy set pieces, and how it uses them and its environments to pull you in (thus making the overall experience more enjoyable). I know many feel differently, but i'd personally never want them to sacrificing what makes the series great in favor of a locked 60fps.

If they believe they can achieve both 60fps and maintain the aforementioned awesomeness, then that's fine by me (though i'd prefer they just targeted 30fps :p), but if they have to choose between one or the other then the latter should take priority. I'm personally expecting them to go for a variable.

I'm personally expecting them to go for a variable. That gives them the additional smoothness during standard shooting/exploration gameplay, but gives them the freedom they need to create the set pieces. We'll see though.



Around the Network
DerNebel on 15 January 2015
JazzB1987 said:
Zekkyou said:
JazzB1987 said:
Hahaha Naughty Dog is so backwards....

60 is gameplay. Gameplay is player experience. I dont care if I have 10 or 8 trees in a jungle on some random hill I cannot reach anyway.

I hate how ND puts visuals above gameplay and compromises the gameplay with bad framerate (like in TLoU which even got GOTY....)

They didn't mention visuals, just "something that would really impact the player's experience". If, for example, they had to choose between lots crazy set pieces or a locked 60fps, i'd much rather the former. I'm a player. My experience would benefit more from the set pieces.

Opinions are fun o/

This does not make sense at all. If you are a player your experience is better the better control precision etc you have NOT the more things you have to look at that dont have much importance to the actual gameplay. You can have huge levels even at 60fps as long as you dont add nonsense that requires alot of processing power.

I am also not criticizing that the game runs at 30 fps. 30 fps is acceptable to me (as long as there is NO drop)  its the fact that NaughtyDog kinda says player experience has nothing to do with framerate and imput/precision etc. 

Its almost Ubisoft "cinematic experience" level of nonsense.

Ah you mean that thing that they're literally saying nowhere?

And how you don't understand that bigger and more crazy set pieces do in fact greatly impact the experience is beyond me.



DerNebel on 15 January 2015
Nem said:


Its not debatable, its fact. Every game benefits from 60fps, even though some more than others. 

The problem is that not every gamer is tight enough with their gaming to notice. I honestly struggle to understand those that say there isnt a difference because for me its a dramatic difference. I will sacrifice particle effects, AI, fidelity and polygons if it means i get smooth, responsive and fun gameplay.

10 years from now when you play the game the eye candy will be outdared and mean nothing while the 60fps gives you a timeless classic based on smooth and fun gameplay.

While 30fps would naturally feel clunky and unplayable.



toot1231 on 15 January 2015
celador said:

Talking in the latest issue of EDGE, Straley confirmed that the team locked Uncharted 4's frame rate at 30fps for last month's demo, but revealed that the game is actually running "above 30" frames per second.

"We're actually above 30, but we locked it [for the demo], Straley explained. "We're going to do whatever it takes to make the game we want to make. If it means we could go for 60 but lose something that would really impact the player's experience, then it's our choice as developers to say, 'Well, we're going to go for the experience over the 60 frames.'"

EDGE states that a debug station visible on the floor showed that the game was running at 37fps.

http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/uncharted_4/news/naughty_dog_wont_push_uncharted_4_to_60fps_if_it_compromises_player_experience.html

Im sure it'll be much more cinematic.

Also terrible trade off FPS over Graphics any day of the week



http://moongypsy.bandcamp.com/ ~Thank you Stefl1504 for the amazing sig~
Angelus on 15 January 2015

Don't have a problem with 30fps in most games. The most important thing is just making sure the frame rate is stable. That to me is a much bigger difference maker than 30 vs 60.

It's always amusing though to see devs (and I do mean the lot of them, not anyone in particular) flip flop back and forth on the importance, or lack thereof, of 60fps. It's always whatever argument suits them best on any given day. Maybe they oughta all just stop trying to justify it so much one way or the other and just make their damn games.



Around the Network
mysteryman on 15 January 2015
Goodnightmoon said:
episteme said:
Seems like they changed their opinion about framerates...

"But being able to compare apples to apples like we have now with The Last of Us, going back and playing the 30 Hz version feels, to quote some people in the office, 'broken.' There's something that can't be captured in screenshots and playing an adventure game where you just walk around and experience the world at the smooth 60 Hz. You really just have to feel it."

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-last-of-us-remastered-devs-discuss-making-60fp/1100-6421147/

Well, this says everything.
They know 60 fps is always a better experience, not all the games have the same improvement at 60fps, that´s right, you can´t compare MK8 with Uncharted, MK8 need it more, but I really think they can easily achiveve the 60 fps but they want a beautifull trailer, cause this generation seems to care more about trailers than everything else, and impressive shootscreens, and if you sacrifice some visuals to lock the game at 60fps, you lose part of the hype of your trailers and your pictures of the game, and they obviously want hype even if they have to sacrifice better gameplay experience. But well, if the game is stable at 30 is not so big deal, but i wish companies were thinking more about the actual gameplay feel rather than the cinematic feeling.

But you can compare TLoU with Uncharted.

ND themselves said TLoU felt "broken" at 30FPS compared to TLoU:R.





Zekkyou on 15 January 2015
JazzB1987 said:

This does not make sense at all. If you are a player your experience is better the better control precision etc you have NOT the more things you have to look at that dont have much importance to the actual gameplay. You can have huge levels even at 60fps as long as you dont add nonsense that requires alot of processing power.

I am also not criticizing that the game runs at 30 fps. 30 fps is acceptable to me (as long as there is NO drop)  its the fact that NaughtyDog kinda says player experience has nothing to do with framerate and imput/precision etc. 

Its almost Ubisoft "cinematic experience" level of nonsense.

That might be the case for you, but the crazy set pieces and the way the environments pull me in add much more to my enjoyment (the primary goal of a game) than extra precision would. That's not to say it wouldn't benefit me at all, but i'd much rather the detailed train section at 30fps than the normal sections at 60fps :p I don't think it's inherently better, it's just a preference for this specific type of game. Personally, i think their best bet would be a variable, similar to Bayonetta 2. That way they can have their cake and eat some of it.

Where do they say the player experience has nothing to do with frame rate? The whole reason they're already hitting 37fps 1 year before launch is because they believe frame rate adds to the experience. All they're saying here is that if they believe [x] adds more to the experience that 60fps (whatever [x] may be), then they're obviously going to choose that. It's like saying they'd pick hypothetical diamonds over rubies. Choosing one doesn't take away value from the other. I don't really understand the value placed on either diamonds or rubies, but you get my meaning :p



Veknoid_Outcast on 15 January 2015

This just comes off as a bit disingenous, especially after Jason Gregory stated in July that Naughty Dog hopes 60 fps becomes the standard for video games.

That being said, I couldn't care less if Uncharted 4 runs at 30 or 60 fps. Heck, my favorite game runs at 20 fps and I love it to death. 



WolfpackN64 on 15 January 2015

Locked 30 FPS sound good for Uncharted. the action is fluid enough and Uncharted gun's control is total arse anyway.



CosmicSex on 15 January 2015

Lets face it. Looking at the visuals of this game, the fact that its over 30 now is amazing for a $400 console. Imagine what these folks could create on a powerful rig. Their work on the PS3 shows that they are above average skill wise. I almost get the same feeling looking at Xblade on the Wii U. Some of those open world visuals are hitting way above the Wii U's known weight.