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

Forums - Gaming - 1080p standard needs to stop.

 

1080p or 60 frames?

Without 1080p games arent playable 90 23.62%
 
Without 60 frames games arent playable 154 40.42%
 
Both (PC Master Race) 137 35.96%
 
Total:381
Moonhero on 12 November 2015

I have a 4K TV... I want games in that as standard.



Ask stefl1504 for a sig, even if you don't need one.

Around the Network
SvennoJ on 12 November 2015
Moonhero said:
I have a 4K TV... I want games in that as standard.

Might I suggest investing in a DeLorean and some plutonium.
The ps6 and XBox √-1 might do it :)



DakonBlackblade on 12 November 2015
Chazore said:

It's hardly in the exact same messy positiona s it is on consoles, especially going by Steam forums, reviews and of course watching streamers on YT shows they are having more fun and a lot less issues than major stuttering, frame hangs and bad textures like the current gen systems are having issues with. No need to lump PC into this just to show up on a dev you dislike.

The bugs are all still there, it doesnt drop to 0 fps and stuters like a maniac but the rest is all there. And thats more of a statement of pure incopetence by Bethesda than anything cause Digital Foundry showed even a budget PC runs the game way better than PS4 and XOne, meaning they realy dont know how the fuck to code theyre games at all cause a PS4 and a XOne run everything else better than a budget PC. If they cant develop it for consoles than dont, and release it as a PC exclusive.



elektranine on 12 November 2015

Sorry but Bugthesda are absolutely crappy devs. Fallout 4 is a last gen game, it has animation and AI from the 90s. The game uses 2.4 gb of ram in the highest settings for PC but they can't get the game running on consoles with 8gb. Heck some indie games are better made than this. The game suffers from the same issues as the previous one released 7 years ago and has no new features. They have been using the same game engine since 1998 but still can't patch in rudimentary things like online play or fix the memory leaks. But its the consoles' fault when their latest game runs crappy.



rolltide101x on 12 November 2015
Azzanation said:

Ok so here is the problem. We all know by now that consoles cannot achieve 1080p and 60 frames without major sacifices, infact they cant even do 1080p without having a steady frame rate unless the games are extremly linear or nerfed to the ground (Apart from acouple exceptions).

Fallout 4 is the main problem here. Why would a dev release a game like Fallout 4 on consoles at 1080p when they know the frame rate suffers.. I tell you why, because 1080p has become the talking point this gen, that even devs are afraid to lower it because of the backlash they might get for there games. Would you rather play Fallout 4 at 1080p and 30 frames with alot of dips? or would you rather play it at 900p and closer to a 60 frames or a rock solid 30 frames? As an old school gamer my anwser is clear, Framerate. I was going to buy Fallout 4 on consoles but after seeing that both consoles struggle to keep it at 30 it ended my decision very quickly and PC it is for me.

In my own opinion, these 1080p standards need to stop, these consoles just cant do it without sacificing not only frame rate but many other effects and features just to achieve this pixal count. There is barely any difference between 1080p and 900p but dips below 30 frames is noticable. If the gaming community can get off the 1080p hype train and start looking at whats more important for games, devs will finially realise that lowering resolution isnt all that bad if it makes the game more fun to play and stable.

http://gearnuke.com/fallout-4-pete-hines-defends-solid-30-fps-comment-talks-frame-rate-ps4-xbox-one/#

Hate to break it to you but I have played Fallout 4 for over 12 hours on the PS4 and have not noticed FPS drop yet. It has probably happened and i just did not notice it but that pretty well tells you it is not that big of a deal. I am more likely to notice it than the average console gamer as I also game on PC quite a bit



Around the Network
rolltide101x on 12 November 2015
elektranine said:
Sorry but Bugthesda are absolutely crappy devs. Fallout 4 is a last gen game, it has animation and AI from the 90s. The game uses 2.4 gb of ram in the highest settings for PC but they can't get the game running on consoles with 8gb. Heck some indie games are better made than this. The game suffers from the same issues as the previous one released 7 years ago and has no new features. They have been using the same game engine since 1998 but still can't patch in rudimentary things like online play or fix the memory leaks. But its the consoles' fault when their latest game runs crappy.

Something tells me you have not played Fallout 4, Fallout 4 has very few bugs and feels polished. It has far less bugs than any other Bethesda game I have played



AlfredoTurkey on 12 November 2015

I grew up as a little kid on Atari 2600. Frames per second and resolution don't matter to me at all. Fun games matter though. If a game is fun, then those two things are just cherries on top. It's not required for me though.



Chazore on 12 November 2015
DakonBlackblade said:

 

The bugs are all still there, it doesnt drop to 0 fps and stuters like a maniac but the rest is all there. And thats more of a statement of pure incopetence by Bethesda than anything cause Digital Foundry showed even a budget PC runs the game way better than PS4 and XOne, meaning they realy dont know how the fuck to code theyre games at all cause a PS4 and a XOne run everything else better than a budget PC. If they cant develop it for consoles than dont, and release it as a PC exclusive.

Not the same bugs per say and on PC there are amyriad of tweaks already along with oatches being rolled out by Bethesda themselevs since they do not have to go through the same patching process as consoles do which allows the PC version to skip on ahead. A budget PC is supposed to run better than a PS4/XB1 though, the whole misconception is that PC gamers have to high super high/ultra rigs in roder to keep up with consoles that are using budgeted hardware just isn't the case, there have been plenty games that run on a budgeted PC. You don't just magically build a budgeted PC and have zip work on it or just super low level indie games. Bethesda know how to make games though, it's their engine that I keep pointing out time and time again, the engine has been in use since Morrowind and has only had tweaks and some refinements made to it here and there and it's already showing.

The thing is back when Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3, NV and Skyrim were out, there were hardly many open world games the same or bigger than what Bethesda crafted, of course now we skip to 2015 and there is a plethora of open world games where people have been inspired by Bethesda and some that have gone ahead with their own advancements to the sandbox style, Bethesda is just a bit behind thanks to their engine holding them back and of course there is only so much you can do with current gen systems anyway so there is always going to be certain limits.

I do agree with your last line though, this is how I feel about the devs behind AK (not Rocksteady but Iron Galaxy), if certain devs cannot dev for a platform at all after releasing game after game then they should just go back to what they were doing until they can do better.

But seriously though that engine is old as hell compared to most out there.



Mankind, in its arrogance and self-delusion, must believe they are the mirrors to God in both their image and their power. If something shatters that mirror, then it must be totally destroyed.

DonFerrari on 13 November 2015
KiigelHeart said:
Shadow1980 said:
BraLoD said:

Even though Halo is a shooter, which can get good feedback from a higher framerate, if compromisses like game features has to be made to achieve it, one can really ask itself if it was the best route to take.

I honestly have doubts that the higher frame rate actually benefits gameplay. In my own experience, I had no real difference in personal performance going from the OXbox & 360 Halo games to the Master Chief Collection. Granted, that's just anecdotal evidence, but still. About the only real change the jump to 60 fps had on my personal experience was causing me to go through a long acclimation period, as 60 fps, especially in shooters, always felt weird and unnatural to me after years of playing shooters that ran at 30 fps. I couldn't stand to play CoD for long because the high frame rate was so off-putting. Even after having mostly adapted to Halo running at 60 fps, it still looks off kilter. The "Soap Opera/Hobbit effect" can apply to video games as well.

Especially after Halo 5 dropped split-screen in all modes, I honestly don't think the jump to 60 fps was worth it. We dealt with Halo running at 30 fps for over a decade. Everybody was fine with it. The games played perfectly smooth. I may be the exception, but I don't think shooters & third-person action games really need to run at 60 fps. Fighting games and even platformers might be another matter, but a rock-solid 30 fps for a shooter has always been more than sufficient.

I used to think like you when this gen started, 60FPS felt unnaturally smooth for some reason. Then I played Gears UE multiplayer... going from 60FPS to 30FPS campaign was horrible and even previous gears titles feel bad now. Same with first person shooters, it takes a while to get used to 30FPS and playing Halo 5 at 60FPS is a joy. So today my opinion is, 60FPS is clearly superior and really worth other compromisses. I also tried Forza 6 demo and boy was that 60FPS sweet for a racing game..

That said, I'm fine with games like Fallout, Witcher 3 etc. to run at 30FPS and I'm not really botherer by some dips either. I also don't see much difference between 1080p and 900p so I'd say solid framerate is more important than resolution. I've absolutely no tech knowledge tho, so I don't know if lowering resolution helps with framerate issues, but didn't they do the dynamic resolution thing for Halo to make framerates solid? I think it was a brilliant idea.

Each game have its compromise and sweet spot... we don't need 720p30fps or 1080p60fps standard... we need each game to perfom to a level that is satisfying to play... screen tearing and framrate dips don't bother me on Uncharted SP, but probably get people on rage for MP.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

KiigelHeart on 13 November 2015
DonFerrari said:

 

Each game have its compromise and sweet spot... we don't need 720p30fps or 1080p60fps standard... we need each game to perfom to a level that is satisfying to play... screen tearing and framrate dips don't bother me on Uncharted SP, but probably get people on rage for MP.

Yep I agree it really depends on the game you play, no need for standards. For example, framedips and screen tearing would be pain in the ass when playing Gears: UE, given the nature of the game where you have to perform your best constantly to get kills, but with intense and more casual Titanfall high-speed action screen tearing and dips don't bother me the slightest, gameplay is still smooth.