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

Forums - Sony - Should 900p and 60fps be the base line now instead 1080p?

sergiodaly said:
Solid-Stark said:

See my other post, and Pemalite's on page 2.

ehh I'd have to disagree with you there. First, you mention BF1 and SWB MP. These can stick to 900p60 (and not constant mind you) because it's a restrictive map. Pay atention to draw distance, textures, detail across the map, or the environment outside the map. Pretty bland for a reason. But what about the campaign (BF1)? Dynamic resolutions that go below 900p in order to push more detail. Again for a reason.

Heck I can bring up my own example too. Titanfall 2 looks great but then look at the "barriers" of the map. Or the textures at a distance (anistropic filtering). Thats why it can target 60fps; the lowered details are all around. And similarly to BF1, campaign has dynamic resolution below 900p to target higher details. 

Unchated 4 is on a similar boat. The detail in MP looks great sure (better than the others mentioned imo), but the resolution is noticeable and the textures suffer compared to the campaign. Personaly I'd have the campaign's IQ over the MP. And don't forget the new Survival mode, 900p30 mind you.

Just because some games do it in MP doesn't mean they can design the whole game around the same performance. SP components will always draw more out of the hardware and it's up to design to showcase what you can do with limited resources. 

Never mention BF1... I did say BF4.

You said, "not powerful enough" and then use those adjectives, all i say is, that statement is incorrect, since most games could be developed into those target resolution and frame rate and i give examples of games runnig at that settings that are far from the adjectives you said. If devs chose to do other wise it's not the hardware that is not capable. I personally also prefer some more eye candy over framerate since that is not a big deal in lots of game genres, even driveclub at 30fps is awesome in my opinion and i am a racing games enthusiast and that "it has to be 60fps or no buy" is crazy talk to me.

Pemalite said:

All Frostbite powered games on console have their detailes lowered compared to the PC.
The Xbox One and Playstation 4 use a mix of Low/Medium/High settings compared to the PC's Ultra.
Even the Playstation 4 Pro doesn't use "Ultra" PC settings.

Sorry to burst your bubble. :P

Did you read the statement i did quote and why i did quote. Going to paste it here and explain. 

I don't think base PS4 is powerful enough to do 900p60 across most titles. Not without significantly lowering game detail to a point of blandness.

Focus on the first bold statement and in the two bold words after. I never said that it didn't had lower detail compared to high end PC running ultra settings, i wasn't agreeing with the significantly and blandness words to describe a game that runs at 900p 60fps in a vanilla ps4.

Edit: also just to add some info about me, my first PC was a 486 at 33 mhz and 4 mb of ram when i was 14 (more than 20 years ago), always had gaming PC up until my core 2 duo q6600 with a hd 3870 x2, did take a break in PC gaming because i worked lots of years as a computer technician and was sick of sitting in a desk, but i want to do a new build with ryzen and vega if they are good this next year, so I'm not a complete alien to PC gaming and what it delivers and I'm in no bubble. Don't want to sound rude but i feel i had to get this out of my chest...

My mistake. But BF4 over BF1 doesn't help your case, you realize that right? You'd rather go back on engine advancements to get 900p60? And as for SWB it's still only the MP we are talking about (and a more recent engine code). You didn't address the technological restrictions I mentioned going from MP to SP design. Or Uncharted 4's...

You mention a few and wish to extend it to all games and say developers are the one's at fault if they can't achieve 900p60. That's plain silly. Then again if you think those titles have great detail at 900p and can do a whole 'level' without hicups then I can't say much to convince you. But I'll rest my case.

I come from PC gaming too, bud. Even maxed out PC games nowadays can look a bit disapointing. All on how design is used. But again, I'll rest my case.



e=mc^2

Gaming on: PS4 Pro, Switch, SNES Mini, Wii U, PC (i5-7400, GTX 1060)

Around the Network

No matter what the resolution, 60fps+ makes it all worthwhile.



Feel free to check out my stream on twitch 

sergiodaly said:
Pemalite said:

All Frostbite powered games on console have their detailes lowered compared to the PC.
The Xbox One and Playstation 4 use a mix of Low/Medium/High settings compared to the PC's Ultra.
Even the Playstation 4 Pro doesn't use "Ultra" PC settings.

Sorry to burst your bubble. :P

Did you read the statement i did quote and why i did quote. Going to paste it here and explain. 

I don't think base PS4 is powerful enough to do 900p60 across most titles. Not without significantly lowering game detail to a point of blandness.

Focus on the first bold statement and in the two bold words after. I never said that it didn't had lower detail compared to high end PC running ultra settings, i wasn't agreeing with the significantly and blandness words to describe a game that runs at 900p 60fps in a vanilla ps4.

Edit: also just to add some info about me, my first PC was a 486 at 33 mhz and 4 mb of ram when i was 14 (more than 20 years ago), always had gaming PC up until my core 2 duo q6600 with a hd 3870 x2, did take a break in PC gaming because i worked lots of years as a computer technician and was sick of sitting in a desk, but i want to do a new build with ryzen and vega if they are good this next year, so I'm not a complete alien to PC gaming and what it delivers and I'm in no bubble. Don't want to sound rude but i feel i had to get this out of my chest...


Just re-affirming the point that details are lowered for all Frostbite powered games. And I quote:

sergiodaly said:

@bold   what? BF4 and SW Battlefront are 900p 60fps and don't tell me the detail is lowered and bland...

 




www.youtube.com/@Pemalite

Solid-Stark said:
sergiodaly said:

Never mention BF1... I did say BF4.

You said, "not powerful enough" and then use those adjectives, all i say is, that statement is incorrect, since most games could be developed into those target resolution and frame rate and i give examples of games runnig at that settings that are far from the adjectives you said. If devs chose to do other wise it's not the hardware that is not capable. I personally also prefer some more eye candy over framerate since that is not a big deal in lots of game genres, even driveclub at 30fps is awesome in my opinion and i am a racing games enthusiast and that "it has to be 60fps or no buy" is crazy talk to me.

Did you read the statement i did quote and why i did quote. Going to paste it here and explain. 

I don't think base PS4 is powerful enough to do 900p60 across most titles. Not without significantly lowering game detail to a point of blandness.

Focus on the first bold statement and in the two bold words after. I never said that it didn't had lower detail compared to high end PC running ultra settings, i wasn't agreeing with the significantly and blandness words to describe a game that runs at 900p 60fps in a vanilla ps4.

Edit: also just to add some info about me, my first PC was a 486 at 33 mhz and 4 mb of ram when i was 14 (more than 20 years ago), always had gaming PC up until my core 2 duo q6600 with a hd 3870 x2, did take a break in PC gaming because i worked lots of years as a computer technician and was sick of sitting in a desk, but i want to do a new build with ryzen and vega if they are good this next year, so I'm not a complete alien to PC gaming and what it delivers and I'm in no bubble. Don't want to sound rude but i feel i had to get this out of my chest...

My mistake. But BF4 over BF1 doesn't help your case, you realize that right? You'd rather go back on engine advancements to get 900p60? And as for SWB it's still only the MP we are talking about (and a more recent engine code). You didn't address the technological restrictions I mentioned going from MP to SP design. Or Uncharted 4's...

You mention a few and wish to extend it to all games and say developers are the one's at fault if they can't achieve 900p60. That's plain silly. Then again if you think those titles have great detail at 900p and can do a whole 'level' without hicups then I can't say much to convince you. But I'll rest my case.

I come from PC gaming too, bud. Even maxed out PC games nowadays can look a bit disapointing. All on how design is used. But again, I'll rest my case.

We are going in circles,  I'm not saying that compromises aren't needed to achieve the 60fps, and i never said developers fault, I clearly said choice. Bf4 has a complete sp campaign in 900p60fps, and bf4 is still a graphics intensive game, it's not PC ultra but it is still a quite good on the ps4. Many others could go that route but because the native resolution of the tvs are 1080p devs choose 1080p 30fps over a very possible, in all games, 900p 60fps. I have no doubt naughty dog could have made U4 SP in 900p60fps and still look very good, they choose wisely, because it looks better in 1080p 30fps. BF1 has improvements but i think it is still not very optimize for ps4 and by choosing dynamic resolution over a fixed one we can not really adress that for the point we are trying to make. My point is, your statement about being not powerful enough is not true and the adjectives you've used are not inline with the established and out in the wild examples i provided just from the top of my head.



Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

Pemalite said:
sergiodaly said:

Did you read the statement i did quote and why i did quote. Going to paste it here and explain. 

I don't think base PS4 is powerful enough to do 900p60 across most titles. Not without significantly lowering game detail to a point of blandness.

Focus on the first bold statement and in the two bold words after. I never said that it didn't had lower detail compared to high end PC running ultra settings, i wasn't agreeing with the significantly and blandness words to describe a game that runs at 900p 60fps in a vanilla ps4.

Edit: also just to add some info about me, my first PC was a 486 at 33 mhz and 4 mb of ram when i was 14 (more than 20 years ago), always had gaming PC up until my core 2 duo q6600 with a hd 3870 x2, did take a break in PC gaming because i worked lots of years as a computer technician and was sick of sitting in a desk, but i want to do a new build with ryzen and vega if they are good this next year, so I'm not a complete alien to PC gaming and what it delivers and I'm in no bubble. Don't want to sound rude but i feel i had to get this out of my chest...


Just re-affirming the point that details are lowered for all Frostbite powered games. And I quote:

While i was paraphrasing i didn't include the "significantly" part that was the essence issue i had with the statement. Ok, my bad, just shoot me...



Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4

Around the Network

Simply lowering the resolution isn't going to suddenly make a ton of games run at 60fps.

If a game is 1080p 30fps and you drop it to even 720p that doesn't mean it'll be able to reach 60fps still. Dropping resolution in most ps4/xbo titles would probably not have a massive effect on frame rate, the issue with most titles is the CPU.



No I think consoles should go to 1080 all the way.
If 60FPS is so important...go with pc gaming...a $150 video card can get you that.
And a $380+ video card will get you 1440 @60fps and 2160@30+fps