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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What are you willing to sacrifice for 60 FPS or higher?

 

What do you prefer?

Framerate 139 62.05%
 
Resolution 48 21.43%
 
Other 37 16.52%
 
Total:224

Aslong as it's not a turnbased game witj a locked view or something 720p/60fps > 1080p/30fps and 1080p/60fps > 4k/30fps.

Framerate is more important than resolution but going below 720p just isn't acceptable.



Around the Network
sethnintendo said:
CrazyGamer2017 said:

 

Well if the future of Nintendo is decided by people who lower their standards gen after gen then I fear that you might be right: There may never be a home system by that company again. Also the rest of the industry seems to steer towards norms (1080p, 4K, HDR, 60fps etc.) It seems strange to me that Nintendo is the only one that does not go that way. It's of course good news for the company as it means no need to invest money in advancing components and technology, just work on different concepts and voilà, people will flock to you. But as a consumer who wants a decent product, I am not too happy about this turn of events.

I'll cross fingers and hope one day to play BOTW on some future home system that will do justice to the new generations of televisions we see in the market today but if not then, I will have to send my divorce papers for Nintendo to sign.

You should have been here commenting on the Wii back in 2006.  You could have pretty much kept most of the same response.

 

Well, while the Wii processing power was no world record at the time, the difference between the Wii and the other systems was smaller than things are today so I could have made that comment back then but it would have been on the edge of irrelevancy, so much so that most people haven't even bothered trying to defend the Switch as a home system but have been insisting it's a handheld cause even they must admit that as a home system it's egregiously behind the others.



caffeinade said:
SvennoJ said:

Yup, it's what will make VR cheaper to render than full screen in the future. It's the same as multi res rendering, except more extreme and dynamic. However the early headsets are so low res that it doesn't help much, once 4K and 8K headsets become the norm, foveated rendering will cut the workload dramatically.

Instead of a full hi-res screen this startup is trying to do it differently
https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/19/this-startup-wants-to-build-vr-headsets-with-human-eye-resolution/
Move a high res image over the low res image keeping pace with where you look. Sounds complicated to make that work without being noticeable. Less moving parts is usually better.

Foveated rendering can also help making the headsets wireless. The image should compress a lot better for transmission, plus the software can aid the compression to preserve detail where you are looking. Dual 4K at 90hz is a lot of bandwidth, especially through wifi.

Have you seen the StarVR headset?
Mmm.

Not in person, afaik not out yet. It's actually not that impressive anymore already. They boast a comined resolution of 5120x1440, or 2560x1440 per eye. The cool thing is the 210 degree fov, yet that also almost halves the effective resolution.

PSVR is 960x1080 per eye at 100 degrees fov, means 9.6 pixels per degree.
HTC Vive is 1080x1200 per eye at 110 degrees fov, or 9.8 pixels per degree
StarVR 2650x1440 per eye at 210 degrees fov,  12.1 pixels per degree.
Windows mixed reality is 1440x1440 per eye at 100 degrees fov, 14.4 pixels per degree.

The full surround view will be amazing afcourse, yet their boast of eliminating the screendoor effect is a bit much.
For comparison human 20/20 vision can resolve 60 pixels per degree, and see the difference in quality at upto 150 pixels per degree.

Tech is moving fast with VR headsets, Pimax is already working on a 3840x2160 per eye 200 degree fov headset.



Sorry, but using an animated sprite to replace your weapon in a first person shooter? Did you come up with that yourself? That wouldn't work at all and would look terrible. It would look weird without light interacting with it.



CrazyGamer2017 said:
sethnintendo said:

You should have been here commenting on the Wii back in 2006.  You could have pretty much kept most of the same response.

 

Well, while the Wii processing power was no world record at the time, the difference between the Wii and the other systems was smaller than things are today so I could have made that comment back then but it would have been on the edge of irrelevancy, so much so that most people haven't even bothered trying to defend the Switch as a home system but have been insisting it's a handheld cause even they must admit that as a home system it's egregiously behind the others.

Quit acting so naive. It's clear after reading through this thread that you have no interest in having a legitimate debate, as you keep asking questions that you already know the answer to (although you would never admit it).

And another thing: framerate is not correlated to hardware power. Did you know that the Gameboy could output at 60 FPS? The reason why many games run at 30 FPS or worse is because some developers would rather sacrifice performance for better visuals.

You also have this fascination with trying to get away with calling the Switch underpowered. Didn't the Switch launch with one of the most powerful mobile processors on the market? The points you are trying to make are so... pointless. What do you have to gain from calling the Switch underpowered? Come on, man, it makes you look desperate.



Around the Network
Versus_Evil said:
Male characters.

That should be a given, whether it's done to reach 60FPS or not



RaptorChrist said:
CrazyGamer2017 said:

 

Well, while the Wii processing power was no world record at the time, the difference between the Wii and the other systems was smaller than things are today so I could have made that comment back then but it would have been on the edge of irrelevancy, so much so that most people haven't even bothered trying to defend the Switch as a home system but have been insisting it's a handheld cause even they must admit that as a home system it's egregiously behind the others.

Quit acting so naive. It's clear after reading through this thread that you have no interest in having a legitimate debate, as you keep asking questions that you already know the answer to (although you would never admit it).

And another thing: framerate is not correlated to hardware power. Did you know that the Gameboy could output at 60 FPS? The reason why many games run at 30 FPS or worse is because some developers would rather sacrifice performance for better visuals.

You also have this fascination with trying to get away with calling the Switch underpowered. Didn't the Switch launch with one of the most powerful mobile processors on the market? The points you are trying to make are so... pointless. What do you have to gain from calling the Switch underpowered? Come on, man, it makes you look desperate.

First I was answering someone's post. Second quit assuming my intentions. Third learn to live with other people's opinions cause reacting all hurt makes you pass off for a fanboy rather than someone who wants to exchange ideas. Fourth a legitimate debate is BY DEFINITION one where people exchange DIFFERENT or OPPOSED opinions, but maybe to you a debate is one where people agree all the time... And fifth what questions am I asking, what are you talking about? My first post in this thread was about all 3 systems and what seemed in my opinion to be their weakness, it's not my fault if only Nintendo gamers reacted to my opinion but that's fine as long as it is not fanboys and I don't wish to call you that but you are getting really close to living up to the name, man.

Do you feel so insecure about your prefered system that you need to lash out like that?

Cheers mate.



Framerate



CrazyGamer2017 said:
sethnintendo said:

You should have been here commenting on the Wii back in 2006.  You could have pretty much kept most of the same response.

 

Well, while the Wii processing power was no world record at the time, the difference between the Wii and the other systems was smaller than things are today so I could have made that comment back then but it would have been on the edge of irrelevancy, so much so that most people haven't even bothered trying to defend the Switch as a home system but have been insisting it's a handheld cause even they must admit that as a home system it's egregiously behind the others.

I'm not sure you're serious but the gap between the Wii and 360/Ps3 ate the time was a least 4-5 times larger than the gap between Switch and a Ps4 in terms of raw power, not to mention the Wii didn't even support most of the shader features supported by Ps360, while the Switch is technically on par with the Ps4 (or even slightly better) in that department. So no, you're getting it totally wrong.



30fps isn't the end of the world and more than a few of the best PS4 games are 30fps so it's really not that big of a deal. Bloodborne and Dark souls 3 are great and 30fps. The Witcher 3 is great and 30fps, R&C is great and 30fps, Uncharted SP and Horizon are great at 30fps. Although it is nice that Uncharted mp is 60fps. Not every game necessarily needs 60fps, although some like wipeout and nioh do.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar