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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Scarlett Will Prioritize Frame Rate Over Graphics

Tagged games:

 

Do you prefer 60/4k with reduced visuals or 30/4k with increased visuals?

YES! 30 40.00%
 
No. 5 6.67%
 
Depends on the game. 32 42.67%
 
I dont care. 8 10.67%
 
Total:75
CGI-Quality said:
Spindel said:

Why the hell would you want 4K on a 34” TV? How close To it are you planning to sit?

Eh, I game on a 27" 4K HDR monitor and can sit a good 8-12' away and still be satisfied.

Seems like many still use those reverse distance x resolution chartz that are spread around. Where it is bad to have a 4k TV if the monitor is to small, or that it's bad to have a big TV if you sit to close.



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."

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Zkuq said:
1080p @ 60Hz plz. I'd rather have 1080p with good effects etc. than 4K with worse effect etc.

Never gona happen.

MS already used the True4K and other monickers for X1X, if they say the Scarlet will be a 1080p machine people will be confused on why they should buy the "weaker" console to upgrade from what they have. And Sony being cinematic focused will certainly go 4k. If the 720p/900p vs 1080p looked bad for X1 the start of this gen, can you imagine how bad will be 1080p vs 4k?

It'll almost certainly be up to the devs and if it is, I can guarantee you there will some games that will not run at 4K. That said, I do expect devs to target 4K rather than focusing on more important stuff, so in that sense, I suppose you are right. I'm not very optimistic about this...



Zkuq said:
DonFerrari said:

Never gona happen.

MS already used the True4K and other monickers for X1X, if they say the Scarlet will be a 1080p machine people will be confused on why they should buy the "weaker" console to upgrade from what they have. And Sony being cinematic focused will certainly go 4k. If the 720p/900p vs 1080p looked bad for X1 the start of this gen, can you imagine how bad will be 1080p vs 4k?

It'll almost certainly be up to the devs and if it is, I can guarantee you there will some games that will not run at 4K. That said, I do expect devs to target 4K rather than focusing on more important stuff, so in that sense, I suppose you are right. I'm not very optimistic about this...

Sure it is up to devs. But start of gen it is full of crossgen, so it those games are 1080 or close in PS4 and X1 they will be 4k on next gen.

Some devs will chose to go below 4k some time after, perhaps 1440p. But certainly they won't go 1080p even less for the reason of putting 60fps. If 60fps is the most important thing for you then PC is basically the only option.

1080p will probably be only used by indie devs. There is to big of a generational jump from base X1 to next gen for 1080p to be the general choice anyway.



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."

LudicrousSpeed said:

Nice. Horizon 4 looks gorgeous in 4k but I always play in the 60fps mode. 

It's pretty cool when console games even offer a choice between 4k / 60fps, rocket league on Switch has the same sort of thing, either higher res/details or locked 60 but the visuals take the hit.

Choice is what it should be all about, give the user the option where they wanna shove the power and make it as easy as a tickbox of [] Performance mode and most users will be happy with the choice.



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

ClassicGamingWizzz said:
NobleTeam360 said:
Isn't framerate vs graphics largely up to the developers? I mean, maybe MS will force framerate over graphics on its own developers?

Ofcourse its up for devs, dude is talking out of his ass like always.

He's just talking about first party stuff I'd say, kinda like how most Nintendo games on the Switch are locked 60fps but then you have the 3rd party titles like Doom/Wolfenstein and such happily coming in at 30fps. When it comes to game development, the way the game runs is always down to the developer.



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

Around the Network
Ganoncrotch said:
ClassicGamingWizzz said:

Ofcourse its up for devs, dude is talking out of his ass like always.

He's just talking about first party stuff I'd say, kinda like how most Nintendo games on the Switch are locked 60fps but then you have the 3rd party titles like Doom/Wolfenstein and such happily coming in at 30fps. When it comes to game development, the way the game runs is always down to the developer.

From what I know there are first party games on Switch that are 30fps.

like Zelda BotW



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."

CGI-Quality said:

Educate who/how and what is it that you do for a living that is relevant to this discussion? :P

You tell me who, apparently someone in here is a layman and i am curious to know. Happy to help, i dont charge for knowledge however sometimes i think i should on here. Apparently everyone in here is an eye optometrist.

Last edited by Azzanation - on 17 August 2019

DonFerrari said:
CGI-Quality said:

Eh, I game on a 27" 4K HDR monitor and can sit a good 8-12' away and still be satisfied.

Seems like many still use those reverse distance x resolution chartz that are spread around. Where it is bad to have a 4k TV if the monitor is to small, or that it's bad to have a big TV if you sit to close.

DF mentions many times on the Switch that 720p looks sharp on a small screen in portable mode. This is no different the bigger the screen the more noticable the pixels get.

I gamed on a 42inch 1080p screen and it looked super sharp. Going to 55inch 4k screen, i can tell if i am running 1080p instead of 4k. 

Honestly anything around 30inches i am happen to drop resolution for preformance however on a big 4k TV i wont, due to how noticable it is.

It doesnt take a rocket science to see a difference, however it depends if its worth the preformance gap.



DonFerrari said:
Ganoncrotch said:

He's just talking about first party stuff I'd say, kinda like how most Nintendo games on the Switch are locked 60fps but then you have the 3rd party titles like Doom/Wolfenstein and such happily coming in at 30fps. When it comes to game development, the way the game runs is always down to the developer.

From what I know there are first party games on Switch that are 30fps.

like Zelda BotW

Very much so there are! Breath of the Wild was also in development for a long time before the Switch hardware was probably finalised, that game works on the Switch as well as it can given the scope of the title. But the stuff which was designed more with Switch in mind like Splatoon2, Arms, Mario Ody, MK8D, Yoshi Crafted World (even running on unreal engine) all target and for the most part are locked to 60fps then with the hits taken to either resolution, visuals or both in the case of Yoshi.

Breath of the wild also probably fluctuates far more from 30fps than any of the other listed games drops from 60fps, I think their priority in creating and releasing that game was to release the game, the frame-rate was serviceable (was fixed somewhat after launch in some regions) but definitely the main prio was the game to be delivered as it was designed.

You take one walk through Korok village and you will never see anywhere close to locked 30fps, that region is so crazy how built up it is and then so densely filled with grass, leaves, npcs and other items, it's almost like they wanted it to be somewhere you didn't run through quickly... I dunno how it got through testing and wasn't cut back a little bit, even if you go there yourself and just spin out some of the grass the performance comes back a bit, but to release it and leave it as it is was always shocking to me.



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

Ganoncrotch said:
DonFerrari said:

From what I know there are first party games on Switch that are 30fps.

like Zelda BotW

Very much so there are! Breath of the Wild was also in development for a long time before the Switch hardware was probably finalised, that game works on the Switch as well as it can given the scope of the title. But the stuff which was designed more with Switch in mind like Splatoon2, Arms, Mario Ody, MK8D, Yoshi Crafted World (even running on unreal engine) all target and for the most part are locked to 60fps then with the hits taken to either resolution, visuals or both in the case of Yoshi.

Breath of the wild also probably fluctuates far more from 30fps than any of the other listed games drops from 60fps, I think their priority in creating and releasing that game was to release the game, the frame-rate was serviceable (was fixed somewhat after launch in some regions) but definitely the main prio was the game to be delivered as it was designed.

You take one walk through Korok village and you will never see anywhere close to locked 30fps, that region is so crazy how built up it is and then so densely filled with grass, leaves, npcs and other items, it's almost like they wanted it to be somewhere you didn't run through quickly... I dunno how it got through testing and wasn't cut back a little bit, even if you go there yourself and just spin out some of the grass the performance comes back a bit, but to release it and leave it as it is was always shocking to me.

That is the strangest part, made to run on WiiU but still have the roadblocks on Switch. But won't derail the thread on it.

Just wanted to say that even though Nintendo focus a lot on 60fps it isn't mandatory even for then. There may be other games that will be 30fps until the sucessor.



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."