Digital Foundry: Why the return of 30fps console games is inevitable

[Darling Baphomet]

6 hours ago, Dauersack said:

What is it with you people and the incessant hyperbole? We are talking about going from 60 to 30, not from 60 to 10. Would it be so dramatic for you to return to early Ps4 or late PS3 level graphics in exchange for some other amazing features?

 

I'm using hyperbole to demonstrate that your argument is shit. Just because you were once used to bad graphics does not mean you should be expected to be satisfied by said bad graphics. And yes, 30fps is dogshit. PC is already moving on to 120fps while we can't even commit to 60.

 

We're not getting 'amazing features' in exchange for 30fps, we're getting games that are choppy in exchange for somewhat prettier screenshots. None of these new 30fps PS5 games have brought anything revolutionary to the table.

[Vault-TecPhantom]

On 05/11/2022 at 7:38 PM, Zephrese said:

 

While I personally can usually see the difference, I feel that people exaggerate the difference just as much - if not more so - than those that underexaggerate it.

I doubt that a majority of people actually give a damn about the difference between 30fps and 60fps, let alone enough for it to "ruin" a game for them.

 

Was going to stay out of this after my initial post because - as usual on the internet - both sides are making complete clowns out of themselves, but...

 

To be fair, I said it ruined how Breathedge looked, not the game itself (the game being an ill balanced, poorly paced time waster did that all by itself)

[Zephrese]

1 hour ago, Vault-TecPhantom said:

To be fair, I said it ruined how Breathedge looked, not the game itself (the game being an ill balanced, poorly paced time waster did that all by itself)

 

Wasn't referring to what you said specifically when I said that, my bad.

[mega-tallica]

On 11/5/2022 at 4:03 PM, Darling Baphomet said:

PC is already moving on to 120fps while we can't even commit to 60.

 

PC also has the ability to be upgraded and have performance components replaced as they're released to achieve the highest possible performance on immediate availability. 

 

Consoles are limited to whatever the spec standard was at the time it was being designed and already becomes dated by the time it launches in most cases. As well as being limited by the need for them to be affordable and reasonably priced, something that doesn't limit PC's. 

 

If performance means this much to people, you should be playing on PC and not messing around too much with consoles outside of exclusives. Why would you? PC's were always one step ahead of consoles, performance is and was always better on a gaming PC no matter where you look in history. It's a given. 

 

Obviously performance on consoles still matter and you want it to keep improving through each generation (which it has, more gradually than before but it's still moving forward) but that was never really the core focus of the console experience. Ease of use and providing fun gaming experiences on a budget was more the priority and what sold consoles to begin with and what continues to sell consoles over PC's. 

[VenlafaxineHead]

On 11/4/2022 at 6:23 PM, Dauersack said:

I am normalizing it because to me it is normal, as I literally am incapable to see any difference between 30 and 60 even when watching a comparison video. 

Honestly... if that's true, that's very bizarre to me. 

 

Maybe I can see this in watching a comparison video sense... but even then... It's VERY noticeable. 

Playing the game on the other hand it's extremely noticeable. I played the Uncharted games and Last of us on PS5 w/60fps and they felt great. Movement is far more fluid making it easier to play - especially in combat situations or navigating terrain. I've played both of those games around 10 times on the PS4.

 

I'm not saying 30fps made the games terrible...not at all. Doubling the framerate just made them feel wonderful to play again and going back to 30 feels clunky to me. . 

[VenlafaxineHead]

On 11/4/2022 at 5:43 PM, ArmoredSnowman said:

I must be blind, because the 30 and 60 lines look about the same for me. 

 

That's a pretty awful example. 

 

Again, it's about fluidity of motion and smooth experience... it's much nicer to play games in 60 rather than 30 and I would take 100 out of 100 times vs. fidelity.  

[starcrunch061]

On 11/4/2022 at 5:39 PM, ChibsSoA said:

1) starting a sentence with "..." is even more annoying than people who demand 60 fps in their games

 

...and yet I find this point even more annoying.

 

But trolling aside, let's not be naive. Of course you can tell the difference in 30 fps and 60 fps. Maybe the maximum is somewhere in between, and we'll never tell the difference between 60 fps and 120 fps, I don't know.

 

But what I do know is this: this seems like yet another sellout for devs to do their graphical masturbation at the cost of performance. If it's more important to the community to have horse testicles shrivel in the cold, by all means, let's prioritize graphics, but I've always been one for performance. 

 

I can play games on anything. I mean hell - I was playing an old Tiger machine just this weekend. I just like playing video games. But that doesn't mean I can't tell the difference between difference performance modes.

[Darling Baphomet]

4 hours ago, mega-tallica said:

Consoles are limited to whatever the spec standard was at the time it was being designed and already becomes dated by the time it launches in most cases. As well as being limited by the need for them to be affordable and reasonably priced, something that doesn't limit PC's. 

 

All the more reason to focus on making games that play smoothly instead of chasing the dragon of 4k screenshot simulators. Instead we get the worst of both worlds - sacrificing gameplay for the sake of visuals that will always be dwarfed by top end PCs.

 

Besides that, the PS5's specs do not matter. Literal toaster computers with no graphics card can play (sufficiently old) games at 60fps. It's entirely a question of what the developers choose to optimize for. If they were building their games to run at 60fps on current gen consoles, they would be running at 60fps on current gen consoles. Hell, even the PSVR on the base PS4 could run games at 120fps.

 

4 hours ago, mega-tallica said:

Obviously performance on consoles still matter and you want it to keep improving through each generation (which it has, more gradually than before but it's still moving forward)

 

It can hardly be said to be improving if we're back to every AAA game being 30 fps (and I'm sure it won't be too long until they struggle to achieve even that.) 

 

3 hours ago, VenlafaxineHead said:

Honestly... if that's true, that's very bizarre to me. 

 

Maybe I can see this in watching a comparison video sense... but even then... It's VERY noticeable. 

 

Yeah, the only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that they're playing games on TVs with frame interpolation on.

 

14 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

But what I do know is this: this seems like yet another sellout for devs to do their graphical masturbation at the cost of performance. If it's more important to the community to have horse testicles shrivel in the cold, by all means, let's prioritize graphics, but I've always been one for performance. 

 

Yeah, honestly, it annoys me how obsessively AAA games chase 'graphical fidelity' especially because it often results in a worse looking game. You shouldn't be sacrificing performance or resolution just for slightly more detailed textures. Even Quake 1 looks great playing at 4k and 60 fps, but on the other hand, no amount of visual cocaine is going to make a 720p 30fps game not look like a 720p 30fps game.

[mega-tallica]

53 minutes ago, Darling Baphomet said:

It can hardly be said to be improving if we're back to every AAA game being 30 fps (and I'm sure it won't be too long until they struggle to achieve even that.) 

 

An inevitable sacrifice as developers learn to push the boundaries of the new hardware. Limit the framerate to be more ambitious in other areas and when they figure out how to optimize it all on the new hardware we'll get back to 60fps as the norm and potentially even higher. 

 

The reason some games are still being made now with high framerates like God of War: Ragnarok is that they're still held down and developed with PS4 architecture which has already long been optimized and why we saw most games at the end of the PS4 life cycle achieve 60fps easily. Also why Ragnarok will have such stellar performance, it's a PS4 game running with PS5 power so Santa Monica could go crazy with optimization and achieve 120fps on a console. Very impressive but it's not a true next-gen game though. 

 

I'd gladly sacrifice a 60fps standard for a temporary reduction to 30fps on console if it means it would allow developers to unlock the power of the PS5, get it to its full potential and deliver true next-gen experiences later on. Because as it stands now, the PS5 is just being used as a more powerful PS4 and the games we're getting reflect that. 

 

Per usual, by the time they accomplish all this, PC is already another 2 steps ahead and people will be demanding that 120fps be the standard on consoles because PC can do it. They should've abandoned the PS4 far earlier, this cross-gen nonsense sells more copies of games and software during the transition period of generations and makes developers and Sony more money but it holds back the advancement of the hardware for every console generation that comes and goes. 

[The Alchemist]

22 minutes ago, mega-tallica said:

The reason some games are still being made now with high framerates like God of War: Ragnarok is that they're still held down and developed with PS4 architecture 

 

Yet you have some publications making statements recently about Ragnarok saying things like it looks like a maxed-out PC port, or even a PS6 game, along with having flawless performance. 

 

Personally I am sick of excuses for why 30fps is even a standard that still exists as we head into 2023. The PS5 and SX are beasts that are more than capable of handling 60fps (and more) whilst also showcasing amazing visuals. I'm not buying excuses anymore like we're only seeing 60fps because of cross-gen games, or we'll need to revert to 30fps in order to get "true next-gen" games. Part of the "next-gen" experience is having performance that wasn't available during the previous generation. That means 60fps as a baseline, rather than the crappy and stupidly outdated 30fps. A 30fps game is inherently not "next-gen". 

[mega-tallica]

11 hours ago, The Alchemist said:

 

Yet you have some publications making statements recently about Ragnarok saying things like it looks like a maxed-out PC port, or even a PS6 game, along with having flawless performance. 

 

Subjective statements. How can people tell it can be a PS6 game when we haven't even had true PS5 games yet? 

 

I'm sure it looks fantastic, but that's not the point. Even late PS4 games looked fantastic, RDR2 still holds up to anything coming out on console today, PS4 or PS5. That PS4 hardware has been maxed out and optimized and is producing what PS4 games should have looked like from the start. It's still all designed with PS4 architecture with the PS5 logo slapped on it. That's how almost all PS5 games have been designed up to this point. 

 

Not like Ragnarok was ever going to look bad but it could look even better if it were designed from the ground up on PS5 hardware. 

 

People say it's unacceptable to play games with anything less than 60fps but yet are perfectly fine with cross-gen and still playing PS4 games 2 years into the PS5. The PS5 does have the potential to play all games at 120fps with true next-gen graphics but it's not magic and is not going to happen instantaneously, it's going to be a gradual process as it's always been. Call it excuses and scoff at it or whatever you want, it doesn't change the fact. You want answers as to why we're seeing a temporary reversion back to 30fps well here's why. 

 

Give it another few years and you're going to have gaming experiences with much higher visual quality than we have now with the high framerates and optimization to boot. Unreal Engine 5 is still in its infancy and we've all seen the tech demos for it that are mind-blowing, looks photorealistic. That's the potential, that's where it's going to be eventually. We're not there yet with visual quality, why? Partly because developers are still messing around with PS4 architecture and old PS4 engines instead of focusing on true next-gen hardware. 

 

But hey, Ragnarok has 120fps mode and that's the important thing, right? 

[Slava]

A minor correction because a few people have mentioned Ragnarok's 120hz mode. It doesn't mean it's 120fps, it means the framerate is unlocked and has a higher cap than 60. According to Digital Foundry, Ragnarok runs at 80-90fps in this mode most of the time.

Edited November 8, 2022 by Slava

[Vault-TecPhantom]

2 hours ago, Slava said:

A minor correction because a few people have mentioned Ragnarok's 120hz mode. It doesn't mean it's 120fps, it means the framerate is unlocked and has a higher cap than 60. According to Digital Foundry, Ragnarok runs at 80-90fps in this mode most of the time.

 

Yeah, I saw the DF video and most of the time it was hitting about 84fps. They did say "targeting 120fps"  but, let's be honest, it was never gonna hit anywhere near that on consoles.

[Darling Baphomet]

6 hours ago, mega-tallica said:

Subjective statements. How can people tell it can be a PS6 game when we haven't even had true PS5 games yet? 

 

Returnal, Rift Apart, Demon's Souls, the TLOU remake and even Destruction All-Stars disprove this statement. Regardless of whatever arbitrary criteria you've chosen to define "true" PS5 games, we have had a number of current gen games made with only the current gen in mind.

 

6 hours ago, mega-tallica said:

Give it another few years and you're going to have gaming experiences with much higher visual quality than we have now with the high framerates and optimization to boot. Unreal Engine 5 is still in its infancy and we've all seen the tech demos for it that are mind-blowing, looks photorealistic.

 

This obsession with realism in graphics is funny in the context of an argument against higher framerates. Higher framerates are realism. Your brain's visual cortex is not capped at thirty frames per second. Real life is not a still image. It's in constant motion. If you cannot capture that motion, it doesn't matter how many more pixels you can dedicate to detailing Kratos's armpit hair.

 

6 hours ago, mega-tallica said:

But hey, Ragnarok has 120fps mode and that's the important thing, right? 

 

Yes.

 

1 hour ago, Vault-TecPhantom said:

 

Yeah, I saw the DF video and most of the time it was hitting about 84fps. They did say "targeting 120fps"  but, let's be honest, it was never gonna hit anywhere near that on consoles.

 

Yeah, even my friend with a great PC still has to play games at 1080p to steadily achieve 120fps. No way the PS5's managing 1440p and 120fps.

[mega-tallica]

1 hour ago, Darling Baphomet said:

 

Returnal, Rift Apart, Demon's Souls, the TLOU remake and even Destruction All-Stars disprove this statement. Regardless of whatever arbitrary criteria you've chosen to define "true" PS5 games, we have had a number of current gen games made with only the current gen in mind.

 

And all of those (minus perhaps Rift Apart) look like PS4 games and could easily be played on PS4 hardware. 

 

Do we have any games achieving graphical quality like the tech demos of Unreal Engine 5? No, not yet but we could. My 'arbitrary criteria' are games that look like next-gen games and we don't have them yet. Minus, again, Rift Apart which is just about the only example of a game that I can think of that not only looks like a next-gen game but feels like one. 

 

1 hour ago, Darling Baphomet said:

This obsession with realism in graphics is funny in the context of an argument against higher framerates. Higher framerates are realism. Your brain's visual cortex is not capped at thirty frames per second. Real life is not a still image. It's in constant motion. If you cannot capture that motion, it doesn't matter how many more pixels you can dedicate to detailing Kratos's armpit hair.

 

There is no argument against higher framerates being better. Of course it's better but that is not the point I'm making here. We're currently sacrificing graphical advancement for higher framerates and higher performance, if we can do this without an uproar, why is it such a problem if the opposite occurs? Framerate being sacrificed for better graphics? With the idea in mind that in the future both framerate and graphics would be greatly improved and ultimately a plus for everybody. 

 

Graphics attribute to realism far more than framerate does. There were some PS2 games that had 60fps but you'd be crazy to tell me those games are more realistic than a modern game with modern graphics but only at 30fps. Both in unison is what delivers the realism. 

 

It's a commonly accepted conclusion that the metaphorical framerate of the human eye is 30-60fps. That's the range we witness real life in for most people with many people more closer to 60fps and some are even capable of higher than that. It is capped at a certain range for every person, some higher and some lower than others. It sounds absurd but it may be totally possible that some people truly can't tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps even though others can see it so clearly. If the resolution of your eyes varies from person to person, it's not exactly far-fetched to believe that the motion and framerate of your eyes also varies from person to person. 

 

Regardless, video games being at 30fps is an acceptable compromise, obviously not better than 60fps, but acceptable to play on. Especially games that are highly optimized at 30fps and hold it steady, I have a hard to time finding something to complain about with that. It's when you start dipping below 30fps and you start introducing input lag and then it becomes problematic to the gameplay itself when your inputs are delayed or just get flat-out dropped like in Skyrim on PS3 when it dips down to single digit frames. 

 

You all make fair points against this idea but we all want the same thing at the end of the day. We want the best graphics available and the best performance and right now we pretty much have neither. 

 

I've seen gameplay footage of Ragnarok and anybody claiming that somehow looks like a PS6 game are as blind as the people that can't tell the difference between 30 and 60fps. It looks great but hardly anything that's mind-blowingly better than the 2018 game which also looked great. I'm by no means a graphics snob but even I'm not seeing this next-gen jump in graphics that I expected. They look more the same than they do different as did Forbidden West compared to Zero Dawn and as did TLOU remake to the remastered version. 

 

Only marginally better but when judging by the Unreal Engine 5 tech demos, it could be much better. I've seen demos that you can't even tell it's a video game, it looks real. Like, that's what I want and if it means we got to temporary sacrifice framerate to help get there then let's do it. It shouldn't even be a debate. 

Edited November 8, 2022 by mega-tallica

[RadiantFlamberge]

While I like the ray tracing in the PC version of Control, it's something I'd turn off on the PS5 because I do mind sacrificing framerate. I'm not going to say that 30 FPS is completely horrible. It's just that 60 FPS is so much better. It feels more responsive, and is more immersive. Developers need to use FidelityFX Super Resolution (FSR) 2.0, which is AMD's answer to Nvidia DLSS (deep learning supersampling). AMD has already fixed up Xbox with it. Now they need to give it to Sony as well.

 

I want the best graphics available at 60 FPS. I'd rather not have a game look almost like a PS6 game in screenshots only to run at 30 FPS while being played. Graphics aren't everything. There will come a time when developers can get more detail at 60 FPS.

Edited November 9, 2022 by RadiantFlamberge

[BrandedBerserk]

10 hours ago, mega-tallica said:

Do we have any games achieving graphical quality like the tech demos of Unreal Engine 5? No, not yet but we could. My 'arbitrary criteria' are games that look like next-gen games and we don't have them yet. Minus, again, Rift Apart which is just about the only example of a game that I can think of that not only looks like a next-gen game but feels like one. 

 

There is no argument against higher framerates being better. Of course it's better but that is not the point I'm making here. We're currently sacrificing graphical advancement for higher framerates and higher performance, if we can do this without an uproar, why is it such a problem if the opposite occurs? Framerate being sacrificed for better graphics? With the idea in mind that in the future both framerate and graphics would be greatly improved and ultimately a plus for everybody. 

 

Please tell me you at least have a 4K Oled or Qled TV with HDR before rambling about how we don't have any games that look next gen as I really don't see how you can say that with a statight face considering there's a good amount of examples out there at this point. Horizon forbidden west and God of War Ragnorok are undoubtedly amongst the best looking games out there with great performance to boot so what graphical advancement was sacrificed exactly?  Those unreal engine 5 tech demos are a great presentation of what's to come but it's exactly that.. tech demos to showcase graphics and not a full game to be played from start to finish as of now.

 

Im sure most would rather devs keep 4k 60fps as standard for this generation while slightly improving details and performance rather than pushing for realistic looking games that run at 15 fps for the sake of graphical advancement. 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2022 by BrandedBerserk

[mega-tallica]

20 hours ago, BrandedBerserk said:

 

Please tell me you at least have a 4K Oled or Qled TV with HDR before rambling about how we don't have any games that look next gen as I really don't see how you can say that with a statight face considering there's a good amount of examples out there at this point. Horizon forbidden west and God of War Ragnorok are undoubtedly amongst the best looking games out there with great performance to boot so what graphical advancement was sacrificed exactly?  Those unreal engine 5 tech demos are a great presentation of what's to come but it's exactly that.. tech demos to showcase graphics and not a full game to be played from start to finish as of now.

 

Im sure most would rather devs keep 4k 60fps as standard for this generation while slightly improving details and performance rather than pushing for realistic looking games that run at 15 fps for the sake of graphical advancement. 

 

 

 

There are mods on PC for PS4 games like RDR2 that far surpass what we're currently seeing on PS5 and that includes Ragnarok which I'm playing now on PS5 with a decent quality Samsung 4K QLED TV. It looks great, don't get me wrong, up there with RDR2 as the best looking game I've seen yet using PS4 tech but if that's the best we got then consoles are still far behind the curve. 

 

The sacrifice being we're not going to see those graphics on console for awhile still partly because most developers are still busy making PS4 games and have not even really tapped into most of the PS5's power. Graphical advancement could be moving so much faster if we weren't held up on the past simply because it makes the developers and Sony more money by maintaining cross-gen 2+ years into the next-gen console. 

 

The whole point of next-gen is to deliver a next-gen experience and a big part of that are the graphics. Why do you think so many still haven't pulled the trigger on a PS5? Not enough exclusive games for one and two, there's not enough improvement over the PS4 versions with all these cross-gen games to warrant the purchase. It definitely does matter greatly. 

Edited November 10, 2022 by mega-tallica

[AJ_Radio]

4 hours ago, mega-tallica said:

There are mods on PC for PS4 games like RDR2 that far surpass what we're currently seeing on PS5 and that includes Ragnarok which I'm playing now on PS5 with a decent quality Samsung 4K QLED TV. It looks great, don't get me wrong, up there with RDR2 as the best looking game I've seen yet using PS4 tech but if that's the best we got then consoles are still far behind the curve. 

 

The sacrifice being we're not going to see those graphics on console for awhile still partly because most developers are still busy making PS4 games and have not even really tapped into most of the PS5's power. Graphical advancement could be moving so much faster if we weren't held up on the past simply because it makes the developers and Sony more money by maintaining cross-gen 2+ years into the next-gen console. 

 

The whole point of next-gen is to deliver a next-gen experience and a big part of that are the graphics. Why do you think so many still haven't pulled the trigger on a PS5? Not enough exclusive games for one and two, there's not enough improvement over the PS4 versions with all these cross-gen games to warrant the purchase. It definitely does matter greatly. 

 

Console was always behind PC. I don't know how more people don't realize this.

[Kthasin]

Gotham Knights is a mess of a game from start to finish, it's not an example for anything besides bad management. Remember Arkham Origins? yea.. coincidence they're both from them lmao

Requiem is an indie studio who made their first AAA game and still has a lot to learn.

 

These games aren't a standard. You will always have 30fps games on console to make the console shine and sell for the people who don't want to buy a pc for a much higher price and the problems it comes with it. A console it's just more appealing because it's cheaper and plug and play.

 

Having both Fidelity and Performance modes on console will be the norm from now on. Not all games will have this because of lack of resources, experience, budget or just their decision to make the game as good looking as possible. You play however you want.

 

And for people still arguing that more than 30fps is useless or see no difference you should check if you have one of these:

Bad TV with huge delay, normal TVs nowadays have 80-150ms and it's still a lot. Bad TVs can go up to 400ms or more.

Bad internet connection that affects gameplay since majority of online gaming is 60 fps nowadays.

Or simply never experienced high refresh rate gaming on a pc before for a decent amount of time to make sure your body gets used to the smoothness.

 

I've been playing consoles and handhelds since 1999 and only started playing on PC in 2013 at 60hz moving to high refresh rate 1080p165 in 2011 and now at 1440p144 for my gaming monitor and 4K120 for my TV and I can assure you playing games at 30 fps hurts my eyes. 40 fps is such a big improvement in frame timing and less sickening but 60 is the way to go.

These consoles sell they can do 4K120 and 8K but it's all bullshit because 120 it's either 1080p and 1440p and majority struggle to maintain it. Consoles are cheap products that come every 5-7 years and 1-2 gens behind pc hardware at the time of launch. I just have the opinion consoles games should have the priority to make games smooth and not visually excellent but a stutter fest.

 

tldr Just don't spread misinformation to people with even less knowledge than you wherever, like saying 30 and 60 fps is the same when you only need a pair of eyes to see the difference. Just because you chose ignorance and not research or test it yourself.

And play however you want and makes you happy. If it's in a 3K PC with 100fps or on a 300 handheld with the power of an iPhone 7 (Switch) in 540p-1080p at 30. I do both and still have common sense to know the hardwares limitations.

 

 

Edited November 10, 2022 by S1nhwaui

[Z1MZUM]

On 10/28/2022 at 5:37 PM, AJ_Radio said:

It’s just a bunch of games that the PS4 already has, and the actual new games are goddamn remakes. 
 

I wanted to puke in my soup when Guerrilla Games announced they were going to remake Horizon Zero Dawn. 
 

You killed off Killzone, but you decide to remake an already massively successful game? 
 

This industry is a joke.

 

It is, I've never been so disappointed with any other gen. Though I look at how much work and general support in all industries have really gone down hill. I hated Horizon Zero Dawn, I seriously did. 

 

I think that Youtube is over saturated with pc Dorks and their Video cards  Like most of it is complete nonsense or for people that don't have a shiny new card. DF is one of the originals, they have made lots of wild claims over the years and topics like this are meaningless. If we need a polite way to say "Pc's are better" then just say it. This is what I've always liked about PSN profiles, most of us are happy with what we have.

[AJ_Radio]

6 hours ago, Z1MZUM said:

It is, I've never been so disappointed with any other gen. Though I look at how much work and general support in all industries have really gone down hill. I hated Horizon Zero Dawn, I seriously did. 

 

I think that Youtube is over saturated with pc Dorks and their Video cards  Like most of it is complete nonsense or for people that don't have a shiny new card. DF is one of the originals, they have made lots of wild claims over the years and topics like this are meaningless. If we need a polite way to say "Pc's are better" then just say it. This is what I've always liked about PSN profiles, most of us are happy with what we have.

 

I disagree with Horizon Zero Dawn, I think it was a good game with a solid story, but it was hyped to hell and back which is what I ultimately had a problem with. Far too many 9/10 and 10/10 reviews. I honestly believe the professional critics that work for prestige websites like IGN get paid more money if they leave a glowing review for a AAA game. Meanwhile an obscure indie title that few people will play will often get a bad review.

 

And it's not just the gaming industry it's practically all the entertainment mediums. General support has really gone down the shitter. People tell me I'm not old but I remember even 10 years ago you were able to hook up support with companies like Ubisoft. You could go into their forums and get help, and back in the PS2 era you had a telephone line for customer service. Try to get in contact with Ubisoft today, they made it intentionally hard for you to do so.

 

I have a desktop computer with Steam that can run modern indies and bigger budget games spanning from the 2000s to the early 2010's, but nothing beyond that. It ain't a gaming desktop and getting a decent one ain't cheap. Lots of parts to buy which cost several hundred dollars.

 

So far there's Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart, Returnal, Demon's Souls, Elden Ring, God of War: Ragnorok and maybe Horizon Forbidden West. But all the other big budget stuff simply doesn't appeal to me. For indies I can play on either PS4 or on Steam, doesn't make much of a difference since they seem to run the same on both platforms.

[Z1MZUM]

14 hours ago, AJ_Radio said:

 

I disagree with Horizon Zero Dawn, I think it was a good game with a solid story, but it was hyped to hell and back which is what I ultimately had a problem with. Far too many 9/10 and 10/10 reviews. I honestly believe the professional critics that work for prestige websites like IGN get paid more money if they leave a glowing review for a AAA game. Meanwhile an obscure indie title that few people will play will often get a bad review.

 

And it's not just the gaming industry it's practically all the entertainment mediums. General support has really gone down the shitter. People tell me I'm not old but I remember even 10 years ago you were able to hook up support with companies like Ubisoft. You could go into their forums and get help, and back in the PS2 era you had a telephone line for customer service. Try to get in contact with Ubisoft today, they made it intentionally hard for you to do so.

 

I have a desktop computer with Steam that can run modern indies and bigger budget games spanning from the 2000s to the early 2010's, but nothing beyond that. It ain't a gaming desktop and getting a decent one ain't cheap. Lots of parts to buy which cost several hundred dollars.

 

So far there's Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart, Returnal, Demon's Souls, Elden Ring, God of War: Ragnorok and maybe Horizon Forbidden West. But all the other big budget stuff simply doesn't appeal to me. For indies I can play on either PS4 or on Steam, doesn't make much of a difference since they seem to run the same on both platforms.

 

You're not old, The pandemic has affected every business as far as to say that the quality of life in general has gone down hill. I am at work right now and running out of blood tubes, waiting on my order from the Netherlands because I can't locally find this basic science tool. It's every day of every week in a professional environment that people here in Australia are living a "Can't give a fuck" attitude, I think we enjoyed the years off and getting paid for nothing too much. Well I didn't, I work in a Lab and didn't have a single day off. The billionaires of this world probably aren't happy losing money, we aren't happy about being overcharged for everything due to greed. Well there's Putin but ffs what is that shit monkey to any civilized human?

 

I rant sorry.

 

I found Horizon Zero dawn boring, I felt like I was lumbering around the unpopular kid with a runny nose and diarrhea. Yes Diversity but I'm not a charity worker.

 

Elden Ring is great but I have little reason to be hyped this Gen, since the beginning of time my PC has always been more powerful but that's not the point. We have little AAA titles, We have massive hardware shortage. I'm honestly willing to say this gen is a dud, I'm also willing to say Get back to work lazy fucks, the honeymoon is over.

 

It saddens me to say I'm looking forward to Like A Dragon Ishin more then any other title right now.

 

I also have consoles dating back to the stoneage, Currently Playing Tony Hawk Underground on original XB.

[Wagszilla]

If we're getting a PS5 Pro, 60fps Native 4K is mandatory.

 

The industry should be developing at 6K and optimizing down to 4K. It'll preserve texture detail and future proof but this is an industry that increasingly accepts the lowest common denominator so who knows what'll happen. 

 

The PS3-PS4 gen is full of games advertised at "30 fps" but would run well under that so "just 30 fps" is just swallowing marketing propaganda the industry churns out much like "4K" currently is and been in the PS4-PS4 Pro-PS5 era.

 

No clicks for you, DF. 

[Z1MZUM]

3 hours ago, Wagszilla said:

If we're getting a PS5 Pro, 60fps Native 4K is mandatory.

 

The industry should be developing at 6K and optimizing down to 4K. It'll preserve texture detail and future proof but this is an industry that increasingly accepts the lowest common denominator so who knows what'll happen. 

 

The PS3-PS4 gen is full of games advertised at "30 fps" but would run well under that so "just 30 fps" is just swallowing marketing propaganda the industry churns out much like "4K" currently is and been in the PS4-PS4 Pro-PS5 era.

 

No clicks for you, DF. 

 

Yes, the PS5 really does need a stronger Graphics Card if people want at least 60 fps at 4k, It currently compares to the 2XXX series which isn't crap but kinda outdated. With that said I don't really care as much as I do about the quality of games. But we aren't really seeing this, there's a global nap time happening.