Jump to content

Would you accept 30fps games on the PS5?


Wavergray

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, DaivRules said:

It's easy to see when they're compared right after one another. It's another thing to just be shown a single screen and asked "how many frames per second do you see right now?"

 

1 hour ago, dmland12 said:

I've seen comparison videos before.  The difference is minor at best, even looking at things side by side and actively looking for the difference.  In real world terms, I'll call that no difference.  For some of these games, I still couldn't see anything different at all even actively looking for it (especially Limbo @4:17).  For those with camera swings (and especially wild camera swings), the 60 looked slightly smoother, but I wouldn't notice it at all if I weren't actively trying to see the difference in a side-by-side comparison.  I really don't think my vision is worse than anyone else's.

 

Also, lol at the comparisons between 60 and 120 in the video that were slowed down.  They cut it 4x, so that's like comparing 15 vs 30.  It's easier to see the difference there.

 

When playing, I can easily tell when a game is running at 60 fps. Even before I knew what fps were, I remember saying things like "this game runs silky smooth". Only afterwards was I able to tell why.

 

Although I agree that for most games, 30 fps is more than fine. It's just that 60 fps is better.

I personally don't even want to get a PS5. I'm positively sick of buying new consoles and I'm happy with where we are right now. Games already look more than good enough and I can't even possibly see where we could further improve the art without making AAA gaming an even more expensive venture than Hollywood blockbusters (and I certainly don't want to give the industry more excuses to shove our games with excessive amounts of DLC, microtransactions, and loot boxes). But since we're clearly going to have a PS5, then they better make sure they improve upon the only thing that can be improved upon at this point: performance - which is to say (stable) 60 fps in every game. Could we make all games run at 4K? Sure, But I couldn't possibly care any less, and I mean it. I'd take 720p 60 fps over 1080p 30 fps any day of the week.

Edited by jrdemr
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jrdemr said:

 

 

When playing, I can easily tell when a game is running at 60 fps. Even before I knew what fps were, I remember saying things like "this game runs silky smooth". Only afterwards was I able to tell why.

 

Although I agree that for most games, 30 fps is more than fine. It's just that 60 fps is better.

I personally don't even want to get a PS5. I'm positively sick of buying new consoles and I'm happy with where we are right now. Games already look more than good enough and I can't even possibly see where we could further improve the art without making AAA gaming an even more expensive venture than Hollywood blockbusters (and I certainly don't want to give the industry more excuses to shove our games with excessive amounts of DLC, microtransactions, and loot boxes). But since we're clearly going to have a PS5, then they better make sure they improve upon the only thing that can be improved upon at this point: performance - which is to say (stable) 60 fps in every game. Could we make all games run at 4K? Sure, But I couldn't possibly care any less, and I mean it. I'd take 720p 60 fps over 1080p 30 fps any day of the week.

 

First of all, I get it's like... your opinion and everything, but graphics can always improve.  New graphical technology would not only help photorealistic games look more photorealistic, but give the artistic games more tools to create their visions as well.  4K is just one piece of that.

 

Second of all, achieving 60fps across the board is a massive hurdle.  Even on PC, you need a hell of a machine to get that on new releases and even then its spotty, depending on the abilities/effort of the developers.  As you point out, you'd probably have to go backwards visually to hit 60fps across the board... and not only is that absolutely not going to happen with a brand new console come 2020/2021, but it absolutely shouldn't happen.  There are only a handful of genres that really potentially "need" 60fps, and generally speaking the developers scale those down to hit that goal anyways.  I think things work out perfectly fine that way.

 

Hell, if 60fps were a Sony-driven mandate to all developers on their platform, a lot of good games and ideas may flat out just never get made.  Dropping the resolution and degrading the assets may only do so much depending on the engine being used and the abilities of the developers.

 

EDIT: One of my favorite recent games, Hollow Knight, is getting ported to the Switch and one of the biggest reported development hurdles was hitting their stable 60fps target on the console... and it's a 2D game (an awesome one, granted, but still).  Kudos to Team Cherry for making that their goal and fighting to hit it, but a lot of developers may opt to just not bother if stuck with that kind of strict requirement... it'd stifle creativity dramatically and for many games, they just don't benefit as much from it.

Edited by Dreakon13
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Dreakon13 said:

First of all, I get it's like... your opinion and everything, but graphics can always improve.  New graphical technology would not only help photorealistic games look more photorealistic, but give the artistic games more tools to create their visions as well.  4K is just one piece of that.

 

I never said it wasn't possible, I just said games look more than good enough already and that going even further would make AAA games prohibitively expensive.

 

I also value frame rate infinitely more than I do resolution, so if every game had to be capped at 1080p to achieve 60 fps, I wouldn't give a single damn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would 100%. 

 

First off, I don't really care about frame rates and never have, so long as it's consistent enough, I'm good.

 

But really, my reasoning for this is Uncharted 4 and Black Ops 1.

 

When I played U4 for the first time, it was cool, I dug it, then I played a bit of multiplayer, which was 60 when the main game was 30, and it was night and day. The game was so much smoother, faster, it was great. Then I never touched MP again because I couldn't care less about MP and what a shock, turns out the single player was just as good as it's always been and being 30 didn't bring it down at all for me, guess it's not important.

 

And Black Ops. I played it years ago, as I'm sure most of us did since it's one of, if not the most played game here, and didn't think about the FPS or anything. It was years later that my partner would get into the series and to this day we still have regular sessions of Nuketown FFA split screen (when the baby allows us to anyway), and split screen is capped at 30 vs 60 for all individual modes. Since this is where I've spent probably my bulk of the time with the game now, it's what I'm used to. It's smooth, and by no means does it slow down my ability to kill shit. When one of us gets bored or has to grab Billie or do something, sometimes the other will play another round or two in full screen and you notice the double frame rate instantly. Caitlyn doesn't like it too much because, well, she has some issues with her eyes sometimes and I understand how taking something she's used to and essentially doubling the amount of shit her eyes have to process when she's used to doing it one way, well, that's not good for eye strain. But me, my eyes are fine, I just don't like it. It's noticeably quicker and makes it a bit more instinctively twichy, and I don't really feel that anymore. For me, in this game at least, 30 vs 60 is honestly enough difference that I kinda can be a bit more chill and relaxed, which in turn, makes me have more fun with the game. 

 

I get that this might not apply to you, but it's a question asking for opinions, not me ramming mine without approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Dav9834 said:

I'll take that, but there needs to be insurance on your words, escrow 

 

6 hours ago, Schwifty Swifty said:

 

I can‘t write you a message(?) It just says „DaivRules can‘t recieve Messages“ 

 

Didn't realize my PM inbox was full. Made some room. Send on in if you'd like to proceed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO, I believe that by the time the console's release, almost 99% of the games will demand 60fps at all time, I mean by that time you will clearly see the difference betweem 30 and 60fps in any game

NO, I believe that by the time the console's release, almost 99% of the games will demand 60fps at all time, I mean by that time you will clearly see the difference betweem 30 and 60fps in any game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Playstation 5 can run my PS4 disc of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt with a locked 60 FPS and noticeable improvements in performance, I have no problem with that. I think that's what Sony needs to focus on, a console with backwards compatibility.

 

The last Sony console with backwards compatibility was the first model Playstation 3. That was released in late 2006. It has been 12 years since then. I understand that due to complications and the system being hard to code for, that we're seeing all these remasters on the Playstation 4. Xbox One has backwards compatibility, so I very much think Sony's next console needs to have that.

 

I have a feeling Sony is going to botch this up because they have Playstation Now, which streams PS3 (and PS4 if you so choose) games to your PS4. I think it's a stupid way to play games from past generations on a modern console. Sony can remove games from their library at any time, which makes streaming a risky venture as opposed to owning a hard physical copy of a game that you know is going to be safe. If the game is online you run the risk of having inevitable server closures, but a single player game isn't a problem. Unless it's digital only, which runs under the same rules with a possibility of getting delisted. Like what happened to Noby Noby Boy recently.

 

Games built for a console in 30 FPS I have no problems with. Throwing in a lazy remaster that barely makes any improvements to the original game is something I do have a problem with.

 

Then again it all depends on the game. Many indie games I have played are best in 60 FPS, as they perform and run a lot better as opposed to 30 FPS. Story driven AAA games like God of War and Horizon Zero Dawn are just fine in 30 FPS.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a lot of people say they're not impressed by the graphics anymore, that they've just come to accept that standard of quality, and they're more likely to complain about poorer graphics than they are to praise great graphics, so I wonder, do people really want graphics better than what the latest God of War can provide? Because looking at that, Detroit: Become Human, and other recent games and ones to come I just get the feeling that I would be fine if graphics just stopped evolving from here, and the next console can just provide the same amount of detail but with better performance. I don't know though, because I don't think developers should stop trying to evolve, but what always comes to mind is that they got The Last of Us to run at 60fps on the standard PS4. Would people sacrifice the fidelity of these graphical games to have the fidelity of The Last of Us to then have the performance of such a game? Are you really wanting better graphics from the PS5? You probably are, at least some of you, but you really do get better input and a clearer image from a higher frame rate, and it's not always down to the game just being 30 either. Uncharted 4 and Ratchet and Clank use a high volume of motion blur to make the action look smoother because of the lack of 60fps, and are blurrier in motion because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do find it kind of funny the way people are inadvertently proving that 60fps doesn't need to be a "requirement", by showing off videos of console games running at 60fps.  If a genre truly benefits from 60fps (or a game is so low scale in the first place that its an easy target to hit)... developers are already doing it, most likely at the behest of their userbase.  Why does a slower paced/less competitive game dripping in atmosphere and high end graphical assets/effects need to sacrifice its bread and butter to hit a framerate that it doesn't really benefit from?

 

 

6 hours ago, gameoverDude189 said:

Compare Soul Edge (30 FPS) to the Soulcalibur series (60 FPS)

 

Other than the one or two dips WAY below 30fps in Soul Edge, it seems pretty indifferent to me (other than the obvious difference in overall graphical/animation/effect quality).  No one is arguing for <15fps dips.  EDIT: Can't say for sure either, but I'd bet a PS1 game like Soul Edge/Soulblade is probably running at a little less than 30fps.  They really didn't care about framerates back then.

 

If anything, trying to force developers to hit 60fps would likely lead to less stability in games in general (most game genres aren't as predictable/contained to build around as fighters)... given how much harder it is to hit a steady 60fps and the larger gap from 0-60 (meaning, if the framerate drops it has a much steeper fall than 0-30).  30fps cap is a much safer number these days if you don't like the dipping framerates in your video.

Edited by Dreakon13
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TheNocturnalOwl said:

I see a lot of people say they're not impressed by the graphics anymore, that they've just come to accept that standard of quality, and they're more likely to complain about poorer graphics than they are to praise great graphics, so I wonder, do people really want graphics better than what the latest God of War can provide? Because looking at that, Detroit: Become Human, and other recent games and ones to come I just get the feeling that I would be fine if graphics just stopped evolving from here, and the next console can just provide the same amount of detail but with better performance. I don't know though, because I don't think developers should stop trying to evolve, but what always comes to mind is that they got The Last of Us to run at 60fps on the standard PS4. Would people sacrifice the fidelity of these graphical games to have the fidelity of The Last of Us to then have the performance of such a game? Are you really wanting better graphics from the PS5? You probably are, at least some of you, but you really do get better input and a clearer image from a higher frame rate, and it's not always down to the game just being 30 either. Uncharted 4 and Ratchet and Clank use a high volume of motion blur to make the action look smoother because of the lack of 60fps, and are blurrier in motion because of it.

 

You make a good point, but I personally don't see the point of going out to buy a PS4 Pro with Ultra 4K TV just to get a bit more "bang" out of the graphics for the games that offer support. As you said, The Last of Us they got running at 60 FPS on the original PS4, and that is fine enough to me.

 

The Playstation 5 can't just provide the same amount of detail and be fine. Graphics will evolve whether we like it or not, but it is starting to reach the point where the masses are more readily attracted to a game for it's pristine graphics rather than looking at the gameplay. Not everything has to be shiny and gorgeous. Better performance is something I will always take over graphics. Still, since my vanilla PS4 works fine I'm not going to waste my money on the Pro just for performance, nor to make the select few games I have with Pro support to stand out a little bit more.

 

I just don't care anymore. I grew up back in the Mario & Sonic rivalry heydays when both mascots were big sellers with their respective games. For over 25 years I have seen the industry evolve from the 16 bit era to now the mid-generation cycle in the 8th generation. Gameplay will always matter to me. The graphics are just the icing on the cake.

 

I also feel that the AAA gaming industry is delving too far into the movie like experience. Big budget games today more than ever feel like I'm watching a Netflix drama series or a blockbuster Hollywood film, rather than a game I can just sit down and enjoy. Grand Theft Auto San Andreas back in 2004 had much more of an arcade like experience in terms of gameplay and it was just fun to mess around in. Today that experience is gone.

 

Someone once said in a gaming article I read a while back that by the 2020s - 2030s we won't be able to tell the difference between gaming and real life. That is a scary thought to think about. That's really the only avenue the industry can go towards, making a bigger sandbox with graphics so realistic you can't really distinguish too well between reality and virtual reality.

 

Another thing to consider is today's kids aren't really growing up with consoles. They're hooked onto their mobile phones and devices, so that's another problem the industry needs to think over.

 

As good as we have things now, I see a disaster coming in the near future.

Edited by Spaz
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Spaz said:

but it is starting to reach the point where the masses are more readily attracted to a game for it's pristine graphics rather than looking at the gameplay

 

Is it though?  Sure, you have your God of War's and Horizon Zero Dawn's... but as well as those sell, people are still attracted like moths to light to games like Fortnite, Zelda Breath of the Wild, GTA V (which while it looks fine is a PS3 remaster afterall), etc... and retro/2D indies are doing better than ever.

 

Now that I think about it, the games that are really graphical powerhouses seem to all be Playstation exclusives. xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dreakon13 said:

 

Is it though?  Sure, you have your God of War's and Horizon Zero Dawn's... but as well as those sell, people are still attracted like moths to light to games like Fortnite, Zelda Breath of the Wild, GTA V (which while it looks fine is a PS3 remaster afterall), etc... and retro/2D indies are doing better than ever.

 

Now that I think about it, the games that are really graphical powerhouses seem to all be Playstation exclusives. xD

 

You should've gotten the hint that I was referring to AAA games, which I'm quite honestly tired of at this point. I have a lot more older games and indie games on my backlog.

 

I will definitely play through God of War since I am a fan of the series, I have all the platinums and I would be doing a great disservice if I just ignore the game that just came out last week.

 

AAA games in general still look and run the best on a custom PC desktop, provided you got enough money to buy the specs you need. The PS4 Pro Enhanced label is still on the games and there are gamers out there who do buy these games because they think they look great. Same deal with the Xbox One Scorpio for Xbox gamers.

 

What I said previously, some food for thought. We may or may not have already reached a plateau.

Edited by Spaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spaz said:

 

You should've gotten the hint that I was referring to AAA games, which I'm quite honestly tired of at this point. I have a lot more older games and indie games on my backlog.

 

I will definitely play through God of War since I am a fan of the series, I have all the platinums and I would be doing a great disservice if I just ignore the game that just came out last week.

 

AAA games in general still look and run the best on a custom PC desktop, provided you got enough money to buy the specs you need. The PS4 Pro Enhanced label is still on the games and there are gamers out there who do buy these games because they think they look great. Same deal with the Xbox One Scorpio for Xbox gamers.

 

What I said previously, some food for thought. We may or may not have already reached a plateau.

 

I guess I'm missing the part where graphics are an overwhelmingly important thing for "the masses", AAA games or otherwise.  Gamers on expensive desktop PC's and the PS4 Pro/Xbox One X are a miniscule part of the overall picture... since they're luxuries most gamers can't afford or don't really want (or both).

 

EDIT: If I looked at a list of "most popular recent games", I'd probably be able to count the games sold on graphics alone on one hand... if I'd even need more than one or two fingers.

Edited by Dreakon13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, jrdemr said:

 

I'm pretty sure we're already there, unless developers want to push even further into the expensive venture that is photorealism.

 

I think, like most things involving technology, it will continue to get better... then cheaper... then better... then cheaper... and so on.  Until stunning (and resource intensive) graphical feature sets you never would've even thought possible are available to individuals and small teams for free in engines like Unreal or Unity.

Edited by Dreakon13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive been playing games for 30 years, and have never seen a single convincing arguement that steady 60fps is any better than steady 30fps.

 

obviously unstable framerate and framerate drops are an obvious and unwelcome thing, but steady 30 is completely fine as far as I’m concerned, and if sticking to 30fps lets the devs work on other visual improvements like increased fidelity and graphical improvements then I’m all for that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will mostly accept 30 fps on the new PS5 hardware, but only if it does not sacrifice performance. I understand that people want everything on the new-gen console, but I feel that's not going to happen a mid-gen version of the PS5 comes out. The cost of 4K TVs will drop by a good amount by the time we get near launch and average consumers will go out getting the cheapest models available that fit their budget. I don't think 1080p/1440p resolution will be completely abandoned by Sony, and that's where 60 fps will be mainly achieved via Performance Mode as we're seeing on certain games for those that own the PS4 Pro. I don't think frame rates should be the end-all when people want to make a purchase choice on the PS5. I'm still debating myself when I should get it on Day One or wait it out a good year after release. Backward compatibility and loading times are my main concern over whenever or not games play at 60 fps. If they're smart enough, Sony should do away with the archaic HHD drives and star using the SSHD ones for their new-gen console. But knowing them, they won't do that even though they cost roughly the same price out on the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Play FFXIV online with 30 DPS and then with 60 FPS or no limit set and you'll not only see the difference, but you'll actually feel the difference in movement fluidity. I used to think the difference was no biggie, but that's because most games I play on PS4 are 30 FPS so I'm just used to it, I guess. But for me there is a clear difference and 60 FPS feels so much better.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

Ive been playing games for 30 years, and have never seen a single convincing arguement that steady 60fps is any better than steady 30fps.

 

obviously unstable framerate and framerate drops are an obvious and unwelcome thing, but steady 30 is completely fine as far as I’m concerned, and if sticking to 30fps lets the devs work on other visual improvements like increased fidelity and graphical improvements then I’m all for that.

 

As another long-time gamer, I will echo this sentiment. 

 

Also, I'd like to mention that often, the gaming industry gets caught up in a buzzword or buzzphrase that seems to be THE thing with games. I remember the "bit" wars of the 1990s, where every single game or system you bought had to talk about how many "bits" it was. Even SNES games got into the act - I remember games touting that they were "64 megabit"...whatever the hell that meant. As a hilarious example, the Atari Jaguar claimed that it was a 64-bit machine, though it really only had 32-bit processing power.

 

The final example is relevant here, as many games that tout 60 FPS can only achieve that part of the time, at a cost of an overall lousier gaming experience the rest of the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People dont seem to understand its up to the developer if the game will be 60FPS or if they want to push the graphics. 

 

Even if the PS5 would be ultra powerfull developer might want to use all that power to push the graphics instead of performance. The PS5-6-7-8-9 will play at whatever FPS the developer chooses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...