I remember 1080p at 60fps was the big thing that this gen would achieve (or so people said). For the Xbox 360 and PS3 gamers wanted games at 1080p, rather than 720p, and now everyone considers 1080p to be the standard and demands (or at least would love to have) games at 60fps, rather than the usual 30.
I was just wondering, what would you guys rather have if you had to choose one?
Many multi-plats are aiming for 60fps, hitting 1080p on the PS4 and 900p on the Xbox One, but a few games for the PS4 are dropping fps in favour of that 1080p number (Uncharted 4 at 30fps, and Until Dawn at <30fps). Halo 5 for the XO, it seems, favours that 60fps mark, and would rather dynamically change the resolution between 900p and 1080p (depending on scene requirements) to maintain a 60fps lock.
What is more important to you? 1080 vertical pixels or silky smooth 60fps?
As long as the purposed resolution or FPS doesn't drop, it's fine for me, I wouldn't care what it is. But, if I had to choose between 60 FPS or 1080p, then I'd choose 1080p, as long as I'm using a HD TV with HDMI cords.
Personally I prefer resolution. Maybe because I played way too much Everquest 2, the game that simply won't get a good framerate without sacrificing the majority of the graphics, but framerate drops don't annoy me all that much.
Now granted, I'd expect consoles to at least be able to maintain 30fps and look very good doing it. But I'm not gonna flip out if a game doesn't consistently hit 60. Game consoles are intended to give a consistent experience no matter what your technical experience level (or willingness to buy a mad-scientist grade video card that costs as much as a computer on its own), so ultimately what you get is whatever the devs of that game felt got the best framerate for the graphics that could be turned on. If I'm gonna fuss that much about what shinies are turned on, I'm gonna play on PC.
I've had a few bad experiences with games that takes sporadic dips in frame rate. 30 FPS isn't bad, but there is a noticeable difference between 30 and 60 FPS. Nintendo makes great looking games at 60 FPS. Metal Gear Solid V also has great visuals at 60 FPS. Yes, some background objects may not appear as sharp, but a good performance leads to enjoying gameplay at its fullest.
It depends on the game. Action and adventure, platformers, and first-person shooters are genres of games that typically have more action on the screen at any given time and need to maintain a higher fps rate to maintain playability. 60fps is ideal, but anything <30fps could start rendering games more unplayable. Imagine playing Mario at 10fps.
Many Rpgs on the other hand can get away with a lower frame rate because the action tends to be turn based. You don't really need 60 fps to enjoy pokemon.
I enjoy stunning graphics as much as the next guy, but frame rate is more important. Lag kills.
I prefer 720p60 over 1080p30. As a matter of fact, I have to make that decision whenever I record my gameplay in HD because my capture card can't do 1080p at 60fps even if the game might be able to. I get used to looking at a lower resolution (while still being HD) and not be bothered by it after too long, whereas the doubled framerate is a blessing in any instance. I'll take the 60fps whenever possible.
The difference between 720 and 1080 is only noticeable on large screens. The difference between low and high fps is noticeable on every screen. 1080p and 60fps is the best the human eye will ever need though so we've just about maxed it out unless you wanna play your game in a movie theater.
I don't see that much of a difference between resolutions and framerates. If the game is clear and playable without constant lagging that's good enough for me.
Beyond 30 fps, anything higher is not going to give you any visual difference whatsoever. Don't let anyone tell you it will, it's not. Any perceived differences have absolutely nothing to do with the framerate. The human eye cannot function that quickly. The only REAL difference you get in framerate, which is the main source of the idea of 60 fps being better than 30 fps, is that if you lose some frame rate at 30 fps you're definitely going to notice it and it'll be jarring but if you lose framerate at 60 fps it's not going to look any different. This is why, on older computers and last gen consoles, 60 fps looked better. But for more modern computers and the new consoles that's no longer the case.
You actually will get better performance in a game if it's running at 30 fps on new systems. For two main reasons. Since the systems are capable of 60 FPS, games locked in at 30 fps are usually not going to ever be choppy. This is because, say the game in question actually could be running in at 50 FPS, and then it gets to an intense spot and it drops to 35 fps. Since it's locked to 30 fps, it's going to play at 30 fps in both instances. This gives a much smoother experience because if it dropped from 30 fps to 20 or 15, you'd definitely notice. And the second reason is that all the all the CPU, GPU, and RAM resources that would have been used to run the game at 50 FPS is freed up when it is locked into 30 fps. Making those resources available to things like loading models and textures, running AI scripts (affecting how quickly creatures and NPCs can react and make decisions), and pathfinding. This means that objects and characters in the game world will load faster and you'll have less instances of running into something that still has its low res LOD model/texture loaded instead of its high detail close up versions. So you'll overall have a much more consistent and detailed visual experience. Insisting on 60 fps is just a ridiculous waste of resources that could be used more productively on things that make more of a visual difference.
Varying the resolution to maintain a framerate won't do anything. I'll explain why for the resolution below. For right here, suffice to say that if you absolutely want to have 60 FPS, you're only going to get it by sacrificing other parts of the game. the parts I just mentioned, everything that actually makes the game run more smoothly. Sure you'll get them frames! But the game itself is going to be choppy and ugly because the actual game's content won't be able to load fast enough framerate or not. A high framerate won't do anything for you if the actual information it's presenting to you is incomplete. Sacrificing the resources needed to do that just to get more frames is very wasteful. Not to mention stressful on the system, shorting its lifespan by producing much more heat which wears at the system.
I know a number of people will absolutely refuse to believe this. Oh well... they're stuck and I'm not going to convince them. But I'm very certain about what I said. Years of experience creating mods for Morrowind has made this undeniable for me.
As for resolution, it depends. Like Rep said above. If you have a 32 inch TV or smaller 720p is all you'll need and 1080p will not look any different. If you have a larger one, 720p will get blurrier and blurrier the larger the TV gets, but it'll look better if you sit further away from a larger TV. If you sit a pretty good distance away from a 40 inch or 50 inch TV, say at least 10 feet or more, 1080p and 720p won't really look any different at that distance, but you'll definitely notice if you get closer. For average vision anyway. If yours is very, very good you might notice a difference where others will not. If yours is bad, you won't see as much of a difference as others would. As far as performance of the game is concerned, resolution has almost no effect at all. Because games render 3D objects instead of pre rendered scenes for most of the gameplay, it doesn't actually process more data for a higher res, so a higher resolution simply shows a larger area and doesn't really impact performance whatsoever. When you hear games on the new consoles not being able to run at 1080p, that's not exactly the case. The game would run just fine. In these cases, the reason they're running at less than 1080p is because it was found that they don't record as easily. And since the consoles have built in recording functions now, it's a concern. So resolutions get nerfed purely for the recording function that most players won't even use.
1080p at 30 fps is equal to 59.3 MB/s that a recorder has to process, at 60 fps it is 118.6 MB/s. The same numbers for 720p are 26.4 MB/s at 30 fps and 52.7 MB/s at 60 fps. Most recording hardware and software is going to compress that data in the final encoded video. But the more data there is, the longer that takes. And for a recording versus model/texture rendering, each frame has to be captured and saved. So for more complex and intricate games, the process of compressing it is more difficult and some hardware has a difficult time with it for 1080p at 60 fps. 118.6 MB/s isn't a small amount. Because recording has to actually work, some games get their framerate or resolution reduced so the recorder isn't overwhelmed. A 1080p game is going to require 2.25 times as much data per second to capture, more to compress and encode it. despite it not taking really any significant amount more in actual gameplay.
I would say fun trumps both. But when the frame rate is too volitile and changes around a lot, it can affect the fun we have with the games.
Resolution doesn't matter so much. Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime are not HD and they look amazing. Heck Super mario 3 / Super Mario All Stars looked great back in the day. No one back then cared for HD anything. I sould say gamne aesthetics matter more. Make the game viaually appealing. Interesting sprites and 3D models, colour pallets that look good and fit within the frame of the game. Use a graphical style (Cel shading, realistic, cartoony, clay etc etc) that fits the type of game you are making. All these aesthetic issues matter so much more than if the game is 1080p or 720p or however many p the game is.
Framerate, anything under 120fps is an abomination in my eyes, and
anything under 1440p is too an abomination. Matt claims there's no difference once you get past 30fps but he lies, once you get to about 60fps you should start seeing a large epeen growing below the screen, when you reach 80fps that epeen covers the entire screen.
Beyond 30 fps, anything higher is not going to give you any visual difference whatsoever. Don't let anyone tell you it will, it's not. Any perceived differences have absolutely nothing to do with the framerate. The human eye cannot function that quickly. The only REAL difference you get in framerate, which is the main source of the idea of 60 fps being better than 30 fps, is that if you lose some frame rate at 30 fps you're definitely going to notice it and it'll be jarring but if you lose framerate at 60 fps it's not going to look any different. This is why, on older computers and last gen consoles, 60 fps looked better. But for more modern computers and the new consoles that's no longer the case.ould have been used to run the game at 50 FPS is freed up when it is locked into 30 fps.
This is a myth. A big big myth. If you notice no difference between 30 and 60fps, it's probably because you don't have a 60Hz monitor. There are even minor differences between 60fps and 120fps, but these are barely viewable (which is why I said 60 is the best we will ever /need/).
This is a myth. A big big myth. If you notice no difference between 30 and 60fps, it's probably because you don't have a 60Hz monitor. There are even minor differences between 60fps and 120fps, but these are barely viewable (which is why I said 60 is the best we will ever /need/).
Yes I'm aware that people were going to refuse to believe me. And I am aware of that site. On the contrary, that site is what is propagating a myth. One thing that actually makes things look smoother, that frames beyond 30 does not, is the actual information included. In a low quality animation, (which is usually the case in games made before this current generation), there is undeniably nothing a higher framerate can do because the information simply doesn't exist. So it cannot make it look smoother when the animation itself is choppy. It is like on those cop shows when they say "can you enhance this image" and people in the know scoff because YOU CAN'T since the information doesn't exist. Same thing. That site exploits that concept to trick people into thinking 60 FPS is better by including more information in the version of animations it uses for 60 frames and excluding information in the 30 frames version to make it look choppier. Even though they'd have looked identical if they were given the same information. It's fraudulent scams like that that make people believe in the 60 fps myth.
But this really this idea is pretty much its own faith based religion at this point. So nothing I can say is going to dissuade people from believing it anyway so I'm wasting my time. No one tolerates attacks on their faith and all the reasoning in the world won't change their mind. All I can say is that for people without a firm opinion on it yet, to put their stock in more tangible things like visual quality of models and textures and how fast they can load as well as the number of characters that can be on screen at once.
Okay except you are talking out of your backside. Of course 60fps has more information... 30 frames per second more. There are 30 extra images every second being displayed, you can't have the same effect in 30fps because it doesn't have those frames. You can even see it when you're playing a game and you really have no goddamn clue what you're talking about. Please for the love of god show me some credible study that proves humans do not see improved quality beyond 30fps because that's bull****. I used to actually believe that myth until I did some actual research.
You're not basing this on facts or reality. I also find it incredibly insulting that you think this is "faith base" for me especially considering you are aware of my technological background and also the fact that I used to believe the 30fps thing.
I've never heard anything as silly as "well there's more information". There HAS to be more information. It's 30 frames per second more.
