Official PlayStation 4 Thread

GTFO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheebs

Is 60 fps really important? I don't even think I'd know it if I saw it. What game is 60 fps and what is 30 for a comparison? Like, common ps2 era games. Besides, does the frame rate even matter when the tv is lagging the way HDTVs do? I've kind'a resigned to accepting that games can't twitch anymore due to that universal lag, so how is that super-fast visual update even of any use?

---

A lot of prominent PS2 games were 60fps. Like, pretty much all of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opaque

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

If I remember correctly, you were arguing in another thread for improved realism in games (physics, locales, simulating the real world).

It seems to me that the overtextured environments that you're against here are what get put into the more "realistic" looking games. Whereas WoW (to use your example) throws "realism" out the door in order to colorfully and stylistically create a visual world. Blizzard seems to do this with all their games.

I may be completely reading you wrong, so apologies if that's the case.

Question: is realism, even with decreased fps/other tech drawbacks >>> stylized worlds with faster/improved tech specs?

---

I want physics that work like the real world and AI that acts like it's actually intelligent.

As far as visuals go I think looking good is what's actually important. I don't really know how to explain this well. To me a game that runs at 60fps, has smooth edges and has an art style that is good looking will always be a smarter way to do things than to have tons of choppy looking over textured crap. You could have a game that looks like WoW in terms of style choices and appropriate texture use but still have great physics and AI. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. Really though, if a game can run at 60fps and have smooth edges go nuts with your textures, but to make games that run like shit and get all muddy because of design choices is inexcusable to me. Example I was talking about earlier:

http://i.imgur.com/qETqLOQ.jpg

In motion that whole environment blurs together into complete garbage because it's running at 30fps with no AA. They could have smoothed some edges out and doubled the frame rate if they didn't have so much needless camouflage bullshit going on and it would have been a better game for it.

---

I hear you. But in looking at that screen, I'm not sure 60fps would solve your complaint?

The real world has tons of variety in its surfaces so textures are necessary for a high degree of realism.

Or am I missing the point?

Is there an example of a realistic-looking game that runs at 60 that gets it right?

100s of PC games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

I hear you. But in looking at that screen, I'm not sure 60fps would solve your complaint?

The real world has tons of variety in its surfaces so textures are necessary for a high degree of realism.

Or am I missing the point?

Is there an example of a realistic-looking game that runs at 60 that gets it right?

---

Missing the point.

I'm not saying that they could keep all that and make it look good at 60fps, I'm saying quite the opposite. I'm saying that they gave up 60fps and AA because they wanted to produce environments that wouldn't even look good if they had 60fps and AA. It's overall misguided design choice where they make these game that in a still shot can look good but in motion just fall apart.

To bring this full circle I'm suggesting that developers make 60fps and AA the standard and simply produce the best graphics they can that fit that model.

I'm ok with 30 in everything but FPSs games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheebs

I've kind'a resigned to accepting that games can't twitch anymore due to that universal lag, so how is that super-fast visual update even of any use?

---

Plenty of current-gen games do twitch just fine, sounds more like you're resigning yourself to acting old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

100s of PC games.

---

Are you a parody account at this point?

No, he's just right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opaque

I'm saying that they gave up 60fps and AA because they wanted to produce environments that wouldn't even look good if they had 60fps and AA. It's overall misguided design choice where they make these game that in a still shot can look good but in motion just fall apart.

To bring this full circle I'm suggesting that developers make 60fps and AA the standard and simply produce the best graphics they can that fit that model.

---

So this assumes that devs/art directors don't care about whether their game looks good, only that a single screen looks good. Is that really true (guess it could be; maybe the rationalization is previews drive $$$ and pretty screens help that)?

If 60fps + AA is the standard (which is totally fair), what are a couple games I should check out that meet your standard (I've no clue what games are/not 60fps)?

http://www.giantbomb.com/60-fps-on-c...15-3223/games/