Consoles Need to Focus on Performance Over Graphics

When a new generation of consoles is released everyone wants to know how much the graphics have improved over the previous generation. In order to build hype developers will frequently outright lie with bull-shots making the games look a lot better than they do in reality. This happens so much that it's pretty much expected for this to be the case; people want to be impressed by the shiny new graphics.

[BitbyDeath]

Why not just focus on both like inFamous SS did?

[authentic]

Infamous only ran at 30 fps.

[Flutterby]

And it ran perfectly fine at 30fps while having the best graphics on console right now and to top it off its open world. Now look at the said to be best looking game on xbone, it managed to be completely linear 900p and still can't even get to 30fps that should be the game you would worry about when thinking about the articles point.

[mkis007]

It actually ran at 60fps an amazingly high % of time...especially if you were not on the street.

[Vegamyster]

@Flutterby

The point of the article is games should be aiming for 60 fps even if it doesn't look as good. 3D World proves you can have 60 fps 720p and still look gorgeous.

http://mariopartylegacy.com...

[d3nworth1]

Infamous was actually above 30fps most of the time. The framerate is unlocked and the game would range from the low 40s to 28fps when thing got real crazy.

[BitbyDeath]

Why stop at 60fps when you could aim for 1,000,000fps? As long as the game is smooth it shouldn't matter what fps it is running at.

[mmc-007]

it runs above 30 fps, 30 fps is the lowest is gets

[iamnsuperman]

Does that matter. The performance was solid on iSS. It is an open world game (huge importance) that looks phenomenal and had an unlocked frame rate (so it wasn't 30fps all the time). I think what this game was doing shows its performance shouldn't be questioned.

[Salooh]

Why lower the graphics for something you won't notice a lot , inFAMOUS is not a shooter. That's not the case here though , i don't think sucker punch maxed the ps4 , They just focused on more important stuff then FPS but they still delivered us a solid Frame rate. They could bring us 60fps if they took more time developing it. But a lot of people wouldn't like that since ''ps4 has no games now '' lol , best example is driveclub....

I'm just glad that it's out so people could see what the ps4 can do . That's an early new gen open world game so imagine for example the sequel or how liner games will look like :P

[Rimeskeem]

it actually ran at an average of 40 or so

[Prime157]

Vega, I agree to an extent that most games should aim higher. A lot of single player experiences are better told with lower frame rate and better graphics, IMO.

The eye wants 24ish FPS to see motion. Light and darkness matter as well. If you study up on how the eye perceives motion, then you will understand that not every game needs to hit a certain threshold. Especially when it comes to the business aspect of time being money, and how much time should a developer spend on a game to go from 30 to 60 while sacrificing graphics on static hardware.

However, shoot em ups and Multiplayer experiences, those, most undoubtedly, should hit higher framerates. 50+ for those in my opinion regardless of the author of this piece.

[LightofDarkness]

@Prime

Actually, 24 FPS is the minimum for perceived fluid motion in film, not in computer graphics. For the equivalent fluidity in graphics, you need to be at 45-48FPS. This was much of the reasoning behind the use of 48FPS in The Hobbit, for instance. Film has a natural motion blur that enhances the perception of motion, graphics do not.

[Vegamyster]

@14Feb-R

From a gameplay perspective it will make it more fluid & responsive, just because a game isn't a shooter doesn't mean it doesn't benefit from a higher framerate.

@Prime157

"The eye wants 24ish FPS to see motion"

The eye is used to seeing 24 fps at movies because its been used for decades, but any director will tell you it has its limits because too much motion will make the image muddy and cause eye strain. When people first saw the Hobbit @ 48 fps they had to adjust to it since they've never experienced it, the movie wasn't movie worse because of it.

Regarding games you can still have the motion blur effect at 60 fps, i wasn't dissing Infamous or any other game that runs at 30 fps since they're are many great games that i've played @ 30 fps. As someone who games on both console & the PC I'll always prefer 60 fps regardless of what genre the game is if i have the option to chose.

[BOLO]

And Ryse runs at 16 fps...Which one do you think shows "performance" bud? http://static.gamespot.com/...

[sonarus]

I think console makers need to focus on both graphics and performance simultaneously but ultimately most important is gameplay and i think Infamous gameplay is just straight on fantastic. . I mean look at Titanfall poor graphics and poor performance yet with great gameplay the game is massively entertaining

[Vegamyster]

I know it differs person to person, personally i like have a solid 60 fps instead of 30 or it jumping between 40-60 fps ect.

[GutZ31]

After playing infamous:SS and Tomb Raider DE on PS4, I can say the frame rate was more iffy playing Tomb Raider, than infamous.

Infamous:SS plays so good, its only visual fault, for me, is that I kept getting awe struck, which reminded me that I was playing a game, but also make it even more amazing that it awed me so much.

[sAVAge_bEaST]

Exactly,, My thoughts.. Exactly after reading the title.

SS is on par with TLoU.. only different style (TLoU -better story, SS- better game play, over all experience.). It truly is a great game.

[ramiuk1]

exactly.
it was so smooth and looks breathtaking.
i went a full playthrough and not 1 glitch or issue.

yet nearly every game i played in last 5 years has had a glitch or issue within first 10 mins usually.

was funny last gen,all games on both consoles when xbox was better looking the ps3 was ripped daily.
yet now ps4 is killing the xbone in graphics,resolution and fps its all about the games/gameplay lol.

im going to go put my X-BONE jacket on and play some more Second Son.

[mcarsehat]

infamous: SS was a game where the dev only focused on graphics when being developed. The frame rate dropped a lot and the story (to me) was predictable from the start unlike the previous 2. Graphics were definitely top of the list for sucker punch this time around.

Sorry but it's true, there are a lot of screenshots shared by me using the share button but not any videos because there is no need.

[KingKelloggTheWH]

I play games all around on pretty much all mediums and I got to say 30fps is not bad, sure 60 is better but for many games it is not necessary. To say a game is unplayable or unbearable if it isnt 60 fps is just ridiculous.

[FlyingFoxy]

If you are used to 60fps you can easily notice a difference between it and 30fps, average gamers may not.. but i do for sure, and many others do also.

[Eyesoftheraven]

lol try getting used to 30 from 144Hz. Though console performance and frame time is handled different on the software and hardware side than it is on PC. 30 on console if done well enough feels smoother than 30 on PC in many cases. Of course, overall, infinitely higher resolutions and higher frame rates are going to feel superior - it's not always entirely necessary though and you can get used to anything as long as it's smooth the majority of times.

[ramiuk1]

i think it depends on what i play it on.

on my pc monitor it stands out a mile,but on my 47" LED tv i dont really notice it ,if at all.

but if im honest when im on my ps4 with surround blasting out and on a 47" tv with immersion like second son or other games im so sucked in i dont notice anyway.
24" monitor on my pc just doesnt do it for me.
but then again although i have a decent pc im not in the "PC IS POWERFULLER" gang,im a gamer

[ArbitorChief]

I'd take a lower resolution for 60 FPS locked than 1080p 30 FPS anyday of the week.

[authentic]

I feel bad for whoever disagreed with this.

[MasterCornholio]

I hate it when developers promise 60FPS but then fail to deliver it in the final product.

Like Respawn with Titanfall for example. Then look at Kojima with Ground Zeroes which runs at a rock solid 60FPS on the Xbox One.

[Allsystemgamer]

And it looks better too lol

[ITPython]

I don't think there is any gamer out there who honestly wouldn't notice the difference between 30fps and 60fps, it is remarkably different feeling and looking. However is 60fps really necessary for certain games?

I'm currently playing Infamous:SS, and even for a framerate that seems to be anywhere between 30-40fps it still feels buttery smooth. Would I take 60fps? Sure... but if it meant making the game any less beautiful than it is now, then no thanks. 30-40fps is perfectly fine and doesn't negatively impact the game whatsoever. And the visuals are so breathtaking that it is actually a big part of what makes the game so enjoyable. I spend a lot more time than I want to admit just admiring the absolute beauty of Infamous:SS and taking tons of screenshots, so for me the looks are extremely important as they add a lot to the games depth and immersion.

[rdgneoz3]

"However is 60fps really necessary for certain games?"

Not everything needs 60 fps. You're not gonna die if you play an RPG in 30 fps as opposed to 60, nor will you if your third person shooter is as well. Only things that truly need it are fast paced FPS or fighters.

[mkis007]

i agree soo much. Except it runs at 60fps a lot too. Especially afteryoucbeat the game and the weather/time effects are normalized.

[ramiuk1]

couldnt agree more dude.

exact word for word own feelings,specially regarding the SS views

[Shad0wRunner]

@ArbitorChief

"I'd take a lower resolution for 60 FPS locked than 1080p 30 FPS anyday of the week."

NOT ME!

As a PS3 gamer, for the last 7 years...I've had to deal with nearly every game being in 720p as the "norm." Now that the PS4 is out and is significantly much more powerful, I absolutely EXPECT nearly every game to be 1080p, from here on out. There has to be a difference, a dividing line between games on the PS3 and games on the PS4. Were full throttle into next gen, now. That difference and dividing line HAS to be better graphics and improved frame rate. Otherwise, gamers will see NO reason to make the jump from PS3 to PS4, if developers water down the next gen games to the point of being compared to last gen tech.

Im NOT saying frame rate doesnt matter. I would love EVERY PS4 game to be done in 1080p/60FPS...and I know there are devs who CAN do it and the more time passes and more experience devs get with the PS4 hardware, we will see more devs push for that benchmark. Trust me. I believe it to be true. I DO NOT believe those who say the PS4 is too weak to maintain BOTH, resolution and framerate at maximum optimization. Those people will be eating their words, soon enough. We havent even begun to see what the PS4 can REALLY do. Not yet.

Instead of forcing gamers to choose higher resolution at weaker frame rates, I believe the developers just need to raise their standards a little bit more. Like I said, there are devs who can push both rez and frame rates to max settings, even if ONE dev can do it...it's PROOF that it CAN be done. And if it CAN be done by one dev, it can be done by ALL devs. There is no excuse for dropping either rez or frame rate, just because it's the easier solution. Look at Kojima/Konami, for example...or Polyphony Digital. Those 2 devs right there are "perfectionists". Neither one would ever dare release a game, below that of their own standards...which are among the highest gamers have ever seen.

But asking me to settle for a game below 1080p, just to increase frame rate....HELL NO!

[ArbitorChief]

Resolution isn't the only thing that makes visuals improve... You'll see increased textures, shadows, lighting more AA, etc. Just slightly less pixels on screen for double the FPS to get a more enjoyable gaming experience. To me, every game should be 60 FPS, it provides superior gameplay. But I guess that's just me after playing on PC for so long, you get used to 60 FPS.

[Shad0wRunner]

Very well said, Arbitor. I get your point and you are right. But like I said, I believe it's the developers responsibility to hit that benchmark, with little to no sacrifice. They can do it. They just need to push harder and higher.

As a developer, dont tell me "well guys, we had to lower frame rate to increase resolution (or vice versa) because, we tapped our resources and that's the best we could do, being the easiest solution." Nuh uh! I dont think so. You get back in there and figure it out, devs. Or the game doesnt see the light of day, until you do. If youre not skilled enough, hire someone who is. If youre not smart enough, hire someone who is...but I know one thing - it CAN be done. You CAN get rez and frame rate maxed to optimization, on the PS4. As a veteran console gamer, I wont accept any excuses.

But anyhow, I would still prefer my games to be at full 1080p. But...that's me.

[Salooh]

Personally, and i know most of you are not like me which i 100% respect and think it's reasonable, i don't care about resolution or frame rate as long they wow me. That's what a new gen for . If not then i don't want improved last gen games.

[mrmarx]

i want both so ps4 exclusives and pc for the glory. no xbones around here.

[mysteryraz11]

Fps doesnt matter it only matters in multiplayer and gamesI play consoles run great, and I get exclusives and multiplats on consoles only, consoles ftw

[quenomamen]

I understand what this article is trying to get at but in reality performance and graphics tend to go hand in hand. When you have hardware that performs well the improvement in graphics is not far behind. If your game is built on a kick ass next Gen Engine then that will allow you to push the in game graphics to another level. Good example being Titanfall VS Infamous SS.

Both new games running on brand new hardware, yet one looks like it's still straight out of 2009. If Respawn had took the time and money into building a New Engine instead doing the same old COD formula of taking The Source Engine and tweaking it then they too would have great Infamous or Ryse style graphics.

A great Engine equals great performance which in turn gives you great graphics, if you so wish.

[ironfist92]

Isnt that what they did with Dark Souls 2?

[sgtGanGreen]

I support this. I will take preformance and gameplay over graphics any time

[GundalfDeGrej]

Agreed. While infamous is just fine at 30 fps Killzone feels really sluggish to the point where it hurts the entire experience. Everything just feels slow and unresponsive to me (mainly pc gamer here). I wouldn't mind if they lowered the resolution to 900p and made it run at 60 fps instead.

[BitbyDeath]

Killzone SF multiplayer runs at 60fps. The weapons do have a weight to them though if that is what you mean.

[GundalfDeGrej]

Thank god for that!

Yes, the game has a very "heavy" feel to it as well and it makes the low framerate even more apparent.

[Rimeskeem]

To me racing, TPS, and puzzle games can run at 30FPS but FPS should always aim for 60FPS

[Are_The_MaDNess]

double posts.... sigh

[Are_The_MaDNess]

30FPS shouldn't happen at all in this day and age.... this is 2014 people. we have been playing at 60+FPS since atleast 1999.
playing at 120FPS in my Dota 2 and Counter Strike and i cant see anything less being worth it.

60FPS is a must from now on. thank god i have a gaming PC and dont have to contain myself with what the devs tell me the game will run at.

[windblowsagain]

It depends on the game.

But with a PC, you have the choice to turn off graphical enhancements that alot of the time choke performance for very little visual impact.

Some games are fine locked at 30fps, Uncharted is one of them. Does not need 60fps.

I play NFS RIVALS ON PC. It is locked at 30fps. There is a hack to run 60fps, but completely fks the game up.

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

[Are_The_MaDNess]

well i was fine with Uncharted 1 & 2. but the third game was unplayable for me, too many dipps on the framerate IMO

yeah, i saw that. TotalBicuit made a vid about it on launch. not a game worth your money on PC. such a bad port and shouldnt have been released in that state. really got to be something wrong with their engine if its cant handle a higher framerate.... or all the animations is locked to 30 and speeds up when you increase the framerate

[Exies7]

I didn't really find Infamous to be graphically "amazing", as some suggest. The facial expressions and particle effects were great but I would have much preferred a more fleshed out city and more content in general.

[Stoppokingme]

Finding the balance between the two factors is the most important thing.

For me I prefer a locked, stable framerate over graphics. I'd be more than willing to sacrifice a few pixels over a pretty enviroment that chuggs everytime the hardware is stressed.

[mogwaii]

While second son was pretty impressive graphically and rather underwhelming gameplay and length wise while playing it i did experience chugging slow down moments when too much was happening on screen and it reminded me of generations past, i pray we dont see much more this.

[higgins78]

Ignore the Wii U at your peril. Exclusives for said console have both ran and looked marvelous, no compromise on either side. Nobody sees this however because like the Dreamcast before - a case of history repeating itself, people's eyes (and wallets) are drawn by the aggressive advertising elsewhere.

[Nerdmaster]

It's something I've been defending since forever. I think it's more important to have 40+ fps than to have graphics a little prettier. So if I could lower some of the settings to achieve a higher framerate on consoles, it would be wonderful. I loved Heavy Rain, but the constant drops in framerate were mildly annoying.

[Bluebird8]

I trust (most) developers to make the right desition on wether frame rate or resolution benefits their game the most. It can't be avoided that you sometimes have to choose, then who better to make the desition than the developers? In if:ss they landed on unlocked with 1080p and it runs(imo) great. Probably as good as it can considering the hardware and dev time.

[TristanPR77]

I have been a gamer for a long time and games has always focused on both graphics and performance. Why change now? Why only focus on performance? It is because some people wants to justify a $500 weaker console that cannot run graphically demanding games at 1080p? So now because the xbone cannot compete on the graphics department then suddenly games shouldn't focus on graphics too?

[Stapleface]

Sucks when under powered hardware is holding back the hardware that you paid good money for doesn't it?