Translation: During a small developer lap after the press conference Herman Hulst of Guerrilla Games came to the topic frame rate to speak. Be 60 FPS at a full HD resolution on the PS4, the new standard?
No, not necessarily, because the developers have made still free as they want to use the available resources. In the case of Killzone: Shadow case, for example, the Dutch have been shot at 30 frames per second at a resolution of 1080p.
10°
10°
20°
10°
Ad 
10°
Have you heard about the HD remasterized PS2 games for PS3? Well that nulls your argument... don´t be offended.
The concept is really simple. rendering at 60fps means you have to render images twice as fast as rendering at 30 fps which just simply means you can cram more things and better visuals into a game running at 30fps then a game running at 60fps.THIS IS REGARDLESS OF HARDWARE(sorry for the caps just want to make that part clear).
Nomather how powerfull the hardware is, running the game at 30fps will give the developers the
opportunity to make the game look better and therefor nomather how powerfull the hardware is, many developers will chose to do so.
As a launch title for the PS4, and it being KZ4, I dont thing GG wanted to do that. The whole point of this game is to show what the PS4 is capable of. Lets face it, most consumers dont know what 1080p or 60FPS is, they just see pretty fire and guns.
Nintendo know how to balance hardware,Criterion will bk me up what did it take 10 mins to get the game in pc mode ?
This might be a rumour but if Gearbox is using UE4 on a new FPS for wiiu and ps4 devkits did have a meltdown when developing this game the ps4 cant be well balance to have trouble this early.
"Remember this is a launch game, it will only get better years down the line. Heck Nintendo said it was possible for WiiU to do 1080p at 60 FPS"
I hope you don't really buy that from Nintendo. Did N64 games go from 2D to 3D over time? Did Ps2 games go from 480i to 720p? Did PS3/360 games go from 720p to 1080p (other than some 2D games and very few other minor exceptions)?
No. No system sees a generational leap over time due to "potential"
So yeah, actually I would say the PS3 and Xbox 360 have advanced a little bit since the beginning of their production. Not to mention the Xbox 360 did not immediately offer 1080p from the outset(1080i or 720p was the highest), I think that came in a system update via Xbox Live sometime shortly within a 6-9month span of the initial release.
Im not sure what you are talking about, The PS3 and 360 BOTH can run games that support 1080p solution. I would love to know how you came up with your comment.
Theres a simple reason for this, and that is that you, Joe Bloggs consumer, has expressed a wish for better graphics. You have decided that you want great graphics, and these beautiful videos and screenshots.
Most (not all) developers do not want their game to look inferior to all the other titles, for the sake of it running smoother. You can't see smooth framerates in screenshots for example.
Insomniac are one console developer that stuck to their 60FPS guns for years until they decided that it was not worth it for them anymore. http://news.softpedia.com/n...
There will always be some exceptions, sim racer will benefit more from more frames, the sense of speed and refresh for better physics for example. Some shooters may opt for 60 frames.
But the trend has been going towards 30FPS on consoles for years now and it is not reversing no matter how much performance you give to console developers.
The only way you are gonna see 60FPS on most games is if you go to the PC platform.
I don't know about ps4/720 resolutions and framerate "getting better with time", on xbox 360, when it launched, games were REQUIRED to be 720p with 2xmsaa anti aliasing
but, once halo 3 could not achieve that (600p and jaggies EVERYWHERE) ms said screw it, even let games like alan wake at the very low 950x540
ps3 has resistance 3 at 540p
killzone 3 is 640x716 in 3d
gta iv is 1152x640
most console call of duty games are 1024x600
expect games to start at 1080p, and as shaders get more advanced, they will lower the res back down to 720p
granted, ps4 games will look immensly better than ps3
my hope is we say goodbye to screen tearing, jaggies, frames below 30, sub-hd textures, and pop-in, that alone would be a huge step up from 360/ps3
The "rate to flip frames" is not really the issue. 30fps is fast enough. However, lag is. So, if you can achieve 30 fps (and maybe leave 5ms headroom) and can still have response times which are actually below 100ms a game at that frame rate will still be smooth.
Also, because modern games have advanced post processing effects like motion blur etc. which compensate for the frame rate.
The response time can be compensated to simply run a lot of parallel systems to the main render loop - which can now run a const 30fps.
E.g. physics and AI can run in parallel to these 30fps. This thing has 8 cores for god sake.
60fps is overrated, lag is the key for those new games. Imagine game speed is not screen refresh. You'll get the idea. Previously a lot of games handled events synchronously within the render loop; no modern engine does this any more.
"Nintendo know how to balance hardware,Criterion will bk me up what did it take 10 mins to get the game in pc mode ?"
The Wii U isn't even in the same neighborhood as the PS4 will be. Don't even bring the Wii U up in this one. And 60fps doesn't matter that much. If the game looks good and plays great nobody will notice fps. I'm sure by the second generation of games though developers will figure out ways to make all of that work together.
Uncharted 2 and Uncharted 3 are perfect examples. They feel very smooth even though they are 30 fps.
What developers need to work hard at is eliminating screen tearing. It is inexcusable.
So, no screen tearing, decent anti-aliasing, 1080p, and a solid 30fps and I am ready to jump on board.
According to Digital Foundry (?) they said the Ps4 could render at 1240px60F, 860px120f, and 480px240f.
Higher res TV's not as big a jump as 4K tvs might come to the market and become mainstream. No one really knows what will and won't take off to the public.
literally talking about the ps4's ram like it is going to render visuals is like saying, the ps4 can totally do 4k, it has 4 usb ports, it amlmost that insignificant
every computer you buy today has 8gb ram, and many of the SUCK for gaming, you can build a pc with 48gb ram and it wouldn't run games as good as the ps2 if it had a garbage cpu and gpu
most important is the gpu and chipset(mobo)
next is cpu
ram, hd and optical drive are about tied, with ram being ever so slightly more important, but truthfully, the real beauty of having fast and abundant ram lies it multitasking capabilities
You have no idea what you're talking about. RAM is very important, as it can bottleneck the system if it is not fast enough of there is not enough of it. Also, game assets are held in memory. What kind of memory? Yep, RAM. More RAM equals potentially bigger game worlds, better textures and overall higher image quality. Faster RAM has more bandwidth, and thus a bigger part to play in this regard.
The thing about the RAM in PS4 is that it is GDDR5 RAM, which is a world apart from the kind of RAM used in laptops and other computers (probably DDR3). You're talking about a 3x increase in bandwidth. And yes, it's expensive. GDDR5 only comes in 512 chunks, which means each PS4 will cram 16 of these into the system.
So yeah, you've missed the mark a bit in your assessment.
That comment was dumb landog. RAM is one of the most important parts of every console. That's why it was at the top of the list of what developers wanted from Sony on the PS4. Lots of RAM. Price doesn't matter but the amount of RAM is really important. Graphics are built in the memory. Both the PS2 and PS3 were held back from what they could have done because their RAM was too low. If the PS3 had twice as much RAM as it has the games probably would have been 1080p instead of mostly 720p.
let's have a stable solid clan to made our online experience better! team word > playing alone..
who is with me? join me I already got pm's from 4 n4g user's
let's do this! http://i256.photobucket.com...
ps this capcom game looks really good! to http://imgius.com/photos/20...
So its Canon to the numbered franchise. It doesn't matter, It's a launch title and while the system is clearly capable of running at 60fps and 1080p most devs will likely aim for 1080p 30fps. KZ:Shadow Falk looks glorious for a next gen launch title and I can't wait.
Action games stand to benefit the most since they will no doubt be confirmed for 60 fps and a pretty solid resolution of 1080p.
30fps never stopped me from having fun. People want to analyze games instead of play games. But games will look and play better naturally on ps4.
do people buy 3ds and worry about texture and how many fps?
Worrying about this stuff defeats the purpose of console gaming. You not supposed to worry about optimization.
Let the pc gamers do that.
I am sure killzone will look pretty and play smooth.
I am just hoping for a snow map similar to killzone 3. Best snow flurries I have ever seen. Even if it's not real time. I don't care.
http://youtu.be/MsLWjKXOxRs...
Gamers are gamers no matter what they play on. The idiots on PC, are just like the idiots on any other platform. What people should argue over is Gamers, vs Fanboys. Not Platform vs Platform vs Platform vs Platform
Developers use 30fps, because the graphical loss that would have to follow if they used 60fps would be more considerable to consumers than the loss of frame rate.
That's not really gonna change.
just be patient and wait 8 months, then we should start seeing true next gen games at 60fps = )
60 Hz is 2x the framerate of 30 Hz.
2x2.5 == 5, which is about how many times faster the PS4's GPU is than the PS3's.
So... you don't want the shaders to be cooler? Don't want better lighting, higher rez shadows, etc? You just want more of the same pixels from last gen? I'll take 30Hz and sub-1080p, if I don't have to look at blocky shadows and simplistic shaders on most of my games, thanks.
The PS4 has great graphics, ok, but they are not unbelievable, and this goes to show that the PS4 isn't that amazing. It's not going to be as costly has a PC that would run Killzone SF at 60 fps because it doesn't have that kind of power.
And I'm okay with that. I'm a PC and PS3 gamer, and playing with a mouse requires fluid movement, and so, 60 fps.
Stable 30 fps, on console, is fine though, the controller isn't as fast.
No, not necessarily, because the developers have made still free as they want to use the available resources."
It's not so bad.
If games do run below 1080p and below 60FPS, I am confident that a lot of PS4 devs are sure to make it up with better overall visuals.
Balance is key.
(more effects, better geometry, larger expanse, more AI, more and better physics, more gameplay elements, etc./ something's gotta give)
Plus, as long as the AA is pretty good, it won't be that bad.
(Motion interpolation tweens all the missing frames and makes tens of transitional frames every second, sometimes it's implemented badly but generally in modern Sony TVs it's nice.. )
I'd rather have a smooth locked 30 than an erratic jumpy 60 anyway.
But that's no problem if it looks smoother right?
well...adding fake frames brings latency problems, control lag, added response time.
That said, I enjoy locking some non V-Synced games to 24p movie mode in my TV (apart from using the 120hz motionflow), just do keep in mind that SOME games that require twitchy fast reflexes, precision platformers and the such may feel broken and a pain to play when using all of these tricks.
Otherwise it would be easy to upconvert some PAL games to NTSC, we wouldn't have this debacle about EU's PS Store Alundra not being 60hz when it came out, we could play uncharted @60 or 120fps for that matter. I said it once and I'll say it again: those extra frames TV's create are not the same that displaying more picture information natively.
That is like saying 50hz content played on a 120hz display is 120hz content; think this through, stahp confusing people.
Just reading up on motionflow on Sonys sites is enough to show how it works.
It's really easy to test/prove too. Make. 30fps animation and have a ball bounce back and forth on the screen. The movement steps will be clearly visible. Turn on motionflow and the ball moves smoothly. You can even photograph the ball in transitional positions if you're sceptical!
Also the 50/60hz thing is totally different - you can't change the true refresh rate - the real problem with badly converted 50hz games is they run slower than their 60hz originals. It wouldn't matter how many "fake" frames you add it'd still run slower than the 60hz version. :)
Nevertheless, this sort of post-process means that the TV set has to wait for the second frame to start to analyze the motion, and they analyze this and create the frame, all of which create extra lag, which causes problems for games.
LG's Trumotion is very fast and most games are still playable with this option turned on, however, all Philips sets I've seen with motion interpolation added massive latency.
I have quite a bit of experience with such tech, and a_squirrel is right.
Edit: That said, indeed, it cannot beat native 60fps, as any object or part that moves more than the motion search algo can search is left at 30fps. This creates portions that are 30fps and 60fps all within the same picture, and since the none of the algorithms can be good enough to see what comes behind the objects, faster moving objects will have visible artifacts around them. That said, the tech works wondrfully for Camera Pan's and slower moving objects, which creates a very fluid visual experience, although the cinematic feel of 30 fps is lost. 60fps for the win!
I was just stating the obvious,(almost the same things you guys said BTW), TV's motion interpolation is not the same as having a higher native framerate... those extra frames bring with them latency problems, also a fact, is that so different from what you guys pointed out? but all right then, be my guest and "augment" your games "framerate", holy mother of reason...
And millions of them doesn't even know what "frame per second" is,but they will tell you that they choose CoD over BF because it feels and plays better.
And J. Carmack sad it also, next gen we will see many 30fps games.
But very few games ever hit 1080p though due to graphics demands.
It's kinda like the 48fps Hobbit.
Speaking of which, does anyone know why games can't just render a standard of 45 fps or something? Why 30 or 60 locks?
On next generation you might see developer having the choice to have building being blown up in a physical realistic brick by brick manner on 30fps, and have them blown up ala Battlefield 3 at 60fps.
In that case ill take 30fps in a heart beat
A perfectly locked 30fps will look extremely smooth. Generally we only notice the framerate when it's erratic or suddenly dropping / rising.
For example, God of War 3 and Forza Horizon both looked smooth in spite of 30fps because they were able to maintain that framerate without dipping.
Remember frame rates aren't just about Smoothness, its also a great benefit for controller response times.
As for Forza Horizon vs 60fps Forzas, as you said it's noticable if you line them up side by side. I don't tend to play with 2 TVs side by side however, and it doesn't affect playability.
I think many people have just come to equate the typically 20-30fps variable rate many modern console games go at to being the same as a locked 30fps, which they are not. For example, the Mass Effect games, GTA, Saints Row, Skyrim, etc do not have flawless 30fps.
When you notice a low framerate while playing, it's because your eyes are picking up the inconsistency in the rate the frames are updated; not the fact that it's 30fps. Watching an animated movie at 24fps doesn't look stuttery or jerky because it's perfectly locked at 24fps.
As a side note, I personally use a 120hz monitor for PC games. I notice stuttering when the game drops from 120fps down to something like 80fps for the same reason; if something's consistent we don't notice it, but when it breaks consistency our attention is drawn to it.
Im not saying games cannot be played at 30 fps, I'm merely stating that 60+ fps is what games need to aim for to achieve flawless input consistency. Why do you think COD uses 60fps? the response of controller is much more reliable then lets say KZ which there is input lag, not just gun weight that we saw in killzone 2.
Yes your eye can adjust to almost any frame rate that is 24 fps or above, the reason why movie use 24-30 fps is because the idea is to draw in the audience. The lower the frame rate, the more concentration you need and the harder your eye needs to work.
Also if you have any experience with frame rates you should have no problem telling the difference between 60 vs 30 in Froza without 2 TVs.
As for maintaining fps, that is not always true. For example dropping from 100 to 60 on a 60 hz monito. You will not notice it because the monitor can only output a max of 60 fps visible.
Also just so you know, V-sync also increases input lag. Any time you try to cap frame rates it usually leads to input lag, although not alway as obvious.
Although it's heavily obvious in PC games (especially visible in Source based games, give it a try).
Since you pointed out 120 hz, yes you would notice a frame drop, but your still above the organic which is considered a minimum of 40 fps and an optimal of 60+ fps.
Keep frame rate consistent can keep your eye from noticing frame drops, but it doesn't change the fact that your eye needs to work hard in order to have the motion come out as intended.
It's a mute point, 60+ is always going to be optimal frame rates. Anything below, although manageable will not be as pleasant and easy on the eye as 60+.
Last bubble for me.
OMG!!!!!!!
http://youtu.be/rGlu3e9kdks...
I guess she was incorrect?
If next gen can provide HD and a constant smooth frame rate and allow you to blow loads up with great graphics then that's a good thing.
Another COD running and 60 fps at 1080p with just higher res textures will be an utter pile of crap.
As with any tech, it's about finding a balance. The trouble with many gamers, they want everything, without knowing what they really want.
I prefer BF3 over COD, surely that's what's important, that the games are good.
Lets let the developers do their job and we can do what we should be doing and judge the games when we play them and not before.
As a console gamer you are only ever really exposed to 60fps in COD, I never actually acknowledge the fact that most games run at 30fps, when a game is at 60fps you can tell but equally when its at 30 I don't feel cheated.
The developers used 4gb and not 8gb of RAM, and most of them were completely unaware of that PlayStation 4 has 8gb of RAM
"The official specs are in for the PlayStation 4 and what we have is, by and large, confirmation of existing DigitalFoundry stories - with one outstanding, exciting exception. At the PlayStation Meeting yesterday, Sony revealed that its new console ships with 8GB of GDDR5 RAM, not the 4GB we previously reported. It was a pleasant surprise not just for us, but also for many game developers out there working on PS4 titles now and completely unaware of the upgrade - a final flourish to the design seemingly added in at the last moment to make PlayStation 4 the most technologically advanced games console of the next gaming era."
-EuroGamer
And here is the lead Engine and Graphics Programmer from Naughty Dog, seeming to be surprised about the 8gb GDDR5
If you want to read farther here is the link to the article
http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
Related image(s)
It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that the game runs at 30fps nor do I think it's a problem. I'm sure it'll be a trend for the console. There will be a handful of games running at 60fps, especially those indie titles that'll come from psn or the marketplace, but it's a console. It's built to be consistent.
Also, I found it strange that they announced the PS4 before the release of the Last of Us(their biggest game this year along with GoW) because if anyone thinks that the PS4 didn't steal The Last of Us' thunder their idiots. The last of Us will release to critical acclaim and all people will be able to talk about is E3(notice the game comes out around the same time as E3)Wait, why am I talking to a guy that has two bubbles? Never Mind.
so, the way to solve this problem is, add a system select option of 2 choices, either 30fps/1080p or 720p/60fps.
Unfortunately, this is not the goal of devs, the goal is to making it that much more eye catching since consoles generally attract not only gamers but the general public as well, compared to lets say PC which has more of a centralized audience.
All games that are run at 60 fps, are better then 30 fps. But not all games absolutely require 60 fps (ie RTS, point and click, cinematic games etc.)
Remember we're NOT increasing the speed of the game, this isn't emulation. If you take a 30 fps locked game then just double the frame rate, yes it will look very awkward, but say you let the game naturally choose it's frame rate, then it def doesn't look bad at all or awkward.
Look at the Walking dead Telltale game, it looks great on pc, even though it runs at double the console frame rate (assuming 60 hz monitor).
Again, don't confuse forced increase frame rate vs uncapped implementation.
However, when a game is running at 30fps, it is much harder to notice when the framerate drops below that. If it drops to 24fps, it won't be as blatant as missing frames from a 60fps game.
It has more to do with some of the games dipping below 30 fps being at the console's bottleneck (or very weak pcs) and at such a breaking point , that when it drops it's often not just 2 or 3 frames below , but ever lower than 20 . That's too much of a drop .