550°
Submitted by CaptainofCrush 578d ago | news

Killzone: Shadow Fall - Information about the frame rate and 3D support

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. (PS4)

« 1 2 »
DaThreats  +   578d ago
I want true next gen to be 1080p, 60 fps. We are past using double last-gen tech standards of PS2 and Xbox.
#1 (Edited 578d ago ) | Agree(62) | Disagree(15) | Report | Reply
Ashunderfire86  +   578d ago
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, so PS4 will not have any problem doing this.
SandWitch  +   578d ago
It's still disappointing tho. I wonder what is the reason behind this
#1.1.1 (Edited 578d ago ) | Agree(20) | Disagree(4) | Report
Azfargh  +   578d ago
Uh... any current gen hardware can do...

Have you heard about the HD remasterized PS2 games for PS3? Well that nulls your argument... don´t be offended.
SuperM  +   578d ago | Well said
Im so sick and tired of hearing people speak about the entire 1080p60fps thing when they clearly have no clue what they are talking about. Ofcourse WiiU can do 1080p60fps, in theory so can a ps2 or a 20 year old pc for that matter.

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.
Panthers  +   578d ago
I guess no matter how powerful the system, if you want 1080p 60 fps, you will have to sacrifice some graphics.

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.
sobekflakmonkey  +   578d ago
tell you the truth, it's just because they want to incorporate 3D, I have a pretty beastly PC, but when I turn on 3D it drops my FPS to 30, and synchs it with my monitor, even though my monitor is supposed to be like 120 hertz...it's just something that has to be done for 3D to work I think...not really super sure though.
Khronikos  +   578d ago
It has nothing to do with 3D. They prolly will not even include that option. You people quite honestly have no idea what it takes to render 1080p and 60 with what they are trying to accomplish with the game. Don't forget Pixar renders at 24FPS kiddies. The PS4 is simply not capable of easy peasy 60 FPS with all that going on. And with proper MOTION BLUR it should be just fine.
Link079  +   578d ago
Nintendo have a memory heavy chip design try about 220 GB of Bandwidth on that gpgpu and thats just the 70% that we know of ??

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.
#1.1.7 (Edited 578d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(28) | Report
UnholyLight  +   578d ago
Not sure why all the downvotes, just look at PS3 and Xbox 360...games continued to get better graphics as the years went by due to developers getting a better grasp on how to utilize more of the systems, Ex/ Battlefield 3, Halo 4, Killzone (well that game was astonishing from day 1 across every release)
SilentNegotiator  +   578d ago
@OP & UnholyLight
"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"
#1.1.9 (Edited 578d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(8) | Report
UnholyLight  +   578d ago
@SilentNegotiator actually I was not referring to the Wii U, refer back to my original comment. This happened this gen and you can see it. Not to mention the constant system updates, not sure about on the PS3 side but I know that the Xbox 360 production followed the technological processes and advancements such as the reduced nm size in the CPU or whatever. The system runs better than the first ones that hit the market. Ex/ My buddies old Xbox from 2007 has a slight framerate drop on a certain level on multiplayer in Halo 4 due to the fact that it isn't as up to date as the Xbox 360 "slim" is in terms of the parts that are on the inside.

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.
#1.1.10 (Edited 578d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(5) | Report
vulcanproject  +   578d ago
People, look. No matter how much power you give to devs on console, most of them are going to make their game run at 30 frames a second. Give them 10 times what PS4 has and they'll still only aim for 30 frames most likely.

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.
landog  +   578d ago
@ash

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
#1.1.12 (Edited 578d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(3) | Report
B1663r  +   578d ago
Being a launch game and easy to develop for means that is no longer true. While there has been moderate improvement to xbox games over the years, there has not been the dramatic shift where all the launch games on the PS3 looked like ass, and then 7 years later they look decent.
Ju  +   578d ago
Yes, but on those machines 30fps can be buttery smooth due to some other factors.

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.
BrianC6234  +   577d ago
Is the guy who said this Reggie from Nintendo?

"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.
starchild  +   577d ago
To be honest I care much more about the framerate being stable at 30 fps than having it be at 60 fps.

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.
Gimmemorebubblez  +   578d ago
It's still nearly a year away from launch and the Ps4 Ram has just changed from 4gigs DDR5 ram to GDDR 8 gigs. This should make texture and visuals render at a high speed. I hope Killzone: SF runs at 1080px60 frames.
According to Digital Foundry (?) they said the Ps4 could render at 1240px60F, 860px120f, and 480px240f.
2pacalypsenow  +   578d ago
would be a waste since no mainstream tv's do over 1080p
KyRo  +   578d ago
Riiiight, so it was a waste for the PS3 to have an HDMi port on it because HD weren't mainstream at the time of the PS3's release? It called being future proof.

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.
#1.2.2 (Edited 578d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(0) | Report
kneon  +   578d ago
The next step is 4k, there is nothing in between.
Pathosverdes3  +   578d ago
No, that is the capture rate of the new dual Eye camera, not rendering resolution.
landog  +   578d ago
lol....people(console only gamers that have no idea how hardware works, no offence) think ram is soooooo important, it is the CHEAPEST, least performance carrying part next to the hardrive and the usb ports

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
#1.2.5 (Edited 578d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(9) | Report
JP1369  +   577d ago
landog-
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.
Raider69  +   577d ago
Yes but it all depends on the rest of the assets,like textures,geometry...So to reach 1080p@60fps is not difficult but they will have to cut somewhere else.This new KZ game looks great haves lots of new effects,bigger and better textures...not to mention that Guerrilla Games is still working with new hardware,it will probably happen but not just now.
BrianC6234  +   577d ago
"lol....people(console only gamers that have no idea how hardware works, no offence) think ram is soooooo important, it is the CHEAPEST, least performance carrying part next to the hardrive and the usb ports "

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.
akaakaaka  +   578d ago
PM here or at PSN to made a day one clan for Killzone Shadow Fall!
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...
#1.3 (Edited 578d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(10) | Report | Reply
joab777  +   578d ago
The reasoning is most likely time and money. They need a next gen lauch title and killzone looks great. Notice it isnt killzone 4.
Sevir  +   578d ago
Killzone 4 or not this game takes place 11 years after the events of KZ3
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.
BXbomber  +   578d ago
@ Sevir actually it takes place 30 years after kz3
Raider69  +   577d ago
There are reason for not being KZ4 AT NAME!They most likely didnt call this game KZ4 to not Conflict with the console name at release,and also in order to sell more!If his game was call KZ4 Especially at a release of a new console the PS4 plenty of people would say,look is just a sequel,this way it will not conflict with the PS4 name and more people will end up picking the game without connecting it to the KZ franchise like just another game sequel, it differentiates itself from the main cannon with a diferent name and history .The game will probably be bunble with the console so its better not having the nº4 on the title for marketing reasons too.
#1.4.3 (Edited 577d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
meh I want good games. Along as I am having fun I don't really care. Console gamers need to throw away their pc gamer like mentality. It's not a high end pc!! It's about good games & having a good time and less about textures for me.

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...
#1.5 (Edited 578d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Feralkitsune  +   578d ago
Only the asshole PC Gamers do that. Most of us just enjoy our games and maybe find ways to make them run better without running to the console guys and telling them what we're doing.

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
Zhipp  +   577d ago
I'm not a PC gamer(yet) but I must say, 60fps does add a lot to the experience. I'd actually rather play a game at Med 60+fps than ULTRA 30fps.
isarai  +   578d ago
1080p 60fps depending on the specs will definitely be doable WITH decent graphics, but they aren't going to look "true next gen" things will have to sacrificed. but hey who knows, lets see what they can do
PS3and4_HAS_GAMES  +   578d ago
why would anyone disagree with what you just said??? who are those 9 people lol
360ICE  +   577d ago
You guys are idiots.
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.
Yodagamer  +   577d ago
As long as devs can get more detail at 30 fps, devs will use it. Along with 720p I don't think we will ever going to be a guaranteed 1080p60 even if it's possible and viable.
bigrob904  +   577d ago
tell you the truth i don't care if a game is in 60 fps as long as it doesn't go below 30 it doesn't hurt the game at all. give me those great graphics with a steady smooth frame rate.
Sucitta  +   577d ago
yes but as many have already speculated, most of these titles were probably in development for the ps3 and have been brought over to the ps4 dev kits.

just be patient and wait 8 months, then we should start seeing true next gen games at 60fps = )
Ulf  +   577d ago
1080p is 2.5x the pixels of 720p.
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.
hesido  +   577d ago
It is about preference indeed, but I'd prefer 720p60fps over 1080p30fps if I had to choose. I HOPE games will let me choose between the two, but I don't think consoles would let me do that.
Ashunderfire86  +   578d ago
Your day Helghan will come during launch Holiday 2013, in many player's hands, and even mines!!!
Bahpomet---  +   578d ago
i dont get it is it gon be 60fps>
PirateThom  +   578d ago
Killzone 2 and 3 are 30fps and I think Mercanaries is targeting 30fps as well. I can only assume they are wanting to, at least, keep the feel of series consistant.
TechnicianTed  +   578d ago
No, they are doing it because they won't be able to make it look as good and run at 60fps. It's nothing to do with wanting to 'keep the feel of series consistant'.
FlashBack  +   578d ago
Congratulations, you are one of the few people with a lick of sense in this thread.

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.
PirateThom  +   578d ago
How is you PS4 game coming along? I am assuming you know all the ins and outs being able to make such definitive statements.
Ju  +   577d ago
Frame rate doesn't really matter. Not even on the PC. But you want the mouse handled in that 15ms a 60fps game gives you. I doubt you can spot your enemy in 33ms. And 180dgr movements are most likely skips frames anyway. Even 90dgr. So, you want immediate response, but what you see is often not really coupled to the frame rate. But, games on PCs eat up bandwidth by rendering at high speed. On modern multi core machines, if you can run systems in parallel, the frame rate isn't that much of a problem. But 30fps at the bandwidth limit most likely doesn't give you enough bandwidth to handle other things of the game and hence might dip at times. I doubt that's the case on the PS4. The demo ran absolutely smooth without lag no matter what was going on on screen. You don't have this problem on the PS4. You have guaranteed 8 cores. Always.
medziarz  +   578d ago
after playing that free KZ3 multiplayer, I can say that the game run perfectly and didn't need more frames per second
r21  +   578d ago
30 FPS at 1080p and no frame drops to show off them graphics is ok in my books. 60 FPS is a bonus to have. This does raise a question that has yet to be confirmed though. Will all PS4 games run at 1080p and or 60FPS?
Ju  +   577d ago
I think 1080p is desired, 60fps not really (as seen here).
tubers  +   578d ago
"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."

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.
#6 (Edited 578d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
mixelon  +   578d ago
If your tv has good (non juddery or laggy) motion interpolation 30fps converts really well into higher FPS. Killzone in particular looks more cinematic at the lower FPS for some reason though.

(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.
Ingram  +   578d ago
As the name implies, frame interpolation in modern TV's does not add real frames to the picture; in other words, you're seeing the same amount of information. You know this of course, but I want to make it clear in case someone else's wondering.

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.
#7.1 (Edited 578d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
a_squirrel  +   577d ago
Dude. Motion interpolation creates new frames. Look up Interframe, or Avisynth Frame doubling. For professional use, people use Twixtor to make some really sweet slow motion by simply creating extra frames based on the adjacent frames and motion.
Ingram  +   577d ago
no, you're comparing some editing suit with TV's M.I. You can't "simply" create unexisting additional frames of real time animation in a videogame if said source content does not have them, not with some TV filter, we're not talking professional photography, high speed video or else here. It creates new frames, but it can't, *won't* unlock information that was not there in the first place.

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.
#7.1.2 (Edited 577d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(2) | Report
mixelon  +   577d ago
Adding new frames is exactly what it's doing, sometimes to horrible effect. They arent necessarily good frames, but they are there. i know the PS3 isnt sending the information and theyre "fake" frames.. It tends to result in a weird effect that can take some getting used to, but sometimes it's great!

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. :)
#7.1.3 (Edited 577d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
hesido  +   577d ago
@Ingram: Frame interpolation on high end TV's do add intermediary and otherwise non-existent frames. The TV's do so by analyzing 2 frames and try to check what pixels have moved where, and they do it at an outstanding pace. Please examine Sony's MotionFlow, LG's Trumotion, and Samsung's Movie plus (samsung may have changed the name in newer models, tho.)

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!
#7.1.4 (Edited 577d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
Ingram  +   576d ago
for f***'s sake... mixelon, I'm sorry to say but it is you who's mixing frames per second with refresh rate in the first place. Hence my example of the alundra non-valid framerate/hz upconvertion (...)"[motion interpolation 30fps converts really well into higher FPS]"<- this was your original comment and the reason of my following statements.

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...
#7.1.5 (Edited 576d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
delboy  +   578d ago
Millions of CoD players disagree with you.
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.
cleverusername  +   578d ago
The more I hear about the PS4 the more deflated I'm feeling!! I expected 1080P and 60fps AS STANDARD!! Even some PS3 launch games were 1080P and 60fps!! WTF?
LAZL0-Panaflex  +   578d ago
Good go play your atari. And no ps3 launch games were never 1080. Just because they wrote it on the box and transmits at 1080 doesnt mean the game has 1080 lines, it is only 500 interlaced(doubled/upscaled). Same on xbox.
REALgamer  +   578d ago
Actually LAZL0-Panaflex, Ridge Racer 7 is 1080p AND 60fps and was a launch title for the PS3.

But very few games ever hit 1080p though due to graphics demands.
ginsunuva  +   578d ago
60 fps makes some games feel too smooth and CoD-like. It's only good when the type of game feels good with it.
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?
kaozgamer  +   578d ago
anything that is not a multiple of 30 will cause screen tearing.
GiantFriendlyCrab  +   578d ago
ill be happy with 1080p 45ps
BabyTownFrolics  +   578d ago
1080p at 60fps should be standard for next gen.
Khronikos  +   578d ago
And you should pay to dev the system's cost in a small box. Are you people really this stupid?
DigitalSmoke  +   578d ago
FPS is fun and well, but it all depents on how much worth it is to cut it in halve.
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
Chard  +   578d ago
If that's true native 1920x1080p, then I'm impressed
skyrimer  +   578d ago
Give me 3d guerrilla!
NateCole  +   578d ago
they should aim for 60fps at 1080p. there is no more excuse.
MidnytRain  +   578d ago
I don't agree. People have to remember the PS4 isn't about running last gen games at 1080p @60fps. New games are always technologically more ambitious and will probably allocate resources to other things besides high resolutions and frame rate.
tigertron  +   578d ago
True 1080p at 60fps should be the standard of next-gen consoles, so I'm disappointed that it'll be 30fps. However, the game is probably in a pre-Alpha stage, so things can change.
GiantFriendlyCrab  +   578d ago
if i remember correctly, the wipeout HD for ps3 was 30fps but the developers managed to pull 1080p 60fps. So things can change
Khronikos  +   578d ago
Wipeout--KZ4--TOTALLY different games. Wipeout had a resolution that rarely stayed at 1080p. Srsly, people.
REALgamer  +   578d ago
I don't think it's really necessary to have 60fps due to the significant drop in visual quality required.

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.
kB0  +   578d ago
IF you run horizon next to other forza, or play one then play the other, you def feel the difference.

Remember frame rates aren't just about Smoothness, its also a great benefit for controller response times.
REALgamer  +   577d ago
@kB0 - That's true, but the importance of response time is game-dependent. As Killzone has always used more weighted movement, the slightly lower response time is not as important as, say, StreetFighter.

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.
kB0  +   577d ago
There is still a difference between organic and non organic frame rates. It's not just comparing the frames.

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.
#15.2.3 (Edited 577d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
tubers  +   578d ago
Killzone 1080 clear footage from Jimmy Falon.

OMG!!!!!!!

http://youtu.be/rGlu3e9kdks...
bunfighterii  +   578d ago
Awesome! So this proves one thing for sure- on IGN, one of their presenters from IGN UK suggested that that the demo showed was a target render, and not an actual demo, like the original Killzone 2 demo for PS3 way back.

I guess she was incorrect?
cleverusername  +   578d ago
People are just hating! Both Watch Dogs and Killzone were clearly not renders! The gameplay wouldn't have had the player errors in that it had!!
#16.1.1 (Edited 578d ago ) | Agree(9) | Disagree(0) | Report
cleverusername  +   578d ago
Jimmy says he's a big gamer! REALLY? He plays like he's never played a fps in his life!! "What do I do?"
bunfighterii  +   578d ago
hahaha yeah I bet the guy never played an FPS in his life. He couldn't control it at all.
delboy  +   578d ago
No it's not Jimmy, KZ is well known for awful controls.
Rauland  +   577d ago
the first guy had the controller inverted, when he passed it on the other guys they couldn't control it, eg, pointing at the roof.
LAZL0-Panaflex  +   578d ago
Bad ass. I heard r1. I hope theyre still not using r1 and l1 to shoot. If so i better be able to switch em. Cough cough ...naughty dog! I got the trigger enhancers for ps3 and it pissed me off uncharted and battlefield3 couldnt switch shoot triggers. I had to use that flat r1 shit!
TKCMuzzer  +   578d ago
It depends on how interactive everything will be. Battlefield 3 runs at near 30fps but you can blow hell of a lot up changing the game dynamics. On the other hand COD runs at nearly 60fps and you can only shoot glass and its still hit and miss on the lag.
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.
#17 (Edited 578d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
seanpitt23  +   578d ago
Sod 3d we don't need that we just need 1080 and 60f and we will get it this gen trust me
SatanSki  +   578d ago
Talk for yourself please. No full 3d support this gen is a big minus for me. I thought it would be standard. If Oculus Rift is anything like people who tried it say i dont even know if i will bother with consoles this time. I love 3d. I had Elsa Revelator with CRT monitor in late 90s and am really looking for 3d again.
skyrimer  +   578d ago
Yeah, I want 3d too, I'm glad that they seem to be still interested in it. Most people who hate 3d haven't played a good 3d game ever, and I'm not talking about the terrible PS3 3d games with terrible low res and frames, just check nvidia 3d vision for PC, it'll blow your mind.
AlexBurnout  +   578d ago
The PS4 should play 4K games at 60fps not only FHD.
angelsx  +   578d ago
I wish but that will cost 1000$ or more.
Tei777  +   578d ago
Developers simply do not believe that the average console gamer wants 60fps over more effcects... It would be interesting to see how many PC gamers with a mid spec rig opts for higher frame above 30fps instead of higher graphical settings such as AA and such.

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.
#20 (Edited 578d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
taiyed80  +   578d ago
I lower graphical settings to reach 100+ fps for a high-refresh rate monitor
N0S3LFESTEEM  +   578d ago
You must play bf3 on low if you only have a single card setup.
taiyed80  +   578d ago
nah, i run a mix of high/ultra (deferred AA off) on a 560ti SLI setup.
plaZeHD  +   578d ago
I think I got the reason for why this is happening.
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)
skyrimer  +   578d ago
Very interesting, thanks.
isa_scout  +   578d ago
Whether it's at 30fps or 60fps I think it looks amazing. People forget that just because it has a higher frame rate DOES NOT mean it's a better looking game. I'd take killzone 3's graphics with it's 30fps over COD's 60fps any day of the week. Also, some of the best looking games this generation ran at 30fps. The thing that has me so excited about the PS4 and Killzone:Shadowfall is the sheer amount of particle effects. I've never seen a game with so much fire,smoke,ash,sparks all going on at the same time. It kind of reminded me of the movie Avatar when the great tree is on fire and all the ashes are falling. Also, this is a launch title so just wait until developers have the hardware for a year or two, it has me so excited to think of how good the games will look then.
floetry101  +   577d ago
A lot of people also prefer performance over visuals. Killzone as a game and as a series is suited to the 30fps number because it's a little more methodical with its approach to gameplay. However, if someone said Killzone 2 ran at 60fps, (meaning better controller response too) I'd take it in a second.

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.
#22.1 (Edited 577d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
isa_scout  +   578d ago
I hate to say it because it sounds like blasphemy, but after seeing the PS4 I'm not as excited for the Last of Us, kinda wish it was coming to the PS4. Games I was excited for two days ago just dont compare to the PS4. I thought the Last of Us had amzing graphics, but after seeing that, it kinda looks meh now. One thing is for sure, I can't wait to see what Naughty Dogs first PS4 game looks like.
Convas  +   578d ago
And this is what's wrong with Graphics Whores folks!
isa_scout  +   578d ago
I'll still be getting the last of us I only said I wasn't as excited for it as I was before the playstation 4 was announced. If I was a "graphics whore" I wouldn't have played amazing games like Dragon Age:Origins(which is my favorite game this generation)I didn't say the Last of Us wasn't going to be amazing, I said it "looks" meh now. Which means it's graphics don look as good as they did say last week before they revealed the PS4.
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.
yaz288  +   578d ago
I will be staying with pc until that happened.
solar  +   578d ago
Supercharged PC my ass. LOL.
solidjun5  +   577d ago
cry moar!!!!!
Kennytaur  +   578d ago
V-synced stable 30FPS will be fine. And a good upgrade from the tearing 20-25 fps we've been getting in a lot of games.
jacksheen0000  +   578d ago
Ok, the ps4 might not be capable of running games in 1080p/60fps.

so, the way to solve this problem is, add a system select option of 2 choices, either 30fps/1080p or 720p/60fps.
kB0  +   578d ago
Honestly, I'd rather take a hit in graphics and increase frame rates for response time and fluidity, even 40 fps should be good enough compared to 30 fps.

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.)
PersonMan  +   578d ago
I disagree. The Uncharted series would look rather silly at 60fps. It's a cinematic game, and it needs that cinematic framerate to look right.
kB0  +   578d ago
Read my full comment:) I noted games that don't require 60 fps. Still, I ran Uncharted using motion flow (simulate the feeling of higher frame rate) and it still looked great and not awkward.

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.
PersonMan  +   578d ago
What I hate about 60fps games is... if someone is going to make a game run at 60fps, it better run at a SOLID 60fps and never dip below that. When you start dipping below 60fps, it causes judders and stutters in the framerate and looks horrible... it breaks up the fluid-ness of the visuals.

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.
Baka-akaB  +   577d ago
It breaks immersion and is very noticable when the framerate dips , be it from 120 , 60 or 30 . I dont agree at all at it's more noticeable from 30 fps .

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 .
#29.1 (Edited 577d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
PersonMan  +   577d ago
Tripe-buffering.
Shacojin  +   578d ago
Well isnt Killzone Shadow Fall an unfinished game? Isnt it possible GG will tighten up graphics and get the game running at 60fps by Holiday 2013? What was shown was already very impressive, I can only imagine what the finished product will look like.
« 1 2 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember
New stories
30°

Review: Dead Rising 3 (Xbox One) | G3AR

29m ago - G3AR: "Often lauded as one of the premiere launch titles for the Xbox One, Dead Rising 3 has its... | Xbox One
40°

Metal Gear Silly

32m ago - It’s been long enough, for those of us who finished Ground Zeroes, to come to terms with the whip... | Xbox 360
30°

Indie Game Haven - Uncraft Me

52m ago - Chadley handles a strange game by the name of Uncraft Me. He talks about background ladies, the d... | Xbox 360
40°

FIFA 15 for PS4 and Xbox One Details Analysis

52m ago - FIFA 15 brings football to life in stunning detail so fans can experience the emotion of the spor... | PS4
Ad

Top Xbox One Exclusives to Look Forward To

Now - What are you excited for? Here are the ones we're really getting revved up for. | Promoted post
40°

See Your Fill: 8 Warlords of Draenor Cinematics

52m ago - 4th installment of the Lords of War animated short have released, was not the only news coming fr... | PC