'I’m really sad that some of new titles will be [email protected]'
Honestly. It should be child's play. I know they're just happy that there is no real need to optimize right now thanks to all the ram but 1080p/60fps should be the standard.
It will be soon. Once devs have time to sit down and make a game without having to worry about launch time restrictions and can figure out the consoles a little more i think 1080p 60fps will be the standard with the majority of games. 720p @ 30fps should stay in last gen where it belongs, there's no excuse for 720p @ 30fps now.
If i was Sony or Microsoft i wouldn't allow any game to release on their system that's under 1080p... lazy developers!
i don't think "being lazy" applies to all developers as as some do try to hit that 1080p 60fps but due to certain factors cannot meet this and rather than sacrifice game play or other elements they go for lower resolutions. as lukas mentioned over time developers will learn these new consoles and we will notice 1080 60fps being a standard
Ryse is gorgeous, and runs at 900P. They used the resources to make it look better rather than to push a few more superficial pixels. So you go ahead and mandate required 1080P, I'll stick to studios that deliver beautiful graphics regardless of pixel amounts.
Some people have to come to the realisation that the next gen consoles are Not as powerful as you think they are. They obviously can't handle 64 players with ultra graphics full destructible scenery an vehicles. That's why BF4 is only 900p on the PS4 to maintain 60fps. Don't get me wrong it doesn't mean that the game doesn't look amazing but it just that it can't do what a high end PC can do. I have an i7 rig an it's my main platform but I certainly will be gettin a ps4 for the exclusives. I don't care about 1080p 60fps. I just want amazing gameplay.
Yes but how many times will this need to be said? It's all about price. Sure Sony or even MS could have thrown in a Radeon 7970 and a Core i5 or something but guess what that GPU used to cost $550 at launch and is now around $300. The total cost of the system would be at $700-$800. The 1 Million PS4 sales would be lucky to hit 100,000 at that price.
PS4 is fairly powerful problem is people under estimate exactly what it costs to get games on BF4 caliber running at 1080p @ 60fps. I think still though if this was 1-2 years later the game would be much closer to 1080p with better optimization. No PC Rig worth under 1k dollars can play 1080p @ 60fps on ultra settings let alone a 400 dollar console. To add 60 fps isnt even that important I hope developers stay away from using that as a benchmark.
@Sarc I agree at the cost of a PS4 you truly get the bang for your buck no doubt about that. but obviously the capabilities of what a PC can do is not limited to gaming thats why its worth the higher price. I also web design & use adobe flash, stream movies to my TV, use Microsoft Office and play games like BF4 on ultra. so its worth every penny.
Yup, and a particular system is going to have a hard time reaching that standard.
I remember that being said about the WiiU too.
Agree, especially when there supposed to be 10X faster than last gen
PS4 will certainly be the 1080p machine we all want in a few months. Xbox One on the other hand might struggle with that task, reports are coming in that most the games that are 1080p on PS4 now are actually 720p on Xbox One, no surprise there though considering the Xbox One is more of an DVR entertainment unit rather than a gaming console, if Kinect wasn't so expensive and high tech they might of focus more attention on the Xbox One hardware. Kinect is certainly a high tech camera but couldn't they of added those voice recognition microphones into the system or controller rather than a webcam?
Anyone who thinks this dev is right has no imagination. Depending on the game being made there could be great excuses, and yes that goes for PCs as well. Ambition can always be stymied by tech.
You guys are seriously reaching for the stars on this one. Realistically we will see 1080p games that will be at 30fps+. Any game that achieves the 1080 60fps mark will have to make sacrifices. The games that are more dynamic and have visual flair will run at sub 1080p @ 60fps. You guys need to put your pitchforks down and let the developers make their games the way they see fit. Stop calling them lazy for a next-gen standard you guys are making up.
I agree 110% There is also no excuse why games shouldn't look more realistic (better graphics), be longer (more than your standard 4-8 hours for SP) and offer numerous modes (SP,MP, Co-Op) as a standard. We are moving into Next Gen, the machines are more powerful now and the disk capacity is standard Blu-ray now in both the major players, Devs are no longer shoe-horned into the capacity of DVD9, How many times in the past 5 years or so have we heard DEVs say" if we had more of this we could do more of that that? I tried explaining this a few weeks ago in a article about a Next Gen game being 6.5-8 hours and got major disagrees because the majority felt like I was attacking the game. If we demand more than "just the standard" in our Next Gen games we just might get it, why settle for the same 'ol same 'ol?
I got to wonder if we'll start seeing games with multiple discs in a year or two. Games are clocking in as high as 43gb and the year isn't even over yet. Gateway MT6706 2008
I don't mind 1080p 30FPS, as long as it's constant. I can tell the difference between resolutions, but I can't tell the difference between 30 & 60 FPS as much. obviously for fighters, racers & whatever other genre 60fps is considered "standard/necessary" then yes there should be no excuse. But for RPG's & the like, I wouldn't hold it against devs if they targeted a constant 30FPS so that they can use the space for other stuff.
Say that to MS's new box, that cant even play cod in 1080p or atleast 900p let alone being 60fps
As engines become more and more graphically demanding, I don't see developers pushing 1080p 60 FPS without sacrificing huge amounts of graphical fidelity in SP. In MP games, I can see 60 FPS becoming a standard.
Especially on PC
? That's down to you the consumer to have a capable PC. It's not a devs responsibility if you own a 5 year old piece of s*** or use intergrated graphics.
Ah sorry, I didn't realise you were speaking about 1 specific game out of the 1000s available. Probably because you didn't say that. Clearly that makes me the idiot for not being capable of reading your mind. What an arrogant douche.
I wouldn't go that far. Making games is a trade off. It's a balance. It's framerate: resolution: graphic fidelity and its up to devs how they work the ratio. We always want the best fidelity. I think by now games should have at least one of resolution or framerate but not necessarily both. It's ok to do to 30 fps if it's 1080p. It's ok to be 720p to reach 60 fps. But [email protected] is now a no no, and 30 fps is the absolute minimum. If you're going for 30, it needs to be steady and suit the game.
IMO I think there should only be three standards. 1080p 30fps or 1080p 60fps and at the very least 900p 60fps. None of this 720p stuff, that's some serious last gen stuff
Depending on the game being made I don't see a problem with 720p. Think of a game like MAG, but supporting thousands of players, full destruction, etc… All the bells and whistles… Battlefield with the scale of D-Day. I'd certainly accept 720p from a game like that.
^Nope I still wouldn't accept it. Developers can make concessions elsewhere and get creative in optimization instead. 720p and jaggies should be a thing of the past. Super clean, crisp and clear graphics should be the standard. And that's only possible with higher resolutions and good anti-aliasing. There's a reason why some PC gamers rock a 1440-1600p monitor because the pixel density is mind blowing.
"Nope I still wouldn't accept it. Developers can make concessions elsewhere and get creative in optimization instead." Optimization is obviously a good thing, but by mentioning concessions you sort of admit defeat because that's my point exactly. Maybe my example didn't qualify, but a game can be ambitious enough that a lower resolution is required for it to run, even on very high end hardware. Of course the lower resolution is a concession also, but I'd rather have that and play the "real" game than have to lose parts of the original vision in the name of achieving 1080p. Peace and good gaming to you though. : )
Once the current systems fail by the wayside and devs can focus on the next gen systems I expect most titles to hit [email protected] (where required), launch titles are often built based on expected specs with dev units only received towards the end of their games completion. Launch titles will get overshadowed quickly.
Who is this Bloober Team? They've developed Music Master Chopin, Double Bloob, Paper Wars, and A-Men. I haven't heard of any of those. Put your money where your mouth is Bloober Team and develop a game that actually has decent graphics. The games they've created look like they could've ran at 60fps on a gameboy color
Games development is all about tradeoffs. Do you target 1080p @ 60fps, or do you add more effects / bells and whistles. You can have both if you have excess GPU power to burn, but it seems clear that with launch titles most devs decided on trying to max the bells and whistles over resolution / frame rate. The PS4 came closest to offering both, so I hope that this is a sign that once devs get really familiar with the console we will see 1080p/60fps and all the eye candy. I can say that with absolute certainty that we'll be having these same arguments and conversations when we get to the NEXT gen and games launch with sub-4k resolutions!!
You'd think it was common sense to keep resolution and framerates native but I think it will go the same way as the 360/PS3 in the long run. For 90% of the studios it's been effects over gameplay and image quality.
For an Indie dev with game that does not push the system, talk is cheap. You have three choices with console development, this has not changed with the start of a new generation: Framerate Resolution Effects/IQ/AA/ Pick two. You can do two really well. You CANNOT do all three very well.
THIS. I doubt this game will be very demanding, for one. Also, it'll be interesting what choices devs make. To expect a continuing progress on resolution, frame rates, AND graphical effects on static hardware is asking for a lot.
People expect WAAAAY to much from them jaguar APUs. Quote me on this: 2 years from now when devs are really pushing these consoles, 720P/30FPS will become more common.
You mark my words....there will never be a PS4 game that runs at 720P/30fps.
@cbuc1125 Trust me I want that to be true. Im just going to look at it like this: we have better than last gen specs, which means better looking and more impressive and immersive games from all them talented devs who's games we play. whether its the new IPs or sequels to games we like, Im just happy for that. I got my X1 today. Im looking forwardto picking up my PS4 in february with infamous. Im happy with what they, are 1080P/60FPS or not. But I dont expect it any more..
Although I understand the sentiment there are whole genres if I was developing the game I'd consider tweaking the resolution downwards in order to use the performance on things like post processing rather than 1080 or 60fps. Something like Siren where the image quality is supposed to be grainy and look like video doesn't necessarily want 60fps 1080p. There are games where it's actually going to be detrimental to the aesthetic. Most of the time though I'm all for 60/1080, obviously. It's not going to be doable though if people stick loads of detail in their environments etc, so there's going to be a trade-off.
It really depends on what type of game youre trying to do... I dont mind 30fps as long gameplay feels smooth enough to be satisfying.
Exactly. Many games don't benefit from 60fps. Turn based games, slow paced RPG's. I'd rather see 30fps and lots of eye candy than 60fps and less glitz - depending on the game. FPS and Racing games should always be 60fps.
30fps also improves animations rather than gameplay fluidity and that´s the essencial for every game that´s trying to be more cinematic as possible. PS4 might handle all this very nicelly but that doesnt mean 60fps makes the game feel well paced it might be too much.
quality per pixel sort of matters more than quantity of pixels in my opinion. 720p the last of us or mass effect 3 looks better than 1080p left for dead 1 or mass effect 1. (just like a bluray at 720p still looks more realistic than a video game at 1080p). that said, in dead rising's case, frame rate is probably computing-bound given all the zombies they are trying to have on screen. if they chose to have only like 15 AI in game like forza, i'm sure dead rising could run 1080p 60fps as well. but for that game, more zombies is worth the resolution/framerate downgrade i imagine.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.