The whole 'resolutiongate' and 'frame rate saga' is spiraling out of control! Sam Hewitt of Level Complete tries to make an appeal to return things to order.
Depends the game. Tomb Raider is an enhanced port that didn't add much else, so in my mind, the comments were always judging if this game really deserves the $60 dollar MSRP.
That is true. However, comments on 1080p/60fps happen to spark up on any game that is on both the Xbox One and PS4.
It matters because certain gamers feel they have to justify their purchase. If you ever pay attention on these blogs (this one included) its always you paid to much for inferior hardware, that would be true if all I did in my life was game. I watch tv (the snap feature is awesome), I have a wife who likes to use kinect (kinect sports/dancing games/ and fitness), I have friends, I have family out of state I skype with, I love online gaming. This whole resolutiongate/fpsgate was birthed to boast some sort of superiority. I love my XB1 it works for me, the annoying aspect is coming here to get videogame news and constantly hearing why I should be upset I don't like what they like. PS I think fpsgate is closed because infamous is running at 30fps.
Only if it upsets you that the competition has far better specs and is quite a bit less expensive. Then yes there is too much emphasis. Not sure why people aren't just playing the original xbox if they didn't care about improved graphics.
True fan. Infamous is not running at 30fps.
@truefan1 If you have a wife, she must be a sad / lonely woman. I've never seen a grown man purposely go to a website to troll. You can't be spending too much time with her, because you're on here posting every hour through the day trolling. OT At the end of the day resolution and ESPECIALLY framerate matters. It might not be the most important aspect of a game, but they matter. No one would say having a game running in 720p @ 30fps automatically makes the game bad. But if you have the option and power to run that game in 1080p @ 60fps then it's an even better bonus for the game. FPS aid not only fluidity of games, it also aids latency, and playability. A game that 30 fps with frequent drops down to 20 or less is not a joy to play. Try playing an online game, and everythings lagging because of the host connection. 9 times out of 10 you're going to leave and find another match, because the connection aka framerate is unplayable. Resolution matters a bit less IMO, but it does add with clarity, draw distance, texture quality. All of those things aid graphics, and if graphics are a huge plus for you or simply the icing on the cake then it matters. Together these two things are part of "PERFORMANCE" and if performance was a non-issue there would never be a need to upgrade hardware. BUt the purpose of upgrading hardware is to achieve Performance levels that allow the creative process to be easier and work allow the artist vision to be unhindered. So while resolution and fps may not have the biggest emphasis or influence for certain gamers, THEY STILL MATTER REGARDLESS.
well when i pay for a high quality system with high quality graphics, im going to want high quality rez and high quality frame rate to experience what i paid for, at the best level. im currently catching up on ps1 and psp games (a lot of rpg/jrpgs) and the rez and frame rate do not matter, reason being: they are much older systems. the fun factor and entertainment is still there, and its still there for next gen systems, but better frames and rez makes games look and feel smoother, and just works better for most of them.
Ryse and Quantum Break, nuff said. The best graphical games for next gen only on Xbox One.
The point is that the PS4 has a lot more grunt to to run at an higher res and framerate. It might make little difference when using that extra power on the framerate and res but when the devs use the extra power in other areas - particle effects, higer res textures, etc - that's when we will see the benefit of the extra power. @George - Ryse - Not many devs are prepared to dilute the gameplay down just to get better visuals. It was a cheap shot way for MS to boast better graphics. Good developers just wouldn't do that. Quantum Break does look good though
We know the PS4 is the more powerful console this generation and it is of course going to show up as advantages in multiplatform games. What I find ironic, though, is that people attack the XB1 for not being 1080p on such and such game or not being 60fps on this other, but the PS4 itself doesn't achieve 1080p/60fps in every game, in fact the great majority of PS4 games do not meet that standard either. Even a couple of games that are often bandied about as 60fps games on PS4 do not in fact offer that. Tomb Raider is the most recent example. It swings mostly between 40 and 50-odd fps and averages about 50.9fps. I don't know how some people can justify acting like these are 60fps games. KZSF is another. The XB1 version of Tomb Raider is 1080p during gameplay and has a pretty steady 30fps with an average of 29.84fps (which is about what solid games like Uncharted 2 have). Why is the XB1 version attacked as being a complete piece of crap when MOST games on the PS4 are, and will likely be, 1080p/30fps?
The problem is not that games are running at a higher framerate or higher rez on the ps4 but what happens later on when games on the ps4 run at 720p @30fps to get higher fidelity that the xbone won't be able to pull off without sacrifices that ain't just extra frames or rez.
lol how times have changed. just before new consoles was announced most people said frame rate and resolution didnt matter and always down played pc games. but now suddenly everyone forgot about that and touting how every game needs to be 1080 and 60fps. i see a lot of console only gamers that say the same things they said but they was called elitist. so what would that make them? i never been on a pc forum or gaming site and herd people bash other pc gamers because another cant run the game as well as their rig. people a lot of gamers change the settings to run the game they want, but people are not gonna bash them because of it. i know you cant compare pc to consoles but the hypocrisy on this site is at an all time high.
@truefan where did you get that info? link?
@webe- thats because last gen, especially in the consoles vs PC debate, the consoles game developers werent nearly as capable of doing 1080 and 60. in the console war (console vs console) the rez and frames have always been a debate, even last gen. this gen devs are very capable of 1080/60 and its an upgraded console, so we expect higher frames and higher frames. in the PC vs console debate, console gamers never argued that better frames and rez wasent better or didnt matter, they went with the exclusive games arguement. pc gamers are one in the same, ps fanboys and xbox fanboys also, sadly that is why there is verbal conflict (ineed, im guilty). what you have here is the console war still going at it, egotism. now frames and rez matter more amoungst console gamers bc the systems are more capable this gen; last gen it was minimal due to specs.
Having an extra 4fps and a couple extra blades of grass was a clear victory last gen for the Xbox fanboys , yet the giant gap now like 1080p and 720p or sub30fps and 50plus fps doesn't matter at all? Odd , I guess res and fps only matters when it's the Xbox console ahead , same as sales where very important till the ps3 got ahead then it didn't matter anymore , and how games was very important , then the ps3 had more games with better metas and then games didn't matter cos halo sold more. There won't be much mattering to xbone owners the whole gen if it only matters when Xbox is ahead I guess, because ps4 is going to have the advantage in everything.
Hells yeah, resolution and framerates matter. And its funny how all the MS fanboys try to down play it when before they knew their system was going to be such a let down, really cared about it to but now suddenly they dont, hmm, i wonder why. Fakes!
MRMaggo, Right on. Its crazy to see how many flip flops on this site from Xbox crazies. Last gen this site was run with Comparison websites showing 360 had a darker shadow on level 4 and was deemed the superior and im not just meaning Superior i mean SUPERIOR version. You had multiple websites preaching this point. You had multiple sites open and stay in business do to just making comparison videos showing a less then 1% difference yet the less then 1% difference last gen was led on to believe it was 10000000x more superior. Now that's not the case its something else. Its the funniest thing.
it doesnt matter....if you have the inferior version.
@truefan1 " This whole resolutiongate/fpsgate was birthed to boast some sort of superiority." For once you are 100% right sir and let me just add that it was started by xbox supporters and game journalists at the beginning of last gen when the 360 had all the best looking multiplats. so you can go cry somewhere else.
@ webeblazing You are 100% correct. The hypocrisy truly is astounding. Last generation we PC gamers were constantly told that we wasted our money and the multiplats really weren't any better on the PC. "It's just higher resolutions and framerates", they would scream (which isn't true anyway). "It's the same game and is just as fun either way", they said over and over again. Now, these same people (yes, I've literally seen the very same people) act like a game on the XB1 is no good if it isn't 1080p/60fps. Wait, I thought frame-rate and resolution were unimportant and didn't fundamentally change the value of a game? The attitude that all console games now need to be 1080p/60fps is absurd on several levels. 1. We have never got a resolution and frame-rate jump with each new console generation. So why is it all of a sudden mandatory? Many generations had the same resolution and frame-rate as the previous generation, only with higher quality graphics and sound. 2. Last generation 720p/30fps was hardly anything that could be considered a standard. There were countless games that were sub-720p and ran with screen tearing and stutter regularly under 30fps. Wouldn't it be a very huge improvement if this generation every game ran with much better graphics as well as a solid 30fps and 720p? Wouldn't that be a big enough generational leap for consoles? I think it would. 3. Why are some people acting like the XB1 is a failure if it can't run at both 1080p and 60fps when the VAST MAJORITY of games on the PS4 don't either? Aren't both consoles failures in that case? inFamous Second Son, The Witcher 3, Need for Speed Rivals, Knack, Destiny, KZSF, Tomb Raider, Thief and many more games on PS4 all fail to reach that 1080p/60fps standard. The games that do are the exception and are usually simpler indie titles. What it comes down to is this: if resolution and frame-rate are really so important to you, it would be wise to start doing most of your gaming on PC. The PC is the ONLY platform where you can get 1080p and 60fps consistently in every game. Ok, now I can see a lot of Sony fanboys answer this by saying "well just because frame-rate and resolution are important to me doesn't mean they are the only things I care about". Well, fine, I expected you to say that. But if that is the case, is it so unreasonable to think that the XB1 owners also care about resolution and frame-rate, but that, likewise, it isn't their only concern? That is, why is it ok for Sony fans to say "yeah I know the PC is more powerful and offers better graphics, but I choose to game on the PS4 for other reasons", yet it isn't ok for Xbox fans to say "yeah, I know the PS4 is more powerful, but I choose to game on the XB1 for other reasons"? People have myriad different reasons for choosing a platform. Everybody has different needs and tastes. You can't downplay the PC's graphical superiority on one hand, then turn around and try to lord it over other console gamers based on graphical superiority. Such reasoning and behavior doesn't make any sense.
@ABizzel1 you basically speak out everything I wanted to say word by word. Especially the part where performance do matter considering buying a new hardware. This is the part where many people remain in denial that graphics ain't important when they are equally as hype when new hardware are being announced. If they dont matter we dont even need new consoles. 360 / PS3 can just go for another few decades. Since "good games" can still continue to come out. Why do we even need new hardware in the first place. And we need to set a a bottom line for a new hardware regardless. Why buy a new hardware that does what last gen can do. That is no next gen by any mean. PS : Bubble to you
truefan go tell your wife to go to the gym. Also you should take her lead and use your remote. snap is stupid ya lazybones. Skype is on every device now, even tv's. @starchild. I spent good money on my Panasonic, it's huge, it supports 1080p fully, a 600 mhz refresh rate I'm gonna notice the difference between 29.84 fps and 60fps hell I'm gonna notice the difference between 30 and 50 so wtf gives I want the best quality and most people agree. I don't want upscaled bs and I don't want water physics boobs(ryse). Idc if Most games on ps4 are 1080p/30fps. It's more than what the competition is offering. Uncharted 2 was soooo last gen gtfo with that, the consoles are more powerful and expectations are higher. And even if one game is 1080p 60fps locked on the ps4 it'll be worth it to me and I'll marvel at its beauty. Wait you thought framerate and resolution didn't fundamentally change the value of a game... get outta here. When the same game runs better elsewhere yeah it does kthanks bye
@starchild There are two "next gen" consoles out and the other offers higher game settings for lower price so you do the math. It's a reasonable argument to say that xbox one is inferior when it comes to graphical aspects.. People are not bashing xbone just because it can't run some games 1080p/60fps but because almost every game has lower settings on it.
Def not too much emphasis on framerates and resolution. I mean if I'm giving 499.99 for a device it should be able to keep up with a similar device that costs 100.00 less at 399.99. Duh.
So if this site is such a Sony fanboy cesspool, than why does this guy only have one bubble, hmmm?
When it comes to paying $100 more and getting less.... Yes it matters.
If you care about other features besides a GPU, you are paying "more for more", not "more for less". The XB1 does FAR more than the PS4 and includes an expensive piece of hardware that the PS4 doesn't (Kinect). So you can say you don't want any of that stuff, but you can't say paying "more for less" because you are comparing apples to oranges.
Unholy, What does the xbox do well let me use your words"The XB1 does FAR more than the PS4" what are these things without the kinect adds? Please list.
"expensive piece of hardware" LOL, aaahh the x-crazies, they crack me up. You keep your "expensive piece of hardware" and i'll take the FAR superior gaming hardware. And yeah, Im waiting for this list too, lol
If you don't know by one what all the XB1 does, I'm not going to bother looking up a list of every little feature for you. But I'll gladly name a few things. First off let me clarify that you can't just say "what does it do besides the Kinect stuff?", because you are discounting one of the very things that makes it different. Otherwise, let's see.... TV features Multitasking via snap Suspending a game state when you shut down the system Playing your own music over your home network Those are the things that pop in to my head right off the bat. (Now here is the part where you come and tell me how none of that stuff matters to you, lol)
All I see on this website is people comparing numbers, as if that makes a good game... sad.
This is true. But I firmly believe that this crap won't end until xbox people accept that they bought a weaker console.
They'll never admit and it will never end. I mean for goodness sake, you got Wii u fanboys trying to make their arguments. Remember according to them the Wii U has more 1080p/60fps games than all systems combined. Therefore that proves Wii U got more chops
So an entire generation of X360 vs PS3 multiplat comparisons when everyone dogging on the PS3 versions "slightly worse" ports, now that the tables turned with the gap much much wider "Is there too much emphasis on resolution and frame rate?" Seriously wtf.
That's not sarcasm!
No. 1080p should be standard, in all games this gen just like color is standard in TV. Frame-Rate depends on the game. But when the PS4 version has higher resolution and/or frame-rate, you bet a big deal will be made out of it. Albert Penello and his fellow Microsoft empire tried their best to fool people into thinking Xbox One was just as powerful as the PS4. IT'S NOT. If it wasn't $100 more expensive then maybe people wouldn't make such a big deal out of it.
Yes it should, xbox held sony back last gen sticking with DVD's, now they're doing it again.
But, Sony didn't...what the hell are you trying to say?
I think he's trying to say at how dev's tried to keep the game size compact, therefor leaving things out, and compressing things/lowering the quality, so it can ship on an Xbox disc (7gb i believe) whereas the Sony Blu ray drive, as you're probably aware is 25GB (50gb for dual layer, of course), at the time there was no need for compression or anything like that, the average game size being ranging massively from 3gb to 49gb(GOW3). I have noticed however that some games are larger on PS3 than Xbox, I mean, uncharted single player ALONE is 38.5GB, and GTA V is 17.2 GB. So these games have 2 years between them, and the more recent one is 20gb less because it most likely had to be compressed due to having to be on Xbox (most likely anyway) . GTA V is a MASSIVE game, much larger than Uncharted 3 that's for sure. UC3 has 16 hours of story and GTA took me 30 hours (i think) just for the story alone. The art style is slightly different, but both went for photorealistic. Side note: Heavenly Sword was 17GB, a PS3 launch game I took the size of games from the PS Store, Heavenly sword and GOW 3 size was from memory.
Last gen, Sony held cross platform games back for the first 3-4 years as game devts and sony worked to figure out the architecture of the PS3 and build the tools to use the architecture. In the end, the PS3 was ahead but many people forget Call of Duty being low res on PS3, Orange Box load and frame rate issues, etc.
I didn't mind the Orange Box on PS3 and I actually thought EA did a good job in porting it to the PS3 even though it displayed the typical Quincunx AA blur and framerates were slightly hit due to the auto save feature included in the PS3 version(which can be remedied with the use of a Hybrid SSD or SSD) "Xbox 360 is a very close match for the complete balls-out PC experience, but the notable omission of anti-aliasing makes game considerably more 'jaggy' than any of the other versions. PlayStation 3 - frame rate issues apart - matches the PC game and is even anti-aliased." http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
come on Jay2.. multiplats (almost) always ran better on the Xbox 360. So that is bs. And the xbox 360 couldn't hold back console exclusive.. so no, you are wrong. They are not holding the PS4 back now; since the PS4 has better FPS and Resolution in multiplats this time around.
Im sorry but when devs say they would rather not learn different architecture to get the best out of their games on ps3 it does kinda mean that the xbox is being used to diminish the other systems purpose.
The PS3 architecture was much more difficult to comprehend. It would cost devs much more work/money to get the same kind of quality as on the Xbox 360. If what you say is true, then the same could be said for the this Gen but then in reverse. Because the PS4 is so powerful and the Xbox One is more difficult and they have sharp deadlines, devs are satisfied with a good and playable version currently. Things will improve over time of course.
Its only because of Pc Gamers, That play At high res all the time! Console gamers are a different breed! We play to play and delve into new worlds explore and forget about polotics! Its About the experience for me! Granted it is nice to have good graphics but Gameplay is getting lost now due to all the Graphics hoopla!
Not another one. :( Framerates are bloody important because you can't play a game with horrible framerate.
I agree you can't play games with terrible frame rates, i even say that in the article. I am not suggesting people to play games with terrible frame rates.
Dead Rising 3 has horrible framerate. Just saying....
But now pretentious fanboys are trying to act like 30 fps is a horrible framerate to play games at. -_- I don't recall caring about framerate and resolution while playing Papers Please.
30fps isn't horrible. It's just bad when a more expensive machine can't run a last gen game at the same or higher framerate than a cheaper console. Again, it's fine for a game to run at 30fps, but when the same game is running at twice the frames on the competition's hardware, that doesn't look good. It looks even worse when the company with the weaker hardware has been trying to convince everybody that their system is, in fact, not so far behind. Framerate and resolution differences are telling a different story than the one Microsoft's execs have been putting out.
I have no doubt frame rate is important. But what is the minimum frame rate for a game to be considered "smooth"? To me, 30 FPS is where games become smooth... When it is lower you see noticeable stuttering and jumping in the framerate. But 30 and above seems to always be good. It is like the refresh rate on TVs... 60 Hz is ok for most regular 2D shows but is unacceptable for 3D. 120 Hz is acceptable for almost all 2D and 3D. And 240 Hz is gravy or ideal.
For me a very stable 30FPS is the minimum framerate that I will accept with a game.
if 30 fps is a horrible frame rate, how did people survive last gen when most games are not even 30 fps?
30FPS is great but when you have dips into the teens it ruins the gameplay.
That was last-gen. 30fps was the "gold standard" for that generation. That's like asking how people survived with black and white TVs.
Did you worry about frickin framerates while playing atari 2600? Did you worry about frame rates while playing PS2? Did you worry about framerates when you played Xbox With duke controller? Probably not! All those games played just fine and you did not worry about that crap you just played your awesome new Console and had fun! So shut it!
there is not enough emphasis on it.
Absolutely. People are losing focus on the quality of the gameplay and are putting too much on how it looks.
I disagree. The people who are fanatic over Frame and resolution don't go praising games with terrible gameplay. Sure there are folks who like games that have better graphics than gameplay, but if a game has unacceptable gameplay people aren't going to justify it with how it looks. This is something people who have gameplay>graphics do all the time. As in, justify playing a game for gameplay despite abysmal graphics.
Yea welcome to the introduction of the XBOX 360 and the fanatical US media to support it.
Give me a steady/solid framerate over high resolution any time.
Or you could have both.
Stick with the PS2 i think.
i dont mind a game having 30fps or 60fps. the only issue i have is when the frame rate isnt consistant.
I'm actually getting tired off framerate/resolution gate. Every time any game comes out and looks slightly better on PS4, there's a front page story on every site. We get it. The Xbox isn't as powerful as the PS4. We don't need an article proving it every single time a game comes out. Killer Instinct is 720p upscaled/60fps and you know what? It looks goddamn amazing. The notion that 720p upscaled suddenly looks bad is ridiculous. The Last of Us was 720, Uncharted 2 was 720. I almost wish the Xbox would do 1080 more often, not for the sake of graphics, but just to shut up the endless wave of articles and fanboys.
Yes it is important..I want to know if I support a system with 600 euros.. is it future-proof?, or have been made for money making purpose ONLY and gives out only a unfinished products. They should advertise their system as the best experience comes first and everything else after that but for now it is all the opposite. The resolution/fps is one thing but.. We include Kinect with every bundle and we don't give a s*hit if you dont like it. "In this they show their attitude". I have no choice .. they only think about their own strategies on how to earn more $$$..
Frame rate should matter, it helps the game run smooth. Now as for being 1080p or higher, who cares? It makes it look better, but a bad game running at 1080p.... Well it just means a bad game that looks pretty. BF4 looks pretty, but with all the glitchs and problems. It doesn't mean anything, be more happy if it ran better even if they have to drop 1080p.
Considering that several games were released on old and current gen. Yes it matters. What is the point of buying these machines if there is no visual benefit. Its called Video Games. It matters to me. Thats why I have a PS4. I wish the Xbox fans the best but I will not feel bad that I got the better machine. So they should just drop it and get to know Nintendo a little better.
Framerates are important, this is why many gamers prefer gamng on PC like i do. Large difference between 30fps and 60, and even smoother at 120