PS4 Could Get Close to Running Games Like inFAMOUS: Second Son at 1080p, 60 FPS - Sucker Punch Boss

Yesterday DualShockers had a chance to chat with Sucker Punch Studio Head and Co-founder Brian Fleming, during an inFAMOUS: Second Son preview event in Rome, and he was asked if he feels that the PS4 has enough juice to be able to run, in future years, a game like inFAMOUS: Second Son (that currently runs at 1080p, 30 frames per second) at the same resolution but pushed to 60 frames per second.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
djplonker1742d ago ShowReplies(4)
DeadRabbits1742d ago

PS4 should give a choice of locking at 30fps while aiming for 60fps if a gamer wants as the hardware is capable!

Being incapable or unwilling to is just plan laziness or impossible on other systems!

Qrphe1742d ago

That would mean you would have to design your game around that option meaning that it would limit what you can do with the game right from the start. Not only that but the vast majority ofbplayers would not even ise it. It's jot worth it.

neoandrew1742d ago

I don't think so, on pc it is very easy to change resolution or fps lock, why not on console.

One will choose 720p 60 fps, one 1080p 30 fps, every one happy, right?

No additional developing cost, c'mon don't tell me that it is hard to do...

mewhy321742d ago

The comment from the dev is a testament to the power offered by the mighty PS4. Lesser consoles wouldn't have a chance of running the game at 1080p/30fps.Luckily Sucker Punch doesn't have to worry about parity for lesser consoles and can push the PS4. Looks to be really great game.

curtis921742d ago

@neoandrew it's not that easy. at all. PC devs don't really target a framerate because PC hardware is infinite. So basically they make a game and then add the option to throw on a 30fps lock on top of it.

A developer on console, in order to get their game running at 1080/60 has to make a lot of visual sacrifices because they ARE targeting a certain framerate. So if the game CAN run at 1080/60, why on earth would they allow the player to play at 30? What need would there be for that? On pc you might see a framerate lock to eliminate screen tearing if your pc isn't up to speed.

n1kki61742d ago

"That would mean you would have to design your game around that option meaning that it would limit what you can do with the game right from the start. Not only that but the vast majority ofbplayers would not even ise it. It's jot worth it. "

Thats not true at all. If they know they can hit 30 fps locked, they can give an option to unlock the frame rate allowing the hardware to scale with load. That said, on pc, nothing is more annoying than bouncing between 30 and 60 fps on certain games if your hardware can't push 60 fps consistantly.

bjmartynhak1742d ago

Capping the framerate at 30fps should be an option for games that try 60fps but can't really sustain it.

I'm not talking about trading resolution for fps, just the option to put a lower limit to fps to avoid dips.

The judder on Tomb Raider is horrible for me. I have no problem with 30fps, but the dips annoy me as hell. Glad that Killzone put this option.

MajorKusanagi1741d ago

IMO they should put as many particle affects, physics etc as possible without worrying about frames and resolution. 30fps and 1080p is more than enough and a fair trade off!

Omni-Tool1741d ago

There is already a feature that allows you to lock your FPS. It's called vsync or Vetical Sync. It locks your FPS to the vertical refresh rate of your tv/Monitor to reduce tearing and wasting resources to push for a frame rate that your tv/monitor can't even produce. The major difference between what everybody else here is talking about is you can't control the lock level to the level of frames that you want. It's locked to the vertical refresh rate, whatever that may be.

Yeah, I said it. If your tv can only do 30 refresh rate then it doesn't matter if the game is running at 60fps, you will still only see it at 30fps with a lot of tearing.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1741d ago
Abriael1742d ago (Edited 1742d ago )

And that's how you waste your single bubble.

Calling developers "lazy" is probably the most silly thing one could say, considering development workflows. It's one of the environments where if you're lazy, you don't last three weeks.

solar1742d ago

Agreed. You can't call a developer lazy if the proprietary hardware lacks the horsepower.

n1kki61742d ago

Lazy probably isn't the correct term. I am sure it's a quality control measure so they know that every game going out the door is equal so they don't have some consumers unknowing bitching about a frame rate drop when realy they are just dropping from 60 to 30.

Sly-Lupin1742d ago

Lazy can refer to the quality of work, not just its presence or absence.

Not bothering with a proper set of options is one of the most common results of lazy game development.

n1kki61742d ago (Edited 1742d ago )

If you want graphics options game on PC. The console is an experience controlled by the publishers, investors and big box brands like sony and microsoft.

I don't think the quality of work can be put into question because sucker punch chose to lock the frame rate to deliver a uniform experience to all users on a hardware platform, that much like the XB1 still has limitations that PC users do not experience if they choose to upgrade.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1742d ago
KwietStorm1742d ago

So where are your credentials?

imtheman20131742d ago (Edited 1742d ago )

Hopefully, it's just a matter of optimization and understanding the system to produce these results. These things should come over time, like they did with the last generation of consoles.

Anyway, as long as games hold a consistent framerate of anything equal to or greater than 30, I'm fine with that. I just can't handle when games dive from 30 to 15, or 60 to 40 etc. That's when it's really noticeable and jarring.

PersonMan1742d ago

Funny thing is.. when they get to the point where they can have Second Son graphics at 60fps, they'll probably want to go even further by having more dynamic lights and more detail and that will force them to drop back down to 30 again.

Why have pretty good graphics at 60fps instead of mind blowing graphics at 30fps?

hollabox1741d ago

I would rather roll with 60 FPS than 30 FPS, the smoother the better. With that said, the only difference I see is tone mapping, and lower resolution shadows. But still its not bad looking at all, probably one of the best looking game on both XB1 and PS4.

Hawkinst5401741d ago

I personally am much more interested in lots of effects in a game (eg particles/lighting) than framerate or resolution. So long as it doesn't start getting all jumpy and dipping to 5FPS I'm a happy camper

Qrphe1742d ago

60fps has rarely ever been a priority for developers.

dcj05241742d ago

So DICE didn't drop resolution to gain 60FPS, COD was never 60FPS and TITANFALL didn't drop the resolution to obtain 60FPS? Right...... of course.

SilentNegotiator1742d ago (Edited 1742d ago )

An occasional 60fps game only proves the rule when MOST console games are ~30fps. Sure, 60fps has increased this generation, but that's only because it's infinitely easier to do without a sub-HD resolution thanks to stronger systems.

It gives them something to brag about despite the fact that they can't get their game to 1080p in playable fashion. "Dude, our games is totally above 720p [what they WON'T specifically say is that it's 792p - they claim they will up the resolution, but they can't even get perfect 60fps at the current resolution] and it runs at almost 60fps!"

I_am_Batman1742d ago

That's probably why he said rarely and not never.

Ghoul1742d ago (Edited 1742d ago )

everything you mentioned are competitive online shooters

almost every competitive multiplayer title to date aimed for 60 fps, period!

the list goes back to the supernintendo (mariokart was 60fps for example)

infamous is a singleplayer experience and doesnt have the same need for a high fps target.
therefore its only logical that the devs aim for more fidelity and overall effects since these provide a benefit to your singleplayer focused entertainment produkt

games like killzone for example never aimed to be a competitive mp it was allways a game focusing on warfare sp and a fun but rewarding mp

Qrphe1742d ago (Edited 1742d ago )

All those are shooters. It seems they're trying to make 60fps into a standard in shooters. This may be part of the reason why Guerilla did what they did with the multiplayer framebuffer to keep a higher fps.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1742d ago

Yeah... Right, You must not Play FPS's?

akaFullMetal1742d ago

In a year or two, I can't wait to see how games look and run. Remember guys these are still launch/ first year games.

C-H-E-F1742d ago

Agreed, even-though we see ready at dawn, sucker punch, and naughty dog etc. going at it now, these games are the ps3 equivalent to Lair, Stranglehold etc. I'm def. looking forward to 3 years out when the sequels come out and other new projects from devs that have 1 game on the platform and has a feel for the hardware/software. That's when we will see our GOW 3, Heavy Rain etc. games and for that I am truly excited for... it only gets better with Playstation. :D

T21742d ago

haha in a way you are right you know... Lair was terrible and everyone hyped how good it would be... It was fun and all but man that sixaxis control was horrible. gotta enjoy em while you can though!!

parentoftheyear1742d ago

I agree let's wait for the last of us 2 and new halo game. We should really see some beauty then