Top
220°

Consoles Need to Focus on Performance Over Graphics

When a new generation of consoles is released everyone wants to know how much the graphics have improved over the previous generation. In order to build hype developers will frequently outright lie with bull-shots making the games look a lot better than they do in reality. This happens so much that it's pretty much expected for this to be the case; people want to be impressed by the shiny new graphics.

Read Full Story >>
obstructedviews.net
The story is too old to be commented.
BitbyDeath821d ago

Why not just focus on both like inFamous SS did?

authentic821d ago

Infamous only ran at 30 fps.

Flutterby821d ago (Edited 821d ago )

And it ran perfectly fine at 30fps while having the best graphics on console right now and to top it off its open world. Now look at the said to be best looking game on xbone, it managed to be completely linear 900p and still can't even get to 30fps that should be the game you would worry about when thinking about the articles point.

mkis007821d ago

It actually ran at 60fps an amazingly high % of time...especially if you were not on the street.

Vegamyster821d ago

@Flutterby

The point of the article is games should be aiming for 60 fps even if it doesn't look as good. 3D World proves you can have 60 fps 720p and still look gorgeous.

http://mariopartylegacy.com...

d3nworth1821d ago

Infamous was actually above 30fps most of the time. The framerate is unlocked and the game would range from the low 40s to 28fps when thing got real crazy.

BitbyDeath821d ago

Why stop at 60fps when you could aim for 1,000,000fps? As long as the game is smooth it shouldn't matter what fps it is running at.

mmc-007821d ago

it runs above 30 fps, 30 fps is the lowest is gets

iamnsuperman821d ago

Does that matter. The performance was solid on iSS. It is an open world game (huge importance) that looks phenomenal and had an unlocked frame rate (so it wasn't 30fps all the time). I think what this game was doing shows its performance shouldn't be questioned.

Salooh821d ago (Edited 821d ago )

Why lower the graphics for something you won't notice a lot , inFAMOUS is not a shooter. That's not the case here though , i don't think sucker punch maxed the ps4 , They just focused on more important stuff then FPS but they still delivered us a solid Frame rate. They could bring us 60fps if they took more time developing it. But a lot of people wouldn't like that since ''ps4 has no games now '' lol , best example is driveclub....

I'm just glad that it's out so people could see what the ps4 can do . That's an early new gen open world game so imagine for example the sequel or how liner games will look like :P

Rimeskeem821d ago

it actually ran at an average of 40 or so

Prime157821d ago (Edited 821d ago )

Vega, I agree to an extent that most games should aim higher. A lot of single player experiences are better told with lower frame rate and better graphics, IMO.

The eye wants 24ish FPS to see motion. Light and darkness matter as well. If you study up on how the eye perceives motion, then you will understand that not every game needs to hit a certain threshold. Especially when it comes to the business aspect of time being money, and how much time should a developer spend on a game to go from 30 to 60 while sacrificing graphics on static hardware.

However, shoot em ups and Multiplayer experiences, those, most undoubtedly, should hit higher framerates. 50+ for those in my opinion regardless of the author of this piece.

LightofDarkness821d ago

@Prime

Actually, 24 FPS is the minimum for perceived fluid motion in film, not in computer graphics. For the equivalent fluidity in graphics, you need to be at 45-48FPS. This was much of the reasoning behind the use of 48FPS in The Hobbit, for instance. Film has a natural motion blur that enhances the perception of motion, graphics do not.

Vegamyster821d ago

@14Feb-R

From a gameplay perspective it will make it more fluid & responsive, just because a game isn't a shooter doesn't mean it doesn't benefit from a higher framerate.

@Prime157

"The eye wants 24ish FPS to see motion"

The eye is used to seeing 24 fps at movies because its been used for decades, but any director will tell you it has its limits because too much motion will make the image muddy and cause eye strain. When people first saw the Hobbit @ 48 fps they had to adjust to it since they've never experienced it, the movie wasn't movie worse because of it.

Regarding games you can still have the motion blur effect at 60 fps, i wasn't dissing Infamous or any other game that runs at 30 fps since they're are many great games that i've played @ 30 fps. As someone who games on both console & the PC I'll always prefer 60 fps regardless of what genre the game is if i have the option to chose.

BOLO821d ago

And Ryse runs at 16 fps...Which one do you think shows "performance" bud? http://static.gamespot.com/...

sonarus821d ago

I think console makers need to focus on both graphics and performance simultaneously but ultimately most important is gameplay and i think Infamous gameplay is just straight on fantastic. . I mean look at Titanfall poor graphics and poor performance yet with great gameplay the game is massively entertaining

+ Show (11) more repliesLast reply 821d ago
Vegamyster821d ago

I know it differs person to person, personally i like have a solid 60 fps instead of 30 or it jumping between 40-60 fps ect.

GutZ31821d ago

After playing infamous:SS and Tomb Raider DE on PS4, I can say the frame rate was more iffy playing Tomb Raider, than infamous.

Infamous:SS plays so good, its only visual fault, for me, is that I kept getting awe struck, which reminded me that I was playing a game, but also make it even more amazing that it awed me so much.

sAVAge_bEaST821d ago

Exactly,, My thoughts.. Exactly after reading the title.

SS is on par with TLoU.. only different style (TLoU -better story, SS- better game play, over all experience.). It truly is a great game.

ramiuk1821d ago

exactly.
it was so smooth and looks breathtaking.
i went a full playthrough and not 1 glitch or issue.

yet nearly every game i played in last 5 years has had a glitch or issue within first 10 mins usually.

was funny last gen,all games on both consoles when xbox was better looking the ps3 was ripped daily.
yet now ps4 is killing the xbone in graphics,resolution and fps its all about the games/gameplay lol.

im going to go put my X-BONE jacket on and play some more Second Son.

mcarsehat821d ago (Edited 821d ago )

infamous: SS was a game where the dev only focused on graphics when being developed. The frame rate dropped a lot and the story (to me) was predictable from the start unlike the previous 2. Graphics were definitely top of the list for sucker punch this time around.

Sorry but it's true, there are a lot of screenshots shared by me using the share button but not any videos because there is no need.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 821d ago
KingKelloggTheWH821d ago

I play games all around on pretty much all mediums and I got to say 30fps is not bad, sure 60 is better but for many games it is not necessary. To say a game is unplayable or unbearable if it isnt 60 fps is just ridiculous.

FlyingFoxy821d ago (Edited 821d ago )

If you are used to 60fps you can easily notice a difference between it and 30fps, average gamers may not.. but i do for sure, and many others do also.

Eyesoftheraven821d ago

lol try getting used to 30 from 144Hz. Though console performance and frame time is handled different on the software and hardware side than it is on PC. 30 on console if done well enough feels smoother than 30 on PC in many cases. Of course, overall, infinitely higher resolutions and higher frame rates are going to feel superior - it's not always entirely necessary though and you can get used to anything as long as it's smooth the majority of times.

ramiuk1821d ago

i think it depends on what i play it on.

on my pc monitor it stands out a mile,but on my 47" LED tv i dont really notice it ,if at all.

but if im honest when im on my ps4 with surround blasting out and on a 47" tv with immersion like second son or other games im so sucked in i dont notice anyway.
24" monitor on my pc just doesnt do it for me.
but then again although i have a decent pc im not in the "PC IS POWERFULLER" gang,im a gamer

ArbitorChief821d ago

I'd take a lower resolution for 60 FPS locked than 1080p 30 FPS anyday of the week.

authentic821d ago

I feel bad for whoever disagreed with this.

Flutterby821d ago ImmatureShowReplies(2)
MasterCornholio821d ago

I hate it when developers promise 60FPS but then fail to deliver it in the final product.

Like Respawn with Titanfall for example. Then look at Kojima with Ground Zeroes which runs at a rock solid 60FPS on the Xbox One.

ITPython821d ago

I don't think there is any gamer out there who honestly wouldn't notice the difference between 30fps and 60fps, it is remarkably different feeling and looking. However is 60fps really necessary for certain games?

I'm currently playing Infamous:SS, and even for a framerate that seems to be anywhere between 30-40fps it still feels buttery smooth. Would I take 60fps? Sure... but if it meant making the game any less beautiful than it is now, then no thanks. 30-40fps is perfectly fine and doesn't negatively impact the game whatsoever. And the visuals are so breathtaking that it is actually a big part of what makes the game so enjoyable. I spend a lot more time than I want to admit just admiring the absolute beauty of Infamous:SS and taking tons of screenshots, so for me the looks are extremely important as they add a lot to the games depth and immersion.

rdgneoz3821d ago

"However is 60fps really necessary for certain games?"

Not everything needs 60 fps. You're not gonna die if you play an RPG in 30 fps as opposed to 60, nor will you if your third person shooter is as well. Only things that truly need it are fast paced FPS or fighters.

mkis007821d ago

i agree soo much. Except it runs at 60fps a lot too. Especially afteryoucbeat the game and the weather/time effects are normalized.

ramiuk1821d ago

couldnt agree more dude.

exact word for word own feelings,specially regarding the SS views

Shad0wRunner821d ago (Edited 821d ago )

@ArbitorChief

"I'd take a lower resolution for 60 FPS locked than 1080p 30 FPS anyday of the week."

NOT ME!

As a PS3 gamer, for the last 7 years...I've had to deal with nearly every game being in 720p as the "norm." Now that the PS4 is out and is significantly much more powerful, I absolutely EXPECT nearly every game to be 1080p, from here on out. There has to be a difference, a dividing line between games on the PS3 and games on the PS4. Were full throttle into next gen, now. That difference and dividing line HAS to be better graphics and improved frame rate. Otherwise, gamers will see NO reason to make the jump from PS3 to PS4, if developers water down the next gen games to the point of being compared to last gen tech.

Im NOT saying frame rate doesnt matter. I would love EVERY PS4 game to be done in 1080p/60FPS...and I know there are devs who CAN do it and the more time passes and more experience devs get with the PS4 hardware, we will see more devs push for that benchmark. Trust me. I believe it to be true. I DO NOT believe those who say the PS4 is too weak to maintain BOTH, resolution and framerate at maximum optimization. Those people will be eating their words, soon enough. We havent even begun to see what the PS4 can REALLY do. Not yet.

Instead of forcing gamers to choose higher resolution at weaker frame rates, I believe the developers just need to raise their standards a little bit more. Like I said, there are devs who can push both rez and frame rates to max settings, even if ONE dev can do it...it's PROOF that it CAN be done. And if it CAN be done by one dev, it can be done by ALL devs. There is no excuse for dropping either rez or frame rate, just because it's the easier solution. Look at Kojima/Konami, for example...or Polyphony Digital. Those 2 devs right there are "perfectionists". Neither one would ever dare release a game, below that of their own standards...which are among the highest gamers have ever seen.

But asking me to settle for a game below 1080p, just to increase frame rate....HELL NO!

ArbitorChief821d ago (Edited 821d ago )

Resolution isn't the only thing that makes visuals improve... You'll see increased textures, shadows, lighting more AA, etc. Just slightly less pixels on screen for double the FPS to get a more enjoyable gaming experience. To me, every game should be 60 FPS, it provides superior gameplay. But I guess that's just me after playing on PC for so long, you get used to 60 FPS.

Shad0wRunner821d ago

Very well said, Arbitor. I get your point and you are right. But like I said, I believe it's the developers responsibility to hit that benchmark, with little to no sacrifice. They can do it. They just need to push harder and higher.

As a developer, dont tell me "well guys, we had to lower frame rate to increase resolution (or vice versa) because, we tapped our resources and that's the best we could do, being the easiest solution." Nuh uh! I dont think so. You get back in there and figure it out, devs. Or the game doesnt see the light of day, until you do. If youre not skilled enough, hire someone who is. If youre not smart enough, hire someone who is...but I know one thing - it CAN be done. You CAN get rez and frame rate maxed to optimization, on the PS4. As a veteran console gamer, I wont accept any excuses.

But anyhow, I would still prefer my games to be at full 1080p. But...that's me.

Salooh821d ago (Edited 821d ago )

Personally, and i know most of you are not like me which i 100% respect and think it's reasonable, i don't care about resolution or frame rate as long they wow me. That's what a new gen for . If not then i don't want improved last gen games.

Show all comments...
The story is too old to be commented.