An EGMR journalist asks gamers whether frame rate and resolution matters or if it's only the gaming experiences that do.
Gameplay > Everything else
Gameplay > Everything else but Gameplay + Good Frame rate and Good resolution > Gameplay.
Of course they matter or we would all still be playing games on the PS1, I agree gameplay should always come first but I want to enjoy that gameplay it in the best way possible.
Simple question is how can they NOT matter? Too many people creating false dilemmas to support their redundant case. You can have better fr or res without detriment to anything else. We've already witnessed it this gen. Metal gear for example. How can better not be better when the narrative for the whole of last gen was that multiplatform superiority was a tick in the 'win' column. We all pretty much own 1080p displays so why shouldn't we desire games to be at that said resolution. It's not always going to happen but how can the one achieving or coming closest to it not be considered better. That matters to many. If it didn't matter to you last gen then fine, IF it did then you'll just have to suck it up because there is one clear winner here
Hey guys take it easy now! the last thing we need is game developers getting hassled by Publishers to deliver broken/unfinished games just to make deadlines, rewarded/fired based on Metacritic scores and pressured to deliver on resolution/frame rate targets some systems cant even handle or worse force parity between platforms!!!! Oh wait...
Reasonably speaking, no, it doesn't really matter to me. Games aren't going to come out with 480p resolutions. I'm fine with 900p 30fps if the game is good enough. I'd much rather play whichever game it is on PC though.
Gameplay comes first. But one should specify what exactly Gameplay is. For example if a game has frame rate issues or input lag, that destroys the experience for me and I would not consider that game having good gameplay at all. Gameplay is how well the game plays, how enjoyable its mechanics are and graphics are a part of that too, at least on the technical side. In other cases the visuals can improve the overall game quality and even compensate for a repetitive gameplay. Imagine games where you do a lot of exploration. They really start to be awesome if the environments look awesome and that is best in full hd and 60fps and a lot of objects drawn on the screen simultaneously.
Resolution doesn't matter, than goes off and bashes other platforms when resolution is lower than 1080p. Resolution does matter, than goes off to downplay 4k and other resolutions above 1080p. That's n4g logic in a nutshell. Competitive flip flopping at its finest
Very true, but frame rate does play an important role in gameplay.
Doesn't really matter to me, heck my favourite games look like ass graphics wise. But I'm an annoying dick so bringing it up for Xbox fans really amuses me.
My fave game last gen was probably borderlands 2, the frame rate during 4 player co-op with big boss fights was HORRENDOUS!!! But I've been playing since the Commodore 64 days and my brain has been programmed to perceive frame rate drops as a sign some cool sh*t is going on in the game. Different story for twitch shooters or racing sims though.
Lol, amiga and spectrum gamer here. Framerate drops were usually caused by explosions or too many characters on screen.......lmao... things getting hectic never bothered me then. Things are different now though.
@dof "my brain has been programmed to perceive frame rate drops as a sign some cool sh*t is going on in the game" LOL! That's hilarious.
Here is the nail in the coffin for this question. If they don't matter to you then you shouldn't even buy a PS4 or XB1. You should play a system until they stop making games for it and save your money.
So next gen to you is about fps/res
how am i gonna play ryse? or killzone? or sunset overdrive or infamous second son? those games look interesting can i play them on my super nintendo?
The question is "Does frame rate and resolution matter to YOU as a CONSOLE gamer"
You know what Im gonna take that back or rephrase it . Res/fps does matter but it's doesn't matter to me. It shouldn't be blown out proportion like it is tho
yes it matters but as a whole package like gameplay having 60FPS make some games better. And if we are truly into next gen than is it too much to expect 1080P i mean we were promised that last gen and it seems even this gen most games may not get to 60FPS/1080P as long as the game is good i guess i am willing to overlook some of these things
All things equal, including gamplay, the experience that provides the best visuals is preferable.
Tell that to the Watch_Dog haters
Frame-rates= better game play. The only people who don't know the difference between 1080p 60fps and 720p 30fps .Don't want to know because their game consoles of choice is inferior. So they make excuses and down play resolution and frame rates. [email protected] I'm with you I would like all games in 60fps I would be ok with 720p 60fps. It's hard to get a game running at 720p 60fps than 1080p 30fps.
YES! Of course they matter!
Frame rate, yes. Resolution, so long as its not blurry as hell it doesn't matter. Dnt knw y this debate has become the most talked about, resolution is the 5th or 6th most important part of the visuals of the game. So how this became the hot topic when comparing games i really dnt know.
that is the right answer
1080p should be the standard and framerate is fine as long as it does not fall below 30FPS.
depending on the game with the fps situation i prefer 60FPS for everything no matter what but certain games i don't mind 30FPS for example infamous second son.
Resolution is the most overrated aspect of visuals Art, Shading, lighting > resolution It's not a big enough difference comparing 1080 to 900, 900 to 720
Keep rocking that CRT!!!
Dont be such a dudebro. You do know that the more powerful a system is the better lighting and shading it can handle right?
lifeisgamesok ... I totally agree! Lighting is one of my biggest concerns so far this gen. We really haven't seen what these machines are truly capable of yet because cross gen releases generally look someone bland. Yes, Call of Duty Ghosts is 1080p on the PS4 and although the textures are sharp and the image is crisp... it still has that last-gen look to it. The lighting is a tiny bit better than the PS3 version, but that's mainly due to the dynamic contrast the game has on it. If you had a choice between CGI quality graphics with amazing lighting and good anti-aliasing at 720p/30fps or Call of Duty graphics with 1080p/60fps which would look better to you?
Title should say: Does Frame Rate And Resolution Matter To You As A Console Gamer.....Anymore. because it was a big deal last gen..and the gap wasn't as large then either. in truth, I want the best game 60 bucks can buy...if I own both consoles...one will be for exclusive, 1st and 3rd party games...the other just 1st party and exclusive games. Its that simple. Right now I own 1 of the three consoles...lucky I chose the console that is the most powerful one...otherwise i'd sorta be pissed. I'd love my console regardless..but I perfer the best bang for my buck.
I dont remember it being that much of a deal last gen. I cant ever remember this many articles last gen about what native resolution a game was or what frame rate it was running at. This gen its really pathetic. No matter how big or small the game is AAA or indie it seems the first thing we find out about a game or the first thing they want to announce is whats the resolution and whats the frame rate.
See.....lens of truth and digital foundry articles. You're welcome
Why o why: How come we never saw articles like "TLoU will run at 720p 30fps on PS3" or "Killzone 3 confirmed to run at 720p 30fps". The resolution and frame rate were not typically selling points last gen. Last gen, gamers cared about how good the game was and how good it looked... not how many frames it could pump out or what resolution it was. By the way... a game can look good at 720p 30fps... just look at TLoU.
@why o why Yeah I am aware of lens of truth and digital foundry mate. Im more talking about all other sites now. Any time you come on n4g or go to ign or some other sites in the headlines there will beheaps of articles all stating the res and frame rate. You will always get comparisons between xbox and sony games and I expect them. But last gen when Halo 3 and Reach came out there wasnt any article before release with bungie stating what the native resolution was. Same with games like Uncharted or Killzone. You never seen twenty articles with Guerrilla Games or Naughty Dog going on about what the native resolution was for them games. These days its all you hear about. Like I said even little indie developers come out and its the first thing they announce. @PersonMan Thats exactly my point. I use to read a review or watch some trailers and base my decision on that. I couldnt tell you what native res or frame rate any of my games from last gen run at and I couldnt care less. I enjoyed them regardless.
I agree with your sentiment but multiplats were used as fodder. We all could argue over exclusives but they couldn't ever be directly compared. I had zero issue with whatever tlou's res or fr were.. some people just have to take their medicine. The things being discussed now are only being discussed because of the relativity to the competition and the disparity between them just like every single gen beforehand. Last gen when some websites were saying a specific version 'performed better' the same rules should apply now don't you think. Mattered then, matters now. I suppose it comes with the new gen territory. New hardware need benchmarks. Fr and res are two of those benchmarks.
With next gen ability to upscale to 1080p well, I am not convinced native 1080p is an absolute necessity. Frame rate needs to be steady and should depend on the game type, etc... ultimately the graphical appeal needs to be there with solid and fun game play.
*goes back to retro gaming*
I like a smooth good looking game with deep but seamless game play. Resolution could be whatever looks good without screwing with content and game play.
It sure mattered last gen. Anyone remember the Bayonetta BS that went down? The game was just as awesome on the PS3, but it didn't look as good. The 360 fanboys had a field day with that one. Now those same people are probably leading the charge with the gameplay<resolution bull. Never really mattered to me but I just find it funny how resolution and FR doesn't matter this gen.
That's all long forgotten or flat out denied now that the xbone can't keep up, it's amazing how fast res and fps started to not matter once everyone found out pretty much every game on the ps4 plays better. Yet just a few months ago the 360 having 20p extra and 4fps more made it the definitive must own version of games.
@Silly gameAr "It sure mattered last gen. Anyone remember the Bayonetta BS that went down? The game was just as awesome on the PS3, but it didn't look as good. The 360 fanboys had a field day with that one." That's revisionist history at best and an outright lie at worst. On release, the PS3 version of Bayonetta suffered from a slow frame rate that stuttered when you pulled off flashy moves, control lag/technical issues, screen tearing, and massive load times. The port was so terrible that Sony, not Sega (who made the original port), but SONY had to step in and make a patch to get the game running in a more playable state. After the fact, Platinum issued a public apology for the port and called it "their biggest failure". Even after all of that, the most important thing to take away had nothing to do with frame rates or resolution - the PS3 hardware was fine and was a capable console. The problem was the actual game optimization on the development side of things. There were similar problems on The Orange Box and Mafia 2 (the infamous "missing blades of grass" argument). Finally, none of this justifies the Xbox fanboys' behavior back then. However, that behavior doesn't justify Sony fanboys' behavior now either. Somebody being an a-hole to you in the past doesn't give you the right to be an a-hole today.
Of course it does. I dont accept any game that runs in a horrible resolution and has a crappy framerate. An almost stable 30FPS and 900P resolution are an absolute minimum for me. I won't buy anything that runs lower than that.
So how is it being a console owner for the 1st time?
If he won't buy or play anything less than 900p, then that's pretty sad. If a game has good anti-aliasing, a 720p image will look very very good. Obviously it isn't going to make it look like 1080p, but it will definitely make it hard to tell from a distance. Anyone who wants to see what a game with good anti-aliasing looks like at 720p should just put in Infamous Second Son and change the resolution of the PS4 to 720p. Spoiler: It still looks great.
Nope not really. I can't even tell the difference between 720p and 1080p or 30fps and 60fps. I just like to enjoy my games. Idc about all the tech aspects or whatever. Ryse for XB1 is only 900p or something and it is still one of the best looking next gen games out there.
paid for next gen & not getting next gen graphics... we have tflops & large amounts of ram yet we are struggling to hit 1080p 60fps as a standard on next gen consoles... sure gameplay is the most important but i did go next gen for a reason.
You do know that there are other ways to improve, right? I would happily give up 1080p and 60fps if it means things like more NPCs on screen, more interiors, and a bigger and more dynamic world. Ultimately, developers should use the power of next gen to improve in areas like these. These are things that actually enhance the enjoyment you get out of the game.
@KonsoruMasuta "I would happily give up 1080p and 60fps if it means things like more NPCs on screen, more interiors, and a bigger and more dynamic world". I feel the same way. Everytime a new gen comes around I always expect a more dynamic world and smarter AI. That to me should be what they aim for. I
If you bought a next gen console expecting to get 1080p and 60fps in addition to a major jump in other areas of graphics then that's on you. Those were simply unrealistic expectations.
we are still early in and not every developer cares or have time enough to optimize. Cross gen games and multiplatform developement coupled with lack of time, experience and proper tools/engines. 1080p60 is not going to be a standard devs will pick and choose how they balance between fidelity, resolution and framerate. At best we can hope 900p30 fps for the ps4 as the minimum "standard". I bet a couple odd games will go below. And even the ps4 isnt all that powerful on paper, it is decent, modern and effective but its half ass compared to ps3 which is like 40 times more powerful than the ps2. But having state of the art components in a console and take major initial losses isnt an option these days so I cant blame Sony for playing safe when they have nothing but pennies in the wallet. Microsoft could have stretched towards monster hardware but they played safe also. However the theoretical capabilities of the new machines are good given the advanced architectures and that rendering techniques have come a long way. stuff like tiled resources could really boost these consoles. we just have to wait and see how the technology applies in a real game on these machines.
They matter to an extent. I don't care if a game is 60 fps or 30 fps, but it has to be stable. I also don't care if it's 720p, 900p, or 1080p. As long as it isn't a blurry mess.
But dropping from your TV's native 1080p resolution to having to stretch / duplicate pixels automatically causes blurring. If you took at 1080p photo then resized to 900p then stretched to 1080p you'd really notice what a difference it makes. A game with lots of side to side / panning motion will always look blurred at 30fps compared to the TV's native 60. It's not noticed as much with slower movement which is why it can be put up with in some games but it's still about using 2 duplicate frames, then jumping to the 3rd frame rather than 3 slightly different frames. I'd much prefer a few less shader /particle effects over loss of native settings.
It does. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or is yet to experience a game with great mechanics and plot with the frame rate and resolution to match.
TBH I don't really pay to much attention to it, thats probably why I like a lot of games. Paying attention to it so much blinds people from what that game offers, I can say the same to one harmless glitch. It's not really game breaking IMO.
If I own both consoles, the more powerful visual experience is where I want my multiplats. In terms or exclusives they should aim for the highest resolution possible that can maintain fluidity.
I'd be the same way except when it comes to primarily multiplayer games. I'm not going to get something like COD or BF4 on the ps4 if the rest of my mates gets it on the X1 for the sake of having more pixels
Maybe your "friends" should be smart and get the better ps4 versions as well then.
If you and your friends all bought Xbox Ones, that's one thing. But if you're a new consumer looking for a bigger multiplayer pool, more people have the game on the PS4. That will be the way things go this generation, where the PS4 has the better version of multi-platform games.
Why is this question STILL coming up? Are journalists not satisfied with the answers they've gotten from the dozens of other articles, asking the SAME damn question??? Stop beating this horse!!!!!!!!!!!!! On topic: YES, it matters.
Exactly,it matters a LOT,sure you might argue that a solid 30fps is fine but having better res means a clear picture all together. I do agree on one thing though,gameplay should be focused on more than anything else.
Would I rather good game and crap res/fps, or good game and good res/fps? I think it's quite obvious. People can argue all they want that it's not important, but the matter of fact is it doesn't have to be a good game OR good res/fps, you CAN have both, and I play games with both. Even resolution and fps play a role in gameplay. Higher fps means quicker responses and generally feels better, higher res (and FOV) means you can see more, and it's clearer. Nothing like playing a shooter and a person in the distance is a few glimmering pixels (if the crap rendering distance even allows it).
ALright if you are choosing between both consoles and one looks and runs slightly better yeah sure your going to buy that version. It does matter but it is not the most important factor for me. Gameplay and story trump visuals for me and I prefer a good art style as well over "visuals" But each to their own. Plus the Sony fans should not forget last generation how they were hung, drawn and quartered EVERYTIME a game ran slightly worse on the ps3. XBots created the Sony fanboy now you have to live with them
Framerate yes because it makes gameplay smoother. Resolution, not really. I started gaming in the megadrive/snes era and I know that resolution isn't necessary to achieve great games and that is my only standard: playing great games and it doesn't matter to me if they went gold yesterday or 20 years ago.
It only matters if you can brag about it :P Seriously though from a personal preference Gameplay=Framerate > Resolution/graphics and I'm saying that as a PC & Console gamer, gameplay is what matters the most to me and a higher frame rate makes any game better. That being said a game with long draw distances (ARMA, BF ect) benefit greatly from a higher res and other games like Mario 3D World which is 720p doesn't really matter because of how good the game looks and it runs at a locked 60 fps.
Frame rate yes, in less you like screen tears and the game lagging because the frame rate drop.
You will only get screen tearing if the game doesn't use vsync or has an adaptive vsync function. A game running less than 60 doesn't necessarily mean it will tear. Just look at Second Son. No screen tearing, yet runs less than 60fps most of the time.
It matters...why would I chose a 20fps game over a 30fps version of the same game. Why would I choose a 720p game over a 1080p version of the same game??