Yesterday Maciej Binkowski answered some questions on ask.fm and dying light has confirmed 1080p/30 fps on the ps4. Xbox one is still an unknown.
So much for 1080p 60fps being "absolutely doable". Oh well, I hope the 30fps is stable. Game looks fun.
i wonder if its hardware issues, or time, money and resources? because 1080/60 is doable from what weve seen.
Where's you proof? Plants vs Zombies Garden? I don't see any games of this scale 1080/60 on the PS4 as much as I want there to be.
1080p and 120 fps is doable... if the game will look like on ps1. If people around here wouldn't be such graphic whores, maybe we'd actually get some decent games in 60 fps. Common thinking around n4g is, FPS and gameplay doesn't matter as long as its 1080p and looks good on screenshots so you can show it off on the internet saying your console is superior 1000000% more powahhh.
1080/60 should have been there since launch.. Some games will easily get it as they have less going on like sports and driving games. But the fact is the CPU heavily lets down the ps4 and the xbox. They finally stuck in a crap load of RAM we needed last gen and then shoved a laptop CPU inside to save costs.
get a pc or just accept it. Join the MR or stop complianing
The ones that complain about people only wanting 1080p then saying the game sucks if its not 60fps are just as bad, I dont see how anyone cant be happy if its a solid 30fps at 1080p.
@Mrmaggoo Because 30 fps is terrible. I've been playing warthunder and occasionally an update will drop my FPS from 100+ to 30-40 and it's near unplayable. Game doesn't even require lightning fast reflexes.
Just saw a video on IGN http://www.ign.com/articles... Can't believe this game has been flying so low under my radar. I am so damn interested. I hope there are Humans in this game as well. I mean, like they have in WALKING DEAD or like they had in THE LAST OF US. Zombies can get boring quickly. The graphics look good and it just looks like a combination of Fallout, Walking Dead (the whole zombie thing) and Far Cry. I am highly interested now but I do need to see some more. There needs to be more than just Zombies.
LOL at complainers. It is what it is, as long as : 1. the game runs stable (I don't care if it's 30fps or 60fps) 2. Graphics look like a PS4/XB1 game . ( I don't care if it's 900p or 1080p. I will play I have said this before and I will keep on saying, it is basic Elementary: If this game was 60 fps. All of you mofos complaining now would be complaining that the graphics is not next gen enough. ( to increase the Frame rates per second, you have to Decrease the graphics settings). Happy gaming.
Saying 30fps is terrible is a little overboard. Not much last gen was more than 30fps and there weren't any complaints. How is it all of a sudden terrible?
30FPS is terrible as a PC gamer you would know this, but alas. Constant 60FPS locked with Vsync on a 144hz monitor is good. Above 60FPS with adaptive vsync is even better. I'm only 27 but when I go round a mates way and play console games (most at 30fps or below) it makes my head dizzy. It's like if someone just built them selves a new gaming PC and it only gave them 30FPS in modern games I'd say they bought the wrong GPU+CPU combo. Making excuses for games running at such low FPS in this day and age is laughable, they should just lowering the settings until it hits 60FPS and be done with it. Add to that the fact that Techland are not very good devs when it comes to optimization. For PC they recommend a i7 4770K + GTX 780ti for high settings or sli 780ti's for ultra with max AA etc. That is ridiculous when the game while looking great isn't a graphical benchmark by a long shot. And the minimum specs are i5-2500/FX-8320, GTX 560/HD6870 both well above the Xbox one and PS4 but only just good enough for bare minimum on PC? Please, the whole thing wreaks of trying to push a few more high end nVidia GPU's and more PS4's for those that wont upgrade to play it. Such is the gaming mafia lol. But it still does show how under powered these consoles are, even the day of their launch they where 2 years behind the curve.
Based on the PC recommended specs a mid range PC will not be able to do 1080p and 30 frames. The recommended hardware I estimate is about $800 even if you are savvy around looking for deals. The GTX 980 is alone is more than a PS4. That being said I will probably get this on my PC. I got i7, 16gb ram, and two GTX 970s. For most people the PS4 is the better way to go. Don't let the mAster of none tell you PC is even better. Because it's actually not.
Whenever a dev says that they're "aiming for 60fps" but put out a demo that's 30fps, the game ends up being 30fps. None of them ever get it up to 60 unless it's running at that from day 1.
I praise ninty for putting performance over graphics though. Ps5 will be 4k 30fps...
I'm not surprised. The optimization of Dead Island was terrible. Plus it was riddled with bugs.
its plenty doable,graphics would take a hit.... ps5 ps6 ps7 games will be the same way(mainly 30fps),consoles will always be weaker than top pc's and devs will pick 30fps and graphics
Psychic tales from your arse?
Do you really think there will be a PS7?
marloc_x, why would it a be PS7 unless you dead before it announce lol
These specifications are over exaggerated. youtube.com/watch?v=UjQpbdo1W Oo video of the current release that has been given out to some media outlets. The guy has a 4770k and a gtx 660 and is getting a average of 45 to 50 fps. Another person with a 980gtx getting really high frames all the way up to 200fps during the game. youtube.com/watch?v=evQgMVdHp AU These specs are to be taken with a grain of salt. Also Techland has stated there not done optimizing the game since it still doesn't come out to January.
1080p/30fps is ok as long as the game is good optimised
I'm on the same boat since the beginning of the ps4 era i said we need to Have games on 1080p doesn't matter if is 30 or 60 fps half the time i dont notice the diference between 30/60 fps but i sure notice when a game is 1080p or 720p especially when i go back to play games in my ps3
If you can't see the difference between 30fps and 60fps than you have bad eyesight.
30 fps for this kind of game is a no buy for me
Lol @ the frames being a determining factor Might as well sell your ps4
So a game is only good if it runs at 60 fps or more? Story, visuals, gameplay don't matter? You should probably not play games on consoles and get a pc if that's the case because your options for titles are going to be very, very limited.
You people who moan and whine about frames should really get a gaming PC and shouldn't rely on consoles to provide it. You really want everything don't you?? Why can't you just be happy with what you got?? You either have a console or 1080p/60fps. Been that way even last gen thanks to the way games are evolving the next gen will probably struggle too as they will be 100X more demanding than current games I mean we are already seeing over demanding games with the crap that is AC:U.
AC:U wasnt demanding it was poorly made, even a pc with way higher specs than needed ran it like a turd on fire. I myself am happy with 1080p at 30fps on console as long as its stable, if I for some reason care about 60fps I will get it on my pc but most times its a non factor.
So you have never bought a retail zombie game? I do not know of retail zombie game ever released on consoles at 60 FPS. Because of the number of zombies they have on screen at one time, holding 60 FPS would be very difficult. Especially if there is variety of zombies. If you are waiting for a retail zombie game at 60 FPS on either X1 or PS4 you probably won't see it...
"We are aiming for 60fps" = 30fps.
= Dev would have been better off ignoring the question
I disagree, they should have just answered it honestly.
What makes you think they weren't answering honestly? Just because they didn't achieve 60 fps (or weren't happy with the trade offs) doesn't mean they never aimed to...
What about The Witcher's "we are aiming at 30 fps on consoles"? This phrase pretty much guarantees I won't make a blind buy (aka preorder) for this game. Anyway, I'd rather have more features and run at 30 FPS than a simplified 60 FPS game. I just hope they don't gave up on the best frame rate to put irrelevant shinier graphics.
Personally I would never pre-order a game although I can understand if there is collectable or downloadable content but you really need to ask yourself if this content is really worth the price you have to pay.
Should have made it 900p/60fps
Agreed. Frame rate is way more important to me than extra resolution. The benefits are much bigger.
Its sad you get disagrees on a statement like this, it really shows what the gaming communities like these days. A little extra resolution is more important than fps to a lot of people. Fps plays a role in the actual gameplay of the game but theyd rather have it a little prettier
Also, it's the fact that there isn't really any major difference between 900p/1080p. People have been brainwashed into thinking anything under 1080p isn't worth their time.
I don't think it's as simple as dropping the resolution slightly and BOOM you've got >double< the frame rate. It takes a LOT of additional resources. It would come at a big cost, resolution, draw distance, poly count, shadow resolution etc Leave the game development to the professionals, it's naive to think it's as simple as 'oh just make it 900p, easy...'
^ Yeah, it is not that simple, but, theoretically, if there was this choice, what would you choose? To be honest, I'd choose even 720p if it allowed 60 FPS.
***A little extra resolution is more important than fps to a lot of people.*** 40% more resolution is more important than 60fps for me. Sorry, but I like what I like and I've never had any issues with 30fps. I pump my MMO graphics up as much as I can and still meet 30fps. I want the eye candy, I want the better detail, I want the better AA, and so on. I am not at all bothered by 30fps. This is especially so in a single player game... 1080p60fps would be awesome since it would make everyone happy. But, we got a hell of a lot more pixels and 30fps from third parties this generation rather than 680p and 30fps that we got last generation.
If at 900p this is achievable then I say that would be more than a fair trade off considering the difference between 900p and 1080p isn't as noticeable difference between 60fps vs 30fps.
@ Matt139 "Also, it's the fact that there isn't really any major difference between 900p/1080p." Hrm, let's analyze your understanding of the word fact. Dictionary.com states a fact as: fact [fakt] noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. 2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact. 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth. LOL, you tried to sneak that nonsense in there as if nobody would notice. If people choose higher standards and wish to game at 1080p, there's nothing wrong with that. PC gamers assert themselves all the time with resolutions of 1080p and beyond, and always tout the extra FPS benefit as essential, even in games where higher framerates aren't as dramatic. 1080p > 900p. It's a 44 percent difference. Now THAT is a "fact".
Im not saying its easy to hit 60 fps if you drop it to 900p or anything like that, I dont have a clue when it comes to that stuff. im just saying thats the view of a lot of gamers these days, that a higher resolutions more important than frame rate.
I can understand people who like FPS and racing games preferring high frame-rates, however I prefer action/adventure and RPG's so to me a solid frame-rate and high quality detailed graphics is more important. Of course good gameplay is more important than frame-rate or graphics but a choppy frame-rate and/or poor graphics will degrade the gameplay. I think it is very important to get things in perspective here. Consoles are designed to interface with TV's with HDTV's now being preferred display medium. The problem you find is most normal HDTV's cannot support 60 fps although some can support refresh rates that are over 100Hz and therefore motion blur is effectively reduced. PC monitors normally don't have this issue since 60fps is the norm. For more information on frame rate and refresh rates a simple web search will give you millions of hits.
I think you're the one needing to do more research. Just about every TV supports 60fps (60hz input). Infact.. find me a TV set that isn't black and white that doesn't.
Hope 900p/60fps on XO actualy on both but the devs will skip this option. Seems so.
It won't be 60FPS on the XB1. :I It will be 30FPS on both. Resolution might differ though.
If the ps4 is doing 1080p at 30fps the xbone doesnt have a chance at 900p at 60fps lmao you guys really have no clue how it works, you just throw out random numbers and think it sounds right.
Thank God for Steam.
Steam doesn't do 1080p/60fps your PC does. :) (sorry couldn't help it haha) Plus doesnt help there no EA games on there anymore.
When you look at the recommended and minimum requirements for PC, this is no surprise. There is a hell of a lot going on in this game on screen at once be it AI or game world debris. A solid 30 fps should still be fine though
Good thing they cancelled the last-gen versions... They must have been all over the place for Techland to pull the plug so late into development.
Ill take 30fps with better visuals over 60 fps with pared back visuals.... Or run it at 900p/60 fps
LOL. The differences between 900p and 1080p are almost nothing. Ryse won best graphics in 2013 for 900p... I could understand if it was 480p vs. 1080p. But 900p vs. 1080p is ridiculous.
If only more people were saying this last generation. Also, Ryse was a pretty game. An awful game, but a pretty game.
Quick, everybody act like they can tell the difference!
It makes a pretty big difference... Everyone is different. Some people are oblivious to screen tearing. Some people perceive minute amounts of input latency. Some people are really sensitive to framerates or microstutter. Personally I happily game at 30fps on some games and accept that for the Witcher, but I find it really jarring on a FPS and even more jarring on a FPS with a mouse.
If it plays well I could care less if it's 60 or 30, 1080 or 720. Gameplay is all that matters.
ehehe. . They can't do 1080/60 because of technical limitations. You either get 1080 or 60 frames on console.
Or none of those, in the case of ac unity. 900p/20fps ftw. Thank you based ubisoft.
http://m.ign.com/wikis/xbox... May not be a massive list, but it seems you're wrong.
Imagine it in a super simplified way, like having 100 points of performance. Now, you use 60 points for graphics, 25 points for resolution and 15 for fps. To double the fps from 30 to 60, you'd need to take those 15 points and double them as well. That means that you'd need to sacrifice points from other categories, for example 45 graphics, 25 resolution and 30 fps. Consoles operate within given performance, and to increase something, you need to take away from somewhere else.
Slow down Einstein. Most of us only have 10 fingers.
Come on man, at least give us a heads up before doing that! I'm still wiping the juice out of my screen!
So I guess true 1080p and 60 fps ain't going to really be for every game until PS5. What a let down. By then even Pong better run at those specs with online multiplayer.
You should have learned to ignore marketing BS by now, fool me once.......
It's weird to me that everyone expects such huge gains in resolution. 1980s to PS2 - 480i/p @ 24fps PS3/360 - not even 720p for most games and lucky if 30fps PS4/XBO - 900p/1080p w/30fps What were we hoping for this generation? Did we suddenly lose touch with reality? There's no way we can compare consoles to PCs. They've always paled in comparison for obvious reasons.