Top
210°

Carmack prefers pretty at 60fps to graphics as the only thing

John Carmack believes that making “pretty damn good pictures at 60 frames per second” is more important than being prettier than any other game out there – and being stuck with a sluggish frame rate.

Read Full Story >>
beefjack.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Fishy Fingers2332d ago

He's been say this since Rage was confirmed to run a 60FPS. This is just some spoon feeding from a good interview thats already been posted. Read the source interview if your interested http://www.industrygamers.c... (dont get bogged down with the headline).

Oh and he's right, 60FPS > 30FPS even if that does mean slightly worse visuals.

CNXN2332d ago

if its just slightly... then why doesnt everyone just do it

but really it depends on the game

AAACE52332d ago

I choose 60 over 30 any day of the week!

I like fast responsive play, which is probably why I liked MW 2 so much, even though it had its flaws.

Graphics in general don't have to be mindblowing, because they don't matter really! The main thing about graphics is if they accomplish the goal of immersing you into an environment.

Example, I played GoW 3 and the detail to the graphics gave it a certain feel that made me feel like I was in those places. On the other hand, I played Gears 2 and got the same feeling!

I guess it's all in how the game is developed.

Either way, all I care about is if the game can provide a unique experience. Like if the environments were so captivating that I felt I had to play it again just to experience it again!

ConanOBrien2332d ago (Edited 2332d ago )

Next gen should embrace both macro (destructible entities) and micro (subtle entities) physics, realistic AIs, when maintaining 60FPS realistic visuals at >1080P res.

Also, all kinds of shadows on cloths, skins and objects should be rendered realtime and all kinds of textures should be just "one color" hues, not like those cheap "painted" or "baked" shadows on textures in current gen.

MariaHelFutura2332d ago

Personally I've never noticed a difference between a game that was 60 fps vs 30 fps. Below 30 I can recognize. But not between 30 and 60.

Ducky2332d ago

I can notice a difference between 120 and 90fps on a 60hz monitor.
It's a difference felt in the controls and not necessarily in the visual fluidity.

bumnut2332d ago

There is a huge difference between 30 and 60 fps.

aaaaaaaaa2332d ago

for some games i guess it dosnt show as much but you can sure see the differance with driving games

beavis4play2332d ago

VDKok - you're exactly right. other than racing games - it isn't as vital.

Sprud2332d ago

It's even more vital in fighters, and all fighters are 60 fps as far as I know.

I know Tekken, Soul Calibur and Street Fighter are, and the rest are mostly 2D fighters which have no excuse for not being 60 fps.

AAACE52332d ago

Maria... You probably should have just kept that to yourself! I guarantee you just lost respect points with some gamers on here!

I didn't disagree with you, but i'll try to explain...

Framerates are kinda tricky to spot in some games dut to high graphical counts. The easiest way to spot it is how fast things are moving on screen.

Example... Modern Warfare 2 moves at 60 fps, while it looks more like Black ops moves at 30.

Even though people complain about MW 2 feeling arcadey, they are complaining mostly about the gameplay being very responsive. They are used to games that run at 30 fps which slow gameplay down. In theory they call that more realistic. In actuality it dumbs the experience down. Because in real combat, things seem like they are moving faster than you can comprehend.

Before I get bashed, i'm talking about responsiveness, not the weird people glitching and all that other crap!

radphil2331d ago

"Maria... You probably should have just kept that to yourself! I guarantee you just lost respect points with some gamers on here! "

People had respect for others on this site? This is new to me. :p

MariaHelFutura2331d ago (Edited 2331d ago )

I'm not embarrassed about not being able to tell the difference. I try to just enjoy games and not worry about the technical side of things.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2331d ago
Bigbangbing2332d ago

id and Carmack keep bragging about 60fps on consoles, yet I never watched a 60fps footage from the consoles version, in fact, IIRC the only footage that's running at 60fps was a trailer released back in 09 from the PC version..

I think the game will achieve 60fps on consoles at times, but most likely drop below that at most "heavy" times.

meetajhu2332d ago

Thats not the case with idtech5 its a new tech. And id has always delivered

theonlylolking2331d ago

THe graphics are crap on RAGE because of 60fps. This guy is worse than crytek at bragging.

Braid2332d ago

Well, 60 frames per second is definitely something but I wouldn't mind 30FPS if it means better visuals.

Thrillhouse2332d ago

A few years ago they said that Doom 4 will be running at 30fps, and it'll look MUCH better than Rage.

Hopefully that'll turn out well.

Bull5hifT2332d ago

i agree , wheres his button?

BeastlyRig2332d ago

Basically he trying to sell us his game..

But yea I prefer better visuals @ 60fps.

qwertyz2332d ago

naturally. all pc games do

Show all comments (46)
The story is too old to be commented.