Next gen: 1080p or 60fps....but not both!

Danonino.

tuxy wrote: »

Input lag is not very noticeable with a controller compared to a mouse because a mouse is much more responsive.

Can't tell if serious

tuxy

Danonino. wrote: »

Can't tell if serious

I am and it's true. Even something like vsync can have a noticeable negative impact on mouse movement but I have never noticed it on a controller.

Blowfish

nesf wrote: »

I had this huge thing. When I finally, after a good few years of LCDs being standard, went for a LCD monitor I was shocked by all the desktop space I now had.

Biggest thing I noticed switching from a large CRT to LCD was that after a few hours gaming, the room would be 5-10 degrees cooler.

Anyways in terms of the silly console vs PC stuff, for me, the performance difference between the 2 is probably bottom of my reasons to mainly stick with PC. I'm a fairly hard core Strategy, RPG, MMO, Indie and Abandonware/Old School games nerd so the tools and availability are simply far and away miles better on PC than console for my own gaming style.

To each their own I suppose.

Amirani

Blowfish wrote: »

Anyways in terms of the silly console vs PC stuff, for me, the performance difference between the 2 is probably bottom of my reasons to mainly stick with PC. I'm a fairly hard core Strategy, RPG, MMO, Indie and Abandonware/Old School games nerd so the tools and availability are simply far and away miles better on PC than console for my own gaming style.

To each their own I suppose.

Same situation for me.

Also, I've become less inclined to spend large amounts of time on a relatively small number of games (as is typically the case with console players). These days I get through a lot more games, probably by virtue of them being so cheap. PC makes this a lot easier to do financially.

Julez

NiallSparky wrote: »

PC makes this a lot easier to do financially.

Yeah, PC is just so cheap. I have a PS3 and Xbox 360, I've hardly played them at all this year as I've been playing my PC, 90% of the games I want can be played on PC and can be bought for 90% of the price of Console games. I don't bother getting games as soon as they are realeased anymore, just wait a few months and most can be gotten for about the 20 quid mark. Although I will byFootball Manager 2014 and Watch Dogs when they come out, even at that I'll probably pay less than €60 for both.

ShadowHearth

Okay, I have a little update on my opinion... I just played AC3 ( thanks to ps+ ) and they fecking better get to 1080p and at least stable 30 fps mark with next gen. I never knew this stuff is taken for granted on consoles. The game it self is honestly rubbish, but the amount of slowdowns and fps drops, draw distance, the level of detail and colour is just horrible.

I really expect next gen to improve performance in games. I admit, I am a spoiled brat at this stage, but this sort of stuff destroys immersion. I love my indy games and I dont expect every single game to be graphical masterpiece ( damn, I LOVE 3DS and Fire Emblem! ), but there needs to be improvement in these so called AAA games, if they expect money.

gizmo

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Okay, I have a little update on my opinion... I just played AC3 ( thanks to ps+ ) and they fecking better get to 1080p and at least stable 30 fps mark with next gen. I never knew this stuff is taken for granted on consoles. The game it self is honestly rubbish, but the amount of slowdowns and fps drops, draw distance, the level of detail and colour is just horrible.

From what I've read it's another 30/60fps between single and multiplayer while rendering at 1080p in both cases. As for the game itself, don't play it on the PC so, optimised it most certainly isn't.

tuxy

gizmo wrote: »

From what I've read it's another 30/60fps between single and multiplayer while rendering at 1080p in both cases. As for the game itself, don't play it on the PC so, optimised it most certainly isn't.

Is this AC3 you are talking about?
On consoles it's rendered at 720p it tries to maintain 30 fps but will often dip as low as 20.

ricimaki

For nearly everything that isn't a first person shooter, I'd be happy with 1080p at 30 fps. First person shooters really need steady frame rates of at least 45 fps to be playable, in my opinion

tuxy

ricimaki wrote: »

For nearly everything that isn't a first person shooter, I'd be happy with 1080p at 30 fps. First person shooters really need steady frame rates of at least 45 fps to be playable, in my opinion

Well many console shooters have some strong aim assist which should make things playable at low frame rates.

Otacon

tuxy wrote: »

Well many console shooters have some strong aim assist which should make things playable at low frame rates.

Killzone Shadow Fall will not use aim-assist apparently. Not sure if that is a one-off or the start of a trend though.

stevenmu

I hope it's the start of a trend, I hate aim assist. When there's two targets close together it always goes to the wrong one and you have to fight it to shoot where you want. At least most games allow you to turn it off.

gizmo

tuxy wrote: »

Is this AC3 you are talking about?
On consoles it's rendered at 720p it tries to maintain 30 fps but will often dip as low as 20.

Nope, I meant AC4 on the next gen consoles. Sorry, should have been clearer about that.

ShadowHearth

gizmo wrote: »

Nope, I meant AC4 on the next gen consoles. Sorry, should have been clearer about that.

I am not going to go near AC games now at all, but I am really shocked how developers getting away with such low quality product on console. Other thing is that we really really need this next gen. Games just outgrown the current hardware. Yes, we got some nice exclusives, but developers have to work a lot on optimisation and tricks instead of creative process.

gizmo

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I am not going to go near AC games now at all, but I am really shocked how developers getting away with such low quality product on console. Other thing is that we really really need this next gen. Games just outgrown the current hardware. Yes, we got some nice exclusives, but developers have to work a lot on optimisation and tricks instead of creative process.

I wouldn't really consider it a low quality product (although I'm slightly behind on the AC series, last I played was Brotherhood), it's more a direct result of needing each subsequent game in the series to look better, take place in an even bigger world and add new gameplay mechanics along the way. Eventually you get to the stage where you can't add anything else without things beginning to creak but if you don't add new things or continue improve, you get criticised for rehashing a game or your series going stale. You could change things up too but then you'll get criticised for not being faithful to the franchise.

Course they could, you know, not release yearly iterations also but after seeing continuous sales growth for every release in the last few years I guess it's hard for any company to say no.

ShadowHearth

gizmo wrote: »

I wouldn't really consider it a low quality product (although I'm slightly behind on the AC series, last I played was Brotherhood), it's more a direct result of needing each subsequent game in the series to look better, take place in an even bigger world and add new gameplay mechanics along the way. Eventually you get to the stage where you can't add anything else without things beginning to creak but if you don't add new things or continue improve, you get criticised for rehashing a game or your series going stale. You could change things up too but then you'll get criticised for not being faithful to the franchise.

Course they could, you know, not release yearly iterations also but after seeing continuous sales growth for every release in the last few years I guess it's hard for any company to say no.

Well thats my problem, they try to do better looking thing and the damn thing just falls apart and poops it self in the corner. We end up with worse looking product and a lot worse performance.
Oh yes, the yearly release has a lot to do with it, but the hardware is just way too old.

C14N

I kind of get the feeling that while many consumers might be attracted by 1080p, not that many will care much about the frames-per-second, especially given that it seems few games ran at 60fps last time anyway. The kind of people really bothered by that sort of thing tend to play PC, I think.

The PS3 was supposed to be able to play at 1080p last time. Did any game ever end up reaching that lofty goal?

ShadowHearth

C14N wrote: »

I kind of get the feeling that while many consumers might be attracted by 1080p, not that many will care much about the frames-per-second, especially given that it seems few games ran at 60fps last time anyway. The kind of people really bothered by that sort of thing tend to play PC, I think.

The PS3 was supposed to be able to play at 1080p last time. Did any game ever end up reaching that lofty goal?

I personally would prefer 1080p 30fps over 720p 60fps. An uneducated user will see more benefit from 1080p 30fps too. I bet that 75% of cod players don't even have a clue that cod is running on 60fps.

Retr0gamer

C14N wrote: »

The PS3 was supposed to be able to play at 1080p last time. Did any game ever end up reaching that lofty goal?

What I know of a few early games did with horrendous framerate issues while a few indie games support 1080p.

Magill

Being ignorant to something doesn't mean its not going to effect how they felt about a game tho.

While most console users could spot the difference between the resolutions easier, i'd put money on most preferring the higher frame rates if they were to play both versions... at least in shooters etc

PickledLime

C14N wrote: »

The PS3 was supposed to be able to play at 1080p last time. Did any game ever end up reaching that lofty goal?

Pretty sure Ridge Racer 7 did.

Wipeout HD also had a good stab at it, although it did drop the resolution when the engine was under stress (which was genius as it's much harder to spot than reducing the framerate).