General gaming discussion

SomeSayKos

Dcully wrote: »

I cant play 60fps games after playing 144fps for a few years.

I've never seen anything above 60. What's the next jump like? Is it as noticeable as 30-60 or is there diminishing returns after a certain point?

quokula

SomeSayKos wrote: »

I've never seen anything above 60. What's the next jump like? Is it as noticeable as 30-60 or is there diminishing returns after a certain point?

I've a 144Hz monitor and honestly it's hard to tell the difference, when I first got it I had to go to sites like this one to confirm it was actually doing the refresh rate that it said it was doing because I expected some kind of game changing experience but in reality it's barely noticeable.

60FPS on a nice large tv is a much better experience than a high refresh rate computer monitor in my opinion.

johnny_ultimate

I've had a 144hz monitor for ages, and while it's nice and obviously silky smooth high frame rates are nowhere near the same jump as 30 to 60fps. I'm not going to object when a game runs at blistering frame rates or anything, but always happy if something runs at 60 fps. Anything above that is a nice but inessential bonus. More impactful for multiplayer obviously, but barely play any online multiplayer at all these days.

I'm usually able to tolerate 30 fps if it's smooth and stable and there's no alternative, but by god switching back and forth between them (something many games offer now even on console) really shows how much better 60 fps is.

That said, recently invested in a new TV and made sure to go with a HDMI 2.1 compatible one. If the PS5 is going to occasionally offer me 120hz games, I'm not going to complain

Retr0gamer

I played games at 144 Hz and to be honest, it was very hard to go back to 60 FPS. Felt like going from 60 to 30 fps. The friend who owns that monitor says it's totally spoiled him and having to go back to 60 FPS for new releases is really jarring.

Gamer Bhoy 89

I'm still sporting a 42" LCD (1080p) TV.

I have a 4K TV in the sitting room but I barely used it for gaming. I have before, plenty of times, and I can see the difference, but I haven't reached that stage where it's really necessary to have. I was playing Horizon Zero Dawn this week on the aforementioned LCD and it still looks stunning. I have never sat down to a game on this TV and thought "man I wish I could see this in 4K". I guess I'm not as fussed about it as others are.

This FOMO attitude people have towards it doesn't even shake me one bit. Everyone scrambling to get a 4K TV in time for their PS5/Xbox Series X and here's me, still sporting a Philips PFL that's well over 13 years old.

This TV is my baby :pac:



In terms of the whole 60Hz/144Hz debate, I use a 144Hz monitor and honestly, I thought I was gonna be blown away by the difference, and I was for a good hour or so, but after a while it's not that noticeable. In fact most of my games don't reach 144fps anyway so I never really pay attention to it. It honestly seems like a gimmick.

When it comes to consoles reaching that level, I'll believe it when I see it. Most games struggle to maintain 60fps and most developers don't even bother giving us the option to utilise 60fps at all. To even imagine a game running more than 120fps on a console... maybe some remasters might get the treatment, or backwards-compatible games, but brand new fully next-gen exclusive games running at 120fps on a TV with a high refresh-rate, am I the only one who finds that far-fetched?

one armed dwarf

It is not immediately noticeable. It only becomes apparent after a while and you go back to 60 and it doesn't seem that smooth.

I've been playing Hades at 165 fps and when I look at the 60fps capture of my own fights it does look choppy.

In spite of that I would still prefer to see most games aim for 30fps and push the envelope elsewhere rather than hold things back so everything can run at 60/120. I don't get the whole '30fps makes me nauseous' thing people complain about, I find you can adapt pretty easy to any FPS so long as it maintains 30fps at a base level.

It really depends tho, on PC it's way harder to get a 30fps experience that matches the smoothness of consoles, due to reasons I can't really understand. Which is why people use stuff like RTSS to get better frame pacing and stuff.

More meaningful I think is having some sort of variable refresh rate tech, so when a game drops to 57fps or whatever it's basically not noticeable. Or even more prolonged drops to 40fps can still feel fine without any need to lock to a particular framerate

Gamer Bhoy 89

one armed dwarf wrote: »

It is not immediately noticeable. It only becomes apparent after a while and you go back to 60 and it doesn't seem that smooth.

I've been playing Hades at 165 fps and when I look at the 60fps capture of my own fights it does look choppy.

In spite of that I would still prefer to see most games aim for 30fps and push the envelope elsewhere rather than hold things back so everything can run at 30. I don't get the whole '30fps makes me nauseous' thing people complain about, I find you can adapt pretty easy to any FPS so long as it maintains 30fps at a base level.

It really depends tho, on PC it's way harder to get a 30fps experience that matches the smoothness of consoles, due to reasons I can't really understand. Which is why people use stuff like RTSS to get better frame pacing and stuff.

More meaningful I think is having some sort of variable refresh rate tech, so when a game drops to 57fps or whatever it's basically not noticeable. Or even more prolonged drops to 40fps can still feel fine without any need to lock to a particular framerate

My computer downstairs uses a regular old Dell monitor, 60Hz, and it looks/feels choppy. I keep thinking it could be the mouse, but my partner says it's always been that way, so maybe I got accustomed to the high refresh rate without realising.

In fact, the one thing that does draw my attention when playing games at a high fps, is there is little to no "motion blur" if you catch my drift. When I play a game in 60fps (on the 144Hz monitor at least), fast movement will naturally blur, but when playing it between 90-144fps, it's cleaner-looking.

Okay I'm starting to believe the more I think about this, the more I notice the differences lol

Jordan 199

I barely use my PlayStation nowadays (as I mostly play on Xbox) but one console exclusive I'm looking forward to playing is Horizon Zero Dawn.

Retr0gamer

Every gen we are promised 60 FPS gaming and every gen consoles fail to deliver. This gen we just about managed solid 30 FPS gaming at the tail end of the generation. I imagine it will be 30 FPS with ray tracing, 60 without this gen,

Gamer Bhoy 89

Jordan 199 wrote: »

I barely use my PlayStation nowadays (as I mostly play on Xbox) but one console exclusive I'm looking forward to playing is Horizon Zero Dawn.

One of the best PS4 games I've ever played. And I'm probably in the minority when I say it's miles above, and better than, Ghost of Tsushima. I compare those two games a lot in my head, and HZD wipes the floor with Ghost.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Every gen we are promised 60 FPS gaming and every gen consoles fail to deliver. This gen we just about managed solid 30 FPS gaming at the tail end of the generation. I imagine it will be 30 FPS with ray tracing, 60 without this gen,

I get pretty sick of hearing about it to be honest. I personally believe the internal aspects of a video game console has absolutely ruined a part of gaming, particularly console gaming. The argument of PC vs Console equally irritates me; the biggest argument being "consoles have outdated tech and inferior frame-rates" etc. etc. (yawn), when my whole life the only reason I play video games is to have fun and enjoy them. If it's something you fascinate over, like enjoying the comparisons, and watching things like Digital Foundry, then more power to you, but using it as a bully-tactic just makes me cringe. I digress!

In a nutshell I am perfectly fine with 30fps in games -- does not bother me in the slightest. My PC can run a lot of games that I've played many times on console and they can all run on 60fps on PC, but I still opt for the console versions because I just enjoy that ecosystem more. If I sit and play games at a computer, I turn into a nerd who keeps staring at my FPS on the top left-hand corner of the screen. I love PC gaming in general, but that's one aspect about it that doesn't drive me to prefer it completely.

Azza

Playing through Horizon Zero Dawn at the moment, about 80% the way through it, and I still can't tell if I like the game or not.

one armed dwarf

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Every gen we are promised 60 FPS gaming and every gen consoles fail to deliver. This gen we just about managed solid 30 FPS gaming at the tail end of the generation. I imagine it will be 30 FPS with ray tracing, 60 without this gen,

I mean if they keep up with BC all those 30fps games will probably be 60 or higher eventually anyway.

Seeing advancements happen is exciting, Quake II RTX blows my mind. I'd like to see that stuff get into more complex games sooner than later even if it means it will run poorly at first or at a sub 1080 resolution. I never understand the insistence on high FPS that comes from 'some' PC people, it used to be the platform that saw games like Crysis crush most people's systems. Not just a platform for running console games more smoothly.

I can't run Flight Simulator above 20fps when flying over cities but holy **** it's still mindblowing when it works.

wotzgoingon

I had a 144 Hz monitor a few years ago and could never see the difference and used to say as such on the PC/building and upgrading forum but it was a Freesync monitor and I could notice the difference with Freesync. I then moved to a 60 Hz 4k Tv and have since moved to a 120Hz adaptive sync 4k HDMI 2.1 Tv.

johnny_ultimate

I said it in the appropriate thread, but the Resi 8 demo with HDR is the most impressed I've been with display technology in a fair while. Any SDR footage of it looks so flat in comparison. I think the PS5 hooked up to the TV is good enough that I'll certainly be considering PS5 versions over PC versions for the forseeable unless there's clearly a big performance gulf. VRR update should make a big difference too.

AlmightyCushion

Azza wrote: »

Playing through Horizon Zero Dawn at the moment, about 80% the way through it, and I still can't tell if I like the game or not.

I liked it but I found it very frustrating at times. The amount of weapons types and ammo types is confusing. For fire damage there is two different bow types, two different sling types and a flamethrower thing. There might be more weapons I am forgetting about, I'm going off memory.

I also didn't like that some strategies were useless against some machines and there was no easy or obvious way to determine this. Fire is great against a lot of machines but on others it is useless. You won't know until you try and if it is useless then you are fúcked because the machine is pissed and is coming for you so you're basically dead. A lot of trial and error in it and there is really no way to recover from your errors. Choose the wrong strategy and you are basically dead. Re-load, try again and hope this time you pick a strategy that works. Against the bigger ones like the Thunderjaw it wasn't too bad if you had something you could take cover behind to stop you getting killed but against the Stormbirds or the faster ones like Scorchers or Stalkers it was a death sentence to take them on with the wrong strategy.

Hopefully, they improve that for the next one. Actually what is happening with PC version of that? Is it coming straight to PC or will we have to wait for it like the first one or have they even said anything about it?

Dcully

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I liked it but I found it very frustrating at times. The amount of weapons types and ammo types is confusing. For fire damage there is two different bow types, two different sling types and a flamethrower thing. There might be more weapons I am forgetting about, I'm going off memory.

I also didn't like that some strategies were useless against some machines and there was no easy or obvious way to determine this. Fire is great against a lot of machines but on others it is useless. You won't know until you try and if it is useless then you are fúcked because the machine is pissed and is coming for you so you're basically dead. A lot of trial and error in it and there is really no way to recover from your errors. Choose the wrong strategy and you are basically dead. Re-load, try again and hope this time you pick a strategy that works. Against the bigger ones like the Thunderjaw it wasn't too bad if you had something you could take cover behind to stop you getting killed but against the Stormbirds or the faster ones like Scorchers or Stalkers it was a death sentence to take them on with the wrong strategy.

Hopefully, they improve that for the next one. Actually what is happening with PC version of that? Is it coming straight to PC or will we have to wait for it like the first one or have they even said anything about it?

PC version is out long ago
I enjoyed it to a point , the combat was enjoyable but the world just felt empty and i seemed to be travelling more than doing the fun part ie combat, i got bored and never came back.

AlmightyCushion

Dcully wrote: »

PC version is out long ago
I enjoyed it to a point , the combat was enjoyable but the world just felt empty and i seemed to be travelling more than doing the fun part ie combat, i got bored and never came back.

You can get a re-usable fast travel pack not long into the game. I actually kinda liked that it was empty. I would prefer that to the typical Ubisoft style open world game where it is jam packed with rubbish and collectables. Obviously it would be better if either the world was smaller or it was filled with decent quests.

Yeah, I know the first game is out on PC. I meant the sequel. Is it coming to PC straight at the same time as PS5, do we have to wait or is it even coming at all?

Dcully

Yes i used the travel pack the world still feels empty.
Not sure about next version.

Retr0gamer

Think they meant the sequel. No mention of it yet coming to PC. And Sony don't have a policy for it like MS.

Retr0gamer

one armed dwarf wrote: »

I never understand the insistence on high FPS that comes from 'some' PC people, it used to be the platform that saw games like Crysis crush most people's systems. Not just a platform for running console games more smoothly.

I think that was because of the awful ports of console games from the PS360 era. Plenty of games that ran like **** or locked to 30 FPS when there was absolutely no need or PCs could power through it. You don't see that anymore at least, although the is the odd **** port like Nier Automata.

CastorTroy

Azza wrote: »

Playing through Horizon Zero Dawn at the moment, about 80% the way through it, and I still can't tell if I like the game or not.

Likewise here.
I tend to try and avoid combat because I'm clearly not very good at it. Like took me ages mins to slowly whittle away at a corrupted Thunderjaw last night. Was nearly out of ammo by the time I succeeded.
I need to go through all available weapons from the merchants and see what to buy.

Azza

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I said it in the appropriate thread, but the Resi 8 demo with HDR is the most impressed I've been with display technology in a fair while. Any SDR footage of it looks so flat in comparison. I think the PS5 hooked up to the TV is good enough that I'll certainly be considering PS5 versions over PC versions for the forseeable unless there's clearly a big performance gulf. VRR update should make a big difference too.

I'm a massive fan of HDR particularly on an OLED TV. Thought it a far more impressive addition than the advent of 4K.

The PC version will have HDR no doubt, RE7 and the remakes of 2 and 3 as well as DMC5 on PC all had HDR.

OptimusTractor

Dcully wrote: »

I cant play 60fps games after playing 144fps for a few years.

Wait until you get sucked into Tron. Man I tell ye...

Azza

Yakuza remastered Collection has been released on PC today, whats people's view's of Yakuza 3-5?

Zero-Cool

Azza wrote: »

Yakuza remastered Collection has been released on PC today, whats people's view's of Yakuza 3-5?

I still have it in plastic after buying it a few weeks back. Looking forward to giving it a go but 3 yakuza's are a bit daunting and it doesn't help they're not in the new dragon engine.

johnny_ultimate

All the mainline Yakuza games are *basically* the same thing. Obviously refined and expanded in various ways, but it’s a repetitive series so if you like one you’ll likely like the rest.

Yakuza 0 is the best I’ve played by far, just because it pushes the tone in a more lighthearted, cartoonish direction. But if you’ve played that you know what you’re getting in any of the other ones. It’s why I usually fall off the games at some point - been there, done that.

I finished 3 in back in the day, and it’s the only one I’ve played from start to finish still. An absolutely fine game, but long and meandering like all of them, without the more colourful diversions of 0.

J. Marston

They're not games you play back to back. You'll be sick of the sight of Kamurocho.

Azza

Yakuza 0 was godlike, but Kiwami's story didn't do much for me and Majima everywhere was pretty damn annoying.

From my under standing of it, Yakuza 3 and 4 are considered okay-ish and Yakuza 5 is mean't to be pretty good. But I'm sort of under the impression the best 3 are 0, Kiwami 2 and Yakuza 6.

J Mysterio

Rainbow Six Siege has 120fps @ 4K on PS5.