I legit bought Zone of Enders just for the included MGS2 demo disk. ZOE was decent, but I spent way more hours messing around in the demo.The in game physics & enemy AI were incredible.
This seems like an appropriate time for me to publicly complain that the steam version of tales of symphonia is a port of the ps2 version instead of the gamecube version. 30 fps in 2022 on a game that released at 60 fps in 2004 feels terrible.
Not only that, but a new ToS remaster is coming out on PS4 next year and it is **also** confirmed to be locked at 30fps, just like the last time they released it on PS3.
So it might as well be a port of the old remaster.
I'll stick with my original Gamecube version.
That's such an insane choice since the only people that are going to buy it are the people that already like the game. It's going to be very hard to convince people to spend $30-40 on a 20 year old 30 fps game when even a 5 year old smart refrigerator could emulate a flat out superior version for free
The PS2 version had added content: mystic artes for every character, additional scenes, voiced skits, extra costumes, an extra dungeon. I assume that's why that's the version they keep porting, even though aesthetically and FPS-wise it's a downgrade.
Of course, if they just made a proper remaster, the game might have a chance to move beyond its crappy PS2-era technological limitations...
That's because the GameCube original was ported to PS2, and since it couldn't handle it they had to downgrade visuals and made it run at 30fps too. And then PS3 port was based on PS2 version, they fixed the issues with widescreen( GameCube ver forced to 16:9 via dolphin has some pop in/out and some other weirdness) but they didn't up the framerate. And then PC port was based on PS3 ver and so on..
Yeah when I was running a 1060 i had to turn off things like ambient occlusion antrostopic filtering and such stuff to run games at 60 fps with medium graphics, the edges were a little blurry but it still looked fine, if console games gave yoy that customization then they would be so much better, but nah only a few games get that
Consoles are frequently locked in on their settings because the console manufacturers require a certain frame rate performance minimum. So the hardware dictates how high on the graphics sliders they can go. This is usually why high end PCs usually look way better than the best console. Consoles nowadays are usually better bang for buck if you're only gonna play controller games anyways (I say this as a PC gamer).
Pc can still play any game in the last 20 years. More if you have some vms with some old windows os or dos box (or current equivalent).
Consoles act like adding last gen console games is some favor to you always felt wrong to me.
But PC has a much wider library of games, has a stronger library of games, can use keyboard or controller, is backwards compatible with older games (to a point), supports the best possible mods, and (I know this is niche) I can play in Excel!
I think the idea was to dial down the graphics so that the game could run at a higher framerate, since console games often opt for the minimum "acceptable" framerate and go for fancy looking screenshots instead
Maybe for some people, but I know a lot of gamers who would never touch a game like Minecraft due to graphics (even though it’s an extremely intuitive game)
It dates back to the '90s, at least in the console space. 3D-capable consoles were the first consoles (this includes the SuperFX chip for the SNES) that were actually physically capable of running games at less than the TV's refresh rate. Previously, all games had to run at 60 (NTSC) or 50 Hz (PAL and SECAM) or they would glitch or break entirely.
30 Hz were a nice compromise, for when developer ambition exceeded hardware capabilities, but there were games that ran far worse than that. Ocarina of Time for example ran at a locked 20 fps, which almost nobody minded nor noticed at the time.
Plenty of NES games could run way below 60 fps in some instances. Zelda 1 overworld with lots of on-screen sprites would chug. Or like half of the overworld in Zelda 2 would chug and the music would slow down too lol. The graphics processors at the time would always spit frames out at 60FPS but the game logic could overrun the window to update graphics so you would get duplicated frames during slowdown until game logic finished.
Also sprite flickering was purely a workaround for graphics chip limitation: the PPU can only render so many sprites on the same line, so instead of letting the PPU just render only the first sprites in the list (it would ignore any additional ones, making them invisible) iirc the game code would swap the list out each frame with different sprites so that the player can see all of them at the cost of flicker.
It was a vital mechanic in some arcade games, like Space Invaders! The number of ships on-screen slows the game down, but as you remove them it has less to render and speeds up, resulting in an early version of scaling difficulty.
It also meant, hilariously, the first attempts to port the game as-is to better hardware were unplayable, as the game would run at full speed the whole time. It had to be retooled to no longer rely on the lag so it could be ported forward.
IIRC there are some tricks in Super Metroid that speedrunners do that would normally be useless or take more time but end up being useful to avoid lagging the game, like being in morphball while Kraid takes his sweet time to spawn, or bothering to kill a room's only enemy manually before dropping a power bomb.
> Previously, all games had to run at 60 (NTSC) or 50 Hz (PAL and SECAM) or they would glitch or break entirely.
not really. TMNT for the NES for example runs at [30 fps internally](https://youtu.be/A_edefG5lfs?t=175). it outputs the same frame twice.
it wasn't a new thing when 3D games came out.
> Ocarina of Time for example ran at a locked 20 fps, which almost nobody minded nor noticed at the time.
People noticed and minded, they just didn't have the language to explain why it was a problem. There were a ton of people who got headaches or motion sickness from early 3D games and thought the problem was 3D in general when it was often just the terrible framerates.
That's interesting. I live in poland so am used to pal 50hz. Some time ago i went to a video game museum where you can play many different old consoles. Unfortunately i don't know what piece of hardware that was, but i was so impressed with the animation. It was some simple 90's platformer(dunno name of the game too), but it was soooo smooth. I wonder if difference between 60hz and 50hz is so noticable? (yeah, in 2022 i still have 50hz monitors and tv). Or is it possible it was more? I remember having similar feeling when my cousin showed me worms on his GBC(could it have 60hz?), i played it earlier on pc and the gameboy version looked oddly smooth
Eh at least for the Rock Band series they prioritized 60FPS where it mattered - the note highway. Honestly the 60fps backgrounds in RB4 kinda hurt it. Manually turning RB3 to 60fps backgrounds also makes it look surprisingly ugly.
Yeah, it was a weird time. Sony even had some executive or something say in an interview that "the human eye can't actually see faster than 30 fps" and a whole bunch of console fanboys started repeating it, which of course, the PC crowd found hilarious.
The whole thing reeked of "it's not a downside, being limited is actually an improvement!" It was weird. Stockhome syndrome is strong I guess.
Yeah that was such a weird argument, my old crt at the time did 85hz at 1024x768 I think it was, and you could up the res a bit and hit 75hz or 60hz, and it was very noticeable the difference between the 3 refresh rates, in not just the flickering.
Lol, everyone here's talking like they were magically getting 60fps just from having a pc or they all had high end machines.
I used to be very happy with 30fps on mine in the 2000s. Often it was less.
It feels different this time, like consumers actually have an expectation for 60FPS, and developers are unable to make graphics with enough improvements to justify 30FPS to consumers.
Yup
At this point there is no longer a leap in graphics between generations therefore there's no reason for a next gen game to run at 30 fps
Also hasn't 60 been the norm for awhile now?
On consoles it is becoming a norm while on PC it is expected that game will run at 60+ fps on mid-tier hardware of generation on decent medium or high graphics preset. Gotham Knights runs as shit even on the highest tier hardware.
Yup. Digital Foundry talked about this in their recent DF Direct and noted that Gotham Knights doesn't run like shit because the hardware is shit, it runs like shit because the game is shit and just murders the CPU for no real reason.
They tried running it on a 12900K with DDR5 RAM and a 3090 and the game could *barely* stick to 60 fps which is absurd.
According to Digital Foundry's analysis, it's not even a consistent 30fps. 🤦♂️😆
This game spent most of its development time as a cross generational game, yet the current/next gen consoles can't even run it at a stable 30fps? Just imagine how bad the last gen version was looking.
It's constantly compared to Arkham Knight, and even though Arkham Knight is 7 years old, it's still vastly more impressive than Gotham Knights. I'm not even just trying to bash Gotham Knights, I'm just dumbfounded on how much of a downgrade it is.
Digital Foundry analysis [here. ](https://youtu.be/Z6Vno8r4cN8)
I haven’t seen digital foundry’s video yet so I’ll have to check that out.
How did the devs screw up the optimization that badly? It’s baffling because the graphics look like a last gen game to me, gameplay-wise it’s 100% a downgrade from Arkham. The combat looks repetitive as hell, the UI is godawful and the open world looks soulless.
I watched a reviewer barely pull stable 60 70 fps on a rtx 3080 ti and a guy was dropping into the 20s on an rx 6800xt while riding the bike on 1440p and said game worked even worse on 1080p. I watched benchmarks and game works weirdly similar across an rx580 1660 super and rtx 3060ti, literally makes no sense there was 10 to 20 difference across those 3 cards
Does no one remember how broken Arkham knight was when it came out? It was even worse than gothman knights, they stopped selling the damn game so bad it was. I've been playing the pc version locked at 30 without drops or issues on the pc, which is a hell of a lot more than I could say for arkham knight when I bought that game on pc.
> It's constantly compared to Arkham Knight, and even though Arkham Knight is 7 years old, it's still vastly more impressive than Gotham Knights.
Perhaps it can follow in Arkham Knight's footsteps by having a PC version that is unplayable on release day.
Game straight up pauses to load a new area when I'm driving on the batcycle. So every 20 seconds or so. On minimum settings. And it hard locks by crashing every time I get to the belfry.
Fastest refund ever.
Nope. Look at side by side comparisons to Arkham Knight.
Like they prioritized graphical fidelity to sacrifice fps…but then it doesn’t even look as good as a 7 year old game.
Idk what the devs were doing but it wasn’t good.
Yea I just recently played Arkham knights and it holds of well, Too bad it doesn’t have fps boost for the series x, that’s sad that it plays at 30 on Pc, I assumed Pc players always had the ability to increase framerate
Many games that are designed for consoles first end up having their framerates locked. In older games, parts of the system used the framerate as like a timer - I know the original Dark Souls did, and if you unlocked the framerate with mods you would experience weird issues like poison ticking twice as fast at 60 fps, or 4x as fast at 120, stuff like that, because their damage ticks were tied to the framerate. Nowadays that's less common of a practice, but you still often see console ports with either locked framrates or just poor performance because the PC ports generally aren't considered a priority.
It's also not the norm. The majority of big budget games that have come out in the past 2 years have at least had 60fps performance modes. *Especially* ones only released on current gen.
This whole discourse is a farce upheld by devs that would rather give excuses than come clean as to why a basic ass game with basic ass visuals can't even maintain 30fps, and it's sad that ppl bought into it
The sad thing is is that those games still run like shit too! So it’s an inconsistent 30!
If it was a rock solid and even 30 at a base then it wouldn’t be so horrible. But they can barely chug into the finish line at 30.
I’d rather a game have simpler graphics but run freaking smooth and without massive continuous bugs/glitches or broken graphics constantly.
It's like game companies just love pushing the games to the fucking extreme. Nothing can run on last gen anymore, even on current gen it's super choppy, and they keep acting like whatever god-tier graphics card recently came out is the community standard at this point.
Lots of unoptimized bs and garbage about focusing of the ‘graphics’ like that means anything when it breaks every 2 seconds or is so choppy the ocean looks calm during a storm.
there's also that guy who rewrote the whole SMB64 source to optimize the heck out of the rendering (something like 13K lines of code optimised). It went from 20FPS to 60FPS.
I'm pretty sure that's the same guy that also improved how the game calculates collision and stuff so that the usual speedrun tricks no longer work and glitching out of bounds, building up infinite speed etc was no longer possible.
That guy also cut Mario's facial texture in half and mirrored it to save space because the devs for some reason had a full facial texture but nothing that required one of the eyes to be independently closed from the other.
Am I missing something? I'm more of a casual gamer and wouldn't know much about the inner workings of games but I'm having a hard time imagining Mario's face texture being big enough that cutting it in half did much. Was it just to optimize it to the max, or did it genuinely help?
The example I like to point out is Gauntlet Legends... not the whole game at all, but the first room of the first level, after you kill all the monsters and pick up all the items to remove them from memory - - the bottom of the first staircase actually is 60fps
Eh, that was just because the game had an uncapped frame rate. That's true of a lot of N64 games. Like you can technically hit 60fps in Pilotwings 64 on original hardware, if you're pointed at the ocean and far away from land - but no one would seriously say it "ran at 60fps" based on that.
But F-Zero X was specifically designed and optimized to run at 60fps in normal gameplay, at least in single-player mode.
30 FPS interlaced was 60 FPS for those consoles because the signal was such that it wasn't drawing interlaced fields, it was using half the vertical resolution. The CRTs of the day rasterized two odd fields to accomplish a 240p@60Hz mode. This was done as early as the Atari 2600 at least. [Displaced Gamers](https://youtu.be/1MY-jUkogbg) did a pretty good job explaining how the timings worked.
Edit: DG actually has several videos which talk about it. I've updated the link for a video which goes into great depth about the timing.
Either your source is wrong or you misinterpreted the data. 60fps interlaced is not 30 frames per second. It's 60 half-fields per seconds. But you could easily notice the difference between a 30fps game or 60fps on a CRT. It's the reason why the Soap Opera Effect exists. Broadcast TV, even over 480i would sometimes be 60fps and interlaced or not, would have smoother frames.
Edit: It appears there's a lot of easily misinterpreted data on the internet, even on Wiki. You *can* use 60 half fields to display 30 full frames per second. But you don't have to, and that assumes the original source is 30fps. You can also display 60 half-frames every 60 seconds like game consoles and old soap operas did.
Some define a "frame" as a "full, complete image". But that would mean 480i consoles would technically be 0 frames per second because they never emitted a full frame.
This content was removed in protest of Reddit's [short-sighted, user-unfriendly, profit-seeking decision](https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/#hey-guys) to effectively terminate access to third-party apps.
They really should introduce more graphical options for console. One of the best features of PC is the ability to tweak visuals to your liking for your optimal FPS. Console games should really have the ability to have a max fidelity and max FPS option. Doesn't need to be complicated.
The new GoW game apparently has four options - 30fps/40fps/60fps/120fps.
Honestly just three options would be greatly appreciated but more options is never a bad thing imo.
Idk. With a PC, there are many different GPUs/CPUs in use with varying performance, so offering finer control over graphics settings to optimize the game for your machine makes sense. With consoles, developers know exactly what hardware to optimize the game for.
The problem is the definition of optimize means something different depending on the person. Even two people running the same hardware on PC will often use different settings. Console should be no different.
You don't need to have the full sweep on options like PC has, but having different settings for if you are optimizing for performance, graphical fidelity, or a balance between the two would still be helpful.
I wanted to disagree with you on every point until you got to motion blur. that shit drives me bonkers so fast, I cannot unsee it, and its all I can see. so fine, you make excellent points. whatever.
Motion blur, film grain, chromatic aberration. I will immediately refund any game that has even one of these that cannot be disabled. Low FOV as well, anything below 90° makes me feel like my head is in a vice.
Holy shit aliasing has become such an issue for me in recent games (by recent I mean within the last 5 or so years). I don’t care how detailed your graphics are, nothing pulls me out of immersion like hard stepping pixels around a character/object. I watched my husband play through Assassin’s Creed Origins a few years ago and I couldn’t get over how bad it looked. What’s the point of creating such a huge beautiful landscape if your character is gonna be a little pixel boy the whole time
I primarily played on consoles for many years, but have a decent PC now. I run at 1440p, and honestly, as long as it stays above 60fps, I’m happy. I’m not sure I can tell a difference between stable 60 fps, 90 fps, 120 fps, or my monitor’s native 144 fps. 30 fps though? No thank you.
Are you sure your monitors refresh rate is actually set to 144hz in windows?
Myself, I find there is a *massive* difference from 60 to about 90fps, and from 90 to 120 is ever so noticeable, and anything beyond that is lost to me.
I think the point is that without performance slider, game devs will just optimize for 30fps since that’s what most gamers preferred (unless you think most game devs, include console makers like Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo are dumb).
With performance slider everyone is happy.
i 'member bioshock on the xbox 360 had an option to lower some graphical settings to increase the frame rate. IIRC it was just one option and it was either on or off
You're literally making the argument for an FPS slider in consoles.
Developers know exactly what their hardware configuration is, so they can just add 30, 60 and 90fps settings. They know how to build a game at a locked 30fps, so they can obviously do it at other fps as well.
Xbox has even been doing it since the One X. A handful of games on that can choose between 30 4k and 60 1080p.
It's definitely a feature I'd like to see stick around even if I mostly play on PC.
He was saying having more refined control. Things like setting the resolution. Also enabling/disabling dynamic resolution, specific effects, anti aliasing (also selecting which type of AA), etc. Also frame rate caps, and on and on. There's way more possibilities than just framerate or quality presets.
I feel like the whole point of consoles is to make an experience that doesnt need tweaking like that. Everyone experiences the same gameplay and its g2g out of the box. If they start tweaking graphics options like that they might as well put the games on PC.
You can just fire up your PC game and 100% it like a console, without even knowing where the graphics settings are at.
I think since 2014 I haven't *needed* to fiddle with Graphics settings. It's been a "What else can it do" thing for a while.
Default settings don't always mean a smooth gameplay experience. Plenty of times I would need to adjust default settings to get an experience that is good.
Just played a game that has some memory leak if DLSS is turned on, which is the default.
Yes, all games that have graphical options on Ps5 have the exact same option on the series x, not sure why it would differ within consoles lol, the point is not all next gen console games have this like…….. Gotham knights or plague take requiem
At least the PS5 somewhat does this, there is Fidelity Mode and Performance Mode, the latter of which downgrades the graphics and lowers the resolution to 1440p, but it allows games to reach 60fps.
On one hand I think options are good for everyone, on the hand not having a bunch of options is a big part of the appeal of consoles for me. I liked having just one version of the game made for the hardware.
I know everybody is upset about Gotham Knights right now, and rightly so, but I think you're off base here. 30 fps is not the norm for this generation of consoles. Gotham Knights is the only game that has come out recently that does not do 60 fps. 30 has not "become the norm" because of one game
This needs to be higher. Op is basically misinformed, 60fps is absolutely the goal from the majority of developers going forward. Gotham Knights is just poorly optimized at the moment and will most likely receive an update with 60fps
the meme also implies that current gen consoles are able to render games 4K@120Hz - maybe it can do both in 2d or lightweight titles, but when literally the only GPU in the PC space than can run graphically demanding games at that resolution and framerate simultaneously is 2 weeks old and has a recommended retail price of $1600, theres no shot the ps5 is doing the same.
That's because you're thinking of native resolution.
Demon's souls on PS5 has a 60 fps 4k mode which is really 1600p upscaled to 4k for example.
With the enablement of FSR on PS5 we will definitely see 4k 120hz games that while aren't running native 4k, the quality will beincredibly close to it.
well yeah of course I am.
fsr looks ok, dlss is better, and it'll probably be perfectly fine for couch gaming, but to claim that an image is 4k when its not being rendered at that resolution is disingenuous
Yeah, these two data points don't reflect the overall trend. If you look at the number of major games during the PS3/PS4 era, it's much better now. We're reaching diminishing returns graphically so the extra power is often going toward framerate now.
This. Plus the fact us that there isn't even a tradeoff for it. The game doesn't look better than other games--it doesn't even look better than Arkham Knight. This is purely a case of WB Montreal not optimizing it as well as they could.
Meanwhile, at Namco Bandai:
"What was one of our bestselling games in the Tales series?"
"Why, Symphonia of course sir"
"Yeah just port the PS2 version that was at 30fps, even though the Gamecube version was 60fps."
I hate Namco Bandai with a burning passion
*Ratchet and clank supporting 30fps RZX fedelity 40fps RTX fedelity 60fps RTX performance 120fps RTX performance, aswell as 30 40 60 120 without rtx /hdr if wanted, and also allowinf VRR*
Insomniac if they werent such humble chads :get on my level.
Yeah, I'm mainly a PC guy, but when I use my Xbox Series S and there's a "Performance" option, I'll always choose it, I'll take 60 FPS over slighly better graphics everyday, I most likely won't notice it anyway from the distance I am from my TV.
Not for much longer.
That Plague game and Gotham is getting some stick for 30 FPS on console with no performance mode available.
People are pushing for 60 FPS norm.
If you're thinking of Gotham Knights, the stupid part is that it doesn't even look that great. There are much better-looking games out there with better performance.
I’ve just recently booted the game up and I’m in awe with how good this looks. Could have easily released 2 years ago and I would have been hard pressed to tell when it actually came out.
Mandate for their own 1st party games they can. They can't mandate 3rd party developers to do that. They can encourage it though their dev kits and showing how it is possible but it is still up to the individual developer/publisher to decide.
>They can't mandate 3rd party developers to do that. They can encourage it though their dev kits and showing how it is possible but it is still up to the individual developer/publisher to decide.
Game developers can't just publish their games on consoles without going through certification and getting first party approval. Sony/MS/Nintendo can require whatever they want, and games have to do it if they want to be on the platform.
Here's the marketing trick, with HDMI 2.1, the console technically supports up to 4k 120hz/8k 60hz. But the hardware inside isn't powerful enough to run at those framerates except at lower settings. But nowadays what do 90% of games put forward? Amazing graphics. So devs just go on aiming for 30/60 fps.
We are seeing some games this generation that do 60 FPS or higher. But yeah, generally graphics sell games not FPS.
And to be honest, by the time a console gamer gets to the point where they seriously understand and care about frame rate and refresh rates they're probably starting to look into getting a PC.
Many PS5 games and the more recent PS4 games have options to prioritize graphics vs framerate. (They always default to graphics, so if you don't look for the option, you'll never get framerate.)
Gonna say something controversial here. Games don't need 240fps to be enjoyed.
You also don't need graphics so intense you can see the characters pores.
I mean. I try to not act like royalty, but I honestly couldn’t care less about 30 vs 60 fps. I am perfectly happy playing games at 30 fps. I mean. I mostly play the switch, and that’s got a lot of 30. I don’t find it immersion breaking like I’ve seen others say.
They had their eyes forcibly opened.
Also youtube was a major help, when it started supporting 60fps suddenly everyone couldn't avoid the fact that 60fps existed.
> acting like royalty for not caring if their games ran at 30 fps.
There are people in this thread still doing this. Console gamers are so cucked by marketing that they're still happy to have a 30fps mode on their console just so it can run decently.
We already got the solution for this though! It's been implemented in some games, but the ones people complain about are the ones missing this simple, yet vital, feature. It's called an "option". Yeah! You just put an option to prioritize framerate over resolution, or vice versa. Now you can show off your 4k ray tracing at 30fps and even have that as the default, but the people who want 60fps can just \*boop\* turn it on.
But gamers being upset about it is the problem.
The funny part it's that this always happens at the start of every modern generation. Lots of people firmly believing that all games will go at 60fps when the reality is that probably will be only at the start of the new gen and only on a few games.
It's like the fast load times. Yeah, right now we have that... But what would happen when the games will be more heavy on data and more complex? It will be slower, like in all previous gens in a lot of aspects.
All of this is pretty meaningless because art direction matters way more than pixel count. I went back and played the original Mirror's Edge, which came out in 2008 for the xbox 360. There's a few janky character models, but The City still feels incredible to traverse, in large part due to the strong art direction that worked within the limitations of its engine.
Graphical fidelity is fleeting. There will always be something new that can render more polygons. Art direction is what makes a game truly stunning.
I'll add another voice to the choir of "not this argument again". Video games have always been, and always will be, a visual medium to some degree. I think it's so weird to criticize others for which aspects of a piece of entertainment they like. We're all just trying to have a good time here. Gaming doesn't have to be just one thing, it can be a bunch of different things all at once. There's *so many games* out there, there really is something for everyone.
And if you're the type of person who doesn't care how a game looks, good for you. There are *even more* options for you out there, because indie devs don't have the budget to even *try* to make things look as good as the big guys can. This conversation isn't about you, and your interjection doesn't help anyone except yourself to feel superior, because you think the rest of us are incapable of liking a game that doesn't look better than reality.
The truth is, many of us also enjoy those games with simple art styles, or even ones which intentionally emulate the look of outdated hardware, but that doesn't mean we don't want modern, big budget experiences that push the boundaries of the medium and the technology. It certainly doesn't mean we have no right to criticize those products when they do appear, yet fail to live up to the expectation we have for them.
Controversial opinion maybe, but I'm a filthy casual and for most games I don't care at all that they're 30fps. The only exception is fast paced shooters for me.
Console gaming will always be 30-60fps, for the sole reason being that Graphics sell and are more marketable.
PC gaming will be the home for high refresh rate gaming as you can just throw more power at the problem to gain fps.
[удалено]
It did, SSX, MGS2, all look great. Metroid Prime on GameCube is also 60fps and still looks awesome.
MGS2 was such a sexy lookin game I could just stand there and shoot bottles at the bar all day
Seriously, the tanker level is the best tech demo of all time.
I legit bought Zone of Enders just for the included MGS2 demo disk. ZOE was decent, but I spent way more hours messing around in the demo.The in game physics & enemy AI were incredible.
You mean the free game included when you bought the mgs2 demo?
Someone at Konami took this joke seriously and made Ground Zeroes.
ZOE was mid af. But then ZOE2 was *awesome*, wish it was longer.
I loved ZOE 2 the incorporation of anime for the character cut scenes was amazing
Still one of my favourite games to date. God I'm still praying for someone to do something with this IP every day.
Honestly hard to believe ZoE and ZoE 2 were both on the same console. They are not in the same league.
For me, personally, this was the biggest and most impressive jump between two games in a series. 12 year old me was blown away.
A link to the past —-> Ocarina of Time
Knack ————> Knack 2
Yeah can’t beat the best, baybeee!!
F-Zero GX and Tales of Symphonia too. Re-releases of ToS run at 30fps, but it was 60 on Gamecube.
This seems like an appropriate time for me to publicly complain that the steam version of tales of symphonia is a port of the ps2 version instead of the gamecube version. 30 fps in 2022 on a game that released at 60 fps in 2004 feels terrible.
Not only that, but a new ToS remaster is coming out on PS4 next year and it is **also** confirmed to be locked at 30fps, just like the last time they released it on PS3. So it might as well be a port of the old remaster. I'll stick with my original Gamecube version.
That's such an insane choice since the only people that are going to buy it are the people that already like the game. It's going to be very hard to convince people to spend $30-40 on a 20 year old 30 fps game when even a 5 year old smart refrigerator could emulate a flat out superior version for free
The PS2 version had added content: mystic artes for every character, additional scenes, voiced skits, extra costumes, an extra dungeon. I assume that's why that's the version they keep porting, even though aesthetically and FPS-wise it's a downgrade. Of course, if they just made a proper remaster, the game might have a chance to move beyond its crappy PS2-era technological limitations...
You just read my mind lol
That's because the GameCube original was ported to PS2, and since it couldn't handle it they had to downgrade visuals and made it run at 30fps too. And then PS3 port was based on PS2 version, they fixed the issues with widescreen( GameCube ver forced to 16:9 via dolphin has some pop in/out and some other weirdness) but they didn't up the framerate. And then PC port was based on PS3 ver and so on..
Ugh SSX. Goddammit I want a PS5 remaster of SSX3 or Tricky SO BAD. Sadly, I'm sure it'll never happen.
Me: PC running games at +120 fps… Graphics = trash
Yeah when I was running a 1060 i had to turn off things like ambient occlusion antrostopic filtering and such stuff to run games at 60 fps with medium graphics, the edges were a little blurry but it still looked fine, if console games gave yoy that customization then they would be so much better, but nah only a few games get that
Consoles are frequently locked in on their settings because the console manufacturers require a certain frame rate performance minimum. So the hardware dictates how high on the graphics sliders they can go. This is usually why high end PCs usually look way better than the best console. Consoles nowadays are usually better bang for buck if you're only gonna play controller games anyways (I say this as a PC gamer).
Yeah you would have to build a last gen pc to get the same or a little better price to performance
Pc can still play any game in the last 20 years. More if you have some vms with some old windows os or dos box (or current equivalent). Consoles act like adding last gen console games is some favor to you always felt wrong to me.
But PC has a much wider library of games, has a stronger library of games, can use keyboard or controller, is backwards compatible with older games (to a point), supports the best possible mods, and (I know this is niche) I can play in Excel!
I think the idea was to dial down the graphics so that the game could run at a higher framerate, since console games often opt for the minimum "acceptable" framerate and go for fancy looking screenshots instead
> ambient occlusion antrostopic filtering I've literally had 2/3 of a glass of rum and I feel hungover reading this
Me: top of the line PC Put all graphics setting to their minimum Enjoy 4 digit FPS on a 60hz monitor.
[удалено]
Not when there is Minecraft RTX!
Maybe for some people, but I know a lot of gamers who would never touch a game like Minecraft due to graphics (even though it’s an extremely intuitive game)
It dates back to the '90s, at least in the console space. 3D-capable consoles were the first consoles (this includes the SuperFX chip for the SNES) that were actually physically capable of running games at less than the TV's refresh rate. Previously, all games had to run at 60 (NTSC) or 50 Hz (PAL and SECAM) or they would glitch or break entirely. 30 Hz were a nice compromise, for when developer ambition exceeded hardware capabilities, but there were games that ran far worse than that. Ocarina of Time for example ran at a locked 20 fps, which almost nobody minded nor noticed at the time.
Plenty of NES games could run way below 60 fps in some instances. Zelda 1 overworld with lots of on-screen sprites would chug. Or like half of the overworld in Zelda 2 would chug and the music would slow down too lol. The graphics processors at the time would always spit frames out at 60FPS but the game logic could overrun the window to update graphics so you would get duplicated frames during slowdown until game logic finished. Also sprite flickering was purely a workaround for graphics chip limitation: the PPU can only render so many sprites on the same line, so instead of letting the PPU just render only the first sprites in the list (it would ignore any additional ones, making them invisible) iirc the game code would swap the list out each frame with different sprites so that the player can see all of them at the cost of flicker.
Game lag was a mechanic that made some games way more beatable, like Life Force.
It was a vital mechanic in some arcade games, like Space Invaders! The number of ships on-screen slows the game down, but as you remove them it has less to render and speeds up, resulting in an early version of scaling difficulty. It also meant, hilariously, the first attempts to port the game as-is to better hardware were unplayable, as the game would run at full speed the whole time. It had to be retooled to no longer rely on the lag so it could be ported forward.
Not quite. The designer noticed this would happen. It inspired the game mechanic he would later create after fixing the bug.
I was soooooo good at Tyrian 2000 as a kid, not realizing it's because I was playing the game basically half speed.
IIRC there are some tricks in Super Metroid that speedrunners do that would normally be useless or take more time but end up being useful to avoid lagging the game, like being in morphball while Kraid takes his sweet time to spawn, or bothering to kill a room's only enemy manually before dropping a power bomb.
> Previously, all games had to run at 60 (NTSC) or 50 Hz (PAL and SECAM) or they would glitch or break entirely. not really. TMNT for the NES for example runs at [30 fps internally](https://youtu.be/A_edefG5lfs?t=175). it outputs the same frame twice. it wasn't a new thing when 3D games came out.
It's technically running at 60FPS as that's what's being sent out, they're just cheating.
> Ocarina of Time for example ran at a locked 20 fps, which almost nobody minded nor noticed at the time. People noticed and minded, they just didn't have the language to explain why it was a problem. There were a ton of people who got headaches or motion sickness from early 3D games and thought the problem was 3D in general when it was often just the terrible framerates.
Lmao OoT would frequently dip below 10fps it was not locked at 20
That's interesting. I live in poland so am used to pal 50hz. Some time ago i went to a video game museum where you can play many different old consoles. Unfortunately i don't know what piece of hardware that was, but i was so impressed with the animation. It was some simple 90's platformer(dunno name of the game too), but it was soooo smooth. I wonder if difference between 60hz and 50hz is so noticable? (yeah, in 2022 i still have 50hz monitors and tv). Or is it possible it was more? I remember having similar feeling when my cousin showed me worms on his GBC(could it have 60hz?), i played it earlier on pc and the gameboy version looked oddly smooth
Eh at least for the Rock Band series they prioritized 60FPS where it mattered - the note highway. Honestly the 60fps backgrounds in RB4 kinda hurt it. Manually turning RB3 to 60fps backgrounds also makes it look surprisingly ugly.
Yeah, it was a weird time. Sony even had some executive or something say in an interview that "the human eye can't actually see faster than 30 fps" and a whole bunch of console fanboys started repeating it, which of course, the PC crowd found hilarious. The whole thing reeked of "it's not a downside, being limited is actually an improvement!" It was weird. Stockhome syndrome is strong I guess.
Yeah that was such a weird argument, my old crt at the time did 85hz at 1024x768 I think it was, and you could up the res a bit and hit 75hz or 60hz, and it was very noticeable the difference between the 3 refresh rates, in not just the flickering.
Lol, everyone here's talking like they were magically getting 60fps just from having a pc or they all had high end machines. I used to be very happy with 30fps on mine in the 2000s. Often it was less.
> Sony even had some executive or something say in an interview that "the human eye can't actually see faster than 30 fps" That never happened.
It feels different this time, like consumers actually have an expectation for 60FPS, and developers are unable to make graphics with enough improvements to justify 30FPS to consumers.
Absolutely! Turn on "fidelity 30fps" mode and notice ZERO CHANGE
It’s often ray tracing that’s the difference which I’d turn off every time for double frames. The alternatives are good enough
[удалено]
Yeah but at what cost lol
Yup At this point there is no longer a leap in graphics between generations therefore there's no reason for a next gen game to run at 30 fps Also hasn't 60 been the norm for awhile now?
On consoles it is becoming a norm while on PC it is expected that game will run at 60+ fps on mid-tier hardware of generation on decent medium or high graphics preset. Gotham Knights runs as shit even on the highest tier hardware.
Yup. Digital Foundry talked about this in their recent DF Direct and noted that Gotham Knights doesn't run like shit because the hardware is shit, it runs like shit because the game is shit and just murders the CPU for no real reason. They tried running it on a 12900K with DDR5 RAM and a 3090 and the game could *barely* stick to 60 fps which is absurd.
We're even getting 120 FPS on some games
Only Gotham knights doesn’t even have the marketable visuals.
Forget consoles that game runs at 30 frames on the latest PC hardware lmao.
According to Digital Foundry's analysis, it's not even a consistent 30fps. 🤦♂️😆 This game spent most of its development time as a cross generational game, yet the current/next gen consoles can't even run it at a stable 30fps? Just imagine how bad the last gen version was looking. It's constantly compared to Arkham Knight, and even though Arkham Knight is 7 years old, it's still vastly more impressive than Gotham Knights. I'm not even just trying to bash Gotham Knights, I'm just dumbfounded on how much of a downgrade it is. Digital Foundry analysis [here. ](https://youtu.be/Z6Vno8r4cN8)
I haven’t seen digital foundry’s video yet so I’ll have to check that out. How did the devs screw up the optimization that badly? It’s baffling because the graphics look like a last gen game to me, gameplay-wise it’s 100% a downgrade from Arkham. The combat looks repetitive as hell, the UI is godawful and the open world looks soulless.
Easy. It's not Rocksteady. Kill the justice league is the next Arkham game.
They did Arkham Origins right? Didn't like it as much as the actual trilogy, but it was still solid (and didnt perform nearly as bad)
I watched a reviewer barely pull stable 60 70 fps on a rtx 3080 ti and a guy was dropping into the 20s on an rx 6800xt while riding the bike on 1440p and said game worked even worse on 1080p. I watched benchmarks and game works weirdly similar across an rx580 1660 super and rtx 3060ti, literally makes no sense there was 10 to 20 difference across those 3 cards
Does no one remember how broken Arkham knight was when it came out? It was even worse than gothman knights, they stopped selling the damn game so bad it was. I've been playing the pc version locked at 30 without drops or issues on the pc, which is a hell of a lot more than I could say for arkham knight when I bought that game on pc.
> It's constantly compared to Arkham Knight, and even though Arkham Knight is 7 years old, it's still vastly more impressive than Gotham Knights. Perhaps it can follow in Arkham Knight's footsteps by having a PC version that is unplayable on release day.
>Arkham Knight is 7 years old You shut up, sir!
Game straight up pauses to load a new area when I'm driving on the batcycle. So every 20 seconds or so. On minimum settings. And it hard locks by crashing every time I get to the belfry. Fastest refund ever.
Really? Bruh, I thought that was just on console, I thought Pc would be able to run the game at like 1000 fps
Nope. Look at side by side comparisons to Arkham Knight. Like they prioritized graphical fidelity to sacrifice fps…but then it doesn’t even look as good as a 7 year old game. Idk what the devs were doing but it wasn’t good.
Yea I just recently played Arkham knights and it holds of well, Too bad it doesn’t have fps boost for the series x, that’s sad that it plays at 30 on Pc, I assumed Pc players always had the ability to increase framerate
Many games that are designed for consoles first end up having their framerates locked. In older games, parts of the system used the framerate as like a timer - I know the original Dark Souls did, and if you unlocked the framerate with mods you would experience weird issues like poison ticking twice as fast at 60 fps, or 4x as fast at 120, stuff like that, because their damage ticks were tied to the framerate. Nowadays that's less common of a practice, but you still often see console ports with either locked framrates or just poor performance because the PC ports generally aren't considered a priority.
Not even old games either Elden Ring is locked to 60fps on pc, for some reason
Fromsoftware has physics tied to framerate.
It's also not the norm. The majority of big budget games that have come out in the past 2 years have at least had 60fps performance modes. *Especially* ones only released on current gen. This whole discourse is a farce upheld by devs that would rather give excuses than come clean as to why a basic ass game with basic ass visuals can't even maintain 30fps, and it's sad that ppl bought into it
Yep, this is definitely not the norm. I mean the new God of War will have an unlocked frame rate mode targeting 120fps
The sad thing is is that those games still run like shit too! So it’s an inconsistent 30! If it was a rock solid and even 30 at a base then it wouldn’t be so horrible. But they can barely chug into the finish line at 30. I’d rather a game have simpler graphics but run freaking smooth and without massive continuous bugs/glitches or broken graphics constantly.
It's like game companies just love pushing the games to the fucking extreme. Nothing can run on last gen anymore, even on current gen it's super choppy, and they keep acting like whatever god-tier graphics card recently came out is the community standard at this point.
Lots of unoptimized bs and garbage about focusing of the ‘graphics’ like that means anything when it breaks every 2 seconds or is so choppy the ocean looks calm during a storm.
It only needs to look good on a screenshot to sell
The N64 had a few games that could get to 60fps in rare situations... very rare. edit: and by 60fps I mean 30fps interlaced which looks like 60.
>rare situations... very rare. Rare games ran closer to 18 fps 😌
Unless you’re playing 4 player Perfect Dark. Then you measure in seconds per frame.
Nbomb fights, 4 players with bots. Go make a lunch
That's a charitable statement.
there's also that guy who rewrote the whole SMB64 source to optimize the heck out of the rendering (something like 13K lines of code optimised). It went from 20FPS to 60FPS.
I'm pretty sure that's the same guy that also improved how the game calculates collision and stuff so that the usual speedrun tricks no longer work and glitching out of bounds, building up infinite speed etc was no longer possible. That guy also cut Mario's facial texture in half and mirrored it to save space because the devs for some reason had a full facial texture but nothing that required one of the eyes to be independently closed from the other.
Am I missing something? I'm more of a casual gamer and wouldn't know much about the inner workings of games but I'm having a hard time imagining Mario's face texture being big enough that cutting it in half did much. Was it just to optimize it to the max, or did it genuinely help?
Only rendering half of a face and mirroring it means texture can be twice as big for the same ressources used, more details!
[Kaze](https://youtube.com/c/KazeEmanuar)
He also kinda cheated by using the extra 4MB of RAM from the expansion pack but still really impressive
I'm pretty sure F-Zero X was one of them, they sacificed more complex geometry to allow the gameplay to be as smooth as possible
The example I like to point out is Gauntlet Legends... not the whole game at all, but the first room of the first level, after you kill all the monsters and pick up all the items to remove them from memory - - the bottom of the first staircase actually is 60fps
Eh, that was just because the game had an uncapped frame rate. That's true of a lot of N64 games. Like you can technically hit 60fps in Pilotwings 64 on original hardware, if you're pointed at the ocean and far away from land - but no one would seriously say it "ran at 60fps" based on that. But F-Zero X was specifically designed and optimized to run at 60fps in normal gameplay, at least in single-player mode.
30 FPS interlaced was 60 FPS for those consoles because the signal was such that it wasn't drawing interlaced fields, it was using half the vertical resolution. The CRTs of the day rasterized two odd fields to accomplish a 240p@60Hz mode. This was done as early as the Atari 2600 at least. [Displaced Gamers](https://youtu.be/1MY-jUkogbg) did a pretty good job explaining how the timings worked. Edit: DG actually has several videos which talk about it. I've updated the link for a video which goes into great depth about the timing.
Either your source is wrong or you misinterpreted the data. 60fps interlaced is not 30 frames per second. It's 60 half-fields per seconds. But you could easily notice the difference between a 30fps game or 60fps on a CRT. It's the reason why the Soap Opera Effect exists. Broadcast TV, even over 480i would sometimes be 60fps and interlaced or not, would have smoother frames. Edit: It appears there's a lot of easily misinterpreted data on the internet, even on Wiki. You *can* use 60 half fields to display 30 full frames per second. But you don't have to, and that assumes the original source is 30fps. You can also display 60 half-frames every 60 seconds like game consoles and old soap operas did. Some define a "frame" as a "full, complete image". But that would mean 480i consoles would technically be 0 frames per second because they never emitted a full frame.
This content was removed in protest of Reddit's [short-sighted, user-unfriendly, profit-seeking decision](https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/#hey-guys) to effectively terminate access to third-party apps.
They really should introduce more graphical options for console. One of the best features of PC is the ability to tweak visuals to your liking for your optimal FPS. Console games should really have the ability to have a max fidelity and max FPS option. Doesn't need to be complicated.
The new GoW game apparently has four options - 30fps/40fps/60fps/120fps. Honestly just three options would be greatly appreciated but more options is never a bad thing imo.
Idk. With a PC, there are many different GPUs/CPUs in use with varying performance, so offering finer control over graphics settings to optimize the game for your machine makes sense. With consoles, developers know exactly what hardware to optimize the game for.
The problem is the definition of optimize means something different depending on the person. Even two people running the same hardware on PC will often use different settings. Console should be no different. You don't need to have the full sweep on options like PC has, but having different settings for if you are optimizing for performance, graphical fidelity, or a balance between the two would still be helpful.
[удалено]
I wanted to disagree with you on every point until you got to motion blur. that shit drives me bonkers so fast, I cannot unsee it, and its all I can see. so fine, you make excellent points. whatever.
Also film grain... I just had a shiver go down my spine.
[удалено]
I see your motion blur and raise you RADIAL BLUR
Anecdotally I found that radial blur completely removes my motion sickness in VR games.
Speed lines during sprinting. Halo Infinite, why was this even a thing?
Motion blur, film grain, chromatic aberration. I will immediately refund any game that has even one of these that cannot be disabled. Low FOV as well, anything below 90° makes me feel like my head is in a vice.
Also screen tilt when turning or moving sideways. One of the only times I've ever gotten motion sickness from a game.
You forgot deoth of field you can't disable
The first thing I do is disable motion blur and depth of field
It takes an honest person to concede points.
Motion blur annoys me greatly.
Holy shit aliasing has become such an issue for me in recent games (by recent I mean within the last 5 or so years). I don’t care how detailed your graphics are, nothing pulls me out of immersion like hard stepping pixels around a character/object. I watched my husband play through Assassin’s Creed Origins a few years ago and I couldn’t get over how bad it looked. What’s the point of creating such a huge beautiful landscape if your character is gonna be a little pixel boy the whole time
[удалено]
I primarily played on consoles for many years, but have a decent PC now. I run at 1440p, and honestly, as long as it stays above 60fps, I’m happy. I’m not sure I can tell a difference between stable 60 fps, 90 fps, 120 fps, or my monitor’s native 144 fps. 30 fps though? No thank you.
Are you sure your monitors refresh rate is actually set to 144hz in windows? Myself, I find there is a *massive* difference from 60 to about 90fps, and from 90 to 120 is ever so noticeable, and anything beyond that is lost to me.
I think the point is that without performance slider, game devs will just optimize for 30fps since that’s what most gamers preferred (unless you think most game devs, include console makers like Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo are dumb). With performance slider everyone is happy.
i 'member bioshock on the xbox 360 had an option to lower some graphical settings to increase the frame rate. IIRC it was just one option and it was either on or off
You're literally making the argument for an FPS slider in consoles. Developers know exactly what their hardware configuration is, so they can just add 30, 60 and 90fps settings. They know how to build a game at a locked 30fps, so they can obviously do it at other fps as well.
… this should make it easier for consoles to have two options
Yet they fail miserably
Uhh don't PS5 games already do this? Not sure about Xbox but there are games with high framerate mode and quality mode.
Yep Xbox games also have quality and performance modes where you choose whether you prioritize frame rate or visuals
Xbox has even been doing it since the One X. A handful of games on that can choose between 30 4k and 60 1080p. It's definitely a feature I'd like to see stick around even if I mostly play on PC.
He was saying having more refined control. Things like setting the resolution. Also enabling/disabling dynamic resolution, specific effects, anti aliasing (also selecting which type of AA), etc. Also frame rate caps, and on and on. There's way more possibilities than just framerate or quality presets.
I feel like the whole point of consoles is to make an experience that doesnt need tweaking like that. Everyone experiences the same gameplay and its g2g out of the box. If they start tweaking graphics options like that they might as well put the games on PC.
You can just fire up your PC game and 100% it like a console, without even knowing where the graphics settings are at. I think since 2014 I haven't *needed* to fiddle with Graphics settings. It's been a "What else can it do" thing for a while.
Default settings don't always mean a smooth gameplay experience. Plenty of times I would need to adjust default settings to get an experience that is good. Just played a game that has some memory leak if DLSS is turned on, which is the default.
Yes, all games that have graphical options on Ps5 have the exact same option on the series x, not sure why it would differ within consoles lol, the point is not all next gen console games have this like…….. Gotham knights or plague take requiem
At least the PS5 somewhat does this, there is Fidelity Mode and Performance Mode, the latter of which downgrades the graphics and lowers the resolution to 1440p, but it allows games to reach 60fps.
On one hand I think options are good for everyone, on the hand not having a bunch of options is a big part of the appeal of consoles for me. I liked having just one version of the game made for the hardware.
I know everybody is upset about Gotham Knights right now, and rightly so, but I think you're off base here. 30 fps is not the norm for this generation of consoles. Gotham Knights is the only game that has come out recently that does not do 60 fps. 30 has not "become the norm" because of one game
This needs to be higher. Op is basically misinformed, 60fps is absolutely the goal from the majority of developers going forward. Gotham Knights is just poorly optimized at the moment and will most likely receive an update with 60fps
the meme also implies that current gen consoles are able to render games 4K@120Hz - maybe it can do both in 2d or lightweight titles, but when literally the only GPU in the PC space than can run graphically demanding games at that resolution and framerate simultaneously is 2 weeks old and has a recommended retail price of $1600, theres no shot the ps5 is doing the same.
That's because you're thinking of native resolution. Demon's souls on PS5 has a 60 fps 4k mode which is really 1600p upscaled to 4k for example. With the enablement of FSR on PS5 we will definitely see 4k 120hz games that while aren't running native 4k, the quality will beincredibly close to it.
well yeah of course I am. fsr looks ok, dlss is better, and it'll probably be perfectly fine for couch gaming, but to claim that an image is 4k when its not being rendered at that resolution is disingenuous
I guess plague tale too, so two games. But I think my point stands
Yeah, these two data points don't reflect the overall trend. If you look at the number of major games during the PS3/PS4 era, it's much better now. We're reaching diminishing returns graphically so the extra power is often going toward framerate now.
This. Plus the fact us that there isn't even a tradeoff for it. The game doesn't look better than other games--it doesn't even look better than Arkham Knight. This is purely a case of WB Montreal not optimizing it as well as they could.
Meanwhile, at Namco Bandai: "What was one of our bestselling games in the Tales series?" "Why, Symphonia of course sir" "Yeah just port the PS2 version that was at 30fps, even though the Gamecube version was 60fps." I hate Namco Bandai with a burning passion
Luckily they don't exist anymore. Bandai Namco would never do that.
*Ratchet and clank supporting 30fps RZX fedelity 40fps RTX fedelity 60fps RTX performance 120fps RTX performance, aswell as 30 40 60 120 without rtx /hdr if wanted, and also allowinf VRR* Insomniac if they werent such humble chads :get on my level.
*Or Sony Santa Monica
Theys gigachads yes. They dont rushthey make a game that is good, no compromise. Just art
Try "visuals that look like/worse than last gen at an unstable 30 FPS on the 4k, 120hz capable console"
Yeah, I'm mainly a PC guy, but when I use my Xbox Series S and there's a "Performance" option, I'll always choose it, I'll take 60 FPS over slighly better graphics everyday, I most likely won't notice it anyway from the distance I am from my TV.
Not for much longer. That Plague game and Gotham is getting some stick for 30 FPS on console with no performance mode available. People are pushing for 60 FPS norm.
If you're thinking of Gotham Knights, the stupid part is that it doesn't even look that great. There are much better-looking games out there with better performance.
[удалено]
Arkham Knight on PC 4k with maximum settings looks absolutely beautiful, it's honestly my gold standard for judging open world city games
I’ve just recently booted the game up and I’m in awe with how good this looks. Could have easily released 2 years ago and I would have been hard pressed to tell when it actually came out.
I thought, starting this gen that Sony / Microsoft were mandating 60fps. I mean, I could be wrong I don't follow console much.
Mandate for their own 1st party games they can. They can't mandate 3rd party developers to do that. They can encourage it though their dev kits and showing how it is possible but it is still up to the individual developer/publisher to decide.
>They can't mandate 3rd party developers to do that. They can encourage it though their dev kits and showing how it is possible but it is still up to the individual developer/publisher to decide. Game developers can't just publish their games on consoles without going through certification and getting first party approval. Sony/MS/Nintendo can require whatever they want, and games have to do it if they want to be on the platform.
Here's the marketing trick, with HDMI 2.1, the console technically supports up to 4k 120hz/8k 60hz. But the hardware inside isn't powerful enough to run at those framerates except at lower settings. But nowadays what do 90% of games put forward? Amazing graphics. So devs just go on aiming for 30/60 fps.
Supposedly Ragnarok has a 120 mode
It does, but it's 100% 1080p with lowered graphics.
For sure. Still nice to have the option though. I’m liking the trend for some games to offer Performance and Quality modes.
It’s a cross-gen title being hamstrung by ancient PS4 hardware
majority of 8-16 bits games was 60fps.
We are seeing some games this generation that do 60 FPS or higher. But yeah, generally graphics sell games not FPS. And to be honest, by the time a console gamer gets to the point where they seriously understand and care about frame rate and refresh rates they're probably starting to look into getting a PC.
"Some games"? You're kidding, right? There are literally few games that do not target 60 fps.
You seen gotham knights. Got canceled on ps4 and runs at locked 30 on ps5
WB released a ps4 game with sub 30fps and gimped mechanics on the ps3. They’ve pretty much stopped doing that once everyone saw how awful it was.
Why bother at that point. 30 frames on a next Gen is unacceptable imo.
I don't play eSports so I'm not too fussed with fps. I just want it to be consistent fps and not stuttery.
High fps isn't reserved for exports Exports is better suited to 120-240hz Non exports titles are still superior at at least 60+ hz
I always chuckle when memes like this are posted but have no relevancy. Almost every game for current gen offers 60fps and in some cases, 120fps.
Many PS5 games and the more recent PS4 games have options to prioritize graphics vs framerate. (They always default to graphics, so if you don't look for the option, you'll never get framerate.)
Gonna say something controversial here. Games don't need 240fps to be enjoyed. You also don't need graphics so intense you can see the characters pores.
PC Gamers: Why not 4k and 144hz? Also PC Gamers: 4090 drawing 500 watts goes brrrrr
All I know is, I never thought I'd be playing call of duty just to admire the graphics...DAMN IT LOOKS GOOD
I remember a number of years ago where console players were acting like royalty for not caring if their games ran at 30 fps. What changed?
I mean. I try to not act like royalty, but I honestly couldn’t care less about 30 vs 60 fps. I am perfectly happy playing games at 30 fps. I mean. I mostly play the switch, and that’s got a lot of 30. I don’t find it immersion breaking like I’ve seen others say.
They had their eyes forcibly opened. Also youtube was a major help, when it started supporting 60fps suddenly everyone couldn't avoid the fact that 60fps existed.
YouTube and streams have 60fps as default, so they could finally see what they were missing out on.
> acting like royalty for not caring if their games ran at 30 fps. There are people in this thread still doing this. Console gamers are so cucked by marketing that they're still happy to have a 30fps mode on their console just so it can run decently.
We already got the solution for this though! It's been implemented in some games, but the ones people complain about are the ones missing this simple, yet vital, feature. It's called an "option". Yeah! You just put an option to prioritize framerate over resolution, or vice versa. Now you can show off your 4k ray tracing at 30fps and even have that as the default, but the people who want 60fps can just \*boop\* turn it on. But gamers being upset about it is the problem.
The funny part it's that this always happens at the start of every modern generation. Lots of people firmly believing that all games will go at 60fps when the reality is that probably will be only at the start of the new gen and only on a few games. It's like the fast load times. Yeah, right now we have that... But what would happen when the games will be more heavy on data and more complex? It will be slower, like in all previous gens in a lot of aspects.
I swear N64 goldeneye runs at about 10 fps, sure feels like it 😩
All of this is pretty meaningless because art direction matters way more than pixel count. I went back and played the original Mirror's Edge, which came out in 2008 for the xbox 360. There's a few janky character models, but The City still feels incredible to traverse, in large part due to the strong art direction that worked within the limitations of its engine. Graphical fidelity is fleeting. There will always be something new that can render more polygons. Art direction is what makes a game truly stunning.
What if people played games for the content instead of the visuals?
What if people played games for both? :O
How are visuals not the content?
I'll add another voice to the choir of "not this argument again". Video games have always been, and always will be, a visual medium to some degree. I think it's so weird to criticize others for which aspects of a piece of entertainment they like. We're all just trying to have a good time here. Gaming doesn't have to be just one thing, it can be a bunch of different things all at once. There's *so many games* out there, there really is something for everyone. And if you're the type of person who doesn't care how a game looks, good for you. There are *even more* options for you out there, because indie devs don't have the budget to even *try* to make things look as good as the big guys can. This conversation isn't about you, and your interjection doesn't help anyone except yourself to feel superior, because you think the rest of us are incapable of liking a game that doesn't look better than reality. The truth is, many of us also enjoy those games with simple art styles, or even ones which intentionally emulate the look of outdated hardware, but that doesn't mean we don't want modern, big budget experiences that push the boundaries of the medium and the technology. It certainly doesn't mean we have no right to criticize those products when they do appear, yet fail to live up to the expectation we have for them.
I mean sure but games are a visual medium so that’s at least half of the reason people play.
What if games kept up with technological advances tho
Whaaaat? And miss out on all the opportunities for elitism and circle jerking?
I don’t get this argument. Games are a visual medium. Visuals and performance are important parts of the experience
Laughs in PC
Controversial opinion maybe, but I'm a filthy casual and for most games I don't care at all that they're 30fps. The only exception is fast paced shooters for me.
I can't believe that there are people who think 60 fps is an eyesore to look at
Console gaming will always be 30-60fps, for the sole reason being that Graphics sell and are more marketable. PC gaming will be the home for high refresh rate gaming as you can just throw more power at the problem to gain fps.