Does anybody care about resolution and fps ?

[Elapo]

I watch digital Foundry that's why I can say stuff like

GTA V, Shadow of Mordor, Evolve, Drive club, Forza Horizon and plenty of other games are 1080 30

Hell there are about 2 dozen 60fps games like metro (no drops), Wolfenstien (no drops), and Metal Gear (no drops)

Also you seem to confuse minimums with averages and which is more important

 

Minimums > average, always. If that wasn't the case we would be recommending the FX processors to everyone.

 

Drops to <30 FPS are very disruptive, and worse than a game running at 24FPS constantly.

[Sharkyx1]

Drops to <30 FPS are very disruptive, and worse than a game running at 24FPS constantly.

I think this is pretty debatable, a game that locked to 24 fps would either be mind numbingly clunky or full of tearing

Id take a game that occasionally dropped below 30 over a game that is locked to 24

Also, only replying to someone's lowest point is a no-no

[Elapo]

I think this is pretty debatable, a game that locked to 24 fps would either be mind numbingly clunky or full of tearing

Id take a game that occasionally dropped below 30 over a game that is locked to 24

Also, only replying to someone's lowest point is a no-no

 

You are right about lower FPS games having more input lag, as most games check for input once or twice per drawn frame. This creates issues with fluctuating framerates though.

 

The thing is, you can get used to the input lag caused by low framerate, whereas you can't predict frame drops. In general a lower, consistent framerate is better for games with some action in it (it obviously doesn't matter for slow paced games). 

 

I am not sure what you mean by your final point. I've read your entire post, and the previous posts you've written in this thread. Are you saying I should reply to everything as a whole, rather than taking a statement and replying to that?  I reply to what I find relevant in the discussion. I do my best to reply to said statement while accounting for the context said statement was originally in. If that's not how you'd like me to do it, that's too bad.

[Sharkyx1]

You are right about lower FPS games having more input lag, as most games check for input once or twice per drawn frame. This creates issues with fluctuating framerates though.

The thing is, you can get used to the input lag caused by low framerate, whereas you can't predict frame drops. In general a lower, consistent framerate is better for games with some action in it (it obviously doesn't matter for slow paced games).

I am not sure what you mean by your final point. I've read your entire post, and the previous posts you've written in this thread. Are you saying I should reply to everything as a whole, rather than taking a statement and replying to that? I reply to what I find relevant in the discussion. I do my best to reply to said statement while accounting for the context said statement was originally in. If that's not how you'd like me to do it, that's too bad.

Sorry I was trying to be sarcastic, I thought you were the person I was originally replying to, I meant to edit my comment with more stuff, but I'm on my phone

If a game has major performance issues, like say Dragon Age: Origins on PS3, I prefer adaptive VSync over normal vsync, or Lower fps lock, adaptive usually gets rid of a lot of the ugly changes in input response

I've played some games that are locked at 20fps like OoT, or MGS games on PSP, it's definitely an experience that I'm not a big fan of it, and I've played stuff like MGS4, Resistance games, that drop into the 20s for extended periods, it's not perfect, but it works

[Elapo]

Sorry I was trying to be sarcastic, I thought you were the person I was originally replying to, I meant to edit my comment with more stuff, but I'm on my phone

If a game has major performance issues, like say Dragon Age: Origins on PS3, I prefer adaptive VSync over normal vsync, or Lower fps lock, adaptive usually gets rid of a lot of the ugly changes in input response

I've played some games that are locked at 20fps like OoT, or MGS games on PSP, it's definitely an experience that I'm not a big fan of it, and I've played stuff like MGS4, Resistance games, that drop into the 20s for extended periods, it's not perfect, but it works

 

True, Since fluctuation between 60-30 isn't too bad anyway. If you're playing at 50 average with drops to 35 you're going to have a worse experience if you lock the game on 30. For higher framerates the opposite of what I was saying is certainly true.

 

At very low framerates the experience is obviously never fantastic, but I think it's better to be locked at 20 than play at 30 with (regular) drops in the 10's. Pokemon Y on the 3DS actually has this problem if you turn on 3D, but it's not really an issue because it's turn-based VS an action game. It's still really noticeable and ugly though.  Neither is something I'd like to experience, but if I had to choose, I'd prefer a lock. 

 

That being said, if you are a game developer and you lock the framerate of your game, you better make sure it actually runs at that framerate consistently, because if it doesn't you're providing the worst possible experience.

[ManWithBeard1990]

Tbh if you want a playstation that does 50-60fps you should buy a ps2.

[Sharkyx1]

Tbh if you want a playstation that does 50-60fps you should buy a ps2.

You have a fairly selective memory if you think most PS2 games were 60FPS

It was really less often than now, only a couple big names were 60FPS ,GOW, Gran turismo,

these days nearly every sports game is 60,a lot of others are as well, the PS4,probably has the most 60fps games of any playstation console outside of fighting games

[ManWithBeard1990]

You have a fairly selective memory if you think most PS2 games were 60FPS

It was really less often than now, only a couple big names were 60FPS ,GOW, Gran turismo,

these days nearly every sports game is 60,a lot of others are as well, the PS4,probably has the most 60fps games of any playstation console outside of fighting games

Of course the frames dipped but overall ps2 was fairly smooth I seem to remember. Gran Turismo, Ratchet and Clank and Final Fantasy XII seemed to run at 50fps (PAL version) at least some of the time. Meanwhile GT6 sometimes dips way below what GT4 ever did. Maybe they'll fix it in a patch though because it was supposed to have dynamic LOD.

Maybe I do have a selective memory.

[thirtyfpsonpcisgood]

 Well it seems that game developers and publishers are told to not care about it at times on the pc end so they can make the console versions of games look like and play the same or better than the pc versions of games and are being bribed to do this.  There is no other explanation for **** ports coming out for pc.  I would love to know how much Ubi**** and other companies got in bribes for dumbing down pc games.  

 Now as for me and caring about resolution and fps?  I do care.  In this day and age 60 fps/1080p should be doable on any next generation console and pc but unfortunately MS and Sony decided to rush their consoles out to market with less than adequate hardware to do this. 

[karimhasebou]

Now don't get me wrong I know both of these have an impact on games. I do have a interest in them and computers as a whole and I know if you want the BEST looking game you need a pc but for me when I want to play a game I just like sitting back and enjoying the game with friends, and resolution and fps does  not really affect this. 

 

 

I should also add I have a ps4 and prefer it over a pc for gaming any day of the week.

 

I also posted this in the console gaming part to try and talk to other like mined people and not to get posts regarding high spec pcs

i dont mind playing on 720p upscaled to 1080p but dont really care about fps unless its goes below 30 because for me lower than 30 ruins the experience. i switched to pc from a ps3 and 60fps at 1080p is nice but differently i wouldn't mind playing on 720p

[Btappin]

I know that any game with a resolution of 900p-1080p and a frame-rate of 25-60 is more than playable on next-gen consoles. I couldn't help but disagree with game companies making 720p games for next-gen unless they have superb visuals or a smooth 60fps frame-rate. I'm more concerned about the gameplay itself, but laggy fps would make the game a hassle to play.

 

[TheConverter]

I could never enjoy console gaming as I have a 4K TV now for over a year. If I play a PC game at 1920x1080 ULTRA on my 4K TV it looks completely like trash.

 

On the other hand, 30FPS is unplayable BUT I've notice that ~45FPS in Witcher 3 looks nearly as smooth as 144FPS on my 144hz monitor. For shooters, even 60FPS feels choppy, minimum would be 80-90FPS.

 

So I think the biggest problem with consoles is the fact that they never run their GPU at 100%, otherwise they could get higher FPS then 30 in some parts of the game (like indoors)

 

Consoles are like fapping, they get the job done, but it's never like the full experience (real sex)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[Wolfcastle]

Personally Resolution doesn't matter at all when I'm playing on my next gen consoles, though I prefer it be atleast 720p. To me, framerate is everything on console, I don't care what sacrifices are made, I need my games at atleast 30FPS if I'm playing on next gen hardware. Other than that, I just don't care enough to argue about power or anything else like that.

[TheConverter]

Personally Resolution doesn't matter at all when I'm playing on my next gen consoles, though I prefer it be atleast 720p. To me, framerate is everything on console, I don't care what sacrifices are made, I need my games at atleast 30FPS if I'm playing on next gen hardware. Other than that, I just don't care enough to argue about power or anything else like that.

 

 

Hardware from 2010 can't be called next-gen.

 

Also, do you understand that 720P is 1280x720 and these badboys were 1280x1024 which is higher resolution?