[QUOTE="gpuking"] This murders any enemy character models in other games, Crysis 3 and BF4 included.gpuking
I'm SOOO looking forward to seeing 1080p games on my 70" Elite. :D Don't get me wrong... 720p is nice and all, but the images and actual footage I've seen from Killzone: Shadow Fall look incredible. My body is ready for next gen.
My 65" Bravia HX955 will finally get a worthy 1080p next gen feed too!
Haha, word! Bravia's are nice televisions. My first HDTV was a Samsung Plasma (Loved it, but was hot and lost pixels over time), then Bravia LCD (Great, but not as good as Plasma in motion), now a LED - I can say hands down the LED is where it's at for movies, video games and still images - plain gorgous.
So much for the PS4 being a super beast machine that can do 1080p with 60fps with ease and it being a standard.
Senor_Kami
Â
for a early game in the nextg gen cycle this looks amazing. like every gen u need to wait 4 to 5 years for developers to utilize the consoles power. i mean check teh release games of 360 and ps3 and compare them to game from 2011 and up and u will see a huge graphical leap
For there first game they need to dumb down frame rate and other things. They are just getting used to the hardware and they don't want to make it hard to beat graphically when Killzone SF2 comes out.
They stated they the frame rate could be higher but they decided to cap it at 30 to prevent any screen tear from letting it vary from 30+ to 40/50 fps.
[QUOTE="silversix_"]Sacrificing resolution its not better than decreasing textures quality or lighting, that's much of a difference it makes. If you don't notice much of a difference from 720p to 1080p you haven't played anything in native 1080p... God damn BF4 will look bad if its 720p/60fps as they're saying...MrGeezer
If sacrificing resolution is the worse option, then developers won't do it. Microsoft is not saying that games will be 720p, Microsoft is saying that they aren't requiring 1080p and then letting developers make their game as they see fit.I know MS doesn't require it but THEY SHOULD. By now, 1080p should be the minimum. Just look how it went current gen. No companies set a standard and we got games in 540p, wtf... Between 540p and 720p the difference isn't hude because both are blurry and fugly, but if they release games in 720p instead of 1080p later in the cycle, that would suck. In my opinion, they should do what ever is possible at 1080p and never go under
I know MS doesn't require it but THEY SHOULD. By now, 1080p should be the minimum. Just look how it went current gen. No companies set a standard and we got games in 540p, wtf... Between 540p and 720p the difference isn't hude because both are blurry and fugly, but if they release games in 720p instead of 1080p later in the cycle, that would suck. In my opinion, they should do what ever is possible at 1080p and never go undersilversix_
And the X1 should be more powerful, but it isn't. If the X1 is as weak as people are saying, then some significant sacrifices are gonna have to be made somewhere. If it were reasonably possible for all games to be 1080p at a high frame rate without looking like crap then I'd agree with you, but all indications seem to be that that isn't the case. The hardware they have to work with is crap, and I think developers should be allowed to deal with that problem as they see fit.
I thought PS4 was amazing. soooo much better than One. Like the cell was so much better than 360.
This gen is the same as last gen. Both consoles are almost at the same level with PS4 having a slight advantage which most people will not even notice and Nintendo is still wut?
Yeah I hope we don't get the same shit as this gen where games end up running at like 20FPS by the end. That was horrible. That didn't really happen, though yeah it became normal for games to dip under 30fps into the 20's during intense scenes, which was not good. Crysis 3 on PS3 seems to be the biggest offender, Digital Foundry said it runs at about 24fps average, facking atrocious. Killzone Shadow Fall was locked to 30fps and didn't dip once, even during the action, which is good as it means it is probably running a lot higher if unlocked. Oh I know it won't happen straight away, but I feel like because the generation went on so long developers felt the need to constantly try and push visuals to meet up with the ever increasing gap between them and PC and that led to stuff like Crysis 3, and Far Cry 3 felt pretty bad too from the few hours I played.
Hmmm...Normally I would agree, and I may agree anyway, but console FPS games are controlled with dual analog, making the 30FPS more sufficient than PC FPS games controlled with the mouse which has a lot crazier wipping around and such.Â
its a launch title and they already said they intentionally capped it at 30fps so there wouldn't be any problems also they only worked with the ps4 dev kits that only had 4 gb of ram and not 8.
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="silversix_"]Sacrificing resolution its not better than decreasing textures quality or lighting, that's much of a difference it makes. If you don't notice much of a difference from 720p to 1080p you haven't played anything in native 1080p... God damn BF4 will look bad if its 720p/60fps as they're saying...silversix_
If sacrificing resolution is the worse option, then developers won't do it. Microsoft is not saying that games will be 720p, Microsoft is saying that they aren't requiring 1080p and then letting developers make their game as they see fit.I know MS doesn't require it but THEY SHOULD. By now, 1080p should be the minimum. Just look how it went current gen. No companies set a standard and we got games in 540p, wtf... Between 540p and 720p the difference isn't hude because both are blurry and fugly, but if they release games in 720p instead of 1080p later in the cycle, that would suck. In my opinion, they should do what ever is possible at 1080p and never go under I agree with this completely. There is no reason, and with that hardware, that we should still be playing games at 720p in 2013.
I don't really give a damn about frames per second.  I can barely see a significant difference between 30fps and 60fps.  The difference between 720p and 1080p however I can see.  Seems pretty impressive that it is running at that resolution because not that many games this gen did support it.
As long as the tech wizards at Guerilla Games are behind it, I have no doubt that the limits will be pushed. I'm playing KZ2 right now and goddamn is it gorgeous for a console game, at least most of the time.
I don't really give a damn about frames per second.  I can barely see a significant difference between 30fps and 60fps.  The difference between 720p and 1080p however I can see.  Seems pretty impressive that it is running at that resolution because not that many games this gen did support it.
Crossel777
That's so funny to me. Framerate has a bigger impact than just about anything to me. If movement (animations and camera) isn't smooth it feels much less immersive and believable (movement in reality doesn't jerk around, after all). It also has a huge impact on controller response and how the game feels to play.
Also, since games are almost constantly in motion it means that 30fps effectively gives you a much blurrier image quality than 60fps due to the much lower temporal resolution.
Yeah, me too. If you're several feet away from the TV, and lots of people are when playing console games, it can he hard to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p anyway. But just about anybody is gonna notice the diffetrence between 30 fps and 60 fps.
I don't really give a damn about frames per second.  I can barely see a significant difference between 30fps and 60fps.  The difference between 720p and 1080p however I can see.  Seems pretty impressive that it is running at that resolution because not that many games this gen did support it.
kalipekona
That's so funny to me. Framerate has a bigger impact than just about anything to me. If movement (animations and camera) isn't smooth it feels much less immersive and believable (movement in reality doesn't jerk around, after all). It also has a huge impact on controller response and how the game feels to play.
Also, since games are almost constantly in motion it means that 30fps effectively gives you a much blurrier image quality than 60fps due to the much lower temporal resolution.
1080p is probably more of a bragging point. Plenty of people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p anyway and from several feet away it gets damned hard for anyone to tell the difference. But 60 fps vs 30 fps is something that pretty much everybody notices. Sure, 1080p/60 fps would be best but if ya ain't got the power for that I agree that 720p/60 fps > 1080p/30 fps.
[QUOTE="Zeviander"]I'd rather it be 720p @ 60 fps. Since getting back into PC gaming, framerate has become a priority over resolution. What?? The benefit of gaming on a PC is the extremely high resolutions.. of 1920x1080p (2 million pixels)which is not impressive by todays standard but still twice the amount of pixels of consoles' 1280x720p (1 million pixels) but PCs can easily go higher than that with 2560x1600 monitors and eeven 8-10 million pixel 4K images if you have an awesome VW1000ES/Snell THX Reference surround :)
[QUOTE="Zeviander"]I'd rather it be 720p @ 60 fps. Since getting back into PC gaming, framerate has become a priority over resolution.Mozelleple112
What?? The benefit of gaming on a PC is the extremely high resolutions.. of 1920x1080p (2 million pixels)which is not impressive by todays standard but still twice the amount of pixels of consoles' 1280x720p (1 million pixels) but PCs can easily go higher than that with 2560x1600 monitors and eeven 8-10 million pixel 4K images if you have an awesome VW1000ES/Snell THX Reference surround :)
Sounds like a waste of money to me. Not for the graphics cards. If you've got the money getting a great one seems reasonable. But these super HD monitors are mostly a waste of money unless you play with your face pressed to the glass. 1080p is plenty.
[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"][QUOTE="Zeviander"]I'd rather it be 720p @ 60 fps. Since getting back into PC gaming, framerate has become a priority over resolution.Wickerman777
What?? The benefit of gaming on a PC is the extremely high resolutions.. of 1920x1080p (2 million pixels)which is not impressive by todays standard but still twice the amount of pixels of consoles' 1280x720p (1 million pixels) but PCs can easily go higher than that with 2560x1600 monitors and eeven 8-10 million pixel 4K images if you have an awesome VW1000ES/Snell THX Reference surround :)
Sounds like a waste of money to me. Not for the graphics cards. If you've got the money getting a great one seems reasonable. But these super HD monitors are mostly a waste of money unless you play with your face pressed to the glass. 1080p is plenty.
If you have seen a 2560x1600 display for yourself you wouldn't be saying that 1080p is plenty. :P
[QUOTE="Zeviander"]I'd rather it be 720p @ 60 fps. Since getting back into PC gaming, framerate has become a priority over resolution.Mozelleple112
What?? The benefit of gaming on a PC is the extremely high resolutions.. of 1920x1080p (2 million pixels)which is not impressive by todays standard but still twice the amount of pixels of consoles' 1280x720p (1 million pixels) but PCs can easily go higher than that with 2560x1600 monitors and eeven 8-10 million pixel 4K images if you have an awesome VW1000ES/Snell THX Reference surround :)Yeah I'm fine with 1440p until the day 4kres becomes a standard, though I see what you mean.
@bobbetybob: Agreed! 30fps with amazing graphics is better than 60fps with dumbed down graphics. Every BluRay movie you've ever seen is encoded at 24fps. Every movie you've ever seen is 24fps (except maybe the Hobbit if you saw it in a 48fps theater and nobody really like the soap-opera effect that induced). There's a purist attitude in the gaming industry that we need 60fps. We really don't. What we DO need is high resolution. Our eyes can see the difference between 1080p and 720p on a 42-60" TV (or a computer monitor if you're sitting close to it). I really don't think most people could pick out the difference between 30fps and 60fps on a TV any more than they could tell you the difference between a $3000 and a $2000 stereo system.
@bobbetybob: Agreed! 30fps with amazing graphics is better than 60fps with dumbed down graphics. Every BluRay movie you've ever seen is encoded at 24fps. Every movie you've ever seen is 24fps (except maybe the Hobbit if you saw it in a 48fps theater and nobody really like the soap-opera effect that induced). There's a purist attitude in the gaming industry that we need 60fps. We really don't. What we DO need is high resolution. Our eyes can see the difference between 1080p and 720p on a 42-60" TV (or a computer monitor if you're sitting close to it). I really don't think most people could pick out the difference between 30fps and 60fps on a TV any more than they could tell you the difference between a $3000 and a $2000 stereo system.
30 vs 60fps is a dramatic difference. Just pan the camera around to notice it within less than one second.
Log in to comment