If all ps4 games are 720p/60fps are you still getting one?

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

No, i will never get a system that has something as useless as 60fps as standard

I want 720p/30fps and 10x better graphics than garbage graphics at 60fps that is totally useless

60fps is totally useless, has zero difference to 30fps

moistsandwich

This is so far from fact. There is a big difference between 30fps and 60fps. Try using adaptive v-sync on your pc (if you have one) and play a current game that requires some juice.... FarCry3 will work... start running around and looking around.... as soon as your rig can't handle the 60fps, it will drop you to 30fps... play like that for 10 min. if you still can't see the difference, then perhaps a pair of glasses or some contacts are in order.

I have played 60fps games and actually find them worse (Dust Elysian Tale on 360). The motion seems more fake and strange

Maybe in racers there is a point or very fast shooters, in everything else going for 60fps is a joke, since will not give a difference at all

Anyone who expects the games on ps4 to be 1080p/60fps is deluding themselves. It's a console for crying out loud... Do you excpect them to put high end hardware in there? And at what price point? etc.

It's a business they're running.

[QUOTE="moistsandwich"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

No, i will never get a system that has something as useless as 60fps as standard

I want 720p/30fps and 10x better graphics than garbage graphics at 60fps that is totally useless

60fps is totally useless, has zero difference to 30fps

loosingENDS

This is so far from fact. There is a big difference between 30fps and 60fps. Try using adaptive v-sync on your pc (if you have one) and play a current game that requires some juice.... FarCry3 will work... start running around and looking around.... as soon as your rig can't handle the 60fps, it will drop you to 30fps... play like that for 10 min. if you still can't see the difference, then perhaps a pair of glasses or some contacts are in order.

I have played 60fps games and actually find them worse (Dust Elysian Tale on 360). The motion seems more fake and strange

Maybe in racers there is a point or very fast shooters, in everything else going for 60fps is a joke, since will not give a difference at all

Console games look terrible for a lot of reasons other than resolution. I doubt that next gen can only produce today's console visuals, but at 60fps. That's just stupid.

But, either way, I'm more of the opinion that I have my PC for my hardware needs, and a console I can't care less about what's inside it. It just needs to have games I want.

This has a VERY low chance of happening but lets say it does, are you still buying one? Personally, its a no go. 720p as a standard in 2013 would be a fkin joke and i certainly do NOT want to spend another 5+ years playing blurry ass games.

silversix_

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

[QUOTE="moistsandwich"]

This is so far from fact. There is a big difference between 30fps and 60fps. Try using adaptive v-sync on your pc (if you have one) and play a current game that requires some juice.... FarCry3 will work... start running around and looking around.... as soon as your rig can't handle the 60fps, it will drop you to 30fps... play like that for 10 min. if you still can't see the difference, then perhaps a pair of glasses or some contacts are in order.

silversix_

I have played 60fps games and actually find them worse (Dust Elysian Tale on 360). The motion seems more fake and strange

Maybe in racers there is a point or very fast shooters, in everything else going for 60fps is a joke, since will not give a difference at all

That is true

It is like i would throw in the garbage bin any new 8000$ HDTV with the 240HZ fake looking motion

I saw some of these new HTDV and could not believe how terrible everything looked at higher frame rates

It looked like a bad joke TBH, i could not beleive my eyes

Same goes for Dust, hated the 60fps thing, looked very strange in motion

[QUOTE="silversix_"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

I have played 60fps games and actually find them worse (Dust Elysian Tale on 360). The motion seems more fake and strange

Maybe in racers there is a point or very fast shooters, in everything else going for 60fps is a joke, since will not give a difference at all

loosingENDS

That is true

It is like i would throw in the garbage bin any new 8000$ HDTV with the 240HZ fake looking motion

I saw some of these new HTDV and could not believe how terrible everything looked at higher frame rates

It looked like a bad joke TBH, i could not beleive my eyes

Same goes for Dust, hated the 60fps thing, looked very strange in motion

720p/60fps > 1080p/30fps

720p/60fps > 1080p/30fps

Gue1

1080p/30fps >>>>>>>>>> infinity >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 720p/60fps

720p/60fps > 1080p/30fps

Gue1

You're asking as if that's a bad thing......720p60fps is absolutely fine. How much of a jump is 1080p compared to 720p? and is it even worth the performance hit?

Harisemo

If you like stretched blurry image then fine..

My biggest question is; Is 2013 finally the year of the ps3.

2006 no

2007no

2008no

2009no

2009no

2010no

2011no

2012no

2013maybe

[QUOTE="Gue1"]

720p/60fps > 1080p/30fps

hoosier7

Then you won't be able to see anything.

[QUOTE="Gue1"]

720p/60fps > 1080p/30fps

loosingENDS

1080p/30fps >>>>>>>>>> infinity >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 720p/60fps

What the ?

So this thread is about something that will never happen. Nice.

So this thread is about something that will never happen. Nice.

StrongBlackVine

Indeed, only a crazy developer would waste better graphics that 99% of people can readilly see a huge difference in, for 60fps that only 0.00001% would ever notice (only PC gamers really) and is totally unessesary for 99.9999% of games

[QUOTE="StrongBlackVine"]

So this thread is about something that will never happen. Nice.

loosingENDS

Indeed, only a crazy developer would waste better graphics that 99% of people can readilly see a huge difference in, for 60fps that only 0.00001% would ever notice (only PC gamers really) and is totally unessesary for 99.9999% of games

Are those facts or made up numbers ?

[QUOTE="StrongBlackVine"]

So this thread is about something that will never happen. Nice.

loosingENDS

Indeed, only a crazy developer would waste better graphics that 99% of people can readilly see a huge difference in, for 60fps that only 0.00001% would ever notice (only PC gamers really) and is totally unessesary for 99.9999% of games

I think a lot of people would notice 60fps, that's why CoD does it

[QUOTE="StrongBlackVine"]

So this thread is about something that will never happen. Nice.

loosingENDS

Indeed, only a crazy developer would waste better graphics that 99% of people can readilly see a huge difference in, for 60fps that only 0.00001% would ever notice (only PC gamers really) and is totally unessesary for 99.9999% of games

I'll probably get it regardless.

Hack and slashes are one of my favourite genres, and the PC has far too few of them.

It has a 0% chance of happening. PS3 has 60fps 1080p games and PS4 is 15.8 times more powerful. 

It has a 0% chance of happening. PS3 has 60fps 1080p games and PS4 is 15.8 times more powerful. 

clr84651

 

Are those facts or made up numbers ?

Bebi_vegeta

These are exact numbers

unnecessary because you can't attain it, makes perfect sense, really. This is the order it should be at: 1] 1080p/60fps. 2] 1080p/30fps. 3] 720p/60fps. 4] 720/30fps. 5] 720p (or down scaled)/30fps (not locked) *pretty much what's ps3/360 and WiiU is now*. But for next gen none the least but 1080p/30fps, anything under is just last gen skin with next gen clothing (wiiu).

silversix_

I dont agree

Graphics are WAY more important than both resolution and frame rate

The easy proof is that no game looks anywhere close to 720p/30fps Avatar movie yet

Or to put it another way, Avatar in 720p/30fps destroys by a billion trillion miles any 1080p/60fps game visually

So, again, why going for 1080p/60fps would be more important than going for Avatar like graphics at 720p/30fps first ?

PC gamers make no sense

The only reason i would not buy a console, is graphics that try to establish higher resolutions/fps and keeping the same crappy last gen look, like all PC games do and look like garbage comparing to Agnis and Deep Down

It has a 0% chance of happening. PS3 has 60fps 1080p games and PS4 is 15.8 times more powerful. 

clr84651

PS3 has 60fps @ 1080p... oh please list.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

 

Are those facts or made up numbers ?

loosingENDS

These are exact numbers

Exact numbers from where?

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

 

Are those facts or made up numbers ?

Bebi_vegeta

These are exact numbers

Exact numbers from where?

Simple math really

Racing games and extremely fast shooters are one in ten thousand games

100/10000 = 0.01% of games would need 60fps

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

These are exact numbers

 

loosingENDS

Exact numbers from where?

Simple math really

Racing games and extremely fast shooters are one in ten thousand games

100/10000 = 0.01% of games would need 60fps

Again are those numbers facts or made up.

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

 

Exact numbers from where?

Bebi_vegeta

Simple math really

Racing games and extremely fast shooters are one in ten thousand games

100/10000 = 0.01% of games would need 60fps

Again are those numbers facts or made up.

Estimated facts

If games don't run at around 60fps at 1080p then no. I can go out buy a computer for the same or close to the same price and have a better more versatile machine instead.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

Simple math really

Racing games and extremely fast shooters are one in ten thousand games

100/10000 = 0.01% of games would need 60fps

loosingENDS

Again are those numbers facts or made up.

Estimated facts

Estimated facts... hahahaha, oh wow. I bet the source of those estimated facts are none other then yours.

If they would actually have all games run a steady 60 fps, I'd get one just for that. That's not going to happen. I probably wouldn't even be thinking about getting one for many years anyway, and I would be completely turned away if the bigger budget, "high end graphics" kind of games are coming in 720p. It's fvcking 2013. Get with the damn times. And enough of sub-30 fps framerates, too. I think for the next generation, it's not at all asking too much to have all games rendered at 1080p standard, and never drop below 30 fps. That's a pretty low standard to set, actually. I'll be mighty disappointed if the PS4 and nextbox can't even handle that. Early gen games should be 1080p and also have no trouble running 60ish fps. As the gen goes on and devs start pushing graphics more, they'll obviously need to sacrifice something, eventually, and I'd be fine with them sacrificing framerate, down to a 30 fps minimum. But only if that 30 is steady. None of this occasional dips to 15 bullshit.

Graphics are WAY more important than both resolution and frame rate

The easy proof is that no game looks anywhere close to 720p/30fps Avatar movie yet

loosingENDS

Resolution is part of "graphics". A big part, in fact. 

Avatar, and other CGI movies, look highly detailed, even when played in 720p (or even less), because the original material is pre-rendered at extremely high resolutions, bigger than currently available displays can even handle. Because a game has to be rendered in real time, it is impossible to get that level of crispness and detail without rendering at higher resolutions. With a game,  rendering  and  displaying  happen at the same time. With a movie, they're separate. Avatar looks better than games, while being  displayed  at lower resolutions, partly because it was  rendered  at higher resolutions in the first place.

This has been explained to you countless times.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

Simple math really

Racing games and extremely fast shooters are one in ten thousand games

100/10000 = 0.01% of games would need 60fps

loosingENDS

Again are those numbers facts or made up.

Estimated facts

what university do you go to?

This story that "graphics don't matter" couldn't be more nonsense. Graphics and visual quality play a huge role in immersion, emotional connection and other psychological factors. Of course, a game is not good because of graphics alone, but saying graphics do not matter is a huge display of ignorance.

It has 60FPS so that's a sale right there!

It's pointless to discuss, it won't happen. The standard will be 1080p/30 FPS, as fully stable 30 FPS works well on consoles for most games, and it'll also leave more room for devs to improve the game visuals. Console audiences generally care more about visuals than performance.

This story that "graphics don't matter" couldn't be more nonsense. Graphics and visual quality play a huge role in immersion, emotional connection and other psychological factors. Of course, a game is not good because of graphics alone, but saying graphics do not matter is a huge display of ignorance.

faizan_faizan

Definitely this, I care a lot about visuals. They aren't the only deciding factor of the game quality, but they still are a pretty big one. If the game doesn't look eye-pleasing on either artistic or technical merits, that's a rather big flaw, right there.

That said, I'm much more forgiving about the old games, as obviously, you can't expect anything near current visual standards, even if you heavily mod the older engines.

I care about graphics fidelity as long as framerate is at minimum 30 fps.

If all what 1080p gonna give is resolution on the account of reduced fidelity (post processing effects, motion blur, lighting, particles, etc..), then I'd rather have 720p.

I'd even settle for sub 720p as long as there is no compromise on graphical fidelity.

[QUOTE="moistsandwich"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

No, i will never get a system that has something as useless as 60fps as standard

I want 720p/30fps and 10x better graphics than garbage graphics at 60fps that is totally useless

60fps is totally useless, has zero difference to 30fps

loosingENDS

This is so far from fact. There is a big difference between 30fps and 60fps. Try using adaptive v-sync on your pc (if you have one) and play a current game that requires some juice.... FarCry3 will work... start running around and looking around.... as soon as your rig can't handle the 60fps, it will drop you to 30fps... play like that for 10 min. if you still can't see the difference, then perhaps a pair of glasses or some contacts are in order.

I have played 60fps games and actually find them worse (Dust Elysian Tale on 360). The motion seems more fake and strange

Maybe in racers there is a point or very fast shooters, in everything else going for 60fps is a joke, since will not give a difference at all

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

Graphics are WAY more important than both resolution and frame rate

The easy proof is that no game looks anywhere close to 720p/30fps Avatar movie yet

the_bi99man

Resolution is part of "graphics". A big part, in fact. 

Avatar, and other CGI movies, look highly detailed, even when played in 720p (or even less), because the original material is pre-rendered at extremely high resolutions, bigger than currently available displays can even handle. Because a game has to be rendered in real time, it is impossible to get that level of crispness and detail without rendering at higher resolutions. With a game,  rendering  and  displaying  happen at the same time. With a movie, they're separate. Avatar looks better than games, while being  displayed  at lower resolutions, partly because it was  rendered  at higher resolutions in the first place.

This has been explained to you countless times.

I know all that, but how do they change my point ?

Also rendering at higher resoluton is only one part of the equation why Avatar looks so much better than games

But you seem to "forget" that "small" detail

Also you can always render at higher resolution and downscale in real time in games too

And how are these related to the frame rate ??? Movies have the natrual motion blur (or precomputed in 3D graphics case), but games could benefit from that ni real time making 60fps totally unessesary

I'm all about games, support, and systems that offer more bang for my buck.

So yeah, PS4 looks to be my console of choice for me. But not at launch.

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

Graphics are WAY more important than both resolution and frame rate

The easy proof is that no game looks anywhere close to 720p/30fps Avatar movie yet

loosingENDS

Resolution is part of "graphics". A big part, in fact. 

Avatar, and other CGI movies, look highly detailed, even when played in 720p (or even less), because the original material is pre-rendered at extremely high resolutions, bigger than currently available displays can even handle. Because a game has to be rendered in real time, it is impossible to get that level of crispness and detail without rendering at higher resolutions. With a game,  rendering  and  displaying  happen at the same time. With a movie, they're separate. Avatar looks better than games, while being  displayed  at lower resolutions, partly because it was  rendered  at higher resolutions in the first place.

This has been explained to you countless times.

I know all that, but how do they change my point ?

Also rendering at higher resoluton is only one part of the equation why Avatar looks so much better than games

But you seem to "forget" that "small" detail

Also you can always render at higher resolution and downscale in real time in games too

And how are these related to the frame rate ??? Movies have the natrual motion blur (or precomputed in 3D graphics case), but games could benefit from that ni real time making 60fps totally unessesary

dude shut-up. Movies don't have any natural motion blur, stop talking so much non-sense. They are made at 24fps because that became the standard years ago and they just don't want to change it due to tradition but with it brings one huge problem. The dejuddering effect. And is even worse for video games.

But movies like The Hobbit (48fps) are starting to ditch that tradition and everybody thinks that it looks much better than the crappy 24fps that kills your eyes on films with fast paced scenes.

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

Resolution is part of "graphics". A big part, in fact. 

Avatar, and other CGI movies, look highly detailed, even when played in 720p (or even less), because the original material is pre-rendered at extremely high resolutions, bigger than currently available displays can even handle. Because a game has to be rendered in real time, it is impossible to get that level of crispness and detail without rendering at higher resolutions. With a game,  rendering  and  displaying  happen at the same time. With a movie, they're separate. Avatar looks better than games, while being  displayed  at lower resolutions, partly because it was  rendered  at higher resolutions in the first place.

This has been explained to you countless times.

Gue1

I know all that, but how do they change my point ?

Also rendering at higher resoluton is only one part of the equation why Avatar looks so much better than games

But you seem to "forget" that "small" detail

Also you can always render at higher resolution and downscale in real time in games too

And how are these related to the frame rate ??? Movies have the natrual motion blur (or precomputed in 3D graphics case), but games could benefit from that ni real time making 60fps totally unessesary

dude shut-up. Movies don't have any natural motion blur, stop talking so much non-sense. They are made at 24fps because that became the standard years ago and they just don't want to change it due to tradition but with it brings one huge problem. The dejuddering effect. And is even worse for video games.

But movies like The Hobbit (48fps) are starting to ditch that tradition and everybody thinks that it looks much better than the crappy 24fps that kills your eyes on films with fast paced scenes.

Film induces a natural motion blur

Depends on exposure time though, so some films may look less motion blurred than others

Basic photography, i dont understand how people miss such basic knowledge

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

Graphics are WAY more important than both resolution and frame rate

The easy proof is that no game looks anywhere close to 720p/30fps Avatar movie yet

loosingENDS

Resolution is part of "graphics". A big part, in fact. 

Avatar, and other CGI movies, look highly detailed, even when played in 720p (or even less), because the original material is pre-rendered at extremely high resolutions, bigger than currently available displays can even handle. Because a game has to be rendered in real time, it is impossible to get that level of crispness and detail without rendering at higher resolutions. With a game,  rendering  and  displaying  happen at the same time. With a movie, they're separate. Avatar looks better than games, while being  displayed  at lower resolutions, partly because it was  rendered  at higher resolutions in the first place.

This has been explained to you countless times.

I know all that, but how do they change my point ?

Also rendering at higher resoluton is only one part of the equation why Avatar looks so much better than games

But you seem to "forget" that "small" detail

Also you can always render at higher resolution and downscale in real time in games too

And how are these related to the frame rate ??? Movies have the natrual motion blur (or precomputed in 3D graphics case), but games could benefit from that ni real time making 60fps totally unessesary

You know, you say that you know these things, yet you still talk like you don't. Everything you just said is further proving the point that you don't understand the difference between "real time" and "pre rendered". 

that, and you're a troll.

[QUOTE="Gue1"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

I know all that, but how do they change my point ?

Also rendering at higher resoluton is only one part of the equation why Avatar looks so much better than games

But you seem to "forget" that "small" detail

Also you can always render at higher resolution and downscale in real time in games too

And how are these related to the frame rate ??? Movies have the natrual motion blur (or precomputed in 3D graphics case), but games could benefit from that ni real time making 60fps totally unessesary

loosingENDS

dude shut-up. Movies don't have any natural motion blur, stop talking so much non-sense. They are made at 24fps because that became the standard years ago and they just don't want to change it due to tradition but with it brings one huge problem. The dejuddering effect. And is even worse for video games.

But movies like The Hobbit (48fps) are starting to ditch that tradition and everybody thinks that it looks much better than the crappy 24fps that kills your eyes on films with fast paced scenes.

Film induces a natural motion blur

Depends on exposure time though, so some films may look less motion blurred than others

Basic photography, i dont understand how people miss such basic knowledge

exposure time? exposure time to what? real life?

I care about graphics fidelity as long as framerate is at minimum 30 fps.

If all what 1080p gonna give is resolution on the account of reduced fidelity (post processing effects, motion blur, lighting, particles, etc..), then I'd rather have 720p.

I'd even settle for sub 720p as long as there is no compromise on graphical fidelity.

Mystery_Writer

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

[QUOTE="Gue1"]

 

dude shut-up. Movies don't have any natural motion blur, stop talking so much non-sense. They are made at 24fps because that became the standard years ago and they just don't want to change it due to tradition but with it brings one huge problem. The dejuddering effect. And is even worse for video games.

But movies like The Hobbit (48fps) are starting to ditch that tradition and everybody thinks that it looks much better than the crappy 24fps that kills your eyes on films with fast paced scenes.

XVision84

Film induces a natural motion blur

Depends on exposure time though, so some films may look less motion blurred than others

Basic photography, i dont understand how people miss such basic knowledge

exposure time? exposure time to what? real life?

Exposure time of the film to the light

I suppose the next question will be

"What is light ?"

Sorry man, kids dont seem to learn anything in schools anymore, read some books