What I want and what I know are sometimes two different things. I wish 60fps was a standard static consoles would push, but I know better.
For those curious on the answer, I'll post below:
---
Actually there were at least 2 threads on this a few weeks ago in SW, but I see this article is new to Gamespot.com at least. That just means GS is late to the news.
I explained this over the years and I've also explained it recently, but static console hardware will always prioritize resolution over fps. The PS2 had 60 fps in very select games (Devil May Cry, Ratchet & Clank 1-3, etc) but ultimately publishers are going to push the games to 30fps to get better better graphics. Graphic fidelity takes a hit when frame rate goes up, and at the end of the day most of these games are fine at 30fps for consoles and sales will be fine. This is not an indictment of the current consoles power because this is an issue static consoles will always have to deal with even if the machines were twice as weak or four times as strong. The devs ask: "We have finite resources, so where to we prioritize and allocate the resources?" What is the priority for the developer? What sells the most copies and looks the prettiest? Does the industry give out awards for graphics? They do! Do critics and consumers praise graphics? They do! It's not hard to figure out how this limited console box is going to be pushed. It MAY not even be the devs call, the publisher may insist on better graphics and lower the frame rate. That's because the competition is doing the same and PEOPLE expect it.
It sucks for those expecting something else. I said this last year and many years before, it's easier to get 1080p/60fps when porting some last gen game, but don't expect devs to hold back their graphics when their peers and the industry keeps pumping out prettier games. It's how the industry works. Consumers prioritize graphics and the pubs deliver. The dev that does deliver 60fps/1080p will only serve to limit their marketing potential as pubs see it (unless it's a genre that fps is crucial). That 60fps dev will risk their peers sucking up all the accolades from their peers and critics, and risk losing sales to the casual consumer for graphics that aren't quite as pretty as the competing game sitting next to them on the shelf at 30fps. Think about that. It's already happened as Insomniac tried to do 60fps since the PS2 and midway through the PS3 cycle.
Ratchet & Clank last gen was primarily 60fps and no one in SW gave a damn (and neither did the majority of the world). The industry (critics and peer devs) didn't compliment the frame rate of the R&C series for being at a much higher standard on PS2/PS3 and ultimately Insomniac posted they are going to stop pushing 60fps and go to 30 fps. The last few R&C games are at 30fps now and they looked prettier and not many cared about the fps drop. That's the way the industry is. I've articulated this better in the past but this is always the issue with these static console boxes. Devs have a lot to juggle with these limited static, non-upgradeable console boxes and frame-rate isn't high on the list compared to other areas like textures, resolution, polygons, particles, AI, etc. They could promote and push 60fps, but it's a question of if they need to and if they would rather push the hardware in other ways. This is the problem for all consoles now and in the past. This isn't going to change, devs that push 60fps may not get recognized in the industry for their efforts like the devs that take the fps hit to 30fps and push the pretty pictures that are posted on boxes and advertisements (marketing used to sell games). The PS4 hardware could be 2x as powerful as it is now and this issue would always be there. Should devs push the envelope on FPS or limit the FPS to push graphics? FPS isn't going to win for the majority of most games.
Look at HDTV's even. You see people buying terrible 60hz HDTVs because they don't pay attention. What people do pay attention to is the resolution (4K, 1080p, etc). There is a reason the TV industry keeps pumping out these terrible 60hz HDTVs. Because, sadly, people buy the absolute minimum 60hz HDTVs. The people that realize they were bamboozled learn the lesson and pay attention for their next HDTV purchase. This move and priority by ND is to appease the majority of people.
Log in to comment