Uncharted 4 60FPS! Not so fast ....

Ready to eat crow? Along with many others in this thread...

@SuddenlyTragic@Krelian-co@Cloud_imperium@daious@deadline-zero0

It's nice being able to play nearly all games at a much higher graphical fidelity than consoles, while keeping up 60 FPS.

PC is the choice platform of God.

I like a higher frame rate.... but whatever. First ground up ND game on the PS4, so maybe they're still figuring it out.

Never realized how much I enjoyed a higher frame rate until I plated TLOU Remastered and went from playing COD AW to playing Far Cry 4. Framerate does make a difference!

the choice of basement dweller virgins is more like it.

Yes, it provides smoother gameplay, but it comes at a cost. As you know there is no such thing as a free lunch. Thus, if you want to achieve 60fps, you will have to sacrifice something else. Finally, it is a question of priority.

That's what this article is about - how Naughty Dog really wishes that they could achieve 60fps but they probably aren't going to be able to.

This is ridiculous. They have already proven that they can do full HD at 60fps on the PS4 with Last of Us Remastered. We do not even have to discuss this. It is a fact.

If 30fps was fine and dandy with everyone - developer included - we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But that's not the case and now whenever a developer can't hit 60 fps, they try to justify it by saying "oh, it's more cinematic this way." Bullshit.

Bullshit. They certainly can do it. What they cannot achieve is maximum visual appearance and maximum framerate at the same time. Thus, they have to decide what is more important: visuals or fps? Turns out that all devs go for visuals instead of fps.

Lets be serious here....none of us thought it was a possibility anyway. This gen is not 1080p/60fps for most games. Fighting games? Sure. Racing games? Possibly yea, but that's it.

@GioVela2010 said:

@SuddenlyTragic said:

You're apparently playing in 1080p though not 2560x1600 so this doesn't affect you. And those benchmarks came out when the game did, so there were no drivers or game updates to fix this. Shutup

Ready to eat crow? Along with many others in this thread...

@SuddenlyTragic@Krelian-co@Cloud_imperium@daious@deadline-zero0

Why are you showing us benchmarks of 680's running the game when it first came out, with no patches or drivers? You're talking about a 970 two years later.

Stupid thread is stupid. Nobody ever said the game was going to run at 60fPS or not and that's the same stance ND is taking now.

True, I never argued against that.

How is that ridiculous? That's exactly what the article is about. And wow, they proved that they could get a PS3 game running in 1080p 60fps on a console that came out sevenyears before its predecessor. I would have been shocked if they couldn't pull this off.

I'm saying that the "30fps is more cinematic" excuse is bullshit, which it is. If a developer could achieve 60fps then that's what the game would run at. Nobody would chose 30fps over 60fps. Again, Naughty Dog wants to have the game running at 60fps. They're not targeting 30, they're targeting 60. But yeah, I'm sure that they could do it if they turned down some effects, I never denied their inability to do it which goes back to your first point.

How immature and childish.

Call me crazy but I'm starting to think it actually will turn out to be 60fps. Why, perhaps? This gameplay demo came out weeks ago. There's no reason for Naughty Dog to keep bringing this up as nobody expects it to reach such a frame rate or improve visually, anymore. By repeatedly nudging gamers about framerates they are going to build enormous hype for the game when it is shown next. Why else would they say things like, "60 FPS is really hard to get..."(something to that effect)? In context this is hinting that they are indeed leaning towards the higher framerate.

If they lock it at 45-50, pretty damn good for consoles

Don't care, we all know people will get it anyway

So you are more concerned with sales than quality?

@SuddenlyTragic said:

@GioVela2010 said:

@SuddenlyTragic said:

You're apparently playing in 1080p though not 2560x1600 so this doesn't affect you. And those benchmarks came out when the game did, so there were no drivers or game updates to fix this. Shutup

Ready to eat crow? Along with many others in this thread...

@SuddenlyTragic@Krelian-co@Cloud_imperium@daious@deadline-zero0

Why are you showing us benchmarks of 680's running the game when it first came out, with no patches or drivers? You're talking about a 970 two years later.

I checked his source. Those have the primary drivers that benefited Tomb Raider. Dunno about the argument, but just wanting to state that.

@bldgirsh said:

@SuddenlyTragic said:

@GioVela2010 said:

@SuddenlyTragic said:

You're apparently playing in 1080p though not 2560x1600 so this doesn't affect you. And those benchmarks came out when the game did, so there were no drivers or game updates to fix this. Shutup

Ready to eat crow? Along with many others in this thread...

@SuddenlyTragic@Krelian-co@Cloud_imperium@daious@deadline-zero0

Why are you showing us benchmarks of 680's running the game when it first came out, with no patches or drivers? You're talking about a 970 two years later.

I checked his source. Those have the primary drivers that benefited Tomb Raider. Dunno about the argument, but just wanting to state that.

Boom! Gio wins again

i don't actually mind if it was 30fps as long as it doesn't go below 20. and most of all i don't want the game to be delayed just because of this, so hopefully the game will still be released this year

this is a really novice question, but whats the big difference between 30 fps and 60? what is so important about it?

@blue_hazy_basic said:

Naughty Dog said previously that it was targeting 60fps for upcoming PlayStation 4 game Uncharted 4: A Thief's End. But the studio has since backed away from that objective somewhat, saying it wants to do what's best for A Thief's End, even if it means sub-60fps.

Now, Naughty Dog has yet again spoken about 60fps for A Thief's End. Game director Neil Druckmann says achieving that frame-rate is no simple task. Naughty Dog will keep pushing and optimizing to make the game look as best as it can, he said, though he wouldn't say if 60fps is a benchmark the developer is hoping to achieve overall.

"Really f**king hard," Druckmann said when asked byGame Informer how difficult it would be to get the game running at 60fps. "That's true for any game. It was really hard on The Last of Us Remastered, and that's a game we had finished and we knew exactly what the end result needs to look like. And here [with Uncharted 4] we're trying to push the boundaries of what this game can look like; and do realistic, real-time cutscenes; and trying to do 60fps is really hard."

Asked directly if Naughty Dog is targeting 60fps for A Thief's End, Druckmann said the game remains a work-in-progress, and nothing is nailed down right now.

"I don't know," he said. "The objective for us is just to make the best experience. And right now we're trying to push the look. Then we'll see where we're at and reassess. We're constantly making choices to our production about what's going to make the game feel best and look its best."

The gameplay video above, from December's PlayStation Experience event, is running at a locked frame-rate of 30fps, even though current builds of the game are running higher.

Game director Bruce Straley said previously that Naughty Dog won't push for 60fps if doing so negatively impacts the overall experience.

"We're going to do whatever it takes to make the game we want to make," he said in January. "If it means we could go for 60 but lose something that would really impact the player's experience, then it's our choice as developers to say, 'Well, we're going to go for the experience [instead of] the 60 frames.'"

Regarding the general technical abilities of the PS4 itself, compared to the PS3, Straley said, "It's actually pretty amazing, to tell you the truth."

"There's things that have been issues in the past that aren't issues at all right now," he said. "And it's funny because how quickly you forget that that used to be an issue. That being said, just like every piece of tech, what Naughty Dog does is we push the limits to anything and everything that's in our eyesight, in our reach."

Druckmann interjected: "There's always limited resources."

Straley continued, "all the problems that used to exist are pretty much gone at this point; we've just come up with new problems."

A Thief's End, which is aiming for 1080p resolution, launches later this year exclusively for PS4. Sony has not yet announced an official release date.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/getting-uncharted-4-to-run-at-60fps-really-f-king-/1100-6425090/

Sounds like UC4 might be more cinematic than you'd hoped! I'm guessing 60fps and 1080p is going to matter less and less very soon ... :P

That next-gen powah!

(hopefully I'm not as late as usual with my topics :P )

you know, the gameplay footage they showed at PSX was not very impressive. I love uncharted and I honestly was like, this game does not look that good. It was pretty bland looking. Id be surprised if they can't get it to 60FPS

Never trust a first party developer when it comes to graphical fidelity.

Its double the frames per second. A huge visual difference.

A few will lie and say it makes no difference, because their system of choice is incapable of doing it in most games.

@Gue1 said:

@-God- said:

@Gue1 said:

@-God- said:

It's nice being able to play nearly all games at a much higher graphical fidelity than consoles, while keeping up 60 FPS.

PC is the choice platform of God.

the choice of basement dweller virgins is more like it.

How immature and childish.

sucks that consoles are stuck with the same form for another 4 or so years

Last gen was 8 long years. Poor console gamers.

You should really stop hyping graphics in every other thread, it is going to make a majority of the gen go pretty sour when it starts going down hill fast.

Let your maker teach your virtues of goodness.

@daious said:

@Gue1 said:

@-God- said:

@Gue1 said:

@-God- said:

It's nice being able to play nearly all games at a much higher graphical fidelity than consoles, while keeping up 60 FPS.

PC is the choice platform of God.

the choice of basement dweller virgins is more like it.

How immature and childish.

sucks that consoles are stuck with the same form for another 4 or so years

sucks to you but not to me. If I had a problem with that I wouldn't buy them but I see it as an advantage actually.

fps are a kind of piss contest for PC gamers. They will constantly compare fps and feel superior to their fellows if theirs is higher.

-hz is the amount of times your screen flashes in one second.

-frame-rate is the amount of frames the GPU pushes in one second.

Suppose you have a 60hz monitor and your GPU pushes 30 frames per second. That means you'll see one unique frame every 2 flashes. This translates to more latency on the controller and less smooth visuals on screen compared to if the GPU pushed 60 frames. Because at 60 frames you would see one unique frame per flash.

Sounds like someone is harboring a hateful grudge against hermits.

Let's conveniently ignore than many great console games are 60fps, especially from Ninty.

60fps is more a 'feel' than a distinct visual effect. It makes the gameplay tighter and the flow much better anybody who talks like getting double frames is bad can't be trusted.

You understand console gamers have been front and center in this "pissing" contest of FPS against each other (Xbone vs PS4) for the last 2 years...right? They will gloat over 2-3 fps difference, meanwhile PC has 30 or more, which the human eye (which I created) can easily discern.

It started before both consoles came out, on just about every gaming forum from both fanboy factions. But now that both machines aren't doing so well in the hardware department, you guys pretend as if it didn't happen. AS I predicted in my omnipotence, thus has begun the "GFX DON'T MATTER" shift, which happens 1-2 years into a new gen....All the time.

I do not approve, I shall forgive you if you come clean of your sins.

They only do that when it comes to PC comparisons. When the ps4 has some advantage over the xone they sing from the rooftops. The forum would be drowned in cows mooing for weeks if a multiplat game was 60 fps on ps4 and 30 fps on xone.

But when something struggles on ps4, graphics and performance doesn't matter. The 30 fps cinematic experience is better.

So why all the hoo ha when xbone performs/looks worse than ps4 or vice versa? Thought only "gameplay" matters to consolites.

The hypocrisy is staggering loool.

Lol. And "cinematic" is good? I'd rather have the game look better than have it looking "cinematic".

I remember when SSM said God of war was going to be 1080p 60fps. Or was it just 1080p?

In that case and this one, you can tell it's BS when they've already shown footage of the game at 30fps. They're not going to pull 60fps out of their ass, that's a decision to make at the start of development.

0p 0fps on da Bone tho.

Rut row raggy.

You should stop talking out of your arse. There is no way you can get 30 FPS with that setup. Please report this idiot for deliberately lying.

Some people don't understand and I'm convinced they never will. I've been explaining this since the PS2 days.

Others just seem intent on playing the fool to troll.

They risk looking stupid, but it's for lulz I guess?

and that's where you are wrong, consoles HAVE to choose, pc don't, so keep telling yourself 30 fps is a choice and not a limitation.

@scottpsfan14:

I think that is the gist of why a number of people were disappointed in the console specs this gen. Last gen the best looking games were 720p30fps, on hardware from 2005. Today, 1080p isn't even considered a very high resolution anymore, it is 8 years later, and I think most people were under the assumption that these next consoles would have no issue rending impressive visuals in 1080p60fps.

Myself, I was just kind of baffled why they weren't a tad higher. Longer life cycles would equal more money for sony in hardware and software sales(i think). I figured in the very least they'd sit down and design a box that could output visible detail on a 1080p set at 60fps.

I saw this coming.

This is the gen of super hyping your games then not delivering.

You should expected this hypegate to happen even though not one 1st arty game from sony is 1080p 60fps and if ND cant do it on the system I dont think no one will so stop the power BS and enjoy the games.

I don't think the ps4 is only doing 360 ports in 1080 at 60fps. I'm sure some of all this is boils down to how companies have structured game development over the past 10 years. Perhaps they have grown so accustomed to which corners can be cut and what part of an image needs to be accentuated to achieve best results. It is all trickery. Uncharted does it--most of the "impressive" looking games do it.

If the ps4 was more advanced than it is I don't think there'd be as much of a struggle. People fail to realize that at a playable distance (in game terms) only so much detail is visible at 1080p. It makes absolutely ZERO sense for a character that occupies a couple hundred pixels onscreen to be made up of 100,000 polygons. When you throw in a bluray disc of an impressively shot film, it looks great because of the artistic choices made in regards to color balance, lighting, etc. I like to bring up Revenge of the Sith, because that was shot in 1080p and looks better than films shot in 4k, today. The reason is that Lucas has a great understanding of lenses and how different things translate to the medium--what is necessary and what is not.

...might have went off track. still waking up .

Perhaps if various people on this board didn't make such a huge deal over 60 fps and 1080p no one on SW would care? I know I don't. The reason developers even have to talk about it is because, for the fanatical fanbase at least, its become something that matters in a dick measuring contest.

However, it also matters when companies come out with bullshots, faked video and make all kinds of outlandish claims in development and then use trailers or "gameplay" they know will be downgraded and then don't fulfill these promises on release. Don't use fake hype to market a product and then deliver a lemon, as we've seen far too often this gen.

This was my issue with a game like say The Order. Hyped to the moon with no gameplay we've seen downgrades, black bars and the ridiculous "we kept it to 30 FPS to make it more cinematic". How stupid do these companies believe we are?

If you want people to stop saying "remarks about "Sony lies" and "lolconsoles" mindless hyperbole" how about putting the emphasis on the developers and publishers to stop lying about their products or marketing games about fps's and resolutions rather than the actual damn product?