The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt may not have 1080p or 60 frames per second speed on consoles
72 replies, posted
30 FPS is great when it's consistently 30 FPS. It's kind of annoying when your FPS goes between 30-60 all the time because then you notice the slowdown.
[QUOTE=paul simon;45787443]30fps games are pretty clearly completely playable, hence why people manage to play them.[/QUOTE]
This is just from my experience as a PC gamer who is used to playing 60fps, but if I'm playing a game that requires relative precision, 30fps doesn't cut it for me. For example, a friend let me try GTA V for 360 when it came out, and the framerate was so much lower than what I was used to that I found aiming down sights to hit a specific target to be one of the most frustrating gaming experiences I've ever had. I'd push the analog stick in a certain direction, let go, and the reticle would keep moving past my target so I'd have to move it again and possibly mess up even more. There's too much input latency for me to enjoy it.
That said, I still go back to games like OoT and MM which run at something closer to 24fps and I enjoy them. It really depends on the kind of game you are playing and the kind of framerate you are already accustomed to.
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;45788789]This is just from my experience as a PC gamer who is used to playing 60fps, but if I'm playing a game that requires relative precision, 30fps doesn't cut it for me. For example, a friend let me try GTA V for 360 when it came out, and the framerate was so much lower than what I was used to that I found aiming down sights to hit a specific target to be one of the most frustrating gaming experiences I've ever had. I'd push the analog stick in a certain direction, let go, and the reticle would keep moving past my target so I'd have to move it again and possibly mess up even more. There's too much input latency for me to enjoy it.
That said, I still go back to games like OoT and MM which run at something closer to 24fps and I enjoy them. It really depends on the kind of game you are playing and the kind of framerate you are already accustomed to.[/QUOTE]
There's a big difference between some 30fps games actually.
Killzone: Shadow Fall is really hard to play because it's hard to aim in 30fps with a controller.
Destiny should be exactly the same, but somehow it's not a problem at all to aim in Destiny which also runs at 30fps.
I guess some games manage to solve the aiming better than others.
Anyhow, FPSes are best served in 60fps, but for TPSes and other games where it's not about fast visual reflexes, 30fps is usually just fine.
And I'm saying this as a person that usually plays games on a 120Hz PC monitor.
[QUOTE=paul simon;45790056]There's a big difference between some 30fps games actually.
Killzone: Shadow Fall is really hard to play because it's hard to aim in 30fps with a controller.
Destiny should be exactly the same, but somehow it's not a problem at all to aim in Destiny which also runs at 30fps.
I guess some games manage to solve the aiming better than others.
Anyhow, FPSes are best served in 60fps, but for TPSes and other games where it's not about fast visual reflexes, 30fps is usually just fine.
And I'm saying this as a person that usually plays games on a 120Hz PC monitor.[/QUOTE]
Because Killzone has no auto-aim but Destiny has very strong auto-aim.
In other words, both are awful, one just has more help.
While I think that 30fps is prefectly playable I do think that the fact the new consoles struggle to compete with PC's of a similar price tag is unacceptable.
The new consoles really are a farse right now, I really hope things improve quickly.
[QUOTE=Wickerman123;45790432]While I think that 30fps is prefectly playable I do think that the fact the new consoles struggle to compete with PC's of a similar price tag is unacceptable.
The new consoles really are a farse right now, I really hope things improve quickly.[/QUOTE]
That really is pretty bullshit. The PS4 is a massive improvement over the last generation of consoles, and heck it's not even expensive.
To prove yourself, show me a PC build for $399 that includes:
- GPU
- CPU
- RAM
- HDD (500GB)
- Motherboard
- Blu-Ray drive (or DVD drive if you feel like cheating)
- PSU
- WiFi card
- OS
- Case
- Keyboard & Mouse (Because the PS4 comes with a controller)
I think you'll quickly realize that it would be a pretty meh computer. Besides, it would be like 5-6 times larger, so you lose the convenience of being able to carry it around in a laptop shoulder bag.
Also, reusing parts or buying second hand stuff is obviously cheating and comparable to buying a second hand console.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;45790648]the problem with the whole building a pc is more expensive argument falls flat when everyone already has speakers, a monitor, kb+m, a hdd, etc.
i really doubt anyone (and if not, its a really small minority) who owns a console doesn't already have a pc for surfing the internet or their job or what have you
since at the moment, theres pretty much no way to buy a secondhand console, it isn't cheating, since this is realistic, not in a hypothetical situation
hell, most built pcs these days dont even have a dvd/blu-ray drive, i just use a thumbdrive if i need something desperately, or hook up a external hd[/QUOTE]
And my point is that his argument is flat out wrong.
Computers with similiar real-world performance and features cost quite a bit more.
There's no point in pretending otherwise.
And of course there are ways of buying consoles second hand, what makes you think otherwise?
But you can't take second hand purchases into consideration for an argument like this because they're extremely unpredictable and could be all over the place.
[QUOTE=paul simon;45790604]That really is pretty bullshit. The PS4 is a massive improvement over the last generation of consoles, and heck it's not even expensive.
To prove yourself, show me a PC build for $399 that includes:
- GPU
- CPU
- RAM
- HDD (500GB)
- Motherboard
- Blu-Ray drive (or DVD drive if you feel like cheating)
- PSU
- WiFi card
- OS
- Case
- Keyboard & Mouse (Because the PS4 comes with a controller)
I think you'll quickly realize that it would be a pretty meh computer. Besides, it would be like 5-6 times larger, so you lose the convenience of being able to carry it around in a laptop shoulder bag.
Also, reusing parts or buying second hand stuff is obviously cheating and comparable to buying a second hand console.[/QUOTE]
Find me a PS4 that has the versatility of a Windows/Linux PC. Functionally, both are very different. PS4 does gaming and gaming related activities. A PC can do gaming, gaming related activities, and much more.
[QUOTE=Jazer;45790863]Find me a PS4 that has the versatility of a Windows/Linux PC. Functionally, both are very different. PS4 does gaming and gaming related activities. A PC can do gaming, gaming related activities, and much more.[/QUOTE]
Why would I? That's completely beyond the original argument :v:
The argument was about price / performance, which is why a dedicated gaming machine is very likely to win.
[QUOTE=Wickerman123;45790432]While I think that 30fps is prefectly playable I do think that the fact the new consoles struggle to compete with PC's of a similar price tag is unacceptable.[/QUOTE]
Also, I did some research using Newegg, trying to create the cheapest possible computer with these basic requirements.
Assuming Linux as an operating system:
MSI GTX 650 - $102.99
AMD A4 4020 Dual Core @ 3.9GHz - $44.99
Cheapest 8GB DDR3 RAM - $67.14
Cheapest 500GB HDD - $39.95
Cheapest FM2 motherboard - $37.99
Cheapest Blu-Ray drive - $39.99
Cheapest PSU - $19.99
WiFi card - $8.99
OS - $0.-
Cheap as fuck case - $24.99
Keyboard & Mouse - $5.99 + $3.-
In total: $396.01
Now, this is sort of an unrealistic build for a bunch of reasons, but it's most accurate if you want to have the same features.
The GPU is only around 50% the perfomance of the one in the PS3 (AMD 7850-7870 equalivent), and that dual core CPU is very likely also lacking in power.
Come to think of it, we're even disregarding the fact that the PS4 has a built-in capture card.
Anyways, let's modify it to be a more realistic build for the same price. Realistically, the user is going to want Windows for game compatibility. But we don't need Blu-Ray or a WiFi card, nuh uh.
Oh dear, turns out Windows is pretty expensive. Cheapest I could find was Windows 7 for $99.
Even with the removal of unecessary things, the build receives a hefty downgrade when Windows is added.
The RAM had to be downgraded to 4GB and the GPU had to be downgraded to a GT 730, which is pretty lacking.
In the end, I don't find it realistic to say that you can build a computer that would outperform a PS4 for the same price. Not yet anyways, maybe in a couple of years.
.. unless the PS4 gets a price drop.
[editline]o[/editline]
I should probably say that I normally play games on a self-built high-end computer. (The specs are irrelevant.)
I'm not making these arguments because I'm a deluded console fanatic, I'm making these arguments because anything else would be unfair.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;45791268]as of now there is no way of purchasing a secondhand current gen console unless theres something really fishy or you found a really fucking good deal or exploited a system[/quote]
What are you even talking about? System?
When I say second hand, I mean buying a used system. Usually for me this is through friends and shit, or people in the local area. You can find some crazy good deals on things.
And the thing with second hand being unstable; If you extend it to close friends and relatives, you can get very good deals. This is why I don't want to use that in a comparison.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;45791268]that said, maintaining a pc costs more than maintaining a console, and the parts might cost more though it really depends on the deals and shit at the time, generally building a 100% new pc is more costly but no realistic situation has someone doing that unless they are already an enthusiast[/QUOTE]
We've come to an agreement then.
You need to factor in the price of games over the lifetime of the device, and the cost of having a separate low end PC to do your other activities. Your budget for this argument should be in the 600-700 dollar range at a minimum, and considerably higher if the pc you probably already need to have isn't a chromebook, or if you buy a significant number of games.
PCs are cheaper in the long run if you meet those criteria, often significantly so. They just have a higher single unit upfront cost. For 600-700 dollars you can build a competent rig that will run even fairly recent titles like skyrim on moderately high settings with mods. That already is a significant performance boost over anything consoles can offer, and at a comparable total price point if you need to have a shitty netbook tier machine for essays/facebook/email/whatever.
Yes, consoles have some niche advantages, and are definitely the superior option for some people, but you are being extremely disingenuous if all you are comparing is a single sticker price. There's an enormous range of context that needs to be considered before you can say that.
If you have no need for a shitbox general computer at all, then sure, consoles in their first couple of years are very comparable, and sometimes even cheaper than going with a PC from a pure hardware perspective. However, for that lower price point you are sacrificing graphical power, something that this thread OP is yet another example of, most modding support, cheaper games, and the whole part about it not being fit for word processing or a bunch of other things that a standard computer can do.
If that works for you, so be it.
Sure, you can argue it from that point of view. But that thinking is beyond the original simple argument.
[editline]25th August 2014[/editline]
While we're at it, for word processing you can get pretty far with Google docs! :v:
Google docs still requires a shitbox chromebook type computer.
Unless you mean using them on your phone, in which case you're insane.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;45791494]Google docs still requires a shitbox chromebook type computer.
Unless you mean using them on your phone, in which case you're insane.[/QUOTE]
I mean you can literally use it on a PS4 if you're really desperate.
Just connect a mouse and a keyboard. Bam. :v:
Wasn't aware that the PS4 had an adequate enough browser to do that. I'd still expect a couple of weird problems now and then, but who knows.
Doing it on previous generation consoles was beyond awful.
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;45788789]This is just from my experience as a PC gamer who is used to playing 60fps, but if I'm playing a game that requires relative precision, 30fps doesn't cut it for me. For example, a friend let me try GTA V for 360 when it came out[/QUOTE]
GTA V on the 360 runs like shit 60% of the time though, chanced are it was not even hitting 30fps at that moment.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;45791543]Wasn't aware that the PS4 had an adequate enough browser to do that. I'd still expect a couple of weird problems now and then, but who knows.
Doing it on previous generation consoles was beyond awful.[/QUOTE]
Sony actually managed to make very good web browsers for the Vita and the PS4.
Just tested with both the Vita and the PS4. Google Docs does indeed function and render properly on them both.
[editline]25th August 2014[/editline]
But jeez this argument is really not going anywhere any longer. I think this marks the spot where I stop cause we're getting way off topic.
[QUOTE=paul simon;45787443]30fps games are pretty clearly completely playable, hence why people manage to play them.[/QUOTE]
That's your opinion, but I find 30 FPS pretty choppy compared to 60 FPS (which is butter smooth and consistent). Performance is more important than graphics.
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;45791919]That's your opinion, but I find 30 FPS pretty choppy compared to 60 FPS (which is butter smooth and consistent). Performance is more important than graphics.[/QUOTE]
Mostly I agree but I will also argue that 30fps is sufficient for games that don't require quick reaction or have a lot of movement. The vast majority of games do benefit from running in 60FPS though, so I think it should be more common.
[QUOTE=MasterFen006;45772121]If they can do 60FPS at 720p why not give people the choice between that or 30FPS at 1080p?[/QUOTE]
This is what annoys me so much. Why can't games on console have some graphics options?
Devs have this mindset to make the game look amazing and try to get the max out of the console, yet the framerate suffers tremendously and makes the game far less enjoyable to play. A better framerate is far more favorable than some dumb gimmicky lightening effects that you don't need. Also most of the times games have slowdowns even when devs said that it should run at 30 fps. I don't mind 30 fps depending on the game genre but most of the time it runs even worse and not at a solid 30 fps.
I like consoles because it allows me to kick back and play games on my tv and with friends. But the fucking framerate of games is annoying me so much. That said the new generations don't seem that impressive after all.
I just want devs to have a better framerate instead of adding to much fancy effects that the game doesn't really need. Let me change it in the options at least. I can only think of Saints Row 3 which had an option for Vsync which actually improved the framerate on the console.
[QUOTE=junker154;45792052]This is what annoys me so much. Why can't games on console have some graphics options?[/QUOTE]
TLoU on the PS4 did it, hopefully more games follow the idea soon.
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;45791919]That's your opinion, but I find 30 FPS pretty choppy compared to 60 FPS (which is butter smooth and consistent). Performance is more important than graphics.[/QUOTE]
its all about what you are used to. The same thing applies to loads of things. I can't go back to cheap ass coffee since just attend drinking the mildly more expensive stuff. I can't go back to cheap headphones after trying much better ones. Coming roun to the fps issue, I used to play games at 15-20fps and I was fine with it. Got a new graphics card, was very happy with 24-30. Most recently I've been able to play games at between 40 and 60 due to not using 6 year old hardware. While I do find goin back to 30 very noticeable and at time annoying, it certainly doesn't make games unplayable.
All in all it just comes down to preference.
Okay I was wrong about the price/performance margin but the new consoles are still a bit disappointing in my eyes.
I've seen the argument about OS thrown around. Funny thing is, for the first few months of the PS3's life, you could actually boot into a Linux based OS. Sony removed this in a firmware patch as soon as they realised that people had been using it to hack the firmware and run pirated games.
[editline]25th August 2014[/editline]
What the fuck why is google docs becoming an issue here?
[QUOTE=paul simon;45790604]That really is pretty bullshit. The PS4 is a massive improvement over the last generation of consoles, and heck it's not even expensive.
To prove yourself, show me a PC build for $399 that includes:
- GPU
- CPU
- RAM
- HDD (500GB)
- Motherboard
- Blu-Ray drive (or DVD drive if you feel like cheating)
- PSU
- WiFi card
- OS
- Case
- Keyboard & Mouse (Because the PS4 comes with a controller)
I think you'll quickly realize that it would be a pretty meh computer. Besides, it would be like 5-6 times larger, so you lose the convenience of being able to carry it around in a laptop shoulder bag.
Also, reusing parts or buying second hand stuff is obviously cheating and comparable to buying a second hand console.[/QUOTE]
What's the difference between a PS4 and a $400 PC?
I can play PS1 games on that PC.
[QUOTE=megafat;45799122]What's the difference between a PS4 and a $400 PC?
I can play PS1 games on that PC.[/QUOTE]
I can play PS4 games on that PS4 tho.
[QUOTE=Demeschik;45799355]I can play PS4 games on that PS4 tho.[/QUOTE]
Well i guess i just have to sit here and play Final Fantasy VII, VIII, IX, Crash Team Racing, Tomb Raider II, Spyro, Gran Turismo 2, Silent Hill, Twisted Metal 2, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 and Resident Evil 2 then.
[QUOTE=megafat;45799415]Well i guess i just have to sit here and play Final Fantasy VII, VIII, IX, Crash Team Racing, Tomb Raider II, Spyro, Gran Turismo 2, Silent Hill, Twisted Metal 2, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 and Resident Evil 2 then.[/QUOTE]
Well I guess PS4 users will just play the entire PS4 libraty to spite you then.
Emulation on PC has compatibility problems. You can't emulate every PS1, PS2 or Gamecube game. There will always be something missing.
[QUOTE=Demeschik;45799478]Well I guess PS4 users will just play the entire PS4 libraty to spite you then.
Emulation on PC has compatibility problems. You can't emulate every PS1, PS2 or Gamecube game. There will always be something missing.[/QUOTE]
Currently, the PS4 can't emulate any previous generations games, and emulators can emulate most of the games well. The people developing the emulators are at least trying. Plus the PC will eventually emulate most of the PS4's library anyway.
[QUOTE=megafat;45799507]Currently, the PS4 can't emulate any previous generations games, and emulators can emulate most of the games well. The people developing the emulators are at least trying. Plus the PC will eventually emulate most of the PS4's library anyway.[/QUOTE]
PS4 isn't even attempting emulation. Besides, I doubt a $400 PC could efficiently emulate PS2 or GC titles.
People always say "eventually" about emulating 360 and PS3 games, and what I've seen so far is important, but unimpressive. People have started the progress on emulating 360 (I think? I'm not sure) games only last year. 360 launched in 2005.
[QUOTE=Demeschik;45799603]PS4 isn't even attempting emulation. Besides, I doubt a $400 PC could efficiently emulate PS2 or GC titles.
People always say "eventually" about emulating 360 and PS3 games, and what I've seen so far is important, but unimpressive. People have started the progress on emulating 360 (I think? I'm not sure) games only last year. 360 launched in 2005.[/QUOTE]
We're talking about a cheap computer here, not a high end one, so saying it couldn't emulate PS2 or GC titles isn't the point here.
The reason that what you've seen of emulating PS3 and 360 games is unimpressive is because not only have we not reached a point where even high end computers can't properly emulat those consoles, but people haven't been trying to emulate those consoles for very long, so we've got a long way to go until people have even properly figured out how to emulate those consoles. Even the PS2 took a while to be properly emulated.
[QUOTE=megafat;45799651]We're talking about a cheap computer here, not a high end one, so saying it couldn't emulate PS2 or GC titles isn't the point here.
The reason that what you've seen of emulating PS3 and 360 games is unimpressive is because not only have we not reached a point where even high end computers can't properly emulat those consoles, but people haven't been trying to emulate those consoles for very long, so we've got a long way to go until people have even properly figured out how to emulate those consoles. Even the PS2 took a while to be properly emulated.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I think I went too far with PS2 and GC.
PSP, PS Vita and PS3 have emulation capabilities. PS4 doesn't have any because of it's closed (so far) architecture.
A PSP that is capable of emulating consoles ranging from NES to PS1 costs about $50 on Ebay. Sure, it lacks the versatility and high definition of a computer, but you can emulate on the go. Same with Vita, I imagine.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.