Developers pretending worse graphics are better graphics.

[IPunchWithMyFists]

Nothing to say about it really, just thought that in the wake of a AC: Unity developer and (apparently not) a Bloodborne developer saying that 30 fps framerates are better for some games and the developer for Far Cry 4 saying that no one cares about 1080p, it'd be nice to have a single thread dedicated to discussion on this stupid, stupid concept.

Oh yeah, and the AC: Unity 900p thing. That too.

Thoughts?

 

[Elfgore]

This whole FPS/Graphics debate is pretty much a bunch of people screaming "My opinion is right and anyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong!"

I will say, 30 fps is not better than 60 fps. I've never heard anyone but a PR guy say this. I do know that many people are fine with playing at 30 fps and others are not. I do fall in the former category, as long as the game doesn't drop too low, I don't really care. I also can't tell a difference unless the games are side by side. I do know that others can.

The whole "cinematic" thing also kinda grinds my gears. Just say you want your game to have nice graphic and are willing to lower the FPS to do so. Don't hide it behind a word that makes you sound like an asshole.

 

[Barbas]

Well, I disagree. It's also difficult to publishers seriously after hearing them push so fervently for higher resolution levels and frames per second. I think publishers and console manufacturers should be working harder to get up to a 60fps and 1080p minimum standard across the Xbone, PS4 and PC, because they've floundered and fallen behind. While that's not going to be enough for a lot of people, at least it's a base to build from.

I'd also like to see synchronized global releases for AAA games on digital distribution platforms like Steam. There's no reason why I should have to wait three extra days to play a game I've already paid for and installed just because it's sitting locked on my computer.

EDIT: "Cinematic" experiences should be saved for cutscenes. This is the video game industry, not the film industry.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

My TV is only 720p, so I don't really care about this resolution debate that much. I guess people are frustrated that the new game boxes didn't come with massively improved graphics and I get that. That is kind of what the PS4 and Xbone were sold on. Next gen doesn't really feel any different then last gen and that is the core of the problem.

 

[Duster]

Well they can't push the games to look better than the gpus on the consoles, and the consoles aren't willing to put in 900 dollars of tech into their platform because nobody would buy a 900 dollar xbox/playstation/wii. For games dependent on critical reception, 60 fps could mean having to lower their settings to looking like a 2004 game.

 

[Aerosteam]

I just wish devs would admit they/the new consoles can't do 1080p and 60fps at the moment.

 

[Bad Jim]

If Ubisoft said "We can't do high resolution/framerate because we've got fancy new shaders", that would be okay. Maybe the fancy shaders look really good.

If Ubisoft said "We decided not to spend a fortune on hi-res assets so we could sell the game at a reasonable price and not turn the game into a tasteless DLC storefront", that would be okay. I daresay there would be much rejoicing even.

But saying "resolution doesn't matter" is stupid. Especially in series with lots of long range shooting. High resolution allows you to see whether you are actually shooting at a soldier or a signpost.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Good thing I pay these people to make games and not to respect my intelligence.

 

[EHKOS]

This seems to be Ubisoft-only for the moment. It's just them backpedaling from their stance on how good their games will look because the consoles don't have the power Ubi needs.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

Well, game devs, if you didn't push yourself into this corner in the first place we wouldn't be having this issue, now would we?

 

[Evil Moo]

But how will they trick you into buying the game if they don't spend all the processing budget on fancy shaders and effects for the screenshots used to sell it?

What's that? You wanted a good frame rate? But screenshots don't need a frame rate. You wouldn't want them to lie and put better graphics in the screenshots than the game, right? Right?!


I do hope that 'games that run properly at native resolution' becomes the next trend among big developers.

 

[IPunchWithMyFists]

Prediction:

Developers begin using the title 'Indie' to explain away graphic deficiencies.
Not in the way that Far Cry 4's dev used Indie Love to excuse his game's graphic deficiencies.

I mean they actually use the title 'Indie' in front of a game to excuse its lacking resolution, graphics or framerate.

I predict it will take at least a year but it's gonna happen. Remember who you heard it from.

 

[Ima Lemming]

I'd like to think that when people say 30 FPS is just as good as 60 FPS, it's because when somebody says "60 FPS is better than 30 FPS" they're hearing "A game that runs at 60 FPS is automatically better than a game that runs at 30 FPS" Which I can sort of understand after years of console wars and people arguing over console tech specs and "blast processing". 'Course this is Ubisoft, and who knows what they're ever going on about.

As for the whole "it feels cinematic" thing, screw that. Video games aren't movies.

 

[Risingblade]

I really wish they'd just admit current consoles can't handle it yet. People are going to actually start believing 30 fps is better than 60 at this rate.

 

[Mangue Surfer]

It's expensive? It's too much work? The hardware isn't helping? Ok, I get it.
But don't treat me like a moron. Is like saying, "cut your dick off is the most safe contraceptive method".
No... simple no!

 

[Lunar Templar]

I just wish devs would admit they/the new consoles can't do 1080p and 60fps at the moment.

which is just silly since older consoles can do 60FPS.

OT: I don't really care about the resolution related motherfuckery, never have, smacks to much of 'graphics whoring' to me, and as long as the game looks decent I've not a single fuck to give what asinine number before 'P' the resolution is in.

Frame rates on the other hand. There's ZERO excuse for anything to be 30FPS these days, none, no valid ones anyway. But the vapid pursuit of Resolution is to blame here, time and money wasted on making the games look better then they need to at the cost of pretty much everything else.

 

[Dizchu]

The devs shouldn't really be blamed for all of this, it should be the console manufacturers. The Xbox One skimped on hardware to be a more "universal" entertainment device and the PS4 has had to follow in the footsteps of its THREE predecessors for raising the bar with console graphics (we will probably never see a jump as dramatic as the one from PS1 to PS2 ever again).

Non-Nintendo consoles have become more and more PC-like but without the main advantage: customisation. If your PC can't handle a game you can either a) turn the graphics quality down or b) buy a couple of new components.

This does not apply to consoles where every player has to conform to the same experience. This worked in the past, getting a PS2 meant you could play every PS2 game. But now games are being neutered to be able to run on underpowered hardware.

Devs are just talking shit because if everyone realised that the Xbox One and PS4 were inadequate they're at risk of alienating a majority of their audience. PC gaming has stigma. Hell there are many that think my comments here would be "elitist" but it's not elitism. Crysis can't run on a PC with 128MB of RAM and a single-core processor, modern games can't run on the PS4 or Xbox One.

I miss the PS2 days, man.

Additional note: I am kinda anticipating Microsoft and Sony releasing "advanced" versions of their consoles at a higher price that can run games at higher specs. Like how Sega systems in the 90s desperately tried to compete in a climate of rapidly-increasing data storage.

 

[NRVNQSR86]

I really wish they'd just admit current consoles can't handle it yet. People are going to actually start believing 30 fps is better than 60 at this rate.

It's an universal problem with consoles: the moment they're released, they're already outdated unless you *somehow* manage to offer both the option to customize as well as retain the hardware-optimization standard. As for that latter - I guess we all also know that is outright impossible - at least the next decade or so.

Which is why I'm personally pretty much annoyed that, despite the fact the industry by now should've realized the consoles aren't going to improve the gap with the PC unlike the Xbox360 and PS3 did for some time, the developers/publishers still seem to be hellbent on keeping the consoles as lead platform instead of the PC, making it necessary to upscale for the PC, instead of downscaling for the consoles (the latter process is way easier, since you can just 'shrink' any assets you have where necessary/appropriate)

Re topic: I'd sooner have mediocre graphics yet an stable framerate, then good graphics but an asasine framerate. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Rayce Archer]

You know what? Developers need to put the choice in our hands. Add some fucking option menus. Seriously, to console games. It's not a new idea; a bunch of N64 ports like Vigilante 8 and Hexen had graphics options, and you could turn down the resolution in most xPack games for better performance. If people only have 720p televisions, let them cut down output resolution for smoother framerates. If you want a ton of particles, lower shader quality. Why, the game could even report these choices (with user consent, of course) so these assholes actually know what their customers prefer instead of just talking out their asses.

Of course this will not happen. Console makers hate the idea of players being able to run their games at less than smooth performance, hence all this "better is worse" garbage. But it's what SHOULD happen.

 

[Roxas1359]

which is just silly since older consoles can do 60FPS.

It's not an issue of if the consoles can do 60 FPS, any console from PS2 era and on can, it's the fact that they have to sacrifice graphically fidelity to do so. 720p at 60 FPS can easily be done, and was done a lot last gen, but then people will complain that it isn't 1080p. So then if it's made 1080p, but then sacrifices the framerate to 30 FPS everyone complains about it not being 60 FPS. It's a lose-lose in this situation really, and is one all the developers and manufacturers on all systems and PC have created really.

I'll use my Insomniac example again though. Insomniac stopped making their Ratchet and Clank games 60 FPS because they saw with A Crack in Time that the framerate didn't really affect their sales in any way. Fast forward to Into the Nexus, and you can see that the game still is excellent while being capped at 30 FPS.

Personally for me, I don't care if it's 30 FPS or 60 FPS, because I can adjust and don't find it unplayable as I see some people claim. But in the end I'd rather have a stable 30 or 60 instead of a graphically stunning game with framerate drops that make powerpoint slides look smoother any day of the week.