Developers pretending worse graphics are better graphics.

[DarkSoldier84]

To me, graphics are secondary to having solid gameplay and stable code. I'll accept a simpler visual style if it comes with a solid foundation, but all I'm seeing is "Graphics! High-quality graphics! Photorealism!" on top of a clone of last year's model with minimal attention paid to bugs and stability.

As for framerates, I don't think 60 FPS matters all that much outside online multiplayer titles and fighting games, where timing REALLY matters.

 

[T_ConX]

I honestly though SuperBunnyHop did a fantastic job covering this...


But yeah, if a developer tells you that 30FPS looks better than 60FPS, they are lying to your face and you should never believe anything they say ever again.

Look, I get it. Optimizing games is hard. You've got to make a game that can produce all these bullshot-worthy spectacles and all those glare and bloom effects are such performance hogs that you have to cut it down to 30FPS to stop the console from going supernova. Just be honest.

But do not tell me that 30FPS is better than 60FPS. You are lying, and it's just plain insulting when you pretend that there's some sort of bullshit reason for it like 'It's just more cinematic!'

No! The only thing that could convince me is watching your shitty little third person shooter run at both frame-rates, and arriving at that decision myself. It doesn't matter what genre we're talking about; EVERYTHING looks better with higher refresh rates. Even BROWSER BASED PUZZLE GAMES look better at higher refresh rates. Even the simple act of SCROLLING DOWN A WEBPAGE looks better with a smoother frame rate.

This is one of the best things about being a PC Gamer. I'm not locked into a resolution or frame-rate. Games play at whatever resolution I tell them to, at whatever speed my machine can deliver...

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

This is one of the best things about being a PC Gamer. I'm not locked into a resolution or frame-rate. Games play at whatever resolution I tell them to, at whatever speed my machine can deliver...

Once you've patched out the frame and resolution limiters the developers forgot to remove when porting the game over when it comes to certain titles, anyway.

These days the existance of community fixes for developer cock ups rather than having to wait days to months for a patch or hotfix is becoming increasingly important.

 

[SmallHatLogan]

I don't actually understand why the developers even bother commenting. The people who care about frame rate know that they're full of shit, and the people who don't care, well, they don't care. Who exactly are these 30 FPS comments aimed at?

 

[rvbnut]

So here's the situation:
- The publishers/developers have been pushing high res graphics and stunning visuals because of a few games that sold really well on consoles and so they want to make the most of the consoles that they have bought into
- This has lead to a trend in console games being produced with the expectation of games having high visual fidelity
- Certain publishers/developers have reached their critical point where current levels of high visual quality are a stretch from what they are willing to invest into

In my opinion, I have no problem with publishers and developers making games that aren't of the highest visual quality, BUT I do have a problem with them trying to force a purely subjective opinion down my throat as if I wanted it in the first place, AND making it sound like it is the better thing that gamers deserve.
No, certain games spokespersons, 900p is not better than 1080p; neither is 30 fps when the platforms can clearly handle 60 fps. Fess up that you can't make the games to the highest visual quality and the games industry will accept your statement without all of these negative replies. You are only talking out of your arse because you cannot meet the expectations that you set for yourself.

 

[Spushkin]

The main problem for me is (like many have pointed out already) LYING about something being better when it's not.

I'm happy with PS4 graphic levels. I think that it can only be good to keep the graphics at the level of (let's say) TLOU Remastered (which is 1080p/60fps). There is really no need for MOAR BETTAR GRAPHIC for a lot of people, I'd argue.

You can save up some god damn money and actually make better gameplay, deepening the experience (through combat mechanics or more interactivity) as opposed to making it just eye-candy, without any depth.

And all those who want more graphics will, naturally, move to PC and go SLI setups with 4k monitors or whatever they prefer.

 

[Verlander]

Personally not bothered about resolution or framerate, but I'll admit it's annoying seeing devs try to convince us that their decisions are better

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

You know how this problem could be solved? Introduce graphic presets in console games.

- If a console can't handle 1080p 60fps, give players a choice of a different preset that lets them play at 60 fps in exchange for a lower resolution or lower graphical fidelity.
- If it can't do 720p 60 fps, give them a preset that lowers the graphical fidelity somewhat.

That way you'd get to satisfy both camps and there would be no need for this pointless debate.

 

[Bad Jim]

I nominate 'cinematic' as the bullshit term of the year.

No, no no. 'Cinematic' means 'like in the cinema, aka movie theatre'. And since movie theatres are an outdated institution that are clearly inferior to watching at home on your TV with your choice of company, your choice of snacks at reasonable prices, on a comfy sofa/armchair, the word is very apt.

Cinematic - an inferior experience kept alive for no reason that benefits the customer.

 

[InsanityRequiem]

It's hilariously hypocritical in my eyes. These are the same companies that were completely shitting on the Wii U for having "inferior" hardware and how hard it is to work on the system, and then these companies go and make inferior games for the more "capable" consoles? Utter hypocrisy.

So it's one of two things the companies are experiencing.

1) Do not have the capabilities to code games. The staff are under trained and are not able to make games properly anymore, leading to too many bugs and glitches in their product to be of any worth.

2) They truly believe that frame rates and resolution are no longer required in a video game. So what if the game chugs along at 5 fps? It's an "experience" that you should enjoy, not to have fun and share with family/friends.

Sadly if it's either/or, it just screams incompetence.

 

[prowll]

Well, that's not really what he said. What he said (massive paraphrase) is 'If the game is good, and fun, the tweak in graphic levels so fine that you can't see is a moot point. If the game isn't fun, it doesn't matter how pretty it is. Most people already think this way."
And he has a point. One of the biggest games currently is Minecraft, which looks like a toddler made it. And the 'high def' games tend to have like 10 hours of gameplay, so they're not worth the money. Give me something that occupies my brain for 60+ hours, and it can look like crap too.

 

[RavingSturm]

As usual some mook is trying to convince the customer to pay the same amount money for a less quality product than what they are used to getting. The trend seems to be sell less graphic fidelity now and sell another version with tweaked graphics later. Its insulting and it needs to stop. This is crap from a company known to use bullshots to sell their games.

 

[AntiChri5]

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.

Yeah, as someone who doesn't give a quarter of a fuck about framerate or graphics, im getting more then a little tired of the obvious bullshit they are spewing.

 

[GloatingSwine]

It's quite a simple mercenary decision.

Native 1080p doesn't make as big an immediate impression compared to 900p upscaled (which seems to be the new median) as being able to turn on a few extra effects, especially in screenshots and trailers, and 60FPS means nothing to a screenshot or trailer.

And those shiny trailers and screenshots are what they use to sell the games, so they're priortising the elements of graphics that allow them to sell games better.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

Oh, the days where consoles were sold at a loss because companies would make the money back on games.