Uncharted 4 May Not Run at 60 FPS Because "It's Really F---ing Hard"

[kurupt87]

I don't understand why they don't go for 60fps-720p if it's achievable. I'd take that over 30fps-1080p any day of the week.

 

[Abomination]

I appreciate the devs just being honest about this. No "cinematic" line or anything else like that. They've just said, "Look, we want to do this with the graphics, so we can't hit this framerate." Everyone knows what they're getting, and you can choose to play it or not as a result. And I, for one, will almost certainly be a buyer.

Wait, admit difficulty? Potential failure? Engage in honesty?

Do you see these horns? They didn't grow by accident. I earned this pitchfork by backstabbing and out-lying other marketers in my field. I didn't pad my resume with so much fluff just to TELL THE TRUTH!

Clearly, Carlson And Peeters, you don't know business culture. You wouldn't understand.

 

[DarklordKyo]

Maybe it's just because I'm a lifelong console gamer and couldn't play with a mouse and keyboard if my life depended on it, but I really could care less. I thought The Last of Us was absolutely beautiful and ran smoothly for me with no slowdown. And we all keep complaining about games like Battlefield and Destiny and Crysis and dozens of other over-hyped games that keep being the same old, same old despite looking really, really pretty.

So how about this: Why don't we get developers to try and make their games the best they can when it comes to deep mechanics, interesting and unique worlds, fantastic and emotional stories, complex characters, and games stuffed with rich (but meaningful) content. Once we get that, THEN we can worry about graphics and framerates. Because it's rare when we get games that are utterly beautiful but also a sheer joy to experience. Yes, it's my favorite game, but if we had more games with the love and care and effort of The Last of Us and less games that are another relatively shallow sandbox like Far Cry 4 with even shallower characters (save one), I think gaming would be better off.

Because ultimately, I'd rather play a game at 30fps/720p that can keep me entertained with multiple playthroughs and effect on any sort of level than a game at 60 or 120fps/1080p that's all style and no substance. I know it's a bit of a straw man agrument, but it's how I feel. Plus all this stuff reminds me of cliched teen romance movies where the guy has to get it through his thick head that the hot cheerleader has all the depth of a shotglass but the bookworm with inner beauty is his true soulmate.

or you could pop in a copy of Bayonetta or Metal Gear Rising for a bit of both

 

[whereswarren]

Uncharted 4 May Not Run at 60 FPS Because "It's Really F---ing Hard"

Maybe in the months just before the PS5 comes out, developers will finally figure out how to reliably hit the 1080p/60 FPS benchmark PC gamers have been enjoying for years now.


Permalink

PC gamers and Nintendo fans.

Maybe it's just because I'm a lifelong console gamer and couldn't play with a mouse and keyboard if my life depended on it, but I really could care less. I thought The Last of Us was absolutely beautiful and ran smoothly for me with no slowdown. And we all keep complaining about games like Battlefield and Destiny and Crysis and dozens of other over-hyped games that keep being the same old, same old despite looking really, really pretty.

So how about this: Why don't we get developers to try and make their games the best they can when it comes to deep mechanics, interesting and unique worlds, fantastic and emotional stories, complex characters, and games stuffed with rich (but meaningful) content. Once we get that, THEN we can worry about graphics and framerates. Because it's rare when we get games that are utterly beautiful but also a sheer joy to experience. Yes, it's my favorite game, but if we had more games with the love and care and effort of The Last of Us and less games that are another relatively shallow sandbox like Far Cry 4 with even shallower characters (save one), I think gaming would be better off.

Because ultimately, I'd rather play a game at 30fps/720p that can keep me entertained with multiple playthroughs and effect on any sort of level than a game at 60 or 120fps/1080p that's all style and no substance. I know it's a bit of a straw man agrument, but it's how I feel. Plus all this stuff reminds me of cliched teen romance movies where the guy has to get it through his thick head that the hot cheerleader has all the depth of a shotglass but the bookworm with inner beauty is his true soulmate.

The things you are asking for are the reason modern games are shallow and same old. Developers are biting off more than they can chew trying to deliver character driven stories, and gameplay suffers for it.

Gameplay is king, for responsive gameplay a high (60+) and stable framerate is required (Not always true, I know)
I couldn't give a toss about resolution, unless it's an fps with a massive draw distance.

Go watch films or something.

 

[DarklordKyo]

Ehh, as mentioned multiple times, at least they're honest about it. That's very respectable as far as PR goes.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Or you know... you could just turn down that SSAO, all them numerous particle effects and throw Motion Blur into the bin >.>

I mean, you should learn from Ubisoft that it's better to swallow your pride and take a few things down if it means you can catch up to the, not even that crazy, standard of 60fps/1080p? They sacrificed many things for their crowd tech-bullshit and the game can barely run on anything anyway.

I mean, Nathan Drake's hair will still somehow be able to permeate the fourth dimension with how solid it is regardless of fidelity

 

[The Bucket]

Oh shut up you snarky, condescending ass! If Uncharted 4 is a good game then it'll be a good game at 25, 40, 30, 50, or 60 frames per second. Level design, gameplay mechanics, and story matter way more than a high frame rate, just look at Ocarina of Time on the N64 in all it's choppy glory. And if you or the group you're referencing are actually PC gamers then perhaps they should be playing PC games instead of passing judgment on console games that will never be ported to windows.

Naughtydog are big boys, they dont need people flying off the handle to defend their broken promises. Nothing ever improves if consumers accept less

 

[IceForce]

Naughty Dog are a subsidiary of Sony, so they're hardly going to start slagging off their parent company's shitty hardware.

That's why we see bullshit lines like "30fps is more cinematic", etc. No one has the balls to just come out and say that the current console hardware is simply not up to the snuff for what is required of it.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

I got a PS4 2 Christmasses ago simply as 'the upgrade' to the old system, but since a big push about 1080P 60FPS as the main marketable point, since devs keep on missing the target a BIG WTF is in order.

Valves probably going to get more money from me this year then Sony if Ori and the Blind Forest is still scheduled for a PC release. I tell mates that when push comes to shove that it honestly doesn't matter which one they get because they're both a piece of piss atm, tech aside all the games that are coming out are 50 shades of fucking boring.

If I didn't sit at a computer for 95% of my day and loath keyboards with a passion, then I'd make the switch.

I need a new hobby, this ones dying a slow painful death for me.

 

[Strazdas]

When asked directly if the team was still targeting that 60FPS/1080p benchmark, Druckmann replied "I don't know," adding "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."

"look our game cant perform well on this shitty hardware, lets push graphics even more at the cost of gameplay and then find a way to work around it!"

And thus prioritizing graphics over gameplay continues.

Maybe in the months just before the PS5 comes out, developers will finally figure out how to reliably hit the 1080p/60 FPS benchmark PC gamers have been enjoying for years now.

Apply liquid cooling to burnt area.

Crysis and dozens of other over-hyped games that keep being the same old, same old despite looking really, really pretty.

Uh, what? Crysis was technological breakthrough that resonated throughout entire gaming sphere for years. many technologies utilized in games nowadays were invented by Crysis.

Unless you mean the console version, which simply had all of that cut because console hardware sucked too much and resulted in a shitty generic shooter.

So how about this: Why don't we get developers to try and make their games the best they can when it comes to deep mechanics, interesting and unique worlds, fantastic and emotional stories, complex characters, and games stuffed with rich (but meaningful) content. Once we get that, THEN we can worry about graphics and framerates. Because it's rare when we get games that are utterly beautiful but also a sheer joy to experience. Yes, it's my favorite game, but if we had more games with the love and care and effort of The Last of Us and less games that are another relatively shallow sandbox like Far Cry 4 with even shallower characters (save one), I think gaming would be better off.

but we can already get all that in devices called books and movies. gaming is special - it introduces gameplay. thus gameplay has to be gamings strongpoint to differentiate it from the other media. As such, we want even basic gameplay standards such as 60 fps.

Because ultimately, I'd rather play a game at 30fps/720p that can keep me entertained with multiple playthroughs and effect on any sort of level than a game at 60 or 120fps/1080p that's all style and no substance.

heres a thing: there is absolutely no reason we cant have both.

The question that leads to is how much of the PC market can run games at those settings? For if the Steam surveys are any indication its not a large portion of the playerbase.

Steam surveys are not any indication.

I have two devices, both of which participate on steam surveys. These devices have: IntelHD 2000 integrated GPU, InteHD 5000 integrated GPU, 8600m GS GPU, 760 GTX GPU. Only the last one is being used for any kind of gaming, however all 4 would be reported. but wait, theres more. When steam automatically goes around detecting the hardware, it for some reason misses the 760 entirely. This means that my steam survey includes 3 weak GPUs and dont include at all the only GPU i use for gaming.

Steam survey is broken. its not representative of gaming market. if you removed ALL integrated gpus you may have a closer picture to real average steam user, but even then it would be underreported. and even then it would already mean average steam user has a machine stronger than a new console.

In some aspects such as weather and AI, it is STILL head and sholders above all other games ever made.

come on. stalker AI was horrible. gamebreaking horrible. the npcs would get stuck in middle of nowhere and break entire game mechanic to the point of if you saved after they got stuck (far offscreen) your fucked.

Oh, you're right about that, to be sure. But since it seems most developers are willing to do either one or the other, I'd prefer them stick to story and gameplay over graphics and framerate.

framerate IS gameplay.

Really, really don't give a fuck.

and yet i find your comments in every thread concerning this.

 

[Olas]

It's when people start having arguments about the importance of hitting 60 FPS that I start remembering the thread I created asking why console games don't just come with graphics options like PCs have since forever?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.853275-Why-Dont-Consoles-Have-Performance-Settings-Like-PCs

It seems like a great way to accommodate everyone... who's willing to put up with the limitations of consoles.

 

[Strazdas]

Strazdas

The more complex a system is, the easier it breaks. Here is proof:
1
http://aigamedev.com/open/interviews/stalker-alife/
2
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/108781/Interview_Inside_The_AI_Of_STALKER.php
3
http://www.ign.com/articles/2005/01/19/the-ai-of-stalker-revealed
4
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/stalker-shadow-of-chernobyl-updated-qanda-smart-ai-advanced-physics-and-multiplayer/1100-6165701/
5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_KHvJ4qFZM&index=1&list=PLD2B82E405CF9650C

Im aware that its a very complex system and appreciate what its trying to do. the only other game i saw that even attempted that was perhaps Skyrim. but it just didnt work. there were too many bugs in that to the point where it completely broke the game.

 

[SeventhSigil]

Not going to lie, every time I see minor heart attacks and griping over a game not hitting 60fps, it leaves me more and more inclined to start avoiding the titles that do hit it. =P Because either I have a higher tolerance for 30fps than some and will never reach the point of 'No 60? Boooo!', or I'm somehow not having my 'palate' refined enough to achieve this 60 frames state of Zen... and I'm not even remotely tempted to seek such a state out. I mean, if I enjoy a 30fps game, and presumably would enjoy the odd game with a higher frame rate as well, why in the dickens would I want to end up in the mindset where anything not reaching this level automatically dampens my enjoyment of the title? I've played the occasional 60fps game, and while I do notice a difference, I don't feel (yet) like I'm being endowed with a superior gaming experience. God help me if that happens, given I've seen more than a little talk on the Internet on how 30fps is so darned distracting and gross.

Ironically, though, I have the same gut reaction when it comes to dated graphics nowadays. Previous gen games that don't compensate with a more cartoon-y or surreal art style just rankle my nerves, and I find it hard to actually enjoy what is otherwise a good game if the visuals are blocky and bleh looking. I've had numerous games I REALLY liked in the past impacted by my stupid brain being used to better textures, and by God I don't want to make things any worse! D:

 

[Revolutionary]

"Maybe in the months just before the PS5 comes out, developers will finally figure out how to reliably hit the 1080p/60 FPS benchmark PC gamers have been enjoying for years now."

I can't really top that but, yeah at least at this point they're being honest, and not saying some bullshit like "more cinematic". I mean, they're not directly admitting it's because the hardware's piss weak, but it's a step in the right direction.

 

[K12]

You see this is the appropriate response to a developer not being able to make their game hit 60 FPS.

You aren't doing it because 30 FPS or lower resolution are more cinematic or because higher frame rates don't matter or can't be detected by the human eye or anything like that.

It's because the console hardware forces devs to choose between graphical fidelity and higher frame rates and they prioritised the former. Maybe because they think it produces a better game experience overall or maybe because they can use pre-rendered footage and screenshots to market the game anyway so lower frame rates won't negatively impact the games sales.

I'm basically OK with that decision (assuming the frame rate isn't well below 60 and is relatively stable). It's all the bullshit in trying to pretend that lower frame rates are better in some way or aren't a compromise or trade-off for the sake of performance that has irritated me about previous announcements like this.

 

[DerangedHobo]

Oh look, another news article where a developer failed to meet the "NEXT GEN WILL BE AMAZING MOTHERFUCKING 1080P THAT'S RIGHT, 10 MOTHERFUCKING 80 P WITH 60 FPS, THE HARDWARE MAY BE DATED BUT WE GOT WOLFENSTEIN JEW MAGIC, BABY!". Que the flock of people talking about how frame rate doesn't matter and it doesn't matter that consoles touting 'amazing' hardware is an under performing joke which can't even do 'put it in and start playing' right anymore. Time to settle for less and cave anyway right?

Because platform wars? Platform wars never change.

 

[Alcom1]

Oh, you're right about that, to be sure. But since it seems most developers are willing to do either one or the other, I'd prefer them stick to story and gameplay over graphics and framerate.

Is this an issue of story and gameplay over graphics and framerate, or is it an issue of graphics over framerate? I can't imagine how it can be the former. You don't cut your framerate to improve the narrative or the game mechanics, you cut the frame rate because you wanted some fancy shaders or higher polygon models, a concept that is really alien to me.

I have piles of games with dated graphics, most people here do, and I would deny every possible opportunity to improve those graphics at the cost of framerate.

I prefer that my Visual Area MT not be messed with.

 

[Casual Shinji]

It sucks, but I really wasn't expecting many actual "next-gen" Triple-A titles to make it to 60fps. Even GTA5 on the current gen consoles can't push 60fps, let alone titles that were built from the system from the ground up.

Though Metal Gear Solid 5 seems to be doing it...