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

[ToastyMozart]

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.

Except it wouldn't. Lets take, say, Metal Gear Rising as an example. That game is an absolute joy to play, and is an (imo) excellent game.
Would it be a good game if it was capped at 25FPS? No, it would be an awful game. Entirely unplayable, in fact.
Because gameplay is important, and a bad framerate hinders the gameplay significantly.

 

[ToastyMozart]

I'd prefer them stick to story and gameplay over graphics and framerate.

The problem is that's a false dichotomy. Framerate has nothing to do with the story, and is actually integral to gameplay quality. (For an easy comparison, try playing Half Life or such for a while, then typing "fps_max 30" into the command line and continuing on)

Fidelity vs Framerate is the actual issue, and for some reason they're prioritizing the former. Because... graphics over gameplay?

 

[ToastyMozart]

If anyone has Resident Evil 4 on PC and it's running at 60fps, grab the bolt action rifle and fire off a round and reload. The animations for the reload are fixed at 30fps (they were likely animated at 30fps, so the only fix would be to reanimate it at 60fps). You will notice this difference.

I was wondering why that animation looked so jankey.

 

[Lightknight]

To be perfectly honest 30fps is fine for most games as far as player experience is concerned, but certain genres are handicapped by low frame rates. Games that require high degrees of precision greatly benefit from higher fps. My gripe with the consoles is that 1080p 60fps was promised as the "standard", but so far it's the rare exception.

The real tragedy is that it is entirely possible for developers to make games at 60fps. They just have to give up some of the graphics/physics they're trying to achieve. Which I'm perfectly fine with because there were some games in the previous generation that were already beautiful. Why wouldn't I be happy with the very best graphics we saw on the ps3 with some minor improvements?

 

[Lunar Templar]

Well who's fualt is that?

Yours. That's who. Consoles HAD 60FPS up until some where in the last gen. Then you fools started chasing graphics and resolution like it was the only part of the game that matters. Now you turn around and whine about 'how hard it is' to get BACK to 60FPS. boo whoo, go cry to some one who cares you miserable, creatively bankrupt, hacks.

 

[Foehunter82]

I respect Naughty Dog for being honest about this and not trying to spin it.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Uncharted's camera is too sluggish to take advantage of 60fps anyways.

I don't even...

FRAMERATES! How do they work?

The most important thing of upping the framerate from 30 to 60 in a shooter is getting improved aiming precision. Say you can move the camera 15 degrees per frame in a 3rd-person shooter at 30fps with a standard camera that you can move at a good speed. Now, if you up that shooter to 60fps, the camera can now move 7.5 degrees per frame instead of 15, which allows for more precise aiming. Uncharted's camera is already so slow (and you can't change the camera sensitivity in any of the games) that you're moving the camera less degrees per frame at 30fps than a normal TPS running at 60fps, Uncharted's aiming is more precise at 30fps than a normal TPS at 60fps due to the sluggish as hell camera. Thus, Uncharted running at 60fps isn't going to PLAY any better than at 30fps. Yeah, the game will look crisper but it will only play ever so slightly better that it won't even be noticeable. Now, if Naughty Dog actually gives me a camera sensitivity option to bump up the speed of the camera, I'm all for 60fps.

 

[Asclepion]

It wouldn't be the first time this developer intentionally made their games look worse because they trapped them on underpowered hardware. This only affirms the freedom and empowerment of PCs, and how damaging consoles are to the industry.

 

[Vigormortis]

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.

Because options are complicated and confusing. Consoles are supposed to be plug-and-play! No exceptions.

Now excuse me while I go swap the hard drive in my console with another because the current game download is too large for the current drive. And now that I'm thinking about it, I should probably make sure I've renewed my online account. Oh yeah, and I need to remember to go into my console's settings to make sure the audio/video format is correct for my screen, otherwise I get this weird display lag that makes everything look wonky.

Plug-and-play is the best!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In all seriousnessnessness, I agree that having graphical options beyond [Brightness] would be a boon for console gamers. That way, the dev wouldn't be stuck in the sort of situation Naughty Dog is currently in.

They wouldn't have to choose between frame-rates/resolution and fidelity. They could create a range of options between the two extremes and allow the players to decide which point within that range is preferable.

 

[Glaice]

I knew it, I knew they would not be able to hold onto this, even in 2015. I mean come on, what is it with consoles in this day and age still cannot make it to a fluid 60 fps like most PCs can?

 

[V4Viewtiful]

Well... At least the devs are admitting it and not (completely) BSing us

 

[zumbledum]

It's hard to blame the devs, really. I imagine the tools they use can easily achieve these benchmarks and the key is simply how to fit that kind of performance into a shitty little box. PC devs that can't get a solid 60 fps don't really have an excuse, but I'll give console devs the benefit of the doubt here. I blame the hardware.

oh i dont know its pretty easy to blame Bought dog imo , i mean they choose the sony dollars to facilitate the anti consumer practice of "exclusive" rather than bring it to a platform capable of reaching their artistic vision.

They choose to try and chase graphical fidelity over worrying if the games any good and tried to do something unrealistic on a very low end piece of kit.

but it does make you realise the shocking state of console development now when somebody actually comes out and tells us the truth we are actually surprised and grateful, when really not being lied to really should be base line, what a world eh?

 

[Elfgore]

Nice to see someone just come up and say it. I have no qualms with 30 FPS, I've played and beaten an entire game at twenty. But seeing people use the "cinematic experience" bullshit or saying "people prefer 30 FPS" will always piss me off. Thank you, Naughty Dog for confirming why I love you so much.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

...developers will finally figure out how to reliably hit the 1080p/60 FPS benchmark PC gamers have been enjoying for years now.

Maybe they could stop trying for photorealism on cut-rate hardware and concentrate more on art style, playability and enjoyment?

...nah. You can't put those in a glossy magazine ad or full-size screenshot, after all.

It aint that simple. Never was. Never will.
Not every game has to be like that. Not every graphical setting ever is fluff.

Graphics matter.

Of course they matter. The question is: How much? What are you ready to give up just so you can count the pores on someone's face?

 

[Evonisia]

Of course they matter. The question is: How much? What are you ready to give up just so you can count the pores on someone's face?

That actually does seem to be the motto for devs when designing the generic human look in current gen games. Dead Rising 3 and Alien: Isolation spring to mind immediately. Either they have massive pores or somebody is putting too much detail into things.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

With the news about 30fps on current gen lately, it should be blatantly apparent: They've only upgraded the hardware enough for *last* gens games to be able to play at 1080p/60fps, and not bear with any improvement. I'm sure Uncharted 1-3 would play just fine at those settings, if ported over. But since things simply *have* to move on because MOAR PIXELS AND PARTICLES - well they're in the same boat because the console wouldn't be able to hit that price point otherwise.

Me personally, I'd love to play an Uncharted 4 that looked just like the last few but played smoother, but you can't please everyone. If it was like that, then after all the screenshots people would be screaming that there was no improvement, new gen my ass, why do we need a ps4, etc etc. So there's no way around that one.

 

[Vausch]

Hey, credit where credit is due. At least they didn't try to pull some BS like "30FPS is more cinematic" and "900p is enough for any console".

 

[CrystalShadow]

It's hard to blame the devs, really. I imagine the tools they use can easily achieve these benchmarks and the key is simply how to fit that kind of performance into a shitty little box. PC devs that can't get a solid 60 fps don't really have an excuse, but I'll give console devs the benefit of the doubt here. I blame the hardware.

True, but while a PC dev might be able to hit that target on their own system, they'd have a very hard time knowing if anyone else's system could match that.

Still, this is a little misleading.

1080p/60fps can be accomplished easily enough on any system that's even fundamentally capable of outputting that resolution and framerate. (The consoles from the PS2/gamecube/Xbox era for instance don't qualify, but most of the ones after do. The wii is an edge case, since according to hackers it has the internals to do it, but not the physical connectors needed to output such a signal)

Doing 1080p at 60fps is quite possible on any such system, if you scale your graphical quality appropriately

The real issue here, is that these devs clearly have other priorities, and are pushing the graphical effects and detail quality higher in preference to framerates and resolution.

That's fine, but it's basically a 3 way choice, and they are choosing something else in preference to high framerates.

So in terms of the 'next gen' consoles, what it really demonstrates is not that they can't do 1080p/60fps, but that the graphical standards the devs all seem to be aiming for are too much for the consoles to handle, and still have power to spare for higher framerates.

So... If 60fps were actually important, then it's clear devs are aiming the graphical standards of their games a bit too high.

 

[shiajun]

Not that surprising. These are consoles that seem to have trouble reaching 1080p most of the time, let alone 1080p 60FPS. Whilst having the best graphics in the industry is a great thing to have at face value (ie videos, screenshots), when you actually start to play it, after a few minutes of uninterrupted playing, you kind of stop paying attention to what the game looks like. It is very much like when you go back and play an older title, and whilst your first reaction is almost always "this game looks pretty ugly now", after a while you just stop noticing, but when it comes to gameplay, you never stop feeling it.

This is the gaming industry, not the movie industry. Great graphics are awesome, but gameplay trumps all other factors in this matter. I would much rather have a game that looks good and plays great than a game that looks great but is okay to play.

I'd like to only say "quote for truth" but then I'd get a low content warning. It's astonishing that console devs are struggling so hard to get back to the fluidity that games had 10 years ago or more. If the super magnificent shader you're putting into your games is throttling your framerate, ditch it. Games are meant to be interacted with, not stared at, that's their whole point. Sure, it might not be as pretty as a pre-rendered cutscene, but if there's no lag in input or stutter when moving around, I'll forget it soon enough. I'll remember the game felt responsive and great, nostalgia will probably gloss over the jaggies.