PlayStation 4 Discussion

[NYGiants4Natic]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

I am completely impressed with Uncharted 4 on the PRO with HDR

It is easily the greatest looking game ever at this resolution with HDR

I cant believe a freaking 400 machine is doing this

[Smallville102001]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

He also said he doesn't notice the difference between 480p and 1080p lol...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never said that I said that I think difference between dvd and bluray is overrated but that may be because my TV I have had since 07 is 720p upscale 1080p and not full 1080p so I am not getting the full affect of bluray. I have heard some people say that 4k is not that big of a jump and yes I don't have a 1080p TV but I have seen 1080p TV's and the jump from 1080p to 4k looks much bigger to me then the jump from 480p to 1080p is.

[Blzer]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

That is just how I fell I cant tell the difference and I have seen a lot of things on the internet that shows that a lot of people can not tell the difference either. The whole 60 FPS thing is just talked about way to much and it gets very annoying.

There's a reason it is, because it's very important to have.

I understand what you're saying when it comes to diminished returns though. I feel I would agree that although 120 FPS is better than 60 FPS, 60 may be decent enough that you don't want to sacrifice a whole new power of 2 of something else just to get that extra framerate in. 60 FPS is very much ideal though, and IMO should be the standard for most games... especially ones with a reputation of having been 60 FPS in the past (R&C), or really make you question what the heck is stopping it from being 60 FPS in the first place.

There are way more important things when it comes to games then 60 FPS

For somebody who is missing out on resolution details as well, I'd like to hear what those things are. And don't get me wrong, I understand/know a lot of other things that get lost or left out because of 60 FPS... just wondering what yours are specifically.

I was really hoping this generation was going to hone in on 1080p, 60 FPS, and full anti-aliasing. But 1 out of 3 ain't bad, I guess? I don't really know.

and I believe from what I have seen and heard that if you where to have a video of a game with one side being 60 and the other side of the screen showing 30 with out any thing saying which side is which that about 95% of the time people would have no idea if the left or right is the 60 or the 30.

I agree... if it takes a side-by-side comparison for you to have to A|B and squint your eyes until you think you see something, then it's not worth it.

I don't think 60 FPS vs. 30 FPS is one of those things though. When people say "night and day," they literally mean, "looking outside when it's night versus looking outside when it's day." If two items were put up and they weren't still images, 60 FPS and 30 FPS should never be misconstrued. They aren't close to the same thing.

It's a big deal. If you can't see it, I don't know what to say. I don't have your eyes or brain. It's like a colorblind person asking what's the big deal of seeing the whole color spectrum. How can I provide an argument for them unless they could see the world as vividly as I can? At that point, you just have to take people's word for it whose perception and acuity says framerate is one of the biggest deals in overall visuals, and that 60 FPS is king when it needs to be.

Though I think most people on here would prefer to have locked 30 FPS than something that oscillates from 60 FPS to 30 FPS on a consistent basis. The latter would just be frustrating to look at. Locked 60 FPS is the ideal target.

[NYGiants4Natic]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

I never said that I said that I think difference between dvd and bluray is overrated but that may be because my TV I have had since 07 is 720p upscale 1080p and not full 1080p so I am not getting the full affect of bluray. I have heard some people say that 4k is not that big of a jump and yes I don't have a 1080p TV but I have seen 1080p TV's and the jump from 1080p to 4k looks much bigger to me then the jump from 480p to 1080p is.

my dude you are on some real sh__ I mean 480p is standard definition

You should see a huge difference between 480p and 720p

if you plan Metal Gear the new one on xbox being 900p and on ps4 being 1080p it is easily apparent even on Witcher 3

1080p looks clean and has less jaggies and shimmering

[Smallville102001]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

my dude you are on some real sh__ I mean 480p is standard definition

You should see a huge difference between 480p and 720p

if you plan Metal Gear the new one on xbox being 900p and on ps4 being 1080p it is easily apparent even on Witcher 3

1080p looks clean and has less jaggies and shimmering

Games may be a different story but when it comes to watching a dvd or a bluray but watching the bluray in 720p instead of 1080p the dvd and 720p bluray look almost the same.

[Smallville102001]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

There's a reason it is, because it's very important to have.

I understand what you're saying when it comes to diminished returns though. I feel I would agree that although 120 FPS is better than 60 FPS, 60 may be decent enough that you don't want to sacrifice a whole new power of 2 of something else just to get that extra framerate in. 60 FPS is very much ideal though, and IMO should be the standard for most games... especially ones with a reputation of having been 60 FPS in the past (R&C), or really make you question what the heck is stopping it from being 60 FPS in the first place.



For somebody who is missing out on resolution details as well, I'd like to hear what those things are. And don't get me wrong, I understand/know a lot of other things that get lost or left out because of 60 FPS... just wondering what yours are specifically.

I was really hoping this generation was going to hone in on 1080p, 60 FPS, and full anti-aliasing. But 1 out of 3 ain't bad, I guess? I don't really know.



I agree... if it takes a side-by-side comparison for you to have to A|B and squint your eyes until you think you see something, then it's not worth it.

I don't think 60 FPS vs. 30 FPS is one of those things though. When people say "night and day," they literally mean, "looking outside when it's night versus looking outside when it's day." If two items were put up and they weren't still images, 60 FPS and 30 FPS should never be misconstrued. They aren't close to the same thing.

It's a big deal. If you can't see it, I don't know what to say. I don't have your eyes or brain. It's like a colorblind person asking what's the big deal of seeing the whole color spectrum. How can I provide an argument for them unless they could see the world as vividly as I can? At that point, you just have to take people's word for it whose perception and acuity says framerate is one of the biggest deals in overall visuals, and that 60 FPS is king when it needs to be.

Though I think most people on here would prefer to have locked 30 FPS than something that oscillates from 60 FPS to 30 FPS on a consistent basis. The latter would just be frustrating to look at. Locked 60 FPS is the ideal target.

When it comes to 120 like I said I don't play on pc at all so I cant really say. RC I have played a lot of them and even though some of the old ones where 60 FPS compared to the 30 of the ps4 one I have heard about that but if I was never told I would have no idea the new game fells 100% the same has the old ones when it comes to how the game fells and when it comes to how fast things look.


While I have a 4k TV on the way which means I will be able to get the full 1080p on bluray's and on games now instead of the 720p upscale 1080p but when I say there are more important things what I mean is I don't care if a game is 30 or 60 I just want it to be a rock solid 60 or 30. I would rather have a game that is 30 and stays at 30 then a game that is 60 and drops down to 45-30 all the time and then jumps up because even though it is hard to tell if a game is 30 or 60 or not if a game FPS is always changing then it is easier to tell and fells off. Also I would rather a game look great over all and run at a locked 30 then to look bad but run at 60 and I would rather a game have less bugs then to run at 60 but have a lot of bugs over all. Art style to is much bigger thing then 60 fps.

The thing is it is hard to see and you do really have to look for it. If it was really a night and day difference you wouldn't have has many people saying a game is not 60 FPS even when it is and if it was really so noticeable then more games would get bad reviews for not running 60. There are games that people say don't run at 60 even when they do. If it was really noticeable then you wouldn't have people saying a game only runs at 30 even when it is running at 60. If a game is 30 that is just fine has long has it is not dropping. If a game is 30 but drops to 25-20 a lot and even drops to 15 then its a problem. If a game is 30 but is like always or just about always 30 like batman Arkham knight then who cares if it is 30.

[Blzer]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

^ Well, I only have a few things to say off of that:

1) I never disagreed that 60 FPS is a means to an end for great visuals. If too many hits are made, it's just not worth it. For instance, I could never see GTA become 60 FPS on consoles with the amount of information loading on screen. I will take 30 FPS there for better loading, draw distances, high density of detail, etc. However, many FPS, racing, and "animated" game styles that don't achieve 60 FPS really feel like they're chugging along. Imagine if Mario games were 30 FPS. It would just look bad. They optimize things right to make it work.

2) I haven't heard people can't distinguish 30 FPS from 60 FPS outside of your posts. All I've read is some people don't believe the difference is worth the other hits in visuals that you might get as a result of obtaining 60 FPS, which brings me right back to point #1. Same with DVD vs. Blu-ray: everyone can acknowledge the difference, but I have many friends who just say: "It's not worth the cost of upgrading." That's where I currently stand at 4K, but that's because I won't deal with going from plasma to LED, the Pro doesn't have a UHD BD drive, and many of the 4K transfers aren't even native 4K at the moment. Someday I will upgrade, but who knows... I may just wait for 8K.

Some games are better off with 30 FPS, strangely enough. I've found some games get a more "cinematic" feel that way, and it actually enhances the look. So it works out in the long run. Though Ratchet & Clank is a 60 FPS kind of title all the way, and I personally believe they can achieve it. Same with LittleBigPlanet (imagine that series with 60 FPS and "heavier" physics, ooh that would be great!). Other games kind of promised 60 FPS early on only to ditch it later, and it leaves us with this bit of falsehood. Heck, look at No Man's Sky.

It just depends on the title is all. I think many should have it these days, but some games have far too much graphical fidelity to be able to achieve it on consoles, and I am more than understanding of that. Those that are in 60 FPS look glorious though.

[Smallville102001]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

^ Well, I only have a few things to say off of that:

1) I never disagreed that 60 FPS is a means to an end for great visuals. If too many hits are made, it's just not worth it. For instance, I could never see GTA become 60 FPS on consoles with the amount of information loading on screen. I will take 30 FPS there for better loading, draw distances, high density of detail, etc. However, many FPS, racing, and "animated" game styles that don't achieve 60 FPS really feel like they're chugging along. Imagine if Mario games were 30 FPS. It would just look bad. They optimize things right to make it work.

2) I haven't heard people can't distinguish 30 FPS from 60 FPS outside of your posts. All I've read is some people don't believe the difference is worth the other hits in visuals that you might get as a result of obtaining 60 FPS, which brings me right back to point #1. Same with DVD vs. Blu-ray: everyone can acknowledge the difference, but I have many friends who just say: "It's not worth the cost of upgrading." That's where I currently stand at 4K, but that's because I won't deal with going from plasma to LED, the Pro doesn't have a UHD BD drive, and many of the 4K transfers aren't even native 4K at the moment. Someday I will upgrade, but who knows... I may just wait for 8K.

Some games are better off with 30 FPS, strangely enough. I've found some games get a more "cinematic" feel that way, and it actually enhances the look. So it works out in the long run. Though Ratchet & Clank is a 60 FPS kind of title all the way, and I personally believe they can achieve it. Same with LittleBigPlanet (imagine that series with 60 FPS and "heavier" physics, ooh that would be great!). Other games kind of promised 60 FPS early on only to ditch it later, and it leaves us with this bit of falsehood. Heck, look at No Man's Sky.

It just depends on the title is all. I think many should have it these days, but some games have far too much graphical fidelity to be able to achieve it on consoles, and I am more than understanding of that. Those that are in 60 FPS look glorious though.

If you Wait for 8k that is going to be a long time lol. While MLB the show gameplay wise not cutscenes but gameplay has been 60 fps from like 09 to now yet there are people that say the game is not smooth or that the game is only like 30 fps and again you don't hear a game dose not run smooth in less a game drops below 30 fps or chances a lot. You don't see reviews saying a game that is locked at 30 is not smooth and I think that is pretty telling that most people don't find 30 to fell in smooth. I have heard that before about 60 or 30 and the cinematic fell and how some games fell better with 60 and some with 30 but that makes zero since. If 60 is really better and more responsive then why would you want a game to be 30 and fell less responsive?


You talked about Mario I had no clue if Mario was even 30 or 60. Are Zelda games 30 or 60? Heck when it comes to fps and 30 or 60 most games I would say fell smooth over all even bad ones. Most games that are bad or not because they don't run well but more because they are boring, short, repetitive, bad graphics, bad story, lots of bugs not really because they cant run.

[NYGiants4Natic]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

Games may be a different story but when it comes to watching a dvd or a bluray but watching the bluray in 720p instead of 1080p the dvd and 720p bluray look almost the same.

watching a blu ray in 720p tv is a crime

[Smallville102001]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

watching a blu ray in 720p tv is a crime

While that is one of the first things I am going to have to do when I get the new tv on sat is watch a bluray so I can get the full 1080p now and I do think part of the whole thinking bluray is overrated may be because of the 720p thing because I remember seeing lion king on bluray at a story years ago and it looked much better on that TV then it does on my current tv. Now when it comes to fps it don't matter if you are playing on a 4k, 1080p, 720p tv if a game is 30 fps you are going to get 30. If a game is 60 you are going to get 60.

[Blzer]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

I have heard that before about 60 or 30 and the cinematic fell and how some games fell better with 60 and some with 30 but that makes zero since. If 60 is really better and more responsive then why would you want a game to be 30 and fell less responsive?

Good question. I like the look of Uncharted 4 in 30 FPS (though I love 60 FPS of course and would take that any day if I could), but if you've seen my comments on them, it has bad input lag when aiming. It just does. There's no way around it. No one else can feel it but me. I'll show you my posts about it.

EDIT: Here you go - http://www.operationsports.com/forum...post2048269429

Read my posts thereafter as well. Funny, I go back to "30 FPS sucks" in my post there haha. I think it's because I had just come off of 60 FPS in UC1, UC2, and UC3 on PS4.

[daniel77733]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

TF2 is on sale at walmart for 29.99 and I got it at best buy price matched

Just started campaign on the PRO and wow this game looks amazing compared to vanilla beta I played

Yes, it looks great on Pro especially with HDR turned on. Very good campaign too. I enjoyed it.

[Tomba]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

Don't think I'll get a 4K

I'm reading and seeing to much good on 1080p settings rather than 4K

I know this might not side with many but many are saying that they play their PS4 in 1080p even in their 4K tvs due to performance

[mestevo]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

Some have insisted the Pro should be able to arbitrarily bump up the resolution. Watch Dogs 2 shows why that shouldn't be the case, and runs better on the base PS4 as a result.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rTSDGkH8flA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Tomba]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

[QUOTE=mestevo;2048576592]Some have insisted the Pro should be able to arbitrarily bump up the resolution. Watch Dogs 2 shows why that shouldn't be the case, and runs better on the base PS4 as a result.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rTSDGkH8flA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/QUOT

Still my game of the year regardless