MLB 13:The Show -- 720P vs 1080P .... Here we go again with this Conversation :)

[Blzer]

Quote: Originally Posted by tonadom

I think certain games really need 60 FPS to be played the way they're designed to be played. Playing MLB 12 on the Vita was brutal because of it running at 30 FPS.

If there's one thing we can all agree on, it's that screen size will neither hide nor reveal a certain kind of framerate.

In other words, people said it's forgiving to have 30 FPS content on a 5" screen, but it's equally as "forgiving" or "unforgiving" on a 50" screen. No difference, whatsoever. 30 FPS is 30 FPS, and is equally as perceivable. That said, some Vita games like WipEout and PlayStation All-Stars look phenomenal running in 60 FPS.

On the other end, textures can certainly be less visible on a 5" screen, and a lack of them can be more forgiving. I think people are more impressed by textures and lighting than framerate. For me, it all depends on the game. I understand limitations and when we're faced to accept them (for instance, I can't ever expect a GTA game to run at 60 FPS), but I don't think anybody should pretend that a 60 FPS version of that game wouldn't be exponentially more visually stunning and not just a "barely perceivable upgrade."

It's all subjective in the end, though. There was a thread saying that 30 FPS will still be targeted on the next generation cycle of games so they can maximize other visual components of their products, but I say if we had games like Uncharted and GTA at a locked 60 FPS, 1080p, and full anti-aliasing, I would not mind that as our next generation one bit. Others, of course, disagree... and that's where we are standing right now.

[tonadom]

Quote: Originally Posted by Blzer

It's all subjective in the end, though. There was a thread saying that 30 FPS will still be targeted on the next generation cycle of games so they can maximize other visual components of their products, but I say if we had games like Uncharted and GTA at a locked 60 FPS, 1080p, and full anti-aliasing, I would not mind that as our next generation one bit. Others, of course, disagree... and that's where we are standing right now.

The next generation of consoles will have GPUs that use more advanced techniques like tessellation to render graphics. This will have a performance hit but not horribly if they use the right hardware ( strong but not too expensive ) and structure it right ( architecture of the memory, CPU, GPU, etc.. ).

[DeathMetal]

Quote: Originally Posted by authentic

If graphics sell games why would they settle for 30 fps? Do you know what fps means in gaming?

The fact of the matter is consoles sell the most games, and most console gamers don't even think about fps, they look at the graphics. And yes I know how fps affects games, I'm not stupid.

[authentic]

Quote: Originally Posted by DeathMetal

The fact of the matter is consoles sell the most games, and most console gamers don't even think about fps, they look at the graphics. And yes I know how fps affects games, I'm not stupid.

Not saying you're stupid...not in any way. FPS just makes games run smoother, which in my mind, helps improve graphics. I don't see graphics just as visuals, I see it in a larger, wider view.

[Bobhead]

Graphics are not synonymous with resolution, and the former affects framerate potential just as much as the latter. Truth be told, I know nothing about resolutions and how they work, and they have nothing to do with my previous post, or this one.

Anyway, one of the limitations of framerates, and the one I'm most concerned with, is the complexity of the graphics, and the amount of things happening on screen at once. We already have a lot of areas that are graphically neglected, so as to ensure the current FPS can be maintained, as well as for memory reasons. The obvious example is the crowd...

Would I like a higher FPS game ? Absolutely, but I'd also like the crowd in attendance to not be made of paper maché, and personally I feel like the latter is more immediately noticeable. You have a lot of scoreboards, billboards, and other unique stadium features that could be graphically enhanced next generation, and the tradeoff would (probably) be the inability to increase framerate. Even the grass (which by the way I can't even say with a straight face anymore) could receive more depth, on a more advanced console... all without increasing the resolution of the game.

But all these things would increase the overall graphics processing, making it more difficult (but not necessarily impossible) to run the game with an increase in frame-rate. I guess I'd have to see what the higher frame-rate really looked and felt like (I don't play many video games) before I could decide which I really cared about more... but at a glance... I just don't see myself favoring a higher framerate over all the other possibilities.

Not saying I endorse an even lower framerate than what we already have... I surely don't think a future generation should regress in any area of gameplay at all.

[tonadom]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bobhead

But all these things would increase the overall graphics processing, making it more difficult (but not necessarily impossible) to run the game with an increase in frame-rate. I guess I'd have to see what 60 FPS really looked and felt like..

You haven't played MLB 12 The Show ? While batting, it feels like 60 FPS to me and probably is in most stadiums.

[vcu9]

Great Stuff Guys.

[MrOldboy]

The thing I would love to see more of in the next game and it would cost some performance is anti aliasing. The edges of player models look a bit jaggy, in a lot of games not just The Show. The models are very detailed and it takes a bit out of them visually when the edges are so jaggy.

Getting optimal performance out of a game takes balance. Ask a PC gamer and they probably say that it takes some tweaking to get something to their liking before they dive into the game fully. I to be honest sacrifice visual fidelity in order to ensure I get a locked 60 fps with little to no drops. With console games you rely on the game makers for that tweaking. A few games have let the user do some changes like Bioshock or was it only Bioshock 2. It had an "unlock framerate" setting, which I think just turned off vertical sync. So you could choose between a locked framerate and no screen tearing or a higher framerate with screen tearing.

The Show on PS3 feels smooth with limited hitches. I don't really know what framerate its running at, but it feels smooth and has limited to no drops, that is all that matters to me really on a console game. I could care less if its 30 or 60 really, as long as the drops are minimized or non existent.

Look at the Vita version of MLB 12 though. The framerate just wasn't there in a lot of spots and its been asked about a lot this year if it has been improved. CD guys said it was, but little video has been shown of the game. I really hope the framerate is at least a locked 30 this year as it really hurt the game last year.