Current Generation Hardware Speculation with a Technical Spin [post GDC 2020] [XBSX, PS5]

[Scott_Arm]

With half the time to render each frame, they'd be very different games.



You avoided Horizon: Zero Dawn, Uncharted 4, God of War and Spiderman?
Damn that just sad..

Lately, I've been playing many Xbox Game Pass PC titles (Outerworlds, Halo Master Chief Collection, Dishonored 2, Gears 4 and 5, etc.) all at 70-75FPS (freesync 34" monitor).
I'd trade these games I've been playing at 75FPS for any of the PS4 games I mentioned above, any day. They're just a superior experience in immersion and most of all, fun, for me.

ok ...

I never bought a ps4 so I never played those games. I’d play a couple of them (Hzd, Spider-Man). if I had a ps4 and play at 30 fps because there’s literally no other way to play them. But yes I avoid 30 fps titles so it might be an issue for me.

 

[eastmen]

Doesn't it depend on the game ?

Civ 6 ? Sure let it be 30fps or even 20fps I don't need speed there or even a gears tactics/ ecom. But a fighting game ? A fps ? Then I would want as many frames as I can get.

 

[Strange]

Doesn't it depend on the game ?

Civ 6 ? Sure let it be 30fps or even 20fps I don't need speed there or even a gears tactics/ ecom. But a fighting game ? A fps ? Then I would want as many frames as I can get.

Fighting games probably need a fixed framerate to get consistent results.
We all know how fps impacts physics engines so that's a major issue for managing exploits. (Doom speedruns)

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Personally, I'd accept any compromises they'd have to make for them to be 60fps games. Obviously that's subjective, but I basically avoid anything that's 30fps.

I'd also prefer 60fps over 30fps but I wouldn't subscribe to "any compromise they'd have to make" without really knowing that that was.

For example, could you imagine GTA VI at 4K60 has less cars and pedestrians that we're used to now in GTA V, along with reduced draw distances? Wouldn't that feel like a huge step back? I'm not saying this would be required and there are lots of CPU-time saving tricks that can be done to help out like certain calculations being done every 32ms instead of every 16ms - although you's want to avoid the Halo 5 half-rate animation issue because this more pronounced when you're moving quickly.

I think the 30vs60 decision will be a lot more difficult for devs building huge, dense open worlds. And a few 30fps games feel pretty good, the PS4 inFamous games feel really responsive and fluid, even when playing with Neon powers which means you can zoom around really fast.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Theres more than a "a few" id say. Tons even.

 

[Karmaprof]

30 FPs is good playable if the Framerate really locked at this Rate and the Gamemechanics renderet internal with 60 Fps. This was done on Skyrim i played the Switch Version in Handheld Mode and the Game doesent feel slow or laggy. It would be worse if the Gamemechanics are also run with only 30 FPs or if the Framerate is not constant like in the Wichter 3 Switch Version.

It would a stupid Design Choice if Devs target on Nextgen Consoles only 4K/30 plus RT and give no Option for a 1080/60 Mode . If the CPU is not the Limiting Factor so where is the Problem to do that? And if the CPU is not fast enough in complex Openworld Situations then reduce the Number of Objects/NPCs for 60 FPs.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Then begs the question....what sells more games @ 60fps or 30fps and more detail.

GTA5 - 30 fps.

...Yeah..., I think that answers that.

 

[London Geezer]

GTA5 - 30 fps.

...Yeah..., I think that answers that.

Super Mario Bros - 256*240 res.
40 million copies.
Who needs 8k!

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Also, good motion blur goes a long way into making 30FPS games feel fast enough.

After all, there's practically no 60FPS live-action video out there. I don't see anyone saying "I refuse to watch Netflix until they put 60FPS content there".
And even 30FPS is relatively recent, with analog recordings providing a mere ~23 frames per second.

 

[fehu]

Who needs 8k!

 

[iroboto]

It would ideally be dynamic resolution locked at 60fps. Let the resolution fluctuate but keeping that frame rate high is going to be the goal.

 

[function]

Just give people the choice. For fighting and driving games, sure, 60 fps default. But for other stuff that's traditionally been 30 fps just allow a choice.

Almost all of these games will be coming to PC, and so by default will need to have settings that will allow visuals to be butchered for high frame rates, or have visuals cranked up to "fuck you, just buy a new graphics card" levels. On console even just having a 30 fps optimised and 60 fps optimised setting would be a huge step up. This is not going to be a great burden given where games are heading, and what they already have to support in engine.

This approach could particularly suit the PS5. Lower fps means less load on the CPU, which means more power to maintain GPU clocks. Meanwhile, the (I suspect) less commonly chosen "prefer performance" options would be there for PS5 owners who cared about latency, response and certain aspects of immersion. High frame rate would also let the XSX flex both it's CPU and GPU at the same time.

30 fps cross-gen games not having a 60 fps option on next gen consoles is an absolute horror story.

 

[jlippo]

It would ideally be dynamic resolution locked at 60fps. Let the resolution fluctuate but keeping that frame rate high is going to be the goal.

This would be nice.

Wouldn't mind someone testing motion interpolation as an option.
Should be quite doable, considering the results we saw on X360.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

It would ideally be dynamic resolution locked at 60fps. Let the resolution fluctuate but keeping that frame rate high is going to be the goal.

No, I disagree. There's no generalized ideal.
I do not want any developer to be stuck with 60FPS minimum. It's a terrible strategy all around, save for VR and a few genres.

If a developer wants to prioritize an internal rendering resolution of 2160p or even 8K over 60 FPS then let them.
As mentioned before, Civilization 7 doesn't need 60FPS, not does the next XCOM. Nor the e.g. Total War series IMO since the RTS part doesn't depend a lot on fast unit micromanaging.



In the meantime, it looks like Valhalla will be 30 FPS on the Series X:

Actualmente, podemos garantir que Assassin's Creed Valhalla vai correr no mínimo a 30 FPS. Assassin's Creed Valhalla vai beneficiar de tempos de loading mais rápidos, permitindo aos jogadores ficarem imersos na história e no mundo sem fricções. Por último, Assassin's Creed Valhalla vai beneficiar de gráficos melhorados tornados possíveis pela Xbox Series X, e mal podemos esperar para veres o bonito mundo que estamos a criar na impressionante resolução de 4K.

Quick translation by yours truly:

"Currently, we can assure that Assassin's Creed Valhalla will run at a minimum 30 FPS. Assassin's Creed Valhalla will benefit from faster loading times, allowing players to be immersed in the story and the world with no interruptions (direct translation: no friction). Lastly, Assassin's Creed Valhalla will benefit from improved graphics made possible by XBox Series X, and we can hardly wait for you to see the beautiful world we're creating in the impressive 4K resolution."


So, I guess we're looking at 4K30, at least on TVs without VRR.
No mention of raytracing, though. Looks like resolution is their priority.

 

[iroboto]

This would be nice.

Wouldn't mind someone testing motion interpolation as an option.
Should be quite doable, considering the results we saw on X360.

Which games ran interpolation? Surprised it wasn’t followed further.

 

[iroboto]

No, I disagree. There's no generalized ideal.
I do not want any developer to be stuck with 60FPS minimum. It's a terrible strategy all around, save for VR and a few genres.

If a developer wants to prioritize an internal rendering resolution of 2160p or even 8K over 60 FPS then let them.
As mentioned before, Civilization 7 doesn't need 60FPS, not does the next XCOM. Nor the e.g. Total War series IMO since the RTS part doesn't depend a lot on fast unit micromanaging.



In the meantime, it looks like Valhalla will be 30 FPS on the Series X:




Quick translation by yours truly:

"Currently, we can assure that Assassin's Creed Valhalla will run at a minimum 30 FPS. Assassin's Creed Valhalla will benefit from faster loading times, allowing players to be immersed in the story and the world with no interruptions (direct translation: no friction). Lastly, Assassin's Creed Valhalla will benefit from improved graphics made possible by XBox Series X, and we can hardly wait for you to see the beautiful world we're creating in the impressive 4K resolution."


So, I guess we're looking at 4K30, at least on TVs without VRR.
No mention of raytracing, though. Looks like resolution is their priority.

I would disagree as someone who plays RTS all the time (did, that ended a little back). Higher frame rates matter a ton especially in competitive RTS. Most RTS titles do not include any form of motion blur. Having a lower frame rate while moving the screen around causes a ton of ghosting because the whole screen is shifting in a very different way from our typical 3D games. Mainly we are jerking the viewpoint very quickly and in multiple directions which isn’t possible in FPS or action games. This was not an issue back in the day because of our CRT!

that being said. Yes there are a couple of titles that probably don’t need it. I’m not speaking of mandates however. Just talking about ideals. I’ve run the whole spectrum here; 720p, 792, 900, 1080p and 4Kish. Nothing has been more harmful to an experience than a poor frame rate experience. Granted a consistent 30fps is desirable, there are still many times in which I have on X1X switched to performance mode to get the extra frame rate I need to beat an area I’m stuck at.

the Witcher comes particularly to mind as well as Ori and a couple other titles I run on PC. I wish very much that it was available on Dark Souls 3 as well but it wasn’t.

With the total potential of both systems; VRS interweaved with dynamic resolution; I see 60fps as being the target for most developers next gen. The SSD will free up IO. All you need to do is to fluctuate the resolution to keep those frames up.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I would disagree as someone who plays RTS all the time. Higher frame rates matter a ton especially in competitive RTS. Most RTS titles do not include any form of motion blur. Having a lower frame rate while moving the screen around causes a ton of ghosting because the whole screen is shifting in a very different way from our typical 3D games. Mainly we are jerking the viewpoint very quickly and in multiple directions which isn’t possible in FPS or action games. This was not an issue back in the day because of our CRT!

Yes, I meant the RTS part of the Total War games, as what you tend to do in these games' RTS part is slow commands because the units themselves are very slow to respond.

With the total potential of both systems; VRS interweaved with dynamic resolution; I see 60fps as being the target for most developers next gen. The SSD will free up IO. All you need to do is to fluctuate the resolution to keep those frames up.

But why do you want 60FPS on CIV 7 or XCOM 3?

 

[iroboto]

Yes, I meant the RTS part of the Total War games, as what you tend to do in these games' RTS part is slow commands because the units themselves are very slow to respond.

Oh ok. I was thinking Starcraft and stuff. Man shit was killing me when I was running lower frame rates. The base causes so much ghosting, much more ghosting than I’ve seen with other titles.

 

[eastmen]

Fighting games probably need a fixed framerate to get consistent results.
We all know how fps impacts physics engines so that's a major issue for managing exploits. (Doom speedruns)

Yes , but i'd want a 120fp fighting game over a 30 fps fighting game. Just as long as its locked

 

[iroboto]

But why do you want 60FPS on CIV 7 or XCOM 3?

Like resolution, smoothness is a form of visual freedom.

like battletech is better at a higher frame rate than lesser. Even if there is no requirement by the player to make any shots.

there are diminishing returns on frame rate but that happens around 120. I feel like 60fps is equivalent to 1080p. Both 60 and 1080p are absolute baselines and provide a much better experience than that of below. And 120fps is like 4K; the point of beginning heavy diminishing returns. Any further is unlikely to be noticed.

tldr; I think at a certain point in time, as much as people want to extract as much graphical power as possible to doing other things (and I totally understand that POV), as we (the general mainstream) are finding with CPU and I/O being the largest bottlenecks moving into next generation, people will need to come to acceptance that eventually having a low FPS rate is also a limiter on your graphical prowess. And that's because we lose that motion clarity, we lose that responsiveness, we lose that feeling of having a powerful system when we run low framerates, because we know it's not as smooth. I don't think this was an issue with CRT, I'm almost positive it wasn't. But's it's a big issue with display panels of today.

Eventually, low FPS will be a bottleneck for game design creativity. And it's going to come down to not being able to see enough frames or having enough reaction time, or the player being unable to telegraph what's going on, or for some titles just the experience as a whole. When you have low fps, the game must slow down entirely to accommodate for it. The whole zipping through NYC like a jet demo for PS5 Spiderman doesn't work at 30fps. They needed to show it at above 30fps for people to think they just weren't blurring all the details out of everything and zipping through the city.

It is interesting to see how much people are gushing about how beautiful animations are in TLOU2, when they are forever locked at 30fps. Animations are much more beautiful and noticeably beautiful at higher fps. You can see all that motion detail that is loss with 30fps.