Uncharted 4: A Thief's End [PS4]
- Thread starter Strange
- Start date
- Status
It's only disappointing because ND claimed that SP was aiming 1080p/60 and how easy it was to hit that target with the PS4 and then SP is 1080p/30 (which is fine and that's what i wanted anyway) and MP has to drop to 900p to hit the target. They shouldn't have said anything about resolution and framerates so early imo, it makes them look unprofessional and incapable. You basically create negative buzz around the game without reason when nobody would have a problem if they just announced it's running at 900p to hit 60 fps instead of promising to hit 1080p60 in the first place. It's pretty easy to understand why it's running at 900p but the way they handled everything that had to do with resolution and framerate is amateur at best, PR blunder after PR blunder. Just my two cents.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I missed that, do you have a source?
1080p 60 fps is not so difficult to hit on PS4. It is just a compromise. Uncharted Collection and TLOU Rematered are 1080p 60 fps withe not toally locked but very stable framerate. Like DICE they want to achieve a good level of graphics and decided to go for 900p and 60 fps.
@42:38
Yeah i agree with that, and i said that already. I know why it's running at 900p because it looks great. I am just saying they could've handled this whole situation waaaaaay better.
Edit: Some direct B-roll footage of environments and MP gameplay
Last edited:
Oh and all this puts a huge question mark over this: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=835985
If they are not able to meet that initial target (because that's what it is even if that specific scene was able to run real-time at 1080p60 at the time) at half the refresh rate for single player i am sure not a lot of people will let this go unanswered. One little article from DF comparing what they showed in 2014 and what it is like in 2016 could have the internet up in arms over "downgrades". In this day and age where most people have access to the internet, it's never good for such anticipated projects to over-promise and under-deliver.
If they are not able to meet that initial target (because that's what it is even if that specific scene was able to run real-time at 1080p60 at the time) at half the refresh rate for single player i am sure not a lot of people will let this go unanswered. One little article from DF comparing what they showed in 2014 and what it is like in 2016 could have the internet up in arms over "downgrades". In this day and age where most people have access to the internet, it's never good for such anticipated projects to over-promise and under-deliver.
Well, at least DICE can do great graphics (Battlefront) at 900p60fps (and 40 players). Not sure what ND showed impressed people as much as Battlefront did.
Ew, that 60fps cost strikes again and not even ND is safe from it. MP honestly looks down right ugly compared to SP, I think Battlefront did hellava better job here both being 900/60. Luckily I don't give a flying eff about UC's mp anyway so all is good as long as the SP stays the same quality as E3's showing.
upnorthsox
Veteran
Well since you went ahead and dragged this in here, I was decidedly unimpressed with the Battlefront beta to the point that there's nothing about it I'd want to play again and this coming from someone who would've been day one for an SP game like the trailer that was shown yesterday during Sony's conference.
Billy Idol
Legend
MP gameplay looks quite promising, except for those super powers...wtf?!?
I like the destruction of the environments. I like the extreme movability (UC2 MP was fantastic in this regard and something else imo).
However, from a visual point of view...ultra meh.
60Hz is just to much for those consoles...
I like the destruction of the environments. I like the extreme movability (UC2 MP was fantastic in this regard and something else imo).
However, from a visual point of view...ultra meh.
60Hz is just to much for those consoles...
The idea of moving to locked 60Hz is because MP is ultimate about core gameplay/mechanics. 60Hz you're receiving double the frame data and being able to put in twice as many inputs (in theory). When the objective of multiplayer is to play and not to be impressed, the move to 60 is correct and will always be correct in my mind. Double the frame rate means your eyes see a sharper image, less work for your brain to do to interpolate the two images together, definitely a lot less blurry.l (at least IMO) You should see games running at 140+fps on a 144Hz monitor. There is a visual clarity there that you can only feel but not see in static images.
I just can't see the point of the constant 60fps looks worse than 30fps talk. Of course it does! Even on a bloody Titan, a game that pretty much maxes it out at 30fps (I can't even imagine the eye candy on such a game, but just follow my logic) would need some serious cutbacks to get it to run at 60fps.
You can't open a can of beer and pour two beers. Would be nice, but no you can't!
You can't open a can of beer and pour two beers. Would be nice, but no you can't!
It's possible the most people do not have an output device that would properly display 60fps in a way that would be an advantage to the user. Or the simple reality that most players are not competitive enough anymore to care about edging an opponent in any way possible to win. Higher FPS will benefit those who have better displays, more so than those who have mediocre. Sadly most people have no clue if they are running a mediocre display, hence the reason they don't care about the move to 60.
I think 60fps is good for multiplayer. People may not be aware of it, or be able to describe it, but it's one of the reasons COD4 became so popular. It felt really smooth and responsive to most people, and I'm not even sure it maintained 60fps perfectly.
The graphics have definitely taken a hit on the multiplayer side for that, but that doesn't bother me. I just don't think the multiplayer gameplay looks great.
The graphics have definitely taken a hit on the multiplayer side for that, but that doesn't bother me. I just don't think the multiplayer gameplay looks great.
L. Scofield
Veteran
Well, the GI is baked so no reason to drop it in the multiplayer.Live gameplay from gamersyde at PGW
http://www.gamersyde.com/news_pgw_uncharted_4_mp_gameplay-17258_en.html
Also, it's 900p apparently (to hit 60 fps) http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-10-27-uncharted-4-multiplayer-will-be-60-frames-per-second
Edit: Just looking at that, single player is going to be a looker at half the refresh rate.
Perspective cropped two stills from the gamersyde video, looks like both volumetric lighting and great looking GI make it into multiplayer despite being 60 fps
The only thing i am worried about is the aliasing but we'll have to wait and see in the beta
hesido
Regular
It's not so much dragging as comparing two 900p Multiplayer games, which is a valid comparison. When you are unimpressed, are you talking about the gameplay or the visuals?
For me, Battlefront is doing more interesting things visually and it looks better than the Uncharted Multi IMHO, so kudos to DICE on that.
Whatever the end result, it's nice that powers at Sony didn't force Naughty Dog to go with 1080p on multiplayer. Not saying they forced exclusives to be at a certain res but so far first party games have all been pushing for 1080p.
You're comparing hand drawn textures to fully scanned environments. Of course they'll have a different look.
hesido
Regular
They do hand drawn textures and they seem to have removed the AO. So no, the difference cannot be attributed to asset creation methods alone.
I really liked the smoothness of 60 fps. I didn't notice the graphics. Just sooo smooth action!
- Status
Similar threads
- Deleted member 2197
- Games