Would Horizon 2 still be constrained to 30 fps on said 2080ti though?
What do you prefer for games: Framerates and Resolutions? [2020]
- Thread starter ultragpu
- Start date
Some here had expected 60fps to become the gold standard for AAA games next generation. That didn't come to fruition yet as far as the announced next gen games go (or the ue5 demo).
Neither did we get that 'true next generation jump' as some speculated, games like HZFW look great ofcourse, but it's not that jump that we had from PS3 to PS4 (KZ shadowfall trailer), let alone from 2d to 3d, ps1 to ps2 etc.
I think 30fps is rather off-putting, somehow the image feels 'blurry' when you turn around, not so much when going forwards.
On the other hand, we didn't really got that amazing graphics jump over current gen and that's at a mere 30fps with very subtle ray tracing if any (ratched), or 60fps but almost looking like current gen (new GT).
We also want '4k' or anything close to it, even that high resolution is rather taxing, we already see upscaling from a lower res already now.
The only real jump compared to previous iterations is the SSD's, but they don't enable 60fps, faster ray tracing or higher graphics fidelity like volumetric lighting, resolution etc. We get faster loading between worlds and bootup. And 3D audio, just that no one seems to be talking about it.
With such a subtle jump in graphical fidelity even at 30fps and below 4k, i think doubling the framerate would be more felt, with still a graphical jump to be noticed over current generation. With tech like DLSS/VRS, i think we might finfally get there, 60fps, ray tracing and amazing graphics should be possible.
The UE5 demo had that 'wow moment', with the billions of polygons and ultra high quality assets. A 2080Q (2070 dGPU variant) maintained 40fps at 1440p so that's close enough to optimize with VRS and upscaling technologys (ML perhaps?).
With 12+TF's packing in a console environment, fast CPU's and gobs of bandwith it should be possible.
HB2 demo graphics are just BS i think, it's UE5 on steroids, that would be a true jump but it wont ever look like that ingame.
@Ronaldo8
Most likely not if they will optimize it ofcourse. A 2080Ti is much more capable/specced then what the game is currently targeted for. Also, a 2080Ti calibre GPU more often then not is paired with something faster then a 3.5ghz max clocked cpu and probably more and faster ram to boot. Pairing a 2080Ti with Optane to play star citizen does happen, two years down the line setups with that kind of hardware will be more common.
I don't know what kind of TV you guys are playing, but in my case 60fps LOOKS better. I know that this kind of conversation usually revolves about 'looking' better versus 'feeling' better, but in my case 60fps does look much better than a typical 30fps. And I'm pretty sure that this is exacerbated even more on OLED TVs, where 30fps is rough.
Sure, relegate 'slow' games to 30fps, but even in slow games anything that has the screen panning over any sort of images or backgrounds really benefits from 60fps, simply because you can actually SEE what the heck it is that is moving, as opposed to a blur or ghosting on 30fps. Especially with all the post processing that a lot of 30fps have. That's what motion resolution is.
I literally had to stop playing Control, firstly because I fucking hated the game, but mostly because it just looks like such a mess, I could not get over it. That to me is by far the biggest culprit of this generation. On Pro at least, not sure about other platforms.
Sure, relegate 'slow' games to 30fps, but even in slow games anything that has the screen panning over any sort of images or backgrounds really benefits from 60fps, simply because you can actually SEE what the heck it is that is moving, as opposed to a blur or ghosting on 30fps. Especially with all the post processing that a lot of 30fps have. That's what motion resolution is.
I literally had to stop playing Control, firstly because I fucking hated the game, but mostly because it just looks like such a mess, I could not get over it. That to me is by far the biggest culprit of this generation. On Pro at least, not sure about other platforms.
That's insulting and undermines your argument. If you are confident in your choices, you don't need to belittle the other option by reducing it down to the absurd notion of watching of a movie. TLoU2, for example, is a game with lots and lots of gameplay, and people who prefer it with lush visuals at 30fps instead of lesser visuals at 60 fps aren't defective.
Seriously, a lot of you folk need to learn how to respect variance in human beings. Someone liking something different to you doesn't make them wrong and you shouldn't even be able to think of them as wrong, just different. If you won't insult someone or their choices over liking a different food to you, you shouldn't insult them over preferring visual features at different priorities to you.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Yes, screenshots can't capture temporal resolution and many people insist on only looking at screenshots.
It's all about how much information the eye takes in within a given timeframe. Additionally once you get away from constantly looking at 30 FPS content (or even worse 24 FPS film) you start to realize just how janky 30 (and 24) FPS really is. And how horribly stilted and, IMO, distorted it makes the graphics look.
Having more information presented to the eye and brain via higher FPS not only enhances the image quality, it makes the motion more stable and more realistic. Because your visual system doesn't operate on 30 still images per second. It doesn't operate at 60 still images per second in real life either, but it's closer to how your visual system processes real life.
This gets further complicated when you add in studios starting to use temporal rendering techniques that inherently look better at higher framerates (artifacts in motion are less noticeable as framerate increases leading to a more stable and pleasing image).
Temporal rendering techniques going forwards will allow for greater advances WRT to graphical IQ and presentation than more simplistic rendering techniques. And for those to really shine, you need higher FPS. 60 FPS is the minimum for acceptable quality with temporal rendering techniques. 120 FPS would be preferable but I don't think many games will venture that far. 60 FPS is a good starting place.
60 FPS with temporal rendering techniques, IMO, should take the place of 30 FPS simpler rendering techniques. They'll not only perform and feel better at 60 FPS, but they'll also look better than 30 FPS without temporal rendering.
Regards,
SB
It's pretty strange argument to make that fps equals gameplay. Just compare ps4 30Hz horizon versus GTAV PC on freesync/gsync monitor with highend pc. High framerate doesn't fix poor game mechanics on GTAV. On the other hand 30fps on horizon is near perfect playability. But horizon is super tweaked including sounds. You can roughly hear where robots are and clearly hear what they are doing. Don't see the robo but you hear charging sound, time to press roll button and dodge.
In horizon I don't think I once died/got frustrated due to controls. GTAV with high fps+freesync on highend pc on the other hand was constant source of frustration.
Where I do like high framerate is VR, simulators(gran turismo), tekken and competitive online games. To me this is much more complicated issue than 30 vs 60, especially when taking game genres and vrr into account.
In horizon I don't think I once died/got frustrated due to controls. GTAV with high fps+freesync on highend pc on the other hand was constant source of frustration.
Where I do like high framerate is VR, simulators(gran turismo), tekken and competitive online games. To me this is much more complicated issue than 30 vs 60, especially when taking game genres and vrr into account.
When talking about the graphical features of a game, the image complexity as I've called it, then screenshots are a fine way to compare different levels complexity. There's nothing wrong with saying, "I prefer this sort of look to that one," with two images as examples where they're somewhat comparable. If you want to compare the games factoring in the motion, then obviously video is required. Everyone with experience of playing 30 fps and 60 fps games knows how they feel about framerate and can see whether they would prefer quality with complexity in Screenshot 1 versus Screenshot 2 at the given temporal resolution.
I have found, on certain xbox exclusive games that reviewed poorly and generally speaking the experience is poor, but vastly better once moving to 60fps. I suspect CPU was the largest bottleneck, so likely none of this would have been possible regardless, but some thoughts on games that really needed it having experimented and switched back to my PC and off xbox this year.
In particular the following games would have significantly benefited from a minimal 60fps mode, that would have made the playing experience not only better but likely would have brought their review scores higher as a result.
a) Crackdown 3 (absolutely necessary to even play the game)
b) Ori games (there are certain bosses that are extremely hard to beat at 30fps)
c) Cuphead (a handful of bosses and levels that are extremely hard to beat at 30fps, too bad there is no 60fps mode - many nintendo bullet hell games, Super C, etc, were easier because of the frame rate)
d) Recore
e) Quantum Break
The exception
f) Sunset Overdrive (overall this was fairly okay, but all the whacky movement and monsters coming in all at once, 60fps would have made the action and responsiveness so much better)
In particular the following games would have significantly benefited from a minimal 60fps mode, that would have made the playing experience not only better but likely would have brought their review scores higher as a result.
a) Crackdown 3 (absolutely necessary to even play the game)
b) Ori games (there are certain bosses that are extremely hard to beat at 30fps)
c) Cuphead (a handful of bosses and levels that are extremely hard to beat at 30fps, too bad there is no 60fps mode - many nintendo bullet hell games, Super C, etc, were easier because of the frame rate)
d) Recore
e) Quantum Break
The exception
f) Sunset Overdrive (overall this was fairly okay, but all the whacky movement and monsters coming in all at once, 60fps would have made the action and responsiveness so much better)
Last edited:
FPS equals gameplay where the pacing of the game and he level of twitch control required demands it. 60 vs 30 fps is immediately noticeable in First Person Shooter, racing games, sports games, simulators and fighting games which is an awful lot of game genres. 30 fps is however not a problem for the glorified walking simulators that has plagued this generation, hence why 30 fps gameplay has been able to overstay its welcome.
The ps2 didnt have the 30fps problem though, ratched was 60 and great gfx for the time, so did mgs2, zoe2, jak series, god of war 1/2 both of which had best ps2 graphics or close, Black etc.
Even certain remakes of those are downgraded to 30.
It's the advent of "open" games. What should have been an interesting time of innovation has predictably turned out to be the dilution of gameplay (by that I mean the game actually soliciting your attention AND agency) and the triumph of style over substance. Framerate affects your perception of the transposition of your agency in the game, it stand to reason that low/inconsistent framerate will create a disconnect and break immersion. The more frequently you actually have to interact with the game world, the greater the need for higher frame rate.
Also crappy Jaguar cores.
Transformers ps2 was an open world game, advanced gfx for the console, 60fps. Ratched, an jak where too.
UC4 and last of us, gow aint open world though.
DF recommends a 1440/165Hz monitor for the ideal image quality and performance ratio combo. It's sponsored but imho, they are spot on there. 1440p is the sweet spot for image quality -not far from the overrated underperforming 4k- and performance.
Also nice to see DF starts mentioning HDR a bit more.
Also nice to see DF starts mentioning HDR a bit more.
Last edited:
I agree native 4k is a waste of performance in most cases. I still game on a 1080p screen downsampled from 1440p and most games I play have basically perfect image quality thanks to modern AA techniques.
My next monitor upgrade will be to a 21:9 3440x1440p screen which would save significant performance over a 16:9 4K screen (which I also have in 55" OLED form) and look better overall IMO.
The only reason I haven't moved yet is that there're no decent HDR WQHD screens available yet at a reasonable price.
since you are into ultrawide monitors...have you checked this one I mentioned in a different thread? (below is a copy-paste from that post)
the PERFECT monitor?
HDR1000, 240fps, 49" ultrawide (32:9).
5120x1440p resolution, sheer love.
https://displaysolutions.samsung.com/monitor/detail/1644/C49G95T
Or almost perfect... If you dont have enough space, there is a little sibling, a 32" version, 240Hz and HDR600.
https://www.samsung.com/us/computing/monitors/gaming/32--odyssey-g7-gaming-monitor-lc32g75tqsnxza/
Monitors have little value for games and multimedia. Poor image quality, poor HDR, poor colors, insane prices considering etc. Better to just buy a cheap monitor for PC work and a TV for everything else.
Last edited:
it's such a big difference when you have a quality 4K tv set. It's night and day.
It really is. Monitors are quite crap TBH.