Good lord, what is wrong with some of you? Learn to fucking read. Read the post I was responding to. Thean read my reply again. I wasn't trying to "speak for all gamers".
Oh really? Was Shadow of the Colossus unplayable? Could the game have been made at 30fps without sacrifices and compromising the experience? It barely even reaches 20. You are not suggesting Team Ico should have compromised their artistic vision, are you?
I have played the entirety of Doom on the snes and enjoyed it, as well as Star Fox and Perfect Dark, despite all running at 10fps at best. Zelda OoT, one of my favorite games of all time, runs at 20fps. Yet I prefer 60fps over 30 no matter what. And yet, 30fps elitists won't touch a game that runs at anything below 30fps. Such framerate snobs.
Well I guess in theory eventually you would have enough power to make any game you can imagine and still have the headroom for 60 or even higher.
Doom Eternal looks comparable, and better than some of those (Knack). That list proves exactly nothing other than those devs targeted 30fps. I hope you won't suggest both Doom games didn't look 'next-gen' at the time. I struggle to call any of those games 'groundbreaking' in any way
The question is: do you want to play a slideshow?
Well both Jak & Daxter/Ratchet & Clank had huge open enviroments with long draw distances at 60fps so... I guess Kojima wanted more bloom and vegetation in 3.
So what you're saying is the game had huge gameplay sacrifices to get other gameplay implementations.Oh Wow you really can't admit to being wrong can you!
Yeah it was just the bloom and vegetation in 3. (Lets just pretend the vegetation didn't serve gameplay purpose's) and it's nothing to do with the far bigger more complex levels and more AI's (especially if you include the animals)
Kojima did this last gen by the way MGS5 was 60 Death Stranding was 30. I guess this doesn't count because MGS5 was cross gen or something.
I haven't played it. Have seen videos of it. "far bigger more complex levels"? As in Jak & Daxter? R&C? That platformer video I posted (which you likely didn't see)? Bloom lighting and tons of individual blades of grass/plant leaves (which looked nice but not really necessary to spend that much polygonal and processing budget on it, there are cheaper alternatives) aren't exactly cheap to render on a PS2. The vegetation was also affected by player movement, which was extremely rare at the time. The enemy/animal ai is laughably basic (it's a metal gear solid game after all) And you'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful at a time.Oh Wow you really can't admit to being wrong can you!
Yeah it was just the bloom and vegetation in 3. (Lets just pretend the vegetation didn't serve gameplay purpose's) and it's nothing to do with the far bigger more complex levels and more AI's (especially if you include the animals)
Well yeah. It was built on a last gen engine, designed primarily for previous consoles and started development before the PS4 was even a rumor. It also had a lot of production issues and was developed concurrently with the FOX Engine. DS was developed on the Decima Engine, made by Guerrilla Games, many years into the gen
Some of these are wrong. I believe Killzone was 60 fps (atleast in MP) and Infamous had uncapped frame rate. You're correct on the rest though. I remember The Order stirring up quite the controversy when the lead developer said they chose 30 fps because it was more filmic and thus more accurate to their game. Why they didn't go all the way down to the real cinema 24 fps, he didn't say. And Driveclub was also a bit controversial being 30 fps even back then. This is because it's more or less tradition that arcade races are 60 fps for maximum input responsiveness. Honestly, I didn't like Driveclub. It looks nice in pictures but in motion it is completely stomped by GT Sport. It also had motion blur out the ass which made visibility poor. I'd argue that GT Sport was probably the best looking PS4 game in motion. What's funny is that GoW and R&C both had predecessors running 60 fps on PS2. How much of the 30 fps cap was due to Sony's ambitions of 1080p resolution across the board? Regardless, like others have mentioned, the PS4 was an exceptionally bad console. Its hardware was a gimped low-end GPU and an even worse CPU. You could say the hardware was underwhelming and many games were forced to go through severe downgrades as the initial devkits were rumored to be significantly more powerful than the final hardware.
That's been my entire argument this entire thread. That there is FAR more too gameplay that it feeling smooth and enabling better reaction times and Sometimes not always but sometimes devs will bring the the framerates to 30 for gameplay reasons.
If it was so bad, why did it sell so well?
To be fair isn't 30fps more tolerable on consoles because of the gamepad? Where as 30fps feels terrible on a mouse?
Both feels equally terrible.
There bigger sure but more complex definitely not you can't just focus on one thing to prove point. They were far bigger and more complex than MGS2 levels who were made by the same dev... but more on that later
All true I'm sure Kojima had a minimum graphical standard he wanted to achieve buts that the point it's never just one thing. Most Devs want good graphics, good framerate and good game mechanics and make a compromise between all 3. Hell Supernova felt MGS2 looked better than MGS3 in some ways personally you could argue MGS3 sacrificed Framerate and graphics to focus on it's core mechanics.
If I remember correctly animals and guards effected the grass as well. It looks nice but also serves the gameplay as well as it's important visual information. Which leads me to another point a lot of nice visual effects can make a game feel better to play or give important feedback to the player e.g. like doom eternals deformation tech. Even Resolution can give more visual clarity to the player
The animal AI was basic sure but the guard AI isn't. It's stupid and can be manipulated but it's far more complex than most games especially at the time. Again it not just one thing its all these things working together
Hang on so you can compare games made by different devs using different engines to make a point but I can't compare two games made by the same dev because the engine changed and development cycle's were different? C'mon now.
I'm only making a point, that big and complex levels are not exclusive to 30fps. The levels in MGS3 were really not that big anyways. Certainly not bigger or any more complex than those in the aforementioned games. It also had a lot of indoor scenes that weren't any more complex than those in MGS2. I also want to point out that map size is not the same as level of detail, mesh density or scene complexity. And as I said I haven't played the game, but I'd sooner believe the framerate drop was done for aesthetic purposes rather than any considerable jump in ai or core gameplay complexity. I may be misremembering but I recall Kojima stating in an interview that the reason he decided to go with 30fps in MGS3 was in order to push foliage rendering (which was some of the best ever seen in a game at the time). Regardless, MGS2 was an immense jump from the first one, the reveal blew everyone away and did so without having to sacrifice framerate.
Either that or the gentleman has been transported from the early 90s to current day minus any brain updates.
Well arguing aside If you enjoy stealth games i think it's worth punt. One of the classics from that era I think and you can play now in 60fps!
Can it be both?
Fair enough there's not really any game like it from that generation.
It definitely was. The level design particularly the big shell was so uninspired though so small and boxy. If that's related to framerate or not I don't know mgs2 and mgs3 are rare cases where a dev has changed framerate in the same generation. MGS3 for whatever reason always seemed way ambitious in its gameplay systems.
I meant specs-wise. It was an extremely disappointing console generation. Those consoles were greatly outdated by launch and were made of very standard parts.
lol this is idiotic.I've said it before and I'll say it again. Every single game needs to have the following baseline requirements:
1. 1080p
2. 60 fps
3. Highest (Ultra) graphics settings
Every.
Single.
Fucking.
Game.
I have to agree, I think it's time to try and at least consider moving past 1080 and make 1440 the new standard.People advocating for 1080p in here like its 2010 lmao.
ENOUGH
