Support NeoGAF

[charles8771]

The multiplayer of CoD4 was popular partly BECAUSE it ran at 60 FPS. CoD simply felt much better to play than any other Multiplayer FPS on the market.

It was the perfect storm of progression system, multiplayer suite and excellent campaign that made COD 4 so popular.

Halo 3 was still very popular despite the fact that ran at 640p 30fps: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/pc/-i-halo-3-i-takes-in-first-week-sales-of-300-million
However Halo 3 has big open areas and is less linear

In fact 1 year later, GTA IV was considered the fastest selling game: https://www.cnet.com/culture/can-any-game-break-the-gta-iv-sales-records/
Despite of the horrendous frame rates on PS3 and Xbox 360, however it came out from the same devs that made GTA 3, Vice City.

 

[Rykan]

It was the perfect storm of progression system, multiplayer suite and excellent campaign that made COD 4 so popular.

Halo 3 was still very popular despite the fact that ran at 640p 30fps: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/pc/-i-halo-3-i-takes-in-first-week-sales-of-300-million
However Halo 3 has big open areas and is less linear

In fact 1 year later, GTA IV was considered the fastest selling game: https://www.cnet.com/culture/can-any-game-break-the-gta-iv-sales-records/
Despite of the horrendous frame rates on PS3 and Xbox 360, however it came out from the same devs that made GTA 3, Vice City.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue here.

 

[Team Andromeda]

The multiplayer of CoD4 was popular partly BECAUSE it ran at 60 FPS. CoD simply felt much better to play than any other Multiplayer FPS on the market.

So Halo Infinite should be the most popular Halo game online, thanks to 120 FPS *rollseyes*

 

[Rykan]

Yes thats EXACTLY what my post says. Good job. FFS, my guy.

 

[Team Andromeda]

Yes thats EXACTLY what my post says. Good job. FFS, my guy.

There's more to COD IV being popular than 60 FPS.. FFS !!!

 

[charles8771]

I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue here.

Why Halo 3 was very popular during Xbox 360 days?

 

[Rykan]

There's more to COD IV being popular than 60 FPS.. FFS !!!

Which is why I've said partly. Of course there is “more to it" but Call of Duty 4 became popular partly because it felt great to play, and it felt great to play because it ran at 60 FPS. The developers knew that, which is why the series remained dedicated to a 60 FPS experience with every entry, even during a period where everything else ran at 30. It would have been much easier to make it run at 30 instead.

Why Halo 3 was very popular during Xbox 360 days?

Because it's a sequel to the single most defining game on the original Xbox. It declined in popularity over time as people switched over to Call of Duty instead.

 

[MALpractice311]

No, we don't need Pro consoles. We need developers to stop needlessly including ray tracing.

 

[Rocco Schiavone]

No, we don't need Pro consoles. We need developers to stop needlessly including ray tracing.

Some games already suck in their performance modes and It has nothing to do with Raytracing.

 

[Tmac]

It's not a matter of IF but of When!

 

[charles8771]

The only reason we got the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X is because of 4K TVs: https://www.statista.com/chart/15377/worldwide-4k-tv-sales/

That the main reason, overwise they wouldn't had other reason to push 4K, however we didn't have 1440p TVs.

 

[R6Rider]

Some games already suck in their performance modes and It has nothing to do with Raytracing.

Because devs don't optimize. NO reason console versions can't have setting similar to what PC versions get.

Latest example is FFXVI. ZERO reason this game shouldn't be hitting high resolutions at 60fps. Game looks like a late PS4 title at best.

 

[Team Andromeda]

Which is why I've said partly. Of course there is “more to it" but Call of Duty 4 became popular partly because it felt great to play, and it felt great to play because it ran at 60 FPS.

You made a BIG point of 60 FPS, Overlooking of course that COD2 and COD3 run at 60 FPS or that HALO run at 30 FPS was massive

 

[Rykan]

You made a BIG point of 60 FPS, Overlooking of course that COD2 and COD3 run at 60 FPS or that HALO run at 30 FPS was massive

What point are you trying to make here? That CoD 2 and 3 didn't have the sales of Call of Duty 4? CoD 2 and CoD 3 both came out early in that console cycle. Call of Duty 2 was a launch game for the Xbox 360, and it was the best selling game at launch. In fact: 77% of people who purchased an Xbox 360 at launch also purchased Call of Duty 2 alongside with it. It didn't even come out on the Playstation 3 because that system hadn't launched yet. Call of Duty 3 was a launch game for the PS3. The install base was small.

I've already commented on Halo 3. Yes it was a very big and popular game, but it declined in popularity as more and more players moved over to Call of Duty.

 

[Team Andromeda]

What point are you trying to make here? That CoD 2 and 3 didn't have the sales of Call of Duty 4? CoD 2 and CoD 3 both came out early in that console cycle. Call of Duty 2 was a launch game for the Xbox 360, and it was the best selling game at launch. In fact: 77% of people who purchased an Xbox 360 at launch also purchased Call of Duty 2 alongside with it. It didn't even come out on the Playstation 3 because that system hadn't launched yet. Call of Duty 3 was a launch game for the PS3. The install base was small.

I've already commented on Halo 3. Yes it was a very big and popular game, but it declined in popularity as more and more players moved over to Call of Duty.

You're just full of excuses. You're just to be clever with 60 FPS but there's far more to it than Frame Rate

 

[Rykan]

You're just full of excuses. You're just to be clever with 60 FPS but there's far more to it than Frame Rate

Excuses for what? What even are you trying to argue here? Were you trying to argue that Call of Duty wasn't popular before call of duty 4, despite being at 60 fps? It was the best selling Xbox 360 launch game by far. Nearly every person that purchased an Xbox 360 at launch purchased it with CoD2.

Excuses? Don't know what to tell ya mate. Sorry that I'm just better informed than you are.

 

[Team Andromeda]

Excuses for what? What even are you trying to argue here? Were you trying to argue that Call of Duty wasn't popular before call of duty 4, despite being at 60 fps? It was the best selling Xbox 360 launch game by far. Nearly every person that purchased an Xbox 360 at launch purchased it with CoD2.

Excuses? Don't know what to tell ya mate. Sorry that I'm just better informed than you are.

I'm not the one saying COD IV sold well BECAUSE it ran at 60 FPS and don't hit back with the partly crap either. PARTLY wasn't in BIG Captial letters and worded before BECAUSE it ran at 60FPS


Informed?

 

[charles8771]

Excuses for what? What even are you trying to argue here? Were you trying to argue that Call of Duty wasn't popular before call of duty 4, despite being at 60 fps? It was the best selling Xbox 360 launch game by far. Nearly every person that purchased an Xbox 360 at launch purchased it with CoD2.

Excuses? Don't know what to tell ya mate. Sorry that I'm just better informed than you are.

Look at this: https://www.eurogamer.net/insomniac-60fps-no-more

In fact, 60fps is something Insomniac ditched in 2009 during 7th gen.
But which others developers did?

 

[Aguero9320]

I would buy a Series Xtra without a second's hesitation.

 

[Rykan]

I'm not the one saying COD IV sold well BECAUSE it ran at 60 FPS and don't hit back with the partly crap either. PARTLY wasn't in BIG Captial letters and worded before BECAUSE it ran at 60FPS


Informed?

Don't hit back with the "partly" crap? I've clarified what I meant by that in like three different posts. In fact, I've already clarified and elaborated on it in the following response before you even joined this discussion. You're just trying to play 'Gotcha!' now. But two can play that game. Go ahead and quote the part where I explicitly said that Call of Duty 4 sold well solely due to the fact that it ran at 60 FPS. Actually, don't bother. Let me save you the trouble: You won't find it. It's not there because that's not what my post said.

Sorry, mate, but all of your 'arguments' easily refuted. 'Well, Halo now runs at 120 Hz, so that would mean it would be the most played game, right!? Hah! Checkmate!'

No. The jump from 60 FPS to 120 FPS is noticeable but less substantial than the jump from 30 fps to 60 fps due to the laws of diminishing returns. But more importantly, the vast majority of people don't own TVs capable of 120 FPS output.

Then you bring up previous Call of Duty games, seemingly completely unaware that Call of Duty 2 is one of the most successful launch games with one of the highest attach rates of any launch games. I'm more than happy to engage in an actual, good faith discussion with you about this. But if your idea of a discussion is silly 'gotcha' games over wording and phrasing, and you think taking circumstances and the big picture into account are 'excuses,' then you have nothing of value to contribute.

But which others developers did?

So the developer you're referring to is not as successful as Call of Duty and makes primarily single player game. A dev who's games, mind you, now run at 60 FPS across the board. But you could probably make the argument that framerates are more important in multiplayer games than singleplayer games.

But let's explore that question for a bit: What other developers did? Well, during that era of games when Call of Duty hit the scene: Not many. Games running at 60 FPS in single or multiplayer were rare. Halo, Gears of War, Rainbow Six, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, etc etc. All ran at 30 FPS. Yet it was Call of Duty, the one that ran at 60 FPS, that became mega popular.

But what's even more interesting is if we look one generation ahead: To the Xbone/PS4 era. Most singleplayer games still ran at 30 FPS, at least on base consoles. Not much has changed there. But Multiplayer games? Multiplayer games suddenly embraced 60 FPS in the post Call of Duty Boom. Halo? 60 FPS. Battlefield? 60 FPS (Sorta..) Rainbow six? 60 FPS. Gears of War? 60 FPS for multiplayer. Fortnite? Apex Legends? Warzone? Rocket League? Titan Fall? All target 60 FPS.

Is it a coincidence that multiplayer games that came out after the gen in which CoD took the market run at 60 FPS? You tell me.

Like I'm not saying that the framerate is the sole defining factor to Call of Duty's success, but I don't understand how anyone could argue that it wasn't a large contributing factor to it.

 

[Team Andromeda]

Excuses for what? What even are you trying to argue here? Were you trying to argue that Call of Duty wasn't popular before call of duty 4, despite being at 60 fps? It was the best selling Xbox 360 launch game by far. Nearly every person that purchased an Xbox 360 at launch purchased it with CoD2.

Excuses? Don't know what to tell ya mate. Sorry that I'm just better informed than you are.

I'm not the one saying COD IV sold well BECAUSE of 60 FPS

Don't hit back with the "partly" crap? I've clarified what I meant by that in like three different posts. In fact, I've already clarified and elaborated on it in the following response before you even joined this discussion. You're just trying to play 'Gotcha!' now. But two can play that game. Go ahead and quote the part where I explicitly said that Call of Duty 4 sold well solely due to the fact that it ran at 60 FPS. Actually, don't bother. Let me save you the trouble: You won't find it. It's not there because that's not what my post said.

Sorry, mate, but all of your 'arguments' easily refuted. 'Well, Halo now runs at 120 Hz, so that would mean it would be the most played game, right!? Hah! Checkmate!'

No. The jump from 60 FPS to 120 FPS is noticeable but less substantial than the jump from 30 fps to 60 fps due to the laws of diminishing returns. But more importantly, the vast majority of people don't own TVs capable of 120 FPS output.

Then you bring up previous Call of Duty games, seemingly completely unaware that Call of Duty 2 is one of the most successful launch games with one of the highest attach rates of any launch games. I'm more than happy to engage in an actual, good faith discussion with you about this. But if your idea of a discussion is silly 'gotcha' games over wording and phrasing, and you think taking circumstances and the big picture into account are 'excuses,' then you have nothing of value to contribute.

So the developer you're referring to is not as successful as Call of Duty and makes primarily single player game. A dev who's games, mind you, now run at 60 FPS across the board. But you could probably make the argument that framerates are more important in multiplayer games than singleplayer games.

But let's explore that question for a bit: What other developers did? Well, during that era of games when Call of Duty hit the scene: Not many. Games running at 60 FPS in single or multiplayer were rare. Halo, Gears of War, Rainbow Six, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, etc etc. All ran at 30 FPS. Yet it was Call of Duty, the one that ran at 60 FPS, that became mega popular.

But what's even more interesting is if we look one generation ahead: To the Xbone/PS4 era. Most singleplayer games still ran at 30 FPS, at least on base consoles. Not much has changed there. But Multiplayer games? Multiplayer games suddenly embraced 60 FPS in the post Call of Duty Boom. Halo? 60 FPS. Battlefield? 60 FPS (Sorta..) Rainbow six? 60 FPS. Gears of War? 60 FPS for multiplayer. Fortnite? Apex Legends? Warzone? Rocket League? Titan Fall? All target 60 FPS.

Is it a coincidence that multiplayer games that came out after the gen in which CoD took the market run at 60 FPS? You tell me.

Like I'm not saying that the framerate is the sole defining factor to Call of Duty's success, but I don't understand how anyone could argue that it wasn't a large contributing factor to it.

Spare us, You know what you were implying and tried to make a BIG deal of 60 fps. Halo 5 and Infinite should be the best-selling Halo of all time thanks to 60 FPS
And for someone who's so informed, what was the frame rate of RE 7, DMC 5, Ace Combat 7, Sekiro Shadows Die Twice, Doom, Doom Eternal .

Don't tell us all down to multiplayer...

​

on the base PS4/One

 

[Hudo]

If they make a pro version, they should call it Xbox Series X2/Playstation 6 and go all out.

 

[Rykan]

Spare us, You know what you were implying and tried to make a BIG deal of 60 fps.

I know exactly what I've been "implying". I've been implying that Call of Duty owes it success in the 360/PS3 era partly because it ran at 60 FPS during an era where most multiplayer shooter games ran at 30 FPS. Not sure why you're struggling so hard to understand this simple concept.

 

[Eiknarf]

They should put out a new Pro model every six months

 

[Surfheart]

No way in hell I’m dropping a stack of cash this soon on another console because either the platform holders oversold the power or developers aren’t optimising their games. So what a new console will get FF16 to 1080p? FF16 is a decent looking game but it’s not blowing my socks off in the graphics dept.

 

[Surfheart]

ignore me! DP

 

[Team Andromeda]

I know exactly what I've been "implying". I've been implying that Call of Duty owes it success in the 360/PS3 era partly because it ran at 60 FPS during an era where most multiplayer shooter games ran at 30 FPS. Not sure why you're struggling so hard to understand this simple concept.

No capital letters for BECAUSE?

The 360/PS3 era marked the age when Internet gaming really started to take off on consoles and add in rankings and gamer scores and it all helped with the perfect combination. COA IV did so well because it was so good to play and the levels were so well designed. Halo 3 sold millions and it was only 30 FPS

Unless I missed something all COD games have targeted 60 FPS on console since the 360 era even on base consoles, you don't even need a PRO console for 60 FPS with COD.

 

[Surfheart]

the people saying no are the same people that want the best graphics possible on 10tf machine 4k/60 fps rtx high setting

I’m saying no and I don’t want nor expect those kind of settings. I see games like Ratchet, Miles Morales and Horizon and I’d be more than happy with games on par graphically with those for the rest of the gen.

Developers need to more effectively target the hardware capabilities. ToTK proves that you don’t need hugely powerful hardware to deliver engaging, attractive experiences.

 

[Tarin02543]

60 fps on my plasma looks better than 120 on an oled.

so no, we do not need pro consoles but new plasma tv's!

 

[PeteBull]

No, we don't need Pro consoles. We need developers to stop needlessly including ray tracing.

No RT/crossgen/multiplatform in FF16, yet it either runs in 30fps or drops below 60fps at 720p native, no excuses there, its square topteam dev too with yoship, ff14 savior, those consoles simply need more oomph, much more.

 

[Rykan]

No capital letters for BECAUSE?

The 360/PS3 era marked the age when Internet gaming really started to take off on consoles and add in rankings and gamer scores and it all helped with the perfect combination. COA IV did so well because it was so good to play and the levels were so well designed. Halo 3 sold millions and it was only 30 FPS

Unless I missed something all COD games have targeted 60 FPS on console since the 360 era even on base consoles, you don't even need a PRO console for 60 FPS with COD.

You're right. Call of Duty 4, and Call of Duty in general, did so well because it felt so good to play. And a huge part of why it felt so good to play is because it ran at 60 FPS. It makes the game smoother, more responsive and more precise.

Yes, Halo 3 was also a very popular game. But I don't understand why you keep mentioning that. Was Halo 3 a very popular Xbox 360 game? Yes. Did it eventually decline in popularity as people moved over to play Call of Duty instead? Also yes.

This is what Halo's Xbox 360 trajectory looks like: Halo 3 was the most played game based on Unique Users on Xbox live from 2007 until at least 2009. Call of Duty was still vastly more popular than Halo 3, but it was split between three different games at one point, with Halo 3 taking the top spot and number 2,3 and 4 being Call of Duty in 2009.


Microsoft didn't release the same data for 2010, but they did for 2011 and this is what it looked like:
1: Call of Duty: Black Ops
2: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
3: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.
4: Halo Reach
14: Call of Duty 4
16: Halo 3.

By 2011, Call of Duty had completely taken over from Halo as people moved over from Halo to Call of Duty. Halo had its moment and it certainly had its fanbase, but it is in no way comparable to Call of Duty.

 

[Bojji]

No RT/crossgen/multiplatform in FF16, yet it either runs in 30fps or drops below 60fps at 720p native, no excuses there, its square topteam dev too with yoship, ff14 savior, those consoles simply need more oomph, much more.

I think this engine just sucks ass, engine similar to this one (luminous) used in forspoken is also super hardware heavy without any demanding tech on screen.

PC version will tell us the truth.

 

[tryDEATH]

I would prefer a new gen really soon, but would settle for a good refresh.

We need at least a FSR3 capable GPU with improved RT performance and 20GB+ RAM. The CPU doesn't need a major overhaul, but upgrading it to a custom Zen 3 chip is the bare minimum.

Xbox Series X Ultra/Elite and Playstation 5 Pro and sell them for $600 to $650.

 

[Hudo]

I want a slim version of the pro!

 

[YOU PC BRO?!]

I would like an $800 - $1000 tier sku.

I'm not interested in PC (built multiple high-end in the past). Not interested in messing with drivers or weird compatibility issues. I'm certainly not interested in fiddling with in-game settings to hit that consistent frame rate.

Give me a true high-end console sku that has the power to brute-force performance in any game.

 

[MALpractice311]

I think this engine just sucks ass, engine similar to this one (luminous) used in forspoken is also super hardware heavy without any demanding tech on screen.

PC version will tell us the truth.

No RT/crossgen/multiplatform in FF16, yet it either runs in 30fps or drops below 60fps at 720p native, no excuses there, its square topteam dev too with yoship, ff14 savior, those consoles simply need more oomph, much more.

As my man said above, I'm positive that's a Squaresoft problem. Not a hardware problem.

 

[Spyxos]

The people asking for Pro consoles don't understand that the problem would just shift and you would be asking for Pro Pro consoles in a year because nothing would have changed.

 

[PeteBull]

As my man said above, I'm positive that's a Squaresoft problem. Not a hardware problem.

How about first party top tier dev, insomaniacs, gameplay trailer spiderman2, running 30fps and dynamic res 1296-1872p? https://www.neogaf.com/threads/digi...-ps5-showcase-trailer-tech-breakdown.1657220/

Or GoW Ragnarok crossgen game, barely any difference vs ps4/ps4pr0 https://www.neogaf.com/threads/digital-foundry-god-of-war-ragnarök-ps5-vs-ps4-vs-ps4-pro-the-complete-cross-gen-comparison.1645067/

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/god-of-war-ragnar%C3%B6k-on-ps5-the-digital-foundry-tech-review.1644559/

That team is shit in ur opinion too?
Answer- nope, they need simply stronger hardware to work with otherwise perf mode would be 4k60 and not dynamic res with lowest 1440p.

How about bluepoint? Those wizards surely can do 4k60 with demons souls? Nopes, 1440p60 and 4k30 modes, no rt, no crossgen/multiplatform, simply not enough oomph for that either, as long as graphics look good something gotta give, be it resolution or framerate https://www.neogaf.com/threads/df-d...on-5-the-digital-foundry-tech-review.1577597/

Maybe UE5 team with their matrix techdemo then? https://www.neogaf.com/threads/df-t...xbox-series-s-x-performance-analysis.1625863/
Again hit and miss, dips under 20fps and dynamic res, sometimes even below 1080p in most intensive parts

And it will only get lower as time goes by and devs ambitions get bigger...

 

[HDinRed]

The people asking for Pro consoles don't understand that the problem would just shift and you would be asking for Pro Pro consoles in a year because nothing would have changed.

Works for me!

 

[MALpractice311]

How about first party top tier dev, insomaniacs, gameplay trailer spiderman2, running 30fps and dynamic res 1296-1872p? https://www.neogaf.com/threads/digi...-ps5-showcase-trailer-tech-breakdown.1657220/

Or GoW Ragnarok crossgen game, barely any difference vs ps4/ps4pr0 https://www.neogaf.com/threads/digital-foundry-god-of-war-ragnarök-ps5-vs-ps4-vs-ps4-pro-the-complete-cross-gen-comparison.1645067/

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/god-of-war-ragnar%C3%B6k-on-ps5-the-digital-foundry-tech-review.1644559/

That team is shit in ur opinion too?
Answer- nope, they need simply stronger hardware to work with otherwise perf mode would be 4k60 and not dynamic res with lowest 1440p.

How about bluepoint? Those wisards surely can do 4k60 with demons souls? Nopes, 1440p60 and 4k30 modes, no rt, no crossgen/multiplatform, simply not enough oomph for that either, as long as graphics look good something gotta give, be it resolution or framerate https://www.neogaf.com/threads/df-d...on-5-the-digital-foundry-tech-review.1577597/

Maybe UE5 team with their matrix techdemo then? https://www.neogaf.com/threads/df-t...xbox-series-s-x-performance-analysis.1625863/
Again hit and miss, dips under 20fps and dynamic res, sometimes even below 1080p in most intensive parts

And it will only get lower as time goes by and devs ambitions get bigger...

Well, now I get our disconnect. Your standard of performance this gen is 4k60 on consoles. I don't expect that. My standard of performance on consoles is every game needs to have two visual modes, 1440p60 and 4k30, and those framerates needs to be locked. If I had spent thousands on a gaming PC , then I would be upset at performance below those levels. But I didn't. I bought a PS5 and I understand there are reasonable limitations for a $500 plug and play console. So from my perspective, it seems that devs can't hit 1440p60 or 4k30 more often than not because of completely unnecessary ray tracing (Gotham Knights and Jedi Survivor as examples).

 

[PeteBull]

Well, now I get our disconnect. Your standard of performance this gen is 4k60 on consoles. I don't expect that. My standard of performance on consoles is every game needs to have two visual modes, 1440p60 and 4k30, and those framerates needs to be locked. If I had spent thousands on a gaming PC , then I would be upset at performance below those levels. But I didn't. I bought a PS5 and I understand there are reasonable limitations for a $500 plug and play console. So from my perspective, it seems that devs can't hit 1440p60 or 4k30 more often than not because of completely unnecessary ray tracing (Gotham Knights and Jedi Survivor as examples).

We wont get 4k60, and we wont get 1440p 60 either, later in the gen expect resolutions like ff16/jedi survivor/spidey2/starfield, it will all go down, not up, and if particular game looks extremly gorgeous- expect even bigger cuts to image quality, like was shown in matrix techdemo.

4k60 i mentioned was in comparision to ps4 base, which could run gow ragnarok in 1080p30, so if ps5 base had 8x stronger gpu we would get that 4k60, its not the case tho(gpu is roughly 6x stronger) hence even on crossgen game, made to run 1080p30 stable on base ps4, we cant get 4k60 on ps5, and dev isnt at fault here, coz sony santa monica is S-tier studio, as was proven many times.

 

[Team Andromeda]

You're right.

or maybe you were wrong...

 

[R6Rider]

The people asking for Pro consoles don't understand that the problem would just shift and you would be asking for Pro Pro consoles in a year because nothing would have changed.

Exactly this.

 

[Umbasaborne]

No, we don't need Pro consoles. We need developers to stop needlessly including ray tracing.

Its great on pc, but there’s no need for it on consoles that can barely support it

 

[Rykan]

or maybe you were wrong...

Considering that you are unable to raise even a single counterargument and basically every single multiplayer game is now running at 60 FPS after Call of Duty grew in popularity, I'm probably right. You have nothing of value to contribute besides drive by trolling. To the ignore list with you.

 

[Team Andromeda]

Considering that you are unable to raise even a single counterargument and basically every single multiplayer game is now running at 60 FPS after Call of Duty grew in popularity, I'm probably right. You have nothing of value to contribute besides drive by trolling. To the ignore list with you.

Considering 'multiple' people have called you out, BECAUSE of 60 fps.
I doubt I'm wrong, bye!

 

[01011001]

60 fps on my plasma looks better than 120 on an oled.

so no, we do not need pro consoles but new plasma tv's!

you can get the same motion clarity with BFI these days, and you don't have to endure the screendor effect of Plasmas lol

 

[Celcius]

Digital Foundry's review of Remnant 2, a new Unreal Engine 5 game:




Another PS5 game that runs at 720p (internally, before upscaling) in performance mode, just like FF16...

 

[Evil Calvin]

No. Just optimize the games and offer bigger/cheaper expansion storage.

 

[tr1p1ex]

Some people seem to care about the specs more than the games.

anyway a game's resolution and frame rate aren't the hardware's fault. It is the developer's fault that they didn't make a game that runs at x frame rate at y resolution.