• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

4k, 60fps, or Quality w/ray tracing. Console players what is your choice?

4k, 60fps, or Quality mode on consoles?

  • 60FPS (often sacrificing resolution and deatils)

    Votes: 188 66.7%
  • Resolution (native 4k often not having all effects on)

    Votes: 5 1.8%
  • Quality mode (all effects on but at a lesser resolution than native 4k)

    Votes: 67 23.8%
  • 1080p here!

    Votes: 22 7.8%

  • Total voters
    282

Hunnybun

Member
Consoles only recently catched up to the fidelity. 360 gen always was low fps and low resolution. PS4 gen started to somewhat get in line with pc. Meaning we get about the same res on console and pc.

Your argument is fair. I just enjoy graphics more and new graphics are something exciting whole another 60 fps game is just that

Nah, the real binary is frame rate vs fidelity (whether that's resolution or other graphics). And since 3d consoles came along frame rate (ie a GOOD frame rate that actually ran on televisions, namely 60fps) has ALWAYS been sacrificed for graphics. PS2 wasn't so bad but overall that was still an overwhelmingly 30fps generation.

So, really, people who prefer that trade-off have had their way for over 25 years.

But I like graphics too and I certainly don't want a generation with very little graphical improvement. But so far I don't think that's going to happen. IMO Ratchet proved that you can have a generational leap at 4k40fps with RT on top. Yes it's annoying that there are so few other games so far that have replicated that, but it shows what's possible. Maybe you disagree and don't rate it, so fair enough. But for me it's as much proof as I need.

Also, if you don't think it looks that great, remember:

1. a huge amount of resources went into rendering RT reflections, which IMO are a bit of an indulgence. I'd be AMAZED if you couldn't use like 35% of the GPU power to better effect than that.

2. It ran at an unnecessarily high resolution IMO. With reconstruction a base of 1440p looks pretty damn sharp IMO. If that meant a base res of 1080p or so at 60fps then that would be fine by me - I think Returnal looks perfectly fine most of the time, for example.
 

Justin9mm

Member
Because he's right. Yes it looks better if you're just taking a screenshot, but the increase in framerate boosts the fluidity of every movement significantly and it also reduces the amount of motion blur required when moving the camera. Every 30 fps game looks terrible as soon as you turn the camera and the entire game becomes a blur.

As for the op, my priority is as follows:
1: 60 FPS
2: Resolution
3: Ray tracing.

Don't understand all the hype around ray tracing. Okay so reflections and lighting looks better. Great. I'd much rather have an overall clear imagine.
Miles Morales had Performance RT.. That was pretty good.

Dynamic 4K at 60fps with RT is what I fully expect to see standard in this gen once the lifecycle matures.
 
60 MFers!

The Tribe Has Spoken GIF by Australian Survivor
 

Hoddi

Member
You realize that your game is still being upscaled on a 1080p display too right?

For example: a game can be 1440p checkerboarded to 4K and then downsampled to fit your 1080p screen.

Just because your screen is 1080p doesn’t mean the game is now running in native 1080p.
Do you mean checkerboarded 1440p as in 1280x1440? I'm otherwise not sure what you mean because 2560x1440 is a higher resolution than 1080p.

My reasoning is simply that 1440p upscaled to 4k often has visible artifacts. But those artifacts disappear when downscaled/downsampled to a 1080p screen while still giving me a cleaner image than native 1080p rendering. I prefer a supersampled image over an upscaled one even if the display res is lower and especially if the game is only running in the 1080p-1440p range.
 
Do you mean checkerboarded 1440p as in 1280x1440? I'm otherwise not sure what you mean because 2560x1440 is a higher resolution than 1080p.

My reasoning is simply that 1440p upscaled to 4k often has visible artifacts. But those artifacts disappear when downscaled/downsampled to a 1080p screen while still giving me a cleaner image than native 1080p rendering. I prefer a supersampled image over an upscaled one even if the display res is lower and especially if the game is only running in the 1080p-1440p range.
The artifacts would still be there, but the lower resolution hides them because 1080p can't resolve detail that fine.
 
Next gen for me is raytracing. I can understand why people might disregard it, but things don't look grounded in a game to me, when it's not present. When raytracing is just reflections, I might pass on it. But when it's environmental lighting, it is absolutely a must have.
 

Ezekiel_

Member
The PS5 made me a 60fps whore. If Demon's Souls, Returnal, Spiderman Remastered, Miles Morales, God of War, TLoU2 and Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart can look like they do at 60fps, there's really no need for 30fps.
 

Hunnybun

Member
Next gen for me is raytracing. I can understand why people might disregard it, but things don't look grounded in a game to me, when it's not present. When raytracing is just reflections, I might pass on it. But when it's environmental lighting, it is absolutely a must have.

But on console it almost never is lighting, it's just reflections or shadows at a ridiculous cost.

It looks fantastic in Metro Exodus though, so I'm hoping developers will gradually move to that approach.
 

Woggleman

Member
60FPS and 1440P is more than good enough for me. That is what TLOU2 is on PS5 and it looks as good as ever. That is how I plan to play HFW.
 
Last edited:

REDRZA MWS

Member
I love graphics, effects, lighting, details…. All of it as much as anyone else. But we are PLAYING video games. 60FPS (and in some cases higher frames too) always just feels better. So if had to sacrifice resolution and/or graphics a bit to hit 60 FPS, it’s not even a debate.
 
I never understood the love of higher framerate until I played uncharted collection at 120fps. Tried switching to 4k 30fps during a cut scene and instantly had to switch back.
This is why even though I have a TV that can do 120 fps up to 1440p I won't ever try the 120 fps mode. Since I have a ps5, and I don't like 1080p at all on my TV, just knowing there are games that I have to play at 30 fps to get a decent graphical experience (guardians of the galaxy/dying light 2) means if seeing some 120 fps games would ruin 30 fps forever. Ignorance is bliss in this situation (honestly though 30 fps is already ruined; it just sucks except for a couple of games where it somehow feels decently smooth with no extra input lag).

Ratchet for ps5, horizon zero dawn, and Spiderman were semi tolerable.
 

Hunnybun

Member
I still needs to make more tests with 1440p render games on PS5 but 1080 is really not good on 4k TVs.

Btw I tried playing Uncharted 4 at 1080p, sitting really close to my screens and I've no idea what you're talking about re being able to see pixels and a grid of squares etc. It just looks soft.

Has anyone else encountered this? 1080p games looking pixellated on a big 4k screen? Cos 1080p is like 2 million pixels, they're still pretty small even on a great big display.
 

Hunnybun

Member
This is why even though I have a TV that can do 120 fps up to 1440p I won't ever try the 120 fps mode. Since I have a ps5, and I don't like 1080p at all on my TV, just knowing there are games that I have to play at 30 fps to get a decent graphical experience (guardians of the galaxy/dying light 2) means if seeing some 120 fps games would ruin 30 fps forever. Ignorance is bliss in this situation (honestly though 30 fps is already ruined; it just sucks except for a couple of games where it somehow feels decently smooth with no extra input lag).

Ratchet for ps5, horizon zero dawn, and Spiderman were semi tolerable.

You're probably better off not trying it, but fwiw I literally can't see any difference between it and 60fps. I'm sure it's noticeably more responsive but I don't play competitive games so I'm.not interested in that aspect.
 

saintjules

Member
With the way UC4 looks in the legacy edition, I certainly wouldn't mind 1080p/120fps wherever possible. Otherwise dynamic 4k/60 is fine with me.
 

R6Rider

Gold Member
This is why even though I have a TV that can do 120 fps up to 1440p I won't ever try the 120 fps mode. Since I have a ps5, and I don't like 1080p at all on my TV, just knowing there are games that I have to play at 30 fps to get a decent graphical experience (guardians of the galaxy/dying light 2) means if seeing some 120 fps games would ruin 30 fps forever. Ignorance is bliss in this situation (honestly though 30 fps is already ruined; it just sucks except for a couple of games where it somehow feels decently smooth with no extra input lag).

Ratchet for ps5, horizon zero dawn, and Spiderman were semi tolerable.
I played Siege at 120fps 1080p for a while, but eventually went back to higher res at 60fps. There was a clear difference in smoothness, but not enough for me to want to have the much blurrier 1080p.
 
I still needs to make more tests with 1440p render games on PS5 but 1080 is really not good on 4k TVs.
It's really not good enough and sadly, more people will only accept/realize this when the next "next gen" consoles come out (or until we switch to PC) and 4k at 60 fps is more easily attainable in all games.

Just like how for a lot of console gamers it wasn't until the ps5/series x that they finally realized how much better 60 fps feels than 30. As long as there are Dying Light 2 situations out there that are 1080p/60, there will be gamers who convince themselves that 1080p is fine on a 4k tv. It's not fine though since it looks like sdr compared to higher resolutions.
 
The moral of the story is that there really needs to be more options available on the next gen consoles. In this day and age where the consoled are marketed as being these powerful, flexible, PC-like machines and in fact ARE essentially PC's, there's no excuse not to have options. Not just "performance" and "fidelity" but actual options. They don't have to be quite as in depth as PC, obviously, but allow us to choose more than 2 or 3 modes where we are forced to sacrifice one major aspect no matter which mode we choose.

The argument that "I buy a console not to have to worry about settings, therefore we shouldn't have many options" is silly. Those people can simply use whatever the developers chose for default! They are not affected AT ALL if they don't want to be.
 

Azelover

Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It really was.
I remember when I got VF2 for the Saturn, and the game was 60FPS.

The fucking Saturn.

I know the graphics were basic, but still.
 

ethomaz

Banned
Btw I tried playing Uncharted 4 at 1080p, sitting really close to my screens and I've no idea what you're talking about re being able to see pixels and a grid of squares etc. It just looks soft.

Has anyone else encountered this? 1080p games looking pixellated on a big 4k screen? Cos 1080p is like 2 million pixels, they're still pretty small even on a great big display.
2 million pixels is too low to fill 8 million pixels screen… it is only 25%.

It looked good on 1080p TV thought.

On 4k TVs 1080p is not fine.
 
Last edited:

Hunnybun

Member
2 million pixels is too low to fill 8 million pixels screen… it is only 25%.

It looked good on 1080p TV thought.

On 4k TVs 1080p is not fine.

Obviously it doesn't look as SHARP as 4k, but it still doesn't actually look pixellated. At least not to me.

I'm just wondering what other people think, because tbh I'm a bit puzzled.
 

Mowcno

Member
60fps takes priority. Just looking at the other two options on their own it's a toss up between them depending on the details.
 

Dunky

Member
Great to see most people voting for 60fps.
Don't care for 4K/30 because when the game is in motion especially when you move the camera around in 30fps it destroy the image quality with all it's shimmering and jerkiness.
 

Dr Bass

Member
Usually 60fps. I think the only time I chose fidelity over the 60fps option was in Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart. I felt like the difference in image quality and detail was so large, I just couldn't give it up. That game works well with 30fps anyway. But for Spiderman Miles Morales and Demon's Souls I chose performance RT and the performance mode, respectively.
 
But on console it almost never is lighting, it's just reflections or shadows at a ridiculous cost.

It looks fantastic in Metro Exodus though, so I'm hoping developers will gradually move to that approach.
Jesus. I'm a gigantic idiot. I thought the question was just asking if you preferred framerate or graphics. I wasn't thinking it was console specific.

I bought a 3070ti and decided I'm just going to skip out on this new generation of consoles.
 

rofif

Gold Member
Obviously it doesn't look as SHARP as 4k, but it still doesn't actually look pixellated. At least not to me.

I'm just wondering what other people think, because tbh I'm a bit puzzled.
It looks only a tiny bit more blurry than real fullhd screen. Not noticeable.
It’s just that 4k is much more detailed. Especially on these big screens
 

TGO

Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
As long as it's over 1440p, I ain't bothered
As long as the frame rate is locked, I ain't bothered.
What does bother me though is the soap opera effect "some" games with 60/120fps modes have.
That combined with a lower resolution just looks horrible to me.
 

Ev1L AuRoN

Member
I'm not on consoles but on PC I prioritize performance.

I achieve 60fps or better I'm willing to sacrifice in that order

1. Drop Ultra to High
2. Sacrifice some resolution
3. Turn off RT
4. medium preset
At this point I give up on 60fps

5. 30/40/48 fps and gain some IQ
6. Don't play.
 

Gamer79

Predicts the worst decade for Sony starting 2022
Played it on Quality the first 5 hours or so but after trying performane mode I can't go back. The slightly prettier picture playing in resolution mode or quality mode isn't worth it.

Game is so much more fluid in performance mode. The quality modes camera movement also made me nauseous as well.
 
Top Bottom