Kerotan Frog
Member
How about 1080p 60fps instead? 4K seems a bit overrated, and I have a 4k tv. I haven't really noticed much of a difference in the same way I would going from 30 fps to 60 fps.
So do you class yourself as gamer ?
For me, personally, you know, in my opinion, not yours, Assassin's Creed plays fine at 30 fps. So in this case yes - I value graphics. To me 60 fps doesn't really add anything to the gameplay in this case. Graphics do however.So you value graphics over gameplay
And this is why many devs will target 30fps
Gamers have no standards
For me, personally, you know, in my opinion, not yours, Assassin's Creed plays fine at 30 fps. So in this case yes - I value graphics. To me 60 fps doesn't really add anything to the gameplay in this case. Graphics do however.
Isn't opinions fun? Not that you seem familiar with the term but whatever
Yeap he never played games.Lol how can you say it adds nothing to the gameplay when the game is just smoother at 60fps.
It sounds to me like you have never even played it at 60fps, so how can you judge it?
Of course I haven't played Valhalla, but I've played several of the other AC games on PC at 60 fps. For this type of game, to me, it doesn't add anything. Or rather, the improved graphics gives me more pleasure. I just think they play just fine at 30 fps. You really don't need to agree.Lol how can you say it adds nothing to the gameplay when the game is just smoother at 60fps.
It sounds to me like you have never even played it at 60fps, so how can you judge it?
Key word is to him. He doesn't care that much about framerate and prefers better graphics. Is his opinion, there is no wrong or right.Lol how can you say it adds nothing to the gameplay when the game is just smoother at 60fps.
It sounds to me like you have never even played it at 60fps, so how can you judge it?
I'm sure Phil was talking about Microsoft first party titles. But see, that's where shit gets muddy. Because he was being obscure about the details on purpose in an attempt to mislead gamers into believing that the Series X was going to deliver all games at 4k/60hz without actually saying it. So it gives him a way out when confronted with games like AC that are running at 30hz.They just don't get that PS4 is the target hadware and next gen upscale FROM PS4, not the opposite. They don't get you need 8tflops with RDNA1 to upscale to 4k a PS4 game with a Jaguar CPU. They don't get that SX is mostly the double of that requiement (12 TFLOPS ANNNND RDNA2). They don't get Zen2 is about 4X more powerfull than a last gen Jaguar. They don't get it has extra fast ram + SDD. We had watch DF.
But we get that what Phil said about next and 60 FPS and it's not real... again. Do we know we want FPS other Ray Tracing?
Now, i'm sticking with my oneX and Pro.
How about 1080p 60fps instead? 4K seems a bit overrated, and I have a 4k tv. I haven't really noticed much of a difference in the same way I would going from 30 fps to 60 fps.
Eye test booked.
The difference between 1080p and 4K is night and day on any TV bigger than 32" or so. 1440p and 4K not so much. 1800p and 4K hardly any.
Don't expect every title to be 4k+60fps+RT.
How about 1080p 60fps instead? 4K seems a bit overrated, and I have a 4k tv. I haven't really noticed much of a difference in the same way I would going from 30 fps to 60 fps.
Don’t expect many titles at all to be 4k/60/RT unless it’s a very limited use of RT and a very linear game
There is what makes a better gaming experience and then there is what is easier to market and advertise.
Ubisoft, along with most game publishers, choose the latter.
alright so should the expectation be xbone 10 fps , xbone x 20fps, and xbox sex 30fps? asking for a friend
PS5 ssd is too fast and they wanted parity
That didn't take long.
Well I think MS literally said to expect that. Though I don't think people should count on 60/4K always, like obviously there will be games that push graphics so much either one will drop, but for a cross gen launch game like Valhalla I'm pretty sure not hitting that 60/4K is just bad optimisation. Do we know the fps & rez of any of the other games they've shown? I'm pretty sure all of them will be using ray tracing too, if they're all doing 30fps then something might be up but I've got the feeling only AC will have this problem.People expected 60/4K to be the new minimum (people who never learn)
Ha!
That's the word I was looking for. Dat parity smh
Lol
But in his defense... *ducks tomato
both Xbox 360 and PS3 were considered to be 720p as standard, but that didn't stop games from running at 600p like CoD. Same for PS4, you can consider 1080p the standard despite a few games running at 900p.
Ha!
That's the word I was looking for. Dat parity smh
Lol
But in his defense... *ducks tomato
both Xbox 360 and PS3 were considered to be 720p as standard, but that didn't stop games from running at 600p like CoD. Same for PS4, you can consider 1080p the standard despite a few games running at 900p.
Because Phil said so. The focus was the more FPS over/with high resolution.People expected 60/4K to be the new minimum (people who never learn) with options to lower the resolution a bit for 120 FPS.
Well I think MS literally said to expect that.
Because Phil said so. The focus was the more FPS over/with high resolution.
Well, the game must be amazing then.
I wonder what's the PC HW needed to run 4k/60FPS.
Most dev's will definitely prioritize prettier graphics, without a doubt. The reality is it's currently easier to sell prettier graphics over better fps. Most of the general public has no idea what the hell FPS even means. If you asked them what FPS their movies are playing at they couldn't tell you, they'd probably ask you what the hell does fps mean? Does that suck? Yea, it kinda does.Yea i think dose of reality for 4k 120 fps guys is gonna hit soon . Many will prioritise pretty graphics over fps
Yea i think dose of reality for 4k 120 fps guys is gonna hit soon . Many will prioritise pretty graphics over fps
Here's your windows overhead delusion.
Memory:
2gb OS windows usage
2,5gb OS xbox
CPU:
Windows uses 3% usage on a 8 core 16 thread 3700 ryzen.
Consoles lock 1 core out of the 8 away which equals 12,5% usage for OS tasks.
GPU:
Windows: 0-1% usage on PC
Consoles? probably the same
U do realize consoles are the same these days as PC's right? Let me help you a bit
Ubisoft has to optimize for
Xbox series X
PS5
Lockheart ( if that even releases )
PS4
PS4 pro
Xbox one X
Xbox one
Xbox one S
What if old consoles are getting phased out after 2-3 years.
U will have:
Xbox series X
Xbox series X slim
Xbox series X Pro
PS5
PS5 pro
3rd party dev will look at all those boxes. much like how they look at PC.
So the PS5 is the weakest? Lets build it around there and just boost some graphical settings on the other consoles if we got time for it otherwise we just lock it either way.
PC has low level api's mate this is not the year 2000 anymore. U should google vulkan, game mode and dx12. They are all designed to mirror console space as much as possible performance wise and frankly that's exactly what it does.
People expected 60/4K to be the new minimum (people who never learn) with options to lower the resolution a bit for 120 FPS.
Just like the gears 5 benchmark on series x. Mentioning 100fps in the benchmark, right around the time of the comparison to running similar performance to a rtx 2080 @4k rez. Disingenuous afI'm sure Phil was talking about Microsoft first party titles. But see, that's where shit gets muddy. Because he was being obscure about the details on purpose in an attempt to mislead gamers into believing that the Series X was going to deliver all games at 4k/60hz without actually saying it. So it gives him a way out when confronted with games like AC that are running at 30hz.
He can say but I never said all games were going to run at 60hz. Which is true. But he purposely leaves out the details so that it is implied, and this is what helps create these unrealistic expectations.
Well, from what I read it sounds like it's pretty hard to run Odyssey and Origins at 4k/60 already. I could be wrong.
Assassin's Creed Valhalla vai correr no mínimo a 30 FPS na Xbox Series X
Com revelação de Assassin's Creed Valhalla na Xbox Series X que aconteceu na semana passada, e com a promessa da Micros…www.eurogamer.pt
Ubisoft responded to Portuguese Eurogame that Valhalla will run at minimum 30FPS in 4K on XSX. Not sure if there will be other modes yet.
Some people won't like it . But imo for the type of game it is smooth 30 fps works great.
Must be lazy devs. I’m sure all they have to do is check a box and it can be in 4k.That's a goddamn joke.
The XSX has more than enough horsepower to deliver 4K60. More than enough.
They might not know what fps means, but they'd likely prefer the experience of higher fps even if they don't understand why.Most dev's will definitely prioritize prettier graphics, without a doubt. The reality is it's currently easier to sell prettier graphics over better fps. Most of the general public has no idea what the hell FPS even means. If you asked them what FPS their movies are playing at they couldn't tell you, they'd probably ask you what the hell does fps mean? Does that suck? Yea, it kinda does.
If pc can play at 60fps @4k, does it mean it was optimized?Here's the deal. They are making 7 versions of this game XB1/1X/SX, PS4/PRO/5, PC.
They don't give enough of a shit to optimise for 60fps, "optimised for series X" is a bullshit lmao.
They might not know what fps means, but they'd likely prefer the experience of higher fps even if they don't understand why.
I don't think I've ever seen anything about raytracing on the game. If this is with no raytracing, people are gonna have brain aneurysms.I'm not sure Valhalla will even have RT. is there confirmation of this?