-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
I want devs to return to prioritizing maximum graphics at 30fps again...
- Thread starter Dust-by-Monday
- Start date
.
existensmaximum
Member
I agree with you OP, 100%
Prodyhig
Member
Correct
75% of all PS5 owners prefer Performance Mode according to PlayStation - KitGuru
Following years of leaks and rumours, Sony’s PlayStation 5 Pro was finally officially revealed durin
www.kitguru.net
vodka-bull
Member
30fps looks like shit on a 120Hz 4k OLED. I'm fortunate enough to have a full HD plasma tv as well, on which 30fps look great, but many people don't and I can't really recommend 30fps on any modern setup.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
I'm glad I love gameplay over graphics. I couldn't give a fuck. Give me 60fps, 120 FPS. Games look amazing. I really don't get it.
Radical_3d
Member
The asymptotic curve between real time and pre-rendered was too close in the PS4 generation. Sacrifice 30fps in any game would give you nothing that most of us would notice. Neither the PS6 will. Yes, the acolytes of "right light bouncing on this side of this wall that nobody looks at" will be delighted, but realistically the progress ended in PS4. PS6 RT will help to reduce development cost more than show the consumer anything that the pre-baked lightning of TLOUpII hasn't s already give to them.
The end of loading times and 60fps on PS5 and the perfect anti-aliasing with the Pro is all I need, really. UE5 promised the end of popping but I think that's going to be more of a PS6 thing, since they haven't make it run properly this gen (or PC).
Gameplay Gods Bless
Member
That is one ugly monkey
TrebleShot
Member
Get steam deck and play everything at 30fps
Unfortunatecookie
Member
Baby chair developer here. My extremely limited understanding of why games don't "Crysis" anymore is due to a combination of budgets, brain drain, and best practices.
Budgets: Self-explanatory. It costs a boatload of money to get a game to look like it came from the future. How many studios have access to 9-figure budgets that can predominantly be pointed towards the look of the game? It's not a coincidence that the best looking games — Horizon: FW, GT7, Ratchet & Clank, Death Stranding 2, Yotei, RE9, Alan Wake 2 etc. — all have the backing of either a major platform holder or a major publisher.
Brain drain: Self-explanatory as well. You know all those layoffs that've happened over the last 6 or so years? A lot of those people have either been scooped up by these (you guessed it) massive platform holders OR they've permanently peaced out of the videogame industry. Why work for a wobbly company like Xbox — where layoffs are more of a when and not an if — when you can instead go to Nintendo or Illumination?
Best practices: It comes down to priorities. If a game needs to hit x milestone or ship by x date, you have to assemble a well-balanced team that can get it done on time and on budget. Overinvesting in 'the graphics guys' creates a measurable mismatch of talent that often results in delays, more spending, more audience disappointment etc. Why should graphical fidelity be a priority for a GaaS game that's targeting every platform on earth — tablets and phones included? It makes more sense to focus on the gameplay, networking features, controls etc. Or why make graphics a priority when there's documented evidence that a better looking game does not translate to higher sales? A 1080p30fps game that looks insane can still flop because everything else about the game (e.g., controls, story, multiplayer) sucks.
You're definitely not the only one who thinks this gen feels undercooked, but — and I could be wrong on this — it's not because of performance modes. I think it comes down to money, people, and time, and the majority of studios struggle with this stuff.
Budgets: Self-explanatory. It costs a boatload of money to get a game to look like it came from the future. How many studios have access to 9-figure budgets that can predominantly be pointed towards the look of the game? It's not a coincidence that the best looking games — Horizon: FW, GT7, Ratchet & Clank, Death Stranding 2, Yotei, RE9, Alan Wake 2 etc. — all have the backing of either a major platform holder or a major publisher.
Brain drain: Self-explanatory as well. You know all those layoffs that've happened over the last 6 or so years? A lot of those people have either been scooped up by these (you guessed it) massive platform holders OR they've permanently peaced out of the videogame industry. Why work for a wobbly company like Xbox — where layoffs are more of a when and not an if — when you can instead go to Nintendo or Illumination?
Best practices: It comes down to priorities. If a game needs to hit x milestone or ship by x date, you have to assemble a well-balanced team that can get it done on time and on budget. Overinvesting in 'the graphics guys' creates a measurable mismatch of talent that often results in delays, more spending, more audience disappointment etc. Why should graphical fidelity be a priority for a GaaS game that's targeting every platform on earth — tablets and phones included? It makes more sense to focus on the gameplay, networking features, controls etc. Or why make graphics a priority when there's documented evidence that a better looking game does not translate to higher sales? A 1080p30fps game that looks insane can still flop because everything else about the game (e.g., controls, story, multiplayer) sucks.
You're definitely not the only one who thinks this gen feels undercooked, but — and I could be wrong on this — it's not because of performance modes. I think it comes down to money, people, and time, and the majority of studios struggle with this stuff.
Last edited:
playbignbox
Member
This is called quality mode in games
Baemono
Gold Member
People are complaining graphics didn't improve that much this gen, but I'm happy they were more focused on 60fps gameplay for almost all games
JimmyRustler
Member
I think we are seriously at a point of diminishing returns now. No matter what devs do, they'll never be able to blow us away like they did in the past. I mean, you have now games 5+ years old that still look very impressive. Back in the days 5 years was huuuuuggggeeeee and games that old looked ancient.
Walliwallipaloo
Member
If it ain't 60 FPS, it ain't worth my time.
You can have your "insane" graphics and ridiculously overblown budgets, thanks. Those do not a game make. I stopped trying to impress my mom with how awesome my hobby is about 30 years ago.
You can have your "insane" graphics and ridiculously overblown budgets, thanks. Those do not a game make. I stopped trying to impress my mom with how awesome my hobby is about 30 years ago.
Putonahappyface
Gold Member
I'll compromise with the OP. Forty frames for us poor OLED owners that find stutter mode unacceptable.
Sohurmk833
Member
Nah, quite the opposite. I'm more than fine with PS2 era graphics as long as they run clean without popups and in 4k/60fps.
At least these games had style and soul. I'm tired of all that almost identical looking ray traced UE5 slop.
At least these games had style and soul. I'm tired of all that almost identical looking ray traced UE5 slop.
Kumomeme
Member
i want opposite. we are now at diminishing return of visual. with proper optimization, even some of games on PS4 with no RT still stand out nicely today.
wish the devs would keep their targetted visual around that and spare the rest of development resource on in-game gameplay like design, contents, NPC AI, physics or atleast throw the performance spare on framerates.
wish the devs would keep their targetted visual around that and spare the rest of development resource on in-game gameplay like design, contents, NPC AI, physics or atleast throw the performance spare on framerates.
Last edited:
