Ps and Fps - how important are they to you?

I never said the WW doesn't look fine in SD, it's a dam good looking game but you just have to put is side by side to even the game running on dolphin to see the difference between SD & HD and that's not even next to the proper HD version which is maybe one of the best looking games around.

GameCube


Dolphin


Wii U


That's just from screenshots not the game running, I agree with Balla even looking at the Cube version of WW that it looks nicer then some games from now but that's down to art-style, just put it next to Twilight for instance.

I'm saying if you take art style out of the question, then you can see being in HD is imported. Does a game being under 1080p effect my enjoyment, No but I find it hard to play some old games due to them being in SD without the nostalgia, that's one of the reasons I barely used the Wii.

But in 2016 where we can be watching stuff and playing games in 4k, if we wish, were talking about SD still which shouldn't even come into the equation.

Bit rude this, but... not much. As the Crump and the Smurf said: as long as the game doesn't slow down due to overstuffing, I'd still enjoy a game at the 160x192 resolution of the Atari 2600.

OR wrote:

When I bought my PS3 I was still playing on a SD portable CRT

Yup I was late to ps3 (enjoyed the wii far too much so didn't see the need to get one) & done the same thing for a spell.

---

@mas

No need to get all het up as no one accused you of saying the SD version of WW looked bad, I only said that if you put them side by side which you have done in screenshot form now that none of them look bad.

I was agreeing with you on that point what I didn't agree with was that the HD one is better but that's just my opinion.

No one should get Ps-ed off in this thread.

As you can see Jas from the side by side the HD version is better looking, I'm not saying it's actually a better game due to it being in HD.

It maybe slightly more playable now as SD stuff can look bad on HD TV's, same goes for OoT as Balla sometimes when talking about votes or what not gives OoT3D a slight edge due to it being a bit more playable (I think even Andy likes it).

160x192 resolution of the Atari 2600 same Mr Bob, I would enjoy a game on it like other Retro systems but I do think this a Nostalgia thing as well. Like if I was going to play a 2600, I know in my mind what I'm going to get from it, same now playing any Mega Drive as that's how it's always been a looked.

I don't know if I had a retron 5 and was playing these retro games in HD, I'd go I'm never playing on a actual Mega Drive again but looking at games coming out in 2016 and beyond a game being in HD with a good resolution and really should be 1080p all the time and being locked at 30fps or 60fps not something that can dip.

@OR & @Jas I played a PS3 once when it first came out in 2007 and taking it to my Uncles for Easter (?) for me and my Cousin to play on and we had to play on a CRT, it was horrendous. I don't think I've seen anything look so bad but I had come from playing on a HD TV for almost 2 years, yet when I took my 360 over when that first came out that looked fine.

I don't know if that's just how the system's worked and PS3 just wanted to be in HD.

mas wrote:

As you can see Jas from the side by side the HD version is better looking, I'm not saying it's actually a better game due to it being in HD.

Like you said previously on a technical level absolutely it is but I do not like bloom lighting in the HD version for example.

I'm so glad I missed this argument.

If anyone is curious, this is a good example of the difference frame rate can make.

It's definitely noticeable, but not game-breaking for me. As I suspected. Good link though, cheers Drunkski.

Could it go here or the mid-gen thread news thread but as one of them is out on Thursday we can talk how important all this now with something on the market that can make a difference.

That difference is the PS4 Pro, now I wasn't to bothered about the Pro as I've not got a 4KTV and not going to get one till after Christmas as I want to see what sales are on.

Now the Pro is in the wild, I've been watching videos and reading stuff on it and as someone who only has a 1080p. I wasn't sure of the benefits of getting a Pro would be but now thanks to the likes of Digital Foundry with videos like this which show Rise of the Tomb Raider running side-by-side on a PS4 on a 1080p TV and a Pro on a 1080p TV.

Now you with RotTR you can decide which is more important (hence why its here) you can either run the game in 1080p with super-sampling which when I watched on my TV looked excellent (on this laptop screen, not as much) or you run the game in 60FPS instead of 30fps.

Most of what is being shown at the moemnt with Pro is games running at 4K as why wouldn't you show that as that is the big main feature, I hoping more do side-by-sides of PS4 v Pro on 1080p TV's as if we get RotTR quality with every game, then I'm very tempted to get a Pro now before a 4KTV.

I just wish this

was a Pro as that would tip me over the edge to get one.

Now the only other game I can getting a Special Edition Pro console any time soon is Horizon: Zero Dawn which comes out in March the same time as the Switch, that even if it did get a Special Edition Pro console, I can't afford both and I'd much sooner have the new Switch then a enhanced PS4.

One more thing on the Pro is sold-out and not at the same time, Amazon for instance will sell you one but has to be in a bundle otherwise you have to wait in till next year. What do yo guys think about that?

Might've said this before elsewhere, but for me the main selling point of the PS4 slim and the Pro is the fact that Sony actually had the decency to put heat transfer paste on their CPU chips so the bloody fan isn't constantly going mental - so both are actually cheaper to run because they aren't always drawing full power from the main under load.

For me, as long as most people still have the default model, or the slim, games are still going to be built for the base editions so there's no real need to upgrade beyond environmental frugality. People might say, well look Muss Fallout 4 had a wank framerate, but that's on the developer for making something the hardware couldn't deal with.

Sure, the PS4 Rookie won't look as nice or run at 60, but unless you're playing an FPS or a fighter like Street Fighter, those are quality of life things which look pretty but don't give the player an advantage.

I remember playing MGS V on my bourgeois PC at all the highest settings, 60FPS, and then watching Drunks play it on his ONE at 30. I could definitely tell the difference, just like you can tell the difference between a Pro and a Rookie in these side by sides. But for me MGS V still looked great on a One, and after a few minutes I was over the framerate. Ultimately however many people get damp or pop rage boners over those comparison videos don't reflect how people actually play games.

I don't hate the pro, or the scorpio, and there are going to be people gagging for them, but they're basically privilege boxes for people with big TV's. For all that, I'd probably still get one if I worked more hours and somewhere was doing a good trade-in deal for them. Given that they''ve sold out though I'm guessing that's off the table. The main defence of the pro is that you're going to be using it a lot, whereas, for me, something like PSVR might only get used monthly. So even though much of its improvements are just quality of life things to my mind, they're things I'd be getting constantly right up me eye-holes so there's some value there.

The frame rate isn't improved on a lot actually on the Pro like Skyrim, so Fallout 4 will still have a wank framerate.

Yeah games will still be built with the PS4 in mind as you're not going to abandon 50m install base and the PS4 & Pro are still close in terms of specs as well.

I'm more interested in the Xbox situation as the jump between One and Scorpio is massive, and with talk of launch games for Scorpio, I still feel even though there not saying it that it will be the Xbox Two or is that Xbox Four and it will be fully backwards compatible with ONE games and accessories with some running better on Scorpio like with the Pro but there to be Scorpio only games.

I've no desire to buy an iterative console - the reason I moved back to console gaming from PC was the lack of any hassle of having to upgrade or faff about with settings. Give me something that works, and I'll be happy. So long as games are continued to work with a stable framerate and in HD on the base PS4, I'll be happy.

What muss says pretty much nails it especially this part:

Muss wrote:

I don't hate the pro, or the scorpio, and there are going to be people gagging for them, but they're basically privilege boxes for people with big TV's.

mas wrote:

The frame rate isn't improved on a lot actually on the Pro like Skyrim, so Fallout 4 will still have a wank framerate.

If I was into buying an upgraded system this would be quite annoying to hear, and is a top reason why Sony or MS etc shouldn't be so eager to push on just because the better tech is there but rather focus on getting the base systems working to their absolute best.

It is up it's up to the devs on how they use the power and you can't stop Bethesda want to be Bethesda about it, similar to the New 3DS how many games take advantage of the extra power or controls?

Yet for every Skyrim which doesn't do much you have a Rise of the Tomb Raider which does loads, this a issue though as if I was buying game I would like to sort of know what it does on the Pro but some like Horizon: Zero Dawn what its doing would take up the whole back of the box.

I don't know if Sony really want to push on from how they've talked Pro and even hinted at PS5 but MS I think sure do as the One will be 4 years old in 2017 and is lacking behind that starting again might be the best move for them.

That we may go from the longest gen ever to one the shortest with Wii U being replaced at 4yrs 4 months (6 years for 3DS if you want to count it), One likely replaced after 4 years and analysts/insiders reckon we could see a PS5 in 2018 which would mean being PS4 replaced after 5 years.

Wouldn't have thought we'll get a PS5 any time soon. The UK and US are going to have some wank inflation on their currency as per their recent political choices and in that economy, a significant proportion of Sony's market, I can't see them pushing a new generation. The Switch gets away with it by being something alternate to PS/ONE, the big two wouldn't get away with it because they'd just offer more of the same and their systems aren't old and, at least in Sony's case, are very successful.

In fact it's precisely the economic climate that's probably driven companies to look for these iterative updates - they know there's a market for more grunt but also that it's not yet populated enough to sustain a new generation. There's got to be a reason Microsoft haven't just said, the Scorpio is the next generation that happens to run XBOX One games

What you're saying is what some said why the last gen was so long due the recession etc

We will have to wait and see but I don't think it's out of the question we will see the PS5 in 2018 especially if Scorpio is more of a replacement to the ONE then it seems.

It's way too early for a new generation, this one has only just got going.

I was going to update my post before yours OR as I had a thought last night but I'm going to try turn it into a Gintendo piece as what I think the Scorpio might be close to.

It does seem to soon but I wouldn't be shocked if we do see a PS5 in 2018 or 2019.

Also FFXV is 1080p & I gather super sampled 60fps after a update in December on the Pro, which does make me very tempted or 4K 30fps if you wish.