Mostly because 360 established itself as the baseline for game development, which made the PS3 version of multiplats a side project and a pain in the ass to work on.
A lot of PS3 games don't even render at 720p and actually run at 540p. Consoles at that time clearly weren't powerful enough to run at HD resolutions. When they did run in HD the framerate was sub 30. Framerate wise we practically went back to 5th gen
By the end of the generation you had games like GTAV that not for a single moment could maintain 30 and would dips down to the single digits even before the explosions started
If it's ok, why do all previous generation game updates go to 60 fps and why do they give it so much importance when past generation games run better on the next one?
Admit it, you're just being conformist because that's all there is, the next gen patch for those games will go to 60 fps and no one will complain about anything and only praise it like the hypocrites that you are
>playable
isn't good enough. framerates under 120 create a clearly perceivable disadvantage in action games, anything with fast movement, especially camera movement. 60 fps is good enough for strategy and puzzle games.
framerate is GAMEPLAY. don't sacrifice gameplay for graphical effects or resolution you won't notice while truly immersed in a game any way.
and the 1080p / 1440p difference is hardly relevant in games since you pretty much have to use upscaling to play at 1440p, after spending 1000 bucks a year for graphics cards. surely upscaling is no better than "fake frames".
>isn't good enough. framerates under 120 create a clearly perceivable disadvantage in action games
I play at 150, but some games are capped at 60 because of their engines. 60 is playable, even for action or FPS. It's just not ideal. 1080 looks like blurry shit. >since you pretty much have to use upscaling to play at 1440p
I have literally never used upscaling or any kind of fake frames.
I can run Starfield at 1440/60 comfortably on mine.
is a game that uses a modified version of creation engine, runs on series s and runs at 1440p/30 fps on x, so it's not as demanding as any other ue5 game
>most console games are 30fps >nobody gives a shit because it doesn't matter at the end of the day >pcmasterracehomosexuals b***h about anything, even b***h about fighting games being 60 fps
>i'm happy because fps doesn't matter at all
homie please, as long as its a constant fps, nobody will give a frick, not even the people who b***h about such things after a few minutes
Game developers that can't hit 60fps on a PS5 are not making good games. There is absolutely no excuse when the yearly CoD can hit 120fps while still looking better than all of the current AAA games of the year
Game developers that can't hit 60fps on a PS5 are not making good games. There is absolutely no excuse when the yearly CoD can hit 120fps while still looking better than all of the current AAA games of the year
Soap operas have conditioned normal cattle to see higher refresh rates as a mark of low quality and 24fps is already about as low as you can go before achieving slideshow quality
As someone who plays mainly on PC I can tell you that you are wrong, almost every Nintendo first-party game runs at 60fps, it's almost their standard compared to the competition
Of the few that run at 30fps this year are Tears of the Kingdom, Pikmin 4 and Fire Emblem Engage
>almost every nintendo game is 30 fps
What? Most Nintendo games are 60fps. Even from back in the NES days. That's why its abnormal when games like BotW go at 30.
Why is PC 720p 30 fps so shit compared to Switch 480p 30 fps?
I can play Pikmin 4 fine even if it runs like shit and looks like shit, but I can't play anything pc related unless it's 60 fps, it looks awful
Maybe because of the fluidity where the console always maintains stable fps by lowering the resolution?
Have you tried to play switch games on emulator?
I've been with 144hz for 2 years now and swapping back to 60fps is still tolerable although 30fps even in 2d indie pixel shit now makes me want to turn the game off instantly
It does if your hardware can keep stable fps around 120-144.
The only reason one would get 4k @ 60hz is for playing in the living room from a distance. 1440p is in a tight spot if you want things very smooth and high def you need dlss for tripleA or/and top of the line hardware.
30fps should be banned.
120fps should be the industry standard, but even so, it's not much if you're used to 144hz (if you don't believe me, play something like Quake 1 at 144hz for an hour or more and then try to lock it to 120fps).
I believe the same happens if you're running at 200+ fps and go back to 144fps...
The idea is simple, the more frames the better, of course, there is a point where you start to no longer have a return that justifies the price of the technology to reach 500+ frames, but one thing I'm sure of: the "limit" where the return doesn't start to be valuable is far beyond 60fps...
>40 FPS on 120 Hz, smooth and responsive gameplay, computer is dead silent, lower power consumption, comfort in knowing my components will never deteriorate.
Do you know that the 40 fps at 120hz is only to give more fluidity but does not contribute anything to the response speed?
It's not for nothing that they only use it on console with single player games or focused on story mode, and never for competitive games, where they use 120fps
>30fps
no
you mean 480p 120fps
1080p 30 fps is literally the wrost possible option. 480p and 60fps or higher is kino
This guy gets it
If I get a 4K I can't upload screenshots to Ganker or Steam due to size limitations.
>OH NOE!! I CAN'T UPLOAD LE HECKING 4K ON Ganker!!!
That makes no sense
based devs keeping Ganker alive with shit optimization
only if its the absolute last option.
it's not okay to play under about 100fps on any first person shooter
i will play at fricking 360p if thats what it takes to have 60fps
>1080p, 30 fps
>posts a 720i 30fps console
>720i
>30fps
Also 720i isnt a thing
In retrospect, the ps3 was a piece of shit
Go off sis
Mostly because 360 established itself as the baseline for game development, which made the PS3 version of multiplats a side project and a pain in the ass to work on.
you wish Black person
A lot of PS3 games don't even render at 720p and actually run at 540p. Consoles at that time clearly weren't powerful enough to run at HD resolutions. When they did run in HD the framerate was sub 30. Framerate wise we practically went back to 5th gen
By the end of the generation you had games like GTAV that not for a single moment could maintain 30 and would dips down to the single digits even before the explosions started
>1080i, 15 FPS
I guess we'll never escape the sample and hold motion blur hell, because we need 1000fps.
I just want a 40" 8K 1kHz microLED screen for $400 not adjusted for inflation. Life is so unfair.
Yeah but it's like saying you are a car enthusiast yet your only car is a hooptie that is still rolling on the spare tire.
>480p 25 fps
now we are playing
yeah all these chuds shaming me for getting a PS5 but honestly i dont even care??
Ngl your post gave me cancer??
>chuds
too obvious
Consoles could do that in fricking 2005 its not OK to still be a slave to these standards. 1080p120fps is the bare minimum for a modern game
If it's ok, why do all previous generation game updates go to 60 fps and why do they give it so much importance when past generation games run better on the next one?
Admit it, you're just being conformist because that's all there is, the next gen patch for those games will go to 60 fps and no one will complain about anything and only praise it like the hypocrites that you are
>morons once again pretending that everything above 12FPS isn't placebo
motion is overrated, stare at a wall instead
It's ok if you want that option
It's not ok for that to be the only option
>360i
>1fps
1080p is ok.
30fps is not.
1440p 60fps no fake frames is the absolute bare minimum.
swap that for 1080p120 which requires roughly the same hardware.
60 fps is playable. 1080p sucks if you've used at least 1440p before with any monitor 24" or larger.
>playable
isn't good enough. framerates under 120 create a clearly perceivable disadvantage in action games, anything with fast movement, especially camera movement. 60 fps is good enough for strategy and puzzle games.
framerate is GAMEPLAY. don't sacrifice gameplay for graphical effects or resolution you won't notice while truly immersed in a game any way.
and the 1080p / 1440p difference is hardly relevant in games since you pretty much have to use upscaling to play at 1440p, after spending 1000 bucks a year for graphics cards. surely upscaling is no better than "fake frames".
>isn't good enough. framerates under 120 create a clearly perceivable disadvantage in action games
I play at 150, but some games are capped at 60 because of their engines. 60 is playable, even for action or FPS. It's just not ideal. 1080 looks like blurry shit.
>since you pretty much have to use upscaling to play at 1440p
I have literally never used upscaling or any kind of fake frames.
I'd rather get 160fps at 1080p
I'm getting a 3070 so I can game at 1080p 60 fps.
I can run Starfield at 1440/60 comfortably on mine.
we now
is a game that uses a modified version of creation engine, runs on series s and runs at 1440p/30 fps on x, so it's not as demanding as any other ue5 game
>most console games are 30fps
>nobody gives a shit because it doesn't matter at the end of the day
>pcmasterracehomosexuals b***h about anything, even b***h about fighting games being 60 fps
>I'm happy because I'm ignorant
bliss
>i'm happy because fps doesn't matter at all
homie please, as long as its a constant fps, nobody will give a frick, not even the people who b***h about such things after a few minutes
>fps is the only thing that matters
Game developers that can't hit 60fps on a PS5 are not making good games. There is absolutely no excuse when the yearly CoD can hit 120fps while still looking better than all of the current AAA games of the year
>>most console games are 30fps
gives a shit because they don't know any better
heh
like wienerwork
>Doesn't matter at the end of the day
>gives a frick anyway, because reasons
like washed up scrubs like clockwork
't matter at the end of the day
copium engaged
30fps is welfare. I would rather just quit gaming forever.
3fps on most genre of games is totally fine and only FPS Black folk will claim otherwise.
>3fps on most genre of games is totally fine
Based tendie
truths
30 fps*
There's a reason nobody complains about movies just being 24fps, because it actually looks fine.
30fps is overindulgent. You don't need any more than 12 fps
>There's a reason nobody complains about movies just being 24fps
we complain about playstation movies all the time though
only if you game on the switch
You can just say consoles.
How come it's acceptable for Hollywood to make movies in 24fps?
because theres no autistic pcmasterrace nerds that exist for movies
Soap operas have conditioned normal cattle to see higher refresh rates as a mark of low quality and 24fps is already about as low as you can go before achieving slideshow quality
60 mph is as fast as my old tv can go. I'm not just going to throw it away after its given me 15 years of dependable service. Long live Dynex.
>it's okay to play at 1080p
agreed
>30fps
never true. 60 is minimum and 120 is perfect
why is even 12fps ok to look at when it's at a cartoon, but when it's a video game it's unbearable
Because one is passive entertainment and one is active entertainment.
those sequences fricking SUCKED. pulled me out of the experience every time.
That looks like shit, and has to be way less than 12fps. Like 3 fps
>1080p
Yes
>30fps
>
>most a nintendo game character
>almost every nintendo game is 30 fps
As someone who plays mainly on PC I can tell you that you are wrong, almost every Nintendo first-party game runs at 60fps, it's almost their standard compared to the competition
Of the few that run at 30fps this year are Tears of the Kingdom, Pikmin 4 and Fire Emblem Engage
>almost every nintendo game is 30 fps
What? Most Nintendo games are 60fps. Even from back in the NES days. That's why its abnormal when games like BotW go at 30.
obvious lies, games like starfox ran at like 19 fps
No shit moron. Starfox was trying to push 3D graphics on SNES hardware.
Why is PC 720p 30 fps so shit compared to Switch 480p 30 fps?
I can play Pikmin 4 fine even if it runs like shit and looks like shit, but I can't play anything pc related unless it's 60 fps, it looks awful
That's a case of Nintendo Delusion Syndrome. Seek medical attention immediately.
SMTV and Xenoblade look so awful on Switch with the dynamic resolution that I downloaded an emulator to play games I already own
Maybe because of the fluidity where the console always maintains stable fps by lowering the resolution?
Have you tried to play switch games on emulator?
>always
Not anymore
I mostly play at 240p 60hz. On a CRT.
>1080p
yes
>30fps
hell naw
>1080p
fine
>30fps
Absolutely not have a nice day. I play a lot of multiplayer games. 60fps is barely playable
>Absolutely not have a nice day.
based suicide preventor
My eyes can see twice as fast as a normal persons so 30 fps looks like 60 to me. Get good
I will never play above 1080 or 60 fps
Once you do, your eyes and brain will adapt and you will not be able to play at 1080/60 again.
This is how I was with 60fps-->120fps so I'm afraid to do 1440p.
I've been with 144hz for 2 years now and swapping back to 60fps is still tolerable although 30fps even in 2d indie pixel shit now makes me want to turn the game off instantly
>framerate is 1/4th of what it should be
1/8th brokie
Fair, 240 is pretty good, its just that 120 is where it starts being comfy
That's also fair. Once you taste 120, 60fps seems like a performance issue.
Whatever suits you my man.
I couldn't go back from 4k 100+fps
You mean 1080p 120 or 144 frames
1080p is ok but not at 30fps dude
>1080p
Sure
>30fps
Frick off tendie.
>30fps
>even 60fps
>1080p
sure
>30fps
cuck behavior
>I have vision problems
You should wear glasses
>No this is the way it's meant to be experienced
...
720-768p is underrated
i would unironically trade 4k/60fps for 720p / 165hz (despite the fact there are zero high refresh 720p monitors)
I just got my first 144hz monitor. I used to think I was fine with 60hz but now I realize I was desperately coping. It really does make a difference.
It does if your hardware can keep stable fps around 120-144.
The only reason one would get 4k @ 60hz is for playing in the living room from a distance. 1440p is in a tight spot if you want things very smooth and high def you need dlss for tripleA or/and top of the line hardware.
For me it's 144p @1080fps
30fps should be banned.
120fps should be the industry standard, but even so, it's not much if you're used to 144hz (if you don't believe me, play something like Quake 1 at 144hz for an hour or more and then try to lock it to 120fps).
I believe the same happens if you're running at 200+ fps and go back to 144fps...
The idea is simple, the more frames the better, of course, there is a point where you start to no longer have a return that justifies the price of the technology to reach 500+ frames, but one thing I'm sure of: the "limit" where the return doesn't start to be valuable is far beyond 60fps...
>40 FPS on 120 Hz, smooth and responsive gameplay, computer is dead silent, lower power consumption, comfort in knowing my components will never deteriorate.
Pic unrelated
so worse than a ps5
Do you know that the 40 fps at 120hz is only to give more fluidity but does not contribute anything to the response speed?
It's not for nothing that they only use it on console with single player games or focused on story mode, and never for competitive games, where they use 120fps
>30 fps
its not 1983
60 fps has been the standard since the early 90s