Why is the framerate not preffered to the resolution?

#1locky723Posted 5/13/2014 1:51:14 PM
I don't get it. Sure a game like, as an example, watch dogs may look better at 1080P or whatever, but i'd rather it ran SMOOTHER. The best way that iv'e noticed this is in dark souls 1 to 2. In 1, it wasn't bad, but starting 2, it ran SMOOTH AS HECK. (This is on PC so i'm pretty sure it was 60 FPS) It was amazing.

Anyway, can someone explain this to me?
#2MithrilMonarchPosted 5/13/2014 1:51:53 PM
Depends on the game, but for the most part, I want frame rate more than resolution.
---
http://i.imgur.com/BapigZm.jpg http://i.imgur.com/jfqokR2.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/UvMQau3.jpg http://i.imgur.com/ikDqyeh.jpg
#3uberking422Posted 5/13/2014 1:57:10 PM
Beats me. Last gen had way too many multiplats with no consideration for frame rate, so games turned into ****ing slideshows anytime anything remotely taxing happened onscreen.
#4T3H_1337_N1NJ4Posted 5/13/2014 1:57:39 PM
Because higher frame rate doesn't show on screenshots or youtube and developers want to market the game.
---
To err is human, but to really screw things up you need a computer!
http://userstyles.org/styles/88555/gamefaqs-v13-revamp V13 Userstyle for a better site look
#5Steel_ShadowsPosted 5/13/2014 1:58:34 PM
locky723 posted...
I don't get it. Sure a game like, as an example, watch dogs may look better at 1080P or whatever, but i'd rather it ran SMOOTHER. The best way that iv'e noticed this is in dark souls 1 to 2. In 1, it wasn't bad, but starting 2, it ran SMOOTH AS HECK. (This is on PC so i'm pretty sure it was 60 FPS) It was amazing.

Anyway, can someone explain this to me?


Even on consoles, Dark Souls II ran consistently smoother than Dark Souls at pretty much all times. And yes, it is preferred.
---
Games are like women, they don't have to be smokin' hawt to make me happy.-Mr_X_Returns
Member of the IRDC, where everything's a dirty joke.
#6arvilinoPosted 5/13/2014 2:04:48 PM(edited)
locky723 posted...
I don't get it. Sure a game like, as an example, watch dogs may look better at 1080P or whatever, but i'd rather it ran SMOOTHER. The best way that iv'e noticed this is in dark souls 1 to 2. In 1, it wasn't bad, but starting 2, it ran SMOOTH AS HECK. (This is on PC so i'm pretty sure it was 60 FPS) It was amazing.

Anyway, can someone explain this to me?


It isn't, infact it's 900p/30FPS in PS4 and 792p/30FPS on X1.

But the 1080p and low frame rate stuff is just for cynical marketing to sell suckers on a game that in the end is going look and perform worse than other better looking games a few years later.

Really most games should aim for 60fps or at least locked at 30FPS unless it's something completely revolutionary like Super Mario 64 otherwise they're just going to play worse for no benefit in the future.
---
'The fact of the matter is that we've been here constantly. We've been betraying peoples expectations, in a good way, for a long time.'
3DS: 2449-4649-4995
#7RoboXgp89Posted 5/13/2014 2:14:11 PM
darks souls 1 didn't have a low frame rate, it had a stuttering/abyssmal frame rate in the bog/forest

even now in DS2 yes you are getting like 50-60 but the load times take forever, you can run into rooms and see white mapping all over the place or characters wont' be rendered before you get their etc.

none of this will matter though if you play games on the ps4
#8segagamerPosted 5/13/2014 2:33:05 PM
RoboXgp89 posted...
darks souls 1 didn't have a low frame rate, it had a stuttering/abyssmal frame rate in the bog/forest

even now in DS2 yes you are getting like 50-60 but the load times take forever, you can run into rooms and see white mapping all over the place or characters wont' be rendered before you get their etc.

none of this will matter though if you play games on the ps4


After a couple of years, I'm sure there will be games like Far Cry 3 and Crysis 3 on consoles performance wise. It will be just like 7th gen.
---
PC :) Wii U getting old.
NNID: JZimino
#9RoboXgp89Posted 5/13/2014 2:35:11 PM
segagamer posted...
RoboXgp89 posted...
darks souls 1 didn't have a low frame rate, it had a stuttering/abyssmal frame rate in the bog/forest

even now in DS2 yes you are getting like 50-60 but the load times take forever, you can run into rooms and see white mapping all over the place or characters wont' be rendered before you get their etc.

none of this will matter though if you play games on the ps4


After a couple of years, I'm sure there will be games like Far Cry 3 and Crysis 3 on consoles performance wise. It will be just like 7th gen.


I watched my friends play borderlands 2 while the x1 just sat in the corner

can't say I feel the same way
#10locky723(Topic Creator)Posted 5/14/2014 12:11:29 PM
arvilino posted...
locky723 posted...
I don't get it. Sure a game like, as an example, watch dogs may look better at 1080P or whatever, but i'd rather it ran SMOOTHER. The best way that iv'e noticed this is in dark souls 1 to 2. In 1, it wasn't bad, but starting 2, it ran SMOOTH AS HECK. (This is on PC so i'm pretty sure it was 60 FPS) It was amazing.

Anyway, can someone explain this to me?


It isn't, infact it's 900p/30FPS in PS4 and 792p/30FPS on X1.

But the 1080p and low frame rate stuff is just for cynical marketing to sell suckers on a game that in the end is going look and perform worse than other better looking games a few years later.

Really most games should aim for 60fps or at least locked at 30FPS unless it's something completely revolutionary like Super Mario 64 otherwise they're just going to play worse for no benefit in the future.


Yes, i know, i was just spouting random numbers.


Also, bump.