Why is the framerate not preffered to the resolution?

  • Topic Archived
  1. Boards
  2. Wii U
  3. Why is the framerate not preffered to the resolution?
1 year ago#1
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?
1 year ago#2
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
1 year ago#3
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.
1 year ago#4
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
1 year ago#5
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.
1 year ago#6
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
1 year ago#7
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
1 year ago#8
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
1 year ago#9
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
1 year ago#10
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.
  1. Boards
  2. Wii U
  3. Why is the framerate not preffered to the resolution?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived