POLL: which next gen resolution/framerate do you prefer?

#11LvthnPosted 7/22/2014 11:18:25 AM
manmouse posted...
60FPS, for anyone who calls themselves a gamer, should be the most important of the bunch. high resolution is nice too, but the framerate MUST be at 60FPS before they hit 1080p visuals, otherwise their priorities are in treating the game more like a movie than a game.

framerate = gameplay. response time, accuracy, having perfect 1:1 controls overall, handling more complex action, that's what framerate allows.

resolution just makes things pretty. if you like gaming for the GAMING aspect of it, resolution should never take priority over framerate


I agree with you 100%, with the added comment that despite framerate > resolution, after that resolution > all other settings. Picture clarity is more important to me than texture detail if I must choose.

Unfortunately my third priority is not something developers can do anything about - latency.
#12yeti44(Topic Creator)Posted 7/22/2014 4:50:36 PM
Mandrew257 posted...
720p 60FPS.

I really can't tell the difference with 1080p vs 720p.


Yep. It's pretty much impossible to tell the difference on anything under 60 inches. Whereas 30fps vs 60fps is recognizable INSTANTLY.
---
Nintendo stock 12,165. Sony stock 1,765
Nice guys finish last
#13BladeManEXEPosted 7/22/2014 4:59:01 PM
720p@60fps

Not because I actually care much about framerate (Ocarina of Time on the 64 never bothered me, and that was 25fps or less), but because my TV only goes up to 720p (it's a decent size, but a little old) and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference at my usual viewing distance anyways.
#14Ghost-inZeShellPosted 7/22/2014 5:26:17 PM(edited)
I'm getting 1920x1080@120fps on Ultra settings on my PC.
Power isn't even a factor for me with consoles.
I don't even know why people bother arguing about which plastic box is the fastest or the prettiest.

It's like people riding donkeys, and when you tell them that a car will go much faster and looks a lot nicer, they say that's not the point, but then, not even two minutes later, they start arguing over which donkey is the fastest or the prettiest.
I'm sorry, but if you're riding a donkey, it because it's not about going fast or looking good.
It it were, you would be in a car!

Donkey = console
Car = PC
For those blind to symbolism.
#15Granadico_Posted 7/22/2014 5:30:00 PM
Ghost-inZeShell posted...
I'm getting 1920x1080@120fps on Ultra settings on my PC.
Power isn't even a factor for me with consoles.
I don't even know why people bother arguing about which plastic box is the fastest or the prettiest.

It's like people riding donkeys, and when you tell them that a car will go much faster and looks a lot nicer, they say that's not the point, but then, not even two minutes later, they start arguing over which donkey is the fastest or the prettiest.
I'm sorry, but if you're riding a donkey, it because it's not about going fast or looking good.
It it were, you would be in a car!

Donkey = console
Car = PC
For those blind to symbolism.


I wish i had a PC like that :Q why don't you go up to 2K if you can handle 120 fps?
and i think the point he's making is resolution doesn't have as much to do with gameplay as locked 60 fps does. Way too many games can barely handle 30, which is crap on fast paced games
---
Used GameFAQs for ages, finally made another account after 6 years.
Currently playing: Pikmin 3 (Wii U) and Kid Icarus: Uprising (3DS) NNID:Granadico
#16LvthnPosted 7/22/2014 6:55:23 PM
Granadico_ posted...
I wish i had a PC like that :Q why don't you go up to 2K if you can handle 120 fps?
and i think the point he's making is resolution doesn't have as much to do with gameplay as locked 60 fps does. Way too many games can barely handle 30, which is crap on fast paced games


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005635&cm_re=34um95-_-24-005-635-_-Product

However, some folks prefer 144Hz/1ms, usually FPS players.
#17snake_5036Posted 7/23/2014 1:58:21 AM
manmouse posted...
60FPS, for anyone who calls themselves a gamer, should be the most important of the bunch. high resolution is nice too, but the framerate MUST be at 60FPS before they hit 1080p visuals, otherwise their priorities are in treating the game more like a movie than a game.

framerate = gameplay. response time, accuracy, having perfect 1:1 controls overall, handling more complex action, that's what framerate allows.

resolution just makes things pretty. if you like gaming for the GAMING aspect of it, resolution should never take priority over framerate


I agree with this.
---
Anything is possible when your man smells like Old Spice and not a lady.
#18KaiserWarriorPosted 7/23/2014 5:23:07 AM
I prefer 2560x1600 @ 60 fps

But then, I'm not a console plebe who's stuck with decade-old technology.
#19LordRazielPosted 7/23/2014 5:42:16 AM
http://m.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/PS4_vs._Xbox_One_Native_Resolutions_and_Framerates


Wii u hardly this gen vs ps4 and x1.
---
-------------
Dashing
#20Ghost-inZeShellPosted 7/23/2014 6:03:04 AM
Granadico_ posted...

I wish i had a PC like that :Q why don't you go up to 2K if you can handle 120 fps?
and i think the point he's making is resolution doesn't have as much to do with gameplay as locked 60 fps does. Way too many games can barely handle 30, which is crap on fast paced games

2K isn't much better than 1920x1080p.
I could go up to 4K, but I don't have one of those displays, and I'm pretty sure that my frame-rate would drop to 5-10 for most games.
I'm basically waiting for the Oculus Rift, since my graphics card can handle 3D.

I don't get 120 on all games, but at least a solid 60. For less graphically-intensive games like League, I can get up to 300fps, but once again, I don't have the monitor to display it.

Some people say you can't detect a difference beyond a certain number of frames, but that is actually incorrect, the human eye is analog, continuous, it doesn't work by means of any frame rate.
You can tell the difference between 30 and 60.
You can tell the difference between 60 and 120.

However, I am getting side-tracked and totally off-topic.
My original point was, I didn't buy a Wii U for DA POWA!
I think the very idea of buying any console for its 'hardware power' is crazy.
No matter the resolution, no matter the frames, no matter the money/power ratio, PC will beat it.
It is simply asking the wrong question when talking about consoles.
I look at the X1 and PS4 and I see shighty pre-built, over-priced, under-powered PCs.

The reason I have a Wii U is for the games it offers.
For Wind Waker, for Pikmin, for Zelda U, yadda, yadda yadda.

I own a Wii U because if offers things that I can't do with my PC.
Nintendoland for example. I can't play with my family any couch co-op games on PC.
Most (all) PC games are solo, or online multiplayer.
I own a Wii U to play Raving Rabbids with my family, or Nintendoland, or Mario Kart.
And later, Super Smash Bros, and Splatoon.