This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Who here would rather have efficiency than upgraded graphics

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. PlayStation 3
  3. Who here would rather have efficiency than upgraded graphics

User Info: majin nemesis

majin nemesis
5 years ago#21
echa_One Posted...

I'd rather Sony make the console durable. I'm talking like 10-20 years or more. No YLOD ****, no lens not reading ****, no power supply failure ****, etc.
With each passing day, the world finds new and exciting
ways to kill a man-Balthier FFXII

User Info: SullyTheStrange

SullyTheStrange
5 years ago#22
No there aren't. Especially not these days.

Uh, there are these days more than ever. With budgets of tens of millions of dollars, teams of hundreds of people, and development times of two or three years, making a big game is a HUGE risk for companies in an economy like this. Generally, even with all of that being put into a game, it can only satisfy ONE out of the "optimized and beautiful" ideal.

Exactly how much do you think SHOULD go into a game to meet both?
All's fair in love and war, kid.

User Info: 656stooge

656stooge
5 years ago#23
SullyTheStrange posted...
The PS3 is perfectly capable of running every game at 1080p and 60 FPS.

The devs choose not to though, and instead sacrifice some performance for better graphics.

If sacrifices are made, then it's not perfectly capable. You can say the same thing about the Wii if you want -- it's perfectly capable of running every game at 60 FPS, as long as you turn off every single effect, reduce enemy count to 2, have textures muddier than a hillbilly wedding, and have a loading screen every half a step.

"Perfectly capable" means nothing with a qualifier like that after it.


What? I'm saying that even if the next PS4 costs $1000 and is far better than the best PCs, devs will still choose to sacrifice frame rate for graphics.
So my point stands, the PS3 is perfectly capable of running games at that res and at 60 FPS, but not every dev thinks 60 FPS is necessary.
http://i.imgur.com/ueSFG.gif

User Info: SullyTheStrange

SullyTheStrange
5 years ago#24
So my point stands, the PS3 is perfectly capable of running games at that res and at 60 FPS, but not every dev thinks 60 FPS is necessary.

Yet that's a pointless thing to say. "I'm perfectly capable of running a full marathon if you give me two weeks to do it." Does that even mean anything?

Your point about devs pushing the limit of performance stands, sure, but the bit about the PS3 is just pointless. Any game that does run at full HD with 60 FPS won't have, as the TC puts it, "drooling-some zomg GRAPHICS!!", just as any game that does have
"drooling-some zomg GRAPHICS!!" won't have the performance to back it up. Without putting completely unreasonable efforts into a game, it just won't have both.
All's fair in love and war, kid.

User Info: PHOENIXZERO

PHOENIXZERO
5 years ago#25
Better hardware almost always means better graphics, especially once there's a good handle on the hardware. New hardware will be a lot more efficient and be so at a faster rate than the PS3 even after all the years of experience developers have now with the platform.

This coming generation should be capable of 1080p@60fps with a boatload of graphic tricks along and little in terms of sacrifice with having plenty of power to spare for everything else like physics and AI while easily selling $400. But alas, if the rumored hardware turns out to be what is really going to be in the PS4 and next XBox it's going to be pretty disappointing IMO. MS and Sony look to be making consoles that could be sold without going the loss leader route this time with ~$300 worth the hardware they'll be selling at $400.
Got a stupid question that's already been answered a thousand times? Check this site out! http://www.google.com

User Info: Wario_man

Wario_man
5 years ago#26
Putting 100%, aka all you can into a game is not unreasonable.
First I'll get the treasure, and then I'll get you.

User Info: SullyTheStrange

SullyTheStrange
5 years ago#27
Putting 100%, aka all you can into a game is not unreasonable.

So naive, and full of ideals... You must be young.
All's fair in love and war, kid.

User Info: 656stooge

656stooge
5 years ago#28
SullyTheStrange posted...
So my point stands, the PS3 is perfectly capable of running games at that res and at 60 FPS, but not every dev thinks 60 FPS is necessary.

Your point about devs pushing the limit of performance stands, sure, but the bit about the PS3 is just pointless. Any game that does run at full HD with 60 FPS won't have, as the TC puts it, "drooling-some zomg GRAPHICS!!", just as any game that does have
"drooling-some zomg GRAPHICS!!" won't have the performance to back it up. Without putting completely unreasonable efforts into a game, it just won't have both.


A next gen running in 1080p and 60 FPS won't look as good as one running 720p and 30 FPS. My point is that some devs will never choose a high fram rate over better graphics.

So it pointless to say the next PS should play every game at 60 FPS, because that's up to the devs, not the hardware.
http://i.imgur.com/ueSFG.gif

User Info: Wario_man

Wario_man
5 years ago#29

From: SullyTheStrange | #027
Putting 100%, aka all you can into a game is not unreasonable.

So naive, and full of ideals... You must be young.


Nope, 22 this year. If a developer can say when they look at a game and say "Yeah, this is exactly how I wanted it to be. I couldn't have made it any better no matter how much time I had" then I'm happy. But with patches and DLC to fix things or add things in that should and could have already been in the game, as well as having to rely on modders to make the game bearable for PC I'm not seeing too much effort or love for a craft.

If you can't make a game good enough with thousands of dollars and hundreds of employees don't bother. Either stop trying to make games or try to make a different kind of game. I'd be fine with more sprite based sidescrollers but that's just me.
All your children are poor unfortunate victims of systems beyond their control, a plague upon your ignorance and the gray despair of your ugly life.

User Info: SullyTheStrange

SullyTheStrange
5 years ago#30
If a developer can say when they look at a game and say "Yeah, this is exactly how I wanted it to be. I couldn't have made it any better no matter how much time I had" then I'm happy.

And you have no problem ignoring all external factors such as deadlines and publishers trying to control everything? Your view sounds very naive, honestly; it isn't all about the "love for the craft", even if it should be. It just isn't.
All's fair in love and war, kid.
  1. Boards
  2. PlayStation 3
  3. Who here would rather have efficiency than upgraded graphics

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