1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gaming There's more to graphics tech than resolutions and framerates

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Combatus, 6 Jun 2014.

  1. iggy

    iggy Active Member

    Joined:
    24 Jun 2002
    Posts:
    1,021
    Likes Received:
    11
    the rest of it doesnt matter worth a **** if the game doesnt run at an acceptable framerate. < 60 is not acceptable framerates.
     
  2. GuilleAcoustic

    GuilleAcoustic Ook ? Ook !

    Joined:
    26 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    3,277
    Likes Received:
    71
  3. dstarr3

    dstarr3 New Member

    Joined:
    11 Feb 2014
    Posts:
    75
    Likes Received:
    0
    My first console was an NES as a child. Which is to say, I've been gaming at 30fps for the majority of my gaming life. And now that 60fps is becoming more common, you know how much it actually improves a game? Maybe 1%.

    Resolution, however, okay, I'll accept that's important. I'll take 1080p@30 over 720p@60 any day.
     
  4. dancingbear84

    dancingbear84 error 404

    Joined:
    16 Oct 2010
    Posts:
    2,192
    Likes Received:
    73
    I don't really care about resolution or fps. Ok sure I don't want my gaming to be a stuttery mess, but as long as I can't see any lag I don't really care if I'm getting 60fps or 45.
    I do however like to get sucked in by a game, I liked batman Arkham asylum, dead island, gears of war, civilisation, gta and many more, not for the fps I got but for the enjoyment & annoyance and frustration I got from playing, failing over and over again at the same thing, until finally realising what I was doing wrong, getting it right and moving on. For me it is an emotional enjoyment.

    I am also permanently impressed by devs for the level of thought that goes into making a game of any kind.
     
    Last edited: 7 Jun 2014
  5. exceededgoku

    exceededgoku New Member

    Joined:
    19 Oct 2006
    Posts:
    75
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmm, interesting article.

    Not sure I agree with it, but interesting nonetheless.

    I often find myself purchasing the PC versions of games simply because I prefer the look and feel of the rendered environments (and the resolution) that simply isn't possible on my ONE or PS4.

    In fact I have only 2 games on the consoles, both of which are solely available on the consoles.

    I got the latest Spiderman game, and whilst the gameplay is mildly amusing the graphics really ruin it for me as it feels like it's from the early 2000s.

    EDIT - Although when playing JRPG's and other mobile games (or similar) then graphics are fine...
     
  6. Star*Dagger

    Star*Dagger New Member

    Joined:
    30 Nov 2007
    Posts:
    882
    Likes Received:
    11
    All too many people are still running games at ridiculously low resolutions like 1920x1080 on some cheesy 24 inch monitor.

    Most people have never seen Skyrim, in its fully modded glory across three 30 inchers.

    People would do well to get their prescriptions updated as well, you can only see as well as your last set of glasses.

    All of this will be made redundant when Oculus Rift ships with its 4k per eye version.

    Enjoy the show.
     
  7. Shirty

    Shirty Time travelling rogue Super Moderator

    Joined:
    18 Apr 1982
    Posts:
    12,172
    Likes Received:
    1,444
    Star*Dagger: putting the world to rights one post at a time.

    Problem is, all of your posts make you look like a bit of a Wan*Ker :lol:
     
    RedFlames likes this.
  8. debs3759

    debs3759 Was that a warranty I just broke?

    Joined:
    10 Oct 2011
    Posts:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    92
    Tell you what - buy me 3 4K monitors and I'll stop using my "stupidly low res" 1080p monitor. Disability benefits don't go as far as they used to :(
     
  9. GuilleAcoustic

    GuilleAcoustic Ook ? Ook !

    Joined:
    26 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    3,277
    Likes Received:
    71
    I have nothing to compensate :p
     
  10. mclean007

    mclean007 Officious Bystander

    Joined:
    22 May 2003
    Posts:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    15
    Think somebody missed the sarcasm...
     
  11. themassau

    themassau New Member

    Joined:
    23 Mar 2012
    Posts:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes graphics and game engine are needed to improve game play but it only works up to a certain point and it has to be used to create the atmosphere. Imagine what could have been made with the BF3 /BF4 engine with those destructible buildings. things like alternative level design with multiple routes. or even multiple endings when you take other routes. just like Wario land 3 you had a whole three of options to get to an ending.

    If you shoot a box in GTA VC than it just disappears but if the game play is optimise's for the engine than you destroy something and make it usable as a weapon or put in some puzzles.

    A good example of a game that uses its graphics and sound for atmosphere is STALKER or metro, stalker was buggy but man i was scared when i was just walking at night. you can only see what is in your light beam. but the noises just make you scared.
     
  12. jb0

    jb0 Active Member

    Joined:
    8 Apr 2012
    Posts:
    508
    Likes Received:
    72
    Ummm... I hate to tell you this, but the NES ran at 60 FPS. Except in the places where it ran at 50 FPS because LOL PAL(I'm sure it's a fine TV standard in many respects, but for playing video games designed in America and Japan, it's complete crap).

    Like many other video game machines, the NES doesn't generate an interlaced image. It uses the alternating fields of the television signal as different frames of a 60 Hz video feed rather than halves of a single 30 Hz video feed.
    Utilizing a malformed TV signal, you can force the second video field to retrace the same scanlines as the first field, avoiding jitter and enabling 60 FPS video at reduced resolution, an effect that many classic gaming enthusiasts dubbed "240p" like it's an actual video standard.
    The practice began with Computer Space and Pong. It likely started because working with interlaced video was a pain in the backside without fairly advanced ICs, and continued on because it conferred other advantages(the lower resolution reduced the computing load greatly, and the increased frame rate was highly desirable for action games).


    60 FPS was not just standard, but MANDATORY, for years and years, and only even began slowing down on the PlayStation 2.




    I have no real interest into wading into the broader debate(and an interesting debate it is). Just wanted to correct this misconception that video game consoles have always run at 30 FPS because NTSC commands it.

    You can do a lot of horrible things to analog video signals and still get something that will display on a CRT TV. NTSC didn't really COMMAND 30 FPS interlaced so much as meekly request it but if you'd rather punch it in the face and steal it's lunch money that's okay too. And video game developers would much rather punch it in the face and steal it's lunch money.
     
  13. rollo

    rollo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,700
    Likes Received:
    99
    Graphics engines change as time goes on.

    By 2020 we will surely be aproaching Real World Graphics. Some game types are already aproaching it. Fifa 14 is a pretty decent comparison does it look a great deal different to your modern broadcast when they are not up close to the action.

    Wether 60fps or resolution matters is id say a game type dependent thing. Twitch games that require fast reactions to whats happening higher fps does help if your screen can handle it.

    4k and oculus people say are the game changes problem with both is content. Gaming at 4k is not really possible on todays graphics cards unless your running a few of them even then its game dependent on drivers. ( £1100 in gpus can power 1 4k screen in certain games )

    Tv 4k is a long way away. Sky has 60 ish hd channels in the uk of which only 1/3rd are 1080 resolution. That is due to bandwidth constraints. Netflix is going to start offering some 4k content but you are not talking true 4k level of streams.

    We may finally see a blue ray quality stream from 4k. A true 4k would be 12gb/s uncompressed for the record, 3gb/s for 1080 30fps x 4 basically.

    The highest current single link today is 10gb/sec. SMPTE are developing new ways to deliver this to us but its not ready yet, Amazon and netflix are talking about between 12-20mbit so a rather large quality reduction using HEVC, A Blue ray plays at about a similar bit rate depending on movie

    Oculus great for people who are gaming alone. Problem is if your game time is mostly with others in front of a tv for example then its not going to see alot of usage. Even in Pc space theres not alot of games where id say Oculus would be great here.

    The next big space game maybe in Star Citizen but we are talking 2016 here at its current rate of development. ( Even in this game there are worrys about the controls for oculus) Would you really want it for a fps game where surely a mouse and keyboard will be a better control scheme than anything oculus can offer.

    Oculus to be great has to fix a few things and the first version will not be 4k per eye more like sub 1080. I personally dout the oculus VR will be the one to buy with both Sony and Microsoft capable of building similar stuff but getting better deals on components. The first high resolution VR machine will likely come from one of the 2.
     
  14. mclean007

    mclean007 Officious Bystander

    Joined:
    22 May 2003
    Posts:
    2,035
    Likes Received:
    15
    It's not just about "deals on the components" though - Oculus has done some very clever stuff with motion tracking and latency, which is necessary to avoid motion sickness with VR headsets. It's not just a bag of components and it's definitely not a commoditised item - people will be willing to pay more for a product that they perceive as delivering the best experience.

    And don't forget Oculus now has the almost limitless financial firepower of Facebook behind it...
     
  15. PaulJG

    PaulJG Member

    Joined:
    20 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    135
    Likes Received:
    7
    Great Article! - Myself.. Im a purest, I look at a game deeply. Most often I buy them - I never finish them, I find myself sucked into the techie side. Is that rain effect working on the puddles down the street? Is that wave reacting to coastline? Whats the draw distance?? etc..

    I find I enjoy the game much better if its engine performs as you'd expect it to - over the years as the BF series has evolved, I've always wanted to shoot out a light.. so that it changes how I play the level. Or even in the first splinter cell - if I shoot it.. will it go out? (nope, usually just swing around a bit looking like a pretty effect) - limitations of both the core engine, and the grx engine. Todays titles we demand realtime physics, dynamic lighting - less of the baked in lighting effects.. everything has to be realtime - and its slowly coming of age.

    Looking at the E3 vids of upcoming games, it seems the industry has finally had to bite the bullet and invest in new engines for the nextgen games, no more.. bolt a bit on here and push it through with a 2, 3 or 4 on the box, and I welcome that.

    Even indy games have changed over the last few years, its no more a oneman band coder in the bedroom churning out a very playable little game with functioning grxs. Now its state of the art 3d graphics and slick animation, lot of money being found from somewhere.
     
  16. Anfield

    Anfield Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    5,279
    Likes Received:
    426
    It will also have everyone living in constant fear that if they blink the wrong way the fact that they are gamers will be plastered over every social network...
     
  17. Elton

    Elton Officially a Whisky Nerd

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    8,575
    Likes Received:
    189
    I think there's something to be said about games with graphics that compliment it and games where the graphics detract from it.

    I'll use STALKER since it's still by far my favorite FPS to have come out of the woodwork in years. STALKER is....odd when it's unmodded. It's glitchy (not too bad anymore), the voice acting is genuinely awful if you choose English, only the last game even gives the player a semblance of guidance, and while the lighting engine is magnificent (it REALLY is), the textures are hilariously bad.

    It's an ugly game. Simple as that, it looked antiquated when it came out. Hell the hand models and animations are frankly awful, it's a game that genuinely lacks polish. Whether or not it was intentional however, it worked. It's a game that somehow knew exactly what it was doing: oppressing you. It isn't the hardest game ever, but STALKER was always an unforgiving game. It laced RPG elements into an FPS with a sci-fi twist that was down to earth and yet incredibly outlandish. STALKER proved to me that graphics weren't the end all. In 2008. Even though the engine was markedly complex (every iteration brought in new things, like better volumetric light, SSAO, wet surfaces, dynamic lighting etc) the textures and models were still hilariously out of place.

    But it worked, the game had so much atmosphere, so much gravitas when playing that I forgot to count the pixels. I forgot that the grass was 2-D cross sectioned models with simple textures, I forgot that everything was Aliased, that the AA option never even worked. I forgot that the Anisotropic Filtering option didn't really do anything. I forgot because the game was absurdly engrossing. It didn't hold my hand, it was clunky, but it didn't feel unfair, it felt like I was in an oppressive and apathetic wasteland. And I was.

    What's the point of this? Graphical fidelity isn't the end all and be all to a game's quality. It's about how one interacts with the graphics and how the graphics interact with the player. The crappy textures were forgotten when I was being attacked by everything. I forgot how aliased everything was when I was running away like a little girl in the darkness dropping the extra weight in my pack because I couldn't run long enough and I was being chased by a bloodsucker.

    It was a combination of ugly and beautiful. But what it gave me was an experience. It was then I realized I cared little for great graphics as much as I cared for a world that is molded into a world I could care about and have stories and tibits to remember. Assassin's Creed 3 lacked that. A lush beautiful world. But I was limited. The mechanics of the game precluded me from really having those absolutely-pants-crapping-scary moments. But it wasn't the mechanics. It was it's aim for perfection. It didn't let me go outside of the boundaries. I didn't forget there were boundaries. It wasn't immersive.

    And that's what I want from a game. Graphics are secondary if I can just lose myself and think in the moment of the game.
     
  18. HeaverNothing

    HeaverNothing Professional Idiot

    Joined:
    7 Aug 2013
    Posts:
    111
    Likes Received:
    2
    I think developers need to learn its not just all polygons and resolutions that matter.
     
  19. ssj12

    ssj12 Member

    Joined:
    12 Sep 2007
    Posts:
    687
    Likes Received:
    1
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page