Uncharted 4: 60fps "Really f***ing hard!!"
- Thread starter VFX_Veteran
- Start date
No surprise. They should have never even stated they were aiming for 1080p 60fps.
It just wasn't feasible since ND pushes out some very graphically impressive games.
It just wasn't feasible since ND pushes out some very graphically impressive games.
It's not hard. There is no try. Do or do not. The whole issue is wherever you can accept your PlayStation 6000 won't push 8 trillion poly at your desired frame rate. As they said, you create your own new problems no matter how powerful the hardware. 30 fps is confirmed.
Last edited:
So I was correct. They are going to try and get the game to where they want visually and then try to get it to 60 FPS. If getting to 60 fps makes it look subpar to their visual target, they are probably going to go for 1080p/30.
Honestly I have no problem with that. Just give me a graphical masterpiece.
Honestly I have no problem with that. Just give me a graphical masterpiece.
This is one of those things that got me banned at NeoGAF. I consistently tried to tell the PS4 gamers that with the hardware we have today, it's not possible that the game will look like that E3 reveal and play like that at 30fps let alone 60fps. I was labeled a hater of ND and reported to the PS4 fanboy mods for "s***ting on their console". Now all the babies at NeoGAF are whining at ND for lying or not telling the truth. When the gameplay demo came out and it was running 30fps, that should have been confirmation already. Nope.. people were insisting that "ND still have a year left to go to get 60fps". Really? Double the bandwidth optimization with the same look? Not going to happen...
I’m going back to my gaming roots. Back to not paying attention to technical assertions I admittedly know little about. All I care about is if a game looks and plays well. And past games in this series say that will be a big hell yeah.
No reason to bring that up here. Leave that stuff to that site. Let the nonsense stay there.
Now we got to use words like final and retail? Pff I ain't excusing them! If its not 60fps then they mislead us.
Sure. Until a developer states that the game I will be able to buy and play, the retail game, will be 1080/60 I'm not sweating it. How are they misleading you if 1080/60 is their target?
It's somewhat of a mislead but truthfully, it's really not. The E3 demo was rendered at 1080p/60fps. I think because people saw that advertised, they went crazy about the capabilities of the PS4. However, when the actual gameplay trailer was done at PAX and it showed 1080p/30fps, people started talking. This is what created all the debates. I concluded that since the demo was at 1080p/30fps, that would be there final fps.. quite logical to think that in light of all the other AAA games coming out that was 30fps. They did also state they would target 60fps which also aggravated an already sensitive topic.
All of that is making me think of this:
http://i.imgur.com/8IF06MZ.jpg
Was it foolish of me that i had expected the E3 2014 footage to eventually be ingame? Now i know the game is still fully in development, but no way in hell will it look like that.
http://i.imgur.com/8IF06MZ.jpg
Was it foolish of me that i had expected the E3 2014 footage to eventually be ingame? Now i know the game is still fully in development, but no way in hell will it look like that.
-Well they did say they were pushing for 1080p 60fps.
-Now recently they have tried to squash the hype for 60fps and downplay it.
If someone tells me they are pushing for 1080p60fps, I assume that's their goal. But if you change your mind and now saying you are "pushing graphics" instead, clearly you have changed your mind. They have moved their focus and that's their right to do, but I'd say it is misleading.
NaughtyDog came out with a bang announcing they were targeting 60fps. But slowly and surely, they are becoming more and more adamant in stating the impossibility of that now that they understand they have to cut something. NaughtyDog should have known this from the start, especially being the graphical geniuses they are and knowing they let cramming tons of nice tech in take precedence. But honestly, I wish NaughtyDog would understand that not even half the gamers out there will ever notice all the graphical enhancements they're adding. Just like how no one can tell Tomb Raider: DE has subsurface scatter. I'd rather take glorious 60fps over slightly lower effects.
More than likely 60fps was the target, then they started running the game with the current LODs and effects and the fps was dipping hard. After KZ:SF they probably thought it was better without and uncapped fps idk.
I honestly would love 1080p/60fps, but its ND, they will deliver. However lately the last couple of games there has been a sense of arrogance from them that is very uncharacteristic, borderline cocky. I've seen comments on twitter and around the net. Not sure if its a change in personnel or what.
I honestly would love 1080p/60fps, but its ND, they will deliver. However lately the last couple of games there has been a sense of arrogance from them that is very uncharacteristic, borderline cocky. I've seen comments on twitter and around the net. Not sure if its a change in personnel or what.
I don't think that's misleading, of course they're gonna push hard for 60fps. Pushing graphics has always been ND's forte, 60fps happens to one part of pushing graphics. They are clearly having a hard time reaching 60fps and have said so, well before the game is finished. If they had waited till the game went gold or right at launch, then I'd consider it misleading. Of course they're going to tamper the hit from 60 to 30, all anyone cares about this gen is the holy grail of 1080/60. Disapointing yes, misleading no.
A lot of people say this but I'm not sure where they are getting it from. ND has never been a graphics powerhouse like Crytek -- yet they are seen in the same light. I'm not sure why that is. Guerrilla Games and Sony Santa Monica have also pushed hardware graphics first and foremost before gameplay (they were among the first to introduce deferred lighting). To me, ND has always been about the art and level design. Yes, their water simulation in UC2 was fantastic and their recent directional occlusion is also pretty awesome. But every other graphics feature in a ND game has been the basic template that most other studios offer.
Honestly, I can't think of better looking games than Uncharted and TLOU on the PS3.
The next contender would be God of War, but I usually don't like giving that one as much credit because of the fixed camera-that's like cheating. Tomb Raider was up there though.
The lighting, art direction, modeling, and animation were all tip-top tier on consoles, so yeah, I'd say they were on top last gen on consoles from a graphics angle.
Games only need to be "on par" to get that kind of recognition.. not better.
Crysis 2, Killzone 2 + 3, Gears of War, Halo, GTA 5, Grand Turismo, Forza, Skyrim, Red Dead Redemption, etc.. all visually comparible IMO. Other than the 2 technical things I mentioned about UC and TLOU, there really is nothing else to write home about except the exceptional animation and art direction (which is subjective). It's not like they were the first to use Global Illumination, AO, AA, best anisotropic filtering, volume lighting, smoke, reflections, etc..
Last edited:
That's a bit straw-man. We aren't really talking about if they were the first to use any high end, cutting-edge technique (although I'd argue they certainly utilize a few). You are talking about technical, and I am talking about how they look as a complete whole- They could have absolutely faked everything, but it's the end result that matters. They are a graphics power-house because their games look better than 95 percent of the other games out there. That scene where you are fighting inside a collapsing building in UC 2 was Jaw Dropping in a way very few games are. It's a sum of it's parts.
The games you listed are definitely up there as well, but those are top-tier games, visually. To disconnect Uncharted with top-tier visuals seems silly to me. That is why we expect that from Naughty Dog, just as we expect them from 343 or Rockstar.
I will give you that they may not be "Better" but they are still well above the crowd.
Last edited:
Agree here, but because a game has excellent subjectively looking visuals doesn't mean the company is a leader in graphics. Get what I'm saying? We could take a very art driven game like Trine 2 and expect their next game to be a visual masterpiece? I think Trine 2 has better art than any game released to date (except AC:Unity), does that make their company comparable to the likes of when Crytek comes out with Ryse 2?
It seems like people hide behind the art/animation of ND games and that gives them a pass to say it's better than games that excel in the technical department. I think that's a bit unfair to me.
I don't call a company excelling at art a graphics power-house. You are right, I would call a company that pushes the technology as a graphics powerhouse.
I never disconnected them.. actually that's what I thought YOU was doing! LOL! Every game has it's strengths and weaknesses graphically. Uncharted, TLOU happens to have a lot of talented artists and it makes their games look very good. But in the same vein, there are other companies that push tech and you can see it but don't have the artistic talent - that shouldn't put art > tech though.
A lot of people went crazy over the UC4 E3 demo because they saw the tech and screamed it would blow everything away.. then the gameplay demo came out and it was more on par with what we would expect. Although UC4 had some very nice differences (collision detection for foilage, hook animations, etc..) but the visuals didn't compare to the early E3 demo.
Agreed.
I agree with what you are saying. I was just using "Graphics" as a general way to say how it looks- not technically what methods it is using, or necessarily why it looks as good as it does. When I say "graphics", I include art and animation as they really DO make a massive difference in a game looking good, regardless of the tech. Certainly when it comes to bringing life and having personality. Animation, for me, is actually almost more important, as it can look as real as you want, but it all falls apart if the movement is off.
That doesn't mean they aren't capable in the tech department either, but yeah- I wouldn't put them, technically, on the level of Crytek.