Are gamers obsessed with resolution/fps? (Motherboard article)

[TrueBlueHero]

Motherboard features a very interesting article that is being savaged @Neogaf as we speak:

If you pay any attention to video game news, you're about to hear a lot about Tomb Raider. That's because the new and improved version of the game, Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition, is going to be released for the next-gen PlayStation 4 and Xbox One next week. As a smart and engaging retooling of a gaming franchise that had been slouching into obsolescence for years, the relaunched Tomb Raider was widely praised as one of the best games to come out last year, and a press release for the Definitive Edition that Lara will be even more "obsessively detailed" this time around.

Anticipation for the new game is understandably high as a result, particularly amongst the crowd of people who've already bought the PS4 and Xbox One only to realize there aren't many good games to play on either device yet. There's just one problem, however. A producer for the game said last night during an interview with GamesRadar that the game will run at 60 frames per second on the PS4. This contradicted earlier statements that the game would run at 30 fps, and sparked concern and some sketchy-looking online reports about what the Xbox One's frame rate would be.

The frame rate of a video game, as Giant Bomb explains in a handy article, "is the rate at which a game can render individual and unique consecutive frames in order for the game to be seen on screen by the human eye." It can be anywhere from a single frame per second to 60 fps, which is the new gold standard for next-gen consoles. It effects the gameplay experience in some minute ways that are usually only apparent if you're really looking for them, or if something is going wrong — say, if a game's display suddenly becomes very choppy. Like screen resolution, it's the kind of figure that appeals mostly to gearheads.

So why do video game journalists write about frame rate issues so much? I don't know, but they do. A lot. Resolution, too. Last year, the influential site Eurogamer kicked up an issue about the resolution of the latest Call of Duty on the PS4 and Xbox One so extensively that it started to refer to the ensuing controversy as "resolutiongate."

Comparing slight differences in the resolution of a popular first person shooter to a political scandal so intense that it triggered the first and only resignation of a US president might sound a bit audacious. But when consider the fact that at least one Call of Duty developer has been swamped with death threats after slightly retooling how three guns in the game work, you can start to understand why people consider stuff like this an issue. There's an audience for this somewhere on the internet, the same way that there are apparently hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of people who will scour every possible blog post about iPhone features.

I played both of the next-gen versions of Call of Duty, and didn't really notice a difference between the two. Sure, maybe if I squinted at my TV screen I could parse out the various inferiorities of the Xbox One version, but after poring over articles about "resolutiongate," the main question I was left with was: who gives a s***?

If we want to understand video games as the cornerstone of pop culture that they are, we have to question whether or not these technical details are actually important. Pitchfork saves its best critical faculties for discussing the artistry of music, not the technical details of sound systems and headphones. The New Yorker and New York Magazine only glosh over screen specifications and 3D technology in movies when things like that actually say something interesting about the authorship of a film. Good critics talk about the work itself first and foremost (although there was that critical flare up over The Hobbit's frame rate last year).

A good friend of mine who now serves as my de facto travel guide through the vibrant world of online gaming forums explained to me that people like him care about resolution because, to them, the fact that Call of Duty only runs at 720p on the Xbox One is indisputable, definitive evidence that the PlayStation 4 is a more powerful device. Gamers love a good rivalry. And they're spending a lot of money when they buy a new console, so I can understand why they'd care about this.

Journalists, however, face another question when they start to see stories like this appear. When you write about something as a controversy, you're telling your audience that they should be viewing it as a controversy.

I suppose an editor could defend their choice to run with these stories the same way people riding atop the iPhone rumor mill can: people are interested in these stories, and they deserve to read them. But the problem here is that it's not that simple. Publishing isn't a zero-sum game, but choosing to continually inquire about stories about frame rates and resolution takes time and energy away from other, more human questions.

When we ask ourselves whether the Xbox One or PS4 version of Call of Duty is better, we're choosing not to ask ourselves why we're even still playing a game like Call of Duty long after the series stopped trying to be culturally or politically relevant. When we focus on the amount of pixels that are being used to render Lara Croft, we overlook the implicit creepiness of the game industry's androcentric obsession with creating such an "obsessively detailed" version of someone like Lara Croft in the first place. And if we continue to nitpick over just how "obsessively detailed" this young woman's virtual body is, we forget that the real controversy of the new Tomb Raider came from its uncomfortable participation in rape culture. To borrow a quote from Evgeny Morozov, work like this refuses "to evaluate solutions to problems based on criteria other than efficiency."

I'm not saying that we should ignore stories about how gaming technology like, say, the Oculus Rift is pushing the medium in new and exciting directions. But does a slightly faster frame rate or denser resolution say much of anything about the role of video games in society today? It's time that game critics started separating out the signal from the noise.

While I have to agree that the article tends to downplay the importance of hardware/technology (hardware IS important) I also think that it also hits the nail right on the head that the focus/emphasis is all wrong (and what that says about us gamers).

Just looking at dedicated gamers' discussion boards it's clear that some kind of "power obsession" is in fact a reality. Threads regarding FPS/resolution differences literally explode with hundreds of pages and heated discussion - and while I think that some kind of (even a little excessive) technology fascination is warranted given the medium it's clearly more than that.
It's testament to a mentality that favors appearance over substance - visual quality over gameplay and story.
Plus it fits the stereotypical male pattern of thinking and behaving: Ideas of potency (faster, bigger, better) and the corresponeding inevitable penis comparisons.

Personally I'm sick and tired of all the resolution/fps talk.
There was a time I enjoyed videogames and didn't even know what fps even means.
Now some discussion boards give me the feeling that I shouldn't be allowed to enjoy my system of choice because TR is only 30 fps - I try to stay out of the respective threads but it's hard to avoid because it's basically everywhere. Again, it's not that it doesn't matter at all it's that it clouds other more important things (good games for example: DR3, KI, Forza,...).

At the same time games are still more than often very dumb story-wise and there's definitely a very worrying trend that presentation trumps gameplay (see GotY TLoU) and that innovation gets rejected because gamers obviously don't buy into it (see Kinect).

What's your take on the situation?

 

[Dibils]

if every game on x1 and ps4 was 900p at 30fps there would be no problem by people

but because one of them performs better (PS4) it becomes a console war which turns into hours of pointless back and forth. simple as that, if those people REALLY cared about the frames and resolutions they would be on a PC right now

 

[Soldier Gryphon]

What's your take on the situation?

That hardcore gamers are nothing but a bunch of entitled, spoiled, whiny little b!tches that spend more time discussing "console wars" and nerdgasming over pixels than actually playing and enjoying games.

Sorry. Just that all the constant and relentless negativity running around the net LITERALLY makes me sick to my stomach. Maybe I'm getting an ulcer. But I've never felt so harassed over the internet over my purchase of a console by a bunch of fat nerds who can't seem to understand that I'd rather play Halo than InFamous.

Edit: For the record, this UnionVGF has been far more positive and controlled than places like IGN or NeoGaf.

 

[Oblong]

I've been saying the exact same thing here as written in the article. Never cared about resolution. I've learned some of my favorite games are 720p or worse. I've never liked a game just because of it's resolution. Same goes for framerate. I have no clue what the FPS are on games and I couldn't tell you what any of them are by looking at them. I could go further and mention my ignorance to jaggies, screen tearing, baked lighting, and other tech words that are bandied about here. I can appreciate good graphics but am more excited by great art styles, gameplay, and story where applicable.

That said, I'm not saying others aren't capable of telling the difference and that it matters greatly to them. I do think they are not representative of the mainstream and sometimes they seem to think because they care that it should matter to the masses. I believe a good argument could be made that for most it's really a non-issue.

 

[toofan]

60 fps is much more important then 1080p

 

[The Living Tribunal]

The issue is a funny one.
I always thought it was funny that people used COD as a bullet point for which console is more powerful.
It was the same developer that had problems getting the 360 and PS3 versions to run at the same resolution and framerate. It was the same developer that had problems making the game run at parity on last gen consoles even though the PS3 was on paper the more powerful console....it was often the 360 that ran it better.

Now I'm not saying the Xb1 is more powerful because it isn't. However the way people are posting online is that we have one console that is orders of magnitude less powerful (even though it isn't) and we have one that is extremely powerful (even though neither are).

People just want bullet points to justify their purchases.
It is funny watching people argue over power and resolutions on the PS4 & Xb1 when both struggle to run BF4 at even medium settings below 1080p.

To the fanboy the small victories matter more than the outcome of the war.
It is all ridiculous. Gameplay doesn't matter anymore. Resolution has become the de facto measurement of enjoyment.

 

[Rez]

Well, For a person like me who always games at 1080P on PC and also happens to own the consoles (PS4 and X1 Coming later this year). Resolution is VERY important. I notice the bluriness even when the game is running at 900P And it's annoying as f*ck. Ghosts on PS3 felt like i was being stabbed right in my eyeballs.

I'm not as picky with FPS. I'm fine with either 60 or 30 but of course i would rather have 60.

 

[The Living Tribunal]

Well, For a person like me who always games at 1080P on PC and also happens to own the consoles (PS4 and X1 Coming later this year). Resolution is VERY important. I notice the bluriness even when the game is running at 900P And it's annoying as f*ck. Ghosts on PS3 felt like i was being stabbed right in my eyeballs.

I'm not as picky with FPS. I'm fine with either 60 or 30 but of course i would rather have 60.

Now I game on the PC as well....and I will agree with you I do notice the difference.
However....with that said what exactly are you expecting with these new consoles and their specs?

I mean....there is no way the PS4 or Xb1 can run games with equal settings to the best that the PC has to offer.
This is where I get baffled by people. Yes resolution is important but it only scales realistically to what hardware you have supporting it.
After the console fankids acknowledge that simple fact resolution becomes much less an issue...especially if both consoles are outputting in native HD anyway. It should be about gameplay on consoles first and foremost....since that was the initial intent since the Nintendo. Games.
Bottom line....PC gaming is for you if resolution is that much of a determining factor..and don't go bitching if you're playing on consoles and expecting native 1080p on every graphically intensive title.

 

[Sheep Shagger]

I've been saying the exact same thing here as written in the article. Never cared about resolution. I've learned some of my favorite games are 720p or worse. I've never liked a game just because of it's resolution. Same goes for framerate. I have no clue what the FPS are on games and I couldn't tell you what any of them are by looking at them. I could go further and mention my ignorance to jaggies, screen tearing, baked lighting, and other tech words that are bandied about here. I can appreciate good graphics but am more excited by great art styles, gameplay, and story where applicable.

That said, I'm not saying others aren't capable of telling the difference and that it matters greatly to them. I do think they are not representative of the mainstream and sometimes they seem to think because they care that it should matter to the masses. I believe a good argument could be made that for most it's really a non-issue.

Well said, and I agree completely.

I'm also sure these issues existed in all the previous generations of competing consoles in one form or another, but it's only this gen that it's become such a hot-topic and apparent measurement of quality. I'd like to say I think it will pass, but sadly it probably won't. It seems to be the way of the internet more and more these days to discuss all the negatives.

I honestly just try my best to ignore those people now, and never reply to their posts. I can't beat them, but I won't join them either.

 

[menace-uk-]

These sort of technical discrepancies can not be answered on a whole. The differences and importance differ on a game by game basis, for example: Frame rate discrepancies will matter more in a fast paced game like COD, FORZA, or FIFA.

Resolution discrepancies are also the same but will rely more on asset quality. The better the assets and overall quality of graphics the more the resolution differences will be noticed. Even 3rd party hardware, like TV's, play a role here too.

 

[starseeker]

Of course I rather have 60 over 30. 60 fps are just smoother, & make a different for me, especially on faster games.

Obviously, I also wished to be able to max out the resolution to what my TV/Monitor is capable of. Is resolution the most important thing? of course not. resolution & details do not make out for poor art/atmostphere level design & low quality models (talking about visual only here).

But at the same time, its a very valid question to ask oneself, why you wanted to game at lower fps/resolution when a comparable game device, that can do it at higher setting is available & cheaper. The answer to this question probably lies in brand loyality, or there are some features, exclusive games that matters more, than fps/resolution.

 

[theBADguy]

You know at the beginning of this piece the author was almost beginning to make sense , but then he had to go into the Tomb Raider "rape culture" (ugh) rant and immediately i was reminded why i hate game "journalism" of today.

Yeah the resolution BS is mostly fanboy fodder for forum console dick measuring contests, but the clowns pushing social agendas into f***ing gaming is just as bad if not worse.

 

[menace-uk-]

You know at the beginning of this piece the author was almost beginning to make sense , but then he had to go into the Tomb Raider "rape culture" (ugh) rant and immediately i was reminded why i hate game "journalism" of today.

Yeah the resolution BS is mostly fanboy fodder for forum console dick measuring contests, but the clowns pushing social agendas into f***ing gaming is just as bad if not worse.

I know right. I rolled my eyes at that too. Where did they even come up with this whole "Rape" issue. All I recall is some mildly inappropriate touching as she is tied up.

 

[Edge BC]

Are gamers obsessed with resolutions / fps?

Yes. I couldn't care less about it. I've been playing Tomb Raider yesterday. It runs well and it looks gorgeous for a 360 game. I don't care what resolution / fps the X1 version will have. I'm pretty sure it'll look and run way nicer than what I'm playing now. CD's focus is on giving the gamer a smooth and immersive experience after all. I'm sure they'll deliver.

But at the same time, its a very valid question to ask oneself, why you wanted to game at lower fps/resolution when a comparable game device, that can do it at higher setting is available & cheaper. The answer to this question probably lies in brand loyality, or there are some features, exclusive games that matters more, than fps/resolution.

At the end of the day it's all about your own enjoyment and what the device offers you in terms of game experiences and services. The console war is bs. I think it's silly to look at what your neighbor has and then knock on his door only to argue with him about his preference. It's a clear sign of insecurity issues.

The same goes for comparative videos of game versions. At no point will you be running both versions side by side on your playthrough to spot the very small differences. It makes me think people can't enjoy their purchase unless they can compare it to someone else's.

 

[Mcmasters]

The issue is a funny one.
I always thought it was funny that people used COD as a bullet point for which console is more powerful.
It was the same developer that had problems getting the 360 and PS3 versions to run at the same resolution and framerate. It was the same developer that had problems making the game run at parity on last gen consoles even though the PS3 was on paper the more powerful console....it was often the 360 that ran it better.

Now I'm not saying the Xb1 is more powerful because it isn't. However the way people are posting online is that we have one console that is orders of magnitude less powerful (even though it isn't) and we have one that is extremely powerful (even though neither are).

People just want bullet points to justify their purchases.
It is funny watching people argue over power and resolutions on the PS4 & Xb1 when both struggle to run BF4 at even medium settings below 1080p.

To the fanboy the small victories matter more than the outcome of the war.
It is all ridiculous. Gameplay doesn't matter anymore. Resolution has become the de facto measurement of enjoyment.

So true. Great post!

Especially the point about the XBO being significantly less powerful and the PS4 is more powerful by order of magnitude, when in reality its not that way at all. Sure the PS4 has great hardware, but it in NO WAY blows the doors off the XBO.

You know. Ive decided: I dont give a s*** anymore about the FPS or resolutions. What I see looks amazing and thats all that matters to me. f*** you mufuggah's!

 

[Z A C K]

"Hardcore" gamers are. "Real" gamers are not.

 

[Qbert]

Yes, I care about getting better performance and visuals for the cost.

 

[wshowers]

There does seem to be an internet fascination with resolution and frames per second. Alot of it in my mind, is to justify said gamer's console/pc purchasing choice. It hasn't helped that alot of major videogame websites/magazines have turned into pixel counters themselves after every big releases or preview. When the industry shifts back to "fun" being the major selling point instead of the resolution and/or FPS of the game, I believe we will see some truly innovative stuff.

 

[Mcmasters]

There does seem to be an internet fascination with resolution and frames per second. Alot of it in my mind, is to justify said gamer's console/pc purchasing choice. It hasn't helped that alot of major videogame websites/magazines have turned into pixel counters themselves after every big releases or preview. When the industry shifts back to "fun" being the major selling point instead of the resolution and/or FPS of the game, I believe we will see some truly innovative stuff.

Thats EXACLY what it is and we know where its coming from too. No names of course.

 

[Kassen]

60fps is bearly noticeable? Lol. If millions of casual viewers can see the clear difference between the 24p movies and the 48p Hobbit version, then the casual gamer can also easily and clearly see the big difference between 30fps and 60fps.

 

[Mcmasters]

60fps is bearly noticeable? Lol. If millions of casual viewers can see the clear difference between the 24p movies and the 48p Hobbit version, then the casual gamer can also easily and clearly see the big difference between 30fps and 60fps.

Thats not the point. You have to ask yourself what real difference does it make towards the game itself. Guaranteed your going to enjoy the experience the same at either frame rate--so the FPS bullet point is simply a dick measuring stick for insecure fanboys when it matters not.

Now, if, say, the XBO version looked like the 360 version and the PS4 version looks like it does currently, then I'd say there would be cause for concern. But thats not the case. Nor will it ever be. Just sayin....

 

[theBADguy]

I know right. I rolled my eyes at that too. Where did they even come up with this whole "Rape" issue. All I recall is some mildly inappropriate touching as she is tied up.

Seems to be a "thing" now with a lot of jouralists. A scene from Castlevania:LOS 2, in which Dracula feeds on a woman was called out for "alluding to rape" because Vampires sucking blood now equal rape.

 

[menace-uk-]

Seems to be a "thing" now with a lot of jouralists. A scene from Castlevania:LOS 2, in which Dracula feeds on a woman was called out for "alluding to rape" because Vampires sucking blood now equal rape.

Hmmm.....I wonder what his relationship with his mother is like

 

[Hazard71]

If these systems where still running all games at 720p and 30 fps I think plenty of people would have a problem with it. Sure the exclusives would make you still want to get them but at the same time if the technology doesn't improve why even upgrade I could just keep enjoying games on PS3 and 360 and save the money I would spend on the new systems.

 

[Squiggs]

I don't think resolutions are a must (check Ryse) but I certainly think FPS should be somewhat a priority. I can't tell you how dips like the ones in Dark Souls' Blight Town or other games ruin the immersion. It's just that one thing that actually enhances gameplay. The first time I played Minecraft I was really amazed by was the butter smooth movement of my camera as I climbed through the trees in search of a place to build my own. I may not be able to tell the difference between resolutions, but I can certainly tell the difference between FPS, specially 30 frames per second and 60 frames per second. This whole Tomb Raider disparity thing is a bummer, but it's not the end of the world. You're lucky enough you're getting a better version from the 360/PS3 at all without having to build/buy your PC. I'm not expecting multiplats to look better by the years, but I certainly hope that Microsoft takes note that their forté in graphics and gameplay is their exclusives so they can pump them out more than they cared to do for the 360 during its final years. Hopefully we get top notch games ever year or two like the PS3 started doing halfway its life cycle, and then it'll truly be a reverse of last gen.

 

[Kerosene31]

Resolution and especially fps are a valid discussion. The problem is people are using early ported games to compare next gen consoles. The idea of arguing which next gen console runs a terrible looking game like COD better is just silly.

Every game on next gen consoles should be 60fps though. The fact that games still run at 30 or even less is kind of pathetic.

 

[menace-uk-]

Another way to look at this is, what aren't gamers obsessed about ?

Gamers argue, cry, bitch, fight, stab, and overreact to pretty much everything. Look at all the nonsense we see over, sales, review scores, player numbers, campaign length, DLC, game endings ( ME3), and obviously the graphics. This whole fixation on res and frame rate is nothing new, it isn't even out the ordinary for modern forum dwelling gamers.

 

[Hazard71]

Another way to look at this is, what aren't gamers obsessed about ?

Gamers argue, cry, b****, fight, stab, and overreact to pretty much everything. Look at all the nonsense we see over, sales, review scores, player numbers, campaign length, DLC, game endings ( ME3), and obviously the graphics. This whole fixation on res and frame rate is nothing new, it isn't even out the ordinary for modern forum dwelling gamers.

Lets be honest you are describing humans when it comes to pretty much everything.

 

[menace-uk-]

Lets be honest you are describing humans when it comes to pretty much everything.

Well, Yeah. I mean the general population has its obsessions with silly things. Things like reality TV show, soaps, what the neighbour is doing, how to abduct the pretty girl down the street...etc. How ever I think most generally obsess over important things like, the next pay cheque, rise in utility bills, how to put kids( or self) through college. You know things that do matter in a big way.

 

[Viktor]

So gamers are whiners or whatever else you want to label them, just because they want games and the hardware to advance along with TVs they run on? Lol... The reason this wasn't an issue before is because up until last gen it wasn't much of an issue. Games ran at the resolution the most common TVs ran at. Now TV resolution is progressing further at a faster rate, yet games and consoles are stuck playing catch up.

PC? They've been running at whatever resolution the monitors can support forever and that won't change.