This means game devs will start focusing more on better performance and optimization, right? ...RIGHT?
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
124 points (96.3% liked)
Games
32736 readers
1076 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What companies read in this comment: Fuck optimization, put DLSS in and demand higher specs from players
Why spend time optimizing when you cant just slap some dogshit upscaling technology in and call it a day? Cant blame a lot of developers though, with the shitty time restraints imposed by management.
It's really a shame because the upscaling tech is nice but it still has a lot of visual glitches and issues that keeps me from using it much. It might look nice on still images, but once things start moving there's a lot of blur and ghosting.
Same goes for raytracing, it can look good but lights and reflections will often still bug out, which takes me straight out of the immersion.
Yeah, I'm never using either of them, if the game doesnt run well without, I'll just refund.
I just wish today's tech wasn't so blurry. I miss SSAA (and games being optimized enough to be able to run it sometimes without a supercomputer).
Best we can do is the game will run on ps5 pro only. Regular ps5 is supported only at 15 fps.
Maybe because there's usually not even a perceptible difference in visual quality between the two and a very noticeable performance difference.
It’s hard to tell if this would have been the case in past generations. I think this only became true once we crested the graphical plateau where all games look “good enough” in HD.
Not like console gamers were ever given a choice, but PC gamers kept wanting PC ports for more frames over the 30 fps standard. Graphics were already good during the PS4 era and PS5 is still crutching so hard on PS4 games during their PS5 pro showcasing. Now console users wanting the same after finally getting the option over a decade later I think shows they aren't too different from PC gamers in loving frames.
That sends me back to when people in online discussions regularly claimed anything above 60 fps is pointless because the human eye can‘t see more than that anyway
That claim is such a pet peeve of mine. That's not even how our eyes work, and it's demonstrably untrue.
It can even be proven false by rapidly moving the mouse cursor across the screen very quickly and the lack of motion blur.
Even of the eye notices it, it's not really a big deal most of the time unless you play some real time multiplayer game, and going from 60 to 120 literally doubles the amount of frames that the GPU needs to process, thus raising the GPU requirement for no fucking reason 99% of the time.
I think console players are catching up on the massive difference between 30 FPS and 60+ FPS in first person games where the camera can move quickly. As TVs have improved along with the consoles, and some titles are able to be played at 60+ FPS, people are noticing the difference compared to newer titles that aim for 30 FPS as a trade off for detailed graphics and motion blur.
Plus performance mode reduces the number of times a game might stutter or have short periods of time where the frames have a massive drop compared to their normal rate.
People think that frame rate isn't very noticeable until you give them access to a toggle that lets them double it.
I've selected "performance" in the PS5 settings, but I've experienced several AAA games ignoring it and having their own graphics setting that defaults to "fancy graphics" mode.
3/4 of players want performance, but publishers don't care.
Because actually optimizing games is hard, but hiring many graphic artists to make it look pretty not so much.
I definitely prefer not paying $700 for an incremental upgrade.
Framerate über alles.
I honestly don't remember what my setting is. I probably set it for graphics since I only play single player games now, but who knows what I was thinking when I set that 4 years ago and never thought about it again.
I'm ok with 40fps quality mode for some easier gameplay segments. But when i fight a boss or something more hardcore, i need that 60 fps. 30fps is a no go though.
We're on the verge of getting comprehensive PC-style graphics settings in consoles. They made a $700 console because they're realizing there's a wealthier demographic out there that buys more games anyways. The whole point of buying a console over a PC is that you get a solid guarantee games will run well.
Hahaha laughable. Space Marine 2 had Playstation issues at launch. Not sure if fixed yet. I remember just how literally unplayable Skyrim was on PS3. And so many in-between.
You also get a guarantee that games will never be as cheap on console as on PC. I have been transitioning for years and it's astonishing how often I see a game for sale on PC for like $2 and on sale on PSN for like $20, or not available on PSN at all. Not to mention less options for modding idiotic design flaws to increase playability. No ability usually to customize controls.
You also likely guarantee you can't replay that old game from 2002 or whatever yoh might wanna do cause theres very little, if any, backwards compatibility, and if there is, it probably involves re-buying.
Consoles are limited and give a false sense of simplicity and a false sense of being cheaper.
I will try out graphics mode just to see, then immediately jump to performance mode because who doesn't want the smoothest experience possible? 60fps is incredible. I can't see buying the pro at that price unless there is some super trade in event (even then probably not due to mine having a disc drive) but I will say it would be great to have the best settings of the game possible while still maintaining 4k or checkerboard 4k at 60fps. It's always a shame having to decide.
Duh
I prefer Fidelity, usually. Maybe on a second time, I'll do performance, but I really like pretty graphics.
I think I’ve only played a couple of games where I prefer graphics mode. The ray tracing mode for Doom Eternal on Series X is a good example; it runs excellently and the ray tracing actually makes a visible difference. I use the quality mode in Ghostrunner 2 because there isn’t really much difference in frames between it and the high frame rate mode. I use quality in Final Fantasy XV because the game’s performance mode is staggeringly ugly and blurry.
Try Elder Scrolls Online and its own in-game "performance" mode, which is still garbage on PS5 and gets low frame rates.
It depends on the content.
Graphics mode for single player PvE, Performance Mode for that 120 Hz refresh rate in PvP.
Even in single player games I've been setting my PS5 to performance mode.
Like a tried GTA 5 in graphics mode and just no I can't do it. After being used to 100+ FPS on PC at all given times I can't go back to 60 or less on a console. Solid 60 is fine, but graphics mode likes to take advantage of freesync and dip below.