Ben-DutkaNot everyone wants to play in 60 frames per second, believe it or not.
While most agree it's better for the gameplay, it can negatively affect the cinematics, and the latter is a critical aspect of The Last Of Us .
So, you'll get a choice: As noted over at the PlayStation Blog , players will have the option of locking 30 frames per second in The Last Of Us: Remastered . The game typically runs in 60fps at 1080p, but it's not for everyone, right? Having the option is nice, at any rate.
In other news, we've learned from a Game Informer hands-on preview that our saves won't transfer over between PS3 and PS4. The Trophy set is entirely separate as well, even though the actual list is exactly the same. As for the frame rate issue, I think I'll leave it at 60 just to see the differences.
How about you?
Related Game(s): The Last Of Us: Remastered
Welp, only way I was going to buy it was if it had save transfer or some kind of trade-up program. So Naughtydog just lost my money.
Also if the only reason they give to lock the game at 30FPS is for the cinematic scenes why not just give us an option for 60FPS gameplay and 30FPS cutscenes? Instead of only giving an option to lock the whole game at 30?
So they can confuse peeps. This game is a scam.
Based on experience messing with settings on PC games, anytime I've ever manually altered the frame rate allowance, the screen has had to completely reset and re-calculate everything.
I can see that being a major annoyance having to jump between 30 and 60 all the time. It isn't like the image would just speed up or something. There'd be a stark and noticeable difference. Best to be consistent.
Underdog – That's just not true. Plenty of games on PC run at 60fps with 30fps cutscenes, because they're PC ports where the developers didn't want to redo the cinematics. You'd never know the difference in the cinematics unless you were running something like FRAPS.
There are very few instances where jumping from 30fps to 60 does anything but make the game play smoother. L.A. Noire had to be locked at 30 on PC because going to 60 screwed up the facial animation stuff, but that's a rare thing.
Saying "I prefer 30fps" is like saying "I prefer 720p". It's something you say when you don't have the better option, and frankly the new consoles still don't have actual 60fps gameplay, which is why these remasters give you the option to lock in at 30, and avoid a variable frame rate that can jump all over.
It's actually kind of sad that NEXT GEN consoles can't do what mid range PCs have been doing for about 7 years now.
Phew! Am I ever glad I prefaced that with "from my experience" and didn't pretend what I was saying was science! I'm not lying about what my screen does when I change the settings, though. It truly has been my experience. Not saying the devs couldn't have worked around that, though.
One issue with what you said, though… I think next gen and PS3 gen were -CAPABLE- of 1080p and 60fps. The issue is how developers want to spend the system's resources. Look at CoD for example… 60fps was the norm pretty much all the time, but they weren't trying to create anything complicated, either. In fact, it's almost always dependent on the software that dictates whether 60fps/1080p is used these days.
My PC, for example (and I do have FRAPS, actually. I just only use it when I want to record something. Otherwise, that yellow number drives me nuts), has been running some games over the last few years in 1080p/60fps. But when I got FFXIV, it was only giving me about 45fps, and I had to reduce some detail settings. Once I upgraded the graphics card, I've been sitting over 60fps at max settings, of course… but prior to that, the game was made in a way that a system that "CAN" do 1080p/60fps for some things, ran out of resources with more sophisticated (or at least more demanding) software.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 7/16/2014 3:12:28 PM
Consoles could do 60fps last gen, yeah, but only by sacrificing resolution and/or visual complexity. Even now with some of these remasters, we're seeing them falling short of the previous gen's PC version. Tomb Raider, for instance, now runs at 1080p on PS4, but not anywhere close to 60fps. Xbox One is faring far worse.
I'm sure part of it is just growing pains for the new console, but I also think it speaks to how each company fared financially last gen (both ultimately losing billions) that this time around they both turned in two pretty underwhelming machines. I'm hoping the PS4 is successful enough that Sony can truly invest in their next console's hardware, and I hope MS sells the Xbox brand to someone who can actually manage it correctly.
hehe consoles were pushing 3D graphics at 60fps even during the 32-bit era. Games like Ridge Racer 4 and the Tekken's did it. Saturn had Virtua Fighter 2 at 60fps, with a respectably high resolution for it's time too.
i recommend nvidia inspector for PC gaming. it lets you lock frame rates if you want. I can push highest settings (outside of antialiasing) on Crysis 3 at 1080p 30fps. I force the graphics card to render at 30fps with the inspector utility. it makes the experience feel rock solid. plus it looks amazing. otherwise without inspector at 60fps it feels too shaky and hiccup'y
Last edited by Temjin001 on 7/16/2014 3:29:13 PM
@Shauneepeak
So just to make sure I have this right. The only way that you were going to buy this, is if you could transfer your previous save file?
So basically, you were buying the game, so that you wouldn't have to play it again?
Err what?
Also, they are giving people the option to lock the whole game to 30fps. However the game itself runs at 60fps. I don't understand the confusion behind that. If you prefer to watch 30fps cinematics then play the game in 30fps.
I thought the multiplayer was actually really fun and enjoyable in TLoU so I would lose all that progress. Also if saves transfer I could rush through on NG+ with my upgraded weapons to simply enjoy the new graphics instead of having to worry about enemies so much.
I don't mind the 60fps during cutscenes. But I also wouldn't mind if all of the Hollywood action movies were mostly CGI. So I guess it's kind of individual.
There's also no upgrade price plan for owners of the PS3 version going over to the PS4 version.
How would they manage that?
They could only do that with people who bought TLoU digitally on the PSN.
wait. what. so they remade it to 60FPS and they give you a option to turn it off?
FPS isn't something you'd have to do a lot of work for… you just double the computations for how many images you show per second.
The added detail and spruced up responsiveness and gameplay would be the main worked on things.
Some people have exploding head syndrome when cinematics run at 60fps because it detracts from the standard dramatic slow 30fps we are used to in theatres and such through the decades.
Even though The Hobbit was shot with new 60fps tech many theatres used a 30fps version because fan complained that it made it look "fake".
Isn't it 48 fps?
some people prefer feeling the limitations of old technology. they eventually get old and die and forgotten so it doesn't matter. i'm sure back in the day people were swearing how much better it was to drive horse 'n carriage. I'm sure people refused color televisions because monochomatic displays felt better. I'm sure people still refuse digital audio and prefer the sound of a record player, needle on vinyl pops and hiccups make them feel warm inside. back in the day people hated word processors and preferred retyping whole pages because they liked the way typewriters sounded and felt, even if it wasted time. there's probably some grandmas out there who need their rotary dial phone with a cord plugged into the wall. the feeling of being untethered and having a phone in their pocket is scary.
similarly, while smoother frame rates is closer to reality than the limitations of older film technology, people don't like how it feels when it feels too smooth. ironically, if film tech started at 60fps back in the day, then those same people who lament anything more than 24fps today would prefer it 60fps. really. it's all in their stubborn head.
basically, change isn't something everyone wants even when it is better.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 7/16/2014 2:54:37 PM
World, Exploding Head Syndrome is a form of auditory hallucination that occurs in your sleep, it has nothing to do with visuals at all, and certainly nothing to do with frames per second.
Films are traditionally shot at 24fps, not 30. The Hobbit doubled this to 48, not 60.
And every console player who says they prefer 30fps will pretend they never did once consoles actually deliver consistent, locked 60fps.
im a little guilty though. i remember when american dollar bills got redone and they looked "fake" like monopoly money.
thing is, now the new bills look normal and the old ones look dated.
Nah, I hear what World is saying. My wife gets sea-sick watching a 120hz tv at 60fps (or 48 or whatever… who cares, everyone's point is the same regardless). I love it, but I admit it takes a second to get used to.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 7/16/2014 3:17:24 PM
i will say I'm not a fan of the fake frame rate increasing tech in TVs, usually called like motionflow or something. Not only does it affect image quality (less detailed and more dithered) it often creates framerate seams in the fluidity of motion. where small hiccups in frame rate happen as the source and the smoothing tech fall out of sync. the lack of stability makes it uncomfortable I think.
I'd rather have the superior image quality and stable frame rate at 24fps than the 120hz stuff the TV's try to fake.
it sorta works but not really.
once the source capture is a true 48fps+ would I be interested. then no compromises will be had.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 7/16/2014 3:18:31 PM
Underdog, your wife's issue may be due to the 'soap opera effect', especially when the frame rate and refresh rate are neither the same nor properly divisible (as would be the case with 48fps on a 120hz monitor). It's an issue with newer TVs using their own proprietary software to interpolate frames and smooth it out, but it can look very unnatural to some people. It doesn't make me sick, per se, but every time I visit my father I avoid watching any TV because of this, and whenever I fix it he complains that I messed up the picture.
Umm, I was speaking extemporaneously I didn't know there was an exploding head syndrome.
Hmm… options are always good, but I think one of the major points of buying the game, at least for those who already have the PS3 version, is too see a higher framerate… weird.
Not being able to transfer your save data doesn't help the game much either.
Why the heck does the save file transfer matter?
You are buying the PS4 version to play the game again in the remastered version.
Meaning you would WANT to play the whole game again from start to finish right? Right?
So why the hell would you want a save file of a complete game or midway through the game? That's just pointless.
Maybe because I'd like to play the game in the hardest mode available with all my weapons and upgrades? Maybe because I want to transfer my multiplayer progress? Yeah… pointless…
I wouldn't do it but cool i guess.
It's a nice option. Killzone Shadowfall had it
and infamous. it's because it was a shaky 60fps.
i do usually prefer a consistent frame rate over a wild all over the place one. because when a frame rate is unlocked and all over the place it does affect responsiveness in play. i wish Tomb Raider DE had the option actually. that game gets sluggish sometimes.
EDIT: so basically, i'd rather have a locked 30fps over a spastic 30-60fps
Last edited by Temjin001 on 7/16/2014 2:49:22 PM
@Temjin001
Yeah I agree. I'd rather have a locked 30 fps over a spastic 30-60 fps also.
I like spastic, it makes some thing more dramatic all of the suddenly, especially in Bioshock.
Infamous was a variable framerate.
It was minimum 30fps, but it only dropped to 30fps during the intense battles. Most of the time it was above that.
I didn't mind the variable frame rate, made me feel like the intense fights had a kind of slow-mo affect haha.
Last edited by Akuma_ on 7/16/2014 7:53:02 PM
Love the damage controlling and the whole "i actually prefer 30fps" lol Its because you guys (most) haven't gamed on or even own a decent gaming PC to experience true 60fps gaming. You prefer it because its what you have to deal with, the cost of gaming on a console. Fact is 60fps is superior to 30fps everyday of the week cant argue facts. Go play skyrim or dark souls on ps3 then go play them in 60fps on PC theres no going back.
But please don't let corporations fill your head up with lies (Micro$oft im looking at you) like you cant spot resolution or framerate differences under 60inch. I saw that i was really like *SMFH* did this idiot really say that? The damage controlling this gen has me cracking up.
I do. It's much better, but once I get up to around a 40 inch screen, I have a hard time stomaching it after 2 hours or so. I never tire on the 27" monitor, though.
The 30 fps lock doesn't sway me much. However, not transferring over your PS3 save just took this from D1P to whenever it goes on sale sometime. I really wanted to continue the journey I started on the PS3 without starting over.