I guess it's something you don't appreciate until you've been accustomed to it. Just like smartphones, I was always skeptical about them but now that I have one I don't want to turn back. I guess it's the same for 60fps gamers, if you go back to 30 it would just feel odd. Still I don't think console gamers have much to complain on this part, aren't almost all titles capped at 30 fps?
As OP said, as much as it runt smoothly and the game is fun I have no claim about the fps. I don't see why people are making so big deal out of it? What is the problem? You can barely remark the difference anyway.
I too can't understand why they can't make the game that runs on 60 fps, because it makes the game a lot better to play when it runs that way. The fps' aren't the only thing that a game offers, but for some people it is really important to have high fps when they play it. If this game is a next gen game, then I think that it should be able to run on 60 fps. I'm on the side of the people that say that if it's running smoothly than it is alright, but a lot of people are for the more fps.
Over time I think Sony will help unlock certain parts of the console and developers will become more experienced. I understand it's limited power. But there can be some things that can be done to fully maximize the amount of power.
You cant really pass such strong judgment on the games that come out within the first year of a systems release. Remember most of those game started development with estimated guess as to what the final system specs would be. And since its new hardware its a new process and learning curve. Youll see that like every single previous generation of games the games that come out later on in the systems life cycle will look and play better than the first games released.
Eh 30fps is bareable, the problem is hardlocking games to 30fps when they're across multiple platforms and those platforms can do more IE: locking a game to 720p /30fps for the xbox 1 when its on the PC and someones Pc is capable of 1080p or 4k res with 120hz/120fps+. Lock it on the consoles if you need but the PC versions should never be capped or gimped for a console game, that's just lazy. There are sadly a lot of game devs that have done this and crippled great PC games for their console games. (See Watch Dogs.)
30 fps is still the norm for many console titles. Would love to see 60 fps support for PCs, but I doubt developers are willing to put in the extra effort anytime soon.
Well, this sucks. When I play games, 30 FPS usually feels kind of choppy. I hate playing a game when it doesn't have at least 45 or 60 FPS. I still play the games that give me only 30 FPS but I am annoyed by it, especially if it goes under that, but everyone hates that. Well, they shouldn't limit the game to 30 FPS. I think we should be able to get as much FPS out of the game as we can.
60fps would be nice but 30fps is nothing to laugh at. I lock some of my games to 30fps on my pc. It is because my pc thinks it can go to 60fps and above and when it heats up and reaches it's limits it slows back down. So there was a reason that they locked it at 30fps, to avoid lag and overheating. But the consoles are behind the standards of today. When the xbox 360 and ps3 launched they were at the pinnacle of gaming performance, that's why they lasted so long. But the current gen consoles didn't think ahead in terms of hardware.
30fps is bad for "fast action" games - you CAN feel it - but not a problem on more "cinematic" and slow games, where detail is more important than movement. Thus, games like The Order could look a-ok on 1080p with 30fps, and even GT, with its emphasis on realism, play good. But if, say, NFS Underground ran at 30fps, you wouldn't have the same feeling of fluid movement and speed. The problem is, of course, as was mentioned, the hardware of the "next-gen consoles" we got. And it stems from the fact that, having got "burned" with recalls on the first models of PS3 and Xbox 360 for overheating, as well as having paid a heck of a lot of money to create their processors almost from scratch, both Microsoft and Sony decided to go with PC hardware - their software devs had also said that it would be easier for them, since they already knew how to program for x86 (PC), after the nightmare they lived developing for PS3's Cell. But, as was also mentioned, that meant that by the time the "new" consoles hit the market, their hardware would already be old if you compared it to PCs. That's not that much of a problem, really - PCs were also better than Xbox 360 and PS3s some time after their release, and we've still got our Uncharted's and The Last of Us's('s's)... Didn't we? To make a long story short, yeah, the new consoles ain't as powerful as a mid to top range PC, but they CAN show us great games and they CAN be impressive. I mean, look at Shadow of the Colossus - it runs on decade old hardware and it's still a swell game and, at times, jaw dropping. The companies will just have to be smart on how they use the hardware they have available and choose wisely if they want to milk it for impressive visuals, speed or smooth movement. It can pull of two out of the three at any time, just not all three at once.
"Next gen game", "powerful platform". Let's face it, the next gen consoles are pretty much a bust, and I think that this might just be the shortest generation in gaming. The consoles are now basically weaker PCs, given that they have the same architecture as a PC. They are also losing their exclusives, many of the Xbox and Playstation exclusives making their way on to Steam. The whole "next gen" is a marketing buzzword, and nothing more than a charade.
Agreed. I think even the first few games on ps3 weren't too far from the previous generations graphics, but almost a decade later and the difference is so much more noticeable. After some time I bet games will evolve further.
30 FPS is a playable amount of frame rate. Anything below it is really noticeable, and much harder to play. But basically 30 FPS is a bare minimum. I feel like 60 FPS is the PERFECT frame rate for any game because it's very smooth.
You have to compromise if you want to run a game like that on a high resolution. The hardware is not exactly top-tier, to say the least.
Yeah, it is quite infuriating for me because you need 60 fps at least at this kind of games. 30 FPS is laggy if I do say so myself for this genre.
Drive Club was just a huge disappointment starting with their delay back when it hadn't even been released. It's a pretty game, for sure, but as far as racing games go it'll be forgotten very soon.
I'm totally opposite of the poster above me on this one. Not only wasn't it a "disappointment", but it ended up being one of the better racing games thus far. So much so that people have been "re-reviewing" the game. That's how you know your product shaped up well. And as for it being forgotten, I seriously doubt it. The fact that this game is getting dlc literally monthly and it seems like the player count has grown since the last time I played (last month).
I can respect that, it was a huge disappointment for me personally though. We're still early on in the next gen racing game history, and there's not much to compete with it so far. Once more involved racers start coming out I feel like Drive Club will become irrelevant. Only time will tell though, and I appreciate people defending a game they liked.
Well let's see, at the moment there are two Forza games out already, The Crew is already out, and Project Cars is releasing soon. So while there are differences with each game, the competition is very much there for Driveclub right now. The only way this game might get forgotten is when Gran Turismo 7 releases. Forza has two games out on the xb1 already so I'm sure the third game won't make people drop Driveclub especially considering it's on a rival system. The Crew had all the hype in the world and neither the ps4 or xb1 audiences care for it much. Project Cars, who can really say where that'll end up.
What can you do? The consoles are just not up to par with the current PC generation. They had to make a choice, make a game this detailed and a lower fps, or make a game with higher fps but lower details. They went for the former and I can't blame them.
