• Welcome to the Angry Joe Show Army!

    Join our community of gamers passionate about our community and our hobby! Whether it's playing, discussing, or watching games, regardless of platform, genre, or location, we have a place for you, always!

  • PS4 Forum

    The AJSA Playstation 4 Division: Game Nights and More!

    The AJSA is on Playstation 4! Join us for weekly Game Nights with a selection of the best games the PS4 has to offer!

  • XBO Forum

    The AJSA Xbox One Division: We Got You Covered!

    The AJSA Xbox One Division is ready to connect with you on XBox Live with a ton of events for the best Xbox games!

  • News Archive

    The Best News from the Best Sites, Every Week.

    The AJSA News Collection Team is hard at work condensing a week's worth of news into one giant-sze digest for you to chew on and discuss! Links to source articles are always provided!

  • More Info

    The AJSA Expeditionary Force: Deploying to Play the Best PC Games!

    The elite vanguard of the AJSA, the Expeditionary Force (EF) chooses a new PC game every week! Join us for weekly events and help decide if the game has a future in the AJSA.

  • The Team

    Streaming Now: The AJSA Stream Team

    Joe can't stream every game, but our talented AJSA Stream Team covers a wide variety of games and personalities! Check them out, and show them some AJSA Love!

  • The Tube

    The AJSA Community YouTube Channel

    Featuring news, gameplay clips, and more from the community! The Community is a chance to showcase the best moments in AJSA Gaming!

Apex Spartan

Mass Effect: Andromeda to run at 30fps on both PS4 and PS4 Pro

23 posts in this topic

Quote

Sony used gameplay footage from Mass Effect: Andromeda to demonstrate the power of PlayStation 4 Pro during the PlayStation Meeting last night. The game looked great, but many were left wondering if the extra performance will be used to deliver high frame-rates.

The answer is no, unfortunately, as game producer Fabrice Condominas confirmed to Gamespot at the reveal that Andromeda will run at 30 frames-per-second on both PS4 and PS4 Pro.

However there is still hope...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't give a shit about 30Fps.......  I just don't.  In fact I would love to bring all those in the "Framerate Police" to a deserted Island and then nuke the shit out of them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, just because your eyes are bad doesn't mean the rest of us should have to suffer.  60fps provides better look and feel, especially for an action game.  There's no excuse to lock games at 30, especially with new hardware coming out.  Stop making excuses for lazy devs.

LiquidArea and Glaice like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Zieglobaz said:

Look, just because your eyes are bad doesn't mean the rest of us should have to suffer.  60fps provides better look and feel, especially for an action game.  There's no excuse to lock games at 30, especially with new hardware coming out.  Stop making excuses for lazy devs.

I can't understand why they lock it at 30 fps. I don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't like 30fps? Good for you guys!.........but you don't need to be so moronic about it. I don't care whether the game runs at 30fps, or 200fps, just as long as it never dips seriously below 30, then it's fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue I have with this statement goes back to how I feel about the Pro. We were told this thing will make our gaming experience more "powerful" visually. Some would argue that frame rate is visual. So why is it 30 fps? I am console player don't get me wrong, I am fine with 30 fps. But when you toss around the idea that the Pro is more powerful in visuals, why does the frame rate stay the same?

Which again comes to my point, who is the Pro for? :metaloj:

Brokensteel119 and Mexiguy like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For multiplayer games it's necessary to lock to the same frames so it doesn't interfere with multiplayer balance or connectivity.  For single player it's more debatable but It just don't consider it important enough to really bitch about.  30fps is fine and 60fps is better but I would rather not trade down to mediocre textures and lower resolutions in order to get it since the difference is marginal at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this article because I saw it posted somewhere. I'm not really an FPS whore. I'm the type that loves 60FPS when I can get it, but having a medicore PC means sacraficing either good looks for FPS or vice versa and if I can get around 30FPS with decent graphics I'm happy.

 

Now back to the topic: I'm not experienced with consoles since I never owned one, but how many devs promised games to run on consoles at 60FPS and then just fucked that shit up? A week or 2 before release they say that they will lock it on 30 with no good reasn other than "movie feel" bullshit.

60FPS IS better, there is no denying it. While it might not be an important factor like dumping down graphics in general, but if you said it's gonna have 60 then fuckin keep it.  Why go batshit crazy when someone reduces graphics a bit but completely forgive crap like this?

 

Whatever, ME Andromeda isn't even near release and they never promised that the game would be at 60, but how many did that shit and nothing? Speaking for Andromeda: If consoles really can't hit 60 on it on it's current graphics, fine then lock it on 30, but then what's the point of releaseing PS 4.5 aka "pro" and still have games be locked at 30? I suppose logical answer is they are sacraficing FPS for a better looking game, but then what the fuck is PS4 pro or whatever for? If you STILL have to sacrafice shit for it to either run on 60FPS or 30, what is the point of buying it and not just stick to PS4?

 

 

Quote

All we can hope for is that this is only an artefact of the early days of the PS4 Pro, and that subsequent games do take advantage of the PS4 Pro’s hardware to provide a stable 1080p 60fps experience, at the very least.

I pretty much agree with this, but I wonder how many games will be again sacraficed and what will be sacraficed so they can run on the PS4 Pro. Cauze if you can't run a game on 60FPS with current game graphics on the new hardware of PS4, what's the point wasting money on it?

 

 

 

Overall, I'm not jumping to any conclusions so if someone can nicely explain all that stuff to me, please do because right now, I just find this new console hardware almost a crappy rip off. All this shit was promised to people for PS4 and Xbox One that most games will play 1080p 60FPS and now all of a sudden they needed to release a PS4.5 for what then?

 

Don't anyone give me the marketing BS: It can run this on that much FPS and stuff like that because I can easily read that on their own pages, but I'm wondering if there is any hard facts about what it can REALLY run and why should someone buy it if they already own a PS4.

and Glaice like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Crazycrab said:

I don't give a shit about 30Fps.......  I just don't.  In fact I would love to bring all those in the "Framerate Police" to a deserted Island and then nuke the shit out of them!

 

And people think WE'RE the zealous ones, look at your wording, you don't sound any less zealous than the more "enthusiastic" Framerate Police. If you really can't see and feel the difference between 30 and 60, I feel bad for you since your eyes are so accustomed to this ridiculous cap. I don't like being locked at a bullshit arbitrary framerate because of other reasons. Response time in both single and multi are important, try playing a flight simulator capped at that..

Christ, open your eyes more Crabbie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference in time between an image being displayed at 60fps and 30fps, and I know because I've figured it out, is 0.016 seconds. So I call bullshit on anyone who would blame bad performance on frame rate (especially on console when everyone had the game running exactly the same) unless the framrate dipped to a point where is was unplayable and 30fps is NOT that.

 

Whilst I don't agree with crabs wording I do agree people loosing thier shit over 30fps is stupid as hell. 

Crazycrab, and Mr_E_Meatshield like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Glaice said:

 

And people think WE'RE the zealous ones, look at your wording, you don't sound any less zealous than the more "enthusiastic" Framerate Police. If you really can't see and feel the difference between 30 and 60, I feel bad for you since your eyes are so accustomed to this ridiculous cap. I don't like being locked at a bullshit arbitrary framerate because of other reasons. Response time in both single and multi are important, try playing a flight simulator capped at that..

Christ, open your eyes more Crabbie.

 

First I'm obviously not serious calm the fuck down!

 

Second of all I already posted my actual thoughts.

 

1 hour ago, Crazycrab said:

For multiplayer games it's necessary to lock to the same frames so it doesn't interfere with multiplayer balance or connectivity.  For single player it's more debatable but It just don't consider it important enough to really bitch about.  30fps is fine and 60fps is better but I would rather not trade down to mediocre textures and lower resolutions in order to get it since the difference is marginal at best.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CC, it's incredibly difficult to detect non-seriousness over the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A solid 30 FPS is playable. 60-120 FPS is just infinitely better though. It's a smoother experience. ME Andromeda doesn't even look good enough to warrant the frame drops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

60 or more is obviously better, but if the consoles can't handle it and IF I was a console player, I would rather want a better looking game in SP capped at 30 than a less better looking but capped at 60. For MP however, if you cap at 30 then good luck lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Apex Spartan said:

60 or more is obviously better, but if the consoles can't handle it and IF I was a console player, I would rather want a better looking game in SP capped at 30 than a less better looking but capped at 60. For MP however, if you cap at 30 then good luck lol

Framerate>graphics

If you are a console player or not is irrelevant. It's just better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jumping immediately and saying that people have bad eyes because they either don't care about or can't see the difference between 30 and 60, classy. Because clearly there has to be something physically wrong with those people, right? Things like this is why there's a constant rift between gamers.

 

I'm not surprised that the Pro can't do Mass Effect at 60 FPS. Does it prove how weak the Pro still is compared to PC's, making Sony's claim that they want their gaming system to compete with PC a joke? Absolutely. Does it suck? For the people who do care that much about framerates, yeah. But those people are most likely on PC anyway where this specific game has not been said to have a capped framerate there. People on console who don't mind the framerate cap can play and enjoy the game, and people who do can to. Win, win.

 

On 9/15/2016 at 7:33 AM, Deezyfesheezy said:

Framerate>graphics

I prefer the opposite myself to be honest. I'll crank that graphics setting as high as I could, and as long as the framerate is stable, I'm cool with it. If I get 60 FPS for that, awesome, if not, as long as it's stable.

Crazycrab and Apex Spartan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2016 at 8:39 PM, Mr_E_Meatshield said:

 

I'm not surprised that the Pro can't do Mass Effect at 60 FPS. Does it prove how weak the Pro still is compared to PC's, making Sony's claim that they want their gaming system to compete with PC a joke? Absolutely. Does it suck? For the people who do care that much about framerates, yeah. But those people are most likely on PC anyway where this specific game has not been said to have a capped framerate there. People on console who don't mind the framerate cap can play and enjoy the game, and people who do can to. Win, win.

 

If there's a rift amongst gamers, I'm going to venture a guess it's because of this right here, an intelligence gap.  There is a monumental frustration within me that I can't even begin to express, over the immediate assumption you made that the Pro hardware is holding back the game, and not vice versa.  I'm seriously at a loss.  

 

And to top it all off, we're stearing the topic back towards this "consoles vs PC" bullshit that has absolutely no relevance.  Don't sit there and say "If you care about framerate, place on PC" and then bitch at me about creating a rift between gamers.  What do you say to people on console who care about framerate?  Are they just shit out of luck?  Either buy a PC, or stop worrying about FPS?

 

How about we support devs that can make every version of the game great, that's a win-win situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Zieglobaz said:

How about we support devs that can make every version of the game great, that's a win-win situation.

 

Well that's the real root of the problem,  some like me don't consider framerate to be important at all and others seem to consider it literally the most important aspect of the game's playability.   I will never understand the latter and they will never understand me.

 

There is no middle ground and sure as hell isn't the product of some intelligence gap.  Just because I prioritise resolutions over framerates doesn't make me stupid I and wouldn't describe anyone else who prefers the opposite and idiot either.

 

In either case what really makes a great game is neither of these.  It's gameplay, story, characters and overall design.  Framerates and resolutions are just numbers at the end of the day.

likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Zieglobaz said:

If there's a rift amongst gamers, I'm going to venture a guess it's because of this right here, an intelligence gap.  There is a monumental frustration within me that I can't even begin to express, over the immediate assumption you made that the Pro hardware is holding back the game, and not vice versa.  I'm seriously at a loss.  

Oh I totally understand that EA / Bioware is able to lower the graphical quality of the game in order to make the game run at 60 on the Pro (or even further for the regular PS4). Their choice not to, for whatever reason it is. Maybe they think they'd have to lower the graphics settings enough that it's unacceptable to them, I wouldn't know. Whatever the reason is, the people (on the consoles) should let them know how they feel about this by voting with their wallet.

 

18 hours ago, Zieglobaz said:

nd to top it all off, we're stearing the topic back towards this "consoles vs PC" bullshit that has absolutely no relevance.  Don't sit there and say "If you care about framerate, place on PC" and then bitch at me about creating a rift between gamers.  What do you say to people on console who care about framerate?  Are they just shit out of luck?  Either buy a PC, or stop worrying about FPS?

Do note that I was referring to the attitude some people had on those who don't is to instantly say there's something wrong with them physically. Now does THAT attitude not just create a rift between gamers? Should there be anger? Yes, but not towards those who don't value something the same way that you do, but towards the Developers and Suits who make the decisions like this.

 

Basically (if it doesn't start at 4:35, skip to that time) what Gopher, a Skyrim and Fallout modder, and as far as I know PC Exclusive player says in this:

I don't even see the point of saying how the people who don't see the difference in framerate or are indifferent to it affect those who do. It's not like developers are putting these caps because of them. Developers aren't afraid of any backlash if they make a game run at 60 FPS, the opposite is obviously more true. These people aren't going up to developers and saying not to make a game go above 30 FPS either.

 

As for people on consoles who care about framerate but still play on consoles; chances are these individuals know about the limitations of the console hardware if they know enough about what framerates are. If they still are playing on consoles despite this, it is their choice. If it really is a deal breaker for them, then they wouldn't be playing it on the system, unless whatever game it is is exclusive to said system. People who know enough about what framerates are and how they affect a game know what they're getting into when they get a gaming system. Those who are just now learning of that information will be able to make a better buying decision later on.

 

I brought up that people who do care that much about frame rate are already on PC, because that was the logical conclusion, and not to bring up "PC vs Console", because you're right, that nonsense IS irrelevant to this discussion. But do tell, what exactly is wrong with saying that people are already playing on their preferred hardware?

 

18 hours ago, Zieglobaz said:

How about we support devs that can make every version of the game great, that's a win-win situation.

Yes, that would be great, not gonna happen, but it would. Even Witcher 3 didn't run at 60 on the consoles as far as I know, and console players still thought it was great. In fact here:

The game is only at 30FPS on consoles. It even needed a patch to make it a little more stable. Does that mean we shouldn't support CD Projekt Red for not downgrading the graphics even further on the consoles to reach 60 because of this? I personally don't think so.

 

If Andromeda runs properly on the consoles, despite the FPS lock, as well as be a good game, is THAT not in itself a win as well? In my opinion, it is.

 

In a perfect world, console games would have graphics options in them so that the gamers can decide for themselves how they want the game to be. I'm don't know where I heard that or who said it, but that would be great. But the world isn't perfect.

Crazycrab and like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mr_E_Meatshield said:

In a perfect world, console games would have graphics options in them so that the gamers can decide for themselves how they want the game to be. I'm don't know where I heard that or who said it, but that would be great. But the world isn't perfect.

If the world was a perfect place, we probably wouldn't be playing games lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, "The primary purpose of the machine seems to be about running PS4 Engines at similar performance levels maybe with more consistent framerates, but at much higher resolutions". Also goes about how Rise of the Tomb Raider has three different rendering modes since "Developers do have the choice to utilize PS4 Pro power as they see fit. Note that he says "Unlocked framerate" instead of "60 FPS" so even with that game it's not going to be a steady 60 at 1080p.

 

Dude even mentions that "If you're looking to stick to 1080p gaming, and you want 60FPS, and you're not fussed about system exclusives, then yeah, my advice is to move on to PC. That's what it does best."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want a fucking option. 720p60/1080p30. I'd be at 720p60 every single fucking time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now