Topic: Is it important that every next gen release runs at 1080p and 60 fps?

@Phatosaurus
It's still a fair comparison, obviously. Like I said, it's ok to vary, because peoples' eyesights differ. I don't know anyone who can see a full 60FPS in one cycle.

EDIT: BTW, they slowed the video down to a lower frame count than 30FPS. 20% of 30 is 6.

60 fps? Yes. 1080P? No.

Not necessarily, but no one wants it choppy frame rate either.

60FPS is better, but you'll only see about 24 frames during that sequence and 12 of the 60 frames will still be a repeat frame(if it is 24fps content on a 60Hz display). Like I said, it's just the off chance that you see frame #20 vs. frame #21 on a 60Hz display. You obviously wouldn't be able able to see those frames one to the next unless you can see that fast.

It technically is showing more of what's going on, but you might not see it anyway.
@ 30FPS, every frame will be doubled. You will literally have a chance to see everything at least twice. If there's othing going on between frames, then you don't need more frames, which is probably why Wind Waker HD looks like 60FPS even though it's 30.

I notice when a game has sharp framerate drops, but apart from that I can't tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps. Same would go for 1080p versus 720 for most part. I just like that the game looks good and plays good, Wind Waker is 1080, 30 fps and 3D World is only 720p, 60 fps, I honestly though they were both 1080p,60fps, I'm easily fooled.

Same here. I think it really depends on the graphics, too. A game like Mario, Pikmin, etc. won't look any better in a higher resolution unless there is actually more detail to be seen.

Mario's hat and overalls are as "basic color pallet" as you can get. Red is gonna look red, regardless. Some textures aren't that detailed, either. That's why Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate only needed a texture redo. Just imagine if they upconverted that game and left the textures as they originally were on Wii.

Love it!

I'm just going to leave the frame rate discussion at this paragraph from the end of the article in the first link I posted. It'll make a lot more sense if you read the whole thing though.

"So what is "Enough fps"? I don't know, because nobody went there so far. Maybe 120fps is enough, maybe you will get headaches after 3 hours. Seeing framewise is simply not the way how the eyebrain system works. It works with a continuous flow of lightinformation. (Similar to the effects of cameras' flashlights ("red eyes"): flashing is simply not the way how we see). So there are still questions. Maybe you need as much as 4000fps, maybe less, maybe more.

The same question as for fps will arise for resolution. How many pixels can the human eye see? Does 2000x1000 (=Star Wars Episode II resolution) look like reality? Or is it just enough to make a film "cinemable"? "

How would you even be able to know that? Have you ever even asked someone "can you see a full 60FPS in once cycle"? How would they even be able to explain to you what they see?

not at all. 720p/60fps is good enough for me tbh.

Yes, according to 4chan.

All I know is that 60fps for fighting games. I know it makes a difference there.

I can imagine how it would be, that's why. I wouldn't be surprised if some one could see twice as good as I can, whether it be speed, clarity, etc.

It would be like if you couldn't tell where a sound is coming from, what a sound is, or you can't hear something at all. Same concept, different form of sensory.

When there are 60FPS on an HDTV, I'm aware that there are alot of frames I probably didn't even see.

1080p and/or 60 FPS have to sacrificed for good graphics, just the way it is. No problem with it.

Mario Kart 8 will turn out to be 720 I'm pretty sure but we'll find out in spring. Smash will be 1080/60 though but it's a fighting game. A step up from PS360 though I think.

I think after the "WIND WAKER IS TEH KIDDIES" nonsense, Nintendo fans never want to hear complaining about graphics unless absolutely necessary. I'd like to believe that anyway.

What I prefer is consistency in frame rates. Give me consistent 60fps or 30fps. just don't give me fluctuations in between.

That's true for me. The graphics wouldn't be there at all if a game didn't exist. Gameplay comes from a game existing in the first place. Graphics have to be relevant in some form, never the less.

It's just like The Last Story. I didn't play the game, but I heard the gameplay was pretty impressive. The gameplay was still top notch without looking "100%" fantastic in comparison to the other 7th gen systems.

I think it's better to leave things at, everyone likes whichever company and an improvement on what you like is better than comparing what someone else has done. The whole online argument leaves me speechless, as well. I don't care about alot of features, but I don't use them to begin with, so my opinion would be invalid in probably 70% of the arguments to be had about that subject.

Will I complain that it's there? No. Will I complain that it's not there? No.

Your eyes don't run at a framerate, your eye isn't a video camera. Your eyes detect any change at any time and "report" it as it happens which it can do very quickly. Same with resolution, your eye isn't 1080p or 4K or whatever. Your eye is very high resolution in the centre of your vision and much lower at the edges. Then it jitters and scans to create a larger picture.

Also because of the way monitors work the question as it is asked in this thread should be rethought. We shouldn't ask if 1080p/60fps is important or not. Instead we should ask whether or not you can perceive a jitter in a moving image if it's updated sometimes 16ms, sometimes 33ms and sometimes even 50ms. Or whether it looks better if it's always or almost always updating every 16ms.

and the truth is you can see that and it is one of the larger components of input lag.

Trust me, you guys really don't want 1080/60 on every game...it would mean tons of sacrifices on Wii U. One or the other usually has to go for full 3D titles that are not simplistic or are non-fighters.

If you fork over $400-500 for a new next-gen console. 1080p and 60fps is the benchmark for performance. If you're paying top dollars for a new console machine, that promise next gen graphic and performance. Microsoft and Sony better deliver 1080P and 60 fps. The future of gaming is 4k resolution which both the Xbox One and PS4 are apparently 4k ready system. Therefore, 1080P and 60 FPS which was considered the top performance for last generation as now because the minimum acceptable benchmark.

Xbox One having games only pushing 720P give the perception of an inferior product, especially considering that your rival is delivering on the 1080P promise.

It's the same as last gen when the Xbox 360 and PS3 came out. Any game that were not in HD were just not cutting it.