I feel like we hear this every single time though. "Largest tech leap in a hardware generation" very much means "we'll bump the graphics a little, we're still targeting 30fps though"

[–] simple@lemm.ee 40 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I'd argue this generation actually did deliver performance-wise, most games release with a performance mode that targets 60fps whereas the PS3/PS4 generation felt mostly stuck to 30FPS.

[–] BiggestBulb@kbin.run 15 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Honestly, that's fair. Maybe I was being a little too harsh, plus this gen did come with more customizable settings (IE, setting to "performance mode" or "fidelity" mode)

[–] PhAzE@lemmy.ca 6 points 9 months ago

And often, the fidelity mode is close to or sometimes native 4k, whoch is impressive for a console. Remember when full 1080p was the push?

[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Well, yeah, this gen is pretty much last gen but 60fps.

Except when it tries to do fancy UE5 features or raytracing then you get that 30 fps with smeary FSR

[–] echo64@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago (2 children)

30/60fps is always a developer choice. Not related to hardware capability.

That being said, every generation console makers will make the most powerful hardware they can for the price point they are gonna charge. It's not exactly like Microsoft have any secret sauce here. It's the same amd/nvidia hardware choices for the price point they think they can sell at that anyone can make a machine with.

[–] MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don't know why you were being downvoted. It's true. FPS is the developers decision. If a game had like 9 pixels on screen, they could make that game do ultra high framerate.

Developers usually prefer better graphics over framerate however. I just hope that more games allow the choice between graphics, framerate, and a balance between the two... like with Hogwarts Legacy.

[–] Dariusmiles2123@sh.itjust.works -5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It’s funny that you enjoy these settings.

Personally I hate these as I’d just want to play the game the way the developers wanted me to play it. I hate that PC influence.

I guess everyone is different 😅

[–] OrangeJoe@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So you hate that PCs are more capable and can display better graphics at higher framerates and have rationalized it to yourself that worse graphics and framerates on a console are "how the developers intended".

I can understand not wanting to tinker with settings and just load a game up and know what to expect in terms of graphics and framerate, but I just cannot disagree more with what you are saying here. Building games to console limitations and not even giving the option for fidelity or framerate just seems like a step backward.

[–] Dariusmiles2123@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago

You have a point.

Personally, I was mostly thinking about these options for games developed mostly for consoles.

It’s true that I hadn’t taken into account that some games are developed for pc and downgraded for consoles.

Still, even for such a game I would want the developers to think about their perfect ratio between fidelity and performance.

[–] rdri@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

30/60fps is always a developer choice

Yes, a choice to code and optimize the game properly or not is always the creator's choice.