Poll: *The Official PlayStation (PS5/PS5 Pro) Thread*

[TNA]

The games you listed are all great to play on ps4 Pro no doubt. Horizon zero dawn looked and played brilliantly but with a new generation I would want to see a step change in things. Seems daft sticking with 30fps. 4k alone makes most things look pretty enough anyway.

Yeah fair enough. I am happy whichever way they go. Graphics have indeed reached a state where they look very good. If I had to pick though I would prefer more intractable bigger worlds in games with less loading. Hopefully the SSD will help a lot with this. Oh and better AI

I was actually completely surprised at how good those games were on my PS4 Pro on an OLED TV.

 

[Plainsong]

God of War is probably the best looking game I've ever seen on a console and I'm using an OG PS4 in 1080p on a 42" plasma. Can't wait to see what this new gen will bring.

 

[Kreeeee]

I'd be happy with 60 FPS in racing/FPS games - as I recall (from PC gaming days), there's only a small percentage of people who can actually see the difference above 60 FPS; most people see below that, probably why most of us notice the difference between 30 and 60 FPS games. I think that anything over 60 is just willy waiving that ought to stay with those special folks in the PC camp.

Where does this false belief come from? We can tell the difference even up to at least 240fps, but I haven't done the research to know how high the limit is.

Yes the benefit trails off as you go higher, but I hate this misconception.

 

[Hedge]

Where does this false belief come from? We can tell the difference even up to at least 240fps, but I haven't done the research to know how high the limit is.

Yes the benefit trails off as you go higher, but I hate this misconception.

Can definitely perceive a framerate above 60 but I dont think I could personally tell between 144 and 240. I might somehow have more successful shots or something but I wouldnt really understand why.

 

[Kreeeee]

Can definitely perceive a framerate above 60 but I dont think I could personally tell between 144 and 240. I might somehow have more successful shots or something but I wouldnt really understand why.

A scientific study from nature:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep07861

It looks like the limit is in the region of 500hz with the constraints in that study.

 

[Hedge]

A scientific study from nature:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep07861

It looks like the limit is in the region of 500hz with the constraints in that study.

But I dont look at my 165hz monitor when I play counter strike and think "damn, Im only running at about 30% of my max effort here."

 

[Supercow]

Where does this false belief come from? We can tell the difference even up to at least 240fps, but I haven't done the research to know how high the limit is.

Yes the benefit trails off as you go higher, but I hate this misconception.

Indeed.
LTT attempted to test whether higher FPS can make you better, see below;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA

 

[Scort]

Where does this false belief come from? We can tell the difference even up to at least 240fps, but I haven't done the research to know how high the limit is.

Yes the benefit trails off as you go higher, but I hate this misconception.

No idea - haven't been a PC gamer for a long time now, so gave up caring about FPS, but I do recall some discussions suggesting that anything over 200 FPS was extremely rare in humans - and typically only very specific people; think one study mentioned fighter pilots - maybe they become attuned to it or something?

Personally, I still think that people who fixate about FPS are just doing so for willy waving purposes - I would bet that the average person (gamer or otherwise) couldn't tell the difference between 60 FPS or 100+.

But hey, I work in IT, not in neuroscience or whatever.

 

[Juicy Jama]

No idea - haven't been a PC gamer for a long time now, so gave up caring about FPS, but I do recall some discussions suggesting that anything over 200 FPS was extremely rare in humans - and typically only very specific people; think one study mentioned fighter pilots - maybe they become attuned to it or something?

Personally, I still think that people who fixate about FPS are just doing so for willy waving purposes - I would bet that the average person (gamer or otherwise) couldn't tell the difference between 60 FPS or 100+.

But hey, I work in IT, not in neuroscience or whatever.

Hmmm I came from console gaming. Since the first week of playstation 1 being released and only moved over to PC last year.

Would say there is definitely a difference between 60 to 100+.

The diff from 100 to 200 probably not.

 

[Hedge]

There is definitely a difference but the sad fact is that people are often so obsessed with FPS that they don't consider how good gameplay is.

There are people on ocuk who would bitch and moan about Horizon Zero Dawn, God of War or spiderman etc purely because they aren't performing at the same FPS or resolution as their pc games. They ignore the fact that lots of people have had a fantastic time playing these games and a lot of them people couldn't care less.

The people I envy are my mates at work who have no PC gaming experience and they all chat and get hyped about console games in a way that myself and other pc gamers rarely do.

 

[Mark1989]

There is definitely a difference but the sad fact is that people are often so obsessed with FPS that they don't consider how good gameplay is.

There are people on ocuk who would bitch and moan about Horizon Zero Dawn, God of War or spiderman etc purely because they aren't performing at the same FPS or resolution as their pc games. They ignore the fact that lots of people have had a fantastic time playing these games and a lot of them people couldn't care less.

The people I envy are my mates at work who have no PC gaming experience and they all chat and get hyped about console games in a way that myself and other pc gamers rarely do.

Well said and in the games you mentioned I have played them all and loved every moment of them.

Not once did I care it probably wasn't at 60fps or above. It's the graphics debate a way any game could be stunning but means nothing if the game is crap.

This isn't a game example but I remember avatar movie whilst technically at the time the film was great for its visual design and 3d the film itself was utter crap.

 

[Kreeeee]

Well said and in the games you mentioned I have played them all and loved every moment of them.

Not once did I care it probably wasn't at 60fps or above. It's the graphics debate a way any game could be stunning but means nothing if the game is crap.

This isn't a game example but I remember avatar movie whilst technically at the time the film was great for its visual design and 3d the film itself was utter crap.

Not a single person has disagreed with this.

 

[Mark1989]

Not a single person has disagreed with this.

Plenty of people over the years have.

Hence why you have the pc master race comments vs consol.

 

[FoxEye]

I thought Avatar was OK... don't hate me.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

Indeed.
LTT attempted to test whether higher FPS can make you better, see below;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX31kZbAXsA

Speaking from personal experience - yes.

I remember back in 1999 playing Quake 3 arena online via 56k modem and on an AMD 686 with integrated GPU on the motherboard.

280 ping and 15FPS. It was the pits but man was my rocket prediction first class! But even with ISDN and 60 ping the lack of frames was a killer. After an upgrade and a solid 125fps things changed for the better.

Fast forward to 2012 where I was playing Tribes Ascend and BF4 at 60FPS. Upgraded my PC and was then running at 120FPS and the difference was night and day.

The main aspect for me was precision and clarity on screen. Mouse movement was smoother and more precise. It certainly helped having a mouse capable of raw input, but generally shots Inwould have missed or 1V1 situations I would have lost were now won in my favour. Target acquisition and tracking was far smoother and easier.

Theres definitely a massive difference between 60 and 120 FPS. But I will say this - not a massive amount between 120 and 144. I will also say that my brain and eyes adjust relatively quickly to lower FPS so it's not all doom and gloom but as soon as you get on a game at higher FPS the difference hits you between the eyes.

My feeling is 60fps should be a minimum for all games on PS5. Probably wont happen though, which is a shame.

 

[robfosters]

Speaking from personal experience - yes.

I remember back in 1999 playing Quake 3 arena online via 56k modem and on an AMD 686 with integrated GPU on the motherboard.

280 ping and 15FPS. It was the pits but man was my rocket prediction first class! But even with ISDN and 60 ping the lack of frames was a killer. After an upgrade and a solid 125fps things changed for the better.

Fast forward to 2012 where I was playing Tribes Ascend and BF4 at 60FPS. Upgraded my PC and was then running at 120FPS and the difference was night and day.

The main aspect for me was precision and clarity on screen. Mouse movement was smoother and more precise. It certainly helped having a mouse capable of raw input, but generally shots Inwould have missed or 1V1 situations I would have lost were now won in my favour. Target acquisition and tracking was far smoother and easier.

Theres definitely a massive difference between 60 and 120 FPS. But I will say this - not a massive amount between 120 and 144. I will also say that my brain and eyes adjust relatively quickly to lower FPS so it's not all doom and gloom but as soon as you get on a game at higher FPS the difference hits you between the eyes.

My feeling is 60fps should be a minimum for all games on PS5. Probably wont happen though, which is a shame.

Same here. On console at 60fps, I never did any good at COD. Completely different story playing on PC at 120fps. Everything is so quick, responsive and smooth. I’m ten times the player at higher frame rates.

 

[Supercow]

My feeling is 60fps should be a minimum for all games on PS5. Probably wont happen though, which is a shame.

Agreed, but disagree on it not happening. Honestly think that 60FPS will become the norm.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

Agreed, but disagree on it not happening. Honestly think that 60FPS will become the norm.

60 fps could have been the norm this gen but devs generally chose the bells and whistles over frame rate.

The next gen of consoles will be far more powerful but I reckon the same theme will persist. Lower frames for better graphics will be the default position. Then maybe they will have a performance slider to reduce graphics in favour of frames.

Same here. On console at 60fps, I never did any good at COD. Completely different story playing on PC at 120fps. Everything is so quick, responsive and smooth. I’m ten times the player at higher frame rates.

The difference is not always client side either. Server tick rate makes an massive difference. Servers running at 120hz are awesome. Dont think console get any servers with that performance.

On console the clients game might be running at 60fps but the server often isnt anywhere near. Cod servers are notorious for having low tick rates. The other element is monitor response times. Most people play CoD via a TV and they often have massive response times vs a gaming monitor. In games like CoD with weapons with super high rof that difference in response time can be the difference between winning and losing encounters.

 

[FoxEye]

One thing to bear in mind is that many console gamers will (knowing or otherwise) have frame interpolation on their TVs, inserting extra "guessed" frames, and resulting in perhaps smoother gameplay.

So hitting 60 FPS on console might not be seen in the same way as hitting 60 FPS on a PC (ie, pretty essential).

 

[JBeck]

I remember back in 1999 playing Quake 3 arena online via 56k modem and on an AMD 686 with integrated GPU on the motherboard.

280 ping and 15FPS. It was the pits but man was my rocket prediction first class!

Those were the days! I lived in the cuds at that time so could only get 28k but still managed to do moving combos and mid-air headshots in UT, you just had to predict about 1 second and an inch ahead of the target

It's just all too easy nowadays.