Report: Mass Effect Andromeda will run at 30fps on PS4 and PS4 Pro
Parity means shooting for lower, more stable frame rates.
Mass Effect Andromeda producer Fabrice Condominas gave an interview to GameSpot, and confirmed that the game will run at 30 frames per second on both PlayStation 4 and PlayStation 4 Pro.
Although the PS4 Pro's enhanced hardware renders it capable of ratcheting up framerates, it won't do so for Andromeda. Technical details like framerates will be decided on a case-by-case basis by publishers; Sucker Punch Productions tech art lead Jason Connell told GameSpot that the PS4 Pro versions of InFamous: Second Sun and First Light will run at the same framerate as PS4 (and PS4 Slim, which packs the same hardware as the console's standard model).
PS4 Pro will be in stores on November 10 and retails for $399.
-
Shacknews
replyDavid Craddock posted a new article, Report: Mass Effect Andromeda will run at 30fps on PS4 and PS4 Pro
-
Why? Why not run at 1080p60 at least if you can? Or at least leave the framerate unlocked?
-
Because unlocked framerates are awful. If you can't nail constant 60fps, I'd rather you stick to 30 than have it bouncing between 30-60 all the time.
-
-
Unlocked framerates are kinda gross. Needs to be near constant 60 or near constant 30 to get even frame-pacing.
-
-
Yeah, I definitely prefer that to dropping frames. And it works out because it's usually during hectic firefights when you're not going to notice reduced detail. But you always notice stuttering/hitching.
-
-
-
Buying on the PC for sure.
-
-
Has it really been used for that many games though?
-
Plenty of games !
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Frostbite_games
and It's quite clear from how many games using it and my gripes with it that it can't just be chalked to a one-off "artistic decision". Apparently, there are some teams at EA that are not so thrilled to have to use that engine.-
First thing that ran through my mind when i saw the 4k Andromeda demo video was that it looked quite a bit like Dragon Age Inquisition. And that game did have a certain look to it that is also present in other Frostbite engine games, so I get where you are coming from.
If they weren't using Frostbite, they'd probably be using Unreal Engine 4. I'm not sure I like that any better.
-
-
-
-
Seems odd that you wouldn’t be able to nail 60fps using a Pro on a HDTV.
-
[deleted]
-
-
30 fps? Yuck
-
-
I won't lie, I've been playing BF1 at a locked 45fps at 135hz (because 3x45, no stutter), with the motion blur cranked up to 65% (blends the frames, making it seem more fluid), all ultra settings, and it actually feels kind of cinematic. Totally playable too.
Of course I'd like to be playing at a locked 60 or 75, but I'm playing it on a one of my two 380x's and still want to see all the eye candy. I'm sure multi-gpu will be better near release and I can be back to 60+
-
-
-
-
I barely can stand games at 60fps and you people (in 2016) are still ok with 30fps!!!
-
I'll never understand why devs think that resolution is more important than framerate.
I'd ALWAYS rather have a locked 60 with 720p than a locked 30 with 1080p.
Smoother looking(higher framerate) games always look and feel better to play than games with more shit on the screen that doesn't run half as smooth.-
Yep. This was one of John Carmack's biggest beefs with the whole industry. He conducted studies at id, proving that people really do want 60 FPS minimum, coupled with minimal input lag, for the optimum experience.
The drive for higher resolution above all is just a goddamn shame. 1080p is already glorious. 4K is a complete goddamn waste of processing power.-
Im fine as long as i dont have to drop below 1080p. Otherwise, ill lock that shiz at 30 if i have to. But im a graphic whore, i need all my bells and whistles turned on or i feel like im missing something.
60 min if its something competitive. -
-
You still get plenty of jaggies at 4k if you are using a large screen. Using a 24" or 27" screen (standard for 1080p) with a 4k res will mean 4 times the pixel density, so what you said might be true in that situation. But I think it's a better experience to be gaming at 4k on a 40" screen (same pixel density of a 1440p screen at 27"), than a small screen running 4k.
Older (better looking imo) anti aliasing methods like MSAA don't work well with 4k, but most modern post processing aa methods such as FXAA produce hardly any frame drops. But they also blur the entire screen slightly and look worse than running no aa at all, imo.
-
-
"4K is a complete goddamn waste of processing power. "
Said like someone who has never experienced a game running at 60fps on a large 4k screen.
Set your resolution on your 1080p monitor to whatever you have available that is closest to 966x540 (1/4th 1080p), and tell me that looks good.-
Meant to type 960x540 for the res.
-
-
-
Because you can't show 60fps in a screen shot but jaggies will stick out like a sore thumb.
-
[deleted]
-
-
