Game Industry Misbehaving Series: 1080p 60FPS Native for Consoles

Generation steps need a technology jump to go with it, what jump do we have this generation?

1080p 60FPS on Consoles Should be Standard (NOT Because Better Graphics)

All the games on the current generation of consoles (PS4, Xbox One WiiU) need to be running at 1080p native and at 60FPS. The N64 had more games running at 60FPS than all of last generation of consoles (Xbox 360, PS3 and Wii) did. And for those consoles I can only name one game off the top of my head. Vanquish, which was a great game! It did not run at 1080p, which was the trade-off to get it running at a pretty solid 60FPS, with anti-aliasing (2xMSAA). This is on both the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of the game.

 Vanqiush is pretty, and plays great! 

I’m Sure You’re Wondering, If You Say It’s Not Because Graphics, Why Are You Complaining About Graphics?

I love games, and will play them at 720p 30FPS, I don't mind that much. It's the game, not the resolution or frame rate which interest me (as long as it runs at a minimum of 30FPS otherwise it hurts my eyes). However as this is now a new generation, and a much older system could run at 60FPS, then the new gen needs to beat that right? Stepping from the N64/PS2 to Xbox 360/PS3 to drop the frame rate was acceptable, as we got HD which is the jump for that gen. But what jump are we getting from last generation to this generation? Sure the first few months of games for that generation will be running a bit behind, that’s fine. Developers need to get used to the hardware, and learn coding for optimisation. But a year down the line... something is fundamentally wrong with the hardware if all games cannot run at 1080p 60FPS native. I mean it’s only now we are getting games which can run like that.

Mario 64 ran at 60FPS 

This Is Not About Something Versus Something, This Is About a Generation Technological Jump

Just to put something out there, and to emphasise a point. I don't care what I game on, for the most part, except handhelds (they don’t interest me, but that’s preference). I don't care what resolution a game runs at, or how it looks. Pretty graphics are great to have, but not necessary for the core game to be good. I care about you, I care that you are not being ripped off with lies, and deceit. I care that consumers/customers (that’s you) are going to get what you pay for. And honestly, with the current generation of consoles, you simply are not getting that. You are being lied to, and looked down upon on. Deceived over and over again. That is why I am angry at the consoles not running at 1080p 60FPS as standard, not because graphics. But because that is the next jump for the generations step. A step across generations needs to bring some sort of jump, no matter what it is. Be it in the animations, or AI (doesn’t need to be graphics). This generation’s jump is believed to be, and marketed as, running at 1080p 60FPS native. However is this the case? No. If you look at the standout exclusives for the consoles (which we know how they are running), on the PS4 side we have The Order: 1886.

I'm sure it will be a fun game, but all the bull surrounding it puts me off.

Showcase Games

The Order: 1886 is a showcase game, to show off what they PS4 can do in terms of gameplay, graphics, frame rates etc. So what exactly is it showing? That the PS4 can render 4xMSAA in sub 1080p resolution (at 1920x800)? Chief Technology Officer Andrea Pessino quoted the reason for this, “…we do run 4xMSAA which looks spectacular! x800 with AA looks MUCH better than x1080 without : )” and later “To be clear, x800 with 4xMSAA needs more bandwidth than x1080 would, so 1080 no MS would be cheaper.” By cheaper I assume he means less resource intensive, so less taxing on the system. This means they have openly admitted that the PS4 cannot run this game with the extra 280 pixels with 4xMSAA. Why not just use FXAA? That is much less taxing, and still looks great. The Order is also only running at 30FPS, ReadyAtDawn have said the reason is something to this effect. “Running the game at 60FPS makes it looks to sci-fi/fantasy, so running the game at 30FPS hit the movie look we want”. I have a massive issue with these statements, the first is that it just sounds like an excuse for poor hardware, the second is that they are openly admitting that the very expensive hardware is not very graphically powerful. Now looking at the showcase for the Xbox One, Ryse: Son of Rome, exactly the same issue can be found here. The game runs at 1920x900 and at 30FPS. So what does that showcase? Exactly the same as the PS4. Lack of graphical hardware to be able to run the games. So no one console is better than the other.

All the effort went into making it look nice, and they failed at making it play well.

I have nothing wrong with a showcase of something, they just simply show the item in question in the best light. But when that best light is only a small amount (resolution wise) more than the last generation, for me it begs the questions. Where the consoles poorly designed? Where they released too early? Are they too hard to develop for? Or do they simply have weak hardware?

 In The End It Is Just About The Games

I do just love games, and want to play them. So when there are games, I deem (for me) worthy for the purchase of a console, then I will get that console. Even if I am playing at 720p 30FPS. If the game is amazing, or at the very least amazing fun, it doesn't matter how it runs. I have enjoyed it and that, for me, is exactly what I want.

I have enjoyed plenty of games running lower frame rates, or resolutions. The Last of Us, running at 720p 30FPS, did that take away from the gameplay? Or the story? No, not at all. It is one of the best games ever made. Halo 3, Reach and 4, running at 720p/1080p and 30FPS, did it detract from the immense fun, and amount of hours I have put into those games? Not in the slightest.


Such an amazing game, does not need 1080p but 60FPS will not hurt (will look smoother)

Generation Steps Need a Technology Jump To Go With It

That is the root of the issue I have, from the 4th generation to the 5th brought disks (PS1).

PS1 disks were black... for some reason.

The jump from the 5th to the 6th brought a lot more power (Dreamcast), games running from DVDs (PS2, Dreamcast, Xbox Original, Gamecube) and built in hard drives (Xbox Original).

Probally the best generation, in terms of singleplayer games of course.

Then the biggest jump in gaming, the 6th generation to the 7th generation (Xbox 360, PS3) brought high definition gaming to our homes, but not only that stable and fully fledged online systems (Xbox Live, PSN), which just grew as the generation went along.

The most impressive (so far) console generation graphically.

So what has the jump from the 7th generation to the 8th given us? Very expensive hardware, which can’t run game much better than the previous generation? We are starting to see where other little jumps are happening, with the cloud services, game streaming. But is this enough for a generations step? I don’t think it is, we need a small graphical, and frame rate jump as well.

The general gaming community is also looking at it from a graphical perspective, “OH LOOK IT’S NOT MUCH MORE SHINY.” I hear them cry. Where I am looking at it from a technological perspective.

Have I succeeded? Let me know in the comment bellow. And of course, thank you for reading.

Featured Correspondent

-- Games are a passion as well as a hobby. Other writing of mine found on on

Published Nov. 20th 2014
  • Rothalack
    Master O' Bugs
    Here's the issue. Moore's law. Hardware capacity are increasing by about double every two years. This means it's exponential. The increase of hardware capacity between 2003 and 2005 is absolutely nothing in comparison to the increase in capacity between 2011 and 2013. These are important dates to consider because they are the dates in which the Xbox 360 and Xbox One were created, conceived to shipped. The hardware being sold in 2005 weren't that large of a leap from 2003 when compared to the leap from 2011 to 2013. Now think of the difference in hardware between 2011 and now. The capabilities of game developers (as well as expectations of gamers) are increasing at a similar rate to Moore's law. Proprietary hardware that is already about 4 years old just simply will not cut it in comparison to current software. Consoles are losing their ability to keep up. Consoles were able to keep up when they were price to performance effective for long periods of time and game developers had less options. That is no longer the case. If you can't put a new piece of hardware into the box, it becomes obsolete very very fast. Remember when you could keep a flip phone for 6 years? Nowa days you are lucky to keep a smart phone for 2 and not because they break, because they are too slow for the software.
  • Pierre Fouquet
    Featured Correspondent
    Very true. However, my Nexus 5 is still VERY usable 2 years on. It's still very quick, and runs everything smoothly.
    I just wanted a better camera really, so got the new 5X.

    But I don't know, because of optimisation. If there was less of a focus on the best graphics possible, and more focus on getting something to look good, but not the best. I think even with Moores Law it's possible. It's about using the hardware effectively, not maxing out it's graphical output.
  • Rothalack
    Master O' Bugs
    The only company I can think of that actually uses hardware effectively over max graphical output is Blizzard. Where they make really amazing looking stuff that can run on a potato all the way up to a god machine. Other than that, in order to compete, it seems like most companies are just trying to push things to the max. That's where the expectations of gamers comes in.
  • Pierre Fouquet
    Featured Correspondent
    But reality cannot meet expectations. Marketing blows the expectations out of proportion, by implying things not saying. So that there is no 'false advertising'. Even though their blatantly is.

    But then this is a wider issue, it's not just in the games industry. Apple are among the worst offenders at this, and to some extent so are Samsung. Then if you go into foods, all the 'health' foods which are actually bad for you, like whey protein.
  • Ss4gogeta0
    Dreamcast still has more 60FPS games that can run in 1080p (with the VGA Box) than the Xbox one... which is rather sad when you think about it...
  • Pierre Fouquet
    Featured Correspondent
    just a little bit sad. Less focus on shiny top of the line graphics and more on smooth and constant higher frame rates. Halo 5 proved it can be done on the Xbox one, and the uncharted collection on the ps4.
  • MrTortugo
    Mario 64 IS 30FPS.
  • Ervis_4420
    You are absolutely right, i hate to admit this but the PS4 is the only console i regret having purchased at release from Sony... I fell in love with the Ps1 way before i even knew what FPS and moaning at 480P-720P-1080P i enjoyed games for what they were meant to be, entertaining and in most cases even educational. But seeing as i moved to north america i couldn't help but start learning the FPS and resolution lingo. And now that i know what they stand for and what they do, i wish MS and Sony would stop making consoles all together, they should either make something that can stand the test of time like say GEE PS2! lasted 20years or something... Now you get shitty rushed games from money grabbers who rely on fixing em over 200 patches, and they use excuses like immersion and this looks better at 30 than 60, to sell their games. I for one have stopped buying Console games, and will not buy anymore until the really good games i can't live without come out. Like say Resident Evil Grand turismo etc etc. They want to get lazy and make shitty games? i wont buy em, and trust me when i say this, a lot of people have started paying attention to these details lately.
  • Pierre Fouquet
    Featured Correspondent
    I forget if I say this in this article, but the N64 has more games which run at 60FPS than all of last and this gen (so PS3, PS4, Xbox 360, Xbox One). And that is put together (multiplatform games are counted once).
    Yer, I also hate it when publishers, or developers (especially graphical designers or technology developers) give the excuse of "looks more cinematic" if you want cinematic... watch a movie. I want (and pretty much everyone wants) a smooth gameplay experience and a fun one too.

New Cache - article_comments_article_16192
More The Last of Us Content
Popular in the Community