What is the most desirable "next gen" feature?

[sid]

Needs 3rd option - 60fps and as much res as you can manage

[Mallet]

8 hours ago, partious said:

I definitely agree that 30fps vs 60fps is massive, it's everything above 60fps I'm not sold on (and don't really have any way to experience without splashing out on a fancy new setup).

I felt the same, I was happy with 60fps and a little dubious about the benefits of higher frame rates.

 

Then I bought a PC on black Friday and for very little extra cost I could add a 144htz monitor to the bundle. The difference between 60fps and 100+ is huge, even using the desktop feels horrible on a 60htz monitor to me now. It's so much smoother you have to experience it to fully appreciate it.

 

As for games, anything that involves aiming or twitch movements I genuinely feel I am more successful at on a faster refresh panel. Lining up head shots is something I have really noticed, I tried playing on my 60htz panel earlier and it is almost like the cross hair is making jerky movements across the screen compared to a smooth movement on the 144htz panel.

[Mallet]

Edit.

 

Double post

[HarryBizzle]

1 hour ago, johnj said:

The pc master race has a lot of rolling eyes at this 'new' ssd technology you're all experiencing, welcone to 1991, peasants. 

 

Merry Christmas! 

 

I know you're not being entirely serious, but I think the PC has got a lot of catching up to do in terms of QoL features that the consoles have had now for years, like background downloads and quick resume. Dealing with an OS booting and then booting the game fresh every time, or not being able to trigger downloads without physically being at my PC are a pain in the backside that kept me using consoles last gen, despite having a PC with a fast SSD.

[Nick R]

2 hours ago, johnj said:

The pc master race has a lot of rolling eyes at this 'new' ssd technology you're all experiencing, welcone to 1991, peasants. 

 

Merry Christmas! 

 

But how many PC games actually require an SSD in order to be played? There are loads that benefit from them, but how many are there that list them as a minimum requirement? Even Cyberpunk can be installed to a mechanical HDD, and only lists an SSD as "recommended".

 

Everyone making a game for the PS5 or Series S/X knows that they can rely on all players having SSDs, so they can design everything with fast storage in mind from the start. Whereas on PC, judging by most games' system requirements it seems like most developers still have to keep in mind that some players will be installing games to mechanical HDDs.

[johnj]

Ok ok. Merry Christmas! 

[deerokus]

5 hours ago, Mr. Gerbik said:

Quick Resume could be great if they ever get it working reliably. Even then, the SSD is a far more important improvement to me - one that also happens to lessen the need for Quick Resume.

Quick resume is enabled by the SSD! They're the same coin. 

 

Quick resume works almost perfectly for me, there's like two games where it's buggered. 

[Mr. Gerbik]

Just now, deerokus said:

Quick resume is enabled by the SSD! 

Yes. But so far it's only impressive to me in theory because it fails often enough for me to not be able to rely on it. Yakuza LAD wuick resumes 4 times and then 5th or 6th time it just doesn't. Never had it work WD Legion, worked maybe once or twice on Valhalla. It's shite.

[deerokus]

1 minute ago, Mr. Gerbik said:

Yes. But so far it's only impressive to me in theory because it fails often enough for me to not be able to rely on it. Yakuza LAD wuick resumes 4 times and then 5th or 6th time it just doesn't. Never had it work WD Legion, worked maybe once or twice on Valhalla. It's shite.

That's just cause two of those games are buggy as fuck. 

 

Never had it fail on yakuza personally, that's weird. 

[Number 28]

Hail. I don't remember ever seeing hail in a game.

[Mr. Gerbik]

3 minutes ago, deerokus said:

That's just cause two of those games are buggy as fuck. 

 

Never had it fail on yakuza personally, that's weird. 

As a gaming dad, QR is a godsend in theory. Being able to turn off and get up at a moment's notice, knowing that I can simply resume where I left off should be a game changer. But then if it sometimes doesn't work, I can *never* assume it works.

 

Hopefully it will become more reliable, because it's a feature that I would welcome.

[Darwock]

It seems like everyone misread the poll? Nobody would disagree that 60fps is important, but that isn’t what was asked. Surprised to see everyone going for 120fps after I voted.

 

I actually thought (probably wrongly) that the human eye couldn’t see anything above 60fps anyway. I assumed 120fps was just for all the dragonflies that play video games.

[partious]

1 hour ago, Darwock said:

It seems like everyone misread the poll? Nobody would disagree that 60fps is important, but that isn’t what was asked. Surprised to see everyone going for 120fps after I voted.

 

I actually thought (probably wrongly) that the human eye couldn’t see anything above 60fps anyway. I assumed 120fps was just for all the dragonflies that play video games.

 

It's my fault in fairness, the whole thing was a bit poorly worded. I had wanted to give more options but it's the first time I've done a poll and I only got two text boxes for choices and couldn't see a way to add more (on android). I probably should have just left out the poll at that point...

 

That said, the responses have been very interesting to me. The main take away seems to be that higher than 1080p resolutions really don't seem to be all that amazing for those who've experienced them. This really goes against the massive hype of ever more stupidly expensive graphics cards that can now maybe nearly manage 4k 60fps consistently? Same with 120fps etc. Seems 1080p and 60fps might be "good enough" for a lot of people..

 

The fact that a lot of answers talk about 60fps vs 30fps as a "next gen" feature is interesting. Almost every 3D console I can think of has had some excellent 60fps games (not sure about Saturn but even PS1 definitely did). 60fps seemed at least semi common in the PS2/Gamecube era. i definitely appreciated that a lot of nintendo's wii u output prioritised 60fps over slightly fancier graphics. We had a bunch of 60fps cross-gen games at the start of the PS4's life too but 30fps quickly came back. The companies always seem to want graphics that are a step or several ahead of what the tech can handle at 60fps.

HD in the PS3/360 era, 3D on ps3, ray tracing/4k etc on series x and ps5 (ps4 and xbone just had crappy processors so were somewhat doomed from the start) . The consoles always seem to be forced to do some impressive graphical features that they aren't fully capable of, so 30fps it is.

I guess one of the best "next gen features" might be the trend of devs offering the choice between shiny 30fps and slightly less shiny 60fps. Hopefully it continues as the generation goes on and the games become more demanding.

 

 

[Yiggy]

1 hour ago, partious said:

I guess one of the best "next gen features" might be the trend of devs offering the choice between shiny 30fps and slightly less shiny 60fps.

 

For reference I sit 5ft from a 55” LG C9 so am fairly aware of resolution differences I think. 
 

Recently been playing Immortals Fenyx on a Series X which defaults to performance mode at around 60fps with lower res / shinies. 
 

I loved it and generally go along with frame rate being more important. However I switched to Graphics mode which sits around 30 with higher res and more particle effects etc and I far prefer the way it looks. So much so I have not switched back. At first I was feeling the sluggishness of the combat and the camera panning but after an hour or so I got used to it and what can I say, it’s the mode I’m playing it in right now. 
 

I guess what I’m saying is there is always going to be an overriding sentiment with ‘our kind’ that you should always prioritise frame rate over graphics but for me it’s absolutely a case by case basis and having some simple choices is good. Keep them simple mind. I don’t want sliders!

[Timmo]

1 hour ago, partious said:

The fact that a lot of answers talk about 60fps vs 30fps as a "next gen" feature is interesting. Almost every 3D console I can think of has had some excellent 60fps games (not sure about Saturn but even PS1 definitely did). 60fps seemed at least semi common in the PS2/Gamecube era. i definitely appreciated that a lot of nintendo's wii u output prioritised 60fps over slightly fancier graphics.

The difference is that it's expected to be the norm now. A game like Assassin's Creed Valhalla would never be 60fps in previous generations, and I'd like to think that games without at least the option will be rare or non existent.

[Quest]

8 hours ago, Number 28 said:

Hail. I don't remember ever seeing hail in a game.

 

I'd never thought about this and now it's really bothering me. It must be in a few games, surely?

[footle]

4 hours ago, partious said:

 

 

 

That said, the responses have been very interesting to me. The main take away seems to be that higher than 1080p resolutions really don't seem to be all that amazing for those who've experienced them. This really goes against the massive hype of ever more stupidly expensive graphics cards that can now maybe nearly manage 4k 60fps consistently? Same with 120fps etc. Seems 1080p and 60fps might be "good enough" for a lot of people..

 

 

 

The main next gen console feature is VRR, or at least consoles that can properly support it in common TV display ranges. And TVs on sale that support the feature.

 

it might also be ML-driven image reconstruction, but we’ll have to see how well the AMD chips do with that.

 

The two “solve” the resolution, frame rate, shinies trade off. at least to a significant degree.

 

and 1080p/60 is better than 4K/20, but 4K/60 with the same quality of pixels is preferable when you’re playing on a display that supports it - hence ever more expensive graphics cards.

 

 

 

 

[partious]

47 minutes ago, footle said:

and 1080p/60 is better than 4K/20, but 4K/60 with the same quality of pixels is preferable when you’re playing on a display that supports it - hence ever more expensive graphics cards.

It's pretty obvious that a higher number for resolution/framerate is objectively better than a lower number but my question was more about people's subjective experience of resolutions above 1080p and framerates above 60fps.

 

It certainly seems like we've reached a point of diminishing returns in terms of people's subjective perception of increased resolutions or framerates.  It would have been pretty uncommon in the past to hear anyone claim that 480i to 1080p (or even 720p) wasn't an immediately noticeable huge leap in visual clarity whereas most people don't seem nearly as impressed by the jump from 1080p to 4k. 

Same with the jump from 30fps to 60fps vs that from 60fps to 120fps/240fps or whatever the high end pc folks are chasing these days. 

 

Maybe this point is a bit premature now and 4k and 120fps actually are a massive and immediately perceptible upgrade (I've already admitted I don't have much experience with the higher resolutions/framerates outside of shop displays, which is why I started the thread to ask those more experienced), it will come up again in 6 years when we're being told that 4k and 60/120fps actually look bad and we all need to get back on the display/computer upgrade treadmill for 8k 480fps.

[dumpster]

4K seems to be a way for TV manufacturers to have somewhere else to go, making your old TV obselete. They need to sell you a new TV to stay in business and they want you to feel dissatisfied with your current TV that has nothing wrong with it.  My friend showed me a demo that had a brightly coloured scene (close up of ladybirds on a leaf, that sort of thing) and you use the controller to switch 4K on or off and HDR on or off.  You CAN see the difference in these circumstances but then you stick a Blu-ray on and I honestly cannot tell if it's 1080p or 4K.  Then we play a game and the lag is awful. 

 

I'm happy with my Sony W8, tiny lag even without Game Mode, and the image quality is great.  And it all just works - there's no faffing with individual HDR settings, no need to select FPS over resolution , you just put the disk in and play it.  

 

For me, next gen offers better loading times and better frame rates and thats great but not a must-buy, at least until there are more games.  And I think there is a lot of Emporers New Clothes when it comes to 4K, and it is very telling that Sony have had to add a notification to tell people they are playing the PS4 version of the game on their ps5 by mistake.

 

 

 

[MNFRMTMRRW]

Near zero loading times. 

[Siri]

Honestly, Quick Resume is the most impressive thing - it's something unique to consoles, and it's a feature I already appreciate on handhelds for obvious reasons given the form factor (if I need to attend to other shit, just slap the power button and I'll get back to it later).

Framerate/Resolution will typically degrade over time anyway as developers push for more and more shiny shit on the screen - and as much as I'd like 60+ FPS to be the standard, I'm not the guy making videogames and deciding how to balance those variables to push out something close to what they pitched to the guys bankrolling their shit.

However, I would say that playing Destiny 2 with a consistently high FPS, a screen that supports it and a VRR solution to account for frame drops *is* a small revelation in comparison to the increased resolution I'm playing at as well - everything regarding shooting and movement is just a lot more smoother and responsive. OTOH, it's a game that lives and dies by visual feedback to the player, and there's swathes of games that simply don't need anything outside of basic requirements (don't be choppy as fuck, make sure that pressing a button registers in-game when the player does it).

So, from my own experiences - framerate is more important because lack of consistent frame pacing fucks up the game, but it's very marginal depending on the game itself. You can just get around resolution with competent upscaling solutions. Actual functionality that's hard to replicate on previous disc or platter-based generations like quick resume is king.

[Not Thread Owner]

On 25/12/2020 at 08:01, HarryBizzle said:

The most impressive feature is the SSD. 

Definitely need an SSD on the Switch Pro

[StumpyJohn]

22 hours ago, Mr. Gerbik said:

Quick Resume could be great if they ever get it working reliably. Even then, the SSD is a far more important improvement to me - one that also happens to lessen the need for Quick Resume.

Quick resume has always worked pretty perfectly for me on the Switch, a bit iffy on the One X and a shit-show on my base PS4.  How is it on the Series S/X and PS5?

[Wiper]

23 hours ago, johnj said:

The pc master race has a lot of rolling eyes at this 'new' ssd technology you're all experiencing, welcone to 1991, peasants. 

 

Merry Christmas! 

 

1991? Whippersnapper. This, and quick resume, were all available at least as far back as 1989, with the Psion MC series laptops.

 

Admittedly, not too many games for them.

[Floshenbarnical]

On 25/12/2020 at 09:22, Mr. Gerbik said:

Ever played Rainbow Six Vegas on the 360? You could use the Uno camera to do exactly that. It was hilarious playing co-op with friends and their real life mugs actually staring you in the face. Always thought it a shame that this hilarious feature disappeared.

 

Really sucked seeing yourself getting shot in the face tho

[mdn2]

19 minutes ago, StumpyJohn said:

Quick resume has always worked pretty perfectly for me on the Switch, a bit iffy on the One X and a shit-show on my base PS4.  How is it on the Series S/X and PS5?

Series X/S Quick Resume is different. You can play half a dozen games, unplug the console from the mains for a few days and plug it back in and resume from exactly where you left off when you come back. It's something more than a sleep mode for one game. 

 

When it works, anyway. It's extremely flaky at the minute. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It's being worked on, apparently. 

[Timmo]

56 minutes ago, StumpyJohn said:

Quick resume has always worked pretty perfectly for me on the Switch, a bit iffy on the One X and a shit-show on my base PS4.  How is it on the Series S/X and PS5?

Always worked flawlessly for me on the base PS4. Only negative was that it only worked for one game at a time.

[gooner4life]

1 hour ago, deKay said:

Definitely need an SSD on the Switch Pro

 

The switch is using sold state storage, it's just not as fast the PS5 or Xbox Series storage.

[Transient Curse]

2 hours ago, mdn2 said:

 

When it works, anyway. It's extremely flaky at the minute. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It's being worked on, apparently. 

I'm not sure if Flaky is the right term, for me, it just works for the majority of things I play. Halo Wars2, Doom Eternal, Resident Evil 7, Apex Legends (Though this is dampened by needing to connect to the server) and Gears 5 are games that I haven't seen a load screen for in a while.  Well, not for very long. 

 

I think Microsoft have out and out disabled Quick Resume for some titles because they are working out the kinks in it. 

[Not Thread Owner]

10 minutes ago, gooner4life said:

 

The switch is using sold state storage, it's just not as fast the PS5 or Xbox Series storage.

It’s basically using SD card style flash storage. It needs NVMe.