I'd say Destiny being an online only experience for the most part is a much larger part of why it's 30 fps. It played well and felt responsive so I'm not complaining , sure 60 fps would be great but I get the feeling something in the games visuals would suffer a bit for it or it would be unlocked and I'd swear more people bitch about a game running 40-60 fps than 30 locked so maybe they made a wise choice ?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Bungie Explains Why Destiny Is Not 60fps On The PS4 And Xbox One
- Thread starter Lima
- Start date
Considering the sales splits on new games coming out and the current gen consoles taking the vast majority of them it seems like most of the people who actually buy games at/near launch is more than big enough to make sense for any game to be current gen only going forward.
Thankfully that is happening with big games such as Arkham Knight, The Witcher 3, Assassin's Creed Unity, etc. It's too bad that Destiny is shackled by cross-gen. It probably doesn't need to be.
Namerson23
Member
Isn't Destiny the first part in a Trilogy (or series) of games? Does this mean that the next two games will be cross platform as well to adhere to those who played on the previous generation consoles? I'm wondering if this game will have story decisions that carry over to the sequels
Sola Scriptura
Member
This is sad. Make the best possible version for the most powerful console (PS4), then downscale all the others.
James Sawyer Ford
Member
I'm pretty disappointed that they aren't aiming for higher framerate on next-gen consoles. I've played quite a few next-gen releases that look better than Destiny (technically), and run at 60 frames.
I know they're trying to make the experience "consistent", but really, they should aim to improve the framerate for the current-gen consoles because there's no reason why it shouldn't be running at that high of a framerate on PS4, especially if the Xbox One version will be getting to 1080p.
At the very least, if they continue to keep it locked @ 30 frames across all versions, then they need to upgrade the effects for the PS4 version. FXAA is inexcusable IMHO and ruins the image quality. Lack of AF is also disappointing, and they need to add touches like object based motion blur which could really round out the next-gen versions.
Hopefully the final release has some engine enhancements. The Alpha version was OK graphically, but it could look a lot cleaner with some minor touches.
I know they're trying to make the experience "consistent", but really, they should aim to improve the framerate for the current-gen consoles because there's no reason why it shouldn't be running at that high of a framerate on PS4, especially if the Xbox One version will be getting to 1080p.
At the very least, if they continue to keep it locked @ 30 frames across all versions, then they need to upgrade the effects for the PS4 version. FXAA is inexcusable IMHO and ruins the image quality. Lack of AF is also disappointing, and they need to add touches like object based motion blur which could really round out the next-gen versions.
Hopefully the final release has some engine enhancements. The Alpha version was OK graphically, but it could look a lot cleaner with some minor touches.
Conrad Link
Member
Ugh I honestly had no idea Destiny was on the old gen still as well.
Disappointing.
Disappointing.
They've been wanting to make Destiny since ODST came out, and were definitely developing it after Reach in 2010. They probably didn't get the final next gen devkits until late 2012 or early 2013. So what did you think they'd do for almost 2-3 years since their last game shipped?
I think were it not for next gen this game would've been released already. It's been in development for at least 4 years guaranteed. They're not going to throw out the window a lot of sales and all that time spent making the game work on 360/PS3.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
I don't think cross gen has anything to do with it. The dev comment in the OP was a compete non-answer. My intuition is that Destiny is primarily a CPU limited design, which is the one area where the current gen consoles don't stomp all over the last gen consoles.
eddfromtheriver
Banned
Darn XBO bringing the bar down low (on current gen consoles).
eddfromtheriver
Banned
Can you even play say... on your XBO against someone gaming on his PS4?, if so then i'd understand because 30 vs 60 fps wouldn't be fair, but if gamers on their console of choice are only able to battle guys within the same console bubble then... what gives?
No, there's no cross platform play. Design choice on the frame rate. They picked 30, they're sticking with 30. It is what it is.
Well said my friend, well said.
Spoke to Jason about an hour ago while eating chips and salsa. If you read the full interview, and not just the pull quote, he makes it pretty clear that we are taking advantage of each platform's strengths.
That's been the plan from the beginning, and even as late as last week we announced that we were able to bump up the Xbox One resolution, a clear example of our team pushing to take advantage of the native and discrete resources available to us on each console.
Long story short, Destiny looks great, it's tons of fun, and the chips and salsa were a little salty.
That's been the plan from the beginning, and even as late as last week we announced that we were able to bump up the Xbox One resolution, a clear example of our team pushing to take advantage of the native and discrete resources available to us on each console.
Long story short, Destiny looks great, it's tons of fun, and the chips and salsa were a little salty.
ElRenoRaven
Member
This can't be said enough. Frankly that attitude is beyond disgusting I think.
Not surprising one bit.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
Oh, and the original interview, in full, is here: http://venturebeat.com/2014/06/15/how-bungie-came-up-with-the-unique-look-of-destiny-interview/
The article linked in the OP is a small portion of the full transcript.
The article linked in the OP is a small portion of the full transcript.
Halo 5 is 1080p? Source?
NullPointer
Member
I'm pretty sure Bungie is more than happy to be blamed for the current state of Destiny.
After reading the Alpha impressions this weekend, I've been telling everyone that I'm the inventor, founder, and CEO of Destiny.
Smooth? I like many varieties of salsa. Really depends on the application.
For chips, nothing beats a fresh pico de gallo.
HUELEN10
Member
Framerate doesn't mean shit to publishers on the pictures on the back of the box, everything else does. Sad, but it's common.
ElRenoRaven
Member
I can't blame you. You guys earned it. The atmosphere around the game did a complete 180. That's why I still laugh now. People are whining and crying over not being 60fps but when they're playing it they'll forget all about that. Well unless they have a stick so far up their arse that the tip is sticking out their nose.
Smooth works. There's a Mexican restaurant I go to that makes this salsa that isn't chunky, though it has some small pieces of onions and tomatoes, but isn't watery and it's pretty fantastic.
Pico is my go to for parties and get togethers. I might need to make some for the US-Portugal match.
Back on topic, can't wait for the beta.
Cave Johnson
Member
From this reasoning, I even wonder why they bother pushing extra particles and resolution as features for the PS4/X1. Doesn't this make them far from the "same" experience?
The excuses... unbelievable.
The excuses... unbelievable.
Just to preface, I LOVED the Alpha. I can totally see this being my go to game for a long period of time. It is a god damned shame this is a cross gen game. If it wasn't frame rate I'm sure there had to be some compromises to get a functional game in order for the 360 and ps3. I'm curious to see how Bungie is going to support Destiny. Is this going to be like guild wars where we buy stand alone xpacs like guild wars or are we stuck with the copy of Destiny that ships this year. I sincerely hope they go they guild wars route and the expansions would eventually drop support for last gen consoles, it's be a great way to transition to current gen consoles and hopefully allow Bungie to be more ambitious with the game.
James Sawyer Ford
Member
If the Xbox One version is now 1080p, then what does that mean for the PS4 version given the increased power available to that console? It's also 1080p, assumed to be running at the same framerate, which should allow for quite a bit more power to devote elsewhere -- better AA, improved lighting, more post processing (object based motion blur, etc).
Most multiplatform releases however have shown either a resolution or framerate difference between the consoles, and it's quite rare that there's framerate or resolution parity.
If they keep resolution and framerate parity, I would hope the PS4 version has more enhanced effects and IQ.
Dr Mayonnaise
Member
I wish devs would just be honest and say that due to the hardware they had to sacrifice frame rate to get the visual effects they want.
Infinite Xero
Member
Isn't this game supposed to last for 10 years or something like that? PS360 won't even be relevant in 2 years so this game being cross-gen is short-sighted imo.
Why would they do that if the design is only for console ?
They know the CPU is not top of the line on consoles, and they would build a game more dependable on it ? doesn't make sense.
Vire
Member
No, the franchise will span 10 years. Not the game itself, in the contract they detailed 4 different games and expansion packs.
Glorified G
Member
"Halo wasn't, how did that turn out?" would have been more sufficient and saved time.
He's talking about the Call of Duty franchise always saying how they're online MP is 60 FPS.
SPACECADET
Member
i was thinking the same thing. can ps3 play with ps4? 360 with xbo? if that's the case that would make sense and also be another damn cross gen moment.
You can not.
Honestly, after playing the Alpha it felt amazing. If that was 30fps I don't mind at all. Plenty responsive for my tastes. I've never been so impressed with an alpha build before in my life and I've participated in Alphas for WoW, Phantasy Star Universe, Marvel Heroes, HellGate: London, Guild Wars 2, Diablo 3. It is an incredibly polished and well designed game for an Alpha build. Anyone who is seriously upset about not getting 60fps should just play the game its a blast.
Auto-Reply
Member
I always buy a bottle of Maggie Texicana Salsa, don't know if that is distributed in the US!
Chunky all the way!
TetraGenesis
Member
Man, fuck the "same experience". If new gen users get a better more realized experience, they get a better more realized experience.
Pop On Arrival
Banned
what was the point of buying these new systems again if all the shit you're gonna buy is gonna be developed with 8 year old systems in mind? What a fucking joke. Shit doesn't even look good to begin with anyway. PASS.
Well me personally at the time halo 1st came out was a PC FPS elitist and found 30fps quite laughable.
It certainly looks like it should be 60fps but who knows the scale of the larger battles.
Depends on your semantics.
There are a number of aspects of game design, all sorts of knobs, all sorts of decisions right down to how your in-game projectile effects are shaped, regarding how a game can be made suitable to a given framerate. Why does Halo 1 use fairly slow movement, and why do plasma rifle shots have massive trails? Low temporal resolution is a big aspect of that.
Destiny is a huge project. Would cranking Destiny to 60fps make it feel better? Sure, but the exact compromises and design choices to making Destiny as good as it can be at 60fps might be different than those made when you've got a target FPS of 30. If you're trying to develop one game and simply have a it be a multi-platform release, that's a problem; designing the game around 30fps on all platforms and simply having fidelity-per-frame juiced up on some can be a far more reasonable and manageable option than trying to bring the best out of every platform with various sorts of gameplay design targets.
In a sense, yes, the experience is different in terms of fidelity, but the point is that the qualitative target is the same. This isn't a "we're doing it for parity" point in the sense of deliberately gimping the shit out of some versions.
//===============
(And really, I feel like reactions like those seen in this thread are a huge reason that game developers are so obnoxiously opaque about everything.)
//===============
You mean CE should be 60fps?
Halo 1 is pretty heavy on the transparency blending, which the original Xbox isn't that great at largely thanks to its wimpy GPU bandwidth. Environmental surfaces use decent-quality bumpmapping on all lighting responses, which includes diffuse and specularity from both environmental lighting and a decent number of dynamic lights. The game also handles a lot (firing an assault rifle at the wall can spawn well over 100/second) of environmentally-colliding particles, some of which play impact noises as they bounce off of surfaces.
Shading on dynamic objects, and general dynamic object quality, are both pretty low. The game also doesn't have all that high terrain polygon density. But it's doing a lot of stuff which was absolutely insane for a 2001 game. Running at anything resembling a sustained 60fps would have been beyond mindblowing.
That was my first thought, too. It's a shame, as there is a real opportunity to educate a wide audience about developing at 30v60fps, and what that really means. This is something digital foundry ought to be doing with their spare time, rather than analysing bloody trailers: getting into nitty gritty tech talk with devs.
Dave Lang, of all people, had a fairly enlightening bit of chat on the decision between 30v60fps on a giantbomb podcast, or GB East panel, not that long ago that I really enjoyed. He discussed frame times, and how you need to fit all manner of things into those 16.6ms. It was good stuff.