this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2024
81 points (96.6% liked)
Games
16920 readers
814 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
SSD and 60 fps was the biggest perceptible change this gen for me. Going from 1 minute to boot the console, 1 minute to start the game and 1 minute to load a save to just 60s to jump straight into gameplay changes how one interacts with the console.
Similarly, it may not seem like a lot but 30 fps > 60 fps is a 16.66ms difference while 60 -> 120 is 8.33ms difference.
Neither of these change how a game looks. One may argue chasing next gen graphics has lead to poorer image quality (we're looking at 720p upscaled to 4k), so staying same as previous gen but 60 or even 120 fps would've been a much better route in hindsight.
With this knowledge, I feel the next gen might give us 120 and 240 fps games (frame generation might help to ease CPU burden) for cross gen stuff while most games would burn themselves trying to path trace at 720p at 40 fps and abuse upscaling and frame generation to pass it off as 4k120 (yes that's 2 ai frames between 2 real frames)