@Ravix Yeah I guess it can be frustrating if people are hung up on a single thing about a game you like, especially if it's a hang up you've managed to get over yourself in the past.
It's all personal preference at the end of the day. If first-person is important to the developer's vision...well so be it, I'm not going to argue against that. And if a game is first-person but everything else about it seems appealing to me, then I'll give it a go. But I think also we have so much choice in games these days that it's very easy to dismiss games based on an individual aspect (I'm not saying this is a good or a bad thing necessarily). Personally I find the terms "rogue-like" and "souls-like" very off-putting as well - they are typically not my genres - but again, I'd be open to trying them in the rare instance that everything else about the game appeals to me.
@Ravix And to throw my two cents in about the first person vs third person discussion, I’m always apt to prefer third person, and never totally understood why, but I think @Buizel may have explained some of it with the depth perception and field of view.
And it’s interesting that I’m the opposite situation to you, where if I look back I realize that many of my favorite games of all time are first person! And yet I now always prefer third person. So somehow I’ve inadvertently trained myself to gravitate that way. I think early in my gaming days I just accepted the fact that first person was the most immersive and rational way to experience something. So I thought nothing of jumping into Skyrim, BioShock, Borderlands, Portal 2, and various walking sims like Gone Home, Everybody’s Gone to the Rapture, What Remains of Edith Finch, and found immense enjoyment in them. At some point, my preferences changed and I think it was maybe Dishonored that first did my head in and felt like it would have been a fun game if I could play it in third person but otherwise I just wasn’t feeling it. And now, I have to admit that a game being first person only does give me pause. I still plan to play the modern Resident Evils, KCD, and probably Indiana Jones, among others. I tried Cyberpunk (which I just didn’t care for) and first person view was part of my hangup, but honestly it was more than just the viewpoint.
My most recent foray into first person was Immortals of Aveum, which I felt was a decent game. (Incidentally I played it in 120 fps with VRR, to circle back to the other topic, and it was nice and smooth, but didn’t make the game noticeably better or easier for me) I do think my reaction time and shooter skills are fairly average, maybe slightly below average.
But thinking about this made me realize how many first person games I actually adore and a good portion of my all-time list is actually FP. Strange to me since now I heavily favor third person games. 🤔
What games did you feel were so unstable at 60 FPS @Th3solution that you chose to play the 30 fps mode instead? I cannot personally say I ever experienced that.
Even games like FF16, which had notorious reports of severely degraded visuals in the 60 fps mode, a fast paced action game like that feels awful in 30 fps, and the visual downgrades people reported were never noticeable enough for me to consider a sacrifice in performance. The only exceptions I make in this regard are handheld / Switch games cause I don't really have a choice (although hopefully the Switch 2 sets us free in that regard). And if it is a turn based game, I don't sweat the performance but in basically every other genre where reaction time matters, I would never willingly choose 30 fps as its an objective downgrade over 60 fps.
But yeah, I agree with your second point. And it is like that with anything. I used to play competitive shooters at 30 fps on a controller, then I started playing them on a keyboard and mouse on a PC at 100+ FPS, and I realise now how I was experiencing these games in the worst possible way, and I find playing shooters in that way despite playing them like that for well over a decade borderline unplayable now, but I didn't at the time know any different, so it didn't feel like I was experiencing the worst version at the time, I just have the context to understand that now.
I know you’ve often said (which is a hot-take but a perfectly defensible one) that PS3 was your favorite generation and the last two gen’s have been a major disappointment.
I don’t recall ever saying that the PS4 generation was a disappointment? I rank it with the PS2 as the second best era of Playstation after the PS3; I couldn’t decide which was better between the PS2 or PS4. The PS4 brought me a lot of joy & the PS2 has a stacked library.
The majority of PS3 was 30 fps — Uncharted, TLoU, Bioshock, Borderlands, inFamous, RDR, MGS4, etc.
As I said earlier, I emphasized that 30fps (imo) doesn’t work for most games today (especially for online multiplayer). I still love the PS360 era very much and as of right now is still the GOAT generation in my eyes (no pun intended). I also said that 30fps can work for some games. Ive even played more 7th gen games this generation than current gen , 30fps for these (now) old games were mostly tolerable, but even back then there were some stinkers.
Did these games not make you motion sick? What changed?
I got motion sick from games back then, but when it came to $ony & M$ exclusives - their games were very optimized and didn’t have the same jank or stutter as third party games. The things that changed is me realizing what FPS was, experiencing PC gaming, and age.
That’s very sad if you’re now unable to enjoy your favorite games due to a reliance on the current gen performance boosts.
I enjoy them very much & still prefer playing them on their original hardware, screw remasters for the most part. If you’re talking about current gen games that are 30fps - as i’ve said some games it can work, but gotham knights was 100% not one of them. Arkham Knight (last gen i know) played almost as smooth as butter.
30fps vs 60fps - in fairness, can be a tough choice depending on game. Steamdeck has a nice middle ground in terms of optimisation, and I've played a few games at 40-45fps locked which was a really nice compromise for both graphical fidelity and frames (Lies of P was a good example, also Monster Hunter World was a terrific experience at 40fps)
@nomither6 Ah, my bad. I remembered that you’d really championed the PS3, but I was mistaken about the two subsequent generations. Regardless, it does sound like PS3 is far and away your GOAT generation for consoles. I’m glad you’ve still been able to enjoy those games at their lower frame rates.
The online aspect of technical performance is definitely a key differentiator. I suspect those that play competitively or that do a lot of first person shooter play are going to have tuned their brains the most to the higher frame rates. Since I almost never play competitively and first person shooters are not amongst my favorite genres, perhaps that’s why the 30 fps doesn’t bother me. Which is interesting since I’m no stranger to actual real-life motion sickness (boats, planes, and long car rides are killers for me)
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
@Pizzamorg The main game that comes to mind now is Jedi Survivor. I played at 30 fps and enjoyed it thoroughly. I had very few issues, crashes, or major performance hiccups, whereas apparently those playing on performance were having a nightmare of a time. I tried the game on performance and it did feel a little unsteady with some frame drops, as I recall, and so I just stuck with 30 fps mode and played the whole game to completion, considering it one of my favorites that year.
I had also tried Hogwarts Legacy on performance and had some stutters. The main reason I stuck with quality mode though was the overall better visuals though. Same for FF7 Remake (and I read the performance mode for Rebirth is/was especially rough). I played FF16 in quality mode too, I think. 😅
In the case of Jedi Survivor, Horwarts, and FF16 I think patching has fixed a lot of the performance mode issues. But those were games I played at launch, pre-patches. I’ve yet to get to FF Rebirth but I think what I hear is that the performance mode only really works decently on the Pro, which I’ve not upgraded to (yet? 😄).
Interestingly with Spider-Man 2 I jumped around from mode to mode, and probably played most of it in the balanced VRR mode but another half of it split between quality and performance. I liked performance mode for it until I’d be climbing around and notice the lesser reflections, so I’d click over to fidelity mode for a while, and vice versa.
Other games recently where I had a choice were no-brainers like Life of Strange True Colors… didn’t need much performance for that game so an easy pick for fidelity mode. 😄
Some games don’t give the option and I don’t think I was able to play Resident Evil remake or Star Wars Outlaws in anything except 60 fps.
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
Ah I get you @Th3solution - I think almost all of the games you described there just launched in rough shape in a general sense, and I'd say that is its own separate conversation beyond the 60 / 30 fps thing (and trust me, I could talk until Christmas about the horrible state of modern game optimisation and the overreliance of tech like DLSS and frame generation being used as a crutch to avoid getting games in their absolute best shape before they are put in a consumes hands).
I guess in my head I was thinking you were more talking about a game that was well polished and in otherwise good shape, but for whatever reason the performance mode exclusively on console just wasn't well implemented in some way.
But yeah, there is also another wider conversation in the other direction here with you talking about the reflections, and like stuff like that doesn't matter to me at all if I have to sacrifice performance. The Rebirth complaints sound very similar to the performance mode complaints for FF16, but again, because I don't really put a premium on visuals, the degradation reported in FF16 never affected me, the performance uplift was worth it for me.
And I think you're probably on the majority side of this to be honest, I think we've seen enough to say the bulk of the average joe audience that makes up most of the revenue probably puts way more premium on the visuals, and doesn't even really actively think about performance unless the game is running so poorly it actively breaks the game. I do think getting the absolute best performance out of your games is more of an enthusiast thing, which is why weirdos like me buy extremely expensive PCs to play Cyberpunk with full raytracing and still play at 100 fps. 😂
@Th3solution Eh, maybe i’m getting motion sickness confused then - maybe it’s eye strain (& headaches) that’s my issue, because now that you’ve mentioned car rides in particular - yeah , i definitely know that feeling & boat rides too. its not the same feeling i get from bad frame games, thanks for the clarity. You’re not wrong about brain tuning to frame-rates either, as someone who likes online multiplayer, once you notice 60 or especially 120 frames, it’s hard to unsee or “unfeel” it!
@Pizzamorg I think we can definitely agree on that broader issue of lack of polish on release. To their credit Sony has typically been really good about that and most of their games are in great shape at launch (exceptions off the top of my head being Days Gone, and just about every PC port this gen 😅)
@nomither6 ah yeah, that does make sense. I think you’re onto something there with it being eye strain (which will result in headaches, which might result in nausea). Which would explain why it could be an acquired problem, because although eye strain is mostly subconscious, there’s definitely part of it that is effort based (trying to concentrate really hard in a fiercely competitive setting online) and also learned from repetition on your eye muscles.
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
I think that the "Early Access" practice needs to be abolished.
It is dumb and it gives NOTHING in terms of better a game.
I treat it like the "Free bonus" in gambling.
Also, why early access when there are so many broken games on release day? So, you can have even more bugs?
Ah and it ruins physical editions because the publisher does not want to put the whole game if they are doing the early access. I mean why make "early access", when some normal physical copies (that are playable) may leak, and the shmucks that bought the early access start crying?
@Zuljaras I can’t imagine there’s too much unpopular about that opinion!
There will be some people who want to try and blast through it, especially to get the platinum, before anyone else I guess.
I pre-ordered Two Point Museum (a very rare occurrence for me) as I enjoy the series and the price wasn’t silly. It had early access but I was too busy with another game to bother with it.
@Zuljaras I have to agree. I play PC a lot and I’m tired of games coming to “early access”. There’s a lot of risk coming with that and I’ve had a couple of games where the creators abandon their project. I just stopped buying EA at that point.
@Zuljaras I’m with you on the early access. I understand the anticipation of a release in some cases, but a few days is hardly worth it to me. Especially, as you say, when you often get a glitchy experience before the standard day 1 patches. And in the worst case scenario, you get a gut-punch where the official release and subsequent patches devastate your save and progress from the early access, as happened to all those poor players with Star Wars Outlaws.
Of course, I’m probably not a good judge of the value of early access because for the vast majority of games I’m going to wait for a sale anyway, so I’m buying many months after launch.
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
Forums
Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions
Posts 1,241 to 1,254 of 1,254
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic