I’d disagree here — “anything over 30 is a very minor improvement” — that’s far from, I’m afraid. Most games, especially fast paced ones, are a lot better (playable) in 60Hz. That’s why many devs try hard to reach that goal (e.g. MGS, CoD, etc).

The best solution to this ever going debate would be a simple option in game settings. Thus everyone could choose what they prefer — better visuals at 30Hz or smoother (and faster) game play at 60Hz.

Good answer. But perhaps it is time that games could allow us to choose if we prefer better graphics at 30Hz or fluid 60Hz gameplay with reduced visual effects. I’d prefer the latter, especially for action games.

i look thru my eyes everyday, they are human eyes, i can definately see stutters or “pauses” in the image of anything under 45 fps.

i know this is a bit late, but hopefully u will still see this. the good thing about frame rate locking is that maintains a constant frame rate vs a fluctuating rate. as long as the frame rate is at least 24 fps, the human eye wont see pauses in the image. but if u have the frame rate jumping from 24-60fps and everything in between, u can notice the change making the image look less fluid. i, personally, would rather have locked frame rates rather than unlocked. i think the reason the devs choose to lock at 30 is because its a solid frame rate and anything over 30 is a very minor improvement; think the concept of diminishing returns. but i agree it would be nice to be able to lock at different rates other than 30, if one should choose to do so.

Perhaps, it is unreasonable for us to keep asking for full graphics fidelity and 60fps @ 1080p on consoles, which are essentially running high-end, next gen tablet hardware, based on AMD Fusion technology. It seems to have become the gold standard in measuring success in games anymore. Even PC’s with greater hardware than what is in a console have a hard time running these same games at 1080p, AA, AF and all at a consistent 60fps…how is a tablet-console hybrid going to do it? Easy, by dropping post process filtering, shadow resolution detail, the maximum amount of displayable shadow effects, keenly reduced texture resolution in places where people don’t often look, reduced displayable AI/ characters counts on screen at a given time, reducing HDR lighting effects/ dynamic light sources etc.

Everything comes at a cost. The question is, what awesome effects could we have had if they scaled back the resolution and frames, within reason?

Whoa, whoa, I’ll do fine without all that bandwidth! U sure r a debbie downer lol. Nah jk. Massive will eventually talk all about DX12 late next year assuming the game drops at that time…….will be fun to read a full EuroGamer interview.

Looking way too hard into it buddy,

It’s simple, increase productivity, more focus on game design and most of all less bugs. Nothing about 1000teraflops, 4k resolution or 1million bandwidth from cloud.

Great graphics and gameplay has more to do with design than hardware.

That part confused me a bit. Basically the X1 will make use of some advanced tricks from PC……?

Lol! What a troll……hey Derp, pull off that Pony helmet u fool! Lol