Gaming PlayStation 5

Damien said:
Or if your storage is pretty much full and you don't want to delete another game you're currently playing.
Click to expand...

I'd wrap that up with the hassle of downloading, but yeah, always a pain figuring out what to delete.
 
My PS5 has been switching on by itself recently. Maybe it's a Sony tactic to keep me engaged.
 
CallyRed said:
My PS5 has been switching on by itself recently. Maybe it's a Sony tactic to keep me engaged.
Click to expand...
Does it by any chance coincide with when your tv is turned on? If so you need to go to settings, then system, then HDMI, and disable HDMI device link. It's a system that turns it on with the tv as it assumes we only use tvs for gaming.
If not, then maybe your controller is in a position where the PS button is being pressed.
 
I'm wondering with the Xbox Starfield stuff and FF XVI's frame rate drops if this generation of gaming is not quite delivering on some things people hoped it would. I'm no tech expert, and generally i'm pretty easy to please with this kind of stuff, but I'm just seeing a lot of people complaining about framerate and performance in a lot of games.
 
Irwin99 said:
I'm wondering with the Xbox Starfield stuff and FF XVI's frame rate drops if this generation of gaming is not quite delivering on some things people hoped it would. I'm no tech expert, and generally i'm pretty easy to please with this kind of stuff, but I'm just seeing a lot of people complaining about framerate and performance in a lot of games.
Click to expand...
Its a bit disappointing to be running into these problems this early in the generation, I think thats part of it. Its just started really and it already feels aspirational but not common.
For a long time i'd be pretty forgiving with 30fps and i still am a fair bit on switch or even a series S but its long overdue to become a standard for gaming and premium consoles should be hitting it the overwhelming majority of the time. If it needs to be sacrificed then it needs to be for a good reason. Extra lighting effects, interactable sandwiches generally dont cut it. It makes way too significant a difference to be discarded for a good screenshot or a self indulgent overuse of mediocre assets.
There'll be games with 60 players on screen at once with crazy explosions and massive maps that will struggle to hit it and you'll forgive them because they're doing something new and difficult. Final Fantasy's Godzilla fights probably just about qualify but the rest of the game should be hitting 60fps. Bethesda should do a better job with the space available and make cuts to hit 60fps.
It wont define if either are good or bad games but they both deserve criticism for falling below a pretty reasonable standard.
 
Schmiznurf said:
Does it by any chance coincide with when your tv is turned on? If so you need to go to settings, then system, then HDMI, and disable HDMI device link. It's a system that turns it on with the tv as it assumes we only use tvs for gaming.
If not, then maybe your controller is in a position where the PS button is being pressed.
Click to expand...

I turned that setting off. Annoyed me.

Thats the thing, the remote is kept on a side table, with the ps button facing upwards. Nothing near it, yet the machine will turn it's self on atleast twice a day. I have to unplug it now incase it comes on when I'm out.
 
Irwin99 said:
I'm wondering with the Xbox Starfield stuff and FF XVI's frame rate drops if this generation of gaming is not quite delivering on some things people hoped it would. I'm no tech expert, and generally i'm pretty easy to please with this kind of stuff, but I'm just seeing a lot of people complaining about framerate and performance in a lot of games.
Click to expand...
With these things it's always 50-50 on the hardware vs the software, perhaps it's the case that games are not so well polished these days?
 
caid said:
Its a bit disappointing to be running into these problems this early in the generation, I think thats part of it. Its just started really and it already feels aspirational but not common.
For a long time i'd be pretty forgiving with 30fps and i still am a fair bit on switch or even a series S but its long overdue to become a standard for gaming and premium consoles should be hitting it the overwhelming majority of the time. If it needs to be sacrificed then it needs to be for a good reason. Extra lighting effects, interactable sandwiches generally dont cut it. It makes way too significant a difference to be discarded for a good screenshot or a self indulgent overuse of mediocre assets.
There'll be games with 60 players on screen at once with crazy explosions and massive maps that will struggle to hit it and you'll forgive them because they're doing something new and difficult. Final Fantasy's Godzilla fights probably just about qualify but the rest of the game should be hitting 60fps. Bethesda should do a better job with the space available and make cuts to hit 60fps.
It wont define if either are good or bad games but they both deserve criticism for falling below a pretty reasonable standard.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'd agree with that. Bloodborne was one of the best games of the last generation and that had some big frame rate drops but is still a great game. It's disappointing that this new gen is struggling with one of its big selling points though.
SuperiorXI said:
With these things it's always 50-50 on the hardware vs the software, perhaps it's the case that games are not so well polished these days?
Click to expand...
I'm really looking forward to FF XVI so i'm not slamming it but the interesting thing was that this game has had a healthy development cycle where they were claiming that it would need no patch at launch and that it was really polished. The battles apparently hit a very consistent 60FPS and maybe they guessed people wouldn't care about the frames as much elsewhere.
 
Irwin99 said:
I'm really looking forward to FF XVI so i'm not slamming it but the interesting thing was that this game has had a healthy development cycle where they were claiming that it would need no patch at launch and that it was really polished. The battles apparently hit a very consistent 60FPS and maybe they guessed people wouldn't care about the frames as much elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I guess it comes down to personal preference. A lot of people care a lot about 60fps nowadays, a lot more than used to. I remember back in the ps1/ps2 days people weren't really arsed. I'm not too bothered myself as long as it's not choppy. For me if they can keep it consistently at or above 30 I'm happy.
 
CallyRed said:
I turned that setting off. Annoyed me.

Thats the thing, the remote is kept on a side table, with the ps button facing upwards. Nothing near it, yet the machine will turn it's self on atleast twice a day. I have to unplug it now incase it comes on when I'm out.
Click to expand...

Not got remote play turned on have you?
 
caid said:
Its a bit disappointing to be running into these problems this early in the generation, I think thats part of it. Its just started really and it already feels aspirational but not common.
For a long time i'd be pretty forgiving with 30fps and i still am a fair bit on switch or even a series S but its long overdue to become a standard for gaming and premium consoles should be hitting it the overwhelming majority of the time. If it needs to be sacrificed then it needs to be for a good reason. Extra lighting effects, interactable sandwiches generally dont cut it. It makes way too significant a difference to be discarded for a good screenshot or a self indulgent overuse of mediocre assets.
There'll be games with 60 players on screen at once with crazy explosions and massive maps that will struggle to hit it and you'll forgive them because they're doing something new and difficult. Final Fantasy's Godzilla fights probably just about qualify but the rest of the game should be hitting 60fps. Bethesda should do a better job with the space available and make cuts to hit 60fps.
It wont define if either are good or bad games but they both deserve criticism for falling below a pretty reasonable standard.
Click to expand...

Is this actually a realistic expectation, though? Consoles are not paving the way for the most graphically-intense games; that is PC. PC is where graphics and game performances are at their peak, so if games are being designed to hit 60fps, with improved graphics, on more powerful computers, how can consoles compare?

They just cannot do it. Due to how long consoles are expected to be used without upgrades, they are always going to become outdated. They are not even the most powerful to begin with, so there are always going to be issues with them in reaching max performance. A £500 investment is just not much when compared to what PC prices can reach. I think people need to reign in their expectations a bit.

Cutting content does not seem to be the best way to hit 60fps; in fact, that seems the absolute worst thing you can do.
 
Lecland07 said:
Is this actually a realistic expectation, though? Consoles are not paving the way for the most graphically-intense games; that is PC. PC is where graphics and game performances are at their peak, so if games are being designed to hit 60fps, with improved graphics, on more powerful computers, how can consoles compare?

They just cannot do it. Due to how long consoles are expected to be used without upgrades, they are always going to become outdated. They are not even the most powerful to begin with, so there are always going to be issues with them in reaching max performance. A £500 investment is just not much when compared to what PC prices can reach. I think people need to reign in their expectations a bit.

Cutting content does not seem to be the best way to hit 60fps; in fact, that seems the absolute worst thing you can do.
Click to expand...
I think it should be. I've played quite a few games on PS5, and all of them have been in 60fps. I don't see why it's unrealistic to expect the same quality going forward. 60fps games was a big selling point for the PS5 for me.

The poor performance mode of FFXVI is disappointing. It's especially weird, because they were only developing for one system. They don't have the excuse of having to develop for multiple systems. It seems like the quality mode was the mode they put all of the work into. The performance mode was created late in development. They didn't have enough time to polish it. I hope they improve it over the next couple months.
 
The 60 fps target is, always has been and always will be a design decision. It goes without saying you don't get to have all the bells and whistles, native 4k, raytracing etc and still expect 60 fps on consoles, but that isn't necessary either. Sony's first party games have shown that it's perfectly possible to have stunning, current-gen looking games and still reach that performance target, at least so far. That should be the expectation.

FFXVI clearly falls short. It is a beautiful looking game, but it isn't up there with the best looking games on the system. The fact that it drops below the VRR threshold at 1080p is really poor, there's no way around that. Other games manage to look better, have higher image quality and run better, all at the same time. This one is 100% on the dev team.
 
Irwin99 said:
I'm wondering with the Xbox Starfield stuff and FF XVI's frame rate drops if this generation of gaming is not quite delivering on some things people hoped it would. I'm no tech expert, and generally i'm pretty easy to please with this kind of stuff, but I'm just seeing a lot of people complaining about framerate and performance in a lot of games.
Click to expand...

Agree. The only disappointment I really have with the PS5 is that the overwhelming majority of games on the system are ones which I have to drop stuff in terms of graphics in order for the game to function fluidly.
 
Lecland07 said:
Is this actually a realistic expectation, though? Consoles are not paving the way for the most graphically-intense games; that is PC. PC is where graphics and game performances are at their peak, so if games are being designed to hit 60fps, with improved graphics, on more powerful computers, how can consoles compare?

They just cannot do it. Due to how long consoles are expected to be used without upgrades, they are always going to become outdated. They are not even the most powerful to begin with, so there are always going to be issues with them in reaching max performance. A £500 investment is just not much when compared to what PC prices can reach. I think people need to reign in their expectations a bit.

Cutting content does not seem to be the best way to hit 60fps; in fact, that seems the absolute worst thing you can do.
Click to expand...
Lighting effects aren't content. Games on pc have graphic options so older rigs can hit 60fps by dropping shadow or lighting quality as needed. Its about priorities and hitting 60fps should be a priority.
 
caid said:
Lighting effects aren't content. Games on pc have graphic options so older rigs can hit 60fps by dropping shadow or lighting quality as needed. Its about priorities and hitting 60fps should be a priority.
Click to expand...

Performance mode on consoles should be about always hitting 60fps and quality mode about making it look good at the expense of FPS. That's more difficult on games which aren't held back by the GPU at all times though. As the generation moves to the last few years, the performance mode might start looking a lot worse than quality mode, but that's fine as people would have the choice. There's no chance that the late generation game from the likes of Naughty Dog run at 60fps though as they'll want to make an impression like they did on PS4.

I do think 4k 60fps was always a big ask for this generation and the marketing was going to fail at some point. It's tough for PC's with GPU's costing more than the whole console at times.
 
Balljy said:
Performance mode on consoles should be about always hitting 60fps and quality mode about making it look good at the expense of FPS. That's more difficult on games which aren't held back by the GPU at all times though. As the generation moves to the last few years, the performance mode might start looking a lot worse than quality mode, but that's fine as people would have the choice. There's no chance that the late generation game from the likes of Naughty Dog run at 60fps though as they'll want to make an impression like they did on PS4.

I do think 4k 60fps was always a big ask for this generation and the marketing was going to fail at some point. It's tough for PC's with GPU's costing more than the whole console at times.
Click to expand...
It is but 4k resolution isn't common. 60fps on 1080p or 1440 isn't a big ask at all. If Naughty Dog wants to make a good impression they'll have their gaming running at 60fps.
 
4k/60fps is definitely an unreasonable expectation. But I'll take 1440p/60fps or even 1080p/60fps without complaint, yet we seemingly can't even get that. It's not like the new games are even running at native 4k or anything approaching, they're all using upscaling tech from low internal resolutions anyways.
 
Bebe said:
4k/60fps is definitely an unreasonable expectation. But I'll take 1440p/60fps or even 1080p/60fps without complaint, yet we seemingly can't even get that. It's not like the new games are even running at native 4k or anything approaching, they're all using upscaling tech from low internal resolutions anyways.
Click to expand...
Getting 4k working at all is probably optimistic in some cases in reality. Thats the part of the marketing shtick thats not going to hold up.
 
caid said:
Getting 4k working at all is probably optimistic in some cases in reality. Thats the part of the marketing shtick thats not going to hold up.
Click to expand...

Native 4k doesn't seem to me (with zero relevant expertise) to be worth the cost at all. Just give me a clean looking game at something above 1080p that runs well ffs.
 
Bebe said:
Native 4k doesn't seem to me (with zero relevant expertise) to be worth the cost at all. Just give me a clean looking game at something above 1080p that runs well ffs.
Click to expand...
Its an option and theres no good reason not to have graphics options nowadays really.
Less than half americans have a 4k tv, and you'd expect that to fall off internationally. Thats before you get into your ps5 being attached to your 4k tv rather than one in the spare room. Designing around it as standard is dumb (unless you want to sell 4k tv's i guess), the demands relative to lower resolutions are pretty huge.
I can kind of see why they'd focus on it to be honest. The level of content available in 4k is pretty low and pushing that standard will help elsewhere in their business.
From a consumer point of view an image running at 60fps looks better than one running at 30fps to me pretty much without exception.
 
caid said:
Its an option and theres no good reason not to have graphics options nowadays really.
Less than half americans have a 4k tv, and you'd expect that to fall off internationally. Thats before you get into your ps5 being attached to your 4k tv rather than one in the spare room. Designing around it as standard is dumb (unless you want to sell 4k tv's i guess), the demands relative to lower resolutions are pretty huge.
I can kind of see why they'd focus on it to be honest. The level of content available in 4k is pretty low and pushing that standard will help elsewhere in their business.
From a consumer point of view an image running at 60fps looks better than one running at 30fps to me pretty much without exception.
Click to expand...

This is the salient point imo. I can think of a few exceptions, but they're very infrequent.

I bought a 4k TV shortly after getting my ps5 and honestly I'm not sure it was worthwhile.
 
After seeing the good reviews for FF16 I just ordered one. Bundle was ps5 (cd version), God of War Ragnorok and an extra sony controller for £480 from BT. Was the best deal I could find online but no idea how it stacks up with previous offers over the last 12 months. Never played a God of War game so looking forward to that, even though I probably wouldn't have bought it had it not been bundled in.
 
P-Ro said:
After seeing the good reviews for FF16 I just ordered one. Bundle was ps5 (cd version), God of War Ragnorok and an extra sony controller for £480 from BT. Was the best deal I could find online but no idea how it stacks up with previous offers over the last 12 months. Never played a God of War game so looking forward to that, even though I probably wouldn't have bought it had it not been bundled in.
Click to expand...
Play GOW 2018 first, it has been pushed to 60fps on PS5. Cracking game and a must before Ragnarok.
 
P-Ro said:
After seeing the good reviews for FF16 I just ordered one. Bundle was ps5 (cd version), God of War Ragnorok and an extra sony controller for £480 from BT. Was the best deal I could find online but no idea how it stacks up with previous offers over the last 12 months. Never played a God of War game so looking forward to that, even though I probably wouldn't have bought it had it not been bundled in.
Click to expand...
What @Berbasbullet said. Ragnarok I’d a sequal to the 2018 game and finishes up the Norse Mythology storyline. You should be able to get it pretty cheap.

Enjoy!
 
Berbasbullet said:
Play GOW 2018 first, it has been pushed to 60fps on PS5. Cracking game and a must before Ragnarok.
Click to expand...
esmufc07 said:
What @Berbasbullet said. Ragnarok I’d a sequal to the 2018 game and finishes up the Norse Mythology storyline. You should be able to get it pretty cheap.

Enjoy!
Click to expand...
Cheers both. Some people on Reddit a few months ago were saying the 2018 game is free on ps5. I'm assuming they meant it was on ps plus that month. Do they recycle the monthly games quite often?
 
P-Ro said:
Cheers both. Some people on Reddit a few months ago were saying the 2018 game is free on ps5. I'm assuming they meant it was on ps plus that month. Do they recycle the monthly games quite often?
Click to expand...
It used to be included in the PS Plus collection, but that has expired a while back. It might be on Extra, not sure.
 
Ainu said:
It used to be included in the PS Plus collection, but that has expired a while back. It might be on Extra, not sure.
Click to expand...
It is. I think virtually all games that had been included in PS Plus Collection are now a part of Extra.
 
P-Ro said:
Cheers both. Some people on Reddit a few months ago were saying the 2018 game is free on ps5. I'm assuming they meant it was on ps plus that month. Do they recycle the monthly games quite often?
Click to expand...
Unlike Games with Gold, monthly games aren't recycled but you can play it on the Extra tier. Definitely recommend playing that before Ragnarok and play something else between the two so you don't get burnout
 
Damien said:
Unlike Games with Gold, monthly games aren't recycled but you can play it on the Extra tier. Definitely recommend playing that before Ragnarok and play something else between the two so you don't get burnout
Click to expand...
Ainu said:
It used to be included in the PS Plus collection, but that has expired a while back. It might be on Extra, not sure.
Click to expand...
Cheers for the info.
 
Damien said:
Unlike Games with Gold, monthly games aren't recycled but you can play it on the Extra tier. Definitely recommend playing that before Ragnarok and play something else between the two so you don't get burnout
Click to expand...

Just don't let the game in-between be Final Fantasy XVI because that is also similar.

Highly recommend the Spider-Man games and Ghost is Tsushima
 
In a gaming rut. Finished Horizon: Forbidden West even though it was wank.

Don't know what to try but I need to avoid open world games. All the checklist/collectible shit has me jaded. I need a more centred, less cluttered game. Might try the Dead Space remake. I remember that being linear and tense.
 
Shane88 said:
In a gaming rut. Finished Horizon: Forbidden West even though it was wank.

Don't know what to try but I need to avoid open world games. All the checklist/collectible shit has me jaded. I need a more centred, less cluttered game. Might try the Dead Space remake. I remember that being linear and tense.
Click to expand...

The new Final Fantasy XVI isn't really open world and has a very strong narrative you can just b-line.
 
lilcurt said:
The new Final Fantasy XVI isn't really open world and has a very strong narrative you can just b-line.
Click to expand...
It's strange, I've played games my entire life and bounced off almost every genre and major series at least once but I have never touched a Final Fantasy game. I'm not even averse to Japanese anime stuff. I might try it.
 
Shane88 said:
It's strange, I've played games my entire life and bounced off almost every genre and major series at least once but I have never touched a Final Fantasy game. I'm not even averse to Japanese anime stuff. I might try it.
Click to expand...

It's good, although a big departure from a traditional Final Fantasy compared to other entries, much more of an action game akin to God of War than the more traditional turn-based party combat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.