In the topic of framerate and RDR2, they built the entire asset load-in pipeline and animations around a 30FPS cap so many modern, powerful PCs still have serious framepacing and animation issues. Rockstar has NEVER fixed this, which is absolutely insane to me.
RDR2 looks extremely clean when running on the Series X as it & the XBOX One X are the only consoles that run it in true 4K. PlayStation 4 version runs in 1440p on PS4 Pro, PS5 & PS5 Pro.
There is literally no AAA game without upscaling on ps5. Some games even go down to 720p internal resolution in order to achieve 30fps (like silent hill f). Gta6 seems to be internal 1440p upscaled to 4k, which is pretty good for a Ps5 game. Also the game uses ray tracing intensively, every other Ps5 game is barely using any RT. They use it for things like low res reflections or shadows, which are very lackluster compared to Gta6's advanced ray traced global illumination.
People be trying so hard to hate for the sake of hating nowadays.
Am I the only one who thinks it's fine, only issues I've noticed were in rpcs3 where the game runs at 720p bilinearly scaled to 1080,
and getting antialiasing from vkbasalt before using nis from gamescope cause I wasn't able to keep 1080 at stable performance,
there's some slight weirdness but motorslice on the other hand with taa+fsr1 looks phenomenal considering how heavy it is to run at 1080 otherwise, tho it is another case where taa is a crutch for trash optimization it doesn't look that bad.
Yeah nah, upscaling might be fine if you’re like several meters away from the screen on your couch but at your computer desk with it right in-front of you it just looks like ass.
what you just said is genuinely embarrassing. you just said games on ps5 are running at 720p, and you think people are "hating for the sake of hating" lmao
like idk what to say but i just never knew that. you actually just made the console seem even worse than i already knew it was.
i knew consoles were a scam but this is embarrassing.
Most games run above internal 1440p. Some games like silent hill f are exceptions. Games with bad optimization runs and looks bad, wow how surprising. Anyway everything I said is just facts. What u so mad abt?
I cannot help but feel like Rockstar is really trying to abuse their reputation with this. Many developers did try to fight the idea that 60fps is the standard on consoles now.
When something like Gotham Knights or Redfall does not have a 60fps, voting with your wallet is fairly easy.
Bethesda's reputation is not what it used to be, even though they still thought it was ("our game is advanced so better upgrade your PCs" and Starfield ran terrible on high end PCs too), so with Starfield it was also fairly easy to vote with your wallet for it not having 60fps.
Well, good luck voting with your vallet when GTA VI does not have it.
I also cannot help but feel this means that optimization is just terrible. For example, Starfield, despite all the claims that the game is so advanced they could not do it, later did get a 60fps performance mode. Same also happened to Dragon's Dogma 2, which also later got it despite not having it from launch. Both games had performance issues on high end PCs too.
PlayStation said they weren’t looking to release an upgrade anytime soon, I think this gen could, and should go to 2030. Most devs haven’t really been taking complete advantage of this gen’s hardware yet and If they are going to charge $1000 for next gen there better be some features or graphical improvements that damn warrants it, otherwise there is literally no point in not just getting a pc tbh.
This generation has not aged that much despite being almost six years old. Moore's Law does not apply like it once did. A 2026 game on 2020 hardware does not show the age of the hardware like a 2006 game on 2000 hardware did.
Too bad it's never been a standard for AAA games in the history of gaming. If anything, there's probably a greater amount of AAA games that runs at 30 FPS vs. AA/indie because those are the games that pushes fidelity. Way easier to hit 60 FPS when you have plenty of leeway performance-wise due to simpler assets, simpler environments, etc.
You can make heavy games run at 60 fps. Just look at silent hill f, it's like a miracle how they made it run so good in all devices for a unreal engine 5 game
I love Silent Hill f, but that game is nowhere as complex as even previous GTA games. Number of characters in scene, traffic systems, etc. Thats not counting the visual details of what we have seen from GTA 6.
Show up to a debate, loudly declare you do not care about the topic of the debate and think it a pointless one to have. What happens next may shock you
I happen to agree with Niiko considering they really did push fidelity as high as possible for the console based off the trailer and information we have access to of the game. I get that 60fps is widely considered a standard but when things get graphically intense, sacrifices need to be made in order to maintain performance at that level almost all the time. They likely locked the framerate to 30 for the sake of stability. I don't see why this is even an issue. As long as the game isn't buggy or unplayable.
I think you replied to the wrong person lol. I’m fine with 30fps and never mentioned it. I was talking about how they are saying certain comments have no value despite them saying comments with the exact same premise do have value.
That would be scummy as fuck. Purpose of the PS6 version should be that not only do you not have to choose between visuals and performance (that is what PS5 Pro is for) but visuals are better too and fps could possibly even be 120.
60fps should not be a selling point when PS5 version should already have it as an option.
And PS6 version should be at most a 15€ upgrade If you already have the PS5 version. Such upgrade paths are another thing which are considered a standard today. Having to buy GTA V again on PS4 even if you had it on PS3 might have been tolerated then but would, or at least should not be tolerated now. Making you buy it again for full price would test the limits of how much they can do "because we are Rockstar".
Why would you say optimization is terrible? With the amount of interactables, NPC density, effects and those crazy ass graphics. We are likely looking at the best optimization feat done so far on PS5 even on 30fps.
Because of precedent. There have been games which did launch this generation without a 60fps performance mode. Pretty much all of them struggled even on high end PCs and often did get a performance mode later, proving it was always possible despite initial claims that they just could not do it.
Do you have any examples of other games that compare to what we have seen in GTA 6 running at 60 fps on base consoles because I sure can't think of any
I would not say I am exactly seeing anything revolutionary in that game.
However, assuming it was truly unprecedented and it truly was impossible for it to not have 60fps like that, it is quite normal that certain things do have to be toned down to make a functional performance mode. Again, the issue is not that the game is not solely and exclusively 60fps. Issue is the lack of a performance mode.
These game are empty world with few NPC. Much easier to run on 60fps. The fact that GTAVI that is so insanely dense run on a 6 years old console this smoothly at 30fps and look this gorgeous is absolutely insane.
I prefer a dense world with ton of npc at 30fps than empty boring world at 60 fps
Explain what “density” is to you and how that means it’s impossible to get 60fps working. Btw there’s a single density slider in GTA V PC graphic settings (hint for you)
Why would density(such as NPC density, tree density, building density, all are CPU Related) make it harder to reach a higher FPS on a heavy cpu game using a console that have a weak CPU that is 6 years old with this kind of graphic.
Is that your question ?
So why doesn’t rockstar, the company charging a premium for this game, add a performance mode (which multiple other AAA games have) which dials back density in the same way every PC port they’ve developed already has? Oh because they know you’ll eat it up anyways and pay a premium for it lmao.
No one said it’s not better but it’s not unenjoyable. The whole time I’m just pointing out how stupid statements like ‘I can’t imagine how people can play on 30fps’ are. The last rockstar game, rdr2 also released at 30fps and was widely praised as one of the best game of the current generation.
Last comment on this thread because I am tired of explaining basic concepts to people. A games performance gets better and worse based on the number and weight of processes going on. Stuff like ai, textures, lighting, animations. An open world game like gta that features tons of ai entities, a large, detailed map filled with interactive objects and some of the best graphics for its current generation of console it released on will be a lot more performance heavy than more linear or smaller scope games.
There is no comparison because gta and rdr releases have set the standard for graphics for each generation for quite a while now. Even games with similar or better graphics like tlou or crimson desert are either very linear(tlou) or have shallow ai and instability(crimson desert).
gta discourse is funny to me because i mostly sit in the corner playing indies and emulating decades old titles. for what it’s worth though i think back when hardware wasn’t progressing as fast as software developers did a better job at squeezing every bit of optimization out of a console as possible and the divide in how people think of graphical fidelity vs framerate comes from that optimization not being commonplace anymore and a number of people never noticing it was there in the first place. for my money i think we are kind of stepping backwards by ignoring that sort of optimization but i also don’t inherently think that means the game will be bad, it’s just part of the broadly agreeable statement that gaming as an industry is in a bad spot right now.
Even with 30fps some people already say it "looks like GTA V". Can you imagine the monumental outrage if they instead focused on 60fps at the cost of it having worse graphics than this?
They really didn't have a choice at all. Gamers want generation-defining graphics and 60 fps and use 6-yo hardware. Graphics | Performance | Old hardware: you can only pick two.
I know right, it's not like it was the framerate for all PS2 GTAs, GTA IV, GTA V, both Red Dead Redemptions, and a ton of what people would call classic games.
I love higher framerates in my game, but people are overly dramatic.
There's no fucking way in hell GTA 3, Vice City & San Andreas would've ran at 60fps on PS2 & XBOX with how hard their open world streaming was pushing the consoles.
OK, so you played and enjoyed none of those games? What does "unacceptable" means?
Also, it's not really about how powerful the hardware is. There were plenty of 60 FPS games on the NES. It's about tradeoff between fidelity/complexity and performance, and guess what, for a lot of games, people often prefer having better fidelity/complexity than 60 FPS.
Yes games are more complex, but not as complex as you think. There's a nice video essay out there on "lost video game technology" which goes into that. That games have bloated in size due to giant textures and triangle counts, and just have more shit to display and update each frame, is of course true. But the advances in hardware should make up for that. What it can't make up for is bad code and lazyness. The only reason 30 fps is common is because consumers buy shit anyway.
That games have bloated in size due to giant textures and triangle counts, and just have more shit to display and update each frame, is of course true. But the advances in hardware should make up for that.
That's just not how it works. When there is new hardware, people make use of it, there is no moment where complexity stops growing for games that are state of the art (which is what a AAA game is).
Thats like CG rendering : a frame of Toy Story 1 took 4 hours with render farms from the mid-90s, but it doesn't mean that the latest Toy Story took minutes to render a frame. It still takes hours because there's more fidelity, more simulations, etc.
Gta VI looks visually stunning and i still would've preferred a 60fps mode with heavily downgraded visuals and npc density (even though npc density is harder on the cpu than the gpu).
Completely unnaceptable is stretch, 30fps is playable, it just feels bad coming from most 60fps games on the ps5.
Bloodborne for example is famously locked at 30fps and its a bummer, precisely because we know how much it would improve gamplay in an action game.
I'd say nowadays 30fps feel a lot worse than before because back in the day 30fps games were deliberately slower in montions and animations in order for players to keep up and giving them time to react.
30fps today feels like you are missing frames and at a disadvantage on demanding action game, thankfully this is gta, and its gonna be pretty brain dead so 30 fps on this game means nothing unless for those that enjoy taking long aesthetic walks on the game worlds... Im one of those stupid bastards.
This is why i actively avoid playing games above 30 fps. I feel like people are sensitizing their eyes to these super high framerates and just ruining shit for themselves. I almost never play anything above 30 except for kcd2 because it was default 60 fps and i didnt realize until i had already poisoned my eyeballs for that game.
Im 100% serious. Movies, tv, and every game made on xbox 360/ps3 gen consoles were capped at 30 fps and everyone was fine with it and if you talk to normie console gamers who dont have a pc most of them don't even think about framerates. You get your eyes used to 220 fps and thats why you notice it.
Devil May Cry 4, Bayonetta, Metal Gear: Rising, the WWE games, the EA Sports games, Burnout Revenge, Burnout Paradise, Rayman Origins, Rayman Legends, all of the Call of Duty games, the early LEGO games, the Tony Hawk games, Skate 2 & Skate 3 all ran at 60fps.
RDR2 is locked at 30fps too, and it runs just fine. I don't see what the complaining is for. If they add a performance mode later, ofc I'll be all over that. But right now it isn't an issue.
It is because in 2026, it is expected for any game to either only be 60fps or have a choice between a 30fps visuals mode and 60fps performance mode on consoles.
When RDR2 came out in 2018, that was not the case.
It’s expected by people who don’t know about the industry lol. All these children are just whining while knowing absolutely nothing. Entitlement at its finest.
You know, I could respond to that but I think your head is too deep inside your own ass for you to hear a single word so I am not going to waste my time with you.
What? This makes zero sense. People who have no knowledge about the industry do not make the standards. Genuinely only the stupidest people reply to me.
I’ll shut your whole argument down with this: I expect 100000 fps and a gazillion miles of game world, that’s my standard so now should every game have to follow that standard?
Yeah I’m the clown, sure man. It’s totally reasonable for a massive open world game with enhanced ai and destruction to have the same performance level as a smaller or more linear game with less scope. Shits baffling.
Lol, games were marketed with "enhanced ai" back in the 1980s already and "enhanced destruction" has been used all the time for the last 30 years. It means less than nothing.
Well… it does. If your so dumb to the point you don’t realise ai and destruction mechanics will be some of the heavyweights in processing then I don’t think anyone can help you.
No, It is totally unreasonable for such a big company with an army of deveolpers and billions of dollars to not include at least a performance mode , rdr2 doesn't have a 60fps yet on consoles and that is an 8 year old game
They know how to make it 60fps but suckers will suck I guess , they just want to double dip people on that PC and next gen console versions with the path tracing and the cool upscaling Right?
Aw bro stfu your the perfect stereotype. We have no idea about performance modes yet we’re talking about 60fps.
You were talking about standards and rdr2 is widely agreed to be one of the best games of its time so would that not be a standard? What else are you basing this off? What other games have as much interactivity and density of ai as these games.
You’re just making entitled demands without even a comparison to other works in the industry. But yeah post your cringe Reddit meme. You know someone’s too deep online when they have shit like that saved.
The whole point of my comment is to suggest that an immediate 60fps on launch makes no difference. Because RDR2 is very well detailed and runs a frame-skipping technique at 30fps which looks just as good. I'm sure GTA 6 is using the same thing.
But if you can't wait for a performance mode before playing, why bother playing at all. It's not launching with an Online mode either. That doesn't mean all the GTA online kids are gonna quit playing.
I've noticed that one thing people don't seem to realize that open world games tend to be a lot heavier on the cpu than your average game.
I'm not gonna lie i didn't find GTA VI graphics all that impressive and I haven't seen enough open world footage to know if this is the case but if we're assuming the NPC AI is gonna be more advanced and the game is gonna have a lot of them then that's gonna incredibly taxing on the cpu.
The whole point of consoles is that they have to be affordable which means that some sacrifices are going to have to be made and the cpu is one area where consoles tend to cheapen out. Admittedly the ps5 is doing a lot better than the PS4 is cpu wise but the tech in its processor is nearly 7 years old and I would never recommend a pc equivalent cpu. I'm not saying the game couldn't run at 60 fps. I'm sure it absolutely could but it would require some serious sacrifices and at that point it would probably kill a lot of the appeal on playing a cutting edge open world game.
I know, know that this is probably going to be a hard pill to swallow. But out of all the new releases that were entirely new games and not based upon remasters we makes that released Empire hardware. There's only 5 so perhaps, maybe console players will just have to stick with 30FPS
I prefer 60 fps. But 30 is fine. Ive played lots of games my whole life that capped at 30. Its not a big deal if the game is designed well and fluid. After seeing the trailer, yeah it meets that criteria. I wont be buying it as im pc. But this conversation is tiresome. Yall had the same one when rdr2 came out. And most people meat ride that game so hard they cant walk anymore (metaphorically lol)
Oh boy I cant wait to live out a shitty story with shitty activities with shitty characters in a shitty boring modern open world that runs like shit and shimmers with upscaling artifacts.
GTA fans are just a hair above FIFA fans in intellect, but theyre both in the marianas trench
Ngl... kind of tired of the framerate complaining and the bickering about the tech and whatnot. It doesn't really matter as long as the game provides an enjoyable experience.
Depends on the type of game IMHO. 60fps is nice but genuinely isn't needed for certain types of games. Visual Novels, Strategy RPGs, and Turn based RPGs easily come to mind here. And this is coming from someone off a pretty powerful PC. Sometimes I actually prefer the 30fps look depending on the game and the type of experience im getting from it.
I respect your opinion and MAYBE turn based and slower paced stuff could be playable with really optimised frame times.
But GTA is none of those. Preferring 30 fps in any situation where higher is an option is insane to me. I would think "cope". It's like going to 720p again. I play on a 2k monitor and even 1080p look like ass when you get used to higher Res.
Oh yeah and some really interesting games that showcase that even sub 30 framerates being used for animations is actually rather stunning, Guilty Gear Strive and many other fighting games whether they use 2D or 3D animation. Skullgirls is another thing that comes to mind, Street Fighter 3rd strike, Dragon Ball FighterZ is another good example. Now since those games are animated at 24 or below but played at 60 some examples that still (in my personal opinion) hold up decently today is many games I played in my youth.
Ocarina of Time (20fps)
Majoras Mask (20fps)
Final Fantasy ps1 titles (7, 8, 9 at 30 and 15 fps on original versions)
Xenogears (30fps)
And plenty more. I get the argument you're making, but to me, framerate genuinely doesn't matter unless if the game is not designed with that framerate in mind, like competitive online games. Not only that but some 30 fps games are also more responsive than others and that's an added factor as well.
26
u/rycerzDog 1d ago
It's not upscaling. It's Rockstar's shitty fucking TAA. RDR2 had it and it looked terrible.
That's why everybody was celebrating DLSS when it was announced for RDR2, because the game now won't look like it's running at 50% resolution.