'Atomic Heart' Dev Shares Next-Gen Performance Targets Ahead Of Game Pass Launch

Woo buddy. Now I'm excited to see this in action. I wonder if they could have gotten away with a 1440p/120hz mode too though.

Seeing the visuals on PC through the gameplay trailers, I would be very surprised of 4k60 even in the dungeon areas without some graphical sacrifices even on the Series X. Nevertheless curious about the gameplay.

Knew it. This game was already gong to feel old with all the time it's taking to make it.

If 4K/60 is "the best" they could manage, I'd hope they have a 1440/120 mode. If not I may have to go PC for this.

60fps just doesn't cut it for me these days. I'd rather play at a lower resolution and higher framerate than vice versa.

No. I can't stand 60fps anymore. Once you play in the triple digits there's no going back.

@grumpypotato Why would it?

120fps makes the game more fluid, reduces latency, and gives you a slight edge while making the game feel more responsive.

All of these together are more than enough reason to sacrifice some other areas.

My PC has a 144hz screen I prioritize 144fps on as well.

And VR can't be anything less than 90 or it starts feeling off.

The way this article is written you'd think this game was exclusive to a subscription service

You can never satisfy some group of people no matter what. A single player game that showed amazing visual flair in UE4 and still managed to hit solid 4k60 and not to mention this game was made with previous generation in mind. Rather appreciating this hard working devs some folks need more. World is full of ungrateful whiners.

@grumpypotato Because higher latency is objectively worse regardless of the game you're playing. There is no way around this.

You're are getting awfully close to the laughable argument people would use about certain games not needing higher frame rate because their console of choice was under powered. All games objectively benefit from higher frame rate.

Now if you subjectively put value on the objective improvement is a different subject all together.

More than anything I'm still impressed they managed a 4k 60fps. That said, just means I will get it on PC where I can run it at 144fps

I dare any person that says they can't see the difference to play a game in VR at 30fps. They will be throwing up faster than they can remove the headset. There's a reason that 90fps is generally the minimum acceptable frame rate for it. And even then higher is much preferred.

@Tonmoy On the flip side, I'd say people are all too willing to settle for worse when they don't have to. Such as a lower frame rate. 60fps at 4K is great if you're stuck on a console. Not all of us are.

@grumpypotato It provides no benefit versus an AI as the AI is not beholden to input latency of a controller nor refresh latency of a screen and can react instantly.

It simply feels better. There is never a situation where added latency is a good thing.

You just seem to take it very personally that other people's priorities may differ than yours.

Lower latency = tighter controls = better feel.

Personally my PC was only about 2x what both my Series X cost so it was easy to justify the price. Especially with PC exclusive, Sony exclusives, VR, videography and other workstation duties.

Not entirely mind you, but my PC has paid for a portion of this cost already. Something a console will be much more hard pressed to do.

@InterceptorAlpha 1440/60 is the normal average of this gen, so i doubt it

@InterceptorAlpha I'd much rather play my SP games at best possible fidelity 4k 60 fps on my oled tv, than make the game look worse just to get more fps. For me fps doesn't matter if the game looks like crap, it can be really immersion breaking.

I will believe it when I see it, otherwise it will be on my PC all the way

@grumpypotato What opinion? My only opinion is I prefer tighter do teols over graphics. Everything else is objective fact.

Nobody said anything about 4k 120fps. Please go back and reread instead of getting so worked up that someone care about frame rate more than sine thing inconsequential like some extra grass being rendered.

Pushing 4K is pointless IMO if yore sacrificing the feel of the game.

At this point you're arguing for the sake of argument with no foundation. Not worth continuing speaking with you at this point.

@Hillmoe If you're find driving a new Honda Civic, that's fine. And I don't judge you for that. Personally I prefer to drive something faster, even if it might be a tad uglier.

@Sixor Eh. I'd argue closer to 1440p/45fps if we're only talking about consoles. Only reason it hasn't been so bad for me is VRR.

@InterceptorAlpha I wouldn't exactly make the claim that best possible graphics at 4k 60 fps is equivalent to driving a Honda Civic. I would rather equal it to driving a Rolls Royce or another luxurious car. You might not drive down the highway so fast that your vision is blurred, but damn you're comfortable.

Now i'm not claming this to be your opinion exactly, but I, as well as others, disagree with the clam that fps trumphs all, no matter how the game looks.

I own a PC and I game on my couch on a oled tv with a controller. If I play a game on a lower resolution than 4K, I can tell that it looks blurry and bad. And that matters way more to me than playing at 100+ fps.

@Hillmoe Nah. Because higher graphics aren't making anything more comfortable. It is only a better paint job and some tasteful mods.

My PC is tied to a 4K, 120hz, OLED, TV, a 27", 1440p, 144hz, LCD, monitor, and two 1920x1832, 120hz, LCD, screens, in my VR headset.

Using DLSS let me run on a lower resolution on any screen if necessary, for my desired frame rate, without appreciable image degradation. Fantastic tool you should look into if you're having such problems.

@InterceptorAlpha That's just your opinion though. You formulate yourself like others are wrong for not sharing the same opinion you have. It would be the same as me saying that you are wrong because 4k 60 is better than 1440 120.

I use DLSS, on all the games that support it. On many games it actually looks better than native resolution. But if I have to choose between max graphic fidelity at 60 fps or lower graphic fidelity at 120 fps. I will lock it to 60 every time, unless I am playing a competitive multiplayer game. Fps isn't everything to everyone.

@Hillmoe This is incorrect.My opinion is that I prefer frame rate over everything else. I respect you opinion to prefer graphics over a higher frame rate.

What is objective fact is higher frame rater makes the game more responsive by way of reducing input lag further. In turn helping remove the latency that the wireless controllers we use introduce. And that can be tightened up further with a wired controller AND the higher frame rate combined. None of this is opinion. It is 100%, verifiable, fact.

@InterceptorAlpha Sure, that is a fact. But that doesnt mean it is better. If you are gaming at 1440p versus 4k you are also missing out on 4,6 million pixels. That is also a fact.
If you prefer framerate over anything else you could also just play on 720p at lowest graphic settings and that will increase your fps immensely and reduce the latency even more. I suspect you don't do that, but why not?

As long it's 60 fps, I'm happy.

@Tonmoy

Get over yourself. Its my opinion and just because it doesn't align with yours doesn't make it wrong. This isn't reddit, if you can't handle opinions, I suggest you go over there where flock mentality is the only right path.

And how exactly is me wanting to play the SAME GAME by the SAME DEVELOPERS but on PC over Xbox indicative of any for of lack of appreciation towards the developers?

Take your fanboy hat off, take some free online courses on understanding the relationship between opinion and fact.