Capcom Confirms Visual Specs For All Xbox Versions Of Monster Hunter Rise

Nice not to be forced to compromise between framerate and resolution for a change. Looking forward to the game more now.

4k at 60FPS on the Series X it is, wish more studios could do the same.

@Cyberpsycho well it is a game that runs fairly well on Switch so it is easier to target 4k 60 than more demanding games

@Balta666 The series X/PS5 were sold on doing 4k at 60FPS but they conveniently missed out that for most games it was one or the other. Also don't get me started on the claims of 8K lol.
Misleading advertising. I jump on the few games that can offer both.

@Cyberpsycho Heck this is nothing, GPUs in the PC world have been sold on honey dust and neon dreams since the dawn of time. At least with the consoles when they said 4k/60fps in the marketing, most of the time we at least do really get one or the other (so far.) The GPUs have always been the hotel that advertises "scenic views" as it overlooks a landfill.

It's hard in the console space though. For every person that says they want the gen to be about 4k/60 there's a Dezzy70 that wants "next gen defining visuals". You can't get it all. You either get 4k/60 games that look like enhanced Switch games or you get "future tech" looking games that run as 15fps slideshows, or everything else in between that looks like last gen but at 60fps.

My only hope is that we continue getting 60fps modes in games without playing the clearly watered down version of the visuals to do it, as I fear getting 60fps at all is a product of cross-gen, and once we get to "real next gen" releases we'll be right back to games cramming insane visuals in and running at at 18-29fps and everyone praising how cinematic it is.

The developers just push too hard on the machine to have nice textures, full of particle effects , densier foliage and more NPC, better ai and incredible lighting effects but at the cost of frame rate and resolution, just take a Xbox one game and play it on the series x and you will have 4K 60fps, Monster Hunter rise is a switch game so the series x will have no stress at all running this game at 4K 60fps.

@NEStalgia with standard films and blu rays running at 24 fps, 24fps is indeed trully cinamatic.
Gamers need performance well above cinamatic for the best effect, but it depends on the title. Having played games since their inception ive had a lot of decades where you rarely see above 30 fps. Its not a killer for me unless the frame delivery is inconsistant.
It would be great to see 60fps as minimum target, but we are just not there yet! Unless you have a powerfull pc of course, I run a 3090 and dont dip under 60 in any game I play there, though I still much prefer console playing.

120FPS mode?

I wasn't really interested in it. Now I am.

@Titntin If we're not there yet, then we never will be!
It always has been, and always will be, up to the devs to make 60fps happen on any given hardware, and there will always be the option for them to push the graphics/features too far (unless a 60fps option is mandated by the console makers).

If there was ever a time that 60fps wasn't a realistic target, it was before the Dreamcast came out, as 3D games had to keep their poly counts to a bare minimum to achieve 60. Back then, this actually compromised the gameplay itself, as 60fps games had to be very linear or simple in scope. Free-roaming stuff simply wasn't possible without sacrificing performance.

@smoreon I developed games myself right back in the amiga days and onwards, so im very aware of the history. I remember having a budget of 150 trangles to make a car back in the day, and that game ran at 30 fps, or at least targetted that 😀
However, you cant have all the geometry you want with all the global illumination ray traced, realistic physics, good ai and still hit 4k 60fps on todays consoles. Something has to give. Im hoping you can have it all in the future and still hit the res and fps targets we want.
Sorry if I didnt explain it properly first time 👍

I'll go with 1080p 120fps on my Series X.
I've been meaning to buy this for Switch for a while. I guess it's good I waited.

@Titntin People talk a lot about the whole "but 24fps is more cinematic" thing for a long time, but I eventually realized the two major reasons it's different for games, and that same rules don't apply.

The first is display tech. Film is made for a projector of course which has no issues with any frame rate. CRTs never had problems either for the most part, interlacing issues aside. Older LCDs were slow and naturally smoothed over the issues with screen refreshes. Where the issue comes in now is the newer, higher end displays. Fast LCDs tend to introduce a really weird judder with the way they overdrive the crystals to get the fast refresh. OLED I believe has a similar issue, even though it should be CRT-like in theory. It behaves a little differently but in both cases, with slower game refreshes there's a judder where the image kind of jumps back and forth. I remember on the NL Xbox thread arguing with Banjo- about FH4 when it launched and what mode is best. He was 120% all in on 60fps. I went back and forth and insisted that even on my 1080p display I preferred 4k mode because everything looked so much better. We identified the difference came down to the shimmers and jaggies in the foliage. I insisted on playing it in 4k/30 because it just didn't look good without it.

Fast forward to when I upgraded my display to an HDR, 4k IPS LCD with much faster refresh and got my XSX and ran FH4 again with the XSX patch. O_M_G!!! I could not take 30fps AT ALL. The judder is disorienting, headache inducing and just horrible. I could actually see cars oscillating slightly back and forth as they moved past. 30fps just does not work at all.

But that goes to the second reason it's different in games and film both in general, and specifically on these displays with issues: Camera panning! For film cameras pan slowly and fluidly, cuts are sharp and sudden screen changes and motion is captured with a very slow, smooth, deliberate panning speed, otherwise watching the movie would be a nauseating mess. The movement of individual characters or objects is fine and not disorienting, and full screen pans almost never snap around sharply (and scenes that do become benchmarks for AV equipment reviewers for decades.) Games on the other hand, we sharply whip the camera around in circles, non-stop, in non-linear off-axis movements, relentlessly creating a mess of anything but smooth motion. The same reason that 90fps is the bare minimum for VR, anything less at those camera movement ratios are just nauseating.

So for games, I think there's very, very good reasons to have a real true, solid target of always hitting 60fps. Functional reasons that separate it from film.

To @smoreon 's point about it'll never be there, etc, I agree and I think that's up to devs to put their foot down. The point there is we've often been at a point we COULD have had an industry standard moment to target 60, but instead the industry always pushes to make the graphics so much prettier and shinier and more reflections and shadows and particles, and deciding the 30fps compromise is always "good enough", sacrificing animation fluidity in the process....the part that's actually in motion and actually matters more than fidelity for bullshots in PC Gamer. But it's up to the industry to put a foot down and say that 60fps is the important target and dialing the graphics in tune for the hardware to meet that rather than acquiescing to marketing and technophilia that ever prettier stills are worth a tradeoff of breaking animation.

If it continues as is , in another 15 generations of hardware we'll still be stuck with games running 30fps with dips to 25 so we can squeeze that extra gradient of shadows and lighting realism on the water out of it and excusing it as ok enough.

On this side of the pond, our NES games were always 60fps. We went BACKWARD in gameplay and animation smoothness in the name of "prettier graphics" in the 32-bit era and have been stuck there ever since. This gen is the first time we're getting kinda close to standardizing on 60fps. I'd much rather see the industry settle on 60fps forever more, keep the graphics "last gen" and focus on making it run beautifully. It doesn't make for as good marketing, but when the game is really in motion, the animation stands out more than the fidelity of the stills.

Either that or just focus on making games slow panning like a film without really having camera control. I call it "The Naughty Dog Solution"

@Titntin Ah, I get where you're coming from now.
While I'd maintain that there will never be a true plateau where people run out of ways to slow down the performance- er, I mean, add cool features- it is interesting to think about the progression of tech in absolute terms. Because yes, things are always changing, and what's new will eventually be old (relative to the newer stuff), but progress is being made. Text used to be an issue, back in the days of 2 MB ROMs. Non-issue now. Same deal for audio, even in the CD era. Again, largely a non-issue. Large, open spaces were difficult on N64 and near impossible before that. But even that is trivial now, as long as RT and whatnot are kept out of it.
So I agree that all of the things you mentioned (4K, RT, good AI, etc.) will be achievable at the same time someday... in the hands of skilled devs, at least! Of course, there'll always be something new: 8K, 3D/VR, full sand and gravel physics, hair/cloth physics that actually work without glitches, etc. etc.

@NEStalgia So you've seen firsthand how 30fps is worse on some displays than others? I've heard things like this, but never fully understood it, due to my limited experience with new screens.

I've observed how CRTs have extremely crisp motion, where 60fps looks unbelievably, perfectly smooth, and 30fps looks like double vision. And then LCDs narrow the gap a bit, as the blur makes 60fps look less impressive, and I suppose it covers up a bit of the judder of 30fps as well. (And some LCD TVs make all fast motion look like quintuple vision or something.) But overdrive actually makes 30fps even worse somehow?

By the way, I find that N64 games at 30fps are easier on the eyes than modern games at the same rate, but I've only encountered maybe one other person who noticed this.

@NEStalgia
I’m so greedy 😂.
But since playing a lot and messing around with settings in games my totally preferred set up 60fps with VRR engaged on Series x.
The movement of the character you control is more precise. But the main thing for me is when you pan and move around the world. It is so much more less blurry and smooth, also as I play with motion blurry off. Switch to 30fps and it’s a blurred mess panning around and not as smooth. One of my concerned reasons over Starfield maybe only being 30fps.
These new generation consoles are not all that powerful for 2023 at all.

With my Switch I use the power of my LG C2 picture steerings in motion control to help make the smoothness better and less blurry panning around image, it does work and look a lot better but of course nowhere near like Series x 60fps VRR game.

@NEStalgia Whilst I agree on almost everything you have written, I find the difference is how quickly pixels turn off, ie what we used to call 'persistance' back when I made crt screens for HUDs ( yelp, that was 40 years ago! ) OLED switches off almost instantaneously, where older technolgies fade over time.
30 fps obviously has twice the wait between pixel refresh, and on an oled tv that seems to matter. It gives me time to notice 'black' inbetween the frames and gives that' stutter effect.
I run a 3 year old 65 inch Sony x series lcd at the bright end of my room (ps2, ps3, ps5 and Series x attached) and a 48 inch LG c1 OLED at the darker end of the room (2 pcs and a 2nd ps5 attached). This has allowed me to see the difference in how these technologies work with lower refresh rates fairly easily. I used to think those who could not stomach less than 60fps were being 'Primadona's', but when Horizon FW first released, I could play it on the lcd and not notice frame rate badly, but it gave me a headache on the oled, no way I could play at 30 fps on that screen. Obviously I just played at 60 😁 I'll admit Ive not deep dived into tech papers to see if this has been discussed, but it rarely seems discussed or mentioned anywhere I have read.

Im also a big fan of slower paced games, legnthy rpgs and titles where camera movement tends to be cinamaticly moved, and playing these games at slower fps on the lcd is fine, just like watching a 24fps bluray. Faster paced titles where you turn and strafe quickly however, I struggle to view them on the lcd at 30fps, and cant play them at all on the oled untill the frame rate is higher.

Its an interesting subject, and Id like to see a decent tech person with proper measurement equipment, test and discuss this.. for now all I have are my own observations based on a tiny sample size!

@smoreon
Yes my friend, I still dream of a time when you can push for inclusion of every feature in your game engine and still offer full res and high frame rates! It may still be a couple of gens off as no one will be satisfied until we are full path traced lighting, but im still optomistic it will come!
Im getting old now so it better happen in a couple of gens - Im not sure how many more Ill get to see!

Glad coming to gamepass at least. I’ve got about 150 hours on the switch version and don’t really want to do it again. Playing world now finally and it’s awesome if not sometimes confusing with all of its traversal. Can’t wait to see what they do with MH6

@smoreon @Titntin There's a worst case example I found on my display, the Forespoken demo on ps5. Right at the start of the tutorial the camera starts in a valley at 30fps default. If I turn the camera, even slow, there's a massive band maybe 30px wide or more if it's 4k, at the edge of the high contrast light sky and the mountains/trees that flickers like a strobe flash. Any camera movement will produce this flickering band at 30fps. It's instant migraine stuff. 60fps mode? Smooth scrolling, no issues, no flicker band. I'm sure it's some combination of how the hdr is handled, the overdrive for fast refresh, etc. 30fps is entirely unplayable like that. Probably unsafe too.

Pva displays have a different problem, they blur everything to high heaven no matter what and end up with weird artifacts.

OLED maybe is that black pixel issue. It just seems the every type of modern display has some kind of problem with sub 60fps computer generated content. The thousand dollar plus displays have video processing features to offset it. The budget displays are slow and smear everything adding their own motion blur to fix it. And then everything in between just has weird issues. My display is a monitor, eyesight to poor to game across the room, lol, but it's a very nice LG former flagship monitor, so it's not like it's budget tech... Which ironically is the problem, as the old budget display was slow enough to smooth everything out lol... This one's fast and doesn't behave well with slow content. No VRR, it was the flagship before HDMI 2.2, plus none of my switching equipment supports vrr anyway. Technically it has freesync and gsync so if I removed the switching stuff and plugged xsx into it directly I could get sync, but not ps or switch.

It’s one of rare cases Series S runs ar 1440p/60FPS. Can’t ask for more

@NEStalgia Yes, even on my LCD Forespoken was particularly bad - its the type of game that needs 60 and runs much better once you are there.

@Titntin Sadly it's also the type of game that tends not to stay near 60 even in performance because the Luminous Engine remains abhorrently terrible like all of Square's engines. Beautiful as long as it's running on a pair of 4090s... Final build may be better, but I'm not counting on it. It's a miracle it gets near 60fps above 540p unlike FFXV

Fortunately I couldn't stand the dialogue long enough for it to matter, it's the first demo I've ever played where I was relieved that it was over quickly But it's a great tech demo for just how bad displays can handle less than 60fps framerate.

@NEStalgia I turned down the dialogue (it was in accessibility) which made it much better. I actually admire the interesting combat mechanics, though they really needed proper tutorials to help people see its potential, and it would help if anything actually felt impactful!
But yeah, its probably the worst looking game at 30fps I've seen, cant put my finger on why.
Bland as the world looks and poor as the engine is, I kinda want to play the game, I just cant justify full price when I've got both services on the go for plenty of choice..

@Titntin There's a lot wrong with dialogue and the whole characterization/feel. It's like they tried to recreate Spidermiles because Spidermiles is popular and instead created a foul-mouthed belligerent hip-teen that doesn't fit the environment.

But there was enough wrong with the combat and navigation IMO that made it unappealing to me as well. The CONCEPT is great. But the actual implementation.....there's no impact or weight, it's just....actions happening. With long traversal to get to the next action point. I see why comparisons with infamous are made, but it feels very different in part because the "big" world is just there for the sake of being there. Like, navigation is the same as infamous, but Infamous (like Spiderman) is tight spacing, with really well designed environments. Movement-wise I think infamous and Sonic Frontiers actually have a lot in common. Spiderman was a step in the wrong direction (swinging was cool the first hour and annoying time waster the remaining hours), and this kind of takes that Spiderman approach and puts it in the FFXV world but without the car.

I probably will eventually pick it up out of pure curiosity once it's fairly cheap, or maybe it ends up a Plus game at some point. Seems like the kind of candidate that's perfect for it.