Way too vague a question. what kind of features being cut, what platform is being developed for and how intensive the game is (IE Battlefield-style destruction physics and FX or a top-down platformer with very few hardware-intensive features).

Features are what I give a damn about, not petty things like Frame rate, graphics, Resolution. (While these are important, there is no point in sacrificing important features for the sake of over lavish Frame rate or graphics,) I preferred split screen to 60fps

Quote from: BaconShelf on March 18, 2016, 10:34:49 AM

Way too vague a question. what kind of features being cut, what platform is being developed for and how intensive the game is (IE Battlefield-style destruction physics and FX or a top-down platformer with very few hardware-intensive features).

I mean, it's kinda obvious that he's alluding to Halo 5's lack of split screen in favor of 60fps.

I mean thats is kind of what mainly inspired it, but I had other games in mind too, such as things like Fighting games. There is a high demand for such games to run at consistently high FPS too. I found myself wondering if things have ever had to be cut from those kinds of games for them to run as needed for the competitive crowd.
Dark Souls 1 is another thing that comes to mind becasue of how the framerate goes to hell in certain areas and makes the game more hellish than it already was.

By the way what was the reason Ice Climbers got cut from Sm4sh? does anybody know?

Quote from: BaconShelf on March 18, 2016, 10:34:49 AM

Way too vague a question. what kind of features being cut, what platform is being developed for and how intensive the game is (IE Battlefield-style destruction physics and FX or a top-down platformer with very few hardware-intensive features).

I mean, it's kinda obvious that he's alluding to Halo 5's lack of split screen in favor of 60fps.

Yeah, but he was asking if I was making a game. If it were the choice between sacrificing a consistent frame rate on a PC-based, competitive shooter to have a feature like splitscreen, I'm keeping a framerate. A high frame rate impacts gameplay by allowing twitch reactions - and I would rather have better reactions than a feature I rarely if ever use. I'd rather downgrade my graphical quality for a higher FPS, as FPS actually impacts the gameplay. I've tried playing games on my 360 since I got an XB! and I can't play them for long because the framerate made the game not-fun to play.

So yeah, as a general rule, I'll take a high frame rate at the cost of feature removal.

Well the first thing I'd do is not be a retard and use a framerate dependent physics engine lmao

Then we get to some other questions. If I was making a game like Melee or F-Zero X where the game is fast paced and competitive play revolves around spacing and almost frame-perfect timing on attacking other players/moving just outside their reach, you can get a bit of choppiness happening making 60FPS pretty important if you're catering to a competitive crowd. A limit on AI numbers, polygon count and maybe even reduced support for local MP may be important here.

If I was going for a recreational approach for current gen games (again, let's assume it's a fighting game that's similar to Smash Bros.) I'd be more inclined to prioritize support for 8 player local MP, more on-screen characters and something akin to Brawl's Subspace emissary with better level design over 60 FPS.

In the context of Halo 5's split screen removal, I can see the benefits of having 60 FPS, and it was sort of unforseen that Split screen wouldn't be able to make it in. That being said, if I had a choice between the two, split screen wins every time for me. Reach looked like absolute ass with split screen, but it's still a better experience to be able to get a few friends together and play on the couch, rather than go solo but have an admittedly smooth visual experience.

I'd definitely pick 30 fps over 60 if it meant cutting features

Of course, this depends on the type of game it is

Some games are DEFINITELY better at 60 fps, usually fast paced ones

60 FPS is a nice addition if you can afford it, but you should absolutely put every feature you think should be there into the product first.

This is a ridiculous question with only one right answer.

It really depends on the game. For something like a FPS, Fighting, or Racing game, 60FPS is a MUST.

You NEED those frames for the reaction time as those genres are based around reaction times.

Did you mean: Dark Souls: II?