Console devs sacrifice fps for graphics...

Why do console devs favor graphics over frame rate?

I can't believe how poorly some games run (dark souls and skyrim on PS3) and it is shameful. Shame on you console devs!

If I ruled the world, if any game dropped below 30 fps during development the graphics quality would be reduced until it ran smoothly.

Who's with me?

I've mentioned stuff related to this before. Back in the old forum with the Legacy board, specifically. N64 "graphics" threads; I'd say that Mario 64 and Wave Race were two of the best looking games on the console because they utilized the strengths of the system and maintained performance....and then people would bring up games that may have looked more "realistic", had more polys, or had more "detail"--but then these games would hover at 20fps or lower and I just think "no, that makes it look ugly."

it would be nice to see the console manufacturers stomp down on this a bit.

minimum of 30FPS during gameplay (24FPS allowed during curscenes).

one thing i always expect from a console game is that it runs well on the console in question. i expect a smooth and consistent experience on a console. 22FPS in places in the GOW vita port is unacceptable for example. it shouldnt be allowed to ship in such a state. the performance bugs in skyrim (mainly on the PS3) are not acceptable. its fixed hardware..the devs should be able to benchmark the game and enhance/tweak as required to hit the target. its all nice having big open worlds with lots of effects and ultra complicated lighting and so on....but if the game runs like crap then whats the point?

i wouldnt demand that all games be 60FPS or anything (in some games thats a big deal...in others not so much....devs discretion). but i do expect a minimum of 30FPS even under very demanding circumstances.