• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Guerilla: Killzone: Shadow Fall's multiplayer is 60 FPS, singleplayer is 30 FPS

C

ChronotriggerJM

Member
ChawlieTheFair said:
Sure, you could make that argument, but what If I start playing MP before I finish SP. Yes you're right, most people will play SP once and never touch it again (me included probably) but if the whole new point of SF's SP is to have open levels with multiple paths to complete the levels, would that not offer more incentive to replay? What about trophy hunters, who are no doubt are gonna have to switch in between the modes often, as well as replay the SP possibly many times.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming that since this is GG, there will be a significant visual increase in the single player. I think everyone will find the tradeoff more than worthy
 
C

ChronotriggerJM

Member
OldAsUrSock said:
If the 60fps trend continues then people will become used to 60fps. Then games that are 30fps will die. I know this gets brought up a lot, but people who play COD say "It feels good." or "Feels better than other games." That is because of 60fps. COD players go back to COD because they like the feel
of 60fps

What? The only difference is that you are not against real players. That is not enough reason to be ok with a choppy framerate.

But a rock solid 30fps looks like 60fps!
Click to expand...

See but many people play COD and think it feels like ass. If the tradeoff to have 60FPS is to drop the resolution and have the game look like ass, count me out. No one played uncharted 2 and thought to themselves "gee, the inherent difference of 33ms and 16ms is night and day!"

I can guarantee most players don't have the reaction time necessary to capitalize on the input differences, it basically is just a visual effect as your control response isn't even linked to the visual refresh rate.
 
Z

zoukka

Member
ChronotriggerJM said:
See but many people play COD and think it feels like ass. If the tradeoff to have 60FPS is to drop the resolution and have the game look like ass, count me out. No one played uncharted 2 and thought to themselves "gee, the inherent difference of 33ms and 16ms is night and day!"

I can guarantee most players don't have the reaction time necessary to capitalize on the input differences, it basically is just a visual effect as your control response isn't even linked to the visual refresh rate.
Click to expand...

Bullshit on every occasion where the game is actually even remotely fast paced.
 
A

antic604

Banned
OldAsUrSock said:
What? The only difference is that you are not against real players. That is not enough reason to be ok with a choppy framerate.
Click to expand...

1st of all, stable 30fps is far from 'choppy framerate'

2nd of all, you understand that 'not real players' in SP have to be simulated by the game, i.e. the AI procedures and in case of KZ they were always very advanced and I'm sure they've even stepped up their game this time. I'm not even going to elaborate on all the set-pieces and more refined graphical effects that are in SP and require additional processing.
 
J

Jack_AG

Banned
ChronotriggerJM said:
See but many people play COD and think it feels like ass. If the tradeoff to have 60FPS is to drop the resolution and have the game look like ass, count me out. No one played uncharted 2 and thought to themselves "gee, the inherent difference of 33ms and 16ms is night and day!"

I can guarantee most players don't have the reaction time necessary to capitalize on the input differences, it basically is just a visual effect as your control response isn't even linked to the visual refresh rate.
Click to expand...

For everyone's info - a higher framerate does not mean lower peripheral or video latency. The render pipeline dictates video latency. A render pipeline like KZ2 was 150+ but spat out frames every 33. Even if KZ2 was spitting out frames at 16.5 the render pipeline would still be 150
 
C

ChronotriggerJM

Member
zoukka said:
Bullshit on every occasion where the game is actually even remotely fast paced.
Click to expand...

Right off hand, do you know what your reaction time is? If you divide 1 by 30, you get .03 of a second, or 33 Milliseconds. If you divide it by 60, it drops to .016 or 16 Milleseconds. On a computer, using a hard-wired mouse, staring at a screen, waiting for a change of color (which is not indicative of any games actual gameplay method where you actually trace targets and such), my average response time is 205 Milliseconds. Which for better or worse, I do quite well in video games, be it shooters or racing games. So with that said, you're claiming that a difference of 16 Milliseconds in a visual only representation is the game changer?
16 milliseconds stacked onto my 205ms response time. Right.

http://reactiongifs.com/?p=1935
 
C

Crisco

Banned
This is probably the best compromise, although they should have left it up to the player. PC gamers have been doing this for year, dial back the graphics settings for max performance in multiplayer.
 
C

ChronotriggerJM

Member
Jack_AG said:
For everyone's info - a higher framerate does not mean lower peripheral or video latency. The render pipeline dictates video latency. A render pipeline like KZ2 was 150+ but spat out frames every 33. Even if KZ2 was spitting out frames at 16.5 the render pipeline would still be 150
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, isn't Turn10 claiming a 360hz input refresh rate in Forza5? I highly doubt they're churning out 360FPS :p
 
P

Phil4000

Member
Definitely picking this up at launch not sure what else is worth purchasing though...
Free DLC, and 60fps 1080p multiplayer sold me...
 
C

ChronotriggerJM

Member
paradise_circus said:
the physics engine is running with 360 fps
Click to expand...

Exactly. People linking control inputs with a games visual refresh rate are misinformed. The whole 30 FPS vs 60 FPS because it affects their ability to play the game is shakey at best. The difference between the 2 for the vast majority of gamer's is purely aesthetic. Your eyes can certainly differentiate the fluidity, but your brain being able to register hand eye coordination at that level is minimal at best. My problem is that everyone keeps lumping all these systems together, which is simply not true, be it the peripheral response, the physics engine, the visual output etc etc .
 
B

Bill Rizer

Member
ChronotriggerJM said:
Exactly. People linking control inputs with a games visual refresh rate are misinformed. The whole 30 FPS vs 60 FPS because it affects their ability to play the game is shakey at best. The difference between the 2 for the vast majority of gamer's is purely aesthetic. Your eyes can certainly differentiate the fluidity, but your brain being able to register hand eye coordination at that level is minimal at best. My problem is that everyone keeps lumping all these systems together, which is simply not true, be it the peripheral response, the physics engine, the visual output etc etc .
Click to expand...

Try play table tennis or do boxe sparring with strobing light. But I don't really suggest the latter.
 
C

ChronotriggerJM

Member
Bill Rizer said:
Try play table tennis or do boxe sparring with strobing light. But I don't really suggest the latter.
Click to expand...

LOL sounds like a catalyst for seizures. I'm not implying that you won't notice a visual difference. Your eyes are certainly capable of discerning minute differences in frame rates. I'm not implying that, I'm simply saying that when a game is spitting out 30 frames in one second, versus 60. The reaction time necessary to perform an action will be identical for the majority of people. 30 frames per second does not render a person useless and unable to perform anything that they would have been able to do at 60 FPS. It's a straw man to overcompensate that they just might suck at the game. If I get my ass handed to me in battlefield, it's not because the frame rate is slower than COD.

60 FPS is most certainly better than 30 seconds for a smoothness factor, and as a visual effect it certainly is pleasing. But I'll argue that it's just that, a visual preference. It's not "necessary" for any type of gameplay, and there's undeniable evidence that pairs 60FPS with ram bottlenecks based on available bandwidth. Shouldn't mean much at the start of this generation as developers are already used to abysmal ram sizes from last gen consoles, but when we start tapping into the resources later this generation, it has the potential to become an issue.
 
R

ReDelicious

Member
OldAsUrSock said:
If the 60fps trend continues then people will become used to 60fps. Then games that are 30fps will die. I know this gets brought up a lot, but people who play COD say "It feels good." or "Feels better than other games." That is because of 60fps. COD players go back to COD because they like the feel
of 60fps

What? The only difference is that you are not against real players. That is not enough reason to be ok with a choppy framerate.

But a rock solid 30fps looks like 60fps!
Click to expand...

If that was a jab at me, I wasn't saying that there wasn't a difference between 30 and 60 fps. I can definitely feel the difference between them and greatly prefer 60 fps. But seeing what appeared to be 60 fps when the fact at the time was it was at 30 fps just confused me so I was trying to find a possible explanation as to why it appeared that way. If I misunderstood you then I apologize.
 
R

Rogue_Ledr

Banned
RoboPlato said:
We did see a new level at E3. We've seen the terrorist attack and the forest. I'm actually glad that they're keeping a lot of the campaign under wraps. They showed way too much of KZ2 and 3 before launch and I can't keep myself away from Killzone media.
Click to expand...

I meant GC, not E3.

The forest level was shown at E3, which was the one I was referring to.
 
R

RoboPlato

I'd be in the dick
ChronotriggerJM said:
I'm assuming that since this is GG, there will be a significant visual increase in the single player. I think everyone will find the tradeoff more than worthy
Click to expand...
I think the number of AI characters (up to 60 in a scene) and larger environments will account for much of the difference. 24 non AI players in smaller areas will be much easier to get to 60. The SP likely could run over 30 at times but is probably v-synched and locked to prevent it from varying wildly.
 
J

Jonboy

Member
SIAP.

Nice to see them continuing to reiterate that 60 is the goal for multiplayer.

We have more horsepower with PlayStation 4 and that means you can do bigger, bolder things. It’s running at 1080p, it’s running far above 30 frames – we’re aiming at 60 – so that’s a very good thing. That’s the first thing people notice just the visuals, the way it feels.

-Steven ter Heide, Game Director
Click to expand...

This info is on the latest episode of the PlayStation blog cast here: http://ec.libsyn.com/p/a/1/0/a10116...1ce3dae902ea1d01cf8f3ed0cf59b4eb&c_id=6106483
 
MaximusPayne

MaximusPayne

Member
542.gif
 
V

VGChampion

Member
Nothing at launch but may be included later on though.

I wouldn't mind XP if it came with nothing but a number reward like the old days of Halo.
 
scoobs

scoobs

Member
notice they won't commit to saying it will actually be 60fps. Sounds like theyre just covering their bases if they can't manage to get to 60
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
German "Handelsblatt" calls Australia a torture state
2
89
7K
Spiral Insanity replied
  • Poll
Guerrilla: Killzone Shadow Fall multiplayer runs at 60 fps "a lot of the time"
0
331
Silky replied
SHOCKING RUMOR: PS4 release date to be announced at Gamescom
2 3 4 5 6
271
42K
Into replied
  • Locked
Killzone Shadow Fall - Campaign also running at 60FPS (?) - German PS-Blog
23
4K
Footos22 replied
  • Locked
PS4 vs XBOX One: Developer Comments Compiled
2
56
20K
PureGone replied
Top Bottom