[plagiarize]

You should notice that in pretty much any film. It's why the 48/60fps revolution in film can't come fast enough.

also 48 fps is just a stepping stone to 60 and higher. they only picked it for the hobbit because a lot of the newest projectors can handle it. Cameron is hoping to go to 60 for Avatar 2.

[StuBurns]

also 48 fps is just a stepping stone to 60 and higher. they only picked it for the hobbit because a lot of the newest projectors can handle it. Cameron is hoping to go to 60 for Avatar 2.

It's not just that.

24fps film has a shutter speed of 48/1, meaning if you film at 48fps with 48/1 shutter speed, you can extract a 'perfect' 24fps version of your 48fps film. If you move to any speed faster than that, you can't produce a correct 24fps print.

[Perkel]

They should change price to minimal FPS with max 60$ for a game.

So 30 fps = 30$ game

Gta4 on ps3 15$

[elcapitan]

For me, it's not a matter of 30 vs 60. Obviously, 60 is the preferable option, but I want absolute stability. I can't stand framerate drops or the weird judder you see with variable framerates. Consistency and stability in either 30 or 60.

[Perkel]

Microsturers are far worse than 30vs60 thing.

[NinjaBoiX]

V-synced 720p30 with 4 x MSAA, a locked fps and draw distance as far as the eye can see.

60 would be nice, but I want image integrity first and foremost. Imagine the above proposition for GTA4? Shit would be next gen out of the box.

[GungHo]

You lose visual fluency with 30fps because games do a poor job of replicating motion at that framerate. So imagine trying to hit a moving target in a dark room with a strobe light on. PC users are more sensitive to it because 60fps is the norm and there's typically no aim assistance on that platform. This is also the main reason why fighting games are 60fps. It's really hard to follow fast action when the framerate is low.

Virtua Fighter and Tekken would become a farce at 30 fps. It doesn't sound like much, but it's really the difference between it being a contest of skill or a contest of chance.

[nincompoop]

They should change price to minimal FPS with max 60$ for a game. So 30 fps = 30$ game Gta4 on ps3 15$

Lords of Shadow free

[Pancakes R Us]

Doesn't bother me. I still can't tell the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS

I thought I couldn't either, until I played Mario Kart 4 player local multiplayer. Drop in framerate was horrendously obvious.

[Shambles]

Looks like I'll continue to live 3 console generations in the future with my PC. Just need to pickup a 120hz monitor still.

[Lord Error]

It's not just that. 24fps film has a shutter speed of 48/1, meaning if you film at 48fps with 48/1 shutter speed, you can extract a 'perfect' 24fps version of your 48fps film. If you move to any speed faster than that, you can't produce a correct 24fps print.

I don't think you can. 24FPS print won't have a correct motion blur at all. It will all look like watching those scenes from Gladiator where there wasn't any motion blur.

[StuBurns]

I don't think you can. 24FPS print won't have a correct motion blur at all. It will all look like watching those scenes from Gladiator where there wasn't any motion blur.

Motion blur is dictated by shutter speed, the shutter speed of 24fps films is 48/1, the same as it is for 48fps films. You have the exact same 24 frames captured, you just have an additional 24 between them.

[Gav47]

Legit question: why does no one target 45 FPS? I have extreme trouble differentiating 45 versus 60, and hey, you've got more power for visuals.

I think Intel did some research on this and found that most people can't tell the difference but I can't find an article.
I played half way through Alan Wake at around 47fps before SLi drivers were released and I didn't notice a big difference between it and a solid 60fps.

[Eusis]

I notice a subtle difference going by my memories of Witcher 1, but it's still more than smooth enough. Hell, maybe it wouldn't even be very noticeable if we were on 240hz displays.

[Madao]

60 fps in gaming is treated more and more like 60 fps in TV.

which is a fucking shame. damn people with malfunctioning eyes (this coming from someone who uses glasses and can see the difference between 60 and 30 fps)

[Jezan]

Most Nintendo games on Wii are 60 fps, which is one of the main reasons why the Wii was the only console worth owning this gen. Hopefully that trend continues with the Wii U.

Yeah somehow Nintendo games (most of them) were 60fps!

Please more 60fps less 30fps!

[Unregistered007]

John Carmack is hallucinating.


There are hardly any 60 fps games, and there are LOTs of games which struggle to maintain 30 fps this generation.


Next generation I fear that the game will continue to struggle to hit 30 fps on consoles.

[AwakenedCloud]

I notice a subtle difference going by my memories of Witcher 1, but it's still more than smooth enough. Hell, maybe it wouldn't even be very noticeable if we were on 240hz displays.

Same here, it's a subtle difference with almost everything. If I watch a fighting game on stream or on youtube, it's not a night & day difference from when I actually play.

[Metal-Geo]

John Carmack is hallucinating. There are hardly any 60 fps games, and there are LOTs of games which struggle to maintain 30 fps this generation. Next generation I fear that the game will continue to struggle to hit 30 fps on consoles.

How bad would it be if Sony and Microsoft (and Nintendo?) introduced a "Seal of Quality", so to speak? Would it be a bad idea for the big three to set up a few guidelines or rules their licensees have to follow?

It seems people can get pretty upset when a game becomes inconsistent with its framerate. (And I can't blame them) But I don't think this can be prevented without limiting the developers' freedom.

[Dan Yo]

Anyone who thought otherwise was an idiot. There will always be people who prefer better graphical features at 30fps, than less graphical features at 60fps.

Only because "next gen" platforms are looking like they might be all the much of a leap above what we have now.


The question was, "do you think there will be MORE 60fps games next generation?" And in the event that we get a normal generational leap, the answer is yes, of course there will be. A few generations ago, 60fps was unheard of. The Ps2/Xbox generation introduced 60fps games, and the current generation has more than the last generation.

[AwakenedCloud]

Only because "next gen" platforms are looking like they might be all the much of a leap above what we have now. The question was, "do you think there will be MORE 60fps games next generation?" And in the event that we get a normal generational leap, the answer is yes, of course there will be. A few generations ago, 60fps was unheard of. The Ps2/Xbox generation introduced 60fps games, and the current generation has more than the last generation.

I might be wrong, but weren't most 2D era games 60fps?

[dummydecoy]

They should change price to minimal FPS with max 60$ for a game. So 30 fps = 30$ game Gta4 on ps3 15$

Shit, I would support this model. Let all 15 dollar games go BOMBA.

How bad would it be if Sony and Microsoft (and Nintendo?) introduced a "Seal of Quality", so to speak? Would it be a bad idea for the big three to set up a few guidelines or rules their licensees have to follow? It seems people can get pretty upset when a game becomes inconsistent with its framerate. (And I can't blame them) But I don't think this can be prevented without limiting the developers' freedom.

That's also a good idea! Or like a "Certified 60fps" logo beside the ESRB rating :D. Inconsistent framerates make me rage sometimes, coz I easily get immersed in games and dips in framerate take me out of the "experience." It's like paying for a roller coaster ride and having it chug to a halt at the loop!

[hey_it's_that_dog]

How bad would it be if Sony and Microsoft (and Nintendo?) introduced a "Seal of Quality", so to speak? Would it be a bad idea for the big three to set up a few guidelines or rules their licensees have to follow? It seems people can get pretty upset when a game becomes inconsistent with its framerate. (And I can't blame them) But I don't think this can be prevented without limiting the developers' freedom.

The people who really give a serious fuck about imperfect frame rates are a tiny minority of dedicated gamers and forum posters. No one is going to make business decisions based on their complaints.

[Clint Beastwood]

So then what's the point of new consoles if we're still going to get subHD, 30FPS games?

Console generations are supposed to improve, not stay exactly the same..

[AstroNut325]

So then what's the point of new consoles if we're still going to get subHD, 30FPS games? Console generations are supposed to improve, not stay exactly the same..

PC gaming. It's the only way! You can get amazing graphics, 1080+p, 60+ frames per second and amazing games.

[hey_it's_that_dog]

Only because "next gen" platforms are looking like they might be all the much of a leap above what we have now. The question was, "do you think there will be MORE 60fps games next generation?" And in the event that we get a normal generational leap, the answer is yes, of course there will be. A few generations ago, 60fps was unheard of. The Ps2/Xbox generation introduced 60fps games, and the current generation has more than the last generation.

I think this point was already disputed earlier in the thread.

And I'll ask you this: Why will devs sacrifice other aspects of visuals in favor of 60fps next gen when they didn't this gen? The trade-off between effects/polygons/lighting etc. (which happen to look great in screen shots and web videos) and frame rate will never be "solved" - at least not until we hit seriously diminishing returns in the former. And that's still a few generations away.

So then what's the point of new consoles if we're still going to get subHD, 30FPS games? Console generations are supposed to improve, not stay exactly the same..

We'll probably see fewer sub-HD games, but resolution is just one piece of the graphics puzzle. With enough power there might be new solutions to make lower resolution images look better.

I think the importance of resolution is overstated, partly because it's one of the only objective measures of "teh good grafix" and also because it's been emphasized in marketing. There are so many other aspects of visuals and image quality that are harder to describe but no less important. We'll see improvements in those areas even if we don't see improvements in resolution or framerate.

[Eusis]

Same here, it's a subtle difference with almost everything. If I watch a fighting game on stream or on youtube, it's not a night & day difference from when I actually play.

Well, I actually meant around 45 FPS versus 60 FPS. The 30 FPS a video on Youtube's locked at is a different story, but then Youtube videos also usually look worse than playing the game itself, or is on a different display when it comes to console games so that difference alone makes the FPS difference seem minor unless the video was just crap in the first place.

[LCGeek]

I think the importance of resolution is overstated, partly because it's one of the only objective measures of "teh good grafix" and also because it's been emphasized in marketing. There are so many other aspects of visuals and image quality that are harder to describe but no less important. We'll see improvements in those areas even if we don't see improvements in resolution or framerate.

You're better off showing pictures to show people what graphic improvements are and how they effect each part of rendering. Explaining in this area does little to a crowd that is usually anti technical and all hype when it comes to graphics.

And I'll ask you this: Why will devs sacrifice other aspects of visuals in favor of 60fps next gen when they didn't this gen? The trade-off between effects/polygons/lighting etc. (which happen to look great in screen shots and web videos) and frame rate will never be "solved" - at least not until we hit seriously diminishing returns in the former. And that's still a few generations away.

Some do, some don't. My issue is within certain genres I'm not asking devs if it's 60fps any genre where input is a huge issue like a fighter, fps, or racing you don't do it odds are I'm not buying. Only racer I tolerated at 60fps was pgr the rest I didn't bother with after a few days.

[SPE]

unlikely as few billion tv's out there wont support it. ... also 30fps will be forever.

The frame rate of a game has noting to do with the refresh rate of your TV. Using the 360 as an example, you set the console to output at 1080p/60, and that is what it will always output at. Regardless whether the game runs at 60fps, 30fps, or yo-yos about at variable frame rates, the console will always be sending the TV a new frame every 60th of a second.

[TucoBenedictoPacifico]

Doesn't bother me. I still can't tell the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS

It may be time to see a doctor.

[GungHo]

How bad would it be if Sony and Microsoft (and Nintendo?) introduced a "Seal of Quality", so to speak? Would it be a bad idea for the big three to set up a few guidelines or rules their licensees have to follow?

It would probably be as useless as the old Nintendo "Seal of Quality".

[Eusis]

It would probably be as useless as the old Nintendo "Seal of Quality".

It'd be pointless too: back then Nintendo simply wanted to provide extra assurance that a game was licensed and met their (ridiculous, arbitrary) guidelines, and thus would work with Nintendo products. Nowadays we have something else that does the same exact thing: the console banners. Those simply aren't going to be on unlicensed stuff.

[plagiarize]

It's not just that. 24fps film has a shutter speed of 48/1, meaning if you film at 48fps with 48/1 shutter speed, you can extract a 'perfect' 24fps version of your 48fps film. If you move to any speed faster than that, you can't produce a correct 24fps print.

well, Trumbull has shown that you can very easily get a normal looking 24 fps when you shoot at 120 fps, by blending three frames and skipping the next two. there's some examples on youtube that show his blended frames vs a normal 24 fps shot and it's pretty impossible to tell the difference.

so, if you want to project at 60 fps, shoot at 120, and you've got all bases covered.

i hope that we aren't just getting twice as many frames with a 48/1 shutter speed in the hobbit though, because a big part of the push for going to higher frame rates is about reducing motion blur for the sake of 3D projection. the blurrier each frame is, the harder it is for your brain to resolved fast motion into a 3D image.

lack of motion blur is part of what makes stop motion animation looks so incredible in 3D, and part of why video games really pop in 3D too.

i hope they're shooting the hobbit at higher shutter speeds.

[AstroNut325]

Well, I actually meant around 45 FPS versus 60 FPS. The 30 FPS a video on Youtube's locked at is a different story, but then Youtube videos also usually look worse than playing the game itself, or is on a different display when it comes to console games so that difference alone makes the FPS difference seem minor unless the video was just crap in the first place.

45 frames per second cannot happen because it would create intolerable screen tearing on 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of televisions in the world. TV's are configured to operate at either 50Hz, 60Hz, 72Hz, 120Hz, or 240Hz. So unless your TV is capable of 240Hz refresh rates, 45 frames per second will generate screen tearing that will make you pull your hair out.

[Wonko_C]

45 frames per second cannot happen because it would create intolerable screen tearing on 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of televisions in the world. TV's are configured to operate at either 50Hz, 60Hz, 72Hz, 120Hz, or 240Hz. So unless your TV is capable of 240Hz refresh rates, 45 frames per second will generate screen tearing that will make you pull your hair out.

I think you mean stuttering/juddering, a game can stiill be v-synced at the screen's refresh rate but frame-capped at 45fps, thus creating juddering.

[bangai-o]

Lords of Shadow free

Team Ico game, they pay YOU.

[JaseC]

How bad would it be if Sony and Microsoft (and Nintendo?) introduced a "Seal of Quality", so to speak? Would it be a bad idea for the big three to set up a few guidelines or rules their licensees have to follow? It seems people can get pretty upset when a game becomes inconsistent with its framerate. (And I can't blame them) But I don't think this can be prevented without limiting the developers' freedom.

Microsoft attempted something very similar with the X360, albeit in regard to resolution rather than framerate -- until some time before September 2009, there was a TCR in place that insisted games be 720p native (Halo 3 and the CoD games being among the few exceptions, unsurprisingly).

[MrCunningham]

It'd be pointless too: back then Nintendo simply wanted to provide extra assurance that a game was licensed and met their (ridiculous, arbitrary) guidelines, and thus would work with Nintendo products. Nowadays we have something else that does the same exact thing: the console banners. Those simply aren't going to be on unlicensed stuff.

Actually, for the most part the Nintendo Seal of Quality just meant that the parts that each cartridge was manufactured with wouldn't fry out the innards of your NES. It never really had anything to do with the actual quality of the game itself. Sure Nintendo also had censorship guidelines that went along with it. But it was mostly there for the build quality of the cartridges.

These days, the Nintendo Seal of Quality really means nothing, other than the developer having an official license to make games on their console.

[AngryMoth]

Its always going to come down to a tradeoff between frame rate and rendering capabilities. There's nothing stopping devs from making more 60fps games now, but they choose to prioritise other areas. Until they have excessive power (decades away) or the hardware is more optimised for higher frame rates (I don't know if that's actually a thing) its always going to a question of how they want to spend their resources. Personally I think they're making the right decision; despite what gaf may think the difference between 30 and 60 is too sublet for the average consumer to give a fuck, at least that's my opinion. I am biased though because I have bad eyesight have never been able to tell the difference :P

[StevieP]

Microsoft attempted something very similar with the X360, albeit in regard to resolution rather than framerate -- until some time before September 2009, there was a TCR in place that insisted games be 720p native (Halo 3 and the CoD games being among the few exceptions, unsurprisingly).

Microsoft's own launch titles didn't follow the TCR. It was bunk.

[jett]

Microsoft attempted something very similar with the X360, albeit in regard to resolution rather than framerate -- until some time before September 2009, there was a TCR in place that insisted games be 720p native (Halo 3 and the CoD games being among the few exceptions, unsurprisingly).

lol. I can't believe people still think that was true.