Support NeoGAF

[CyclopsRock]

I feel you. But "60 fps not cinematic " is your opinion well. No need to state it like it is factual. I feel 30 fps is not the ONLY frame rate in video games that can be used for a cinematic feel. Especially when you have movies with like the hobbit at 48 fps and James Cameron pushing 60 fps for the next avatar movies.

Sure thing, I'm just saying the argument isn't invalid, which is the implication of the OP's title, even if you don't agree with it. That doesn't mean it's universally applicable, or even correct.

And you're right, too, about 48fps, but everyone said - even people that preferred it - that it felt totally different. What Cameron and Jackson are trying to do is shift what we consider "cinematic" to be, but they're going against about 80 years of convention. 99.999% of films most people have seen will have been 24fps - it may be a moving target, but it's going to move very slowly!

 

[mechphree]

That's all still in progress, but they were at least be rerendered in the higher 1080 resolution plus maybe whatever else we can add. I highly doubt we'd do them real-time based on our past history with cinematics, so I wouldn't hold my breath for that.

Franklly, the visual fidelity of our PS3 cinematics were pretty fantastic. I'd love to see the gang push beyond that, but it is a pretty high bar to start from! As we get closer to release, etc., we can probably shed some more light on all this.

Sounds good to me. Moving forward though I know this is really far off question do you think the next Uncharted FPS will see a bump this gen? I'm really interested to see how games from last gen will transition to next gen. tomb raider started out at 30 last gen and the DE version was 60 on ps4 so it makes me wonder.

 

[Wasp]

The way I see it is 24fps is a technical limitation of film and TV. The videogame industry shouldn't aspire to copy this limitation in an effort to ape cinema, it should strive to make 60fps standard and make cinema look old fashioned.

60fps is closer to real life and easier on the eyes and therefore it's superior. Since when was it the goal of the videogame industry to mimic cinema instead of real life? I mean, games don't mimic other flaws of cinema such as lens flare, lens dirt and chromatic aberration do they? Wait.

 

[uncleniccius]

I have, took some time before getting used to it and traveled about an hour and a half alone to see it for IMAX HFR, but worth it.

Then did the same for the second movie, but this time with friends. The effect is more subtle in the second movie and I think they all enjoyed it except for one who couldn't tell the difference.

Might do the same for the third one, and I don't even enjoy the movies. It takes time before getting used to things like this, but it just does not make sense for 24FPS to look better aside from people being so conditioned to it.

There have been arguments for it increasing the suspension of disbelief by being able to fill in the gaps with your imagination and things like that, but I really really cannot see that as anything else than an excuse.

I did also get used to it, but it still felt un-natural and reality TV like to me.
Each to their own, but I don't think it will hit it off for a long time.

 

[mechphree]

Sure thing, I'm just saying the argument isn't invalid, which is the implication of the OP's title, even if you don't agree with it. That doesn't mean it's universally applicable, or even correct.

And you're right, too, about 48fps, but everyone said - even people that preferred it - that it felt totally different. What Cameron and Jackson are trying to do is shift what we consider "cinematic" to be, but they're going against about 80 years of convention. 99.999% of films most people have seen will have been 24fps - it may be a moving target, but it's going to move very slowly!

I'll admit it...seeing 48fps on a movie was "jarring" BUT it was just because I wasn't used to it. After watching it for a while it became pretty clear the benefits to the higher fame rate like extremely better looking incorporation of CGI and actually being able to follow fast action scenes and explosions.

 

[hesido]

I approve the OP.

 

[MoonsaultSlayer]

I don't care. Why do you?

30fps vs 60fps, pixel art vs polygons vs triangles(?), black and white vs color.... whatever a developer wants to use based on their vision and/or limitations is fine by me. I'm not a self-entitled internet warrior.

 

[arne]

Sounds good to me. Moving forward though I know this is really far off question do you think the next Uncharted FPS will see a bump this gen? I'm really interested to see how games from last gen will transition to next gen. tomb raider started out at 30 last gen and the DE version was 60 on ps4 so it makes me wonder.

One thing at time!

 

[mechphree]

One thing at time!

Oh snaps, the cat is out the bag I'm calling the next Uncharted 1080p 60fps BELIEEEEEEEEVE! lol

 

[abunai]

I don't care. Why do you?

30fps vs 60fps, pixel art vs polygons vs triangles(?), black and white vs color.... whatever a developer wants to use based on their vision and/or limitations is fine by me. I'm not a self-entitled internet warrior.

Knowing what one enjoys is being self-entitled? smh

 

[Firebrand]

60 FPS is like 1080p; only dogs can see it.

 

[MoonsaultSlayer]

Knowing what one enjoys is being self-entitled? smh

Erm... Trying to stop an "argument" as if you're the only one who is right is though.

 

[Dennis]

Korean soap opera gaming for the lose.

 

[DodgyGeezerFella]

Agree with the OP, but would people consider me fucking stupid if i said horror games work well with 30 FPS ? By that i mean, running at 30 FPS is essentially limiting the amount of information you are seeing on screen, so an enemy darting past you through a corridor or something, you get to see less of them, leaving some of the "what the fuck was that" unknown stuff (in 60 FPS, you have more frame to "see" whatever it was if that makes sense).

Although as always, an option for either to appease everyone would be nice.

 

[Prophet Steve]

That's a bit different, though - that was certainly still rendered at 24fps, even if a lot of the animations were done at 12fps and stepped.



I stand corrected! But isn't that only for character animation? If I recall, there are times when there's stuff happening on the screen that's not 12fps (like fancy effects and whatnot).

Yes, it is only for character animation. Effects in the South Park show are the same though. And there are so many times where they use completely clashing elements with the rest of the show, but they have always done that and it is part of the charm.

If you really want to you could also just have those effects on a lower FPS, but imo a lot of them already look kind of out of place. The cutscenes and art style in the Stick of Truth look absolutely great, but there are plenty of elements that look inconsistent with the TV show, and a lot of them are unavoidable.

I did also get used to it, but it still felt un-natural and reality TV like to me.
Each to their own, but I don't think it will hit it off for a long time.

I don't think it will hit off either for a long time, but I would love it so much to see more HFR movies. Ah well, we'll see what the new Avatar is going to do.

 

[abunai]

Erm... Trying to stop an "argument" as if you're the only one who is right is though.

I'd wager a drive by statement such as 'self-entitled internet warriors' is worse..

I'm okay if you prefer 30fps. I like 60/120fps. They're just video games; knowing what I enjoy doesn't create a sense of self-entitlement. Other people will have different opinions, and that's alright too. No need for the posturing.

 

[Fortinbras]

I hate movies with a higher framerate than 24p. I actually got sick when I watched The Hobbit in 3D/48fps. I had to leave the cinema because of that.

There are games I enjoy more with 60 fps: Fighting games, racing games, fast paced arcade style games like arena shooters.

However: I actually prefer 30 fps for filmic/cinematic action adventure games. I preferred playing Tomb Raider DE with 30 fps and I like playing games like Alan Wake, Last of Us or Uncharted with a locked framerate of 30 fps.

I don't know why. It's just how it is.

 

[mechphree]

I don't care. Why do you?

30fps vs 60fps, pixel art vs polygons vs triangles(?), black and white vs color.... whatever a developer wants to use based on their vision and/or limitations is fine by me. I'm not a self-entitled internet warrior.

I feel you haven't read the OP.

 

[Reckless Onion]

One thing at time!

At least consider making the multiplayer 60fps. When you're in a competitive environment I want an as responsive experience as possible.

 

[mechphree]

At least consider making the multiplayer 60fps. When you're in a competitive environment I want an as responsive experience as possible.

It definitely matters for me as well in competitive games. The input lag really hurts the experience. It's perfectly fine at 30 for single player though if that's the only option.

 

[nkarafo]

60 FPS is like 1080p; only dogs can see it.

You are calling me a dog?

 

[KJRS_1993]

It depends on a game-by-game basis.
I'm sure pretty much every game could be 60fps if the developers wanted it to.
It's just that if 60fps contributes less to the experience than better textures and more effects will then there's no point having it for the sake of it.

60fps in a shooter is understandable and i think we can all agree it's pretty important.
60fps in a slow paced TPS (The Last of Us) doesn't really add as much to the game as prettier graffiks do.

It all depends on what you're making and what're your priorities. The generation after this one, I'll bet developers will continue making games at 30fps, simply because having it any faster doesn't contribute much improvement to their game.

 

[MoonsaultSlayer]

I'd wager a drive by statement such as 'self-entitled internet warriors' is worse..

I'm okay if you prefer 30fps. I like 60/120fps. They're just video games; knowing what I enjoy doesn't create a sense of self-entitlement. Other people will have different opinions, and that's alright too. No need for the posturing.

I'll take either and sometimes I prefer onebover the other (MGR = 60, SotC = 30).

But how often does the argument boil down to "stockholm syndrome", "it's just what they're used to, they don't know any better", "stop living in the past, you plebes" etc? Who's making drive by projections there?

 

[KJRS_1993]

But how often does the argument boil down to "stockholm syndrome", "it's just what they're used to, they don't know any better", "stop living in the past, you plebes" etc?

That kind of argument reflects much poorly on the person chanting it than who they're talking about let's be honest.
It's cool we should have a discussion, but daft shit like that contributes nothing.

 

[Coreda]

The last thread about this wasn't that long ago, where there were some interesting points raised. One is that films are pre-rendered, with smooth motion blur either being captured in-camera or rendered in CG, rather than the on-the-fly rendering of games which is limited by a user's system performance.

The other significant point is that games are controlled by the user, so they need to be responsive and lag can reduce the enjoyment. Games are not a passive form of entertainment so the increased fps helps immersion.

 

[abunai]

I'll take either and sometimes I prefer onebover the other (MGR = 60, SotC = 30).

But how often does the argument boil down to "stockholm syndrome", "it's just what they're used to, they don't know any better", "stop living in the past, you plebes" etc? Who's making drive by projections there?

Er, what? I genuinely don't care if someone enjoys a different set of standards than myself. Where's this Stockholm syndrome and plebeian stuff coming from? I just thought the fact that you claimed people who know what they like/want from video game performance being 'self-entitled' was dumb. Some people prefer 30, some don't.

 

[MoonsaultSlayer]

Er, what? I genuinely don't care if someone enjoys a different set of standards than myself. Where's this Stockholm syndrome and plebeian stuff coming from? I just thought the fact that you claimed people who know what they like/want from video game performance being 'self-entitled' was dumb. Some people prefer 30, some don't.

It's coming from this thread and every thread like it. I'm not commenting on the choice, just those who want to force the standard and think people should never accept 30.

I'm just not sure how my post was taken as "I prefer 30 and you're self entitled if you don't".

 

[eot]

I'll take either and sometimes I prefer onebover the other (MGR = 60, SotC = 30).

But how often does the argument boil down to "stockholm syndrome", "it's just what they're used to, they don't know any better", "stop living in the past, you plebes" etc? Who's making drive by projections there?

SotC is a weird example of a 30 fps game considering it runs at like 20.

 

[abunai]

It's coming from this thread and every thread like it. I'm not commenting on the choice, just those who want to force the standard and think people should never accept 30.

I'm just not sure how my post was taken as "I prefer 30 and you're self entitled if you don't".

Yeah, technological threads on the internet often end up in that awful way..

Well, you did claim that you don't care what the developer of a game produces, and that you aren't a self entitled internet warrior. It just came across as implying that people who do care (i.e. people who know what they would prefer, me for example) are self-entitled. Maybe I made a leap because it's early and I haven't had coffee yet. Shrug.

 

[Kinyou]

60FPS is sooo last year

I want 120 FPS

http://www.blurbusters.com/hfr-120fps-video-game-recording/

 

[Skinpop]

Cutscenes should be 24fps - Filmic, cinematic, whatever.
Gameplay should be 60fps

why does games have to look like cinema? This obsession with aping after film is only hurting gaming. Also 24 fps in games isn't the same as 24fps film, the motion blur in games isn't nearly enough to be "cinematic".

HFR looks great btw.

 

[Haunted]

There is no coherent, objective argument to be made that a lower framerate is superior. None.

more frames = better

 

[ShapeGSX]

I wish people would stop holding on to low framerates being cinematic in general. 24fps shouldn't be acceptable for.... anything.

You people are the reason no theaters around me were showing the Hobbit in 48fps! Embrace the future, you luddites!

I saw it in 48fps, and it was horrible.

 

[Kaleinc]

This discussion is for real? Seems it is.
OK. The perfect case would be infinite (or as many as possible) frames per second in any footage (movie, game etc). But obviously enough such a goal is unachievable due to existing limitations and practical reasons. You see where 24 fps is coming from? - the cheapest way to create a somewhat believable illusion not of an accelerated slideshow but of motion.
About 24 fps being cinematic - this point is invalid. Previous 'cinematic' standard of 16 frames per second doesn't look right when played back at 24 fps (superfast b&w dudes on crack effect) because lazy job was done to adapt the footage. If you want nice experience with 48 fps you need better equipment, special effects, different angles and so on.
A game using 15 animation frames for some action @30 fps will probably look better than the same game @60 fps. Make it 60 animation frames and it's a different story. But it requires more effort aka more $. And better hardware to maintain solid 60 fps.
Besides high framerate makes it possible to recreate both fluid and jerky sequences
meanwhile lower fps fails at fluidity.

Agree with the OP, but would people consider me fucking stupid if i said horror games work well with 30 FPS ? By that i mean, running at 30 FPS is essentially limiting the amount of information you are seeing on screen, so an enemy darting past you through a corridor or something, you get to see less of them, leaving some of the "what the fuck was that" unknown stuff (in 60 FPS, you have more frame to "see" whatever it was if that makes sense).

Although as always, an option for either to appease everyone would be nice.

So 10 fps will make a horror game a pants changing simulator? No. All that needs to be done to

an enemy darting past you through a corridor

is for designer to adjust enemy's speed to achieve desired effect.

 

[BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO]

It's stockholm syndrome, people have been stuck with 30fps and below so long that they're rationalizing reasons to keep it around.

This, who sane person actually wants a game to run at 30 fps?

 

[zoukka]

Korean soap opera gaming for the lose.

Some people care about the gameplay.

 

[nkarafo]

I saw it in 48fps, and it was horrible.

Being able to see more clearly whats going on is horrible? Why?

 

[Mman235]

I don't care. Why do you?

30fps vs 60fps, pixel art vs polygons vs triangles(?), black and white vs color.... whatever a developer wants to use based on their vision and/or limitations is fine by me. I'm not a self-entitled internet warrior.

Because games are objectively more responsive at a higher framerate, and also look better in motion (the state most games are in the vast majority of the time).

 

[KJRS_1993]

This, who sane person actually wants a game to run at 30 fps?

In a utopian land where anything was possible and concessions didn't have to be made, I'm sure nobody would choose to have a game at 30 fps.
But depending on the genre of game - I would rather have a 30fps game look fantastic rather than a not-quite-as-nice looking game but at 60fps.
I wouldn't see the point of having Dark Souls at 60 fps for example, when the resources could be better spent making the game look great.

 

[Nethaniah]

In a utopian land where anything was possible and concessions didn't have to be made, I'm sure nobody would choose to have a game at 30 fps.
But depending on the genre of game - I would rather have a 30fps game look fantastic rather than a not-quite-as-nice looking game but at 60fps.
I wouldn't see the point of having Dark Souls at 60 fps for example, when the resources could be better spent making the game look great.

Dark Souls though looks anything but great and runs at a shoddy framerate, so you get the worst of both worlds, enjoy your 30 fps.

 

[Nzyme32]

I hate movies with a higher framerate than 24p. I actually got sick when I watched The Hobbit in 3D/48fps. I had to leave the cinema because of that.

I think that is more likely because of the 3D at 48fps rather than just 48fps

 

[KJRS_1993]

Dark Souls though looks anything but great and runs at a shoddy framerate, so you get the worst of both worlds, enjoy your 30 fps though.

Congratulations dude, you contributed absolutely nothing to the actual point of the discussion. The internet at large is in awe at your insightful input and well conveyed point.

 

[ShapeGSX]

Being able to see more clearly whats going on is horrible? Why?

Uncanny valley. Things looked too real, and simultaneously fake. The sets and CG looked fake. There was just something off about the whole presentation, that apparently, 24fps can hide in a film.

I don't like turning on motion flow on my TV, either.

That being said, it is possible that the 3D was partially the culprit.

 

[Nethaniah]

Congratulations dude, you contributed absolutely nothing to the actual point of the discussion. The internet at large is in awe at your insightful input and well conveyed point.

Thanks!

 

[EliCash]

I wish people would stop holding on to low framerates being cinematic in general. 24fps shouldn't be acceptable for.... anything.

You people are the reason no theaters around me were showing the Hobbit in 48fps! Embrace the future, you luddites!

Good for games, but not for film.

 

[snoopeasystreet]

I lock all my games to 24fps because

Spoiler

I'm an idiot

 

[Prophet Steve]

HFR The Hobbit Wins. Every time.



The first I hear of HFR compatible 4KTV's, and Bluray players, I am in.

We'd also need HFR media though. And nobody seems to eager to jump on that. Even when you have The Hobbit movies like that in cinema, you still can't get see it in a different way.

I wish they would release it as a paid download or something, I don't think TVs and monitors should have a problem with it or are refresh rates going to be a problem anyway and cause tearing?

 

[Mman235]

Dark Souls though looks anything but great and runs at a shoddy framerate, so you get the worst of both worlds, enjoy your 30 fps.

In the case of console Dark Souls it's more like 20FPS, if that.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

Uncanny valley. Things looked too real, and simultaneously fake. The sets and CG looked fake. There was just something off about the whole presentation, that apparently, 24fps can hide in a film.

I don't like turning on motion flow on my TV, either.

That being said, it is possible that the 3D was partially the culprit.

3D could have been, but another issue that many don't seem to take into account is that the techniques used in film due to the 24 fps standard don't translate as well into 48 fps. Not necessarily an issue of 'hiding'.

 

[Dryk]

The way I see it is 24fps is a technical limitation of film and TV.

It hasn't been a technical limitation of those formats for a while. It's purely a cultural limitation now.

But that doesnt prove wrong that 30 feels more like a movie than 60.