-
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.
The lack of current-gen console games @ 60 FPS...
- Thread starter Dizzle24
- Start date
civilstrife
Member
Linkzg said:
Aaand we're off!
The reason I used Bioshock as an example is because off that option. The game is decidedly not better in 60 fps. The smoothness kills the cinematic look the game is going for. This, (coupled with the 360's inability to maintain a constant 60) led to this being an option rather than a default.
I maintain (and most non-videophiles would agree) that 60fps isn't always appropriate for every game, Bioshock being a prime example.
Baron Doggystyle von Woof
Member
M3d10n said:
thnx! always wanted to know that.
brain_stew
Member
Dibbz said:
Except it was. It was much better. 60fps was close to becoming the accepted norm on consoles around 2000-2 for PS2 and Dreamcast games. Last generation, had a much, much higher percentage of 60fps games.
BigKaboom2
Member
A good 30 FPS vs. 60 FPS test would be to play the Skate 1 demo, then the Skate 2 demo.
brain_stew
Member
Proc said:
COD: WAW and Mario Kart: Wii were the top two selling titles of 2008. Both ran at 60fps.
rollingstart
Banned
civilstrife said:
Actually, so far we have one person saying that they agree that 60 fps is better in Bioshock. So that's two, including me, saying that Bioshock at 60 fps is better than at 30 fps--clearly it isn't decided, at all.
The reason that Bioshock has that option isn't to maintain a cinematic look, it's to eliminate v-sync. It would just as much nonsense to say Saint's Row 1/2 have the option to keep their cinematic flair as well. Even with the option to lock it at 30 fps turned on, Bioshock on the 360 still had massive amounts of slowdown at times of action. And it also doesn't help your 'cinematic option' argument when that option isn't present in the PC version in any form whatsoever. Again, it's purely because of the 360 (and potentially PS3, but I haven't played that version) hardware limits that these options are present.
brain_stew
Member
brunoa76 said:
The GTA 3 series play better than ever with modern PC hardware. A constant 60fps, high resolutions and massive draw distances make them much more appealing than they ever were. They're like entirely new games.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
Aside from the physics the game looks brilliant at 60.civilstrife said:
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
RobertM said:
Oh damn somebody already quoted your avatar.
infinityBCRT
Member
Well theres really two milestones that we'll hit in the next 2-3 generations of consoles:Nirolak said:
- True 1080p graphics with AA+AF. Something 4x-8x more powerful than the current gen's graphics cards would probably do the trick. It shouldn't be too far off, and since TV resolutions won't be going above 1080p, future GFX cards can put all of their additional processing power into shaders, polygons, etc. once the 1080p@60FPS barrier is hit.
- Raytracing. Once we have hardware that can do 1080p raytracing @ 60 FPS, then the limit on polygon detail will literally be infinite. John Carmack is planning on doing raytracing stuff for id tech 6 (the engine after Rage/Doom 4), so I don't think this is too far off. Intel and AMD are both hard at work at hardware solutions to raytracing as well. The stuff that I've seen that can be done with raytracing is simply amazing.
Minsc
Gold Member
Haunted said:
Framerate article... with the holy grail of framerate comparison software located inside (FPS Compare, towards the bottom there's a direct link to download, only that site has the author's permission so I'm not hot linking to it).
Edit: Here's a description of what it does:
2 Minutes Turkish
Banned
If you see two different games next to each other, one running at 30fps and the other at 60fps.
You'll notice the difference for ever after that.
I can tell 100% when a game runs at 60. Dark Sector and Gears 1 would randomly bump up to 60 when you're tucked in a corner without much geometry on screen at all. Then drop back down once you return to normal play.
You'll notice the difference for ever after that.
I can tell 100% when a game runs at 60. Dark Sector and Gears 1 would randomly bump up to 60 when you're tucked in a corner without much geometry on screen at all. Then drop back down once you return to normal play.
30fps is not smooth. You get double-images/stuttering with 30fps movement on a 60Hz display._leech_ said:
You know, it fascinates me how people can look at the same image and come to drastically different conclusions regarding image quality. To me, while the art in MGS4 was very good, I wouldn't have said the image quality was good, as it was blurred to the point of looking almost out of focus and suffered from typical upscaling artefacts. The framerate was very poor as well. (frequently sub-30fps)Feindflug said:
I see no reason why we shouldn't have all games running at 60fps this generation. The hardware is powerful enough, but most developers seem to be focusing on textures/effects instead.
While it's not something you can show in screenshots (and usually online videos), running at 60fps is a huge improvement to the image quality of any game.
It doesn't matter if it's fast-paced or not, 60fps is always preferable to 30fps. Even the most basic 2D games would benefit from 60fps. (it's actually a huge annoyance of mine that we're seeing 2D games on XBLA/PSN that aren't 1080p or 60fps)
I can't wait for Rage to show everyone how it should be done.
I personally want my games to run as well as they look, I totally love it when games go for 60FPS. Graphics age, framerate does not. I think the Dreamcast has aged really well and that's mainly thanks to all the games running at 60FPS in my opinion.
Honestly have some of you ever seen a 60FPS game and a 30FPS side by side, it's a bloody night and day.
Honestly have some of you ever seen a 60FPS game and a 30FPS side by side, it's a bloody night and day.
abstract alien
Member
You are definitely on some good shit :lolRobertM said:
This gen sucks when it comes to framerates.
Every generation its the same fucking shit, we're promised 60fps games, and we always get 30 for the VAST MAJORITY of titles. You can pack twice as much detail into a game if it runs at 30fps as opposed to 60 or put in half as much work in tweaking your engine. So we won't be seeing 60fps in most games for a good long time.
I strongly suggest that you don't expect that too much or too soon (Intel's most recent efforts yield Enemy Territory: Quake Wars running in 720p@14-29FPS... it was running on a 16-core 2.93GHz system)infinityBCRT said:
You would get 10% of the current number of games though.Tain said:
And several devs would fold.
I don't mind as far as I get LOCKED framerates.
I rather have 60 fps, but if they cannot deliver with it, just give me 30 fps locked. Not higher not lower, LOCKED. I hate the "jumping framerate". I hate it.
Just fire up any Tom clancy's game that has night vision and see the difference between night vision and normal vision
I rather have 60 fps, but if they cannot deliver with it, just give me 30 fps locked. Not higher not lower, LOCKED. I hate the "jumping framerate". I hate it.
Just fire up any Tom clancy's game that has night vision and see the difference between night vision and normal vision
That image means a lot: In videogames, I'll always take quantity over quality.Sega1991 said:That image doesn't mean shit, though. One samurai in that screenshot is probably a like dozen polygons with a 32x32 texture if you zoomed up close enough.nincompoop said:How about 65535 enemies at 60 fps?
I'm pretty sure the 360 and PS3 are more powerful than PS2, so they should be able to handle it.
I just wish stable framerates would be the norm. Nothing pulls me out of a game experience like a sudden framerate drop.
I've come to terms with the fact that game developers would rather make their games look pretty in screens than make them run at 60fps. But for fuck's sake, at least make it so they don't drop below 30.
Well, almost nothing; pop-in bugs me too.
I've come to terms with the fact that game developers would rather make their games look pretty in screens than make them run at 60fps. But for fuck's sake, at least make it so they don't drop below 30.
_Alkaline_
Member
Having just played a few hours of an old favourite, Timesplitters 2 with friends, I can safely say that 60FPS makes a huge difference. It was like a (very nice) slap in the face after playing Halo 3.
Nicer visuals are one thing, but I think if a developer challeneges themselves and is talented enough, both can be achieved. Just look at COD4, the Prime trilogy or F-Zero GX, for instance. All 60FPS games, all absolutely beautiful.
Nicer visuals are one thing, but I think if a developer challeneges themselves and is talented enough, both can be achieved. Just look at COD4, the Prime trilogy or F-Zero GX, for instance. All 60FPS games, all absolutely beautiful.
Dizzle24 said:
It is not a difficult task for current generation game developers to create a 60fps game. However, it is a difficult task for current generation game developers to create a 60fps game that competes graphically with 30fps competition.
There is a tradeoff between graphical fidelity and frame rate. The more polygons and textures in your game, the more negative impact on frame rate.
At a simplified high level*, a 30fps game can have roughly twice as many polys and twice as much texture detail as a 60fps game.
The market, in general, appears to prefer graphical fidelity over frame rate. Some evidence of this is that screenshot and visual fidelity discussions on GAF far outweigh discussions regarding frame rates. Mass market consumers also seem less concerned with frame rate (including less concern about unstable frame rates) in my anecdotal experience, preferring instead visual quality.
It is also much more tangible for publishers to demonstrate graphical fidelity than frame rate, and therefore much easier to use it as a selling point. Given consumer preferences and this ability to play to this preference via visual marketing, it is commercially much more sensible to aim for "better graphics" than "better frame rate" for a lot of games.
Because of this, its unlikely that games aiming for a realistic look will target higher frame rates such as 60fps until realism or near realism itself can be achieved via CPU and GPU capability at 60fps.
A lot of stylised games however will likely increasingly hit 60fps as technology and platform hardware improves as they will increasingly be able to achieve their aesthetic with CPU and GPU capacity to spare.
* there are a lot of factors affecting what the exact impact of more polys and textures will be on frame rate, and it is especially dependent on specific hardware abilities. However for the purposes of this discussion we can make this assumption, and at the very least can state that a 30fps game always has the opportunity to have more polys and texture fidelity than a 60fps whatever the actual factor.
I am starting to think that all games will never run at 60fps or better on consoles. I used to preach turn down the details like it was a PC game but I have noticed that many of the best looking games already run at 60(or are uncharted/killzone/gears). I think that the talent and resources may not be there and that making most of the 30 and below games a steady 60 would take such a large drop off that they would not be competitive.Dizzle24 said:
BlazeHedgehog
Member
VNZ said:
I probably don't have to tell you that there's tons of people out there who want the exact opposite, right?
Besides, I'd argue that it's not so much graphics that bog down framerates nowadays - it's things like physics, complex artificial intelligence, etc. When I see a framerate in a game grind to a halt nowadays it's rarely because there's too much on screen - it's more because of the internals of what is happening on that screen.
You see it all the time. A game will show you a thousand static objects and the framerate is fine, but once it starts treating them as physics objects or gives them AI, the framerate goes to shit because calculating all of that data is too much for the system to handle - but the game is still well within the abilities of the GPU.
Hence my initial comment of "cutting gameplay features".
And while that takes us back to the samurai screenshot again with its 65,000 soldiers or whatever, I'm willing to bet that their AI is ridiculously simple. It certainly doesn't look very fun.