Support NeoGAF

[Gangxxter]

30FPS will Always Deliver Better Story-Telling than 60FPS in Games – Heres Why


All the peeps of the Gaming World have been going crazy over 30 FPS and 60 FPS standards this last year. From 60fps/1080p being thought the new Next Gen standard to Ryse downgrades. But there a point many people are missing, one which i hope to shed some light on today, the point that why 30 FPS cant and shouldn’t ever be replaced with 60fps.

30fps vs 60fps – The Magic of Story Telling Lies in Lower FPS, 30 FPS will always deliver a more “Cinematic” Experience than 60FPS.

I am of course making quite a bold claim and the burden of proof lies with me. One which i am more than willing to shoulder. Let me begin by saying that the minimum limit that our brain needs to perceive moving frames as a seamless entity ( a video) is 24 Frames Per Second. This is one of the reason 99% of Movies are shot at 24 FPS. Though this was originally due to Sound Hardware limitation of Old Cinema, it has now become the Cinematic Standard. The 24 fps of the Cinema Industry is roughly equivalent to the 30 fps standard of the Gaming Industry. When you see a video shot at 24 fps / 30 fps there are holes to fill and your brain automatically does this by literally creating stuff out of your imagination : also known as movie magic. The More frames you increase, the less you brain fills in, the less the “magic”.


Proof of Concept: Hobbit 24 FPS vs 48 FPS analogy to the 30FPS vs 60FPS Gaming Standard

So, Notice how the 48FPS video looks, Sped Up, Weird and almost too Real (in a Bad Way) ? That is called the Soap Opera Effect. Because we grew up in a world where reality tv and soap operas were shot at a higher FPS our brains are now hard wired to associate mundane reality with Higher FPS. And i think you can see now what i meant by our brain filling in the gaps at lower FPS. The Original trailer looks magical and truly “Cinematic”. Of course you might be one of the minority who actually like the sped up, but in my opinion that is probably because of the Novelty Value.

30fps vs 60fps

The more Frames Per Second we increase in our Gaming Standards the less “Magical” they will feel.
I remember when playing Alan Wake (at 30fps) that it felt unbelievably like a movie to me, the sudden attacks of darkness and the way everything was moving about, i wonder if the magic would have been there with 60FPS. If i could clearly see how everything moved – probably not. Likewise in Cinema the Smokes and Mirrors fall away with increased fps – and story telling is all about the illusion. Of course some games would actually benefit from higher frames per second like Racing Games and Fighting Games (Tekken) but Games in which story telling is a main part would do better with the 30FPS Standard.

http://wccftech.com/30fps-vs-60fps-30fps-better-story-telling-games/​

can you people finally drop this "60fps is better" nonsense

Total nonsense. This can only come from someone who has never played at 60 fps.

Sooooo, PS4 is the better console than XB1?

 

[bombshell]

Eurogamer reporting it too:

Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition is 60fps on PS4 - report

When's the Polygon article coming?

 

[Frumix]

Man, that "Hobbit looked awful" thing is bullshit.
I still miss when they used to make Kamen Rider at 60i. Rubber bugmen goodness looked butter smooth.

 

[ekim]

Interesting, how big the discrepance is, considering "only" 0.5 TFlops difference between both consoles. I wonder if the ESRAM is a bottleneck here or if the GDDR5 RAM is magic. (or both)

 

[EGM1966]

Not really a surprise if true (not doubting you OP just being PC to avoid ruffling feathers!).

It's going to be a long gen if people keep trying to pretend the actual difference that exists in the consoles' specifications and design approach somehow doesn't exist.

A lot of games will be the same on each, particularly indies/mid-tier titles. Most big titles should have some improvement on PS4 (better fps as here, better resolution, better effects, whatever) and for sure the big Sony exclusives will look better than big XB1 exclusives.

But honestly, unless you have both consoles most titles will still be perfectly playable on XB1 - if you prefer the console/exclusives of MS, like Kinect or the TV stuff then you should go with it and not agonize that the console isn't also the most powerful in specs for games.

Look at the cost difference already - the XB1 design needed Kinect, HDMI in plus they surely had to commit to 8GB RAM early enough on that they had no choice but the route they took. If MS tried to match Sony's late jump to 8GB they would have increased costs further plus had a tricky job re-optimizing and balancing the console's design. For the money you get a decent package just one that's more multi-purpose and less focused on pure power for games.

Games and SDK will improve on both but the power gap will never go away or change much and I hope most people settle down on this before we spend 6 years pretending a new driver or SDK is somehow going to come out that magically changes the situation.

If it's 1080p with a stable enough 30fps on XB1 that'll be perfectly playable.

 

[Femmeworth]

Was the game even designed with 60 FPS in mind?

 

[Chobel]

Performance to specs is not linear. This game dips on the ps4 from 60 fps. I would expect if you lowered the xbone version to 900p the frame rates would be close. Just like assassins creed 4.

What's funny is that if they would have lowered it 900 on the xbone I don't think gaf would have reacted so harshly.

It's not linear but definitely not close to 2:1, heck it's even less than 1:1. And this is not AS 4. So no, going 900p will never get you double framerate..

 

[isb]

Lol at this thread. Played this at 1440p 60 fps. Masterrace etc... carry on

PC-gaf is so retarded sometimes.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

How did I miss this GIF the last time?! LMAO!

LMASO, Shirley?

 

[Xater]

30FPS will Always Deliver Better Story-Telling than 60FPS in Games – Heres Why


All the peeps of the Gaming World have been going crazy over 30 FPS and 60 FPS standards this last year. From 60fps/1080p being thought the new Next Gen standard to Ryse downgrades. But there a point many people are missing, one which i hope to shed some light on today, the point that why 30 FPS cant and shouldn’t ever be replaced with 60fps.

30fps vs 60fps – The Magic of Story Telling Lies in Lower FPS, 30 FPS will always deliver a more “Cinematic” Experience than 60FPS.

I am of course making quite a bold claim and the burden of proof lies with me. One which i am more than willing to shoulder. Let me begin by saying that the minimum limit that our brain needs to perceive moving frames as a seamless entity ( a video) is 24 Frames Per Second. This is one of the reason 99% of Movies are shot at 24 FPS. Though this was originally due to Sound Hardware limitation of Old Cinema, it has now become the Cinematic Standard. The 24 fps of the Cinema Industry is roughly equivalent to the 30 fps standard of the Gaming Industry. When you see a video shot at 24 fps / 30 fps there are holes to fill and your brain automatically does this by literally creating stuff out of your imagination : also known as movie magic. The More frames you increase, the less you brain fills in, the less the “magic”.


Proof of Concept: Hobbit 24 FPS vs 48 FPS analogy to the 30FPS vs 60FPS Gaming Standard

So, Notice how the 48FPS video looks, Sped Up, Weird and almost too Real (in a Bad Way) ? That is called the Soap Opera Effect. Because we grew up in a world where reality tv and soap operas were shot at a higher FPS our brains are now hard wired to associate mundane reality with Higher FPS. And i think you can see now what i meant by our brain filling in the gaps at lower FPS. The Original trailer looks magical and truly “Cinematic”. Of course you might be one of the minority who actually like the sped up, but in my opinion that is probably because of the Novelty Value.

30fps vs 60fps

The more Frames Per Second we increase in our Gaming Standards the less “Magical” they will feel.
I remember when playing Alan Wake (at 30fps) that it felt unbelievably like a movie to me, the sudden attacks of darkness and the way everything was moving about, i wonder if the magic would have been there with 60FPS. If i could clearly see how everything moved – probably not. Likewise in Cinema the Smokes and Mirrors fall away with increased fps – and story telling is all about the illusion. Of course some games would actually benefit from higher frames per second like Racing Games and Fighting Games (Tekken) but Games in which story telling is a main part would do better with the 30FPS Standard.

http://wccftech.com/30fps-vs-60fps-30fps-better-story-telling-games/​

can you people finally drop this "60fps is better" nonsense

I can't tell anymore if this is fake or not. I know there are people on here that probably believe stupid crap like this.

 

[Stone Ocean]

Was the game even designed with 60 FPS in mind?

It's always been 60fps on PC so yeah

 

[Dinjooh]

XB1

PS4

I know which version I'm getting!

Spoiler

None

 

[dr_rus]

It's always been 60fps on PC so yeah

It was ~100 fps on mine

 

[LCfiner]

I was surprised when I first heard that the new "definitive edition" was only going to be 30fps. I thought it was an easy candidate for a 1080p/60 makeover.

It makes more sense that this port will run at (mostly) 60fps on new hardware. PS4 is a decent piece of gaming hardware - especially for its price. As for the xbone, well, it's a severely compromised machine and it's kind of embarrassing that it can't run this at 60.

 

[Femmeworth]

It's always been 60fps on PC so yeah

That's assuming PC was the primary platform.

 

[RoyalLaFlame]

People in general buy a console for play games of their choice, not for better resolution and frame rate.

That's true but for those who only have a Xbox One as their main console... they will have the inferior version. Framerate is king imho and I wouldn't be so pleased with these news.
I buy consoles for their exclusives but I play mostly multiplatform games. Both consoles have great exclusives but I can only buy one for now... and now I know which one.

 

[pixlexic]

It's not linear but definitely not close to 2:1, heck it's even less than 1:1. And this is not AS 4. So no, going 900p will never get you double framerate..

You are the one saying doubling .. It doesn't have to double if the xbone spikes from 30 to 40s and the ps4 dips from 60 to 50s?

 

[gofreak]

What future? In a year from now GPUs will switch to 20nms and new architectures which will be more efficient than current ones which are already more efficient (well, NV's Kepler) than console's GCN.
There is no future where either XBO or PS4 can compete with PC GPUs in anything be it compute or rendering.

I wasn't saying anything like that.

I was saying that it bodes well for PS4 in a future where compute is used more heavily in games, if it can squeeze more 'compute' vs its PC equivalent, because of its design, asides from 'the usual' API improvement. I was very straightforwardly saying that PS4 has 'less' vs PC. Obviously and of course there are and will be much more powerful PC GPUs. But what I was saying was that it may have the scope to surprise relative to its headline specs as games start to thrown in more compute work.

 

[TAJ]

Everyone who is even remotely tech savvy turns that cinemotion stuff off because it looks terrible.

For games, sure.
But for video people who are truly tech savvy use something like the Clear mode or Blur Reduction: 10/ Judder Reduction: 0 custom setting on Samsungs.
They greatly increase motion resolution on LCD-based displays while not introducing any artificial smoothness.

 

[Liha]

30FPS will Always Deliver Better Story-Telling than 60FPS in Games – Heres Why

This makes no sense at all.

 

[Snookie]

Still going to wait for this to go on sale. Pay 50 cents per fps. I think thats fair. Thats ps4 btw. that would be giving it away at that price on the xbone

 

[twobear]

People in general buy a console for play games of their choice, not for better resolution and frame rate.

If the games on Xbone were that much better than PS4 then I guess you could make the argument that it's worth $100 more

As it is, they're just different, so why pay $100 more for different?

 

[RPGamer92]

This thread makes me looking forward to the Watch Dogs and Destiny comparison threads lol

 

[jet1911]

Ha! Well at least it's 60fps on one console, the higher framerate does make a big difference in a game like that. For those of you who will play it for the first time you're in for a treat.

 

[EatChildren]

And how noticeable is the visual bump compared to the PS3 version?
And the PC?

Thanks man.

Compared to PS3? Yes, absolutely. It looks quite a bit better and noticeably so right out the gate than the last generation build.

PC is a tricky one, because it's using effects present in the PC ultra build, but I don't know how many and sampling at what rate. Like it has TressFX, which looks gorgeous, but I don't know how many hair strands it's rendering. I don't know if it's using tessellation at all. It's got a longer draw distance, improved lighting, and denser scenes. Has a few new shaders and systems made specifically for this build, like subsurface light scattering on Lara's skin, and many objects in a scene are no longer hand animated but driven by a physics engine for more dynamic interaction.

I don't see how anybody who's played the 360/PS3 build wouldn't immediately go "this looks a ton better" when seeing the PS4 build, and I assume the Xbone build which apparently looks the same if not identical.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

Not really a surprise if true (not doubting you OP just being PC to avoid ruffling feathers!).

It's going to be a long gen if people keep trying to pretend the actual difference that exists in the consoles' specifications and design approach somehow doesn't exist.

A lot of games will be the same on each, particularly indies/mid-tier titles. Most big titles should have some improvement on PS4 (better fps as here, better resolution, better effects, whatever) and for sure the big Sony exclusives will look better than big XB1 exclusives.

But honestly, unless you have both consoles most titles will still be perfectly playable on XB1 - if you prefer the console/exclusives of MS, like Kinect or the TV stuff then you should go with it and not agonize that the console isn't also the most powerful in specs for games.

Look at the cost difference already - the XB1 design needed Kinect, HDMI in plus they surely had to commit to 8GB RAM early enough on that they had no choice but the route they took. If MS tried to match Sony's late jump to 8GB they would have increased costs further plus had a tricky job re-optimizing and balancing the console's design. For the money you get a decent package just one that's more multi-purpose and less focused on pure power for games.

Games and SDK will improve on both but the power gap will never go away or change much and I hope most people settle down on this before we spend 6 years pretending a new driver or SDK is somehow going to come out that magically changes the situation.

If it's 1080p with a stable enough 30fps on XB1 that'll be perfectly playable.

Yes but that is missing the point by an absolute mile.

 

[justsomeguy]

It's always been 60fps on PC so yeah

was around 25fps on medium on mine

 

[Gangxxter]

Was the game even designed with 60 FPS in mind?

This is nonsense, no game is designed with a "low" (or high in that matter) framerate in mind, it's just designed the way it is. The higher the framerate in the end, the better. End of discussion.

Spoiler

Needless to say they do optimize the engine, graphics effects etc. so they meet at least a minimum framerate on a given platform, but this has nothing to do with the way a game is designed.

 

[kadotsu]

Was the game even designed with 60 FPS in mind?

Is there an instance in which a 60FPS refreshrate has made a real time rendered game worse?

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

Compared to PS3? Yes, absolutely. It looks quite a bit better and noticeably so right out the gate than the last generation build.

PC is a tricky one, because it's using effects present in the PC ultra build, but I don't know how many and sampling at what rate. Like it has TressFX, which looks gorgeous, but I don't know how many hair strands it's rendering. I don't know if it's using tessellation at all. It's got a longer draw distance, improved lighting, and denser scenes. Has a few new shaders and systems made specifically for this build, like subsurface light scattering on Lara's skin, and many objects in a scene are no longer hand animated but driven by a physics engine for more dynamic interaction.

I don't see how anybody who's played the 360/PS3 build wouldn't immediately go "this looks a ton better" when seeing the PS4 build, and I assume the Xbone build which apparently looks the same if not identical.

Interesting. Thanks for the info

 

[badb0y]

Not shocked, called this months ago. Gimme my internet cookie.

 

[TAJ]

I thought The Hobbit looked incredible at 48FPS. Made me wish more films were shot that way.

Same. It's the only reason I wanted to go see that POS again.

 

[Femmeworth]

This is nonsense, no game is designed with a "low" framerate in mind, it's just designed the way it is. The higher the framerate in the end, the better. End of discussion.

No, that is nonsense assuming you are not joking. Developers have to work within constraints and framerate is one of them. (On consoles anyway.)

Is there an instance in which a 60FPS refreshrate has made a real time rendered game worse?

Well, I immediately think of Shadow of the Colossus and that they didn't go with 60 FPS for the HD edition because the game was not designed with that in mind. Particularly the animations.

 

[TTSupra]

This makes no sense at all.

By his name, one would assume he was high when he wrote it.

 

[EnVy_CaLiBeR]

Well it's getting bought on the PS4 then.

MS dropped the ball big time. It's not even up for debate.

 

[Trent Strong]

Is there an instance in which a 60FPS refreshrate has made a real time rendered game worse?

Mass Effect.

 

[Nathan_Drake]

just woke up. What did I miss?


oh 45 pages of awesome and whatever the fuck this Gif is. Glad I have something to read during Sociology today.

 

[itsgreen]

Upscaled it is

Much like MS wants to remind us that "every Xbox One game is outputted at 1080p"

 

[Kilau]

Wow. Went to bed early, wake up to epic thread.

60fps is a surprise, the difference is not.

Already played TR on PC, not sure I will double dip on PS4, defiantly not at $60 though.

 

[DBT85]

Bearing in mind this is also £37 on GMG right now for both PS4 and Xbone.

I really want to buy it night now, but I've been so manic at work that I've not been able to even start AC4 yet. I'll just wait until I've got some game time on the horizon again.

 

[Zakalwe]

The more Frames Per Second we increase in our Gaming Standards the less “Magical” they will feel.
I remember when playing Alan Wake (at 30fps) that it felt unbelievably like a movie to me, the sudden attacks of darkness and the way everything was moving about, i wonder if the magic would have been there with 60FPS.

I played this game originally on an older system, and I locked frames at 30 due to dips.

Played it last month on my new system at 60fps, and the experience was much better.

I can assure you, whatever "magic" there was involved, the 60fps experience delivered more of it.

 

[paradise_circus]

Was the game even designed with 60 FPS in mind?

Nope, it's pretty slowish and not so fast paced like metal gear rising or alike.

 

[Chobel]

You are the one saying doubling .. It doesn't have to double if the xbone spikes from 30 to 40s and the ps4 dips from 60 to 50s?

Read the OP, Xbox One is 30fps with a few spikes to 40fps, PS4 is 60fps with a few dips.

Edit: see this

I've used the word "average" incorrectly, to be perfectly honest. I should have said the Xbox One build stays close to 30fps for most part, can go up to 45 (peaks here rarely), meanwhile the PlayStation 4 build stays close to 60fps for most part, but does dip below.

 

[Dunlop]

Now make it $20 and I will purchase again

 

[Fersis]

45 pages already... war never changes.

But yup, get used to doods.

 

[DieH@rd]

just woke up. What did I miss?

oh 45 pages of awesome and whatever the fuck this Gif is. Glad I have something to read during Sociology today.

That gif was made for CBOAT. His buttocks showed us the truth of this generation of console gaming.

 

[LiLSnorpSnorp]

As someone who owns both, and is an Xbox fan:

If you have an Xbox and you are reading this thread, don't worry, you have a great console that will have great games that will give you great memories with your buddies. The technical disparity between the consoles won't disappear, and its going to take some time before it really "gets better," but you didn't make the wrong purchase or a bad purchase. You got the console you wanted-a great one, and should enjoy it!

That said, if I was to get this game, I'd probably get it on the PS4 because it's collecting dust and I have nothing to play on it (besides resogun). Went with AC4 on the Xbox (which was fantastic) will go with tomb raider on the PS

 

[Facism]

^ha another "i own both but GG on getting an xbox the games i played on xbox are fantastic PS4 am collecting dust so maybe i buy a game to play on it" post.

Also, Bud is a great fisherman

 

[Valentus]

So one version is more definitive than the other?

 

[Thrakier]

Just monitoring the worst xbox-fanboy forum on the internet called blaster-foren.de (german forum). Xbox is not a great brand in Germany but these guys really do love it. Anyway, it's funny to see the backpedalling. Last gen, it was all about "wow 360 has 10% better framerate or 124p more resolution" and the differences were big.

Nowdays - "ok, Tomb Raider runs at double the framerate but that's a minimal framerate at best. And besides, no one was bothered with DR3s framerate below 30 anyway, so TR is just fine. Soon, the games will look the same anyway, just check Fifa 14. It looks the same on both systems."

Oh human perception, you really are a beast sometimes.