I should clarify, I guess I mean more of when 360 was announced. I think the announcements (at least seem to) give a much more sporadic burst of interest than the launch themselves
-
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.
Were 8 and 16-bit games 60fps?
- Thread starter MercuryLS
- Start date
I should clarify, I guess I mean more of when 360 was announced. I think the announcements (at least seem to) give a much more sporadic burst of interest than the launch themselves
What do you mean by "frame latency"? Are we talking input latency? Amount of time between your typical frame of character sprite animation? Or the amount of time between visually distinct images (because this last one is what most people in this thread are talking about).
Fighting games since the dawn of the genre have updated character positions and backgrounds and hadouken positions and all that at 60fps. They often don't update the character sprite's frame of animation during every game frame, though, since that is a staggering amount of hand-made animation. Instead, pretty much every last move in a fighting game has a distinct developer-plotted timeline defining which frames should show and when. So Ryu's LP might last 9 frames but only has three frames of animation, and those three animation frames could even be displayed for different lengths of time.
So I'm guessing that when some people first played Third Strike (more likely SF3 New Generation), they realized it had more animation frames than they're used to and mistakenly called it "the first 60fps fighter" or whatever when, in reality, they just saw character animation frames update more often than in other fighting games. The game most certainly does not have 60fps sprite animations across the board, not even close.
Uh, you dont know what frame latency is?
Frame latency is the amount of time it takes to render a frame.
The maximum latency for a 60 frames per second game is 16.67ms.
So, if a video game takes longer than 16.67ms to render a frame then it is not 60fps.
Nothing to do with how many frames of animation SF3 had.
Were games 60fps, or 59,94fps?
for the (S)NES and the Megadrive
60 fields means 60 frames per second.
A frame only needed the resolution of a field to be displayed.
The consoles also tried to trick the timing of the video signal
to draw the odd and even lines of a frame in the same place.
That is why the scanlines look so big on games.
It is also varied from TV to TV, depending on how they handled slightly off timings.
for the (S)NES and the Megadrive
60 fields means 60 frames per second.
A frame only needed the resolution of a field to be displayed.
The consoles also tried to trick the timing of the video signal
to draw the odd and even lines of a frame in the same place.
That is why the scanlines look so big on games.
It is also varied from TV to TV, depending on how they handled slightly off timings.
bare minimum requirement pal.
As time moves forward, expectations rise.
BabySlayer
Banned
You see.... 60fps didn't matter back then. Even amazing games like Metal Slug wasn't 60fps (had no clue) Games were simple and enjoyable.
PC gaming ruined everything.
PC gaming ruined everything.
How did it manage that?
I don't agree with this.
Maybe you're trying to get into a debate of the literal meaning but in regards to how you're playing, you the player were getting updated movement information 60 times per second. Regardless of if it was the whole frame being rendered or not, it appeared to have the motion clarity of 60fps.
Kageshinzo
Member
Uh, the main thing that video game reviewers and magazines noticed with SF3 when it was released was how fluid the animations were BECAUSE of the huge increase of frames the sprites got compared to its predecessors. The movement, the scrolling, everything remained unchanged; they were still as smooth, which was 60 fps. Boot up SSF2T and you'll notice the smoothness is just on par with SF3; it's just that the sprites have lower frames of animation.
Spazznid
Member
Speaking of which, where are some instructions on how to do this?
"unfortunately"?
An obsession with a higher framerate in an interactive medium is a great thing. More people need to become "obsessed" with framerate.
JJDinomite
Banned
I'd take a 60fps PS3 game over a 30fps PS4 game. Framerate is so vital.
Consoles were running 60 FPS circles around PC gaming until the mass migration to 3D hardware (and being able to bruteforce 2D games.)
EDIT: And Nintendo ended up pushing 60 FPS harder than most anyone on consoles. Even on N64, 60 FPS racing.
Frosted
Member
Because we always want what we cannot have. Like that hot chick that works for the marketing department with that nice ass ande perfect face, but has a husband that looks like one of those Abercrombie and Fitch models with lots of money and fast cars, but doesn't remember your name , even after you told her many times. That's fucking why we want 60FPS. I hope that helps.
Kageshinzo
Member
60/30 fps didn't matter back then because it was almost the standard. There were 30 fps dips but for the most part, 60 fps was the norm. For the dominating genres back then which were platformers and shooters (no, not shoot-bang shooters, shooters like Gradius and Galaga) a high frame rate was expected (until slowdowns occur).
Forgottonone
Member
I think the majority of them were.
Unless you're used to PC gaming. Then it might be more like expecting to have internet access while in a building, or if you want to be even more extreme like expecting to have running water and working electricity.
Kageshinzo
Member
Or first-party Nintendo games. But they're not relevant to gaming anymore so they don't really count.
I actually was thinking of that too, but you kind of highlighted part of the issue: they may be seen more as the exception than the norm.
But that's ok, Call of Duty alone made his post complete nonsense!
In game go to special brawl and choose slow mo.
In dolphin, if I remember correctly, set framelimit to 120.
It appears that something changed in Dolphin because now it also pitch shifts audio, unless that's a result from the audio backend I'm choosing.
Edit: It was because of my backend. It works fine with OpenAL.
Wat.
I don't think I've ever heard "frame latency" used like that, and it honestly doesn't make much sense; "latency" feels like it ought to represent the total duration of the rendering process of a frame, which in pipelined rendering models can easily exceed 16.67ms for 60fps games.
Also, it's a strange thing to even discuss with old 2D consoles using hardware sprites, because the actual "rendering time" for a field was exactly the same amount of time it took to output a field, since the "rendering process" was racing the beam. A 2D scene with hardware sprites in an NTSC SNES game always spent exactly 16.67ms on each frame (counting vblank time), regardless of what was being displayed.
In any case, based on your definition, there's no way SF3 was the first fighting to have "16.67ms frame latency."
Yeah, you had to make a serious compromise for 60 FPS then, whether it's limited visuals (likely with sprites taking the place of polygonal models), a limited play area (fighters), or very basic visuals (F-Zero X.) I think it sticks out now as much as it does because we're reaching the point where the compromises are being more and more trivial or at least acceptable to make: if you want a huge game world to be 60 FPS on the PS1 or N64 it'd probably have to go with basically no textures at 240p, while on PS2 it was possible to be 60 FPS while having a reasonable level of detail (I'd point out Jak II showed that you could even do open world, but Naughty Dog is Naughty Dog so that's not really fair to... well, anyone else at least on PlayStation hardware, and it had screen tearing anyway.) It can start seeming sort of crazy to have even 30 FPS compromised in light of that, though that may be attributed more to the age of the hardware and the fact it's kind of pain even to reach 720p many times, which is going to probably make things really painful for the XB1 further down the road.
EDIT: Actually that's another way of looking at it: if we can get 1080p/60 FPS reliably NOW, then we may be looking at 900p/30FPS as the common low point later in the generation, whereas on something like XB1 I sort of dread they may dip under 720p. Hopefully not, but now that we're about 10 years past the advent of HD it'd be nice to never actually dip below what's defined as HD.
Pretty much already mentioned, but Sega's forward scrolling sprite-based super scalar games such as Hang On, Space Harrier, After Burner I/II, Thunder Blade, Super Hang On, Super Monaco GP, Power Drift, Galaxy Force I/II etc were 60 fps.
The only exception I can think of was Out Run. It was 30fps in 1986 (but with the 96/97 Saturn version you could have either the arcade's 30fps or 60fps in 'smooth' mode via a simple code -- It'll be interesting to see what M2 decides about the framerate with 3D Out Run for 3DS eShop in Japan.
The only exception I can think of was Out Run. It was 30fps in 1986 (but with the 96/97 Saturn version you could have either the arcade's 30fps or 60fps in 'smooth' mode via a simple code -- It'll be interesting to see what M2 decides about the framerate with 3D Out Run for 3DS eShop in Japan.
Davey Cakes
Member
60fps for games just feels right.
The fact that 1080p/60fps isn't becoming standardized on the XBO/PS4 is utterly baffling.
The fact that 1080p/60fps isn't becoming standardized on the XBO/PS4 is utterly baffling.
I don't think it will ever be standard on consoles, too much temptation to push visuals to easily market games to gamers based on pretty screenshots.
Pretty much the only way it'll happen is if we have so much power they don't know what to do with it all. And that'd take awhile as we have VR and 4K to tackle. Maybe if there were was some forced mass adoption of true 120hz displays and enabling consoles to output at that refresh rate, then the desire to actually US THAT would result in games that aim for that, but I fear that'll stay as a monitor feature.
Is it really baffling though?
There's a huge chunk of people out there who'd take more eye candy over smoothness for many games.
Not to mention it looks better in screenshots, and 60 FPS streaming ISN'T the norm. Should it become the norm they might be inclined to go for it. Or run footage from PC builds or dev kits, whichever.
If there's anything that's not a buzzword, it's the framerate of a game.
I remember Ghost'n Goblins running like 10fps on the NES :b
Super Mario Bros 2, Kirby's Dreamland, and a bunch of other really popular games were definitely not 60FPS.
Certainly not when there were 6 enemies on screen and you are digging through straw.
Kageshinzo
Member
Slowdowns do not take away from the fact that these games were 60 fps. By that criteria, Salamander/Lifeforce for the NES was not 60 fps when it definitely was.
Spazznid
Member
Isn't there a code to make the entire game half-speed?
There's plenty on both sides. The fact game developer are willing to pit customers needs over the most basic over there own is quite baffling. Same for those who want more eye candy but use a low fps which for temporal resolution leads to seeing less of the effects which they want more of.
If that's the case, then all games should be considered 60fps before they show anything on screen.
IncandescentPrecept
Banned
Sonic The Hedgehog was probably 15-20 fps.
Not games with a sub-60fps cap ;p
Kageshinzo
Member
You can consider any game that hasn't been released or known to be 60 fps if you want if that floats your boat. When a game is seen and played through, however, the fact becomes known and the fact is Super Mario Bros. 2, among others, was 60 fps.
Don't be daft. They're in the same category as games like MGR, Devil May Cry, or others that may get slowdown as things get hectic or heavier. If you're never actually playing the game at 60 FPS then it should obviously not count as a 60 FPS game (nevermind that I wouldn't be surprised if some of those 30 FPS games were locked at 30 FPS even when there is nothing.)
sonikokaruto
Banned
i think the snes did full 320p while the genesis did 280i i think
The problem here is that people are trying too hard to describe complex behaviors with a single value.
Does SMB2 target 60fps? Absolutely. Does it run at 60fps when it's not under heavy load? Yep. Does it hold 60fps all the time? No.
Is it 60fps? Within the bounds of how people use English, that's a very imprecise question.
Except for when it slows down, which is fairly often.
I don't mind, I persevered. 25FPS, 30FPS, 60 FPS - as long as it is not too slow I don't really care. But if the reason for targeting 60FPS is because it is smooth and makes for a better experience, and there are parts of the game where it is apparently not smooth, I don't think it is really fair to say that it succeeded at having the goal of running at 60FPS.
HTupolev knows what's up.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked