RSC2 is already a perfect looking game as it is. What the fuck could they have done to make it noticeably better looking? Render more branches on the trees? Make the rocks cast more realistic shadows on the environment? Those types of small details are NOT NOTICEABLE while you're zipping through the courses at high speeds. The only thing you would actually notice is how choppy all of those details are due to the low framerate. 30 fps would have ruined the look of the game.
-
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.
Food for thought for those who don't care about 60fps.
- Thread starter nkarafo
- Start date
RSC2 is already a perfect looking game as it is. What the fuck could they have done to make it noticeably better looking? Render more branches on the trees? Make the rocks cast more realistic shadows on the environment? Those types of small details are NOT NOTICEABLE while you're zipping through the courses at high speeds. The only thing you would actually notice is how choppy all of those details are due to the low framerate. 30 fps would have ruined the look of the game.
I didn't say noticeably "better-looking," I said it could have done noticeable more stuff. I also listed off some options, like having more detailed backgrounds. Though, as you might figure from my comment about how you usually don't notice the barren backgrounds due to the speed and visual layout, is something that would be more about expanding visual style possibilities than making the game strictly look much better.
(The game could also be more liberal with alpha blending in multi-car races, or the image quality could be improved, especially regarding 16:9 progressive-scan mode.)
Yeah, so, I actually agree with this. I'm not arguing that RSC2 should have been 30fps. I think it's an example of a game whose artistic and gameplay design vision was able to be met fairly completely on the oXbox at 60fps, and it doesn't scream all that much for higher per-frame throughput. I was simply pointing out that its per-frame throughput does in fact lack in many ways compared with PGR2.
How does this miss the point of your post?
This is what you specifically asked:
"But why? Why people stopped caring about smooth motion? Heck, even on 8bit/16bit consoles 99% of games were 60fps (synced with the 60hz of TVs). Why isn't this a thing anymore? Is it that games became so mainstream and all the casual gamers don't care for anything except flashy effects and pretty pictures?"
I've seen several answers to these questions in this thread. Just saying that they've missed your point doesn't cut it.
velociraptor
Junior Member
Why stop at 30FPS? Why not go for all that at 24FPS? or 20FPS? Where do we draw the line?
Memorabilia
Member
IQ > fps for marketing purposes vis a vis screen shots. You cant market how a game "feels".
Also, although I support the 60fps idea in certain games/genres (racing and fighting games are perfect examples), it doesnt make a difference to me in other games/genres. For example, personally I cant tell much of a difference if any at all on TLoU:R on PS4. And as a lomg-time PC gamer, a stable frame-rate of at least 24fps is generally way more important than hitting 60fps.
I think that probably sums up why last gen more often than not made the compromise in favor of IQ. The downside is devs often pushed things too far and created situations where framerates in some games fluctuated and died far too often, creating inconsistent fps in the quest to get pretty screenshots for the back of boxes and PR releases.
Edit: hopefully the next console gen (if there is one) will offer enough of a hardware upgrade that 4k + consistent 30/60 fps can be achieved in most games. The standard 5-7 yr cycle might provide this in a relatively affordable system by, say, 2020. If there is no next gen bc the gaming market severely contracts/changes I still think we'll get to this "no compromises" stage with PCs.
Also, although I support the 60fps idea in certain games/genres (racing and fighting games are perfect examples), it doesnt make a difference to me in other games/genres. For example, personally I cant tell much of a difference if any at all on TLoU:R on PS4. And as a lomg-time PC gamer, a stable frame-rate of at least 24fps is generally way more important than hitting 60fps.
I think that probably sums up why last gen more often than not made the compromise in favor of IQ. The downside is devs often pushed things too far and created situations where framerates in some games fluctuated and died far too often, creating inconsistent fps in the quest to get pretty screenshots for the back of boxes and PR releases.
Edit: hopefully the next console gen (if there is one) will offer enough of a hardware upgrade that 4k + consistent 30/60 fps can be achieved in most games. The standard 5-7 yr cycle might provide this in a relatively affordable system by, say, 2020. If there is no next gen bc the gaming market severely contracts/changes I still think we'll get to this "no compromises" stage with PCs.
AlwaysPlaying
Member
Born in 83 and remember seeing daytona for the first time too. and remember only the best looking games being in the arcades. When i got my 64 for the first time i think i may have had a mild stroke from the shock.
I agree with first post though, as long as its fun, who cares
I agree with first post though, as long as its fun, who cares
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Zambatoh
Member
Born in '89. I don't care if a Console Game runs at 30 minimum. It is perfectly playable.
On PC however, it pretty much goes without saying that I require 60FPS on PC.
Also let's not forget that the PS3 and 360, right from the very get-go, suffered bottlenecks. Reaching 60 fps and keeping it consistent has been a constant problem this generation. So capping it at 30 is pretty much the only way to keep the frame rate from jumping around to much.
On PC however, it pretty much goes without saying that I require 60FPS on PC.
Also let's not forget that the PS3 and 360, right from the very get-go, suffered bottlenecks. Reaching 60 fps and keeping it consistent has been a constant problem this generation. So capping it at 30 is pretty much the only way to keep the frame rate from jumping around to much.
DarkCronos
Member
born in '87 started gaming seriously with the N64 and i always owned shitty PCs. Before the 2000s 20 FPS and under was the norm for me. That's why nowadays i don't care much for frame rates. Yes, i can feel the difference between 30 and 60, yes, i like 60 better, but as long as it's playable it doesn't really matter.
Moon_frogger
Member
No man, you're cancer. CANCER.
family_guy
Member
I don't really perceive the difference enough to where I care. I have a gaming PC and a PS4 but that doesn't mean I won't go back and play the PS3 games I enjoyed at 720p 30fps.
I don't mind if the game even runs at sub-20 if it is fun, but I would love 60fps in every game even if you had to remove shadows or they had to be 720p =)
I never NOT play or NOT love a game because of its framerate, but I would easily replay Blue Dragon if it suddenly became 60fps for the XBox One.
I never NOT play or NOT love a game because of its framerate, but I would easily replay Blue Dragon if it suddenly became 60fps for the XBox One.
When i am in the mood for some McDs, yes sure.
dark_prinny
Banned
Been gaming for more tan 30 years now and 30 fps It's perfecto for some games and genres.
It's really about the game's design. Some games are meant for 60 fps and just feel bad at 30, while some games will feel fine even at, say, 5 fps (is this what Ultima VII literally ran at?) Though a lot of the problem is that we're not generally talking RPGs, strategy games, graphic adventures, even slower paced platformers/action games, but shooters and more intense action games or games that COULD be more intense if they sacrificed the eye candy for fps.
Though some games do go for ambition (being more open) and there's the fact that higher end platforms should be able to do just about anything at a reasonable fidelity at 60, so even if that's sacrificed for more eye candy or a larger scope there's really no reason to see 5 fps again if they're not going for a deliberate effect, which LIKELY would be a mini-game or something these days.
Gipsy Danger
Member
I don't really believe that framerate has anything to do with a game's design. Although 30 is obviously playable, I don't think there's any game out there that wouldn't benefit from being 60 instead. All things being equal.
Gipsy Danger
Member
Yes but games also run on much stronger hardware than those arcade games. That's not really a good comparison. These games could be running at 60fps if developers weren't so concerned with making their games super pretty.
nkarafo
Member
Are you serious?
Those 60fps arcade games were the state of the art the time they were released. Nothing looked as good as Daytona in 1994 and nothing looked as good as Sega Rally 2 or VF3 in 1996-97. Regardless the frame rate.
JordanN
Banned
This answer seems very simplistic and doesn't really describe the reality of making games.
60fps isn't just some magic that shows up. There's still optimization and QA testing to consider. A game could be already running at 60fps, but because of budget, developers might not want to ship a game whose frame rate could be wildly unstable.
It's not unheard of these "pretty games" actually go well above 30fps. The Dark Sorcerer demo that was shown off when PS4 was revealed, actually ran as high as 90fps. But the demo was still considered unoptimized (and running on uncomplete dev kits).
My thoughts. Some of them already pointed out but I want to get in on this without skimming through all the pages:
Quotes are not directly from anyone, just some examples of the kind attitudes that I keep running into.
I'm an '89 and I've lived through these times as well and before that my family had a low end PC. It's true that back then no one really cared but that was then. Now I've gotten used to 60fps and don't feel like going back. Why would anyone? It's 2014, nothing wrong with setting your standards a bit higher, especially when we're talking about something that has already been done over a decade ago. I personally, wouldn't be driving around town with an '87 VW Jetta and be perfectly fine about it.
But a good game will always play better at 60fps. No question about it. If you had a chance to pick TLoU vanilla or the remastered one for free, you'd pick the latter. You people make it sound like you'd have to make compromises in gameplay in order to reach 60fps. It's not like they have to do poor level design, shitty controls and mediocre story in order to get that. Only compromise you'd have to make is in the graphics and that usually includes over excessive post processing and motion blur that make you sick to begin with. So why would anyone who appreciates gameplay, have 30fps + good graphics over 60fps + worse graphics?
Not saying that a 30fps game can't be good, of course it can. It would just be alot better at 60fps. Gameplay is always the most important thing and a higher fps is a huge part of that. There's a reason why a lot of gamers felt CoD:MW1 to be "smooth" and "responsive" despite being unaware that it was running at 60. No placebo there. So do you really think that smoothness and responsiveness don't affect gameplay?
Well to be fair, that's good for you. But not so good for the industry. If everyone would think like this, then the advancements in technology and software would be halted and we wouldn't see any new hardware. You can already see that becoming an issue when the leaps in performance are getting narrower each gen. If you don't care, then the manufacturers and developers don't care either and we will all be left in an eternal 30fps limbo(god help us). 60fps can only make the game better, not worse, so how can anyone "not care"?
I'm astonished that this is still a "debate" because it really isn't. If you're sick of all the 30 vs 60 discussion, then I'd advice you to side with 60 so that we can all be done with this.
Quotes are not directly from anyone, just some examples of the kind attitudes that I keep running into.
I'm an '89 and I've lived through these times as well and before that my family had a low end PC. It's true that back then no one really cared but that was then. Now I've gotten used to 60fps and don't feel like going back. Why would anyone? It's 2014, nothing wrong with setting your standards a bit higher, especially when we're talking about something that has already been done over a decade ago. I personally, wouldn't be driving around town with an '87 VW Jetta and be perfectly fine about it.
But a good game will always play better at 60fps. No question about it. If you had a chance to pick TLoU vanilla or the remastered one for free, you'd pick the latter. You people make it sound like you'd have to make compromises in gameplay in order to reach 60fps. It's not like they have to do poor level design, shitty controls and mediocre story in order to get that. Only compromise you'd have to make is in the graphics and that usually includes over excessive post processing and motion blur that make you sick to begin with. So why would anyone who appreciates gameplay, have 30fps + good graphics over 60fps + worse graphics?
Not saying that a 30fps game can't be good, of course it can. It would just be alot better at 60fps. Gameplay is always the most important thing and a higher fps is a huge part of that. There's a reason why a lot of gamers felt CoD:MW1 to be "smooth" and "responsive" despite being unaware that it was running at 60. No placebo there. So do you really think that smoothness and responsiveness don't affect gameplay?
Well to be fair, that's good for you. But not so good for the industry. If everyone would think like this, then the advancements in technology and software would be halted and we wouldn't see any new hardware. You can already see that becoming an issue when the leaps in performance are getting narrower each gen. If you don't care, then the manufacturers and developers don't care either and we will all be left in an eternal 30fps limbo(god help us). 60fps can only make the game better, not worse, so how can anyone "not care"?
I'm astonished that this is still a "debate" because it really isn't. If you're sick of all the 30 vs 60 discussion, then I'd advice you to side with 60 so that we can all be done with this.
D Bo Chops
Member
Framerate doesn't bother me. But if all games played like Dark Soul's "Blighttown" 12fps dip....God help me.
Pretty much this?
Why people care much about graphic details I don't know. Concentrating so much on the science of gaming seems to defeat the purpose for me. Sure if you want to go into game development or something then sure! Otherwise, a game running at 30fps isn the devil.
Its only when the framerate causes the game to mess up is when it becomes an issue. I'm look at you blighttown.
swazzyswess
Member
"So, obviously its not a hardware/power thing. Its a 'design choice.'"
What? No, not at all.
What? No, not at all.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
Frame rate is not the only tech advancement possible, and certainly isn't something is determined by the hardware used. Frame rate has nothing to do with tech advancement, and everything to do with priorities of the team making the game. And other people have different priorities than you.
Please tell us why it's not 100% a design choice.
Because it's a visual medium. It's not that hard to understand.
Sure, having better visuals and going for 30 instead of 60 is a design choice. Hardware is the reason why you can't have both.
But why would anyone design a game with better visuals and 30 fps and then go on claiming that "gameplay is all that matters" when 60fps makes the game play better.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
For my multiplayer games on PC: I strip them down until I get my bare minimum 60fps or as close as possible... graphical features, physics, shadows and resolution be damned. If that's not possible I cap at 30 if I can.
For single player experience though, for the most part, anything above 25fps is okay too play for me. If things dip below that far too often, into that slo-moo/i can almost count each frame unplayable territory, then that is unacceptable for me.
Born in 82.
For single player experience though, for the most part, anything above 25fps is okay too play for me. If things dip below that far too often, into that slo-moo/i can almost count each frame unplayable territory, then that is unacceptable for me.
Born in 82.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
I never understood this magical thing where making something 30fps will make it "stable" or something, because apparently stable 60fps doesn't exist or so.
Gipsy Danger
Member
You are right, I was oversimplifying it. But surely that gets thrown out the window when it comes to multiplatform games that have well optimised ports on PC?
Also, comparing a tech demo running on an uncomplete dev kit isn't really a great comparison to make.
Junior Members have been just killing it lately with quality contributions.
I love my 144hz monitor, and I certainly appreciate a better frame rate. I recognize that it's objectively better. I can still enjoy a game that's 30fps, no doubt, but I'll always wish I could play it at 60 or better.
I guess what I don't understand, is why so many people seem to care about those people who don't care about 60fps. I can't stand low FOV, but I can't get mad at people who don't care about it. This doesn't seem much different.
Attack You
Member
I was originally going to post some snark about how I prefer Dragon's Dogma at its inconsistent 30 than Skyrim's 60, but a more apt example is that I still play RE5 Gold on PS3 for Mercs Reunion and Versus, even though I have the PC RE5 with its improved IQ and frame rate. I prefer 60, but 30 isn't the end of the world. It's not even a bummer, really.
Depends, there were plenty of muds that would accept commands faster than it would update text information.
It's an interactive visual medium. 30 fps hurts interactivity a lot more than it helps visuals.
Because for me anyways, I simply don't notice unless it's really bad (30 fps is definitely good enough for me). Or if I notice it's not big enough for me to make a big deal about (I might notice it's a little smoother but it doesn't impact my gameplay all that much).
And honestly, seeing as how it ruins games for those that do notice (all the sudden the game could be good but since it's 30fps they can't handle it), I'm kinda glad I don't notice, or at least notice enough for it to make a big difference to me. I have more important things i want out of a game that I'm glad something like that isn't a priority for me that it won't ruin a game for me (at most if I notice it's a nice side benefit but it's not mandatory at all).
Because I'll notice the graphics more than I'll notice the FPS (until the FPS gets so bad it feels like the game is lagging or starts being slide showy like. Put it this way, Borderlands 2 on Vita and Fallout 3/New Vegas are good enough for me though they do get to the point that I do easily notice sometimes the framerate when it gets bad). At least when you're talking 30 vs 60 fps. I will take 30 with better graphics anyday over 60 fps with not as good graphics. Now, when you start having it so the game starts really feeling like it's lagging/slide show, then I will admit that I wouldn't mind some compromise on graphics. But for me, I'll notice better graphics a lot more than I'll notice a difference between 30 and 60 fps which is the distinction we are talking about.
And honestly, seeing as how it ruins games for those that do notice (all the sudden the game could be good but since it's 30fps they can't handle it), I'm kinda glad I don't notice, or at least notice enough for it to make a big difference to me. I have more important things i want out of a game that I'm glad something like that isn't a priority for me that it won't ruin a game for me (at most if I notice it's a nice side benefit but it's not mandatory at all).
Because I'll notice the graphics more than I'll notice the FPS (until the FPS gets so bad it feels like the game is lagging or starts being slide showy like. Put it this way, Borderlands 2 on Vita and Fallout 3/New Vegas are good enough for me though they do get to the point that I do easily notice sometimes the framerate when it gets bad). At least when you're talking 30 vs 60 fps. I will take 30 with better graphics anyday over 60 fps with not as good graphics. Now, when you start having it so the game starts really feeling like it's lagging/slide show, then I will admit that I wouldn't mind some compromise on graphics. But for me, I'll notice better graphics a lot more than I'll notice a difference between 30 and 60 fps which is the distinction we are talking about.
Gusy
Member
OP , this thread shed light on something I´ve been thinking about. The great framerate debate is always held by two parties: The ¨60 fps is a must¨ side and the ¨Meh.. I´ll take my games in a playable and hopefully entertaining form please¨ side. But I think there´s a huge correlation between age or time spent playing games and caring or not caring about framerate.
Those of us that have been playing for the last 20-25 years lived through the birth and evolution of 3d graphics. In my particular case, my first contact with polygons was in 1989 when I discovered F-18 Interceptor for the Amiga. I fell in love with the sim, even though it ran at about 6-10 FPS, it was choppy as hell. A few years later my dad bought a Mcintosh Color Classic (8 MHZ) and I installed MS Flight Sim 4.0. It was unplayable (2-3 FPS). But that was the only way I could run it so I played it anyways. It was a time when we had no choice but to accept these restrictions, the hardware was simply not there yet. I had two moments of truth regarding 3d graphics circa 1993.
The first one was seeing MS Flight Sim 4 running on a faster Mac in a store. It probably was running close to 30. I could not believe the difference. It was night and day. I fell in love instantly.
The second was just like you, seeing model 2 games like Daytona, House of The Dead, etc in the arcade. I think I didnt understand at the time what made those arcade games feel and look so awesome. But I understood that they were absolutely superior to my home console games. A few months later I got an 486DX2 66 and started understanding the relationship between graphic detail, resolution and fluidity.
I think people with similar experiences will always value framerate over anything else because we had to deal with wonderfully designed games that were constrained by hardware technology. Those of us who had to force quake to run on a 486 KNOW the value of having a smooth gaming experience. We are probably also more sensitive to it. There will be exceptions but I´m betting that a lot of generation X-Generation Y (80s) gamers value framerate above anything else.
PS. The greatest slogan ever invented by a company:
" Framerate is Life¨ - Falcon Northwest PC´s
Those of us that have been playing for the last 20-25 years lived through the birth and evolution of 3d graphics. In my particular case, my first contact with polygons was in 1989 when I discovered F-18 Interceptor for the Amiga. I fell in love with the sim, even though it ran at about 6-10 FPS, it was choppy as hell. A few years later my dad bought a Mcintosh Color Classic (8 MHZ) and I installed MS Flight Sim 4.0. It was unplayable (2-3 FPS). But that was the only way I could run it so I played it anyways. It was a time when we had no choice but to accept these restrictions, the hardware was simply not there yet. I had two moments of truth regarding 3d graphics circa 1993.
The first one was seeing MS Flight Sim 4 running on a faster Mac in a store. It probably was running close to 30. I could not believe the difference. It was night and day. I fell in love instantly.
The second was just like you, seeing model 2 games like Daytona, House of The Dead, etc in the arcade. I think I didnt understand at the time what made those arcade games feel and look so awesome. But I understood that they were absolutely superior to my home console games. A few months later I got an 486DX2 66 and started understanding the relationship between graphic detail, resolution and fluidity.
I think people with similar experiences will always value framerate over anything else because we had to deal with wonderfully designed games that were constrained by hardware technology. Those of us who had to force quake to run on a 486 KNOW the value of having a smooth gaming experience. We are probably also more sensitive to it. There will be exceptions but I´m betting that a lot of generation X-Generation Y (80s) gamers value framerate above anything else.
PS. The greatest slogan ever invented by a company:
" Framerate is Life¨ - Falcon Northwest PC´s
Moon_frogger
Member
60 fps doesn't automatically always mean better gameplay. Some games are designed Around having many more on screen characters than the average game and in some cases framerate has to be sacrificed to maintain design scope. Sure, a corridor shooter with only 1 or 2 simple enemies at a time should be 60 fps but a huge open game with many characters and interactive objects onscreen might have make sacrifices and go with a perfectly playable 30 fps. ' It's not always 60 fps means better gameplay, no questions asked' it's not just about visual flair.
Well,I'm the exception then cause I've been playing games since the Atari and you can see right above your post my feelings on the thing.
Honestly, I think it's just some people simply don't notice it so much. Or at least once it gets to a certain point it's good enough and anything better is unnoticeable or not big enough to matter much. Some of us probably just don't notice as much, simple as that or find that it's not so big a deal that we don't have other priorities. Yes, at some point it does become a big deal to anyone (at some point when it looks like a slideshow to them anyone is going to be annoyed). But people's threshold of what is bearable/ok is different. As well as where people put their priorities on a super smooth framerate vs. wanting better graphics vs. wanting more open world/ability to do whatever stupid thing you can think of (this is where I stand. I like linear games too but I tend to prefer open world ones).
WeAreStarStuff
Member
Born in 1983. 60fps is great; 30fps is fine. As a kid I was always impressed with new graphics; but never once thought about how 'smooth' a game was.
If the PS2 can do a game with 65535 characters on screen at 60 fps, I fail to see why games on modern systems can't do the same
Red Mage
Member
This. I grew up on the Atari 2600 and then the NES.
Gusy
Member
I´m 100% with you on that. There´s A LOT of people that simply don´t care or don´t even notice it. What I´m trying to get at is that if you´ve been a gamer since the 80s and been exposed to experiences like the ones i´ve just mentioned (Also OP) you will Probably care about it. I´m sure you will at least notice the difference.
I completely respect gamers who don´t give two shits about framerate. To me it´s the difference between a good experience and an awesome one. I could argue that what really pushed COD to being the juggernaut that it is today was the 60 fps target philosophy tha Infinity Ward established since COD 4. I sometimes wonder how many copies would COD 4 have sold if it was a 30fps game... but we´ll leave that one for another thread
Moon_frogger
Member
Either you're trolling or just sadly ignorant. I'll say if you think there are 65,000 characters on screen at any point in that video you need your vision checked. The rest, well you either know how they achieved those visuals or you don't and I'll just leave you to your ignorance.
There are 65,535 enemies in the level, any of which can enter your field of view at any time. Do you think the enemies only leave a processing footprint when they're literally being drawn on the screen? If so, you really are clueless. And even if that were the case, the game is still capable of rendering and displaying around 3000 enemies in a given frame (without ever dropping below 60 fps), on hardware that is only 1% as powerful as today's consoles.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked