Support NeoGAF

[Lord_Balkan]

i wonder if any games poll for input at 60hz for a 30fps game.

the benefit would be that you get 2 chances to get your input in before the next frame. probably not worth it, but it could be a thing.

Smart games poll for input as fast as the possibly can, but at displaying at 30fps, you still get the same input lag because input lag is the measured time from physically interacting with the input, to the time you physically see the result of the pressed input. This is why some games are 'better' at input lag in lower frame rates than others.

 

[mkenyon]

I'm not sure that 120 better than 60 is logic.

At some point you would rather have higher graphical fidelity than trying to hit 120fps.

Any game can hit any FPS you want... but having 120fps with terrible fidelity would be a horrible gaming experience.

This seems to be like an unfavorable position here, but I would think the devs know best and hopefully create the game to match what they want to portray.

But a game like Geometry Wars or Hotline Miami, some twitch based thing, is going to be better at 120 FPS. Same with competitive MP stuff.

The fact that most TVs are locked at 60Hz due to HDMI fuckering everything up is a total travesty. C'mon consoles, help push things forward!

 

[RMI]

Publishers bullshitting consumers about the reasoning is why the debate is so big at the moment.

agreed, but also the reason is that some people actually believe them.

 

[Leewan]

It's not insulting it's just wrong. You have are a member of the film industry, you should know better than anyone else in this thread why video game framerates and film framerates aren't comparable. The argument you are using is invalid, frames of real life are like little sections of time, frames of a video game are exact points in time, the ratio of how many frames per second you have to how smooth the video looks in film is waaay higher than it is in video games.



The whole point of this thread is to expand upon that.

Doesn't matter, it affects perception in a similar way, thus it's going to lead to differences in preferences.

 

[Michael Armbrust]

I modified the OT to change "input lag" to "response time."

Also, that isn't the invalid argument. It can easily be argued that a higher level of graphical fidelity results in a more cinematic experience, but ever since TO1866 developer said that the framerate is more cinematic, people have been convinced that the framerate itself is more cinematic, which is a completely wrong.

Input lag and response time are still the same thing.

Those bullet points just need to be removed, or at the very least switched to "Shorter/Longer response time." It's factually incorrect to say half/twice.


"It can easily be argued that a higher level of graphical fidelity results in a more cinematic experience."
Then argue it. Right now your just saying I'm wrong without saying why.

Also this has nothing to do with The Order. That game was only announced a year ago, yet 30fps has felt more cinematic for about a decade. It started once games became photo realistic.

 

[Vodh]

On my PC when it's not capable of a consistent 60FPS on ultra I tend to settle for 30 FPS until the game stops looking amazing to me - sometimes the pretty visuals last the entire playthrough, sometimes the novelty just wears off - and that's when I tune everything down to get to 60 FPS.

If a game is really demanding and I happen to have an outdated rig at the time, I just settle for 30 and call it a day.

I think the only exception for me are competitive multiplayer titles, where I usually roam around with everything on ultra for a little while (something like 30 minutes maybe?) and then tune everything back down to get to 60 FPS.

So yeah, there definitely are pros and cons of either.

One bit from the OP I disagree with is the bit about better aging - that's entirely subjective - if we're talking about a console title, something runs at 60 FPS has had to make sacrifices to get there - so while it looks better than 30 FPS games with similar visuals, I don't believe it automatically looks better than a 30 FPS game from the same period that was optimized just as well.

 

[LastNac]

This is a debate that is anchored to hardware limitations.



You modified your argument from basically "60fps looks like a soap opera (paraphrased obviously)" to "some games can benefit from the tradeoff." Your second version is obviously a lot more logical and isn't controversial at all. Also, your old argument fit more into the category of "heavily misinformed judgement," there were three categories, lol.

No, I still maintain that I am very aware of a sped up visual sense, I'm not backtracking on that. It works with some titles really well for me and not with others.

If I wanted something to look like a movie, black bars and all, I wouldn't use 60FPS.

 

[Goddard]

I love that even in this carefully-worded, well-thought-out, and well-researched bullet-pointed OP there's still a "lazy devs" bullet point.

Embarassing.

You're embarrassing yourself. I never said 30fps was incompetent, only in very specific scenarios where they tie tick rate to framerate is it incompetent. Read before you make an ass of yourself.

There is no opinion beyond that. If its 60fps vs 30fps and the graphics were the same, 60fps is always better. Its a fact that is not debatable so i don't know what you're trying to achieve by attempting to debate a fact.

The graphics are not the same it is a closed box.

Its pretty clear OP is on the 60fps >>> 30fps train of thought, despite any veiled attempts at objectivity.

You've obviously read my posts in other threads, obviously I prefer games at 60fps, however all the bullet points are almost completely objective, and the ones that people are pointing out to me aren't, I have modified or will modify for the sake of accuracy. I am not trying to make a point with this thread. I am making a list. Preference or not a list is a list, and it is a balanced list so far. The only reason I am arguing with people inside the thread is because they are bringing up invalid points, (or points that I think are invalid, but most of them seem pretty legit right now.)

 

[Branduil]

60fps is better than 30fps. Twice as good. It's math.

 

[mkenyon]

Also this has nothing to do with The Order. That game was only announced a year ago, yet 30fps has felt more cinematic for about a decade. It started once games became photo realistic.

Actually, it started when devs decided that motion blur was a graphical effect, rather than an unwanted result of a crappy display and low frame rate.

 

[AmyS]

Two decades ago:

 

[sinxtanx]

The ONLY FUCKING REASON this debate exists is because of The Hobbit being shot at 48fps, some convincing themselves that this looks weird and then bringing that shitfest over to videogames.

This debate did not exist at any measurable value prior to that. It was: "the framerate is lower because they wanted shinier graphics" every single time. That is the only "artistic decision" here.

I look forward to next year when 720p will be an artistic choice too because it's easier on the eyes or similar bullshit

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Ok lets take the PS4 for example.

MGS5 is an open world game at 1080p/60fps with beautiful graphics.

Exactly what extra effects could possibly justify losing half the framerate?

Good Art does not equal high technical achievement in terms of graphics. They are not the same thing.

The Order is on a completely different level technically than MGS5. Thus its resolution and frame rate need to be sacrificed.

 

[LastNac]

The ONLY FUCKING REASON this debate exists is because of The Hobbit being shot at 48fps, some convincing themselves that this looks weird and then bringing that shitfest over to videogames.

This debate did not exist at any measurable value prior to that. It was: "the framerate is lower because they wanted shinier graphics" every single time. That is the only "artistic decision" here.

I look forward to next year when 720p will be an artistic choice too because it's easier on the eyes or similar bullshit

Definition has no bearing on how something moves. Different argument entirely.

 

[Derekloffin]

It is not an invalid position to have on the debate, but it is invalid to be debating with that position. If you cannot tell the difference, you cannot look at both sides of the argument. If you can't look at both sides of the argument, your argument is invalid.

It isn't an invalid position though. There is a point of diminishing returns, and ignoring that and trying to force a position that everyone will notice the difference is just plain false. Yes, some people will notice, but the real question here is is it worth the trade off. The worth of 60 fps is assigned by us the population of gamers, and if a good chunk of those games give it no value, it's worth has decreased.

 

[Goddard]

agreed, but also the reason is that some people actually believe them.

Yup.

Doesn't matter, it affects perception in a similar way, thus it's going to lead to differences in preferences.

Similar might honestly be a stretch.

Input lag and response time are still the same thing.

Those bullet points just need to be removed, or at the very least switched to "Shorter/Longer response time." It's factually incorrect to say half/twice.


"It can easily be argued that a higher level of graphical fidelity results in a more cinematic experience."
Then argue it. Right now your just saying I'm wrong without saying why.

Also this has nothing to do with The Order. That game was only announced a year ago, yet 30fps has felt more cinematic for about a decade. It started once games became photo realistic.

I am not arguing a point with this thread, I am arguing against counter points to see if they have any validity to them, and, as some of them have, I edited the post. I have nothing to prove in this thread, I'm just making a list. I will not and wouldn't even consider removing the point about response time, it is one of the, if not the single most massive differences between 30fps and 60fps. Response time might not be the right wording though. What is the best way to describe the frame switch going from 16.67 ms to 33.33 ms?

Also the Order is a big deal in the debate right now because the developers claimed that 30fps itself was cinematic. Which is of course false. The only way it's more cinematic is if you consider more lifelike graphics cinematic, but that's not the argument put forward by the developers.

No, I still maintain that I am very aware of a sped up visual sense, I'm not backtracking on that. It works with some titles really well for me and not with others.

If I wanted something to look like a movie, black bars and all, I wouldn't use 60FPS.

If you play games that have a shit load of cutscene I can maybe see that, but gameplay at 30fps vs 60fps, which is the core of the argument, doesn't look "sped up" at 60fps to me or pretty much else. Dark Souls for example was a big one because everyone that played Dark Souls at 60fps also played it at 30 first, and no one was bringing up the soap opera effect, it was just a better experience. I don't think cutscenes have value in the discussion.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

someone should alert ND about how uncinematic UC4/TLOU PS4 are gonna be at 60fps

Druckmann pls

 

[mkenyon]

Imagine the debate like this:

All TVs for a period of time were 4K. At some point, they decided to make 1080p TVs more standard, and an entire generation of people grew up with the 1080p standard. This group of people thought this was normal, despite an older group knowing that it is a reduced experience compared to the 4K they grew up with, which was standard.

Then people started to try and rationalize why the sub-standard thing they've grown up with and are used to is so good. "But 1080p is more cinematic, it feels more VISCERAL", or some such nonsense.

This is what it sounds like to a gamer that is over 25 (or under 25 and grew up playing PC games).

 

[Muppet of a Man]

There is no opinion beyond that. If its 60fps vs 30fps and the graphics were the same, 60fps is always better. Its a fact that is not debatable so i don't know what you're trying to achieve by attempting to debate a fact.

But game creators have to take into lowest-common-denominator across multiple pieces of hardware for 3rd party multiplats or hardware limitations for console exclusives, so it will always be a creative decision.

We know that 60 fps is always better than 30 fps for the same graphical fidelity; that is not even in question for the majority of the people here. The real argument is really should we sacrifice graphical fidelity for better frame rate or vice versa?

 

[CambriaRising]

someone should alert ND about how uncinematic UC4/TLOU PS4 are gonna be at 60fps

Druckmann pls

You joke, but someone did make a thread about how the Ground Zeroes cutscenes looked worse on Ps4 for having been 60fps.

 

[Michael Armbrust]

Actually, it started when devs decided that motion blur was a graphical effect, rather than an unwanted result of a crappy display and low frame rate.

What?

Motion blur is good, even in 60 fps games.

 

[Interficium]

You're embarrassing yourself.

This is not a rebuttal.

I never said 30fps was incompetent, only in very specific scenarios where they tie tick rate to framerate is it incompetent. Read before you make an ass of yourself.

Tick rate? Very specific scenarios? Where the fuck did you even say that? Here's your post:

Incompetent programmers only have to animate half as much, whereas most video game programmers animate in a way that can adapt to almost any possible framerate.

Stop moving goalposts and take accountability for your incredibly inane "analysis."

 

[Goddard]

60fps is better than 30fps. Twice as good. It's math.

Definition has no bearing on how something moves. Different argument entirely.

Agreed. I never claimed that there weren't people with heavy bias and false arguments on the side of 60fps lol, it exists.

It isn't an invalid position though. There is a point of diminishing returns, and ignoring that and trying to force a position that everyone will notice the difference is just plain false. Yes, some people will notice, but the real question here is is it worth the trade off. The worth of 60 fps is assigned by us the population of gamers, and if a good chunk of those games give it no value, it's worth has decreased.

I am not denying diminishing returns, nor am I actually actively arguing for 60fps, nor am I forcing opinions or feelings, the inability to see the difference between to 60fps and 30fps as if there is very little difference at all is just plain absurd, anybody who can see the difference (which is to say, the overwhelming majority of people who actually know what the difference is,) will know how big the difference is, trying to say that there is little to know difference, or that there is massive diminishing returns between 30 and 60 (there isn't,) simply serves to dilute and derail the argument, so whether or not someone actually can't see the difference doesn't matter, the argument is between the pros and cons listed, which most people have agreed on, not "people who can see the difference vs people who can."

 

[Lord_Balkan]

Did you even read my post?

Input lag is much more than just the length of a frame. The lag caused from the tv, controller, and game is much much longer than that. Switching to a better TV or just playing a game on PS4 verse PS3 will have a bigger impact on input lag. In the grand scheme of things, the input lag difference between a game at 30fps and a game at 60fps is trivial.


The cinematic argument is valid because the computer rendering is trying to replicate video. I don't even understand how you could think that was a logical response when depth of field, chromatic aberration, lens dust, lens flair, and HDR are all very popular game effects designed to replicate how cameras see the world, not how our eyes see the world.

It is not valid because all those effects are not implemented in a physically accurate way, and therefore, the argument for 30 being cinematic is void. I explained this in the Order thread a bit back, but real cameras work based on exposure time- they make a frame from a period of time where games render an exact point in time. It is the difference of games capturing desecrate variables, where movies capture continuous time in a discrete fashion (frames, think of integration, games: x, movies: x + delta(x) ).

The processing power required to render these scenes in a physically accurate way (from the camera, to the lighting, etc) is insane. For example- motion blur right now is implemented as a post processing effect using a velocity vector. Motion blur in movies happens because of the exposure time, (I'm not going to pretend I know exactly how light works, because I don't) but the process to implement that in a physically accurate way game is to take all the light (or rays / ray casting) and figure out the motion blur in the 3d scene. Basically implement exposure in the virtual game camera instead of approximating it after you find your frame. Games approximate it. This is of course assuming time is continuous and you aren't taking into account those physics theories that say time is actually discrete. But anyway, this is why it is a fallacy to compare 30fps games and 30fps movies.

If rendering was 10000x more powerful, and we could actually implement a camera that accurate represents the camera lens, with exposure, lighting, and all that, I feel like people would be okay with 30fps games. But the fact of the matter is, we aren't there yet.

 

[LastNac]

Yup.



Similar might honestly be a stretch.



I am not arguing a point with this thread, I am arguing against counter points to see if they have any validity to them, and, as some of them have, I edited the post. I have nothing to prove in this thread, I'm just making a list. I will not and wouldn't even consider removing the point about response time, it is one of the, if not the single most massive differences between 30fps and 60fps. Response time might not be the right wording though. What is the best way to describe the frame switch going from 16.67 ms to 33.33 ms?

Also the Order is a big deal in the debate right now because the developers claimed that 30fps itself was cinematic. Which is of course false. The only way it's more cinematic is if you consider more lifelike graphics cinematic, but that's not the argument put forward by the developers.



If you play games that have a shit load of cutscene I can maybe see that, but gameplay at 30fps vs 60fps, which is the core of the argument, doesn't look "sped up" at 60fps to me or pretty much else. Dark Souls for example was a big one because everyone that played Dark Souls at 60fps also played it at 30 first, and no one was bringing up the soap opera effect, it was just a better experience. I don't think cutscenes have value in the discussion.

Oh trust me, I'm not a cutscenes guy at all.

Don't see how 60FPS could be need for

Spoiler

Drake in the desert

, etc. If I was making an action game that was clearly a game. I'd go 60FPS.

If I was out to create an "interactive cinematic experience" in the vein of an Uncharted, TLoU, The Order, etc, then my goal would be to make you feel like your were actually playing a movie. 60FPS doesn't make me feel like I'm playing a movie


Why is it so inconceivable to think some people would prefer a locked 30FPS for some experiences.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Actually, it started when devs decided that motion blur was a graphical effect, rather than an unwanted result of a crappy display and low frame rate.

This is not the same sort of motion blur. The graphical effect is emulating the fast panning of a tv/film camera or our very own peripheral vision. It is not emulating display technical limitations (i.e., LCD ghosting effects).

 

[sinxtanx]

Definition has no bearing on how something moves. Different argument entirely.

yes, it's a different argument, and I'm saying that some developers will use that as an excuse to add more effects to their 30fps games sometime in the future, because they have been getting away with lower framerates for a while and discovered recently that they could get free defense by calling it an artistic choice, something I'm sure will happen to resolution as well.

I can accept lower framerates as tradeoff for a larger scope, or more intense physics simulations, etc. Open-world games are a good example where I might accept low framerates. I can accept it because it becomes a natural technical restriction (especially on consoles). Trading for graphics, or for "cinematics"? Fuck. Off.

 

[majik13]

• "30fps is more cinematic." This was proven false on the basis that computer renderings and films of real life aren't even remotely comparable in any constructive way, and that the higher framerate goes the more cinematic things tend to feel for a lot of people.
• 60fps feels like a soap opera. Polar opposite of the point directly above, false for the same reason.

Again, if you disagree with something I posted, or have something to add, feel free to reply to this thread with an explanation.

These points are neither invalid nor proven false. They are actually the reverse, despite what people want to think.

I dont think I have personally seen anyone say, let alone a majority that the higher a frame rate the more cinematic something becomes.

The bolded being the biggest offender.
there are only 2 categories for computer graphics rendering
Photorealistic rendering for life like renders and
Non photoreastic rendering for everythign else: cell shading, painterly, etc

key word here being photo. Everything real is captured through a camera and lens. No other way. if you want a render to be real looking you do Photorealistic rendering. So yes film/photos have much to do with rendering. And alot of that look has to do with framerate, as well as many other film and photo qualities.

if you ignore those qualities, then the render falls into the non photorealisstic category and it starts to look digital, fake, and not lifelike. Which is fine if that is what your art direction is going for. Which to a degree and welll documented is the case when you crank film up to 46-60fps.

This argument only becomes invalid once you get into the world of VR, where there rendering is trying to simulate atual eye sight, and not how somethign looks capture through a camera.

 

[ichtyander]

Realtime gameplay and the avengers are not comparable, correct. I'm not going to address your whole post because it is misinformed, but I'll just leave you with this: The reason people think 30fps is more cinematic is because they know that movies usually run at 24fps. The problem with that logic is that a movie running at 24fps is far smoother than a game running at 30fps, because there are things you get while filming real life you don't get while rendering a game, like perfect motion blur.

I'm very much aware of the "positive" artifacts like the perfect motion blur you mention and I know that even a 24 fps game and a 24 fps film are not the same thing.

You keep saying that people treat 30 fps as more cinematic because they know of the 24fps film standard, but I'm not sure you're acknowledging the fact that 30fps does give a different look to a game, which people might find preferable.

Now, I can agree with you that 30fps isn't precisely and technically cinematic, but as far as video games go, it can be considered as a standardized equivalent, if for nothing else at least for the artistic effect a lower framerate can have on the human eye and brain.

I'm telling you this because I don't base my perception of frame rate on mere numbers or what people say or prefer. I base it on my direct perception of how it looks on the screen. I don't prefer 30 fps but I most certainly feel the "awkwardness" of 60 fps, not to mention high frame rate films. I'm predominantly a PC gamer and have played tons of 60 fps games. I can assure you it's not a defect or a misinformation, at least on my part.

 

[Goddard]

Tick rate? Very specific scenarios? Where the fuck did you even say that? Here's your post:

Stop moving goalposts and take accountability for your incredibly inane "analysis."

There are quite a few people in this thread who have actually talked about how that point is actually very valid, even before I edited it. Your inability to understand what it means is not my problem.

I am not moving goalposts. I edited for clarity because there are people who might not have enough of a technological understanding of video games to understand what I originally meant (you.) There are plenty of incompetent developers who tie the code of a game to the framerate it's locked to on console. For example Dead Rising 3 is one of them, on PC if you were to unlock the framerate according to the devs, shit would go haywire. Durante himself said that is very incompetent. It is an actual real thing that is both a positive and a negative to framerate capping. It is easier to code, but it is extremely bad at scaling.

 

[LastNac]

yes, it's a different argument, and I'm saying that some developers will use that as an excuse to add more effects to their 30fps games sometime in the future, because they have been getting away with lower framerates for a while and discovered recently that they could get free defense by calling it an artistic choice, something I'm sure will happen to resolution as well.

I can accept lower framerates as tradeoff for a larger scope, or more intense physics simulations, etc. Open-world games are a good example where I might accept low framerates. I can accept it because it becomes a natural technical restriction (especially on consoles). Trading for graphics, or for "cinematics"? Fuck. Off.

30 FPS is not game breaking. And I don't think anyone here is actually advocating 24FPS to recreate that "movie feel." The truth is however, if those are the two most common frame rates and you are trying generate the feeling of playing a movie, as an artist, it is perfectly understandable to go 30FPS. If that is the look you want that is the look you should target.

I asked the guys of RaD at E3 if 30FPS is really their desired target or if it's limitation based and they told me they genuinely wanted to be stable(30FPS) but avoid that "videogame" look that 60FPS produces.

I can respect that.

 

[lightchris]

The cinematic argument is valid because the computer rendering is trying to replicate video. I don't even understand how you could think that was a logical response when depth of field, chromatic aberration, lens dust, lens flair, and HDR are all very popular game effects designed to replicate how cameras see the world, not how our eyes see the world.

Both the effects of DOF and HDR are present in the normal human vision, and to an extent even lens flares are (though less pronounced than in typical camera systems).

I get your point of course, but I don't think rendering should always try to replicate camera imagery.

When it comes to frame rate, 30 fps would indeed be more "cinematic" if and only if there was really good motion blur comparable to that seen in movies. Personally I think the low frame rate of movies is a flaw though and not a desirable effect, similar to low resolutions.

 

[Goddard]

I'm very much aware of the "positive" artifacts like the perfect motion blur you mention and I know that even a 24 fps game and a 24 fps film are not the same thing.

You keep saying that people treat 30 fps as more cinematic because they know of the 24fps film standard, but I'm not sure you're acknowledging the fact that 30fps does give a different look to a game, which people might find preferable.

Now, I can agree with you that 30fps isn't precisely and technically cinematic, but as far as video games go, it can be considered as a standardized equivalent, if for nothing else at least for the artistic effect a lower framerate can have on the human eye and brain.

I'm telling you this because I don't base my perception of frame rate on mere numbers or what people say or prefer. I base it on my direct perception of how it looks on the screen. I don't prefer 30 fps but I most certainly feel the "awkwardness" of 60 fps, not to mention high frame rate films. I'm predominantly a PC gamer and have played tons of 60 fps games. I can assure you it's not a defect or a misinformation, at least on my part.

Anyone who actually prefers the feel of 30fps itself, without even considering the benefits of graphical leeway or more complex calculations, just the feel of 30fps is either heavily misinformed or insane in my book. The only think more cinematic about 30fps is that there is more room for photorealism.

These points are neither invalid nor proven false. They are actually the reverse, despite what people want to think.

I dont think I have personally seen anyone say, let alone a majority that the higher a frame rate the more cinematic something becomes.

If you read the threads where people with a very advanced technical understanding of the difference between video game renderings and filming real life were posting, they both proved it wrong and proved that video games actually become more similar to 24fps film the closer you get to 60fps or higher. The point of this thread is not really the explanation but the bullet point though. If someone proves using logic that it's not true, I will remove the bullet point, I don't have bias in the OT.

Oh trust me, I'm not a cutscenes guy at all.

Don't see how 60FPS could be need for

Spoiler

Drake in the desert

, etc. If I was making an action game that was clearly a game. I'd go 60FPS.

If I was out to create an "interactive cinematic experience" in the vein of an Uncharted, TLoU, The Order, etc, then my goal would be to make you feel like your were actually playing a movie. 60FPS doesn't make me feel like I'm playing a movie


Why is it so inconceivable to think some people would prefer a locked 30FPS for some experiences.

Again, your original argument implied something completely different than what you are saying now. What you are saying now isn't controversial. Because it isn't controversial or contradictory to my list I won't argue against it because there is no point. Your original argument was different and it was wrong, leave it at that, your modified argument is fine.

 

[Goddard]

I am going to say this now and I'm only going to say this once. I have a preference for framerates. I prefer almost all my games to be running at 60fps. However, I don't believe that my preference for 60fps is reflected in any meaningful way in the original post, and as people are pointing out to me small inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and things that could be wrong, I am editing things. If you think I have a bias and that it is negatively impacting the list I made, point out exactly what is wrong with it and why, otherwise you are basically contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion whatsoever by saying shit like "OP has an agenda." I don't.

 

[Michael Armbrust]

I am not arguing a point with this thread, I am arguing against counter points to see if they have any validity to them, and, as some of them have, I edited the post. I have nothing to prove in this thread, I'm just making a list. I will not and wouldn't even consider removing the point about response time, it is one of the, if not the single most massive differences between 30fps and 60fps. Response time might not be the right wording though. What is the best way to describe the frame switch going from 16.67 ms to 33.33 ms?

I know you're not arguing 30verse60, but you are defending the points in your op.

If you won't remove the point or even consider removing the point, then I guess I'm done with this thread.

I enjoyed debating with you, but we obviously aren't going to reach an agreement hahaha.

 

[LastNac]

Anyone who actually prefers the feel of 30fps itself, without even considering the benefits of graphical leeway or more complex calculations, just the feel of 30fps is either heavily misinformed or insane in my book. The only think more cinematic about 30fps is that there is more room for photorealism.



If you read the threads where people with a very advanced technical understanding of the difference between video game renderings and filming real life were posting, they both proved it wrong and proved that video games actually become more similar to 24fps film the closer you get to 60fps or higher. The point of this thread is not really the explanation but the bullet point though. If someone proves using logic that it's not true, I will remove the bullet point, I don't have bias in the OT.



Again, your original argument implied something completely different than what you are saying now. What you are saying now isn't controversial. Because it isn't controversial or contradictory to my list I won't argue against it because there is no point. Your original argument was different and it was wrong, leave it at that, your modified argument is fine.

I believe my original argument was that artist can have visions.

I believe you scoffed at that...

 

[LastNac]

Sure would like the next Fallout to be 60FPS though.

 

[Goddard]

I know you're not arguing 30verse60, but you are defending the points in your op.

If you won't remove the point or even consider removing the point, then I guess I'm done with this thread.

I enjoyed debating with you, but we obviously aren't going to reach an agreement hahaha.

I asked you a question. The point in the OP might not be worded correctly, I don't really know, but the difference between receiving a new frame ever 16.67 milliseconds vs ever 33.33 milliseconds is without a shadow of a doubt one of the most important aspects of the difference between 60fps and 30fps, if you want me to word it better so it makes more sense, go for it, but if you want me to remove it as if it is not real you are insane man.

Honestly though I don't see what's so wrong about saying response time. When you are playing a game in motion at 30fps, you have half the time to respond to things at 30fps than you do at 60.

 

[LastNac]

someone should alert ND about how uncinematic UC4/TLOU PS4 are gonna be at 60fps

Druckmann pls

Him and I actually had a nice conversation recently.

 

[Goddard]

Sure would like the next Fallout to be 60FPS though.

Depends what it does, as most games do. IMO Skyrim is a far better game at 60fps than it is at 30, however it couldn't even maintain 30 on the last gen consoles so it was a flaming piece of shit on PS3. Hopefully Bethesda gets their priorities better than they did with Skyrim.

I believe my original argument was that artist can have visions.

I believe you scoffed at that...

Lol. I think you're joking but if you're not you just moved the goal posts from here to mars.

 

[LastNac]

Depends what it does, as most games do. IMO Skyrim is a far better game at 60fps than it is at 30, however it couldn't even maintain 30 on the last gen consoles so it was a flaming piece of shit on PS3. Hopefully Bethesda gets their priorities better than they did with Skyrim.



Lol. I think you're joking but if you're not you just moved the goal posts from here to mars.

What goal posts? I was serious with the earlier point and I expanded upon it in every post since.

 

[FloweryMarston]

Him and I actually had a nice conversation about

what did he say?

 

[RoboPlato]

I think my take on 30fps versus 60 is a bit different than other people's. I've never been all that sensitive to input lag. I can tell a difference of course but it's the clarity of motion and fluidity of animation that I think makes 60fps preferable. I'm extremely sensitive to shifts in motion resolution, part of the reason I hate LCD display technology. 30fps is completely acceptable for me but I definitely consider 60 to be ideal.

I've felt that 30fps is worth it for games that can utilize the extra detail to immerse you in the environment and setting through the extra fidelity when that was important to the game's experience but, if ND pulls off Uncharted looking like that trailer at 60fps, I'm going to be FAR more critical of 30fps in linear titles. Open world games, just due to the sheer processing power required to make them feel populated, I expect to remain mostly 30. I just hope they are consistent 30 and not the mess they got to be at the end of last gen.

 

[LastNac]

what did he say?

I'm gonna bump an older thread with the exchange.

Overall nice guy, beard and all.

 

[TheCloser]

But game creators have to take into lowest-common-denominator across multiple pieces of hardware for 3rd party multiplats or hardware limitations for console exclusives, so it will always be a creative decision.

We know that 60 fps is always better than 30 fps for the same graphical fidelity; that is not even in question for the majority of the people here. The real argument is really should we sacrifice graphical fidelity for better frame rate or vice versa?

There can never be a general consensus to the that question because its simply comes down to preference so i don't know what the OP is trying to accomplish. An opinion or preference cannot become a fact and vice versa in this scenario.

 

[majik13]

If you read the threads where people with a very advanced technical understanding of the difference between video game renderings and filming real life were posting, they both proved it wrong and proved that video games actually become more similar to 24fps film the closer you get to 60fps or higher. The point of this thread is not really the explanation but the bullet point though. If someone proves using logic that it's not true, I will remove the bullet point, I don't have bias in the OT.

reread my edited posts for hopefully further clarification. i can see where they are coming from because generally videogames dont have accurate motion blur, while film does. So 24/30fps videogames will look stuttery compared to a real life motion blured 24fps film. 60fps gets us closer to the fluidness of 24fps film.
But if that game had real accurate motion blur with photorealstic rendering at 24/30fps it would generally come off as more photoreal than a the same game done with no motion blur and at 60fps game. But the opposite would be true if it were all done in VR.

Obviously I am only strictly talking about photorealsim and if that is what you want to achieve.

FWIW I am a VFX compositor on feature films, that also has experience with professional rendering, and dealing with live action footage.

Im not saying that 60fps is useless far from it, i particulaly like the fluidity of it, espacially as games lack motion blur. But I think it is inaccuruate and false to say that frame rate has nothing to do with rendering because it has nothing to do with film.

 

[LastNac]

I think my take on 30fps versus 60 is a bit different than other people's. I've never been all that sensitive to input lag. I can tell a difference of course but it's the clarity of motion and fluidity of animation that I think makes 60fps preferable. 30fps is completely acceptable for me but I definitely consider 60 to be ideal.

I've felt that 30fps is worth it for games that can utilize the extra detail to immerse you in the environment and setting through the extra fidelity when that was important to the game's experience but, if ND pulls off Uncharted looking like that trailer at 60fps, I'm going to be FAR more critical of 30fps in linear titles. Open world games, just due to the sheer processing power required to make them feel populated, I expect to remain mostly 30. I just hope they are consistent 30 and not the mess they got to be at the end of last gen.

Still conflicted about Uncharted at 60FPS. Fear not though, suicide watch isn't needed

 

[FloweryMarston]

I'm gonna bump an older thread with the exchange.

Overall nice guy, beard and all.

alright, thanks. love druckmann.

as for the thread, i would love everything to achieve the highest and smoothest quality a game can achieve, so whatever technological goals the developers have, if it fits the game better, i have no problem with that.

 

[Goddard]

I've felt that 30fps is worth it for games that can utilize the extra detail to immerse you in the environment and setting

I have never liked this line of thought. How does very smooth motion not increase immersion more than better looking foliage?

What goal posts? I was serious with the earlier point and I expanded upon it in every post since.

From claiming that 30fps itself has artistic merit to claiming that artists can have a vision, lol. You haven't really expanded you have just changed the argument. Saying that a developer might chose 30fps because of an inherent property of 30fps that makes it better besides just the graphical leeway and then saying that it's just the graphical leeway is a pretty big move.

 

[nomis]

Definition has no bearing on how something moves. Different argument entirely.

Yeah, ok it's nice that you feel that way, you're just completely wrong. Framerate is temporal resolution. Clarity of motion is a consequence of your eyes receiving more visual data, in a completely equatable sense to 1080p giving your eyes more visual information than 720p.

If I was out to create an "interactive cinematic experience" in the vein of an Uncharted, TLoU, The Order, etc, then my goal would be to make you feel like your were actually playing a movie. 60FPS doesn't make me feel like I'm playing a movie


Why is it so inconceivable to think some people would prefer a locked 30FPS for some experiences.

Well I'm glad that you aren't in charge of creating any visual cinematic experiences. Videogames are meant to immerse, not detach. Low framerate in movies only manages to also facilitate a level of immersion because you don't have input.