Support NeoGAF

[Acccent]

Because the artist is forced to make the decision because of being on limited hardware. No game designer ever wants their game to be 30fps, they just want their game to look really good, and the hardware isn't powerful enough to do it at 60. That's why it isn't artistic.

This is what I don't get. Why would a game designer have to pick 60fps above 30 in all cases? If they want the game to look choppy they could very well even make it run at 10fps, all other settings identical, and no one would argue that it's not an artistic choice. Just like you can make a game at a lower resolution or in black and white or with low-poly models or only mono sound, etc. – there are countless examples in which a technically lesser option is deliberately chosen for artistic reasons.

edit: woops this is the 3rd page, sorry. disregard this post if it has become irrelevant

 

[TitusGroan]

Jesus, this will never stop, will it? :/

Acknowledge the One True Framerate, and find salvation my child. Hebrews Chapter 13, Verse 5: Keep thine lives free from the love of cinematic gaming, and be content with medium resolution textures, for the Lord has said "Never shall I chug on thee. Never shalt thou experience input latency."

 

[cakefoo]

First of all, there was plenty of motion blur in the 30fps video.

Nope.

There are other aspects to filming real life that still differentiate it from video games in a way that would make 30fps filmed in real life with very little motion blur still far better than a video game running at a similar framerate, but I'm not an expert on the subject, so I would rather just leave it out of the discussion completely. I don't even have the source to the article of someone explaining why 60fps was more similar to film running at 24fps, I can't argue a point that I don't know that well, carry on with the thread please.

Right, you sound like you know what you're talking about. /s

Carry on with your little circle jerk.

 

[Thrakier]

It is absolutely a con in and of itself, which is why the lack of 60fps was put (in a different way) as a con for 30fps. However in a closed console space it is pretty ignorant to say that there is no pros to 30fps.

I don't see the ignorane. 60FPS is always better on console as well.

 

[Seanspeed]

Probably not, no.

Good. Maybe it'll lead to more awareness of this and subsequent shift in attitude and game development that prioritizes playability over extra shininess.

 

[Insane Metal]

Acknowledge the One True Framerate, and find salvation my child. Hebrews Chapter 13, Verse 5: Keep thine lives free from the love of cinematic gaming, and be content with medium resolution textures, for the Lord has said "Never shall I chug on thee. Never shalt thou experience input latency."

God damn it, awesome post

 

[Dictator93]

Wow, great OP. I agree on all points... though I must say. THe whole "20 fps unplayable thing" comes from the idea that, after playing at 60 fps for so long, 30 fps feels almost like slowmo to your mind.

 

[mkenyon]

Oh god wut rewrite that. That is very confusing to read.

Yeah, I hated the whole thing.

Lets split games into two categories, this is for argument's sake.

Category A contains things such as Heavy Rain, turn based games, adventure games, and other things of its kind.

Category B contains things such as FPS, third person action/adventure, platforming, arcade titles, RTS, fighting games, WRPGs, and anything similar.

Category A primarily relies on everything about a game that is not interacting with the virtual world. That could be the story in the case of Heavy Rain, or the background calculations in the case of something like Persona 4 or Europa Universalis. Since that thing is less important to the overall experience, it would then make sense to reduce the quality of that aspect in order to have gains in other areas that would be appreciated by the player.

Category B primarily relies on interacting with the virtual world as the central point of fun. Everything about these games is built on this concept. Even the background calculations (RPG stats in Skyrim, for example) are ultimately in service to this. That being the case, it would never make sense to sacrifice the quality of that in order to bolster other aspects of it.

 

[Goddard]

Probably not, no.

Just leave the thread if you're just going to linger around taking indirect pot shots.

This is subjective. It might be hyperbole sometimes, but for some, 30fps can be too much of a hinderance to swallow.

I think most of the time it is used as a direct shot at people who play console games.

Usually what people mean is that they might be able to see the difference under 'controlled circumstances', but wouldn't notice it in normal situations.

Really? I don't know, man, most of the time I see people post that one they are flatout trying to imply that there is no difference, like 75% of the time they are writing in a way that makes look like they are lying too, and just saying it to discredit somebody else.

Yes, there actually is a real thing as an 'average' consumer. It is hardly a strawman. You might simply be far too used to conversing with people on GAF and forget that for every one of us, there are a dozen people who are far less informed and tech conscious.

It's not like I don't believe that we as enthusiasts are a relatively extremely small niche, it's that I swear to god about 99% of the time I see people try and use that argument they are just using it to make it seem like their opinion is shared by all average consumers, which is indeed some form of strawman. Almost like a reverse strawman. In context people are usually saying things like "only the minority of people notice anyway (not true of course, many people know without realizing what the problem is,) and the average consumer wants good graphics not fast gameplay." I still consider that one mostly invalid. Especially because the "average consumer" in this specific context is implied to have literally no knowledge of what a framerate is, yet is implied to have a strong preference for 30fps.

I feel this is a perfectly valid point. The way its often used is a bit patronizing at times, but seriously, if you place a high priority on framerate and playability, then PC is absolutely the way to go.

I think it is so often used patronizingly that it comes close to invalidating it always. Like "The console gamer exclusive treehouse only allows in people who prefer graphics over framerate, get out and go buy a PC." Although of course there is some validity to the statement as a whole though, as on PC you can do whatever you want with your hardware. On that basis I will delete that one.

Yup, subjective like you said. This isn't an invalid argument whatsoever.

Lol I'm going to delete that one.

Don't get me wrong, I swear by 60fps, but I think its really tiring to hear people try and decredit people's opinions on the matter just because they aren't as perceptive on the matter.

Very, very few of the people who I see saying they can't see a difference seem legitimately genuine about it, and legitimately aren't as perceptive, but a metric fuck ton of those same people saying those same things seem to have some sort of motivation to not see the difference.

 

[Deleted member 325805]

Wow, great OP. I agree on all points... though I must say. THe whole "20 fps unplayable thing" comes from the idea that, after playing at 60 fps for so long, 30 fps feels almost like slowmo to your mind.

For me as a PC gamer 30fps feels like slow motion, 20fps makes me feel sick. I had to return Black Ops on PS3 because every time something happened the frame rate would drop to what felt like 15fps and after 30 minutes it gave me a headache. Red Dead Redemption was another one, any time I was in a high pop area it felt like the frame rate dropped into the low teens. Apparently RDR had better performance on X360 though.

 

[gnarlyxcharlie]

Don't really have much of an opinion on 30 vs 60, 30 feels fine to me, except after playing a 60fps game for an extensive time period then going back to a 30fps one. I remember playing MW2 a lot and then going back to Gears 1 or 2 and it felt like slow motion, but I adjusted quickly.

 

[Seanspeed]

@Drambit - so pretty much all of those 'invalid arguments' I contested come down to you not 'feeling' like people are being genuine about them stating what they're stating?

I disagree in many cases. I think its just that we, as people who can notice it very easily, tend to forget that its a learned ability and there genuinely are people out there who aren't perceptive to it.

I believe we're all capable of being perceptive to it and people fine with 30fps could certainly change their mind if exposed to enough 60fps gaming, but for where they are at, they are often being honest.

I know because I used to be one of 'those' people and I was not lying or being disingenuous for the sake of argument at all.

 

[MrCunningham]

Two decades ago:

Interesting fact: The Model 2 hardware runs at a maximum framerate of 57.5FPS, so there has never been a Model 2 title to run at 60FPS.. It's close enough to be indistinguishable from 60, but that first advertisement is actually misleading. Virtua Fighter 2 on the Sega Saturn did run at 60FPS though.

 

[Goddard]

This is what I don't get. Why would a game designer have to pick 60fps above 30 in all cases? If they want the game to look choppy they could very well even make it run at 10fps, all other settings identical, and no one would argue that it's not an artistic choice. Just like you can make a game at a lower resolution or in black and white or with low-poly models or only mono sound, etc. – there are countless examples in which a technically lesser option is deliberately chosen for artistic reasons.

edit: woops this is the 3rd page, sorry. disregard this post if it has become irrelevant

It is not really chosen though. That's the thing. The decision making isn't as clear cut as it is implied to be by certain publishers. They have these graphical assets that make the console shit bricks, and when faced with the ultimatum of having high graphical assets and shit performance vs high performance with shit graphical assets (relative to their original quality) a lot of them have so much emphasis on graphics that they have no real option other than capping framerate low. That is not an artistic decision to me but one of unfortunate necessity.

Acknowledge the One True Framerate, and find salvation my child. Hebrews Chapter 13, Verse 5: Keep thine lives free from the love of cinematic gaming, and be content with medium resolution textures, for the Lord has said "Never shall I chug on thee. Never shalt thou experience input latency."

This is fucking great. +100 internets

Nope.

Right, you sound like you know what you're talking about. /s

Carry on with your little circle jerk.

I already said I lost my point, and thus the argument about that bullet. I'm not circle jerking at all, I legitimately thought I was correct and was proved otherwise, I'm not pretending anything.

I don't see the ignorane. 60FPS is always better on console as well.

Having twice the time to render a frame is a pro regardless of what is sacrificed. Not the question of whether it is a net benefit after taking into consideration is a question for a different thread, but it is indeed a pro.

Good. Maybe it'll lead to more awareness of this and subsequent shift in attitude and game development that prioritizes playability over extra shininess.

Exactly. This needs to happen.

Yeah, I hated the whole thing.

Lets split games into two categories, this is for argument's sake.

Category A contains things such as Heavy Rain, turn based games, adventure games, and other things of its kind.

Category B contains things such as FPS, third person action/adventure, platforming, arcade titles, RTS, fighting games, WRPGs, and anything similar.

Category A primarily relies on everything about a game that is not interacting with the virtual world. That could be the story in the case of Heavy Rain, or the background calculations in the case of something like Persona 4 or Europa Universalis. Since that thing is less important to the overall experience, it would then make sense to reduce the quality of that aspect in order to have gains in other areas that would be appreciated by the player.

Category B primarily relies on interacting with the virtual world as the central point of fun. Everything about these games is built on this concept. Even the background calculations (RPG stats in Skyrim, for example) are ultimately in service to this. That being the case, it would never make sense to sacrifice the quality of that in order to bolster other aspects of it.

Exactly. Not 100% what your point is but what you say is correct imo.

For me as a PC gamer 30fps feels like slow motion, 20fps makes me feel sick. I had to return Black Ops on PS3 because every time something happened the frame rate would drop to what felt like 15fps and after 30 minutes it gave me a headache. Red Dead Redemption was another one, any time I was in a high pop area it felt like the frame rate dropped into the low teens. Apparently RDR had better performance on X360 though.

I get headaches too. Not from 30fps but from below. I can play Halo 3 for 3 hours without a hitch, but playing GTAV gives me the worst headaches from the constant frame dropping.

 

[Acccent]

It is not really chosen though. That's the thing. The decision making isn't as clear cut as it is implied to be by certain publishers. They have these graphical assets that make the console shit bricks, and when faced with the ultimatum of having high graphical assets and shit performance vs high performance with shit graphical assets (relative to their original quality) a lot of them have so much emphasis on graphics that they have no real option other than capping framerate low. That is not an artistic decision to me but one of unfortunate necessity.

You're saying it's not chosen only because you choose not to believe them when they say it was chosen... Might be true, might be false

 

[Goddard]

@Drambit - so pretty much all of those 'invalid arguments' I contested come down to you not 'feeling' like people are being genuine about them stating what they're stating?

I disagree in many cases. I think its just that we, as people who can notice it very easily, tend to forget that its a learned ability and there genuinely are people out there who aren't perceptive to it.

I believe we're all capable of being perceptive to it and people fine with 30fps could certainly change their mind if exposed to enough 60fps gaming, but for where they are at, they are often being honest.

I know because I used to be one of 'those' people and I was not lying or being disingenuous for the sake of argument at all.

Pretty much. I guess you have a pretty strong point, but as a counter to that, I found that after I started studying the techincal aspects of video games, such as the way code works, the way motion is simulated, how things are rendered, etc, I could think back to a lot of times in my childhood playing shitty games on PS1 or N64 and how I used to be bothered by what I thought at the time was lag, or stalling, like it was a constant motion being interrupted, because I didn't know it was frames, and when there was bad frame drops I thought it was just really fucking laggy, so as someone who used to be primarily a console gamer I can't agree 100% with you, the difference has always been there to me. I will take into consideration that a lot of people might be 100% genuine though, you are correct that it's very hard to emulate something as fundamental as not being able to see a 30 fps difference in motion, but hey maybe people can't.

I made some modifications based on what you are pointing out. I still think the whole "average consumer doesn't care therefore 30fps" argument is completely bullshit though, and it is used constantly, so I'm leaving that one there.

 

[Toparaman]

YouTube needs to get its shit together already. The videogame industry should be putting pressure on them to support 60fps.

 

[Goddard]

You're saying it's not chosen only because you choose not to believe them when they say it was chosen... Might be true, might be false

It is very simple logic. Game development works very simplistically when it comes to making decisions like that. It's the same reason resolution is limited. It's not "Oh wow I think my game would look so much better at 720p upscaled than it does at 1080p native, better go with that," in cases where resolution is sacrificed it's more along the lines of: "With original graphics we get 10 fps, with graphical reductions we can hit 35, but if we lower the assets any more than that it will lose all of its character, kill the resolution." It works in reverse order for framerate. "If I don't get all these beautiful assets in each frame it will lose all it's character, fuck the framerate." There are no inherently positive properties to sub native refresh rates or sub native resolutions, except that they allow for more computation to be done in different areas of the game.

YouTube needs to get its shit together already. The videogame industry should be putting pressure on them to support 60fps.

Couldn't agree more. Not just that though what the fuck kind of streaming service literally has 0 support for 60 fps, nevertheless the biggest streaming service.

 

[system11]

GTAV gives me the worst headaches from the constant frame dropping.

You're absolutely right here, while it was ok in places (particularly the dustbowl outskirts), some town areas were just uncomfortable to look at or drive quickly through, bordering on the unplayable. I would have happily sacrificed some draw distance if it meant I was able to see my surroundings better.

 

[CadetMahoney]

What the fuck kind of streaming service literally has 0 support for 60 fps, nevertheless the biggest streaming service.

Sheer greedyness of bandwidth and possible quality degredation.

Doubling the framerate means double the amount of frames the locked youtube compression bitrate has to compress in the same amount of time, leading to lower quality video and bigger files. I'm guessing youtube compression standardizes the framerate making things simpler.

If it where me running things I would allow youtube 60fps but only if the source video is 60fps throughout to match the compression profile, not variable framerate not 59.996fps etc. In which case I would just make those videos auto-compress to the 30fps profile until the uploader gets it right.

 

[Acccent]

It is very simple logic. Game development works very simplistically when it comes to making decisions like that. It's the same reason resolution is limited. It's not "Oh wow I think my game would look so much better at 720p upscaled than it does at 1080p native, better go with that," in cases where resolution is sacrificed it's more along the lines of: "With original graphics we get 10 fps, with graphical reductions we can hit 35, but if we lower the assets any more than that it will lose all of its character, kill the resolution." It works in reverse order for framerate. "If I don't get all these beautiful assets in each frame it will lose all it's character, fuck the framerate." There are no inherently positive properties to sub native refresh rates or sub native resolutions, except that they allow for more computation to be done in different areas of the game.

You are making way too many assumptions, me not knowing anything about game development being among those apparently. whatever

 

[Goddard]

You're absolutely right here, while it was ok in places (particularly the dustbowl outskirts), some town areas were just uncomfortable to look at or drive quickly through, bordering on the unplayable. I would have happily sacrificed some draw distance if it meant I was able to see my surroundings better.

Yeah. I don't like to throw around the idea of "unplayable" to often but in GTAV driving through traffic at high speed was literally unplayable sometimes. Like when you have to wait a couple hundred milliseconds for a new frame you can't fucking play anything.

Sheer greedyness of bandwidth and possible quality degredation.

Doubling the framerate means double the amount of frames the locked youtube compression bitrate has to compress in the same amount of time, leading to lower quality video and bigger files. I'm guessing youtube compression standardizes the framerate making things simpler.

If it where me running things I would allow youtube 60fps but only if the source video is 60fps throughout to match the compression profile, not variable framerate not 59.996fps etc. In which case I would just make those videos auto-compress to the 30fps profile until the uploader gets it right.

Why would it have to necessarily have to be in the same amount of time? Couldn't it just take twice as long to compress?

 

[Goddard]

You are making way too many assumptions, me not knowing anything about game development being among those apparently. whatever

Except in rare cases where the idea of low framerate might actually be considered "filmic" or some shit like that, that's exactly how it works. I you know more than me about game development and the thought process for reaching compromises like sub native res or sub native refresh is completely different, how is it different? Because if it is you would have to have some silly developer ideas. No one should ever plan their game around compromises from square one. I don't think they do either.

 

[MrJoe]

[*]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. (I'm not taking a shot at developers who chose 30fps by saying that, it is a fact.)

the people responsible for animating are artists not programmers. programmers are not involved in this at all.

"I can't see the difference." This one speaks for itself mostly, everyone can see and feel the difference under controlled circumstances. The extremely rare few that actually biologically aren't capable of seeing the difference don't have a relevant opinion in the discussion of 30fps vs 60fps

being one of those "extremely rare few" my irrelevant opinion is that I would rather have better graphics than 60FPS.

all told your post reeks of an elitist attitude. I'm glad that most developers agree with me and target 30FPS.

 

[Goddard]

the people responsible for animating are artists not programmers. programmers are not involved in this at all.



being one of those "extremely rare few" my irrelevant opinion is that I would rather have better graphics than 60FPS.

all told your post reeks of an elitist attitude. I'm glad that most developers agree with me and target 30FPS.

It's a shortcut for programmers to tie everything about a game to a locked framerate. Also, despite already deleting the point about people not being able to see it, of course you would want developers to prioritize graphics because you are not capable of knowing the difference. Chances are if you actually can't see it, then you are not capable of looking at the argument from an even remotely neutral perspective, which is why that position is pretty irrelevant to the argument. It would be the same thing inviting someone who can't stomach playing games at anything less than 60fps to a debate and asking him to look at both sides of the equation, completely pointless. I'm glad that what you think is "most developers" is actually not most. A very large amount of games are still 60 fps.

 

[Acccent]

Except in rare cases where the idea of low framerate might actually be considered "filmic" or some shit like that, that's exactly how it works. I you know more than me about game development and the thought process for reaching compromises like sub native res or sub native refresh is completely different, how is it different? Because if it is you would have to have some silly developer ideas. No one should ever plan their game around compromises from square one. I don't think they do either.

Of course that's how it works if you're making a bland AAA game, in which case the argument for 'artistic choices' is barely relevant anyway.

What I'm saying is, if you claim that there's a noticeable visual difference between 30 and 60fps, if there's a difference in the way the game looks, then you must admit that it's possible some people, or studios, prefer 30fps – at least in some cases. It's as simple as that. And it's the exact opposite of a compromise, too: the compromise would be to aim for the highest technical achievement regardless of artistic considerations, while choosing a lower framerate with no other difference is a clear, uncompromised artistic decision (again, in some cases).

 

[Vinc]

The best approach: Reach 60 fps without "watering down" the visuals. Aim for 60 fps from the beginning and take into consideration the limitations and strengths of the system it's designed for. Basically, best approach is the Nintendo approach.

 

[Goddard]

Of course that's how it works if you're making a bland AAA game, in which case the argument for 'artistic choices' is barely relevant anyway.

What I'm saying is, if you claim that there's a noticeable visual difference between 30 and 60fps, if there's a difference in the way the game looks, then you must admit that it's possible some people, or studios, prefer 30fps – at least in some cases. It's as simple as that. And it's the exact opposite of a compromise, too: the compromise would be to aim for the highest technical achievement regardless of artistic considerations, while choosing a lower framerate with no other difference is a clear, uncompromised artistic decision (again, in some cases).

The only artistic aspect of video games is video game design. There is absolutely nothint artistic about optimizing code of a video games to squeeze out a few extra fps, or making compromises. 30fps is literally always a compromise. Always. You can still appreciate it knowing that, as sometimes the compromise is worth it because you might prefer extra graphics to extra frames, but it is always a compromise, claiming it is anything else is seriously just PR bullshit. Does it look different? Of course it does. It is not equal though. It looks different because it takes twice as long to refresh each frame. It looks different because every time the framerate dips below the cap it becomes gut t wrenchingly horrible compared to just ugly. It looks different because usually developers take advantage of having a ton of extra headway per frame to add a higher degree of visuals. However, it never looks good compared to 60fps, and no one ever chooses 30fps because they think it looks more appealing in any way than 60fps. It is chosen to add visual quality, or to emulate something that is already low frame rate (in the case of The Order.) No one in their right mind would think of a cool idea for a game and think that it would be even cooler at 30 fps, the compromises happen way farther down the line, and they aren't artistic, they are just a trade-off.

 

[Goddard]

The best approach: Reach 60 fps without "watering down" the visuals. Aim for 60 fps from the beginning and take into consideration the limitations and strengths of the system it's designed for. Basically, best approach is the Nintendo approach.

I absolutely whole-heartedly agree with this approach. A lot of the limitations of console hardware would be way less of a problem if more developers made their priories like Nintendo. I think a lot of the perceived inferiority with console gaming are more of a problem with developers having strange priorities rather than the limited hardware.

 

[Raonak]

It really depends on the game, if it's a story based game, or a visual spectacle, I'd gladly take better IQ/effects over 60fps. But if it's a multiplayer game, or something with lots of replayability, i'd take the framerate.

 

[Acccent]

The only artistic aspect of video games is video game design. There is absolutely nothint artistic about optimizing code of a video games to squeeze out a few extra fps, or making compromises. 30fps is literally always a compromise. Always. You can still appreciate it knowing that, as sometimes the compromise is worth it because you might prefer extra graphics to extra frames, but it is always a compromise, claiming it is anything else is seriously just PR bullshit. Does it look different? Of course it does. It is not equal though. It looks different because it takes twice as long to refresh each frame. It looks different because every time the framerate dips below the cap it becomes gut t wrenchingly horrible compared to just ugly. It looks different because usually developers take advantage of having a ton of extra headway per frame to add a higher degree of visuals. However, it never looks good compared to 60fps, and no one ever chooses 30fps because they think it looks more appealing in any way than 60fps. It is chosen to add visual quality, or to emulate something that is already low frame rate (in the case of The Order.) No one in their right mind would think of a cool idea for a game and think that it would be even cooler at 30 fps, the compromises happen way farther down the line, and they aren't artistic, they are just a trade-off.

So if I want to make a game that looks like it's stop-motion, no dice, must be as smooooth as possible. If I want to make the player feel like a robot that can only see 1 image per second for some reason, woopsie, not doable. If the characters are in a nightclub and there are stroboscopic lights everywhere, each flash *must* be as short as possible. If I'm making a game that is a statement to show how bad 30fps looks– well I actually can't. Forbidden. Thanks for the heads up. Also thanks for letting me know that you decide what no one ever does. My whole life is a lie.

 

[Thrakier]

The best approach: Reach 60 fps without "watering down" the visuals. Aim for 60 fps from the beginning and take into consideration the limitations and strengths of the system it's designed for. Basically, best approach is the Nintendo approach.

This and only this.

Also, on PC you can easily "water down" your graphics to get from 30 or 60FPS. Say, going from ultra to high/mind - you end up with the same game still, it's looking the same and you need to clook cloesly to spot the differences, if it's not a massive difference in aliasing. Overall, the graphics experience stays roughly the same. Going up to 60 from 30 however makes for WHOLE NEW gameplay experience. It's not even close.

Just get your priorities right, developers. The big ones in the industry show how it's done.

 

[ANDS]

The recent Destiny alpha, capped at 30FPS (with I guess - if DF is to be believed a dip into 31FPS) was incredible fun. Did I know it wasn't 60FPS? Yes. Did it matter. Not particularly. The game still looked and played brilliantly, and I didn't experience any of the gameplay suffering for it.

GTAV though; the game does suffer from struggling to maintain an acceptable FPS that absolutely affects gameplay.

 

[Thrakier]

So if I want to make a game that looks like it's stop-motion, no dice, must be as smooooth as possible. If I want to make the player feel like a robot that can only see 1 image per second for some reason, woopsie, not doable. If the characters are in a nightclub and there are stroboscopic lights everywhere, each flash *must* be as short as possible. If I'm making a game that is a statement to show how bad 30fps looks– well I actually can't. Forbidden. Thanks for the heads up. Also thanks for letting me know that you decide what no one ever does. My whole life is a lie.

Your points are valid, but totally needles. That 1% case where someone chooses a certain framerate as an artistic choice - why even bring that in this discussion? It almost never happens. I can't think of one case, in fact, despite some graphical slow-mo effects. You just pull apart the discussion with that shit. It's really not the point. here.

 

[PensivePen]

So if I want to make a game that looks like it's stop-motion, no dice, must be as smooooth as possible. If I want to make the player feel like a robot that can only see 1 image per second for some reason, woopsie, not doable. If the characters are in a nightclub and there are stroboscopic lights everywhere, each flash *must* be as short as possible. If I'm making a game that is a statement to show how bad 30fps looks– well I actually can't. Forbidden. Thanks for the heads up. Also thanks for letting me know that you decide what no one ever does. My whole life is a lie.

You could do any of this at 60fps. Most of it would be a question of animation, not framerate.

 

[mkenyon]

So if I want to make a game that looks like it's stop-motion, no dice, must be as smooooth as possible. If I want to make the player feel like a robot that can only see 1 image per second for some reason, woopsie, not doable. If the characters are in a nightclub and there are stroboscopic lights everywhere, each flash *must* be as short as possible. If I'm making a game that is a statement to show how bad 30fps looks– well I actually can't. Forbidden. Thanks for the heads up. Also thanks for letting me know that you decide what no one ever does. My whole life is a lie.

You knocked his head clean off.

 

[Tom Penny]

Better graphics at solid 30 FPS is always better.

 

[Acccent]

Your points are valid, but totally needles. That 1% case where someone chooses a certain framerate as an artistic choice - why even bring that in this discussion? It almost never happens. I can't think of one case, in fact, despite some graphical slow-mo effects. You just pull apart the discussion with that shit. It's really not the point. here.

How is it not the point? The OP states that "30fps is an artistic choice" is a false statement. I'm saying it's not necessarily. The point is precisely that framerate, low or high, can be dependent on artistic direction – just like any other technical aspect. If you want to restrict the discussion to the same old AAA games with the same gameplay and the same visuals, say so initially, and then don't complain when the snake bites its tail and AAA never deviates from self-imposed norms.

You could do any of this at 60fps. Most of it would be a question of animation, not framerate.

Maybe. Maybe not.

 

[Goddard]

Your points are valid, but totally needles. That 1% case where someone chooses a certain framerate as an artistic choice - why even bring that in this discussion? It almost never happens. I can't think of one case, in fact, despite some graphical slow-mo effects. You just pull apart the discussion with that shit. It's really not the point. here.

This and...

You could do any of this at 60fps. Most of it would be a question of animation, not framerate.

this and...

You knocked his head clean off.

yup this we're done here. Lol.

One hell of a strawman.

 

[DOWN]

It's pretty obvious the OP is arguing for 60fps despite an attempt to look unbiased.

It is a fact that 30fps can be an aesthetic choice. This idea didn't come out of nowhere. There's a difference and 60fps is indeed associated negatively with cheaper media that uses higher framerates a than premium cinema and television. That absolutely opens it up to aesthetic choice.

On top of that, many developers choose 30fps to add graphical improvements (a compromise I prefer to the 60fps alternative) and it has been more common and a console standard because it does not cause graphics to "suffer greatly" like OP suggests. It has been and is still widely considered a plausible statistic of an extremely high quality and well received game release. Hence, not everyone making the move to 60fps like Kojima. It just is not a problem for most gamers and developers, even to those who like 60fps.

People forgetting the survey responses to The Hobbit 48fps? The aesthetic change absolutely is apparent in anything where framerate is increased.

 

[Goddard]

How is it not the point? The OP states that "30fps is an artistic choice" is a false statement. I'm saying it's not necessarily. The point is precisely that framerate, low or high, can be dependent on artistic direction – just like any other technical aspect. If you want to restrict the discussion to the same old AAA games with the same gameplay and the same visuals, then say so initially, and then don't complain when the snake bites its tail and AAA never deviates from self-imposed norms.

What? Seriously just..what? What's next, rendering Call of Duty at 1040 x 600 on ps3 is an "artistic decision,"

The recent Destiny alpha, capped at 30FPS (with I guess - if DF is to be believed a dip into 31FPS) was incredible fun. Did I know it wasn't 60FPS? Yes. Did it matter. Not particularly. The game still looked and played brilliantly, and I didn't experience any of the gameplay suffering for it.

GTAV though; the game does suffer from struggling to maintain an acceptable FPS that absolutely affects gameplay.

No one really claims that a solidly locked 30fps cannot be enjoyed, it's just that often times games that run at 30fps could be significantly improved if raised to 60. However yeah...If I was rating GTAV out of 10, it would get at least 3 points off for the framerate, you can't have a game that's at times unplayable and headache inducing, that is awful.

Better graphics at solid 30 FPS is always better.

Pack it in folks.

 

[Raonak]

What some poeple don't realise is that people are sensitive to different things. I'm not really framerate sensitive, but really sensitive to jaggies.

Things like GTAV, TLOU or jak collection on vita; they don't have good FPS, but I find them perfectly playable, it's the lack of AA that botheres me. unlocked framerates don't bother me at all until they start dropping sub30.

At the same time, I can instantly tell a game is at 60fps. huge DMC fanboy, and would never want sub60fps for DMC.

 

[rjc571]

Just look at Ratchet & Clank to see the importance of 60 fps. The series went to shit as soon as they switched from targeting 60 to targeting 30.

 

[Goddard]

It is a fact that 30fps can be an aesthetic choice. This idea didn't come out of nowhere. There's a difference and 60fps is indeed associated negatively with cheaper media that uses higher framerates a than premium cinema and television. That absolutely opens it up to aesthetic choice.

Not in gaming it isn't. Anyone who has played games for more than 10 years knows that.

On top of that, many developers choose 30fps to add graphical improvements (a compromise I prefer to the 60fps alternative) and it has been more common and a console standard because it does not cause gameplay to "suffer greatly" like OP suggests. It has been and is still widely considered a plausible statistic of an extremely high quality and well received game release. Hence, not everyone making the move to 60fps like Kojima. It just is not a problem for most gamers and developers, even to those who like 60fps.

Fixed and yes it does cause gameplay to suffer greatly. It depends on the game and the person how greatly, but 100% is always a great difference.

People forgetting the survey responses to The Hobbit 48fps? The aesthetic change absolutely is apparent in anything where framerate is increased.

I don't understand how anybody who has been gaming for even a few years holds this belief. That amount of games that actually get the effect of looking cheap at 60fps is probably below 10. The Hobbit comparison is almost literally never legitimate. If you have never played a game that has actually benefited from 60 fps, which I think is impossible, you have never really gamed. Like even Super Mario counts. In gaming the aesthetic change is always positive.

 

[Audible Phonetics]

I think your misinformed about tech and biological sense and perception.

I absolutely prefer TR at 30fps because it has a more cinematic feel TO ME.

This same debate has happened in film. People argued the 60fps was superior and screen tests showed overwhelming preference to 24fps. Despite your clamor ing the brain can absolutely make a distinction.

I edit film produced with different frame rates, I play games. Tombraider is much more immersive,to ME, at 30fps.

If you you can't understand sense and perception I'm sorry, people interpret sensory info differently I'm sorry. This same debate happened in film, and there are tech focused people that can't understand why people prefer lower frame rates in film. You can say they are technically different but it doesn't matter if the perceptual differences in fps are similar with the two media

This / Thread

 

[ANDS]

If they could get Destiny at 60FPS, I'd be interested in seeing what that looked like. I feel it wouldn't look as. . ."odd" as TR: Remastered did (seriously everything looked plastic).

 

[Audible Phonetics]

If they could get Destiny at 60FPS, I'd be interested in seeing what that looked like. I feel it wouldn't look as. . ."odd" as TR: Remastered did (seriously everything looked plastic).

TLOU will suffer from the same thing.

 

[Acccent]

What? Seriously just..what? What's next, rendering Call of Duty at 1040 x 600 on ps3 is an "artistic decision,"

Obviously if the next CoD was 240p and 10fps I'm having a hard time imagining how anyone could argue that it wouldn't be 1) an artistic choice 2) extremely ballsy. Sure, the game would be unplayable... How incredibly awesome would that be? A huge 'fuck you' to everyone, coming from the biggest videogame franchise ever. The stuff dreams are made of.

 

[Goddard]

It is frankly astonishing how many people outright deny that 60fps is positive in games. Like come on, it's completely okay to prefer the graphical tradeoff, but all this stockholm syndrome "60fps looks cheap" shit is really annoying.

 

[Goddard]

Obviously if the next CoD was 240p and 10fps I'm having a hard time imagining how anyone could argue that it wouldn't be 1) an artistic choice 2) extremely ballsy. Sure, the game would be unplayable... How incredibly awesome would that be? A huge 'fuck you' to everyone, coming from the biggest videogame franchise ever. The stuff dreams are made of.

Lol. It would be both an artistic travesty and incredibly stupid.

Unless your definition of art is "doing things bad on purpose" I have no idea what you're on about.