• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Can we please stop with the whole "60 fps is not cinematic" argument.

akaoni

Banned
Apr 5, 2012
3,503
0
0
Europe
Absolutely glorious of course.

 

POWERSPHERE

Banned
Nov 4, 2006
9,216
0
0
In a well made film 24 frames looks perfectly lovely and I don't see why that's a problem. I'd rather watch a beautifully shot movie in 24 frames than something for the sake of 60fps. Would The Shining be better in 60fps? Would Star Wars be better in 60fps? I find higher frame rates reveal the cheapness in physical sets and I don't know if you've visited many movie sets, but they're pretty rough and cheap to look at in person, but the problems are hidden much more effectively with a lower frame rate. The Hobbit suffered from this to a degree, and I imagine it'd drive up physical production costs quite a lot.

Anything animated will shine with higher frame rates, of course, but for physical film, I just don't really care.
 

UltraGunner

Banned
May 13, 2013
15,249
0
0
Los Angeles, CA
twitter.com
bu bu bu OP, don't you know that the human eye can't see more than 30 frames per second! Why can't you accept that Cinematic™ frame rates with superfluous eye candy is better for a medium that requires interactivity on the audience's part!
 

Tabular

Banned
Jun 1, 2013
791
0
0
Ya I disagree that all games should target 60 fps. Just like not all movies should either. 30 fps IS more cinematic.
 

Byron Bluth

Banned
Jun 26, 2013
8,074
0
485
Higher FPS=Lower control latency

Also, it's such a weird argument to hear as a person who grew up with a PC.
 
Feb 5, 2014
90
0
0
I totally support those Peter Jacksons around the world trying to increase fps, in games and movies, although both are enjoyable with 30+ too, THAT is what we have to agree.
 

Dash Kappei

Not actually that important
Apr 8, 2005
15,737
4
1,500
twitter.com
I'm so happy this is happening. It's a godsend for the uneducated.
This game is the poster child for "cinematic" experiences, it has a praised and beloved version currently running at <30fps and the remastered version coming out at 60 will look heaps and bounds beyond TLOU@30 and so much better that people will finally have to shut the hell up with that "not a cinematic framerate" nonsense once and for all. It'll be the end of that stupid argument and having both versions of such an iconic cinematic game being ON A CONSOLE ("you PC elitists..." card won't be played here) will help immensely. It'll hopefully be the end of the vast majority of the 30fps aficionados
 

Mass Effect

Member
Apr 24, 2011
11,120
4
0
I don't understand it either. With games, higher framerates don't inherently make them less cinematic. In fact, I found with a lot of games it's quite the opposite. Using Mass Effect as an example, the cutscenes look astronomically better running at higher framerates on PC compared the the god-awful sub-30 fps cutscenes on 360. It was like night and day. Devil May Cry 4 is another great example.

In a well made film 24 frames looks perfectly lovely and I don't see why that's a problem. I'd rather watch a beautifully shot movie in 24 frames than something for the sake of 60fps. Would The Shining be better in 60fps? Would Star Wars be better in 60fps? I find higher frame rates reveal the cheapness in physical sets and I don't know if you've visited many movie sets, but they're pretty rough and cheap to look at in person, but the problems are hidden much more effectively with a lower frame rate. The Hobbit suffered from this to a degree, and I imagine it'd drive up physical production costs quite a lot.

Anything animated will shine with higher frame rates, of course, but for physical film, I just don't really care.

You do realize we're talking about games, right? I know people are referencing films as well, but that is in comparison to games. Also, it doesn't even apply to games because they don't have the natural motion blur that we get with live-action films. What you'll get with a game in 24 fps is a juttering mess. It's awful. None of those issues you described with films are a factor for games.
 

LastNac

Member
May 5, 2012
5,760
0
0
Traditional films obviously have a certain fluidity to their visuals. Cinematic games are trying to mimic a film's aesthetic. Films aren't that smooth/fast visually, therefore a 60FPS game no longer has the visual tone of a movie.

Personally, I think the mindset that everything needs to be 60FPS is just as annoying to me as the 60FPS cinematic argument is to you, OP.

Also, Uncharted 3 looked really damn weird with 60FPS, dont want none of that.
 

DrNeroCF

Member
Jun 28, 2012
637
100
690
www.bornegames.com
More life like for me means more immersive and more cinematic to me. I feel drops of 10 or so frames on 60 isn't very jarring to the experience, but those same drops in 30 and lower are really bad. I love TLOU but that doesn't excuse the fact it sometimes runs like shit. I feel 60 fps would be more life like to me,,,

'Life-like' is the opposite of 'cinematic, by definition. It's also WAY easier to drop a few frames from 60 than it is to drop from 30.

I don't know, I'd love to see how TLOU looks at 60, but the cutscenes, with super clean IQ and perfect motion blur looked fantastic running at 30.

Now heres an opinion that I find odd.
When did everyone get so sensitive to frame judder?
I find it hard to believe that in all these years PC gamers have been locking their games to 30fps instead of playing with the usual average of 40-55fps or something.

Just looks to me like something is going wrong. Plus, in order to get 40-55 you either have sync off and get atrocious tearing, or are using triple buffering and getting laggy input.
 

ChawlieTheFair

pip pip cheerio you slags!
Jul 8, 2013
4,573
0
675
New Orleans
Traditional films obviously have a certain fluidity to their visuals. Cinematic games are trying to mimic a film's aesthetic. Films aren't that smooth/fast visually, therefore a 60FPS game no longer has the visual tone of a movie.

Personally, I think the mindset that everything needs to be 60FPS is just as annoying to me as the 60FPS cinematic argument is to you, OP.

Also, Uncharted 3 looked really damn weird with 60FPS, dont want none of that.

Uncharted 3 was 30 fps though.
 

Lady Gaia

Member
Aug 6, 2013
2,450
0
410
California
I think we could barter a truce if we can also agree to stop insisting that 60fps should be expected from all modern games, and that anything else is unplayable.
 

Abdul Hafeez

Member
Sep 30, 2013
717
0
0
I find it crazy that *consumers* are justifying lower framerate. Like...what the hell? Why wouldn't you want the bigger number? Always go for the bigger number!
 

FlutterPuffs

Member
Apr 6, 2011
11,017
0
640
To be honest I feel there's one thing 30fps does better than 60fps; during the first person scene in MGSV's intro. I got a bit nauseous due to the smooth weaving and bobbing of the camera.

Other than that, 60fps is definitely better.
 

Arkage

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
2,946
1,900
885
Both extremes are irritating. The "requires cinematic framerate" crowd is just as annoying as the "screw graphics, everything 60fps" crowd.

More to the point, a game running at 60fps literally isn't cinematic as far as framerate. This is math. No film runs at 60, and we all know most run at 24. When I turn on the smooth vision on my TV, which essentially provides in-between frames to speed up the framerate to 60, movies look fucking weird. Instead of being immersed in the scene it literally looks like dudes standing on a movie set reading lines. Sort of like turning it into a stage play. Maybe it's something you can get used to and not notice anymore, but it was jarring enough for me to not want to find out.
 
Mar 2, 2011
2,309
0
0
Ontario
I'm not going to say that 30 fps is better, but I will say that there are certain games where 60 fps doesn't make much of a difference. A shooter at 30 fps is unarguably worse, but I've never played an RPG and felt that 30 fps wasn't enough.

And a locked 30 fps is better than any unlocked framerate.

...

I don't think I can go back to regular motion in animated movies.
 
Feb 24, 2010
5,370
0
0
I find it crazy that *consumers* are justifying lower framerate. Like...what the hell? Why wouldn't you want the bigger number? Always go for the bigger number!

In movies it's different, in games it's a tradeoff. Bigger framerate means bigger sacrifices. It's not always for the best.

I think the term "cinematic" is stupid to begin with. If all films were shot with 60fps cameras, 60fps would be "cinematic".
 

Moon_frogger

Member
Jul 22, 2013
4,992
10
360
Prince Edward Island
It does make it look like a sitcom or something. But it's a game. And if that game is something like the last of us it's going to look cinematic no matter what. I will say that I always felt call of duty looked odd at 60 fps but I think that's a combination of crappy low res assets combined with the 60 fps
 

LastNac

Member
May 5, 2012
5,760
0
0
I don't see how you can play back both of those videos at the same time and come away with any other conclusion than 60fps being hands down better.
There isn't any weight to the movement. Also, of ever there was a moment that was more directly inspired by cinema, its the desert. Everything looks like it is spread up 1.5 speed. It just doesn't look right to me.
 

Abdul Hafeez

Member
Sep 30, 2013
717
0
0
In movies it's different, in games it's a tradeoff. Bigger framerate means bigger sacrifices. It's not always for the best.

Most of the sacrifices would never be noticed. See if developers really committed to 60 fps and showed their games only at 60 fps, then consumers never see what those games _could_ look like with a lower framerate. So even though we know there were trade offs, it wouldn't matter because we hadn't _seen_ those trade offs. And in the end, we would have a more fluid experience, which is good.
 
Feb 24, 2010
5,370
0
0
It does make it look like a sitcom or something. But it's a game. And if that game is something like the last of us it's going to look cinematic no matter what. I will say that I always felt call of duty looked odd at 60 fps but I think that's a combination of crappy low res assets combined with the 60 fps

One problem I have with 60fps games, is that the animation needs to be damn near flawless or it looks super bizzare to me. I had a great time watching the "banana peel" death animation in that series. So out of place to me.
 

ChawlieTheFair

pip pip cheerio you slags!
Jul 8, 2013
4,573
0
675
New Orleans
Most of the sacrifices would never be noticed. See if developers really committed to 60 fps and showed their games only at 60 fps, then consumers never see what those games _could_ look like with a lower framerate. So even though we know there were trade offs, it wouldn't matter because we hadn't _seen_ those trade offs. And in the end, we would have a more fluid experience, which is good.

But the argument is that higher fidelity graphics/effects are also good.
 

Freaky Fred

Banned
Sep 1, 2012
4,465
0
455
Nowhere
To be honest I feel there's one thing 30fps does better than 60fps; during the first person scene in MGSV's intro. I got a bit nauseous due to the smooth weaving and bobbing of the camera.

Other than that, 60fps is definitely better.

if you close one eye you'll only see 30fps and won't get nauseous. It's a fun little easter egg Kojima threw in to simulate wearing an eye patch like Snake
 

supernormal

Member
Aug 22, 2013
2,834
0
0
Dominican Republic
www.flickr.com
You said it yourself in your own post. 60 feels more life like, and 30 is more cinematic. Those two are like opposites of each other.

Like I've said before, slow paced games that haven't been designed with 60fps in mind from the beginning when made to run at 60fps look like they've been fast forwarded. It just looks off. 60fps is not always better, it depends on the experiences you want to make players feels and whether or not high fps helps you convey that.
 

TheD

The Detective
Mar 29, 2012
3,575
0
0
The trash cans outside your house.
Both extremes are irritating. The "requires cinematic framerate" crowd is just as annoying as the "screw graphics, everything 60fps" crowd.

More to the point, a game running at 60fps literally isn't cinematic as far as framerate. This is math. No film runs at 60, and we all know most run at 24. When I turn on the smooth vision on my TV, which essentially provides in-between frames to speed up the framerate to 60, movies look fucking weird. Instead of being immersed in the scene it literally looks like dudes standing on a movie set reading lines. Sort of like turning it into a stage play. Maybe it's something you can get used to and not notice anymore, but it was jarring enough for me to not want to find out.

Interpolated frames != footage natively at that framerate!
 
Mar 2, 2011
2,309
0
0
Ontario
One problem I have with 60fps games, is that the animation needs to be damn near flawless or it looks super bizzare to me. I had a great time watching the "banana peel" death animation in that series. So out of place to me.
I will say that some games, especially ones that run on UE3, look jittery at 60 fps. Mass Effect, for example, looks wonkier at 60 fps than it does at 30. The animations seem much more robotic.

Naturally, if the game were made to run at higher framerates the problem wouldn't exist, but that's not the case.
 

Marty Chinn

Member
Jun 6, 2004
31,449
0
1,585
Sounds like a lot of people in this thread would be upset at South Park: Stick of Truth's framerate even on the PC version.
 

Valnen

Member
Aug 4, 2009
20,973
0
0
36
Citrus Heights
Gotta have that working man's framerate. Lol.

I too will never understand people that see 60 FPS as an actual negative. It's ALWAYS a positive. ALWAYS.
 
Feb 24, 2010
5,370
0
0
Most of the sacrifices would never be noticed. See if developers really committed to 60 fps and showed their games only at 60 fps, then consumers never see what those games _could_ look like with a lower framerate. So even though we know there were trade offs, it wouldn't matter because we hadn't _seen_ those trade offs. And in the end, we would have a more fluid experience, which is good.

Absolutely, but unfortunately we've seen what can be done with the freed up assets, more enemies on screen, more displayed geometry, better anti aliasing and image quality, further draw distances, better lighting, etc etc.

I personally believe in mathematics. Any variable of 30 frames will look good as it divides nicely onto a 60 hz TV. 30 or 60 look stunning.

I'd rather get native resolution and locked 30, than sub hd with 60. I value the clarity personally. But that's obviously my opinion lol.
 

rbenchley

Member
Nov 29, 2006
1,369
0
0
Madison, WI
Agreed. I always argued about the Hobbit's 48fps. It only looks "like a soap opera" because that's what we're conditioned to believe about HFR content because of a history of budget TV shows being recorded in low quality but high frame rate interlaced video. If every Hollywood film switched to 60fps, 60fps would be the new "feel of film" and 24fps would seem dated and stuttery - much like 16fps silent film seems to us today.

Not being used to the increased smoothness of 48fps was a big part of the problem that some people had, but that wasn't the only issue. Cinematographers need to learn to light sets properly if they're going to film at HFR. Parts of The Hobbit were jaw-droppingly gorgeous, but other parts looked as cheap as a high school production of Shakespeare.
 

EatChildren

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Jan 29, 2008
36,140
8
0
Australia
Everything looks like it is spread up 1.5 speed.

Because like I said in my post, you're watching it, not playing it. The same oddity occurs when watching back your own recorded 60fps game footage. It usually seems faster than when you were actually playing.
 

Abdul Hafeez

Member
Sep 30, 2013
717
0
0
Absolutely, but unfortunately we've seen what can be done with the freed up assets, more enemies on screen, more displayed geometry, better anti aliasing and image quality, further draw distances, better lighting, etc etc.

I personally believe in mathematics. Any variable of 30 frames will look good as it divides nicely onto a 60 hz TV. 30 or 60 look stunning.

I'd rather get native resolution and locked 30, than sub hd with 60. I value the clarity personally. But that's obviously my choice lol.

Absolutely. Even if devs go with 30, they should lock the damn thing. An inconsistent framerate is the worst!
 
Nov 14, 2005
20,710
27
1,330
There isn't any weight to the movement. Also, of ever there was a moment that was more directly inspired by cinema, its the desert. Everything looks like it is spread up 1.5 speed. It just doesn't look right to me.

Sure the desert is cinema inspired but it lacks everything else that makes a movie a movie so whatever cinematic effect that's supposed to be created is lost imo. So to me, when you put the 30fps video next to the 60fps video I don't see a loss of cinematic effect. I see a loss of choppiness.
 

Chezzymann

Member
Feb 18, 2013
15,470
6
490
When it comes to movies people have to realize that a higher frame rate means its easier to spot the imperfections in special effects, thus making them look far cheesier.

For games, there's no direct reference point to live action (usually) so it's a non issue.
 

impact

Banned
Aug 14, 2011
12,137
0
0
I have no problem with playing games at 30fps, it's just that 60 is better.

Same. I don't understand the IF ITS NOT LOCKED AT 60 THEN LOCK AT 30 crowd either. My PC sometimes drops to 45-50ish if crazy shit is going on and it's still so much better than locked 30.