• 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.

rjc571

Banned
Jun 23, 2012
8,105
3
0
"Cinematic" is an outdated term. The term "cinematic" was used for years to refer to the audiovisual experience of seeing a film in the cinema, which until recently was leagues beyond what could be viewed at home. Nowadays, however, home theatre systems have all but caught up to movie theatres in providing such an experience, and so the term "cinematic" has little to no meaning.

The gaming equivalent of "cinematic" would be "arcade-like", but this too has little meaning today since arcade gaming is all but dead.
 

polyh3dron

Banned
Jan 14, 2007
41,957
3
0
Los Angeles, CA
It's stockholm syndrome, people have been stuck with 30fps and below so long that they're rationalizing reasons to keep it around.
PS2, Dreamcast, GameCube and the original Xbox all had lots of games that ran at 60.

All the 2D consoles from Atari to NES, SNES to Genesis to Neo Geo almost exclusively had games running at 60. The 360/PS3 gen was really the first gen where bad and inconsistent frame rates came far closer to the norm than it previously was. Yeah the PS1 and N64 had choppy framerates but they were more accepted since they were the first 3D consoles and thus there was still some novelty there. The 360/PS3 gen was the first time it seemed like devs stopped caring about a solid frame rate in their games and was a step backwards in this regard and that attitude even spread to 2D mobile games with publishers like Square Enix and Capcom releasing horribly made ports of old 2D games that ran at a smooth 60FPS originally on SNES and GBA respectively. Those games are Chrono Trigger and Ace Attorney Trilogy and their mobile ports are atrocious due to the shitty frame rates.

Many gamers such as myself have grown sick of these bad frame rates over this past gen and were hoping that this new gen would be a return to 60FPS games and it looks like this may not be the case. It's definitely disheartening to hear that TLOU may not even hit 60 on average on the PS4.
 

Kageshinzo

Member
Aug 2, 2011
2,523
0
0
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.

Why shouldn't people demand that all modern games be 60 fps? If Vectorman did it in freaking 1995, there's absolutely no reason why that frame rate is not used in 2014.
 

Candescence

Member
Oct 3, 2013
2,901
0
0
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.
Now this probably explains why some of the WebM videos in the WebM thread seem faster/smoother than than expected from my perspective. Interesting.
 

AlexIIDX

Member
Nov 5, 2013
1,069
0
0
Idk, sometimes I prefer the look of 30 over 60...Sure, 60 is better for gameplay but it sometimes gives it that soap opera effect that I dislike. Probably also because im much more used to playing games that are 30. When I first fired up BF4 on PS4 it was pretty off putting to me, but I don't really notice it anymore.
 

Wonko_C

Member
Jul 5, 2010
5,511
1,860
1,235
Cancun, Mexico.
I wish people would stop holding on to low framerates being cinematic in general. 24fps shouldn't be acceptable for.... anything.

You people are the reason no theaters around me were showing the Hobbit in 48fps! Embrace the future, you luddites!

I know that pain, though I did see the first one in 48fps and it was incredible. I purchased the tickets online for the second one's 48fps version then when I went to the theater I wanted to leave and ask for a refund when I saw that the corporate logos weren't 48fps arguing that I was lied to, but I was with my friends and they didn't want to leave. If the third one isn't shown in 48fps I'll just wait and rent the blu-ray instead.
 

Dryk

Member
Aug 22, 2013
10,973
1
0
Adelaide, South Australia
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.
Agreed, if I can get a game to run at 45+ on high settings I'm usually okay with it. Even an extra 15fps makes for a noticeable decrease in response time.
 

majik13

Member
Mar 5, 2012
6,242
0
0
for gameplay sure 60 is ideal, not completly neccesary for something like TLOU though but I wouldnt complain. ussually this complaint is only lobbied against 60 fps cinematic cutscenes. Which I can definetly understand
 

LastNac

Member
May 5, 2012
5,760
0
0
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.
Not true. The scene uses camera pans as well as overtures, etc. These are elements that are significant in romantic adventure films, are they not?
 

ZeroX03

Member
Oct 23, 2009
27,340
0
620
Australia/New Zealand
Watching != interacting. Passively observing a linear visual sequence has you perceive framerate pretty differently to interacting with a non-linear visual sequence. The former requires little investment, and allows your brain to relax and comfortably find patterns in "24 frames per second" data to form a cohesive visual sequence. The issue interactive mediums introduce is fact we're not longer casual observers; we've a natural expectation of patterns not just in visuals but visuals as feedback for interactivity. We don't "run" at a low framerate, or any framerate, so our interactivity marked with low framerate feedback can lead to a weird dissonance. In almost all scenarios your brain can and will appreciate more frequently updated visual feedback to your physical input, as that is what we're used to simply via our own existence.

An easy experiment is to play a game at 60fps and 30fps while recording footage, and going back and watching that footage. In the former scenario the footage will almost always seem oddly smooth and fast, moreso than you remember while playing. Yet playing the latter may lead to frustration as you try to line up shots and move your character, yet the footage will seem perfectly cohesive and smooth.

Watching is a passive experience: your brain only needs to find patterns in the visual data and that's it. If it works, it works, and everybody is happy. Interaction is different, your brain not passively finding visual patterns, but attempting to correlate those patterns to your own deliberate physical input that is not bound by "framerates".

An argument that gameplay should be 60+fps and cutscenes 30fps is another matter entirely.

This. Gameplay at 60fps is inherently superior.

Film and TV are a different story. There are actually some benefits to a lower framerate; creating an image that's harder to visually digest in motion which keeps the focus on the primary subject, and less frames means the brain can piece together the action itself. It's common to remove frames in action films to make punches appear faster, stronger, etc, it hides the 'stunt' (or CGI) aspect because there's less detail given to the viewer. 48fps it's harder to do that.

Cutscenes are a strange middle ground. It's jarring to switch between framerates in the middle of an experience. MGS2 had black cuts which helped, while Ground Zeroes (which someone wanted the cutscenes in 30fps a while back) didn't have that luxury.
 

Kageshinzo

Member
Aug 2, 2011
2,523
0
0
The 360/PS3 gen was really the first gen where bad and inconsistent frame rates came far closer to the norm than it previously was. Yeah the PS1 and N64 had choppy framerates but they were more accepted since they were the first 3D consoles and thus there was still some novelty there. The 360/PS3 gen was the first time it seemed like devs stopped caring about a solid frame rate in their games and was a step backwards in this regard and that attitude even spread to 2D mobile games with publishers like Square Enix and Capcom releasing horribly made ports of old 2D games that ran at a smooth 60FPS originally on SNES and GBA respectively. Those games are Chrono Trigger and Ace Attorney Trilogy and their mobile ports are atrocious due to the shitty frame rates.

I'm really beginning to think that the PS3/360 generation has really screwed up gamers' perceptions in their desire to offer a much more "cinematic" experience and in favoring flash and graphical presentation rather than giving that pure gameplay experience. Video games are not movies, and the sooner this industry gets over this hard-on to give us that movie-like experience, the sooner we can get back to how games were measured in the past: by the weight of their gameplay.
 

majik13

Member
Mar 5, 2012
6,242
0
0
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.

its not just special effects, its everything. Acting, makeup, costumes, sets, etc. 24fps hold the suspinsion of disbelief better I suppose
 

LastNac

Member
May 5, 2012
5,760
0
0
I'm really beginning to think that the PS3/360 generation has really screwed up gamers' perceptions in their desire to offer a much more "cinematic" experience and in favoring flash and graphical presentation rather than giving that pure gameplay experience. Video games are not movies, and the sooner this industry gets over this hard-on to give us that movie-like experience, the sooner we can get back to how games were measured in the past: by the weight of their gameplay.
Sure, they aren't 100% passive like movies but there is no reason why every other element cant be adapted.
 

Flandy

Member
Oct 25, 2013
11,328
0
655
I wish I could be like you people who prefer 30 fps over 60 fps. I wish I could watch and play everything in those higher frame rates. I like the smoothness that high frame rates bring. Really improves the image quality
 

pottuvoi

Banned
May 17, 2010
3,821
34
780
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.
I'm quite sure that the choice to reduce motion blur length was something that most complainers didn't like. (they could have shot with 48fps and 360 degree shutter which would have same blur length as most movies.)
 

Kageshinzo

Member
Aug 2, 2011
2,523
0
0
Sure, they aren't 100% passive like movies but there is no reason why every other element cant be adapted.

The problem is that developers of these "movie-like" AAA game experience aren't doing that at all. Case in point being the regression to 30 or sub-30 fps in favor of more flash and "next-gen" graphics/visuals. That kind of compromise should never have been an issue in the first place. I'd rather have scaled down graphics but with high fps instead of the other way around.
 

Jtrizzy

Member
Jun 20, 2007
8,667
0
0
North Carolina
But still, it's silly to say that 60fps unlocked is smooth as butter or something.

If a game stays locked at 30fps, it's going to look smoother because it will divide evenly into most display refresh rates (60Hz, 120Hz, etc). A game that constantly fluctuates between 40-60fps is going to look worse than a game locked at 30fps since there will be an extra frame or two that repeat because it won't refresh evenly.

My quote says drops to 50 or 55. Below 50 and I'm inclined to agree. But that is an important qualification.
 

TL21xx

Banned
Jul 19, 2012
805
0
0
28
Texas
www.youtube.com
While I get the complaint from people that dislike high framerate films due to how the extra frames can kill the illusion of the visual effects, more frames really sell immersion, which is what games are all about. That being said, a stable framerate is more important, so while I'd prefer everything to run at least 60fps, I can deal with a steady 30fps as long as it doesn't drop or rarely does. The only thing that bugs me more than dropping to sub 20fps is getting an unstable framerate between 30 and 60 fps.
 

Lemondish

Member
Jun 26, 2013
2,632
177
530
I don't like the trade off. I can accept pushing the envelope with visuals at 30 fps. Considering how terrible nearly every "60 fps" game looked last gen, I don't feel bad thinking this way.
 

Ahmed360

Member
Nov 24, 2012
339
3
460
UAE
Why not target 48fps?

60fps is king of course, but I think at 48fps they can optimize the game even better.

The hobbit looked BRILLIANT at 48fps.

I need to try some games at 48fps...
 

Jtrizzy

Member
Jun 20, 2007
8,667
0
0
North Carolina
I don't like the trade off. I can accept pushing the envelope with visuals at 30 fps. Considering how terrible nearly every "60 fps" game looked last gen, I don't feel bad thinking this way.

Which games are you referring to that were 60 fps and looked terrible? Rage was really impressive to run like it did on consoles. Other than that it's shooters, racers, fighting, and sports games.

Why not target 48fps?

60fps is king of course, but I think at 48fps they can optimize the game even better.

The hobbit looked BRILLIANT at 48fps.

I need to try some games at 48fps...

Because the refresh rate of your tv is 60 so it will be janky.
 

Aces&Eights

Member
Nov 13, 2013
3,983
117
560
Spokane, WA
Watching != interacting. Passively observing a linear visual sequence has you perceive framerate pretty differently to interacting with a non-linear visual sequence. The former requires little investment, and allows your brain to relax and comfortably find patterns in "24 frames per second" data to form a cohesive visual sequence. The issue interactive mediums introduce is fact we're not longer casual observers; we've a natural expectation of patterns not just in visuals but visuals as feedback for interactivity. We don't "run" at a low framerate, or any framerate, so our interactivity marked with low framerate feedback can lead to a weird dissonance. In almost all scenarios your brain can and will appreciate more frequently updated visual feedback to your physical input, as that is what we're used to simply via our own existence.

An easy experiment is to play a game at 60fps and 30fps while recording footage, and going back and watching that footage. In the former scenario the footage will almost always seem oddly smooth and fast, moreso than you remember while playing. Yet playing the latter may lead to frustration as you try to line up shots and move your character, yet the footage will seem perfectly cohesive and smooth.

This makes sense. Playing games like inFAMOUS and Fallout, I'm sometimes struggling to get that smooth headshot or feel a little disoriented when running and turning fast. However, anytime I watch videos of gameplay it always feel smooth and I've never thought, hmm, I recall it being a little jittery in that part. Never even thought about it TBH.
 

EatinOlives

Member
Oct 23, 2011
16,849
0
0
Games are not film, and our eyeballs enjoy more frames.

This.

It needs to be repeated a thousand billion times in discussions like these.

Games are not films.
Games are not films.
Games are not films.

On a fundamental level, games are not films. The way the audience interacts with a game is completely different. The very fact that you even interact with a game is what makes games completely different. You reach into a world and you manipulate everything about it, even what kind of angle the game projects its universe in.

Throw a gameplay video into a movie screen and you're going to get laughed out of a theater. Why is the camera fixated on the same angle for a straight half hour? Why did I just see the main protagonist die in the most pedestrian way possible, and why am I looking at the same past 2 minutes over again? Why am I seeing the protagonist walk in a hallway for 10 minutes?

Do the same for a movie and you'll get a 0/100 on Metacritic. Why can't I move my character? Why is the frame always static and always so close to the characters? Why can't I do anything?

These are extremely basic fundamental differences between the two media. And yet some people think that it's the framerate of all things that makes one of these "more like the other". Talk about missing the forest for the trees, ffs.
 

LCGeek

formerly sane
I'm with a certain camp that finds the whole idea of games being cinematic to be a big wtf.

Here's simple arithmetic. Movies do not drop frames or have a whole host of issue games do when talking about constant motion. If a movie is done right the fps is constant. Also like I reminded tons of gaffers cameras and how they deal with light is not the same as a game. You would figure those two facts alone would keep people from ever using the word, cinematic, in the fashion it has but this post shows otherwise.

Just gonna say this for the record again. temporal resolution. Yeah this is why I hate 30fps because it actually destroys clarity instead of allowing for more.

30fps is a power constraint devs have to live with, but I never thought I would see them be complacent with the problems it brings to response or clarity.

Be it 30fps or 60fps I'm just waiting for devs to get either of these stable for most part in the 3d console era. Be it tearing or stability they have slipped and can easily spend a few less resources on effect to ensure they are well seen to begin with.
 

Freshmaker

I am Korean.
Jul 29, 2005
22,162
6
1,310
In direct response to TLOU and Neil Druckman stating they are targeting 60 fps people are now saying it's not "cinematic" . I played the hell out of TLOU and I feel it would definitely benefit from a bump in fps. Games that stutter and hit 25-30 fps don't feel very cinematic to me.

That's usually just a joke poking fun at luddite film fans who refuse to consider any FPS other than 24 as artistic.
 

enzo_gt

tagged by Blackace
Jun 7, 2009
78,135
0
0
I thought the 30FPS argument was for cutscenes, not gameplay?

I mean, it's obvious 60FPS is smoother for something that is interactive, but the dealing with different media associations with different framerates is something else entirely. If someone is trying to mimic filmic qualities in their video, I see no reason why they shouldn't opt for 30FPS if they want the viewer to draw on those associations when watching cutscenes. Inconsistency between gameplay and cutscenes isn't a problem either; they are inherently different in their purpose and level of interaction afforded to the gamer.
 

quetz67

Banned
Jun 24, 2004
5,795
0
0
At 30fps you can increase poly count and implement advanced lighting. That makes the game look more realistic and so more like a movie.
 

Nerokis

Member
Feb 28, 2013
3,404
0
0
Games are not film, and our eyeballs enjoy more frames.

Your eyeballs enjoy more frames. As you say, games != film. But gamers who are trained to appreciate a certain smoothness of action, which is primarily relevant to the interactive side of things, also tend to attach an aesthetic appeal to 60 FPS that isn't necessarily related to any inherent visual beauty. When someone picks up on the amplified smoothness of 60 FPS footage, and it's pleasurable to look at, it's not simply because they're "enlightened" in comparison to those who are "conditioned" by things like the 24 FPS standard in cinema. They're equally conditioned to perceive FPS a certain way.
 

magnifico

Member
Nov 10, 2013
267
1
390
30fps isn't cinematic anyway.... 24fps with a certain amount of motion blur to prevent strobing (1/48 shutter speed) shot very carefully is considered traditionally cinematic (which would be terrible for gaming because most frames would be too blurry to play). No major films are shot or distributed at 30fps anyway so it's just as "cinematic" as any other framerate that isn't 24fps. The cinematic argument makes no sense at all since no one wants to see the fps drop below 30.
 

TAJ

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Jun 9, 2004
24,925
1
0
The Hobbit in 48 is pretty jarring. You really have to get used to it and otherwise it looks like a video game with real people on top of it.

The Hobbit looks like a video game in any format. One of many reasons I hate it.
But the few grounded scenes look like the world's highest-budget play in 48fps, which to me is a good thing.

Tongue-in-cheek, right? Right?

EA plant.
 

conman

Member
Aug 12, 2007
4,591
0
0
I don't think I've ever seen that argument.

And if I had, it would be wrong. 24fps in gaming is not the same as 24fps in film. This only makes sense if you're talking about at-home viewing with a 30fps source (like DVD). But then that's not properly "cinematic." So it's nonsense no matter how you look at it.
 

mrlion

Member
Dec 30, 2012
1,953
6
0
24 fps was a limitation in film that just stood as the standard for a very long time just because its something that filmmakers were used to it. Film cameras were much more capable later on than they were back then. We're just so used to it because its a standard. As long as there's filmmakers out there running everything in 24 fps, 48 or even 60 (like James Cameron wants to push) will be nothing more than just for a clique.

However, gaming can be said the same thing. PC gamers are used to higher framerates for obvious reasons it is the limitations of the consoles that made people get used to them much like film. 60 and 120 will remain for a clique as long as devs don't push the limitations from consoles. Yes I play consoles and I have a gaming PC, don't kid yourselves consoles have always limited the gaming industry.
 
D

Deleted member 125677

Unconfirmed Member
I refuse to believe people are actually claiming this non-tongue-in-cheekish
 

BigTnaples

Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Feb 10, 2011
13,634
385
1,010
HFR The Hobbit Wins. Every time.



The first I hear of HFR compatible 4KTV's, and Bluray players, I am in.
 

Kura

Banned
Dec 8, 2013
298
0
0
I dont find hard to understand that a game that runs at 30 is more cinematic than if it runs at 60. If a game wants to go 'cinematic experience', 60 fps is way too smooth for it and your brain will always think that it's still a game.

Another story is that you dont want, or dont like, cinematic games, because games are games and not movies. It's fair. But that doesnt prove wrong that 30 feels more like a movie than 60.
 

quetz67

Banned
Jun 24, 2004
5,795
0
0
However, gaming can be said the same thing. PC gamers are used to higher framerates for obvious reasons it is the limitations of the consoles that made people get used to them much like film. 60 and 120 will remain for a clique as long as devs don't push the limitations from consoles. Yes I play consoles and I have a gaming PC, don't kid yourselves consoles have always limited the gaming industry.

That is laughable. 60 and 120fps are for a elite in most games. Most people are happy if their PCs run a game at 30fps with it looking at least acceptable.

Gamers will probably increase quality anyway rather than famerate where it is not necessary. Which is most non multiplayer games. And that is what we are talking about here, about cinematic experiences and not ultra fast first person multiplayer games.

And even if people play at 60fps or more one reason is to stay competitive. No need for that if everybody is at 30fps anyway.
 

quantumnerd

Member
Oct 29, 2013
504
0
0
around computers
The argument that 30 FPS and below make things look cinematic is silly. Might as well say that games should look like they've come off black & white silent movie VHS tapes. After you get used to the first minute of "oh god this isn't like the last movie I watched", you normally realize it's smoother.

Also, this is a big thing most people miss: games do not have proper motion blur, and sometimes don't have it at all. Movies look fine at 24 FPS due to motion blur and slow camera movements. Games cannot look fine at 24 FPS with fast camera movments and without motion blur.
 

arne

Member
Sep 13, 2005
5,576
0
1,485
Santa Monica, CA
www.arnemeyer.com
We've been putting out games at 30fps (more or less, yeah) for a while now. I mean, if you want only 24fps, that will let us put a whole lot more effects in!

Speaking less sarcastically, 30hz, 60hz and anything in between is more than just about being cinematic, it's about the underlying systems that affect gameplay and how they refresh. Your body/eye can't compensate for that like it does when watching 24fps source material on film. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge cinephile and buy Criterions, watch things in as original format as possible, etc., but in games, as most of us know, the higher the frame rate you can pull out, the better the overall experience, generally speaking.

Games vs. TV don't have that "soap opera" effect at higher than 24fps frame rates in my experience, but then again I'm not a dark10x frame rate peeper ;)

I, for one, am looking forward to seeing our final result with TLOU PS4.
 

nkarafo

Member
Nov 30, 2012
16,387
7,956
1,070
This "cinematic" argument is really bad. The only reason 24 fps became a standard in movies was because it was the minimum they could use in order to "fool our eyes". It was only a cost effective solution. A good price/performance thing if you will. More FPS was more expensive, less FPS was starting to reveal the slide show.

Its a huge compromise, it always was, wanting games to continue this trend is ridiculous. And the only reason is "because you got used to it"??? Well, maybe its time getting used to better things? Not to mention that games have interactivity and control which automatically means more FPS = even more benefits.
 

magnifico

Member
Nov 10, 2013
267
1
390
I dont find hard to understand that a game that runs at 30 is more cinematic than if it runs at 60. If a game wants to go 'cinematic experience', 60 fps is way too smooth for it and your brain will always think that it's still a game.

Another story is that you dont want, or dont like, cinematic games, because games are games and not movies. It's fair. But that doesnt prove wrong that 30 feels more like a movie than 60.

Except that 30fps in games doesnt feel any more cinematic than 60fps. A. There's no motion blur, there's just a lot of strobing, like it was shot at a super high shutter speed and B. it's not even the correct framerate to be considered traditionally cinematic. 30fps looks nothing like the cinema, my brain just sees a game with lots of stutter and input lag.
 

Kura

Banned
Dec 8, 2013
298
0
0
Except that 30fps in games doesnt feel any more cinematic than 60fps. A. There's no motion blur, there's just a lot of strobing, like it was shot at a super high shutter speed and B. it's not even the correct framerate to be considered traditionally cinematic. 30fps looks nothing like the cinema, my brain just sees a game with lots of stutter and input lag.

Good points. But a couple of things. A lot of games does have motion blur actually. And 30 may not be the correct cinematic frame rate, but is closer to it than 60.
And if it's rock solid 30 fps, there's no stuttering.

And about the input lag, all depends in the game, if it requires fast responsiveness or not.
And it's not like 30 fps is unplayable : /

While I understand your points, it's definitely not my case.

Maybe it's just only me, but with 60 fps all seems a lot more 'gameish' to me. A cinematic game at 60 would not grow on me : /