-tetsuo-
Unlimited Capacity
Dibbz said:Last gen wasn't any better.
Why do people expect that with every new generation there will be more games at 60fps?
basically
Dibbz said:Last gen wasn't any better.
Why do people expect that with every new generation there will be more games at 60fps?
Linkzg said:Bioshock is 60 on PC; even on 360 if you turn off the frame rate limiting, it gets a boost past 30. Not only is it 60, but it is much better for it. It's a good thing that your example already devalues your statement. And I didn't even need to come up with a large counter argument or anything.
M3d10n said:V-sync. Without it, you get random(min, max) framerate. To get sync'ed 40fps you need a 120Hz screen, and for 50fps you need 100Hz.
One thing I'd like to have on a videocard's control panel is a framerate limiter. It would be nice for making the experience more consistent when the rig isn't all up to date. But I guess GPU makers depend on the mixed emotions when players enter empty rooms or look down and their framerates shoot up for a moment.
civilstrife said:Aaand we're off!
The reason I used Bioshock as an example is because off that option. The game is decidedly not better in 60 fps. The smoothness kills the cinematic look the game is going for. This, (coupled with the 360's inability to maintain a constant 60) led to this being an option rather than a default.
I maintain (and most non-videophiles would agree) that 60fps isn't always appropriate for every game, Bioshock being a prime example.
Dibbz said:Last gen wasn't any better.
Why do people expect that with every new generation there will be more games at 60fps?
Seriously, I'm a local multiplayer whore and I can't bear to play that game splitscreen.jett said:Clearly, clearly, you have NOT played Wipeout HD. Splitscreen runs at 30fps, and its not only borderline unplayable after tasting the sweetness of 60fps, it's also way, WAY uglier.
Neo C. said:How is this possible? Movies have motion blur, games usually haven't. I think it's placebo effect in your case.:lol
civilstrife said:Aaand we're off!
The reason I used Bioshock as an example is because off that option. The game is decidedly not better in 60 fps. The smoothness kills the cinematic look the game is going for. This, (coupled with the 360's inability to maintain a constant 60) led to this being an option rather than a default.
I maintain (and most non-videophiles would agree) that 60fps isn't always appropriate for every game, Bioshock being a prime example.
kodt said:It is not supposed to be like a movie it is supposed to be a game.
Proc said:I still don't think there is much to complain about with amount you are investing into the console. To play a game that looks as good as killzone 2 at 720p/30fps is pretty damn impressive for a ~$399 investment.
Developers are only going to lead by example so this trend will continue. The top selling 360/ps3 games of 2008 weren't running at 720p+ & 60fps. The console graphical expectations are firmly rooted at this point.
civilstrife said:Aaand we're off!
The reason I used Bioshock as an example is because off that option. The game is decidedly not better in 60 fps. The smoothness kills the cinematic look the game is going for. This, (coupled with the 360's inability to maintain a constant 60) led to this being an option rather than a default.
I maintain (and most non-videophiles would agree) that 60fps isn't always appropriate for every game, Bioshock being a prime example.
brunoa76 said:Only Algonquin ?
I hope to play a GTA game with at least a constant 30 fps one day...
Aside from the physics the game looks brilliant at 60.civilstrife said:Aaand we're off!
The reason I used Bioshock as an example is because off that option. The game is decidedly not better in 60 fps. The smoothness kills the cinematic look the game is going for. This, (coupled with the 360's inability to maintain a constant 60) led to this being an option rather than a default.
I maintain (and most non-videophiles would agree) that 60fps isn't always appropriate for every game, Bioshock being a prime example.
RobertM said:Skate 30 fps > Skate 2 60 fps personally.
Well theres really two milestones that we'll hit in the next 2-3 generations of consoles:Nirolak said:Probably never, because the number of people who care about graphics tends to vastly outweigh the people who care about the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps.
I mean, for every foreseeable generation right now you can get better graphics by lowering the framerate.
Haunted said:Seriously, I'm a local multiplayer whore and I can't bear to play that game splitscreen.
Anyone claiming not to see the difference, play Wipeout.
Wasn't there a comparison video 24 vs 30 vs 60fps floating around somewhere?
FPS Compare shows the same scene rendered side by side in a split-screen arrangement, but each side is running at a different frame rate. When launching the new FPS Compare program, I recommend pressing F2 to change the scene to one more familiar to gaming. Now by staring at the middle of your screen, you should be able to detect that the portion on the left (at ~60FPS) appears smoother than the portion on the right (at ~30FPS). Even if the difference is not major to your eyes, many people do notice that there is at least some difference - something which refutes the fact that human eyes cannot notice differences in smoothness at an FPS over 30.
Perhaps it's nostalgia. Like most us, you probably played a lot of games with low framerate as a child. Therefore 60fps don't feel like the "norm".traveler said:Yeah, like I said, there's probably no good reason for it. It's just the way I am.
30fps is not smooth. You get double-images/stuttering with 30fps movement on a 60Hz display._leech_ said:Well, 60fps is always ideal but 30fps is still smooth. You only really start noticing things becoming stuttery when you get into the sub-20fps range.
You know, it fascinates me how people can look at the same image and come to drastically different conclusions regarding image quality. To me, while the art in MGS4 was very good, I wouldn't have said the image quality was good, as it was blurred to the point of looking almost out of focus and suffered from typical upscaling artefacts. The framerate was very poor as well. (frequently sub-30fps)Feindflug said:Yep, MGS4 has some of the best IQ I've seen - the game looks absolutely amazing and crystal clear at 1080p on my Samsung LE40F86...Halo 3 on the other side still looks very impressive IMO but AA would've helped a lot the IQ.
is that even possible on a console? i thought it was 60 or 30 or 15 or 7 (?). or does it work like a pc, if they have vsync off the fps are open?ghst said:i'd say more around high 40's/low 50's.
jesus fraps, what have you done to me?
John Dunbar said:i can't tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps.
You are definitely on some good shit :lolRobertM said:Skate 30 fps > Skate 2 60 fps personally.
I strongly suggest that you don't expect that too much or too soon (Intel's most recent efforts yield Enemy Territory: Quake Wars running in 720p@14-29FPS... it was running on a 16-core 2.93GHz system)infinityBCRT said:- Raytracing. Once we have hardware that can do 1080p raytracing @ 60 FPS, then the limit on polygon detail will literally be infinite. John Carmack is planning on doing raytracing stuff for id tech 6 (the engine after Rage/Doom 4), so I don't think this is too far off. Intel and AMD are both hard at work at hardware solutions to raytracing as well. The stuff that I've seen that can be done with raytracing is simply amazing.
You would get 10% of the current number of games though.Tain said:If Microsoft mandated that every 360 game needed to run at 60fps in order to be approved, I would... honestly, not mind all that much.
BobsRevenge said:Yeah man, if that game was in 720p with some 2x AA it would've been gorgeous aside from the horrible, horrible faces they slapped onto the characters.
edit: @JudgeN, I thought the game looked muddy as shit the first time I saw it and then when I was told it wasn't actually 720p I was like "OH! That's what that was." It kind of looks clean, but certainly not as clean as it would at 720p. I thought on the whole MGS4 was a pretty ugly game, and the sub-HD resolution had a lot to do with that along with the muted colors where one color pretty much took over the screen. It all just looked very muddy to me a lot of the time. There were a few scenes that were absolutely jaw-dropping though, but those were exceptions to the general ugliness of the game.
LoL oh my...soldat7 said:Wipeout is actually a better game at 30fps. I wish console games would allow you to toggle the fps like on PC. I don't like the 'soap opera' look of games at 60fps for most games (racing, FPS in particular). 60fps for platformers, fighting games, and action games is great though.
That image means a lot: In videogames, I'll always take quantity over quality.Sega1991 said:That image doesn't mean shit, though. One samurai in that screenshot is probably a like dozen polygons with a 32x32 texture if you zoomed up close enough.nincompoop said:How about 65535 enemies at 60 fps?
I'm pretty sure the 360 and PS3 are more powerful than PS2, so they should be able to handle it.
Dizzle24 said:Why aren't there more games available that run at 60 frames per second? I mean.. seriously.
2 out of my collection of 13 PS3 games are running around 60 frames per second; Devil May Cry 4 and Burnout Paradise.
Why is this such a difficult task for current generation game developers?
When can we expect most, if not all games to be running at this speed on consoles?
I am starting to think that all games will never run at 60fps or better on consoles. I used to preach turn down the details like it was a PC game but I have noticed that many of the best looking games already run at 60(or are uncharted/killzone/gears). I think that the talent and resources may not be there and that making most of the 30 and below games a steady 60 would take such a large drop off that they would not be competitive.Dizzle24 said:Why aren't there more games available that run at 60 frames per second? I mean.. seriously.
2 out of my collection of 13 PS3 games are running around 60 frames per second; Devil May Cry 4 and Burnout Paradise.
Why is this such a difficult task for current generation game developers?
When can we expect most, if not all games to be running at this speed on consoles?
civilstrife said:Aaand we're off!
The reason I used Bioshock as an example is because off that option. The game is decidedly not better in 60 fps. The smoothness kills the cinematic look the game is going for. This, (coupled with the 360's inability to maintain a constant 60) led to this being an option rather than a default.
I maintain (and most non-videophiles would agree) that 60fps isn't always appropriate for every game, Bioshock being a prime example.
JudgeN said:Vista 64 bit or 32?
I got 64
Shit mines doesn't work for shit and it makes me angry.
DMeisterJ said:But I really do care, and I'd like to know how I could notice the difference. I have wonderful eyesight so it can't be that.
The real beauty of MGS4 is something often overlooked: there is no graphical pop-in whatsoever!!!!JudgeN said:MGS4 looked clean as shit for something sub HD, never would have noticed until someone told me.
VNZ said:That image means a lot: In videogames, I'll always take quantity over quality.
Should be linked to in the OP so people who claim "I can't see the difference" can check it out.Minsc said:Framerate article... with the holy grail of framerate comparison software located inside (FPS Compare, towards the bottom there's a direct link to download, only that site has the author's permission so I'm not hot linking to it).
Edit: Here's a description of what it does: