Support NeoGAF

[nib95]

Then the problem is not 60fps, the problem is the lack of power in next gen consoles. In that statement what they are saying is that they don't want the game running @60 fps even if the PS4 could, which is ridiculous, and the sad thing is that some people agree with that.

They should be saying they wish it could run @60fps since it would be beneficial but the PS4 isn't capable of doing that.

That's just it, many developers will never do that. Even if ND or RAD had a GTX 680 under the hood of the PS4, maybe even a Titan, my guess is they'd still go 30fps simply because it's about the aesthetic package more than that extra smoothness. I'd imagine far more people care about a game having class leading insane visuals than they do that extra smoothness in 60fps, depending of course on the type of game. That's what it all boils down to.

For me personally, I'd have been really disappointed if The Order 1886 was 60fps. I'm honestly not at all fussed about the extra frames so long as it's a steady 30fps, but the overall presentation and aesthetic package? Well look at it. It'll be the first game I've EVER played on any platform that will feel close to essentially playing a CGI movie, and that excites me so much more than 60fps could.

 

[TheContact]

Ok Jan keep trying to convince yourself that's why...

 

[jgf]

What I'm saying is that imo that is the way developers should approach developing - in general. What do graphics do mainly? I'd say, just as sound, they exist to create a certain atmosphere you want the player to immerse in. If you have a certain artistic vision for you game, there are various options to achieve this atmosphere. Keep in mind that we normally don't sit there and say "wow, great shadow resolution" or "dat AO" but we will always considers the whole package. Sure you will loose some/a lot graphical fidelty if you choose gameplay/framerate over graphics, but if you do so from the very beginning, you get a fair chance to make up for that with artistic decisions and a great design. If you just shut down effects at 30 till you achieve 60, of course it will look like shit. That's why I'm saying developers need to start with 60 in mind and why I believe that those who achieved great graphics AND 60FPS already do that.

Given the choice I would also rather have 1080p/60 and take the hit in the graphical fidelity department instead. At least for most games. BUT I can understand that a developer comes to a different conclusion and opts to go for "the most stunning graphics possible" (aka filmic) and sacrifice 60fps in the progress. Thats what I would call an artistic choice of the developer. It may be a bad choice that many don't like, but it remains a valid option. And thats what was stated in the interview. So I don't get why some call that "bullshit" and don't see it as an artistic choice.

 

[Mman235]

For me personally, it boils down to this. Do I want a slightly smoother game (60fps), or a much better looking game (30fps)? Generally I opt for the latter except with a rare few genre's of games.

Except that 60FPS makes games look vastly better in motion, which is most of the time.

 

[nib95]

Except that 60FPS makes games look vastly better in motion, which is most of the time.

Motion is just one aspect of graphics. And your opinion differs to mine. To me it looks slightly smoother, not vastly smoother. Whereas the graphical advantages offered by going 30fps over 60fps in console games does imo offer huge differences, usually anyway. I appreciate that it's different for different people. For certain genre's such as twitch shooters, fighters etc, I would definitely want 60fps, but that's more to do with the control input latencies as much as it is the smoothness itself.

However, I am confident that we won't get a 60fps game that looks nearly as good as The Order 1886 on these consoles for a long while. At least for a year or more imo.

This thread was pretty enlightening for me. You can see how diverse the opinions and perceptions are on the subject, and understand why some devs may be reluctant to go 60fps at the expense of far better visuals.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=535863

Anyway, dead horse. This subject has been regurgitated so many times over the years it's amusing.

 

[FleckSplat]

I agree with the developers, actually.

60fps feels like a soap opera or the local news compared to 30.

EDIT: Here's an article when The Hobbit tried this with 48fps... http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/04/...ct-and-the-48fps-and-faster-future-of-movies/

 

[cobragt4001]

I agree with the developers, actually.

60fps feels like a soap opera or the local news compared to 30.

Lol

 

[TarNaru33]

LOL.

For me personally it boils down to this:

Do I want a slightly better looking game or a massively more responsive, immersive and enjoyable game instead of a fucking slideshow. Generally I opt for the latter except with....well, no exceptions. 30FPS is as slow and unresponsive as it can get when you got yourself used to rock stable 60fps over the years. There is no going back.

Oh and I wanna see these focus tests by GG. I'm sure these are completely btoken.

Lol, what an exaggeration... And then you are trying to call studies that says otherwise wrong. How hard is it to believe average gamers don't care for FPS at this moment so long as it is smooth?

It all comes down to personal preference.

Even if it would be locked 30FPS the difference would be night and day to people. You can switch ds1 on the fly and it's staggering. No chance in hell people don't notice that and don't feel strong about it.

Nib, the problem with you is that you are mostly talking out of your ass. You are used to 30fps and therefore fine with it, now looking for reasons why 60fps isn't worth it. I'd start taking your opinion seriously if you'd actually start comparing. Right now you are just sitting in your 30fps corner, crying that you don't wanna leave and it's the best place in the universe. Come with me and witness beautiful things. It'll be a new gamer life. I know that, I was like you for my longest gaming time.

Quite an assumption there, stop assuming a lot of people are like you and other enthusiast. When it comes to graphics vs FPS on consoles, graphics is likely to win unless they can keep from major compromises.

Then the problem is not 60fps, the problem is the lack of power in next gen consoles. In that statement what they are saying is that they don't want the game running @60 fps even if the PS4 could, which is ridiculous, and the sad thing is that some people agree with that.

They should be saying they wish it could run @60fps since it would be beneficial but the PS4 isn't capable of doing that.

Of course it is due in part to hardware restrictions, no rational person is or has been denying that. Your last statement is terrible, why down your game for the few enthusiast out there who is annoyed by it. Hell, the director even said story > graphics > gameplay, so obviously it was their decision to do such.

Don't matter what you think, the average gamer cares more for graphical improvements than FPS improvements (at this moment). They notice it much easier than smoothness of 60 FPS. The only way this is going to change is if all (or most) console games from this day forward go 60 FPS target before graphics to set the standard. Only then will the masses notice that.

 

[Thrakier]

Motion is just one aspect of graphics. And your opinion differs to mine. To me it looks slightly smoother, not vastly smoother. Whereas the graphical advantages offered by going 30fps over 60fps in console games does imo offer huge differences, usually anyway. I appreciate that it's different for different people. For certain genre's such as twitch shooters, fighters etc, I would definitely want 60fps, but that's more to do with the control input latencies as much as it is the smoothness itself.

However, I am confident that we won't get a 60fps game that looks nearly as good as The Order 1886 on these consoles for a long while. At least for a year or more imo.

This thread was pretty enlightening for me. You can see how diverse the opinions and perceptions are on the subject, and understand why some devs may be reluctant to go 60fps at the expense of far better visuals.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=535863

Anyway, dead horse. This subject has been regurgitated so many times over the years it's amusing.

The input factor is definitly the deciding factor. Your avg. 30FPS games as an latency double as high as a stable 60FPS game. Playing a 30FPS games feels like there is an additional layer between you and your character. It's even more so noticable when using a mouse. Still people, when discussing on this subject, mostly speak about 30FPS visuals vs 60FPS visuals as if this is what matters. They should discuss 30FPS playability vs. 60FPS playability and in that matter, there is only one winner.

Given the choice I would also rather have 1080p/60 and take the hit in the graphical fidelity department instead. At least for most games. BUT I can understand that a developer comes to a different conclusion and opts to go for "the most stunning graphics possible" (aka filmic) and sacrifice 60fps in the progress. Thats what I would call an artistic choice of the developer. It may be a bad choice that many don't like, but it remains a valid option. And thats what was stated in the interview. So I don't get why some call that "bullshit" and don't see it as an artistic choice.

But it's a money choice, not an artistic one. The Nr. 1 question is not "how can we make a great game" but "how can we make a game that sells". That is a very different approach.

 

[jgf]

But it's a money choice, not an artistic one. The Nr. 1 question is not "how can we make a great game" but "how can we make a game that sells". That is a very different approach.

So you really believe that the developers all think that 60fps would have been the better version, but they were forced to go for 30fps because of money?

On another note: I would also say that most people only buy games that they think are great. So in that sense for a developer "going for a game that sells" well is similar to "going for a game that is great" (for the majority of gamers out there).

 

[Votron]

LOL they wEre actually considering 24fps....like really?
THIS IS A VIDEO GAME FOR FUCK SAKE. an iNTERACTIVE MEDIA..NOT A MOVIE WHERE YOU JUST SIT THERE LIKE A STATUE.

 

[Servbot24]

LOL they wEre actually considering 24fps....like really?
THIS IS A VIDEO GAME FOR FUCK SAKE. an iNTERACTIVE MEDIA..NOT A MOVIE WHERE YOU JUST SIT THERE LIKE A STATUE.

thEY DIDN'T ActUaLLY do IT

 

[Mike Golf]

Preferences and how much one person can appreciate the difference between 30 or 60 aside, I do know one thing. It's that any game that puts gameplay, fps, and control responsiveness ahead of or on par with graphics are the ones I can play years later down the line and still have a great experience with. Games developed with the sole purpose to be a graphics benchmark game, in my experience, almost never hold up late in that given consoles life span or into future hardware generations.

For example, the first Uncharted game was beautiful when it released and arguably the best looking game at its time but had alot of tearing and sub 30 fps at heavy action moments. It has been trumped by its successors and numerous other games since in the graphics department and because of sacrifices made to gameplay and framerate to get it to look as good as it did at that time it's not a game that holds up well in the long run. So IMO it's much more important to put playability and framerate first so it's a game that's intuitive and plays well the first time and every time after than a game that just wows due to a graphics focus that wears away with time.

 

[TarNaru33]

Preferences and how much one person can appreciate the difference between 30 or 60 aside, I do know one thing. It's that any game that puts gameplay, fps, and control responsiveness ahead of or on par with graphics are the ones I can play years later down the line and still have a great experience with. Games developed with the sole purpose to be a graphics benchmark game, in my experience, almost never hold up late in that given consoles life span or into future hardware generations.

For example, the first Uncharted game was beautiful when it released and arguably the best looking game at its time but had alot of tearing and sub 30 fps at heavy action moments. It has been trumped by its successors and numerous other games since in the graphics department and because of sacrifices made to gameplay and framerate to get it to look as good as it did at that time it's not a game that holds up well in the long run. So IMO it's much more important to put playability and framerate first so it's a game that's intuitive and plays well the first time and every time after than a game that just wows due to a graphics focus that wears away with time.

This is your opinion right? What do you mean "it's not a game that holds up well in the long run."? If you mean playability, of course not, they are all linear story based games. Not so much you can do after beating them, unless you enjoy the multiplayer aspects of the game which is less famous than the story and graphics part of it.

Playbility, I would say it means a stable FPS as far as FPS go.

 

[Thrakier]

So you really believe that the developers all think that 60fps would have been the better version, but they were forced to go for 30fps because of money?

On another note: I would also say that most people only buy games that they think are great. So in that sense for a developer "going for a game that sells" well is similar to "going for a game that is great" (for the majority of gamers out there).

Well, all...I don't know. Many probably don't even consider it because the marketing and sells pressure is so high.

The "what people think is great is great" is generally a pretty bad argument.

 

[BloodMoney]

Very well stated Tasch. This was an eye opening post.

not at all. The best way would be to limit post processing effects, increase texture and image resolution, and produce physically realistic solutions and procedural models, like proper Rayleigh and Mie scattering, physically based rendering models etc.

Then include the effect only if it enhances the art direction and only to the degree such that it wont interfere with actual gameplay.

As of right now games are taking the cinematic approach of producing needless effects that detract from the art and design of the game and needlessly complicating the visual pallet and producing frustration as visual clarity is lost.

Just look at some of the screenshots of the order, and tell me that you can instantly see and recognize the enemy characters, that you can tell what weapons they have and which enemy requires the primary attention of the player? The same goes with any "cinematic" or "realistic" gaming experience. I don't care if it's "realistic" that enemies in battlefeild look indistinguishable from your team-mates, it's not fun to die because you dont have a year of experience telling character models apart. I'm not immersed by thick dust clouds that dont exists in real life, goggles so blindingly dirty that no soldier would ever wear them, shafts of light that are so pronounced you can't see through them, and weather effects that would drown you if you stared up into the sky. This isn't realistic to me, it's not cinematic, it's fake, and it feels fake, and i dont see why people want something that's pretending to be real in such an incredibly un-convincing manner.

I think the people championing for this type of design to games are technophiles, people who are more interested in what the technology can do, rather than whether or not doing the most with the technology is the best interest of the game, not the story, not the franchise, but the game.

I glossed of your nonsensical response LCGeek...

You seem easily impressed I'm not get over it or deal with it.

Dismount your internet-donkey and take a real good look in its eye. What do you see?

 

[Mman235]

Motion is just one aspect of graphics. And your opinion differs to mine. To me it looks slightly smoother, not vastly smoother. Whereas the graphical advantages offered by going 30fps over 60fps in console games does imo offer huge differences, usually anyway. I appreciate that it's different for different people. For certain genre's such as twitch shooters, fighters etc, I would definitely want 60fps, but that's more to do with the control input latencies as much as it is the smoothness itself.

However, I am confident that we won't get a 60fps game that looks nearly as good as The Order 1886 on these consoles for a long while. At least for a year or more imo.

This thread was pretty enlightening for me. You can see how diverse the opinions and perceptions are on the subject, and understand why some devs may be reluctant to go 60fps at the expense of far better visuals.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=535863

Anyway, dead horse. This subject has been regurgitated so many times over the years it's amusing.

"Smoothness" is just one part of what higher FPS improves; at lower FPS you lose a lot of visual information when things are moving, and it can render most visual "improvements" meaningless because a lot of it is lost when you start moving if the framerate is too low (let alone when put in the context of the fact many console games can't even reach 30FPS a lot of the time).

 

[jgf]

Well, all...I don't know. Many probably don't even consider it because the marketing and sells pressure is so high.

The "what people think is great is great" is generally a pretty bad argument.

I don't think so. If you want to make a game that the majority of people think is great, you should care about the preferences of this majority.

Its at least better as "what I think is great is great".

You should at least accept the possibility that there are well informed people -that can tell the difference between 30 and 60fps- and that still prefer more eye candy over 60fps for some games. In fact it appears to be the majority.

 

[Thrakier]

I don't think so. If you want to make a game that the majority of people think is great, you should care about the preferences of this majority.

Its at least better as "what I think is great is great".

You should at least accept the possibility that there are well informed people -that can tell the difference between 30 and 60fps- and that still prefer more eye candy over 60fps for some games. In fact it appears to be the majority.

Certainly not. The majority prefers games with high framrerates, see cod, bf or 2d mario. They just can't tell it.

Then there are 90% who don't know anything.

And then there are some people who behave like they know the difference but we'll I'm not sure...

In any case, tell a cook with ambition to work in a McDonald's kitchen because he'll sell more. If he would behave like videogame devs, he'd definitely do it. The Mike Acton of the kitchen, so to say.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/insomniac-60fps-no-more

 

[jgf]

Certainly not. The majority prefers games with high framrerates, see cod, bf or 2d mario. They just can't tell it.

Then there are 90% who don't know anything.

And then there are some people who behave like they know the difference but we'll I'm not sure...

In any case, tell a cook with ambition to work in a McDonald's kitchen because he'll sell more. If he would behave like videogame devs, he'd definitely do it. The Mike Acton of the kitchen, so to say.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/insomniac-60fps-no-more

People also like GTA, Assassins Creed and Uncharted. So thats no real argument.

Using your analogy with the cook, it sounds as making a game in 30fps is a piece of cake, while 60fps is the real deal. E.g. getting The Order to run at 30fps with the visuals we have seen is also pretty hard. Or would you say that Uncharted 2 was a "McDonalds Kitchen quality" type of development achievement. I say that it belongs more in the code wizardry department.

So its more like telling a cook that likes seafood to open a steak house, because the people in town like that more. And thats even under the unproofen assumption that the cook really likes seafood (aka 60fps) more. Which I still don't really believe.

 

[LCGeek]

People also like GTA, Assassins Creed and Uncharted. So thats no real argument.

Out of the 3 you mentioned only GTA can touch the examples he made so you're not really countering his point. No one plays gta for graphics either, they are nice but it's never been a showcase outside of 5.

BloodMoney that's nice you think but that was the point of my response to your garbage picture one. You cannot refute that filmic look is contradictory. They can't implement a steady fps, motion blur that is next gen, blend frames as a camera does or use actual exposure setting which would add to the filmic look even more considering that's how actual cameras work. Tasch posts highlights the very problem I called these devs on which is wasting powers for useless effects instead of actually aiming for filmic look in certain respects.

 

[jgf]

Out of the 3 you mentioned only GTA can touch the examples he made so you're not really countering his point. No one plays gta for graphics either, they are nice but it's never been a showcase outside of 5.

If wikipedia is to be believed Uncharted 2 and 3 each sold as much as Black Ops on the PS3. So I would say its up there.

Also we both have not seen how a 60fps version of GTA would have looked like. But my bet is that it would have to be significally gimped. Even less draw distance, fewer npcs, cars etc. on screen and the like.

 

[SapientWolf]

I agree with the developers, actually.

60fps feels like a soap opera or the local news compared to 30.

EDIT: Here's an article when The Hobbit tried this with 48fps... http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/04/...ct-and-the-48fps-and-faster-future-of-movies/

Or maybe it feels like a video game running on powerful hardware.

 

[LCGeek]

If wikipedia is to be believed Uncharted 2 and 3 each sold as much as Black Ops on the PS3. So I would say its up there.

COD overall has sold far more and uncharted never once has sold as much as the best COD in the series. His point still stands go ahead and cherry pick I will take reality.

Also we both have not seen how a 60fps version of GTA would have looked like. But my bet is that it would have to be significally gimped. Even less draw distance, fewer npcs, cars etc. on screen and the like.

I'm not even talking about fps and GTA. I was talking about the fact that gta is not system pusher and for the most part people play it for the gameplay. Only reason I mentioned GTA5 is cause it looks good on the PS3 compared to 4 which to it's 360 brother looked and played like hot garbage. Also I know what GTA looks like at 60fps it's cause I double dip on that pc version only gta I've never seen high fps is 5 and it's cause it's not out yet.

 

[Scrabble]

That's just it, many developers will never do that. Even if ND or RAD had a GTX 680 under the hood of the PS4, maybe even a Titan, my guess is they'd still go 30fps simply because it's about the aesthetic package more than that extra smoothness. I'd imagine far more people care about a game having class leading insane visuals than they do that extra smoothness in 60fps, depending of course on the type of game. That's what it all boils down to.

For me personally, I'd have been really disappointed if The Order 1886 was 60fps. I'm honestly not at all fussed about the extra frames so long as it's a steady 30fps, but the overall presentation and aesthetic package? Well look at it. It'll be the first game I've EVER played on any platform that will feel close to essentially playing a CGI movie, and that excites me so much more than 60fps could.

Exactly, people have this idea that if hardware was just powerful enough, every game would be 60 frames. That's not how game development works. Hardware's been getting more powerful since the beginning of gaming, and we still get games at 30 frames, and I expect we'll still see games at 30 frames many many years from now when gaming machines are the equivalent of super computers. You will always be able to do more at 30 frames than you can at 60, regardless if you have quad sli Titans and 64gb of ram. Consoles are fixed hardware, which means you will always have to make compromises and decisions that you feel best suit your game. 60fps brings it's own compromises, just like 30 fps brings it's own set of compromises. It's all about which compromises you're willing to sacrifice and those which you're not.

 

[jgf]

COD overall has sold far more and uncharted never once has sold as much as the best COD in the series. His point still stands go ahead and cherry pick I will take reality.



I'm not even talking about fps and GTA. I was talking about the fact that gta is not system pusher and for the most part people play it for the gameplay. Only reason I mentioned GTA5 is cause it looks good on the PS3 compared to 4 which to it's 360 brother looked and played like hot garbage. Also I know what GTA looks like at 60fps it's cause I double dip on that pc version only gta I've never seen high fps is 5 and it's cause it's not out yet.

Counting sales of a title only for a platform where it was released is not cherry picking, it is common sense. Or should we get started with Angry Birds, Clash of Clans and the like? I don't think so. I get that CoD sells like hot cakes. I also don't argue that its partly due to the 60fps gameplay - something a twitch shooter should have imho. I simply said that Uncharted is up there. Thus also 30fps titles sell well. Heck if they won't nobody would make them, right? Thrakier even blamed the developers to go for 30fps because it sells better.

I also know what GTA looks like at 60fps on a PC, because I too double dipped. But that was not my point. You always have to work with the constraints given. And a PS3 is not a high end pc, so a 60fps (last-gen) console version would have looked severely different. My point was that it would have looked so much worse that a 30fps version was preferable.

I somehow get the feeling that we talk about different things. I don't say that 30fps is always better or that one should not try to get to 60fps. I'm just arguing that there are valid reasons to choose 30fps over 60fps at times.

 

[Thrakier]

People also like GTA, Assassins Creed and Uncharted. So thats no real argument.

Using your analogy with the cook, it sounds as making a game in 30fps is a piece of cake, while 60fps is the real deal. E.g. getting The Order to run at 30fps with the visuals we have seen is also pretty hard. Or would you say that Uncharted 2 was a "McDonalds Kitchen quality" type of development achievement. I say that it belongs more in the code wizardry department.

So its more like telling a cook that likes seafood to open a steak house, because the people in town like that more. And thats even under the unproofen assumption that the cook really likes seafood (aka 60fps) more. Which I still don't really believe.

YEAH, lets GO THERE. Using 60FPS is like using high quality ingredients while....wait. I had this girl analogy before, which was perfect already. Let's leave it at that. My brain hurts from that shit.

 

[Thrakier]

Counting sales of a title only for a platform where it was released is not cherry picking, it is common sense. Or should we get started with Angry Birds, Clash of Clans and the like? I don't think so. I get that CoD sells like hot cakes. I also don't argue that its partly due to the 60fps gameplay - something a twitch shooter should have imho. I simply said that Uncharted is up there. Thus also 30fps titles sell well. Heck if they won't nobody would make them, right? Thrakier even blamed the developers to go for 30fps because it sells better.

I also know what GTA looks like at 60fps on a PC, because I too double dipped. But that was not my point. You always have to work with the constraints given. And a PS3 is not a high end pc, so a 60fps (last-gen) console version would have looked severely different. My point was that it would have looked so much worse that a 30fps version was preferable.

I somehow get the feeling that we talk about different things. I don't say that 30fps is always better or that one should not try to get to 60fps. I'm just arguing that there are valid reasons to choose 30fps over 60fps at times.

No no no, that's not what I said. I did not say 30FPS sells better. I said, better graphics sell better, which you can achieve at 30FPS. This is a different beast.

I don't think that the 30FPS/60FPS difference per se impacts sell figures at all. That is mainly because people got used to the laggy delay of 30 and sub 30FPS games and so can not embrace when they get something better.

 

[LCGeek]

Counting sales of a title only for a platform where it was released is not cherry picking, it is common sense. Or should we get started with Angry Birds, Clash of Clans and the like? I don't think so. I get that CoD sells like hot cakes. I also don't argue that its partly due to the 60fps gameplay - something a twitch shooter should have imho. I simply said that Uncharted is up there. Thus also 30fps titles sell well. Heck if they won't nobody would make them, right? Thrakier even blamed the developers to go for 30fps because it sells better.

I also know what GTA looks like at 60fps on a PC, because I too double dipped. But that was not my point. You always have to work with the constraints given. And a PS3 is not a high end pc, so a 60fps (last-gen) console version would have looked severely different. My point was that it would have looked so much worse that a 30fps version was preferable.

I somehow get the feeling that we talk about different things. I don't say that 30fps is always better or that one should not try to get to 60fps. I'm just arguing that there are valid reasons to choose 30fps over 60fps at times.

common sense, isn't...

uncharted sells well saying it sells as well as gta, cod, or mk well facts are facts and you don't need to argue with me just try that line with what's left of sales gaf they have graphs along with their own views.

Again on GTA I don't disagree I like when people state points as precisely as you did in that last reply vs the ones before. I like precision and tend to post only for clarification nothing more. I'm quite aware of PS3 constraints on devs. Looks mean different things to people here the assumption that presentation or aesthetics vs motion or other things involved with eye candy is where tensions tend to flare. Also again I was never suggesting GTA should be 60fps cause that not something I'm gonna defend or even get in to cause it doesn't matter to me. Only reason I brung up GTA is cause it has high sales regardless of it's eye candy or fps.

Yes we are different page in the same book or maybe it's a paragraph. I let any dev do whatever they feel is in their own interest. What I don't let them do is give me garbage reasons for doing things that I consider to be filler or waste of computational power be it at 30fps or 60fps. We know how this game looks from what we have seen unless something at E3 drastically changes my opinion it's going to remain the same.

 

[Char Aznable]

that's bullshit lol

 

[jgf]

No no no, that's not what I said. I did not say 30FPS sells better. I said, better graphics sell better, which you can achieve at 30FPS. This is a different beast.

Ok, I wrote "... [they] went for 30fps because it sells better" which was meant to read like "they went for 30fps in order to improve visuals which in turn leads to better sales". Instead of a=>b=>c I only mentioned a=>c thinking the step over b would be obvious.

Yes we are different page in the same book or maybe it's a paragraph. I let any dev do whatever they feel is in their own interest. What I don't let them do is give me garbage reasons for doing things that I consider to be filler or waste of computational power be it at 30fps or 60fps. We know how this game looks from what we have seen unless something at E3 drastically changes my opinion it's going to remain the same.

I get that you feel that the visuals of The Order don't need to look as good as they do and that through downgrades that only impact the visuals sighlty a 60fps version would be achievable and highly preferable. Thats a valid opinion, no doubt about it. What I don't get is how one can blame the developers that they obviously must feel the same and that they went for 30fps not for the reasons they stated (improved film like visuals), but for other reasons. What I honestly don't know is what are those unspoken reasons they went with 30fps instead, if its not improved visuals?

 

[Eusis]

That is not the same. Next to my 60FPS opinion sits the believe that native resolutions should be the 2nd most important factor, meaning in this case 1080p. Would they see how blurry a scaled 720p picture looks on a 1080p monitor? Probably, not 10/10, but I'd say 7-8/10. But would you stick with 1080p and just reduce things like FSAA, shadow resolution, AO, blur...I'm sure only 2/10 would notice and care.

To me on some displays (especially computer monitors) going to native resolution is like... I dunno, imagine trying to turn a knob or something, and you only on native resolution can you get a satisfying CLICK. It's like everything just fits together perfectly and looks great at native resolution, but under it is that blurry crap that is like that knob that gets tough to turn and get to click in place properly. That's probably kind of an insane metaphor admittedly and it's not as relevant I find for TVs , probably because good upscaling when people will watch 720p broadcasts and DVDs matters way, WAY more while an LCD computer monitor is more "wait why aren't you running native in the first place? Nevermind that whole viewing distance thing, I don't think a graph with hard numbers tells the truth of it but I do imagine it's easier to deal with sub-native resolutions when you're several feet away rather than two or three.

Though, primarily? While I'd prefer native resolution (or better, downsampling can't hurt if you can afford it without screwing up the framerate) I really just want 720p to be the absolute minimum a game will do on these systems. I want this power to have actually gotten us up to reliably being HD and even 1080p like most TVs are, not going down to 640p or whatever the fuck anymore. Leave that to last gen, much like 240p games were almost entirely demolished on PS2 and simply non-existent on Xbox and GC.

 

[FleckSplat]

Or maybe it feels like a video game running on powerful hardware.

A video game running on powerful hardware...featuring shiny, loud Latinas and Doppler radar

 

[Thrakier]

Ok, I wrote "... [they] went for 30fps because it sells better" which was meant to read like "they went for 30fps in order to improve visuals which in turn leads to better sales". Instead of a=>b=>c I only mentioned a=>c thinking the step over b would be obvious.

We agree there. We just think differently about the motivation.

At least I got one evidence how that works:

http://www.insomniacgames.com/how-much-does-framerate-matter/

His two main reasons for abandoning a higher framerate as a result of his pseudo research:

A higher framerate does not significantly affect sales of a game.
A higher framerate does not significantly affect the reviews of a game.

To me on some displays (especially computer monitors) going to native resolution is like... I dunno, imagine trying to turn a knob or something, and you only on native resolution can you get a satisfying CLICK. It's like everything just fits together perfectly and looks great at native resolution, but under it is that blurry crap that is like that knob that gets tough to turn and get to click in place properly. That's probably kind of an insane metaphor admittedly and it's not as relevant I find for TVs , probably because good upscaling when people will watch 720p broadcasts and DVDs matters way, WAY more while an LCD computer monitor is more "wait why aren't you running native in the first place? Nevermind that whole viewing distance thing, I don't think a graph with hard numbers tells the truth of it but I do imagine it's easier to deal with sub-native resolutions when you're several feet away rather than two or three.

Though, primarily? While I'd prefer native resolution (or better, downsampling can't hurt if you can afford it without screwing up the framerate) I really just want 720p to be the absolute minimum a game will do on these systems. I want this power to have actually gotten us up to reliably being HD and even 1080p like most TVs are, not going down to 640p or whatever the fuck anymore. Leave that to last gen, much like 240p games were almost entirely demolished on PS2 and simply non-existent on Xbox and GC.

I'm 100% there. It's the same for framerate though. As long as it isn't rock solid 60 on a 60hz display, it's basically worth nothing. 58 is shit, 60 is great. That's why the difference between those 900p XB1 games and the 1080p on PS4 is way bigger than the differences last gen, because those were upscaled anyway.

 

[blitzcloud]

An exchange for detail, a sacrifice, would have to be done to achieve 60fps.

60fps are more frames per second. More frames of a lesser defined picture is still a blurrier picture.

30fps with better detail is still the same amount of Hz for your eyes, just with double the persistence. You still see flow of movement and have nicer detail to back it up.

Why would anyone, genre aside, prefer loss of resolution over fps, as long as they don't fall below the 30fps threshold?

I'm 100% there. It's the same for framerate though. As long as it isn't rock solid 60 on a 60hz display, it's basically worth nothing. 58 is shit, 60 is great. That's why the difference between those 900p XB1 games and the 1080p on PS4 is way bigger than the differences last gen, because those were upscaled anyway.

The problem with framerate is when it dips. You can get used to 30fps, you can get used to 60fps, you can get used to 120fps. Problem here is when that standard falls. It would be similar to your screen suddenly swapping instantly into lower resolution, you'd be like "WHOA THAT WAS BAD". But if you played at that resolution for a while you'd be used to it. The problem , in essence, is contrast.

 

[LCGeek]

Why would anyone, genre aside, prefer loss of resolution over fps, as long as they don't fall below the 30fps threshold?

I don't prefer either and 30fps is a loss of resolution considering the con of lowering it to such in terms of motion and clarity. So basically a lose lose for more asset or presentation quality that we only get a partial benefit from. Atm that is not my beef I've stated my beef as have others is that their attempts to do a filmic look still can't hold a steady fps at the level they decided it.

Gamers in this time period are not wrong for asking devs to grow up on something that each generation they have made excuses for. I'm not asking for a peak I'm asking for stability. Also it does fall below the threshold we have seen the game.

 

[Thrakier]

The problem with framerate is when it dips. You can get used to 30fps, you can get used to 60fps, you can get used to 120fps. Problem here is when that standard falls. It would be similar to your screen suddenly swapping instantly into lower resolution, you'd be like "WHOA THAT WAS BAD". But if you played at that resolution for a while you'd be used to it. The problem , in essence, is contrast.

That's what I'm saying. Most 30FPS defenders just lack that contrast. But as in many things in life, it's much easier to improve then to step back.

 

[SuperEpicGuy]

I agree with the developers, actually.

60fps feels like a soap opera or the local news compared to 30.

EDIT: Here's an article when The Hobbit tried this with 48fps... http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/04/...ct-and-the-48fps-and-faster-future-of-movies/

I wish people would resist change a bit less. I play most of my videos at 72 fps with my motion interpolation software. Yes, the first few movies did seem a bit unusual but now 24 fps is utter crap in comparison. Even with the interpolation and not native frames per second you'd be surprised how good movies can look. Same with my youtube videos, I get to see how last of us and other games would be at 60+ fps.

There is a downside to this that I've found, and that is that the movie theater movies are too laggy for me to properly enjoy. I am serious.

There is not a single piece of medium where 30 fps is better than 60. Nothing.

 

[blitzcloud]

I don't prefer either and 30fps is a loss of resolution considering the con of lowering it to such in terms of motion and clarity. So basically a lose lose for more asset or presentation quality that we only get a partial benefit from. Atm that is not my beef I've stated my beef as have others is that their attempts to do a filmic look still can't hold a steady fps at the level they decided it.

Gamers in this time period are not wrong for asking devs to grow up on something that each generation they have made excuses for. I'm not asking for a peak I'm asking for stability. Also it does fall below the threshold we have seen the game.

I can understand that. But maintaining 60fps can be much more of a hassle that staying at 30-40 and capping it at 30. 30fps stable is better than dips that range from 40 to 60, even if both cases are more than 30fps by themselves. The change of fps will become a burden for the interpretation of animation, and you will feel more uncomfortable than with 30 stable fps. Even 50 to 60 fps would do that.

The problem is that many 30fps games suffered dips, so that wasn't good either. If it's TRUE stable 30fps i'll have it.

 

[Dire]

This thread really makes me want to make an app of walking through a scenario at locked 60FPS, locked 30FPS and a kinda-30FPS non-vsynched scenario. The latter being what The Order will likely be, like most console titles that target 30FPS. The people that claim they can't tell the difference have no idea what they're talking about or at least no experience in the field, similar to those that claim 30FPS is "cinematic." Those are reasonable arguments when looking at footage - let alone compressed internet video that typically strips down the frame rate anyway but it's straight up bullshit when actually playing a game. You can't just defend stupidity with "Well it's my opinion" when your opinion is unjustifiable once you've actually experienced the differences.

I went through this exact scenario recently with Skyrim modding. I was looking to get nice quality visuals and I could get ridiculously nice visuals (certainly crushing anything we've seen from the order) at 30FPS or just very nice at 60FPS. The game looked great at 30FPS but but something strange happens when you start actually interacting with it. It didn't feel cinematic - it felt stuttered and felt far less interactive. Similarly going to 60FPS the game didn't fell any less or any more cinematic - it simply looked slightly (and I do mean slightly - the only effect I really miss is depth of field and that doesn't actually improve the image quality!) worse but ran and interacted an better while looking and feeling vastly smoother.

Now I will say my wife didn't actually notice a huge difference just looking at the video differences. However, when I put the controller in her hand it was like night and day and something just clicked. 30FPS seems fine and as a console player I was obviously okay with it last gen (though I had to stop playing Farcry 3 because that framerate was painfully bad) but now that I've started to experience the difference between 60FPS and 30FPS on a per title basis I've realized there really is no justifying 30FPS. It's nothing but a ploy for marketing. The people falling in for this are embarrassing themselves. Companies are exploiting your ignorance and you're cheering them on for doing it.

 

[freddy]

30FPS will always look better on Sony hardware than 60FPS anywhere else because I'm biased.

 

[Thrakier]

This thread really makes me want to make an app of walking through a scenario at locked 60FPS, locked 30FPS and a kinda-30FPS non-vsynched scenario. The latter being what The Order will likely be, like most console titles that target 30FPS. The people that claim they can't tell the difference have no idea what they're talking about or at least no experience in the field, similar to those that claim 30FPS is "cinematic." Those are reasonable arguments when looking at footage - let alone compressed internet video that typically strips down the frame rate anyway but it's straight up bullshit when actually playing a game. You can't just defend stupidity with "Well it's my opinion" when your opinion is unjustifiable once you've actually experienced the differences.

I went through this exact scenario recently with Skyrim modding. I was looking to get nice quality visuals and I could get ridiculously nice visuals (certainly crushing anything we've seen from the order) at 30FPS or just very nice at 60FPS. The game looked great at 30FPS but but something strange happens when you start actually interacting with it. It didn't feel cinematic - it felt stuttered and felt far less interactive. Similarly going to 60FPS the game didn't fell any less or any more cinematic - it simply looked slightly (and I do mean slightly - the only effect I really miss is depth of field and that doesn't actually improve the image quality!) worse but ran and interacted an better while looking and feeling vastly smoother.

Now I will say my wife didn't actually notice a huge difference just looking at the video differences. However, when I put the controller in her hand it was like night and day and something just clicked. 30FPS seems fine and as a console player I was obviously okay with it last gen (though I had to stop playing Farcry 3 because that framerate was painfully bad) but now that I've started to experience the difference between 60FPS and 30FPS on a per title basis I've realized there really is no justifying 30FPS. It's nothing but a ploy for marketing. The people falling in for this are embarrassing themselves. Companies are exploiting your ignorance and you're cheering them on for doing it.

Thanks, that's what I'm saying. And that's also why I have my doubts that people who claim to switch between rock solid 60FPS (ROCK SOLID, not just HIGH - if you play your pc games at average 55, you might just play them at 30) and 30FPS without being annoyed by 30FPS are talking BS. Once you've been there, there is no turning back, except for retro reasons maybe.

The bolded part:
True, very true. That is the reason why I'm thinking that devs are actually somewhat pressured in choosing 30FPS/better graphics over playability by sales and marketing data. Because if you are a game dev, you should be really well versed regarding framerates and their impact on quality of interaction. Shouldn't you? Or...I'm not sure anymore. A few weeks ago two Sony first party studios released their games with unlocked (!!!!) framerates, which is the worst, just to patch it afterwards. What is actually happening behind the scenes that such a scenario comes true to life? I'd say that it is some weird compromise between one side forcing devs to push graphics as much as possible whilst some devs who know, that framerate is really important, try to get as much as possible out of it. It's like they are greeting those people who care about framerate "hey, at least we tried, but sorry".

I'm watching an Infamous SS walkthrough right now. The game looks great, but it's constantly stuttering. Just seeing this is painful and I have no urge whatsoever to actually play this game.

 

[FrozenCell]

PS4 should support CrossfireX so you could daisy chain 2 consoles for full framerate gaming.

 

[badb0y]

Wrong thread lol, sorry.

 

[boredandlazy]

Edit: removed quote out of respect to user who edited...

 

[Koren]

Would they see how blurry a scaled 720p picture looks on a 1080p monitor? Probably, not 10/10, but I'd say 7-8/10.

Most TV sets uses overscan by default for a strange reason I don't understand.

Most people don't know this and don't see that a 1080p source on a 1080p screen is blurry because of overscan.

Granted, the option in the TV menus is usually completely impossible to understand and link to overscan... Something like "true picture" or "true pixels".

I'm not sure that so many people would recognize a 720p source especially when there's no small text.

 

[BananaSprinkles]

LOL they wEre actually considering 24fps....like really?
THIS IS A VIDEO GAME FOR FUCK SAKE. an iNTERACTIVE MEDIA..NOT A MOVIE WHERE YOU JUST SIT THERE LIKE A STATUE.

I reaD it like they THOUGHt "hey LETs make it LOOK LIKe a FILM" and theN SOMEbodY said "BUT FILms run in 24FPS and THAT would BE CHOppy in a VIDeo gaME" and theN THE FIrsT guy SAID "okaY WE will make iT LOOK LIke a film EXCEPT IT will run in 30 FPS inSTEaD."

 

[Fancy Clown]

I reaD it like they THOUGHt "hey LETs make it LOOK LIKe a FILM" and theN SOMEbodY said "BUT FILms run in 24FPS and THAT would BE CHOppy in a VIDeo gaME" and theN THE FIrsT guy SAID "okaY WE will make iT LOOK LIke a film EXCEPT IT will run in 30 FPS inSTEaD."

Haha bravo

 

[cascardian]

You know, maybe it's my lifetime of video game playing talking, but I've personally never had an issue with The Hobbit being in 48 FPS. I actually loved the additional temporal resolution and smoother pans! It gives me hope that in a generation or two this cinematic feeling associated with 24 FPS will simply vanish.

As for the whole 30 vs 60 debate in games, I stand firmly on the side of 60-and-make-it-consistent-please. Despite increasingly better motion blur techniques approximating the cinematic effect by masking the jankiness of lower framerates, the input response time being better is undeniable.

Now let's hope GSync and its competitors spread far and wide and do so quickly, so we can finally rid ourselves of that stupid TFT tech limitation we've had to live with for so long.