Support NeoGAF

[b&jy77VjiKn$#F]

 

[d0nd]

oh snap "video games"

 

[Sid]

:lol

 

[Jack cw]

Brilliant! Simply wonderful.

 

[fastford58]

Well, we just won't agree at this point. I can't enjoy 30FPS games anymore. Maybe if I would be willing to force myself playing 30FPS games till my perception changes again, switches back, I'd be able to enjoy them again. But why should I do that. I'd also need to stop playing 60FPS games all together.

Also, how it looks is the less important part. I like it more, sure, but how it feels is way more important. I could live with a game that looks like 30FPS but plays like 60FPS.

Nintendo knows why they insist on using 60FPS for most of their franchises.

Skip PS4/X1. Stick to high end PC.

Problem solved.

 

[Slair]

or, you can compensate for it by zooming out, which gives the smaller image a harder time to represent the scene = worse IQ. A zoomed out object consists of less pixels, thus, has worse representation in the output.

Exactly, I played competitive Team Fortress 2 and you are pretty much forced to play with a 90 fov so you're not at any disadvantage compared to the other players. I nearly vomited when i set it to 90, the image quality dropped drastically. Less pixels to accurately display that medpack? how am i supposed to know it's a medpack? it could be an enemy. It's cool i can see more stuff on the screen and more stuff is being rendered, but it looks complete shit compared to the crispness that it 75 where i see less but everything looks so clean. Plus i don't need to run directly up to an object to see what it is, with more pixels i know from a safe distance if it's an enemy or a medpack.

...and don't get me started on games with huge view distances, with so few pixels making up the objects in the distance the image quality is so bad i'm not even sure what i'm looking at.

 

[RetroStu]

90% of console games will always be 30fps as a lot of developers prefer eye candy over framerate and also the fact that 30fps is more than good enough for most games, if you want 60+fps then get a good PC.
I don't know why people always expect 60fps as standard with a new console launch, the consoles get more powerful but the graphics get better, it will never happen unless Microsoft and Sony demand 60fps for all games.

 

[FrozenCell]

Killzone just got an update which let's you switch in the menu whether to limit fps to 30 or not.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=764444

All half-framerate games should fucking have this, then remaining bitching could focus on whether this game and 2.4:1 Bluray movies truly are 1080p or not

 

[Glorified G]

Well, we just won't agree at this point. I can't enjoy 30FPS games anymore.

But you have no issue going into threads about console games, where the vast majority of titles are 30fps.

"I can't enjoy American Idol anymore without Simon Cowell, but I'll go into the OT thread and bitch anyway because for whatever reason I don't value my time."

That's how stupid all your posts come across.

 

[Oppo]

I didn t say that. I said that 60 is always better and you seem to want to contradict that.

Uh. So now the eye is limited to 60fps right ?

Yes, for all intents and purposes, that may as well be the upper limit.

Here is a good explanation:
http://www.cameratechnica.com/2011/11/21/what-is-the-highest-frame-rate-the-human-eye-can-perceive/

 

[zod18]

Skip PS4/X1. Stick to high end PC.

Problem solved.

Miss out on all the exclusives? No, problem definately not solved. My favourite games of the last 10 years were mostly PS3 exclusives, not sh*t like Tomb Raider or Assasin's Creed.

90% of console games will always be 30fps as a lot of developers prefer eye candy over framerate and also the fact that 30fps is more than good enough for most games, if you want 60+fps then get a good PC.
I don't know why people always expect 60fps as standard with a new console launch, the consoles get more powerful but the graphics get better, it will never happen unless Microsoft and Sony demand 60fps for all games.

Good post.

 

[Cizeta-Moroder]

Framing has nothing to do with resolution, really
You can use a 10 MP full frame camera and a 20 MP FF camera to shoot the same shot and get the same framing (using the same lens obv.)

Framing can be independent of resolution -- it can be even within the same film.

I was only implying framing was used as a justification. In this case it does result in either less FOV, or less pixels per object

No idea, but I'm asking a hypothetical question if you'd care to answer. IF it were the norm, would you be able to watch a 24 fps movie ever again?

Yes, just like I can watch a black and white movie now. Tolerable, but not ideal, information-wise.

The benefit of Running O1886 in 2.40:1 aspect ratio is not only the lack of scaling artifacts but most of all the use of said aspect ratio to give a framing similar to movies (there is a reason most movies come in 2.40:1 aspect ratio, and it has nothing to do with saving pixels or whatever, it's artistic)

And I'd be okay with that, if instead of sacrificing the vertical resolution standard, they had increased the horizontal one accordingly. The decision as it stands reeks a bit of performance saving.

Exactly, I played competitive Team Fortress 2 and you are pretty much forced to play with a 90 fov so you're not at any disadvantage compared to the other players. I nearly vomited when i set it to 90, the image quality dropped drastically. Less pixels to accurately display that medpack? how am i supposed to know it's a medpack? it could be an enemy. It's cool i can see more stuff on the screen and more stuff is being rendered, but it looks complete shit compared to the crispness that it 75 where i see less but everything looks so clean. Plus i don't need to run directly up to an object to see what it is, with more pixels i know from a safe distance if it's an enemy or a medpack.

...and don't get me started on games with huge view distances, with so few pixels making up the objects in the distance the image quality is so bad i'm not even sure what i'm looking at.

You're exaggerating, but that's why it's best to have a great resolution, to accommodate the fov.

I still don't understand your argument about the image quality. There is no zooming out. You have less "raw image" (for the lack of a better term) up and down. This doesn't affect far away objects in anyway. Just imagine that the "raw image" occupies all the screen, but for art direction reasons, they decided to put black bars on the top and on the bottom, because in their opinion it frames things better and gives a cinematic feeling.

See Slair's quote above. True, it's not necessarily "zooming out" if it's been intended that way. But in that case it would be better to use 2592x1080 if performance is not an object.

I already asked you a couple of times: Do you consider a movie to have lower Image Quality due to Letterboxing? I'm guessing you don't, because the cinematographer/director is framing the scene exactly has he want's you to see it, therefor you are not losing anything, because that's how it was meant to be from the start.

Not inherently, because as you said, it may have been an artistic choice. But the same doesn't apply to digital picture. When you decrease resolution to change the aspect ratio, you will have to sacrifice either field of view or fidelity.

 

[fastford58]

Miss out on all the exclusives? No, problem definately not solved. My favourite games of the last 10 years were mostly PS3 exclusives, not sh*t like Tomb Raider or Assasin's Creed.



Good post.

The guy was saying that he could absolutely not game at less than 60fps unless he quit 60fps gaming. It is quite literally one of the silliest arguments I have read.

So he might as well quit console gaming and miss out instead of bitching about some arbitrary, immovable opinion that he holds.

 

[Gabotron ES]

Black bars are the worst offender imo

 

[FrozenCell]

Black bars are the worst offender imo

nah, it'll look sex on a projector

 

[Slair]

You're exaggerating, but that's why it's best to have a great resolution, to accommodate the fov.


See Slair's quote above. True, it's not necessarily "zooming out" if it's been intended that way. But in that case it would be better to use 2592x1080 if performance is not an object.

I was actually being sarcastic I thought if i was hyperbolic enough i wouldn't need the "/s".

Hypothetically if it were either black bars with a wider fov or no black bars narrower fov i'd pick the former. A wider fov is much more beneficial to me while playing a game than having more skybox and more floor in the frame. I've wished for a long time that console games had larger fov's, a lot of games i feel like i cant see enough around me, feels like tunnel vision and i dont like that.

 

[C4Lukins]

Well that is completely reasonable.

 

[ced]

It's amazing that on GAF just having "30fps" in your title will guarantee 30+ pages.

 

[DryvBy]

Yes, just like I can watch a black and white movie now. Tolerable, but not ideal, information-wise.

That's not the context of my question. I was asking my question based on this:

Well, we just won't agree at this point. I can't enjoy 30FPS games anymore. Maybe if I would be willing to force myself playing 30FPS games till my perception changes again, switches back, I'd be able to enjoy them again. But why should I do that. I'd also need to stop playing 60FPS games all together.

Also, how it looks is the less important part. I like it more, sure, but how it feels is way more important. I could live with a game that looks like 30FPS but plays like 60FPS.

Nintendo knows why they insist on using 60FPS for most of their franchises.

 

[kyser73]

But but... the PS4 has all the POWARZ!

..right?


Seriously though, this is pretty lame.

From a PC player perspective, for an action game 60fps has to be standard. It's just such a big difference that once you've gotten used to it, you can't go back to 30fps. I prefer 60fps over 1080p graphics.

Just so you know, the last time PC owners started a pissing competition on a console thread the ban hammer came out.

I suspect that the physics used in this would give a mid-tier PC a hard time locking 60fps, and certainly wouldn't do well on one costing £350.

I mean when I PC game I use a Cray running a Windows emulator so not only do I have really real physics, I've got a global climate simulator running too - all at 10,000 FPS.

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

lol everyone missed the joke, and it's "XB1M13" so no $3 for you.

Yeah, just caught that now lol. They aughta be back in a couple days, then.

 

[Jacobi]

So movies aren't Full HD as well if they are in cinescope?

 

[jim-jam bongs]

You know I can buy that the framing is an artistic decision, but it's still a misguided one. In a game where the player controls the camera composition is arbitrarily determined, so any arguments in favour of this which are based on the use of framing in films are bunk.

 

[GoldPunch]

23.976 FPS please. More cinematic.

 

[Ludicrous Speed]

Between this news and the news of no multiplayer, at least RAD is getting all the bad news out of the way early! Hopefully there won't be any more surprises. Seems like there was bad news coming out every couple of weeks regarding Titanfall.

 

[Silky]

Wow just more and more reasons not to be interested in this game!

I hope whoever's interested in the game gets their enjoyment out of it, but all of this just sounds really unappealing.

 

[b&jy77VjiKn$#F]

So movies aren't Full HD as well if they are in cinescope?

Hey man, I made the .gif just to parody the debate between 2 sides about 1920x800 being full HD or not. I'm not claiming widescreen movies either are or are not full HD, which basically means I'm not really taking any sides. Please understand.

 

[Blinck]

And I'd be okay with that, if instead of sacrificing the vertical resolution standard, they had increased the horizontal one accordingly. The decision as it stands reeks a bit of performance saving.


See Slair's quote above. True, it's not necessarily "zooming out" if it's been intended that way. But in that case it would be better to use 2592x1080 if performance is not an object.


Not inherently, because as you said, it may have been an artistic choice. But the same doesn't apply to digital picture. When you decrease resolution to change the aspect ratio, you will have to sacrifice either field of view or fidelity.

I understand what you mean now, and I think it's accurate.

But still, bumping the resolution to 2592 would be insane in terms of performance hit.
I honestly think it is a creative decision to letterbox the game and not a performance issue, since I don't think they gain THAT much performance. But the solution you present to have such a high resolution is just not doable in next gen consoles I believe.

I guess we'll never know. If the game can't maintain 30 fps, though, then I guess you'll be proven right. Which is very possible since it seems that developers these days don't give a shit about performance.

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

I can't enjoy 30FPS games anymore. Maybe if I would be willing to force myself playing 30FPS games till my perception changes again, switches back, I'd be able to enjoy them again. But why should I do that. I'd also need to stop playing 60FPS games all together.

 

[dragonbane]

You know I can buy that the framing is an artistic decision, but it's still a misguided one. In a game where the player controls the camera composition is arbitrarily determined, so any arguments in favour of this which are based on the use of framing in films are bunk.

Well, they did talk about having "interactive cinematic moments" in the game. I think those probably will have a more directed camera.

On the other hand, if when the game went gold, they were magically given the choice to make it full 1920x1080 with no other compromise, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they would take it.

I'm not so sure.

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

What does affect me though, is the general state of mankind.

You're using this thread to judge the general state of mankind?

 

[EGM1966]

Nice - although ironic that removing the bars and zooming in ruins the composition at the end!

 

[Ol No Bones]

Some games are gonna sacrifice frames for effects. I don't care.

 

[b&jy77VjiKn$#F]

Nice - although ironic that removing the bars and zooming in ruins the composition at the end!

thatsthejoke.jpg

 

[VanWinkle]

23.976 FPS please. More cinematic.

They would be doing it at expense of user responsiveness, so that's a no-go. If it negatively affects the game aspect, then that's a bad thing. 24fps would do that.

 

[rokkerkory]

What's wrong with 30fps as long as it is locked?

Sounds great to me.

 

[Thrakier]

But you have no issue going into threads about console games, where the vast majority of titles are 30fps.

"I can't enjoy American Idol anymore without Simon Cowell, but I'll go into the OT thread and bitch anyway because for whatever reason I don't value my time."

That's how stupid all your posts come across.

It is not a thread "about consoles games". The title is very specific. Read it again.

 

[Thrakier]

So when you get used to 48 fps movies, you'll never be able to watch an older movie?

60FPS influences a gaming experience fundamentally on two levels.

- how it looks
- how it plays

Since it's a VIDEO GAME, the change in how it looks is welcome (more fluid), the change in how it plays is a must.

The comparison with a movie therefore doesn't work. You are not interacting with a movie.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Well, they did talk about having "interactive cinematic moments" in the game. I think those probably will have a more directed camera.

Unless that's the majority of the game though, it's still a deeply flawed decision. It would make sense for the majority of the game to fill the screen outside of those moments and cut scenes, where the framing can be artfully controlled to create a particular mood.

All just in my opinion, of course.

 

[ironcreed]

Shocking news. 30 fps on consoles is still a standard for many genres and should be perfectly fine to anyone who is not used to the blazing speed of a nice rig. I don't see how this is a big deal at all for games on PS4 or Xbone, but that's just me.

 

[blastprocessor]

If it's got the cinematic motion blur then this game will sure look purdy.

 

[BruiserBear]

This has to be one of the strangest threads I've seen on this forum in a long time. Information that could have been easily predicted is revealed, and it turns into a 28+ page thread?

 

[VanWinkle]

This has to be one of the strangest threads I've seen on this forum in a long time. Information that could have been easily predicted is revealed, and it turns into a 28+ page thread?

Most of it is talking about resolution or making fun of "cinematic" experiences.

 

[Projectjustice]

What I don't get is that most devs lower resolution for better framerate. We aren't getting neither with The Order. Hopefully it's a great game though.

 

[SaitoH]

Man, there must be a lot of people upset at their widescreen Blu-rays not being "true 1080p."

 

[Sami+]

While I prefer 60fps, I'd sacrifice it in favor of some of the effects they're going to add. Considering they're going for a filmic approach I'm expecting some great depth of field, filtering, motion blur, etc.

 

[VanWinkle]

What I don't get is that most devs lower resolution for better framerate. We aren't getting neither with The Order. Hopefully it's a great game though.

They can't really raise the resolution any higher than it is with the aspect ratio they have. And most devs on console games don't lower resolution to go for 60fps. Most console games are 30fps. That goes for The Order as well.

 

[EGM1966]

thatsthejoke.jpg

Checking joke detector batteries now...

 

[ironcreed]

What I don't get is that most devs lower resolution for better framerate. We aren't getting neither with The Order. Hopefully it's a great game though.

The game itself looks pretty intriguing to me and that is all I give a shit about, barring it ends up being some unplayable slideshow. But that is highly unlikely, lol. It will definitely be on the radar whenever I decide to pick up a PS4.

 

[Jacobi]

You know I can buy that the framing is an artistic decision, but it's still a misguided one. In a game where the player controls the camera composition is arbitrarily determined, so any arguments in favour of this which are based on the use of framing in films are bunk.

Eh, just like in Gears of War or Resident Evil 4 the player will be able to rotate the camera around, but not influence its position nor how it composits the frame.