-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
When are developers going to realize that framerate is more important than graphics?
- Thread starter hooijdonk17
- Start date
I hope that Wii HD (Wii 2) has enough power to run X360/PS3 like graphical complexity/detail at 60fps, with 8x AA, and at native 1080p resolution. Thus, it gets to be at least a modest step above X360/PS3.
--slightly off-topic--
I hope the nextgen Xbox3/PS4 are able to handle more "CGI like" realtime graphics at 60fps. I'm hoping that through a combination of software & hardware rendering, or accelerated software rendering, they can go beyond the typical realtime textured, polygonal look that we've had since the start of 3D gaming in the mid 90s. I'd like for there to be no need for anymore pre-rendered CGI cutscenes, because everything can be handled in-engine.
I expect CryEngine3 games to be as much of a leap over CryEngine2 / Crysis as CryEngine2 was over CryEngine / Far Cry , and this time CE3 is developed with both PC and consoles in mind, and can run at least at 30fps in max detail on consoles. Sure I'd prefer 60fps, but even 30fps was too much to ask for most PCs and if Crysis was on 360/PS3 as it is, it would probably be 5-10fps.
--back on-topic--
Although it'll never happen, my desire is that all games are built around running at 60fps, just like any given game runs at one fixed resolution, the same resolution, all the time. That isn't totally impossible you know. Every Model 3 arcade game was 60fps, no matter what was going on on-screen, and those were complex games for the time. Moreso than any console game before Dreamcast. If Model 3 was a console and you had every game for it, you'd have nothing but 60fps games.
--slightly off-topic--
I hope the nextgen Xbox3/PS4 are able to handle more "CGI like" realtime graphics at 60fps. I'm hoping that through a combination of software & hardware rendering, or accelerated software rendering, they can go beyond the typical realtime textured, polygonal look that we've had since the start of 3D gaming in the mid 90s. I'd like for there to be no need for anymore pre-rendered CGI cutscenes, because everything can be handled in-engine.
I expect CryEngine3 games to be as much of a leap over CryEngine2 / Crysis as CryEngine2 was over CryEngine / Far Cry , and this time CE3 is developed with both PC and consoles in mind, and can run at least at 30fps in max detail on consoles. Sure I'd prefer 60fps, but even 30fps was too much to ask for most PCs and if Crysis was on 360/PS3 as it is, it would probably be 5-10fps.
--back on-topic--
Although it'll never happen, my desire is that all games are built around running at 60fps, just like any given game runs at one fixed resolution, the same resolution, all the time. That isn't totally impossible you know. Every Model 3 arcade game was 60fps, no matter what was going on on-screen, and those were complex games for the time. Moreso than any console game before Dreamcast. If Model 3 was a console and you had every game for it, you'd have nothing but 60fps games.
Movies are not interactive, and generally camera movements are much slower and more controlled than in games. That said, a lot of movies have been using “shaky-cam” lately, and it looks absolutely terrible, as it's too quick for the framerate. Even relatively slow pans can have problems if they're shot digitally at 24fps rather than on film.anonymousAversa said:
60fps will improve anything. It doesn't matter what the graphics are like in the game, or how fast-paced it is (or isn't) it will look better at 60fps.
If you absolutely must have a game running at 30fps, at least make sure you have a good motion blur going, and that it doesn't let the framerate drop below 30fps.
1080p60 should have been a requirement this generation—the hardware can do it, but most developers won't try, as their game won't be able to compete in screenshots with anything else released now. It should be mandatory next generation.
Hopefully RAGE will show everyone why 60fps is so important (and how good it can look) and other developers will license the engine and keep within the limits to run at 60fps as well.
Threi said:
somewhat off-topic
Taking what you said a few major steps further, it would also be awesome if with next-gen consoles (Xbox3, Wii HD, PS4), some developers were able to make a few games at 480p / no AA, using all the extra power they gain to make the most cinematic, CG-like in-game graphics possible.
Maybe a Final Fantasy game could look close to The Spirits Within.
Maybe a Mario game could look close to a Pixar film
I realize that by not doing HD 1080p or 720p HD resolutions, the (3x to 6x) fillrate & bandwidth savings don't help increase every other area of graphics, but it would help in some areas.
65536 said:
I agree, that should definitely have been a requirement this gen--Although 360/PS3 can do 1080p, 60fps, when they do, it's pretty much at an Xbox1+ level.
The current consoles just don't have enough power/performance to do 1080p, 60fps *and* complex "next-gen" graphics on top of it. That is, graphics that are typical of what we see in current-gen games that aren't 1080p60.
If 360 & PS3 had GPUs that were equivalent to G80 or RV770, which areapprox 4x faster than Xenos/RSX, then yes, 1080p60 with graphics that are a true generational leap beyond Xbox1 would've been possible.
I hope you're right that it's mandatory next generation
Absolutely.
polyh3dron
Banned
I could never get too far in that game because the framerate drove me nuts. I would KILL for a PS3 version that ran at 1080P/60FPS that used the same assets.Feep said:
Dark Octave
Banned
I can deal with occasional slowdown, but a crap looking game is crap from beginning to end.
And my tollerance on both of those are determined by how fun the game is anyway, so...
And my tollerance on both of those are determined by how fun the game is anyway, so...
rollingstart
Banned
I agree that having a stable 30 fps is very important
Wipeout HD looks better then an Xbox game, no?camineet said:
As to the topic, the only people who really care about this sort of stuff are the minority. Games that look good in screenshots and commercials are more appealing then those that don't. Some of the most popular games this generation are sub HD and and run at 30 fps with drops below that(GTA4 PS3, Halo 3).
My advice, either get over it or get a good PC.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Not really it depends for me. For single-player games it doesn't matter, but multiplayer it does. Usually.
And with gaming sites like this around, who can blame them?
Golvellius
Member
usually a bit less than 50 000 fps.
What..? Usually good graphics indicate a good game.
Black-Wind
Member
Im still wondering when Devs will realize that animation is pretty fucking important (even more important than graphics if you ask me) and start to use actual animators to animate characters over using motion cap soo much.
Unfortunately for you, very few people will notice that something is running at 20fps. Particularly in screen shots.
The fact that developers generally choose graphical detail over a high frame rate is in large part because that is what the audience wants.
The fact that developers generally choose graphical detail over a high frame rate is in large part because that is what the audience wants.
Photo mode does a high-quality render. Basically, your picture looks better than what you took a picture of.Durante said:http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3245/2894947384_cd5e3c6e1f_o.jpg
It really depends on what you're rendering
Because there's only so much time and money to devote to a game. If you put more resources towards one thing, you have less resources to put towards another. It's not quite a zero-sum game, but its close enough.TheExodu5 said:
You might be allowed to spend $20 million dollars on a 2-year game project. That's 10 million per year. Let's say each person is $100 000 including all overhead and management. That gives you a 100-person team.
Now, are you going to hire 25 designers, 25 programmers, and 50 artists? Or 33 designers, 33 programmers and 33 artists? 20 designers, 10 programmers and 70 artists?
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
In the previous generation, 60 FPS games tended to look BETTER than 30 FPS games, even in screenshots. Look at Ninja Gaiden, F-Zero GX, God of War, ZOE2, etc.
In the current generation, that may not still hold true, but 60 FPS games look good enough that I'd always take higher framerate over supposedly better graphics. Even for non-action games--responsiveness is important even for turn-based gameplay, after all. Check out how annoying Civilization: Revolution was to play because of the choppiness, for instance.
In the current generation, that may not still hold true, but 60 FPS games look good enough that I'd always take higher framerate over supposedly better graphics. Even for non-action games--responsiveness is important even for turn-based gameplay, after all. Check out how annoying Civilization: Revolution was to play because of the choppiness, for instance.
lastendconductor
Put your snobby liquids into my mouth!
You know whats sad? everybody is screaming "we want more framerate", but then a game releases screenshots, and everybody is like hahaha that looks meh booo whatever => game bombs.
You guys want fucking mindblowing screenshots, so be it. But you can't have both.
You guys want fucking mindblowing screenshots, so be it. But you can't have both.
Hellraizer said:
I'm so glad I played PC games for so long without vsync on. I think it made me pretty much immune to screen tearing. I do use vysnc in nearly every PC game now, but that's mostly because my rig can easily handle it with barely an FPS impact (triple buffering helps).
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Yes you can. Where's this horde of modern ugly 60 FPS games?DKnight said:
HAL_Laboratory
Member
...Spoit said:
Joke post?
Infernal Monkey
Member
Golvellius said:
Ahahaha, yeah, right.
zoukka said:
well maybe I've seen it but i dunno what the term is called. if your so smart why don't you tell me? pfff!
EDIT: if this is screen tearing then that's pretty fucked up!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJyH4Lu8U1U
i've never seen a game screw up this bad...that includes my PC and consoles.
Same for me... The idea behind F-Zero X is one I love : a lot of cars in a stable 60fps is more important than fancy graphics.hooijdonk17 said:
But :
- framerate is more important for gameplay
- graphics are more important for selling the game to many people
So ? You'll get 30fps for quite a long time...
Graphics Horse
Member
marwan said:
No, it won't show up very well on youtube anyway.
It's just when the frame updates part way down the screen, so the top portion of the screen is a frame behind the bottom portion.
Mostly noticible if you're rotating the camera.
BravoSuperStar
Member
marwan said:
saints row/saints row 2 are good examples. They allow you to turn Vsync off and on so you get a good idea of what tearing is all about.
Nizz
Member
Pretty much. For certain games, 60 frames is key (racing, fighting, even fps to an extent). On consoles, the COD franchise seems more the exception than the norm when it comes to 60 frames in an fps. And the games in that franchise look great to me (particularly Modern Warfare and WaW). But then again with what Guerrilla Games is pulling off with Killzone 2 is amazing itself. 30 frames a second is fine for K2 with all the effects, motion blur, and other stuff happening on screen. But what probably impresses me most about K2 is that all of that is happening at a rock solid 30. As long as most games ran at a rock solid 30, it'd be great. Problem is, especially for an fps game, you start getting sub-30 frames and the aiming starts to get trickier due to the choppiness. Sure, 60 frames is a lot to pull off, but I wish at the very least most, if not all, games would run at least at a locked, rock solid 30. I was wondering, if a game can't reach a steady 60, is it possible to just have the game run at 45 frames? I swore I remember seeing gameplay videos of Gears 2 and I think Garnett from 1up had mentioned it was running at about 45 frames a second? I know from the videos it looked like it was running at close to 60. I think running at 45 with dips, if any, to 30 wouldn't be as jarring as a dip from 60 to 30. I don't know, just wondering...Koren said: