[video=youtube;eXJh9ut2hrc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXJh9ut2hrc[/video]
It was posted in the TB megathread, but I think this one should be posted here too.
I agree with what TB said about 60FPS makes games look and play better.
Wolfenstein The New Order on last gen hardware has far lower resolution textures and worse lighting than it's next-gen counterparts, but it is still as enjoyable as it it would be on PS4/PC/Xbone because it runs at 60FPS.
There is no debate indeed, every 30 fps argument is mainly developers trying to justify mediocre console hardware. Or retarded stuff like "eyes can't see more than 25 frames per second".
I mean, "movie feel"? Really? Movies have motion blur blurring every two continuous frames, you know, that's why it is hard to notice the choppiness
30 FPS is the "30 FPS is acceptable so until we drop to that, we throw more crap in" standard.
All you need to do is watch an embedded youtube video here on facepunch, and then an embedded Pomf.se one to see the insane difference 30 vs 60 makes
Movies at 28 FPS is fine. Was fine. It saved space, used less film, all that shit. But let's look at a screencap of a movie running at 28FPS shall we.
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2yvZOEZ-lQ0/UdJxFKyqcxI/AAAAAAAARqA/trVr2Pi0Hlk/s1440/Screen+Shot+2013-07-01+at+12.50.50+PM.png[/img]
Oh dear. Games don't have blur like that, because they aren't capturing an image, they're displaying an image. So take the blur away and 30 FPS doesn't look normal, it looks choppy. You could always add motion blur as a post processing effect, but it's weird and ugly and doesn't do anything to help the low framerate issue since with a game, you have direct input into what's happening on your screen. It's completely interactive. It isn't something you just sit back and watch without any input
I'm actually perfectly okay with Ready at Dawn's decision, you can't compare Crysis and their game because Crysis is obviously not a cinematic game. It is true that movies are intentionally shot at 24fps, they have reasons for it (Discovery Channel comparison was spot-on), and it's true that videogames aren't movies BUT - The Order 1886 is not your average videogame, it's borderline CGI movie. You can actually compare The Order 1886 with movies, unlike most videogames.
I can see what's TB's beef with the whole thing. He's the technical type. You can hear him talking about things like input lag etc. - things that are going to be irrelevant in The Order 1886. It will be 70% a movie 30% a videogame. It's going to be a scriptfest, and he's going to hate it because it's not a videogame. But it will be an incredible movie nonetheless.
Other than that I agree. 30fps games by design are a horrible idea for all reasons previously mentioned.
Movies are shot at 24 frames per second because film reels were fucking huge and going any higher than that would mean you have a giant, heavy, extremely flamable reel of disaster.
There's absolutely no point in filming at 24 FPS any more because, for the most part, we don't use film any more. "It looks cinematic" is a fucking retarded argument, you never heard people arguing against colour because "monochrome is more cinematic!", no one bitched about sound in film because "having a live pianist is more cinematic."
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;44980255]Movies are shot at 24 frames per second because film reels were fucking huge and going any higher than that would mean you have a giant, heavy, extremely flamable reel of disaster.
There's absolutely no point in filming at 24 FPS any more because, for the most part, we don't use film any more. "It looks cinematic" is a fucking retarded argument, you never heard people arguing against colour because "monochrome is more cinematic!", no one bitched about sound in film because "having a live pianist is more cinematic."[/QUOTE]
I've seen plenty of videos that are more than 24 FPS and i just can't get used to it. It's like that with 3D to. To me, it just doesn't add a whole lot to the experience.
Also, games need it for input, so most arguments are invalid when it comes down to it.
[QUOTE=Drury;44980167]I'm actually perfectly okay with Ready at Dawn's decision, you can't compare Crysis and their game because Crysis is obviously not a cinematic game. It is true that movies are intentionally shot at 24fps, they have reasons for it (Discovery Channel comparison was spot-on), and it's true that videogames aren't movies BUT - The Order 1886 is not your average videogame, it's borderline CGI movie. You can actually compare The Order 1886 with movies, unlike most videogames.
I can see what's TB's beef with the whole thing. He's the technical type. You can hear him talking about things like input lag etc. - things that are going to be irrelevant in The Order 1886. It will be 70% a movie 30% a videogame. It's going to be a scriptfest, and he's going to hate it because it's not a videogame. But it will be an incredible movie nonetheless.
Other than that I agree. 30fps games by design are a horrible idea for all reasons previously mentioned.[/QUOTE]
Looking "cinematic" is not an excuse to be lazy. A CGI movie still has some of the inherent problems of a video game and there are PLENTY of "cinematic" games that looks bloody wonderful at 60 FPS.
Bioshock allowed unlocking of framerates on consoles. I always found that weird that it was the only game that allowed that.
[QUOTE=DeVotchKa;44980478]Looking "cinematic" is not an excuse to be lazy. A CGI movie still has some of the inherent problems of a video game and there are PLENTY of "cinematic" games that looks bloody wonderful at 60 FPS.[/QUOTE]
Not quite sure why consider them lazy.
Looking at the game it doesn't seem like something made by lazy people.
[QUOTE=Drury;44980167]I'm actually perfectly okay with Ready at Dawn's decision, you can't compare Crysis and their game because Crysis is obviously not a cinematic game. It is true that movies are intentionally shot at 24fps, they have reasons for it (Discovery Channel comparison was spot-on), and it's true that videogames aren't movies BUT - The Order 1886 is not your average videogame, it's borderline CGI movie. You can actually compare The Order 1886 with movies, unlike most videogames.
I can see what's TB's beef with the whole thing. He's the technical type. You can hear him talking about things like input lag etc. - things that are going to be irrelevant in The Order 1886. It will be 70% a movie 30% a videogame. It's going to be a scriptfest, and he's going to hate it because it's not a videogame. But it will be an incredible movie nonetheless.
[/QUOTE]
literally explained why it is a bad thing and won't work (and a lazy excuse) in the post above yours
[editline]2nd June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Drury;44980708]
Looking at the game it doesn't seem like something made by lazy people.[/QUOTE]
It's a broken record. A dev team wants to make their super best game, and maybe even succeeds, but then console hardware limits come to play. They have to choose between downgrading the graphics like texture resolution, shaders, particles etc or downgrading the way the game renders (less than 60 fps, less than 1080p)
I actually don't see a difference between 20fps and 60fps. It's only when a game drops to below 20 that it starts to look choppy to me.
So I don't really get the whole 60fps is bare minimum thing
[QUOTE=Drury;44980708]Not quite sure why consider them lazy.
Looking at the game it doesn't seem like something made by lazy people.[/QUOTE]
Saying "We're gonna run it at 30 because movies run at 24 and because [I]running at 60 ruins the aesthetic of a game[/I]" absolutely scream laziness.
I'm really gearing to get a 120hz/144hz monitor the moment I can. I spent lots of money of a good PC but I'm actually also getting tired of even [B]60[/B] fps.
but you know, I'd do 4k res, but I'd rather be able to like, afford at LEAST bread and water
[editline]2nd June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;44980760]I actually don't see a difference between 20fps and 60fps. It's only when a game drops to below 20 that it starts to look choppy to me.
So I don't really get the whole 60fps is bare minimum thing[/QUOTE]
your monitor is probably shit and can't go above 20fps or something
I see a massive difference between 30 and 60 every time I play a game every [B]single time.[/B] 20 is unplayable for shooters IMHO.
[QUOTE=DeVotchKa;44980771]Saying "We're gonna run it at 30 because movies run at 24 and because [I]running at 60 ruins the aesthetic of a game[/I]" absolutely scream laziness.[/QUOTE]
Screams heresy and sin too.
All the Resistance games run at 30 fps and honestly it just looks super choppy and slow.
[editline]2nd June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Drury;44980167]I'm actually perfectly okay with Ready at Dawn's decision, you can't compare Crysis and their game because Crysis is obviously not a cinematic game. It is true that movies are intentionally shot at 24fps, they have reasons for it (Discovery Channel comparison was spot-on), and it's true that videogames aren't movies BUT - The Order 1886 is not your average videogame, it's borderline CGI movie. You can actually compare The Order 1886 with movies, unlike most videogames.[/QUOTE]
And? Heavy rain is pretty much a movie game with little player input. It runs at 30 FPS and still looks choppy.
honestly the hobbit looked totally amazing at 40 fps people just bitched because it's not what they're used to but if every movie went 40 fps no one would complain.
the whole "Soap opera effect" argument is so dumb too. like what?
[QUOTE=RichyZ;44982112]the human eye cant even perceive more than 2 fps u stupid retards[/QUOTE]
Dood webmd tld me dis 2, wat evn
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;44980255]Movies are shot at 24 frames per second because film reels were fucking huge and going any higher than that would mean you have a giant, heavy, extremely flamable reel of disaster.
There's absolutely no point in filming at 24 FPS any more because, for the most part, we don't use film any more. "It looks cinematic" is a fucking retarded argument, you never heard people arguing against colour because "monochrome is more cinematic!", no one bitched about sound in film because "having a live pianist is more cinematic."[/QUOTE]
People did bitch about sound in film because the people who played during movies were out of jobs. Talkies were also seen as a fad, not something that would stick around.
[editline]2nd June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;44980760]I actually don't see a difference between 20fps and 60fps. It's only when a game drops to below 20 that it starts to look choppy to me.
So I don't really get the whole 60fps is bare minimum thing[/QUOTE]
[url]http://30vs60.com/ro2.php[/url]
[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;44980760]I actually don't see a difference between 20fps and 60fps. It's only when a game drops to below 20 that it starts to look choppy to me.
So I don't really get the whole 60fps is bare minimum thing[/QUOTE]
It is hard for some people, but you can definitely see it. You just need to find a game with a lot of fixed camera movement.
Brt's example is good, especially when the player dies, but watch when the player opens the door in the Mirror's Edge example.
Personally, if I play a 3d game with a framerate less than 60 and a fov lower than 90/ 100 on PC I get super sick.
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;44982399]It is hard for some people, but you can definitely see it. You just need to find a game with a lot of fixed camera movement. [/QUOTE]
Wouldn't free camera movement be better since it has more movement and you can more easily see the input lag?
Crysis games with max quality motion blur makes 30fps feel very nice in my opinion. Of course at 60fps with the same blur (if you can run it that way) is godlike.
[QUOTE=Bernie Buddy;44982499]Wouldn't free camera movement be better since it moves more and you can more easily see the input lag?[/QUOTE]
That's what I thought, but I've asked a few friends who say they can't tell the difference between 30/60fps and they always see it in the fixed camera movement.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;44982538]Crysis games with max quality motion blur makes 30fps feel very nice in my opinion. Of course at 60fps with the same blur (if you can run it that way) is godlike.[/QUOTE]
Yea I find Crysis 1 and 3's motion blur really well done. I don't notice input lag at all on them, and it takes a slight hit, but makes it feel significantly smoother.
I think there should have been a lot more said about gta 5s awful frame rate
Why not just have a simple option to turn off some of the fancy eye candy for more FPS?
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;44980255] you never heard people arguing against colour because "monochrome is more cinematic!", no one bitched about sound in film because "having a live pianist is more cinematic."[/QUOTE]
Actually they totally did.
i cant even bear 60 fps after playing 120fps on a 120hz monitor, [b]for a while[/b]
it's called acclimation, and it's why most console only players care about graphics over fps, because they're so used to 30 fps
60FPS looks so much better, but my bottom is 30FPS. As long as I'm in that range I'm happy.
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;44982399]It is hard for some people, but you can definitely see it. You just need to find a game with a lot of fixed camera movement.
Brt's example is good, especially when the player dies, but watch when the player opens the door in the Mirror's Edge example.
Personally, if I play a 3d game with a framerate less than 60 and a fov lower than 90/ 100 on PC I get super sick.[/QUOTE]
it's way more noticeable in games with more then just fixed camera movement IMHO
FPS and fighters most of all
[editline]2nd June 2014[/editline]
in dark souls 1 the difference it a true world of change
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
