But im not watching a movie...also thats complete bullshit.
Movies don't have input lag.
What a load of shit. Video games aren't Movies. the less frames that are pushed, the more chances of input lag
it's just ubisoft spewing bullshit because they're lazy shits
Not really too keen to pay 60 dollars to see a movie to be honest.
I'd like to have some sense of control in the middle of things.
Ubisoft PC sales will drop and as always they blame on the PC players.
If I want the cinematic experience I'll go to the cinema, thanks.
Being able to control the camera isn't very cinematic either, so they should make locked camera presets while they're at it.
[QUOTE=Lizzrd;46198842]Not really too keen to pay 60 dollars to see a movie to be honest.
I'd like to have some sense of control in the middle of things.[/QUOTE]
Maybe they should price their games according to the film standards they're following, then :v:
So what excuse are they going to use when most cinemas use 60 FPS?
Um, excuse me but I think we all wanna play video games and not a movie.
What does it even mean anyway ? A more cinematic feel ? There is nothing cinematic about playing a fucking game.
There is no "Debate" higher is better.
Cutscenes are alright (provided they have motion blur), but gameplay at 30 fps can fuck off
[QUOTE=damnatus;46199325]Cutscenes are alright (provided they have motion blur), but gameplay at 30 fps can fuck off[/QUOTE]
Even rendered motion blur is bad in my opinion. It doesn't work as well as real motion blur and in slow moving scenes you will see the choppy 30fps.
Yeah, 60 fps is totally overrated.
I mean, who doesn't like stuttering and less visual information in his game? I'm disgusted that we're also still using 1920x1080 instead of good ol' 800x600
Since when has gaming ever been about this so called cinematic experience
Its just publishers lying through their teeth so their precious consoles don't appear to be as shit as they actually are
Did Ubisoft decide to give EA a break and do all the stupid shit instead?
Complete Bullshit.
Have fun with this.
[video=youtube;eXJh9ut2hrc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXJh9ut2hrc[/video]
Did anyone here even read the article or did everyone just read the headline, quickly leave a rating angry at the mere existence of the debate and then write out their frustration?
The article is, for the most part, a recap of the debate between consumers and devs, with a closing word basically in line with the common customer opinion. So what's up with the boxfort?
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;46198871]Ubisoft PC sales will drop and as always they blame on the PC players.[/QUOTE]Well OF COURSE the PC sales will drop. That's what happens when you shaft the PC platform time and time again. And you call THAT "piracy?" Oh Ubisoft, ur fucking hilarious. :v:
There's no debate, it's just Ubisoft making up excuses.
ok, i can agree with this to a certain degree, and i know many will disagree with me. i once tried playing fallout 3 in letterbox locked at 30fps, and for some strange reason, i felt much more immersed in the experience; would definitely go so far as to say it was a much more cinematic experience. but i ended up reverting the changes shortly after. so what does this mean exactly? i believe developers have a point, that thirty does feel much more cinematic, but these are videgoames.
first of all, while videogame narratives have definitely evolved to a point at which they're much more about storytelling than smashing things, you still need to smash things in order to listen to the story. the foundation of videogames is gaming, not cinematics. second of all, i'll be damned if developers were capping the framerate solely for cinematic value. it's obvious that they can't achieve a constant sixty, and are bullshitting their audience with this pseudo-artistic reasoning. if they're really making the decision to cap framerate in order to immerse their audience, then implement a framecap option, and don't fucking lie to everyone. at the end of the day though, we, as an audience, are exactly that. we are experiencing someone elses work. we have absolutely no guarantees, much the same as going to a museum. we're not going to like everything we see, but are free to criticize in any way we see fit, and hopefully the artist will take these criticisms, and use them constructively. but we all know ubisofts recent track record.
[QUOTE=megafat;46198834]Movies don't have input lag.[/QUOTE]
They also have a metric fuckton of motion blur.
If they're able to make it a solid 30 with no drops at all then it's not a huge deal. But they can't even do that, so why not make it 60? Ubisoft proving once again that they're literally worse than EA.
[editline]10th October 2014[/editline]
This is what developers have become.
[thumb]http://i.imgur.com/6tdC8ie.jpg[/thumb]
Cinematic experience... The cinematic experience is as follows
Watching 24 frames per second that's only acceptable because movement is extremely blurry and blends the motion together, where by you do not control anything but the volume of the sound.
Experience of playing a game
Each frame is crystal clear, the small frame rate becomes extremely apparent, and not only do you control what's happening, there needs to be as little disconnect between the moment you tell it to do something, and when it does do something, or you could get some nasty motion sickness out of some people. And letterboxing the game for a more cinematic experience is absolutely subjective and objectively takes AWAY from the experience as a game, by using a large portion of a TV's display area to display NOTHING. If you don't slap on a dumb letterbox filter, then you're shrinking the FOV to such an extent that depending on how far away someone is from the screen they're playing the game on, can also cause extreme motion sickness
Let's take a game, let's say a first person shooter, where you're in am empty room with a crosshair and moving targets you need to point at. Let's make this game have a framerate you can change at will. How low do you think you can go before someone says Okay, this is stupid I can't accurately put my crosshair on these moving targets. 20? 15? If it's 15, will 15 become the standard? Point of the exercise is that a lower frame rate is detrimental to the gameplay, and the opposite is true when the frame rate gets higher.
You know what game has an extremely cinematic feel to it? Alien Isolation, which runs on my rig at 60 FPS. You know what makes it cinematic? The atmosphere, the sound, the music, the overall ambience of the setting. The frame rate has nothing to do with any of that
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/cPWAd1G.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=knifekeeper;46200075][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/cPWAd1G.png[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Their stocks might be more responsive if only they ran at a higher frame rate
[QUOTE=Yummy Pie;46199979]If they're able to make it a solid 30 with no drops at all then it's not a huge deal. But they can't even do that, so why not make it 60? Ubisoft proving once again that they're literally worse than EA.
[editline]10th October 2014[/editline]
This is what developers have become.
[thumb]http://i.imgur.com/6tdC8ie.jpg[/thumb][/QUOTE]
Is that bottom left response real
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
