Ubisoft thinks industry is dropping 60 fps standard
254 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mitsudigi;46190503]Well to be honest I'd rather have splitscreen over 60 FPS. It'll be a repeat of the last gen titles where developers sacrifice local multiplayer for GFX which was really disappointing.[/QUOTE]
Not like its impossible to have both. Why not turn down the fidelity when its in split screen mode.
[quote]"30 was our goal, it feels more cinematic. 60 is really good for a shooter, action adventure not so much. It actually feels better for people when it's at that 30fps. It also lets us push the limits of everything to the maximum."[/quote]
This isn't a movie we're watching, we're playing a game. We need to be able to not only take in information but be able to react with our own, how could you possibly say that 30 fps is better for doing that than 60?
[quote]"...because you don't gain that much from 60 fps and it doesn't look like the real thing. It's a bit like The Hobbit movie, it looked really weird."[/quote]
Rock-solid argument right there. Well, I suppose a 100% increase in the amount of images reaching your eyeballs isn't such a big deal after all.
When I build a gaming PC, I build it as beefy as possible so I can enjoy a full 60 fps. There's nothing cinematic about 30 fps when it comes to gameplay, it just feels sluggish.
Ubisoft is just talking out of their ass, as usual.
what a bunch of lazy assholes
Am I the only one who don't give a shit about 30or60 fps, as far as game is good?
Standard? You kidding me? It was never a standard. Games that ran 60 FPS are a vast minority, ignoring PC games. It [I]should[/I] be a standard, but to call the progress we've so far to have made it a standard? Bullshit. 30 FPS was the standard all along, and it still is, and it needs to be changed. Stop showing off your luscious view distance and dense crowds and show off your frame rate optimization. Leaving a state of graphical quality unfinished, not bothering to perfect it to run properly at 60 FPS is a load of shot. Don't start working on the more advanced features when you can't even optimize the older ones.
[QUOTE=DrAkcel;46190643]Am I the only one who don't give a shit about 30or60 fps, as far as game is good?[/QUOTE]
You honestly should if you don't want your games to play like crap.
[QUOTE]I don't think it was a good idea because you don't gain that much from 60 fps and it doesn't look like the real thing.[/QUOTE]
I always thought that sentiment was really stupid. How can a movie at 30 fps feel more real than a movie at 60 fps? Surely the latter is the one that's closer to life.
It's not hard to understand why 30 fps is targeted. It gives you double the amount of time per frame to do things, the game can be twice as technically "good". Whether you feel that AAA games spend that extra time on superfluous things is besides the point.
That's not an excuse by the way. It's just the truth, if you want to make something better then you have to find the time somewhere. I can't stand this idea that there is some ultimate truth to the amount of computing power required for any game. The real solution to increasing game quality and keeping good framerates is simply to upgrade your hardware. Obviously with consoles that's impossible so we end up with this result.
[QUOTE=Reds;46190466]They only want 30fps as a standard because it means you can be lazier.[/QUOTE]
Or because you can make the game look way better since you have double the amount of computational time per-frame. Higher framerate doesn't sell games the way graphical fidelity does and most of the target audience (console players) seems to prefer pretty games with a stable 30fps over smooth but uglier ones. These teams make a conscious decision to target 30fps for development because when you're working with the limited resources of a console, it makes a huge difference.
I don't see why this is so hard for people to understand. It has nothing to do with laziness.
[QUOTE=DrAkcel;46190643]Am I the only one who don't give a shit about 30or60 fps, as far as game is good?[/QUOTE]
Honestly, you get used to 30 fps and it's not so bad, but when compared to 60 fps the difference is astounding, and well worth sacrificing some graphics options to get to.
I wish they'd give consoles graphics configurations, so they could lower some options to get to 60. (though in this case it's CPU bottlenecking according to them)
[QUOTE=Lordgeorge16;46190533]Boy, they're really determined to win that "Worst company of the year" award this time.[/QUOTE]
Sometimes I wonder if Ubisoft is actually Sonic Team in disguise.
What the fuck is this stupid bullshit. I hope they're talking just about consoles.
I can understand it's a choice to optimize for 30fps to be able to get most of the eye-candy PC has, but I might be damned if they decide to fuck with the PC framerates too.
Also, I think its better to have 60fps, with a little less eyecandy on consoles too.
[QUOTE]30 was our goal, it feels more cinematic. 60 is really good for a shooter, action adventure not so much. It actually feels better for people when it's at that 30fps..[/QUOTE]
Wow, just wow. That has to be most retarded idea I've ever read on these forums from that article.
[QUOTE=DrAkcel;46190643]Am I the only one who don't give a shit about 30or60 fps, as far as game is good?[/QUOTE]
It's not a matter of which is better, since 60 FPS is objectively better. It's a matter of whether or not 30 is acceptable, and when that option is deliberately taken when it shouldn't have to be is what's annoying. Watch this video for a much better explanation:
[video=youtube;eXJh9ut2hrc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXJh9ut2hrc[/video]
[editline]9th October 2014[/editline]
[video=youtube;eXJh9ut2hrc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXJh9ut2hrc[/video]
[QUOTE=catbarf;46190656]Or because you can make the game look way better since you have double the amount of computational time per-frame. Higher framerate doesn't sell games the way graphical fidelity does and most of the target audience (console players) seems to prefer pretty games with a stable 30fps over smooth but uglier ones. These teams make a conscious decision to target 30fps for development because when you're working with the limited resources of a console, it makes a huge difference.
I don't see why this is so hard for people to understand. It has nothing to do with laziness.[/QUOTE]
Read what I just said. They should master optimizing lower graphical settings before trying to push new ones.
[editline]9th October 2014[/editline]
Pushing new graphical settings at lower frame rates and then putting up a shield of "but then we'd have to lower graphical quality!" is a shit argument.
[QUOTE=Philly c;46190655]It's not hard to understand why 30 fps is targeted. It gives you double the amount of time per frame to do things, the game can be twice as technically "good". Whether you feel that AAA games spend that extra time on superfluous things is besides the point.
That's not an excuse by the way. It's just the truth, if you want to make something better then you have to find the time somewhere. I can't stand this idea that there is some ultimate truth to the amount of computing power required for any game. The real solution to increasing game quality and keeping good framerates is simply to upgrade your hardware. Obviously with consoles that's impossible so we end up with this result.[/QUOTE]
Targeting 30 fps because it's easier to achieve is one thing, but trying to cover their ass with bullshit like "30 fps is better than 60 because it's cinematic" or "resolution makes no difference" is another, and that's what I believe this thread is mostly about
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;46190477]Who needs colour anyway?
[t]http://i.imgur.com/Aqk0nua.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
haha it's a futurama character
[QUOTE=_Axel;46190651]I always thought that sentiment was really stupid. How can a movie at 30 fps feel more real than a movie at 60 fps? Surely the latter is the one that's closer to life.[/QUOTE]
Confirm something for me.
On higher end TVs, we get more fps right? Or something of the sort?
Every now and then I see those really expensive and powerful TVs, and the image quality is not only better, but less choppier than what we see regularly.
Until my last PC upgrade I never really noticed frame rates since it was never powerful enough to get 60 FPS but now anything under 45 or so FPS just feels so awful. I really don't think I could ever use a console any more, looks awful with low frame rates, bad resolution and no AA.
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;46190644]I certainly hope he does.
THIS is what's wrong with the gaming world right now, none of that gamergate stuff.
(to an extent, gamergate is also very important, but this shit right here means we might be going backwards in development)[/QUOTE]
Oh once he's out of the hospital, he's gonna have a field day if he can muscle through the chemo. That said knowing the moxie that John Bain has on-tap even on an off-day, he'd probably be tweeting against it right now if he wasn't mellowed out by all the morphine.
Hell he did a Vine from the hospital bed that was pretty much "Metalopolis... Oh god give me more morphine..." about an hour ago, so even WITH the morphine he's still a honey badger and a half, even if said honey badger and a half is swimming in laudanum. Still it's kinda depressing to see him with those tubes in his nose...
But enough about TB, let's get back to bitching about how goddamn lazy, disrespectful and honourless Ubisoft is.
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;46190712]Confirm something for me.
On higher end TVs, we get more fps right? Or something of the sort?
Every now and then I see those really expensive and powerful TVs, and the image quality is not only better, but less choppier than what we see regularly.[/QUOTE]
I think these TVs use frame blending or something like that, essentially "blending" two frames together and interjecting it between them to give an illusion of smoothness, regardless of the fact that the source material is 30 fps.
Those idiots from Ubisoft are aware that less FPS changes the way the game plays and feels, right?
These stupid 30 fps arguments. Maybe I missed something but except for developers no one else loves this shit. Why those it feel that with new consoles the average framerate goes down? Wasn't the point of new generation to get better performance?
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;46190697]Read what I just said. They should master optimizing lower graphical settings before trying to push new ones.
[editline]9th October 2014[/editline]
Pushing new graphical settings at lower frame rates and then putting up a shield of "but then we'd have to lower graphical quality!" is a shit argument.[/QUOTE]
Do you really think that any substantial part of their target audience will be more impressed by a high framerate than really pretty graphics? Developers will stay with 30fps while pushing graphical quality as long as that's what their market prefers, so as long as console gamers are fine with 30fps games then that's what developers will build to.
Criticisms like low resolution or looking like it's five years old do more damage than it running at the framerate that everyone's already used to.
[QUOTE=megafat;46190729]Those idiots from Ubisoft are aware that less FPS changes the way the game plays and feels, right?[/QUOTE]
I doubt it. Having played at multiple framerates in multiple games, i can attest that the difference between 30 and 60 is massive in terms of overall feel. At 30fps you have considerable input lag, which can make you feel detached from a game, while at 60 there's still some input lag and motion blur but it's at least 5X better than 30fps. I hear people say that the difference between 60 and 120 is not worth it, but once you've tried it for a while, you can really detect the input lag and motion blur that even 60fps has. These guys are completely mental for thinking it makes the game feel more real.
[QUOTE=Valiantttt;46190485]it doesn't look good if it is 30 fps, only if you have never seen 60 fps maybe.[/QUOTE]
30FPS is certainly a step-up from my younger days when I had to draw each frame myself on note-book paper and flip them.
30fps better than 60fps
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;46190757]30FPS is certainly a step-up from my younger days when I had to draw each frame myself on note-book paper and flip them.[/QUOTE]
Should've gotten a better graphics card.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
