Ubisoft thinks industry is dropping 60 fps standard - Polidicks

[QUOTE=J!NX;46193127]hell, most FPS games I play with the controller in one hand and mouse in the other to have the accuracy of both.[/QUOTE] Wat If you really need an analog stick for movement, I'd recommend something like a Logitech G13, should be far more comfortable to use than what you're doing now

[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;46193245]Wat If you really need an analog stick for movement, I'd recommend something like a Logitech G13, should be far more comfortable to use than what you're doing now[/QUOTE] I already have a g13 but it's pretty old, been using it for years. As well as a logitech g600. I use the stick for weapons on the g13. Now I prefer putting its use to games with binds that are more complicated then "Move, jump, shoot". (having a joystick is nice for sniping, use both slight movements + mouse to guide your shot)

30 FPS should be the lowest you're willing let the framerate dip to during something extremely intense. That should be your standard. Not the other way around of having 30 be your top end, and then to say "It's like when people start asking about resolution. Is it the number or the quality of the pixels that you want? If the game looks gorgeous, who cares about the number?" Really? Hey guys, who cares about the resolution, the game looks gorgeous to me, put it in 512x512 so it'll stay locked at our target of 30FPS. I wonder how many of them own DVD or Blu-Ray players and would be pissed if one came out in VHS quality

[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] Do you mean the refresh rate?

Why do Ubisoft always feel the need to make up ridiculous excuses? Like the lack of female character or the fact that their console games run at 30fps aren't even huge issues, they don't need to invent bullshit to justify themselves.

So I'm paying 60 dollars for a interactive movie?

For films I'd argue that 24 or 30fps at a stretch is the best. But for games that can be thrown out of the window - bigger the better. The only reason devs want 30fps to be a standard is so they can be lazy

[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] Too bad 9/10 times you get fucking neither

[QUOTE=bdd458;46192845]My old computer ran Skyrim 25 fpsish. Playable, but not perfect. I love being able to run it so much smoother, but I feel like shit like this is blown WAAAAAY out of proportion. but that's just me.[/QUOTE] That doesn't sounds playable at all imo.

Does anyone own a 4k TV? Does a game in 1080 on it look as bad as a game at 720 does on a 1080 TV?

[QUOTE=draugur;46193214]Your friend is an idiot, and so is a large portion of the majority of people.[/QUOTE] Don't call people's friends idiots. He's not dumb for not caring about 60fps, If I had a machine that couldn't reach 60fps on nearly all games (which I do), I don't really mind. It's when you're being unfairly limited.

How can the industry drop a standard it never adopted?

[QUOTE=Qwerty Bastard;46193419]How can the industry drop a standard it never adopted?[/QUOTE] if all 1999-2014 monitors and tv's shot for 120hz that would have been the norm 60fps just because that's "generally the most anyone will see" 60fps because that's "Well optimized" to most people they're really just calling it a "Standard" to sound smart but that's really your point so me saying that's just an echo of your post :v: [QUOTE=Cabbage;46193408]Don't call people's friends idiots. He's not dumb for not caring about 60fps, If I had a machine that couldn't reach 60fps on nearly all games (which I do), I don't really mind. It's when you're being unfairly limited.[/QUOTE] even if I had a machine that could only hit 15fps unless on indie titless I'd be mad because no one should deal with horrible framerates

It'd be cool if games gave us options for 30fps 1080p or 60fps 720p for games where it's actually an issue, instead of once again being console games with absolutely no graphics options; for example for those that don't have 1080p displays could use the extra processing power for 60fps

[QUOTE=Map in a box;46193504]It'd be cool if games gave us options for 30fps 1080p or 60fps 720p for games where it's actually an issue, instead of once again being console games with absolutely no graphics options; for example for those that don't have 1080p displays could use the extra processing power for 60fps[/QUOTE] At one time this was actually a thing. If you installed an Expansion Pak on an N64, some games allowed you to chose between the "normal" version and the "enhanced" one that could take advantage of the extra RAM with a higher resolution and higher res textures. Not quite the same, but the closest consoles ever got to performance settings AFAIK. But seriously, its surprising that this isn't a thing on modern consoles. I've noticed that if you set a 360 down to 480p, some games will run smoother, if they tend to dip below 30 fps. The 30 fps cap still exists though, so it would be nice to have the option to remove it.

Things like this make no thought come more to the front of my mind than that newer developers should step in and show these antiquated companies that sidestepping advances in technology with excuses that don't even apply to their industry is a terrible business plan.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;46192648]holy shit ubisoft have lost it are they really that stupid[/QUOTE] No, they're just really hoping that their consumers are. [editline]9th October 2014[/editline] I don't think Ubisoft are stupid, I just think that they want everybody else to be stupid so they don't have to try as hard.

meanwhile I am enjoying CS:GO on a 144Hz monitor. I am so glad eSports games are free of this insanity.

[QUOTE=bdd458;46192845]My old computer ran Skyrim 25 fpsish. Playable, but not perfect. I love being able to run it so much smoother, but I feel like shit like this is blown WAAAAAY out of proportion. but that's just me.[/QUOTE] Obviously you being used to lower standards won't care so much for higher ones.

Why people continue to support a company that is the literal equivalent of a video game puppy mill is headscratching. They obviously do not give any kinds of fucks about their customers.

im happy that I never gave these bastards money. I always had a trick, play a game on a friend's console or ya know the other ways.

[QUOTE=TheTalon;46193302]30 FPS should be the lowest you're willing let the framerate dip to during something extremely intense. That should be your standard. [/QUOTE] That's basically exactly what it is. They decide that 30fps is their target, so they design the game to never go below 30 during normal gameplay, with maybe occasional once-in-a-blue-moon drops below that. Then they cap it at 30, so that you don't get wild fluctuations in framerate, and this lets them better optimize the game because they can develop the engine to a 30fps baseline rather than needing complex interpolation calculations to take variable framerate into account. Nobody ever said that they're developing for 30fps to be the best possible and for it to be usually below that.

Anyone noticed the trend of 30 fps games that's been going on? The Evil Within, Final Fantasy XIII (on consoles), The Order 1886, Assassin's Creed Unity, etc etc... there are a bunch of games that supported 30 fps, and honestly in my opinion, i really don't give a shit about 30 or 60 fps, I play any game as long as it is good for me, and that's why I am considering pre-ordering both farcry 4 and assassin's creed unity because I liked farcry 3 and the assassin's creed series.

i remember playing gmod years ago with 15-25 fps. i could manage it back then but now thats just an eye sore

Im never going back, i cant live with lesser f per s in my life again

So if 60 fps is an absolute necessity for FPS games what about RTS games? The C&C games have been locked to 30 FPS since Generals and no one complains about that.

If I wanted to play games at 30 fps I would have stuck with my N64 and PS1.

I like how these threads always spark up intelligent and civil discussion where everyone makes superfluous claims and tries to be objectively right in a matter that ultimately comes down to taste. Personally I can definitely notice and like 60 FPS, but I understand that people put up with 30. The point of the article was more about how hilariously stupid that Ubisoft guy's damage control is. It's fine if your game runs at 720p30fps (if it's rock solid) but please don't throw around buzzwords and shitty rationalizations like "IT'S CINEMATIC!" for it. It's because you [I]and your target audience[/I] care more about pretty effects than smooth gameplay or decent picture quality.

Of course they are. They're not really able to get 1080P 60FPS out of the consoles right now. Previous gen can't do it most of the time and they haven't yet learned next gen. But to say they shouldn't go there when they do learn the next gen hardware is stupid. I'm pretty apathetic about framerate and I think it's fucking stupid to lock games at 30.

I just recently turned down all the quality settings in BF4. My god, it's so smooth now I can almost taste it.