Ubisoft thinks industry is dropping 60 fps standard - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Demache;46193662]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.[/QUOTE] This is wrong. If you set 480p res it just downscales, the game is still internally rendering at the same resolution. [URL="http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-standard-def-article"]There's no performance difference.[/URL]

[QUOTE=TestECull;46194977]Of course they are. [B]They're not really able to get 1080P 60FPS[/B] 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.[/QUOTE] Yes they are. That's pretty much my entire point. They're perfectly capable of holding back on effects, draw distance, polygon count, etc, and they [B]choose[/B] not to. The hardware you're using, to an extent, doesn't dictate a maximum resolution or framerate. Battlefield: Hardline runs 1080p60fps on PS4. So does Ground Zeroes. And Murdered: Soul Suspect. On even lower quality hardware, Wind Waker HD and MK8 run at a solid 60 frames on Wii U. Why? Because the developers kept their limitations in mind and aimed for that framerate, adjusting their graphical quality accordingly. It's a [B]choice[/B] the developers can make, nothing more. Ubisoft and Ready at Dawn are just choosing to make their games pretty rather than fluid, because it looks better on reviews and screenshots, and it looks better to the average customer.

I can live with 30 fps, depending on the game genre. Although I'm a higher framerate is always preferable. I'm mostly someone plays on console because I just enjoy it, the worst offender is actually that most games are not even able to run at a solid and constant 30 fps, it's always 16-40 fps depending on the game. If the framerate would be stable and always 30 fps, that would be a great improvement.

I'd love it if the standard was 60fps. However, having GTA V on the PS3, the 30FPS isn't too bad. The game is still enjoyable. ...When it actually is running at 30fps, that is. Most of the time it's a bit below that, and on some areas it's extremely choppy, so when you do get near Chilliad Mountain State Wilderness and the framerate is at its best, then you really notice how choppy the rest of the game is.

[QUOTE=latin_geek;46195221]Yes they are. That's pretty much my entire point. They're perfectly capable of holding back on effects, draw distance, polygon count, etc, and they [B]choose[/B] not to. The hardware you're using, to an extent, doesn't dictate a maximum resolution or framerate. Battlefield: Hardline runs 1080p60fps on PS4. So does Ground Zeroes. And Murdered: Soul Suspect. On even lower quality hardware, Wind Waker HD and MK8 run at a solid 60 frames on Wii U. Why? Because the developers kept their limitations in mind and aimed for that framerate, adjusting their graphical quality accordingly. It's a [B]choice[/B] the developers can make, nothing more. Ubisoft and Ready at Dawn are just choosing to make their games pretty rather than fluid, because it looks better on reviews and screenshots, and it looks better to the average customer.[/QUOTE] While your point stands, BF:H still runs at BF4's 900p inconsistent 60 fps unless something has changed [editline]9th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=FetusFondler;46195454]I'd love it if the standard was 60fps. However, having GTA V on the PS3, the 30FPS isn't too bad. The game is still enjoyable. ...When it actually is running at 30fps, that is. Most of the time it's a bit below that, and on some areas it's extremely choppy, so when you do get near Chilliad Mountain State Wilderness and the framerate is at its best, then you really notice how choppy the rest of the game is.[/QUOTE] Tried playing the game on my friend's 360 and I was shocked at how badly it was running

[QUOTE=Novangel;46190786]Should've gotten a better graphics card.[/QUOTE] I upgraded from crayons to a #2 pencil, what more do you want?! That's the best I could afford!

Seriously? It's 20fucking14 and this is the 8th generation of consoles. I think they're more than capable of handling it Ubisoft. 60 should be the standard by now.

[QUOTE=Shirky;46191193]I dont really like 60 fps.[/QUOTE] Make sure you let your power company know that you'd prefer your outlets to be modulated at 30Hz instead of 60.

[QUOTE=latin_geek;46194818]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.[/QUOTE] It's working though. There's plenty of console gamers who will happily repeat that statement.

If Kojima and pals can make Metal Gear Solid V run at a smooth sixty frames per second on both of the next-gen console you can too Ubisoft.

after getting a 144hz monitor, anyone who tries to talk about 30fps being the best option and anything above it being worse makes me lol they're just objectively wrong and it says a lot about their character that they fall for this bullshit

Even if you treat it as a zero-sum game and exchange performance for picture quality, 60 fps is still better even if the game looks worse because responsive controls are far more important. And the fact that it runs so smooth more than makes up for the lackluster graphics. See F-Zero X. In theory, 30 fps might give better screenshots, but games are constantly in motion. 30 fps can work if you're an experimental designer who knows what they're doing, but last time I checked innovation isn't a big game company's high point. Ubisoft is just being a stereotypical greedy corporation.

and any hope for The Division just died.

[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;46195124]This is wrong. If you set 480p res it just downscales, the game is still internally rendering at the same resolution. [URL="http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-standard-def-article"]There's no performance difference.[/URL][/QUOTE] That's really odd because GTA IV on the 360 felt a lot smoother at 480p. Also note they did point out that playing at lower resolutions can help in one game they found. Still rendering at HD, but it does hard some artifacts at SD. But whatever, I honestly couldn't give a tit. I have it on the PC anyway.

[QUOTE=Token Indian;46196086]Even if you treat it as a zero-sum game and exchange performance for picture quality, 60 fps is still better even if the game looks worse because responsive controls are far more important. [/QUOTE] Except that console players seem to disagree with this, as evidenced by consumers' overwhelming support for games that look pretty but only run at 30fps. Most hit console franchises you can name, with a few notable exceptions like Call of Duty, run at 30fps and people buy them year after year. If you pick up any review magazine, 30fps for a console game is never considered a technical flaw in the same way that 'outdated visuals' or 'poor resolution' are. The market is speaking very clearly on this issue- people buy games that are locked to 30fps and like them. It's not a big deal for most people, and the population that puts a smooth framerate over good graphics [I]and[/I] is playing on consoles rather than PC [I]and[/I] doesn't have a TV capable of frame interpolation is a small minority. Not to single you out in particular, but I don't understand why so many PC gamers are acting like their technical preferences for games are objective fact. You may think a smooth experience is better than graphical bells and whistles. Most console players don't seem to. If you're a PC gamer, you aren't going to buy the game for console. They will. Who should the developers be listening to here?

[QUOTE=SteakStyles;46193223]Here's a thought: how about they just get out of the PC market altogether? This just screams "lower the industry standard so our shit ports seem better".[/QUOTE] Because then we'd have more and more console exclusives.

I mean, who doesn't enjoy mediocrity once in a while right? Right?

you dont notice framerate drops as much on a couch either

Jesus you people get defensive over 60 FPS. Can't even state an opinion without getting pummeled to death with cardboard boxes.

Uh, wouldn't it have to have been a "standard", to be dropped in the first place? How many console games even ran at a native - and comfortable - 60fps?

I thought that James Cameron and Peter Jackson said that more FPS in films was the future of cinema? So if you're trying to make games more cinematic, shouldn't you make games have a higher FPS count?

[QUOTE=ubersoldier;46197151]Uh, wouldn't it have to have been a "standard", to be dropped in the first place? How many console games even ran at a native - and comfortable - 60fps?[/QUOTE] Wolfenstein The New Order does it exactly how every game should do it. The framerate never ever dips below 60FPS. Instead of lowering the framerate it lowers the resolution during intensive frames.

[QUOTE=FunnyStarRunner;46197077]Jesus you people get defensive over 60 FPS. Can't even state an opinion without getting pummeled to death with cardboard boxes.[/QUOTE] I understand where you are coming from, and I'm not targeting this statement at you specifically because you don't deserve any yelling at or anything like that. But it's because people get tired of the dumb bullshit that surrounds the discussion. Every time it's mentioned people have to come in being all "Oh GAWD you elitist PC gamers pushing your OPINIONS of 60 frames on EVERYONE I just play games to have FUN not look at NUMBERS" and other such stupid shit. Fun is directly tied in to how pleasant a game is to play, and 30 fps sucks. It's pathetic that 60 isn't a standard yet and it would be nice to stop being held back by people that go into the conversation not knowing what they are talking about. Not understanding the difference is perfectly fine, there is literally nothing at all wrong with not knowing the benefits of 60 fps over less, but when people try to argue as if they DO know, then it becomes a problem. Like I have pointed out many times, the improvement is objective, the enjoyment is subjective. You can not care about 60 fps, but it doesn't change the fact that it is objectively better in every way to 30, and those of us that prefer a framerate from this decade get sick of the arguments when there is NO DEBATE because scientific metric can be applied to why it's better (milliseconds of input lag for instance, a measurable unit that explains why) and people keep spewing the same uneducated nonsense anyway.

Gamers will never settle for lower numbers than the past in any area. Fucking deal with it Ubisoft.

30 fps 720 was last gen this gen should be 60 1080 otherwise, what's the point. At least the good side of this is people at gamestop who said PC gameing sucks are now considering pc gaming, or just bought pcs for games and maybe the whole console thing will die down a little. I can see Xbox leaving and just Sony and Nintendo staying Microsoft is making profit elsewhere anyways.

I don't even notice the frame rate unless it become noticeable. Namely when it drops under 30 or is inconsistent. Otherwise, I'm too busy playing the game to notice.

[QUOTE=catbarf;46196302]If you're a PC gamer, you aren't going to buy the game for console.[/QUOTE] Have you seen some of these multiplatform AAA titles lately because I'm pretty sure you're getting the console version whether you like it or not.

No excuse [b]>[/b] bullshit excuse

Still frames can look gorgeous but only in a photography gallery or something

[QUOTE=IM BATMAN;46194719]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.[/QUOTE] I don't accept anything lower than 40-50 FPS in action games, but I never had a problem with RTS games running at 15-30 FPS. Obviously locking them to 30FPS is still fairly stupid, but not game breaking like it would be in a shooter or racing game.