Ubisoft thinks industry is dropping 60 fps standard - Polidicks

[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] Well, personally, I don't mind 30 fps in certain genres and if some people don't mind low framerate for higher graphical fidelity, then hey, that's cool. I only take issue when people or companies try to argue that 30 fps is just as good, objectively, as 60 fps (using bullshit buzzwords like "cinematic", like, come the fuck on). That's false, and if a company says it, then they are lying and treating you like a moron because they know... after all, they [I]are[/I] the industry, they have the coders and other professionals who know it's false and are being forced to lie to consumers just because the company won't admit they don't have the technical know how or experience with the new generation of consoles to achieve high framerates. Simulation sickness, input lag, muddy visuals, screen tearing, stuttering and such are more common at 30 fps than at 60. That's fact. And, if I have a chance, I'll always prefer 60 fps over 30. And, as others have pointed out, maybe the reason why console gamers don't make a fuss about fps is because they haven't had a real chance to experience it? All I want is honesty from the industry, really. Don't treat us like idiots, just say "hey look, we have trouble optimizing for the new hardware (consoles) and such, but we will make sure that the game runs at a solid 30 fps at 720p, and just wait untill we got some more experience, when we can start to achieve those high framerates, it will knock your socks off". Also, stop being lazy when it comes to PC ports, if your game won't run above 30 fps at 1080p, don't demand insane minimum specs just because you can't optimize for shit.

I really just want ubisoft to go away forever.

I bet this guy would have a heart attack if someone demanded 144fps from Ubisoft.

[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] There's no justifiable opinion aside from "I don't mind lower frame rates." It's the "opinions" over 30 FPS that are fucking ridiculous. Calling it unplayable trash is nothing but elitist ranting. It may be worse than 60 FPS, but I'm pretty sure the entire console market would be dead if 30 FPS was in any realm of unplayable.

People also need to remember that playing at 30fps with an analog stick feels okay when playing at 30fps with a mouse is horrid

I want this bitch boy to play the old quake games at 30 FPS yeah, "industry standard".

[QUOTE=J!NX;46193127]that plus, 30 fps on a tv screen, I get the feeling most tv screens don't have 60hz, so it wouldn't matter either way.[/QUOTE] Actually, 120Hz televisions are slowly becoming more popular and prevalent, with the reasoning being that they're great for watching sports (although I can't really imagine why, most televised sports games seem to hover between 30 and 45FPS to me). Pretty sure 60Hz televisions are as much of a standard as 60Hz monitors, considering it's very similar (if not identical) technology. The problem here isn't available refresh rates on current monitors and televisions or how many frames per second our eyes can perceive, it's about a money-grubbing company whose only concern is milking their cash cow and their heads are jammed so far up their asses that they need to start flinging shit out with their teeth instead of coming clean and admitting that they're bad at optimizing video games.

[QUOTE=Demache;46192131]That is interesting. I would probably boil it down to people not really understanding how frame rates work (as evident by the "eye can only see XX fps" comments).[/QUOTE] Latest of replies, but as I said the tests were blind. Participants do not know what FPS they're playing at, or even that FPS is what we change between sessions of play. We tell them that they will play 3 times and we will change something between each testing, and they'll have to fill in a survey where they talk about how they enjoyed the session. Only 2 people realised FPS were the factor being changed, and they were straight wrong in guessing when the FPS was higher/lower. As said, one thought 24 was 60. [editline]10th October 2014[/editline] 100% of participants preferred lower FPS to higher.

[QUOTE=JoonazL;46198622]People also need to remember that playing at 30fps with an analog stick feels okay when playing at 30fps with a mouse is horrid[/QUOTE] We must play starkly different games, then, since a 30 FPS games feel fine for me. It's only an aesthetic for me.

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;46197327]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.[/QUOTE] Consoles aren't going to die dude. They're easy to set up, easy to use, and many people use them as their all in one Media Center now. People want more graphical fidelity with this console generation, and if that means locked to 30 FPS on console, especially early on, so be it. I doubt you would see this as often later in this generation's life cycle.

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;46197327]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.[/QUOTE] That's not happening. This generation is starting really slow compared to the last one, but it's nowhere near dying, at least not at this point.

How is the cinematic experience thing even an argument? I'm playing a video game, not watching a fucking movie you dumb cunts

Lowering frame rate and resolution allows game engines to render more objects and have more activity within game scenes. If Ubisoft had to make a decision between these two things, I'd understand. I might not have agreed with their decision, but I'd get it. But this isn't about that. These guys are throttling visuals for shitty corporate reasons, and they're spewing excuses in the process - pretending it has nothing to do with the elephant in the room which is low standard console design.

Why do these autistic devs even speak when all they can do is spew bullshit? "60fps looks less real than 30 fps" Really motherfucker? Do you you think reality runs in 30 fps? Holy shit. Did this moron finish grade school? [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/cPWAd1G.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Miskav;46200253]Why do these autistic devs even speak when all they can do is spew bullshit? "60fps looks less real than 30 fps" Really motherfucker? Do you you think reality runs in 30 fps? Holy shit. Did this moron finish grade school? [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/cPWAd1G.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] The last five days of stock prices isn't really a trend. Looking at their stock price it seems like a bumpy ride overall.

Personally, I feel that my games are only cinematic enough when rendered in the form of a series of polaroids posted to me from Sheffield.

I'm sorry I don't understand you guys. To me there is only a very slight difference between 30 and 60 FPS in any game I play, and that's that 60 FPS is just a bit more fluid. 30 FPS does not look bad to me. However that doesn't make it okay when a developer does it. If someone isn't doing something to the best of their ability, then that's just copping out. This is not okay for Ubisoft, they're already fucking everything up and now they are just trying to be lazy.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;46198854]Did you test this using a 30Hz monitor? Becuase I cant imagine how people perfer 30fps. I just can't. Unless its a solid 30 vs an unstable 60.[/QUOTE] The monitor is 120 hz. The only faulty data factor we have to rule out now is if the CPU couldn't handle the FPS increase. Unlikely, since the CPU is an i7.

the only time 30fps should be an okay thing in this day and age is if you're doing split screen

Made a comparison video for myself using JC2 (Probably the only game I can stably record 1080p 60fps with) to see for myself. The biggest difference is noticeable when travelling sideways, but going forward there isn't too much of a difference. It is, however, enough of a difference for me to prefer 60fps over 30 any day.

My performance in BF4 is almost linearly tied to my framerate. The lower my framerate, the more likely I'll perform poorly during a match. I can even feel the internal rendering when I'm above 60 FPS because my mouse will feel more responsive even if my screen is capped at 60 FPS.

I don't know if it counts for the argument but when I compare 3ds games from 30 fps to 60 going from mario 3d land to smash bros I can really tell the difference

Try Just Cause 2 (It's usually cheap as hell and goes on sale often enough). Limit your frames to 30FPS, then go start blowing things up. Now do it again without the fps cap. There is no comparison to the smooth feeling and sight of destruction and seeing the particles fly everywhere on 60fps compared to 30.

I can tell the difference but.. it doesn't really bother me at all. You guys complain to damn much.

[QUOTE=G-Strogg;46203634]The monitor is 120 hz. The only faulty data factor we have to rule out now is if the CPU couldn't handle the FPS increase. Unlikely, since the CPU is an i7.[/QUOTE] You didn't even measure the FPS? What if the 60FPS weren't 100% stable? Wouldn't that completely go against the point of your study? Did you use Vsync?

[QUOTE=Richardroth;46195813]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] Nope. Of course they improved the graphics of the games, but it's rather futile since they couldn't put enough power in those tiny boxes. Now they face the problem with performance and therefore try to get a little edge.

[QUOTE=Wootman;46205056]I can tell the difference but.. it doesn't really bother me at all. You guys complain to damn much.[/QUOTE] Hey man, that's cool. But people are complaining about the use of buzzwords and apparent laziness, not the idea of games being locked at 30 FPS, as long as there is a good reason. I can't tell you to stop preferring gaming at 30 FPS. That is your opinion and I think that's fine. But, can we stop pretending that there isin't an objective improvement in the games playability, graphical fidelity and performance when you achieve 60 FPS and above? That is my big problem with this "debate", not the idea of 30 FPS gaming.

Honestly, if you can't get 60 fps, just say you can't. Don't make shitty excuses. But, then again, Bayonetta 2 is 720p @ 60 fps with rare drops on the Wii U for fucks sake. [url]http://www.ign.com/videos/2014/08/22/bayonetta-2-60-fps-montage[/url]

To the spectator, 30fps looks good. As soon as you play the game though, 60FPS is much preferred. It seems like they're making the game for people who watch other people playing it, and not the players themselves.

Tony Hawk's underground 2 was 720p60 on the original xbox so that really puts things into perspective. [editline]11th October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=RichyZ;46206552]60 fps looks better for both the spectator and player the reason why movies look good in 24 fps is because film is developed in such a way that the motion blur that comes with it is natural and clean looking, whereas in videogames motion blur is shit and ugly since it isn't prerendered[/QUOTE] Yeah, 60FPS is always better obviously, but 30fps is much more acceptable when you're not actually responding to the game. If I'm making any sense....