plagiarize
Banned
And the unsightly judder that causes is why most decent new tvs offer a native 24hz mode now and have done for five or six years.
and that converts 24 to 60. Do the math.
Can we please stop with the whole "60 fps is not cinematic" argument.
- Thread starter mechphree
- Start date
and that converts 24 to 60. Do the math.
ReBurn
Gold Member
If only this were universally true. 60 FPS isn't a magical cure for input lag issues or poor control implementations in games.
I appreciate 60 FPS when I get it. Fast-moving games seem more eye catching with the soap opera effect it seems to project. But personally I can't think of a time when I honestly said to myself that a game would be more fun if only it had an additional 15 or 30 frames per second.
It's such a subjective thing that it's pretty stupid to argue over it.
My problem with comments like this is that makeup doesn't get less shitty with less frames to worry about, same as looking at sets or ropey practical effects. If you do a great job with aspects like those, then they're going to look great no matter what.
CambriaRising
Member
Ugh and the video isn't even rendered in 1080p.
Any argument claiming 60FPS is only 'needed' for certain genres is a load of BS. Sure, it helps to have more responsive controls in an fast paced action game compared other genres, but that's only one of the benefits of a fluid frame rate. Every game looks and feels better with 60FPS, it's better in the same way that a higher resolution is better.
To be honest, I can't help but anyone arguing to the contrary simply has limited experience or understanding of 60FPS. Because once you experience is on the reg (I.E. PC gaming), it's hard to go back. People laugh at the cinematic feel argument because it's a complete joke.
To be honest, I can't help but anyone arguing to the contrary simply has limited experience or understanding of 60FPS. Because once you experience is on the reg (I.E. PC gaming), it's hard to go back. People laugh at the cinematic feel argument because it's a complete joke.
B-but soap opera effect!
Saintguine
Member
I don't care about my games looking cinematic, I care about my games playing good. Which 60 FPS adds to considering how fluid games like Street Fighter, F-Zero GX, DMC, Bayonetta, Metal Gear Rising and even Call of Duty etc. feel on consoles.
Metroid-Squadron
Banned
Subtleties in shading are more easily perceived at 60fps so any inconsistencies are much more pronounced. Same with the acting.
http://youtu.be/buSaywCF6E8?t=2m20s
Scientific look on the framerate by Vsause.
More is not always better.
Motion blur seems like sort of solution for higher framerates to avoid dizziness.
Scientific look on the framerate by Vsause.
More is not always better.
Motion blur seems like sort of solution for higher framerates to avoid dizziness.
You forgot to mention blur as its an important factor in making low fps games not look choppy
...anyway
60 fps in games is great....love it....although gameplay wise its not NECESSARY for a lot of games but could only be seen as an improvement
Im not sold on 48fps films....which ever way you cut it, it does look weird to a lot of people
But that doesn't contradict what I said at all. Do a good job with something, and it's not going to matter what framerate you're outputting at.
Just to use The Hobbit as an example again, the unbelievably terrible green-screen work they use for Sylvester McCoy during his chase scenes as Radagast is just as bad at 24 fps as it is at 48 fps. That 48 fps makes it a bit more obvious doesn't take away from how bad it looks no matter what, and 24 fps doesn't hide shit, literally.
AcceptableGhost
Member
This whole "argument" is going to seem really strange years down the line once power far outstrips what most games can do and the standard becomes for games to just run at your displays refresh rate (whether it be 60, or 120, 144 or whatever) even on consoles.
Metroid-Squadron
Banned
It's not about looking good or bad, it's about looking real or fake.
And there's nothing that a higher framerate allows for that diminishes looking "real" at all. Do a good job with the production, and no one is going to care.
Metroid-Squadron
Banned
We're going in circles here. If you can't notice it the cues that give it away, more power to you. A lot of us do and it bothers us, hence we prefer 30fps.
Blighttown in Dark Souls would have been more fun with an additional 15 frames per second.
I fail to see what bearing this has on the thread. It's not like consoles are hard-locked to 30 and we're arguing about why that should be changed.
cavemancolton
Unconfirmed Member
Games are not movies.
If the Last of Us weren't 60 FPS on ps4, I would not buy it.
If the Last of Us weren't 60 FPS on ps4, I would not buy it.
Killing_Joke
Member
This is how i feel. I get the importance of 60fps but the cutscenes gave me a headache sometimes.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
The lower the vsynced frame rate the higher the minimum input lag is. That's not a subjective thing. 120 has less than 60, which has less than 30.
I like high frame rates, I see the differences, and I expect my computer to display at 60hz.
With media though I do not mind, as what ever the creator intended [and is stable]. Case in point the Motorstorm series 30fps was not to its detriment. I guess the hypothetical can be made that a remaster at 60 would be objectively better, but the games are/were excellent at 30fps. [ok maybe this paragraph is beside the point]
Killzone 2 with its below 30fps frame rate and excellent motion blur among its other post processing feels 'cinematic', to me. I don't get the same feels in any other series. lol
I do not believe OP that 60fps is cinematic though. sorry. Cinema in regard to frame rate is 24 fps for me, with motion blur. Cinematic techniques, cinematography etc that is something else that contributes to making a cinematic game. And of course cinema will change, so I guess then will the definition- so some of us are actually talking about film [feel].
Frankly I have wanted to see a game locked at 24 with nice filmic frame blur- does it exist? Also this is cool http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/
So maybe the better argument is "60 fps is not film-like", and it is not, its different and better in other ways.
With media though I do not mind, as what ever the creator intended [and is stable]. Case in point the Motorstorm series 30fps was not to its detriment. I guess the hypothetical can be made that a remaster at 60 would be objectively better, but the games are/were excellent at 30fps. [ok maybe this paragraph is beside the point]
Killzone 2 with its below 30fps frame rate and excellent motion blur among its other post processing feels 'cinematic', to me. I don't get the same feels in any other series. lol
I do not believe OP that 60fps is cinematic though. sorry. Cinema in regard to frame rate is 24 fps for me, with motion blur. Cinematic techniques, cinematography etc that is something else that contributes to making a cinematic game. And of course cinema will change, so I guess then will the definition- so some of us are actually talking about film [feel].
Frankly I have wanted to see a game locked at 24 with nice filmic frame blur- does it exist? Also this is cool http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/
So maybe the better argument is "60 fps is not film-like", and it is not, its different and better in other ways.
Im sorry but why are we pretending like 60fps is some PC exclusive feature? My first console 60fps game was F-Zero X. That was a long time ago, I was still in school. PC had games that could of course hit 60fps before then, but once that generation started, PC lost exclusive bragging rights to that.
Not sure why PC gets dragged into this really. Many games of certain genres should absolutely be 60 FPS, whether they are console titles or not.
RobFox64tm
Member
60fps is always preferable, but not always necessary depending on the type of game it is. Games like the 3D Zeldas, for example, don't really need it, but games like Smash Bros. and Mario Kart benefit greatly from the increased fluidity that 60fps provides.
Thing is, 60fps isn't cinematic. You can argue that films would be better in 60fps, but the fact remains that films aren't made in 60fps. 'Cinematic' presumably meaning 'of or relating to the cinema', it seems evident that 60fps isn't cinematic. I know I'm being picky about semantics, but your thread title provoked me. Personally I'm pretty sure I'd prefer 48fps film content if more was available (I loved The Hobbit), but everyone I've spoken to that also saw the HFR version didn't like it. I'm worried that it won't catch on because people won't get past that 'it looks artificial' stage.
As for games, the higher the frame rate the better, though I'll gladly play games at 30fps if needs be. Hell, I can cope with 30fps with dips. There's nothing quite like buttery smooth 60fps though.
As for games, the higher the frame rate the better, though I'll gladly play games at 30fps if needs be. Hell, I can cope with 30fps with dips. There's nothing quite like buttery smooth 60fps though.
Once again, a higher framerate does not impede on creating a sense of realism. What needs to happen is that the production itself needs to better understand the challenges that the format presents and rise to meet them, not throw your hands up and just not bother with it. We've recently gotten 3D films where the 3D is a major and integral aspect of the film's visual language, like Gravity, and that's had just as bad a rap as HFR has had, if not worse because of how widespread rushed post-conversion jobs have been amongst major productions.
While I certainly care, I do agree that lower framerates are more playable with a Gamepad than a mouse. 30fps on a mouse feels terrible.
Wonko_C
Member
I have exactly the thing for you. It's called Asura's Wrath, and it's awesome, get the DLC as it completes the story.
Man I feel old. My first 60fps game were Ms. Pac-Man and Pole Position on the arcades back in 1984 (I think? I was 4 years old), then Atari 2600 games, NES games and so on.
Anyways my 2 cents regarding The Hobbit and HFR making it all look "fake", I just don't see it. What I saw was a much smoother, less blurry image, an easier to the eyes 3D experience, and an artistry like I haven't seen anywhere else, it had a kind of a dreamy quality to it. Like a painting come to life.
cavemancolton
Unconfirmed Member
It's not about "real" vs. "Cinematic". It's about what makes for better gameplay.
60FPS allows for a smoother gaming experience.
60FPS allows for a smoother gaming experience.
TheSpaceBetween
Member
People actually said this? At least in terms of video games, I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
They'll have to nerf that grungy motion blur in TLOU if they go with 60FPS, and I really don't want that to happen. You just can't have that much motion blur with high framerate as it looks completely unnatural. But I think that blur was one of the key makeups of the game's visuals and the feel it was going for. I also honestly think animation will suffer due to being easily scrutinized at higher framerate. I've seen what UC3 looks like at 60FPS and to me it looked really weird. Like a motion interpolated movie scene where nothing t looked 'right' anymore, probably because I could see much more easily every little transition glitch or floatiness. Since they're not going to be redo animation for this remaster, and it was never made to look precise enough for 60FPS, I think it will suffer the same fate as UC3 @60FPS.
That is very true.
Crimsonsky
Member
Too many ignorant people in the world to stop stupid arguments. It sounds harsh, and it is, but it is the cold hard truth.
60fps is in every way, shape, and form better than 30. People who make arguments defending, or even worse saying 30 is better are sheep. Now, an argument can be made that some games don't "need" more than 30, like rpg's for instance. That is different than saying 30 is better than 60. RPG's might not need more than 30, that is true, but that doesn't mean that 60 isn't still better in every way.
60fps is in every way, shape, and form better than 30. People who make arguments defending, or even worse saying 30 is better are sheep. Now, an argument can be made that some games don't "need" more than 30, like rpg's for instance. That is different than saying 30 is better than 60. RPG's might not need more than 30, that is true, but that doesn't mean that 60 isn't still better in every way.
^ Man that argument black and white, and I disagree with you. I still like my wipeout and burnout, but 30fps , 24fps films do have aesthetic choices which are great for those games and films. We are not all ignorant.
With high framerates I think it is important to introduce multiple frame blurring, or it will be. 60 fps video and games look great, but motion is displayed differently than as if we were to perceive in reality with our eyes. Film does not accurately simulate vision either, but the blur is nicer.
Really good gif here- this is what many I think are arguing about.You forgot to mention blur as its an important factor in making low fps games not look choppy
...anyway
With high framerates I think it is important to introduce multiple frame blurring, or it will be. 60 fps video and games look great, but motion is displayed differently than as if we were to perceive in reality with our eyes. Film does not accurately simulate vision either, but the blur is nicer.
zackmorris
Member
I don't really agree with saying people have been stuck with it. The standard frame rate of film is 24 FPS. It's not that they can't go higher, it's just that 24 FPS is what is considered the ideal cinematic frame rate. When the hobbit came out in 48 FPS people didn't like it, much like people don't like when someone has the motion smoothing turned on with their TV. It's makes what your watching look more like a soap opera than a film, mainly because soap operas weren't being shot on film. Now that things are being shot digitally they have the option to increase frame rates, but choose not to replicate the cinematic feel of film. I don't think it's about being stuck with it, as much as continuing to use something that people found pleasing.
As far as video games it's still a pretty new problem. While I think poor frame rates can hurt a game, I don't think a consistent 24 FPS to maintain that cinematic feel would be a bad frame rate. I also see the other side which is, video games are not film,even if a game that has a great story and great cinematics. So it doesn't need to fit into the same 24 FPS mold as traditional film. I think video games exist on there own, and don't need to look to other mediums to decide what's right or wrong.
I do see both sides of the argument, personally if ND thinks this game will be best running at 60 FPS I trust them. Just like I trust Paul Thomas Anderson when he says seeing a 70mm print of his movie is the ideal way to see it.
Eh, I understand where detractors are coming from. It's much like the effect you get when you whack up the 'Pure Motion' setting on a 120hz TV. It can definitely make poorly (or traditionally) mastered content look very fake, and I'd imagine that's what The Hobbit looks like to people that don't like the 48fps effect.
Personally, I'm with you, I loved it and I'd like to see pretty much everything in 48fps (especially 3D films). I can understand the complaints of the folk that don't dig it though.
Exactly what I was thinking
What do you mean by "real" and by "fake"? That's the whole problem here. One of the main complaints about Hobbit HFR is that it looks like a bunch of people walking around on a set. Does it look real? Absolutely, if by "real" you mean "like the real-world set being filmed." That's not the goal of the film, though; the film wants to make The Hobbit seem real.
A substantial fraction of people I talked about Hobbit HFR with, even if they were nothing resembling experts on anything video, thought something looked wrong with it even if they couldn't articulate what.
Wonko_C
Member
I agree with you that motion interpolated stuff can look really bad. When I purchased my TV I specifically looked for a 60hz one to avoid having to deal with that motionflow garbage. It looks so bad that not even soap operas look like that. Characters have these strange transparent halos around them, and in the same shots there are parts that seemingly move at different framerates, panning shots that are smooth and characters limb movements that look like they're still 24-30fps.
All this talk about framerates makes me wish I could get a decent enough computer and a monitor capable of 120hz, I've never experienced anything higher than 60fps.
eot
Banned
You forgot to mention blur as its an important factor in making low fps games not look choppy
...anyway
60 fps in games is great....love it....although gameplay wise its not NECESSARY for a lot of games but could only be seen as an improvement
Im not sold on 48fps films....which ever way you cut it, it does look weird to a lot of people
It's not about how they look, it's about how they feel. Motion doesn't help with that at all, I think it's the worst. Turn it off, always.
I would disagree. In daily life, if something zooms past you its perceived as a blur. 48fps movies, motionflow tv, etc, artificially remove that natural blur and force you to see moving images in a way you don't see them in reality. That's why it bothers people.
Slow motion, under ranking, high frame rate (like Saving Private Ryan's beach scene) are used to accentuate a moment, make you take notice. Having it throughout the whole movie is distracting.
As far as games: more frames is better for an interactive experience. Games also have the benefit to be able to add the motion blur in to help with making it seem "more real".
I really dislike all that motion blur. I feel like in movies , when their are fast action sequences the motion blur that 24fps ads to the film is to it's detriment. My eyes can't keep up with whats going on because everything is moving so fast so it's hard for your brain to process these blury stuttering images. Higher frame rate for me in movies when I first seen it was very jarring but I got used to it.
I think the main reason why people like 24fps opposed to 48 or 60 fps in movies is just because they are used to it. People have gone their whole lives watching movies in this format and thats the only format that they know of so they think it's the norm.
But if those people were to go back and look at black and white 16 fps movies they would be like "wtf is this shit it looks horrible" all because it isn't what they perceive a regular cinematic movie experience to be.
I for one feel that the ONLY reason 48fps and 60 in cinema isn't being used as much is because it's a cost issue AND movie directors don't want to upset their audience with something drastically different. The argument that 48fps movies make acting look less believable escapes me.
BuriedStPatrick
Neo Member
Here's another idea:
Can we please stop trying to make games be movies?
Can we please stop trying to make games be movies?
I try to explain it in my post above yours.
Arkage
Banned
Are you serious? I remember tons of old school games on NES having large slowdown issues. There's no such thing as the good old days.
Eh, not exactly. If you were to view a 10000000fps video stream that had no built-in motion blur, your eyes would apply their natural motion blur exactly as they would to a "real" scene.
There's nothing about HFR film that eliminates the manner in which your eyes time-average inputs.
HFR doesn't preclude motion blur, and as a matter of fact, the Hobbit films still exhibit motion blur in HFR, albeit at a reduced capacity than what the 24 fps version has.
It's still a very bad and wrong analogy. I think people only use it to sound smart (but ultimately achieve the opposite)