Maintenance
Member
http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates
If you can't see the difference, then I'm sorry for your eyesight.
The Order: 1886 is 30fps because 24fps doesn't "feel good", 60fps "changes aesthetic"
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates
If you can't see the difference, then I'm sorry for your eyesight.
R10Neymarfan
Member
I wish films move on to 60fps so devs can stop with this 30fps is cinematic excuse.
Then again devs will probably be like : "we wanted classic old school movie cinematic feel"
Then again devs will probably be like : "we wanted classic old school movie cinematic feel"
Yeeeaaaah, about that...
CVG: So of the three key aspects of a game - visuals, gameplay and story - which would you say was your priority with The Order 1886?
Game director (Dana Jan): I think story and visuals are very high. Gameplay is something that... it's a game, we make games, we can't get around it. We love games, but we also love telling stories, so I think story is always going to be at the top because it's what we start with. It's at the top of the pyramid and everything else supports that. I think it'd be more challenging to make a game for the gameplay's sake, then try to make a story that fits in there.
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
This thread is proof of how gullible people are. Choosing 30 FPS so it feels more like a film... just, LOL.
jeffrockz312
Member
The only thing I agree with here is:
Locked 30 fps> 60fps with drops
the drops make the game choppier than it actually is because of the tv refresh rate.
spindoctor
Member
Wait I'm used to PR people coming up with some bullshit reason to justify 30fps, but people are actually buying it?
Dragon1893
Member
Developers are really becoming obsessed with this cinematography BS. I get going for 30fps for better visuals, I can even defend that stance with a lot of games, but saying "doesn't quite have the kind of look and texture that we want from a movie" is too much. You're not making a movie! He literally says that it doesn't give him what he wants from a movie. I mean, come on!
OK, 'nuff said.
ChawlieTheFair
pip pip cheerio you slags!
BioShock 1 did nothing to the graphics with that option, neither did it let you up it to 60 from 30. All it did was disable vsync, which for the most part introduced some screen tearing and slightly bumped the framerate, but actually changed nothing about the visuals. 60 fps is much nicer to play and control I agree, but having excellent visuals also does a lot for how one enjoys the game. Otherwise why would we buy new consoles? How an enemy reacts to getting hit, the kind of effects a gun exposes when being shot, how a wall crumbles. All these can heavily affect how a game plays. It's not like 60 fps is a brand new thing, we could have had tons of 60 fps games on the previous-gen, except then people don't want to buy those games or they complained because they looked bad.
Okay, keep believing that.
Would you agree that every/nearly every aspect of the visuals are influenced by the look of film?
We are not talking about a movie. Is that so hard to grasp?
People were using the 'lower fps = more cinematic' line of thinking as a fucking joke for a long time.
How times change!
Ragnarok
Member
But 60FPS video *does* completely change the feel of the footage.
Freeman
Banned
Movies lose their "cinematic feel" as well when they move to higher frame rate. Doesn't mean it worse or anything they just look different than the regular cinematic look. I like it and some other people do too, you don't and that is fine.
Dictator93
Member
The way frames a compiled/captured in a film and interacted with by the consumer are completely different than in a game.
The framerate thing being more filmic therefore better is complete PR hog wash.
FairXchange
Member
30fps games on consoles to ensure highest graphical fidelity is fine by me.
RobFox64tm
Member
30fps is a good compromise between a 24fps film look and the smooth feel of 60fps games. I also agree that 60fps does change the overall look of some games, where 30 might actually be a more appropriate fit. The 3D Zelda games, for example, hit this balance really well, and I hope they continue to do so going forward.
Actually we were talking about The Hobbit. But in regards to The Order, every aesthetic choice they've made is designed around the look of film. Framerate is part of that. 60fps looks way different in motion than the average film looks. Do you agree with that? I'm not asking if you think 30fps is better than 60fps. I'm asking if you agree that 60fps motion looks far different than the 24fps motion of film.
Breakfast at Noon
Member
I'm sure as hell glad it has no multiplayer then.
yet another 30 fps shooter....I'm interested in what exactly changes The Order for the worst if it ran in 60fps
what if MP was locked at 60 though?
TheSlySoul
Member
So far it seems to be talking about the SP. I agree 60 FPS is better for lots of motion, but if I have to choose 1080p or 60 FPS to decrease, then I would choose the FPS because I like it being crisper over smoother. Perhaps the developers realize the game does not move fast enough for 60 FPS and it is jarring, so they go with 30 FPS. It is silly people getting mad over resolutions. The new footage looks great.
24fps isn't inherently better than 60fps, but there is a visible difference between the two that might make one more suitable than the other for certain kinds of movies. Filmmakers should be allowed to choose what they think looks best for their films.
There's also the storage problem: 60fps films would be two and a half times larger than their 24fps counterparts.
KCroxtonJr
Member
This does not change the fact that movies AND games look/feel different at higher frame rates. Which is all they said.
ChawlieTheFair
pip pip cheerio you slags!
Don't think there is anything inherently wrong with what he is saying. Who says a game has to be about gameplay? Look at Stanley Parable and Dear Esther, what is the gameplay there? For the most part none, but they tell cool stories, so what's wrong with the Order doing that?
Freeman
Banned
Even when practical problems are solved there will still be an artistic choice regarding frame rate, exposure is a key element in photography.
Makes you wonder why he just doesn't straight up make a movie
I'd say the difference there is that Stanley Parable or Dear Esther don't try to imitate movies.
I don't think they considered it. They considered how film is 24fps, but that it wouldn't feel good to play, so they weren't going to do that.
I have yet to play a game that was better at a lower framerate.
HI. BILLY MAYS HERE
Banned
I'm fine with 30 FPS
I look at 60 FPS the same way I look at glossy finish for steelbook it's nice to have but not every release needs it.
I look at 60 FPS the same way I look at glossy finish for steelbook it's nice to have but not every release needs it.
Impeccable
Member
It does change aestetic unquestionably. Whether it's an excuse or a legit reasoning behind their vision of their game we'll never really know.
The only reason film is at 24fps is because it was technically feasible to do so. If they could have true clarity I'm sure they'd already have done it. The problem with 48fps movies is that all movie making techniques have been honed at 24fps for the last century. We're going to need at least another generation until 48fps is comfortably accepted by both filmmakers and the audience.
RAD could have put the game at 60fps then add 'filmic' effects like motion blur and film grain. But they've admitted their limits when they say they are sticking to 30fps to keep closer to that film-like visual. Why output 60fps and put in work to make it look filmic, when 30 frames will do half the work for you, allowing you to make it look better than it would have?
Dictator93
Member
You are right, a game at a higher framerate will always look better and always feel better to play.
My purpose is the analogue between film framerates and games is false. They have two different consumption and production styles. A camera has a lens with exposure and the audience is passive, a game has punctual time slices with an active person drving the game.
Stop using the two in comparative posts.
RobFox64tm
Member
Then why the fuck don't they just make a movie, mini series, comic book, regular book, etc? If having to implement gameplay is an inconvenience, then maybe these people are working in the wrong medium.
BruiserBear
Banned
30fps doesn't bother me at all with this game, as long as it's solid with no screen tearing.
ChawlieTheFair
pip pip cheerio you slags!
What's wrong with imitating movies?
dgrdsv
Member
30 fps in computer real time graphics has absolutely zero to do with movies framerate.
Also - 48 fps in movies are better than 24.
That statement is complete and utter bullshit. The only reason why they're running 30 is because the h/w isn't powerful enough to provide the same graphical fidelity at 60 fps.
Also - 48 fps in movies are better than 24.
That statement is complete and utter bullshit. The only reason why they're running 30 is because the h/w isn't powerful enough to provide the same graphical fidelity at 60 fps.
I'm not asking why film is 24fps. It just IS. That's the look people associate with film.
I'd be curious to see the result (on A TV with a 24fps mode, mind).
Freeman
Banned
To start with there are games who brake if you run at higher frame rates. Disregarding that, if you ever played on PC you know there is a direct correlation between the complexity of what is being rendered and frame rates, depending on the game choosing to run it at 30fps so you don't need to sacrifice certain things is a completely valid choice.
TheRedSnifit
Member
When people start bringing up Dear Esther to justify a game's design choices, it's a sign that I should stop caring about said game.
stupidity at it's worst and some in don't get why I keep bringing up these points.
1. Films run at a constant fixed FPS, games for the most part do not be it console or not.
2. Films capture light in a different way games do not render or account for yet.
The funniest bit was when they did try out 24fps it wasn't good despite that what films for quite sometime have been dealing with.
Only cause the dev was dumb enough to tie the ticrate of the engine to the fps like EA recently did with NFS rivals. Also cause it was valid doesn't mean it was smart or optimal for a multiplatform base.
1. Films run at a constant fixed FPS, games for the most part do not be it console or not.
2. Films capture light in a different way games do not render or account for yet.
The funniest bit was when they did try out 24fps it wasn't good despite that what films for quite sometime have been dealing with.
Only cause the dev was dumb enough to tie the ticrate of the engine to the fps like EA recently did with NFS rivals. Also cause it was valid doesn't mean it was smart or optimal for a multiplatform base.
Well the question is why not just make a movie when the gameplay is so bothersome?
You can't tell the story of Stanley Parable in a movie, but you can tell the story of a game that tries to be a movie, in a movie
MikeE21286
Member
Funny way to say we can't push 60FPS and the same graphics. It's ok, they would never say that though.
Like I said earlier, for slow parts, higher framerates can look off. For action, it looks better. For action games it looks clearly better. I also said, it doesn't have to be 24 or 48/60/120 anymore. The dichtomy is wrong.
On top of that, talking about a "movie"-looking experience here is quite silly. Videogames are digital, most films are filmed on, well, film.
Nizz
Member
Same. I think the game looks fantastic but from (poor quality) videos I was really worried about the framerate. It does seem smoother in footage released today.
Lock it to 30fps and I'm good.
Kssio_Aug
Member
Am I the only one that believes that all this discussion is not really about what he meant?
I believe that he just meant about visuals. 60fps would push down that experience since it would suffer downgrade and wouldnt look the same. The visuals itself also apply for that "filmic" feeling.
I believe that he just meant about visuals. 60fps would push down that experience since it would suffer downgrade and wouldnt look the same. The visuals itself also apply for that "filmic" feeling.
ChawlieTheFair
pip pip cheerio you slags!
They didn't say it was an inconvience, they said they put story first. If you noticed there is gameplay in the Order 1886, but as they said they've created the story first with gameplay around it. Again, there are no rules to any of this, if they wanted to make a game where you walk through foggy london doing nothing but holding forward the analoge stick and watching other people do shit what is the problem with that? Who says these mediums have to be so strict to their foundations?
1. You don't know the solidity of the framerate in this game, so you are making a point that has no use being made.
2. They are working hard on lens simulations that will take into account how film captures light. It most likely won't be perfect, but that is something they're actively doing.
In regards to the "funniest bit", nowhere does it say they tried 24fps.
You're fixated on "better" or "worse", when the key word is "different". About videogames being digital, what framerate do most CG movies run at, and why is that?