The Order: 1886 is 30fps because 24fps doesn't "feel good", 60fps "changes aesthetic"

Net_Wrecker said:
But in this case running the game at 30fps will give them access to better visual tricks and post processing which will absolutely make it LOOK more like a movie.

Like, are people misconstruing what the word "aesthetic" means in this quote? It's not just textures, IQ, and art design, but the totality of the image from blur, to lens flairs, to grain/noise, to lighting, etc. Making the game 60fps would ruin this aesthetic, no question. Not due to the game looking smoother, though that would definitely also change the feel of things, but mostly due to them having less access to techniques that give the image its feel as a whole. The "CG look" that people compliment would be lost. There's just not enough horsepower to do that on the console with 60fps.

And IDK why people have an issue with them chasing this look in the first place. There's a huge history of movie styles and imagery to draw on that all looks vastly superior to games being that this industry is still so young. Do people have issues with Okami looking to Asian brush paintings for its look, or to any game that borrows from major artistic movements in history? It's the same concept here just using a medium that's more familiar to our generation.
Click to expand...

Yeah like I said, if they want more effects and such that's cool and I'm all for it. But if they had the power they would try 60 and effects. They want to make the game look as good as possible but using the excuse that 30 is the perfect fps for a "cinematic experience" is garbage.
 
Net_Wrecker said:
But in this case running the game at 30fps will give them access to better visual tricks and post processing which will absolutely make it LOOK more like a movie.

Like, are people misconstruing what the word "aesthetic" means in this quote? It's not just textures, IQ, and art design, but the totality of the image from blur, to lens flairs, to grain/noise, to lighting, etc. Making the game 60fps would ruin this aesthetic, no question. Not due to the game looking smoother, though that would definitely also change the feel of things, but mostly due to them having less access to techniques that give the image its feel as a whole. The "CG look" that people compliment would be lost. There's just not enough horsepower to do that on the console with 60fps.

And IDK why people have an issue with them chasing this look in the first place. There's a huge history of movie styles and imagery to draw on that all looks vastly superior to games being that this industry is still so young. Do people have issues with Okami looking to Asian brush paintings for its look, or to any game that borrows from major artistic movements in history? It's the same concept here just using a medium that's more familiar to our generation.
Click to expand...

That is perfectly fine, but I really don't get that vibe from the text, it seems like he actually is talking about how smooth it is and nothing else. Just look at the amount of people saying "I'm fine with 30fps, but this is bs".
 
LCGeek said:
FPS takes the highest toll on hardware followed by resolution. Only ways effect do is when you increase depth they are rendered otherwise from what we have benchmarked the last few generation fps is king in terms of much drain on hardware.

Even then I already pointed the virtual lens emulation. The FOV problem alone is one reason why these devs may not be able to hit 60fps especially on a console. You can fake speeds but does ubisoft have the power or want to do all that 60fps when it just easier to get what they want and not deal with getting to that objective at all.

Resolution has nothing to do with the debate it's about fps vs certain desires they have which are nice but quite frankly they may not have the power to do accurately.



Then don't enter a single topic on this board dealing with fps when it's clearly the fps that is being discussed from the outset. You were not forced in to this dicussion so you're a bit of a hypocrite saying that in a discussion solely aimed at the topic.
Click to expand...

I know lower fps is less demanding, but like I said their priorities aren't to have a responsive fast paced game, but a cinematic one. If these are their intentions 30fps is the best choice no matter what hardware its on.
 
After playing sleeping dogs at 120fps. Even open world games can befit from the fps boost. So why not a TPS be at least 60. Gosh damn this 30 is OK bs must end.... It's a Slide show and motion blur is used to hide this fact.
 
copelandmaster said:
You don't know what you are talking about.

30fps
http://a.pomf.se/ychkrc.webm


60fps
http://a.pomf.se/zrvgrn.webm


120fps.
http://a.pomf.se/tawngi.webm

If you had a 120hz monitor, you'd realize just how much more smooth this one is than the 60fps one. Download and play in WMP or MPC, or view each in a separate tab if your processor/ web browser can't keep up.
Click to expand...

I tried on a 75hz monitor and the 120 FPS one actually looks smoother than the 60 FPS one. I've become some kind of frame sensitive monster. I noticed that I feel shit starts to get choppy when it drops from 60 to 50 even. My new goal in life is a 120HZ monitor.
 
heyf00L said:
Great, now the developers are saying 30fps is "cinematic"?

If it's really about how good it feels to play, more fps will always be better.
Click to expand...
Yeah man, it's just bullshit PR speak. If the game could run at a solid 60 FPS without compromising the graphics in other areas, they'd be using that as a selling point instead, but they're just trying to make it sound like a design choice to avoid the "PS4 can't handle this game at 60 FPS" talk.
 
supernormal said:
I don't get how any of this comes across as shocking or hard to understand for anybody. These guys were talking about emulating a cinematic look from the beginning. It is not a hardware limitation. If this where to be a PC game they would have probably locked the fps at 30 to not distance themselves to much from the film aesthetic. People can disagree on what their priorities should be (1080p, 60fps bla bla) but those were the design choices they made clear when they announced the game.

A 60fps cinematic experience is a bit of an oxymoron. Your 60fps game can be atmospheric, moody, gritty, or whatever adjective you want but not cinematic. That's because framerate, specifically that of 24fps, is one of the most important characteristics of achieving this and 60fps is just too much of a departure from that.

Of course these are games, so responsiveness and controller input definitely play a very important role which is improved by higher fps. But for RAD getting the closest they can to cinema with this game is more important, so we have and anamorphic picture at 30fps( the closest playable fps to 24) and many post processing effects that help transform the digital image into something that seems captured by a lens. A lot of the stuff they use to achieve this look actually takes more of a toll on the hardware than they're probably saving - 1920x800 (1:1) as opposed to an upscaled 900p image, 4x MSAA to deliver the cleanest image possible, and some physics based lens capture stuff they got going on.

I am ok with these choices as I was when they first revealed their game. I don't know why this has to cause controversy.
Click to expand...

The only reason you relate 24FPS to "cinematic" is that you are used to it. You are used to it because someone somewhere many years ago decided, that they should film at 24FPS - and they did so because of technical limitations. So you saw 24 movies in the cinema all your time and that is why you percept 24fps as "cinematic". There is no other reason than that - you are used to it.

So what we do now actually is using something that was utilized for MOVIES in the 1920s out of technical limitations and we apply that in 2014 as gold standard for GAMES.

You know what?

It makes sense.

If you are working at RAD.

And live in the past.

And if you have a PR dude sitting next to you.
 
The "feel" of watching a movie.

I can see a lot of devs getting behind the "filmic" design, you get away with having low framerates and you don't even need to render the entire screen.
 
supernormal said:
I know lower fps is demanding, but like I said their priorities aren't to have a responsive fast paced game, but a cinematic one. If these are their intentions 30fps is the best choice no matter what hardware its on.
Click to expand...

I was just point out certain things including contradictions. 30fps was chosen because they even said and it was quoted 24fps wouldn't feel good, which is true. By that statement alone it opens a door if they are talking about feel why not 60fps with 24fps look, which is doable though how much is part of the debate. You could do what I mentioned but between time, expertise, money, and practicality their current solution may indeed quickest route but not the best imo.

Devs are the ones creating these issues by mixed messages or not really stating properly what is they are aiming for. If they weren't debates like these wouldn't be so commonplace even compared to last generation.

Also for the last time unlike most devs using the movie or filmic argument this team is actually emulating how cameras do things which needs power. FOV alone is why they are going to have fps issues.
 
All this talk about framerates feeling unnatural etc. Is it possible to have a framerate high enough so your eyes add natural motion blur to objects? As in, the framerate is so high that the only limitation of what's displayed on your screen is the physical capabilities of the human eye.
 
supernormal said:
I know lower fps is demanding, but like I said their priorities aren't to have a responsive fast paced game, but a cinematic one. If these are their intentions 30fps is the best choice no matter what hardware its on.
Click to expand...

Responsive and cinematic are not mutually exclusive.

Isn't the Walking Dead on the PC playable at 60 fps? Did that ruin the immersion or story impact?

I would wager if they knew they could have nailed the style they were going for at 60 fps they would have in a heatbeat and would be screaming 60 fps from the rafters.
 
I've played tons of 60FPS games
I've played tons of 30FPS games

As long as the gameplay isn't built around reaction times and speed, 30FPS is fine.

Some of my most enjoyed games only ran at 30FPS.

I've played Watch_Dogs on the PS4. I would not enjoy the game any more if it ran at 60. The framerate is NOT linked with the gameplay experience. However, I'd probably enjoy a game like Driveclub if it ran at double the framerate.
 
On the topic of fps and filmic or cinematic.. Why don't games suffer from soap opera effect the same way live action shows do?
 
supernormal said:
I know lower fps is demanding, but like I said their priorities aren't to have a responsive fast paced game, but a cinematic one. If these are their intentions 30fps is the best choice no matter what hardware its on.
Click to expand...
I was playing Dead Space 2 on the PC, and it was 30fps. Figured that's just what it was locked at. Whatever. Read up on it(because I didn't like it) and it was just vsync locking it to 30fps. Turned that off and bam, 60fps. Felt sooooo much better. Not a fast-paced game whatsoever and is certainly in the 'cinematic' vein of these sorts of games, yet it still benefitted from 60fps.

Are you saying that I should turn it back to 30fps for the superior experience?
 
Another game to the list of framerate-gate case. Just please, all the people blaming X1 and PS4 games solely based on its resolution or framerate... please, just stop. This game is a proof that 60fps is not a mandatory condition to have amazing graphics.
 
2n2 said:
Responsive and cinematic are not mutually exclusive.

Isn't the Walking Dead on the PC playable at 60 fps? Did that ruin the immersion or story impact?

I would wager if they knew they could have nailed the style they were going for at 60 fps they would have in a heatbeat and would be screaming 60 fps from the rafters.
Click to expand...

Responsive and cinematic are not mutually exclusive, but 60fps and cinematic are. If 60fps was cinematic, cinema would be at 60fps instead of 24fps.
 
the_champ said:
Another game to the list of framerate-gate case. Just please, all the people blaming X1 and PS4 games solely based on its resolution or framerate... please, just stop. This game is a proof that 60fps is not a mandatory condition to have amazing graphics.
Click to expand...

I don't even...
 
I'm in the frames above all camp. To me they have been giving a lot of bad news lately. At least they are consistent... Story before the game, cinematic experience before gameplay. I am even starting to lose interest in this game. I hope that hands on at E3 will ease my worries.
 
supernormal said:
Responsive and cinematic are not mutually exclusive, but 60fps and cinematic are. If 60fps was cinematic, cinema would be at 60fps instead of 24fps.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess it really depends on the definition of cinematic. If you're talking solely in terms of framerate, I agree. To me cinematic is more in terms of artistic presentation, story, and direction.
 
supernormal said:
Responsive and cinematic are not mutually exclusive, but 60fps and cinematic are. If 60fps was cinematic, cinema would be at 60fps instead of 24fps.
Click to expand...

Cinema has run at various rates thorughout the industry in it's lifetime. There have been films at 60fps or even 48fps the reason you don't see it is basically cause it was cost prohibitive. Before you say something slick as a response about the now or future Avatar 2 will be 60fps.
 
GoofsterStud said:
I'm in the frames above all camp. To me they have been giving a lot of bad news lately. At least they are consistent... Story before the game, cinematic experience before gameplay. I am even starting to lose interest in this game. I hope that hands on at E3 will ease my worries.
Click to expand...
You're acting like this is all brand new news to you.

Why anyone is surprised is beyond me.
 
Seanspeed said:
I was playing Dead Space 2 on the PC, and it was 30fps. Figured that's just what it was locked at. Whatever. Read up on it(because I didn't like it) and it was just vsync locking it to 30fps. Turned that off and bam, 60fps. Felt sooooo much better. Not a fast-paced game whatsoever and is certainly in the 'cinematic' vein of these sorts of games, yet it still benefitted from 60fps.

Are you saying that I should turn it back to 30fps for the superior experience?
Click to expand...

I didn't say 30fps was superior game experience, but it definitely is more cinematic than 60fps. That's what RAD is going for "cinematic" over "game"
 
velociraptor said:
You're acting like this is all brand new news to you.

Why anyone is surprised is beyond me.
Click to expand...

This is what I was wondering too. They've been pretty honest about what this game is since the beginning. I'm just waiting to see more of the creative weapons and the monsters.
 
ieptbarakat said:
The "feel" of watching a movie.

I can see a lot of devs getting behind the "filmic" design, you get away with having low framerates and you don't even need to render the entire screen.
Click to expand...
So worse gameplay design and more simplitic gameplay controls. This gen is already off to a great start. Give me Bayo2 please that will have 60 FPS (not quite but given Platinum Games history it will feel like it) and Good visuals. Freaking this loss of focus on GAME mechanics. I mean I loved The Last Of Us but everyone knows the PS4 reversion will be much MUCH better because you can aim and control better at the 60 FPS its going to be at. Seriously..... 30FPS needs to die in a corner NOW.
 
supernormal said:
I didn't say 30fps was superior game experience, but it definitely is more cinematic than 60fps. That's what RAD is going for "cinematic" over "game"
Click to expand...

It is NOT more cinematic.

It is closer to the framerate which many movies in the cinema run at (which is about to change anyway, sooner or later, because it's inferior tech).

These are TWO different things.
 
This game looks like something I would enjoy, but they need to stop talking. Most of us are probably fine playing games at 30 fps if there are no other options, but devs need to stop insulting our intelligence by suggesting a low framerate is a design decision rather than a hardware limitation. I can accept hardware limitations. I just don't like having smoke blown in my face.
 
Oh come on, I'm fine with 30fps but the bullshit is getting pretty deep. First they are not rendering the full 1080p screen because it looks more cinematic, ok. Then they explain the less detailed outfits by calling them infiltration suits. Because elaborate uniforms are unrealistic. Because The Order:1886 is all about realism. Now they are trying to say that the only reason they're not going to 60 frames per second is because it looks weird. Please please stop talking and just finish the game.
 
ChawlieTheFair said:
I'd argue better graphics help a game to be played at it's best.
Click to expand...
It's a balancing act, depending on what you want most. And utilizing what you have as well as you can, Witcher 2 on low is technically higher end and more demanding than likely EVERY game that hit PS3 and 360, but it's absolutely hideous compared to them, and so needs to be carefully optimized in order to still look nice while being less demanding (Witcher 2 360.) Really the point is almost everyone wants NICE looking graphics, just everyone has different bars for that and may or may not be including 60fps as an important element there.
Xenon said:
Then they explain the less detailed outfits by calling them infiltration suits. Because elaborate uniforms are unrealistic. Because The Order:1886 is all about realism.
Click to expand...
Depending on the angle you want for your work it's perfectly valid to take this approach. Just because you're not wholly realistic doesn't mean you can't be realistic or at least come off as plausible in other areas, and likewise going overboard may suit the aesthetic or style you want.
 
Xenon said:
Oh come on, I'm fine with 30fps but the bullshit is getting pretty deep. First they are not rendering the full 1080p screen because it looks more cinematic, ok. Then they explain the less detailed outfits by calling them infiltration suits. Because elaborate uniforms are unrealistic. Because The Order:1886 is all about realism. Now they are trying to say that the only reason they're not going to 60 frames per second is because it looks weird. Please please stop talking and just finish the game.
Click to expand...

They use different outfits at different points in the game, including the previously shown one. I don't get your point.
 
JayEH said:
Yeah like I said, if they want more effects and such that's cool and I'm all for it. But if they had the power they would try 60 and effects. They want to make the game look as good as possible but using the excuse that 30 is the perfect fps for a "cinematic experience" is garbage.
Click to expand...

Read between the lines, breh. he's not gonna flat out bash the console he's working on exclusively by saying "Ugh, the specs are totes garbage, so we had to downgrade the framerate to get what we wanted." It's positive spin because they're making compromises. in 2014, achieving the look they want, or the "feel" they want when taking the presentation as a whole, demands they go to 30fps. When they can emulate these things in 60fps, I'm sure they'll find new techniques to do that and will admit that it's something they couldn't do with The Order.

Gbraga said:
That is perfectly fine, but I really don't get that vibe from the text, it seems like he actually is talking about how smooth it is and nothing else. Just look at the amount of people saying "I'm fine with 30fps, but this is bs".
Click to expand...

30 frames is smother compared to 24, and 60 is smoother compared to 30. He pretty much admits it by praising 60fps in the first sentence of the quote. But the aesthetic argument he's making is totally valid and is a good enough reason for him to say 30fps was the right choice for them. People saying it's BS don't understand that "aesthetics" in this context refers to the complete look and texture of the presentation, not just physical aesthetics of the game world.
 
Xenon said:
Oh come on, I'm fine with 30fps but the bullshit is getting pretty deep. First they are not rendering the full 1080p screen because it looks more cinematic, ok. Then they explain the less detailed outfits by calling them infiltration suits. Because elaborate uniforms are unrealistic. Because The Order:1886 is all about realism. Now they are trying to say that the only reason they're not going to 60 frames per second is because it looks weird. Please please stop talking and just finish the game.
Click to expand...

Its even funnier when you know that many movies are shot in 2k. But I guess a higher resolution is too cinema for them.
 
Van Owen said:
Yeah, but the aspect ratio still wasn't as wide as it is in The Order. That much horizontal fov isn't really necessary.
Click to expand...

I like it

the-roder-aspect-ex-1zzo76.jpg
 
2n2 said:
Well, I guess it really depends on the definition of cinematic. If you're talking solely in terms of framerate, I agree. To me cinematic is more in terms of artistic presentation, story, and direction.
Click to expand...

Those are characteristics also other mediums, and could be applied to other video recordings which are not necessarily cinematic. What immediately sticks out as characteristic inherent of cinema is it's framerate, scope, certain softness of the IQ along with grain, and usually the high dynamic range look provided by actual film stock that so many digital cameras have trouble emulating.
 
60fps changes the aesthetic indeed, to the better. Virtual worlds running at 60fps feel more realistic/plausible (almost tangible) to me.
 
If games move to 60fps I'm going to stop playing again and only stick to movies as a hobby.

Its why I got into gaming at the end of last gen. Dat 24fps film feel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

VGC: The Order 1886 sequel would have offered bigger fights and multiplayer
37
1K
ChorizoPicozo replied
[TheGameBusiness] Interview with Ready at Dawn's co-founder Ru Weerasuriya // Claims The Order: 1886 was cut by 30%
Game Dev 
22
504
Guardian Monkey replied
LTTP: The Order 1886: Sir Gigachad (56k warning, screenshots)
Hype  2 3 4
169
9K
Regginator replied
30fps enough for you?
2 3 4 5 6
279
4K
Hector Hall replied
Ready At Dawn co-founder discusses failed The Order: 1886 sequel pitch
Game Dev  2 3
118
8K
hussar16 replied
Top Bottom