The Order: 1886 is 30fps because 24fps doesn't "feel good", 60fps "changes aesthetic"
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
That isn't completly wrong, but it's still deeply flawed. 60FPS to gameplay is what native resolution is to image quality. Both should be standards on which you can build a great experience. Compromising on these standards in my opinion is ALWAYS the wrong decision and will produce a flawed product in any case.
Uno Venova
Banned
The screaming at each other about it I get, but I don't know if people actually expect devs to change their mind on framerate almost everyone is fine with, or not to talk positively about the framerate they've chosen. But I guess you can't expect people to be rational about these subjects.
supernormal
Member
Well this is a completely different and valid argument from the guys that wanna hang me for defending what I believe is an artistic choice. But like I said, in a way 30fps is kind of the sweetspot for what they're trying to achieve. I can see how it can seem phony given their stance but so far what they've shown has struck all the right chords for me in terms of visuals.
People on this board for the most know devs won't change their decisions considering that publishers at the end of the day make them for devs and us on a certain level. Don't talk about rationality when forgetting the place you're at and why people discuss here compared to other places which are outright garbage for civil discussions.
I've directly responded to your points as if you them no one else. I'm not trying to hang you, troll, or provoke for a very valid and nuanced opinion
30fps is the only sweet spot for devs on consoles for this generation been saying it since we found out actual performance in games. 60fps at 1080p with evolving next generation assets is a pipe dream until we get the power and devs can make real choices on fps vs asset quality vs IQ.
I need to be honest, most of the replies are :
"I'm fine as long it's locked"
and I completely agree!
cobragt4001
Banned
They can't get it to run 60fps so now they make an excuse which is pathetic to me. We are talking videogames here, not movies so their whole point is silly. Look at TLoU, the developers jumped at the opportunity to get 60fps on the ps4 and now everyone is excited for that. People saying they're content with 30fps, only say that because they have no choice but to be. 30fps vs 60fps is like 1080p vs 720p, one is better looking than the other, there's no discussion needed.
*rolls eyes*
Yea ok. Why dont these devs just have the guts to say "we are making graphics and physics #1 priority thus making it impossible to run the game at 60 so we decided 30[locked] would be best" instead of dancing around the subject and making up some odd reason like this one, pretending like it was a choice they made.
So RAD is saying they could get The Order running at its current form @ 60FPS with all the bell & whistles? But decided not to? Ok. Bullshit. 100%.
If some of these devs were more honest and straight forward, they would get more respect. From this quote and the delay. they have lost some respect from me.
Yea ok. Why dont these devs just have the guts to say "we are making graphics and physics #1 priority thus making it impossible to run the game at 60 so we decided 30[locked] would be best" instead of dancing around the subject and making up some odd reason like this one, pretending like it was a choice they made.
So RAD is saying they could get The Order running at its current form @ 60FPS with all the bell & whistles? But decided not to? Ok. Bullshit. 100%.
If some of these devs were more honest and straight forward, they would get more respect. From this quote and the delay. they have lost some respect from me.
I am baffled.. 30 cause 24 dosnt feel good?
I try to have faith developers know what they are talking about but this quote just blows my mind. I know its bullshit talk but still wtf..
Also everyone agreeing.. lol if this wasnt a holy Sony exclusive more people would be laughing at this logic.
I try to have faith developers know what they are talking about but this quote just blows my mind. I know its bullshit talk but still wtf..
Also everyone agreeing.. lol if this wasnt a holy Sony exclusive more people would be laughing at this logic.
unempLLOYD
Member
60fps is a must for first person shooters and racing. But not for third person shopters, so i'm okay with this.
They have tried but as I mentioned most people would rather gut for not aiming for 60fps than understanding the basic reasons due to the virtual lens tech in their game creating issues.
Why? Dosnt a tps need as much accuracy as a fps?
The only argement valid here is they want to push the graphics beyond what 60fps can handle on the ps4.
Citizen_Insane
Member
Then don't buy these flawed products. It's as simple as that. Play every game on PC at whatever frame rate and resolution your heart desires, because console gaming will never meet your standards. That's just how it is. 60fps being a standard is debatable, but it's never going to be on consoles (at least not until the hardware allows it to be). Developers will never cater to the vocal minority who scream out at every game to be 60fps, because this industry is far too competitive and the prettiest graphics will always win. At least in the eyes of the average gamer, who make up the majority of the sales.
We get it, we should stop asking for better games and should stop speaking out against bullshit excuses.
InsaneZero
Member
I'm fine with games that are locked 30 fps.
I'm fine with development saying that there are technical limitations that restricted them from exceeding that.
There's a problem when the statement for elaborating upon these two points is shorter than the flowery garbage about cinematic experiences that attempt to convince people that 30 fps would've always been better for the game regardless of the those circumstances.
I'm fine with development saying that there are technical limitations that restricted them from exceeding that.
There's a problem when the statement for elaborating upon these two points is shorter than the flowery garbage about cinematic experiences that attempt to convince people that 30 fps would've always been better for the game regardless of the those circumstances.
This.
It's PS4 exclusive title the person can't.
Also on the pc regardless of desire playing at whatever fps or res isn't always possible. Even if you wish to force some devs make their titles so locked down it's impossible to force things in be it a control panel or something like sweetfx.
If the prettiest graphics are winning why is it the biggest online title right now is basically a piece of shit in terms of graphics? Maybe your assertions or devs aren't are true or frequent as you think.
Citizen_Insane
Member
You should spam these at developers on twitter and other social mediums and see how little they care before deciding to shit up every thread these days (of every game) about what the framerate and resolution is. Then after that you speak with your wallet and refuse to purchase it. I'm not directing that at you specifically at all because I've never noticed your posts before, but I'm tired of every thread having people be up in arms about these things every time. Console gaming is not pc gaming, and we don't get a choice in these things. That would be nice and maybe we should, but we won't.
hydragonwarrior
Member
1080p and 60 fps is truly going to be reserved for next next gen.
If you read through the article, they basically say it is not possible to get the fidelity they are aiming for at 60fps. If it is possible on the PS4, it won't be until near the end of its life cycle.
Citizen_Insane
Member
That's true, Call of Duty games look horrid, are 60fps, and sell more than the Order could ever hope to x4. But not every game is Call of Duty and not every game should BE Call of Duty. More variety in games is a good thing, and better looking games are inherently a good thing. I'm more than willing to admit I might be wrong about my stance on developers, but I do think that's the norm when it comes to these big AAA games.
Crazy_Sunshine
Banned
Nice, good to hear that there is a clear goal in mind when it comes to game development.
You said a point and I gave an example, I was never attempting or implying that all games should be 60fps.
My point that seems be getting ignored is how well can the order emulate film like effects and are they worth it in the end. I'm just being honest when I say that devs are trying to emulate how cameras and tvs see reality more than our eyes actually do. This creates plenty of problems that quite frankly make me not to want buy such products and only play them when I can at a friends.
Abdul Hafeez
Member
Soon we'll be talking about 48 fps games.
Citizen_Insane
Member
Yeah I guess was reaching on my part, I'm sorry.
I think games talking the filmic approach and using film effects and camera angles and such could be worth it. Filmic games are not a bad thing and could lead to creative and interesting directions. What kind of problems do you see arising from that approach?
That's almost certainly because you're used to it.
More responsiveness and precision is a good thing, but I can totally get how the transition could be jarring.
Dead Space 2 at 30fps is not more 'cinematic' than at 60fps, was my point. It simply makes the game look worse and feel worse to play.
Hate to be harsh, but its a bullshit argument that some gamers eat up because they don't know better. Its entirely done so they can push visuals. That's all there is to it. If The Order were multiplatform, you really think PC gamers playing it at 60fps would be getting a ruined experience? You think it would be better at 30fps? Of course not. Its simple a fidelity vs framerate choice due to locked hardware.
I still haven't experienced 120fps, and I'm worried! I really don't need my standards to be raised more than they are! lol
But good example. Mass Effect is a very 'cinematic' sort of game in style, but it still benefits from higher framerates.
Aizu_Itsuko
Member
I guess he is talking about that soap opera effect, but I'm sure the main reason is the sacrifices they would have to make to achieve 60fps more than anything else.
30fps works fine, especially with good motion blur, and the game looks stunning so far so I'm not going to complain. Based on recent videos, the game seems to be dropping frames though, which I guess is one of the reasons for the delay.
Developers who are wanting to blow you away with graphics are more than likely gonna choose 30fps even then.
EdibleExplosives
Member
A developer actually using the cinematic excuse. Holy fucking lol.
No, they are saying they couldn't have gone 60fps without sacrificing some of the bells and whistles. "Changes aesthetic" implying graphical downgrades essentially, as is elaborated on in the rest of the interview.
Maybe improve your reading comprehension before lambasting devs for saying things they never said?
It's their game, their choice. Would you rather the game be 720p60 instead of 1080p30?
If Shadow of the Colossus had a prerequisite for 60fps, it never would have been made until the PS3 since it could barely run at 512x224 @ 15-20fps on the PS2.
These guys are giving you a gaming experience that you otherwise wouldn't get until the PS5 gets here. Be glad, because it doesn't sound like this game would likely get off the drawing board if they were required to make it 60fps and have the same old physics, base lighting, AI, stiff clothes, etc. If they made the game 1080p60 and cut out all the new fancy graphics, you'd all be burning the developers at the stake for the game looking like a last-gen game.
You can have it all....unless you have a $2000+ gaming PC
You have to understand gaming studios have to develop and implement new tech or they'll fall too far behind. If their goal was basically 1080p60 PS3 graphics, then when the PS5 comes out, they're screwed because they'll have a mountain of new tech they'll have to suddenly develop to stay competitive.
As a business case, the graphics, screen shots, trailers, and TV commercials all sell games. None of those mediums can commonly display 60fps. Naughty Dog said in an interview they're struggling trying to find ways to show people how much more fluid The Last Of Us on PS4 looks compared to PS3.
So sure 60fps matters, but in this case the mood and atmosphere immersion out-ranked frame-rate
If Shadow of the Colossus had a prerequisite for 60fps, it never would have been made until the PS3 since it could barely run at 512x224 @ 15-20fps on the PS2.
These guys are giving you a gaming experience that you otherwise wouldn't get until the PS5 gets here. Be glad, because it doesn't sound like this game would likely get off the drawing board if they were required to make it 60fps and have the same old physics, base lighting, AI, stiff clothes, etc. If they made the game 1080p60 and cut out all the new fancy graphics, you'd all be burning the developers at the stake for the game looking like a last-gen game.
You can have it all....unless you have a $2000+ gaming PC
You have to understand gaming studios have to develop and implement new tech or they'll fall too far behind. If their goal was basically 1080p60 PS3 graphics, then when the PS5 comes out, they're screwed because they'll have a mountain of new tech they'll have to suddenly develop to stay competitive.
As a business case, the graphics, screen shots, trailers, and TV commercials all sell games. None of those mediums can commonly display 60fps. Naughty Dog said in an interview they're struggling trying to find ways to show people how much more fluid The Last Of Us on PS4 looks compared to PS3.
So sure 60fps matters, but in this case the mood and atmosphere immersion out-ranked frame-rate
So why did they bring up film running at 24fps?
Stop pretending they aren't worming their way around it.
Messofanego
Banned
Filmic pls
Lactose_Intolerant
Member
I would say closer to an $800 pc
This. Shut down the vocal minority, because it's a minority. And minorities will never become a majority.
60FPS is already a standard to certain game seris. Even those who sell the most. And in this case, prettiest graphics did not win. Ask Nintendo how they feel about 60FPS. And if that's something important.
Let it put me this way: Having prettiest graphics is the way to play it safe. It's (relatively) easy for the team, if they have great artists and especially in a new gen, you can always 1up. When you decide to go all out on gameplay instead of graphical fidelty, well, you need to have a lot of trust in your gameplay concepts and that these are novel and great enough and fun in itself. Then you would want to have the best possible enviroment for that gameplay which is 60FPS, because it ensures the best playability, way above 30FPS (and sadly and often enough, even below 30).
So it's not about vocal minority or what casuals will buy, that is just marketing prediction anyway and more often than not it's competly off because there are way to many factors to consider. It's about developers having balls and believing in their vision and having great gameplay concepts.
See Insomniac Games who opted out of 60FPS gaming because reviews and sales do not back up 60FPS games. How much more did they sell afterwards? Do you notice anything? I'm not sure there is a correlation but for sure, there is no causality - and IG fell for it. It's just lazy marketing who tells the dudes "Hey we know how to sell pretty graphics" and CEOs who say "we want to sell a lot" and then the decision is done. This is all the story behind the decision to go for lower framerates. Don't behave like it's a USERS choice, it is not. It's a dev choice and the uninformed user is not ABLE to form or tell an opinion, because he isn't knowledgable and gaming press doesn't give a fuck to tell anyone what's going on on the tech side BESIDES pretty graphics. Marketing again? I'd bet on it. Or we believe in the good and just believe that your average gaming press dude just doesn't give a fuck because he doesn't know anything about the technical side of the medium he is covering.
It's also fine cause in no way do interact with them in the way I do with games.
Wow, some people really do let logic drift away in order to allow a story to suit their jaded narrative.
They want to be as filmic as possible. Most films are 24fps. So as much as they're trying to present a movie like experience, they won't go 24fps as it doesn't feel good in video games (obviously). So despite going for a cinematic and filmic appeal, they're still going with 30fps, essentially the best compromise for their vision, which still allows more bells and whistles over 60fps.
CG movies are rendered with subframes for motionblur. So moving parts might be rendered dozens of times for a single frame to simulate a continuous stream of light. There's no comparison with games to be found here.
The reason why? 24fps is the standard format for movies, people are used to the look, many cinemas lack the equipment to play back higher frame rates and HFR is a lot more expensive to produce.
It isn't unless they can properly replicate the motion blur. They can't, so saying 30fps for games is filmic is incorrect.
So are we just using "cinematic" as a term for "well we're pushing the system too hard to run it at 60fps?" I mean, that's not really anything to be ashamed of, but they way they worded it it's like they made a choice to limit the framerate because they thought 60fps looked weird.
I don't think the Shadow of the Collossus example is really a good one here. That game was doing crazy stuff from both a gameplay and graphics, whereas The Order looks, from what I have seen (which isn't much to be fair, but I've checked out a few gameplay videos) is a mostly standard, albeit gorgeous third person shooter. I haven't seen anything that blew me away in terms of scale like SotC did at the time.
I don't really see the game doing anything completely special, and that's fine, but their excuse is just lame as shit. Be honest and say you're pushing the game visually as far as the system can go.
As for the $2000 PC comment, I'll just say I disagree. I built a PC in 2008 that played pretty much every console port at 1920x1200 and 60fps of the last generation. I upgraded the videocard a few years ago to help me out with BF3. My Q6600 has still held up decently well in linear games. $1000 PC in 2008 played most games at 60fps. Now that I've upgraded I can just crank the shit out of the AA in those games with no framerate loss, feels great.
All that being said, if/when I get a PS4, this game looks good, I'll probably pick it up. I can play games at 30fps if need be, but I'm not getting hyped up for it as some crazy new gameplay experience.
I don't think the Shadow of the Collossus example is really a good one here. That game was doing crazy stuff from both a gameplay and graphics, whereas The Order looks, from what I have seen (which isn't much to be fair, but I've checked out a few gameplay videos) is a mostly standard, albeit gorgeous third person shooter. I haven't seen anything that blew me away in terms of scale like SotC did at the time.
I don't really see the game doing anything completely special, and that's fine, but their excuse is just lame as shit. Be honest and say you're pushing the game visually as far as the system can go.
As for the $2000 PC comment, I'll just say I disagree. I built a PC in 2008 that played pretty much every console port at 1920x1200 and 60fps of the last generation. I upgraded the videocard a few years ago to help me out with BF3. My Q6600 has still held up decently well in linear games. $1000 PC in 2008 played most games at 60fps. Now that I've upgraded I can just crank the shit out of the AA in those games with no framerate loss, feels great.
All that being said, if/when I get a PS4, this game looks good, I'll probably pick it up. I can play games at 30fps if need be, but I'm not getting hyped up for it as some crazy new gameplay experience.
30 fps does not represent a cinematic experience.
Nor the other various things that go in to films both when they are captured due to camera hardware and then post processed afterwards.
Doubtful. I means surely some games will obviously go for 60fps, when the game really requires it
Game devs will again probably continue to improve engine features to have more realistic shading, effects, lighting, models, that will eat up the added power.
In this instance, yes it does. Because it allows them to push the visuals and effects to provide a more realistic and filmic look, beyond what they'd be able to do at 60fps.
boredandlazy
Member
What you classify as 'better games' isn't necessarily the same as what everyone else does. If some of you '60fps afficianados' weren't so narcissistic it'd probably be easier to have a proper discussion, rather than the reductive bullshit you're spouting here.