The Order: 1886 is 30fps because 24fps doesn't "feel good", 60fps "changes aesthetic"
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
cpp_is_king
Member
Films are not interactive. You also don't sit 5-7 inches in front of your TV screen.
I've said this before, but 60fps cutscenes are really off putting to me. In Ground Zeroes for example (however they were all in-engine so I understand why).
I'm glad they didn't go for 24fps, my macbook plays far cry 3 at that speed and I cant even get past the first section because of how bad it feels.
I'm glad they didn't go for 24fps, my macbook plays far cry 3 at that speed and I cant even get past the first section because of how bad it feels.
benjipwns
Banned
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=102651791&postcount=1092one of the best games evurr had black bars and people hardly noticed it
You understand that CGI films are rendered with motion blur to mimic live action films? The fact that it's generated on a computer doesn't matter.
http://renderman.pixar.com/view/motion-blur-and-depth-of-field
Entered the thread hoping for a reference to Poe's Law, was not disappointed. Seriously, if I saw this quote entirely out of context, I would swear that Horse Armour was the original poster.
This is some bs, you can simply ignore most of the culture on gaming when it comes to this subject. People who want to act like this is being shoved down their throat are overinflating something that is now being noticed by more of the gaming population.Only reason you see it cause as you mentioned the media is hyping it up like they do everything else for traffic hits or ads. Rather as a somewhat rational and maladjusted person why torture yourself by coming in a thread that only adds to a problem you don't like seeing fueled. It's not overshadowing anything the majority of console gamers are in the dark or don't give two craps about this issue.
1080p/60fps isn't even the gold standard anymore for pc extremist of various types. It however is a good plateau for having a good gaming experience, if thats your thing.
Pound_lb003
Member
That's an argument that can be chucked at so many games though, not specifically games chasing a 'filmic' look.
There is a real need to balance the presence of beauty and functionality in games. And they aren't always at odds.
Cave Johnson
Member
TO's main theme here is to be as "filmic" as possible and has nothing to do with having TPS mechanics. I'm suggesting that in comparison to the likes of Dear Esther/The Stanley Parable - games that relies moment to moment exposition that doesn't need to have a gun and enemies just because it's in first-person. That is the argument I'm trying to counter.
David Cage's concepts. I apologize for being quite vague here. But as we know, DC is trying to borrow filmic/cinematic elements and trying to incorporate them to his games. This is what I mean by The Order carrying that legacy. The QTE's are there because they heavily "compliment" their vision and not because it is required of.
You're making wild assumptions here so I'll lay it out for you: No, I've never explicitly said I'm not a "fan" of TPS games. I'm was countering an argument to why TO needs to use such mechanics in order to mask their true design which is the "filmic" story they're going for. So far, only Heavy Rain and B:TS have attempted that approach with the latter being under scrutiny. Having a TPS on such design principles will level those arguments because they have at least have a "game" to fall back on. It compromised consistency for consumer validation. They have a huge budget (much more with the recent delay) would only pressure them to make as much return as possible.
Late reply but did you even read the title yourself and what I wrote? I was commenting on the fact that they use the excuse of "24 fps doesn't feel good", which is something quite obvious for a game, to explain their choice for 30fps.
That's not their excuse at all. That's just something they state doesn't work for games despite being what films use, they are after all trying to be as "filmic" as possible. Their excuse for 30fps over 60fps is better visuals and aesthetics. Can't believe that even now some of you are having comprehension difficulties in not understanding this.
Did you even read the rest of the article or are you just coming up with the best knee jerk narrative you can based on the thread title and the one single quote taken from an entire interview in the OP?
ResidentDante
Member
And here we go...
thekiddfran
Member
It looks better than any 60fps game I have seen so that doesn't bother me in the slightest.
RAD know what they are doing compared to the armchair devs we get on GAF.
RAD know what they are doing compared to the armchair devs we get on GAF.
thekiddfran
Member
I honestly couldnt give a shit what FPS the game runs at as long as it plays well and looks well. Get off your high horse. These guys know their shit
30fps is actually my preference for most genre of games (though I'd say otherwise for twitch shooters, fighting games, sim racers etc).
Honestly, the extra 30fps is not worth the graphical or game design potential limitations. And this is coming from someone who used to be a mainly PC gamer back in the day, and still plays them today on relatively modest hardware.
You know how gameplay can be enhanced? A good frame rate. This is something every gamers should place as a priority. This isn't a high horse, it's a regular horse that everyone should ride. Join me on the horse friends.
No one has comprehension difficulties. They behave like they chose 30FPS because it's closer to 24FPS while 60FPS per se changes the look of the game. They are NOT stating that they went for visual fidelty over framerate. In short: they are trying to bullshit people, suggesting that they would go for 30FPS even if they could hit 60FPS at the same visual fidelity because of "cinematic reasons".
Sure, in the full interview he is backpedalling a bit, but the quote still stands.
moffattron9000
Member
That and the game being another fucking cover based shooter kind of dents any interest I had left in the game personally. I want the new consoles do do things that wouldn't be possible otherwise, not just be the same old games with a better coat of paint.
travisbickle
Member
I'm going believe the only reason this person said what they said was to see the reaction on the internet.
Done that countless times already, and usually it's not worth the smaller, uglier horse. Depending of course on how much of a rush I'm in!
Also, this.
thekiddfran
Member
Seriously bud, I will take the word off professionals in their feild over a raondom poster on GAF. If they say 30fps fits this game specifically then I am happy.
samurai1226
Member
On PC theres so dumping the framemate for better graphics if your hardware is good enough, this doesnt make sense
also i think we should wait until we see real ingame gameplay and not target render stuff
You can't take a single quote out of a full interview just to suit this false narrative. That's called taking things out of context.
thekiddfran
Member
I don't care. Give me a game with a stable framerate that looks good.
I love that these guys think they're making something that isn't a cover shooter. Oh, it's a "filmic" cover shooter? Okay, so, filmic -- that means that, somehow, by virtue of the term, other games to employ the so-clearly-not-filmic 60 fps cannot be held in similar esteem. So, halfway around the world, Kojima and co. may as well just stop making MGS5, because 60 fps has already ruined any attempt that they might make to wink and nod to the un-interactive medium.
Oh, and Naughty Dogs, plz, stop already -- if you manage to take your 30 fps masterpiece The Last of Us and make it play more responsive, you're on the road to losing everything that "feels good" about playing that game. What? It was really hard to go from the Cell architecture to x86 with your current engine because you spent all that time optimizing, cramming every last thing into that old machine?
Oh, that's right -- you're okay with doing hard work to make your games run AND look good, too. You haven't reduced your quality options to an either-or because you believe with planning and hard work consumers don't need to fed bullshit about how they should appreciate the medium. Gotcha.
Letting The Order: 1886 be the game that collectively brings our expectations down for future products (oh yes, you had better believe devs will latch on to these kinds of excuses and throw them right back at you because, hey, it flew with "The Order", so why not X game) is a good way to start souring the "next gen" early.
I mean, seriously, either say it's too hard, or say you don't want to bother, or even "nicely" lie by suggesting you want to "PUSH THEM PIXELSZZZ 2X MOAR", but don't use some other medium's technical orientation to cover up your seeming disregard for the kind of quality devs in your own backyard seem willing to work to achieve. Hell, even id Tech 5... sure, it looks like shit some times, but it's also doing something innovative on *last gen* and doing it at 60hz.
Oh, and Naughty Dogs, plz, stop already -- if you manage to take your 30 fps masterpiece The Last of Us and make it play more responsive, you're on the road to losing everything that "feels good" about playing that game. What? It was really hard to go from the Cell architecture to x86 with your current engine because you spent all that time optimizing, cramming every last thing into that old machine?
Oh, that's right -- you're okay with doing hard work to make your games run AND look good, too. You haven't reduced your quality options to an either-or because you believe with planning and hard work consumers don't need to fed bullshit about how they should appreciate the medium. Gotcha.
Letting The Order: 1886 be the game that collectively brings our expectations down for future products (oh yes, you had better believe devs will latch on to these kinds of excuses and throw them right back at you because, hey, it flew with "The Order", so why not X game) is a good way to start souring the "next gen" early.
I mean, seriously, either say it's too hard, or say you don't want to bother, or even "nicely" lie by suggesting you want to "PUSH THEM PIXELSZZZ 2X MOAR", but don't use some other medium's technical orientation to cover up your seeming disregard for the kind of quality devs in your own backyard seem willing to work to achieve. Hell, even id Tech 5... sure, it looks like shit some times, but it's also doing something innovative on *last gen* and doing it at 60hz.
thekiddfran
Member
Not about being a random poster but understanding the benefits of fluidity over eye candy. Ask any professional gamer if they prefer 30 fps over 60 and most of them will choose 60. There's really no point in defending this decision of 30 fps because of aesthetics. All I see are excuses and spins from this game and Drive Club.
People will eat it up since 30 fps is the norm these days anyway. I don't mind 30 fps really, but don't give me these excuses.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
I can't say that it never happens, but it is really uncommon for PC gamers to ask for 30fps framerate caps when they can play at a locked 60. And that's on a platform where individual concern over framerates and image quality often approaches self parody. To me, that makes a strong statement about the aesthetics of 30fps in a video game. It's easy to say that people don't care about 60fps when they buy your game anyway, but they never had a choice in the matter.
People do ask for 30fps cutscenes though, which weirds me out.
People do ask for 30fps cutscenes though, which weirds me out.
True but it sounds like a miracle
Just sayin' they should really think about catering to both communities; options to choose either eye candy + 30fps or downgraded graphics + 60fps.True but it sounds like a miracle
That would cost them money. They are looking to make profit. That would never happen even if it sounds nice.
what's driveclub FPS these days?
I do not care. Seems like a strange response to what I wrote. just because one game does something does not mean another will do the same. That is just logic.
Just because A=C
Does not mean B=C
That's pretty much what he says. See, this is why it's not good to take a single quote out of context. Maybe the OP should be updated with the rest of that quote….
I realize that funny .gif followed by out-of-hand dismissal is a mainstay in heated debate topics, but I'd be more than happy to have a back-and-forth over how the mere suggestion that 30 fps represents something other than a technical specification doesn't, in fact, impact the artistic endeavors of other developers. I mean, if you say "30hz makes our game more cinematic", that's one thing, but there's an implicit suggestion there that (unless the game is magic and unique for no apparent reason) other developers that aim for cinematic experiences are failing to nail down.
I don't, for example, like MGS: Ground Zeroes, as a game, but I can't dismiss its beautiful attempts at speaking the language of cinema, and doing so at 60hz. So, either it's an example that "filmic" experiences are possible at any reasonable framerate (thereby rendering their argument phony), or, it's a dismissal of other developer's attempts to achieve similar quality in their own games, which seems a self-serving argument at best and at worst an attack on perfectly fine creative output.
So, which is it, I guess?
Driveclub dev said they wanted to hit 1080p/60fps last year, and didn't hit it. This time they are making excuses as to why they aren't doing 60fps. It's like they aren't even going to try.
I have a hard time thinking of a game in which some aspect of game design was cut to keep a steady 60 fps. Graphics? happens all the time, but design?
Angry Puppy
Member
The news for this game just gets worse and worse
DOWN
Banned
Same here. Surprises me that people push so hard asking for 60 knowing it means they've gotta cut the visual fidelity elsewhere. A game with great visuals at 30fps will matter more to me than the one that lost some sheen to be 60fps.
I care more for that polish because playing at 30fps doesn't feel unpleasant at all for me. Many of my all time favorites are at 30fps with no complaints in their reviews or my head.
TerryLee81
Member
They are obviously just trolling GAF with the 24fps comment...
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Thank you.
Professionals lie and spin facts to make their games look good. I would certainly take anything a developer says about a game, no matter who it is, with at least a pinch of salt. At least random posters on GAF are honest in their observations. The idea that "30 FPS just fits the game!" is BS. What they are saying is they can't make the game look this "realistic" without lowering the framerate. Guess what, they could probably make it look even BETTER but with 15 FPS.
I don't want to sound condescending, but have you ever played a game in 60FPS? There is a huge, huge, huge difference. I am not a tech snob at all, but a blindfolded, sleeping, stuck in the basement Stevie Wonder could see how much better 60 FPS is than 30.
Instead of wanting games to have an accurate number of pores on the back of the neck of the protagonist, players should be looking for games that run and animate smoothly which you know, enhance gameplay. The Order's aesthetic style is not even that impressive to me, it's just dark dark darkness. What exactly would be lost if they aimed for 60FPS? Would the dirty alley's grit not be immersive enough?
I don't see what's wrong with the comment. They tried 24fps and found out it didn't feel good to play.
I applause that developers experiment with various settings instead of blindly going for X pixels and Y fps just because that's what part of the audience asks.
It's up to the developers to ask themselves what their game truely needs to meet their vision. Console resources are limited, and should be used accordingly.