Support NeoGAF

[plagiarize]

Well, that's the thing. I used to think 60FPS is supposed to look more real, but I'm not sure that's necessarily the case actually.

Try it: if you move your head around, you don't really perceive the continuous perfectly even fluidity of a game camera moving at a high framerate. It in fact looks kind of stuttery, as your eyes fixate for milliseconds on different points in space as you look around. I'm almost positive this is why people think 60FPS looks 'sped-up' or whatever.


While the controller responsiveness is reduced, it doesn't have to be by much at all. The best case 30FPS controller responsiveness is only slightly worse than the usual case 60FPS game controller responsiveness. It especially doesn't matter much on slower moving games. Like for example, Limbo was 30FPS on X360 and it was perfectly playable. On the other hand, something that scrolls fast like Resogun, feels like garbage at 30FPS (if you play it remote over Vita). So game design factors into this a lot.

Well, only through higher framerates will we be able to do that focusing on different points in space as we turn the camera. 60 isn't high enough for that though, certainly.

But again, I find it this whole thing confusing. 24 fps people tell me, is unrealistic in a good way, but 60 fps is unrealistic in a bad way? I don't understand the argument.

 

[akaoni]

Is there any high frame rate porn out there? Serious question.

Yes, I've seen a bunch.

 

[Night_Trekker]

I don't mind lower FPS generally, but are we really at a point where we're making excuses for lower framerates like it's a feature?

 

[msdstc]

I don't mind lower FPS generally, but are we really at a point where we're making excuses for lower framerates like it's a feature?

Movies are at 24P intentionally... thoughts?

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Movies are at 24P intentionally... thoughts?

It's been stated over and over again. Interactive games don't benefit from the same process that captured light on film does where natural blur fills the gaps and speeds of camera movement for any given shot are pre-planned and carefully executed so as to not expose the weakness of such a low-frequency of capture. Post-process blurring in games doesn't solve this and input by the user is coming in faster than the rate of update, producing a lag and disconnect between user controller action and on-screen, in-game consequence.

 

[plagiarize]

Movies are at 24P intentionally... thoughts?

I love how you say this like theaters have supported multiple framerates for ages when it's only been a year and a half or something, and when it's still a minority of screens out there that can do it.

24 p was established as a standard decades and decades ago.

 

[Orayn]

Well, only through higher framerates will we be able to do that focusing on different points in space as we turn the camera. 60 isn't high enough for that though, certainly.

But again, I find it this whole thing confusing. 24 fps people tell me, is unrealistic in a good way, but 60 fps is unrealistic in a bad way? I don't understand the argument.

Well, realism isn't a single metric. A movie shot at 24 FPS on 9mm film is can look very realistic in some areas like resolution, motion blur, and depth of field, while it's unrealistic in terms of how smooth it looks. The framerate by itself doesn't cause all of those things, it's just one characteristic of the tool being used to capture a series of still images.

A video game running at 60 FPS will definitely look smoother than film, but it can wind up looking less realistic in a variety of other ways. The way the human eye sees things is actually pretty complicated and there are a lot of little things that contribute to whether or not something is perceived as natural. On top of that, you have the fact that perfectly natural-looking movement may or may not look "good" from an artistic and aesthetic point of view.

The above is a big part of why people like the way movies look; it's an established style, and most people are accustomed to it. Video games are a younger medium and have been continuously evolving over the past few decades. It's conceivable that we'll have different "schools" of video game visuals that become well established and artistically celebrated once the evolution slows down a bit and we have rendering power to spare.

Also, big disclaimer: I am not arguing for 24 FPS video games, just trying to share some of what I've learned about this topic and clear up misconceptions and confusion. I personally think video games should prioritize a framerate of 60 (or higher) whenever possible because I am an ideologue who values responsiveness and game mechanics above all else.

 

[msdstc]

I love how you say this like theaters have supported multiple framerates for ages when it's only been a year and a half or something, and when it's still a minority of screens out there that can do it.

24 p was established as a standard decades and decades ago.

60i has been available to the masses for decades.

It's been stated over and over again. Interactive games don't benefit from the same process that captured light on film does where natural blur fills the gaps and speeds of camera movement for any given shot are pre-planned and carefully executed so as to not expose the weakness of such a low-frequency of capture. Post-process blurring in games doesn't solve this and input by the user is coming in faster than the rate of update, producing a lag and disconnect between user controller action and on-screen, in-game consequence.

I agree with this, I just don't see how it's laughable to go for a "film look" in a more cinematic game. I get that gameplay will potentially suffer from this, I'm saying it's not ridiculous to suggest changing the framerate will change the look.

 

[tasch]

I love how you say this like theaters have supported multiple framerates for ages when it's only been a year and a half or something, and when it's still a minority of screens out there that can do it.

24 p was established as a standard decades and decades ago.

you know that all films run at 48 fps interlaced? It's 24 unique frames but each frame is shown twice

 

[Lord Error]

Well, only through higher framerates will we be able to do that focusing on different points in space as we turn the camera. 60 isn't high enough for that though, certainly.

I don't think you can ever get there on a flat screen, as your eyes have nothing to track positionally when the thing they look at (a TV) is right in front of you and not moving. It will certainly be possible on VR goggles though.

But again, I find it this whole thing confusing. 24 fps people tell me, is unrealistic in a good way, but 60 fps is unrealistic in a bad way? I don't understand the argument.

I know what you mean, and I'm not sure. I do personally think also that because high framerates probably saturate our vision with more information, people could get simulation sickness easier. Try seating someone watching you play some fast paced FPS game at high framerate, and I can almost guarantee you that unless they've been trained against something like this, they'd get nauseous. On the other hand few people ever have problem watching slower moving games or camera pans from movies.

 

[Data Elemental]

60i has been available to the masses for decades.

Interlaced footage on a big theatre screen? That must look terrifying. It's bad enough on smaller, progressive displays.

you know that all films run at 48 fps interlaced? It's 24 unique frames but each frame is shown twice

Interlacing isn't showing the same thing twice. At least not in any common sense of the word.

 

[Zeuanimals]

Here is a game running at 24 fps:

http://a.pomf.se/exqckv.webm

Is that really 24fps? Looks more like 10 since movies shot in 24fps don't look nearly that choppy.

 

[Data Elemental]

Is that really 24fps? Looks more like 10 since movies shot in 24fps don't look nearly that choppy.

It's an inconsistent 12fps, I counted.

 

[cerulily]

I don't mind lower FPS generally, but are we really at a point where we're making excuses for lower framerates like it's a feature?

I think in the context of the article in question it was a bit of an unfortunate statement.

However, when you look at the vitriol that 30fps gets around the internet from forums such as gaf, i am willing to forgive a developer from stumbling over themselves trying to justify their choice to people who literally are out for blood as far as FPS is concerned.

Me personally, 30fps is perfectly fine as long as it's consistent and you see where those other frames went on screen, such as Infamous: SS. Game played and looked great.

Some games, like a series such as wipeout, pretty much live and die by the smoothness of the experience, but some like TLOU live and die by the believability and technology that goes into building it's world. Different design philosophies that don't really deserve the vitriol it sometimes receives.

 

[plagiarize]

60i has been available to the masses for decades.

Not at cinemas.

 

[msdstc]

Not at cinemas.

Good thing the majority of media is presented on television.

 

[Horp]

I agree with this, I just don't see how it's laughable to go for a "film look" in a more cinematic game. I get that gameplay will potentially suffer from this, I'm saying it's not ridiculous to suggest changing the framerate will change the look.

How are you not getting this after so many people have explained it to you?

It is not possible to achieve motion blur as it is in a movie in a real time game. It's not a question of "gamplay suffering", it's just not possible.
Let me try to explain this as simply as I can.
A game can motion blur from the previous frame (or frames) leading up to the current frame. But you can't blur to the next frame, or frames.
A motion blurred frame in a movie (especially at 24 fps) is a blurred state of tons of previous and following frames. It is achieved using exposure time on a camera. Look at a movie still frame with objects moving quickly. The frame will itself contain a big smudged motion, effectively containing the information of a movement much longer than 1/24th of a second.

Please, read the above again and again until you grasp this. It is not possible to achieve movie style motion blur in a real time media.

Can you see how this still image has the information there to show you a pretty long motion?.

 

[Orayn]

you know that all films run at 48 fps interlaced? It's 24 unique frames but each frame is shown twice

In theaters? No they don't. Most projected films show 24 unique whole frames per second. The rate at which the light source flickers is almost always faster than that, but that's different from interlacing the picture like you would on a CRT.

Good thing the majority of media is presented on television.

TV content really runs the gamut when it comes to framerates. You've got stuff shot at 24 and telecined, stuff shot at 30 and post-processed to look like film, stuff broadcast or recorded live at 30, and even a few things at the full 60i.

 

[msdstc]

How are you not getting this after so many people have explained it to you?

It is not possible to achieve motion blur as it is in a movie in a real time game. It's not a question of "gamplay suffering", it's just not possible.
Let me try to explain this as simply as I can.
A game can motion blur from the previous frame (or frames) leading up to the current frame. But you can't blur to the next frame, or frames.
A motion blurred frame in a movie (especially at 24 fps) is a blurred state of tons of previous and following frames. It is achieved using exposure time on a camera. Look at a movie still frame with objects moving quickly. The frame will itself contain a big smudged motion, effectively containing the information of a movement much longer than 1/24th of a second.

Please, read the above again and again until you grasp this. It is not possible to achieve movie style motion blur in a real time media.

[IM]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-80qnimCPva0/UOERiIZnjEI/AAAAAAAABNw/jH17tQk8bdc/s1600/motionBlur.jpg[/IMG]

Can you see how this still image has the information there to show you a pretty long motion?.

You don't have to explain it to me I absolutely get it, however I'm only arguing the fact that when a developer says they prefer the asthetic of 30FPS for the cinematic look, it's not absurd. I can't claim I know everything that goes into it, but what I do know, is that TLOU at 30 FPS vs. 60 FPS has a more cinematic feel from what I've seen, that is subjective, but it's not ridiculous to suggest it.

 

[Horp]

You don't have to explain it to me I absolutely get it, however I'm only arguing the fact that when a developer says they prefer the asthetic of 30FPS for the cinematic look, it's not absurd. I can't claim I know everything that goes into it, but what I do know, is that TLOU at 30 FPS vs. 60 FPS has a more cinematic feel from what I've seen, that is subjective, but it's not ridiculous to suggest it.

Well you say that but your answers say otherwise.
Anyway TLOU has very little motion blur, so what you are seeing in that game is actually further from the movie look than 60 fps, since both movies and 60 fps are smooth but TLOU is noticebly choppy. So, you like choppy looking games. Thats fine, I guess.

 

[jimi_dini]

when a developer says they prefer the asthetic of 30FPS for the cinematic look, it's not absurd.

It's not absurd of course.
It's just a silly excuse.

They should be honest and just say: "we want to have more shiny instead of a stable/higher framerate" and/or "we aren't competent enough and we simply can't create a game with 60 fps"" and/or "we are using Unreal Engine"

 

[deadman69]

30 FPS Vs 60 FPS

 

[MrJoe]

I'm just going to state the obvious, but "filmic" is a damned stupid word. we've already got "cinema-tic," why come up with an egregiously stupid alternate like "film-ic." just use cinematic, and whoever the einstein was behind the word filmic has earned himself 30 minutes in the time-out corner. he can just sit there and think about what he's done.

 

[msdstc]

Well you say that but your answers say otherwise.
Anyway TLOU has very little motion blur, so what you are seeing in that game is actually further from the movie look than 60 fps, since both movies and 60 fps are smooth but TLOU is noticebly choppy. So, you like choppy looking games. Thats fine, I guess.

I like em and apparently the majority of the gaming media and gamers in general... just so happened to top most people goty list last year. The game was gorgeous give me a break, and I've seen the 60FPS clips and it looked fine, I'm sure it plays great, I'm just saying it was definitely a different feel.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

What's with the assertion that "filmic" has to be about fps? A 60game fps game can have "filmic"has action, camera angles and pacing. If people say a game is like a film, are they really referring to the fps?

 

[msdstc]

What's with the assertion that "filmic" has to be about fps? A 60game fps game can have "filmic"has action, camera angles and pacing. If people say a game is like a film, are they really referring to the fps?

Obviously there is more to it, but generally when discussing the term it brings up the 24p conversation that achieves the motion you see in movies. I know there's a lot more to it than that, however that is the one that stands out most when you look for info on it.

 

[Thrakier]

You don't have to explain it to me I absolutely get it, however I'm only arguing the fact that when a developer says they prefer the asthetic of 30FPS for the cinematic look, it's not absurd. I can't claim I know everything that goes into it, but what I do know, is that TLOU at 30 FPS vs. 60 FPS has a more cinematic feel from what I've seen, that is subjective, but it's not ridiculous to suggest it.

It's super ridiculous. You are defending your emotional attachement to something you are used to by trying to act rational and bringing something from a completly different, non-interactive medium into play, which is, as a bonus point, completly different produced. The comparison is completly flawed and RAD should be ashamed to go down this PR-route. I think their PSP efforts were amazing, but shit like that makes me upset. Are they just bullshitting us or do they not know any better? If the latter is true, they can't be very competent developers/gamers.

TLOU at 60FPS and native resolution would be a better game, because it would play much, MUCH better. The gameplay as it's core isn't bad in the PS3 version, it's just not enjoyable, because the framerate gets between the player and the interaction. If you can feel and name it and if you are bothered by it is completly up to what you are used to and which experience you had before. Still, and in any case, everyone will agree on that once he/she perceived the difference on a direct comparison. There is a difference between "people are ok with it" and "it's a great product/great craftmanship". This is constantly confused in this 30FPS/60FPS discussions. If the lowest common determiner is your measure for quality - how do you want to evolve? It's not possible.

 

[Horp]

I like em and apparently the majority of the gaming media and gamers in general... just so happened to top most people goty list last year. The game was gorgeous give me a break, and I've seen the 60FPS clips and it looked fine, I'm sure it plays great, I'm just saying it was definitely a different feel.

I like tlou too. But not because it was 30 fps of course. Same applies to everyone else so whats your point. Of course most of those people would have preferred the same game but with 60 fps. In fact with 60 fps you can have higher quality motion blur, getting much closer to a cinematic look.

 

[msdstc]

It's super ridiculous. You are defending your emotional attachement to something you are used to by trying to act rational and bringing something from a completly different, non-interactive medium into play, which is, as a bonus point, completly different produced. The comparison is completly flawed and RAD should be ashamed to go down this PR-route. I think their PSP efforts were amazing, but shit like that makes me upset. Are they just bullshitting us or do they not know any better? If the latter is true, they can't be very competent developers/gamers.

TLOU at 60FPS and native resolution would be a better game, because it would play much, MUCH better. The gameplay as it's core isn't bad in the PS3 version, it's just not enjoyable, because the framerate gets between the player and the interaction. If you can feel and name it and if you are bothered by it is completly up to what you are used to and which experience you had before. Still, and in any case, everyone will agree on that once he/she perceived the difference on a direct comparison. There is a difference between "people are ok with it" and "it's a great product/great craftmanship". This is constantly confused in this 30FPS/60FPS discussions. If the lowest common determiner is your measure for quality - how do you want to evolve? It's not possible.

The hyperbole. You are in the great minority to think the game plays "not bad". what if we want to evolve by seeing better effects and visuals? 30FPS can provide that. I'm going off on a tangent with that though, which strays from the point of my argument.

It's not objective, but in general the majority of people would agree if you put something side by side, that 60FPS has less emotional impact when it comes to film, I'm assuming, but it's as close to a guarantee as I could get.

I like tlou too. But not because it was 30 fps of course. Same applies to everyone else so whats your point. Of course most of those people would have preferred the same game but with 60 fps. In fact with 60 fps you can have higher quality motion blur, getting much closer to a cinematic look.

I'm just flipping it to be a dick to be honest, but saying I like 30fps judder better is a short sighted statement. I've said it my favorite FPS is quake iii, but I'm just defending the statement that a lower FPS creates a different feel, that is more suitable for different situations, I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that. The webms released of TLOU at 60FPS looked strange, and the emotion and atmosphere was different in the shot, it's subjective, but a lot of people agreed with that.

 

[Feindflug]

Well, that's the thing. I used to think 60FPS is supposed to look more real, but I'm not sure that's necessarily the case actually.

Try it: if you move your head around, you don't really perceive the continuous perfectly even fluidity of a game camera moving at a high framerate. It in fact looks kind of stuttery, as your eyes fixate for milliseconds on different points in space as you look around. I'm almost positive this is why people think 60FPS looks 'sped-up' or whatever.


While the controller responsiveness is reduced, it doesn't have to be by much at all. The best case 30FPS controller responsiveness is only slightly worse than the usual case 60FPS game controller responsiveness. It especially doesn't matter much on slower moving games. Like for example, Limbo was 30FPS on X360 and it was perfectly playable. On the other hand, something that scrolls fast like Resogun, feels like garbage at 30FPS (if you play it remote over Vita). So game design factors into this a lot.

Limbo was not running at 30fps, it was 60fps and actually the high frame-rate helped a lot making the animations look amazing in places.

 

[-tetsuo-]

Once again, the framerate has no bearing on if a game looks like film or not. Take a game that does not look like a film at 60fps, drop it to 24fps and guess what... it still won't look like a film. The look you are asking about is achieved through post processing.

 

[msdstc]

Once again, the framerate has no bearing on if a game looks like film or not. Take a game that does not look like a film at 60fps, drop it to 24fps and guess what... it still won't look like a film. The look you are asking about is achieved through post processing.

Uhh I've seen side by sides of the same game at two different framerates, and they clearly have a different feel. I'll agree that there is more than just framerate, but framerate will have a significant impact.

 

[Eusis]

It's not objective, but in general the majority of people would agree if you put something side by side, that 60FPS has less emotional impact when it comes to film, I'm assuming, but it's as close to a guarantee as I could get.

Soap operas.

 

[Horp]

I'm just flipping it to be a dick to be honest, but saying I like 30fps judder better is a short sighted statement. I've said it my favorite FPS is quake iii, but I'm just defending the statement that a lower FPS creates a different feel, that is more suitable for different situations, I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that. The webms released of TLOU at 60FPS looked strange, and the emotion and atmosphere was different in the shot, it's subjective, but a lot of people agreed with that.

You're saying that you prefer 30 fps because it looks more "filmic" according to you.
I'm fine with everything if you would stay here.
But then you go ahead and say that 30 fps in fact is more filmic. Then you explain that the reason for that is that movies are 24 fps, and 30 is closer to 24 than 60 is.
That's where I come in, because I don't agree.
Movies are perfectly motion blurred 24 fps, which gives a smooth experience. There is no choppyness; the resulting animation is completely smooth.
You know what else is (almost) completely smooth, just like movies?
60 fps games.
You know what aren't?
30 fps games.
Thus, 30 fps games might look more filmic according to you, but it's not closer to movie-like animation; in fact it's the other way around.

 

[msdstc]

Soap operas.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing here.

 

[Oersted]

The hyperbole. You are in the great minority to think the game plays "not bad". what if we want to evolve by seeing better effects and visuals? 30FPS can provide that. I'm going off on a tangent with that though, which strays from the point of my argument.

It's not objective, but in general the majority of people would agree if you put something side by side, that 60FPS has less emotional impact when it comes to film, I'm assuming, but it's as close to a guarantee as I could get.



I'm just flipping it to be a dick to be honest, but saying I like 30fps judder better is a short sighted statement. I've said it my favorite FPS is quake iii, but I'm just defending the statement that a lower FPS creates a different feel, that is more suitable for different situations, I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that. The webms released of TLOU at 60FPS looked strange, and the emotion and atmosphere was different in the shot, it's subjective, but a lot of people agreed with that.

You keep shouting that complete wrong dichotomy. It is not 60 fps or 30 fps. 30 fps is not filmic btw.
Secondly, films are shot atleast at 2k. Why are they not aiming for a cinematic experience which delivers emotions and atmosphere better?

 

[msdstc]

You're saying that you prefer 30 fps because it looks more "filmic" according to you.
I'm fine with everything if you would stay here.
But then you go ahead and say that 30 fps in fact is more filmic. Then you explain that the reason for that is that movies are 24 fps, and 30 is closer to 24 than 60 is.
That's where I come in, because I don't agree.
Movies are perfectly motion blurred 24 fps, which gives a smooth experience. There is no choppyness; the resulting animation is completely smooth.
You know what else is (almost) completely smooth, just like movies?
60 fps games.
You know what aren't?
30 fps games.
Thus, 30 fps games might look more filmic according to you, but it's not closer to movie-like animation; in fact it's the other way around.

I didn't say I prefer that universally, I'm saying it's a valid thought when somebody says they were going for it to achieve a more filmic look. I know it can be PR bullshit, but it's not as farfetched as it sounds. And movies aren't* completely smooth, at 60fps movies look ridiculous. Sure it could because of what we're used to, but that's how I and a lot of others feel.

 

[-tetsuo-]

Uhh I've seen side by sides of the same game at two different framerates, and they clearly have a different feel. I'll agree that there is more than just framerate, but framerate will have a significant impact.

If you are side by siding a game at 24 and 60fps, one feels like shit while the other one does not obviously.

 

[msdstc]

You keep shouting that complete wrong dichotomy. It is not 60 fps or 30 fps. 30 fps is not filmic btw.
Secondly, films are shot atleast at 2k. Why are they not aiming for a cinematic experience which delivers emotions and atmosphere better?

I'm saying from what I've seen and others have seen it has a different feel to it, that is an absolute fact. Some people might not experience that, and some people might not prefer it, but it factually exists. I know 30FPS isn't filmic, but it's closer than 60. A lot of independent filmmakers used 30 since 23.976 wasn't available at a consumer level until fairly recently, and it was as close as they could get.

 

[Thrakier]

The hyperbole. You are in the great minority to think the game plays "not bad". what if we want to evolve by seeing better effects and visuals? 30FPS can provide that. I'm going off on a tangent with that though, which strays from the point of my argument.

VIDEOGAMES consists of two words. VIDEO and GAMES. One word is unique to a digital medium, the other isn't. I'm focusing on the "game" part, you are focusing on the "video" part. That's a completly legit thing to do, sure. I think it's the wrong thing to do, because it dimnishes the mediums core strength, which is interaction (which is in the GAME part).

The webms released of TLOU at 60FPS looked strange, and the emotion and atmosphere was different in the shot, it's subjective, but a lot of people agreed with that.

Well, of course it is different, because it looks completly different. But the difference only exsists in comparison and in relation to what you are used to. In a perfect test scenarion, I'm pretty sure the group only fed 60FPS movies and the other group being fed 24FPS movies all the time, without any comparison, the emotional responses would be exactly the same.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

I didn't say I prefer that universally, I'm saying it's a valid thought when somebody says they were going for it to achieve a more filmic look. I know it can be PR bullshit, but it's not as farfetched as it sounds. And movies are completely smooth, at 60fps movies look ridiculous. Sure it could because of what we're used to, but that's how I and a lot of others feel.

If The Order or any game that runs at 30fps could achieve its visuals at 60fps, they would make it 60fps. Everything after that point is PR bullshit. Not saying that 30fps is the end of the world and unplayable, because it's not...but they wouldn't cap the framerate if they had the performance or ability to do the same exact game at 60fps.

 

[Horp]

I didn't say I prefer that universally, I'm saying it's a valid thought when somebody says they were going for it to achieve a more filmic look. I know it can be PR bullshit, but it's not as farfetched as it sounds. And movies are completely smooth, at 60fps movies look ridiculous. Sure it could because of what we're used to, but that's how I and a lot of others feel.

But I'm saying its not fine. Because its not more filmic, it's just more choppy. The Order 1886 looks nice because it has some nice motion blur going on, but if they had the same amount of motion blur and 60 fps it would look even more smooth; thus even more cinematic. It's far more doable to smudge the frames of a 60 fps game to make it close to the look in a movie, than it is from using just 30 frames per second.
"30 fps because yada yada filmic" is just PR bullshit. If they had gone with less eye candy and 60 fps they would say "60 fps because it's so smooth and fluid". They are selling a product.

 

[Eusis]

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing here.

They're entertainment made for cheap emotional string pulling and excitement. 60 fps in and of itself will not weaken emotional impact except for maybe the initial shock of seeing a scene animated that way, and any random strange change would be distracting. Or bad associations, as soap operas arguably are.

EDIT: Worth remembering too that most if not all soap operas in NA were 60 fps. It's why motion interpolation gets the "soap opera effect" nickname.

 

[Zeth]

I'm saying from what I've seen and others have seen it has a different feel to it, that is an absolute fact. Some people might not experience that, and some people might not prefer it, but it factually exists. I know 30FPS isn't filmic, but it's closer than 60. A lot of independent filmmakers used 30 since 23.976 wasn't available at a consumer level until fairly recently, and it was as close as they could get.

The comparisons to film and photography just do not work. They are not the same. There's no simpler way to say it I think.

 

[MrCunningham]

Interlaced footage on a big theatre screen? That must look terrifying. It's bad enough on smaller, progressive displays.

Yeah, 60i is really just 30FPS with interlacing images. It' would look terrible on a cinematic screen.. VHS uses a 12.7mm film format, which is rather low resolution when compared to a non-digital film that was shot on a typical 35mm film stock.

 

[Oersted]

I'm saying from what I've seen and others have seen it has a different feel to it, that is an absolute fact. Some people might not experience that, and some people might not prefer it, but it factually exists. I know 30FPS isn't filmic, but it's closer than 60. A lot of independent filmmakers used 30 since 23.976 wasn't available at a consumer level until fairly recently, and it was as close as they could get.

So the best way to deliver the cinematic experience is combining the worst out of the 2 worlds, sub-HD and low framerate?

 

[heyf00L]

I like em and apparently the majority of the gaming media and gamers in general... just so happened to top most people goty list last year. The game was gorgeous give me a break, and I've seen the 60FPS clips and it looked fine, I'm sure it plays great, I'm just saying it was definitely a different feel.

I didn't know naming TLOU as GOTY meant "I prefer 30 fps over 60 fps".

 

[Alcoholikaust]

I have a feeling MGSV's in-engine cutscenes will not look any less "cinematic" running at 60 frames per second.

 

[msdstc]

VIDEOGAMES consists of two words. VIDEO and GAMES. One word is unique to a digital medium, the other isn't. I'm focusing on the "game" part, you are focusing on the "video" part. That's a completly legit thing to do, sure. I think it's the wrong thing to do, because it dimnishes the mediums core strength, which is interaction (which is in the GAME part).



Well, of course it is different, because it looks completly different. But the difference only exsists in comparison and in relation to what you are used to. In a perfect test scenarion, I'm pretty sure the group only fed 60FPS movies and the other group being fed 24FPS movies all the time, without any comparison, the emotional responses would be exactly the same.

We don't know that for sure, but I can get behind that. Besides some people want one thing from a game, others want something different. I like a little bit of both. I'll take forza at 60FPS, but I'll also take Driveclub with it's unbelievable visuals at 30FPS for 2 different experiences. This isn't my argument really that brings it back to what the reason the majority of developers go 30, is because they can achieve amazing visuals at lower framerates.

If The Order or any game that runs at 30fps could achieve its visuals at 60fps, they would make it 60fps. Everything after that point is PR bullshit.

I don't necassarily believe this is true across the board, but I believe that about 99% of the time it's true. My argument (as I said I'm playing devils advocate), is that it's simply not as ridiculous as people are making. I know that if I made my own game that was more driven by story than gameplay, I might consider my options, especially regarding the presentation of the visuals.

 

[msdstc]

So the best way to deliver the cinematic experience is combining the worst out of the 2 worlds, sub-HD and low framerate?

How the hell did you come to this conclusion?

The comparisons to film and photography just do not work. They are not the same. There's no simpler way to say it I think.

I can't believe this is still becoming a thing. I KNOW THIS. That being said I've seen games at 30 and at a 60 and I can see why 30 may be an artistic choice for some. I'm not exactly sure why some people can't get that, but hey it is what it is.

I didn't know naming TLOU as GOTY meant "I prefer 30 fps over 60 fps".

and I didn't know that either, because the post you're quoting, is a response that accused my of prefering 30FPS for that very reason.