What's the fact again? Anyone can believe whatever the hell they want when it comes to something like this. I don't always prefer, never claimed to, I'm just saying it definitely has a different feel for different games, and I can see where it would work nicely.
In defense of the "filmic" look.
- Thread starter msdstc
- Start date
What's the fact again? Anyone can believe whatever the hell they want when it comes to something like this. I don't always prefer, never claimed to, I'm just saying it definitely has a different feel for different games, and I can see where it would work nicely.
Man, I wish I could have seen The Hobbit in 48fps, but it wasn't available at my theater I went to with friends.
Saw Godzilla last weekend, and thought at one point that it seemed a little choppy, but it was focused largely on a monster shot at the time. With all this talk of exposure and whatnot here, makes me wonder if film CG doesn't get the benefit of movie motion blur since it isn't actually in the shot, hence why it looked a little off to me.
I'll just say I'm currently in the camp of wanting to see movies go 60fps. People say soap operas look cheap because they're 60fps, but I'd say soap operas look more realistic from a technical perspective and much more like the actors are in front of me, but the rest of it (acting, directing, camera changes, all of that stuff) is what makes it seem cheap.
Another thing I saw in this thread was someone saying that if you turn your head fast it's kinda choppy, because you focus on things along the way. Well, I can turn my head fairly quickly without focusing on things and then I don't really have this issue, seems smooth enough. It does blur a little, but I turn motion blur off when I can in games, I don't really care for effects that are trying to simulate something my eyes are already doing (or monitor).
I forgot, as an aside, what are people's thoughts on film grain effects in here? I generally turn it off, except in rare cases (house of the dead overkill and such, clearly trying to be grindhouse movies). Just doesn't seem like it adds anything to games for me at all.
I was extremely disappointed in the movie regardless, but the 48fps might have been interesting enough for me to really say I've seen a movie in 48
I'll just say I'm currently in the camp of wanting to see movies go 60fps. People say soap operas look cheap because they're 60fps, but I'd say soap operas look more realistic from a technical perspective and much more like the actors are in front of me, but the rest of it (acting, directing, camera changes, all of that stuff) is what makes it seem cheap.
Another thing I saw in this thread was someone saying that if you turn your head fast it's kinda choppy, because you focus on things along the way. Well, I can turn my head fairly quickly without focusing on things and then I don't really have this issue, seems smooth enough. It does blur a little, but I turn motion blur off when I can in games, I don't really care for effects that are trying to simulate something my eyes are already doing (or monitor).
I forgot, as an aside, what are people's thoughts on film grain effects in here? I generally turn it off, except in rare cases (house of the dead overkill and such, clearly trying to be grindhouse movies). Just doesn't seem like it adds anything to games for me at all.
If only people understood the programming effort it takes to have locked 60 fps on multiple platforms/consoles.
and with next-gen revolutionary graphics too ? Unless it's a sim/fighting game, those expectations are unrealistic.
State-of-the-edge graphics: <=30
Fluidity without optimal graphics: 60
Both: Santa Claus
and with next-gen revolutionary graphics too ? Unless it's a sim/fighting game, those expectations are unrealistic.
State-of-the-edge graphics: <=30
Fluidity without optimal graphics: 60
Both: Santa Claus
I'd say most people understand that, therefore questioning the priorities of debelopers.
And one time when I had really really high fever, I felt that my bed was flying in circles around my bedroom. I would never say your bed is guaranteed to do that, but the perception does in fact exist.
It doesn't take any programming effort to run a game at 60fps. 60 fps is what things run at by default. It only takes effort when devs are hung up on graphics and try to do the impossible by optimizing the fuck out of the engine, failing miserably, and then capping to 30fps. As someone said above, everyone already understands the tradeoff (except the OP apparently,) people are questioning the developers motives. Personally I think almost any developer that prioritizes graphics to the point where they are willing to kneecap the fluidity of motion and the quality of the gameplay to get them into the game are talentless hacks, so I don't buy their games.
Acid + High Fever = "filmic" bed flying shenanigans.
LegendofDragoonLives
Member
What priorities, nearly all 3rd person action adventure games are 30 fps on consoles? What is new about this game that's so different?
If you guys love 60fps so much and have so much of a priority on it, stick to PCs because they will deliver.
What?
The fact is that 30 fps in video games is less "filmic" than 60 fps.
This is something you argued against, and instead of admitting you were wrong when presented with the facts, you try to move the goal post into some wishy-washy everything-is-subjective bullshit. It stinks.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
On PC yes, but I'm pretty sure the game was 30FPS on X360, PS3, Vita and Ipad. Ir runs 60 on Iphone 5 though. Developers actually made a point when the game came out on PC that it will be 60FPS for the first time.
Shush! The Acid had nothing to do with it, I swear!
Data Elemental
Member
Have you tried making a game before? Because I don't think you have, somehow.
Surely it's not new or something specific about The Order. It's something that's annoying in general. Sure you can play on PC, but you will miss out on exclusives.
NullPointer
Member
Sounds like appropriate effort for the $60 asking price, on top of the $400-500 console price, peripherals and subscription plans.
Its been done in all kinds of games and it can still be done in all kinds of games. Being difficult isn't really the greatest of excuses, especially when considering the creativity and devilish smarts in the gaming development community.
If you can lock a game to 30fps you can lock a game to 60fps, with tradeoffs made of course.
Adam_Roman
Member
Games are great at 60fps, but they're fine at 30fps too. 30 is completely fine for me. I'm thoroughly enjoying Watch Dogs on PS4 at 30fps right now. I feel like sub-30 is where it becomes problematic. Control and response time is definitely different at 30fps than 60fps, but when it gets lower than that, it takes a pretty big toll.
Also, it starts to get hard to follow the action under 30. That's why I loved seeing The Hobbit in 48fps, because it made the action sequences so much more fluid and easy to follow. Normally I have a hard time following fast-paced action scenes when watching a movie in theaters, especially in 3D (The Avengers was so hard for me to watch in 3D), but the frame rate completely alleviated that problem.
30fps is fine, but 60's still preferable, and I will always find higher frame rates more enjoyable, even if the game's supposed to be "cinematic". I have no doubt that The Last of Us will still feel very cinematic on PS4 if they reach their 60fps target.
Also, it starts to get hard to follow the action under 30. That's why I loved seeing The Hobbit in 48fps, because it made the action sequences so much more fluid and easy to follow. Normally I have a hard time following fast-paced action scenes when watching a movie in theaters, especially in 3D (The Avengers was so hard for me to watch in 3D), but the frame rate completely alleviated that problem.
30fps is fine, but 60's still preferable, and I will always find higher frame rates more enjoyable, even if the game's supposed to be "cinematic". I have no doubt that The Last of Us will still feel very cinematic on PS4 if they reach their 60fps target.
Real life doesn't have a framerate. Information, from our eyes, is passed to the brain continuously. If you're stating that real life is comparable to 24 fps, then try to explain why there is a difference between 24/30/60/120 fps.
Look at his post history, he's joking around or lost his mind.
Note I said in instances like this, meaning art or the way you perceive it. Some people might actually like the aesthetic and motion of something at 30 fps, how the hell does that compare to you saying your bed flew?
What are you talking about? I never moved the goal posts, I'm stating the fact, that some people see 30 FPS as a more film/cinematic/movie like aesthetic, or filmic or however the hell you want to word it.
edit- If you want I can post countless examples of people saying they prefer 30FPS. Now again, I'm not saying I agree with that, but all I'm saying is, it creates a different aesthetic, and is potentially an artistic choice for developer. I don't understand how people aren't getting this. 60FPS is not objectively "more filmic" than 30FPS or vice versa.
LegendofDragoonLives
Member
Lets call all AAA dev teams that make 3rd person action adventure games and tell them all to stop making games that way and cater to a very small crowd of people because they prefer it. The developers enjoy and want 30fps and most people are for it as well. I really don't get the point of repeating (ie. whining) over this in every topic, thread, with hundreds of posts as if we don't understand the loud minority that want their games catered to them.
You guys are past the 10th broken record going on about this over and over again.
Naughty Dog
Bungie
Insomniac
SSM
RAD
Capcom
Nintendo
Ea
Ubisoft
etc
Are all talentless hacks
SMG1 and 2
TLOU
Uncharted
Halo
Resistance
Gears of War
God of War
RDR
GTA
The list goes on are all excellent games at 30fps. You're really missing out if you truly believe what you said.
When Call of Duty sells 10+ million reliably and most others struggle to get that high I seriously question that. Granted there's GTA, but that has the gameplay/scope excuse and I don't think a 60 fps open world game on consoles is going to be a pretty sight. Best you could probably hope for is something that looks like Minecraft. or GTAIII-SA.
For that matter I actually do question how successful the linear, story driven shooter model really is. It seems very much like the kind of game that typically aims at the mainstream core gamer, and there's been successes there but it also seems there's been a lot of flops, even from games that had what would normally be pretty good sales!
Kssio_Aug
Member
Well, almost every casual player I know buy Call of Dutty and/or Battefield for their consoles, and Im sure that they dont know anything about the frame rate theyre experiencing. That said, I dont think COD appeals for that number of players because it is 60fps at all. Much of that number comes by the name (already a popular series) and the rest because of its "simple" and direct online gameplay set on non-fictional worlds.
The most successful games on 360 were 30fps lol, of the top 10 you had 2 GTA games, 3 gears of war games, and also multiple halo games.
edit- this is not me saying I prefer 30FPS, this is me on a tangent saying FPS does not affect sales, this is pretty clear.
LegendofDragoonLives
Member
I'm talking about the people playing 3rd person action adventure, most people seem to be fine. The less than 1% that's louder than 99%+ however, doesn't seem to be and they want to make it know in every topic, every conversation that's ever started on about it, repeating it over and over again. In regards to COD, I'd argue twitch FPS shooters and racing games need it more than anything else, other than some fighting games as well.
You want 60fps games only but want the games in consoles to all follow that footstep as well.
i'm p sure smg1 and 2 are 60fps, and that nintendo frequently targets 60fps (for a reason)
Brofist
Member
The most successful games on the Xbox 360 were not the most successful because they were 30 fps, nor because they looked "filmic".
Half of those developers you listed are scrambling to release remastered 60 fps versions of previous generation games for the new consoles. What does that say about 30 fps being "filmic" as opposed to a necessity out of limitations.
I may be off on those... not sure, but I could've sworn at the very least SMG 1 ran at 30fps. Also there is no chance in hell Ocarina runs 60fps.
Did you miss my edit or can you not read?! God damn, I specifically said I'm only arguing the post above saying that sales are affected by frame rate.
Brofist
Member
Take a deep breath, you've been running in circles in this topic. I'm pretty sure you have no idea the point you are trying to make anymore.
Cinematic, movies movies movies, 24fps. For fuck's sake, video games are not movies, never were, never will. If you want a cinematic feel go watch a movie, or start only playing Quantic Dream shitty games. Even if that "cinematic feel" nonsense was a thing, it'd still be used as a dumb excuse for their inability to make it 60fps, like in this case
LegendofDragoonLives
Member
The main reason developers make excuses to the press is because they're tired of hearing the 60fps crowd whine so much. They might as well minimize the amount these people spaz out, and I can't really blame them.
entremet
Member
Both galaxy games are 60. Zelda games gave been 30fps on consoles for a bit. The n64 Zeldas were sub 30FPS.
Nintendo has been targeting 60fps of late with the WiiU.
plagiarize
Banned
I can say with no hesitation that I have played GTA games, Mario Galaxy and Halo 1 and 2 at 60 fps and they played better, and they weren't less filmic.
And I have zero regrets about waiting for the 60 fps version of last of us.
And I have zero regrets about waiting for the 60 fps version of last of us.
Don't put words into my mouth, though if you took my implication about GTA being fine at 30 or even a bit less you'd see I'm not rabidly for all games being 60 anyway, mainly calling into question how much people want 30 fps from your post.
... And anyways in response to that and the other posts: to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if most people just don't care so long as it plays well, though this probably is a key reason CoD's dominating for MP while other games don't seem to stand up as well on consoles. I also do think that with the current power of hardware you could probably get some really nice graphics at 60 fps, I certainly really liked Tomb Raider playing at 30-60 fps rather than just being 30-with-dips. For games that don't have a large gameplay scope or are meant to be graphical showpieces it would be nice to more regularly see them at 60 fps, and given that motion interpolation is a common feature on TV I actually do wonder if a lot of people would want that (assuming they don't just turn the damn feature on and go "THIS IS SMOOTH" to games that shouldn't have it.)
SMG1 and 2 absolutely were 60 fps, though Super Mario Sunshine wasn't and no 3D Zelda was before A Link Between Worlds. And while Ocarina wasn't 60 on 3DS either I don't think you can blame ANYONE for failing to reach 60 fps during the 32-bit days: you needed a very simplistic game or use some clever tricks to actually hit that fps, something like Tobal No. 1 or F-Zero X hit it but otherwise you'd be lucky to hit 30 fps, more commonly hitting somewhere in the 20s. It's why I can be accepting of 30 fps but can get irritated when games go lower on newer hardware: we should be well past that, and if your game falters I really hope you're either doing something that grand in scope (like an open world game) or just aren't that technically proficient, and failing that at least mask it well or otherwise not register as obvious for whatever reason. Crysis 2 bugged me way more than The Last of Us ever did in that regard for some reason, maybe it's partially the third person camera, or the fact it's slow-yet-careful and a lot of it can be just figuring out how to get around terrain rather than shootouts.
EDIT:
Most are content to just say "we're doing it so the game looks better" and while some of us may grumble for one reason or another (it does kind of suck to have a developer good about that go "nah nevermind" or a series that had been great about that get put at 30, doubly so if it's not a good stable locked 30 they go for but more like "we'll target 30") this whole "we totally want it to feel like a film!" excuse is something new. I don't think any developer actually ever said that, maybe some would've said that for games like LA Noire given their aims, but the whole line of developer statements from RAD sound downright surreal, as if they're looking for EXACTLY the right things to rile up people online.
The last 30 fps mainline console mario game was sunshine back on gamecube (it was actually demoed at 60 before it was cut to 30 in the retail release for reasons unknown to me) All of them on console have basically been 60 since.
I'm sure it's not the developers who choose 30FPS with more graphical fidelity. In most cases it's the CEO/Marketing and it's a decision born out of monetary question. See Insomniac Games. "We absolutely believe in 60FPS and that it makes games better, but sales don't back it up and reviews don't, so we now do 30FPS with better graphics."
If you want THESE people, the execs and moneybags, to drive our industry, well, fine. But don't expect that great things come out of it.
And don't expect casuals/gamers without tech knowledge to voice their opinion about something they certainly notice, but can't describe. For them it's just "plays ok" or "plays great".
Of course 30FPS affect sales, because the game has a higher graphical fidelity, which can be shown via YouTube and screens whilst a difference in framerate can't - well, it can, but to really understand you would need to play the same game at 60FPS for 5 minutes and then instantly switch to 30FPS and then you'd puke. But that's more or less impossible to market. And because it's not a good selling point, marketing forces devs to use the lowest common determine for framerate and try to aim for the highest possible result in the graphics departement. It's a business decision and NOT a decision about what makes a game better. That's something you need to understand, these are two different discussions.
1.) What makes a game sell? (various factors, including graphical fidelty as a hughe bosster)
2.) What makes a game fun to play? (framerate here works as a base standard, to make fun possible - the higher, the better)
One thing i wan to mention is that rendering doesn't have the same limitations as physical cinematography.
When shooting with a real camera at 60FPS each frame's exposure time has to be below 1/60 which leads to a sharper image - less motion blur. When filming at 24FPS the exposure can be longer which makes the images look smother. I think this is a part of the cinematic look/feel.
But when rendering on a PC you can render @60FPS while still mimicking the look of a longer exposure time.
When shooting with a real camera at 60FPS each frame's exposure time has to be below 1/60 which leads to a sharper image - less motion blur. When filming at 24FPS the exposure can be longer which makes the images look smother. I think this is a part of the cinematic look/feel.
But when rendering on a PC you can render @60FPS while still mimicking the look of a longer exposure time.
Dictator93
Member
Indeed.
Hence the whole... one of many reasons why the whole "filmic argument" at 30 is hogwash.
Get ready for soap opera zombies!
EvilKatarn
Member
I honestly can't even play The Last of Us on PS3. After becoming so used to 60FPS because of mainly playing Gundam EXVSFB and other fighters for half a year, I just can't take 30FPS in a rather response-heavy game like TLoU.
You'd think it's just a dumb third person shooter but you really want to shoot the baddies in the brains, you know. And the combination of their inhuman animations and 30FPS just gets in the way to the point where it ruins the game for me.
This also drives home the point that video game rendering can be used to produce visual qualities that don't have any immediate counterpart in the human eye or existing camera techniques. Only trying to reproduce those is a needless limitation, just like insisting on telling a linear story with a fixed outcome.
I thought only the 3D version of the hobbit was in 48fps, 24fps for each eye.
For games I prefer 60fps with post processing to make the picture more natural, I duno why they haven't tried this with movies yet.
James Cameron Eyeing 60fps For 'Avatar 2]
SneakyStephan
Banned
Games are interactive, a lower framerate makes the controls unresponsive which makes it play like shit.
That is all that matters
That is all that matters
UncleCross
Member
That might be the dumbest statement I've read in a long time. Good job.
Well, what he probably meant is, start your engine on a 60FPS base and then add stuff till it starts dropping frames and if that happens, reduce stuff a bit and...done.
To be fair, you don't necessarily "start" at 60 with every game engine on every platform. Unreal 3, for example, has enough overhead that it's pretty strongly oriented toward running at 30 FPS games on last-gen consoles. Getting 60 FPS with that engine on those platforms actually does take extra work because it involves slimming down various default features to get the rendering time low enough.