AC: Unity's devs: 60FPS doesn't look real and is less cinematic, 30FPS feels better

Sanctuary said:
It didn't unless you like the cheap soap opera/live recording look that completely destroys the "film" look. No one that I went with to see the HFR version liked it at all, and we actually all went back a second time to see the standard version. Regardless, him comparing an HFR movie to a video game is beyond stupid. They aren't the same medium at all.
Click to expand...

Idiots. What intrinsic value does the "film" look hold? What's cheap about higher framerate? Dumb associations are the viewer's own fault.
 
Sn4ke_911 said:
Why is it that Kojima and his team are one of the only developers who understand why 60FPS are so goddamn important?

2014-10-0819_56_57-twheckv.png




Seriously, fuck this industry and all the lazy developers like Ubisoft.
Click to expand...

You can add ND to that list as well.

"We hope so," Gregory said. "It used to just be that first-person shooters were 60 by default, but a lot of other games didn't feel the need for it. I think we're showing that it does make a difference even in a non-FPS type game. And one question that's been fielded on Twitter as a follow-up to the 60 Hz, is whether or not we're always at 1080p. Some games have been doing the whole adaptive resolution where they change the resolution based on what's going on. We are always at 1080p."

fake edit -

Ubisoft PR team right now -

panicking-cat.gif
 
I'll speak as the "casual" fan here. Will it still look cool? Will I still be awesome early on in the game? Then, I'm still likely buying it. Sorry.
 
Did people complain when Shadow of the Colossus or The Last of Us or Ground Zeroes became 60fps? Those are meant to be slower 3rd person action adventure that would "feel weird" like the Hobbit movies according to these people. Would people complain if The Order 1886 somehow became 60fps eventually, despite the developers wanting that black bar cinematic thing going? The Evil Within? RE 4?

Just shut up, Ubisoft developers. Have no idea what happens to people when they're employed there.
 
Why would a dev of such caliber say something like this? Weren't they paying attention when the same situation popped up with DmC?
 
What if AC:Unity is actually a new direction in the series and it's in fact an interactive movie? That would explain everything. They could even add black bars to increase the cinematic feeling.

Or maybe this is even the AC movie.
 
 
I do wish companies would stop saying this. If you can't get 60fps or don't want to then just be honest about it, relying on this misinformation really isn't the way to go.
 
 
Sn4ke_911 said:
Yep, it seems like Naughty Dog and Kojima Productions are the only devs who understand the importance of 60FPS and really try to move the game industry forward.
Click to expand...

I think you could add a few more to that list. 343i have taken the entire Halo franchise to 60fps and various COD devs always push 60fps. I do recall one of the CoD devs saying something along the lines of "60fps is our competitive advantage".
 
Nice thing to wake up to. Ubisoft is killing it, aren't they?

Next thing they will tell us is, that their games are actually optimized on PC... oh wait...
 
Naughty Dog, Kojima Productions and 343 Industries are all going 60FPS this gen. Two of those are without doubt the biggest 'cinematic game' developers in the entire industry, and they both clearly think the '30FPS is more cinematic' argument is complete bullshit. What more proof do you need?

There's nothing wrong with saying "We chose 30FPS because a PS4 can't render 60 frames a second of all these people and tall buildings and shit at our chosen level of graphical fidelity". There's no reason to sit there and lie about how a sub-HD resolution and shaky 25ishFPS framerate are somehow better for the experience.
 
Hastati said:
I'm off videogames for awhile, but is the UPlay client still a thing that actually exists?

If so, is it as terribly terrible as it was when they first started using it? I honestly don't understand why these companies insist on launching their own distribution platforms, since none of them seem to know what the fuck they are doing with design/implementation/customer support/platormception of having to open them up inside of each other.
Click to expand...

Eh, it's okay.

Because of the shitty way EA and Ubisoft handle their Steam releases nowadays (the former refuses to release games on there, the latter just makes you use Uplay even if you launch from Steam) I've stopped resisting and have been using their clients for a while now. Origin has improved alot and has actually become a worthy Steam-competitor, it even has advantages like a money-back guarantee f you don't like the game and regular free games like PS+ (Dragon Age: Origins is free at the moment for example, forever yours to keep). Uplay isn't anything special and I'd take Steam or Origin over it any day, but it functions like its supposed to. Other than the Uplay rewards, fun little pieces of DLC for getting achievements (a system I enjoy somewhat), there isn't any reason to use it. If Ubisoft wasn't forcing it on everyone nobody would keep it, but as it is I don't really mind it either (excepy for it essentially being DRM on top of your DRM if you buy a Steam-version of a Ubisoft game, that's just awful).
 
GrizzNKev said:
KojiPro, ND, DICE, 343, and many more do in fact get it. Explanations like ubi's become more and more bullshit every day.
Click to expand...

Oh right knew I was missing a few. 343 especially given how they announced Halo 5. Yh the industry moving away from 60fps is nonsense in non shooters it's funny he uses a quote from Insomniac games which is a couple of years old.
 
Hypron said:
The "only devs"... Are you serious?
Click to expand...

There aren't many. Unless you want to count indie devs making games that would run at 60fps on a graphing calculator.
 
Is Ubisoft on some kind of PR crash test these days? To see how far they can push before it breaks or something?
 
For all curious, given that Planck time measures at roughly 10^-43 seconds, it should be pretty obvious that real life runs at framerate of 5,391,063,232,323,232,323,232,323,232,323,232,323,232,323 Hz.

Let's see Ubi try and reach that value. :)
 
Knurek said:
For all curious, given that Planck time measures at roughly 10^-43 seconds, it should be pretty obvious that real life runs at framerate of 5,391,063,232,323,232,323,232,323,232,323,232,323,232,323 Hz.

Let's see Ubi try and reach that value. :)
Click to expand...

image.php
 
I agree with Ubisoft, but they are not really doing enough to make make it feel cinematic. I for one detest these all-digital images. They should render to 35mm film in 2.35:1 aspect ratio to give it that feeling of an epic movie. Quentin Tarantino isn't shooting his films on digital, why should my cinematic game experiences be digital?
 
Apologies for a silly question, but whenever I hear stories about developers deciding between 30 or 60 FPS, part of the issue seems to be that the higher the frame rate, the more processing power required so that it can render those images at said frame rate. I believe the developers of The Order said they chose 30 FPS so they could make the game look prettier at the cost of a high frame rate.

If that's the case, is there a reason why more developers don't compromise at 48 FPS? Does it have something to do with most monitors/TVs having refresh rates of 30 or 60 Hz?
 
glaurung said:
As far as I understand, Ubisoft is carrying on with the firm belief that they are doing everything right.

For them this isn't even a PR issue. gg
Click to expand...

How long can they bury their head in the sand is the question. It reflects poorly on them.
 
Messofanego said:
Did people complain when Shadow of the Colossus or The Last of Us or Ground Zeroes became 60fps? Those are meant to be slower 3rd person action adventure...
Click to expand...

Funnily Metal Gear Solid was a 60hz series until MGS3. 1 does look a little bit funky I'll agree (PS One presentation not refresh rate) but go fire up MGS2 on even a PS2 and it's 60hz (well 50hz but time adjusted for us Europeans). 3 did look spectacular in its day but playing it at 60hz finally in the HD Collection a couple of years back you can really feel as well as see the advantage of a higher refresh.

End of the day games aren't a passive experience like cinema.
 
I'm sorry Nicolas Guérin and Alex Amancio, movies look already better in higher framerate to me and the 30 frames judder is irritating in games, get with the times!
 
They couldn't achieve 60FPS why not say that? Just say there is too many objects/characters on screen that we don't want to lower so that is why we are decided to go with 30FPS. It is simple and rational explanation. This way they are just damaging their reputation talking this nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hardware is becoming less and less relevant in gaming
2 3
135
490
rodrigolfp replied
AC Shadows Title Update 1.0.2 - Includes PSSR, Removes 30fps cap in hideout
2 3 4 5 6
297
15K
Topher replied
30fps enough for you?
2 3 4 5 6
279
1K
Hector Hall replied
Doesn't look like Switch 2 will be scarce at launch?
2
69
3K
Same ol G replied
GTA 6 will run at 30fps on console, former GTA 5 and Red Dead Redemption 2 animator expects, and your best shot at 60fps may be hoping for PC
News Drama Game Dev  2 3 4 5
204
9K
ReyBrujo replied
Top Bottom