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

This so stupid.

Do you know what doesn't look real either? Cinematic stuff. 60 fps doesn't look real, sure, but neither does 30... and 60 fps plays a hell of a lot better.

Hey, Ubisoft, you already told us that you were 30 fps because of your simulations etc. You've already told us that 30 fps is your target framerate for open world games.

Stick with that. At least it doesn't insult our intelligence.
 
What a joke company Ubisoft are at this point. I don't know how people with these sorts of opinions are making games. I probably wouldn't be picking this up on PC anyway but good to know they think that version will be less real and less cinematic.
 
What a load of crap.

Cinematic should refer to how the shots were being framed, directed, lit and edited.

Kind of like how a documentary doesn't look like a movie.

Enough of this high frame rate killing 'the feels', and now Paris doesn't look 'real' in your fictional story where you go around on fetch quests killing as long as you hide in a mound of hay your fine? I am not sure that looks real at any point in time.
 
My opinion is if a game has fast game-play then 60fps is optimal. The comment that action adventure doesn't need it, is dumb and if any action adventure has fast combat (shadows of Mordor) or if the game incorporates fast movement, via car/horse/anything then 60fps is again optimal. I do believe that a action/adventure game can function and play well at 30fps, if it's a bit more slow paced - like a stealth game, or even like The Last of Us, which is somewhat stealth - you get the idea.

BUT 60fps is what every game should be aiming for, and should be an option, even on console. Why not give the players (who are buying and playing the product) the option? I don't think any game should ever be compared to movies in relation to frames - incorporate your 'cinematic' ideas into the cut-scenes, where the image is 'static' and not controlled.

I remember reading one comment from a dev that said, if a game being developed can't reach 60fps, then its a major fail.
 
It really speaks of the bad faith influential people have in their own medium if they can only hope to legitimize it by reconciling it with another. It's very close to contempt.
 
Ubisoft PR department:

qUtK0.gif
 
What a joke company Ubisoft are at this point. I don't know how people with these sorts of opinions are making games. I probably wouldn't be picking this up on PC anyway but good to know they think that version will be less real and less cinematic.

Oh don't worry their games run like ass on PC so you'll need a lot of extra power to get to "not real mode" anyway.
 
Sigh, saying 60fps doesn't look like the real thing...

I swear, I'd boycott Ubisoft if I didn't alrady buy very few of their games, and only for bomba price.
 
These two must think that the people that care about this sort of technical details must be a pack of idiots. How can an actual game developer believe this bullshit?

What am I saying, these aren't game developers. They're barely above the thousands of nameless cogs in the annual AssCreed machine.
 
What I was getting at is you could understand 30fps if they were pushing both consoles to the max. Obviously higher res and FPS will always look better.

John Carmack and Durante (recently on a thread), both related(referenced) to the idea of untethering certain portions of the game which does different functions; onscreen and offscreen.

I hope Ubisoft actually tried to dig towards the idea and then worked towards the whats existing in the game. Simulations (and some non-priority-visual-functions) could be at lower update speeds while the Camera and player movement (super tricky) could be updated at high speeds, when you rotate or move the camera; it would still update faster, while everything in the game isn't updated at the same speed (same rate in a timeframe).
 
I remember someone said the same thing, was it Santa Monica Studio (SMS) when asked about why Order is 30fps?
 
I remember someone said the same thing, was it Santa Monica Studio (SMS) when asked about why Order is 30fps?
It was Ready at Dawn

http://kotaku.com/a-developers-defense-of-30-frames-per-second-1580194683
"60 fps is really responsive and really cool. I enjoy playing games in 60 fps," Jan told me. "But one thing that really changes is the aesthetic of the game in 60 fps. We're going for this filmic look, so one thing that we knew immediately was films run at 24 fps. We're gonna run at 30 because 24 fps does not feel good to play. So there's one concession in terms of making it aesthetically pleasing, because it just has to feel good to play."
 
Actually if a game has better physics and particle effects onscreen, its the best case scenario to have higher frame rates.

Example: AC:Unity has some amount of cloth physics, having the visual output of the cloth physics reacting at 60 or more updates per second on 60FPS will give a better visual experience than half the updates and half the FPS.

Its always a good thing to update anything dynamic (like physics or particle effects) at a faster rate and then display it the quickly onscreen.

I wouldnt say that Watch dogs Cloth physics flip the out big time when at 60 fps and moving fast for some reason
 
So they say they have it at 30fps to push everything to the maximum... and can't get 1080p?

I don't mind resolution wars and shit cause I'd rather play the damn game then count pixels but these guys are digging a hole for themselves.
 
Ubisoft sure is doing a great job at not getting debates going and stuff.

Hehe, yes.
To be frank, the way Ubisoft has treated the PC with its ports recently, it would be no surprise to me if their technical design briefs for titles like AC and Watch_dogs may specify in some fashion that a frame time of 33ms is the target.

Trying to make your game work nicely with a 16ms (or less) frame time could simply represent too much work for too little gain, from the perspective of certain policy makers in the company.

I can only hope that Far Cry 4, which looks very much like its using the Dunia 2 engine again with little in the way of new technology included, might behave nicely at 60+ fps. Either way, I will not be pre-ordering any Ubisoft PC game. Despite what they say publicly about the PC platform, they're very obviously making PC games to be played at 30fps with a joypad, which is not of interest to me personally.
I like that they include Gameworks features, but I'd rather they expend their effort making their games play to the platform's basic strengths.
 
They have a point though, the human eye sees moving pictures as one solid motion at around 24fps.
30fps is nice to have to have some leg room if the number drops.
60fps is just overkill, the human eye will still only be able to process it at a far lower fps rate, it's just a marketing gag.

Props to Ubisoft for not falling for that bs
 
Wow. Nobody?

All this anger, and yet no real knowledge of how difficult it may/may not be to achieve 60fps?

KojiKnight is correct - this isn't really the issue at hand. Regardless, a decent computer has been able to run equivalent games at 60+fps at 1080p no problem for a while now. Just look at Alien: Isolation. It's running at what, 30fps at 1080p while stepping into the PC performance thread will show computers, years old, smashing out 80+ fps. It's crazy.

Consoles are in this ridiculous spot where they're expected to be a certain price, and they're expected to constantly produce graphically more intense visuals every year. Thus, the first thing that suffers is framerate and IQ. Instead of just being up front and saying "Yes, we couldn't hit 60fps with these graphics and this hardware" they have to go ahead and bullshit us.
 
So which of these quotes is responsible for Dead Rising 3 PC 30fps lock, or The evil within 30 fps lock?

Edit: Do not forget The Crew 30 fps lock on PC ;)

Devs being assholes obviously. There's no reason to lock on PC, that's the exact opposite of the point of PC

There's no point to lock down the resolution on PS4 when we knew it can do better either.

Artificially capping folks so the others look better is ridiculous. I'm not trying to be naive about multiplatform development, i don't expect them to make super high end next next gen versions of games for PC players who have high end rigs, redoing all the assets and all that, but its just wrong to act like its even defensible to limit people's experience for political purposes..
 
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.

I remember Kazunori Yamauchi saying at some point that a game that doesn't run at 60fps isn't a real game. And afterwards when GT5 struggled to hit that mark he was quite apologetic about it.

Some devs obviously care, and I'd say, more than Kojima, whose last 60fps game, MGSV aside, was released in 2001. :P
 
They have a point though, the human eye sees moving pictures as one solid motion at around 24fps.
30fps is nice to have to have some leg room if the number drops.
60fps is just overkill, the human eye will still only be able to process it at a far lower fps rate, it's just a marketing gag.

Props to Ubisoft for not falling for that bs

Yves, stop browsing NeoGAF and go back to work.
 
It may qualify as a film due to definitions or whatever reason.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EluIdiuUuA
This however is not fluid in moition. Of course it's not real "stop motion" which is a method to animate lifeless objects. I did a stop motion movie once. Fun but veeeeeeeery tiring. Took forever to do a 15sec animation.

From WIkipedia:
"Thomas Edison said that 46 frames per second was the minimum need by the visual cortex: "Anything less will strain the eye."In the mid to late 1920s, the frame rate for silent films increased to between 20 and 26 FPS."

When sound film was introduced in 1926, variations in film speed were no longer tolerated as the human ear is more sensitive to changes in audio frequency. Many theaters had shown silent films at 22 to 26 FPS which is why 24 FPS was chosen for sound. From 1927 to 1930, as various studios updated equipment, the rate of 24 FPS became standard for 35 mm sound film. At 24 FPS the film travels through the projector at a rate of 456 millimetres (18.0 in) per second. This allowed for simple two-blade shutters to give a projected series of images at 48 per second, satisfying Edison's recommendation."

So okay. It was a mixture of taking a Edison recommendation and working around it with the technical limitations of the time. Other sources also talk of the trade off between quality and film cost.

I doubt Edisons "recommendation" had anything to do with it. Is that quote taken as a direct context to the standardization of 24fps?.
He was against talkies, remember? Father of the patent trolls, and credited as one of the biggest banes against movies in the beginning. He has a famous quote I remember hearing at film school about how he said he could see the acting being so much worse after films with sound became advent. Plus all the bullshit with Tesla. The movie industry hated him by the end, as he tried to sink the entire ship.



Maybe because not all actors are memorable? Just like you don't remember every actor from the 70s, every nfl player in history...? But the ones you mentioned are still remembered and beloved. So maybe it is because they were good and not the new technology? Good actors can adapt.


You seem very harsh in comparisons! I am saying that only a small handful of all the stars in Hollywood managed to make the transition from silent to sound. How can you even possible make an analogy of that, to remembering every actor from the 70s? That's not the same thing at all. Look - My entire point is just that, sound film with a technological leap steeped in the advancement of storytelling. It wasn't just fluff. The beneficial tools to help tell a story or create immersion was clear, and the difference was so vast that a lot the stars that were considered among the greatest of their time, couldn't adapt. Sure, good actors can adapt, but that's a very generalized broad strokes way of looking at the world, don't you think? Obviously there is more to it than that.


You know it's like a different field. It would be like saying that any chef who couldn't make the transition to become a good baker, was not a good chef, because good chefs can adapt. Everyone has varrying degrees to which they can adapt right?
If you haven't seen it Sunset Blv. is a great movie about a silent movie star lost in time. Like actors and actresses who were from a stage background, they had to act in a completely different way and didn't know how to competently use their voice, while their "over acting" with their facial features were too much for many films.



There are not many movies made in 48/60fps. But I know one thing. Watching the Hobbit was a great experience because you had no blur during camera panning. So you could admire the beautiful set pieces even more. Also action sequences filmed with a dolly cam where much easier to follow and not just a hectic and blurry mess. I am talking about the barrel scene in the second movie here. I think something like that is a very positive effect for people who watch the movie. It was very hard to follow to blurry, fast cut battles of LOTR without getting dizzy.

Vincent Laforet(from Gizmondo) had a great piece about this subject. He says it better than I can formulate it into words;

The reason the standard film projection rate of 24 frames per second works so well, is that it's just a few frames faster than what the brain needs in order to be tricked into seeing what are effectively still images, appear to move on screen—it's called the "Persistence of Vision Theory." In tandem with that important theory, he motion blur you get by shooting at 24 fps and (on a standard 180 degree shutter) at 1/48th of a second, is just as important in making something look "cinematic" as the lack of depth of field we get by using larger sensors, and bright lenses at large apertures. This is precisely why one should shoot at 1/50th of a second on their HDSLRs and use ND or neutral density filters to makes sure they don't have too much depth of field and can also ensure they aren't forced into shooting at higher shutter speeds.



2) Yes, in some arbitrary way 60fps, looks more real, and it certainly has its value for what you are talking about in regards to action, sports and gameplay in games where you need clear visual stimuli to help processing what it is going on. But film is not about being real. It's about immersion, and a lot of people felt that the hobbit looks faked and staged. 24fps, ND filters, and post production cc help facilitate a different world that has nothing to do with real life. If you wanted to view films as real life everything would be shot with 60 fps home videocams because it would "look exactly like real life". That's a complete misunderstanding of what makes cinema great.





It seems you are talking about cutscenes ... but I don't play cutscenes. I have to control the gameplay. I have no problem with cutscenes being pictures ,24fps with black bars or just plain text (Max Payne 1 being a glorious example of great storytelling with still frames).

But in the end I have 10+ hours of gameplay. And this is what matters. Here I have to control the character from a fixed angle (behind the shoulder or even first person). I control the camera. I have to make split second decisions and coordinate eye and hand. Playing a game at 30fps with a mouse is terrible. This is not a movie where you lean back and watch it.

Hmm. Did you read my first post? My entire point was that gameplay should be 60 fps, while cut scenes 30. There shouldn't be a compromise between the two. Maybe you misunderstood what I was trying to say:)



And one last thing regarding the cutscenes: Even if the games have production values of film. Stories of this games often remember mindless blockbusters like Transformers. I don't see many games with high production values and great stories, memorable characters and stuff.

Be careful mate! Don't mix high production values with storytelling, quality of narrative, character development and so on.

High production value, is things like slick cinematography, slick CGI, animations, SFX, lighting and so on and whatever. So you are wrong if you think a lot of games don't have high production values. Many of the best selling video games, from GTA5 to the Last of Us are basically bathed in influences from high production values pioneered by hollywood.


Story, plot, characters and writing is a completely different matter, and for a different discussion. But of course I agree that this is the area which games are lacking. But even hollywood has been doing really poorly in later years, and as we have seen many of the great stories come from indie productions. :D





If there are mistakes in grammar or spelling. I'm sorry, but with english being my third language and the schooltime long forgotten ... you get the drill

Don't apologize. Same for me, plus I am heavily dyslexic so I know the feels.
 
Making a comparison to Ratchet and Clank is a rather bad one to make, as it only highlights the nonsense.

I also love how the direction of "cinematic" is somehow a perfectly okay justification for a game performing at a weaker framerate.
 
I actually really love the "30fps is more filmic" argument. If that were the case, why don't you set the framerate to 24fps? That's actually the correct film framerate. 30fps is a cheap soap opera on daytime television. 30fps is not what anyone thinks of when 'cinematic' is on the table.
 
Devs being assholes obviously. There's no reason to lock on PC, that's the exact opposite of the point of PC

There's no point to lock down the resolution on PS4 when we knew it can do better either.

Artificially capping folks so the others look better is ridiculous. I'm not trying to be naive about multiplatform development, i don't expect them to make super high end next next gen versions of games for PC players who have high end rigs, redoing all the assets and all that, but its just wrong to act like its even defensible to limit people's experience for political purposes..

But why should they care if 30 fps is just fine and as long as it is locked people applaud?
 
I don't understand. They're talking about what it "looks" like, but the main difference and issue with 30 fps (which can be a reasonable design decision, don't get me wrong) vs. 60 fps, is what it feels and plays like more than anything else.
 
But why should they care if 30 fps is just fine and as long as it is locked people applaud?

"Why should they care?" What do you mean by that? There's a difference between knowing that the consoles can't handle 60fps for many games without bringing down the visual quality and overall scope of the game design, and artificially locking performance targets down.


Pushing the hardware is an acceptable reason for me, bullshit like in the OP is not.


GAF, I think for the most part that 30
FPS is what you need to expect this gen.

Nobody expecting 60fps for a majority of games on console. Outliers like Rainbow six, siege, Naughty Dog's games and the usual genre's aside, that's what happens on console these days.

On the other hand, these devs should not be thinking people are going to simply swallow crap explanations like "60fps isnt that good anyway, it doesn't look real." If i as a PS4 owner have to play many games in 30fps because they are pushing the hardware, that's perfectly fine with me, Just don't say bullshit and expect people are not going to call you out on it.
 
I actually really love the "30fps is more filmic" argument. If that were the case, why don't you set the framerate to 24fps? That's actually the correct film framerate. 30fps is a cheap soap opera on daytime television. 30fps is not what anyone thinks of when 'cinematic' is on the table.

Because then it suddenly affects gameplay and "doesn't feel good". Or at least, that's what the devs of The Order used to explain why they didn't go 24fps.

It is really, really stupid. Nothing more than PR talk.
 
I'm getting really tired of this bullshit. Seriously.

Just say it's 30 because you wanted to achieve the best visuals possible while still having the game playable or whatever.

Or just don't say anything, it's not like 30fps games are something new that you need to justify.
 
Top Bottom