halopower67
Member
Yep 30fps is better than 60fps.. said no one ever. Man, these guys.
AC: Unity's devs: 60FPS doesn't look real and is less cinematic, 30FPS feels better
- Thread starter Sendou
- Start date
Canis lupus
Member
Ok. Now I know you must be jokinggot me.
I'm not.
In racing games for example, like WipEout, Ridge Racer, Sega Rally, Gran Turismo were all 30fps on SAT/PS1.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
When will they bring back 4:3? The gameic sensations are unmatched with the classic aspect ratio.
Jedeye Sniv
Banned
I'd love to work at Ubi PR. "Dear manbabies, get the fuck over it."
SolidChamp
Banned
Honest question:
Isn't it really difficult to achieve a solid, locked 60fps on consoles?
Isn't there a huge balancing act they have to go through where sacrifices need to be made in other areas of the game?
I seriously have no real knowledge of how game developers achieve 60fps. Me, I'm just happy when I don't notice any juddering dips in frame rate, and especially when there's no screen tearing or pop-in.
Isn't it really difficult to achieve a solid, locked 60fps on consoles?
Isn't there a huge balancing act they have to go through where sacrifices need to be made in other areas of the game?
I seriously have no real knowledge of how game developers achieve 60fps. Me, I'm just happy when I don't notice any juddering dips in frame rate, and especially when there's no screen tearing or pop-in.
I'm not.
In racing games for example, like WipEout, Ridge Racer, Sega Rally, Gran Turismo were all 30fps on SAT/PS1.
Ok... And has anybody said that they were better because they were not 60 fps? You are joking, right? Nobody says that there weren't 30 fps games and good ones, but the acceptance of bullshit like "30 fps is more cinematic" is on a new high, because of bullshit PR like we have in this thread. And you are just keep proving my point.
Edit: Here is again what you wrote.
That is is the problem, not that 30 fps games are in existance.
TeddyShardik
Banned
This would be less outrageous than just making up stupid shit I guess. xD
Sanctuary
Member
Lol. "I'm right, you're wrong...because" at its finest. You'd be hard pressed to find more people that actually like HFR than those that don't. It's just a gimmick right now, just like the current 3D model. Except in this instance, you don't forget about it after the first 30 minutes.
I don't know why but it's hard to believe that U4 will be at 60 fps. Naughty Dog always want to blew minds with insane textures and effects, how are they going to do that with 60 fps ?
No, more like frustration over the incompetence to differentiate between movies and games and that framerate is one of the key factors for gameplay.
Auto-Reply
Member
Sanctuary
Member
I think you're missing out on what he's actually replying to and my response.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=133553453&postcount=244
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Hmmmm, I am not sure about that. I heard it was a technological limitation that allowed them to display at 24, and that is why it became the standard.
You're wrong about stop motion. It actually only has to be above 9 fps to fully qualify as a film, though this is obviously at its most rudimentary point.
There has been lots of cases during the history of cinema where people rejected the idea of new technology. A lot of people where heavily opposed to film when they inclouded sound, or "talkies" as they where called. People thought that the cinematic experience would be ruined if they had to deal with these extra senses.
A lot of great actors and movie makers didn't managed to make the transition from silent to talkies either. Today, most people only know of Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin. Most other guys died with the silent films as it was almost a different category and way of telling stories by itself.
To a lesser degree the same held true with color film.
But what sound and color added to film was that they added in creating new tools for storytellers to tell stories in different ways, and more effectively. That made them an easy sell, and once they where in, there was really no going back to the old way. It proved to effective, too useful. Not using them would almost be limiting.
60 FPS is a different thing because you're talking about habits. There is not much to gain from new storytelling techniques by pushing 60 fps in movies over 24. That's the key difference here. It has remained the standard because it's what people are used to.
Finally you are completely wrong about cinema having nothing to do with video games. Almost every good non-interactive video game story is completely modeled in cinematography, use of voice, directing, sound, lighting, blocking and so and so forth, after the way the do things in film. For the longest time it has been what a lot of developers have strived to do. To make video game stories with production values at the level of film.
TL;DR - 60 FPS has nothing to do with people being against the progress of technology.
Canis lupus
Member
I'm not sure what acceptance has got to do with anything, cinematic games have only really started emerging last gen and they emerged with 30fps. So you either accepted their existence or not, it's not like they were 60fps to begin with and then lost the golden standard. After playing TR on PS3/PS4, I can say TR DE felt sped up. It's because of the soap opera effect. Now, no one is saying it's worse, but it's definitely less cinematic than 30fps.
But isn't that argument used to make 30 fps games more acceptable?
AnthonypUK
Member
play TLOU remastered on PS4 for 2 hours, then lock it at 30 frames and play, then get back to me about which one doesn't feel real.
I can accept 30 FPS games no problem, but this cinematic narrative some devs want to push needs to die,
I can accept 30 FPS games no problem, but this cinematic narrative some devs want to push needs to die,
Sanctuary
Member
I have never, until this very thread heard that as an argument for 30fps games, so I have no idea what you're talking about. As it's been reiterated to death, movies and video games are not the same meidum. It doesn't matter what game companies model their cutscenes after, you aren't playing a cutscene during the gameplay segments, so it's entirely irrelevant.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Hah, not real... Just say that while 60fps would have been nice, 30fps is good enough (which it is) and you're focusing on visual complexity instead. Don't give us that "doesn't look real" BS.
Also, didn't they say just the other day that the reason the game is 30 is really that it's CPU-bound? But sure Ubi, keep changing the narrative.
Also, didn't they say just the other day that the reason the game is 30 is really that it's CPU-bound? But sure Ubi, keep changing the narrative.
Green Yoshi
Member
That's why Black Flag for WiiU is the most cinematic AC experience to date.
There aren't that many but there are way more of them than just Kojima Studio and Naughty Dogs (and I find using ND as an example a bit weird when they only recently changed their stance after delivering 30fps games for an entire generation). Nintendo for starters (look at their Wii U games), the COD devs, most fighter/action game developers (Capcom, PlatinumGames, whoever's developing Tekken...), Id Software (well... At least when Carmack was still there), Polyphony Digital just off the top of my head...
ScepticMatt
Member
http://a.pomf.se/raijre.webm
Lies. Even if you ignore the smoothness and clarity benefits, lower input latency is still a huge boon.
But I expect that they know that already. I don't think the web reaction will be what they expect.
http://a.pomf.se/tcbpdl.webm
Critical flicker fusion = real life fps.
It depends on brightness and periphery, but is often above 60fps.
90fps is enough in most situations, and this is why it was chosen for Oculus' CV1 headset.
Not if you account for the human visual system.
We can still easily see stutter at 24Hz. This is why cinema projectors triple-flash 24Hz to make it tolerable. 24Hz was a compromise chosen to keep film costs low.
Scorpion Soldier
Member
Even though I don't mind 30fps these excuses are just ridiculous. Providing a cinematic experience in a game isn't bound to the framerate. For movies the change is much more jarring, but when you look at a game like The Last of Us or Ground Zeroes 60fps really doesn't have to break the cinematic effect, which is much more heavily affected by camera angles, animations and lighting.
"It actually feels better for people when it's at that 30fps." That is the quote from the developers.
Here is your quote again: "AC is the last game you need 60fps for."
And you cannot see a problem in accepting and defending crap like that?
But than again in your last part with TR you make it clear that there is something wrong with your vision... The game feels sped up at 60 fps, opera effect... I cannot believe what I am reading...
Oh, OK than. It was brought up numerous times in "the order 1886" threads and so on.
Maintenance
Member
Yeah, that 900p resolution shows it.
Turin Turambar
Member
Graphics sell more than framerate,and they know it, it's the sad true.
SolidChamp
Banned
Wow. Nobody?
All this anger, and yet no real knowledge of how difficult it may/may not be to achieve 60fps?
Ban Puncher
Member
So not only are you artificially limiting the resolution of the PS4 version down to 900p to "avoid debates", now your locking the PC version to 30fps because it 'feels better' and 'more cinematic'? Fuck, that's some EA level shit.
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
Sure it is UBI, and 480i is more natural feeling than 1080p. You know what to do.
KojiKnight
Member
Again, the argument is NOT about achieving 60 versus 30... The argument is that instead of Ubisoft just saying they couldn't achieve 60 with how they wanted the game to look/play they are trying to insult our intelligences by saying that gamers don't really want 60fps, and that games are more cinematic/are somehow improved by going for a lower frame rate over a higher one.
This is just insulting to everyone's intelligence.
Haunted
Member
I actually really hope he was prompted by PR to say this to cover up the game's shortcomings.
Because if actual videogame developers really believe and perpetuate this bullshit, we're in trouble.
We will literally have to wait until the movie industry moves to a higher frame rate before videogames bother to find a higher standard. Copying movies, fine whatever, but if the cut scenes are 30 then at least make the gameplay 60 and above. I'm here thinking with my next GPU upgrade I want to start running my games at 120 fps, not to mention the Oculus is pushing for 90 fps come launch. I really have to wonder if views on this are really going to change as more gamers with a PC start to see much more higher frame rate gaming.
Turin Turambar
Member
I really like the Hobbit reference, they know people, even the ones who hasn't watched it, have heard about the polemic of high framerate of the movie and how it can be feel fake, that serves to plant doubt in their mind, so they think "maybe they are right, I also heard about that."
Backfoggen
Banned
So many devs at Ubisoft and they can't get the tech right. Can't hit 1080p or 60fps.
Could not have said it better.
Turin Turambar
Member
It isn't hard. The problem is the lower quality graphics they would have then. More or less: twice the framerate, half the graphics quality. It's almost directly proportional.