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

30 fps became the new standard when the seventh generation of consoles came out. It was no longer because of limitations like the N64 and the PS1 showed, it was because of image quality.

What people don't understand though is that no matter how much the quality is on consoles it still looks terrible. Therefore, games are 30 fps because devs felt the need to "try" to get the image quality up which they can't. As a result, for some weird reason, everyone accepts this.
 
Marcel said:
You're letting a separate form of media inform your opinions on another form of media. The "soap opera" thing has no relevance. You think Ground Zeroes has the look of a soap opera?
Click to expand...
I can't speak for GZ since I haven't played it, but I disliked Shadow of Motor at 60fps and locked it to 30. Maybe it depends on the game for me. For instance, I would take 60fps for fighting games any day. It's funny that before reading this thread I was reminded of The Hobbit when I first played SoM due to 60fps...
 
EzioCroft said:
While I appreciate the game being 60fps - MGSV looks really damn rough, and way worse than Unity at this point
Click to expand...

I don't even know what to say... other than you clearly haven't seen gameplay of either game or something?

Edit: Just looked at your post history. It all makes sense. Shillin' for real.
 
Cavalier said:
I don't see a problem with this.

I do agree that 30fps feels more cinematic than 60fps. Main reason why movies lock their frame rate below 30 and soap operas stay at 60 for 60hz, 50 for 50hz.

This generation of gamers act too much like spoiled brats who want everything their own way and not the director's way in which the game is intended to be played and seen.
Click to expand...

That absolutely isn't the reason 'why movies lock their frame rate below 30fps'. It was simply a standard set as a compromise in cinemas early days.

The fact that we kept that standard for so long is the reason you think it's more 'cinematic'. There's no technical reason or logic behind it, it's just two things your brain is equating with each other.
 
Xando said:
Jim Sterling expressing exactly my opinion once again.


https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/520183278410932226
Click to expand...

As I said above, its even more nonsense since COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGES DONT WORK THAT WAY

Pixar uses huge server farms just to render frames in a way that mimic film. There's no way a game can mimic a cinematic look anytime soon, which is why traditionally FPS has been pushed. Rendering top notch per object motion blur is very expensive.

That's not even getting into the engine/input problem.
 
Not sure how anyone can even argue that 30fps is better for video games than 60fps.

Super Mario Sunshine is 30fps
Super Mario Galaxy is 60fps

Galaxy feels smoother and more refined because of it. In no way would it be a positive for Galaxy to be at 30fps instead.
 
Marcel said:
You're letting a separate form of media inform your opinions on another form of media. The "soap opera" thing has no actual relevance to this conversation. You think Ground Zeroes has the look of a soap opera?
Click to expand...

Exactly, even MGS is 60fps now. This soap opera thing doesn't make any sense.
 
I understand being irritated at something like this, but most people on here are literally whining. What is the average age on this forum, my god...
 
RK9039 said:
Exactly, even MGS is 60fps now. This soap opera thing doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...
I am just saying something seemed "off" to me. I am not a connoisseur of all thing technical, so take it for what you will. Its just an observation. Maybe the soap opera effect isn't the best way to explain it for games?
 
MAX PAYMENT said:
I understand being irritated at something like this, but most people on here are literally whining. What is the average age on this forum, my god...
Click to expand...

And funny enough you're "literally" thread whining. Move on if you don't want to have an actual conversation.
 
It's amazing how in the span of one week this game has gone from a must buy for me to a do not purchase. They're saying all the wrong things and judging by recent previews the game looks pretty rough.
 
TheMagician said:
Not sure how anyone can even argue that 30fps is better for video games than 60fps.

Super Mario Sunshine is 30fps
Super Mario Galaxy is 60fps

Galaxy feels smoother and more refined because of it. In no way would it be a positive for Galaxy to be at 30fps instead.
Click to expand...

I think what they should do is try the last of us remastered and switch between 30fps and 60fps
 
So I think collectively in the video game industry we're dropping that [60fps] standard because it's hard to achieve...
Click to expand...

Ubisoft reasoning:

Nintendo and all their 60fps games (the ones that actually are 60fps) dont count because:

1. We arbitrarily decide that the 3DS (near 50 million user base, what a joke) doesnt for part of the video game industry.

2. wiiu!? who care about the wiiu!?

...

So, like we were saying... collectively in the video game industry we are...
 
Wow.. this thread.

I understand why people are annoyed at Ubisoft for doing what they have for parity sake, but some of these responses are gamefaqs/gametrailers quality.
 
"So I think collectively in the video game industry we're dropping that standard because it's hard to achieve, it's twice as hard as 30fps, and its not really that great in terms of rendering quality of the picture and the image."
Click to expand...

in the midst of the bullshit, this is the honest part. And I agree with him, on consoles 60fps would be too limiting too quickly.
 
One would have thought the people who work for such a big studio would actually like video games. "60 fps doesn't add anything"? What the fuck?
 
mdsfx said:
I am just saying something seemed "off" to me. I am not a connoisseur of all thing technical, so take it for what you will. Its just an observation. Maybe the soap opera effect isn't the best way to explain it for games?
Click to expand...

It probably isn't, I'm not even sure what they mean by 'soap opera' in the first place, and 'more cinematic'. These are games, not movies.
 
SomewhatGroovy said:
I dont know about how theyre framing and positioning this (which i think is the problem?), but I prefer 30fps to 60 in a third person action game. Tomb Raider on PS4 was weird for me.
Click to expand...
That'weird' look is what I'm trying to refer to. I just don't know how to explain it.
 
MAX PAYMENT said:
I understand being irritated at something like this, but most people on here are literally whining. What is the average age on this forum, my god...
Click to expand...
Not really whining. If they would have stuck to parity for the 30 FPS reason, then things would have been ok. We are mocking them because they keep saying stupid stuff. There is a difference.
 
With movies, yeah ... I get it. We are so used to the frame rate. But you get used to it and a movie like the Hobbit or Avatar looks better for it. But, some do prefer the old way.

With games? There is no doubt it improves it, no matter what the genre or 'style'.

People keep mentioning 'reality" but with VR, they are pushing 75fps+ to get a "realistic" motion sensation, and the higher the better and more convincing.

I honestly can't fathom people wanting to play in 30fps if there is an option for higher. It really doesn't make any sense to me. At all. If there are other things that they have to take away in order to achieve it, like less characters on screen, less detail of the city, etc ... because of hardware requirements. Then I don't mind the trade-off. I still find 30 fps perfectly playable. And I think that's what most of developers are shooting for, 30fps and high graphical fidelity instead of 60 fps and medium-high graphical fidelity.
 
EuropeOG said:
in the midst of the bullshit, this is the honest part. And I agree with him, on consoles 60fps would be too limiting too quickly.
Click to expand...

unchartedq9kk0.jpg
Click to expand...

So limiting.
 
I'm not rushing to ubisoft's defence, but its interesting to talk about.

Aren't they just expressing their choice of position on the image quality versus fps spectrum? In that case, are we comfortable with the loss of image quality that will accompany better fps?

Of course this assumes 2 things. (1) that ubisoft is pushing the console hardware to its maximum; and (2) that ubisoft is expending power on things that actually look great. Do we have some evidence that points either way?

EDIT - for instance, if 4A games or CDPR said their next game is 30fps, I would expect the visuals to blow me away and the gameplay to still have the fluidity I want. Is it that we don't trust Ubisoft's ability to push the curve?
 
The comparison between 30/24fps movies and games is wrong.
Games are rendered, not filmed.
When filming at 60fps you are physically restricted to an exposure time of less than 1/60 per frame. So when you shoot at 24fps you can use longer exposure times than at 60fps which leads to more motion blur and a "dreamy" feel.
There are no such restrictions when rendering. You can render frames that look like they were shot with a long exposure at 120fps. This is physically impossible for an actual camera, but it's just a parameter for a rendering engine.
Basically in video games you can have 120 cinematic looking frames per second while in movies you can't due to the physical limitations of the physical camera.
 
TheSlySoul said:
Not really whining. If they would have stuck to parity for the 30 FPS reason, then things would have been ok. We are mocking them because they keep saying stupid stuff. There is a difference.
Click to expand...

I think there is a difference between mockery and ill-wishing. What is happening ITT is not harmless mockery.
 
Ol No Bones said:
AC doesn't really need to be 60fps.
Click to expand...

For consoles? Sure, I agree with you.

But don't give us this "30fps feels better" bullshit. AC goes for 30 on consoles so it can look better, they believe it's more important to feel immersed in the incredible visuals for this game than it is to be more fluid looking and responsive. Want both? Get a PC.

I have absolutely nothing against that, but, again, stop with the bullshit.

Will it still be cinematic if I play at 30fps and keep staring at walls and smelling asses by crouch walking next to any guard's butt?
 
hwy_61 said:
I think there is a difference between mockery and ill-wishing. What is happening ITT is not harmless mockery.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely harmless. I'm pretty sure Ubisoft is going to keep on making money and games regardless of anyone wishing for their doom. Nintendo still seems to be doing all right despite people diagnosing them as terminal every year.
 
Really the only thing in games you can compare to movies are cutscenes. They're both passive experiences and so the eye perceives them similarly. But when you're actively engaged with the game, concentrating and moving, the cinematic explanation really falls through.

I remember seeing a post on here once explaining the whole thing once.
 
Dr Amazon MD said:
I don't even know what to say... other than you clearly haven't seen gameplay of either game or something?

Edit: Just looked at your post history. It all makes sense. Shillin' for real.
Click to expand...

If you look at a few others who are also making ridiculous 30fps defense arguments, you can find that they love hopping into framerate threads to defend 30fps in whatever fashion.
 
Marcel said:
It is absolutely harmless. I'm pretty sure Ubisoft is going to keep on making money and games regardless of anyone wishing for their doom. Nintendo still seems to be doing all right despite people diagnosing them as terminal every year.
Click to expand...

People don't wish failure on Nintendo. They predict it, but they don't wish it. Big difference.
 
captainnapalm said:
Really the only thing in games you can compare to movies are cutscenes. They're both passive experiences and so the eye perceives them similarly. But when you're actively engaged with the game, concentrating and moving, the cinematic explanation really falls through.

I remember seeing a post on here once explaining the whole thing once.
Click to expand...
There are still people like myself who disagree with that, not from a technical perspective, but just from an observative one. Depending on the game, sometimes the movement looks strange or unnatural.
 
30fps in any kind of action game is just a compromise driven by hardware limitations. I can live with it if it's a STABLE 30fps, but devs trying to convince me it's better than 60fps is blatant PR bullshit.
 
I'm getting tired of this Cinematic 30fps bullshit.

At one point in time I was even defending it but at this point it just feels like an excuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hardware is becoming less and less relevant in gaming
2 3
135
487
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