Uh, how is AC: Unity?Oh, how's Uncharted 4? I'm interested, seeing as you've obviously already played it - right?
People don't wish failure on Nintendo. They predict it, but they don't wish it. Big difference.
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?
Here's a question: if Unity was 900p/30fps on Xbone but 1080p/30fps on PS4, would people be upset?
So limiting.
So I think collectively in the video game industry we're dropping that [60fps] standard because it's hard to achieve...
HAHAHAHAHA. Ubisoft is fucking pathetic. I played AC: Unity yesterday at Brasil Game Show and it had bad textures and was running sub-25 fps on the Xbox One.
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.
So limiting.
HAHAHAHAHA. Ubisoft is fucking pathetic. I played AC: Unity yesterday at Brasil Game Show and it had bad textures and was running sub-25 fps on the Xbox One.
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.
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.
Was it any fun?
I see where they're coming from I just think they explain what they mean poorly.
The issue as I see it relates to the impact of frame rate on the perception of psuedo-realistic character animations. When they say 30fps does not look real they mean specifically for games like Assassins Creed, 3rd person action/adventure games featuring a large amount of "realistic" human character models and animations. With such games higher frame rates can bring us towards an uncanny valley effect as the increased motion detail reveals the subtle inadequacies of current real time character animation. A lower frame rate much as happens with film will abstract the motion and allow us to perceive it as sufficiently distinct from what our minds expect
No sane person would argue that a game is not more responsive at higher frame rates but there can be a trade off between gameplay quality and visual appeal in games such as this. The "feel" of a game is a combination of visual perception and responsiveness.
Shooters, racers, fighters, plane combat games, almost all 3D Nintendo games etc... do not feature "realistic" character animation and so should always strive for higher frame rates as it benefits both game-play and visuals in them. But to say 60 should be a blanket rule is to me a bit limiting.
Note: Obviously this doesn't apply to PCs because of the variable level of hardware capability is always advisable to give them options
To be fair, Naughty Dog can take as long as they want, only have to make their game for a single platform, and no doubt have a remit from Sony to make the best-looking game they possibly can.
The Assassin's Creed developers are on a tight timescale, have to make their game for multiple platforms, and no doubt are only expected to make a game that's "good enough". They must know as well as anyone that their engine is full of shit, but they can't really afford to go rooting around in there trying to fix and optimise it.
That doesn't excuse the bullshit reasoning they've come up with for their game's deficiencies, but I do sympathise with them.
I see where they're coming from I just think they explain what they mean poorly.
Of course they're Mansplaining it poorly. They're talking to their customers as if they're idiots because they don't think highly of them.
That's whatwhat this sort of bad marketing and PR are. An assumption your customers are fools and can be influenced with lies.
Here's a question: if Unity was 900p/30fps on Xbone but 1080p/30fps on PS4, would people be upset?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=907946&highlight=smash+3ds+sells
I have a copy with me. Do you know the frame rate for that one Ubisoft??
OH!! but i know... its a shame that nintendo doesnt form part of the video game industry...
Watch_Dogs was a big hit so that should tell you a lot.
HAHAHAHAHA. Ubisoft is fucking pathetic. I played AC: Unity yesterday at Brasil Game Show and it had bad textures and was running sub-25 fps on the Xbox One.
Everyone's an idiot except me!
Nope. I bought it too so I wore the dunce cap as well.
That's not even remotely what the thread is about.
Yes. Choosing 30fps isn't a big deal, many games run at that framerate, but it becomes a big deal when you say you're doing it for cinematic purposes.
Playing TLOU:R in 60 fps finally cemented how important it is and that 60 always feels/looks better in video games than 30. Like okay I get it, your new AC engine might not be able to run at 60 fps on the consoles, but trying to convince people 30 is better is a complete joke. They need to run this stuff through a smart honest PR person.
Playing TLOU:R in 60 fps finally cemented how important it is and that 60 always feels/looks better in video games than 30. Like okay I get it, your new AC engine might not be able to run at 60 fps on the consoles, but trying to convince people 30 is better is a complete joke. They need to run this stuff through a smart honest PR person.
Keep digging that hole Ubisoft
There's a lot of misinformation out there, and every scientist seems to have a different number.Waa..no trust?
Reference: Detecting meaning in RSVP at 13 ms per picture
Authors: MaryC Potter, Brad Wyble, CarlErick Hagmann, EmilyS McCourt
Link: http://mollylab-1.mit.edu/lab/publications/FastDetect2014withFigures.pdf
And I was lenient into taking 14 ms.
The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS.
HAHAHAHAHA. Ubisoft is fucking pathetic. I played AC: Unity yesterday at Brasil Game Show and it had bad textures and was running sub-25 fps on the Xbox One.
Man, Unity sure is looking like shit. I played it yesterday too and it's looking rough.
30 FPS my ass, that game is running at sub-25.
I think that its all a matter of perception on wether or not 30fps is better for games. I dont think 30fps is that big a problem (i am loving driveclub right now) and 30fps may be the only solution if you want to push other things to the limit. For example i forgive The Order 1886 for using the extra cycles to up the graphics rendering to give it a more cinematic feel (not to mention that 30fps is closer to the cinematic look) but i think that 60fps is still better.
tl;dr 30fps is fine if it makes sense. 60fps is better.
Ps: I am so surprised people are only looking at the discussion of "HD female characters double the production cost" "parity resolution because debate over it is unacceptable" "30fps feels better than 60fps" What about the "If we only focused on graphics we could have 100fps but we wanted AI" I mean seriously thats stupid. What changes are going to be made for the AI that affects gameplay? also... 100fps? That would mean they would be able to do 1080p 60fps ffs instead of 900p 30fps..![]()
I find it hard to sympathize with a company that has one of the biggest content pipelines in the business. How many Ubisoft studio franchises are we up to now?
I know what the thread is about. I'm just curious because I haven't seen this much venom for games that have came out and said that they were targeting 30fps. What feels better is subjective to the actual game and the person playing it.
I'm more worried about whether Unity will actually be good or not.
So where's the pitchforks for the games that chose 30fps for just that reason?
I know what the thread is about. I'm just curious because I haven't seen this much venom for games that have came out and said that they were targeting 30fps. What feels better is subjective to the actual game and the person playing it.
I'm more worried about whether Unity will actually be good or not.
Because those company don't come out and say 30fps- cinematic feel ? And don't say 30fps better for action game ?I know what the thread is about. I'm just curious because I haven't seen this much venom for games that have came out and said that they were targeting 30fps. What feels better is subjective to the actual game and the person playing it.
I'm more worried about whether Unity will actually be good or not.
So where's the pitchforks for the games that chose 30fps for just that reason?
We should just alert the clown horn whenever Ubisoft is around to discuss AC: Unity. I'm going nowhere near the AC series going forward.
I sympathise with the individuals making the game rather than Ubisoft as a company.
Their PR is shit, but the game looks like it's going to be pretty good, in my opinion.
Hopefully a decent PC port too (after a couple of patches and driver updates).