AC: Unity's devs: 60FPS doesn't look real and is less cinematic, 30FPS feels better
- Thread starter Sendou
- Start date
I mean, I don't know of another way for them to change, because these companies have shown they really don't change unless they're forced to. But you're right, if there was a way for them to learn without the game not doing as well as expected, I'd pick it. But I don't think there is when it comes to a company like Ubisoft, sadly.
Cave Johnson
Member
But there must be causation as the basis of action. "Hoping" won't work for profit-motivated companies like these. They have to be beaten down and work their way up again. It worked for the Playstation, surely an investment such as an IP would fare much easier and better.
TheSpaceBetween
Member
Oh for fuck's sake Ubisoft. I agree that some games are fine at 30. I'm not into AC so I can't really say anything about that. But fucking Ratchet and Clank? All 4 One and Into the Nexus looked and played SIGNIFICANTLY worse due to the framerate. Get that bullshit outta here.
yiepekaiyei
Banned
sheep.
ZeroMaverick
Member
I wonder why films aren't filmed in 60fps
For gameplay, of course 60 is best, but if you're trying to get it to look real?
yiepekaiyei
Banned
some of them are. Look at some of the replies...
After 900p parity and cinematic 30fps they still have several checks to mark for a complete neoGAF meltdown:
- Some PR poking WiiU with a stick for being not powerful enough
- Announce Notre Damme level will be on corridors
- PS4 version with no anisotropic filtering
- A bunch of downsampled 4K bullshots
- Xbox One bundle with downloadable key selling half of what unofficial PS4+Game does
- Delayed PC version
All over the face
- Some PR poking WiiU with a stick for being not powerful enough
- Announce Notre Damme level will be on corridors
- PS4 version with no anisotropic filtering
- A bunch of downsampled 4K bullshots
- Xbox One bundle with downloadable key selling half of what unofficial PS4+Game does
- Delayed PC version
All over the face
24 frames per second is a standard for cinema set around 100 years ago as the minimum frame rate required to create natural looking motion. There is TONS of visual information lost between what the eye can perceive and what is captured at 24fps. I'd bet that many actors who you think are great actually aren't and many are much better than they appear. You just can't tell at 24fps. Some people like this blurring of subtle nuanced expression but I for one feel as though it's time to move forward.
There's a reason Uncharted 4 is targeting 60fps and it's not just for gameplay responsiveness.
There's a reason Uncharted 4 is targeting 60fps and it's not just for gameplay responsiveness.
yiepekaiyei
Banned
do you play films? is there input lag in films? There's any sort of gameplay in films? Are you programmed to repeat their pr bullshit believing to be true?
ZeroMaverick
Member
Check my edit
TatteredHat
Member
Why not make it 15FPS? It'll feel even better!
Real as in real life?
Yeah, you're right but we're talking about videogames here, so 60 is better because gameplay is better at 60. It might look more real to some at 30 but 60 is objectively better since these are games we are talking about.
What the actual fuck?
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
I did and it doesn't help.
There is another way to protest and make some things change.
If a game fails, people in suits will not learn anything. They will never change their mind about anything and the first thing that happens is that the game will not receive a sequel.
It's pretty clear there are some problems at Ubisoft, but trust me, those problems didn't come from all those people who worked hard to create the game, it's almost all about the suits that are seriously disconnected both from the creative and customers desires.
One way to make things happen is to be *very* vocal, very vocal and in the meanwhile hope that game will not sell very well, but at the same time hope that it won't bomb too hard.
I agree with the bold part.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Character design like what? The designs have been awesome so far. Especially Elise.
ZeroMaverick
Member
Right, I was just saying Ubisoft is right when they say 60fps doesn't looks real. It doesn't.
yiepekaiyei
Banned
yeah, I apologize.
I don't mind 30 fps games when they can't bring it to 60. It's playable.
But saying 60fps is bad because it doesn't look real and 30 is better because it's cinematic? fucking bullshit!
lightchris
Member
Regarding the "60 fps is important to games because you control them" argument:
There are more factors to it than just frame rate. It's true that the same game running at 60 fps will be more responsive than at 30 fps. But it's very possible that a 30 fps game will have the same or even less input lag than a different 60 fps game.
Just wanted to mention that because it's not always as simple as "60 fps = faster than 30 fps". The probability is higher, but you have to look at it on a game by game basis to be sure and maybe before coming to premature conclusions.
This isn't to defend the decision to make 30 fps games of course. Even when just passively looking at games I like 60 fps a lot better. I just don't want to make a general difference between movies and games in this regard without looking a little deeper.
There are more factors to it than just frame rate. It's true that the same game running at 60 fps will be more responsive than at 30 fps. But it's very possible that a 30 fps game will have the same or even less input lag than a different 60 fps game.
Just wanted to mention that because it's not always as simple as "60 fps = faster than 30 fps". The probability is higher, but you have to look at it on a game by game basis to be sure and maybe before coming to premature conclusions.
This isn't to defend the decision to make 30 fps games of course. Even when just passively looking at games I like 60 fps a lot better. I just don't want to make a general difference between movies and games in this regard without looking a little deeper.
DistortionOfReality
Member
As long as the frame rate is solid, I have zero problem with this.
The reasoning is bullshit, but still. AC4 looked and played incredibly at 30fps.
The reasoning is bullshit, but still. AC4 looked and played incredibly at 30fps.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
http://www.naughtydog.com/site/post/uncharted_4_a_thiefs_end_2014_e3_trailer/ this looks much more realistic than Unity.
UncleCross
Member
Yeah Ubisoft, stop using logic and common sense. You're going to give GAF an aneurysm. Don't you know that higher numbers always means better?
Which isn't even playable.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
I'll be honest, I don't mind most games at a stable 30fps. It just doesn't bother me. Now, I'm a PC gamer, so if I can ramp the frames up I always do because faster is always better when it comes to framerates. And there are exceptions of course, competitive FPS games, driving games, and fighting games I all strongly prefer at 60fps. But for something like GTA or Assassin's Creed, sure I'd have no problem playing them at 30fps if I had to. 60 would be better of course.
Now that said, this statement from Ubisoft is ridiculous. If you can only get 30fps out of your engine then fine, but at least have the decency and respect for your customers to admit it's a code limitation that they couldn't improve. To say that they chose to stay at 30fps to make it feel more "cinematic", that's just talking stupid and it's insulting to anyone who knows anything about gaming. It's at 30fps because you couldn't get it to run any faster, just like the game is at 900p because you couldn't get the X1 to a higher resolution. If you could have done both, you would have, as you know damn well how marketable both metrics are.
Don't bullshit us, please.
Now that said, this statement from Ubisoft is ridiculous. If you can only get 30fps out of your engine then fine, but at least have the decency and respect for your customers to admit it's a code limitation that they couldn't improve. To say that they chose to stay at 30fps to make it feel more "cinematic", that's just talking stupid and it's insulting to anyone who knows anything about gaming. It's at 30fps because you couldn't get it to run any faster, just like the game is at 900p because you couldn't get the X1 to a higher resolution. If you could have done both, you would have, as you know damn well how marketable both metrics are.
Don't bullshit us, please.
... and 30fps magically does? I don't follow.
Stuff like this has already worked in the past for gaming. And it has worked for many different mediums outside of gaming; there is no special quality to gaming that makes it different.
So I reject your premise.
Unless it hugely underperforms, they're going to think any loud negativity is all smoke and no fire. That's the problem.
What exactly is 'looking real' in this context?
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Ftfy and because we only play as the main character and see the game through his eyes, she's getting her own book. We also can't play as the members of the assassin council. We also can't play as Arno's mentor, see the pattern here? You know, the pattern that only one character is playable in this game that isn't an rpg.Who isn't even playable.
If i want cinematic im gonna watch a movie and not play a 70 game.
Pyramid head
Banned
Still 60?
If you're trying to make something look "cinematic", as in, 'what a movie looks like", then go for 24fps with plenty of motion blur I guess.
Movies aren't filmed in 60fps because we've been using an outdated standard for a long time and everyone's used to it. If it had been more technically and economically feasable in the years of early cinema to shoot at 60fps, you would be used to that instead, and likely find the notion of 24pfs movies laughable.
It's this type of ignorance Ubisoft is appealing to when they come out with moronic shit like "30fps is better".
The idea/theory that our brains process images at around 30 frames per second is actually flawed.
We see faster and slower than 30 FPS depending on a situations stimulation.
Stress and excitement lead to us being able to see slightly more pictures in a given time frame.
That doesn't mean we can see at 60 frames per second some times, or even 120, which is impossible. What we can do is preceive a noticeable smoothness in image transition from one picture to the next.
Our brains fill in between each frame our eye brings to it with "educated guesses" of what a past frame should look like, and a future one to put next. If those guessed images are off by even a little, it can cause you to notice this dreaded "low frame rate judder".
The light around us from the sun is constant, so information is always being streamed higher than our eyes need to process the images in front of us.
On a TV screen, it has limits. 60 FPS, 120 FPS, 240 FPS.
We notice even when the games images don't line up with the refresh rate of a TV, sometimes in spectacular fails, such as screen tearing, which is when frames just can't get in sync fast enough, and are at odd numbers in millisecond refreshes.
I am no expert on the eye, but had serious health problems as a child because of one of them. This is information I pulled over 20+ years trying to understand what it is to see.
If you believe any of this to be in error, feel free to quote/pm me, and I'll either update, or retract if needed.
We see faster and slower than 30 FPS depending on a situations stimulation.
Stress and excitement lead to us being able to see slightly more pictures in a given time frame.
That doesn't mean we can see at 60 frames per second some times, or even 120, which is impossible. What we can do is preceive a noticeable smoothness in image transition from one picture to the next.
Our brains fill in between each frame our eye brings to it with "educated guesses" of what a past frame should look like, and a future one to put next. If those guessed images are off by even a little, it can cause you to notice this dreaded "low frame rate judder".
The light around us from the sun is constant, so information is always being streamed higher than our eyes need to process the images in front of us.
On a TV screen, it has limits. 60 FPS, 120 FPS, 240 FPS.
We notice even when the games images don't line up with the refresh rate of a TV, sometimes in spectacular fails, such as screen tearing, which is when frames just can't get in sync fast enough, and are at odd numbers in millisecond refreshes.
I am no expert on the eye, but had serious health problems as a child because of one of them. This is information I pulled over 20+ years trying to understand what it is to see.
If you believe any of this to be in error, feel free to quote/pm me, and I'll either update, or retract if needed.
ZeroMaverick
Member
Sorry, I should clarify. All I'm saying is, dude said 60fps doesn't look real, and I agree. When I watch a cutscene for a game that's running 60fps, take Ground Zeroes, for example, everything looks like it's running in fast forward. Maybe I have bad eyes or something since everyone is telling me I'm wrong, but when I watch 60fps, it doesn't look natural.
60 looks like a soap opera
30 looks more like a movie
Because 30 looks more cinematic doesn't mean you should make your game run at 30 Ubi, it's a game after all. 60>30 no matter what the reasoning. These are videogames not movies.