Well I guess than that's it. We have different preferences and needs.
Digital Foundry tech analysis: Destiny
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
Well I guess than that's it. We have different preferences and needs.
MDSLKTR
Member
Man I wonder how people played and enjoyed crysis 1 for years before cards could run it at 60fps
Wishmaster92
Member
Am i the only one noticing film grain on some screens? Get that shit out of here.
And gameplay has to be sacrificed for it to be at 30fps rather than 60. Which is more important?
I hated Crysis. And this is my personal preference. I can't stand the combination of instantanious mouse view and an unlocked, low framerate. Even worse when nowadays all FPS and even TPS games have camera motion blur to make thr image unreadable while you move the camera. It's exactly the opposite of what is good for the gameplay and image quality.
But I'm on the losing end and know it.
perineumlick
Member
Lol. WTF is this?
Yep, You could do the same in Quake 1.
We are talking about fast paced multiplayer. Slower SP games with very good motion blur are totally acceptable in 30fps.
I personally cant play most first person games in 30fps without motion blur, i cant stand stuttering. Lately i had this problem with Skyrim, I needed at least locked 45fps to enjoy the game.
Higher framerate offers better controls and more accurate visual information for the player.
perineumlick
Member
So all 30fps games are gimped because they don't run at 60 fps? A game absolutely can't have accurate controls at 30?
A game can be playable in 30 for sure. But it would always play better in 60. Some games play poorly in anything lower than 60.
perineumlick
Member
I know 60 would improve things. My issue was with the blanket statement about games sacrificing gameplay for 30fps. I don't agree with that at all.
Well in a sense they do, but some games suffer less from it and can operate almost as good in 30 as in 60, like RPG's for example.
It depends on genre, but FPS are pretty heavily affected. Driving games are too.
Portugeezer
Member
seriously, fucking deal with it
perineumlick
Member
I think the disconnect for me is what I perceive to be gameplay, and what I call performance. Now I know performance would be better at 60, that's without a doubt, and bad performance can affect the gameplay, but as you described, depending on genre fps may have more or less significance overall. Titanfall for instance; it's gameplay calls for fast movement across smaller, multilevel areas, hence the effect of 60fps is crucial. Destiny, on the other hand, calls for exploration across large levels, with frequent battles in between, so a locked 30 is sufficient here. I don't think anything is inherently lost there, just by virtue of the style of gameplay of Destiny. It wants to be a visually pleasing and sprawling game, where Titanfall is a more fast, in your face experience without all the eye candy. I hope I'm coming across clearly; I guess I can't say that you're wrong outright, this is just how I'm processing this debate in my mind : )
For me it depends if it is a stort based shooter or competetive.
With competitive 60fps is Much needed.
perineumlick
Member
Excuse me?
Don't be crazy, you know there is a PC version.. Activision wouldn't put so much money behind this.
Large swathes of Destiny would be absolutely fine, but it's not really your movement that requires a higher framerate, but having to shoot at fast moving things. Enemies can tend to 'judder' across the screen, making them hard to aim at.
Titanfall does look like it's need to be 60fps even more so, due to it just being a faster game in general, like CoD.
They're already annoying. I'm just glad others are noticing.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Can you tell me the games that look like Destiny on PC? I have a beefy PC and must have missed those.
Nor can it at 60. Or 120 or 240. Increasing the framerate will not automatically make the game responsive. The most important factor is rendering. A 30fps game can be more responsive with a 3 frame render pipeline than a 60fps game with an 8 frame pipeline.
Framerates are the MOST MINOR portion of responsiveness. The largest factor is how long it takes to complete a single frame and display it on screen. Of course some will think "well hey a 60fps game will only take 16.5ms to render an entire frame!" - only true to a point. Vsync, buffering, post fx, etc ... all add to a frame's time to output and several frames are being drawn concurrently to maximize available processor cycles.
Time to output has a greater impact on responsiveness than 30/60. The difference is 16.5ms between framerates. Wanting to do more with your engine can increase tto by triple digits as seen with some games like GTAIV, KZ2/3, BF3 consoles (with AA on), etc.
I'll gladly take a smaller buffer and 30fps over a larger buffer and 60fps.
Well it is a cross gen game, so i don't know what else you expected.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Wait considering this is an online title, wouldn't 60fps be wasted there anyway? Surely small lag would make 60fps pointless? Or maybe I'm not understanding it properly.
Crysis 2 and 3, Far Cry 3, Metro:LL, Battlefield 3, Planetside 2 for example.
Art is very nice in Destiny, but technologically i dont anything impressive, especially outdoors look very low detailed, but good lighting and decent textures helps a lot with visual consistency.
All things considered with the same engine and time to output - 60 will always be better than 30 even in an online environment.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Yeah it is always better I'd agree but its an online-only mmo, open-world game. If anything has an argument for choosing 30 fps as its target, it's prob this game.
I disagree with Crysis 2 (Maldo), Far Cry 3, Battlefield 3 and Planetside 2.
The other 2 I haven't played. Some of these suggestions seem absolutely comical to me and feel like they are just thrown out there without much deliberation.
Yep. It's not about the latency between two players but between your input/controller and the action on the screen.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
This is actually how it is in real life. Move your head around quickly from side to side... tada, motion blur! It's the most accurate representation.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Oh fuck what a numpty I am I just thought about COD being 60fps which means it's obviously not an issue.
Although I've never played a COD game this must be the case.
wow...
console games have always mainly been 30fps since PS1 days...
And just because a pretty ambitious title like this is running at 30 you fly off the handle? Planetside 2 will likely be 30fps as well, we are talking about games that have a much larger scope and player count than battlefield 4, unfortunately running a game like this at 60fps will probably mean vastly downgraded visuals when compared to other games on the same hardware which limits the titles marketability, there are so many people that will disregard a game because it doesn't look as good as other games. more so than those that will disreguard a game because it isnt 60fps.
Are You saying that Crysis 2 DX11 looks worse? In what way?
I am saying that.
I think they both go for a destroyed look and Destiny does it in a vast open world with the ability to look very far in the distance. Based on google images of both to jog my memory, stuff that is in the distance looks higher quality in Destiny than some stuff up close in Crysis 2.
Personal pet peeve is the object motion blur in Crysis games, it feels way to exaggerated.
Contrary to what you said I found the outside world in Destiny better than the indoor parts.
There is probably an element of having played one and having only seen the other in the best possible way and preferring the art of one over the other. I just don't think there are games out right now that have as consistent a look as Destiny does.
(Again: This is comparing a fully playable game to an E3 demo.)
Yeah, I know. But I just can't enjoy 60FPS games anymore. They are stuttering.
CryEngine 3 is capable of open world rendering or very far distance view, just because Crysis 2 has smaller levels [still quite big] doesnt mean it would be different detail wise, which Crysis 3 completely confirm
This is how Destiny look in outdoors. Very poor foliage, scarce geometry, mediocre textures and good art [which i very like].
http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/5/9/5/1/7/1/b.bmp.jpg/EG11/resize/1280x-1
http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/5/9/5/1/7/1/5.bmp.jpg/EG11/resize/1280x-1
http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/5/9/5/1/7/1/3.bmp.jpg/EG11/resize/1280x-1
http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/5/9/5/1/7/1/1.bmp.jpg/EG11/resize/1280x-1
http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/5/9/5/1/7/2/5.bmp.jpg/EG11/resize/1280x-1
In comparison to Crysis 2, Destiny lacks per-pixel motion blur and depth of field, particle shadowing and physics [and a lot more of them], tessellated terrain, screen-space reflections, FFT water physics, SSDO ambient occlusion and penumbra shadows.