Support NeoGAF

[Yusaku]

So can you actually explain the original issue here? Why does 60 fps look better than 120 fps (even if just by a tiny bit)?

I've never observed this so as far as I'm concerned it doesn't exist. 120fps isn't really going to look any more believable than 60fps without motionblur.

That isn't true, though...

Take a look at the video intro of Gran Turismo 3, for instance. As you can clearly see, motion blur is present in the same way as we encounter it in CG films. This video, however, displays at 60 fps. At 30 fps, even with motion blur, it still wouldn't look as smooth. 30 fps will become much more acceptable, to be sure, but 60 fps will still be optimal...

GT3 doesn't have physically correct motion blur at all. Motion blur in videogames at this point is nothing more than a stylistic effect.

The ideal solution would be to choose whatever framerate would best simulate how the eyes perceive motion blur (since the amount of blur coresponds to the framerate, the higher the framerate the less blur). Assuming you wanted to emulate the human eye. I wouldn't be suprised at all if "cinematic" games in the future locked their framerate to 24fps with motion blur.

 

[dark10x]

GT3 doesn't have physically correct motion blur at all. Motion blur in videogames at this point is nothing more than a stylistic effect.

Did you even read what I wrote? The INTRO VIDEO to Gran Turismo 3, not the game itself. The intro uses REALTIME FOOTAGE as a base, but it is obviously modified. The motion blur found in that intro is very much the same as what you would encounter in any random CG film. The game itself does NOT have anything like that. Go take a look and see.

Or hell, take a look at the pre-rendered cutscenes in something like "The Adventures of Cookie and Cream". Those truly ARE CG and look exactly as you'd expect...only those videos run at 60 fps. Correct motion blur (by your terms) is fully present here. It clearly shows just how incredibly smooth games could look at 60 fps with proper blurring techniques...

I've never observed this so as far as I'm concerned it doesn't exist. 120fps isn't really going to look any more believable than 60fps without motionblur.

Oh but it DOES exist. 120 fps looks WORSE, your wording suggests that I was saying otherwise. 120 fps actually ghosts (similar to an LCD display, though not as severe). Find a game that runs flawlessly on your PC (as in, old enough to have no limits on framerate). Set the DXDIAG override value to "120" (with V-sync ON) and pan the camera in one direction. You will clearly see the ghosting to which I am referring. When the maximum monitor refresh is limited to 60 Hz instead, the ghosting is not present.

This is not made up bullshit. It absolutely exists, whether you notice it or not.

 

[teh_pwn]

Wow. Those Doom III comparison pics remind me of Eternal Darkness N64 vs Gamecube comparison pics.

 

[Evenball]

Doom3 looks great on both Xbox and PC...... but I'll be getting the PC version.

 

[teh_pwn]

"the fact that an xbox system + game + a live account together cost around HALF the price of the video card required to attain anything close to the "pretty" images, to say nothing of the added price of the ram and cpu needed."

Not sure about that. Those images are all at 640x480. A 9600 Pro (like $125), could easily handle 640x480 with high effects.

In fact, a friend of mine had beta on a 9600 vanilla and it ran 800x600 fine. The framerate choked a bit, but that's probably because he was running a Duron something. 900 or higher, can't remember.

 

[Yusaku]

Did you even read what I wrote? The INTRO VIDEO to Gran Turismo 3, not the game itself. The intro uses REALTIME FOOTAGE as a base, but it is obviously modified. The motion blur found in that intro is very much the same as what you would encounter in any random CG film. The game itself does NOT have anything like that. Go take a look and see.

Or hell, take a look at the pre-rendered cutscenes in something like "The Adventures of Cookie and Cream". Those truly ARE CG and look exactly as you'd expect...only those videos run at 60 fps. Correct motion blur (by your terms) is fully present here. It clearly shows just how incredibly smooth games could look at 60 fps with proper blurring techniques...

I sold GT3 ages ago, so I don't recall the opening video. I'll tell you right now no FMV is gonna be running at 60 fps.

 

[dark10x]

I sold GT3 ages ago, so I don't recall the opening video. I'll tell you right now no FMV is gonna be running at 60 fps.

Whelp, that closes that. You are actually incorrect. I wasn't going to respond, but you posted something quite incorrect...so I had no choice.

OK, let's get the bullshit out of the way, a 60 fps video is running at 60 fps in the same way that a field rendered PS2 game does (such as Ridge Racer V, VF4, or virtually any Capcom game). If you are familiar with that technique, you could argue that it isn't 60 fps.

Since I've only recently upgraded to an HDTV, I've noticed that when displaying full frames in 480p...DVD video is no longer capable of displaying 60 fps properly (instead, you get a lot of de-interlacing artifacts). I've had to watch most of my E3 DVD in 480i to achieve the proper 60 fps for games that display it.

So, while it might not be a "true" 60 fps...it sure as hell looks like it. Those two videos on PS2 that I pointed out use this technique. Hell, Silent Hill 2 on PS2 uses 60 fps video clips (while the XBOX and PC versions only use 30 fps). It is so incredibly obvious and looks great. Those SH2 videos are also CG...so that further supports my point.

How good are you at really detecting framerates? It seems like you KNOW plenty about the subject, but actually aren't capable of detecting differences very well. My eye is almost TOO sharp when it comes to these things and I can tell you a basic framerate from 2-3 seconds of viewing. I can tell you the framerate of 100% of the games I'VE seen for any current platform (even if I've only seen it for a short time period). Go ahead, TEST ME. If I've seen the game in motion before, I know the framerate.

 

[Yusaku]

I'm a level 4 frame rate detector.

You're worse than Marty Chinn.

 

[dark10x]

I'm a level 4 frame rate detector.

You're worse than Marty Chinn.

Well that doesn't mean anything to me, because you are incorrect in suggesting that CG/FMV/video can't convey 60 fps accurately. Absolutely INCORRECT (as in WRONG).

Please, feel free to point out where I was incorrect in the previous statement.

 

[CrimsonSkies]

Anyone who thinks the Xbox version graphics look like crap in comparison to the PC version must really hate the look of all console games. I'm sure this is the case and they don't find console games that impressive graphically. Probably PC gamers. That would be the only way the critique could possibly make any sense. Yes, I'm sure of it.

 

[Outdoor Miner]

THREAD DERAILMENT LIKE A BITCH!!!!

*pumps fist*

 

[Apharmd Battler]

Anyone who thinks the Xbox version graphics look like crap in comparison to the PC version must really hate the look of all console games. I'm sure this is the case and they don't find console games that impressive graphically. Probably PC gamers. That would be the only way the critique could possibly make any sense. Yes, I'm sure of it.

Well said!! I keep saying this over and over again. The XBox and game are about 1/3 what you'd pay for the latest high end video card alone to run this game in all it's glory. For console gamers this game is a huge plus. I know the PC agnostic will rise up in droves to downplay this very simple fact. I was arguing this with a PC friend this weekend). Oh course I'm picking up the PC version, that's a freaking no brainer, but I am also picking up the XBox verision to enjoy in the comfort of my gaming loft. I think the XBox verison will look great in motion, and right up there in the top tier of console games as far as graphics is concerned. And online co-op is a nice plus.

I'm not trying to jump on anybnody or change opinions, but just trying it re-iterate appreciate the XBox version for what it is...and what's it's doing on a console with a significant degradation of power. The fact that the XBox can even run this game similiar to a mid-range PC is quite a statement. Sorry if I further derailed this thread. My $0.02.....


Now where are those Radeon 9800Pro benchmarks?!

 

[seismologist]

Well Doom 3 is all about the realism to me.
I'd almost rather not play the game than have it look like the Xbox version.

I'm sure you guys can relate. Imagine playing Riddick on the PS2.

 

[dark10x]

Well Doom 3 is all about the realism to me.
I'd almost rather not play the game than have it look like the Xbox version.

I'm sure you guys can relate. Imagine playing Riddick on the PS2.

Seriously, have you actually seen the XBOX version in motion? It looks suprisingly accurate...

You should also consider the detail level at which those PC shots were made. Those shots were likely taken at the highest detail levels...

 

[seismologist]

It's not like the Xbox version is some miracle bargain. Lowest specs for this game are a Geforce 3 which you can pick up for around $30.

A PC with lowest specs will probably look very close to the Xbox version. And neither will look anything like running the game at full detail.

Seriously, have you actually seen the XBOX version in motion?

yeah, I've seen it and the high end PC version. Huge difference.

 

[Apharmd Battler]

Well Doom 3 is all about the realism to me.
I'd almost rather not play the game than have it look like the Xbox version.

I'm sure you guys can relate. Imagine playing Riddick on the PS2.

I don't think that's a fair comparison considering the PS2 doesn't have the hardware spec to even run Riddick. If the game weren't capable of running on the XBox I'm sure VU and iD woould just wait for the next-gen consoles. The XBox architecture is more similar to a now low-end PC and this game runs O.K on those plaforms (Keeping in mind the engine is scalable and that you could run this game if you had at least a Gefroce 3). In fact VU came up with some custom rendering pipelines for the XBox version. They've been able to reallylpull a lot out of the XBox version, even iD was impressed. I'm not trying to drag this further off topic, but let's wait to see the XBox versin in motion before we condemn it. Not trying to sound like an fanboy, but trying to keep it in realistic terms. Not many gamers out there can afford nice PC setups like ours. If anything this is a huge plus for iD, becuase the game gets more exposure.

My last post in this thread, until I see some 9800Pro benchmarks.

 

[dark10x]

Huge difference.

OK, besides image quality, framerate and texture resolution...what "huge differences" are there?

 

[ravingloon]

OK, besides image quality, framerate and texture resolution...what "huge differences" are there?

I'd like to think you're being sarcastic there, because WTF. Those are 3 pretty huge differences (Plus regular resolution).

 

[seismologist]

OK, besides image quality, framerate and texture resolution...what "huge differences" are there?

well, you said it all right there.

I think it's obvious what the difference will be. Just go play any of the latest PC games at high detail then drop everything down to the lowest setting.
Now double that and you get the picture.

I dont want to get into comparing Xbox and PC versions.
Personally I'll be playing it on a Radeon 8500. If it sucks so bad I'll probably go ahead and do an upgrade

 

[COCKLES]

Well Doom 3 is all about the realism to me.
I'd almost rather not play the game than have it look like the Xbox version.

I'm sure you guys can relate. Imagine playing Riddick on the PS2.

Yeah thats the point. Imagine is all your gonna be doing, despite what Vin may think.

 

[Deg]

I simply cant go below 1024 x 768 anymore for a pc game. The difference is staggering. 640 x 480 is low res and garbled for todays staadards.

 

[dark10x]

I'd like to think you're being sarcastic there, because WTF. Those are 3 pretty huge differences (Plus regular resolution).

Resolution on a TV will be 480p, which is very acceptable. Obviously, the PC would have an advantage here...but it is a very different situation, so I think it can be thrown out.

Framerate was ~30 fps on XBOX (and it came close to holding that most of the time). I'd say that is just fine when you consider that PCs won't be cranking out super high framerates on this game either...

Textures are the biggest issue, but they shouldn't be a huge problem either. You lose some surface definition here, but the textures are still higher resolution than Riddick (which looked fine). What did you expect? The textures shown in most PC shots were taken with settings that most of us won't even be able to use...

Geometry isn't heavily modified, animation is the same, and all lighting is still present (or at least the vast majority). It should be just fine...

Oh, and seismologist will be buying a new videocard. I can predict that much. An 8500? I had one of those a while ago and you sure as hell won't be playing Doom 3 smoothly on that card. The XBOX version will look better than the 8500's attempt at the game...

What kind of CPU are you using?

 

[teepo]

the fact remains,

pc>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>xbox

 

[Lathentar]

OK, besides image quality, framerate and texture resolution...what "huge differences" are there?

 

[Slo]

OK, besides image quality, framerate and texture resolution...what "huge differences" are there?

....

You can't be serious.

 

[dark10x]

That argument no longer works, though. The XBOX pad is very well suited to playing FPS games. Both control methods are solid.

'Sides...who the hell would use a wireless mouse to play an FPS? Horrible idea...

You can't be serious.

Yes, Slo, I know you are a PC gamer at heart and those aspects are probably all that matters to you...but look above and you'll see my explanation.

 

[The Shadow]

That argument no longer works, though. The XBOX pad is very well suited to playing FPS games. Both control methods are solid.

Try playing Halo PC with an Xbox control pad against people playing with a mouse and keyboard.

I double dare you.

 

[seismologist]

Oh, and seismologist will be buying a new videocard. I can predict that much. An 8500? I had one of those a while ago and you sure as hell won't be playing Doom 3 smoothly on that card. The XBOX version will look better than the 8500's attempt at the game...

What kind of CPU are you using?

I kind of figured an upgrade was in the cards. I want to play Doom 3 first to see how far I need to go. My CPU should be fine. it's an Athlon 2500m overclocked.

 

[Teknopathetic]

"'Sides...who the hell would use a wireless mouse to play an FPS? Horrible idea..."

I do. And I guarantee you most people on GA respect my UT skillz.

Pads maybe comfortable, but they won't have an iota the precision of a mouse.

 

[dark10x]

Try playing Halo PC with an Xbox control pad against people playing with a mouse and keyboard.

I double dare you.

If the pad controls were the same as XBOX and the mouse/keyboard controls were the same as PC Halo...I would win. An XBOX pad + free aim == a bitch, but if adjusted right, it can be a very good solution.

Halo plays better on the XBOX pad. Hands down.

Pads maybe comfortable, but they won't have an iota the precision of a mouse.

I don't disagree. Mice are WAYYY more accurate than a pad. However, a pad is a very good solution in many cases. For UT2004, a pad would flat out suck...but for a slow paced game like Doom 3, it would work beautifully (but it would take a lot of adjustment).

Wireless mice must have changed then...because every experience I've had with them has been filled with lower sample rates.

 

[DopeyFish]

Try playing Halo PC with an Xbox control pad against people playing with a mouse and keyboard.

I double dare you.

people said the same thing to me regarding quake 3 arena on DC vs PC.

Magically one day a usermade patch came out which allowed DC players play against PC players. (i was using the default controller)

Within 20 minutes, they never argued with me about controller vs kbm again.

I so hope one of these days someone does the same thing with Xbox with like CS or Doom 3 or something, so I could make more people shut their mouths.

 

[celestial body]

The animation seems to have taken a big hit on xbox, judging by the e3 trailer.

 

[Slo]

Did you just assert that auto aim is an adequate replacement for the precision you get with keyboard/mouse?

I think this thread is about over.

 

[Teknopathetic]

Wireless mouse sample rates are damned near close to wired ones these days. Even in a slower FPS, however, PC gamers would STILL have the upperhand, easily. Simply because you can't instantly adjust, where as a PC gamer could easily target a moving player while you're playing catch up.

 

[Tenguman]

It's all moot anyway. Those who can't play the game on their PC will have to suffer through the xbox version--plain and simple. They at least will still be able to play Doom3 though.

However, you'd have to be certifiably insane (or an xbox fanboy) if you have a PC up-to-snuff and yet still prefer to wait for the xbox version.

 

[dark10x]

Did you just assert that auto aim is an adequate replacement for the precision you get with keyboard/mouse?

I think this thread is about over.

Yes.

Play Halo in multiplayer on XBOX and you can see.

 

[nathkenn]

autoaim = weaksause

 

[dark10x]

autoaim = weaksause

No, obviously not.

Again, look at how Bungie handled Halo XBOX. With it, you can play the game on the same level as a PC with mouse/keyboard...plus you get the added benefits of smoother circle strafing and panning.

It is a good design. Like I said, a pad is terrible for really fast paced games such as UT or Tribes...but it works beautifully for slower paced games (and, in fact, feels BETTER on slower paced games due to much smoother motion).

 

[Teknopathetic]

"Again, look at how Bungie handled Halo XBOX. With it, you can play the game on the same level as a PC with mouse/keyboard...plus you get the added benefits of smoother circle strafing and panning."

I guarantee you if it was possible to play Xbox pad vs. KB/mouse on halo, unless you got some really sneaky kills in, you'd get demolished. Sorry. It's passible, but it's nowhere NEAR the same level as a pc with mouse/keyboard. Even WITH autoaim.

 

[Slo]

Autoaim is a weaksause solution to a hardware limitation, not a feature.

 

[dark10x]

"Again, look at how Bungie handled Halo XBOX. With it, you can play the game on the same level as a PC with mouse/keyboard...plus you get the added benefits of smoother circle strafing and panning."

I guarantee you if it was possible to play Xbox pad vs. KB/mouse on halo, unless you got some really sneaky kills in, you'd get demolished. Sorry. It's passible, but it's nowhere NEAR the same level as a pc with mouse/keyboard. Even WITH autoaim.

Actually, "I" wouldn't get demolished in Halo. I honestly think I could destroy YOU at Halo using an XBOX pad versus your keyboard/mouse...but that is basically the one exception (simply because I've spent a hell of a lot of time mastering it). If we are talking Halo, I could take you...but any other game, no way.

Slo is actually right, though..

Autoaim is a weaksause solution to a hardware limitation, not a feature.

HOWEVER, my other points stand. For single player gaming, a pad provides benefits. Surely you can agree with that.

 

[Teknopathetic]

"Actually, "I" wouldn't get demolished in Halo. I honestly think I could destroy YOU at Halo using an XBOX pad versus your keyboard/mouse...but that is basically the one exception (simply because I've spent a hell of a lot of time mastering it). If we are talking Halo, I could take you"

Honestly, if there was a way of actually proving this battle, I'd love to take it on, because (and I'm not trying to be a braggart or anything), I really, really think it'd be a quick job .

 

[deadhorse32]

I'm not gonna read the whole thread but motion blur can be accurately simulated pretty "easily".
You need at least to quadruple your framerate ( for a good motion blur at 30 fps you need constant 120 fps ) and 4 framebuffers to store the 4 "inbetween" then you blend them to get 1 framebuffer (the one to display on screen) and voila good and accurate motion blur.

The higher the framerate (you could go to 240 fps and 8 framebuffers) the better/more accurate the result will look.

Generally motion blur in game is done by blending the current frame with the last one but like a lot of effect in real time gfx it is a simple hack.

edit : a good article with a nice little demo (run on xp) http://freespace.virgin.net/hugo.elias/graphics/x_motion.htm

 

[dark10x]

"Actually, "I" wouldn't get demolished in Halo. I honestly think I could destroy YOU at Halo using an XBOX pad versus your keyboard/mouse...but that is basically the one exception (simply because I've spent a hell of a lot of time mastering it). If we are talking Halo, I could take you"

Honestly, if there was a way of actually proving this battle, I'd love to take it on, because (and I'm not trying to be a braggart or anything), I really, really think it'd be a quick job .

Why exactly do you think that? There is so much more to Halo than aiming...but I can aim perfectly with the pad, so that's not even an issue. How much Halo have you played? It's no regular FPS, I can tell you that. UT experience doesn't mean shit in Halo.

It might be close if it was pad -vs- mouse/keyboard, though. However, if we both used the same controllers, there would be no question. You would lose.

 

[Teknopathetic]

"Why exactly do you think that? There is so much more to Halo than aiming...but I can aim perfectly with the pad, so that's not even an issue. How much Halo have you played? It's no regular FPS, I can tell you that."

You need to chill with the arrogance, bro, you're not the only person to ever play Halo. I've spent a GOOD deal of time with both Halo xbox AND halo PC, and *you* can't aim perfectly with the pad, your auto-aim can, and you'll still be sluggish to move your cursor into the auto-aim lock area compared to how quickly a mouse would be able to zero in on you.



"It might be close if it was pad -vs- mouse/keyboard, though. However, if we both used the same controllers, there would be no question. You would lose."

Now this is just a dumb thing to say.

 

[Phoenix]

OK, besides image quality, framerate and texture resolution...what "huge differences" are there?

Only on GAF (or maybe slashdot) would I expect someone to say what amounts to "if you take away all the things that make me wrong, I'm right".

 

[dark10x]

"Why exactly do you think that? There is so much more to Halo than aiming...but I can aim perfectly with the pad, so that's not even an issue. How much Halo have you played? It's no regular FPS, I can tell you that."

You need to chill with the arrogance, bro, you're not the only person to ever play Halo. I've spent a GOOD deal of time with both Halo xbox AND halo PC, and *you* can't aim perfectly with the pad, your auto-aim can, and you'll still be sluggish to move your cursor into the auto-aim lock area compared to how quickly a mouse would be able to zero in on you.



"It might be close if it was pad -vs- mouse/keyboard, though. However, if we both used the same controllers, there would be no question. You would lose."

Now this is just a dumb thing to say.

You were trash talking too.

 

[Teknopathetic]

That's because I'm not comparing your skills directly with mine so much as mine on a keyboard/mouse versus yours with a pad. I'm not doubting your ability against other padders, but against a decent KB/mouse, the accuracy and ease of circle strafing WHILE maintaining good aim is just too much to over come.

 

[darscot]

Mouse and Keyboard is like training wheels. Your going to school guys with a pad. A pad takes more skill and in my mind the guys that are still competitive with a pad are far better gamers.

 

[Teknopathetic]

"Mouse and Keyboard is like training wheels. Your going to school guys with a pad. A pad takes more skill and in my mind the guys that are still competitive with a pad are far better gamers."

Yeah, so skilled with all that auto-aim A pad takes more skill because it inhibits you and unfortunately, those restrictions require an aid. Now if a pad was comparable sans auto-aim (and I don't really think it is with auto-aim anyway), then sure, they'd get my respect.