Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
I'd like to read info on this. If you can provide some. Thanks in advance
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
I keep on hearing that most developers won't aspire for 60fps this gen
- Thread starter Agent Icebeezy
- Start date
Agent Icebeezy said:
Some X360 developer made that comment when asked about framerates. Claimed they were shooting for 30 fps and most other developers he was aware of were as well.
PS2 was the king of 60 fps last gen and Sony claimed that 60 fps at 1080p was what they were aiming for. With more Japanese developers on board, I'd assume we'll see plenty...
Here are the 18 ATSC digital TV formats:
HDTV:
1080p.....1080.......1920........16:9....Progressive..24
1080p.....1080.......1920........16:9....Progressive..30
1080i.....1080.......1920........16:9....Interlaced ..30
720pC.. ...720.......1280........16:9....Progressive..24
720pC.. ...720.......1280........16:9....Progressive..30
720pC.. ...720.......1280........16:9....Progressive..60
EDTV:
480p .. ...480.......704.... ....16:9....Progressive..24
480p .. ...480.......704.... ....16:9....Progressive..30
480p .. ...480.......704.... ....16:9....Progressive..60
480p .. ...480.......704.... ....4:3 ....Progressive..24
480p .. ...480.......704.... ....4:3 ....Progressive..30
480p .. ...480.......704.... ....4:3 ....Progressive..60
480p .. ...480.......640.... ....4:3 ....Progressive..24
480p .. ...480.......640.... ....4:3 ....Progressive..30
480p .. ...480.......640.... ....4:3 ....Progressive..60
SDTV:
480i .. ...480.......704.... ....16:9....Interlaced ..30
480i .. ...480.......704.... ....4:3 ....Interlaced ..30
480i .. ...480.......640.... ....4:3 ....Interlaced ..60
HDTV:
1080p.....1080.......1920........16:9....Progressive..24
1080p.....1080.......1920........16:9....Progressive..30
1080i.....1080.......1920........16:9....Interlaced ..30
720pC.. ...720.......1280........16:9....Progressive..24
720pC.. ...720.......1280........16:9....Progressive..30
720pC.. ...720.......1280........16:9....Progressive..60
EDTV:
480p .. ...480.......704.... ....16:9....Progressive..24
480p .. ...480.......704.... ....16:9....Progressive..30
480p .. ...480.......704.... ....16:9....Progressive..60
480p .. ...480.......704.... ....4:3 ....Progressive..24
480p .. ...480.......704.... ....4:3 ....Progressive..30
480p .. ...480.......704.... ....4:3 ....Progressive..60
480p .. ...480.......640.... ....4:3 ....Progressive..24
480p .. ...480.......640.... ....4:3 ....Progressive..30
480p .. ...480.......640.... ....4:3 ....Progressive..60
SDTV:
480i .. ...480.......704.... ....16:9....Interlaced ..30
480i .. ...480.......704.... ....4:3 ....Interlaced ..30
480i .. ...480.......640.... ....4:3 ....Interlaced ..60
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
I can never tell....
As long as it doesn't stutter and slow down I would never be able to judge.
As long as it doesn't stutter and slow down I would never be able to judge.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
60fps is so important to me, I don't see why some people don't notice, but there really is a difference.
To put it bluntly, I will buy a Xbox 360 at launch if PGR3 is 60fps.
Does anybody know why Movies have not advanced to 60fps yet?
To put it bluntly, I will buy a Xbox 360 at launch if PGR3 is 60fps.
Does anybody know why Movies have not advanced to 60fps yet?
ImNotLikeThem
Member
It's not really "advancing" anything if they were to use 60fps for filming. A)it more than doubles the ammount of film/digital storage you have to use, B)natural motion blur>30fps video games and C)there really isn't any need to. All theaters would have to be upgraded to be able to spin film at 60fps, and its not really feasible or practical.Suikoguy said:
but on video games: Trackmania Sunrise. I can play that game on max settings, everything as high quality as it can get, but it gets to <25fps often, and a bit annoying and jerky looking. But if I turn motion blur on, it makes a world of difference. just the interpolation between the frames, even if its running at 20fps now from the added processing power used by the motion blur, gives it such a more realistic feel to it than getting it to run at 60fps would. Maybe thats just me though.
Uncle Dukey
Member
Have you seen Phillip's Trimension DNM feature in motion (It's in WinDVD)? It makes movies smoother than they really are, and is rather creepy 
..
..pj325is said:
I've heard that too, but I don't believe it. It makes absolutely no sense. Why would a resolution be framerate limited?
This IS an opinionated matter, as you've said, and the difference between 30 and 60 fps is like night and day for some of us.
Also, movie framerates and game framerates are entirely different. A 24 fps game would seem somewhat choppy...
golduck342
Member
Like someone above said, as long as they lock it at something constant, I'm happy (30 preferably). I hated how in Halo, it'd randomly have framerate spikes (increases), it spoiled my eyes and then forced me to go back to the lower framrate.
Sqrt_minus_one
Member
pj325is said:
Word is 60 can be done with a capable TV but it is however not a broadcast specification.
At some point you being to run up against the physical refresh rate of the display technology in question. By making the standard something that most of the applicable displays are able to manage, multiple manufacturers are able to make different (and explore new) display technologies that meet the same standards but use wildly different approaches.dark10x said:
It's my assumption that at the time the current 1080p standard was written, atleast some of the viable display technologies for showing images of that resolution were not able to physically achieve a full image replacement 60 times a second. Therefore, it's not part of the standard.
Of course, it's also possible that they were running up against a cabling bandwidth issue, but that seems unlikely considering the new cable standards are supposedly boasting the ability to transmit 16gb/s at lengths of > 50 meters.
Edit: readability, cabling possibility
AtomicShroom
Member
TTP said:
I applaud you sir. My thoughts exactly. Also first person shooters should be locked at 60 too. I feel restrained and bound in Halo 2 with the 30fps.
Next gen, any game that requires precise and fast movement or has an emphasis on speed should be 60fps or die.
Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
:lol :lol :lol @ that Rare wallguy av
How can so many GAFfers be so blind?
It's not hard to notice. If the game has a adjustable camera, quickly whip the view from left to right, really fast. If you don't notice the choppiness of the background, your either delusional, or have really bad movement perception.
Why can't the next gen have a LOCKED 60 fps. It adds believabilty, and lessens eye strain. I know for me, my eyes get tired faster playing <30 fps then 60 fps. Why must we, as gamers, settle for a locked 30, when 60 is doable.
Also, the sense of speed in movement of games with 60 is greater.
Not all games need 60 fps, but ALL games benefit from the jump.
It's not hard to notice. If the game has a adjustable camera, quickly whip the view from left to right, really fast. If you don't notice the choppiness of the background, your either delusional, or have really bad movement perception.
Why can't the next gen have a LOCKED 60 fps. It adds believabilty, and lessens eye strain. I know for me, my eyes get tired faster playing <30 fps then 60 fps. Why must we, as gamers, settle for a locked 30, when 60 is doable.
Also, the sense of speed in movement of games with 60 is greater.
Not all games need 60 fps, but ALL games benefit from the jump.
ImNotLikeThem
Member
CRT televisions only refresh at even divisions of 60hz, 30hz. thus, 60fps or 30 fps. you can theoreticall get 45fps by alternating frames at 30 and 60hz, but thats just odd.Lindsay said:
hukasmokincaterpillar
Member
Raoul Duke said:
24, yeesh. Without the blur of motion found on film 24fps wouldnt work very well with videogames. Believe me you wouldn't enjoy Halo locked @ 24fps.
Im with most folks, 60fps is always optimal. But it depends on the genre. 30fps in ...FPS' are hard for me to deal with, even though Ive played the hell out of Halo and Socom on consoles. Its a big detractor non the less. Driving games Im even more anal about. But something like a third person action adventure, platform, rpg, stealth etc. Im a little more forgiving. I think its ok to sacrifice speed for eye candy in some cases as long as its consistent. And make sure it looks damn good.
AtomicShroom
Member
maskrider said:
30fps is one of the main reasons why I don't dig Forza. Especially when I tried the demo right when coming right back from OutRun 2. Yeeeesh.
This generation has shown that people really don't seem to care about framerate or polish, and developers would rather make games that look good in screenshots than ones the run at 60 FPS. Unless a game's framerate is really bad, my casual gamer friends don't ever mention that a game looks "slow" or "choppy" or whatever....and most of this generation's bestsellers have run at a less-than-stable 30 FPS (Nintendo titles and GT4 excluded).
Personally, I would gladly trade both resolution and polygonal detail for the full 60 FPS. It would be awesome if developers give us the choice between 30 FPS HD resolution and 60 FPS standard resolution.....but I'm not really getting my hopes up about that. Most PC games do not double their framerate performance when stepping down from 1280x720 to 640x480. I think we can expect more games to have a solid-locked 30 FPS, but 60 is too much to ask.
Personally, I would gladly trade both resolution and polygonal detail for the full 60 FPS. It would be awesome if developers give us the choice between 30 FPS HD resolution and 60 FPS standard resolution.....but I'm not really getting my hopes up about that. Most PC games do not double their framerate performance when stepping down from 1280x720 to 640x480. I think we can expect more games to have a solid-locked 30 FPS, but 60 is too much to ask.
midnightguy
Member
some will. some won't. much like this generation.
developers can make the most powerful system CHOKE as far as framerate. be it PS3 in the near future, or PS4 in 7-8 years from now.
developers can make the most powerful system CHOKE as far as framerate. be it PS3 in the near future, or PS4 in 7-8 years from now.
Pedigree Chum
Banned
ikalugar said:
Agreed. 30, 60fps doesn't matter (unless its a racer). As long as its stable. Anything less that and it's pretty hard on the eyes, it was ok in PSX/N64 days but my eyes seriously hurt if anything it less that 30fps.
I'm a pretty decent Halo 2 player as well as a former top 200 in the world Moto GP online guy. I can tell you right now I can't tell a differernce between 30 and 60fps and I would say I was or am good at both of those games. I purchased Forza and couldn't tell any difference in quality and it certainly didn't affect the quality of play for me. I doubt for any top ranked FPS or racing guy on Live that the 30 or 60fps thing even makes a difference. You either have the goods or you don't.
Pedigree Chum
Banned
JayFro said:I'm a pretty decent Halo 2 player as well as a former top 200 in the world Moto GP online guy. I can tell you right now I can't tell a differernce between 30 and 60fps and I would say I was or am good at both of those games. I purchased Forza and couldn't tell any difference in quality and it certainly didn't affect the quality of play for me. I doubt for any top ranked FPS or racing guy on Live that the 30 or 60fps thing even makes a difference. You either have the goods or you don't.
It makes a subtle difference in handling, especially in really fast paced games. Not enough to be cripling, but 60fps is great for racers IMO. I couldn't imagine playing something like Burnout at 30fps.
Late Stage Marxist
Member
FPS is generally more apparent with PC games, as you whip the mouse around much faster than analog aiming. With console games I don't find it to be much of a bother. I think 60+ FPS can look a bit foolish in the animation department sometimes, but other than that I don't really care.
i really don't think the casuals would notice a difference between the two framerates as long as it was constant. Some devs will insist their projects hit 60fps, and some will not. Some will shoot for 30fps in order to put more stuff on-screen. i think the real determinant will be what res these developers shoot for in this coming generation.
There was an old (Voodoo 2 / TnT era) demo of a fairly simple rotating room with half the screen locked to 30 and the other half locked to 60. It permanently convinced me that 30 fps was just unacceptable for fast games (FPS's in particular), don't suppose anyone still has 'er? I can't find it for the life of me. :|
JayFro said:I'm a pretty decent Halo 2 player as well as a former top 200 in the world Moto GP online guy. I can tell you right now I can't tell a differernce between 30 and 60fps and I would say I was or am good at both of those games. I purchased Forza and couldn't tell any difference in quality and it certainly didn't affect the quality of play for me. I doubt for any top ranked FPS or racing guy on Live that the 30 or 60fps thing even makes a difference. You either have the goods or you don't.
Same here with Nascar Racing 2003. I only noticed it when it dipped below the 20-25 range. Above that it was all good.
Gek54 said:
I agree some of the tracks are too hard for me to race because i cant see where the road bends. Silverstone is just too hard for me to see because of the blur.
As for the jaggies, forza still has way too much. The reflections are pukeworthy too. Without live this game would have sucked imo, without live i would have said GT4 is the king.