I'm watching Cinematech on G4 right now and the video they're showing is definitely 60 FPS, but I don't remember this game being so smooth. Is it actually 60 FPS in the retail version? I haven't played the game so damn long so I forget, but I swore it was lower than 60 FPS. And if it was, why the hell is this video on G4 60 FPS
Was Super Mario Sunshine = 60 fps?
- Thread starter Wario64
- Start date
PanopticBlue
Member
I was so pissed about this at the time...preview versions WERE 60 fps but the retail game is 30.
And I could swear people were claiming mario64DS was to be 60 as well, but it's not
And I could swear people were claiming mario64DS was to be 60 as well, but it's not
PanopticBlue said:I was so pissed about this at the time...preview versions WERE 60 fps but the retail game is 30.
And I could swear people were claiming mario64DS was to be 60 as well, but it's not
Yep, the early versions of Mario 64 DS WERE 60 fps (at least some of the E3 showings when it was 64x4). The final is a disappointing 30 fps. Same for Prime Hunters. That was 60 fps in previews...
PanopticBlue
Member
dark10x said:
Oddly though, the MPH demo actually seems smoother than 30 fps at times. Maybe because it's dark, maybe because using the stylus as mouselook makes it seem smoother, I dunno. But if first person shooters look that smooth at 30fps on DS, then I won't complain. It's really noticable in Mario DS though, I really was looking forward to playing that at 60fps
I'd rather have better graphics, better draw distance, better LoD ... than 60fps.
I don't know who started the 60fps bandwagon, but they should be shot. Sure, it's great if it can be done ... but if world complexity, etc. needs to be lowered to accomodate it -- forget it. People in this forum don't seem to realize running at 60fps actually has quite a cost associated with it.
As for Super Mario Sunshine, I'm guessing they couldn't sustain both the graphical elements and 60fps consistently...so it was bumped down.
I don't know who started the 60fps bandwagon, but they should be shot. Sure, it's great if it can be done ... but if world complexity, etc. needs to be lowered to accomodate it -- forget it. People in this forum don't seem to realize running at 60fps actually has quite a cost associated with it.
As for Super Mario Sunshine, I'm guessing they couldn't sustain both the graphical elements and 60fps consistently...so it was bumped down.
Yeh, I remember seeing it in motion for the first time on CNN. It was 60fps there...but it was downgraded. I guess it's for the better, even in its current state SMS still suffers heavy slowdown in some areas.
Zelda also disappointed me, after reading IGN's -ingnorant- impressions, stating that the game ran at 60fps.
Zelda also disappointed me, after reading IGN's -ingnorant- impressions, stating that the game ran at 60fps.
It all depends on the game. If you'd honestly have any fast-paced game running at 30 over 60 for the sake of detail, I'd have you question your sanity.
For something like Mario 64 DS, it really doesn't matter outside of visual appeal. I'd like to see the game uncapped, as I'd wager that it'd run at 60fps most of the time, but it's no big loss.
fugimax said:
I'm well aware of this, but it is also something I am willing to accept...
However, I could also point out that some of the most impressive and complex looking games on the various systems happen to run at 60 fps. Ninja Gaiden, Metal Gear Solid 2, Metroid Prime, Burnout 3, GT4, and Star Fox Adventures are all incredible looking games. If a developer really IS displaying detail beyond the realm of 60 fps, that's fine, but a game like Super Mario Sunshine should be 60 fps and I believe it could be done on the GC hardware.
I will generally accept a loss in detail, resolution, or complexity in order to have 60 fps. Framerate is more important to me than detail. With PC games, I will immediately start shutting off details and turning down the resolution in order to reach the higher framerates. The difference between 30 fps and 60 fps is like night and day for me. Heck, using a PC monitor (playing a PC game, obviously), I can tell the difference between 55 and 60 fps easily. 60 is the magic number and it is worth most sacrifices IMO.
I think that's kind of sad [or just contrived], personally.
Initially, 30fps (as opposed to 60) is affectual. Especially when coming off a game that plays extremely fluidly at 60fps. But when you actually quit being an observer and truly get 'into' the game, it doesn't make any difference. In other words, if I were to:
1) play a 60 fps game for five hours
2) play the same game, at a smooth 30 fps, for five hours
After a small period of time, I would enjoy 2) equally as much as 1) or, at least, could not distinguish between my 'level of enjoyment'.
Such as with SMS or MGS3.
Inconsistent framerates, of course, are a different story.
Initially, 30fps (as opposed to 60) is affectual. Especially when coming off a game that plays extremely fluidly at 60fps. But when you actually quit being an observer and truly get 'into' the game, it doesn't make any difference. In other words, if I were to:
1) play a 60 fps game for five hours
2) play the same game, at a smooth 30 fps, for five hours
After a small period of time, I would enjoy 2) equally as much as 1) or, at least, could not distinguish between my 'level of enjoyment'.
Such as with SMS or MGS3.
Inconsistent framerates, of course, are a different story.
Date of Lies
Banned
I still can't tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps.
How many fps does a normal tv channel display?
How many fps does a normal tv channel display?
yeah Sunshine was indeed originally 60fps. you could see this in the 2001 Space World showing, on CNN and other previews. then almost at the last min, Sunshine was downgraded to 30fps. Nintendo is lame about framerates. still, I think Sunshine is the best platformer this gen. PS2 platformers be damned.
DIrtyWeasel
Member
demon said:
IAWTP. I was about to say the same thing.
how can you tell when it's running on a cable television show?? : \
Warm Machine
Member
Gregory said:
60 fields per second. 29.999999 frames per second.
Anything shot on film is 24 frames per second and run through telecine and brought up to the 29.9999999999 artificially. Video is 29.9999999999
God's Hand
Banned
Awesome, I just love threads like these because no one knows what the hell they are talking about. Keep trying!
Shin Johnpv
Member
How can you tell the video they were showing on a TV show was 60fps when NTSC what all tv shows are broadcasted in is only 30 (technically 29.99999etc) fps
ArcadeStickMonk
Member
And what did you do all afternoon yesterday, hmm? I seem to recall you futzing with my PC playing Far Cry with the pixel shader 3.0 and HD Rendering at below 60 fps for the most part.dark10x said:
And when I said "It looks great but it doesn't hold 60." you said that it didn't matter because it looked too good. Fibber!
Warm Machine
Member
In case anyone isn't following...
TV has 60 fields per second. It is termed fields as is olden tymes as TV would draw one interlaced image per field and then another one directly after to create 1 solid image "frame".
If you have a game that is 60 frames per second running on an interlaced TV it no longer is 2 fields per image as the game is drawing to screen twice as fast as regular broadcasts. So for each solid frame the TV TRIES to draw it is essentially drawing 2 fields of 2 differn't images.
If your game is 60 frames per second PROGRESSIVE the tv is drawing 60 non interlaced fields per second and each field is essentially a single solid frame.
Regardless, yes a TV can do 60 real frames per second. Yes you can tell a visual difference between 30 frames per second and 60 frames per second even if the image is being interlaced.
TV has 60 fields per second. It is termed fields as is olden tymes as TV would draw one interlaced image per field and then another one directly after to create 1 solid image "frame".
If you have a game that is 60 frames per second running on an interlaced TV it no longer is 2 fields per image as the game is drawing to screen twice as fast as regular broadcasts. So for each solid frame the TV TRIES to draw it is essentially drawing 2 fields of 2 differn't images.
If your game is 60 frames per second PROGRESSIVE the tv is drawing 60 non interlaced fields per second and each field is essentially a single solid frame.
Regardless, yes a TV can do 60 real frames per second. Yes you can tell a visual difference between 30 frames per second and 60 frames per second even if the image is being interlaced.
FortNinety
Member
Every frame-rate discussion, no matter how well intended, ends in pain and sorrow.