Unbiased Basturd
Member
manxor said:
Believe me it works. As it makes game more life-like it would also make movies more life-like.
30 fps > 60 fps this gen....(don't kill me)
- Thread starter Fixed2BeBroken
- Start date
Believe me it works. As it makes game more life-like it would also make movies more life-like.
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
Dahbomb said:
Fixed.
Unbiased Basturd
Member
manxor said:
Yeah but i mean 60 full frames per seconds like a videogame in proscan. TV programs are interlaced (each image displayed twice). I also care more about movies uping the fps than TV programs.
manxor said:
Or even two versions within a single show.... I remember seeing an episode of McGuyver years ago where he had to fend off robots in a security facility (the bots were similar to Dalaks). During some of the scenes with the robots the film style feed turned into more of a video feed. It was pretty jarring and for the longest time I couldn't figure out why it looked so different. I think some of the early Max Headroom TV show episodes used the same effect.
Each version seems out of place if used for the wrong purpose. I guess it's just been ingrained in me since childhood due to movies and tv shows being fairly consistent in using film vs video. (24fps vs 50-60fps)
edit: I find it fascinating that we've come to the point of comparing frame rates in the same manner that film and video has been for years. It really shows how far the industry has moved towards photo-realism.
I like 30 fps over 60 fps best too. It's not about the motion blur, but the animation. Whether its' machines, humans, plants, or whatever, 60 fps make the flaws in the animation much, much more apparent to the eyes and it destroys the immersion to a certain level. Motion blur kinda helps, but until the animation is way improved, 30 fps are better.
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
DaddyZ said:
The f*ck? Looks exactly the same to me, only shitty (30fps). Then again, I turn them shits off as they annoy the hell out of me.
Yeah, I'm done w/ this thread.
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
I play the game damn near everyday. Just tell me:
What is superior aesthetically in the in-game replays
Mind you, halftime replays are all 60fps and look much better IMO (because of that).
What is superior aesthetically in the in-game replays
Mind you, halftime replays are all 60fps and look much better IMO (because of that).
ELS-01X said:
I don't think that 30fps improve the animations, in fact I think it's the opposite. Take for example MGS2 (60fps) & MGS3 (30fps) both games share most of the animations but MGS2's animation looks much much smoother than MGS3's.
I honestly can't see how can anyone prefer 30fps over 60fps, there is no benefit in 30fps from a visual standpoint. How can anyone see the first Halo and then Metroid Prime and still insist the 30fps are more "cinematic", better or whatever... :|
DaCocoBrova said:
Half-time camera angles are all the same(camera on an angle above the player). 90% of the replay angles are right up on the player(s) and there has to be more detail used...the game looks totally different. I should take some pics but you have the game...you gotta notice this.
You dont see sweat flying off the players during gameplay/halftime footage but you sure do see it during the replay angles...right?!
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
Never noticed sweat flying off. I'll look again. Either way, it proves my point:
Despite extra effects, the halved frame rate actually makes the game look worse due to the decrease in overall fluidity.
Despite extra effects, the halved frame rate actually makes the game look worse due to the decrease in overall fluidity.
Corwood Rep
Member
I'd settle for 30fps games over 60fps games if screen tearing could thereby be completely eliminated in all games forever, but otherwise no.
Unbiased Basturd
Member
Aristotlekh said:
Sadly, there's alot of 30 fps games with tearing...
Mr. Spinnington
Banned
Hay guys 1 > 2!
TheIkariWarrior
Member
my position is pretty straight forward, certain games can get away with 30fps framerates:
RPGs
Adventure games
any game that has a huge open-ended world where you can go anywhere (GTA)
massively multi-player RPGS / other MMPO games
RTS games
but most games need to be 60fps
Action games
Racing/Driving Games
Platformers
First Person Shooters
Sports games
Flight Simulators or arcade-like flight shooters
overall, I could say I'm disappointed in the overall level of graphics on both the HD consoles, Xbox 360 and PS3. be it framerate, detail, textures, everything, with a few exceptions on both sides. both Xbox 360 and PS3 GPUs, while feature-rich, are very underpowered for having to run most games at 720p not to mention 1080i/1080p.
the CPUs are very powerful if programmed right, and while the GPUs are both well-made and without massive flaws, they are really only suitable for next-gen complex graphics at SDTV resolutions, even though they're being forced to run at HDTV resolutions. the GPUs in Xbox 360 and PS3 are not even capable of doing the pre-rendered tech demos used to show off last-gen consoles (Dreamcast, Xbox, GameCube)....... while the PS2 techdemos were realtime.
now i am clearly not singling out any one console, console-maker, or GPU. there are shortcomings on both sides.
framerate is really important to me in most games and so far, neither Xbox 360 nor PS3 are delivering what i had expected in terms of framerate or detail. the detail and complexity and shaders are a modest step up from last gen, while framerates for the most part are a step backwards since many last-gen games were running 60fps. the biggest leap seems to be just resolution which is disappointing. however I will reserve final judgement until 2nd/3rd generation games are out in 2007-2008.
I long for console makers, GPU makers and game developers to work together to make all games 60fps or at least the vast majority of them.
how come Namco and Sega could consistantly have 60fps in 98% of their arcade games from 1993 Ridge Racer and 1994 Daytona USA forward ? the vast majority of Namco and Sega arcade games of the past 14 years have been 60fps.
I prefer framerate to detail or effects. afterall, it is about the gameplay/control is it not ?
I agree with those that say there is no debate: 60fps is much better than 30fps. twice as good to be exact. top-end game developers know this. you would not want to be playing Virtua Fighter, Tekken, Ridge Racer, Dead or Alive, Ninja Gaiden, or GT at 30fps.
as far as how a game looks, 60fps are much more pleasing to the eye with less detail and less resolution than 30fps games with more detail and higher resolution.
there are many areas where graphics performance gets pulled into, the main ones are
* screen resolution
* framerate
* character & environment detail (geometry/polygons)
* pixel shaders
* textures (variety, resolution, quality)
* special effects
* animation
even the most powerful GPUs that exist today: GeForce 8800 and upcoming ATI R600 are not capable of doing everything we want in graphics. but even less-powerful GPUs like the ones in Xbox 360 and PS3 are good enough if developers don't go crazy with detail and special effects - but sadly, they have to run the games in the minimum of HD res, 720p which already takes away 3x the performance of the same graphics at 480p. thats a huge drain on GPUs that are not massively more powerful than last-gen console graphics in terms of triangle setup, pixel fillrate and bandwidth.
lol, probably Xbox 720 and PS4 will do the graphics I had hoped to see on
Xbox 360 and PS3. but then, even those consoles could be pushed so hard that framerates could be low if too much detail is used..... its a never-ending cycle of more detail vs rendering speed.
RPGs
Adventure games
any game that has a huge open-ended world where you can go anywhere (GTA)
massively multi-player RPGS / other MMPO games
RTS games
but most games need to be 60fps
Action games
Racing/Driving Games
Platformers
First Person Shooters
Sports games
Flight Simulators or arcade-like flight shooters
overall, I could say I'm disappointed in the overall level of graphics on both the HD consoles, Xbox 360 and PS3. be it framerate, detail, textures, everything, with a few exceptions on both sides. both Xbox 360 and PS3 GPUs, while feature-rich, are very underpowered for having to run most games at 720p not to mention 1080i/1080p.
the CPUs are very powerful if programmed right, and while the GPUs are both well-made and without massive flaws, they are really only suitable for next-gen complex graphics at SDTV resolutions, even though they're being forced to run at HDTV resolutions. the GPUs in Xbox 360 and PS3 are not even capable of doing the pre-rendered tech demos used to show off last-gen consoles (Dreamcast, Xbox, GameCube)....... while the PS2 techdemos were realtime.
now i am clearly not singling out any one console, console-maker, or GPU. there are shortcomings on both sides.
framerate is really important to me in most games and so far, neither Xbox 360 nor PS3 are delivering what i had expected in terms of framerate or detail. the detail and complexity and shaders are a modest step up from last gen, while framerates for the most part are a step backwards since many last-gen games were running 60fps. the biggest leap seems to be just resolution which is disappointing. however I will reserve final judgement until 2nd/3rd generation games are out in 2007-2008.
I long for console makers, GPU makers and game developers to work together to make all games 60fps or at least the vast majority of them.
how come Namco and Sega could consistantly have 60fps in 98% of their arcade games from 1993 Ridge Racer and 1994 Daytona USA forward ? the vast majority of Namco and Sega arcade games of the past 14 years have been 60fps.
I prefer framerate to detail or effects. afterall, it is about the gameplay/control is it not ?
I agree with those that say there is no debate: 60fps is much better than 30fps. twice as good to be exact. top-end game developers know this. you would not want to be playing Virtua Fighter, Tekken, Ridge Racer, Dead or Alive, Ninja Gaiden, or GT at 30fps.
as far as how a game looks, 60fps are much more pleasing to the eye with less detail and less resolution than 30fps games with more detail and higher resolution.
there are many areas where graphics performance gets pulled into, the main ones are
* screen resolution
* framerate
* character & environment detail (geometry/polygons)
* pixel shaders
* textures (variety, resolution, quality)
* special effects
* animation
even the most powerful GPUs that exist today: GeForce 8800 and upcoming ATI R600 are not capable of doing everything we want in graphics. but even less-powerful GPUs like the ones in Xbox 360 and PS3 are good enough if developers don't go crazy with detail and special effects - but sadly, they have to run the games in the minimum of HD res, 720p which already takes away 3x the performance of the same graphics at 480p. thats a huge drain on GPUs that are not massively more powerful than last-gen console graphics in terms of triangle setup, pixel fillrate and bandwidth.
lol, probably Xbox 720 and PS4 will do the graphics I had hoped to see on
Xbox 360 and PS3. but then, even those consoles could be pushed so hard that framerates could be low if too much detail is used..... its a never-ending cycle of more detail vs rendering speed.
It's not subjective at all. 60fps is ALWAYS better than 30fps. ALWAYS.
The only reasons for 30fps:
1. shitty devs
2. not enough time for optimisation
The amount of sub 60fps next-gen games is truly tragic and just shows that devs aren't currently exploiting the power of this consoles.
TheIkariWarrior
Member
CowGirl said:
I have to agree.
those who say 30fps is good enough, maybe they are just so used to average and sub-standard games on PS1, N64, PS2 and crappy PC games, not consistantly playing all the exellent 60fps arcade games of the 1990s, or the better-made console and PC games.
CowGirl said:
Give me a break
The main reason for 30fps:
3-4 times the number of polys, shaders, effects on screen. In other words, much more freedom to make bigger better looking games.
It's a choice, not a result of 'shitty devs' or 'lack of optimisation'. You think MGS 3, Resident Evil 4, PGR 3 etc were unoptimised? most 30fps games are optimised to stay at that framerate.
We are talking next gen - and yes I think PGR 3 was unoptimised as it was a rushed launch title. This is essentially the same game that I was playing on my DreamCast years ago, there's no excuse for it to be 30fps on the 360.
You don't get 3-4 times the number of polys @ 30fps, you get 2x, and you are making the assumption that all 30fps titles are GPU limited. A lot of time the reason for the sub-60fps framerate is down to the fact that these games are CPU bound.
If 30fps games looked signifcantly better than 60fps ones, you would have a case. But time and again we see 60fps that outshine their slower competition.
TheIkariWarrior
Member
60fps always looks so much better than the same game at 30fps.
is having 60 dollars better than 30 dollars? of course.
PS1/PS2 owners that have Ridge Racer Type 4 and the bonus disc:
NAMCO took the time and trouble to make it POINT to all gamers that 60fps is so much better than 30fps. put in the demo disc, play original PS1 Ridge Racer, then play the 60fps version. then with a straight face, tell me 60fps doesn't make all the difference in the world.
framerate matters as much this generation (Xbox360, PS3, Wii) as it did last gen (DC, PS2, GCN, Xbox) and the gen before (Saturn, PS1, N64).
is having 60 dollars better than 30 dollars? of course.
PS1/PS2 owners that have Ridge Racer Type 4 and the bonus disc:
NAMCO took the time and trouble to make it POINT to all gamers that 60fps is so much better than 30fps. put in the demo disc, play original PS1 Ridge Racer, then play the 60fps version. then with a straight face, tell me 60fps doesn't make all the difference in the world.
framerate matters as much this generation (Xbox360, PS3, Wii) as it did last gen (DC, PS2, GCN, Xbox) and the gen before (Saturn, PS1, N64).
TheIkariWarrior
Member
Nozi said:
even if it was 5 to 10 times the amount of polygons, 60fps games generally look better than 30fps games in motion, and ALWAYS play better.
C- Warrior
Banned
60 fps is a big deal.
I watched some DMC4 footage blimblim recorded and it was encoded at 30 fps. It looks good, sure. But then he encoded the same footage to run at 50 fps (the game runs at 60 fps) and it was a world of difference.
You get bored of graphics 10 minutes within a game, frame rate however -- affects gameplay for the entire experience.
I watched some DMC4 footage blimblim recorded and it was encoded at 30 fps. It looks good, sure. But then he encoded the same footage to run at 50 fps (the game runs at 60 fps) and it was a world of difference.
You get bored of graphics 10 minutes within a game, frame rate however -- affects gameplay for the entire experience.
robertsan21
Member
DJ Sl4m said:
I´d much rather have HD in 60fps than HD 30fps
robertsan21 said:
Yea me too, I just threw that in there because last week for xmas holidays I was at my cousins house and we were playing GT3 on a SDTV, and I was like "this sucks, I can't see shit for curves coming up in the road on SD"
My point was of course I like 60 fps better than 30, but after getting used to solid 30 fps on an HDTV it was easily far superior to 60 fps on SD.
At 30fps you have twice as much drawtime than at 60fps, so how exactly does that equate to 4 times the number of polys? Unless your engine has some horrendously slow setup routines every render frame.
I'm sick of people making all these lame excuses for 30fps games.
I've worked on 60fps games and I've worked on 30fps games and the big difference is on the 60fps titles we had to spend a shitload of time optimising things, being very careful how the environments and characters were modelled and constantly running performance metrics on every aspect of the game and tuning it. To make a 60fps game is a lot of hard work and that's one of the main reasons most devs don't attempt it.
Kabuki Waq
Member
Nozi said:
again Where do you work you cant just say post this garbage to give yourself credibility and then not tell us where you work.
ElectricBlue187
Member
I agree that all racing games and to some extent FPS must be 60 FPS to be enjoyable, RPGs not so much
mentalfloss
Banned
30 fps is what happened when we realized the next gen consoles weren't really next gen.
Shogmaster
Member
CowGirl said:
That's a pretty damn retarded statement, even for this thread.
Diablohead
Member
i'm all for 30 fps and 60 fps, but if a game can look amazing in 30 it's worth it, though racing games are best in 60 fps since you normally move realy fast etc.
If a game is playable in whatever res it recieves it's fine, sometimes I can't work out how someone finds a 30fps game totaly unplayable unless it's some completely overlooked slowdown and breaks the game totaly.
If a game is playable in whatever res it recieves it's fine, sometimes I can't work out how someone finds a 30fps game totaly unplayable unless it's some completely overlooked slowdown and breaks the game totaly.
Shogmaster said:
PGR is essentially MSR with higher res graphics. In what way is this statement retarded?
I was expecting next gen consoles to happily run these type of games @ 60fps, and I see no reason why Bizarre's next release in this franchise shouldn't hit this target. Burnout manages it.
Some people here have disappointingly low expectations.
Diablohead
Member
at one point bizarre said if they had longer they could get it to 60fps, they had to make it for launch etc.CowGirl said: