-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Next-gen, developers should concentrate mostly on locking framerates...
- Thread starter Matlock
- Start date
PlagueWielder
Member
Next-gen. developers should concentrate mostly on making fun games.
That's incredibly unfair...
All Model 3 games were arcade titles developed by a very specific group of developers. There are, for example, more 60 fps PS2 titles available than there are Model 3 games TOTAL...
It has nothing to do with the actual hardware (well, perhaps not in the case of Dreamcast) and everything to do with who is developing the games.
I suppose I was kinda harsh on the consoles. but still, 1st parties should take more responsibility for what is allowed to be released on their own systems. that is, if they care about quality regarding framerates. really though, it is up to the entire industry to take action. All I ask is that the same care that went into making dozens and dozens of 60fps arcade games over the last 11 years, is also put into console games.
Not all companies can afford to do that, but I do believe that first parties should attempt to set a standard. If you look around, though, a very large number of first and second party Sony games run at 60 fps. The majority of them do, actually. On the flipside, the vast majority of MS's titles run at 30 fps or lower.
I think Nintendo is already on this. While not all of their games are 60fps, everyone has a solid framerate. On top of that, all their games feature little to nothing loading (at least obvious loading). I believe that Nintendo has asked that all their teams meet those requirements without fail but they have been incredibly consistent on this front.
Necroscope
Member
Here we go again... how many times? We should have some kind of topic counters.
I'd say the Dreamcast is the system with the highest concentration of 60 fps games out of this generation of consoles after looking over the catalogs. A lot of notable Xbox and GC games inexplicably targeted 30, and testing of the PS2's library put the majority of games at 30 hz or less as well. SEGA being the main force behind the DC, though, gave the system a dose of their arcade heritage.
but Sega did not do the Dreamcast justice with their arcade conversions. yeah, they did with NAOMI to DC, but not enough Model2/Model3 to DC, and when they did, they were usually subpar conversions. given Dreamcast's potential, Sega could've done so much more, even with the short lifespan of the console.
dark10x, I'll be looking into SCEI library on PS2.
I know there are quite a few 60fps games on all 4 consoles. I still wish more care is taken.
at least this generation improved opon the last. DC-PS2-GC-Xbox have more 60fps games than Saturn-PS1-N64 did. hopefully nextgen will be a further improvement.
I know there are quite a few 60fps games on all 4 consoles. I still wish more care is taken.
at least this generation improved opon the last. DC-PS2-GC-Xbox have more 60fps games than Saturn-PS1-N64 did. hopefully nextgen will be a further improvement.
Error Macro
Member
Games should be locked at 60 fps, and if they go below that at any point, the console should just blow up. Yep, just... explode.
I agree that games should be locked at either 30 or 60, but to state that it can't be below 60 is something I'd disagree with.
RPGs, platformers, some action games, and puzzlers really don't need to be at 60 in most cases, and can benefit from extra horsepower being used to make the visuals more exciting.
I've read some talk on another message board that 30 fps can lend itself to seem more cinematic if done right. It's all up to how the developers want their product to be recieved/experienced. If I'm doing a game like Romance of the 3 Kingdoms, I'd probably want it at 30 fps, to allow for thousands of highly detailed soldiers on the screen. Plus, there isnt' much quick vertical/horizontal movement so no one would notice any image problems that come from lower framerates.
A platformer like Super Mario Sunshine worked A-OK with sub 60 fps framerate, while Sonic should be locked at 60 because the movement is so quick and erratic.
KOTOR was horrible from the aspect that they would have insanely detailed buildings a few miles away (in the game) that would slow down the fps. Those buildings could have easily been a couple of polys with a high res texture on it, to achieve the exact same effect. That game simply wasn't effecient. With smarter artists/level designers, the framerate could have been a lot better without sacrificing much of the look.
RPGs, platformers, some action games, and puzzlers really don't need to be at 60 in most cases, and can benefit from extra horsepower being used to make the visuals more exciting.
I've read some talk on another message board that 30 fps can lend itself to seem more cinematic if done right. It's all up to how the developers want their product to be recieved/experienced. If I'm doing a game like Romance of the 3 Kingdoms, I'd probably want it at 30 fps, to allow for thousands of highly detailed soldiers on the screen. Plus, there isnt' much quick vertical/horizontal movement so no one would notice any image problems that come from lower framerates.
A platformer like Super Mario Sunshine worked A-OK with sub 60 fps framerate, while Sonic should be locked at 60 because the movement is so quick and erratic.
KOTOR was horrible from the aspect that they would have insanely detailed buildings a few miles away (in the game) that would slow down the fps. Those buildings could have easily been a couple of polys with a high res texture on it, to achieve the exact same effect. That game simply wasn't effecient. With smarter artists/level designers, the framerate could have been a lot better without sacrificing much of the look.
Gunsmoke said:
As I sit here reading your post, I can't help but marvel at how thoroughly you seem to have missed the point of this thread. The very fact that the '60 FPS issue' is being debated in the first place should tell you that peoples' feelings on the matter aren't unanimous. It should be obvious by now that there are a great number of people out there who don't share your need to have every game at 60 FPS. Some literally cannot perceive the difference between games running at 30 and 60 frames per second. Others (such as myself) can see the difference, but feel that locking a game at a lower framerate in exchange for other features is perfectly acceptable, depending on the genre.
If you feel the need to skip games in the upcoming generation because they don't run at a high enough framerate for you, by all means do so. If you honestly believe a boycott by you and the handful of others who share your opinions are going to drive developers who release sub-60 FPS games out of business and change the face of the industry, though, you're seriously deluded. I think you'll discover that the vast majority of the game-buying public just don't care enough about this 'issue'. While you're busy thumbing your nose in protest, they'll be buying up (and enjoying) all those locked-at-30-FPS games you passed off as 'discusting'.
CrimsonSkies
Member
I don't notice a locked 30 game that much. It's when it jumps around a lot and moves from 25 to 60 that it looks weird to me.
I agree though that framerate on HDTV sets is going to need to be 60 locked.
I agree though that framerate on HDTV sets is going to need to be 60 locked.
Korranator
Member
After PGR2, I'll never buy another 30fps racer. In the racing game genre > 60fps is unacceptable.
SolidSnakex
Member
Korranator said:
Most developers know to lock racers at 60fps. The majority of racers do run at the framerate, even from smaller lesser known developers. It's very rare for one not to run at that framerate which is why it doesn't make much sense when a developers decides to go for 30fps.
Gunsmoke...I take it you don't see the benefit (that's right, benefit) of making/playing 30 fps games. There are a few like:
1) Better looking graphics (note: I didn't say visuals, I'm talking about how it looks when still).
2) More Cinematic look.
3) More resources for AI/physics.
Well, if you PLAY both, you'll notice little difference in control, because both control at 60 fps.
Seriously though, I agree, if you take a look at both (put them on a switcher) you'll see a difference though, GT3 will be milky smooth while PGR2 won't. On the other hand, PGR2 looks 10 times better than GT3, it makes GT3 look like a bleemcast game. A better comparison is Rallisport 2 compared to PGR2, because Rallisport does somethings better than PGR2 (headlights) that are less costly. It also doesn't go as far as self-shadowing on the car (which in PGR2 is pant-wetting/jaw-dropping), but does shadows on the ground. They've made some sacrifices, and while it's not up to par (technically) compared to PGR2, it makes all the sacrifices in the right places to end up with a 60fps game that looks incredible at the same time.
Rallisport 1 didn't even have real-time reflections, and even games like GT3 had it, but in the end some people just don't notice it.
1) Better looking graphics (note: I didn't say visuals, I'm talking about how it looks when still).
2) More Cinematic look.
3) More resources for AI/physics.
Well, if you PLAY both, you'll notice little difference in control, because both control at 60 fps.
Seriously though, I agree, if you take a look at both (put them on a switcher) you'll see a difference though, GT3 will be milky smooth while PGR2 won't. On the other hand, PGR2 looks 10 times better than GT3, it makes GT3 look like a bleemcast game. A better comparison is Rallisport 2 compared to PGR2, because Rallisport does somethings better than PGR2 (headlights) that are less costly. It also doesn't go as far as self-shadowing on the car (which in PGR2 is pant-wetting/jaw-dropping), but does shadows on the ground. They've made some sacrifices, and while it's not up to par (technically) compared to PGR2, it makes all the sacrifices in the right places to end up with a 60fps game that looks incredible at the same time.
Rallisport 1 didn't even have real-time reflections, and even games like GT3 had it, but in the end some people just don't notice it.
Well don't take this as an arguement with you, but some points that you can consider.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough. What I meant to do was explain the difference between my use of the term "graphics" versus "visuals". The graphics in PGR2 are the absolute best in ANY racing game. But it only moves at 30 fps, hence I refer to the overall effect as the "visuals". I think that Rallisport 2 has the best visuals of any racing game, it's a combination of it's graphics and it's silky smooth framerate.
These are my own definitions, perhaps I should just invent new terms.
Here is another hypothetical example. You are making a game with large landscapes. It currently runs at 60 fps. Now, you can add 3D grass, bushes, and lush greenery to it, but it would reduce the framerate to 30fps. These bushes and grass don't affect gameplay, but make the graphics look better. Would you do it? Or would you stay with your flat grass textures? Graphically it would look better with the grass, but some can argue that the visuals (overall effect) would look better when at a silky smooth 60 fps.
That's a valid opinion. But the developer may not share that opinion, they may want the whole thing to look like a movie.
Well, you can always get more and more realistic, and more graphically intensive. There will never be a game that can do everything and run at 60 fps, anytime soon at least. To say there will be, is saying that there will exist Pixar -level real time ray tracing at 60 fps.
Remember this, polygon technology is like magic. You are fooling people into thinking they are seeing something they aren't. A grass texture fools you into thinking the floor is grass. In the next gen, devs want the floor to behave like grass, feel soft like grass, affect the physics appropriately, wave in the wind appropriately. It's all getting more and more complicated.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough. What I meant to do was explain the difference between my use of the term "graphics" versus "visuals". The graphics in PGR2 are the absolute best in ANY racing game. But it only moves at 30 fps, hence I refer to the overall effect as the "visuals". I think that Rallisport 2 has the best visuals of any racing game, it's a combination of it's graphics and it's silky smooth framerate.
These are my own definitions, perhaps I should just invent new terms
. Here is another hypothetical example. You are making a game with large landscapes. It currently runs at 60 fps. Now, you can add 3D grass, bushes, and lush greenery to it, but it would reduce the framerate to 30fps. These bushes and grass don't affect gameplay, but make the graphics look better. Would you do it? Or would you stay with your flat grass textures? Graphically it would look better with the grass, but some can argue that the visuals (overall effect) would look better when at a silky smooth 60 fps.
That's a valid opinion. But the developer may not share that opinion, they may want the whole thing to look like a movie.
Well, you can always get more and more realistic, and more graphically intensive. There will never be a game that can do everything and run at 60 fps, anytime soon at least. To say there will be, is saying that there will exist Pixar -level real time ray tracing at 60 fps.
Remember this, polygon technology is like magic. You are fooling people into thinking they are seeing something they aren't. A grass texture fools you into thinking the floor is grass. In the next gen, devs want the floor to behave like grass, feel soft like grass, affect the physics appropriately, wave in the wind appropriately. It's all getting more and more complicated.
Gunsmoke said:
You implied that people wouldn't accept (and therefore refuse to buy--people don't generally buy products they consider unacceptably poor) games running at less than 60 FPS when the next generation rolls around. You are obviously one of those people. So either you really do have every intention of buying games that run at less than 60 FPS in the next generation and are just a hypocrite, or you actually will skip playing games if they run at 30 FPS and not 60, in which case I'd say it's your judgement that's 'deluded'.
Gunsmoke said:
Why is it to their 'utmost advantage' to do so? Perhaps someone else would say that it's to their 'utmost advantage' to lock the framerate at 30 FPS and use the additional processing power to provide more detail or better AI, because they care about those things more than framerate. Such a tradeoff is no less to their advantage than catering to your expectations is. Not everyone who games is an AV whore who prizes that above all else.
Gunsmoke said:
First of all, this has nothing to do with lack of knowledge (like not realizing the game they bought has certain features because they didn't read the manual). This is about people who can't see a difference between games running at 30 and 60 FPS. How much of a 'marketing advantage' is it for your game to run at 60 FPS rather than 30 when you're trying to sell it to a guy who can't see a difference? I'll tell you how much of an 'advantage' it is: ZERO.
Gunsmoke said:
So the people who can't perceive the difference between 30 and 60 FPS now are going to magically develop the ability to process visual data differently thanks to next-gen consoles and TV's? I doubt even the Nintendo Revolution is going to be capable of making alterations to the player's visual cortex.
Gunsmoke said:
Except for the people who can't see a difference between 30 and 60 FPS. And the ones who feel that the extra bumpmapping and lighting effects on the N.Rev version that the developer had to sacrifice to keep the Xbox2 version running at 60 FPS make the game look so much nicer that they'd prefer that version instead. Keep assuming that everyone thinks the same way you do if it makes you feel better, though.
Gunsmoke said:
High framerates are only one aspect of graphical quality. There's only so much processing power to go around on any platform, no matter how sophisticated, and locking framerates at 30 instead of 60 in exchange for more detailed visuals and more impressive effects is an entirely reasonable tradeoff under the right circumstances. (And since you brought up advertising, think about this: You can't see 60 FPS in print ads and magazine layouts, but you can definitely see differences in detail, lighting effects, etc. So sacrificing framerate for more impressive visual effects is hardly the kiss of death you're making it out to be, even in a marketing context.
)Gunsmoke said:
How could I have possibly gotten that impression? Hmm... let me see. Maybe it was this?
Gunsmoke said:
'I will expect no less and neither will anyone else'? Considering how snobbish that sounds--games that run at less than 60 FPS aren't good enough for you--it certainly doesn't seem like you'd be playing them come the next generation, and judging from your posts in this thread, you'd likely be ridiculing such titles on messageboards besides. I'd consider that 'thumbing your nose in protest', yes.
Gunsmoke said:
I never said it wasn't.
Gunsmoke said:
Yes, and there's a helluva lot more to a game being 'quality' than just being locked at 60 FPS. To most people, it's a single bullet point, not the be-all and end-all of the gaming experience.
Gunsmoke said:
The mere fact that you'd dismiss a title as 'crappy gaming' because it's locked at 30 FPS, regardless of anything else about it, just underscores how badly your framerate-whore tendencies have warped your perception.
I buy games that are well below 30fps. I don't refuse to play or buy games just because they are less than 60fps. otherwise I'd be missing out on alotta fantastic games. I don't think a game is discusting just because it's sub-60fps. but I would like to see more effort in the area of framerates, to the point where it is no longer an issue. to the point where there is no more forum discussion on the subject
60fps should be standrad for all games next gen. When playing KOTOR and Halo for PC, I sacrifice a decent res, full AA, and Anisotropic filtering for 60fps. It's a difficult trade-off, but a smooth frame actually increases the enjoyability.
After playing KOTOR and Halo at 60fps it's hard on the eyes to go back to anything lower.
After playing KOTOR and Halo at 60fps it's hard on the eyes to go back to anything lower.
Insertia said:
Whoa, KOTOR at 60 fps? Have there been patches? When I first tried it, KOTOR was among the worst performing games I had played. Far Cry ran better than KOTOR...
As for Halo, the PC version has 30 fps animation...so running at 60 fps really kinda makes for an unpolished feeling game. Quite a shame... :\
Bizarro Sun Yat-sen
Banned
"A lot of people will have high expectations for the next generation hardware and software
and if they fail to deliver it could mean the down fall of the video game industry."
and of western civilization for that matter
and if they fail to deliver it could mean the down fall of the video game industry."
and of western civilization for that matter
yep, I totally agree with you.
I would sacrifice the extra details, effects, AA, etc (graphics whores will cry) for 60fps.
framerate not only makes a game look better, but more importantly, play better as well.
framerate is not just a graphics issue, its a gameplay issue first and foremost.
Those are strong words. How often do you play PGR2? How often do you play GT3? I play both regularily, on different TV setups (I play GT3 on 19" monitors when I play 6 players with friends). I can say, after playing both games (quite regularily) on different setups that PGR2 is far better looking than GT3. There's no comparison. It's much like comparing Super Runabout on the DC to the 60 fps Ridge Racer on PSOne. Sure, the 60fps looks smoother, but the graphical enhancements far outwiegh the graphical benefits recieved from having 60 fps.
I only replied because you called that assertion "bullshit". You're telling this to a guy who plays both games regularily on many setups...
Error Macro
Member
A side benefit of having an HDTV means you are able to run 30 fps games in progressive scan, which honestly does not look as bad as a 30 fps game in interlaced mode. It's smoother, although there is still a difference between 30 and 60, it is lessened somewhat in pro scan.
SolidSnakex
Member
Fight for Freeform said:
I tghink it depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for something that's technically superior, then yah PGR2 is quite a bit better. If you're looking for realism, GT3 still holds the crown over any racer imo. It's lighting and overall look is just more realistic than any racer on the market. And one reason for it is because Polyphony doesn't try to go all out on technical achievements because they know that isn't the main way to get the most realistic racer, it'll get you a more techincally advanced one but that's not what they're aiming for.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
High resolution is more longitudinal than a ham sandwich.RiZ III said:Yes, getting 60fps is so much more important than good gameplay and design.
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
Although no one ever talks about it (except dark10x), there are two kinds of framerates. There's screen refresh, and animation frames.
Some games have a 60fps refresh, and 30fps animation. Doesn't look good.
Some games have a 60fps refresh, and 30fps animation. Doesn't look good.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Gregory said:
Um, no. I paid full price for a legit copy. And if all replays are always 30fps, even when saved to the hard drive or not, I'd like someone to explain the disparity in IQ and outright speed between the two.
I've actually just sat there and played the same replay back to back--once not saved, then saved, and there's just a tremendous difference.
bob_arctor said:
I have the retail version, it`s 30fps replays both after he race or saved and loaded from the harddrive in the replay theater.
I heard people that had played the early pirated version say the replays were 60fps when read from the harddrive.
However, in the final game, it`s 30 no matter what. Lots of people have made comments about this.
So either you`re not entirely frank, or you`ve been very lucky and gotten a different version than the rest of the world.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Gregory said:
Seriously, I wouldn't hide the fact if I really did have a pirated version, I'd be up front about it. Also, I'm not saying it isn't 30fps for both since I'm not an expert on anything like that, I'd just like an explanation as to the disparity from both versions from an IQ/speed viewpoint. From what I personally saw, I automatically assumed the hard drive version was 60fps since it looks like actual gameplay whereas the unsaved replay looks blurrier and less vibrant/fast than when you race.