PDA

View Full Version : 60 fps or 30 fps? (preemptive strike)



Pages : [1] 2

cliffbo
05-23-2006, 05:57 PM
the war is heating up and the battle is raging on all fronts. as each new fact washes through the internet many apologists look to ever more oblique factors to dismis as unnecessary. 'Don't need Blu-ray, Don't need high definition... etc..' so whats the next denial on the list? Having watched a myriad of vids at E3 for all three consoles its safe to say that framerate will be the next. almost every 360 games seemed to judder on framerate, even the much anticipated GoW and Too Human. so do we need 60 frames a second? HELL YES!! this to me is going to be the main bone of contention come launch day. its becoming increasingly obvious that the PS3 can achieve more on screen at 60fps, but this is something that a still can never demonstrate, so expect a lot of comparisons of stills in the coming two years. keep your eye on bump mapping too. tell it as it is PS3 fans and don't let the opposition pull the wool over your eyes.

KiLLA2006
05-23-2006, 06:05 PM
after being exposed to 60 fps in a couple of classes, i really notice when a game or a video drops to 30 fps halo 3 was noticeable chugging when the covenant dropship came onscreen... disappointing, but what can you do eh?

LiquidEagle
05-23-2006, 06:08 PM
Haha nice inspirational speech :-p

I heard that MGS4 runs at 30 fps...I have no way to verify that since 1UP said it and the guy didn't sound very technically apt, but that's kinda disappointing to hear. 60 FPS is certainly ideal for any game. I made a thread awhile back about whether or not framerate will ever stop being an issue though, and the general concensus was that as long as devs are pushing hardware like they should, we'll always have to worry about framerate drops :(

Consider it a casualty of war, but it's still good to have....

cliffbo
05-23-2006, 06:09 PM
after being exposed to 60 fps in a couple of classes, i really notice when a game or a video drops to 30 fps halo 3 was noticeable chugging when the covenant dropship came onscreen... disappointing, but what can you do eh?

what can we do? we can prevent devs from copping out by complaining about it on forums such as this. remember a lot of people in the industry trawl though sights like E-mpire for public opinion. so if your reading this devs 60fps please.

cpiasminc
05-23-2006, 06:52 PM
I'd like to know why people seem to think it's as simple as a yes or no question to implement.

cliffbo
05-23-2006, 06:55 PM
I'd like to know why people seem to think it's as simple as a yes or no question to implement.

perhaps you could explain the complications to us mere mortals Cp. lol

section
05-23-2006, 06:59 PM
I'd like to know why people seem to think it's as simple as a yes or no question to implement.
Because normal person doesn't want to admit limitations in any nextgen system. It's easier to admit that there are indeed limited resources in your hands if you have worked with any computational technology and system.

Finding the sort of golden section in the complexity of any computer application is even today as important as it was many dozens of years ago.

cliffbo
05-23-2006, 07:01 PM
Because normal person doesn't want to admit limitations in any nextgen system.

the point of this thread +rep. lets keep this forum Sony :) mods can't you change the rep system a bit, i have to spread them around it says again!!!!! i haven't repped sct in ages.

section
05-23-2006, 07:15 PM
Cliff, I'm happy with just the idea of your agreement, no need for reputation :)

It's just that I'm working on a programming/computer systems field myself so I know something about that particular side of life.

And isn't my new avatar just adorable? :)

Luis
05-23-2006, 07:18 PM
I heard that MGS4 runs at 30 fps...I have no way to verify that since 1UP said it and the guy didn't sound very technically apt, but that's kinda disappointing to hear.Not only I don't consider 1UP's staff reliable anymore regading anything Playstation, but I'm not sure whether MGS4's frame rate is final just yet, although taking into account the slowdowns in the latest real time trailer, even though it's still an early build, they're probably aiming for 30fps even though I'd swear it ran at 60fps sometimes (can't tell for sure because the available videos are quite poorly encoded).

Anyway, I hope this doesn't become a "The human eye can't tell the difference between 30 and 60" thread or a "J. Allard said he doesn't need a frame rate greater than movies', so nobody else wants more than that" thread.

cliffbo
05-23-2006, 07:18 PM
Cliff, I'm happy with just the idea of your agreement, no need for reputation :)

It's just that I'm working on a programming/computer systems field myself so I know something about that particular side of life.

And isn't my new avatar just adorable? :)

its a million miles from mine though lol

section
05-23-2006, 07:28 PM
its a million miles from mine though lol
Life or avatar? :) Gerbil vs. Bum. You choose which is which :troutslap

cliffbo
05-23-2006, 07:31 PM
Anyway, I hope this doesn't become a "The human eye can't tell the difference between 30 and 60" thread or a "J. Allard said he doesn't need a frame rate greater than movies', so nobody else wants more than that" thread.

oh but it will VG, especially if 360 fans come on board or those that pretend to be unbiased (and we all know who they are) ;)

cliffbo
05-23-2006, 07:32 PM
Life or avatar? :) Gerbil vs. Bum. You choose which is which :troutslap

never put gerbil and bums in the same sentence! you never know how many homophobics may read it lol

Smokey
05-23-2006, 07:36 PM
never put gerbil and bums in the same sentence! you never know how many homophobics may read it lol
lol :susp:

cliffbo
05-23-2006, 08:19 PM
film shows images at about 25fps and so thats the argument MS will use, but its a completely different thing from 60fps on consoles.


Ah, but what of motion blur?

When shooting film (is it that movie theaters are 24fps and television (59.96/2) fps?) at some N frames per second, each exposure captures all the positions the objects in view occupied during that exposure's 1/N second. For stationary objects, that doesn't mean anything interesting, but for objects in motion, it means they'll blur or streak in the film, so to speak.

When rendering scenes, that doesn't happen (on any hardware I can afford, anyway). The individual frames of a real-time computer rendered image will calculate and display where the objects are at one infinitely thin slice in time. Think of it as the difference between living in a constantly lit world and one that's lit by a strobe light, and you've got the basic idea.

Increasing FPS, in turn, ups the frequency of that strobe light. 24 or 30fps is fine for motion-blurred film images, but it takes more fps to compensate for the discrete timeslices of a rendered image.

LaLiLuLeLo
05-23-2006, 08:26 PM
60fps is best in games because it has to be responsive to the input of the user. A video can be passable at 15 fps, disney animations run at 30, the average is 24 (most anime clocks in at that), but games are a different story. 30 is good, but 60 is expected now. PSone could do 60 fps for crying out loud (but the graphics took a big hit, lol).

cliffbo
05-23-2006, 08:32 PM
60fps is best in games because it has to be responsive to the input of the user. A video can be passable at 15 fps, disney animations run at 30, the average is 24 (most anime clocks in at that), but games are a different story. 30 is good, but 60 is expected now. PSone could do 60 fps for crying out loud (but the graphics took a big hit, lol).

i myself think that KK suggested that PS3 could do 120fps because by setting the bar higher it guarentees more games aiming at 60fps. but imagine if we do get games at 120fps! no doubt if MS do manage to survive long enough to bring out xbox3 and it runs at 120fps, then those saying 30fps is enough will change the record.

LaLiLuLeLo
05-23-2006, 08:35 PM
now, I know 120 fps isn't perceivable by the human eye, and can't even be displayed by any television (this is a fact), so let's not even go there:shifty: It's nice that such an approximation could be done, if only for giving designers room to work with, although I wonder if this is just hype talk.

Smokey
05-23-2006, 08:38 PM
im pretty sure v8s 2 was 60fps and i think v8s 3 is as well :) but they were ps2 games so it might be alot different with the pixel rate in ps3.

Nameless
05-23-2006, 08:39 PM
Fellas, it is well known that Motion blur is a very important part to making videos look seamless. With motion blur, the refresh rate per frame gives the impression of two frames to our eyes. This makes a really well encoded DVD look absolutely incredible. A video game engine needs a higher frame rate to create visual output on a frame-by-frame basis creating the illusion of motion fluidity.

The target for gaming should be 60FPS or higher... (30FPS is adaquate for some gaming genres, but the overall goal should be 60FPS)

cliffbo
05-23-2006, 08:46 PM
Fellas, it is well known that Motion blur is a very important part to making videos look seamless. With motion blur, the refresh rate per frame gives the impression of two frames to our eyes. This makes a really well encoded DVD look absolutely incredible. A video game engine needs a higher frame rate to create visual output on a frame-by-frame basis creating the illusion of motion fluidity.

The target for gaming should be 60FPS or higher... (30FPS is adaquate for some gaming genres, but the overall goal should be 60FPS)

yes in a racing game 30fps is enough to fool the eye, but in a game where the movement is slower it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Luis
05-23-2006, 08:47 PM
yes in a racing game 30fps is enough to fool the eye, but in a game where the movement is slower it sticks out like a sore thumb.Actually, I don't really enjoy 30fps racing games.

LaLiLuLeLo
05-23-2006, 08:54 PM
yeah 60fps is what's expected in racing games, for the sake of responsiveness.

Nameless
05-23-2006, 08:56 PM
Honestly, 120FPS may be overkill, but I would take it if my display supported it...

LaLiLuLeLo
05-23-2006, 08:57 PM
120 fps is overkill, basically.

Lekko
05-23-2006, 09:00 PM
I honestly don't think 60 fps will happen with regularity as long as graphical effects are paramount. What would the average gamer want 60 fps? Or a bit more smoke/particles/lighting/ect..

Because the standard is 30 fps, you set your graphical expectations there. Any game that comes out at 60 fps may look worse to the people viewing stills on the net deciding wether or not to buy the game.

Nameless
05-23-2006, 09:04 PM
I honestly don't think 60 fps will happen with regularity as long as graphical effects are paramount. What would the average gamer want 60 fps? Or a bit more smoke/particles/lighting/ect..

Because the standard is 30 fps, you set your graphical expectations there. Any game that comes out at 60 fps may look worse to the people viewing stills on the net deciding wether or not to buy the game.


Lekko, that's exactly why informed consumers should not base everything on screen shots... The one thing we should all learn regarding the next-gen is screenshots are not that important. The ingame camera system and FPS are extremely important regarding visuals. (Most next-gen engines will be able to throw a lot of shaders and polys around...)

LaLiLuLeLo
05-23-2006, 09:04 PM
mgs3 is at 30fps. shadow of the colossus is at 30fps.
Yeah, I'm sure that will continue to be the standard, i.e. minimum bar before you get scornful glances. 60 will always be a big deal, if you're pushing the hardware.

Viper
05-23-2006, 09:06 PM
Fellas, as was mentioned before, so long as devs push the resources beyond what is being allocated, we'll have slowdown, regardless of target frame rate. In that same respect, if you want more objects on screen, higher resolutions, higher polycounts, etc...you will not be looking for 60 fps very often.

60 fps has been possible since PS1 and N64 as Ridge Racer 4 and Wipeout 64 demonstrates that 60 fps and good graphics are possible as well (I'm unsure if either had frame rate dips though).

Asking for flawless 60 fps frame rates on every game is point blank asking way too much. This is much because many gamers are also asking for the very things that cause frame rate dips (more characters, higher poly counts, 1080p, more particle effects, etc...). Sometimes the sacrifice of frames for more onscreen eye candy is worth it and on the other hand sometimes the sacrifice for eye candy to give 60 fps is more worth it.

To be honest, if MGS4 is a constant 60fps, I will be shocked. To be fair, most titles at E3 were not complete software and criticizing for low fps is unfair to developers who have yet to begin the tweaking process. Getting frame rates up is one of the latter issues taken care of by developers before debugging.

BahnNZ
05-23-2006, 09:08 PM
30 fps please, with double the detail of 60 fps.

If you take a look at 30 fps PGR3 vs 60 fps RR6 with half the detail, 30 fps is the way to go.

What's important is the frame rate is rock solid steady.

yoshaw
05-23-2006, 09:10 PM
I think it was the first Gran Turismo for PSOne. The entire game was done in 30fps. But when you finish the game 100%, a new mode was unlocked that let you enjoy some of the tracks in 60fps.

I remember it clearly when I finished GT 100%, had a few friends over at my place and they were anxiously waiting for the 60fps version too. We had no idea what was coming but I hyped it to them beyond belief(blame the mag which hyped it to me first)

So the moment arrived, I started the new 60fps mode and holy issh!!! I couldn't even control the car as I was doing it so professionaly in the 30fps. I mean by the time I unlocked the 60fps mode, I had spent hundreds of hours into the 30fps game. It was next to impossible for me to get the grips of 60fps car handling. But an hour later, I remember about 15 of my other friends had gathered at my place(thanks to this invention called the telephone) and they were all trying out how does it feel to have a butter smooth gameplay. We all enjoyed that evening like crazy taking turns on that single 60fps mode. What a memory! :)

On that note, I believe 60fps is a MUST for any racing game. GT3 and GT4 are examples of pure perfection for 60fps. Playing GT3 at 60fps for the first time after GT1 and GT2 @ 30fps was a breathtaking experience for me.

60fps should be declared the norm by now to be honest. It's THAT good!

Nameless
05-23-2006, 09:13 PM
Yoshaw, your signature is hilarious...

yoshaw
05-23-2006, 09:20 PM
Yoshaw, your signature is hilarious...

lol ; tell me about it ;)

LiquidEagle
05-23-2006, 09:21 PM
I'm not sure 120 fps would make much of a difference. I tried reading up awhile ago about what the eye is capable of distinguishing, and it basically comes down to what you're used to. If you're used to looking at MGS2 and Timesplitters at 60 fps, then Halo's 30 fps is gonna be quite an eyesore. Anybody who says you can't distinguish between 30 & 60 is just wrong :-p When I see games like CS jump all the way up to 120 fps though, I can't see a big difference between that and 60...

Also I don't think MGS4 had slowdown as much as it was just slow-motion... Kojima clearly loves to make things look like a stylized movie (just look at how the camera following Snake run up the stairs appears to be hand-held as it bobs up & down), and the slow movement of things was part of that. Considering they were so good at keeping a great framerate in MGS2 and (to a lesser extent) MGS3, I don't think they have that hard of a time keeping a good one in MGS4.

RavenFox
05-23-2006, 09:21 PM
Well said Yoshaw.

cpiasminc
05-23-2006, 09:31 PM
60fps is best in games because it has to be responsive to the input of the user.
Sorry, but the rate of user input processing is much, much slower than the display framerate. It's rarely higher than 15 Hz, and often more like 10 Hz because physical reaction times and hysteresis is that slow. If we checked your inputs at 60 Hz, then you'd see Lara Croft running at very near the speed of sound.


A video can be passable at 15 fps, disney animations run at 30, the average is 24 (most anime clocks in at that)
Ummm... Disney's animation is done at 12 fps (unless you're talking 3d CG animation). That's the standard for all 2d animation -- every frame is doubled up on a standard film feed rate of 24 fps. Many animes look marginally smoother because they might cross-fade on odd frames. Film is typically 24 fps, while there are very old films that are 12 fps. Even modern Flash animation defaults to 12 fps (though you can go higher if you want). Human eye latency is actually right about at 12 fps -- which is not to say that's the limit of what the eye can perceive. That's the minimum framerate at which frames can be perceived as motion and not as discrete images.

Perceiving as motion and perceiving as smooth are two different things. The eye still gathers information. That's why we can still see a difference in smoothness between 300 fps and 120 fps.

The thing that makes games different is the fact that a rendered image is an instantaneous image and has no information about motion. Yes motion blur can fix this, but only if the motion blur is necessarily correct. Since our eyes still gather information, they can see if there's something amiss with the cheap tricks we might do to get motion blur without rendering everything several times per frame.

People need to get it through their heads that it isn't *just* a rendering issue. High framerate raises the timing granularity of everything else -- physics, animation, AI, etc. You have to make sacrifices because none of those things is really fast. That's why, for instance, Havok, was meant to be stable at low framerates (~10 fps) -- so that people can actually run at high framerates -- I know that sounds weird, but the point is that you can make a physics update less often and it will still work (largely).

Say I've got some group of computations that take up around 3 ms to get through... well at 60 fps, 1 frame is 16.67 ms, so you'd think everything is just hunky dory, right? If you answered yes, you are officially stupid. What happens if these computations are dependent on the output of something else? What happens if something else has to wait on these computations? When within a frame can I really start on these? What happens if I start it at the 14th ms of this frame? Oops! That means I go over 16 ms and have to drop frames. Now if I had 33 ms to do it, I'll probably finish all my calculations well before the frame is up, but at least I won't drop any frames.

There are things for which high framerate is suitable, and things for which high framerate is entirely unsuitable. It's not something you can blanket the entire industry with.

Arnaud_M
05-23-2006, 09:36 PM
Just to clear some misconceptions here, 30 fps is completly inadequate (even for movies) and the human eye can see things up to more than 200 frames per second.

Anyone who sees a demonstration of 100 fps movies immediatly perceives the added quality, compared to the traditionnal 24 fps (such demos are available for instance in science fairs, such as "The Futuroscope" in France, but I am sure in many other places as well). Movies at 100 frames a second are immediately perceived as much more smooth and pleasant, but you have to see it yourself to gauge what a difference it makes. The problem with low fps lies with fast moving scenes. Slow moving scenes (dialogues, interiors, and the like) are perfectly fine in 24 fps. Such demos of 100fps movies uses cameras on helicopter, filming forest and mountains from above to make their point obvious, and the difference in quality is nothing less than striking.

As for the human eye, experiments indicate that more than 200 fps are perceivable, even though not consciously when we reach the limit of our perceptual system. The experiments were performed using stroboscopic displays of shapes for 1/20, 1/40, etc.. up to 1/300 th of a second, and subjects were asking to describe what they saw by picking among a list of items presented to them by the experimenter. When the fps were very high, they reported seing nothing, and they thought that they were chosing randomly in the list of possible answers, but they were not according to the statistical analysis. The limit was around 1/250 th of a second.

Arnaud

LiquidEagle
05-23-2006, 09:44 PM
I thought 18 was the bare minimum for when you notice that it's static images moving from one to the next, cpi?

cpiasminc
05-23-2006, 09:52 PM
So-called flicker-fusion frequency is about 7 fps. Though this is where it just barely begins to occur. I think a Gaussian sampling of most people tends to put the mean at around 12 fps.

There are people who use various techniques to get away with less. Bill Plympton somehow manages to make his animations still work even at 6 fps -- it's jerky, but there are ways to make it less noticeable by drawing your eyes away from fast motion.

woundingchaney
05-23-2006, 09:52 PM
the war is heating up and the battle is raging on all fronts. as each new fact washes through the internet many apologists look to ever more oblique factors to dismis as unnecessary. 'Don't need Blu-ray, Don't need high definition... etc..' so whats the next denial on the list? Having watched a myriad of vids at E3 for all three consoles its safe to say that framerate will be the next. almost every 360 games seemed to judder on framerate, even the much anticipated GoW and Too Human. so do we need 60 frames a second? HELL YES!! this to me is going to be the main bone of contention come launch day. its becoming increasingly obvious that the PS3 can achieve more on screen at 60fps, but this is something that a still can never demonstrate, so expect a lot of comparisons of stills in the coming two years. keep your eye on bump mapping too. tell it as it is PS3 fans and don't let the opposition pull the wool over your eyes.
Your mentioning games that have yet to be released?????

Any system can achieve 60 or 100 fps but it has to do with graphic and other developmental content. Your not going to get the high rated visuals with 60 fps its a trade and right now graphics seem to be more important than framerate to devs and consumers.

Many PS3 vids stutter due to framerate issues as well and as we have discussed before the target of many of the PS3 games (infact the majority) of PS3 games run at 30 fps.

To mock competition over inadequacy you find in the gaming world is somewhat ridiculous. Bottom line is PS3 games are not better looking (infact are inferior looking in many cases) or smoother running than competitions games nor is it necessarily true that the PS3 has an advantage in achievable framerate. Games are reflected in each ones eyes and where as I would also like 60fps standard Im not sure its worth graphical enhancements.

This entire forum is turning into a uplift the PS3 at all costs discussion board.

RavenFox
05-23-2006, 09:58 PM
Hey wounding you missed the FFXIII thread.

woundingchaney
05-23-2006, 09:59 PM
Hey wounding you missed the FFXIII thread.
Ill give it a check


LOL

xbdestroya
05-23-2006, 10:02 PM
Guys yeah, you can't just say 'give us 60 FPS' and expect it to get done. I personally think it won't be a big target for a lot of developers. Why? Because for 30 FPS you're able to put a bunch more eye candy up on the screen. And in this era of graphics obsession, even though some people here say they want 60 FPS,these are some of the same people I know will actually be drawn to the 'prettier' games when all is said and done.

In screenshots, in pictures, in video even... graphics always seems to trump frame-rates when it comes to public opinion.

And the devs know that too.

Luis
05-23-2006, 10:19 PM
Your mentioning games that have yet to be released?????To be honest, I've seen many 360 games in front of my eyes and I have to say that not only 360 titles to be released have serious slowdown issues. Sometimes it must be true that the slowdowns can't be solved, but I keep thinking most games I've seen are rushed. Very much.


Many PS3 vids stutter due to framerate issues as well and as we have discussed before the target of many of the PS3 games (infact the majority) of PS3 games run at 30 fps.You're mentioning games that have yet to be released! (and how do you know the majority target 30fps? Most videos on the net are poorly encoded and never go beyond 30fps, thus not representing the real framerate)


To mock competition over inadequacy you find in the gaming world is somewhat ridiculous. Bottom line is PS3 games are not better looking (infact are inferior looking in many cases) or smoother running than competitions games nor is it necessarily true that the PS3 has an advantage in achievable framerate.You're mentioning games on a system that both have yet to be released!


This entire forum is turning into a uplift the PS3 at all costs discussion board.Honestly wounding, this is a PS3 forum. It's just naive not to expect some PS3 favouritism. Anyway, most times, if not all, we find you defending 360 and underestimating PS3. You want to seem unbiased, but you don't really succeed, I tell you.

xbdestroya
05-23-2006, 10:26 PM
Honestly wounding, this is a PS3 forum. It's just naive not to expect some PS3 favouritism. Anyway, most times, if not all, we find you defending 360 and underestimating PS3. You want to seem unbiased, but you don't really succeed, I tell you.

Wait a minute now, I don't think Wounding has a problem with people praising the PS3, I think his problem is when that praise comes at other consoles' expense. And I agree that is a problem here over the last week or two. Often a post rather than sticking to PS3, will drag 360 into it as well as being 'inferior' or 'weaker' than the PS3, and that point will be brought up by some of the Sony enthusiasts here.

It should be only natural that fans of that console then step up to defend it. I don't think Woundign is often the one to bring up the 360 proactively in any of these discussions, but nor should he be expected to just stay silent if he sees something incorrect being said about a system he is fond of.

gljvd
05-23-2006, 10:26 PM
the war is heating up and the battle is raging on all fronts. as each new fact washes through the internet many apologists look to ever more oblique factors to dismis as unnecessary. 'Don't need Blu-ray, Don't need high definition... etc..' so whats the next denial on the list? Having watched a myriad of vids at E3 for all three consoles its safe to say that framerate will be the next. almost every 360 games seemed to judder on framerate, even the much anticipated GoW and Too Human. so do we need 60 frames a second? HELL YES!! this to me is going to be the main bone of contention come launch day. its becoming increasingly obvious that the PS3 can achieve more on screen at 60fps, but this is something that a still can never demonstrate, so expect a lot of comparisons of stills in the coming two years. keep your eye on bump mapping too. tell it as it is PS3 fans and don't let the opposition pull the wool over your eyes.

We don't need blu-ray , both xbox 360 and ps3 both offer hd and 30 or 60 fps are both fine depending on the game type in quesiton.

30fps (sometimes lower) are fine in a rpg like oblivion and in ff games . 30fps would be fine in mgs4 . Somethings like racing games are better at 60fps .

Anyway if you want to talk denial , look no further than the heavenly sword developers trying to convince everyone that thier int hdr is as good as fp hdr (all because they can't get good enough framerates off it )

xbdestroya
05-23-2006, 10:28 PM
Anyway if you want to talk denial , look no further than the heavenly sword developers trying to convince everyone that thier int hdr is as good as fp hdr (all because they can't get good enough framerates off it )

Well, what's not as good about it? In fact, it's better depending on your criteria.

The only area in which it lacks is blending.

gljvd
05-23-2006, 10:33 PM
the quality of percision will never be as good as fp16 . Its interger base , the only benfit is speed .

moving backwards to int hdr is akin to droping to 30fps , you just don't have the power to render fp16. Let alone the fp32 sony was talking about .

woundingchaney
05-23-2006, 10:35 PM
To be honest, I've seen many 360 games in front of my eyes and I have to say that not only 360 titles to be released have serious slowdown issues. Sometimes it must be true that the slowdowns can't be solved, but I think most games I've seen are rushed. Very much..
Just what games are you referring to??? Oblivion?? PD0??? Quake 4???? There really isnt a whole lot that suffere from this slowdown you are referring to. Although there is some that do and I never stated that they didnt, yes I agree that many of the games were rushed but also many of the games available dont have the luxury of being developed for the 360 they are mere ports. Yet when comparing content from the two consoles with similar development time the results are dramatically similar and as many advantages the PS3 has the 360 has.


You're mentioning games that have yet to be released! (and how do you know the majority target 30fps? Most videos on the net are poorly encoded and never go beyond 30fps, thus not representing the real framerate)

You're mentioning games on a system that both have yet to be released!..
Im mentioning games that devs have stated what their target framerate is and/or the gameplay shown. Its biased to paint such a poor picture on one platform and pretend like it doenst exist on another. But that seems to be the standard conversation as of late.


Honestly wounding, this is a PS3 forum. It's just naive not to expect some PS3 favouritism. Anyway, most times, if not all, we find you defending 360 games and underestimating many PS3 games. You want to seem unbiased but you don't really succeed.
I do often choose to represent MS as there is definetely an anti MS and anything 360 related current here. I dont think Im one to necessarily under-rate many PS3 games but often my take is really rather fair. I dont proclaim that MS is the greatest thing to ever hit gaming but at the same time I encounter constant one sided debates here perhaps I wouldnt seem so biased if this wasnt a completely PS3 board and there was a more mixed representation from both consoles. When I first came here about a year ago many members proclaimed this to be one of the most unbiased sites on the net (infact one that I vividly remember) and I would agree with that to a certain extent until after the results of E3 when many went into a damage control mode. I have really kept many statements to myself. Is this not the exact thing many didnt want the forum to represent.

If I seem like an MS fanboy then I apologize but who else debates on the opponents side (I believe this is where your bias statement springs from).

Simply because I dont do cartwheels over Sony's media,harware, price point, or anything else doesnt mean I have a bias against Sony and I can assure you I dont do the same things for MS. I have always spoke my mind and my thoughts and if you check my posts they are really rather unbiased because in all honesty much of this doesnt matter to me until someone feels the need to belittle and demean one console/company to uplift the other.

Killing Moon
05-23-2006, 10:39 PM
Well the way that I plan things out, it completely depends on how the genre needs to be expressed.

For instance, for an action or adventure game, 30fps is just fine. Considering that your control response timing doesnít need to be as super-pinpoint accurate as possible. But the main reason why I would utilize 30fps here is for cinematic presentation alone. When running these games at 60fps, they tend to take on a ďtelevisionĒ like quality that Iím not looking for. In order for them to appear more immersive in this manner, I would prefer it to run at 30fps. Especially now with motion blur to take things even further for frame transitional smoothness (akin to a 24fps film).

However, for any game that depends purely on reflex value and control precision, 60fps should be the only way to go. While you can get away with it in CERTAIN genres to an extent (FPSí seldom, for example), the most optimal framerate will always be 60fps. Iím a huge stickler for this in regards to racing games particularly. Especially racing sims, where control precision can either save or kill a game.

xbdestroya
05-23-2006, 11:13 PM
the quality of percision will never be as good as fp16 . Its interger base , the only benfit is speed .

moving backwards to int hdr is akin to droping to 30fps , you just don't have the power to render fp16. Let alone the fp32 sony was talking about .

JVD you're just wrong on this; the quality is right up there. Blending is the issue, because NAO32-like solutions are not supported in hardware. That is the advantage FP16 has over NAO32 - hardware support and alpha blending performance. As far as 'quality' of HDR, NAO32 is as good, if not better.

Nameless
05-23-2006, 11:15 PM
I do often choose to represent MS as there is definetely an anti MS and anything 360 related current here. I dont think Im one to necessarily under-rate many PS3 games but often my take is really rather fair. I dont proclaim that MS is the greatest thing to ever hit gaming but at the same time I encounter constant one sided debates here perhaps I wouldnt seem so biased if this wasnt a completely PS3 board and there was a more mixed representation from both consoles. When I first came here about a year ago many members proclaimed this to be one of the most unbiased sites on the net (infact one that I vividly remember) and I would agree with that to a certain extent until after the results of E3 when many went into a damage control mode. I have really kept many statements to myself. Is this not the exact thing many didnt want the forum to represent.


I would have to agree with this statement.
Once again everyone needs to relax and respect all opinions if they are supported by fact... I think everyone is little on edge since E3, don't worry fellas I'm sure Sony will bounce back at TGS... Also, if someone makes a negative response regarding Sony, just chill it's not like they are insulting yo mama... Peace

Luis
05-23-2006, 11:19 PM
Wait a minute now, I don't think Wounding has a problem with people praising the PS3, I think his problem is when that praise comes at other consoles' expense. And I agree that is a problem here over the last week or two. Often a post rather than sticking to PS3, will drag 360 into it as well as being 'inferior' or 'weaker' than the PS3, and that point will be brought up by some of the Sony enthusiasts here.I'd have to agree that this thread is not being properly posed. However, it seemed to me that wounding suddenly exploded, almost as if he was personally offended by some commentaries, and there is no reason to act like that despite of the behaviour of other forum members, which I don't condone either.


It should be only natural that fans of that console then step up to defend it. I don't think Woundign is often the one to bring up the 360 proactively in any of these discussions, but nor should he be expected to just stay silent if he sees something incorrect being said about a system he is fond of.Not that I want to criticise wounding, but sometimes he seems the only one who defends 360 in a mildly biased way. I don't think that's too bad of him anyway.


Just what games are you referring to??? Oblivion?? PD0??? Quake 4????Just to mention one game I think was tailored to 360: PGR3. In my opinion, every single racing game since the release of current gen consoles that runs at a framerate equal or lower than 30fps is below the de facto standards. I've seen this game being played in front of my eyes on a Samsung HDTV, and not only I saw that the frame rate wasn't totally stable at all despite not being the de facto 60fps rate, but there really wasn't anything in it that made me forgive that flaw. I could mention more besides the ones you listed (Kameo looked quite bad too in terms of smoothness, COD2 wasn't exactly excellent, King Kong was horrid and the list goes on), but then again I'm not sure how many 360 games have been originally intended to be developed on it exclusively, but it seems that very few of them were. Still, Allard said it was the best launch ever. Well, what else would he say...


I do often choose to represent MS as there is definetely an anti MS and anything 360 related current here. I dont think Im one to necessarily under-rate many PS3 games but often my take is really rather fair.You shouldn't be the one to say that your own take is "rather fair". I usually feel you're biased towards 360.

All in all, I wish I could trade some of the stupid kids that visit this forum from time to time for some more people like woundingchaney. I very much prefer reading his attempting-to-be-somewhat-balanced (IMO) posts instead of many childish posts from fanboys that have popped up in this forum lately, who only seem to have nothing else but bad words for PS3 and Sony overall.

In any case, I think this thread should be locked. The point of it is clear, the conclusion is there for everyone to see and understand and the discussion is not being properly executed, so, before some blood is shed...

cpiasminc
05-23-2006, 11:20 PM
the quality of percision will never be as good as fp16 . Its interger base , the only benfit is speed .
Ummm... actually it's marginally better depending on the conditions. Because the HDR components of fp16 only have 10 bits of precision, IIRC. While the 16:8:8 LUV format is using all 16 bits for precision on the HDR luminance component. Though the chrominance factor of the conversion is lossy by nature, and in areas of chrominant gradient, the accuracy is certainly worse.

NAO32 being faster isn't really about int vs. fp -- it's about the size of the format -- saving bandwidth is everything. And if it was a comparison against fp10, there's no question that the 16:8:8 LUV is more accurate in spite of the format being the same size per pixel. And I'm fairly sure that NAO32 is logarithmic, so it covers a pretty decent range. Since FP16 RGB is linear, you can still get more banding when certain components get into ranges far out of reach of other components.

Infernal
05-23-2006, 11:26 PM
60 FPS for teh win!

(getting back on topic :thumbr: )

D3adcell
05-23-2006, 11:32 PM
Just to mention one game I think was tailored to 360: PGR3. In my opinion, every single racing game since the release of current gen consoles that runs at a framerate equal or lower than 30fps is below the de facto standards. I've seen this game being played in front of my eyes on a Samsung HDTV, and not only I saw that the frame rate wasn't totally stable at all despite not being the de facto 60fps rate, but there really wasn't anything in it that made me forgive that flaw. I could mention more besides the ones you listed (Kameo looked quite bad too in terms of smoothness, COD2 wasn't exactly excellent, King Kong was horrid and the list goes on), but then again I'm not sure how many 360 games have been originally intended to be developed on it exclusively, but it seems that very few of them were. Still, Allard said it was the best launch ever. Well, what else would he say...

While I don't play the games in HD, as I don't have an HD TV in my room, I have noticed no slowdown in framerate while playing any of the games listed (besides king kong never played it).There was no slowdown in Kameo, PGR3, COD2. Although if your playing in HD the framerate does drop I suppose, thats the cost of sharper textures, etc.

woundingchaney
05-23-2006, 11:35 PM
I'd have to agree that this thread is not being properly posed. However, it seemed to me that wounding suddenly exploded, almost as if he was personally offended by some commentaries, and there is no reason to act like that despite of the behaviour of other forum members, which I don't condone either.

Not that I want to criticise wounding, but sometimes he seems the only one who defends 360 in an slightly biased way. Not that I think that's bad anyway....

Thanks I think.

Although this is a discussion board and if there is a topic one feels is not representative of the truth they should speak on it and that is the background to many of my 360 statements. I did not explode I provided an argument and statements that contradict the ones presented.


Just to mention one game I think was tailored to 360: PGR3. In my opinion, every single racing game since the release of current gen consoles that runs at a framerate equal or lower than 30fps is below the de facto standards. I've seen this game being played in front of my eyes on a Samsung HDTV, and not only I saw that the frame rate wasn't totally stable at all despite not being the de facto 60fps rate, but there really wasn't anything in it that made me forgive that flaw. I could mention more besides the ones you listed (Kameo looked quite bad too in terms of smoothness, COD2 wasn't exactly excellent, King Kong was horrid and the list goes on), but then again I'm not sure how many 360 games have been originally intended to be developed on it exclusively, but it seems that very few of them were. Still, Allard said it was the best launch ever. Well, what else would he say...
PGR3 was very hastily released and runs at 30fps I have heard of any mention or notice any issue with framerate, it is also currently the best looking racer on the market (yes my opinion but many feel the same way). I havent noticed these issues with Kameo and I have invested many hourse into playing the game. I have yet to play King Kong but I dont doubt this is true. Once again there are games that have this issue but its not as if every game released has a framerate issue. How do you feel on the subject, if a game plays solidly 95% of the time does it still have framerate issues?? If so then there are very very few console games in history that achieve this

COD2 runs steadily at 60fps.


Perhaps your standards are much higher than mine, but the question remains that if you insist on 60fps in games will you be investing in the multitude of titles that dont reach this level of performance (for any of the next gen consoles).




You shouldn't be the one to say that your own take is "rather fair". I usually think you're biased towards 360.

All in all, I wish I could trade some of the stupid kids that visit this forum from time to time for some more people like woundingchaney. I very much prefer reading his attempting-to-be-somewhat-balanced (IMO) posts instead of many childish posts from fanboys that have popped up in this forum lately, who only seem to have nothing else but bad words for PS3 and Sony overall.

In any case, I think this thread should be locked. The point of it is clear, the conclusion is there for everyone to see and understand and the discussion is not being properly executed, so, before some blood is shed...
Im coming to my own defense so I believe that it is my place to speak on my own fairness/opinions. Im sure there are members here who would disagree with me, but I also feel fairly certain that there are members here who would agree with me.

Are you under the impression that I augment my posts in order to persuade members that I am some un-biased gamer if so I ask why would I do such a thing for people I will never meet (unless your under the impression this message board is a central point to my being). That is the impression that some of your posts referring to me leave me with, although this may be a figment of my imagination (LOL).

woundingchaney
05-23-2006, 11:37 PM
While I don't play the games in HD, as I don't have an HD TV in my room, I have noticed no slowdown in framerate while playing any of the games listed (besides king kong never played it).There was no slowdown in Kameo, PGR3, COD2. Although if your playing in HD the framerate does drop I suppose, thats the cost of sharper textures, etc.
Framerates dont drop in HD.

cpiasminc
05-23-2006, 11:41 PM
Hell... Depending on the scan controller, HDTVs may have sync rate limits. For instance, if your sync rate is limited to 28 (27.65) MHz, you can display 720i at 60 fps, but you can't display 720p faster than 30 fps, meaning that even if the game runs at 1000 fps, you will only see 30. This was an issue with early HDTVs which had built-in-tuners because they were built to broadcast spec. Since progressive broadcasts never come in higher than 30 fps, there was little to no point supporting more.

woundingchaney
05-23-2006, 11:44 PM
Hell... Depending on the scan controller, HDTVs may have sync rate limits. For instance, if your sync rate is limited to 28 (27.65) MHz, you can display 720i at 60 fps, but you can't display 720p faster than 30 fps, meaning that even if the game runs at 1000 fps, you will only see 30. This was an issue with early HDTVs which had built-in-tuners because they were built to broadcast spec. Since progressive broadcasts never come in higher than 30 fps, there was little to no point supporting more.
???Does sync rate = refresh rate??????

I dont know if I have ever seen a sync rate listing on a TV.

Luis
05-24-2006, 12:06 AM
PGR3 was very hastily released and runs at 30fps I have heard of any mention or notice any issue with framerate, it is also currently the best looking racer on the market (yes my opinion but many feel the same way).Having seen it and other racing games, I could never agree it's the best looking ever. Many others look better (IMO) in terms of art and realism, and objectively, in terms of frame rate. The fact that it runs at 30fps and that I remember experiencing slowdowns when new music tracks were played in-game and that the races seemed very bland and the tracks were uninspired and about everything full of jaggies... all that makes me loathe it. I consider Gran Turismo 3 quite boring after playing it many times, but the art, the car models, the amount of tracks and vehicles and above all the frame rate utterly kill PGR3. Also, I love the feeling and the art of the Burnout series. And the frame rate!


I havent noticed these issues with Kameo and I have invested many hourse into playing the game.I just watched it for a little while. I didn't actually say it had a lot of slowdowns. I just said it didn't seem to run very smoothly at any time, something which I don't really understand given the promise of 360's hardware.


COD2 runs steadily at 60fps.No way in hell it does! As soon as the action is busy and there are more than 5 soldiers on screen and some blood effects, the steady framerate is killed.


Perhaps your standards are much higher than mine, but the question remains that if you insist on 60fps in games will you be investing in the multitude of titles that dont reach this level of performance (for any of the next gen consoles).

I must say that I'm very sensitive to slowdowns and frame drops. I belong to the "I can tell the difference among 24, 25 and 30 and between 50 and 60, and everything else above or below" club. I mean that my opinion might be different to the opinion of many people. Fortunately, I've got a great sight (I can see individual pixels and the spaces in between on my monitor at its highest resolution from a 40cm / 16" distance - I just checked this! - with my naked eyes) and that's one of the reasons I think I can always notice these nuances.

I don't insist in 60fps in every case. I do prefer 60fps, and I do wish 60fps as many times as possible, but I can understand a lower framerate (with the exception of racing games and a handful of action games).


Are you under the impression that I augment my posts in order to persuade members that I am some un-biased gamer if so I ask why would I do such a thing for people I will never meet (unless your under the impression this message board is a central point to my being).Well, I don't intend anyone to be a perfect human being here. I will be the first one to say I am not the perfect one, and certainly not one to judge others, although I like honesty and being totally honest with my forum fellows, yourself included.

woundingchaney
05-24-2006, 12:09 AM
Fair answers VG.

Chrome
05-24-2006, 03:30 AM
60fps is the holygrail for me, I can feel the difference when moving from toca2/V8 2 to a 30fps game, just like I can in First Person Shooters.
If the PS3 can sustain 60fps in most games I'll be in heaven.

It's sad to see another decent thread being hijacked by MS fanboys. :(

I'd have loved Shadow Of The Collusus in 60fps can't wait for the follow up hopefully at the speed.

xbdestroya
05-24-2006, 03:51 AM
60fps is the holygrail for me, I can feel the difference when moving from toca2/V8 2 to a 30fps game, just like I can in First Person Shooters.
If the PS3 can sustain 60fps in most games I'll be in heaven.

It's sad to see another decent thread being hijacked by MS fanboys. :(

I'd have loved Shadow Of The Collusus in 60fps can't wait for the follow up hopefully at the speed.


Ok yeah, Shadow of the Collosus is a great example of exactly *why* you'll be seeing a lot of games at 30 FPS. You liked it because it looked great right? Right, but it only looked great beacuse it was at 30 FPS. Five years from now, believe me, the best looking games are going to be the ones running at 30 FPS. They just simply will be able to cram in roughly twice the eye-candy effects gamers are addicted to.

PS - Also try to refrain from calling anyone a fanboy, it just gets the ball rolling again.

Viper
05-24-2006, 04:01 AM
Thanks XBD.

People must learn that the more you add in a game, characters, terrain, polys, texture maps, particle effects, AI, physics, etc...the harder that is for the system to render and the frame rate drops so that it can be rendered.

Developers will ALWAYS push a system. Gamers will ALWAYS demand top end graphics.

You cannot always have both high end graphics and high end frame rates. You can cause a CRAY supercomputer or IBMs new Blue Gene/ L to have slowdown so long as you push to much down its pipes.

Many genres don't even require 60 fps at all such as RPGs. Racing games can do 60 fps more easily than many other genres because the level of detail on the terrain and objects is actually pretty low when compared to a game that takes place on foot.

Chrome
05-24-2006, 04:05 AM
PS - Also try to refrain from calling anyone a fanboy, it just gets the ball rolling again.

Ok fair point I'll call them System Terrorists then ;)


I think it was the first Gran Turismo for PSOne. The entire game was done in 30fps. But when you finish the game 100%, a new mode was unlocked that let you enjoy some of the tracks in 60fps.

I remember it clearly when I finished GT 100%, had a few friends over at my place and they were anxiously waiting for the 60fps version too. We had no idea what was coming but I hyped it to them beyond belief(blame the mag which hyped it to me first)

So the moment arrived, I started the new 60fps mode and holy issh!!! I couldn't even control the car as I was doing it so professionaly in the 30fps. I mean by the time I unlocked the 60fps mode, I had spent hundreds of hours into the 30fps game. It was next to impossible for me to get the grips of 60fps car handling. But an hour later, I remember about 15 of my other friends had gathered at my place(thanks to this invention called the telephone) and they were all trying out how does it feel to have a butter smooth gameplay. We all enjoyed that evening like crazy taking turns on that single 60fps mode. What a memory! :)

On that note, I believe 60fps is a MUST for any racing game. GT3 and GT4 are examples of pure perfection for 60fps. Playing GT3 at 60fps for the first time after GT1 and GT2 @ 30fps was a breathtaking experience for me.

60fps should be declared the norm by now to be honest. It's THAT good!

That brings back so many memories its unreal, I done the exact same thing in GT and I couldn't control it either. LOL That was one of my first 60fps experiences

cpiasminc
05-24-2006, 07:33 AM
???Does sync rate = refresh rate??????

I dont know if I have ever seen a sync rate listing on a TV.
To answer, sync rate has to do with the frequency of the feed signal at a pixel level. It may also be referred to as "pixel rate" depending on the device. For instance, DVI has a max pixel rate of 195 MHz, IIRC.
195 MHz / (1920x1080) is about 94 Hz, which makes that the highest refresh rate DVI can give you on 1080p.

You might also see a mysterious figure called "scan rate", which has to do with the rate at which scanlines get updated (which corresponds to the frequency of one wave for the vertical/horizontal retrace). For instance, 720p at 60 Hz requires (720 lines * 60 Hz / ~0.96) = 45 KHz (I believe the correct figure is supposed to be about 44.9 KHz). The 0.96 is something left over from the old faithful CRT, which needs a little extra time for its electron beam to swing back over to the other side. If only ping-pong scan logic had been invented in the beginning days of television, we may not have had to worry about it -- but alas, it is too late.

makeitlookreal
05-24-2006, 09:42 AM
I know that while watching downloaded video game trailers the ones that run at 60fps look much smoother than the ones that run at 30fps or lower. If a game company can possible make a game run at 60fps instead of 30fps I really hope they do their best. There is a visible difference as far as I am concerned.

cliffbo
05-24-2006, 02:07 PM
guys this is how i would use these forums: if i had something negative to say about Sony i would post it in the Nintendo or 360 forum, if i had something negative to say about Nintendo, i would post it in the Sony or 360 forum etc... whilst I'm in this forum i assume I'm talking to like-minded individuals who have gone with Sony for their console of choice. its very restrictive having to constantly word my threads and replies in a manner that guarantees satisfying everyone... in fact its damn near impossible. this is a Sony forum for Sony fans. i sited GoW and Too Human because these are the games that demonstrated exactly the point i was making and yes, i could have mentioned MGS but baring in mind that this was only a video, i didn't think this was appropriate. i had to choose games that were running on the hardware. Nintendo's games looked smooth to me and actually pretty nice but their target audience is not the same as PS3 or 360. it has been mainly 360 fans that have been knocking the Sony hardware in general on the issues i have mentioned in my first post, and so consequently it seemed natural that the tone of this thread would move in that direction. i don't expect every game to run at 60fps but i do expect we the consumer to demand it. personally i would sooner see devs using tricks and giving me 60fps rather than them boasting about how much their doing with the hardware and only giving me 30fps. there is going to be a limit to eye-candy at some point, at which juncture frame-rate will matter, so why can't it be this generation?

Viano
05-24-2006, 02:31 PM
I actually dont mind seeing negtive post for ps3 as long as it's the solid fact instead of personal opion.

cliffbo
05-24-2006, 02:35 PM
I actually dont mind seeing negtive post for ps3 as long as it's the solid fact instead of personal opion.

yes but i don't go to the Nintendo forums or the 360 forums to correct them, so i expect the same courtesy in return

McLaren
05-24-2006, 02:58 PM
60fps should be standard for all next gen games....some current gen games can do 60fps

xbdestroya
05-24-2006, 03:47 PM
guys this is how i would use these forums: if i had something negative to say about Sony i would post it in the Nintendo or 360 forum, if i had something negative to say about Nintendo, i would post it in the Sony or 360 forum etc... whilst I'm in this forum i assume I'm talking to like-minded individuals who have gone with Sony for their console of choice. its very restrictive having to constantly word my threads and replies in a manner that guarantees satisfying everyone... in fact its damn near impossible. this is a Sony forum for Sony fans. i sited GoW and Too Human because these are the games that demonstrated exactly the point i was making and yes, i could have mentioned MGS but baring in mind that this was only a video, i didn't think this was appropriate. i had to choose games that were running on the hardware. Nintendo's games looked smooth to me and actually pretty nice but their target audience is not the same as PS3 or 360. it has been mainly 360 fans that have been knocking the Sony hardware in general on the issues i have mentioned in my first post, and so consequently it seemed natural that the tone of this thread would move in that direction. i don't expect every game to run at 60fps but i do expect we the consumer to demand it. personally i would sooner see devs using tricks and giving me 60fps rather than them boasting about how much their doing with the hardware and only giving me 30fps. there is going to be a limit to eye-candy at some point, at which juncture frame-rate will matter, so why can't it be this generation?

First of all - and I want this clearly understood - but this forum is not a forum for Sony fans per se; it's a forum for those that wish to discuss Playstation. It used to be more or less exclusively a Playstation technology discussion site, but it's since changed with the times to expand to general video game discussion and such, screenshots, etc... And it is right that it do so.

But I'd like to think that what seperates this site from many others is the fact that the members are not all 13-year old blind Sony worshipers, can utilize basic precepts of logic and reason, and have a desire to understand why things in this world of video games are the way they are and not just that they are the way they are.

Almost without fail, when a new member joins this forum they say something along the lines of:

"I've been lurking here for a while, but finally thought I'd join. This forum is the most knowledgeable and fanboy-free of all the Sony forums out there."

I *love* hearing that. It makes me feel this sense of pride inside, and reminds me of why I joined myself way back in the PS3Insider days. But I can tell you, no one joining in the past two weeks could reasonably say that upon joining, because it is not currently applicable.

I understand what you're saying Cliffbo about keeping the respective forums 'positive' with respect to their own consoles, and having the other two consoles be 'fair game,' but that doesn't help in building up an atmosphere for honest and enlightened discussion.

We need to get back to the core of things here - back to PSINext. Things the last couple of weeks have been too Sony partisan, too 'ready for combat.' The completely chance and unexpectedly strong pro-360 postings lately couldn't have come at a worse time in terms of the forums condition, but I'm taking steps to address that. But shortly afterwards, I will be taking steps to address resident fanboyism as well.

No dollar signs for S's in MS. No use of the word XBots. No relegating Nintendo to 'kiddie.'

This forum is one of the finest out there, but we're in dangerous times. My moderator status will go from the usual 'passive' to highly 'active' for the forseeable future. I know some have been requesting stronger modding action for some time, but be sure it's understood that it won't just be targeting anti-Sony posts or trolling. All forms of fanboyism will be subject to review.

Now that won't be taken to extremes mind you. If someone says something like, 'look at these sales figures, MS is going down!' I'd let that slide... but if someone says something like 'Only M$ xbots would want a game as crappy as Gears of War...' just don't be surprised if that post disappears without further explanation.

cliffbo
05-24-2006, 03:52 PM
thats fair enough XB :)

Goki
05-24-2006, 03:59 PM
i think it would depend on what typ of game it is for instance i would prefer DMC in 60fps with less details on screen or background, but I would expect more details in a rpg for example, cause 60 fps might not be that necassary,

then theres FPS (first person shooters) and i must say i have played HALO 1 and 2 and gameplay controll overall Halo 2 felt like a breeze in the air compared to the 1st one. Im pretty sure it was 60, (or tryingto at least, but obviously slow down where needed..)

Im not sure about racing games cause i havent played many but when speed is the important thing like for instance in wipeout then 60fps obviosuly but when its a cruising game where speed isnt as important like outrun or PGR then it probably wouldnt hurt as long as the eye candy is impressive.

Fighting games i so dont wanna go back to 30fps, Sixty for teh go.

Looking at above I think its safe to assume that 60fps is the holy grail. it is much softer on the eyes, and generally feels better to controll.

cliffbo
05-24-2006, 04:04 PM
why are we even compromising in this way? wouldn't it be great if all games ran at 60fps regardless of genres? demand drives delivery.

cpiasminc
05-24-2006, 04:10 PM
60fps should be standard for all next gen games....some current gen games can do 60fps
And there is the impeccable and profound logic that everybody seems to use to explain everything away. "Oh, but it's next-gen! Doesn't that mean everything works?" No, Virginia... there is no Santa Claus, the Moon isn't made of green cheese, and XeCPU doesn't run at 9.6 GHz.

cliffbo
05-24-2006, 04:13 PM
And there is the impeccable and profound logic that everybody seems to use to explain everything away. "Oh, but it's next-gen! Doesn't that mean everything works?" No, Virginia... there is no Santa Claus, the Moon isn't made of green cheese, and XeCPU doesn't run at 9.6 GHz.

the moon isn't made of green cheese?! and you could have picked a more diplomatic way of breaking the news about Santa Claus.

ps: i understand fully what you are saying here CP (but you lose me with your techno savvy). surely though as hardware gets more powerful and graphics reach saturation point, framerates will rise.

gljvd
05-24-2006, 04:22 PM
I know that while watching downloaded video game trailers the ones that run at 60fps look much smoother than the ones that run at 30fps or lower. If a game company can possible make a game run at 60fps instead of 30fps I really hope they do their best. There is a visible difference as far as I am concerned.


Watching downloaded game trailers is a horrble way to judge framerates, your limited to the amount of frames captured or reduced to when cutting the size down for internet posting .

ALmost everything you download is 30fps some of its 22.2fps depending on the method used to aquire it . The only good thing game trailers are good for ... are telling slow down , if there are any drops in the frames you can tell , its even more pronounced.

Viano
05-24-2006, 05:38 PM
MILR was just saying he saw the difference and prefer 60fps thats all -3-r

cpiasminc
05-24-2006, 06:28 PM
surely though as hardware gets more powerful and graphics reach saturation point, framerates will rise.
Problem is that as hardware doubles in power, the expectations people have of it typically quadruples. You can easily destroy the old hardware on a 1:1 comparison... but no... everybody wants it to be "next-gen." Why doesn't this have 5x the polycount of a PS2 model? Why isn't the normal mapping better than anything ever done before? Why does the guy move the same as any other generation? Why can't the AI get smarter? Why does the terrain texture look like it's tiled? Why does the HDR show banding? Why doesn't money grow on trees? What does "NP-complete" mean?

Goki
05-24-2006, 06:30 PM
Guys for the record, any game could technically have more detail on screen if the framrate dropped to 30 instead of 60, so those who are "DEMANDING" 60fps, what others are saying is, there is loss of quality, or there is more quality in for example polgyn output or texturesor whatever (someone correct if wrong) that could be put in the game. having 60fps takes and will always take more resources out of whatever console. It has nothing to do with next gen or not.

so in short

60 fps = smoother gameplay,controll, less detail
30fps = bit slower, more strain on eyes, more onscreen detail.

its a double edged sword. Hope this simplifies for some who seem adamant that ps3 or whatever should be able to output 60fps and nothing else.

Smokey
05-24-2006, 06:58 PM
Problem is that as hardware doubles in power, the expectations people have of it typically quadruples. You can easily destroy the old hardware on a 1:1 comparison... but no... everybody wants it to be "next-gen." Why doesn't this have 5x the polycount of a PS2 model? Why isn't the normal mapping better than anything ever done before? Why does the guy move the same as any other generation? Why can't the AI get smarter? Why does the terrain texture look like it's tiled? Why does the HDR show banding? Why doesn't money grow on trees? What does "NP-complete" mean?
i could do with your (Money grows on Trees) then give me everything else you said :)

EDIT: i want my smiley to have a nose too :(

cpiasminc
05-24-2006, 07:13 PM
Sadly, it all reminds me of one of my earlier employers who believed that in a century, people will no longer need to defecate themselves... because, instead of food, we'll just consume "energy rods."

I guess "energy rods" was its idea of the "next-gen" solution for nutrition.

Smokey
05-24-2006, 07:16 PM
hahahahahahahaah no shit, i want WARP drive before that (love a good feed/ rod)

xbdestroya
05-24-2006, 07:31 PM
Cpiasminc has had some crazy employer experiences... you have no idea.

venomv
05-24-2006, 07:55 PM
Sadly, it all reminds me of one of my earlier employers who believed that in a century, people will no longer need to defecate themselves... because, instead of food, we'll just consume "energy rods."

I guess "energy rods" was its idea of the "next-gen" solution for nutrition.

Sounds........tasty, and completly resonable I might add.

cpiasminc
05-24-2006, 08:18 PM
Cpiasminc has had some crazy employer experiences... you have no idea.
Rather than start that thread all over again over here, I might as well point them to the existing one on b3d.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30308

For those unaware, I'm called "ShootMyMonkey" over there, and partway through that thread, I explain how that name came about. If you notice my earlier post about the "energy rods", I used the clause "its idea" rather than "his idea", and I explain that on b3d, too.

And yes, all of that is real and to the letter as best as possible. And there's plenty more where that came from. I never mentioned things like the Japanese crash course it asked me to give it, where I decided to play with its mind a little... Or the lovely response the creature got from Rice University when it tried to apply to the grad school there.

LaLiLuLeLo
05-24-2006, 09:01 PM
OH MY GOD.

And then, for the final level, you get to have some real fun by combining all the programs into one jumble -- where you run around on the surface of the sun fighting a boss character, who happens to be Hitler riding atop a T-Rex, which has photon torpedo launchers on either side of its head.

Hrama
05-24-2006, 09:12 PM
Ah, I thought that posting style looked familiar Cp. I was reading that thread a while back just laughing my head off. I was like "Man, I bet Cpiasminc has had some experiences just like this... posting style sure does look familiar too." Nice to know that was you.

cpiasminc
05-25-2006, 12:01 AM
I got a lot of requests for more stories (particularly conversations), so I added two more to the thread... Two of my personal favorites because they both point out ways in which the creature's mind is completely fractured.

In any case, back on topic...
60 is great for certain things. I can't imagine playing something like Ninja Gaiden at 30 simply because there's enough *fast* motion in NG that it needs a high framerate to look relatively smooth. But of course, you might notice that NG has no per-pixel lighting, no complicated shaders, all fixed-function.

That doesn't inherently mean that something like GoW should also run at 60 because it's next-gen and there are current-gen games that run at 60. For the style of play that GoW has, 60 would technically be too fast. It's not UT... it's a point-to-point story-driven shooter.

Nameless
05-25-2006, 02:04 AM
Rather than start that thread all over again over here, I might as well point them to the existing one on b3d.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30308

For those unaware, I'm called "ShootMyMonkey" over there, and partway through that thread, I explain how that name came about. If you notice my earlier post about the "energy rods", I used the clause "its idea" rather than "his idea", and I explain that on b3d, too.

And yes, all of that is real and to the letter as best as possible. And there's plenty more where that came from. I never mentioned things like the Japanese crash course it asked me to give it, where I decided to play with its mind a little... Or the lovely response the creature got from Rice University when it tried to apply to the grad school there.

CPI, I just spent the last hour reading your post regarding "The Creature", pure comedy, priceless... I did not know you had such a good sense of humor man... (+Rep for you!):crazy:

Luis
05-25-2006, 02:47 AM
It's quite scary to realise there are 'beings' like that in this world. Most scary thing about it is that he's... er, it's definately not the worst one out there. The more aware we'd be about them, the worse we'd feel though.

By the way, I sense some 'thread derailment', and I don't mind because of what this thread originally was about.

yoshaw
05-25-2006, 03:10 AM
On topic,

I just had the chance to witness some new INGAME screenshots for Assassins Creed. And dear God! If they could pull off that quality in 30fps. I'll be one happy PS3 camper this November!

Leave the 60fps for racers, I want them in 60. Others games can do 30, np with me!

cpiasminc
05-25-2006, 03:10 AM
CPI, I just spent the last hour reading your post regarding "The Creature", pure comedy, priceless... I did not know you had such a good sense of humor man...
Thanks, but I only wish I was actually joking. I was there to experience it all.


By the way, I sense some 'thread derailment', and I don't mind because of what this thread originally was about.
Well, the only reason it was even brought up was because I was equating the overall ignorance and flawed image of the way things work among people who just say "60 fps because it's next-gen" to the way the creature thinks "It's 100 years in the future! People won't be sh*tting turds anymore!"

Granted, the creature is a total caricature of human stupidity, but that's neither here nor there. It was just a metaphor.

cliffbo
05-25-2006, 03:21 PM
Guys for the record, any game could technically have more detail on screen if the framrate dropped to 30 instead of 60, so those who are "DEMANDING" 60fps, what others are saying is, there is loss of quality, or there is more quality in for example polgyn output or texturesor whatever (someone correct if wrong) that could be put in the game. having 60fps takes and will always take more resources out of whatever console. It has nothing to do with next gen or not.

so in short

60 fps = smoother gameplay,controll, less detail
30fps = bit slower, more strain on eyes, more onscreen detail.

its a double edged sword. Hope this simplifies for some who seem adamant that ps3 or whatever should be able to output 60fps and nothing else.

give me less detail at 60fps and then increase the detail as the hardware improves. we've done it the wrong way around! this is the fault of those people who constantly upgraded their computers and then said wow look at the detail. 600/800 is enough for me. i always remember a friend of mine running oblivion and telling me how fantastic it looked. he had a sli nvidia with everything turned up to max, but it still stalled occasionally. i said to him that if he turned it down to 600/800 it would probably run better. reluctantly he agreed to do this but argued that he'd lose the detail. when he went to turn the res down... it was already at 600/800. the eye deceives when you've paid a fortune for something.

cliffbo
05-25-2006, 03:25 PM
Sadly, it all reminds me of one of my earlier employers who believed that in a century, people will no longer need to defecate themselves... because, instead of food, we'll just consume "energy rods."

I guess "energy rods" was its idea of the "next-gen" solution for nutrition.

thats a bit disingenuous of you CP. i'm asking for consumers to demand 60fps for christ sake, not asking them to put someone on the moon (damn they've done that, forgot) its not impossible if we escape the PC mentality. it will happen eventually so all i'm saying is why not this gen? i don't want reality, i just want it to be smooth enough for my eyes to believe its real.

cpiasminc
05-25-2006, 04:08 PM
I'm talking about the idea that simply because hardware has become more powerful compared to previous hardware, framerate shouldn't be an issue. As if nothing else has changed! As if there's no limitations here! As if everything has scaled up perfectly. As if there aren't opposing forces at work...

Simplifying it down to "but the new consoles are supposed to be next-gen!" is little more than stupid.


its not impossible if we escape the PC mentality.
I'm... going to have to ask you to clarify what you mean here. PC mentality with regards to?

cliffbo
05-25-2006, 04:37 PM
for years the general public have been hudwinked into believing what they saw on PCs was better, when all they were really seeing was exactly the same but in higher res with more pollys. this has changed lately thank god but many of my friends spent hundreds of pounds to get graphics that in all honestly never warrented the extra cost. it became a war of statistics not vision. something that MS (from a pC background) adopted for their xbox and now there 360, although of late that has calmed due to the fact that Sony have played them at their own game. Nintendo leapt at this fact and announced its about the games. they are right, but we do need good graphics too. of course in the console war statistics have played a part but consoles aren't upgradable and so devs couldn't just program lazily and then claim its because you need a faster this of a faster that, they have to create new ways of doing things (not getting too technical am i CP lol) i know you know where i'm coming from on this.

i know i'm the sort of guy you'd raise your eyes to because of my lack of technological knowledge, but i'm the sort of guy that has the imagination to compensate.

Smokey
05-25-2006, 06:17 PM
EDITED: not asking them to put someone on the moon (damn they've done that, forgot)
or have they? :look:

cpiasminc
05-25-2006, 06:53 PM
I'd agree with that for the most part. It's just that when you say "PC Mentality", that can mean a lot of things.


for years the general public have been hudwinked into believing what they saw on PCs was better, when all they were really seeing was exactly the same but in higher res with more pollys. this has changed lately thank god but many of my friends spent hundreds of pounds to get graphics that in all honestly never warrented the extra cost.
Well, sort of... even with superior hardware to the consoles of the day, it took a while for PCs to push more polycount because bandwidth and especially latencies were so limiting. Not really until the latter part of the AGP lifespan did it really happen. Of course, even at lower polycounts, the big thing was how much could be done to a polygon or a pixel. And in that sense, the PC folks DID get better visuals... eventually. The whole D3D10 going on right now -- not to say that D3D10 isn't powerful, but the examples so far haven't really been good examples of something D3D10 can do that D3D9 can't.

I guess the main thing with graphics is that rather than being viewed as a gameplay component, there's the immersion factor. Doom and Doom3 are essentially the same game. But the improvements in graphics means you feel less of a spectator as opposed to the character getting killed -- and as of the last few years, this is true of physics as well.

Of course, that's not the main reason people keep demanding better graphics. One is obviously the money. PC gamers can and often do spend loads of money to get the top-end hardware, and they want some sort of indication that they didn't waste their money. But the bigger thing is that the public at large doesn't have enough grasp on the nature of things to be able to get any feedback that technical achievements in gaming have advanced other than visuals (and in fact, that was one of the big problems the aforementioned "creature" had, except it was the sort that actively sought to make you dumber).

When 3d was new, it did actually have an effect on gameplay. But you should expect that from having an extra dimension to move around in. When HL2 was new, it was a big deal... now, bringing physics into the gameplay mix is something that's expected of everyone because it's already been shown once to be technically feasible. And of course, high framerate is getting the same treatment, at least in this thread.

Like you say, the moment all the hardware they spent their hard-earned money on starts to show signs of weakness (i.e. framerate drops), people just can't accept that. "This video card cost me $600! It's supposed to be twice as powerful as the last model! Whyyyyy does the framerate drop?" The easiest thing to do, of course, is to blame developers since obviously, you couldn't have spent your money on hardware that actually has flaws or is limited in some way. Nobody wants to believe that things are not so simple as more money = more powerful = problem solved. That's where all this "must be 60 fps" nonsense comes from, as far as I can see -- people simply want to have their cake and eat it too... On the end of developers, that basically means burning the candles in the middle as well as at both ends. But who cares, right? As long as you feel comfortable with your purchase.

Smokey
05-25-2006, 07:00 PM
very true cpi :cry2: its all about not wanting to admit it. you could have the best but nothings perfect :)

Nameless
05-25-2006, 07:07 PM
On the end of developers, that basically means burning the candles in the middle as well as at both ends. But who cares, right? As long as you feel comfortable with your purchase.

CPI, I think it's valuable for people to hear the thoughts of developers on this forum! It's good to see your thoughts regarding the issue next-gen brings to the development community. Keep up the good work!

PS: Are you confortable mentioning any titles you worked on in the past.
I do not want any details that would break any NDAs, just wanted to know some of your previous work...

cpiasminc
05-25-2006, 10:01 PM
PS: Are you confortable mentioning any titles you worked on in the past.
I do not want any details that would break any NDAs, just wanted to know some of your previous work...
While the aforementioned "creature"'s company didn't have any NDAs (or rather, it did, but it so far overstepped the bounds of an NDA, since the creature had no idea what an NDA is, that we never signed anything and the creature forgot all about it), I deliberately left out all the not-so-humorous stuff and all the names of people to prevent anything that may come up because of tying a name to a company run by the world's greatest fool.

As far as the most recent place I worked at (before taking a new job in the Bay), I have worked on some stuff that came out a while ago as well as 1 unreleased (not that I'll be credited since I already left the company) and 1 that's unannounced... So I'll wait. That said, I do still keep that info on my CV, but that's directed at employers.

EDIT : Looking through my log files, I just remembered that I actually did have a discussion with the creature over 60 fps (which somehow a week later became 100 fps), though it was under the impression that 60 fps is the threshold of "realtime."

cliffbo
05-26-2006, 02:49 PM
or have they? :look:

to be honest no they didn't

cliffbo
05-26-2006, 03:01 PM
I'd agree with that for the most part. It's just that when you say "PC Mentality", that can mean a lot of things.


Well, sort of... even with superior hardware to the consoles of the day, it took a while for PCs to push more polycount because bandwidth and especially latencies were so limiting. Not really until the latter part of the AGP lifespan did it really happen. Of course, even at lower polycounts, the big thing was how much could be done to a polygon or a pixel. And in that sense, the PC folks DID get better visuals... eventually. The whole D3D10 going on right now -- not to say that D3D10 isn't powerful, but the examples so far haven't really been good examples of something D3D10 can do that D3D9 can't.

I guess the main thing with graphics is that rather than being viewed as a gameplay component, there's the immersion factor. Doom and Doom3 are essentially the same game. But the improvements in graphics means you feel less of a spectator as opposed to the character getting killed -- and as of the last few years, this is true of physics as well.

Of course, that's not the main reason people keep demanding better graphics. One is obviously the money. PC gamers can and often do spend loads of money to get the top-end hardware, and they want some sort of indication that they didn't waste their money. But the bigger thing is that the public at large doesn't have enough grasp on the nature of things to be able to get any feedback that technical achievements in gaming have advanced other than visuals (and in fact, that was one of the big problems the aforementioned "creature" had, except it was the sort that actively sought to make you dumber).

When 3d was new, it did actually have an effect on gameplay. But you should expect that from having an extra dimension to move around in. When HL2 was new, it was a big deal... now, bringing physics into the gameplay mix is something that's expected of everyone because it's already been shown once to be technically feasible. And of course, high framerate is getting the same treatment, at least in this thread.

Like you say, the moment all the hardware they spent their hard-earned money on starts to show signs of weakness (i.e. framerate drops), people just can't accept that. "This video card cost me $600! It's supposed to be twice as powerful as the last model! Whyyyyy does the framerate drop?" The easiest thing to do, of course, is to blame developers since obviously, you couldn't have spent your money on hardware that actually has flaws or is limited in some way. Nobody wants to believe that things are not so simple as more money = more powerful = problem solved. That's where all this "must be 60 fps" nonsense comes from, as far as I can see -- people simply want to have their cake and eat it too... On the end of developers, that basically means burning the candles in the middle as well as at both ends. But who cares, right? As long as you feel comfortable with your purchase.

i agree with everything you are saying Cp and its great to get professional feedback, cheers... but i do not think that every game will be at 60fps, initially i was simply marking it out as another battlefront for the 'my-consoles-better-than-yours' mob or the 'its about the games' crowd. but on disussing the issue throughout this thread i've grown to realise that we still should demand it, because if only one extra game manages 60fps because of our demands, its worth it.

Luis
05-26-2006, 04:23 PM
EDIT : Looking through my log files, I just remembered that I actually did have a discussion with the creature over 60 fps (which somehow a week later became 100 fps), though it was under the impression that 60 fps is the threshold of "realtime."Oh, man. Let's hope that doesn't add any fuel to this thread!

I feel quite bad by thinking this, but I guess you didn't have the chance to find a less "disturbing" job back then. I mean, I've had bad experiences myself too (to the extent of as soon as the extremely messed-up-mind guy started talking I felt the need to leave the room immediately or doing my best to avoid listening any single word from him). However, your situation would have been totally unbearable! It makes me feel fortunate.

Smokey
05-26-2006, 07:04 PM
to be honest no they didn't
to be honest i agree

Viper
05-26-2006, 07:24 PM
We went to the moon, don't make me rant on this one in here.

Cliff, we can request devs do this all we want but then they'll have just as many people if not more that are requesting better ovrall visuals instead.

Remember, the box screen shots on the shelf and in magazines and on the net 'sell' a game far more so than a few tech nuts on the Internet talking about the benefits of 60 fps over 30 fps. Sorry but this is a battle that will not be won.

LaLiLuLeLo
05-26-2006, 07:34 PM
Agreed.

venomv
05-26-2006, 09:39 PM
to be honest no they didn't

All the 'evidence' that we didn't go to the moon is just people not knowing what they are talking about.

cpiasminc
05-27-2006, 02:19 AM
Let's hope that doesn't add any fuel to this thread!
Actually, people still keep asking for more stories. I don't particularly mind. Even if I put a new one up every day, it would take a good 9 years to exhaust every last one (which is all the sadder considering that the company existed for less than a year and a half). Though that's including the ones that carry no comedic weight.


I feel quite bad by thinking this, but I guess you didn't have the chance to find a less "disturbing" job back then.
I often look back on the "are you sure you speak English" story as something of a sign that I should have listened to my instincts... but, hindsight is 20/20. I can't say that *NOTHING* good came of it. I mean... I actually got some work done in spite of it all. I'm actually making close to triple the salary now that I made back then (which puts me at industry standard, actually).


I mean, I've had bad experiences myself too (to the extent of as soon as the extremely messed-up-mind guy started talking I felt the need to leave the room immediately or doing my best to avoid listening any single word from him). However, your situation would have been totally unbearable! It makes me feel fortunate.
Always nice to know I've had it worse. I'm not normally someone who has a lot of patience, but I basically had to exceed all my limits a thousandfold there.


All the 'evidence' that we didn't go to the moon is just people not knowing what they are talking about.
Oh, boy... don't tell me we're going to get into this... Yes... We didn't land on the moon in the same way that the holocaust never happened and Saddam Hussein is actually an actor playing a role in a gigantic media hoax. Yes, the government is just an agency under the thumb of a collective secret society of media moguls with the sole purpose of wagging the dog.

I've been hiding it for many years folks... but... I admit it. I shot JFK. I was on the grassy knoll that afternoon.

venomv
05-27-2006, 03:24 AM
And you had to time travel to do it too, as you are only 27, well at least according to your profile.............

cpiasminc
05-27-2006, 03:28 AM
That's the easy part. Why just earlier this morning, I updated some docs on the intranet and the timestamp read 8 hours in the future.*

* : There's actually a very simple explanation for this, but if I told you, that would spoil all the fun...

Smokey
05-27-2006, 06:38 AM
lol :)

cliffbo
05-27-2006, 12:40 PM
All the 'evidence' that we didn't go to the moon is just people not knowing what they are talking about.

flags blowing in a solar breeze.... foot prints in baked dry soil... disected crosshairs...

venomv
05-27-2006, 03:22 PM
I don't know what you mean by the last two, but the first one is the design of the flag holder, it is springy.

Smokey
05-27-2006, 06:00 PM
I don't know what you mean by the last two, but the first one is the design of the flag holder, it is springy.
the crosshairs in the pics were etched into the LENS but alot of things actualy cover the etchings in pics :shifty: ? & theres no wind on the moon

cliffbo
05-27-2006, 06:03 PM
the crosshairs in the pics were etched into the LENS but alot of things actualy cover the etchings in pics :shifty: ? & theres no wind on the moon

have you ever tried to put a footprint into dust with no moisture?

Luis
05-27-2006, 07:05 PM
OK, this thread can be officially declared derailed.

Someone please care to explain the point of this thread as of now, or else... :locked:

:cowboy:

Smokey
05-27-2006, 07:35 PM
sorry: if they push out 30fps & it looks prettier i think its the way to go but you dont want to have frame drops :)

Viper
05-28-2006, 05:28 AM
Anyone interested in getting completely schooled in the lunar landings, feel free to create a thread in General Discussion where knowledgable people will take one of the dumbest mainstream conspiracy theories to come around in a long time and proceed to cram it bit by bit into the mouths of the people that have no knowledge of the subject matter aside form some sensationalist Fox TV program.

Now back on topic as just as adamantly as the lunar landing understand the following....Frame rate is directly related to 'graphical' intesity and other processor intensive calulations. Rarely will we get both. ACCEPT IT.

LinpinWangyFoot
05-28-2006, 12:39 PM
i do agree that we need to demand things if we really want progress. and framerate seems one of those things that should have been settled long ago, instead of persuing this obsession with power. grace achieved Shadow and Ico not grunt.

venomv
05-28-2006, 01:51 PM
But as long as graphics are selling games some/most devs will continue to push graphics to the limit, ignoring framerate.

cliffbo
05-28-2006, 02:04 PM
But as long as graphics are selling games some/most devs will continue to push graphics to the limit, ignoring framerate.

i think it will be sorted this gen...

jaxmkii
05-28-2006, 02:08 PM
Anyone interested in getting completely schooled in the lunar landings, feel free to create a thread in General Discussion where knowledgable people will take one of the dumbest mainstream conspiracy theories to come around in a long time and proceed to cram it bit by bit into the mouths of the people that have no knowledge of the subject matter aside form some sensationalist Fox TV program.


OH PLEASE DO VIPER! just so happens that my father is a retired 30year vetrain of UTCs jet labs that worked directly with NASA durring the 70s he would love to ansewr ANY questions about that BS...

sorry back on topic

cliffbo
05-28-2006, 03:00 PM
anyway the point was that if we can put men on the moon we can achieve 60fps.

Viper
05-28-2006, 05:13 PM
Cliff, my poitn is that gorgeous pics on the back of a box sell games, listing 60 fps on the package does not.

cliffbo
05-28-2006, 05:47 PM
Cliff, my poitn is that gorgeous pics on the back of a box sell games, listing 60 fps on the package does not.

i bought every game without exception based on what i saw moving. pics don't fool me into believing a product is good, but 60fps gets my interest.

cpiasminc
05-28-2006, 06:02 PM
i bought every game without exception based on what i saw moving. pics don't fool me into believing a product is good, but 60fps gets my interest.
So, if I follow, that means at best, you only showed interest in 5% of the games on the market irrespective of the quality of the title. You can't claim yourself to be representative of the entire gaming community -- the vast majority are more moved by flashy images than by 60 fps (especially considering that less than 1% of games that run at 60 fps actually capture 60 fps video for trailers and such). It's never going to be a selling point because it will not make a game. There's no relationship between framerate and anything about the game, and it doesn't really have the effect on people that graphics does. Granted, neither will graphics, but you won't hear any perceptible fraction of gamers argue that they'd like to sacrifice image quality for anything else (rather, 100% of them want everything in one package).

cliffbo
05-28-2006, 06:09 PM
So, if I follow, that means at best, you only showed interest in 5% of the games on the market irrespective of the quality of the title. You can't claim yourself to be representative of the entire gaming community -- the vast majority are more moved by flashy images than by 60 fps (especially considering that less than 1% of games that run at 60 fps actually capture 60 fps video for trailers and such). It's never going to be a selling point because it will not make a game. There's no relationship between framerate and anything about the game, and it doesn't really have the effect on people that graphics does. Granted, neither will graphics, but you won't hear any perceptible fraction of gamers argue that they'd like to sacrifice image quality for anything else (rather, 100% of them want everything in one package).

i do try to pick games that are 60fps, but it doesn't stop me enjoying games that are not. GTA ran in 30fps and it showed but it was the content and sheer size that enabled me to overlook framerate. and i do agree that 30fps is adequate when its constant, but only adequate. get the framerate sorted first and then add to the game within that criteria. insomniac i believe adopted a similar phillosophy for RaC and that worked out well.

julps31
05-28-2006, 06:15 PM
Wow...i never looked for a game based on its frame rate. I look for games that have good gamplay, story, and graphics. If i can't have all three i'll take good gameplay first. If anything the frame rate is the least important thing in my mind in terms of the overall pakage. Now a choppy frame rate is a different story.

cliffbo
05-28-2006, 06:19 PM
Wow...i never looked for a game based on its frame rate. I look for games that have good gamplay, story, and graphics. If i can't have all three i'll take good gameplay first. If anything the frame rate is the least important thing in my mind in terms of the overall pakage. Now a choppy frame rate is a different story.

of course i do that two, but framerate is something i look for, that and a widescreen option. all other reasons go without question. obviously my arguments are going to be polorised around this subject, because thats what the thread is about.

ps: no-one has mentioned framerate when discussing a title? be honest... it matters.

Smokey
05-28-2006, 10:37 PM
i gotta be honest i dont buy games for framerates i buy em for pleasure, & i gotta really be honest until i come here never really thought of it (framerates) but it used to shit if the game slowed down (like if you got all the soldiers going !!! in mgs) but i will always buy for the game not framerates :)

Backlash
05-29-2006, 04:01 AM
Ok I just need one clarification. TV's only get 30 fps. So ANY last gen game ran at 30 fps MAX.

My clarification I need is whether HD goes 60 fps or not. I know there's something to do with progressive scan, where it shows 60 fields per second, but since there's two fields for each image it only goes to 30 actual frames per second. With progressive scan, is it still 30 fps, or can you go up to 60?

To the best of my knowledge, it's still 30 fps, so the only people who should be complaining about games that don't run at 60 fps are PC people, because their monitors CAN do 60 fps.

I could be wrong about the TV thing, so feel free to correct me.

Smokey
05-29-2006, 04:21 AM
well i know that v8s2 & 3 for last gen run at 60fps off the ps2 dont know if we were viewing 60 or 30 though off the tv?

Viano
05-29-2006, 05:47 AM
Ok I just need one clarification. TV's only get 30 fps. So ANY last gen game ran at 30 fps MAX.

My clarification I need is whether HD goes 60 fps or not. I know there's something to do with progressive scan, where it shows 60 fields per second, but since there's two fields for each image it only goes to 30 actual frames per second. With progressive scan, is it still 30 fps, or can you go up to 60?

To the best of my knowledge, it's still 30 fps, so the only people who should be complaining about games that don't run at 60 fps are PC people, because their monitors CAN do 60 fps.

I could be wrong about the TV thing, so feel free to correct me.

when you watch sopop(spells) dramas on tv, those are clearly above 30fps.

Luis
05-29-2006, 11:00 AM
Ok I just need one clarification. TV's only get 30 fps. So ANY last gen game ran at 30 fps MAX.It's not quite like that. An interlaced picture can be displayed at 60 frames per second, but because of its nature, each frame is comprised of just one field (or little more than that). I'm sure cpiasminc can put this better into words than I can. In any case, I can tell a huge difference between 30 and 60 fps on standard definition TVs with no progressive scan, so 30fps max is not really true.


My clarification I need is whether HD goes 60 fps or not. I know there's something to do with progressive scan, where it shows 60 fields per second, but since there's two fields for each image it only goes to 30 actual frames per second. With progressive scan, is it still 30 fps, or can you go up to 60?Progressive scan format is different to interlaced format, of course. Progressive scan draws the lines of every picture in a sequence at once instead of first odd and then even lines. There are progressive scan video modes that have a refresh rate of 60 Hz, so yes, progressive scan modes can go up to 60 frames per second.


To the best of my knowledge, it's still 30 fps, so the only people who should be complaining about games that don't run at 60 fps are PC people, because their monitors CAN do 60 fps.No, that's certainly not like that.

My elaborations might not be totally accurate, but rest assured that not every current gen or previous gen game run just at 30fps.

cliffbo
05-29-2006, 12:55 PM
i bet that Sony have put out 60fps as a directive. it might not be achievable at all times but its preferable if possible.

cpiasminc
05-29-2006, 11:58 PM
when you watch sopop(spells) dramas on tv, those are clearly above 30fps.
??? I'm not sure what you're talking about, but the point of Backlash's confusion is that all TV broadcast signals are standardized to 30 fps... or rather 29.97, under NTSC. This is the same for HD, as well. What the broadcast signal contains vs. what the actual limitations of the hardware are, are two different things.

It is true that if you have the exact same sync/scan rate (x MHz), then if you do interlacing at that frequency, you can get twice the framerate of progressive (i.e. because a fixed number of pixels per second can be drawn). But you're really only limited by the frequency limits of the hardware and the connections. DVI can carry any HD signal (progressive) up to 90 Hz, so as long as the TV can physically do it, you're fine.


anyway the point was that if we can put men on the moon we can achieve 60fps.
And again, oversimplifying, because it's not a purely technical problem. It's a matter of how much of everything else you want. Sure, we could put men on the moon, but no one was demanding colonization of the moon or weapons outposts on the moon... of course, if those things had been shown before to be technically feasible (and considering that prior efforts to *orbit* the moon had been shown to be feasible), then of course they would have been demanded. And that's exactly what happens with every single feature in all of gaming.


i bet that Sony have put out 60fps as a directive. it might not be achievable at all times but its preferable if possible.
Define "directive"... if you mean a 60 fps TRC, then that would inherently put an end to PS3. It would be dead in a single day. That's why the TRCs always say consistent 30 fps -- typically 2-sigma (95%) consistency -- under normal gameplay conditions; always have and always will.

Viano
05-30-2006, 11:13 AM
+rep for explaining, and it's ok cause I don't even know what im talking about lOl.

cliffbo
05-30-2006, 04:22 PM
CP i'm not worthy :)

Nameless
05-30-2006, 06:00 PM
+rep for explaining, and it's ok cause I don't even know what im talking about lOl.
LOL!! That's the quote of the day...

LinpinWangyFoot
06-01-2006, 06:23 PM
this thread needs further examination. 120hz more or less equals 120fps. 60fps is a sinch... take two

Viper
06-01-2006, 06:28 PM
60 fps is not going to happen in every game. With a technical guy like Cpi and other knowledgable people giving detailed explanations why we won't have 60fps, much less 120 fps, on every game, it's time to come to grips with reality people.

Smokey
06-01-2006, 06:31 PM
60 fps is not going to happen in every game. With a technical guy like Cpi and other knowledgable people giving detailed explanations why we won't have 60fps, much less 120 fps, on every game, it's time to come to grips with reality people.
AGREED cant argue with cpi, xb or viper i just hope it runs a smooth as silk. but even that might be askin too much :)

LinpinWangyFoot
06-01-2006, 06:32 PM
60 fps is not going to happen in every game. With a technical guy like Cpi and other knowledgable people giving detailed explanations why we won't have 60fps, much less 120 fps, on every game, it's time to come to grips with reality people.

i don't care who says this won't happen... it will. many devs said that there were things that couldn't be done on PS2 and guess what, they did it. we are talking about something that is already possible and that some games have, not something theoretical. i think this is going to be the defining factor between the 360 and PS3. if i'm wrong i'm wrong, but i believe i'm right. :)

Viper
06-01-2006, 06:43 PM
No one said 60/120 fps wasn't possible just that to expect that and higher quality graphics is not gonna happen often.


Picture a see saw.

http://www.cedarworks.com/images/240/see_saw.jpg

At one end you have frame rate and at the other you have all the process intensive operations (graphics, A.I., physics, etc...).

As you can imagine, getting both ends to go up, just isn't going to happen everyday.

60 fps will happen but it won't be standard and most likely not on the most visually impressive titles.

LinpinWangyFoot
06-01-2006, 06:47 PM
perhaps devs need to put equal weights on that see saw. i don't care if i can't see a cats ass hole at 500 yards, just give me 60fps. your argument is very persuasive though so i'll put this in the wish list for now.

venomv
06-01-2006, 07:58 PM
Pretty good way to explain it Viper.

cpiasminc
06-01-2006, 08:02 PM
i don't care if i can't see a cats ass hole at 500 yards
o___O I'm.... extremely glad you don't care about that. Otherwise, it would be fairly disturbing. I wouldn't want to have to report to some producer that gamers are complaining about the lack of detail on cat's assholes. It would only ensue company-wide drug tests.


perhaps devs need to put equal weights on that see saw.
What makes you think it's *devs* who control value of one thing over another? It's gamers who think they can have everything at once.


At one end you have frame rate and at the other you have all the process intensive operations (graphics, A.I., physics, etc...).
I would make it a see-saw where one side has a single board for framerate, and the other side has 8-10 boards splayed out in different directions, all of different lengths and each little minuscule feature gets a 10-ton weight on it. And every weight has the same label on it -- "Because it's 'next-gen'"

Viper
06-01-2006, 08:03 PM
Thanks, Venomv.

No matter what kind of gold plating and fancy lighting you add to the see saw the basic physics behind it remain the same.

LinpinWangyFoot
06-01-2006, 08:06 PM
Thanks, Venomv.

No matter what kind of gold plating and fancy lighting you add to the see saw the basic physics behind it remain the same.

try a roundabout instead with six places to get off, one of which says '60fps'

Viper
06-01-2006, 08:11 PM
But that's not how it works. Sure a dev/pub can target 60 fps and show screen shots and video and watch as people bitch about how non next gen it looks because fo all the sacrificng it look to get 60 fps only to have them tone it back down to squeeze in some better textures and polys, etc..to appease the majority.

As I keep saying, the box art and screen shots sell a game far more so than a mag, box or net site saying, "Hey, it runs at 60 fps".

LinpinWangyFoot
06-01-2006, 08:16 PM
i'm amazed that this is rejected as a possibility when some games that look fantastic already run at 60fps. why is this sooooo controversial. '60 frames per second' will be quoted throughout next gen on PS3 as a sign of quality. and no i'm not ignoring all the other things that reprisent quality.

Smokey
06-01-2006, 09:26 PM
i'm amazed that this is rejected as a possibility when some games that look fantastic already run at 60fps. why is this sooooo controversial. '60 frames per second' will be quoted throughout next gen on PS3 as a sign of quality. and no i'm not ignoring all the other things that reprisent quality.
i gotta say linpin im amazed at how contaversial this is for you :)

cpiasminc
06-01-2006, 10:44 PM
i'm amazed that this is rejected as a possibility when some games that look fantastic already run at 60fps.
Are you equating "not happening on every game" to "not happening on any game"? And in case you didn't realize, all 60 fps games sacrifice something not because of timing length, but timing resolution -- not the same thing. It may not be graphical, but it's there.

Explain to me your logic, as I've already explained mine a thousand times over. Because something as simple as "it's next-gen" is not the basis of anything.


why is this sooooo controversial.
Because people, in general, are stupid.


'60 frames per second' will be quoted throughout next gen on PS3 as a sign of quality.
I find that difficult to swallow. Have you ever seen a game that put its framerate up as a signpost of quality? That as opposed to its AI or its physics or its graphics? Have you ever seen a framerate-driven ad campaign?


and no i'm not ignoring all the other things that reprisent quality.
Then why speak of how much you'd rather forgo detail over framerate? It's not about quality, and it never will be. It's about what sells the titles and gets people emptying the shelves of your title. And framerate has never been one of those things, so people will write to a framerate spec that is suitable for their SKU, rather than worry about what pleases framerate or polycount snobs.

LinpinWangyFoot
06-01-2006, 11:41 PM
we'll see.... the one thing that everyone will be talking about when PS3 is released and we get the chance to compare games on 360, is framerate, because that will be the obvious difference. watch and see...

Infernal
06-02-2006, 12:45 AM
we'll see.... the one thing that everyone will be talking about when PS3 is released and we get the chance to compare games on 360, is framerate, because that will be the obvious difference. watch and see...
Doubt it. Most people cant even tell the difference between 30 and 60 frames per second. In fact most people dont even know what framerate is for god sakes. Honestly have you ever been playing a game with your friends and said "Dude this 30fps just isnt cutting it, they should have reduced the enemies on screen and targeted 60fps." I doubt anyone has ever had a conversation even remotely like that. No where on a gaming case does it say "game runs at 60 fps" and it probably never will. The fact of the matter is the average person doesnt know about nor care what framerate is.

cpiasminc
06-02-2006, 03:10 AM
we'll see.... the one thing that everyone will be talking about when PS3 is released and we get the chance to compare games on 360, is framerate, because that will be the obvious difference. watch and see...
You seem awfully certain of that. Especially considering that such a thing has never been the case before, and that in any given console generation, a minuscule percentage of games have ever run consistently at 60 fps. Also, that it's really quite rare for people to actually rent games before buying (as opposed to depending on word of mouth or reviews and/or their own fandom for a franchise), how often is it going to be that people even are aware of the framerates?

LinpinWangyFoot
06-02-2006, 09:44 AM
You seem awfully certain of that. Especially considering that such a thing has never been the case before, and that in any given console generation, a minuscule percentage of games have ever run consistently at 60 fps. Also, that it's really quite rare for people to actually rent games before buying (as opposed to depending on word of mouth or reviews and/or their own fandom for a franchise), how often is it going to be that people even are aware of the framerates?

every generation had its talking point. i do take all other aspects of games developement into consideration but trust me framerate will be the key word. check through some of the early E3 posts. quite a few of them were comparing framerates because its the most obvious difference.

CARTIER90
06-02-2006, 10:04 AM
how often is it going to be that people even are aware of the framerates?
__________________

Framerates are bloody obvious, particularly when they dip BELOW 30 fps, look at GT4 and then SA, tell me that framerates are not obvious....:)

cliffbo
06-02-2006, 02:16 PM
let me just throw a thought into the mix: everyone wants HD to succeed... why? because everyone wants better without a step backwards. if Sony told us that we we're going to get blu-ray movies at 1080p, but there would be a slight drop in framerate (this is supposition. i know framerates work differently on TVs) would we except it? No! because progress is moving foreward on all fronts. 60fps is possible. i would sooner see a slightly decreased clarity than an image that hops about like a scolded cat.

makeitlookreal
06-02-2006, 03:27 PM
Quite frankly, what I want to know is why developers cannot start pushing SD to become more realistic. I mean, they are far from making any SD game as realistic as a TV show. Why don't they get working on SD displays instead of HD displays?

I just don't understand why it seems the 360 and PS3 developers have given up on SD! It it some sort of conspiracy to force us to buy HD TVs? I mean, look at "The Waltons" for instance. There is no SD game that even looks nearly as realistic. I am not saying that we could make something as realistic this generation, but it seems that no one is trying! What is the problem?

cliffbo
06-02-2006, 03:34 PM
Quite frankly, what I want to know is why developers cannot start pushing SD to become more realistic. I mean, they are far from making any SD game as realistic as a TV show. Why don't they get working on SD displays instead of HD displays?

I just don't understand why it seems the 360 and PS3 developers have given up on SD! It it some sort of conspiracy to force us to buy HD TVs? I mean, look at "The Waltons" for instance. There is no SD game that even looks nearly as realistic. I am not saying that we could make something as realistic this generation, but it seems that no one is trying! What is the problem?

i don't think theres a conspiracy MILR, i just think thats progress i'm affraid. RE pushed us a notch closer on PS2 but al the focus will now shift to next gen. don't dispair though because devs will happily work on a platform that is still supported by a huge community, especially when they know the market won't just suddenly end (xbox oh dear) and i'm sure that somewhere down the line Sony will offer a similar service for PS3 as PSP with PS1 games. How long would it take to download a PS2 game? not as long as a HD next gen game.

Viper
06-02-2006, 06:01 PM
Did my see saw analogy get forgotten already or better yet, Cpi's octopus variation?

Anyone understand fuel efficiency? You hit top gear and you have your best fuel efficiency (while in motion that is). But as you depress that accelerator further down and the speed increases, the fuel efficiency drops. How can you possibly expect to press the pedal down further and magically get better fuel efficiency? This is what you are asking for.

Play tug of war one day. Put one person on one end and 6 on the other. Is it possible for both groups to move backward while they tug (provided the rope has minimal elasticity properties)? This is what you are asking for.


Getting both, higher end graphics and higher end framtes will not be standard nor will it be any kind of selling point, that's rather ridiculous.

cliffbo
06-02-2006, 06:10 PM
Did my see saw analogy get forgotten already or better yet, Cpi's octopus variation?

Anyone understand fuel efficiency? You hit top gear and you have your best fuel efficiency (while in motion that is). But as you depress that accelerator further down and the speed increases, the fuel efficiency drops. How can you possibly expect to press the pedal down further and magically get better fuel efficiency? This is what you are asking for.

Play tug of war one day. Put one person on one end and 6 on the other. Is it possible for both groups to move backward while they tug (provided the rope has minimal elasticity properties)? This is what you are asking for.


Getting both, higher end graphics and higher end framtes will not be standard nor will it be any kind of selling point, that's rather ridiculous.

i'm... beginning... to, to doubt.... but.... noooooooooooo i spent a lifetime getting this stupid i'm not going to blow all of that effort in one moment of sanity.

Viper
06-02-2006, 06:49 PM
Not you Cliff, we already know there's no hope for you. I mean the others.

Angeljuice
06-02-2006, 07:56 PM
After reading this thread, there is a couple of points I would like to make;
1). Framerate does sell games, reviewers constantly refer to framerates especially if they are particularly good or bad.
A magazine will show a static image of a screenshot. Are you telling me that if the reviewer states "the game engine struggles to produce 30 fps and there is consistent slowdown apparent"... you would still be as likely to buy the game as if they had stated "The game engine pumps out 60fps with fluid ease"...?

2). Viper. If you put a turbo on your car (hardware upgrade), it'll pump more oxygen into the cylinders making the resultant combustions way more efficient. Essentially you can put your foot down harder and still be more fuel efficient. It's really not that ridiculous a goal to set, considering the revolutionary hardware involved.

3). Yes, damn straight everything must be improved "because it's next gen" to a point at least, if it doesn't someone has messed up along the way. This isn't a PC that can be upgraded every couple of months, it's a closed system that will exist unchanged for the next 5-10 years. If its going to be competitive during that time, then yes, it does have to be way beyond current gen on all counts.
When it reaches a plateu in any given field, it will no longer be considered an issue. If everything was running smoothly at 60fps on all formats as standard, nobody would consider framerate an issue. In the 8bit-16bit-32bit era one of big factors in demonstrating a systems power was the number of colours it could generate, when was the last time you saw this mentioned in a new systems spec sheet? The truth is that we reached a high enough standard that this ceased to be considered an important factor. The same will someday be true of frame rate and of polygon count.

LinpinWangyFoot
06-02-2006, 07:59 PM
After reading this thread, there is a couple of points I would like to make;
1). Framerate does sell games, reviewers constantly refer to framerates especially if they are particularly good or bad.
A magazine will show a static image of a screenshot. Are you telling me that if the reviewer states "the game engine struggles to produce 30 fps and there is consistent slowdown apparent"... you would still be as likely to buy the game as if they had stated "The game engine pumps out 60fps with fluid ease"...?

2). Viper. If you put a turbo on your car (hardware upgrade), it'll pump more oxygen into the cylinders making the resultant combustions way more efficient. Essentially you can put your foot down harder and still be more fuel efficient. It's really not that ridiculous a goal to set, considering the revolutionary hardware involved.

3). Yes, damn straight everything must be improved "because it's next gen" to a point at least, if it doesn't someone has messed up along the way. This isn't a PC that can be upgraded every couple of months, it's a closed system that will exist unchanged for the next 5-10 years. If its going to be competitive during that time, then yes, it does have to be way beyond current gen on all counts.
When it reaches a plateu in any given field, it will no longer be considered an issue. If everything was running smoothly at 60fps on all formats as standard, nobody would consider framerate an issue. In the 8bit-16bit-32bit era one of big factors in demonstrating a systems power was the number of colours it could generate, when was the last time you saw this mentioned in a new systems spec sheet? The truth is that we reached a high enough standard that this ceased to be considered an important factor. The same will someday be true of frame rate and of polygon count.

AMEN..... i agree why is this so much of an issue... i'm asking for 60fps not photorealism.

Viper
06-02-2006, 08:16 PM
After reading this thread, there is a couple of points I would like to make;
1). Framerate does sell games, reviewers constantly refer to framerates especially if they are particularly good or bad.
A magazine will show a static image of a screenshot. Are you telling me that if the reviewer states "the game engine struggles to produce 30 fps and there is consistent slowdown apparent"... you would still be as likely to buy the game as if they had stated "The game engine pumps out 60fps with fluid ease"...?

2). Viper. If you put a turbo on your car (hardware upgrade), it'll pump more oxygen into the cylinders making the resultant combustions way more efficient. Essentially you can put your foot down harder and still be more fuel efficient. It's really not that ridiculous a goal to set, considering the revolutionary hardware involved.

3). Yes, damn straight everything must be improved "because it's next gen" to a point at least, if it doesn't someone has messed up along the way. This isn't a PC that can be upgraded every couple of months, it's a closed system that will exist unchanged for the next 5-10 years. If its going to be competitive during that time, then yes, it does have to be way beyond current gen on all counts.
When it reaches a plateu in any given field, it will no longer be considered an issue. If everything was running smoothly at 60fps on all formats as standard, nobody would consider framerate an issue. In the 8bit-16bit-32bit era one of big factors in demonstrating a systems power was the number of colours it could generate, when was the last time you saw this mentioned in a new systems spec sheet? The truth is that we reached a high enough standard that this ceased to be considered an important factor. The same will someday be true of frame rate and of polygon count.
You just don't get it do you? I'm truly nto trying to be rude but you clearly do not understand the balance between frame rates and other system operations.


1. Bad frame rates can deters gamers that read about it but when has bad frame rates ever been reported on the back of a game box? You think everyone reads a review before they buy? I'd venture to say you're lucky if 1/4 th of the total buyers actually read a worthwhile review on the game first.

We are talking about 30 and 60 fps here. No review will call a game bad because it runs at 30 fps. If so then we may as well call MGS4 a bad game as it's targets for 30 fps.

2. So you're telling me that a car with a turbo is more fuel efficient doing 150 mph at 7k RPMs than doing 45 mph in top gear at just over 1k RPMs?

3. Regardless of closed system that won't change specs, you still have developers that will push the system beyond optimal rendering levels and that will drop frame rates. The more you put ina game, polys, A.I, physics, textures, higher resolutions, etc...the harder that is to render over and over in one second.

Now that's just goofy. There was nothing to deter how many colors could be displayed. There was no trade off such as the following example: We can have 3 enemies on screen and 60k colors or 6 enemies on screen and 30k colors. Where as now you will have scenarios that play out like this: We can have 30 enemies on screen and 60 fps or 60 enemies on screen and 30 fps.

Guess which line would sell the game?
A) 60 fps
or
B) 60 enemies on screen

That is highly simplified as well as the trade off likely reduces the enemy A.I., the physics capabilities, the texture resolution and much more.

"Because it's next gen" is the most bullshit line being tossed around right now. You can make a Cray super computer or even the 360 Teraflop Blue Gen/L have frame rate issues so long as it was pushed beyond it's optimal threshold.

Gamers demand the higher end graphics (if they didn't, each gen would last 2-3 times as long) and with that comes the constant trade off balancing act between that, A.I., physics, etc and frame rates.

LinpinWangyFoot
06-02-2006, 08:25 PM
"Because it's next gen" is the most bullshit line being tossed around right now. You can make a Cray super computer or even the 360 Teraflop Blue Gen/L have frame rate issues so long as it was pushed beyond it's optimal threshold.

so don't push it beyond its optimal threshhold! every time we get more power everyone immediately wants higher this faster that. lets move sideways for a while and iron out some of those niggling problems like framerate.

Viper
06-02-2006, 08:35 PM
LWF, if devs did that people would be twice as pissed at the $600.00 price tag because the games likely would have looked even less impressive than X360 titles. Remember, to get higher frame rates you must scale back many things, such as graphics, physics, A.I., resolutiona nd other system intesive operations. I'm not saying it isn't possible to get great graphics and 60 fps but it will nto be standard on every game. That's overexpectation and setting yoruself up for mad dissapointment.

Ironing out frame rates does not have an industry wide solution but is a problem that is independant of every other game and each dev must fight that battle.

Angeljuice
06-02-2006, 08:54 PM
Don't be so patronising viper;

"...Now that's just goofy. There was nothing to deter how many colors could be displayed..."

ZX Spectrum = Max 32 colours (not all at once), Commodore Amiga = 4096 colours, the fact that you think this is "Goofy" kind of makes my point. It became redundant after a while.

Viper
06-02-2006, 09:04 PM
It's a goofy analogy. There was nothing to balance when it came to displayed colors like there is for frame rates. I see what you're saying that at one point max on screen colors was a talking point but that was never a balance trade off issue to begin with but strictly hardware. Frame rates are not strictly a hardware issue but a balance between what that hardware can do and what the developers throw at it.

xbdestroya
06-02-2006, 09:04 PM
I think people need to think for a moment about what their top ten games of the present generation are, and what the framerates of those games are.

I'd love to see some lists! :smoke:

Infernal
06-02-2006, 09:12 PM
I think people need to think for a moment about what their top ten games of the present generation are, and what the framerates of those games are.

I'd love to see some lists! :smoke:
Lol yah. The only game I can think of in my top 10 for this generation that ran at 60fps is GT, thats about it.

xbdestroya
06-02-2006, 09:22 PM
Lol yah. The only game I can think of in my top 10 for this generation that ran at 60fps is GT, thats about it.

LOL, if you even know any of the framerates, that's more than I can say for myself. All I know is that Shadow of the Colossus runs at essentially under 30. :smoke:

Viper
06-02-2006, 09:27 PM
The Metroid Prime games ran at 60 fps but you don't notice the difference a few minutes after you started playing.

Luis
06-02-2006, 09:28 PM
I think people need to think for a moment about what their top ten games of the present generation are, and what the framerates of those games are.

I'd love to see some lists! :smoke:I'll list some of my favourite PS2 games :) Not all of my favourite ones, mind you. In no particular order:

MGS2: 60fps
MGS3: 30fps (most of the time; sometimes it's higher, sometimes it's lower)
GTA III/Vice City/San Andreas: 30fps
Devil May Cry 1 & 3: 60fps
Resident Evil 4: 30fps
Final Fantasy X: 30fps (although it seems smoother than that)
God Of War: 30fps (same as with FFX)
Onimusha 3 & 4: 60fps
Burnout 3 & Revenge: 60fps
Shadow Of The Colossus: 30fps (it's lower than that many times but totally forgivable)
Ace Combat 5: 60fps

So it's eight 30fps games VS eight 60fps games :cowboy: I think I can't be much more neutral than that! :-p

By the way, I converted some PAL framerates to NTSC framerates, so my list might not be totally accurate because of that, please bear that in mind.

Smokey
06-02-2006, 09:29 PM
the main game i play is v8s & its a 60 framer. but in no way at ALL did i buy it for that reason didnt even cross my mind :) i wont be coming back to this thread.

xbdestroya
06-02-2006, 09:34 PM
I'll list some of my favourite PS2 games :) Not all of my favourite ones, mind you. In no particular order:

MGS2: 60fps
MGS3: 30fps (most of the time; sometimes it's higher, sometimes it's lower)
GTA III/Vice City/San Andreas: 30fps
Devil May Cry 1 & 3: 60fps
Resident Evil 4: 30fps
Final Fantasy X: 30fps (although it seems smoother than that)
God Of War: 30fps (same as with FFX)
Onimusha 3 & 4: 60fps
Burnout 3 & Revenge: 60fps
Shadow Of The Colossus: 30fps (it's lower than that many times but totally forgivable)
Ace Combat 5: 60fps

So it's eight 30fps games VS eight 60fps games :cowboy: I think I can't be much more neutral than that! :-p

By the way, I converted some PAL framerates to NTSC framerates, so my list might not be totally accurate because of that, please bear that in mind.

Wow VG, that's pretty comprehensive! :smoke:

Good list too.

@Viper: Well now I have to say, I did like the smooth framerates of Metroid Prime. But yeah, certainly I'm going to buy a game irrespective of it's framerate; the framerate is the icing on the cake I have determined to eat for other reasons.

LinpinWangyFoot
06-02-2006, 09:35 PM
I'll list some of my favourite PS2 games :) Not all of my favourite ones, mind you. In no particular order:

MGS2: 60fps
MGS3: 30fps (most of the time; sometimes it's higher, sometimes it's lower)
GTA III/Vice City/San Andreas: 30fps
Devil May Cry 1 & 3: 60fps
Resident Evil 4: 30fps
Final Fantasy X: 30fps (although it seems smoother than that)
God Of War: 30fps (same as with FFX)
Onimusha 3 & 4: 60fps
Burnout 3 & Revenge: 60fps
Shadow Of The Colossus: 30fps (it's lower than that many times but totally forgivable)
Ace Combat 5: 60fps

its good to see framerate being an issue with you XB... dream the dream
So it's eight 30fps games VS eight 60fps games :cowboy: I think I can't be much more neutral than that! :-p

By the way, I converted some PAL framerates to NTSC framerates, so my list might not be totally accurate because of that, please bear that in mind.

its good to see you interested in framerate...

Infernal
06-02-2006, 09:37 PM
MGS2: 60fps
MGS3: 30fps (most of the time; sometimes it's higher, sometimes it's lower)
GTA III/Vice City/San Andreas: 30fps
Devil May Cry 1 & 3: 60fps
Resident Evil 4: 30fps
Final Fantasy X: 30fps (although it seems smoother than that)
God Of War: 30fps (same as with FFX)
Onimusha 3 & 4: 60fps
Burnout 3 & Revenge: 60fps
Shadow Of The Colossus: 30fps (it's lower than that many times but totally forgivable)
Ace Combat 5: 60fps
Wow didnt realize that AC5 and MGS2 were 60fps, guess there are a few others on my list.

LinpinWangyFoot
06-02-2006, 09:39 PM
the main game i play is v8s & its a 60 framer. but in no way at ALL did i buy it for that reason didnt even cross my mind :) i wont be coming back to this thread.

i expect framerate to be the main issue with you Smokey!!!!!!! Cliffbo needs you.

Luis
06-02-2006, 09:40 PM
its good to see you interested in framerate...I am very sensitive to different frame rates, so yes, it's quite important to me. However, I don't expect nor demand 60fps all the time. If I can't get more than 30fps or maybe a bit less than that, I understand it (as long as the game is not very lacking in other important areas).

Infernal
06-02-2006, 09:42 PM
Well guys its just that well look at Shadow of the Collossus. That game looked incredible and probably ran at an average of about 20fps during the battles. I would greatly prefer those incredible graphics at 20fps to a game that looks half as good at 60fps.

LinpinWangyFoot
06-02-2006, 09:45 PM
I am very sensitive to different frame rates, so yes, it's quite important to me. However, I don't expect nor demand 60fps all the time. If I can't get more than 30fps or maybe a bit less than that, I understand it (as long as the game is not very lacking in other important areas).

demand it damn it!!!!!

Luis
06-02-2006, 09:58 PM
demand it damn it!!!!!To be totally honest, I would demand 60fps for racing games and some action games. However, I could understand some racing games involving lots of crashes and more complex physics than others wouldn't have an overall solid frame rate or run at just 30fps, but I'd always prefer 60fps for this genre. Same goes to complex action games with lots of things onscreen or more detailed ones.

xbdestroya
06-02-2006, 09:59 PM
demand it damn it!!!!!

Ok Linpin, let's see you put your money where your mouth is. What were your favorite games of the current gen? ;)

LinpinWangyFoot
06-02-2006, 10:00 PM
Well guys its just that well look at Shadow of the Collossus. That game looked incredible and probably ran at an average of about 20fps during the battles. I would greatly prefer those incredible graphics at 20fps to a game that looks half as good at 60fps.

yes and what was the main bone of contention with this game? no clue needed.

this is going to be the defining factor between 360 and PS3 without a doubt

xbdestroya
06-02-2006, 10:09 PM
yes and what was the main bone of contention with this game? no clue needed.

this is going to be the defining factor between 360 and PS3 without a doubt


But if Shadow had looked much worse and run at 60FPS, nobody would have bought it. The fact that there's a bone of contention on one of the years best games doesn't obscure the fact that it was one of the best. Worse visuals and it may not have earned that honor.

As for the 360 vs PS3, *if* every PS3 game were required to run at 60FPS, you could be sure that 360 titles would consistently be the most impressive visually throughout this entire gen.

Luis
06-02-2006, 10:15 PM
this is going to be the defining factor between 360 and PS3 without a doubtYou know, I thought it would be the exclusive games regardless of their frame rates, how silly of me :duh:

LinpinWangyFoot
06-02-2006, 10:19 PM
You know, I thought it would be the exclusive games regardless of their frame rates, how silly of me :duh:

okay so i'm being a little bit dramatic lol

Backlash
06-02-2006, 10:40 PM
yes and what was the main bone of contention with this game? no clue needed.

this is going to be the defining factor between 360 and PS3 without a doubt

Keep in mind though, when a game is made for a weaker system (360) then ported to a more powerful system (PS3), the game won't necessarily run better automatically just because it's more powerful.

An excellent example is a Need For Speed game my brother got on the GameCube. That game was ported from weaker hardware (PS2) to more powerful hardware (GC), and the game actually has a higher framerate on the PS2. The reason for this is, the developers didn't take the time to optimize the game to run on the GC.

Same thing could happen on the 360/PS3. Especially with the rising cost of game development.

cliffbo
06-02-2006, 11:13 PM
here is my list of current gen games i like i have not inclided rpg`s as i do not know the framerates for them.

1. timesplitters2 60fps.
2. armoured core nexus 60fps.
3. spartan total warrior 170+ NPCs onscreen (not to mention the fully interactive 3D environments, 130,000 polys per frame, constant 60 fps, etc).
4. god of war GoW runs at 60 fps and never lags.
5. twisted metal black 60fps.
6. ratchet and clank up your arsenal 60fps.
7. Enthusia Professional Racing 60fps.
8. burnouts 2,3,4 60fps.
9. devil may cry 60hps.
10. wonning eleven soccer 60fps(it actually does drop a bit below on occasion).
there are others but these are the first i thought of.
i still like other games that are not 60fps but woukd prefer them to be as they look more polished and arcade like when they are 6-fpf.
i believe that most new games for ps2 are comong out at 60fps eg:nba 06,gow2..

ps
i am not saying every game will be 60fps but i am saying the target should be 60fps and if we the consumers don`t at least try to demand it then we will seldom get it.

cliffbo
06-02-2006, 11:31 PM
need for speed was not ported from a weaker format(ps2) it was ported from a stronger format(pc).

cpiasminc
06-02-2006, 11:37 PM
every generation had its talking point. i do take all other aspects of games developement into consideration but trust me framerate will be the key word.
That's funny... 'cuz as far as I can tell, most of the fixation this time around has been on physics.


Commodore Amiga = 4096 colours
To be accurate, the Amiga's base framebuffer passes only did 64 colors, but using HAM (hold and modify) mode, you could blend between two passes of 64 colors each to fake the effect of 4096 (64x64). We used to do the same thing on the PCs with VGA cards by tweaking the refresh rate up to 120 Hz, which caused subsequent frames to appear as if they blended -- faking 262,144 colors on a 256-color display was quite flickery, but it came in handy at times.

I'm assuming of course, the early Amigas... A500s and what not... A4000s and PPC/G4 Amigas were entirely other balls of wax.


Keep in mind though, when a game is made for a weaker system (360) then ported to a more powerful system (PS3), the game won't necessarily run better automatically just because it's more powerful.
When a game runs at 30 fps, it's typically because the timing resolution is that coarse-grained, and even though individual tasks might run fast, they end up waiting on each other so that there would have been a risk of spilling over frames. 30 fps means you can afford that kind of lower resolution in the time axis. So if a game runs at 30 fps on a weaker platform, chances are good it will still run at 30 on all platforms (including PC, if vsync is enabled)


An excellent example is a Need For Speed game my brother got on the GameCube. That game was ported from weaker hardware (PS2) to more powerful hardware (GC), and the game actually has a higher framerate on the PS2. The reason for this is, the developers didn't take the time to optimize the game to run on the GC.
Well, things that you do on the PS2 for performance reasons would basically bring any other console, even a next-gen one, utterly to its knees. But Gamecube also has its share of quirks which annoy the hell out of me, and a lot of those quirks happen to entail sitting and waiting.

LinpinWangyFoot
06-02-2006, 11:41 PM
here is my list of current gen games i like i have not inclided rpg`s as i do not know the framerates for them.

1. timesplitters2 60fps.
2. armoured core nexus 60fps.
3. spartan total warrior 170+ NPCs onscreen (not to mention the fully interactive 3D environments, 130,000 polys per frame, constant 60 fps, etc).
4. god of war GoW runs at 60 fps and never lags.
5. twisted metal black 60fps.
6. ratchet and clank up your arsenal 60fps.
7. Enthusia Professional Racing 60fps.
8. burnouts 2,3,4 60fps.
9. devil may cry 60hps.
10. wonning eleven soccer 60fps(it actually does drop a bit below on occasion).
there are others but these are the first i thought of.
i still like other games that are not 60fps but woukd prefer them to be as they look more polished and arcade like when they are 6-fpf.
i believe that most new games for ps2 are comong out at 60fps eg:nba 06,gow2..

ps
i am not saying every game will be 60fps but i am saying the target should be 60fps and if we the consumers don`t at least try to demand it then we will seldom get it.

way to go cliffbo... i'm 100 percent behind you...

LaLiLuLeLo
06-02-2006, 11:43 PM
Perfect example of this is the port of MGS2 to Xbox (from ps2). It's so designed around PS2's hardware that it has a LOT of slowdown in the (relatively) graphically intense areas that run fine on PS2's version.

LinpinWangyFoot
06-02-2006, 11:45 PM
Perfect example of this is the port of MGS2 to Xbox (from ps2). It's so designed around PS2's hardware that it has a LOT of slowdown in the (relatively) graphically intense areas that run fine on PS2's version.

this is news to me and i'm very interesting....

LaLiLuLeLo
06-02-2006, 11:49 PM
There are certain games that usually necessitate 60 fps.
Racing Games
Fast Paced Action Games (ala DMC series)
um....
um.......
Maybe Flight action games...
Fighting Games, preferably.

most other genres don't demand it for responsive controls' sake, but it doesn't hurt. There are plenty of 30fps games that are some of the best games period. I.e, MGS3, Shadow of The Colossus...
One thing that is impressive is both ZOE games run at 60fps, but it drops every once in a while because of so much s*** going on at once.

LaLiLuLeLo
06-02-2006, 11:51 PM
this is news to me and very interesting....

It's one of the reasons kojima hates making cross platform games, it holds the games back on a number of levels..

LinpinWangyFoot
06-02-2006, 11:52 PM
There are certain games that usually necessitate 60 fps.
Racing Games
Fast Paced Action Games (ala DMC series)
um....
um.......
Maybe Flight action games...
Fighting Games, preferably.

most other genres don't demand it for responsive controls' sake, but it doesn't hurt. There are plenty of 30fps games that are some of the best games period. I.e, MGS3, Shadow of The Colossus...
One thing that is impressive is both ZOE games run at 60fps, but it drops every once in a while because of so much s*** going on at once.

shadow would have been absolutely brilliant at 60fps

cliffbo
06-03-2006, 12:01 AM
i would have thought that framerate issues between console versions of games would have been put down to unfamiliarity with the individual consoles as to port over a game on ps2 to xbox surely have required a complete rewrite of the code as they have completely different processors and systems only the graphics would remain the same except for the odd touch ups that is.

LinpinWangyFoot
06-03-2006, 12:14 AM
i would have thought that framerate issues between console versions of games would have been put down to unfamiliarity with the individual consoles as to port over a game on ps2 to xbox surely have required a complete rewrite of the code as they have completely different processors and systems only the graphics would remain the same except for the odd touch ups that is.

agreed 100%... plus i'm sure that effort would have been put on the console that did the best... which one that is, i can only guess at... probably the biggest seller... business eh?

cliffbo
06-03-2006, 12:21 AM
To be accurate, the Amiga's base framebuffer passes only did 64 colors, but using HAM (hold and modify) mode, you could blend between two passes of 64 colors each to fake the effect of 4096 (64x64). We used to do the same thing on the PCs with VGA cards by tweaking the refresh rate up to 120 Hz, which caused subsequent frames to appear as if they blended -- faking 262,144 colors on a 256-color display was quite flickery, but it came in handy at times.

I'm assuming of course, the early Amigas... A500s and what not... A4000s and PPC/G4 Amigas were entirely other balls of wax.

i owned an original amiga 1000 computer and it quite comfortably displayed full color(4096) in most resolutions with vrtually no flickrt the only differences with later models were flicker free modes eg:1280x1024x256 colors also faster cpu speeds(lol) all in all a great machine shame it died.

cpiasminc
06-03-2006, 12:34 AM
only the graphics would remain the same except for the odd touch ups that is.
Graphics is probably where the PS2 differs the most from other consoles, actually. Framebuffer blends, accumulation, and multiple passes are basically your bread and butter on the PS2. If you so much as attempt that on an Xbox, or even an Xbox360, be glad if you even get 5 fps.


i owned an original amiga 1000 computer and it quite comfortably displayed full color(4096) in most resolutions with vrtually no flickrt the only differences with later models were flicker free modes eg:1280x1024x256 colors also faster cpu speeds(lol) all in all a great machine shame it died.
Yeah, HAM mode was quite different from the PC method which used high refresh rates to trick your eyes. And Amiga itself... well... The problem with Amiga wasn't that it waned in quality or it got worse. It was that it didn't change, while everything else in the industry did.

I had an A500 myself.

LinpinWangyFoot
06-03-2006, 12:38 AM
Graphics is probably where the PS2 differs the most from other consoles, actually. Framebuffer blends, accumulation, and multiple passes are basically your bread and butter on the PS2. If you so much as attempt that on an Xbox, or even an Xbox360, be glad if you even get 5 fps.

could you elaborate CP. i would have thought that 360 could easily out perform PS2 in this department surely you must be mistaken!?

cliffbo
06-03-2006, 12:52 AM
cp i was`nt referring to the actual displaying of the graphics i was referring to the basic design of the graphics.

cpiasminc
06-03-2006, 01:04 AM
could you elaborate CP. i would have thought that 360 could easily out perform PS2 in this department surely you must be mistaken!?
It's not a matter of raw power so much as the rendering style which works well for PS2, but not for any other GPU in existence.

The thing with the PS2 was the ratio of its raw fillrate and the width and speed of its bus (both ways) to eDRAM in relation to how many pixels really needed to be filled. So it could do 15 or 16 blend and accumulation passes over the entire framebuffer (and without using external bus bandwidth since render-to-texture framebuffer copies and texture cache was entirely in eDRAM along with the backbuffer and front buffer which could be directly accessed), and not break a sweat.

If you try to accumulate color and process weird blend ops against a backbuffer copy over the entire framebuffer 10 times over, the GS will do it nice and easy (since it doesn't really have any per-fragment complexity), while it's basically ass-slow on any other GPU.

The other thing is that the command stream for doing this is so light on the data transfers for a PS2, and things can be done a little more continuously, which isn't possible on any other GPU because you'll be waiting for data copies and the texture buffer bandwidth and latency will kill you, especially since you're doing stuff that is otherwise computationally simple, so you can't cover up the latencies with more shader instructions.


cp i was`nt referring to the actual displaying of the graphics i was referring to the basic design of the graphics.
Yes, but the thing is that's still an example of why something designed to PS2 spec is going to suffer in a port to any other platform -- even a next-gen one. There's a whole lot more to framerates than just polycounts and shader complexity.

Backlash
06-03-2006, 03:52 AM
Ok, with that said, my point was that (because of the different ways the consoles render stuff) a technically more powerful console, could perform worse than a less powerful console. It's not because of raw power, but just the way it processes stuff. You've exactly proven my point.



need for speed was not ported from a weaker format(ps2) it was ported from a stronger format(pc).

Eh, the point was the GC hardware is more powerful, and it still runs the game slower.

cliffbo
06-03-2006, 01:34 PM
Ok Linpin, let's see you put your money where your mouth is. What were your favorite games of the current gen? ;)

thats unfair XB! :) of course i bought games that didn't run at 60fps, Shadow being one of them and GTASA, but i swear to you that in every review i saw, framerate was an issue.

cliffbo
06-03-2006, 01:44 PM
Shadow of the Colossus reviewed:


The game makes such an exceptional visual effort, in fact, that it's a disappointment that the technical execution is less than perfect. This is primarily due to an uneven frame rate, which is reasonably smooth while you're exploring the land but can dip dangerously low when a battle heats up--the worst time for it to happen. The camera can also be a bit erratic while you're climbing around the back of a colossus, though you can hold down L1 to center the camera on the monster, which helps to mitigate this problem. The low frame rate is actually countered somewhat by a motion blur effect, which makes everything appear a little smoother and adds a superb cinematic quality to boot. The game also supports 480p and widescreen modes on HDTVs, which enhances the visual presentation all the more. In any event, this is still one of the best-looking games on the PlayStation 2, and these minor visual flaws absolutely shouldn't keep you from playing it.

GTASA reviewed:


t's not all fun and sun when it comes to San Andreas' graphics, though. As in previous GTA games, the frame rate in San Andreas is pretty unstable. It always runs at a playable rate, but depending on what you're doing, how fast you're doing it, and how many other objects are onscreen, the frame rate can vary wildly. Additionally, there are some occasional level-of-detail issues, where you'll be able to get pretty close to an object before its "looks good up close" texture can load in. This sort of problem will probably vary, depending on the condition of your hardware. If your PS2 is new and fresh, you probably won't see it too often. But if your system has seen better days, it might have trouble keeping up with you when it comes to streaming in the new textures and landscapes. The draw-in distance seems a lot further out than Vice City's, but you'll still see some structures pop into view, especially when flying overhead at high speed. But even when you take these issues into consideration, San Andreas delivers a really impressive-looking graphical package on the aging PlayStation 2 hardware.

find me any game with anything less than 60fps and i'll guarentee its nearly always an issue in the review.

cliffbo
06-03-2006, 05:35 PM
by the way PGR on the xbox ran at 60fps but dropped to 30fps on 360. what happened there? your going to tell me its because of the graphical upgrade aren't you? my question is: what upgrade?! when i see an old PS2 racing game running at 60fps at 1080p that looks easily as good as PGR, i wonder why it only ran at 30fps. lazy devs.

Red_Eyes
06-03-2006, 09:59 PM
here is my list of current gen games i like i have not inclided rpg`s as i do not know the framerates for them.

1. timesplitters2 60fps.
2. armoured core nexus 60fps.
3. spartan total warrior 170+ NPCs onscreen (not to mention the fully interactive 3D environments, 130,000 polys per frame, constant 60 fps, etc).
4. god of war GoW runs at 60 fps and never lags.
5. twisted metal black 60fps.
6. ratchet and clank up your arsenal 60fps.
7. Enthusia Professional Racing 60fps.
8. burnouts 2,3,4 60fps.
9. devil may cry 60hps.
10. wonning eleven soccer 60fps(it actually does drop a bit below on occasion).
there are others but these are the first i thought of.
i still like other games that are not 60fps but woukd prefer them to be as they look more polished and arcade like when they are 6-fpf.
i believe that most new games for ps2 are comong out at 60fps eg:nba 06,gow2..

ps
i am not saying every game will be 60fps but i am saying the target should be 60fps and if we the consumers don`t at least try to demand it then we will seldom get it.

That's what I thought. God of War DOES run at 60 FPS.
And GTA did not run at 30 FPS but around 25 FPS.

cliffbo
06-04-2006, 03:09 AM
yes gta ran at about 25 fps most of the time.

Infernal
06-04-2006, 03:43 AM
find me any game with anything less than 60fps and i'll guarentee its nearly always an issue in the review.
Gonna take you up on that offer Cliffbo.
Find a review that mentions poor framerate for any of these games and I will declare you the victor in the framerate wars!
Socom 1/2/3
Final Fantasy X/X-2/XII
Xenosaga 1/2
Dragon Quest VIII
Metal Gear Solid 3

Just looked quickly at some of my games that I think run at 30fps.

Angeljuice
06-04-2006, 12:27 PM
i owned an original amiga 1000 computer and it quite comfortably displayed full color(4096) in most resolutions with vrtually no flickrt the only differences with later models were flicker free modes eg:1280x1024x256 colors also faster cpu speeds(lol) all in all a great machine shame it died.

Yeah Workbench was way more stable than windows, it would have been interesting to see how it evolved. I had an A500 and then an A1200 and loved them to bits.

Then I bought the CD32 (Commodores foray into the console world), I've never felt so ripped-off in my life. I think that this was a last ditch attempt to save a dying company, it seemed to be made in somebody's shed out of butchered A1200 and whatever they could lay their hands on. No kidding, if you played that thing for an hour or more, you'd heat the glue holding the d-pad in place and it would only be held together by syrupy strings of adhesive so I'd have to put it in the fridge to cool it down before I could use it again.
The machine itself just played A1200 games off of a CD, with no improvements whatsoever, all for the modest price of £300 ($500).

Not that I'm bitter!!

P.S. sorry to get sidelined, so in a desperate effort to stay relevent, none of those games where 60fps and they all sucked. LOL

cliffbo
06-04-2006, 02:17 PM
Gonna take you up on that offer Cliffbo.
Find a review that mentions poor framerate for any of these games and I will declare you the victor in the framerate wars!
Socom 1/2/3
Final Fantasy X/X-2/XII
Xenosaga 1/2
Dragon Quest VIII
Metal Gear Solid 3

Just looked quickly at some of my games that I think run at 30fps.


Just like MGS2, Snake Eater is a technological tour-de-force. The environments are beautiful and convincing, with some lovely vistas to offer. However, the new challenges inherent in Snake Eater's outdoor settings have resulted in a few downgrades. The framerate is now 30 instead of 60, and MGS2's fanatical obsession with environmental interaction (read: destruction) has been squelched.

not exactly a gripe but it is mentioned.

Infernal
06-04-2006, 05:57 PM
Alright Cliff... I'll call it a draw.

cliffbo
06-04-2006, 10:57 PM
angeljuice they were`nt trying to save the company more like trying to kill it!.
three people killed commodore irving gould and medi ali and some guy who used to work for ibm who created the abortion that was the ibm jr.
they awarded themselves million dollar bonus`s and made huge budget cuts and left the amiga r&d team high & dry heck when they most needed a financial boost irving gould who was head of the company called in a $17 million loan he said he loaned the company out of his own pocket. as i said shame it died but i think that the OS stil exists in an updated form somewhere.
what about a ps3 version is that even possible?.

Angeljuice
06-05-2006, 12:35 AM
Workbench PS3, fantastic idea.

cliffbo
06-05-2006, 03:47 PM
Workbench PS3, fantastic idea.

i wouldn't bet against something similar... would it help framerates? (did you see what i did there?)

cpiasminc
06-05-2006, 06:06 PM
find me any game with anything less than 60fps and i'll guarentee its nearly always an issue in the review.
Uneven framerate is a problem in every game ever made on any platform. That's neither here nor there in a discussion between one framerate and another. The only difference is that when framerates get uneven from a base of 60 fps, they theoretically drop down to 30 first (in reality, a lot of the problems that plague framerate usually affect a game equally regardless of what its base framerate is -- though it is true that with 60 fps, you will hit more fine-grain timing errors). Most of GTASA's problems were due to disc access, which is so slow that it would easily bring any game down below 5 fps for an instance. To a good extent, this was also true of SotC.


your going to tell me its because of the graphical upgrade aren't you? my question is: what upgrade?! when i see an old PS2 racing game running at 60fps at 1080p that looks easily as good as PGR, i wonder why it only ran at 30fps. lazy devs.
I suppose it has nothing to do with the fact that PGR3 is pushing 10x the polycount of PGR2, and is running at 3x the resolution with only about 1.6x the fillrate of a PS2, and less framebuffer bandwidth and still having to run 20x the code per pixel of any Xbox1 game, doing a dozen texture samples per pixel and still having to get out by launch, while its principle platform wasn't really the Xbox360 in the first place (I believe it's targeted for a Vista release as one of the many "Look what DX10 can do so much better" products). While I do agree that the racing genre demands higher framerates, I don't believe that there was anything in PGR3 that didn't say it was used more as a launch springboard to say "Look at how many polygons the 360 can push!" and that's what brought it down to 30 fps. I don't blame the developers, I blame the higher-ups in MS' marketing dept.

cliffbo
06-06-2006, 02:12 AM
CP the RSX and the Cell can write to the screen, i think i'm right because the warhawk guy mentioned something along these lines. if the Cell can create high quality images that run at 60fps and the RSX pretties them up, could this give us performance and good framerate?

Viper
06-06-2006, 03:21 AM
Sure it can Cliff unless the devs push it further which 90% of the people (fans and publishers) are demanding they do.

cpiasminc
06-06-2006, 03:34 AM
CP the RSX and the Cell can write to the screen, i think i'm right because the warhawk guy mentioned something along these lines.
If by this, you mean that both of them can do framebuffer access, then sure. Though I seriously doubt Warhawk does anything of the sort as the access speeds for Cell are beyond pitiful since RSX dominates the bus. Though it is possible for Cell to do its work in main memory and tell RSX to read from it as if it were a texture (which would be many times faster).


if the Cell can create high quality images that run at 60fps and the RSX pretties them up, could this give us performance and good framerate?
No. Cell doesn't have the thread granularity to cover up the latencies inherent with full-scale rendering. Texture accesses across dozens and dozens of textures makes Cell rather unfit for the job. It can do small subsets, or it can do render tasks that involve no more than one or two textures (e.g. TRE), but nothing that compares to the content of a complete game. Maybe with 150 or more SPEs, but not 7.

In any case, someone seems to have forgotten that there are so many other things that contribute to loss of framerate than rendering. Rendering is rarely the biggest per-frame time consumer on consoles -- it's just that it is typically the last thing you do after something has been updated, so if you lose framerate, it's often because that last thing spilled over the time step.

And I'm really not sure what you have in mind in regards to RSX "prettying up" images rendered via CELL.

LinpinWangyFoot
06-07-2006, 08:05 PM
i demand 60fps i don't care how many technicalities get in the way. no way would we except watching shrek with a jerky framerate so why games? shrek has now been bettered graphically but those films still run smoothly.

Viper
06-07-2006, 08:40 PM
LWF, that's a pre-rendered film, not an on the fly rendering.

It took hundreds of computers hours just to render one frame of Shrek but you expect one processor to run everything 60 times per second?

Totally different ball game. By the way, Shrek doesn't run at 60 fps either....no widely released movie does.

cpiasminc
06-07-2006, 09:45 PM
If you wanted to get into the temporal antialiasing samples, then Shrek probably runs at somewhere in the hundreds of frames per second. But the actual display is 24 fps like any other major feature film.


i demand 60fps i don't care how many technicalities get in the way.
Demand all you like, but what the companies ultimately cater to is the market at large, not you specifically. Well if you can convince the entire market that 60 fps is more important than everything else combined, then maybe it'll happen.


no way would we except watching shrek with a jerky framerate so why games?
Do you play games or do you watch them? Do you play movies or do you watch them? Do you honestly believe that framerate is going to sell a game more than impressive-looking screensnaps?

LinpinWangyFoot
06-07-2006, 09:51 PM
If you wanted to get into the temporal antialiasing samples, then Shrek probably runs at somewhere in the hundreds of frames per second. But the actual display is 24 fps like any other major feature film.


Demand all you like, but what the companies ultimately cater to is the market at large, not you specifically. Well if you can convince the entire market that 60 fps is more important than everything else combined, then maybe it'll happen.


Do you play games or do you watch them? Do you play movies or do you watch them? Do you honestly believe that framerate is going to sell a game more than impressive-looking screensnaps?


when games get to the same status as films and its just as enjoyable to watch people play as it is to play yourself, then there will be a huge shift. mothers, fathers, granparents will be wowed and games will rule the world. yes i want higher framerates above higher resolutions. smooth makes me believe. jerky framerates make me realise i'm playing a game.

venomv
06-07-2006, 10:27 PM
'When' is what you said, as we have a long way to go (long, long, long way) it isn't time to be demanding yet.

LinpinWangyFoot
06-07-2006, 10:38 PM
'When' is what you said, as we have a long way to go (long, long, long way) it isn't time to be demanding yet.

the sooner we damand the sooner it will happen. i demand it!!!! convergence is close, lets make it happen.

venomv
06-08-2006, 04:27 AM
But as long as more people are demanding top quality graphics, they will have it, the thing is that the better the graphics the better the sales(for the most part). And until that changes we will have to deal with 30FPS (which I have no problem with as long as whatever framerate they choose stays steady within reason.).

Viper
06-08-2006, 02:33 PM
LWF, you are in a minority on the whole spectrum of prospective buyers. There are very few people that will accept downgraded graphics, physics, A.I., resolution, etc all for the sake of going from already playable 30 fps to 60 fps standard and so long as the majority demand better graphics, physics, A.I., resolution, etc...publishers/developers will continue to cater to those wallets and not yours.

No matter how loud you demand, they are 10 times louder.

LinpinWangyFoot
06-09-2006, 12:08 AM
ratchet and clank was developed with 60fps in mind. once they'd accomplished that they made sure eveything fitted into that criteria. if they can do it...?

cpiasminc
06-09-2006, 12:16 AM
ratchet and clank was developed with 60fps in mind. once they'd accomplished that they made sure eveything fitted into that criteria. if they can do it...?
I'm lost as to how that's unique. Every console game ever made that ever ran at 60 fps was targeted to 60 fps. And the same is true of console games that run consistently at 30 fps. The difference is that those games that were targeted to 30 fps could never ever be targeted to 60, though the reverse is not true.

LinpinWangyFoot
06-09-2006, 12:26 AM
I'm lost as to how that's unique. Every console game ever made that ever ran at 60 fps was targeted to 60 fps. And the same is true of console games that run consistently at 30 fps. The difference is that those games that were targeted to 30 fps could never ever be targeted to 60, though the reverse is not true.

all i'm saying is that a bit of reverse technology is required. its about time that those suckers who buy a completely new PC based on a jerky bench test think twice about remorgaging their homes and actually demand a really basic thng... 60fps. for gods sake realism can wait! smooth encapsulates me, jerky turns me right off.

Viper
06-09-2006, 05:53 AM
How is 30 fps jerky to start with? Seriously. The rest of your post made my logic sensor blow a fuse.

BYW, there is nothing basic about 60 fps. You truly need to get the idea out of yoru head that just because some games can run at 60 fps now must mean that all next gen games should. It's just an illogical expectation.

LinpinWangyFoot
06-09-2006, 08:49 AM
How is 30 fps jerky to start with? Seriously. The rest of your post made my logic sensor blow a fuse.

BYW, there is nothing basic about 60 fps. You truly need to get the idea out of yoru head that just because some games can run at 60 fps now must mean that all next gen games should. It's just an illogical expectation.

Viper of course every game will not be 60fps but if only one more game is in 60fps because we want it then thats got to be good. i believe the reason for this thread was to ask what would the next 'denial'. so your telling me that if the graphics are about even on both the 360 and PS3, then framerate won't be an issue. it'll be the obvious thing to compare. wasn't this the reason for this thread?

cliffbo
06-09-2006, 10:12 AM
if a consumer see`s two versions of let`s say nba 07 one on 360 and one on ps3 and they are identical except for framerate then which do you think would be percieved as superior?.
would it be xbox360 at 30fps or ps3 at 60fps?.
i would really expect the ps3 to have more advantage than framerate but if this situation were to happen i would expect cries of framerates do not matter from 360 owners and as i`ve said previously things look slick in 60fps of course i would expect a similar reaction from ps3 owners if things were reversed.
i repeat framerate matters. :)

Smokey
06-09-2006, 01:16 PM
How is 30 fps jerky to start with? Seriously. The rest of your post made my logic sensor blow a fuse.

BYW, there is nothing basic about 60 fps. You truly need to get the idea out of yoru head that just because some games can run at 60 fps now must mean that all next gen games should. It's just an illogical expectation.
ban him viper lol :)

cpiasminc
06-09-2006, 07:14 PM
all i'm saying is that a bit of reverse technology is required. its about time that those suckers who buy a completely new PC based on a jerky bench test think twice about remorgaging their homes and actually demand a really basic thng... 60fps.
Demanding that on a PC is absolute nonsense. There's too much variance. Different video cards, different resolutions, different settings, different refresh rates, different amounts and speeds of RAM, different hard drives, different input devices, different CPUs, different motherboard... Even two seemingly identical PCs won't have the same framerate.


for gods sake realism can wait! smooth encapsulates me, jerky turns me right off.
You're confusing smoothness with framerate, and those two are not the same thing at all. Smoothness results from having more information about movement presented to the eye. If 30 fps was inherently jerky, then you'd be complaining about every movie you've ever seen in your life because they're all typically 24 fps (animated ones are typically 12 fps).

venomv
06-09-2006, 09:36 PM
Exactly, a smooth 30FPS is perfectly fine for me, I would rather have a rock solid 30FPS, then 60FPS that drops as soon as 4 characters get on the screen. Even though I have fun trying to get some games to bog down, like when I drank somthing like 300 potions at once on Morrowind, lol.

makeitlookreal
06-09-2006, 10:07 PM
I too agree that as long as a game has a steady 30FPS I am happy. I would rather the graphics look better at 30FPS than to have the motion look a little tiny bit better at 60FPS.

cpiasminc
06-09-2006, 10:36 PM
Basically, the difference is that with a rendered frame of a video game, everything is an instaneous state snap. You see something that has information about the position, but nothing about motion (i.e. like an extremely high-speed photograph).

The thing is that your brain will still process it as continuous motion even at 12 fps, but you will still gather more and more information in that time if there is more information to gather. But because there is a difference in that amount of information about movement, that's why we see a difference in a game between 30 and 60 fps. If the information was there to begin with even at 20 fps (assuming that the total information is identical irrespective of the actual framerate), you largely wouldn't see the difference until the framerate was so low that the brain doesn't piece it together as continuous motion.

What LWF is effectively demanding, in reality, is *correct* temporal antialiasing (motion blur). Of course, we could get by without motion blur if we could render at exactly double the rate at which the brain gathers information. Unfortunately, that puts us in the thousands of frames per second.

cliffbo
06-20-2006, 01:51 PM
its going to be interesting to see the difference between Assassins Creed on 360 (if it happens) and PS3. theres only one obvious difference i can think of.

cliffbo
07-03-2006, 06:26 PM
dream the dream. vindication is a year away.